Write your Congressmen

Friday, August 29, 2008

What's Missing from the Debate: 9/11

For all their pontificating, both candidates, McCain and Obama, have said nothing about the defining moment for America in the 21st century: September 11, 2001.

Bush was just past his "honeymoon" period as President when faced with this crisis. The response to this terrible terrorist event brought wholesale changes in the government and its structure. However, these changes have elicited complaints from the left about "overreaching government." Still, the fact remains that everyday Americans have their usual freedoms, and not one - let me repeat - not a single terrorist event has happened on American soil since. And we know the terrorists have tried, but you have to admit, Bush and the Republicans, despite democratic opposition, have kept us safe in our homes, in our beds.

We hear all kinds of chatter about Iraq, the war, Afghanistan, but what about what started it all? Where is discussion about 9/11? Where is discussion from both parties, both candidates (particularly Obama) about how he will thwart new terrorist activity in the US?

I'll tell you where it is: lost in the noise and lies that it takes to get someone elected President.

There is no reality, only public opinion.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Christian or Cyrano, for whom would you vote?

My lovely wife Karen recently asked an interesting hypothetical: is Obama the modern character of Christian, from the play, Cyrano de Bergerac?

If you recall the story, Cyrano was an extremely eloquent and articulate, but homely, orator. He spoke for his friend, Christian, a handsome man who had fallen in love with the same woman as Cyrano, the fair Roxane. But, Christian was not nearly as articulate as Cyrano. So, in honoring his friendship with Christian, and not believing he had a chance with Roxane because of his appearance, Cyrano proceeded to successfully woo Roxane behind the face of Christian.

So today we have Obama; eloquent and likable in his demeanor, handsome in his own way, but decidedly left-leaning in all his past endeavors. Recently, however, Obama took a turn towards the right to place himself in the political center, a better position from which to get elected.

But who crafted the new ideas for him to espouse? Was it Obama himself (not likely, given his penchant and past for the left-wing ideology)? Is this a case similar to Cyrano - where Obama is attractive to Americans because his appearance - his race - gives us an opportunity to put slavery well behind us, but his strong belief in the political left is off-putting to the majority of Americans? So, how to make Obama "sound" like a better candidate than he really is?

This question is important as voters try to decide for whom they will vote - Obama the man, or Obama's campaign team?

In the end of the play, Roxane found her end in a convent, with neither Christian nor Cyrano to love. Both Christian and Cyrano died, and it was only at the very end - too late - that Roxane realized where her passions truly lie. I believe the American voter already knows where his or her passions lie; but, as in Cyrano de Bergerac, it has become impossibly hard to discern who the true recipient of those passions should be.

China-style Censorship in the US

Recently, I was looking for information on E-Verify, the US's attempt to be certain that newly hired people are in the country legally. I typed into the Google search box "obama e-verify vote". Several responses came up, but one caught my eye: Why is the Senate blocking the E-Verify vote ? - Yahoo! Answers .

When I clicked on the link, I found that the topic had been deleted.

Now, I'm not a paranoid, conspiracy theory kind of guy, but this looks fishy to me. Considering that A) Illegals are a huge problem in the US business sector, 2) the Senate is majority Democrat, and C) Obama, a US Senator, may have voted on that bill (actually, he didn't because the senator from NJ, Menendez, blocked it from coming to the floor, ostensibly so that Obama would not have to go on record concerning illegal immigration one way or t'nother). Shouldn't we have access to the answer? Not through Yahoo, you won't.

Shades of China censorship, this is.

Daniel Webster

The world is governed more by appearances than realities, so that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as to know it.
- Daniel Webster

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

George C. Marshall

"If man does find the solution for world peace it will be the most revolutionary reversal of his record we have ever known.
- George C. Marshall

Monday, August 25, 2008

WHY OUR COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE

A Washington , DC airport ticket agent offers some
examples of why our country is in trouble. I hope you get a
chuckle, too. . . . .

1. I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman ask for an
aisle seat so that her hair wouldn't get messed

up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)

2. I got a call from a candidate's staffer who wanted to go to
Capetown. I started to explain the length of the
flight and the passport information.

Then she interrupted me with, 'I'm not trying
to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts'

Without trying to make her look stupid, I calmly explained,
'Cape Cod' is in Massachusetts , Capetown is in Africa .

Her response, 'click'.

