What does July 4th mean to you?

July 4th means celebrating freedom to me.  As a first-generation immigrant from Vietnam, the day I stood to take the pledge of allegiance and became an American citizen was one of the most meaningful moments in my life. 

While I look forward to celebrate our Indedenpdence Day on July 4th, I would like to invite you to take some time to reflect on all the ideals and ideas that have shaped our country, our history and national character.  And please feel welcome to share your thoughts here with fellow Americans.

Let us cherish the precious freedom and boundless opportunity this country has given us.   Thank those whose have  fought courageously to protect and defend this great nation and so that we can enjoy our American way of life.  And honor their sacrifices by joining uniform service, contributing to and participating in our civic life.  Freedom is not free, and the best way to show your patriotism is to act as an active citizen.

Below, I would like to share with our readers an article which appeared as an anonymous letter to the editor in The Washington Post on July 4, 1976.  It was reposted today. 

***

What am I?

I am a free man — a good and decent man — a man of compassion, generosity, and understanding — a true friend, a steadfast ally, and a bitter foe.

I owe my allegiance to a government founded in the belief that among the rights of man are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, I would acknowledge no other. I can redress my government for injury; not satisfied with redress, I can elect a new one. I have watched my government function smoothly during periods of transfer of power caused by re-election, assassination, and resignation.

While other nations have a distinct race, religion, and/or geographic denominator, I live among people of my home without fear of intrusion by anyone — citizen or government designee — unless they have my personal invitation or a duly authorized search warrant.

I have a press to keep me informed — a press free to write, without inhibition, the truth as they see it. A press that needs fear no repression, no retaliation, no censorship so long as it prints the truth.

I live under a system of justice, merciful and fairly administered, where I am assumed innocent until proven guilty — a system which provides me appellate privilege while denying it to the power of the state.

I am free to go anywhere I want, earn my living in any way that suits me and, based on that freedom, I have created a standard of living unequalled in the history of man and envied the world over.

I have suffered in humility at the consequences of my mistakes — economic deprivation, social injustice, unequal opportunity and racial prejudice to name a few — but, once aware of these mistakes, I have set out to right the wrongs they created.

I have faced challenges to my way of life. I have fought and died countless times from Lexington and Concord to Vietnam. I was humbled at Valley Forge, Pearl Harbor, Corregidor and Malmady. But these experiences gave me the character I needed to go to Yorktown, Gettysburg, Midway and Normandy. I cherish my freedom above all else — I bow to no tyrant.

I am two hundred years old today. I have never been so proud of my ancient heritage, so grateful for my present situation, and so confident of the future. Today, I reaffirm my allegiance to, faith in, and love of my country. To the proposition that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, I do humbly pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor.

I am an American.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Finally, a 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court that makes sense…and DC residents are now allowed to defend themselves in their own homes after a 32-year gun ban in the place that has been known as “Murder Capital of the World.”

John McCain has always been a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, the fact that it confers an individual right to bear arms, and of the silly notion that we have the right to protect ourselves. He applauded the decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia (McCain’s statement follows at the end of this post).

Compare this history of support for the individual right to keep and bear arms to that of Barack Obama, who will say whatever he thinks the American people want to hear. Of all the presidential candidates, long before it was down to just McCain and Obama, Sen. Obama has consistently been one of America’s staunchest opponents of the 2nd Amendment. However, in reaction to today’s much-applauded decision, he claims that the Supreme Court has “endorsed” his views.

Of Obama’s many absurd claims, this one has to be among the most laughable. In fact, Obama refused to join John McCain in a bipartisan effort that included 55 Senators and 250 Congressmen in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, which supported the lifting of the DC gun ban and the right to bear arms as an individual freedom. Obama also voted for the gun ban measure within his own state of Illinois. But now he claims the Supreme Court has “endorsed” his view? Let me get this straight…the Court “endorsed” his view by ruling explicitly that gun bans like the one he voted for are unconstitutional?

This man is incredible. And I mean that in the original sense of “that which cannot be believed.”

The majority of states (31), along with organizations as diverse in interest as the the NRA, American Civil Rights Union, the gay/transgendered group Pink Pistols, and 29 Elected California District Attorneys, filed briefs in support of 2nd Amendment rights. The usual suspects filed briefs supporting the DC gun ban: Massachusetts, San Francsisco, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and…Barack Obama’s home state, Illinois. I should also note that only Chicago has a gun ban as restrictive as DC’s.

