The weather outside was frightful for many in the Pacific Emerald City this past week. The roads were icy enough for Nancy Kerrigan to do a triple axle. The cars were slipping around the roads like Sunday at a NASCAR event. Every other level-headed city official would have used salt on the roads to help de-ice the roads and make them safer, but not the geniuses in the Washington city.
Environmentalists have convinced the city council to stop throwing salt on the streets out of fear of it spilling off into the Puget Sound. Since the Sound is full of salt water, it confuses me as to why it's bad to add salt to salt water. I guess too much salt would cause it to become like the Dead Sea, devoid of life because of too much salt. However, the amount of salt that could possibly run-off into the Puget Sound from salt that is put onto the roads a few days a year isn't enough to deaden the Sound. Diane Spector, a water-resources planner for Wenck Associates, which evaluated snow and ice clearance for nine cities in the Midwest, confirmed that using salt periodically will not have a lasting effect on the environment as long it is not used too often or too much.
What do they use instead of salt? They use sand. However, other cities are starting to move away from sand because it backs-up the sewers, goes into waterways, creates air pollution, and costs even more to clean up than salt. In fact, Ann Williams, spokeswoman for Denver's Department of Public Works, admits that they never use sand because it "causes dust, and there's also water-quality issues where it goes into streets and into our rivers." They don't even use enough sand to provide adequate traction, according to experts.
In addition to sand, they
use the method of "snow-packing." This is where they compact the snow and make it a harder surface to drive on, rather than melting it.
What is the result of using the less-efficient method of "snow-packing" and sand? According to the state patrol, they responded to 157 collisions Sunday in King County (Seattle). Troopers also responded to another 312 disabled vehicles.
Between noon and midnight on Saturday alone, the State Patrol responded to 246 collisions and disabled vehicles in King County. Of those mentioned, 179 occurred between 5 p.m. and midnight, when it would be the iciest.
"It's tough going. I won't argue with you on that," said Alex Wiggins, the chief of staff for the Seattle Department of Transprtation. "We're sensitive about everything we do that impacts the environment." If that is so, why are they using an element that is more environmentally destructive than salt especially when the salt is more effective? The amount of accidents and broken down cars on the side of the rode around Seattle is just ridiculous. Driving around in icy conditions is dangerous enough. Do we really need to use an inferior product to keep our families safe while they are driving this holiday season? The accidents luckily didn't result in any deaths, but it could have been a very different story.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
To Bail or Not to Bail: A Motor City Tale
President Bush has ok'd a $17.4 B bailout package for GM and Chrysler earlier today. Ford pulled out of the bailout for now. Pres. Bush thought that the economy is too fragile to let those two huge companies fail. He went against the Senate Republicans who were opposed to it.
Much has been said over the last few weeks about the Big 3/AWU bailout. Everything from planes, trains, and automobiles have been discussed. The emergency room doctors are doing all they can to keep the patients alive. GM, Chrysler, and Ford have all been shot in the assault on our economy. So far, Ford is in critical but stable condition. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, are in the Intensive Care Unit. They have massive internal bleeding and are beginning to bleed out, and they are desperate for a blood transfusion.
Should we give them just the transfusion, or should we do the surgery to stop the bleeding? That is the dilemma that is facing Drs. Pelosi, Reid, and Bush right now in Washington.
To bail or not to bail? That is the question that has plagued Washington for a few months now. Who do we bailout? Where do we draw the proverbial line in the sand? The Republicans want to draw the line at the automotive giants. The Democrats don't seem to know what a line is. The $14 B bailout is needed to keep GM and Chrysler from going into chapter 11 bankruptcy. There are those "Chicken Little's" that say that Ch. 11 bankruptcy would spell doom for the Big 3 and the US economy and that people wouldn't buy cars from a company that goes into ch. 11. There are, also, some that say that the bailout would spell doom for our country by raising the national debt and taking us one step closer to bankruptcy as a nation.
Let's first look at what chapter 11 is and is not. It doesn't mean that the company is going out of business. Chapter 11 will enable the companies to reorganize its debt and renegotiate its contracts. The company will still exist.
One major argument for the bailout is people would be scared to buy from a company under going chapter 11. They are scared that, if the companies go under, there will not be anyone to fix their cars that are still under warranty. There have been some polls that seem to confirm this theory. A recent Fox poll said that 59% of people would not buy a car from a company in bankruptcy. If people really understood what chapter 11 bankruptcy really is, they would not fear buying from companies in chapter 11. Perhaps Congress should use the money that they want to give the companies to insure the warranties of the people that buy the new cars. If people weren't afraid of being left out in the cold with their warranties when one or all of the Big 3 folded, they would not be so reluctant and would be more likely to buy the cars.
Another reason some give to them a bridge loan is that there the effect on all of those people that is currently being employed getting layed off would be catastrophic to the entire US economy. They have a point with this argument. It would have a disastrous impact on the entire country, if they went down. However, under chapter 11, they wouldn't totally dissolve. They would just restructure how they operate. A few might be layed off, but not the amount of what is being floated around. Filing for ch. 11 doesn't automatically mean that the collapse of the company is inevitable. There have been other companies that filed for chapter 11 that didn't collapse. Texaco, Delta, and Continental Airlines all filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy over the years. (Continental has filed twice.) They are all still around and profitable today.
One thing that a ch. 11 bankruptcy would do is make any contracts null and void, including the contract with the United Auto Workers. I believe that is the real reason why the union and the Democrats that are in their pocket are so against filing for Chapter 11. The UAW doesn't want their contracts to be voided. They know that they got a sweetheart deal that they could not get again. They were able to get the Big 3 to start a Job Bank program, which is a program that guarantees laid off workers would still receive full pay and benefits from the company until they find another job or they find another position for them. These workers could receive funds from the program for up to two years for doing nothing. According to research done in 2005 by The Detroit News, 12,000 laid off workers from the Big 3 plus Delphi Corp. were still receiving regular paychecks and benefits for doing nothing. How could they expect the companies to be financially viable while being dragged down by all that dead weight? The four auto companies above combined spent over $4 B on this program alone.
According the Heritage Foundation's research, the Big 3 pay their employees over $70 p/ hour including current wages and future benefits like retirement pensions. About $30 of that is current cash wages, plus an additional $10 a hour on average for overtime pay. The rest, which comes to about $31 p/ hour, is for medical, dental, and life insurance and unemployment and retirement benefits. On average, all other private sector workers makes about $25 p/ hour. That is a $45 a hour difference. No company can afford that. To contrast their foreign counterparts that have factories in other parts of the country, especially the South, they pay the people just over $40 p/ hour for current and future benefits, and they are doing much better financially than Detroit.
The Legacy benefits are also a problem for the Big 3. These are the health benefits and pensions for current retirees. Retirement pensions alone cost them an additional $31 p/ hour per current active worker.
The GOP was wanting the UAW to make concessions that would make sure that both companies would be viable in the future. They wanted the union to discontinue the job banks program and make their pay more "competitive" with other auto companies across the country. The UAW knew that the administration wouldn't let the companies file ch. 11, so they would not agree to any significant changes. They said that they would temporarily suspend the job banks program for 1 year and little else. The Republicans wanted more concrete changes. Most of the Republicans that were against the bailout represent states in the South where unions don't have a hold on the foreign automakers in those right- to-work states. They see how well that those companies operate and would like the Big 3 to become more like them, so they can stay in business for a long time and keep Americans employed.
Bush did tell the UAW that they must stop the job banks program and become more competitive with their counterparts, but Obama could reverse that in one month as he takes office. Obama was quoted as saying, "The auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required to save this critical industry and millions of American jobs that depend on it." Anyone else catch that he only mentioned that the companies must change and not anything about the UAW needing to change, too? That doesn't make me feel too good about him keeping the demands on the union intact after he takes office. They need to force the union to accept a new agreement with the auto companies that would make it possible for the companies to survive.
I'm not saying that GM, Chrysler, and Ford are innocent in their financial difficulties. No one put a gun to their head to accept the UAW's demands. They were arrogant enough to think that they would always dominate the market before the rise of foreign automobiles. The CEOs of the companies insistent on pushing SUVs and trucks on a public that was starting to lean towards more fuel efficient models. They refused to listen to their customers, and it cost them many loyal customers. This summer's gas spike cemented the gas guzzlers fate.
The government deserves some blame, too. They put strict guidelines on what Detroit could make. Some regulations are needed, but they went overboard on some things. The Democrats' refusal to drill more offshore, in Alaska, and the Rockies has helped bring down Detroit.
There needs to be an overhaul on how the industry operates. They need to put more fuel efficient and alternative fuel cars on the market, and they renegotiate the contracts they have no matter how hard the UAW and their supporters in the government whine and resist. To let them crumble would devastate the economy, but throwing money at them and letting them stay the course that has led the to the brink of bankruptcy would be even worse. This would be increasing our national debt for nothing. Giving them a bailout without strings attached that would make the company financially viable is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound to the aorta. It is useless and the patients will die anyway. It would just delay the inevitable. We should help Detroit but only if they will help themselves.
Much has been said over the last few weeks about the Big 3/AWU bailout. Everything from planes, trains, and automobiles have been discussed. The emergency room doctors are doing all they can to keep the patients alive. GM, Chrysler, and Ford have all been shot in the assault on our economy. So far, Ford is in critical but stable condition. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, are in the Intensive Care Unit. They have massive internal bleeding and are beginning to bleed out, and they are desperate for a blood transfusion.
Should we give them just the transfusion, or should we do the surgery to stop the bleeding? That is the dilemma that is facing Drs. Pelosi, Reid, and Bush right now in Washington.
To bail or not to bail? That is the question that has plagued Washington for a few months now. Who do we bailout? Where do we draw the proverbial line in the sand? The Republicans want to draw the line at the automotive giants. The Democrats don't seem to know what a line is. The $14 B bailout is needed to keep GM and Chrysler from going into chapter 11 bankruptcy. There are those "Chicken Little's" that say that Ch. 11 bankruptcy would spell doom for the Big 3 and the US economy and that people wouldn't buy cars from a company that goes into ch. 11. There are, also, some that say that the bailout would spell doom for our country by raising the national debt and taking us one step closer to bankruptcy as a nation.
Let's first look at what chapter 11 is and is not. It doesn't mean that the company is going out of business. Chapter 11 will enable the companies to reorganize its debt and renegotiate its contracts. The company will still exist.
One major argument for the bailout is people would be scared to buy from a company under going chapter 11. They are scared that, if the companies go under, there will not be anyone to fix their cars that are still under warranty. There have been some polls that seem to confirm this theory. A recent Fox poll said that 59% of people would not buy a car from a company in bankruptcy. If people really understood what chapter 11 bankruptcy really is, they would not fear buying from companies in chapter 11. Perhaps Congress should use the money that they want to give the companies to insure the warranties of the people that buy the new cars. If people weren't afraid of being left out in the cold with their warranties when one or all of the Big 3 folded, they would not be so reluctant and would be more likely to buy the cars.
Another reason some give to them a bridge loan is that there the effect on all of those people that is currently being employed getting layed off would be catastrophic to the entire US economy. They have a point with this argument. It would have a disastrous impact on the entire country, if they went down. However, under chapter 11, they wouldn't totally dissolve. They would just restructure how they operate. A few might be layed off, but not the amount of what is being floated around. Filing for ch. 11 doesn't automatically mean that the collapse of the company is inevitable. There have been other companies that filed for chapter 11 that didn't collapse. Texaco, Delta, and Continental Airlines all filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy over the years. (Continental has filed twice.) They are all still around and profitable today.
One thing that a ch. 11 bankruptcy would do is make any contracts null and void, including the contract with the United Auto Workers. I believe that is the real reason why the union and the Democrats that are in their pocket are so against filing for Chapter 11. The UAW doesn't want their contracts to be voided. They know that they got a sweetheart deal that they could not get again. They were able to get the Big 3 to start a Job Bank program, which is a program that guarantees laid off workers would still receive full pay and benefits from the company until they find another job or they find another position for them. These workers could receive funds from the program for up to two years for doing nothing. According to research done in 2005 by The Detroit News, 12,000 laid off workers from the Big 3 plus Delphi Corp. were still receiving regular paychecks and benefits for doing nothing. How could they expect the companies to be financially viable while being dragged down by all that dead weight? The four auto companies above combined spent over $4 B on this program alone.
According the Heritage Foundation's research, the Big 3 pay their employees over $70 p/ hour including current wages and future benefits like retirement pensions. About $30 of that is current cash wages, plus an additional $10 a hour on average for overtime pay. The rest, which comes to about $31 p/ hour, is for medical, dental, and life insurance and unemployment and retirement benefits. On average, all other private sector workers makes about $25 p/ hour. That is a $45 a hour difference. No company can afford that. To contrast their foreign counterparts that have factories in other parts of the country, especially the South, they pay the people just over $40 p/ hour for current and future benefits, and they are doing much better financially than Detroit.
The Legacy benefits are also a problem for the Big 3. These are the health benefits and pensions for current retirees. Retirement pensions alone cost them an additional $31 p/ hour per current active worker.