3. A senior Vermont Congressman called furious
about a Florida package we did. I asked what was wrong

with the vacation in Orlando
He said he was expecting an oceanview room. I
tried to explain that's not possible, because Orlando is in the
middle of the state.
He replied, 'Don't get smart with me,

I looked on the map and Florida is a very narrow state!'

4. I got a call from a lawmaker's wife who
asked, 'Is it possible to see England from Canada ?' I said,
'No.' She then said, 'But they
look so close on the map.'

5. An aide for a cabinet member once called and
asked if he could rent a car in Dallas . When I pulled up the
reservation, I noticed he only had a one-hour layover in Dallas .

I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he replied,

'I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we
will need a car to drive between gates to save time.

6. An Illinois Congresswoman called last week. She
needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit
left at 8:30 AM and got to Chicago at 8:33 AM. I explained that
Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois , but she couldn't understand
the concept of time zones.

Finally, I told her the plane went really fast,

and she accepted that.

7. A New York lawmaker called and asked, 'Do
airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know

whose luggage belongs to whom?' I said, 'No. Why do you
ask?' She replied, 'Well, when I checked in with the airline,

they put a tag on my luggage that said FAT

and I'm overweight. I think that's very rude.

After putting her on hold for a minute while I looked
into it --I was laughing--, I came back and explained that the code
for the Fresno, CA airport, is 'FAT' = Fresno Air Terminal,

and the airline was just putting a destination tag on her luggage.

8. A Senator's aide called to inquire about a
trip package to Hawaii . After going over all the cost info, she asked,
'Would it be cheaper to fly to California , and then take the
train to Hawaii ?'

9. I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman who asked,
'How do I know which plane to get on?' I asked him what exactly he
meant, to which he replied, 'I was told my flight number is 823, but
none of these planes have numbers on them.'

10. A lady Senator called and said, 'I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola ,
Florida . Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?'
I asked if she meant she was flying to _Pensacola FL on a
commuter plane. She said, 'Yeah, whatever, smarty!'

11. A senior Senator called and had a question
about the documents he needed in order to fly to China . After a
lengthy discussion about passports, I reminded him that he also needed
a visa. 'Oh, no I don't. I've been to China many times and
I have never had to have one of those.' I double-checked, and sure
enough, his stay required a visa. When I told him this he said, 'Look,
I've been to China four times and every time they have

accepted my American Express!'

12. A New Mexico Congresswoman called to make
reservations, 'I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York .

' I was at a loss for words.
Finally, I said, 'Are you sure that's the name of the town?'

'Yes, what flights do you have?' replied the lady.
After some searching, I came back with, 'I'm sorry, ma'am,
I've looked up every airport code in the country and can't find a Rhino
anywhere.' The lady retorted, 'Oh, don't be silly! Everyone
knows where it is. Check your map!'

So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally
offered, 'You don't mean Buffalo , do you?' The reply?

'Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.'

Now you know why our Government is in the shape
that it is in, and who is causing it!

Sunday, August 24, 2008

5 things Biden pick says about Obama

5 things Biden pick says about Obama - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - Politico.com

Change the lobbyist access? Really?

From CNET:
After taking over the Foreign Relations committee, Joe Biden became been a staunch ally of Hollywood and the recording industry in their efforts to expand copyright law. He sponsored a bill in 2002 that would have make it a federal felony to trick certain types of devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs. Biden's bill was backed by content companies including News Corp. but eventually died after Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Yahoo lobbied against it.

A few months later, Biden signed a letter that urged the Justice Department "to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks." Critics of this approach said that the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and not taxpayers, should pay for their own lawsuits.

Last year, Biden sponsored an RIAA-backed bill called the Perform Act aimed at restricting Americans' ability to record and play back individual songs from satellite and Internet radio services. (The RIAA sued XM Satellite Radio over precisely this point.)

All of which meant that nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. (Photos are here.)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5


Friday, August 22, 2008

Honesty

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people.
- F.M. Hubbard

Is Obama's support about something different than him?

From TheAtlantic:
At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

In other words, people want Obama as president not because of him at all, but because, being black, they believe voting him in will make some ground putting to rest whatever we perceive as cultural "upheaval."

Interesting reason to vote for a candidate for president. I hope the international community sees it this way, too (they won't).

