Sorry, but I couldn't help myself. Thought of that one all by myself. A couple of things struck me when I saw the video of this lunatic launching his size 10 Keds at President Bush:
1. Man, that guy has some decent aim. I'm thinking he's done this before.
2. Man, Bush still has some decent reflexes. Nice moves!
3. Man, what was the secret service doing between shoe throw #1 and shoe throw #2?
I always thought that if you are trying to do something to the president, you may be lucky enough to get the first shot off, but you would be on the ground before the second. I guess that is not the case. Maybe those guys are focused on Obama now. I mean, their supposed to be willing to take a bullet. At this point, they won't even take a shoe for the guy! I don't care if you've already screened everyone for weapons ... there's always the chance you missed something. And you're in Iraq, for crying out loud. I know we've made some serious progress, but I wouldn't think it is the absolute safest place for President Bush to be.
Although, I wonder if his approval ratings are higher there than here? I'd take that bet.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
No offense, but this is kinda stupid ...
Take a quick read, if you haven't already, about the anti-Prop 8-ers who are going to "Call in gay" instead of going to work in order to show people "how much the country relies on gays and lesbians."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081209/D94URMF80.html
I'm sorry, but whether or not this country "relies on" gays and lesbians has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute over the issues of gay marriage. The comparison is to a form of protest by illegal immigrants who wanted to demonstrate their value to the economy. The only problem is, in that case, many people actually want the illegals to leave the country ... thus their form of protest is at least tied to a relevant argument (although not one I agree with). Who cares whether or not you are gay and have a job? That's not the issue. Nobody is trying to deny you the right to work in this country.
I respect people on both sides of the Prop 8 issue who are willing to engage in meaningful dialogue to advance a reasoned position. If you want to have a civil discourse about the constitutionality of Prop 8, or the reasons people are for or against the amendment, let's do it. Unfortunately, many people are not willing to do that. Instead they make vicious personal attacks that do not address the underlying merits of the arguments against their position.
I suppose all those who have supported Prop 8 to "Call in Christian" (or fill in whatever other moral foundation serves as the basis for their position) to show how valuable they are to society. But that would be equally ridiculous.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, it may not be the most affective form of protest to boycott the Sundance Film Festival, as many have advocated, just to get back at the Mormons. The Sundance festival takes place in Park City, a particularly liberal area, and isn't what I would call a particularly "Mormon" event.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081209/D94URMF80.html
I'm sorry, but whether or not this country "relies on" gays and lesbians has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute over the issues of gay marriage. The comparison is to a form of protest by illegal immigrants who wanted to demonstrate their value to the economy. The only problem is, in that case, many people actually want the illegals to leave the country ... thus their form of protest is at least tied to a relevant argument (although not one I agree with). Who cares whether or not you are gay and have a job? That's not the issue. Nobody is trying to deny you the right to work in this country.
I respect people on both sides of the Prop 8 issue who are willing to engage in meaningful dialogue to advance a reasoned position. If you want to have a civil discourse about the constitutionality of Prop 8, or the reasons people are for or against the amendment, let's do it. Unfortunately, many people are not willing to do that. Instead they make vicious personal attacks that do not address the underlying merits of the arguments against their position.
I suppose all those who have supported Prop 8 to "Call in Christian" (or fill in whatever other moral foundation serves as the basis for their position) to show how valuable they are to society. But that would be equally ridiculous.
Oh, and while we're on the subject, it may not be the most affective form of protest to boycott the Sundance Film Festival, as many have advocated, just to get back at the Mormons. The Sundance festival takes place in Park City, a particularly liberal area, and isn't what I would call a particularly "Mormon" event.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Peter Schiff For President!!!
Or at least the President's top economic advisor. This is a must watch. This video is absolutely hilarious and very sad all at the same time. If you are like me, you will be struck by how so many people who appear to be intelligent and well-informed could be so completely wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Just Let (Make?) Them Declare Bankruptcy!!!
This whole bailout concept is getting ridiculous, and "Big Three" are some of the more pathetic panhandlers. This is an industry that refused to find ways to compete with foreign companies, convinced congress to draft anti-competition legislation that they thought would protect them, gave in to absolutely ridiculous demands by the UAW, and now wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill for their stupidity. I vote no. The unions are finally realizing that they need to ease back on some of the insanity, and have now announced that they will accept a delay in payments to certain pension funds, and perhaps even agree to a modification of a ridiculous program in which workers are paid to do cross-word puzzles, Sudoku ... pretty much anything they want to do but work.
Read this story and tell me the unions aren't killing these companies:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
Someone please explain to me why Congress is so intent to throw good money after bad. The model isn't working, don't prop it up with my tax dollars. Not to mention, the "Big Three" couldn't even put together a coherent plan to convince Congress to write them a check ... and with the current Congress that says a lot.
Yet Nancy Pelosi stands in front of the public and declares that bankruptcy isn't an option. WHY NOT??? A Chapter 11 bankruptcy might be just what these companies need. It would allow them to reorganize, free from the stranglehold that the UAW currently has on them. All those ridiculous union contracts could be modified or done away with. When a company files under Chapter 11, it doesn't just disappear. It continues to operate while it figures out how to run a profitable business. These companies need a reality check and the unions need to realize they they've pushed too far. For years they have been slowly killing the golden goose, biting the hand that feeds them. They've been compensated far more than the market believes they are worth. And for what? To build a sub-standard product, in my opinion.
And another thing. The CEO's salary is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of UAW contract obligations. Accepting $1 for the next year is purely PR. It may make a lot of people happy, because they hate and envy anyone with more money than they have, but it won't save the company. Neither will wasting hours and hours of valuable time to drive to Washington D.C. in their hybrid cars; time that they should be using to figure out how to run your company.
We cannot allow the government to pick the winners and losers. That is the market's job; your job and my job. The U.S. auto-makers need to figure out how to build a better product for less money. Foreign companies are doing it right here on our soil, and I find it insulting that we can't.
Where do the bailouts end? How about the legal profession? When nobody can afford to do deals and sue each other any more, do I get some of that "government" money? I won't hold my breath.
Read this story and tell me the unions aren't killing these companies:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm
Someone please explain to me why Congress is so intent to throw good money after bad. The model isn't working, don't prop it up with my tax dollars. Not to mention, the "Big Three" couldn't even put together a coherent plan to convince Congress to write them a check ... and with the current Congress that says a lot.
Yet Nancy Pelosi stands in front of the public and declares that bankruptcy isn't an option. WHY NOT??? A Chapter 11 bankruptcy might be just what these companies need. It would allow them to reorganize, free from the stranglehold that the UAW currently has on them. All those ridiculous union contracts could be modified or done away with. When a company files under Chapter 11, it doesn't just disappear. It continues to operate while it figures out how to run a profitable business. These companies need a reality check and the unions need to realize they they've pushed too far. For years they have been slowly killing the golden goose, biting the hand that feeds them. They've been compensated far more than the market believes they are worth. And for what? To build a sub-standard product, in my opinion.
And another thing. The CEO's salary is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of UAW contract obligations. Accepting $1 for the next year is purely PR. It may make a lot of people happy, because they hate and envy anyone with more money than they have, but it won't save the company. Neither will wasting hours and hours of valuable time to drive to Washington D.C. in their hybrid cars; time that they should be using to figure out how to run your company.
We cannot allow the government to pick the winners and losers. That is the market's job; your job and my job. The U.S. auto-makers need to figure out how to build a better product for less money. Foreign companies are doing it right here on our soil, and I find it insulting that we can't.
Where do the bailouts end? How about the legal profession? When nobody can afford to do deals and sue each other any more, do I get some of that "government" money? I won't hold my breath.
Way to Go Georgia!
With Al Franken intent on stealing the senate election in Minnesota, a win by the Dems in Georgia would have been catastrophic, as it would have given them a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Thank goodness the Georgia voters wised up, rejected Obama's strong support of Democrat Jim Martin, and elected Republican Saxby Chambliss.
Make no mistake, this is a big victory for the republicans, as Al Franken will now doubt "find" many more votes that weren't counted on election day in an attempt to steal the MN seat. from Norm Coleman. Now if we can only GET THE PARTY BACK ON TRACK.