The GOP was wanting the UAW to make concessions that would make sure that both companies would be viable in the future. They wanted the union to discontinue the job banks program and make their pay more "competitive" with other auto companies across the country. The UAW knew that the administration wouldn't let the companies file ch. 11, so they would not agree to any significant changes. They said that they would temporarily suspend the job banks program for 1 year and little else. The Republicans wanted more concrete changes. Most of the Republicans that were against the bailout represent states in the South where unions don't have a hold on the foreign automakers in those right- to-work states. They see how well that those companies operate and would like the Big 3 to become more like them, so they can stay in business for a long time and keep Americans employed.
Bush did tell the UAW that they must stop the job banks program and become more competitive with their counterparts, but Obama could reverse that in one month as he takes office. Obama was quoted as saying, "The auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required to save this critical industry and millions of American jobs that depend on it." Anyone else catch that he only mentioned that the companies must change and not anything about the UAW needing to change, too? That doesn't make me feel too good about him keeping the demands on the union intact after he takes office. They need to force the union to accept a new agreement with the auto companies that would make it possible for the companies to survive.
I'm not saying that GM, Chrysler, and Ford are innocent in their financial difficulties. No one put a gun to their head to accept the UAW's demands. They were arrogant enough to think that they would always dominate the market before the rise of foreign automobiles. The CEOs of the companies insistent on pushing SUVs and trucks on a public that was starting to lean towards more fuel efficient models. They refused to listen to their customers, and it cost them many loyal customers. This summer's gas spike cemented the gas guzzlers fate.
The government deserves some blame, too. They put strict guidelines on what Detroit could make. Some regulations are needed, but they went overboard on some things. The Democrats' refusal to drill more offshore, in Alaska, and the Rockies has helped bring down Detroit.
There needs to be an overhaul on how the industry operates. They need to put more fuel efficient and alternative fuel cars on the market, and they renegotiate the contracts they have no matter how hard the UAW and their supporters in the government whine and resist. To let them crumble would devastate the economy, but throwing money at them and letting them stay the course that has led the to the brink of bankruptcy would be even worse. This would be increasing our national debt for nothing. Giving them a bailout without strings attached that would make the company financially viable is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound to the aorta. It is useless and the patients will die anyway. It would just delay the inevitable. We should help Detroit but only if they will help themselves.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Gov. Blagojevich Receives Odd Birthday Present
Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois received an early birthday present from US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, silver metal bracelets. Gov. Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested early tuesday morning, the day before the governor's 52nd birthday, for corruption and a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy which included trying to sell-off Obama's vacated US Senate seat to the highest bidder. This is just another instance of the wide spread corruption of the Chicago-style political machine that has become all too commonplace in Illinois. The governor had approval ratings as low as 4% in mid-October. Not even President Bush (in the teens) or the Democratic lead Congress (9% earlier this year) has had ratings that low, ever.
Blagojevich was elected with the campaign promise to "clean up corruption" from George Ryan's, republican, previous gubernatorial administration in Illinois. Yet, the level of corruption in Blagojevich's administration is "staggering" according to Fitzgerald. The US attorney went on to call his actions a "political corruption crime spree," and said Blagojevich's "conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave."
He was allegedly looking for potential replacements to Obama's vacated seat to give him financial compensation for the appointment to the US Senate. He said the seat "is a [expletive] valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing." He even contemplated giving the seat to himself. He was quoted saying: "I'm going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain." He went on to say that if he receives nothing of value for the seat, than he will keep it. He was allegedly looking for money that would be put into his re-election campaign, a high-paying job for his wife or him after he leaves office, and/or a nomination into a cabinet position in the Obama administration in exchange for an appointment into the Senate. He did everything but put the appointment on eBay to make a profit on his position.
Also, in a move that would make Nixon proud, Gov. Blagojevich blackmailed the Tribune to fire certain columnists that wrote unfavorable things about him like possible impeachment. The governor allegedly told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board that if they would fire those writers, then he would approve state financial assistance and approval with the sale and operation of the Chicago Cubs baseball team or Wrigley Field, which are both owned by the company.
None of this is directly linked to President-elect Obama. US Attorney Fitzgerald has said that the Presisdent-elect is not a subject in this investigation at this time. However, there are some discrepancies between what those in the transition team say about how much contact Obama has had with the governor and Obama himself. Obama said that there has been no contact between him and Blagojevich and no conversation with him about his successor. On the other hand, David Axelrod said two weeks ago that there had been discussions between the two about the Senate vacancy, and there is a picture of him with the governor talking on December 2nd. Obviously, the Obama team is trying to distance themselves from the governor. According to various reports, they haven't been known to be very close over the years, so there doesn't seem to be any deep connections between the two. I believe that the Obama people may have been in minimal contact with the governor about the vacancy, and they didn't have any active part in the conspiracy. There is evidence coming from the wiretaps of Blagojevich's phone conversations that Obama wouldn't give anything more than "appreciation" if the president-elect's pick was chosen. The Illinois governor reportedly didn't appreciate the gesture. "They're (Obama's team) not willing to give me anything except appreciation (for picking Obama's choice of replacement candidate). [Expletive] them.", said the governor on one of his wiretapped phone calls. Now on one hand, this quote seems to indicate that Obama isn't guilty of participating in the governor's alleged crimes, but on the other hand, how do they know that Obama wouldn't give them anything but appreciation, if they had no contact whatsoever as Obama claims. The question is probably not did Obama actively participate, but rather how much did he know about what Blagojevich was doing? Was the president-elect aware of his activities but was too complacent to do anything or even care? If the Obama team did know, why didn't they report it to the authorities?
In addition to the previous charges, the governor has, also, been accused of making organizations and businesses, including Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, contribute to and/or hold fundraisers for his campaign fund in order to receive public financing for various projects.
There needs to be a major house cleaning in Chicago. The political environment of the "Windy City" is toxic. It almost brought down the Obama campaign in the primary. Whether it is Bill Ayres, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, etc., there has been widespread corruption in the Chicago machine. The "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" mentality has led the city and the state as a whole to be one of the dirtiest, if not the dirtiest, in the game.
Blagojevich was elected with the campaign promise to "clean up corruption" from George Ryan's, republican, previous gubernatorial administration in Illinois. Yet, the level of corruption in Blagojevich's administration is "staggering" according to Fitzgerald. The US attorney went on to call his actions a "political corruption crime spree," and said Blagojevich's "conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave."
He was allegedly looking for potential replacements to Obama's vacated seat to give him financial compensation for the appointment to the US Senate. He said the seat "is a [expletive] valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing." He even contemplated giving the seat to himself. He was quoted saying: "I'm going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain." He went on to say that if he receives nothing of value for the seat, than he will keep it. He was allegedly looking for money that would be put into his re-election campaign, a high-paying job for his wife or him after he leaves office, and/or a nomination into a cabinet position in the Obama administration in exchange for an appointment into the Senate. He did everything but put the appointment on eBay to make a profit on his position.
Also, in a move that would make Nixon proud, Gov. Blagojevich blackmailed the Tribune to fire certain columnists that wrote unfavorable things about him like possible impeachment. The governor allegedly told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board that if they would fire those writers, then he would approve state financial assistance and approval with the sale and operation of the Chicago Cubs baseball team or Wrigley Field, which are both owned by the company.
None of this is directly linked to President-elect Obama. US Attorney Fitzgerald has said that the Presisdent-elect is not a subject in this investigation at this time. However, there are some discrepancies between what those in the transition team say about how much contact Obama has had with the governor and Obama himself. Obama said that there has been no contact between him and Blagojevich and no conversation with him about his successor. On the other hand, David Axelrod said two weeks ago that there had been discussions between the two about the Senate vacancy, and there is a picture of him with the governor talking on December 2nd. Obviously, the Obama team is trying to distance themselves from the governor. According to various reports, they haven't been known to be very close over the years, so there doesn't seem to be any deep connections between the two. I believe that the Obama people may have been in minimal contact with the governor about the vacancy, and they didn't have any active part in the conspiracy. There is evidence coming from the wiretaps of Blagojevich's phone conversations that Obama wouldn't give anything more than "appreciation" if the president-elect's pick was chosen. The Illinois governor reportedly didn't appreciate the gesture. "They're (Obama's team) not willing to give me anything except appreciation (for picking Obama's choice of replacement candidate). [Expletive] them.", said the governor on one of his wiretapped phone calls. Now on one hand, this quote seems to indicate that Obama isn't guilty of participating in the governor's alleged crimes, but on the other hand, how do they know that Obama wouldn't give them anything but appreciation, if they had no contact whatsoever as Obama claims. The question is probably not did Obama actively participate, but rather how much did he know about what Blagojevich was doing? Was the president-elect aware of his activities but was too complacent to do anything or even care? If the Obama team did know, why didn't they report it to the authorities?
In addition to the previous charges, the governor has, also, been accused of making organizations and businesses, including Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, contribute to and/or hold fundraisers for his campaign fund in order to receive public financing for various projects.
There needs to be a major house cleaning in Chicago. The political environment of the "Windy City" is toxic. It almost brought down the Obama campaign in the primary. Whether it is Bill Ayres, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, etc., there has been widespread corruption in the Chicago machine. The "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" mentality has led the city and the state as a whole to be one of the dirtiest, if not the dirtiest, in the game.
Friday, December 5, 2008
'Tis the Season to be Offensive
The holiday season has arrived and so has the contempt for religion. In the land of legal, nude bike riding, there is a new holiday display at the state capitol of Washington that isn't so jolly. Freedom From Religion, an atheist group, put up a display next to a Christian nativity scene and a "holiday" tree in which they make controversial statements about religion in general.
The placard says, "May reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." They go on to also say that the winter solstice is the real reason for the season, and they plea that we need to keep church and state separate. This is offensive to the majority of Americans who believe in one religion or another. No matter if you are a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Scientologist, this an attack on the core beliefs of your religion.
Someone needs to give organizations like Freedom From Religion a copy of the Bill of Rights because I don't think that they have ever read it. It doesn't say "freedom from religion" or "freedom of speech except for religious content". It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech". That means no matter how much they don't like it, we can talk about religion anywhere that we see fit even in schools. I'm not saying that they don't have a right to say what they believe, but they should be tactful. They could have said something like "Just be good for goodness sake". That would have been fine. However, they had to belittle and demean other religions. Why is there such hatred for the religious in this country? We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The attacks need to stop.
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington could have asked them to tone down the offensive rhetoric without trampling on their freedoms of religion and speech. That was not the time or the place for such divisive language. By saying that religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds", they spew hateful and discriminatory speech against the religious people of this great nation. You wouldn't see a tribute of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, next to a tribute of Martin Luther King on MLK day, nor would you see a NAZI swastika next to a menorah celebrating Hanukkah.
Freedom From Religion co-president, Dan Barker, says, "Our members want equal time not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table." Whatever...They don't just want a place at the table. They, also, want a megaphone to make fun of all those that disagree with them at that table. What the display portrayed wasn't just their beliefs, but an attack on other's beliefs. Even many of the liberals that usually champion atheists and the overblown separation of church and state, like David Goldstein, agree that the way it was worded was way over the top.
Gov. Gregoire needs to take down the display and ask them reapply a display that isn't such a huge embarrassment for the state. Like many left-wing ideas that are said to be made not to offend some, they actually offend many. The state of Washington has become a rising hotbed of left-wing lunacy for some time now. They are starting to rival San Francisco in stupidity. We need to send a letter or call Olympia and tell the governor that such offensive language doesn't belong in the public square.
The placard says, "May reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." They go on to also say that the winter solstice is the real reason for the season, and they plea that we need to keep church and state separate. This is offensive to the majority of Americans who believe in one religion or another. No matter if you are a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Scientologist, this an attack on the core beliefs of your religion.
Someone needs to give organizations like Freedom From Religion a copy of the Bill of Rights because I don't think that they have ever read it. It doesn't say "freedom from religion" or "freedom of speech except for religious content". It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech". That means no matter how much they don't like it, we can talk about religion anywhere that we see fit even in schools. I'm not saying that they don't have a right to say what they believe, but they should be tactful. They could have said something like "Just be good for goodness sake". That would have been fine. However, they had to belittle and demean other religions. Why is there such hatred for the religious in this country? We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The attacks need to stop.
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington could have asked them to tone down the offensive rhetoric without trampling on their freedoms of religion and speech. That was not the time or the place for such divisive language. By saying that religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds", they spew hateful and discriminatory speech against the religious people of this great nation. You wouldn't see a tribute of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, next to a tribute of Martin Luther King on MLK day, nor would you see a NAZI swastika next to a menorah celebrating Hanukkah.
Freedom From Religion co-president, Dan Barker, says, "Our members want equal time not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table." Whatever...They don't just want a place at the table. They, also, want a megaphone to make fun of all those that disagree with them at that table. What the display portrayed wasn't just their beliefs, but an attack on other's beliefs. Even many of the liberals that usually champion atheists and the overblown separation of church and state, like David Goldstein, agree that the way it was worded was way over the top.
Gov. Gregoire needs to take down the display and ask them reapply a display that isn't such a huge embarrassment for the state. Like many left-wing ideas that are said to be made not to offend some, they actually offend many. The state of Washington has become a rising hotbed of left-wing lunacy for some time now. They are starting to rival San Francisco in stupidity. We need to send a letter or call Olympia and tell the governor that such offensive language doesn't belong in the public square.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
PC Nuts Attack Thanksgiving in California
The politically correct fruitcakes are attempting to ruin Thanksgiving for the kindergarten students of two Claremont, California schools. The two schools said that it will suspend the tradition of having their students dress-up as Pilgrims and Indians during an joint event celebrating the holiday. For over four decades, the two schools have come together while one school dressed as Indians and the other as Pilgrims. Now, a few in the loudmouth minority have muscled the two schools into discontinuing the tradition.
