WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AMERICAN?

Before I begin this entry I find it important to explain to those reading where I come from, and a bit of my past. As I have stated before I grew up with my mother and step-father, both of whom were hard working and spirited. I grew up understanding the values of hard work, diligence and a sense of duty. Both my mother and my father have been and always will be the most influential people in my life. I spoke with my father recently, at length, about the current political landscape and the incoming presidential elect. It goes without saying that he and I do not see eye to eye when it comes to most of our political ideologies. While we could both agree that this country needs change, we had different beliefs on what change was necessary.

I have stated before that I have become disillusioned by the current political landscape and have actually begun to consider myself an Independent rather than a Republican.

So what change do I believe is necessary for America to succeed for the future?

First, there needs to be a major overhaul in the ideas of what it means to be an American. I pose this question to all of you reading this ... Define America? Many will say things like 'home of the free', 'land of opportunity and hope' and so on. You would all be correct. America is all of these things, but let me ask a different question ... What does it mean to be an American? Many, if not all of you, will struggle to answer this question, as I did. This question is not as easy to answer as it may seem. You cannot define the look of Americans, because we come in a variety of sizes, shapes and colors. You cannot define the sectarian beliefs of Americans, as many of us do not share the same belief system as to whom we pray to.

Americans are the shaggy dogs of the world. We are loyal to our beliefs and principles, whatever those beliefs may be. We are fierce when provoked by attack, don't believe me ask Japan and Germany. We are protective of those who cannot protect themselves, Kosovo and Bosnia. We are just and fair. These are the things that I think Americans are, and should be. For years we, as Americans, have lost our identities. We have to reclaim who we are as a nation before we can begin to set forth on a new direction for the future.

When we finally reclaim our identities as Americans, we can finally set forth into a new era. When we finally see that the character of a man is more important than the color, ideology or religious beliefs of a man. When we can worship from our own pews without being judged. When we can take care of our own homeless and destitute. When we can finally see that this nation is big enough and strong enough for any view imaginable, without fear of admonishment from others. Then and only then can we hope for true change.

I truly hope that change is on the horizon. I hope that we can change the direction of this country to reclaim who we once were as a nation. I hope that people finally understand that there is no more room at the inn for those who cannot conform to the principles above. This is my plan for 'change'. It will cost you nothing. No new taxes. No economic bailout to rely upon. All that this would cost is time and effort from every American, and in a time where the economy is unstable and the world is fraught with conflict, time and effort are the few things that every American can afford, in the name of 'change'.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MARINES ...

For most of you, November 10th is just another day. For the special few who have worn the uniform of the United States Marine Corps, we remember this day every year, for it is the anniversary of the initial founding of the United States Marines. Every year battalions and regiments the world over will celebrate this day. The festivities are more than just a 'party', it is a time of reflection for the traditions on which the Marine Corps was built. It is a time to share stories and pass down these traditions to the younger generation of Marines so that our legacy will continue.

For 233 years the United States Marines have been the vanguard for this nation. It's missions have carried them all over the world and into battles long since forgotten about. From the Spanish-American War to the Vietnam Conflict, Marines have been the 'tip' of the spear of America's fighting forces. Marines were the first to land at Guadalcanal in World War II and in Pusan, North Korea, claiming victory in some of the bloodiest land battles ever in US history. The Marine Corps will ever be remembered by the raising of the American flag upon Mount Suribachi after the battle of Iwo Jima. Former Secretary of the Navy James Forestall, shortly after seeing a photo of the flag raising said, "The raising of that flag means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years."

More than six decades later the Marine Corps continues to answer the call of this great nation. Currently more than 75,000 Marines find themselves in the trenches of Iraq and Afghanistan, engaged in the War on Terrorism. They continue to fight for the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to every American. They ask for no thanks or congratulations. They serve this nation so that you do not have to. So today, a most special day to every Marine, past, present and future, find the nearest Marine that you know and thank him for his service, even more so, let them know that you understand the importance of this day by wishing him a Happy Birthday.

THE DAWN OF A NEW DAY...

On this morning, there are liberals and far-leftists still dancing in the streets, celebrating the election of Sen. Barack Obama as the next president. I will claim that this is historic in the sense that he is the first black man to win the presidency. I will argue however, that I do not belive that this is what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had in mind when he dreamed of this day. Dr. King proudly proclaimed that we judge the content of a man before we judge the color of a man. Regardless of what people may say, there were a lot of individuals that voted for John McCain because he was the white candidate, and on the other side, many people voted for Barack Obama because he was the black candidate.

This race was not won on pure experience or standings concerning political beliefs, or who was more qualified to run this country. Exit polls conducted by Zogby and the AP in both Ohio and Pennsylvania proved this point. Among those who were polled 60% believed John McCain was the more experienced candidate. 69% believed that John McCain had the better foreign policies and was more qualified as a leader. With that information now on hand, I have to ask the question, did people vote for Obama, or did they vote against the Republican Party? I tend to believe that it was the latter.