Make no mistake, this is a big victory for the republicans, as Al Franken will now doubt "find" many more votes that weren't counted on election day in an attempt to steal the MN seat. from Norm Coleman. Now if we can only GET THE PARTY BACK ON TRACK.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Sorry! It's Been Busy.
For the 1 or 2 people who may actually check this blog occasionally, I will be posting something soon. There is certainly plenty to talk about, I've just been busy.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
P.S. I Won't Keep the Song On For Long
I personally find it annoying when songs are on auto-play on blogs, so I will probably take Taxman off auto as of tomorrow. Today I just couldn't help myself. So both of you who read my blog can just deal with it!
UPDATE -- I took the song off. Too annoying ....
UPDATE -- I took the song off. Too annoying ....
Be Careful What you Wish For ....
It's official. America chooses form over substance! OK, no big surprise there. But remember the old saying, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Well, American, you got it. The next question is, what will be the consequences? We don't know enough about Obama to know how he will govern, except that he is by far the most radically liberal President this country has elected.
I take small comfort in the fact that the Democrats did not get a super-majority in the Senate.
It is time for the Republican party to do some serious house cleaning (some of which the democrats took care of for us last night). It's time for new leadership and new faces. The old ones have abandoned too many of the principles that defined the party and made it great. It's a shame that the greatest expansion of government (until Obama gets in the big-boy chair) came from the right.
I take small comfort in the fact that the Democrats did not get a super-majority in the Senate.
It is time for the Republican party to do some serious house cleaning (some of which the democrats took care of for us last night). It's time for new leadership and new faces. The old ones have abandoned too many of the principles that defined the party and made it great. It's a shame that the greatest expansion of government (until Obama gets in the big-boy chair) came from the right.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Coke in the Drinking Fountains
When I was in elementary school we had class elections. Each year, one of the candidates would promise that as class president, he or she would get chocolate milk for lunch (at Onaway School chocolate milk was not sold in our lunch room) and coke in the drinking fountains. I think that most of us can agree that the idea of installing coca-cola drinking fountains at an elementary school is just a bit ridiculous. But guess who would win, time after time. The emotional reaction of K-4 children was enough to secure victory because the children lacked the cognitive reasoning to understand the absurdity of the idea.
Deja-vu.
The exact same ignorance will likely catepult Obama to victory. Watch this grown woman explain why she is going to vote for Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Obama has promised programs, benefits and entitlements that he can't possibly deliver. There isn't enough wealth that he can steal from the rich to pay for everything he says he will do. But that doesn't matter to the Obama voter. The Obama voter just loves the false sense of security that someone else is going to do it for them.
Obama, he's going to give us coke in the drinking fountains. I'm going to start lobbying now for diet because, between you and me, America has put on a little weight lately.
Deja-vu.
The exact same ignorance will likely catepult Obama to victory. Watch this grown woman explain why she is going to vote for Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Obama has promised programs, benefits and entitlements that he can't possibly deliver. There isn't enough wealth that he can steal from the rich to pay for everything he says he will do. But that doesn't matter to the Obama voter. The Obama voter just loves the false sense of security that someone else is going to do it for them.
Obama, he's going to give us coke in the drinking fountains. I'm going to start lobbying now for diet because, between you and me, America has put on a little weight lately.
Monday, November 3, 2008
It's OK, It Doesn't Mean You're A Racist
A message for those who may lack the courage to go out tomorrow and vote for anyone other than the Chosen One himself, who sits on high ready to lead this country to his pipe-dream utopia:
Despite all that you have heard, you actually can vote for McCain and still not be a racist. Of course, you may be branded a racist by many on the left, but what can you do?
Despite all that you have heard, you actually can vote for McCain and still not be a racist. Of course, you may be branded a racist by many on the left, but what can you do?
Something Shorter
I see by the complete lack of comments that nobody has actually made it to the end of my last post. So, here is something a little shorter.
I know I mentioned this briefly in my last post, but it merits a little more discussion. I have just listened again to the audio of Obama talking about his plans for the coal industry. The real kicker here is not just his ideas on how to bankrupt coal electric plants. Obama actually says that under his administration, the cost of electricity will "necessarily skyrocket." Do not believe whatever spin the Obama campaign tries to put on this. You can listen to BO in his own words. He actually wants to cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. Why? Because he agrees with the environmentalist theory that energy prices must be artificially elevated in order to reduce demand to "save the planet." Think about it for a minute. Obama wants to raise your energy prices. A lot. But that won't just affect your own electric bill. It will affect your employer's bill. It will affect the bills paid by all the companies that produce the goods that you buy. On top of all the new taxes businesses are going to be paying, their overhead will increase due to the skyrocketing energy prices. Not only will that cost additional jobs, it will throw one more setback at American companies trying to compete internationally. What a great idea!
We've heard this argument with gas prices. For some time the left was complaining that we need higher gas prices, $3-$4 per gallon like Europe, so that people will stop using so much oil and eventually reduce carbon emissions. Funny, since we've had those gas prices, you haven't noticed the dems out celebrating in the streets, have you? The democrats have screamed just as loud as anyone about it. Why? Because everyone is angry that they are paying so much at the pump! Plus, they think they can just blame it on Bush. Think about the effect higher gas prices have had on the economy. The cost to produce and ship goods has increased dramatically. I guarantee you that jobs have been lost because companies can't afford to do business with those prices, particularly trucking companies. Either that, or the cost has simply been passed on to you. This is, after all, like Obama's promise of increased taxes on corporations. Guess what? Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from you and pass them on. More taxes on corporations equals higher prices for you. When the prices get so high that you decide you don't want to buy anymore, the company may cut prices, but it can only cut so much before it goes under.
I'm sure that when the cost of electricity skyrockets you won't see the dems stand up at a press conference to say "you're welcome, America! We finally got the job done!" I'm guessing they'll find a way to blame someone else, as usual.
I know I mentioned this briefly in my last post, but it merits a little more discussion. I have just listened again to the audio of Obama talking about his plans for the coal industry. The real kicker here is not just his ideas on how to bankrupt coal electric plants. Obama actually says that under his administration, the cost of electricity will "necessarily skyrocket." Do not believe whatever spin the Obama campaign tries to put on this. You can listen to BO in his own words. He actually wants to cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. Why? Because he agrees with the environmentalist theory that energy prices must be artificially elevated in order to reduce demand to "save the planet." Think about it for a minute. Obama wants to raise your energy prices. A lot. But that won't just affect your own electric bill. It will affect your employer's bill. It will affect the bills paid by all the companies that produce the goods that you buy. On top of all the new taxes businesses are going to be paying, their overhead will increase due to the skyrocketing energy prices. Not only will that cost additional jobs, it will throw one more setback at American companies trying to compete internationally. What a great idea!
We've heard this argument with gas prices. For some time the left was complaining that we need higher gas prices, $3-$4 per gallon like Europe, so that people will stop using so much oil and eventually reduce carbon emissions. Funny, since we've had those gas prices, you haven't noticed the dems out celebrating in the streets, have you? The democrats have screamed just as loud as anyone about it. Why? Because everyone is angry that they are paying so much at the pump! Plus, they think they can just blame it on Bush. Think about the effect higher gas prices have had on the economy. The cost to produce and ship goods has increased dramatically. I guarantee you that jobs have been lost because companies can't afford to do business with those prices, particularly trucking companies. Either that, or the cost has simply been passed on to you. This is, after all, like Obama's promise of increased taxes on corporations. Guess what? Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply collect them from you and pass them on. More taxes on corporations equals higher prices for you. When the prices get so high that you decide you don't want to buy anymore, the company may cut prices, but it can only cut so much before it goes under.
I'm sure that when the cost of electricity skyrockets you won't see the dems stand up at a press conference to say "you're welcome, America! We finally got the job done!" I'm guessing they'll find a way to blame someone else, as usual.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
No Representation Without Taxation!
I have a feeling this is going to be long, and I don't have a lot of time. So I am just going to type, spell-check, and let it rip. I apologize in advance for any errors.