This has sparked a huge controversy in this once quiet small town. People are divided in between those who want traditional Thanksgiving depictions and those who want Thanksgiving to have no visual references to the original guests at the Thanksgiving dinner. They feel that the way that Native Americans are dressed is a racial stereotype that must be averted. Now, I don't believe that modern day Native Americans shouldn't be represented in such a way. I don't know any that still dress like that, but the historically accurate portrayals of Indians from the first traditional Thanksgiving didn't wear a t-shirt and jeans. They wore moccasins, feathers, and other stereotypical dress.
"It's demeaning," Michelle Raheja, the mother of a kindergartner at Condit Elementary School, wrote to her daughter's teacher. "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."
She is greatly misrepresenting the dynamic of the traditional first Thanksgiving. (The actual first Thanksgiving was in Virginia not Plymouth Rock three years earlier.) Comparing the pilgrims to slave masters or Nazis is like comparing Ghandi or Martin Luther King to Osama Bin Ladin. They don't portray Lieutenant George Custer dining with Squanto. The Pilgrims were a very peaceful people. There is not one account of them mistreating the Indians or trying to eradicate them.
Raheja, who is of Native American descent, went on to call dressing up like Native Americans of that era racist stereotypes. Is dressing up like Squanto or Pochahontas racist? No. She feels that it demeans her as a stereotypical Native American, but there are others who disagree with her. Kathleen Lucas, a parent of Choctaw heritage, said that her son was proud to wear the clothes of his ancestors.
Many people cower to the politically minority because they have the biggest and loudest mouths. Most of Americans don't want to secularize the holidays or become so uptight with all the land mines we have to evade in the PC culture that is so prevelant today. People wouldn't dare to disagree with them because of the fear of being called racist, sexist, or just plain mean and hateful. I'm personally tired of a few knuckleheads telling me what to do or wear because they think that they are better.
Dressing up in the historically accurate dress for the Indians at the time is not racist. It might be racist to have modern day Native Americans portrayed in that way, but not in a historical reenactment. Where does this insanity that is political correctedness end? Will Shakespeare's "Caesar" have to be played by men in three piece suits, so we do not offend Italians by having them dress in togas and sandals? The insanity must come to an end.
This has sparked a huge controversy in this once quiet small town. People are divided in between those who want traditional Thanksgiving depictions and those who want Thanksgiving to have no visual references to the original guests at the Thanksgiving dinner. They feel that the way that Native Americans are dressed is a racial stereotype that must be averted. Now, I don't believe that modern day Native Americans shouldn't be represented in such a way. I don't know any that still dress like that, but the historically accurate portrayals of Indians from the first traditional Thanksgiving didn't wear a t-shirt and jeans. They wore moccasins, feathers, and other stereotypical dress.
"It's demeaning," Michelle Raheja, the mother of a kindergartner at Condit Elementary School, wrote to her daughter's teacher. "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."
She is greatly misrepresenting the dynamic of the traditional first Thanksgiving. (The actual first Thanksgiving was in Virginia not Plymouth Rock three years earlier.) Comparing the pilgrims to slave masters or Nazis is like comparing Ghandi or Martin Luther King to Osama Bin Ladin. They don't portray Lieutenant George Custer dining with Squanto. The Pilgrims were a very peaceful people. There is not one account of them mistreating the Indians or trying to eradicate them.
Raheja, who is of Native American descent, went on to call dressing up like Native Americans of that era racist stereotypes. Is dressing up like Squanto or Pochahontas racist? No. She feels that it demeans her as a stereotypical Native American, but there are others who disagree with her. Kathleen Lucas, a parent of Choctaw heritage, said that her son was proud to wear the clothes of his ancestors.
Many people cower to the politically minority because they have the biggest and loudest mouths. Most of Americans don't want to secularize the holidays or become so uptight with all the land mines we have to evade in the PC culture that is so prevelant today. People wouldn't dare to disagree with them because of the fear of being called racist, sexist, or just plain mean and hateful. I'm personally tired of a few knuckleheads telling me what to do or wear because they think that they are better.
Dressing up in the historically accurate dress for the Indians at the time is not racist. It might be racist to have modern day Native Americans portrayed in that way, but not in a historical reenactment. Where does this insanity that is political correctedness end? Will Shakespeare's "Caesar" have to be played by men in three piece suits, so we do not offend Italians by having them dress in togas and sandals? The insanity must come to an end.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
GOP Blue Chippers Looking to Break Into Majors
Who is the next MVP of the GOP? That is a red hot topic on the beltway. Many on the left are gloating at the demise of the Republican Party. However, this is just the down part of the cycle for the party of Lincoln. The demise of the party was greatly exaggerated in 1932 and again in 1974. The party rebounded both times. The Democratic party has also faced similar trials in 1980, 1994, and 2000. This is nothing new.
Their major league roster is just getting older and more inconsistent. The republicans need fresh blood. Just like in any professional sport, they will have to dip into the minors to find new talent and replace the aging veterans. The process is not going to be quick. It usually takes a team a few years to become competitive again especially without the benefit of free agency. Blue chip talent has to be found and developed. Then, they have to be thrown out there to see which one sticks. Who is going to be the next Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan? Who will bring the GOP Pachydermous (Elephants) out of the cellar and beat those Democratic Jackasses (Hey that is the correct term for a donkey. Don't get mad at me.) to win the Congressional and White House trophies?
Triple A-These are the ones who have the best shot at challenging President-elect Obama and the democrats in 2010 and 2012.
I would be remiss, if I didn't mention Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She has already has the capability to draw tens-of-thousands to hear her speak. A flood of money came into the McCain campaign and the RNC after the announcement of her candidacy, so you know that she will be able to compete with the fundraising ability of the democrats. Her mayoral and gubernatorial record is very impressive. She was able to cut spending and earmarks while drastically cutting taxes. She took a 10% pay cut while mayor and sold the private jet used for the governor's office in order to save money. Corruption in her state ran rampant. She fought and won to take out those who were corrupt even those in her own party. She has had approval ratings reaching over 90%. Her popularity in her state is perhaps the best in the whole country. She is without a doubt a rising star in the party and probable front-runner in 2012.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota, is another who was thought to be a possible VP pick. He has been the governor of Minnesota since 2003. In his first year as governor, he balanced the state budget. Minnesota went from $4.3 B deficit to more than $2 B surplus with very little up charge in state fees. He went overseas to build up trade in between Minnesota businesses and the international community.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana, is also an up-and-comer for the republicans. He was in the running for vice-president under McCain. He showed outstanding leadership during Hurricane Gustav. He oversaw the largest and smoothest evacuation in US history. It was a huge step up from the disastrous handling of Katrina by all levels of government. He has been in office of governor for less than one year, but many say that he is very bright with a reformer's mentality.
Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana won re-election this year by a twenty point margin in a year that Obama won the state. Daniels was able to turn a $600 M deficit into a $300 M surplus in one year without any tax increases by creating the Office of Management and Budget in 2005. The new office was created to find better ways to spend the state's money and cost savings. He used the surplus to pay back money borrowed by previous administrations. Daniels, also, created the Indiana Economic Development Corporation which was started to attract new businesses to the state. From 2005-2007 they posted three consecutive record-breaking years for new investment and job commitments. The IDEC was able to lure Toyota, Honda, and Cummins into the state. To put it in perspective, over 100,000 jobs have been created since he took office in 2005. He passed the Healthy Indiana Plan that helped 132,000 people pay for healthcare. He also removed some barriers to coverage due to pre-existing conditions. He reformed property taxes to the lowest in the nation earlier this year. To compensate, he had to raise sales taxes but just by 1%. He may be a bit older than the previous mentions, but he can still make a lot of waves over the next four years.
Gov. Mark Sanford, S. Carolina, is another who has been receiving praise. He has a track record of using vetoes to cut pork-barrell spending even when bucking his own party and having them overridden anyway. He has said that he plans to retire from politics after his current term, but he could change his mind by 2010.
Double A-These next few potential blue-chippers are still very young or new to the scene but have been predicted to do great things by many pundits.
Rep. Paul Ryan has been mentioned by people like Newt Gingrich as being bright and a real future star. He has won over 60% of the vote in a district the Obama won by 53%-46%. Ryan has been coming up with a lot of new ideas that will help make republicans a party of ideas again. This past summer he released his "Road Map for America's Future." This is similar to Gingrich and the republican's "Contract With America" back in the early 90's.
There is Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia who is rumored to become the next house minority whip, the second highest ranking republican in the House.
Former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland has become a prominent voice for conservatives as the current GOPAC chairman. He is also looking to become the next chairman of the Republican National Committee at the beginning of next year.
Returning veterans-These are some in the party that could be coming back to the scene. They still are relatively young and still have the desire in them.
Mitt Romney-He was a highly successful businessman. He was asked to return to Bain & Co. as CEO to save it from financial ruin. Within one year, he was able to turn around the company to profitability without any layoffs or partner defections. He left Bain to do the same thing to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The Olympic Committee was running on a $379 M deficit in 1999. After he joined as president and CEO of the committee, the games ended up with a $100 M profit. He did this by cleaning up the corruption and many budget cuts. He did this while still spending $300 M on security for keeping the games safe from terrorist threats. He gave his entire salary to charity. Upon entering the office of governor of Massachusetts, he faced a $1.2 B deficit. By 2006, he turned that into a $700 M surplus through a combination of spending cuts and raising taxes and fees. However, after the surplus was achieved, he was able to cut taxes. Romney does have a problem with his "for it before he was against it" record on abortion. Also, the tax burden was higher when he left office than when he went in, but many of his spending cuts were overridden by the state legislature.
Mike Huckabee-He ran for president this year and finished second overall. He has a huge following with black conservatives. He received almost 50% of the black vote when running for governor of Arkansas. He reformed healthcare which made it more available to low-income families. While he was governor in 2001, he was named a "friend of the taxpayer" by Americans for Tax Reform for his statewide spending cuts even though he did raise some taxes on gas and nursing homes. His tax policies and rise in state debt have garnered a lot of controversy though. However, overall he was able to cut those on welfare by almost half and grew the economy by 4.4% which was larger than the national average.
Dark horses-Those that have an outside chance at rising in the party.
Former Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida, would have been a bigger contender, but the unpopularity of W. will more than likely prevent his rise to higher office, unfortunately.
Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi is also a dark horse to make some noise within the next few years. He handled Katrina tremendously and has cut a lot of frivolous spending.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has been a bright spot in the party. He has been sucessful at balancing the state budget, improving the transportation infrastructure, and bringing jobs into Texas.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has also been talked about making a comeback in the next few years. He is still a very polarizing figure, however. That might make it hard for him to make a run for the presidency in 2012.
The Senate has been pretty much depleted of any young talent for the republicans. However, these are some of the names of some possible long shots to be a phoenix that rises out the ashes in the Senate: John Cornyn of Texas, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Thune of S. Dakota, Lindsay Graham of S. Carolina, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
The Republican Party might be down, but they are not out by any stretch of the imagination. Both parties have been down before and have risen back into power. In time, it will happen again. The GOP must focus on what brought them to the show in the first place lowering taxes, reform, and fiscal responsibility.
Their major league roster is just getting older and more inconsistent. The republicans need fresh blood. Just like in any professional sport, they will have to dip into the minors to find new talent and replace the aging veterans. The process is not going to be quick. It usually takes a team a few years to become competitive again especially without the benefit of free agency. Blue chip talent has to be found and developed. Then, they have to be thrown out there to see which one sticks. Who is going to be the next Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan? Who will bring the GOP Pachydermous (Elephants) out of the cellar and beat those Democratic Jackasses (Hey that is the correct term for a donkey. Don't get mad at me.) to win the Congressional and White House trophies?
Triple A-These are the ones who have the best shot at challenging President-elect Obama and the democrats in 2010 and 2012.
I would be remiss, if I didn't mention Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She has already has the capability to draw tens-of-thousands to hear her speak. A flood of money came into the McCain campaign and the RNC after the announcement of her candidacy, so you know that she will be able to compete with the fundraising ability of the democrats. Her mayoral and gubernatorial record is very impressive. She was able to cut spending and earmarks while drastically cutting taxes. She took a 10% pay cut while mayor and sold the private jet used for the governor's office in order to save money. Corruption in her state ran rampant. She fought and won to take out those who were corrupt even those in her own party. She has had approval ratings reaching over 90%. Her popularity in her state is perhaps the best in the whole country. She is without a doubt a rising star in the party and probable front-runner in 2012.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota, is another who was thought to be a possible VP pick. He has been the governor of Minnesota since 2003. In his first year as governor, he balanced the state budget. Minnesota went from $4.3 B deficit to more than $2 B surplus with very little up charge in state fees. He went overseas to build up trade in between Minnesota businesses and the international community.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana, is also an up-and-comer for the republicans. He was in the running for vice-president under McCain. He showed outstanding leadership during Hurricane Gustav. He oversaw the largest and smoothest evacuation in US history. It was a huge step up from the disastrous handling of Katrina by all levels of government. He has been in office of governor for less than one year, but many say that he is very bright with a reformer's mentality.
Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana won re-election this year by a twenty point margin in a year that Obama won the state. Daniels was able to turn a $600 M deficit into a $300 M surplus in one year without any tax increases by creating the Office of Management and Budget in 2005. The new office was created to find better ways to spend the state's money and cost savings. He used the surplus to pay back money borrowed by previous administrations. Daniels, also, created the Indiana Economic Development Corporation which was started to attract new businesses to the state. From 2005-2007 they posted three consecutive record-breaking years for new investment and job commitments. The IDEC was able to lure Toyota, Honda, and Cummins into the state. To put it in perspective, over 100,000 jobs have been created since he took office in 2005. He passed the Healthy Indiana Plan that helped 132,000 people pay for healthcare. He also removed some barriers to coverage due to pre-existing conditions. He reformed property taxes to the lowest in the nation earlier this year. To compensate, he had to raise sales taxes but just by 1%. He may be a bit older than the previous mentions, but he can still make a lot of waves over the next four years.
Gov. Mark Sanford, S. Carolina, is another who has been receiving praise. He has a track record of using vetoes to cut pork-barrell spending even when bucking his own party and having them overridden anyway. He has said that he plans to retire from politics after his current term, but he could change his mind by 2010.
Double A-These next few potential blue-chippers are still very young or new to the scene but have been predicted to do great things by many pundits.
Rep. Paul Ryan has been mentioned by people like Newt Gingrich as being bright and a real future star. He has won over 60% of the vote in a district the Obama won by 53%-46%. Ryan has been coming up with a lot of new ideas that will help make republicans a party of ideas again. This past summer he released his "Road Map for America's Future." This is similar to Gingrich and the republican's "Contract With America" back in the early 90's.
There is Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia who is rumored to become the next house minority whip, the second highest ranking republican in the House.
Former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland has become a prominent voice for conservatives as the current GOPAC chairman. He is also looking to become the next chairman of the Republican National Committee at the beginning of next year.
Returning veterans-These are some in the party that could be coming back to the scene. They still are relatively young and still have the desire in them.
Mitt Romney-He was a highly successful businessman. He was asked to return to Bain & Co. as CEO to save it from financial ruin. Within one year, he was able to turn around the company to profitability without any layoffs or partner defections. He left Bain to do the same thing to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The Olympic Committee was running on a $379 M deficit in 1999. After he joined as president and CEO of the committee, the games ended up with a $100 M profit. He did this by cleaning up the corruption and many budget cuts. He did this while still spending $300 M on security for keeping the games safe from terrorist threats. He gave his entire salary to charity. Upon entering the office of governor of Massachusetts, he faced a $1.2 B deficit. By 2006, he turned that into a $700 M surplus through a combination of spending cuts and raising taxes and fees. However, after the surplus was achieved, he was able to cut taxes. Romney does have a problem with his "for it before he was against it" record on abortion. Also, the tax burden was higher when he left office than when he went in, but many of his spending cuts were overridden by the state legislature.
Mike Huckabee-He ran for president this year and finished second overall. He has a huge following with black conservatives. He received almost 50% of the black vote when running for governor of Arkansas. He reformed healthcare which made it more available to low-income families. While he was governor in 2001, he was named a "friend of the taxpayer" by Americans for Tax Reform for his statewide spending cuts even though he did raise some taxes on gas and nursing homes. His tax policies and rise in state debt have garnered a lot of controversy though. However, overall he was able to cut those on welfare by almost half and grew the economy by 4.4% which was larger than the national average.
Dark horses-Those that have an outside chance at rising in the party.
Former Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida, would have been a bigger contender, but the unpopularity of W. will more than likely prevent his rise to higher office, unfortunately.
Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi is also a dark horse to make some noise within the next few years. He handled Katrina tremendously and has cut a lot of frivolous spending.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has been a bright spot in the party. He has been sucessful at balancing the state budget, improving the transportation infrastructure, and bringing jobs into Texas.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has also been talked about making a comeback in the next few years. He is still a very polarizing figure, however. That might make it hard for him to make a run for the presidency in 2012.
The Senate has been pretty much depleted of any young talent for the republicans. However, these are some of the names of some possible long shots to be a phoenix that rises out the ashes in the Senate: John Cornyn of Texas, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Thune of S. Dakota, Lindsay Graham of S. Carolina, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
The Republican Party might be down, but they are not out by any stretch of the imagination. Both parties have been down before and have risen back into power. In time, it will happen again. The GOP must focus on what brought them to the show in the first place lowering taxes, reform, and fiscal responsibility.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Stretch Obama
President-elect Obama has a very difficult first 100 days ahead of him. He is going to be pulled apart in a tug of war between the center-right electorate and the liberal left. It is going to be like a couple of two-year-olds fighting over a Stretch Armstrong doll. Either one of them is going to win and make the other throw a temper tantrum, or he is going to torn so far apart that he will be unrecognizable in four years.
The radical left wing blowhards have already begun to say that he has a mandate from Americans to swerve us to the hard left. MoveOn implied that they put up millions of dollars to help him get elected, so he better do what they say. Monday, the ACLU demanded that Gitmo be shut down. The next day the New York Times uses a hate crime against a hispanic to go after those who want to enforce our illegal immigration laws. The Times is angling for the president-to-be to give pardons to all illegal immigrants.
Left wing bloggers are also getting in the act. David Sirota of Salon.com and Mark Green of the Huffington Post both wrote articles directed straight at President-elect Obama. They both say that his election is a "mandate" to proceed with their liberal agendas. They claim that the nation has turned into a center-left nation. Is the democratic wave because of a new liberal majority or because he successfully stole conservative ideas from republicans?
Obama ran on a budget and tax cutting platform. The promise to "cut" the taxes of 95% of workers was key to his victory over McCain. He said that he was for the right for an individual to bear arms. These are all issues that republicans have been known for the last 100 years. He didn't win on a platform of "spreading the wealth around", abortions without any restrictions, or legalizing gay marriage. He won as a fiscally responsible spender that would only raise taxes minimally on the rich and would cut everyone else's taxes.
Let me start first with David Sirota of Salon. He said that, "Voters want you (Obama) to go big and go liberal -- and not channel Clinton-style incrementalism." However, that is exactly how he campaigned in the latter days. He gave praise to President Clinton as an example of how he will govern. He basically said that if you loved the 90's, then you will also love his administration.
He went on to say, "What the party gains in strength, it loses in a Republican scapegoat that previously justified inaction. On huge issues -- whether re-regulating Wall Street, reforming trade, solving the healthcare emergency, or ending the Iraq war -- America envisages enormous progress in the months ahead, and Democrats will have no one to blame for failure but themselves."
Well I partially agree with him on this. With a dominant control of Congress and the White House, they can no longer blame Bush and republicans for the country's problems. Let's not forget that the deregulation of Fannie and Freddie's business practices and overregulation of the local bank's ability to deny people loans that could never pay them back was due to the democrats like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd and community organizations like ACORN not the GOP.
As for universal healthcare, it failed the first time that it was brought up by Hillary Clinton in the early 90's. The unpopularity and failure of Hillary Care and Bill's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy led to the Republicans getting control of Congress in 1994. In fact, President Clinton, who is naturally more of a centrist than other democrats, told one of his aides at the time, Dick Morris, that by the end of his second year, he didn't recognize himself anymore.
Mark Green of the Huffington Post continued with the same themes, but he expounded a bit more on social issues. He said, "Polling shows increasing majorities who are pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-expanded healthcare and anti-Iraq war, anti-big business."
No one is anti-environment, but there is also a huge majority that want responsible drilling and nuclear energy which neither are democratic issues.
Abortion is such a controversial issue that even most of those that are "pro-choice" don't agree with it for themselves personally. Even though South Dakota and Colorado denied the heavy restrictions on abortions, many believe it was not because they disagree with the restrictions, but it was because of the people's reservations of being the state that directly challenges Roe V. Wade. They don't want the national spotlight on their respective state.
People have said that they want healthcare reform not government-run healthcare. Earlier this year, Rasmussen did a poll about healthcare, only 29% of people believed in a single-payer system. Forty-six percent of those polled believe that the quality of healthcare would go down, and forty-two percent believe that cost would go up with more government control.
Most are against the Iraq War in hindsight, but most of those that are against it now were for it before the war started. Also, people aren't against big business but against excessive greed and bad management.
I will agree with him that the democrats have had a much better grassroots efforts in getting people to go out and vote for their candidates. However, that doesn't mean that there are more democrats than republicans. They have just been better at getting their voters out over the past two cycles.
Two recent polls dispute their claim that this country is now center-left. The first is a poll by the American Issue Project which polls 300 people each in four of the battleground states: Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. In the poll 58.6% of people said that the republicans either lost their way or were incompetent. Only 23.7% said that they disagree with the GOP's stances on the issues, and just 9.6% said that they were too conservative. In a Rasmussen poll from earlier in the week, 37% thought that a candidate being conservative was good, and only 22% said it was bad. In comparison, 36% said being liberal was bad, and only 19% said it was good. These polls obviously show that this country as a whole still leans more to the conservative side than liberal.
The democrats have been able to steal the advantage on issues of typical republican strength like cutting taxes and keeping government spending under control. How have they been able to do this? The republicans shot themselves in the foot by doubling the federal deficit and championing earmarks. About seventy-two percent agree with the statement: "The Republican Party used to stand for keeping government spending under control, but not anymore." Over 75% say that they agree with this: "When the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, they promised to reform government and clean up corruption in Washington, but they failed to live up to that promise."
This sounds more like a referendum on the loss of core conservative values by republicans more than a mandate on the more progressive policies. By the way that Obama has been talking, he knows it. If Obama has any hope of getting a second term, he must keep his campaign promises to be post-partisan and in the middle like Clinton. If he let's the loony liberals pull him to the left, he will feel Jimmy Carter's pain in 2012.
The radical left wing blowhards have already begun to say that he has a mandate from Americans to swerve us to the hard left. MoveOn implied that they put up millions of dollars to help him get elected, so he better do what they say. Monday, the ACLU demanded that Gitmo be shut down. The next day the New York Times uses a hate crime against a hispanic to go after those who want to enforce our illegal immigration laws. The Times is angling for the president-to-be to give pardons to all illegal immigrants.
Left wing bloggers are also getting in the act. David Sirota of Salon.com and Mark Green of the Huffington Post both wrote articles directed straight at President-elect Obama. They both say that his election is a "mandate" to proceed with their liberal agendas. They claim that the nation has turned into a center-left nation. Is the democratic wave because of a new liberal majority or because he successfully stole conservative ideas from republicans?
Obama ran on a budget and tax cutting platform. The promise to "cut" the taxes of 95% of workers was key to his victory over McCain. He said that he was for the right for an individual to bear arms. These are all issues that republicans have been known for the last 100 years. He didn't win on a platform of "spreading the wealth around", abortions without any restrictions, or legalizing gay marriage. He won as a fiscally responsible spender that would only raise taxes minimally on the rich and would cut everyone else's taxes.
Let me start first with David Sirota of Salon. He said that, "Voters want you (Obama) to go big and go liberal -- and not channel Clinton-style incrementalism." However, that is exactly how he campaigned in the latter days. He gave praise to President Clinton as an example of how he will govern. He basically said that if you loved the 90's, then you will also love his administration.
He went on to say, "What the party gains in strength, it loses in a Republican scapegoat that previously justified inaction. On huge issues -- whether re-regulating Wall Street, reforming trade, solving the healthcare emergency, or ending the Iraq war -- America envisages enormous progress in the months ahead, and Democrats will have no one to blame for failure but themselves."
Well I partially agree with him on this. With a dominant control of Congress and the White House, they can no longer blame Bush and republicans for the country's problems. Let's not forget that the deregulation of Fannie and Freddie's business practices and overregulation of the local bank's ability to deny people loans that could never pay them back was due to the democrats like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd and community organizations like ACORN not the GOP.
As for universal healthcare, it failed the first time that it was brought up by Hillary Clinton in the early 90's. The unpopularity and failure of Hillary Care and Bill's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy led to the Republicans getting control of Congress in 1994. In fact, President Clinton, who is naturally more of a centrist than other democrats, told one of his aides at the time, Dick Morris, that by the end of his second year, he didn't recognize himself anymore.
Mark Green of the Huffington Post continued with the same themes, but he expounded a bit more on social issues. He said, "Polling shows increasing majorities who are pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-expanded healthcare and anti-Iraq war, anti-big business."
No one is anti-environment, but there is also a huge majority that want responsible drilling and nuclear energy which neither are democratic issues.
Abortion is such a controversial issue that even most of those that are "pro-choice" don't agree with it for themselves personally. Even though South Dakota and Colorado denied the heavy restrictions on abortions, many believe it was not because they disagree with the restrictions, but it was because of the people's reservations of being the state that directly challenges Roe V. Wade. They don't want the national spotlight on their respective state.
People have said that they want healthcare reform not government-run healthcare. Earlier this year, Rasmussen did a poll about healthcare, only 29% of people believed in a single-payer system. Forty-six percent of those polled believe that the quality of healthcare would go down, and forty-two percent believe that cost would go up with more government control.
Most are against the Iraq War in hindsight, but most of those that are against it now were for it before the war started. Also, people aren't against big business but against excessive greed and bad management.
I will agree with him that the democrats have had a much better grassroots efforts in getting people to go out and vote for their candidates. However, that doesn't mean that there are more democrats than republicans. They have just been better at getting their voters out over the past two cycles.