I cannot change the outcome of this election. I cast my vote and my voice was heard. With that, what is next for America? I think the following problems need to be addressed. With the economy in an unstable, up and down cycle, Obama and his cabinet need to address relief to middle income families and small business owners throughout the US. That means a definitive tax break, not a tax increase. We need a continued focus on international security. The current situation in the Mid-East needs specific attention. The War on Terror must remain our most immediate focus. If this is placed to the wayside, like it has been during other Democratic presidents in the past, we will continue to see the escalation of nuclear arsenals in Iran, more sectarian violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and continued problems with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Diplomacy may have its place in places like the UN and European Council, but it has no place on the battleground.

I do hope that there is change. I do not like war. Having been in two separate conflicts in my eight years in the Marine Corps, I can say without a doubt, that it was not an experience that I would like to repeat, but I would if my country called. I do not particularly like higher taxes, especially if those higher taxes pay for what I, and many people like me, consider unnecessary and corrupted programs like welfare and Planned Parenthood. These programs may have good intentions, but they need to be regulated better.

In the next four years Barack Obama has to put into place a lot of campaign promises. Promises that were unrealistic goals. Now he has to stand by them, and begin to take action. Failure to deliver will only reinforce what many have said allready, that Barack Obama was never ready for this position and never will be.

Jordan Fleck

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ...

Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harboring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of "hope" and "change" are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

This is an unbelievable example of another shady politician finally realizing that he must calm down the storm that he himself has created. For eighteen months he has screamed and spewed the words "change" and "hope", never really outlining anything of substance, getting a free pass from the media ... based on image, and continuing to spend the most money any politician has ever spent on any campaign. Now he wants people to come back down to earth in the realization of economic crisis.

You ferried these people into the stratosphere Mr. Obama! You built up the hopes of so many! You made the promises of "change" on your political platform! Now you want them to come back down to earth so there isn't a large meltdown in the psyche of the individuals who so diligently supported you. What has changed? You knew the economy was in trouble. Let me guess, you're just now starting to figure out that your plans are as stable a two year old child's attention span.

If, and God forbid, you are elected to the most powerful position on planet earth, I hope that you do not waffle this much when addressing hostile nations when you meet with them without preconditions. I hope that you do not take this kind of approach with them. Promise them peace and prosperity with our nation, then turn around and tell them, "but don't be upset if I can't bring you peace and prosperity." I shudder to think of the consequences.

Leadership is not a born trait. It is a learned skill. It is honed in circumstances and tempered with experience. These kind of remarks bring forward the true man in Barack Obama, ALL HYPE NO SUBSTANCE!

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE OBAMANIA INFOMERCIAL

The following was provided by the AP and Factcheck.org. I will be honest and say that I did not watch the commercial last night, so I can not provide my spin on it at all. I'll let the AP guys do it for me. Although I will place my thoughts throughout the article in blue text.

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount (Nor does he state as to how he will accomplish the $2,500 decrease.). Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money (He hopes, but it's hard to fathom spending $50 billion in the hopes of reaching his $2,500 goal per family ... oh and where do we get that $ 50 billion.). He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums. (This proposal is nothing more than a play on words. Obama is banking on what he cannot see and that is in the total overall savings being passed down to consuners. A whole lot of factors governing the profit margins in health care will likely dictate the overall savings per family.)

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. (Again here is another play on words. No one person or government entity can ensure coverage for every person in America, as he has promised. Too many factors dictate the insured's eligibility. The only way that this is possible is to create one federal health care and coverage system. Quite honestly that option is strictly not a feasible on in a free market enterprise system.) Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees (And who would pay for this option? Taxpayers. Like we currently do for every goverment worker.) and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years -- and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year (Wasn't it $250,000.00 just yesterday? ... I know it was when he was ribbing Joe the Plumber, last week.). Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals -- the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more -- cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged -- although not in his commercial -- that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

The address of his policies and agendas in this format is not a bad idea. It does get his message out. The problem is that, the message is, in every sense of the word, ideological. Every person in the US wants affordable health care. We all want to cut our taxes. We all need and want economic stability to ensure our own futures. Obama has been riding on the grey areas of every proposal that he has layed out on the table, never really getting across how he is actually going to get it all done. We as Americans should be very wary about any politican that says "change, change change", but never assertains how to create change effectively.

Jordan Fleck

THE OVER-EXPOSURE OF A CANDIDATE.

I consider myself to be a man of principals and convictions, and when I see what is going on in the 2008 presidential campaign, I have to laugh at the current situation.

The situation to which I am referring to, is OBAMANIA! (I believe that I am the first to use this phrase.) We have all heard that Sen. Barack Obama has purchased a one-half hour block on seven major networks to do a little self-promotion. The price tag for 4 of those networks is, reportedly, more than 1 million dollars per network.

It has been further reported that Barack Obama will now apply for and receive public campaign funds to help out with the financing of his Presidential campaign. This was something that he swore and promised that he would not do. The reason for refusing the public campaign financing, was so that he would not be restricted by the strict spending limits imposed on publicly funded candidates. In return for receiveing public campaign financing, the candidate must agree not to seek or spend private donations on campaign expenses.

We now know that this system is horrible. To date, it is estimated that Sen. Obama's private campaign fundraising has outgained Sen. McCain's at a rate of almost 3 to 1. He has raised, and spent, more money than any other Presidential candidate in US history, and he has done it with nothing more than private donations. It is a feat that is very admirable. I couldn't raise that kind of money. Could you? What bothers me about the whole situation is that he will now use the public campaign financing to payroll this 30 minute infomercial about himself. This does not seem right. Does it?