The election is upon us. We live in, without a doubt, the greatest nation on the earth. I have become, however, very troubled by the trend I am witnessing both prior to and during this most recent campaign. I have often reflected on the following quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
The author of this quote, to my knowledge is unknown. It is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scottish lawyer and writer. Frankly, I don't care who wrote it. I'm not sure I can agree precisely with the process described, but I can say that I agree with the general principle. I ask you, at what stage in this process do we find our beloved nation? The words complement a thought that I have often had, and that I may have expressed to more than one of you on occasion. Many years ago, the founders of this nation rose up against the concept that they could be taxed arbitrarily without having for themselves a voice in the government. I submit that the pendulum has nearly swung to the opposite end of its path, an equally dangerous proposition --that of representation without taxation.
What do I mean? I mean that as soon as we reach a critical mass of voters in this country who carry little or no liability to pay for the function of government, yet who realize their collective power to lay claim to its seemingly infinite benefits, we will once again have tyranny.
This reminds me of another quote. Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." I don't blame the voter completely in this age. I blame partly a ridiculous system in which candidates have been campaigning for over 2 years, and all we've heard from them are soundbites. I blame a media who has abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and simply signed on as the media wing of the Obama campaign. But the voter is not blameless. In today's culture of celebrity worship, too many prefer to spend their time reading Hollywood gossip magazines and watching the endless drivel broadcast on MTV or E, as if an update on who is in rehab now is far more important than getting to really know the person who will become our next President. Sadly, it is also these voters who likely embrace the political speeches made by their favorite actors about the important political issues of our day, as if that in some perverse way satisfies their civic duty.
America appears ready to elect a man it does not know as President. For those of you reading this blog who will cast your vote for John McCain, I thank you. Even if, like me, there are many others for whom you would prefer to cast your vote besides McCain, we must play the hand we have been dealt. A lack of the best choice must not preclude us from making the better choice.
To those of you who may be reading this blog who intend to cast your vote for Barack Obama, I ask you to consider the following.
Do you know him? Can you trust him? Is his ideology consistent with the Constitution? Does his view of America truly align with your own? In my opinion, Obama is a dishonest and deceitful man. He has consistently changed his positions based on his audience. And I don't just mean the subtle wordsmithing that (unfortunately) accompanies every political campaign. I mean blatantly conflicting statements. In short, I believe the man shamelessly lies in order to sway the hearts of voters.
As an example, over the last week Obama has slowly been changing one of his most prominent lines. Did you believe Obama when he said that only those making above $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up? What about his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Doesn't that automatically increase everyone's taxes? Indeed it does. But somehow Obama has gotten away with the lie. Even worse, now Obama's commercials set the threshold at $200,000. Joe Biden sets it at $150,000. Some day in the near future, a great many Americans are going to wake up and suddenly realize that they are officially "rich." Oh, they won't feel rich. They'll wonder how they became so rich while they are still just getting by on their income. But they will feel the consequences in the form of paying more of their "fair share."
Speaking of fair share, do you really feel comfortable electing a man who bases his tax policies on his own idea of what he believes is fair for the wealthy to pay? Shouldn't the government be concerned only with collecting adequate revenue to carry out its legitimate functions? Yet when Obama was asked why he would want to raise taxes, when the historical data shows an increase in federal revenue when taxes are lowered, Obama rested on fairness. Sure, revenue may be greater if we cut taxes on the rich, but that just isn't fair. The average voter may be shocked to know just how fair the rich's share is. The top 1% of taxpayers collect approximately 19% of income, but carry 39% of the tax burden. Is that fair? The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the taxes.
Do you feel comfortable electing a man who wants to punish businesses and the "rich" with higher taxes during a devastating financial crisis? If so, please explain to me how that will help. What we need is successful businesses and more jobs. Obama says he will create jobs. The problem is that Obama doesn't know how to create a job. It is businesses that create jobs, and when businesses are taxed more they spend less creating jobs. Thus, McCain's yet unanswered question to Obama during the final debate, why would you want to raise anyone's taxes in this economy? Obama argues that it is the middle-class and the poor who need these "tax cuts." I will leave aside for now the lie that is the Obama "tax cut" for the poor. As a man named Neal Boortz often says, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person? You don't. Do you want the government to pinch your employer more so that your employer has to figure out how to cut costs to protect his business? Those cost cuts will eventually cost someone his or her job -- maybe mine, maybe yours. Obama wants more money to carry out his spending programs, because he thinks he has the solutions, through government, for our problems. But government handouts don't create jobs. When has the government been effective at solving problems best handled by competition and the free market?
Do you feel comfortable electing a man with so many questionable ties, and so many radical ideologies? I will not go into each association that I find troubling, but here is a quick list:
- William Ayers
- Bernedine Dorn
- Reverand J. Wright
- Father M. Pfleger
- Khalid al-Monsour
- Tony Rezko
- ACORN
These are Obama's friends. If you don't know who they are, and you plan to vote, you better find out before tomorrow. Obama has been able to get by saying that these people aren't advisers, and aren't part of his campaign. I don't care if they aren't your advisers! If John McCain was friends with the grand-master of the KKK, do you think it would matter to people that he didn't list them as advisers?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's ideology is, to be blunt, un-American. Obama lamented, on tape in 2001, that during the civil rights movement the Supreme Court did not act create redistributive change. Meaning, he wished the Supreme Court had used its power to put in place the type of wealth redistribution that Obama wants to enact legislatively. I want you to, for just a moment, imagine what the reaction would have been of the founding fathers had they been presented with the concept of taking money from Joe in order to pass it on to John in the form of a "tax cut," or "refundable tax credit." That is not freedom. That is not liberty. It is tyranny. In basic terms, it is called theft. America may be at a point where it doesn't like to hear this, but you simply do not have the right to someone else's property. You do not have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The constitution was meant to protect your right to your property. Why do you believe it is any politician's right to take it just to give it to you?
Are you comfortable electing a man who has stated that he will put policies in place that will essentially bankrupt the coal industry? Obama wants to make the cost of doing business, in the form of taxes on carbon emissions, so onerous that a very large industry in America will suffer greatly and perhaps collapse. Keep in mind that 49% of our electricity comes from coal. Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people are employed by or otherwise have a job because of the coal industry. Does Obama factor in those lost jobs when he talks about the ones he is going to "create"? When discussing the great benefit of his "tax cuts" for the middle class did Obama factor in the huge increase in cost we will see for our electricity when he puts a stranglehold on the coal industry and opposes any more nuclear power? I think not.
Lastly, I want you to ask yourself one simple question as you examine the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. What has Obama ever accomplished? What has the man ever done that makes you think he is qualified for the highest office in this country? Perhaps when you are done criticizing Sarah Palin -- a successful governor -- for her lack of experience, you can turn your intellectual focus on Obama. Are you really willing to roll the dice on a candidate whose experience and abilities we know next to nothing about? When the now infamous "3am phone call" comes, the President of the United States doesn't have the luxury of "voting present." I value this country and my liberty far too much to cast a vote for the type of change Barack Obama promises.
The election is upon us. We live in, without a doubt, the greatest nation on the earth. I have become, however, very troubled by the trend I am witnessing both prior to and during this most recent campaign. I have often reflected on the following quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
The author of this quote, to my knowledge is unknown. It is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, a Scottish lawyer and writer. Frankly, I don't care who wrote it. I'm not sure I can agree precisely with the process described, but I can say that I agree with the general principle. I ask you, at what stage in this process do we find our beloved nation? The words complement a thought that I have often had, and that I may have expressed to more than one of you on occasion. Many years ago, the founders of this nation rose up against the concept that they could be taxed arbitrarily without having for themselves a voice in the government. I submit that the pendulum has nearly swung to the opposite end of its path, an equally dangerous proposition --that of representation without taxation.
What do I mean? I mean that as soon as we reach a critical mass of voters in this country who carry little or no liability to pay for the function of government, yet who realize their collective power to lay claim to its seemingly infinite benefits, we will once again have tyranny.
This reminds me of another quote. Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." I don't blame the voter completely in this age. I blame partly a ridiculous system in which candidates have been campaigning for over 2 years, and all we've heard from them are soundbites. I blame a media who has abandoned all pretense of objectivity, and simply signed on as the media wing of the Obama campaign. But the voter is not blameless. In today's culture of celebrity worship, too many prefer to spend their time reading Hollywood gossip magazines and watching the endless drivel broadcast on MTV or E, as if an update on who is in rehab now is far more important than getting to really know the person who will become our next President. Sadly, it is also these voters who likely embrace the political speeches made by their favorite actors about the important political issues of our day, as if that in some perverse way satisfies their civic duty.