Two recent polls dispute their claim that this country is now center-left. The first is a poll by the American Issue Project which polls 300 people each in four of the battleground states: Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. In the poll 58.6% of people said that the republicans either lost their way or were incompetent. Only 23.7% said that they disagree with the GOP's stances on the issues, and just 9.6% said that they were too conservative. In a Rasmussen poll from earlier in the week, 37% thought that a candidate being conservative was good, and only 22% said it was bad. In comparison, 36% said being liberal was bad, and only 19% said it was good. These polls obviously show that this country as a whole still leans more to the conservative side than liberal.
The democrats have been able to steal the advantage on issues of typical republican strength like cutting taxes and keeping government spending under control. How have they been able to do this? The republicans shot themselves in the foot by doubling the federal deficit and championing earmarks. About seventy-two percent agree with the statement: "The Republican Party used to stand for keeping government spending under control, but not anymore." Over 75% say that they agree with this: "When the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, they promised to reform government and clean up corruption in Washington, but they failed to live up to that promise."
This sounds more like a referendum on the loss of core conservative values by republicans more than a mandate on the more progressive policies. By the way that Obama has been talking, he knows it. If Obama has any hope of getting a second term, he must keep his campaign promises to be post-partisan and in the middle like Clinton. If he let's the loony liberals pull him to the left, he will feel Jimmy Carter's pain in 2012.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Reaction to Obama Shows Racism Dying But Not Dead
The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US and leader of the free world has brought out the truth that racism is still out there. Around the world and in this country, it has become a greatly reduced problem over the years, but the idiots still remain.
The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, implied that Russia's President Medvedev would have an easy time dealing with Obama because "He's young, handsome, and even tanned." When confronted by those upset by the comment, he called them "imbeciles without any sense of humor". I don't think that anyone is laughing but him.
Austrian TV anchor, Klaus Emmerich, called Americans racist, and "it must be going very badly for them that they so convincingly... Send a black man, and a very good-looking woman into the White House." In a Murtha-like moment, he clarified his statement by saying that "blacks aren't as politically civilized" and that Obama has a "devil-like talent to present his rhetoric so effectively."
A Moscow real estate agent told Fox News that Obama's race could be an issue when dealing with the East. She said that he won't be able to play a leading role in the eastern hemisphere.
The fact that he was elected shows that the racism is not as prevalent in this country as it used to be. We have come a long way in a relatively short time, but there are some examples of such lunacy.
In a suburb of Newark, New Jersey, a homemade Obama sign was stolen and returned the next night attached to a burning cross on the front lawn of one family tuesday night. According to Gary Grewal, the homeowner, his 8-year-old daughter saw it and has been afraid to sleep in her room since that night. Why must we have to explain hate to an eight-year-old?
In Staten Island, New York, Ali Kamara, 17-year-old black teen, was assaulted by four white men with baseball bats chanting "Obama". Ali was on his way home after the election on tuesday night.
In Austin, Texas, the University of Texas lineman Buck Burnette got canned by Coach Mack Brown for writing "hunters gather up, we have a n***** in whitehouse" on his facebook page. (Note to self: What's written on facebook doesn't ever stay on facebook.) Duh!
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be very proud of the progress that this country has made, but he would also say that we still have some work to do. There has been a lot said from various black leaders that a new page has been turned in the civil right movement.
According to Rev. Eugene Rivers of Boston, "Racism is no longer the primary obstacle to black progress. With the election of a black man whose middle name is Hussein, the rhetoric of white racism is off the table...The old school is over." "Old school" is the worldview proclaimed by civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson that asks for people to denounce inequality and blame white racism for all of the problems of black people.
Kevin Patterson, a community activist, says, "The notion that black people need to employ racially polarizing stances is now extinct. There are more effective ways to get things done for our communities than being accusatory."
This election has been talked about in barbershops all across the country. "I think the mentality will change," said Timmigo Burnett, 47, owner of Phase II Barber Shop in Spartanburg, S Carolina. "Seeing a black man make it that far is the ultimate. (Young people) see hope. That's going to help us as mentors." The buzz around other barbershops has been that this is a signal to young black people everywhere that they don't have any excuse when it comes to whether they succeed or not anymore. They also say that young people cannot blame their fathers leaving when they were babies. Obama met his father only once in his life, and he became the President of America. Dan Quailes, owner of a barbershop in Pharr, Texas, said that young people can now "reach for the stars".
I'm not saying there aren't more minorities incarcerated than non-whites. Also, the gap of the average income and education is major, but the gap can be bridged. Rev. Mark Scott based out of Boston said it best. "You can't say it's because of racism. You can't just say, 'Pull your pants up.' You have to ask, 'What work are we going to do to close the gaps?' "
The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, implied that Russia's President Medvedev would have an easy time dealing with Obama because "He's young, handsome, and even tanned." When confronted by those upset by the comment, he called them "imbeciles without any sense of humor". I don't think that anyone is laughing but him.
Austrian TV anchor, Klaus Emmerich, called Americans racist, and "it must be going very badly for them that they so convincingly... Send a black man, and a very good-looking woman into the White House." In a Murtha-like moment, he clarified his statement by saying that "blacks aren't as politically civilized" and that Obama has a "devil-like talent to present his rhetoric so effectively."
A Moscow real estate agent told Fox News that Obama's race could be an issue when dealing with the East. She said that he won't be able to play a leading role in the eastern hemisphere.
The fact that he was elected shows that the racism is not as prevalent in this country as it used to be. We have come a long way in a relatively short time, but there are some examples of such lunacy.
In a suburb of Newark, New Jersey, a homemade Obama sign was stolen and returned the next night attached to a burning cross on the front lawn of one family tuesday night. According to Gary Grewal, the homeowner, his 8-year-old daughter saw it and has been afraid to sleep in her room since that night. Why must we have to explain hate to an eight-year-old?
In Staten Island, New York, Ali Kamara, 17-year-old black teen, was assaulted by four white men with baseball bats chanting "Obama". Ali was on his way home after the election on tuesday night.
In Austin, Texas, the University of Texas lineman Buck Burnette got canned by Coach Mack Brown for writing "hunters gather up, we have a n***** in whitehouse" on his facebook page. (Note to self: What's written on facebook doesn't ever stay on facebook.) Duh!
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be very proud of the progress that this country has made, but he would also say that we still have some work to do. There has been a lot said from various black leaders that a new page has been turned in the civil right movement.
According to Rev. Eugene Rivers of Boston, "Racism is no longer the primary obstacle to black progress. With the election of a black man whose middle name is Hussein, the rhetoric of white racism is off the table...The old school is over." "Old school" is the worldview proclaimed by civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson that asks for people to denounce inequality and blame white racism for all of the problems of black people.
Kevin Patterson, a community activist, says, "The notion that black people need to employ racially polarizing stances is now extinct. There are more effective ways to get things done for our communities than being accusatory."
This election has been talked about in barbershops all across the country. "I think the mentality will change," said Timmigo Burnett, 47, owner of Phase II Barber Shop in Spartanburg, S Carolina. "Seeing a black man make it that far is the ultimate. (Young people) see hope. That's going to help us as mentors." The buzz around other barbershops has been that this is a signal to young black people everywhere that they don't have any excuse when it comes to whether they succeed or not anymore. They also say that young people cannot blame their fathers leaving when they were babies. Obama met his father only once in his life, and he became the President of America. Dan Quailes, owner of a barbershop in Pharr, Texas, said that young people can now "reach for the stars".
I'm not saying there aren't more minorities incarcerated than non-whites. Also, the gap of the average income and education is major, but the gap can be bridged. Rev. Mark Scott based out of Boston said it best. "You can't say it's because of racism. You can't just say, 'Pull your pants up.' You have to ask, 'What work are we going to do to close the gaps?' "
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama
I just want to congratulate Obama. This is truly a historical moment. The election of our first black president is a great moment in our nation's history and our lifetime. It was a hard fought campaign. We may have differences ideologically, but I greatly admire him.
I will be taking a week off from the blog to give the other side some time to enjoy their victory. I will be back to fight for my views and the views of the silent majority.
I will be taking a week off from the blog to give the other side some time to enjoy their victory. I will be back to fight for my views and the views of the silent majority.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
My Love Affair With Barack Obama
From the beginning of the year, I have been looking at who I believe that would be the best for this country.
During the primaries earlier in the year, my top democrat was Barack Obama. I was no different than the rest of America. I fell in love with him. His John F Kennedy good looks, warm smile, and calm demeanor intrigued me. His eloquence, his post-racial and post-partisianship rhetoric made me fall in love. It was as if I was a teenage girl swayed by the star high school quarterback's cheesy lines into "giving it up". Eventually, the power of his words wore off. After a brief and passionate relationship, I woke up one day realizing that he was not the man I thought he was.
What made me see the truth? It wasn't one thing in particular. One by one the qualities that made me fall in love with him started eroding away. His actions were speaking louder that his rhetoric.
His claim of being post-racial came under fire starting with his attack on Pres. Bill Clinton and his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
How can he be "post-racial" when he throws around the race card like an ace in the hole? It has become a strategy to make the opposition, whether it be Hillary ot McCain, overly cautious and reluctant to say anything negative about Obama in fear of being called racist by the Obama campaign. In the case of McCain, Obama started crying racism before McCain could even bring up the subject. He repeatedly told people that the GOP candidate would try to scare voters by saying that "he has a funny name", "he doesn't look like the other people on the dollar bills", "and by the he's black".
What can I say about Rev. Wright that hasn't already been said? I could understand if Obama was there for only a few months and didn't know the true nature of man at first, but he stayed there 20 yrs. You don't stay in the pew of a church for two decades when you don't share at least most of their beliefs. Most people would never come back to a church after the head preacher said "G D America" or called this country we love the "US of the KKK".
It wasn't as if he was only there on Easter and Christmas. According to what he told Bill O'Reilly, he went to the church about twice a month. That is about 500 times he attended the church, if what he said is accurate. I highly doubt that he never heard such things. The law of probability says that over 500 sundays he would had to have heard that kind of sermon several times. He wants us to assume that he dodged that racial mine field for over 20 years of going to that church, and he never heard anything like Wright's belief that the US government put AIDS into the low income areas to kill off blacks.
Let's say that for the sake of argument, he didn't hear these kind of comments on one of those hundreds of sundays that he was there. They sell tapes of his previous sermons in the lobby just like any other church. He would have had to have never saw anything racially divisive in one of those tapes. We would also have to assume that he doesn't talk to any of the other fellow parishioners about the church and any of Wright's previous sermons. Did anyone ever tell him about what he missed when he wasn't there? That is a lot of assuming. You know what is said that happens when you assume a lot. It makes an ass out of you and me.
Let's also look at his claim of being post-partisan. He votes for 97% of the time with the democratic leaders. He has not had any real experience with reaching across the aisle. He has a 100 rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization. He even voted against the born alive bill. This was the bill that would make abortion clinics try and keep babies alive that survived botched abortion attempts. According to the National Journal, Barack Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. He is so far to the left that he is about to fall off the face of the earth. What happened to his ability to build bridges?
He was "the One". The one who would mend the wounds that separated us as a nation. He was the personification of the Martin Luther King's dream. He was the man that history has waited to come. He was the one to show the world that America has moved past our racist past. Obama was the man that transcended politics.
Everything that he claimed to be, post-racial and post-partisan, he wasn't. He broke my heart. I had faith in the "new kind of politician". I was going to be part of history. Instead, I found a man who would say or do anything to get elected. He would lie about his previous friendships and beliefs just to get my vote. Just like a fling with the good looking star quarterback, I would have regretted the morning after.
During the primaries earlier in the year, my top democrat was Barack Obama. I was no different than the rest of America. I fell in love with him. His John F Kennedy good looks, warm smile, and calm demeanor intrigued me. His eloquence, his post-racial and post-partisianship rhetoric made me fall in love. It was as if I was a teenage girl swayed by the star high school quarterback's cheesy lines into "giving it up". Eventually, the power of his words wore off. After a brief and passionate relationship, I woke up one day realizing that he was not the man I thought he was.
What made me see the truth? It wasn't one thing in particular. One by one the qualities that made me fall in love with him started eroding away. His actions were speaking louder that his rhetoric.
His claim of being post-racial came under fire starting with his attack on Pres. Bill Clinton and his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
How can he be "post-racial" when he throws around the race card like an ace in the hole? It has become a strategy to make the opposition, whether it be Hillary ot McCain, overly cautious and reluctant to say anything negative about Obama in fear of being called racist by the Obama campaign. In the case of McCain, Obama started crying racism before McCain could even bring up the subject. He repeatedly told people that the GOP candidate would try to scare voters by saying that "he has a funny name", "he doesn't look like the other people on the dollar bills", "and by the he's black".
What can I say about Rev. Wright that hasn't already been said? I could understand if Obama was there for only a few months and didn't know the true nature of man at first, but he stayed there 20 yrs. You don't stay in the pew of a church for two decades when you don't share at least most of their beliefs. Most people would never come back to a church after the head preacher said "G D America" or called this country we love the "US of the KKK".
It wasn't as if he was only there on Easter and Christmas. According to what he told Bill O'Reilly, he went to the church about twice a month. That is about 500 times he attended the church, if what he said is accurate. I highly doubt that he never heard such things. The law of probability says that over 500 sundays he would had to have heard that kind of sermon several times. He wants us to assume that he dodged that racial mine field for over 20 years of going to that church, and he never heard anything like Wright's belief that the US government put AIDS into the low income areas to kill off blacks.