He has outspent McCain at a rate of 3 to 1. His commercials run at a rate of 4 to 1 on major news networks allready, and all this has been done with private donations and third party collaborators. Now, he wants to utilize public taxpayer dollars (something that he promised early in his campaign that he would not do) to bankroll this infomercial.

I find this outlandish. First, if you deny public campaign financing, and you raise as much money that Sen. Obama has, privately, then you shouldn't be allowed to untilize it once it has been turned down. Second, who does this guy think he is? He is actually getting the network to push back the start of a World Series baseball game, something that has never been done before, ever. Third, and most important, if you can't hold true to the simple promise of not utilizing public campaign funding, then what about his other promises. What does this say about his basic principals? I could venture a guess in his thinking. It will go without saying that I don't like Sen. Obama, nor his his political cronies, to whom he has aligned himself with, Kennedy, Pelosi and Clinton.

Sen. Barack Obama is an over exposed political pawn that the Democratic Party hyped would be the savior of all things American. In reality, he is just another face in the liberal democrat crowd, that stood for nothing, except for his own political aspirations, and has yet to prove himself worthy of even another term as a US Senator. He has yet to propose a bill of substance and value to the American public and yet we are to believe that he will fix all. Mark my words ladies and gentlemen, once the Democratic Party has control of the White House and both the Senate and the House of Representatives, we will definately see change, and you won't like it.


Jordan Fleck

RAMBLINGS OF AN OP-ED WRITER ...

I have tried, since the inception of this newsletter, to keep a fair and balanced point of view when it came to reporting the news of the day. Whether the article that I was writing about concerned John McCain or Barack Obama, I have attempted to make a diligent effort to get the facts straight and truthful, to the best of my ability. Granted, as a conservative Independent voter, I am disillusioned buy the Democratic Party’s choice for president. Also, consistent with the previous statement, I do not believe that John McCain was the ideal candidate for the Republican Party either. That being said, and all personal opinions aside, if you were to just look at the substantive structure and policy implementations that each candidate has made thus far in their respective campaigns, the choice becomes a clear one for me, and as well it should for all of us at this point in time.

I do not write this article to belittle the candidates. This venture began when several of the individuals that I work with and I began to understand that reporting the truth was not a primary concern for the media, and that fairness in reporting had long since been lost to anchor persons and beat writers everywhere. We wanted a place where we could read factual news, news that mattered to us most. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not a real reporter and I have absolutely no real journalistic experience. I am just a typical guy, and what started out as a project to report factual news became an op-ed newsletter.

As an op-ed writer, I am afforded the opportunity to place my personal beliefs and opinions into the articles that I research and write about. That’s what an op-ed piece is supposed to be. I say this because I have received complaints regarding the content of the articles that I write. The complaints range from ‘you lean to far to the right’, ‘you’re too conservative’ and ‘you need to check your facts before writing an article’. Let me put all this to rest. I do lean to the right, I am a conservative and I check and re-check all the facts of every article that I write here. I may write op-ed pieces here in this news letter, but they are based on facts provided from very reliable and trusted sources. The same sources that provide information to major news outlets are used here, they just don’t lean towards the liberal side. If you don’t like my points of view, you are more than welcome to return to the internet and find a more left-leaning news source to which you can draw your information. May I suggest NBC or the New York Times?

Jordan Fleck

I received this via e-mail from a friend. I could not, as a fair and balanced (and relatively unbiased reporter), let this go un-answered. The following is and excerpt from that e-mail.

3 Men who brought down Wall Street....................

Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.

1. Franklin Raines: Was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered that there were severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, 'Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that 'mistakes were made' and stating he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.' Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a 'golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. The Government noted, 'The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.' These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the mis-stated Fannie Mae profits.

2. Tim Howard: Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard 'was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a 'stable pattern of earnings' at Fannie Mae.' In layman's terms, he was the one cooking the books for the company. The Government Investigation determined that,'Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae.' On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La ., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!

3. Jim Johnson: A former executive at Lehman Brothers who was later forced from his position as CEO of Fannie Mae. If you were to look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public. They reported that it was somewhere between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was around $21 million. Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated around $28 Million.

SO, WHERE ARE THEY NOW... This is the part that is fair and balanced. It took some research to actually get any information regarding the current work, positions and connections that any of these three may have had with Sen. Barack Obama, if they had any connection at all.

FRANKLIN RAINES: It has been widely reported that Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Adviser. Though Raines and Obama's campaign have gone to great lengths to dispute this, Raines reported to the Washington Post that he had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." The quote comes from Washington Post reporter Anita Huslin. FactCheck.org author, Michael Dobbs states the article written by Huslin in the Washington Post "exaggerates the the relationship."

TIM HOWARD: Howard, reportedly a Chief Economic Adviser to Obama's presidential campaign, has never worked in any capacity for Sen. Obama.