America appears ready to elect a man it does not know as President. For those of you reading this blog who will cast your vote for John McCain, I thank you. Even if, like me, there are many others for whom you would prefer to cast your vote besides McCain, we must play the hand we have been dealt. A lack of the best choice must not preclude us from making the better choice.
To those of you who may be reading this blog who intend to cast your vote for Barack Obama, I ask you to consider the following.
Do you know him? Can you trust him? Is his ideology consistent with the Constitution? Does his view of America truly align with your own? In my opinion, Obama is a dishonest and deceitful man. He has consistently changed his positions based on his audience. And I don't just mean the subtle wordsmithing that (unfortunately) accompanies every political campaign. I mean blatantly conflicting statements. In short, I believe the man shamelessly lies in order to sway the hearts of voters.
As an example, over the last week Obama has slowly been changing one of his most prominent lines. Did you believe Obama when he said that only those making above $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up? What about his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire? Doesn't that automatically increase everyone's taxes? Indeed it does. But somehow Obama has gotten away with the lie. Even worse, now Obama's commercials set the threshold at $200,000. Joe Biden sets it at $150,000. Some day in the near future, a great many Americans are going to wake up and suddenly realize that they are officially "rich." Oh, they won't feel rich. They'll wonder how they became so rich while they are still just getting by on their income. But they will feel the consequences in the form of paying more of their "fair share."
Speaking of fair share, do you really feel comfortable electing a man who bases his tax policies on his own idea of what he believes is fair for the wealthy to pay? Shouldn't the government be concerned only with collecting adequate revenue to carry out its legitimate functions? Yet when Obama was asked why he would want to raise taxes, when the historical data shows an increase in federal revenue when taxes are lowered, Obama rested on fairness. Sure, revenue may be greater if we cut taxes on the rich, but that just isn't fair. The average voter may be shocked to know just how fair the rich's share is. The top 1% of taxpayers collect approximately 19% of income, but carry 39% of the tax burden. Is that fair? The top 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the taxes.
Do you feel comfortable electing a man who wants to punish businesses and the "rich" with higher taxes during a devastating financial crisis? If so, please explain to me how that will help. What we need is successful businesses and more jobs. Obama says he will create jobs. The problem is that Obama doesn't know how to create a job. It is businesses that create jobs, and when businesses are taxed more they spend less creating jobs. Thus, McCain's yet unanswered question to Obama during the final debate, why would you want to raise anyone's taxes in this economy? Obama argues that it is the middle-class and the poor who need these "tax cuts." I will leave aside for now the lie that is the Obama "tax cut" for the poor. As a man named Neal Boortz often says, when was the last time you got a job from a poor person? You don't. Do you want the government to pinch your employer more so that your employer has to figure out how to cut costs to protect his business? Those cost cuts will eventually cost someone his or her job -- maybe mine, maybe yours. Obama wants more money to carry out his spending programs, because he thinks he has the solutions, through government, for our problems. But government handouts don't create jobs. When has the government been effective at solving problems best handled by competition and the free market?
Do you feel comfortable electing a man with so many questionable ties, and so many radical ideologies? I will not go into each association that I find troubling, but here is a quick list:
- William Ayers
- Bernedine Dorn
- Reverand J. Wright
- Father M. Pfleger
- Khalid al-Monsour
- Tony Rezko
- ACORN
These are Obama's friends. If you don't know who they are, and you plan to vote, you better find out before tomorrow. Obama has been able to get by saying that these people aren't advisers, and aren't part of his campaign. I don't care if they aren't your advisers! If John McCain was friends with the grand-master of the KKK, do you think it would matter to people that he didn't list them as advisers?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's ideology is, to be blunt, un-American. Obama lamented, on tape in 2001, that during the civil rights movement the Supreme Court did not act create redistributive change. Meaning, he wished the Supreme Court had used its power to put in place the type of wealth redistribution that Obama wants to enact legislatively. I want you to, for just a moment, imagine what the reaction would have been of the founding fathers had they been presented with the concept of taking money from Joe in order to pass it on to John in the form of a "tax cut," or "refundable tax credit." That is not freedom. That is not liberty. It is tyranny. In basic terms, it is called theft. America may be at a point where it doesn't like to hear this, but you simply do not have the right to someone else's property. You do not have the right to the fruits of someone else's labor. The constitution was meant to protect your right to your property. Why do you believe it is any politician's right to take it just to give it to you?
Are you comfortable electing a man who has stated that he will put policies in place that will essentially bankrupt the coal industry? Obama wants to make the cost of doing business, in the form of taxes on carbon emissions, so onerous that a very large industry in America will suffer greatly and perhaps collapse. Keep in mind that 49% of our electricity comes from coal. Keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people are employed by or otherwise have a job because of the coal industry. Does Obama factor in those lost jobs when he talks about the ones he is going to "create"? When discussing the great benefit of his "tax cuts" for the middle class did Obama factor in the huge increase in cost we will see for our electricity when he puts a stranglehold on the coal industry and opposes any more nuclear power? I think not.
Lastly, I want you to ask yourself one simple question as you examine the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. What has Obama ever accomplished? What has the man ever done that makes you think he is qualified for the highest office in this country? Perhaps when you are done criticizing Sarah Palin -- a successful governor -- for her lack of experience, you can turn your intellectual focus on Obama. Are you really willing to roll the dice on a candidate whose experience and abilities we know next to nothing about? When the now infamous "3am phone call" comes, the President of the United States doesn't have the luxury of "voting present." I value this country and my liberty far too much to cast a vote for the type of change Barack Obama promises.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Go Ahead and Take the Day Off to Vote ... Don't Worry, Pay-Day (Inauguration Day) Is Coming Soon!
Here is an Obama ad telling everyone to take the entire day off to vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UFzkO5OhKY
Wait, isn't this the campaign that has people rounding up the homeless and driving them to the voting booths? No pan-handling for you today!
But seriously, how long does it take to vote? Is there really a need to encourage Obama supporters to be LESS productive in today's economy? I guess the average Obama voter is going into the booth with $$$ in their eyes anyway. Why not take the day off? Pretty soon The Chosen One will be giving you checks filled with other people's money!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UFzkO5OhKY
Wait, isn't this the campaign that has people rounding up the homeless and driving them to the voting booths? No pan-handling for you today!
But seriously, how long does it take to vote? Is there really a need to encourage Obama supporters to be LESS productive in today's economy? I guess the average Obama voter is going into the booth with $$$ in their eyes anyway. Why not take the day off? Pretty soon The Chosen One will be giving you checks filled with other people's money!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Must Read
As I said a couple of posts back, I honestly believe that if the mainstream media had even a shred of integrity, this election would be over for Barack Obama. In fact, we would currently be choosing between Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. Whatever their motives, the members of the media are absolutely determined to get Barack Obama elected. His credentials simply do not merit the admiration and support he has received from the left. I'll say it again: He's good at speaking and winning elections. But in my mind he has proven himself grossly under-qualified for the position he seeks.
For those of you who read Drudge, you've probably already seen this piece. If you haven't read it, please do. This is a fantastic piece, titled Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?, and it takes the media to task for its unabashed bias. It is very well written, and directly on point. On top of that, it is a quick read, so do it!
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
For those of you who read Drudge, you've probably already seen this piece. If you haven't read it, please do. This is a fantastic piece, titled Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?, and it takes the media to task for its unabashed bias. It is very well written, and directly on point. On top of that, it is a quick read, so do it!
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Obama's Political Philosophies
Below is a link to an article written by one of the few people who is actually trying to find out what Obama's political core really is.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA
Also, looks like academia is coming to the defense of Bill Ayers. They say that all that terrorism stuff is just in the past. Unfortunately, it was actually quite recently that Ayers said that he did not regret what he did, and wishes he would have done more. This is a man who helped found the Weather Underground, and bombed government buildings. Targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and building used bythe NYPD. The Weather Underground also conducted armed robberies to finance their attacks, including bank robberies. Americans were killed.