Let's say that for the sake of argument, he didn't hear these kind of comments on one of those hundreds of sundays that he was there. They sell tapes of his previous sermons in the lobby just like any other church. He would have had to have never saw anything racially divisive in one of those tapes. We would also have to assume that he doesn't talk to any of the other fellow parishioners about the church and any of Wright's previous sermons. Did anyone ever tell him about what he missed when he wasn't there? That is a lot of assuming. You know what is said that happens when you assume a lot. It makes an ass out of you and me.
Let's also look at his claim of being post-partisan. He votes for 97% of the time with the democratic leaders. He has not had any real experience with reaching across the aisle. He has a 100 rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization. He even voted against the born alive bill. This was the bill that would make abortion clinics try and keep babies alive that survived botched abortion attempts. According to the National Journal, Barack Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. He is so far to the left that he is about to fall off the face of the earth. What happened to his ability to build bridges?
He was "the One". The one who would mend the wounds that separated us as a nation. He was the personification of the Martin Luther King's dream. He was the man that history has waited to come. He was the one to show the world that America has moved past our racist past. Obama was the man that transcended politics.
Everything that he claimed to be, post-racial and post-partisan, he wasn't. He broke my heart. I had faith in the "new kind of politician". I was going to be part of history. Instead, I found a man who would say or do anything to get elected. He would lie about his previous friendships and beliefs just to get my vote. Just like a fling with the good looking star quarterback, I would have regretted the morning after.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Democrats Play Middle Class Limbo
Obama and the democrats are preparing for a luau on the White House lawn and Capital Hill. The party supplies are being bought. Sen Barack Obama brought the leis from his home in Hawaii. Michelle Obama is getting the hula skirts. Sen. Joe Biden is bringing those fashionable shirts. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid are coming together to bring the pua'a pig (with lipstick) complete with an apple in her mouth.
There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.
The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.
-------------------------------------------------
Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.
Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.
Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.
The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.
Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.
Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to Factcheck.org, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.
In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of taxfoundation.org, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?
What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.
There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.
The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.
-------------------------------------------------
Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.
Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.
Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.
The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.
Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.
Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to Factcheck.org, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.
In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of taxfoundation.org, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?
What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Dueling Effigies Warrant Double Standards
The passion that is felt for this election is unprecedented. We have the first black nominee for president ever, and the other ticket has the first woman VP pick for that party, second overall. This comes after the after a primary that almost produced the first female nominee for president ever. In addition, there is the dynamic of having a candidate that can win with a party that can't and the other party that can't lose with a candidate that can. To say this is a historical election is an understatement of gigantic proportions. Either way, a glass ceiling will be broken.
When emotions run this high, people do stupid things and lines are crossed. This past halloween season has brought up two good examples of this. In West Hollywood, California, a mannequin, with a Gov. Palin likeness, is found hanging from a rope attached to a chimney that has John McCain burning in it. In retaliation of the Palin effigy, two University of Kentucky students set up a halloween display featuring a dummy with an Obama mask hanging from a tree by a rope in Lexington. Both displays are reprehensible, yet only the Kentucky pinheads have been arrested or charged with anything. The UK student and resident were arrested for disorderly conduct in reaction to the display earlier today. These two need to have repercussions for their stupidity. However, where is the same outrage and consequences for the pinheads in Hollywood?
If Palin would've been black, the Hollywood men who put up the Palin display would have been charged with a hate crime. Instead, the authorities can't do anything to them. It is considered part of their right to free speech.
What about her race makes the act any different? Nothing should make it any different. It doesn't matter about which race or gender one is. Hate is hate. I understand that there is more of a sensitive history with lynching and black males, but the hatred for Gov. Palin is just as real and strong.
Why is it criminal to have a display of Obama hanging and not Palin? If there is a hate crime law enacted, why does it only apply to certain segments of society? If hate crime legislation is passed, it needs to cover everyone or none at all. "Separate but equal" laws are what got us into the problem of segregation in the first place.
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be equally as appalled by both effigies. He taught us to judge each other not by the color of our skin, but that is exactly what the law is doing. They are treating one act worse than the other just because one is black and the other is white. We will never be post-racial until we make the law equal to all of Americans.
When emotions run this high, people do stupid things and lines are crossed. This past halloween season has brought up two good examples of this. In West Hollywood, California, a mannequin, with a Gov. Palin likeness, is found hanging from a rope attached to a chimney that has John McCain burning in it. In retaliation of the Palin effigy, two University of Kentucky students set up a halloween display featuring a dummy with an Obama mask hanging from a tree by a rope in Lexington. Both displays are reprehensible, yet only the Kentucky pinheads have been arrested or charged with anything. The UK student and resident were arrested for disorderly conduct in reaction to the display earlier today. These two need to have repercussions for their stupidity. However, where is the same outrage and consequences for the pinheads in Hollywood?
If Palin would've been black, the Hollywood men who put up the Palin display would have been charged with a hate crime. Instead, the authorities can't do anything to them. It is considered part of their right to free speech.
What about her race makes the act any different? Nothing should make it any different. It doesn't matter about which race or gender one is. Hate is hate. I understand that there is more of a sensitive history with lynching and black males, but the hatred for Gov. Palin is just as real and strong.
Why is it criminal to have a display of Obama hanging and not Palin? If there is a hate crime law enacted, why does it only apply to certain segments of society? If hate crime legislation is passed, it needs to cover everyone or none at all. "Separate but equal" laws are what got us into the problem of segregation in the first place.
Martin Luther King, Jr. would be equally as appalled by both effigies. He taught us to judge each other not by the color of our skin, but that is exactly what the law is doing. They are treating one act worse than the other just because one is black and the other is white. We will never be post-racial until we make the law equal to all of Americans.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama's Six Month Exam
"Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. He's going to have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you that it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen." Joe Biden-10/19/08-Seattle
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
This comparison of Obama to Kennedy is not new. Obama himself brought it up while speaking back on May 18 while in Portland. He said that he was going to follow John F. Kennedy's example of meeting with dictators without preconditions. He sites JFK's meeting with Soviet leader Khrushchev in June 1961, almost six months to the day that he took office, as proof of the wisdom of conducting such meetings. Obama called the Vienna Summit one of the great triumphs the led to our victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, everyone that was alive in 1961 and actually in Vienna on June 3 and 4 of that year remember the meeting very differently.
In the debates before the election, Kennedy said he wouldn't met with Russian leaders without preconditions, but JFK meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev on June 3 without any precondtions anyway. During the meeting, Khrushchev took a "dazed" JFK to school. According to many around the president, Khrushchev, and JFK himself, he was belittled, berated, and bullied for two straight days. Many diplomats, including the US ambassador to Russia, was suprised by how little resistance JFK gave to Khrushchev's tirade on the superiority of Communist ideology, nuclear weapons, the "balance of power" between East and West, etc. The only thing that made Kennedy act like a man in the meeting was Berlin. He all but said there would be nuclear war, if the USSR acted against West Berlin.
After the meeting, those close to Khrushchev said that the Soviet leader thought Kennedy was "very young, very intelligent, but not very strong". Despite all of his charisma and eloquence, it meant nothing when faced with an actual dictator. Khrushchev came away from the meeting thinking that the leader of this country was a pushover and full of himself. An aide to the Soviet dictator called the president "very inexperienced, even immature". Even Kennedy agreed with the Soviet assessment. Right after the meeting, he was seen in the bedroom of the embassy pacing back and forth and saying that "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy." JFK told James Reston of the New York Times, "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem, if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."
After the failures of the Bay of Pigs (This was where JFK backed out of sending air support into Cuba for Cuban rebels which were supposed to overthrow Castro. In turn, the rebels got slaughtered for their trouble.) and the Vienna Summit, the aggressiveness of the USSR escalated. About a month and a half later, the Berlin Wall went up. They, also, soon started sending nuclear missles into Cuba which started the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, President Kennedy finally succeeded in standing up to Khrushchev, but the crisis might have been avoided altogether, if he would've stuck to his original statement. He shouldn't have met with any Soviet leaders without preconditions.
Let's also look at the last few other young presidents we've had and how they were tested. Clinton had the first World Trade Center bombing just months after he took office. Bush, also, was tested by China when they took American hostages from a downed spy plane just three months after inauguration. It's very likely that Obama is going to be tested like the rest, if he is elected. Is he ready to handle those that want to do us harm and hate us? "Please" and flowery woods aren't going to melt their hearts of stone. Strength is the only thing that men like Khrushchev and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela understand.
We already have a brewing Cuban-like crisis possibly brewing with Russia/ Vladamir Putin and Venezuela/Hugo Chavez. They have a new "friendship" brewing. They are running military exercisies together.
They are in the process of talks of sharing nuclear technology for "energy" purposes. Russia has even started sending warships and selling military vehicles and weapons to Venezuela like helicopters, combat planes, and rifles. Even Iran said they are receptive to opening trade and talks between the two countries especially about their nuclear program.
Is the disasterous Vienna Summit what Obama wants to pattern his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Vladimir Putin of Russia after? Does the way that Russia looked at JFK as young, intelligent, but weak or inexperienced, immature, and arrogant sound familiar? Is the way that JFK was viewed be the same way that Obama will be viewed by our enemies?
Friday, October 17, 2008
"The Great Depression II" Brought to You by the Letter O
From the same people that brought you this past fall's blockbuster "Financial Crisis", brought to you by the letter D, comes "The Great Depression II", the exciting sequel to the 1929 hit - a thriller that topped the charts for 15 years. Everyone loved "Financial Crisis". The ensemble cast included superstars both young and old: Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, ACORN, and last but not least, a cameo by Barack Obama.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
They are joined by George Bush and John McCain as the villains of the movie. Bush and McCain try to foil the success of Fannie and Freddie by putting unneeded regulations on them. Thankfully, our heroes were able to stop those evil doers from putting more regulations on the companies. Since 2001, McCain and Bush started talking about the possible failure of Fannie and Freddie. In 2003, Bush tried to create an agency to regulate government sponsored housing enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. Year after year, our heroes are able to stop those evil regulators.
Bill Clinton, who plays a minor role in "Financial Crisis", claims in a recent interview that the democrats were the ones who fought against the regulation of Fannie and Freddie all of these years.
The heroes were vigilant in their attacks on Bush and McCain. They accused them of being racist and supporting the rich by keeping the poor, who cannot afford the loans, from coming up in the world. They distracted people by focusing on Bush's high spending and "war-mongering ways". They called him financially inept, so how could he have known that Fannie and Freddie were going down?
Everyone remembers how the "The Great Depression" story went. Herbert Hoover and FDR starred in the 1929 blockbuster. Prior to the beginning of the story, Hoover canceled drilling for oil on government lands which took away jobs from people that could have used a job during the upcoming depression. The story started with the stock market crash of October 1929, shortly after Hoover took office. Hoover began by trying to let the crisis solve itself. Much to his dismay, the economy didn't rebound on its own. There was a run on banks. As a result, the banks had no money and collapsed. He finally tried helping the banks out in 1932, but it was three years too late. Then, contrary to normal economic logic, he raised taxes (tariffs, income tax of higher incomes, corporate taxes up 15%, estate tax doubled, and a check tax) during a depression which made us go into an even deeper depression. The tariff hikes made other countries raise tariffs in retaliation. We were buying our own products, but no other country was - at least until WW2. If it wasn't for World War II, and Europe buying military and other necessary supplies for the war effort, the high taxes and big government policies would have kept us in the depression for a long time.
The sequel stars a new, up and coming star named Barack Obama. He plays the role of a Hoover-like character by stopping domestic oil production and raising taxes in a recession, turning it into another depression. The high corporate taxes cause many companies to move out of the US or simply fire employees that they cannot afford to employ anymore, causing unemployment to rise. Many CEO's say that it is just too expensive to do business in the US. People cannot invest in the stock market because they've lost their jobs from the outsourcing and layoffs that the high corporate taxes cause. The US economy will cease to grow as a result of a government growing so big that it chokes national growth. Will it take World War 3 to get us out? You will have to wait until after November 4 to find out the fate of the United States.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Obama's Nuttiest Radical Association Yet
A lot of attention as been on Obama's long list of questionable at best radical associations. Enough has been said of how can he fight terrorists, if he is "friendly" with Bill Ayres, an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Questions have also arisen about how he can be "post-racial", if his "spiritual advisors" are Rev. Wright or Father Fleiger, two outspoken racists. One could also wonder how can he champion "bipartisanship" when he votes with the democratic leadership about 97% of the time. The only time he can cite that he worked with the republicans was with the nuclear proliferation bill, which helped keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. That is not exactly a huge leap to get the GOP to go along with that. It is like getting both sides to agree that murderers should be in jail. Instead, I'm going to focus on the little talked about his partnership with ACORN.
If John McCain wants to win in a few weeks, he needs to focus less on Ayres, Wright, and Fleiger and more on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Most know about the other three. Most don't know about ACORN. The housing bubble bursting should bring ACORN more into the forefront. Until recently, the thing that this organization was known for was numerous voter fraud scandals like the one in Las Vegas just a few days ago where some of the Dallas Cowboys somehow got registered to vote in Nevada or in the states of Washington, Missouri, Ohio, etc. Now their tactics in getting sub-prime lending for people in Chicago and many other cities need to be payed more attention. Obama uses his "community organizing" as an example of the "experiences" that prepared him for the presidency. Not much is known about his time as a community organizer. We do know that he spent time with ACORN as a trainer. Some of those people that he trained went out to strong-arm and intimidate local banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford it, the starting point of the trouble that we're having in the economy. He kept his hands clean and didn't do any of this himself, so he could run for office. It hasn't been proven that he taught them to strong-arm and intimidate, but he was the one that supposedly taught them how to do their job. In Chicago, there were reports of ACORN activists going to bank managers' homes to "persuade" them to do sub-prime loans. He also raised alot of money for them and represented them in court.