Obama, Lies and Abortion

Obama voted against a bill in Illinois that would define a fetus as a "person."
OBAMA: what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term.
That bill further required caring for the viable fetus, as would be afforded any citizen of the US.

I'm not sure how that can be viewed any other way. Once separated from the confines of the womb, what rights does a fetus, er, baby, have?

What Obama did was to argue about the constitutionality of the law, rather than try to recraft it into something that was, itself, "viable." Instead, he rather coldly argued that he couldn't support it because it had the potential to invalidate all abortions - make all abortions illegal - because the bill essentially granted "personhood," with all associated rights, to feti. His concern was an invalidation of Roe V. Wade.

Lawmakers can argue all they want to about when life starts, but really their domain is the law. So they should limit thier authority and jusisdiction over such things as when "personhood" begins. That's the core of the issue. And clearly, Obama doesn't think the unborn are people.

In my mind, a kind society believes that a fetus has the right to his own safety, even if he relies on others for it. By law, if the parents won't do it, the state will. It's this way for all "persons." And this is the rub.

So, another election year, another debate on abortion, with liberals again playing rope-a-dope with the morality of when a living thing becomes "a person." Jesus, I hate politics.

Missy made an asute comment on mommyzabs.com:

Um, yeah. I got swept up in one of Obama’s speeches and thought to myself ‘this guy is impressive’…and then I heard someone speaking of some of his views and was reminded of reality.

It’s the heart of a man we should be focused on, not his ability to give us all ‘goosebumps’! The truth is, I have serious doubts about the purity of anyone’s heart who can support partial birth abortion. It is evil. Period.

Yep. I am truly one of those pesky one issue voters. Gotta be when it comes to this. It sounds like something freaking Hitler would’ve approved of.

Summed up pretty well, I thought.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Obama ad: McCain would help corporations - Yahoo! News

Like a good little liberal, Obama is foisting the same-old on voters. This time, it says that the big, bad McCain is supporting Corporations! The gall!

Well, I hope someone is. The US government says this about Corporations:

"Large businesses are important to the overall economy because they tend to have more financial resources than small firms to conduct research and develop new goods. And they generally offer more varied job opportunities and greater job stability, higher wages, and better health and retirement benefits."

Anyone who's worked for small business knows that, while they can be flexible and more personal, they don't offer nearly the same security nor wages as working for one of the big companies. And a lot of people - like, millions in the US, find employment here.

The problems with Obama's policies are that,

1. Every time a tax is levied on a corporation, it makes it that much harder for the people employed in that company to get ahead. Corporations are required to answer to shareholders about profit and loss, and the higher the taxes, the harder it is to achieve a profit.
2. Obama seems to think that Corporations are like the government - that they can print money, or just wave their hand (like through a new tax act), and get ready cash. It ain't so. Businesses, large and small, have finite pots of money with which to work, and that's that.
3. Following Obama's ideas on dealing with corporations will again, as all Democrats seem to do, put corporations behind the eight-ball. Other countries (our most aggressive trade competitors such as Japan and China, for example) don't tax corporations, but support them with subsidies. In the US, we don't give subsidies, but rather remove the tax load through things like what McCain wants to do.

Hard to believe from someone with Obama's education and background, but he's just plain wrong, wrong wrong.

On the other hand, perhaps Obama is right - not about taxes, but that saying these things will get him elected. Americans seem to not understand this either, so maybe he's just preaching to the audience.

In 1952 and 1956, Adlai Stevenson ran for president under the Democratic ticket. Stevenson was known for being a deep-thinking intellectual, and could always give well thought-out and deeply logical explanations for his ideas. One voter came to him and said, "Every intelligent American should vote for you," to which he replied, "Yes, but I need a majority to win."


Obama ad: McCain would help corporations - Yahoo! News:
"SCRIPT: Announcer: 'Can we really afford more of the same? John McCain's tax plan: For big corporations — $200 billion in new tax breaks. Oil companies — $4 billion. Companies shipping jobs overseas — keep their tax giveaways while 100 million Americans get no tax relief at all. For the change we need, Barack Obama. A plan that cuts taxes for middle-class families three times as much as John McCain would. Barack Obama. President.'

Obama: 'I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.'

KEY IMAGES: A man in his 60s looks gravely at the camera. Clips of McCain at a podium followed by a generic corporate board meeting, image of gas prices rising and an abandoned factory. A man in his 30s looks into the camera. A clip of McCain followed by film of Obama with a factory worker.