Despite what Obama and the extreme left says, the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear and unambiguous: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If you understand the meaning the phrase “the people” as used throughout the Bill of Rights, and you understand the meaning of “militia” as the framers did–that “militia” does not equal a standing State army. This is so clear that gun ban supporters have had to cling to sophistic arguments about the definitions of simple English words and the placement of commas, capitalization, and grammar.

The following sentence is taken from a 2002 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (California) decision (Silveira v. Lockyer) on the same topic, where that court erroneously ruled that there is no individual right: “We consider it highly significant, however, that the second clause does not purport to protect the right to “possess” or “own” arms, but rather to “keep and bear” arms.” They went on to “support” their ruling by pontificating about commas and modifiers within that 2nd Amendment clause.

Sounds sort of like asking what the definition of “is” is.

—–That is the type of nonsense to which they must resort when attempting to justify a ban on fundamental human right of self defense. In doing so, they also ignore the empirical evidence, which shows that stricter gun ownership laws correlate positively to higher the murder rates. Since 1998, the year after it enacted a strict gun ban, the UK has seen the number of people injured by firearms more than double. It has also witnessed an epidemic of stabbings, with the latest high-profile one involving a teen-aged Harry Potter actor. Unsurprisingly, the British intellectual elite are following up on their failed gun ban with efforts to “ban the blade.”

The following chart compares selected European countries’ murder rates v. gun ownership rates:

Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates (rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order). Source: 30 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 649, 651-694 (2007)

Sen. John McCain’s reaction to today’s ruling:

Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Popularity: 14% [?]

There’s a reason why the American people simply don’t trust Democrats when it comes to national security.  This was reported earlier today 6/25/2008 on The Hill, a liberal leaning publication covering Capitol Hill events:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has defied his leadership’s orders not to work with vulnerable Republicans facing reelection.

Baucus, the sometimes-maverick chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, used a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who is facing a tough reelection battle in Oregon, as the basis of an Iran sanctions plan his committee passed last week.

We couldn’t help but think that Senator Baucus must be a lonely man among his Democratic fellows.  And yes, he is.

Baucus’s defiance of leaders’ orders not to cooperate with Republicans such as Smith shows a rebellious streak that once earned him the moniker: Max Baucus, the one-man caucus.

Most notably, Baucus defied then-Democratic leader Tom Daschle’s (S.D.) orders not to strike a quick deal with Republicans on President Bush’s proposed tax cuts in 2001. But Baucus surprised his leader and paved the way for a $1.3 trillion tax cut package by forging a deal with Grassley, who then chaired the Senate Finance Committee.

Baucus, who represents a state where Bush won nearly 60 percent of the vote in 2004, prides himself on his ability to work with Republicans to pass significant legislation. He has clashed with liberals such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the second-ranking Democrat on Finance, by at times supporting Republican-favored policies.

Given the petty-minded, partisan nature of the Democratic “leadership,”  Senator Baucus should join his Senate colleage, former-Democrat-turned-Independent Senator Lieberman, who greatly respects and is willing to work with McCain to solve the problems our country is facing.

“I believe in John McCain,” Lieberman tells NPR’s Robert Siegel. “If he asks me, sure, I’d consider it.”

“To me, the partisanship that has grown more bitter and divisive over the years here in Washington is the
problem that Washington has to solve before it can solve the problems that people have to worry about every day.”

“The first thing that I’ve decided is that I’m going to do what is right. I’m not going to calculate what effect it will have on me in the future,” he says. “I have been a Democrat all my life, and I remain a Democrat. I ask to be judged on my record.”

Now, that is a Democrat that earns our respect.

Popularity: 16% [?]

For those who aspire to serve in public service, character and honesty are crucially important. Those who embellish their own resume, placing their ambition and self-interests over anything else, tend to believe that the end justifies the means AND that they can get away with it. An indication to the electorate of flaws in an individual’s character is his tendency to exaggerate his qualifications and experiences for higher office.

Senator Obama is a young, ambitious and intelligent politician. I wonder why it is that person with so much ability having to lie about his past, unless he is ashamed of it or has something to hide?

Why has Barry Obama lied about his childhood? In his book, Dream of My Father, he wrote: “My father was a poor Kenyon Goat Herder…” The fact of the matter is, Barry’s father was quite well to do by African standards, attended Graduate School at the University of Hawaii, spoke fluent English and subsequently went on to school at Harvard University.