The democrats have their fingerprints all over this crisis. Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. This was designed to make credit more available to lower income families. In 1995, Clinton took the CRA to a new level. Altogether, they overregulated where there was little need of any regulations by adding a quota of a certain number of loans to the poor, and they underregulated where there was a great need by lowering the oversight of the banking practices. Even Clinton recognized his own mistakes in this in a recent interview. Why can't the rest of the left? Obama blames the GOP for the deregulation when it was Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd, and company fighting regulation of Fannie and Freddie all the way. McCain and other republicans warned of impending disaster, but they didn't protest loud enough. Activists from ACORN even began to have a say about who received loans and control massive sums of bank capital. The CRA became instrumental in the bank's lending practices and the fall of our economy by being exploited by community organizations like ACORN. If this is how Obama organized his community, should we give him a nation to "organize"? The democrats are still beholden to ACORN. In the bailout bill, the democrats still tried to give more money to ACORN. Why are they wanting to reward the people who helped bring down the economy? The GOP was so outraged by this that in the end, it wasn't kept in the bill.
Let's not forget that the democrats also put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to take on the toxic loans that the banks, that ACORN and others intimidated, could no longer handle. There is a reason why Fannie and Freddie has given the democrats much more campaign contributions than republicans. The democrats have been covering up for Fannie and Freddie's shortcomings for years. Obama reached number 2 all-time (that's counting over 20 years of contributions) even though he has been in the senate for only 3 years. Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd, who is number one, and Sen. John Kerry, who is number three, have been in office over two decades longer than Obama.
If McCain focuses on these issues, he could still be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave by January.
If John McCain wants to win in a few weeks, he needs to focus less on Ayres, Wright, and Fleiger and more on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Most know about the other three. Most don't know about ACORN. The housing bubble bursting should bring ACORN more into the forefront. Until recently, the thing that this organization was known for was numerous voter fraud scandals like the one in Las Vegas just a few days ago where some of the Dallas Cowboys somehow got registered to vote in Nevada or in the states of Washington, Missouri, Ohio, etc. Now their tactics in getting sub-prime lending for people in Chicago and many other cities need to be payed more attention. Obama uses his "community organizing" as an example of the "experiences" that prepared him for the presidency. Not much is known about his time as a community organizer. We do know that he spent time with ACORN as a trainer. Some of those people that he trained went out to strong-arm and intimidate local banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford it, the starting point of the trouble that we're having in the economy. He kept his hands clean and didn't do any of this himself, so he could run for office. It hasn't been proven that he taught them to strong-arm and intimidate, but he was the one that supposedly taught them how to do their job. In Chicago, there were reports of ACORN activists going to bank managers' homes to "persuade" them to do sub-prime loans. He also raised alot of money for them and represented them in court.
The democrats have their fingerprints all over this crisis. Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977. This was designed to make credit more available to lower income families. In 1995, Clinton took the CRA to a new level. Altogether, they overregulated where there was little need of any regulations by adding a quota of a certain number of loans to the poor, and they underregulated where there was a great need by lowering the oversight of the banking practices. Even Clinton recognized his own mistakes in this in a recent interview. Why can't the rest of the left? Obama blames the GOP for the deregulation when it was Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd, and company fighting regulation of Fannie and Freddie all the way. McCain and other republicans warned of impending disaster, but they didn't protest loud enough. Activists from ACORN even began to have a say about who received loans and control massive sums of bank capital. The CRA became instrumental in the bank's lending practices and the fall of our economy by being exploited by community organizations like ACORN. If this is how Obama organized his community, should we give him a nation to "organize"? The democrats are still beholden to ACORN. In the bailout bill, the democrats still tried to give more money to ACORN. Why are they wanting to reward the people who helped bring down the economy? The GOP was so outraged by this that in the end, it wasn't kept in the bill.
Let's not forget that the democrats also put pressure on Fannie and Freddie to take on the toxic loans that the banks, that ACORN and others intimidated, could no longer handle. There is a reason why Fannie and Freddie has given the democrats much more campaign contributions than republicans. The democrats have been covering up for Fannie and Freddie's shortcomings for years. Obama reached number 2 all-time (that's counting over 20 years of contributions) even though he has been in the senate for only 3 years. Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd, who is number one, and Sen. John Kerry, who is number three, have been in office over two decades longer than Obama.
If McCain focuses on these issues, he could still be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave by January.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Benedict Lieberman
Sen. Joe Lieberman spoke at the RNC. He gave not just an endorsement of Sen McCain but also chastised Sen Obama for his record and lack thereof. Not since Judas Iscariot kissed Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane for 30 pieces of silver has there been such outrage and hatred of one man for "betraying" his people. The way the Democrats are acting you would think that Joe stabbed Obama in the back with Obama saying "Et tu, Joe".
Why is that the party that champions free speech for people like Ward Churchill and Rev Wright don't like it if someone speaks about something they don't like? They act like a bunch of teenage girls getting revenge on another when someone says something derogatory about them. There were Republicans that spoke at the DNC, but there isn't so much outrage among the GOP. Granted Sen Lieberman is more notable than Jim Leach, but that doesn't make it ok for the democrats to right to kick him out of their club. They have threatened him with taking away his committee positions and a censure.
Sen Lieberman didn't abandon the Dems just because he disagreed with them on this one issue. They are abandoning him. The democrats wouldn't nominate him for his seat in the senate. So, he had to run as an independent in Connecticut to win his senate seat back. If it wasn't for him, the Republicans would have the majority in the Senate. Harry Reid should be grateful instead of mad. This just goes to show that many on the left think that the right is evil. Why else would they act like Joe just committed treason? Those who champion the free speech of racists and America-bashers should champion those that disagree with them too.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy of many on the left. The harder left don't really believe in freedom of speech. If they did, they wouldn't try to stop freedom of speech when it comes to religion and prayer, right to life, and other conservative principles.
Why is that the party that champions free speech for people like Ward Churchill and Rev Wright don't like it if someone speaks about something they don't like? They act like a bunch of teenage girls getting revenge on another when someone says something derogatory about them. There were Republicans that spoke at the DNC, but there isn't so much outrage among the GOP. Granted Sen Lieberman is more notable than Jim Leach, but that doesn't make it ok for the democrats to right to kick him out of their club. They have threatened him with taking away his committee positions and a censure.
Sen Lieberman didn't abandon the Dems just because he disagreed with them on this one issue. They are abandoning him. The democrats wouldn't nominate him for his seat in the senate. So, he had to run as an independent in Connecticut to win his senate seat back. If it wasn't for him, the Republicans would have the majority in the Senate. Harry Reid should be grateful instead of mad. This just goes to show that many on the left think that the right is evil. Why else would they act like Joe just committed treason? Those who champion the free speech of racists and America-bashers should champion those that disagree with them too.
This is just another example of the hypocrisy of many on the left. The harder left don't really believe in freedom of speech. If they did, they wouldn't try to stop freedom of speech when it comes to religion and prayer, right to life, and other conservative principles.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Obama Invents New Math
This week the economy has come to the full attention of the entire country. With the fall of Fannie and Freddie, the rest of the credit industry of this country came down as if someone took away a card from the bottom of a pyramid of cards. McCain and Obama have been pointing the finger of blame at each other, but neither have come up with anything concrete. McCain has not really come up with anything of importance. At least he's trying. Obama had to get with his team to discuss what he would do for this crisis. After all of the discussion and planning, his big solution was that he needs more time. Apparently, he is voting present again. Maybe this is above his pay grade too.
From both economic plans that the candidates as they have been presented, we will have deficits no matter who we elect. The real question who will be able to trust to control the amount of spending the best.
Palin has had experience in cutting budgets. McCain has already been against the overuse of earmark pork spending. Obama has made campaign promises that, if kept, will put the deficit of into astronomical amounts. He is chastising the Bush administration for increasing the national deficit, but his plans will raise it even more. He wants to add more spending to the federal budget. His health care plan will cost at least about 50-60 billion. Last week, he also pledged at least another 50 billion to fight worldwide poverty. Many believe that the final amount to both will be substantially higher, possibly in the hundreds of billions. Other than getting out of Iraq, he has not proposed any other spending cuts. He still going to fight in Afghanistan. Even though he chastises the Bush administration for the leap in the amount of the deficit, he has not come up with anything that will cut it. So far, it will seem to only increase under his administration. His tax increases to the wealthy isn't going to be enough to cover his ambitious aspirations.
Apparently, he has found out that if he spends more, we will get a surplus. He seems to believe that if you subtract money from the budget, it will actually add money to our budget. My elementary math teachers were wrong all of this time.
I want to go into the topic of the probable spending of hundreds of billions for worldwide poverty. Donating money to the poor is a very noble thing to do, but shouldn't we use that money to take care of our own poor. Recently there have been tent cities or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression, have been popping up accross the nation. From Reno to Seattle to Athens, Ga. they are growing at alarming rates. Many inhabitants of those "cities", whose homes were foreclosed on, have nowhere to go, and the shelters are full. With the amount of growing homeless population and economic insecurity, shouldn't we focus our limited financial resources on our own poor before we focus so much on other countries?
From both economic plans that the candidates as they have been presented, we will have deficits no matter who we elect. The real question who will be able to trust to control the amount of spending the best.
Palin has had experience in cutting budgets. McCain has already been against the overuse of earmark pork spending. Obama has made campaign promises that, if kept, will put the deficit of into astronomical amounts. He is chastising the Bush administration for increasing the national deficit, but his plans will raise it even more. He wants to add more spending to the federal budget. His health care plan will cost at least about 50-60 billion. Last week, he also pledged at least another 50 billion to fight worldwide poverty. Many believe that the final amount to both will be substantially higher, possibly in the hundreds of billions. Other than getting out of Iraq, he has not proposed any other spending cuts. He still going to fight in Afghanistan. Even though he chastises the Bush administration for the leap in the amount of the deficit, he has not come up with anything that will cut it. So far, it will seem to only increase under his administration. His tax increases to the wealthy isn't going to be enough to cover his ambitious aspirations.
Apparently, he has found out that if he spends more, we will get a surplus. He seems to believe that if you subtract money from the budget, it will actually add money to our budget. My elementary math teachers were wrong all of this time.
I want to go into the topic of the probable spending of hundreds of billions for worldwide poverty. Donating money to the poor is a very noble thing to do, but shouldn't we use that money to take care of our own poor. Recently there have been tent cities or "Hoovervilles", as they were called in the Great Depression, have been popping up accross the nation. From Reno to Seattle to Athens, Ga. they are growing at alarming rates. Many inhabitants of those "cities", whose homes were foreclosed on, have nowhere to go, and the shelters are full. With the amount of growing homeless population and economic insecurity, shouldn't we focus our limited financial resources on our own poor before we focus so much on other countries?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Cleaning Up the Mud
A lot has been said ever since John McCain picked Palin to be his VP. When the US magazine cover said "Babies, Lies, & Scandal", they were referring to Palin, but they should have been talking about themselves and the rest of the media. In this case, it is certainly true that the same hand that the media had pointing an accusing finger at Palin had four other fingers pointed right back at them. Gibson needs to do a little more research next time. His question to Palin about the "Bush Doctrine" was very misleading. There are at least 4 statements that have been called the "Bush Doctrine" over the past 8 years. Which means there is no real Bush Doctrine.
Let me, also, get things straight about ads coming from both campaigns.
First: McCain. Obama wasn't directly calling Palin a pig, but I believe it was too soon and too much of a coincidence for it not have been at least a slap to her. Obama didn't pass a law that kindergarteners should learn about sex but rather how to avoid sexual predators.
Second: Obama. McCain isn't incapable mentally or unwilling to learn to use a computer or do email, but his war injuries make it physically impossible to type or use a PC efficiently. He needs to stop talking about the GOP's role in covering up for Freddie and Fannie. In just 4 yrs, he managed to make it to 2nd in the Senate all-time money received from those two companies. McCain on the other hand only received $20,000 over 20 yrs. Here's some more advice to Obama. Don't take a page out of Biden's '88 campaign playbook and plagerize in his speeches. He took almost a direct quote out of a cartoon when make fun of McCain's declaration that he will shake up Washington in his RNC speech. The Obama campaign has made some gross misquotes by cutting them out of context. They said that Karl Rove said that McCain has gone too far in his ads and Carly Fioriona said that neither McCain or Palin can run a corporation. They conveniently forgot that Rove also said that Obama went too far, and Carly said that Obama nor Biden could be CEOs either.
Come on let's be real.
Let me, also, get things straight about ads coming from both campaigns.
First: McCain. Obama wasn't directly calling Palin a pig, but I believe it was too soon and too much of a coincidence for it not have been at least a slap to her. Obama didn't pass a law that kindergarteners should learn about sex but rather how to avoid sexual predators.