JIM JOHNSON: Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to "run" Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee. Obama campaign spokesperson, Tommy Vietor quickly points out when questioned on this subject that, Howard did sit on the search commitee, though he did not "run" it. He further states that Howard resigned almost a week after he was appointed to the committee amid concerns for his relationship with CountryWide surfaced. Howard was never appointed to a financial adviser position with Obama's campaign in any capacity.

Although the statements concerning these three knuckleheads is true when it comes to how they screwed the US economy, none of them had any connection to Obama. I don't think Obama is the best presidential candidate, nor do I think that he has the neccessary experience to run this country, but I do believe that the bias of this country's media is a big concern. As citizens we can question the relationshipships that Obama has with others, Ayers, Alinsky and Wright. We don't have to go and fabricate new stories, when there are more than enough true ones out there to investigate. Obama just has to come clean and quit dodging the questions.

Jordan Fleck

OBAMA CLOSING IN ...

To the chagrin of almost every democrat and liberal I know, Senator Barack Obama is closing in on what would be considered a monumental victory in becoming the first black president in United Stated history. I can say with certainty that this is a large and definitive step forward for the civil rights movement. I would say that this ranks as a defining moment, right up there with Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 1960's and the womens suffrage movement.

Although Barack Obama is a man of captivating stature, I believe that he is not qualified, not now anyway, to lead this country for the next four years. Not one person can argue that Barack Obama is an eloquent speaker and a person who can mesmerize an audience with thrilling speeches on "change". He has rallied thousands of people into raucus frenzies at his political rallies and campaign stops all over the US. He has poured millions into this campaign, newspaper and television groups fall over themselves to capture just small pieces of the audiences that he holds. To what end do we finally stop and ask about substance. He rose quickly from his position as a state senator in Illinois. He blasted onto the political scene with a very fiery speech at the 2004 DNC convention. I have tried to be very open about seeing the man that is Barack Obama, and I find him no different than any other politician.

Senator Obama has yet to answer many questions. Questions about his past relationships with some individuals that many, like myself, find concerning. He has yet to make a definitive stance concerning the war in Iraq. He refuses to admit that while he has opposed the troop surge, that it has worked. He has yet to spout anything more than pure rhetoric when it comes to his tax policies and foreign relations. He has yet to defend his positions concerning Roe vs. Wade, and his beliefs on abortion and stem cell research. His health care policies are nothing more than a cry for reform. He preaches "change" and appoints a long term bureaucrat as his running mate in Joe Biden. Yet, he is given a free pass concerning all these issues.

For eighteen months he has been able to survive on his image and generic policies alone. He stepped into the ring knowing he was going to be able to dodge the big hits because he had most of the major media outlets and pundits in his corner. Think I'm being biased? Just ask Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in twelve years. It's like watching a boxing match that you know has been rigged. Based on pure policy and experience, Clinton and Biden both had more than Obama. So how did Obama get the nomination? Image. Much like JFK did when running against Nixon. He caught the attention of the masses and watched the followers pile on.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't know what the future holds for this country. I don't have a crystal ball to tell you and the rest of America what is in store. What I do know is that this country will be no better off in the next four years whether Obama is in the White House or not. The economy has been a mess since 1992. Social security needed reform since the 1980's. We've needed tort reform and healh care reform for as long as I can remember. These things will not get fixed magically in the next four years. The miltary will always be responding to hot spots the world over and the US will continue to take the lead in UN and NATO operations. Insurance premiums will continue to go through the roof. Education standards will continue to plummet and the consumption of oil by our country will not decrease either. These issues are not controlled by who's in the White House. They are controlled by the people in Congress, and as long as we continue to let the greedy politicians stay in office, we'll never see "change".

These are just my views, so call me what you like, at least you know where I stand.


Jordan Fleck

FAIRNESS IN REPORTING ... (OR LACK OF IT)

Yesterday I wrote a piece concerning the bias (conservative and liberal both) in mainstream media reporting. Bias again is rearing it's head in a big way through one of the major media outlets, at the same time the Project in Excellence in Journalism's report came out with it's findings. For those of you who may have missed it, CNN reporter Drew Griffin interviewed Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The topics and questions were very broad in scope, and Governor Palin actually did a good job in her responses. Now, I bring this up in a report on bias for this reason, during the interview, Drew Griffin brought up an article the was printed in the National Review. Griffin stated that in the article, many conservatives aren't sure if Governor is either incompetent, stupid or just doesn't know what she is doing. Palin responded to Griffin's question, asking who had written that. Griffin failed to give a name and avoided Palin's question.

Here's the problem that I have with this. In response to Griffin's information about statements made in the National Review, Byron York, of the National Review, refuted that any such article or statements have been made, and that CNN's Drew Griffin apparently has the facts wrong. So, where did the information come from? Apparently, this was a blatant attempt to catch Governor Palin off guard with an extremely controversial and one sided, albeit, totally made-up statement. CNN has refused to retract the statement or to make a correction in regards to their information on the origins of Drew Griffin's statement to Governor Palin.

This brings us to the Project in Excellence in Journalism's report. The report states that in stories regarding John McCain, 57% were negative and only 14% were positive, and the rest were considered neutral in nature. The same cannot be said when it comes to Barack Obama. The report indicates that in stories about Obama, 36% were positive, 29% negative and 35% neutral. Governor Palin, according to the report, has received 3 times as many stories about her than Joe Biden. 39% were negative, 33% were neutral and only 28% were positive in nature. The Project in Excellence in Journalism reviewed more than 2100 stories from more than 48 different media outlets.