Obama also claimed he grew up in Hawaii and lived with his Grandparents who did not have much money. The fact of the matter is, Barry’s Grandfather managed furniture stores in Kansas, Texas, California, Washington State and Hawaii, his Grandmother was Vice President of Honolulu Bank.

Why has Barry claimed he was so disadvantaged as a youth and continued to lie about his life while seeking his party’s nomination for President? Has Barry repeated the lies so many times that he has come to believe them himself? Didn’t he expect that people would be checking out his background?

Barry Obama released his first post-primary 60 second advertisement, describing the strong values he says that he learned from his family but when he begins talking about his legislative accomplishments, he leaves out a great deal. In order to exaggerate his legislative accomplishments, Obama cites three relevant bills but he doesn’t mention that two of the three were actually enacted in the Illinois Senate and not the U.S. Senate. The only national law in Barry’s ad is one that “extended health care for wounded service members” Public Law 110-181 which includes provisions from several bills Obama sponsored but Obama, was never a sponsor or co-sponsor of the legislation. More here from FactCheck.org “Obama Polishes His Resume.”

On the other hand, Senator John McCain, has a distinguished record of public service for our country. While in Congress, Senator McCain is known as a Maverick who has demonstrated leadership, fighting to end wasteful federal spending and strengthening our military. As President, John McCain will oppose pork-barrel spending projects that only benefit a small constituency.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses gave Senator McCain 100% grades for his votes in the 109th and 110th Congress, on issues such as tax write-offs for small businesses and giving the President the line item veto. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has given Senator McCain an 72% grade on his voting record. More from Shopfloor.org.

John McCain has an established record of accomplishments. His character and devotion to the welfare of our country have been tested and proven again and again. In a way, McCain can be said to be a moral compass of America, always placing the interests of the nation over himself.

McCain is what our country needs in this changing time. He will deliver effective change with inspirational leadership and wisdom. In his address to CPAC, Senator McCain said,

“…I believe today as I believed 25 years ago in small government, fiscal discipline, low taxes, a strong defense, judges who enforce and not make our laws, the social values that are the true source of our strength and generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God given to the born and unborn…”

If you haven’t joined the campaign, the time is NOW.

Popularity: 13% [?]

As part of his energy plan, John McCain proposed a $300 million prize for the successful development of a better electric car battery.  Some highlights of the plan:

–> $5,000 tax credit to persons who purchase zero-emissions cars

–> Vehicle tax credit that is inversely proportional to a vehicle’s carbon dioxide emissions

–> Because sugarcane is a superior source for ethanol both environmentally and economically, McCain favors lifting tariffs on Brazilian ethanol, which is made from sugarcane.

–> Ensure the government purchases more environmentally friendly vehicles (as opposed to ones like the large white US Government Dodge Ram vans I often see traveling down the Beltway carrying only the driver or one passenger at best)

–> Updating federal offices to make them more energy efficient, saving taxpayers money in energy costs.

Obama’s response to McCain’s plan was to invoke JFK: “When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win — he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people — not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.”

…A typical Obama response.  Not really a concrete answer (except to say that ‘more government’ is the answer), but more of his signature grandiose ‘appealing-to-the-emotions’ type of empty rhetoric. The notion that the government will do a better job than companies competing in the spirit of capitalism is ludicrous.  A couple of examples:  The F-35 Lighting II is a product of the Joint Strike Fighter competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.  The X Prize Foundation spurred competition that led to the development of SpaceShipOne, which opened the doors to a future of lower-cost, safe, civilian space travel.  The prize amount for SpaceShipOne?  $10 million.

And why is Obama so hot for environmentally unfriendly American corn-based ethanol?  Perhaps the answer lies in a NYT article explaining that Tom Daschle, who is a former Senate majority leader and national co-chairman of Obama’s campaign, also serves on the Board of Directors for three ethanol companies.

CHANGE?  Sounds like a typical politician to me.

Popularity: 17% [?]

Finally!  Something of substance from Sen. Obama, and I like what he says…except that McCain said it first.  Interesting how most of the media headlines, from The Washington Post, to CNN, and on and on, read along the lines of “Obama Targets Speculation on Energy,” “Obama wants energy speculator crackdown,” or “Obama would close ‘Enron loophole’ to stem speculation, help provide relief at the gas pump.”