If someone like that was "a guy in my neighborhood," I'd seriously consider moving. If I were on a board with someone like that, I'd resign. If someone like that offered me a job heading up one of his foundations, I'd turn it down. If someone like that hosted a political fundraiser for me, not only would I not attend, but I would publicly denounce any association with that person as strongly as possible and examine my own positions to figure out why in the world I was attracting the support of someone like that in the first place. None of this seems to trouble Barack Obama, except to the extent it is a political liability. Perhaps that is because to Obama, Ayers doesn't seem all that radical.
Here is a petition signed by over 3,000 academics supporting Ayers:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/
A couple of my favorite names on the list:
- Ward Churchill, the man who pretended to be native american, and who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns."
- Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian activist, and former Director of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's press agency in 1982, when the PLO was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.
By the way, Khalidi is another one of Obama's old friends that the media doesn't seem to care about. Obama likes to defend his friendships by pointing out that they aren't involved in his campaign or advising him on policy. You don't need them to advise you if you already share their views. I'm not saying that's the case in all circumstances, I'm just saying that nobody has bothered to ask or find out.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA
Also, looks like academia is coming to the defense of Bill Ayers. They say that all that terrorism stuff is just in the past. Unfortunately, it was actually quite recently that Ayers said that he did not regret what he did, and wishes he would have done more. This is a man who helped found the Weather Underground, and bombed government buildings. Targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and building used bythe NYPD. The Weather Underground also conducted armed robberies to finance their attacks, including bank robberies. Americans were killed.
If someone like that was "a guy in my neighborhood," I'd seriously consider moving. If I were on a board with someone like that, I'd resign. If someone like that offered me a job heading up one of his foundations, I'd turn it down. If someone like that hosted a political fundraiser for me, not only would I not attend, but I would publicly denounce any association with that person as strongly as possible and examine my own positions to figure out why in the world I was attracting the support of someone like that in the first place. None of this seems to trouble Barack Obama, except to the extent it is a political liability. Perhaps that is because to Obama, Ayers doesn't seem all that radical.
Here is a petition signed by over 3,000 academics supporting Ayers:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/
A couple of my favorite names on the list:
- Ward Churchill, the man who pretended to be native american, and who called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns."
- Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian activist, and former Director of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's press agency in 1982, when the PLO was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.
By the way, Khalidi is another one of Obama's old friends that the media doesn't seem to care about. Obama likes to defend his friendships by pointing out that they aren't involved in his campaign or advising him on policy. You don't need them to advise you if you already share their views. I'm not saying that's the case in all circumstances, I'm just saying that nobody has bothered to ask or find out.
Absolutely Disgraceful
(Please excuse any typos not caught by the spell checker, as I am in a huge hurry to write this)
I have never seen anything like the bias the media has for Obama and Biden, and against McCain and Palin. In fact, "bias" doesn't even begin to describe what is happening in this election. I've now passed the point of "had it" and am flat-out furious.
When in American history has there been a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that the country knows so little about? It is not even conceivable to me that the media would have absolutely no interest in finding out who this man is, nor do they have any interest in reporting anything that could be considered negative about either man on the DNC ticket.
Take Biden, for example. Anyone remember his quote about a "three letter word" called J-O-B-S? You may not, because the media didn't seem interested. Certainly, it is not a big deal. But compare that to the treatment given to Palin. Think back to Dan Quayle, who failed to catch a misspelling on the card he was given and repeated it on camera.
What about Biden's grave warning that electing Obama will bring an international crisis within 6 months designed to test the young President? Obama is now trying to spin Biden's comment to mean that either president will face a crisis in the next 6 months. But that's not at all what Biden said. Go back and read the quote. Biden said, among other things: (1) the world will try to test him because he is young (and it is inferred lacks experience), (2) America will have to back Obama because it won't be immediately clear that he has done the right thing in response. I don't know what Biden knows, but that sounds a little strange to me. The world will test Obama because he appears inexperienced and weak, and you'll just have to trust us, because it will appear that we are screwing up the response. Um, OK.
There is so much more, but I only have so much time. Instead, we are talking about the fact that Palin needed new clothes. Of course she needed new clothes! She was suddenly running as the VP of the United States. You think a self-made woman from a small town in Alaska has a wardrobe set aside for that? Can we please find out how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost? How about Hillary? I heard Rush Limbaugh today make a good point as I was picking up some food. A famous designer (don't remember the name), who designed Hillary's pant-suits was shocked that the Palin has to pay for her clothes ... Hillary got them for free. Each pant-suit carries a price tag of well over $6,000, by the way.
One more thing. If anyone did not see the hit-piece (sorry, I mean article) in the NYT about Cindy McCain, you should take a look. Tell me if you aren't depressed and feeling sorry for that poor wretched woman when you're done. Now, go read some of the articles the NYT has written about Michelle Obama. I did a search and found a few. You'll note that the articles linked below (one for Cindy, one for Michelle) actually have a common author. From what I understand, Cindy McCain has spent a great deal of time and money doing good things. But apparently the NYT couldn't find anything nice to say about her. The piece on Cindy McCain was nothing more than an attempt to hurt McCain in the polls and in November (very well-timed, I might add), and it is absolutely despicable.
Cindy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?scp=3&sq=CINDY%20MCCAIN&st=cse
Michelle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&sq=michelle%20obama&st=cse&scp=4&oref=slogin
I challenge anyone to take a fair look at the election coverage and make a case (go ahead, in a comment) that it has even been anywhere close to the more moderate level of bias we have seen in the past. Even the media doesn't pretend any more. Palin got the CNN reporter who interviewed her the other night to admit it. Dan Rather, who knows quite a bit about media bias, is even admitting it.
The problem is, it will literally make a difference in who the people elect next month. It's one thing for the people to make a decision. It is quite another thing for the people to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, we not only have an uninformed public, but one that has been spoon-fed pure propoganda by a media that is abloultely intent on electing Barack Obama. All you former Hillary supporters should be with me on this. They did it to her too.
I have never seen anything like the bias the media has for Obama and Biden, and against McCain and Palin. In fact, "bias" doesn't even begin to describe what is happening in this election. I've now passed the point of "had it" and am flat-out furious.
When in American history has there been a candidate for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that the country knows so little about? It is not even conceivable to me that the media would have absolutely no interest in finding out who this man is, nor do they have any interest in reporting anything that could be considered negative about either man on the DNC ticket.
Take Biden, for example. Anyone remember his quote about a "three letter word" called J-O-B-S? You may not, because the media didn't seem interested. Certainly, it is not a big deal. But compare that to the treatment given to Palin. Think back to Dan Quayle, who failed to catch a misspelling on the card he was given and repeated it on camera.
What about Biden's grave warning that electing Obama will bring an international crisis within 6 months designed to test the young President? Obama is now trying to spin Biden's comment to mean that either president will face a crisis in the next 6 months. But that's not at all what Biden said. Go back and read the quote. Biden said, among other things: (1) the world will try to test him because he is young (and it is inferred lacks experience), (2) America will have to back Obama because it won't be immediately clear that he has done the right thing in response. I don't know what Biden knows, but that sounds a little strange to me. The world will test Obama because he appears inexperienced and weak, and you'll just have to trust us, because it will appear that we are screwing up the response. Um, OK.
There is so much more, but I only have so much time. Instead, we are talking about the fact that Palin needed new clothes. Of course she needed new clothes! She was suddenly running as the VP of the United States. You think a self-made woman from a small town in Alaska has a wardrobe set aside for that? Can we please find out how much Michelle Obama's clothes cost? How about Hillary? I heard Rush Limbaugh today make a good point as I was picking up some food. A famous designer (don't remember the name), who designed Hillary's pant-suits was shocked that the Palin has to pay for her clothes ... Hillary got them for free. Each pant-suit carries a price tag of well over $6,000, by the way.
One more thing. If anyone did not see the hit-piece (sorry, I mean article) in the NYT about Cindy McCain, you should take a look. Tell me if you aren't depressed and feeling sorry for that poor wretched woman when you're done. Now, go read some of the articles the NYT has written about Michelle Obama. I did a search and found a few. You'll note that the articles linked below (one for Cindy, one for Michelle) actually have a common author. From what I understand, Cindy McCain has spent a great deal of time and money doing good things. But apparently the NYT couldn't find anything nice to say about her. The piece on Cindy McCain was nothing more than an attempt to hurt McCain in the polls and in November (very well-timed, I might add), and it is absolutely despicable.