ANALYSIS: By airing in eight battleground states, this ad broadens Obama's anti-McCain message and puts both presidential candidates in an all-out slugfest of critical ads. While Obama is running a positive message about himself during national broadcasts of the Olympics, he's hammering McCain with economy-centered ads in states that could determine the election in November. The ads suggest that the campaign is seeking to re-establish Obama as a voice for working people after setting domestic issues aside during his wid"

Sunday, August 17, 2008

We've gotten the "3am phone call"

The invasion of Georgia by Russia is a very serious international matter. Anyone doubting that hasn't been paying attention. This is especially acute to us here in the United States, as we spar to select our next president.

The problems are that Russia is clearly operating with a Soviet mindset - that they can do whatever they like in areas adjacent to them, without fear of reprisal. To some extent this may always be true, but as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice says, "It's not 1968," meaning this action will not be without response.

But what response? And by whom? And what if this had happened under an Obama or McCain presidency?

From his responses (which deal only in generalities rather than specifics of what should be done), Obama clearly would look to the UN for relief. But what can the United Nations do? Russia is a voting member of the Security Council. Which means that in order for the UN to place sanctions on Russia, Russia themselves would have to support it. I don't think Obama is stupid, but he seems to have no idea how the UN works. Not good for a presidential hopeful.

McCain, on the other hand, offered a quick and direct response: Use international pressure, but economic; throw Russia out of the World Trade Organization, and push them from the G8 talks. Isolate them economically. That can definitely work; Reagan brought down the Soviet Union using such tactics.

There is a military component, however, which is far more imposing. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 specifically to counter Soviet aggression. This is from the preable in the NATO treaty:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

When the USSR collapsed, NATO looked to revise its mission, but stayed together as something of a military arm to act in concert with the UN, and also to respond to acts of aggression against its 26 member nations.

Fearing exactly what has happened by the Russians, Georgia wants to be in NATO, and the Ukraine, also a former Soviet satellite, had been making noise that it, too, wants to become a NATO member. Russia will not tolerate this. Ukraine is the breadbasket for the region, but even more important to Russia, the bulk of the old Soviet missiles are located in the Ukraine. Should Ukraine manage to be inducted into NATO, expect a punitive and conquering operation there from Russia. However, if Russia attacks a NATO member, it will elicit a military response from all NATO members. Messy, yes. And huge. And if you recall the start of World War 1, Russia's antics and the alliances on the other side have the potential to initiate the same sort of deal.

Further, Russia has a history of testing new international leaders. Kennedy was confronted with the installation of Soviet missiles 90 miles from our coast, simply because the Soviet leader, Khrushchev, deemed Kennedy to be weak. Well Obama is no Kennedy, and no one would argue that international affairs is Obama's strong suit. Advantage, Russia

The US is a NATO member, which pulls us into any fight directly, and requires us to have a leader who is very much on the ball in international affairs right from the get-go. So if it's Obama's phone ringing at 3AM, with NATO on the other end, expect Russia to have pulled something militarily that requires us to respond. And then we're in a shooting war with one of the largest countries in the world, with a Commander-in-Chief who has not served even a single full term as Senator.

McCain looks like a better bet to get that phone call if we want a peaceful outcome. If for no other reason, he's a better deterrent to Russian aggression; they know he'll fight. But more importantly, McCain has a clear understanding of the history of the Soviets. And if choosing between the two candidates, McCain is the better choice to reinstate a policy of containment, used against the Soviets right after World war 2. Therefore, right wing though he may be, McCain is actually the better candidate for peace, to keep us out of a shooting altercation. Memory of history is a powerful thing.

If we end up fighting, it will probably be because Obama will stumble his way stupidly into it, much as Clinton did with his various military forays. But with McCain as Commander-in-Chief, at least I think we'll win.


FOXNews.com - Russia Invasion of Georgia Sparks New Cold War Rhetoric - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Unions workers: beware which lever you pull

Union folks had better be especially careful this election when they pull the lever. Obama is all about praise and support for the unions, but his policies say otherwise. He has offered nothing to shore up large businesses (those that typically deal with union employment), and in fact, Obama wants to further tax the profits made by these industries.

Taxes like Obama is suggesting are nothing but a drag on the operation of the large business. And, as the unions well know, anytime costs go up, employees bear part of the burden by getting fired.