Market speculation plays a major role in our current energy crisis.  It is not simply a result of the basic principle of supply and demand that we all learned in Economics 101. What McCain (and now Obama) is referring to, is what is commonly referred to as either the “Wall Street loophole,” or the “Enron loophole.”  Basically, this loophole was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, and has allowed speculators to abuse and manipulate the markets to drive up the price of oil.  When we pay these exhorbitant prices at the pump, the money flows into the pockets of the speculators.  It is not the oil producers in Saudi Arabia that profit from the recent spikes in price.  In fact, they recognize what is going on, and announced last week that they will increase Summer production in an attempt to stop the radical rise in prices by providing more supply, in the hopes that then the basic law of supply and demand will take over and lower prices.

Why would the Saudis do this?  Simple.  They are not profiting from our pain at the pump.  They are on the production side, not Wall Street.  We cannot handle the current prices, so many of us are making adjustments in our daily lives to save on fuel.  Our appetite for oil has finally decreased significantly enough for oil producers to take notice.  It is a business decision. They are worried that the decrease in consumption may continue and become permanent.  Essentially, they want to keep us addicted to oil by keeping the prices at a low enough level where the soccer mom won’t think twice about driving her Hummer H2 all alone on her shopping trip to Nordstrom.  The fact that the Saudis vowed to increase production is the latest evidence that it is speculation that is fueling the continued rise in the cost of oil.

As he has often done for many important issues, McCain has supported the bi-partisan effort to close this Wall Street/Enron loophole.  Obama jumped on the bandwagon, taking credit for himself, and much of the media is helping to perpetuate the myth with their misleading headlines.

Popularity: 20% [?]

U.S. Senator Barry Obama, the first term senator from Illinois, served 146 days in the Senate before he felt this qualified him to become President.   He secured the Democratic nomination on the sheer force of rhetoric (and brute force - just ask the Clintons) and yet, has not been able to offer the American people a clear platform.  

So, with his natural charisma and well-honed political theater skills from his days of street organizing, Obama whipped up something to appeal to the people. 

He offered HOPE.  Always candy to the people’s ear.

As optimistic as we are, we wonder what we see in Obama ”the candidate for change” for us to hope for.  

From his short term serving in the Illinois state legislature to his brief stint in Congress, what has Obama accomplished? 

We suppose no one can speak of them better than his official campaign representative.  After all, isn’t that the first, if not most important, motivating factor for one to give Obama one’s support? 

In February, Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter, was asked the same question by Chris Matthews, who also supported Obama.  Watson’s surprising answer (or lack thereof) is beyond imagination.   

Watson could not name a single thing that Obama has accomplished.  

Well, one can always hope. May God help America!

The Chinese has a saying that, we think, applies so well to the Obama campaign: 

On foreign policy, despite his lack of experience in this arena, Obama has the “audacity” to attack McCain unfairly despite the fact that we are making positive progress in Iraq due to McCain’s steadfast support for the surge strategy at a time when no Republicans or Democrats on the Hill had the guts to. 

For a U.S. senator and a presidential candidate wanting to change American’s Iraq policies, Obama has yet to visit our fighting men on the battlefield, he has not met or discussed with General Patreaus, and he hasn’t met with our Iraqi allies for their points of view.  

So, what Obama really offers when he preaches “HOPE” and “CHANGE” is withdrawal at any cost.  An American defeat.   

As if that is not enough… Obama wants to meet with Dictators and Islamic Fascists such as Ahmadinejad of Iran.  Without preconditions. 

John Bolton calls him “Obama The Naive.”  Bolton is right on.  Obama really is. 

Obama also wants to provide terrorists access to our civilian courts.  Such rights were not afforded to our enemies during WWII.  Even our soldiers have to go through the military justice, courts martial system.  Why do terrorists have more rights than our soldiers? 

In the words of Former CIA Chief James Woosley, to give terrorists access to U.S. Courts “…is an extremely dangerous and an extremely naive approach to terrorism.”

And how did Obama respond?  He accused those who criticized him as playing the politics of fear.  Fearful of what a president like him would do to America we are!  He would be worse than Carter.

No wonder while many Democrats refuse to support Obama and mock at his “audacity” to run for President.