Cindy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?scp=3&sq=CINDY%20MCCAIN&st=cse
Michelle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&sq=michelle%20obama&st=cse&scp=4&oref=slogin
I challenge anyone to take a fair look at the election coverage and make a case (go ahead, in a comment) that it has even been anywhere close to the more moderate level of bias we have seen in the past. Even the media doesn't pretend any more. Palin got the CNN reporter who interviewed her the other night to admit it. Dan Rather, who knows quite a bit about media bias, is even admitting it.
The problem is, it will literally make a difference in who the people elect next month. It's one thing for the people to make a decision. It is quite another thing for the people to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, we not only have an uninformed public, but one that has been spoon-fed pure propoganda by a media that is abloultely intent on electing Barack Obama. All you former Hillary supporters should be with me on this. They did it to her too.
Monday, October 20, 2008
30 Ways to Leave Your Lover -- 30 Years if You Kill and Eat Him
Apparently if you live in the UK and you want to kill your gay lover and then eat him, you only get slapped with 30 years in prison. That just doesn't seem adequate punishment, in my book. The judge called it "one of the most gruesome murders" he'd ever seen. So you give the guy 30 years??? Hey, I've got an idea. How about if you decide to kill people and eat them you never see the light of day again?
Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441022,00.html
Here's the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441022,00.html
Who's More Important: William Ayers or Joe the Plumber?
I've officially had it with the media. I believe that if all you watch is the mainstream media, you now know far more about Joe the Plumber than William Ayers, the original Timothy McVeigh. Honestly, it boggles the mind how the media can be so uninterested in digging into Obama's past associations. Yes, it matters, and yes, it is "fair game." With Barack Obama, we don't have the luxury of a political record to look at. He's been running for President for the majority of the time he's been in the U.S. Senate. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" 130 times. Way to take a stand on tough issues! We also don't have list of accomplishments on which we can base his qualifications. Apparently he is good at speaking and winning campaigns. The only executive experience he has comes from a job given to him by ... William Ayers. The character and moral compass of a candidate for President matters.
So, Mr. Obama:
If you decide to attend a church for decades in which the minister spews anti-American hatred, it matters. Don't pretend you didn't know. Disavowing the messages only after it became a political liability isn't taking a stand, and isn't a display of (good) moral character.
If your political career was launched in the home of a terrorist and Marxist, it matters. If you happen to also have many other dealings with that person, that matters too. Don't lie to the American people and tell us he's "just a guy in my neighborhood." If the media had any integrity, you'd be finished as a candidate.
If you got a sweetheart deal on the purchase of your home from a now-convicted felon, it matters. You called it a "bone-headed move." I call it corruption and lack of moral foundation.
But thanks, media, because what I REALLY want people to know about is whether Joe the Plumber has a current plumbing license. The fact is, it doesn't matter one bit who Joe the Plumber is. It doesn't matter if Joe the plumber is actually a millionaire who happened to be wearing his pants too low (and was thus mistaken for a plumber), or a homeless guy who doesn't make use of indoor plumbing. What matters is the question posed and the answer given. Joe asked a question directly relevant to what we call "the American Dream." Working hard to advance your station in life. What happens, Mr. Obama to those of us doing that? The answer? As soon as you reach a point, determined by Obama, and no doubt subject to change, where you are "rich," he's going to go ahead and start evening things out. Obama's going to take what you've earned, and pass it to someone else.
Long ago, Marx adopted a popular socialist slogan: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Sounds a little like Obama's idea to spread the wealth around. But hey, it probably doesn't matter much whether Obama's past associations hint at an affinity to Marxist philosophy, right? Tell me more about Joe the Plumber!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Do Or Die Time For McCain
Hope everyone tunes in for the debate tonight. This one is crucial for McCain, as he has steadily been losing ground since the Palin bubble burst and the economy took off South-bound.
The reality is, when the economy goes, the party in power will suffer at the polls. Doesn't matter whether Obama's economic plans will help of hurt more than McCain's. The majority of the voting public won't think about it deeply enough. Therefore, McCain needs to do his best to articulate why his economic policies are vital to strengthen the economy, and why Obama's policies will only cause further problems.
As for Obama, all he really needs to do it play it safe again tonight, like the last debate. Just keep giving the stump speech talking points, and don't go into specifics.
Personally, I am now doubtful that McCain can pull it off in this election. He really needs an all-star performance from here on out, starting with tonight. Even then, it will be an uphill climb.
Remember, a lot of people like Obama's philosophy of, "I don't want to punish your success, I just want to spread the wealth around." The down-side is that it isn't very American, but who's keeping track?
I have no problem with "wealth-spreading," I just think it should be more up to the people with the wealth to make that determination, not the government. Note, I'm not talking about taxing for legitimate services that government should be providing, I'm talking about massive wealth re-distribution and welfare disguised as "tax credits."
The reality is, when the economy goes, the party in power will suffer at the polls. Doesn't matter whether Obama's economic plans will help of hurt more than McCain's. The majority of the voting public won't think about it deeply enough. Therefore, McCain needs to do his best to articulate why his economic policies are vital to strengthen the economy, and why Obama's policies will only cause further problems.
As for Obama, all he really needs to do it play it safe again tonight, like the last debate. Just keep giving the stump speech talking points, and don't go into specifics.
Personally, I am now doubtful that McCain can pull it off in this election. He really needs an all-star performance from here on out, starting with tonight. Even then, it will be an uphill climb.
Remember, a lot of people like Obama's philosophy of, "I don't want to punish your success, I just want to spread the wealth around." The down-side is that it isn't very American, but who's keeping track?
I have no problem with "wealth-spreading," I just think it should be more up to the people with the wealth to make that determination, not the government. Note, I'm not talking about taxing for legitimate services that government should be providing, I'm talking about massive wealth re-distribution and welfare disguised as "tax credits."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Browns 35, Giants 14. Take That (Previously) Undefeated Returning Super Bowl Chumps!
Great night for football last night. My wife was kind enough to Tivo the game for me so I could watch when I got home. I was able to watch the game in a little over an hour and get to bed by 12:30! It's great to cut out all the commercials and time outs.
And what a game it was. Cleveland pounded New York into submission and sent Eli Manning home crying for his mother. Last night we finally saw the team Cleveland was expected to be this year. Let's hope they can build on a great win and have far fewer penalties next week!
Oh yeah. Go McCain, beat Obama.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
So Which VP Candidate Knows What Job He/She Is Applying For?
Here's an interesting article about who was closer in answering the question about the role of the Vice President. I should have discussed this after the VP debate, during which I was yelling at Biden for not having a clue on this one. The sad reality is, either noone caught it, or they just didn't care to report it. I especially like the comparison to Dan Quayle and his spelling. Let's face it, the media has quite a bit of influence in public perception of a candidate. As I said before, I was excited when Biden was picked because I know the guy is a gaffe-a-minute. But if nobody reports it, does it really matter? I guess when you are Obama, you can take that risk, and it is paying off. No way the media is going to challenge you on it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html
By the way, after yesterday's article about ACORN, I hope you are paying attention to all the news about voter fraud. Scary stuff. In Ohio, ACORN collected 100,000 registration cards. Judging by the reports of potential fraud, the number of fakes in there could easily be enough to win a closely contested state. Even more scary, many of the states in which the fraud has gotten so bad that investigations are underway are key battleground states. Here's an interesting story:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm
Hope and Change! No wonder Obama is so confident when he says, "Yes we can." Apparently it's already in the bag.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html
By the way, after yesterday's article about ACORN, I hope you are paying attention to all the news about voter fraud. Scary stuff. In Ohio, ACORN collected 100,000 registration cards. Judging by the reports of potential fraud, the number of fakes in there could easily be enough to win a closely contested state. Even more scary, many of the states in which the fraud has gotten so bad that investigations are underway are key battleground states. Here's an interesting story:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm
Hope and Change! No wonder Obama is so confident when he says, "Yes we can." Apparently it's already in the bag.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
O-Boring and McLame Snooze Fest
Still not sure how I feel about last night's debate? I thought it was a complete waste of time. I could have just gone back and re-watched the first one. Sure, there were a few new things brought up. For example, McCain wants the Treasury Secretary to buy everyone's mortgage and lower the amount of their loan. Wait, sorry, not everyone. Not you guys that have actually been paying your mortgages. We also learned that somewhere in the Constitution, according to Obama, everyone has the right to health care. Not the right to access to purchase care, to work hard to pay for care, or the right to seek jobs with employers who will provide that care for you, but the right to have your neighbor buy it for you. There is a strong trend toward defining new rights these days. Notice that back in the good old days, when the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written, "rights" were generally rights to act for your own benefit. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But you don't have a right to have someone else pay for your pursuit. The idea is that you shouldn't be prevented from seeking these things. The idea wasn't that you had a right to take someone else's property to further your "right to life," for example. I know that isn't a very popular message, which is why McCain didn't hammer Obama on it. People would much rather hear that someone else is going to be compelled to take care of them. I understand that there are those who need assistance, and I believe that there are programs in place to help them. If the programs aren't working fix them. Don't nationalize the health care industry. I don't want the government in charge of my health care decisions. Take a look at the countries who have tried it.