The report is an indication that the media cares more about their own candidates and party than in fair and impartial reporting, in the search for truth. There used to be a time that reporters were the one incorruptable entity in America, news was the news, facts were facts and truth was the truth. We lost this when the news cared more about their own image than the image of other people. Now news outlets favor reporters that use tactics and lies to preserve their own corporate image and the image of their candidate.

The reason that we began this news letter was because we were tired of hearing only one side to the story. I feel it is my obligation and responsibility to continue to report both sides of every story. I can only hope that we as Americans can finally see through the haze created by the mainstream media, and begin to seek the truth for themselves, because apparently they aren't going to get it from mainstream media agencies.

Jordan Fleck.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME ...

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE KANSAS CITY STAR ... READ THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT WITHOUT LAUGHING TOO HARD.

Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black

By Lewis Diuguid, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin.

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE. THIS IS FURTHER PROOF THAT IDIOTS SURROUND US EVERYDAY. THEY ARE LIVING AMONGST US DISGUISED AS NORMAL PEOPLE. THIS GUY IS AN ABSENT MINDED, NARROW PERSON WHO SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO WORK FOR ANY NEWS AGENCY.

Jordan Fleck

IS THERE A LIBERAL (or CONSERVATIVE) BIAS IN THE MEDIA ...

Recently, democratic vice-presidential nominee, Joe Biden made some rather disconcerting remarks about how his running mate will be tested shortly after he is elected, so as to test the "mettle" of Obama. Normally, I would chalk this up to Joe being Joe, who is well known for verbal gaffes and brain farts (did he really think every person owned a tv in 1929 during the Great Depression). However, the remarks themselves are really quite relevant in today's time, as to say that there are quite a few organizations that don't like us here in the good 'ole US of A, and would like nothing more than an opportunity to prove it to everyone else in the world.

I listened to the entire sound byte and tried to listen objectively. The statement is, in my ever so humble opinion, true in every form. I think Joe really meant what he said. I don't think that this was a slip-up. So, where am I going with this? Well, although I don't have problem with what he said, how he said it or even if I believe that the statements made were accurate, I do believe that there was a less than objectionable sense of bias on how this was parlayed in the media.

Do I believe that there is a liberal bias in mainstream media and news outlets? No doubt about it. I believe that this topic has been covered many times in the past. Studies have been done by people much more intelligent than I and my partners here at The Free American, and they have answered this question, stating that bias (liberal and conservative) does exist in the media. However, what bothers me is the amount of swing to the liberal flag the media will lean. In a poll conducted by Zogby International, of 2008 registered voters, 64% of the respondents believe that there is a liberal bias compared to 28% believing there is a more conservative swing in the media outlets. Also, of those that were polled, 68% believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." 49% of respondents stated that the reporters are helping Barack Obama while ony 14% said the same regarding John McCain. A further 51% said that the press was actively "trying to hurt" republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin with negative coverage. Of the media outlets that are rated nationally NBC, CNBC and CBS rate the highest in liberal media, follwed closely by the New York Times. The most conservative media outlets were the Washington Post and Fox News with Brit Hume.

Look, we all know that bias exists, although it shouldn't, when it comes to politics. The recent Biden comments fell to the wayside because the mainstream outlets didn't want to hurt their candidate and his presidential bid, bias be damned, we need change (or so they want you to believe). So, for all the reports that come out in the mainstream media, make sure that you allow yourself to make a concerted effort to try and get your news from more than one source. Failure to do that and the media will elect the president, not the people.

THE DECLINE OF BELIEF ...

We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! Abraham Lincoln, March 30, 1863

It has been stated, on more than one occasion during the length of the campaign season, that it is not prudent to base your election principals on beliefs or morals. I truly disagree, and furthermore, I wholly entrust that this was not the intent of the founders of this nation. Many, if not all of the members of the Continental Congress, were believers of Christian principals and faith, and have implied in writings throughout their careers as lawmakers, judicial officials and members of the executive branches within their own states and in the United States, that these principals are in standing with what they were attempting to establish in a Free Republic, The United States of America.

Before we get into the above statement, let me enlighten those few in the differences between a Republic and a Democracy. Don't get caught up in the titles. The Peoples Republic of China is not a republic, nor was the former United Soviet Socialist Republic. Though most will agree that neither are is different than the other, the glaring difference is that in a Democracy, MAN is the final authority and in a Republic, GOD is the final authority. Let me explain. True, America is a democratic nation, it is considered a Majority Democracy. We elect the individuals into the legislative branch, who in turn are our voice in the government. More importantly, we are a Republic because the majority cannot govern without restraint. So truly we are a Free Republic Democracy. Confused? Don't be. Early founders, scholars and politicians alike used the belief in God as their galvanization in the drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband." - Thomas Jefferson

So, why have we abandoned our Christian beliefs in government?
1. As a nation we have misplaced our trust in God.
2. As individuals we have been seduced by an indulgent lifestyle.
3 As Christians we have allowed our influence to remain silent.