Second: Obama. McCain isn't incapable mentally or unwilling to learn to use a computer or do email, but his war injuries make it physically impossible to type or use a PC efficiently. He needs to stop talking about the GOP's role in covering up for Freddie and Fannie. In just 4 yrs, he managed to make it to 2nd in the Senate all-time money received from those two companies. McCain on the other hand only received $20,000 over 20 yrs. Here's some more advice to Obama. Don't take a page out of Biden's '88 campaign playbook and plagerize in his speeches. He took almost a direct quote out of a cartoon when make fun of McCain's declaration that he will shake up Washington in his RNC speech. The Obama campaign has made some gross misquotes by cutting them out of context. They said that Karl Rove said that McCain has gone too far in his ads and Carly Fioriona said that neither McCain or Palin can run a corporation. They conveniently forgot that Rove also said that Obama went too far, and Carly said that Obama nor Biden could be CEOs either.
Come on let's be real.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
RNC "Changes" the Game
The RNC this past week revealed their attack on Obama's change platform. This moves the campaign in a whole new direction. I believe that McCain thinks that he has experience locked. The left are attacking Palin's experience, but there one important difference. Obama is the #1, and Palin is the #2. I will get to Palin and the experience issue in a later article. Obama has left the change window open.
Everyone knows that McCain has often bucked his own party. He has often voted with Democrats on environmental issues. He has been apart of most of the bipartisan "gangs" to reach compromises on tough issues. He had gone after Bush for his mismanagement of the war early. He went up against both Republicans, including Bush, and Democrats in going for the surge. He picked Sarah Palin, a reformer governor from Alaska and Washington outsider, as VP. She went after the corruption in Alaska including Republicans.
Obama has opened the door by promoting himself as the personification of bipartisan and post-race America. One of the main reasons for his victory over Clinton was his ability to energize younger voters by being "different". That support has dwindled, since he has lost a lot of that "new" look.
His bipartisan and post-racial claims has taken a hit because of his antics. His use of McCain's "5 million" joke, that he made at Saddleback, as proof of McCain's beliefs reeks of same old politics. His flip-flops on public financing isn't new politics. His love for the small-town America and the middle class in Scranton and disdain for them in San Francisco with the charge of them clinging to Bibles and guns shows that he will say what he has to say, depending on who he is talking with, to get their support. That is not anything new but the oldest of political ploys. His charge that the right will try to scare people cause he "doesn't look like the rest of the people on the dollar bills" or because "he's black" before anyone brought up race shows that he doesn't really transcend race. He embraced the Wright church and the Chicago political machine to help him get ahead. Then, he throws them aside when it hurts him politically is not new. His constant changing of positions on Russia's invasion of Georgia shows that he is only saying what he feels is more politically beneficial to his win. All of this has cost him support, especially among younger voters.
Will McCain be able to steal this advantage? Possibly. He will definitely blunt it at least. Obama has left himself vulnerable on this issue lately. McCain's pick of Palin and previous bipartisan record will help take advantage of Obama's vulnerability on it. His pick of Palin could re-energize some of those younger voters especially women except this time in favor of McCain/Palin.
Everyone knows that McCain has often bucked his own party. He has often voted with Democrats on environmental issues. He has been apart of most of the bipartisan "gangs" to reach compromises on tough issues. He had gone after Bush for his mismanagement of the war early. He went up against both Republicans, including Bush, and Democrats in going for the surge. He picked Sarah Palin, a reformer governor from Alaska and Washington outsider, as VP. She went after the corruption in Alaska including Republicans.
Obama has opened the door by promoting himself as the personification of bipartisan and post-race America. One of the main reasons for his victory over Clinton was his ability to energize younger voters by being "different". That support has dwindled, since he has lost a lot of that "new" look.
His bipartisan and post-racial claims has taken a hit because of his antics. His use of McCain's "5 million" joke, that he made at Saddleback, as proof of McCain's beliefs reeks of same old politics. His flip-flops on public financing isn't new politics. His love for the small-town America and the middle class in Scranton and disdain for them in San Francisco with the charge of them clinging to Bibles and guns shows that he will say what he has to say, depending on who he is talking with, to get their support. That is not anything new but the oldest of political ploys. His charge that the right will try to scare people cause he "doesn't look like the rest of the people on the dollar bills" or because "he's black" before anyone brought up race shows that he doesn't really transcend race. He embraced the Wright church and the Chicago political machine to help him get ahead. Then, he throws them aside when it hurts him politically is not new. His constant changing of positions on Russia's invasion of Georgia shows that he is only saying what he feels is more politically beneficial to his win. All of this has cost him support, especially among younger voters.
Will McCain be able to steal this advantage? Possibly. He will definitely blunt it at least. Obama has left himself vulnerable on this issue lately. McCain's pick of Palin and previous bipartisan record will help take advantage of Obama's vulnerability on it. His pick of Palin could re-energize some of those younger voters especially women except this time in favor of McCain/Palin.
Monday, September 1, 2008
DNC goes Hollywood
First of all, let me congratulate Obama for becoming the party's nominee. It is a historic moment for America. I watched the DNC and read many of the speech transcripts more than once. It was an impressive spectacle and a great show. It just had some major flaws in their arguments. I am going to go over some of the major themes going thru most of their speeches.
The economy was one of the big topics. Now the economy has taken a hit. Even though technically we are not in a recession, we are definitely in a stalemate. They want to blame the republicans for all of it. That is unfair considering two of the main reasons for this stalemate are just as much the Dems fault. The reasons are 9/11 and the energy crisis.
Let's first talk about 9/11. It did happen under Bush's watch. So, he does deserve some blame, but it happened only 9 months after he took office. The plot was not planned for only months. This was a plot that was cooked up over years. Al Queda hit us 3 times during Clinton's presidency: WTC, embassies in Africa, and USS Cole. Terrorism also hit us in Oklahoma City. OKC wasn't Al Queda but it should have helped wake us up to the threat of all kinds of terrorism. Clinton was our leader. He should have helped build our defenses against our enemies. All he did was throw missiles at him after calling them and warning him giving them time to get out. Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights twice. He let him go twice. Sudan offered him up to us gift-wrapped with an apple in his mouth. He refused to extradite him even though he had already been indicted in the first WTC bombing in 93. Could his arrest have stopped 9/11 before it happened? Why do they give him a pass for his role in the attack?
Secondly, the energy crisis is the fault of both parties. The dems have been influenced by environmentalists and republicans have been influenced by the oil industry. What we need is all the above. We need offshore drilling, better conservation, alternative fuels, nuclear, etc. They can't put all of the blame on the GOP.
With Gustav approaching, we are reminded of Katrina. They gave themselves all of the credit for rebuilding New Orleans and none of the blame for the botched handling of the storm. They want to give all of the blame to Bush (which he was man enough to admit) and FEMA. They do deserve it, but let's not forget Dems Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin. The bulk of the responsibility of dealing with and preparing for disasters has been the job of the local govts not federal.
Iraq was another big issue that was beat to death. Obama was said to have been right about not going into Iraq and a time line of getting out. I happen to believe that if we would have known that there were no WMDs, we wouldn't have gone in. However, most of the democrats thought he did too including Biden. I've got to wonder was his stance against the war because of military reasons or appeasement. It was too soon to go into Iraq, but hindsight is always 20/20. They give him credit for setting a time line of withdrawal. He was for a time line when we were losing. Basically, he wanted to cut and run. He wanted to make the same mistake that Bush 41 made. The only reason a time line is being accepted by the administration isn't because of Obama's influence but the success of the surge that McCain fought for and Obama spoke out against. People need to realize that the two main jobs of a president is foreign relations and commander-in-chief, the two biggest weakness' of Sen Obama.
Hillary made a great speech. However, did anyone else realize that she didn't say once during the speech that Obama was ready or that he would be a good president. She just implied that we should vote for him because he was a dem. It was a "put your name here" speech. The speech could've fit any generic democrat. There wasn't anything good in it specific to Obama.
Bill's speech was much better and beneficial to Obama. Although, he said that they were on the right side of the history. Obama was wrong about the surge, and at the timeline he first brought it up, he was wrong about the time line.
Here are some various misinformation that was thrown out there by some speakers. Biden claimed that McCain was against raising minimum wage. He didn't mention that McCain voted for the last time it was raised. Sen Kerry said that N Korea had nuclear bombs. Bush has kept that from happening. Kerry chastised McCain for flip-flops he had over the years, but he doesn't mention Obama's flops over the past few months. He implied that Bush did little for AIDS research. Bush spent over $15 billion on fighting AIDS worldwide in 07. That is much more than any other administration before him including two "champions" of AIDS research like Clinton and Carter. What is wrong that picture?
Finally, let me get to the superstar himself. Obama had a very good speech. It was a huge celebration. I almost thought he just won the Super Bowl for the Broncos with all of the fireworks. It was almost as much as China did for the opening ceremony for the Olympics. I half expected him to start telling reporters that he was going to Disneyworld. Maybe we will see him on a Wheaties box in a couple weeks shooting a basketball with that sweet jumpshot he has.
It was mostly platitudes no specific ideas on how he was going to accomplish what he said he would do. How is he going to pay for it? He has not given any specific plan. If he says wants to debate McCain anytime, why is he avoiding it?
The economy was one of the big topics. Now the economy has taken a hit. Even though technically we are not in a recession, we are definitely in a stalemate. They want to blame the republicans for all of it. That is unfair considering two of the main reasons for this stalemate are just as much the Dems fault. The reasons are 9/11 and the energy crisis.
Let's first talk about 9/11. It did happen under Bush's watch. So, he does deserve some blame, but it happened only 9 months after he took office. The plot was not planned for only months. This was a plot that was cooked up over years. Al Queda hit us 3 times during Clinton's presidency: WTC, embassies in Africa, and USS Cole. Terrorism also hit us in Oklahoma City. OKC wasn't Al Queda but it should have helped wake us up to the threat of all kinds of terrorism. Clinton was our leader. He should have helped build our defenses against our enemies. All he did was throw missiles at him after calling them and warning him giving them time to get out. Clinton had Bin Laden in his sights twice. He let him go twice. Sudan offered him up to us gift-wrapped with an apple in his mouth. He refused to extradite him even though he had already been indicted in the first WTC bombing in 93. Could his arrest have stopped 9/11 before it happened? Why do they give him a pass for his role in the attack?
Secondly, the energy crisis is the fault of both parties. The dems have been influenced by environmentalists and republicans have been influenced by the oil industry. What we need is all the above. We need offshore drilling, better conservation, alternative fuels, nuclear, etc. They can't put all of the blame on the GOP.
With Gustav approaching, we are reminded of Katrina. They gave themselves all of the credit for rebuilding New Orleans and none of the blame for the botched handling of the storm. They want to give all of the blame to Bush (which he was man enough to admit) and FEMA. They do deserve it, but let's not forget Dems Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin. The bulk of the responsibility of dealing with and preparing for disasters has been the job of the local govts not federal.
Iraq was another big issue that was beat to death. Obama was said to have been right about not going into Iraq and a time line of getting out. I happen to believe that if we would have known that there were no WMDs, we wouldn't have gone in. However, most of the democrats thought he did too including Biden. I've got to wonder was his stance against the war because of military reasons or appeasement. It was too soon to go into Iraq, but hindsight is always 20/20. They give him credit for setting a time line of withdrawal. He was for a time line when we were losing. Basically, he wanted to cut and run. He wanted to make the same mistake that Bush 41 made. The only reason a time line is being accepted by the administration isn't because of Obama's influence but the success of the surge that McCain fought for and Obama spoke out against. People need to realize that the two main jobs of a president is foreign relations and commander-in-chief, the two biggest weakness' of Sen Obama.
Hillary made a great speech. However, did anyone else realize that she didn't say once during the speech that Obama was ready or that he would be a good president. She just implied that we should vote for him because he was a dem. It was a "put your name here" speech. The speech could've fit any generic democrat. There wasn't anything good in it specific to Obama.
Bill's speech was much better and beneficial to Obama. Although, he said that they were on the right side of the history. Obama was wrong about the surge, and at the timeline he first brought it up, he was wrong about the time line.
Here are some various misinformation that was thrown out there by some speakers. Biden claimed that McCain was against raising minimum wage. He didn't mention that McCain voted for the last time it was raised. Sen Kerry said that N Korea had nuclear bombs. Bush has kept that from happening. Kerry chastised McCain for flip-flops he had over the years, but he doesn't mention Obama's flops over the past few months. He implied that Bush did little for AIDS research. Bush spent over $15 billion on fighting AIDS worldwide in 07. That is much more than any other administration before him including two "champions" of AIDS research like Clinton and Carter. What is wrong that picture?
Finally, let me get to the superstar himself. Obama had a very good speech. It was a huge celebration. I almost thought he just won the Super Bowl for the Broncos with all of the fireworks. It was almost as much as China did for the opening ceremony for the Olympics. I half expected him to start telling reporters that he was going to Disneyworld. Maybe we will see him on a Wheaties box in a couple weeks shooting a basketball with that sweet jumpshot he has.
It was mostly platitudes no specific ideas on how he was going to accomplish what he said he would do. How is he going to pay for it? He has not given any specific plan. If he says wants to debate McCain anytime, why is he avoiding it?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Welcome
This my new blog talking about today's important issues without the liberal news filter. I will do my best to give you the my side of issues that is shaping this nation.I will give you my point of view. I welcome your comments as long as you keep it clean. Debate can only help us all grow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