No wonder McCain’s aide called Obama of having a September 10th Mind Set, saying that Obama simply doesn’t “understand the enemy we face…”

On the other hand, Senator McCain has 22 years in the Navy, 5 years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, and 25 years in the U.S. Congress.   His lifetime of service, from fighing on Vietnam battlefield to suffering in the hands of our communist enemies to making changes in Congress, exemplifies the character, the sense of judgment, the broad and deep experience of a great President.  

No Americans, Republicans or Democrats, doubt McCain’s tenacity and courage.    

So, in this election, the question that bogged our mind, the voters, has been “What do we want in our President?”  

Underlying that question is another question: “In choosing our President, what do we want for our country?”

In his book ”Character is Destiny,” John McCain said:

“It is your character and your character alone that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny and you choose it, no one else can give it to you or deny it to you, no rival can steal it from you and no friend can give it to you. Other can encourage you to make the right choices or discourage you but you choose…”

In McCain, we see:  Honor - Purpose - Strength - Compassion - Judgment - Leadership - Wisdom.

With McCain as our President, America will stand tall and victorious - a shining city on the hill.   

Popularity: 26% [?]

We received the following message from Don’t Be a Good Democrat.  We thought it is an interesting site with useful information and are glad to introduce it to our readers. 

Hi.  I’ve started a blog called “Don’t Be a Good Democrat”, dedicated to convincing anti-Obama Dems to voting for McCain. I was pleased to see your site because one of the things I’ve been aware of is that 80% of Asian Americans in the California primary went for Clinton. Asian Americans are usually ignored various demographic discussions. Are there any recent polls on Asian support for McCain?

I also wrote about this issue subtly in my essay “You Know You’re A Bad Democrat If….”

You have to highlight to see the missing one, because my point is that no one talks about the non-white demographics and their support for McCain! 

Since Don’t-Be-a-Good-Democrat observed that “80% of Asian Americans in the California primary went for Clinton,”  we’d like to point out that among APA Republicans, McCain did win their votes during the Republican primaries (averaging 68% in California and similar elsewhere).  The APA political leadership strongly backs Senator McCain, with recognizable names, such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, California Assemblyman Van Tran, etc.

Many APA Democrats are also leaning towards McCain, simply because they identify more with McCain’s moderate stance on policies, his deep understanding of Asia, and respect and prefer a President with independent judgment, strong principles and demonstrated foreign policy experience. 

Though most Asian Americans live in Democratic states and are wooed by the Democratic Party, they are by culture and political philosophy conservative, which is why they also like Senator McCain.  In fact, most Asian Americans are Democrats, but in recent years they have voted more often for Republican presidential candidates.

Besides their penchant for low taxes, less government and family values, one reason for this is that Asian Americans view Democrats (certainly more Obama than Hillary) as advocating trade protectionism, which they see as anti-Asia.  Senator Obama has spoken out strongly against North American Free Trade Agreement and bilateral free trade treaties, voting against them (one with Peru just recently).  He also opposes giving the president the authority to negotiate open trade agreements.

Asian Americans similarly see the critics of job outsourcing (both Obama and Clinton, but more Obama), as hostile toward Asia.  They know that Democrats get their voting support from unions that rail against allowing America jobs to flee, but they believe free trade creates more jobs.  Senator Obama is best known in the realm of US relations with Asia for his lambasting China for its unfair surplus and his proposed sanctions against Chinese toymakers—which even other protectionist Democrats did not support.     

Asian American newspapers observe and report who is attentive to Asia’s success and its issues.  One said recently that the presidential candidates had authored articles on their foreign policy views for the prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs.  Senator Obama didn’t mention Asia until page 12, and then in the negative context of global warming. He gave little indication he realises Asia is growing in importance to the US. Hillary did better.  McCain, who set forth clearly America’s goals and interests in Asia, did the best.

Finally, Asian Americans are aware of the important role the US has played, and still needs to play, in keeping Asia a secure region.  Asia has engaged in regional and global commerce and has prospered because the US military has kept the peace in the area.  Senator Obama’s hostile view toward America’s use of military power is not a good omen for Asia say a large number of Asians in the US.  One has to conclude that Asian Americans are thinking more rationally than most Americans about their choice for president and that is why Senator Obama does not get as much support as the other two candidates.  - Opinion Asia 

Therefore, while Obama has touted his APA connection - born and raised in Hawaii - and invested significant resources to reach out to APAs, our prediction is that McCain will capture the APA vote.  Indeed, the existence of this web site and our organization is to ensure that outcome by providing a community discussion forum and organizing voter registration, education, and mobilization efforts. 