For too long, we have sat idly by and witnessed the removal of God from society. They have removed the word "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, crying 'separation of church and state'. Several affirmative actions and civil liberties groups actually want to remove the phrase "In God We Trust" from our currency. These acts, among others is a desecration not only to the beliefs of the founding roots of this great nation, it is a stab at all Christians, nationwide. Too long, our voices have been passive. It is time, as a Christian nation we stand together and finally let our voices be heard. Only one in four Christians vote.

One of the numerous cases being heard by the Supreme Court, in the not so distant future, will be prohibiting federal courts from removing "Under God" from or Pledge of Allegiance. The public supports this overwhelmingly with 91%, but on 60% of the House voted for it. And as for removing the Ten Commandments from federal courthouses ... 76% of the public want them to stay, only 57% of congress as a whole. This election day, remember this one thing ... Congress does not represent the values of the people, congress reflects the values of the people that vote.

Jordan Fleck / Everitt Whiddon

ECONOMY CONTINUES TO FALTER, POST BAILOUT...

Even after the passing of the second version of the 700 billion dollar bailout program, what should have been a restoration of the basic economic foundation, faith in the market continues to falter. Many, if not most, economists believed that the bailout became a necessary evil in order to maintain the current structure of the economy.

I am not an economist, market analyst, or market strategist, so I cannot say for certain where the economy will finally settle. I have no idea how far the stock market will continue to fall. I do believe that this will get considerably worse before we begin to see consistent gains in the market.

That being said, the true question remains as to whom we bestow the great honor into who we blame the market faltering. The President? Congress? Wall Street? I can be sure that no one entity can shoulder the blame entirely. The President could have acted sooner, had he had a better supporting cast in his cabinet with more experience in domestic economic issues. Congress let a proposal for oversight of Freddie and Fannie, die on the floor, without even batting an eyelash. Wall Street and Corporate CEO's continued their speculations driving stock prices through the roof, raising the indexes to all time highs (what goes up must eventually come down). The futures market continued it's hearty and healthy speculations. Oil prices, per barrel, soared, keeping Americans worried more about energy and gas bills, forcing them to cut into their other spending.

We all know that when Americans spend less, the overall tax line decreases, forcing pricing to rise to overcome the lack in gain from taxes. It's basic economics. Corporations have to pay their taxes, whether Americans are spending money on their product or not, so to make up the difference the raise the price of their product. When they raise the price of their product, especially if the product is not a necessity but a luxury, sales falter. This in turn starts the selling off of stocks because of lack of faith in the growth of the stock overall. We see it in the market now, GM and Ford are way down, but pharmaceuticals and energies are steady, if not gaining (even if it is slight).

I blame several people here, so let me begin. Corporate CEO's: Had these guys been paying attention to the economy, rather than their bottom line they would have been clued into the decline of American spending. Congress: Oversight into the lending practices should have been passed ... five years ago, if not before. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac: Thanks for fudging the information so that other lending companies continued to make bad decisions in their lending practices ... (oh by the way, thanks for lying to the politicians too). Americans: Hold on, not every American is to blame ... just the American family that makes an average of 50,000.00 per year, who thought that they could afford a 250,000.00 house without a fixed annual rate. Congress: Thanks for looking out for your constituents on this issue. Had we just listened to a few individuals that spoke up years ago, we could have had some oversight concerning these companies and their spending habits. Instead, they looked out for their own best interests, again.

The markets are going to take a long time to recover, no matter who is in the White House, but it will recover. History has showed us that. So, hang in there.

Jordan Fleck

AND THE WINNER IS ...

I would be failing in my obligations to everyone who reads this to know that I consider myself a conservative independent. I supported John McCain in his inital presidential run in 2000, and have always liked the stances that McCain has made in regards to foreign policy and towards military members. He's one one of us, a veteran. What I witnessed last night was not one but two politicians clammoring about and trying to force issues on the other. It was a boring display by both candidates.

There were fine points made by both candidates and when seen with an open mind, both had very fine, albeit very different, stances on every subject covered. What was strikingly different about the debate was that Obama came across as the the immovable object and McCain was the unrelenting juggernaut. Each time that McCain tried to hammer home a point, Obama, cooly and swiftly, returned the volley, and in some cases hammered home a few points, as well.

That being said, most of those out there have already made up their minds as to whom they plan on voting for. This was just a reiteration of the things that we have already known. However, the point here is not to be so distracted by what was being said but to make an opinion on to who you liked best, based on the representation of themselves last night. Obama is the calm, cool collected one. The guy who thinks long and hard about decisions. A guy who will use all resources available to educate himself on the subject mater. McCain came across as the fiery and wiry guy next door. He wears his emotions on his sleeve and isn't afraid to tell you what he is thinking, whether you like it or not.

So, the real question here still remains, who do you vote for?

I grew up in a liberal family. My mother was a relentless fighter in the equal rights movement and a member of the National Organization for women. I grew up understanding my parents are very avid supporters of civil liberties and in the basic founding principles of this country. I was always told to educate myself, learn the facts, and then form an opinion. I say this because my mother posed a question to me yesterday. It was a question I asked myself several times last night during the debate. Who do you want in your foxhole with you?