I also learned that even this close to the election, McCain is not willing to take the gloves off and tell people who Obama is. The problem is, there is noone else willing to do that job either. The media is somehow completely uninterested. Obama certainly isn't going to do it. So who will?
In general, I think the "debate" format in this country is deplorable. Ask a question about a problem, then give the politician 2 minutes to answer, at least 1 minute of which is spent telling everyone that the problem you've just enunciated is, in fact, a problem. The remaining 30-60 seconds is spent assuring the people that that candidate is going to do something about said problem. Want to know how? Sorry, time's up. I almost forgot, last night we had the benefit of an additional 1 minute for discussion between the candidates. ONE MINUTE. We have some serious problems in this country right now, and we are given the benefit of hearing the candidates talk for 3 minutes, none of which is substantive. We may as well just have the candidates pre-record their soundbites and then hit a button to play whichever one they intend to use to answer the question.
Here's an idea: pick a topic for the debate, and stick to it. Have as many debates as there are important topics. Then provide a format where the candidates actually have to set forth their ideas, plans, arguments for at least 20 minutes. Then allow the other candidate to pick the other's presentation apart and ask questions directly to the other candidate. Make them respond. Give us some substance. In other words ... make them debate. I don't want candidates to be able to just throw anything out there as "fact" and not allow the other guy to meaningfully challenge it. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I want these guys to have to back it up. That's what I have to do when I'm making an argument. Unfortunately, if debates were run my way, the American people would probably not watch. You'd have people switching over to catch up on "American Idol" or "The Hills" within the first 10 minutes. Yes, I'm ridiculing those of you who would choose either of those (or comparable) shows over by my proposed debate format.
A few things that McCain didn't have the guts to say:
1. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Newsflash. Almost 50% of those people don't actually carry any federal income tax burden. So how will he cut taxes? Most likely in the form of "refundable tax credits," which means that regardless of whether you paid anything in the first place, you are going to "get money back." That's income re-distribution. Not exactly what the founders had in mind.
2. What is the total dollar amount it will cost for Obama to pay for all the programs he is promising? Does he really think he can do it through tax increases on rich people? Oh yeah, he's also going to close some yet to be disclosed loopholes. As Obama attacks the obscene rise in spending and national debt under Bush (accurate characterization, with which I completely agree), he has plans that will blow your mind ... and your wallet.
3. Don't worry, Obama doesn't want to raise your taxes, he just wants to raise your boss's taxes. Obama's rhetoric is pure class envy and class warfare. It will work, because people won't take the time to think it through. Do you really want the government to increase the amount of money it takes from your employer? What effect do you think that will have? Will you escape with no adverse consequences? What about those who are looking for a job? Do they really want all those prospective employers out there to suddenly have to send more money off to the federal government? Does that make you feel better about your job prospects? Is that really what is best for our economy right now?
In fact, it isn't. That is why Obama recently said that his tax plan may have to wait if the economy has not improved. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about his plan?
That's what I've got from the top of my head right now. I just ate a bunch of Chinese food for lunch, and it's sitting in my stomach like a rock ... sucking all the blood from my brain. I'm sure I'll think of more.
In the mean time, PLEASE read this article (all three pages) detailing an organization named ACORN's involvement in the current financial mess. Yes, the same ACORN whose Vegas offices were just raided by the FBI on suspicion of voter fraud. And you know their not signing extra people up for McCain! By the way, you'll also find that Obama has strong ties to this organization. Sorry, are we still not allowed to talk about Obama's associations?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
I also learned that even this close to the election, McCain is not willing to take the gloves off and tell people who Obama is. The problem is, there is noone else willing to do that job either. The media is somehow completely uninterested. Obama certainly isn't going to do it. So who will?
In general, I think the "debate" format in this country is deplorable. Ask a question about a problem, then give the politician 2 minutes to answer, at least 1 minute of which is spent telling everyone that the problem you've just enunciated is, in fact, a problem. The remaining 30-60 seconds is spent assuring the people that that candidate is going to do something about said problem. Want to know how? Sorry, time's up. I almost forgot, last night we had the benefit of an additional 1 minute for discussion between the candidates. ONE MINUTE. We have some serious problems in this country right now, and we are given the benefit of hearing the candidates talk for 3 minutes, none of which is substantive. We may as well just have the candidates pre-record their soundbites and then hit a button to play whichever one they intend to use to answer the question.
Here's an idea: pick a topic for the debate, and stick to it. Have as many debates as there are important topics. Then provide a format where the candidates actually have to set forth their ideas, plans, arguments for at least 20 minutes. Then allow the other candidate to pick the other's presentation apart and ask questions directly to the other candidate. Make them respond. Give us some substance. In other words ... make them debate. I don't want candidates to be able to just throw anything out there as "fact" and not allow the other guy to meaningfully challenge it. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I want these guys to have to back it up. That's what I have to do when I'm making an argument. Unfortunately, if debates were run my way, the American people would probably not watch. You'd have people switching over to catch up on "American Idol" or "The Hills" within the first 10 minutes. Yes, I'm ridiculing those of you who would choose either of those (or comparable) shows over by my proposed debate format.
A few things that McCain didn't have the guts to say:
1. Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of the people. Newsflash. Almost 50% of those people don't actually carry any federal income tax burden. So how will he cut taxes? Most likely in the form of "refundable tax credits," which means that regardless of whether you paid anything in the first place, you are going to "get money back." That's income re-distribution. Not exactly what the founders had in mind.
2. What is the total dollar amount it will cost for Obama to pay for all the programs he is promising? Does he really think he can do it through tax increases on rich people? Oh yeah, he's also going to close some yet to be disclosed loopholes. As Obama attacks the obscene rise in spending and national debt under Bush (accurate characterization, with which I completely agree), he has plans that will blow your mind ... and your wallet.
3. Don't worry, Obama doesn't want to raise your taxes, he just wants to raise your boss's taxes. Obama's rhetoric is pure class envy and class warfare. It will work, because people won't take the time to think it through. Do you really want the government to increase the amount of money it takes from your employer? What effect do you think that will have? Will you escape with no adverse consequences? What about those who are looking for a job? Do they really want all those prospective employers out there to suddenly have to send more money off to the federal government? Does that make you feel better about your job prospects? Is that really what is best for our economy right now?
In fact, it isn't. That is why Obama recently said that his tax plan may have to wait if the economy has not improved. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about his plan?
That's what I've got from the top of my head right now. I just ate a bunch of Chinese food for lunch, and it's sitting in my stomach like a rock ... sucking all the blood from my brain. I'm sure I'll think of more.
In the mean time, PLEASE read this article (all three pages) detailing an organization named ACORN's involvement in the current financial mess. Yes, the same ACORN whose Vegas offices were just raided by the FBI on suspicion of voter fraud. And you know their not signing extra people up for McCain! By the way, you'll also find that Obama has strong ties to this organization. Sorry, are we still not allowed to talk about Obama's associations?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
Monday, October 6, 2008
Comments
I found out that the comments were for some reason restricted. I have removed that restriction, so that anyone should be able to leave comments. In fact, I welcome them. I'm very interested in how other people think ... and whether anyone is actually reading this thing.
Post-Debate Analysis
I don't think I have every had that much anxiety while watching a debate. It was like when your child is up on stage at her dance recital, or delivering his/her first speaking part in the school play. YOu sit on the edge of your seat praying she doesn't trip or hang on every word hoping everything goes the way it is supposed to.