Ethnic pride (the theory that members of ethnic minorities will automatically welcome the Obama candidacy as paving the way for all minorities by putting a non-white person in the White House) will not trump our expectations for a qualified leader and our differences on issues. 

Obama recognized this and that is why he has steered clear of racial/identity politics and chose to project himself as a unifier candidate who can bring change to Washington. 

On the other hand, his supporters (from Reverend Wright to those Obama trolls who showed up on our site), seem to be stuck so deep in it with their racial stereotypes and baseless character attacks.  In a way, their behavior speaks volume about the Obama campaign.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Despite the fact that I do not support Sen. Obama, I did think he was a fundamentally nice guy, albeit naive. It seems I was the naive one. I came across a comment attributed to Obama (below) on another political blog. I doubted the accuracy, so decided to check on it myself. According to PA Gov. Ed Rendell, this is what Obama said in response to a warning by the governor that many of the donors from a scheduled fund-raiser would be away on weekend trips:

But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn’t want to reschedule tonight’s fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: “We don’t need the people. We just need the checks.” –USA Today

I thought Hillary was the mercenary one. Once again, just another example of how Obama has much of America fooled. He’s got an excellent game going.

Popularity: 18% [?]

…and contrived, righteous indignation, but NO SUBSTANCE. The leftist blogs have been on fire after a Fox News graphic referred to Michelle Obama as Barack’s “baby mama.” Ordinarily, I would be appalled over the use of this term to refer to a black presidential candidate’s accomplished wife. After all, the term has its roots in urban culture, referring to the mother of an illegitimate child. The Obama children were born into Michelle and Barack’s marriage. Let me begin by saying I am not in the habit of defending Fox News. However, the reason why this criticism is unwarranted is because apparently this is how the Obamas themselves refer to one another in front of black audiences–at least the way Michelle does.

When this first blew up, a poster on a McCain forum pointed out that Michelle Obama once introduced Barack as her “baby daddy” during a parade in Chicago. He pointed out “she was wearing torn jeans, a crumpled semi dirty t-shirt half tucked in and out- and her hair was crazy undone…”

I remember the first time I was introduced to Barack Obama. It was via CNN. It was all those years ago, when he first got elected to the U.S. Senate–long before he became the experienced senator he is now (3 years & counting). I had no idea who the Obamas were. But here, at the very beginning, the media was already gearing up for Obama’s run for POTUS. The commentators were calling this man the democratic party’s “next biggest star,” even though most of us outside of Chicago never even heard of him. This stuck in my mind for two reasons: 1) I was thinking to myself, “That’s pretty bold of CNN to be calling this new senator the “next biggest star.” No one’s ever heard of him. He’s a nobody in national politics;” 2) Michelle Obama introduced him at the election rally as “my baby daddy.”

That’s right, this was a separate time she used that term. This time, she was impeccably dressed in one of her beautiful, expensive outfits, and her trademark Jackie-O hairstyle. I remember it well because I found her use of the term ridiculous in that forum, and I was disgusted that she would insult and patronize this largely black audience that way. While I had no knowledge about the background of the Obamas at this point, I found it hard to believe that the wife of a newly elected U.S. senator uses this slang as part of her normal speech. It was plain to me that she was merely attempting to curry favor with her audience. It is more obvious that’s what she was doing, now that we all know she is a Princeton/Harvard Law grad, and Barack is a Columbia/Harvard Law grad. It is laughable to think of this highly educated couple using “baby daddy” or “baby mama” other than in a facetious manner.

So there we have it. Appalled again? Just another attempt at deflecting attention away from the real, substantive issues. More sound and fury.

Popularity: 21% [?]

Please tune into The Fox News Channel tonight at 7PM EDT to watch the first 2008 Presidential Town Hall, broadcast from Federal Hall in New York City.

This historic location is where President George Washington first took the oath of office. Tonight it will play host to John McCain while he answers questions from real voters about important issues including the economy, energy prices and the war.

Obama was invited to participate in these town halls, designed for presidential candidates to interact with and answer questions from real voters, but he has not responded so far.

Popularity: 22% [?]

We just added a few links to Democratic groups and organizations that support McCain under our Blogroll on the left column. It is time to reach out, start the dialogue and convince these Reagan Democrats that McCain is their candidate.

