Oliver's new cousin!

The Walls family seems to keep growing--first Allie and I get married, and now we both have furry kids. Allie adopted little Bentley (he's a malti-poo) about two weeks ago and Oliver got to meet him for the first time on Saturday. On a scale of 1-10 Oliver's energy level is an 11 and Bentley's is about a... 1.5? Needless to say, Oliver's friendliness was a little much for Bentley, but I think he'll eventually grow on him. Despite the puppy madness, Mom, Dad, Allie and I watched the Auburn game together and were able to hang out, just us, for the first time in a long time. It was definitely nice; I have the most incredible family in the world!

Bentley

Oliver...again (I know I post too many pictures of him)

It's almost a new week (my birthday week!!)... time to iron clothes and get ready for tonight's all new Brothers & Sisters!!

Have a Happy Monday!

No worries...

Well, it turns out all of my worries were completely unwarranted. I picked Oliver up from the vet Thursday afternoon and he hasn't slowed down yet. Fortunately he appears to be in no pain and is completely fine.

Since I wasn't sure what sort of state he'd be in, I passed up going to Auburn today and Brad invited his dad to go. They left this morning to go and cheer on the tigers. Oliver and I are going to do some things around the house (Halloween decorations anyone?) and then go to Mom and Dad's to watch the game. War Eagle!

P.S. Presidential debate last night--wow! I have way to much to say about that. I'll post about it once I can condense my thoughts. However, think about how many times the phrase "You're right, John" or "John's right" was used... hmm...

Say a little prayer...

Oliver's Pre-Surgery Bath

Tomorrow Oliver will be getting neutered and staying overnight at the vet. Yes, that's right, despite Brad's arguments we are having the procedure done. I've read 1,000 articles about how important it is to increasing longevity of life and preventing certain illnesses, so we agreed--why not be proactive?

Although I know it is best for him, I'm a bit nervous. He's obviously never had surgery and we haven't ever boarded him, so he's not used to being in an unfamiliar place. North Shelby County Animal Clinic will be doing the procedure and they come highly recommended, so I know they'll take great care of him; I just have to be a bit more trusting. They kindly let you bring his blankets and toys from home, so hopefully that will offer him some comfort. I can already tell that I will be counting down the hours until we pick him up on Thursday. Say a little prayer for Ollie!

Obamanomics...

When I ran across this column (in the Black and White of all places) I immediately knew that I had to re-post it. The columnist couldn't be more on point with my concerns for just one of the many "changes" we could have in store over the next four years. He gets it, and I pray that more and more people will continue to take off their rose colored glasses and see what's in front of them. Read the below article and really think about it... Philanthropy is one thing (and something I'm a passionate advocate for) but, government mandated wealth redistribution is an entirely different ballgame.

Seeing through Obamanomics

By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist September 14, 2008


ALL THROUGH the spring and summer, opinion polls tracked a growing confidence that Barack Obama could handle the economy better than John McCain. Just before the Democratic convention in August, Gallup had Obama leading McCain on the economy, 54-38 - a 16-point margin. But now Obama's lead has nearly vanished. Gallup's latest numbers show the candidates nearly tied. Just 48 percent say Obama would be more adept at superintending the economy; 45 percent choose McCain.

Looks like voters have started paying attention to Obama's economics. On Sept. 8, Fox News broadcast an interview between Obama and Bill O'Reilly that focused on taxation and the economy. Obama repeated his pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000.

"That's class warfare," O'Reilly objected. "You're taking the wealthy in America, the big earners . . . you're taking money away from them and you're giving it to people who don't. That's called income redistribution. It's a socialist tenet. Come on, you know that."

"Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill," Obama replied. "Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax." He acknowledged that he doesn't enjoy paying taxes either - "you think I like writing the check?" - but that "there are certain things we've got to do." His tax proposal, he explained, was a matter of civility:

"If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude.

"Neighborliness." Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoined the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't is not usually spoken of as neighborly. If Citizen Obama, "sitting pretty," reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip.

Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference?

Perhaps he doesn't. Eager though he may be to compel "neighborliness" in others, he has not been nearly so avid about demonstrating it himself. Barack and Michelle Obama's tax returns show that from 2000 through 2004, when their adjusted gross income averaged nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year, their annual charitable donations amounted to just $2,154 - less than nine-tenths of 1 percent. Not until he entered the US Senate in 2005 and began to be spoken of as a presidential possibility did the Obamas' "neighborliness" become more evident. (In 2005-2007, they gave 5.5 percent of their income to charity.)


Obama claims his proposal would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans, but well over 43 million tax returns, one-third of all those filed, already reflect an income tax liability of zero. In fact, Obama says, his plan would eliminate income taxes for an additional 10 million taxpayers. What he is really proposing, therefore, is not tax relief but a bald transfer of cash - $1,000 per family, he pledges - from the wealthiest Americans to everyone else. In 1972, George McGovern advocated something similar - a $1,000 "demogrant" for every US citizen. Just last year, Hillary Clinton suggested that the government start off every new baby with a $5,000 savings account. Voters didn't take the bait when McGovern and Clinton offered it. Here's betting they won't take it now.

Why not? Because you don't have to be rich to be skeptical when a candidate argues that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, who already pay 40 percent of federal income taxes, aren't being taxed enough. Nor do you have to be an economist to wonder about the grasp of a nominee who tells 95 percent of the public that they can have something for nothing. Obamanomics may look pretty at first glance. But voters are focusing more closely now, and they can see beyond the lipstick.

Vote--It's important!

This will probably be the first of many entries highlighting my intense belief that this election could be the most important one so far in my lifetime (thus explaining Oliver in his campaign shirt to the left). I want to urge everyone to seriously research the candidates and know what they stand for. Charisma only goes so far...does charisma win wars? I think not. Does charisma save an economy? Nope. Will charisma matter when your paycheck decreases while your bills increase? Not even a little. The arrogance and charisma clearly exhibited by one of the candidates may very well be what makes you want to throw the remote at the television when you realize what this charismatic superstar wants to do to our country.

While issues like health care, taxes, education and the economy are key on the election trail, and certainly factors in my decision, character, a strong faith in God and morals and values in line with mine are equally important when I cast my vote in November. The differences between the two candidates (4 if you add in the potential VP's) are monumental and you better believe that this election will greatly impact some of the things you hold most dear. This election could change the face of our country in a way that no one has ever seen. Everything that we pride ourselves on as a country--freedom, free markets, independence, strength and dignity will be challenged.

It is my hope that more people will come to realize this. Realize that we can't have the best of both worlds and pay close attention to the messages your candidate spread. Are the messages strong and consistent across all playing fields? Can you only tax the rich and then expect jobs and wages to increase? Noway, the rich are the ones hiring and paying. With the current state of the economy can you afford to pay more taxes? Not me. Is it the government's job to take care of every individual, regardless of their abilities? No. It is essential to look beyond the flashy talking points and think about substance, consider the effects of certain changes. Think about what it means for you, your family, your community and your country.

We're less than two months away from election day. Now is the time to do your homework, learn about these candidates, their records and their beliefs and make your choice. Pay attention to the upcoming debates, pay attention to what the candidates are saying and learn to ignore extreme liberal media messages.

Study up, register to vote if you haven't and go to the polls on November 4th. The choice is ours and the stakes have never been higher.