My quick analysis: Biden clearly won the debate, but he was supposed to. I actually think that may have been Biden's best debate performance ever. Palin held her own. Biden came across as having facts and experience (never mind that many of that weren't actually facts) and Palin came across as likable and "one of us." It was clear at times that she didn't have an answer to the question. Honestly, though, I'm getting a little tired of the word "Maverick."
One note: Lacey and I immediately burst out laughing when Biden said that people should come and "take a walk with me in my neighborhood." I know Greenville, Delaware well. I'm pretty sure that people in that town can afford to fill up their tank. Suffice it to say that Biden lives in what is referred to as "Chateau Country." I kid you not, as I drove in to work today, I spontaneously pulled into the Biden's Shell gas station of fame this morning and gassed up because I was surprised at how low gas was ($3.39 for regular). I didn't ask the guy inside if he really never filled up his car. Based on what I know of Biden's track record, I can venture a guess that the story probably isn't 100% accurate. Down on Union street (also mentioned by Biden) may be another story, but that is a far cry from Biden's neighborhood. In fact, I think we'd all rather enjoy taking a walk in Biden's neighborhood.
But I digress. The point is, I still think that McCain blew it with his VP pick. My initial fear was that once the shock value wore off, and Palin had to answer tough questions that she just wouldn't come across as being ready to be president. That may fly a little better when the top of the ticket isn't 98 years old, but McCain's no spring chicken. When you have people seriously checking the odds of survival based on the actuarial tables, you need a VP pick that looks like he/she is ready to step in and do the job. I don't think Palin gives that kind of confidence.
At this point, I feel the need to reiterate that I really like Palin. I think she's extremely capable and has done great things in Alaska. I just think the VP nod was premature. She would be great in a cabinet position. Perhaps Energy Secretary? I think she mentioned something about that during the debate .... Then she'd only be 15th in the line of succession for President.
My quick analysis: Biden clearly won the debate, but he was supposed to. I actually think that may have been Biden's best debate performance ever. Palin held her own. Biden came across as having facts and experience (never mind that many of that weren't actually facts) and Palin came across as likable and "one of us." It was clear at times that she didn't have an answer to the question. Honestly, though, I'm getting a little tired of the word "Maverick."
One note: Lacey and I immediately burst out laughing when Biden said that people should come and "take a walk with me in my neighborhood." I know Greenville, Delaware well. I'm pretty sure that people in that town can afford to fill up their tank. Suffice it to say that Biden lives in what is referred to as "Chateau Country." I kid you not, as I drove in to work today, I spontaneously pulled into the Biden's Shell gas station of fame this morning and gassed up because I was surprised at how low gas was ($3.39 for regular). I didn't ask the guy inside if he really never filled up his car. Based on what I know of Biden's track record, I can venture a guess that the story probably isn't 100% accurate. Down on Union street (also mentioned by Biden) may be another story, but that is a far cry from Biden's neighborhood. In fact, I think we'd all rather enjoy taking a walk in Biden's neighborhood.
But I digress. The point is, I still think that McCain blew it with his VP pick. My initial fear was that once the shock value wore off, and Palin had to answer tough questions that she just wouldn't come across as being ready to be president. That may fly a little better when the top of the ticket isn't 98 years old, but McCain's no spring chicken. When you have people seriously checking the odds of survival based on the actuarial tables, you need a VP pick that looks like he/she is ready to step in and do the job. I don't think Palin gives that kind of confidence.
At this point, I feel the need to reiterate that I really like Palin. I think she's extremely capable and has done great things in Alaska. I just think the VP nod was premature. She would be great in a cabinet position. Perhaps Energy Secretary? I think she mentioned something about that during the debate .... Then she'd only be 15th in the line of succession for President.
Friday, September 26, 2008
McPalin - Am I Lovin' It?
No ... at least not yet. Maybe I'm the only Republican who wasn't jumping out of my seat with excitement over McCain's VP pick, but I was very skeptical of the move. My initial reaction was that McCain had squandered an opportunity to further distance himself from Obama in the category of experience, particularly after Obama blew it by choosing Biden as his VP. Being from the great state of Delaware (It's good to be first), I may know a bit more about Biden than most. Suffice it to say, I was very anxious to hear the man start speaking out publicly because, well, now you all know what happens when Biden speaks.
There are other reasons I was particularly pleased with Obama's choice:
1. I think it simply highlights the fact that Obama has to shop for experience, having none himself. This is particularly true as to foreign policy, where Biden was meant to shore up the ticket.
2. I think there will be (and in fact has been) tension between Obama and Biden. I think it will be hard for Biden to play the second chair role, and I think Obama will feel pressure to make sure it is apparent that he is in charge. One of the first interviews I saw with both men together seemed to be a whole lot of Biden talking about how great Obama is, and a whole lot of Obama standing next to him trying to get a word in edge-wise. We've also seen Biden criticize the campaign's campaign ad making fun of McCain for not using email more, and Obama publicly rebuking Biden for his initial stance on the economic crisis.
3. I think Biden does nothing to appeal to the center.
4. I'm not sure the man has ever held a real job. He's been a senator for essentially his entire adult career.
5. Aside from suffering seriously from foot in mouth disease, Biden has some skeletons in the closet that many may not know about, including some major resume padding and plagiarism issues in the past.
McCain could have shored up a very strong ticket with an experienced and wise VP pick. He didn't. I really like Palin. She seems to be a true conservative who has done outstanding things in Alaska. She also delivers a great speech. But I am not convinced she was the best pick for VP. The few times the McCain campaign has let Palin go near the press she hasn't, in my opinion, fared all that well. In what I saw of both the Gibson and Couric interviews, Palin did not come across as a woman ready to lead the country if need be.
Frankly, I'm extremely worried about the debates tomorrow night. I hope that I am pleasantly surprised. I just keep thinking that Huckabee, Romney, Thompson or Giuliani would destroy Biden tomorrow night. Palin I'm not so sure about.
There are other reasons I was particularly pleased with Obama's choice:
1. I think it simply highlights the fact that Obama has to shop for experience, having none himself. This is particularly true as to foreign policy, where Biden was meant to shore up the ticket.
2. I think there will be (and in fact has been) tension between Obama and Biden. I think it will be hard for Biden to play the second chair role, and I think Obama will feel pressure to make sure it is apparent that he is in charge. One of the first interviews I saw with both men together seemed to be a whole lot of Biden talking about how great Obama is, and a whole lot of Obama standing next to him trying to get a word in edge-wise. We've also seen Biden criticize the campaign's campaign ad making fun of McCain for not using email more, and Obama publicly rebuking Biden for his initial stance on the economic crisis.
3. I think Biden does nothing to appeal to the center.
4. I'm not sure the man has ever held a real job. He's been a senator for essentially his entire adult career.
5. Aside from suffering seriously from foot in mouth disease, Biden has some skeletons in the closet that many may not know about, including some major resume padding and plagiarism issues in the past.
McCain could have shored up a very strong ticket with an experienced and wise VP pick. He didn't. I really like Palin. She seems to be a true conservative who has done outstanding things in Alaska. She also delivers a great speech. But I am not convinced she was the best pick for VP. The few times the McCain campaign has let Palin go near the press she hasn't, in my opinion, fared all that well. In what I saw of both the Gibson and Couric interviews, Palin did not come across as a woman ready to lead the country if need be.
Frankly, I'm extremely worried about the debates tomorrow night. I hope that I am pleasantly surprised. I just keep thinking that Huckabee, Romney, Thompson or Giuliani would destroy Biden tomorrow night. Palin I'm not so sure about.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
It's About Time
I'm afraid I've already let too much pass by with such an interesting primary season already come and gone. With only a few short weeks left until this country elects a new president, I suppose it's about time to start chiming in.
First, let me say that I fall into the conservative category. So, if you have a problem with logic and like to make all your decisions based on emotional reactions, this blog may not be for you.
Second, I was not a big fan of John McCain during the primaries. I also was not a fan of Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Having said that, I would have taken either one of them of the over the unprepared, untested, and unqualified Barack Obama.
Third, I absolutely welcome comments, whether you agree with me or not. All I ask is that you remain courteous and keep your comments free of profanity.
Now that you know where I'm coming from, let the blogging begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