If you are aware of any other groups out there, please let us know.

Popularity: 20% [?]

Their web site:  http://hcsfjm.com/

Their leader:  Ed Hale, Vietnam veteran, lifelong Democrat and Clinton’s supporter.

Their plan of action: 

It is our mission to raise money, promote John McCain. We will set up a “527″ to raise money, run TV and radio ads against Obama. The Democrat party has left us out in the cold, so we are going to build a fire that they cannot put out.

A credible group?  That remains to be seen.  But the group seems to generate significant momentum, claiming membership base over 15,000 and growing.  Their web site, launched on May 31, has attracted over 115,000 visitors so far.

—————————————-

Update 6/10/08:

Clinton Democrats are moving toward McCain.  More groups are set up as the days go by.  Have you ever heard of P.U.M.A., which stands for “Party Unity, My Ass” Coalition?  Check them out.

Popularity: 29% [?]

Senator McCain gave a very good speech in New Orleans last night - two hours before Obama officially clinched the Democratic nomination in St. Paul, Minnesota. 

After commenting on both Hillary and Obama for their efforts in the Democratic primary race, McCain directly answered to Obama’s repeated accusations of his campaign as a continuance of the unpopular Bush Administration.  

Many of us have long recognized Obama’s  attacks as parts of the DNC-coordinated effort to smear McCain’s reputation and to shape public opinion in the fight for reform.  We all wanted McCain to fight back.

McCain did it last night.  He effectively called out Obama’s fluff and laid out the stark contrast between them.  Below is an excerpt from his speech last night:

“You will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy.

Why does Senator Obama believe it’s so important to repeat that idea over and over again?

Because he knows it’s very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country.

But the American people didn’t get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama.

They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving.

They’ve seen me put our country before any President — before any party — before any special interest — before my own interest.

They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always. ….I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably. I was criticized for doing so by Republicans. I was criticized by Democrats. I was criticized by the press. But I don’t answer to them. I answer to you. And I would be ashamed to admit I knew what had to be done in Iraq to spare us from a defeat that would endanger us for years, but I kept quiet because it was too politically hard for me to do. No ambition is more important to me than the security of the country I have defended all my adult life. Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out. Yet in the last year we have seen the success of that plan as violence has fallen to a four year low; Sunni insurgents have joined us in the fight against al Qaeda; the Iraqi Army has taken the lead in places once lost to Sunni and Shia extremists; and the Iraqi Government has begun to make progress toward political reconciliation.None of this progress would have happened had we not changed course over a year ago. And all of this progress would be lost if Senator Obama had his way and began to withdraw our forces from Iraq without concern for conditions on the ground and the advice of commanders in the field. Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he’s ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn’t traveled to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse. “   

For the whole speech transcript, click here.

Also, there is a section on the McCain campaign web site for readers who want to find out more about the differences between McCain’s and Barack Obama’s positions on the issues important to our country.  Now that Obama has finally emerged as the Democratic nominee, we hope that he will realize his promise of ending the divisive, partisan politics and start engaging in an honest discussion on important issues.   As of last night, Obama has not delivered.  

The essence of his speech comprises of continued empty calls for and promises of “change”…  self-righteous, and at times boastful, rhetoric…  misleading characterization of his opponent’s words and positions… As much as we respect his personal accomplishments, Obama has not shown himself to be a principled, knowledgeable and visionary leader as he claims to be, but rather, another politician - ambitious, intelligent, charming, gifted in his oratory skills indeed, but nonetheless, just another politician. 

So much for “change we can believe in.”

Popularity: 25% [?]

Our blog readers and members of the APAs for McCain Coalition might be interested in this McCain-Liebermen op-ed piece on America’s Asia policy.

***

Renewing America’s Asia Policy

The resurgence of Asia is one of the epochal events of our time. It is a renaissance that is not only transforming the face of this vast region, but throwing open new opportunities for billions of people on both sides of the Pacific — Americans and Asians alike — to build a safer, more prosperous and freer world.