Being a former Marine, I can answer this with a certainty that only those of us who have ever had to share a foxhole with another can make. I want someone I can trust. Someone I believe in. Someone that I can call my brother. I need to know that when the perverbial sh!t hits the fan that the guy next to me won't leave to fend for myself. Someone with good moral character and judgement. A leader.

I guess the question I ask to you all is, what type of person do you want in the foxhole with you?


Jordan Fleck

FURTHER NEWS ON TONIGHT'S DEBATE ...

Sensing that this could be the final chance for his campaign to make a dent and rattle Obama's cage, John McCain has gone against the advice of his advisers, who wanted him to bring up Sen. Obama's ties to the rather outspoken and opinionated Rev. Jeremiah Wright. McCain's camp revealed that the senator thought that it would be insensitive and would be viewed as racially charged.

Kudos to McCain for making and trying to keep some sense of civility, Lord knows we need it, but I don't see the problem in bringing this up in the debate. Sen. Obama has taken the time to bring up the S&L scandal and Keating, so why not? Rev. Wright is, in every sense of the word, a very prejudiced man. He believes in what is right for him and the black society of the United States. Fine, I get that. I too can be very opinionated, but the connection between Rev. Wright and Obama doesn't have to be about race.

Rev. Wright is largely known for his beliefs and ideals of 'Black Liberation Theology' and he shares them, albeit very vehemently at times, from his pulpit. I believe it's okay to have your views and share them with others, but if you don't share the same views with someone, especially your preacher, you change churches. You don't get married by him. You don't have your children baptized by him. If you believe in your preacher enough to come to the same church for twenty years, then there must be a bond of shared beliefs somewhere.

This is what America wants to know about. This is what we want to know about. Why is this wrong? Does it make me racist to want to know why a man may or may not belive in 'Black Liberation Theology'? Enlighten me, and the world. Help us understand, and share why you believe what you believe. Don't just avoid the situation, it makes it seem even more interesting when you don't talk about it.

I'll say that I am not a racist. Never have been. I believe that you should treat all people like people, regardless of race, creed or gender (it's something that my parents taught me). But if I were running for the presidential office, and I was a member of a lesser known church, and I had a pastor that made comments like "God Damn America...", I would almost expect to have this issue surface and face it at some point, wouldn't I. I wouldn't think that in the least bit a stab at me.

Let the race issue go, this isn't about race, it's still about judgement and character. A wise man once told me that to truly see who a man really is then take a look at his friends.

Jordan Fleck

THE FINAL SHOWDOWN ...

Tonight is the final of three presidential debates, and unlike the previous two debates the plan is to focus on the economy and domestic policies. Huh? Wait a second, I understand that the people of America want answers concerning the economy, but haven't we already hashed and re-hashed this subject twice before, and in numerous campaign ads? I hate to be a stick in the mud, but aren't there more than just two or three topics of discussion that are important to the American people. I'll name just a few ... Insurance reform, tort reform, social security reform, abortion and crime in America.

To me, these topics are just as important to the American people and to myself. I want to know that my rights to keep and bear arms are not going to be infringed upon. I want to know that in 35 years, when I am eligible to collect on social security, that I am going to able to. I want to settle some unsettling comments and questions I have on the stance both candidates have made on the subject of abortion. I want to know what we are doing to reign in civil claims collections. I have more than just two questions to ask.

Domestic policy and the economy are two of the most important issues of the day, but not the only issues. If we decide, prior to the debate, what the topics of the debate will be then how will we know when a candidate is being candid in his response or just reciting something that has been prepared for him in the previous week leading up to the debate? Both McCain and Obama have a lot of questions that have yet to be asked and answered on a national stage. Let's hope Mr. Bob Schieffer can get that through tonight and put some light on these subjects.

ACORN ... AYERS ... and OBAMA ... We Want Answers

Due to recent inquiries in the media and voter registration scandals concerning ACORN in numerous 'battleground' states, we feel compelled to try and give the public a discerning and un-diluted view into the truth concerning the ties between the community organization and Barack Obama.

As it stands this fall before the upcoming presidential election, ACORN has registered more than 1.3 million new, previously unregistered voters. I do not disagree with the principals that every American has the right to vote, and I truly do mean that we all have the right to vote. It is the basic principal of the free democratic society, that each voice can be heard. What I bring to question are the tactics and methods that are used by ACORN to register new voters. To cite just a few examples, Mickey Mouse was registered to vote in Florida. Tony Romo of the Dallas Cowboys and his starting offensive line were registered to vote in Nevada, although not one of them is a resident of that state. ACORN actually hired 59 inmates in Nevada to help with the program. These practices have pushed officials in the state of Nevada to raid ACORN's offices in Nevada and suspended all their activities in the state. Similar activities have pushed state officials in North Carolina and county officials in the state of Missouri to investigate ACORN's registraion submissions as well.

Beyond the practices and tactics, where does Senator Obama fit into all of this. On the website, FightTheSmears.com/Obama, ACORN states that Senator Obama 'was never a community organizer', 'was never a trainer, organizer or any type of employee', and 'ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the succesful voter registration drive that Barack ran in 1992'. If this were true the why would Obama make this statement, "I have been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career...". A rather disconcerting statemant for someone that has never worked in any capacity for ACORN, beyond legal representation. I truly hope that they can dust off that legal relationship, because ACORN will surely need it in the months to come.