Seizing these opportunities, however, will require strong American leadership and an unequivocal American commitment to Asia, whose fate is increasingly inseparable from our own. It requires internationalism rather than isolationism, and free trade rather than protectionism. When our friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific region think of the future, they should expect more — not less — attention, investment and cooperation from the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Fortunately, the next American president will inherit a set of alliances and friendships in Asia that are already in good shape. At a time when America’s popularity has declined in many regions, Asia stands as an exception. Polls show that the United States enjoys more support in Japan, South Korea, China and India than it did in 2000. Our core alliances with Japan, South Korea and Australia have never been stronger; relations with old friends in Southeast Asia like Singapore are excellent; and promising partnerships have been forged in recent years with friends like India, Vietnam and Indonesia.

The next president must expand on these achievements with an ambitious, focused agenda to further strengthen and deepen these relationships. Putting our alliances first, and bringing our friends into greater partnership in the management of both regional and global affairs, is key to meeting the collective challenges we face in a changing Asia and in a changing world. For the same reason, the U.S. must also participate more actively in Asian regional organizations.

America must likewise get its relationship with China right. China’s double-digit growth rates have brought hundreds of millions out of poverty and energized the economies of its neighbors. The U.S. shares common interests with China that can form the basis of a strong partnership on issues of global concern, including climate change, trade and proliferation. But China’s rapid military modernization, mercantilist economic practices, lack of political freedom and close relations with regimes like Sudan and Burma undermine the very international system on which its rise depends. The next American president must build on the areas of overlapping interest to forge a more durable U.S.-China relationship. Doing so will require strong alliances with other Asian nations and a readiness to speak openly with Beijing when it fails to behave as a responsible stakeholder.

American leadership is also needed on North Korea. We must use the leverage available from the U.N. Security Council resolution passed after Pyongyang’s 2006 nuclear test to ensure the full and complete declaration, disablement and irreversible dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, in a verifiable manner, which we agreed to with the other members of the six-party talks. We must reinvigorate the trilateral coordination process with Japan and South Korea. And we must never squander the trust of our allies and the respect for our highest office by promising that the president will embark on an open-ended, unconditional personal negotiation with a dictator responsible for running an international criminal enterprise, a covert nuclear weapons program and a massive system of gulags.

America’s Asia-Pacific alliances are also dependent on maintaining peace and stability in neighboring regions that affect Asian security — particularly the Middle East. Top leaders in Asia have warned that a precipitous American retreat from Iraq would empower al Qaeda in its global terror campaign and badly undermine America’s position in Asia. We should listen to them. American success in Iraq will reinforce American leadership in Asia and stability there; American defeat and retreat will jeopardize them.

Another objective of the next American president must be to deepen America’s economic partnerships in Asia. U.S. trade with Asia has tripled over the past 15 years, creating millions of new jobs for Americans and elevating millions of Asians into middle-class consumers. Unfortunately, some American politicians are preying on the fears stoked by Asia’s dynamism. Rather than investing in American innovation and entrepreneurship, they instead propose throwing up protectionist walls that will leave us all worse off.

This is profoundly irresponsible. The U.S. has never won respect or created jobs by retreating from free trade, and we cannot start doing so now.

* * *

Ultimately, America’s alliances in the Asia-Pacific region are guided by more than the pursuit of shifting alignments of interest. Rather, our leadership in the region is rooted in the norms and values we hold in common with the region’s great democracies.

Sixty-five years ago, there were only two Asia-Pacific democracies: Australia and New Zealand. Today, more people live under democratic government in Asia than in any other part of the world. Japan’s leaders have spoken eloquently about the importance of democracy in Asia. India’s prime minister has called liberal democracy “the natural order of social and political organization in today’s world.”

We agree. No nation holds a monopoly on the insight that all men and women are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. These are not only universal truths; they are also the indispensable bedrock for the shared prosperity and stability we all desire. That is precisely why the U.S. and its allies must work together to put these norms at the center of our international system.

America itself must be a responsible stakeholder in that system, and a good global citizen. American power does not mean we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. On the contrary, our position in Asia has been strongest when we have listened to our friends, and when we have worked not only to persuade them that we are right, but been willing to be persuaded that they are right. We must take seriously our responsibility to address our contribution to climate change, for instance, if we are to persuade others to take seriously their responsibilities to do the same.

This spirit of mutual respect and trust is essential to all of our alliances and partnerships in Asia — trust in the reliability of our security commitments, trust in the integrity of our economic promises and trust in the consistency of our principles. Renewing these commitments can provide the basis for a new century of shared Asian and American prosperity, security and freedom.

Mr. McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

Popularity: 29% [?]