This brings us to Bill Ayers. True, I don't like the politics and beliefs of this man, but I do believe that he has the right to his opinion, no matter how skewed I beleive it may be. FightTheSmears.com/Obama, states the relationship between Obama and Ayers is nothing beyond aquaintences living in the same community, and that Obama has publically denounced Ayers' radical actions in the 1960's. Here's the skinny, they've known each other for a while. They sat on the board for the Woods Fund and Davide Axelrod even went as far as saying the had a "friendly relationship".

I'm not saying that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, but his connections with ACORN and Ayers raises some questions about his judgement. Questions that we as Free Americans want answers to. McCain and Palin have brought these up in political rallies throughout the US, and Obama just keeps avoiding the straight answer. Obama even went as far as saying that McCain didn't have the guts to bring up these ties in their most recent town-hall style debate. In case some of you missed it, the questions never got asked by the moderator or by the members of the assembled public.

I hope that McCain brings these point to light in the next debate, and I further hope that Obama has the intestinal fortitude to answer these questions truthfully, which could be a stretch, considering his strong diffusions and denials so far.

Jordan Fleck

... And They Plan to Vote ...

I received an email yesterday that was both funny and disturbing at the same time. I will say this up front, I am not a fan of Howard Stern. He sent one of his radio people into Harlem to get their take on the upcoming election, and who they planned on voting for. Most stated that they would be voting on Barack Obama. Definately not a surprising bit of information, however they went a step further and asked whick political stances were the most important in helping them make their decision on voting for Obama. What was disturbing was that instead of using Obama's views and stances they relaced them with McCain's.
Have a listen ...

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/uploadhs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

I truly want to believe that Americans are educated enough to take just a little bit of time from their lives to educate themselves on the political views of these two men, instead of just voting based on image. I am disgusted and angry that these people are even planning on voting.

The Audacity of a Politician

'World Peace'

It is the consummate answer that is given by numerous beauty pageant contestants, when asked the question on what they want most for the world. It is the phrase that politicians use when asked what they wish to accomplish in their foreign policies. I hate to say it, but 'world peace' does not, and will not ever exist.

The current demands of peacekeeping and humanitarian aid missions have become more common with the growth of global organizations such as NATO and the UN. Our politicians love to promise the help of US forces to render aid and lend a hand into hot-spots the world over, Bosnia, Somalia, East Timor and Kosovo, to name a few. With a hand shake during an photo-op to a government official from a country most Americans have never heard of, they keep the promises coming. As we speak the United States makes up more than 25% of the NATO peacekeeping and humanitarian ais efforts throughout the world.

As nice as 'world peace' sounds, it's a farce. Humanitarian aid missions, athough the intentions are great, are a politician's way of making themselves look good in front of the camera. I understand the intent and purpose of these missions, as I am a veteran of two of them. What most politicians forget to realize is this one really important facet, bullets don't care about humanitarian aid and good intentions. They don't care if you are there to held build shelters, hospitals, roads and schools. They don't care if your heart is in the right place. Just because a soldier is part of a peacekeeping force or humanitarian aid effort, does not make him or her impervious to bullets, bombs, IED's and chemical warfare. How many service members died in Bosnia? Somalia? The answer ... 12 and 45 repectively. Where were the Senators and Congressmen then? Not one outcry. Not one 'let's bring our boys home'.

Senator Obama can decry the war in Iraq. He can say that he never voted for the war, (he didn't by the way ... because he didn't have a vote in the House or the Senate ... he was still a state senator from Illinois). He can shout at the top of his lungs to end the US occupation of Iraq. Why? So we can focus on humanitarian aid efforts in Darfur, where the odds are still greatly stacked against our forces and its missions there. The fact of the matter remains, no matter what the mission, war in Iraq or peacekeeping in Somalia, the loss of American service members is inevitable. It is an unfortunate truth that the loss of any service member, no matter how tragic, is part of the life that they have enlisted for. Is the death justified because it was a peacekeeping mission instead of a war?

I have lost friends in Iraq. Marines that I have served with are placed in cemeteries across America, forever entombed beneath a white marble stone, with just their name and rank. To them, it did not matter that they died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia or Kosovo. Bot they and I believed that this country is the greatest country on God's green earth. They were willing to serve her, and gave their lives. Premature withdrawel from Iraq will only embolden our enemies and strengthen their resolve against us. We will soon find the battlefields on our own shore and in our own neighborhoods.

Senator Obama, due to a severe lack of experience, does not see the justification to a victory in Iraq. He does not have the foresight to see the means to this end. He would rather accept the withdrawel as a foregone conclusion, cut our ties in the region and move on to the more politically correct obligations, like humanitarian aid efforts. What he does not see is that a withdrawel now would mean our return to that region several years from now on one of his peacekeeping and humanitarian aid missions, and as the past has taught us, back to square one.

Americans must think long and hard about the upcoming election. Do they want a leader, or just a politician. Senator Obama is a politician.