Why do you think large corporations went overseas in the first place? Because they want to deal with the Indian labor market? No, it's because taxes and wages are too high here. Maybe the market could sustain one, but certainly not both. So, when taxes go up, labor costs have to go down, and jobs go out the door.

The hope of many is that the soaring energy prices will force companies to bring overseas employment back here to the USA in order to contain costs. This has already happened in some cases. But with the Dems salivating over a big win across the board in November, they see corporate taxes as fresh meat. And when the corporations respond to these higher operating costs caused by new taxes, they'll push employment right back to India and other countries with cheap labor. The workers lose, the unions lose. This is in addition to higher prices for everyone, including those fired union workers, as companies are forced to raise prices across the board to cover the costs associated with government meddling. But, the government will get it "tribute."

So, when the Dems talk about supporting union workers at the same time as raising corporate taxes, look out for your job. These two things are not compatible. Employment will go down, prices will go up, and the only place money will go is into the government, the black hole from which there is no escape for tax dollars.

What did he say?

Obama had better be careful when he talks about someone developing a fresh policy concerning the changing energy market. Obama himself has reversed positions several times regarding drilling and oil.

Obama: "Hello, kettle? This the pot. You're black."

No more hugs as Obama tears into McCain - Yahoo! News:
"'McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling,' Obama said of McCain's energy policy."

Friday, August 15, 2008

Sports owners fund McCain, shun Obama - Yahoo! News

The hell with lobbyists - these guys don't need them. The uber-rich get their access to both parties directly, via their wealth and "donations."

The interesting thing about this article - while the headline leads one to believe that McCain is raking it in, lower in the story, it describes the piles of money raised for Obama. He's not hurting.

Also, note that even though individual donations are capped at $2300, there are "bundling" efforts that raise hundreds of thousands for candidates and parties.

Sports owners fund McCain, shun Obama - Yahoo! News
The owners of football’s Philadelphia Eagles, baseball’s Baltimore Orioles, San Diego Padres and Los Angeles Dodgers, basketball’s New York Knicks and Sacramento Kings, and hockey’s Anaheim Ducks and their families, for instance, gave a combined $1.1 million in political contributions this presidential cycle, mostly to Democratic political committees and candidates.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

McCain: No Net Neutrality, No Internet Taxes, No Lobbyists?

McCain: No Net Neutrality, No Internet Taxes - VOIP and Telephony:
"Instead of promoting network neutrality laws, a McCain presidency would instead focus on creating open networks that would allow consumers to attach devices and use services of their choice as long as the devices and services do no harm to the network."

Someone's got some 'splainin' to do about why this is bad.

It is a long-standing economic tenet that describes how increases in regulation, mandates, laws and taxes (like Obama wants to do) drive up prices and lower quality, and in a global economy drive business offshore. McCain's policy on taking a hands-off approach is a good one, letting the market decide what's what.

Obama wants net neutrality, which on it's face is good. The bad: Federal law will see to it that you will pay the same amount per month for normal internet access for your family as does the slob down the street who downloads gigabyte upon gigabyte of illegal movies, porn, cracked software, etc, slowing down everyone's connection because he's hogging it. I don't care what he downloads, frankly, I just don't want him interfering with what I and other normal people want to download. So leave the market alone and let the ISPs determine how best to manage their networks. They built them, let them control them. And if customers don't like what they do, they can go elsewhere. However, Obama does not understand this, and is unwittingly acting on behalf of Mr. Slob.

But there's an 800 lb. gorilla not seen, at least recognized, by everyday people: namely, federal regulation. Regulation is like mother's milk to lobbyists; laws determining how an industry can conduct business create the fertile environment where lobbyists thrive. See, the reason there are lobbyists at all is that government regulates so much of everyday life. If there were less regulation, lobbyists would be unnecessary for the industries to influence policy. They wouldn't need to. The industries could lower prices, no longer having the expense associated with influencing policy, such as extraordinary salaries for lobbyists, as well as, ahem, "donations' to politicians.

In short, get government out of any areas possible, and lobbyists go away. But when lobbyists go away, so do opportunities for politicians to line their pockets. Therefore, expect more regulation, at least from the Democrats. It's what they do.

But back to McCain: he's proposing less, not more regulation. And isn't that best for the internet? Leave it alone, let the users make it what it will be, without governmental meddling.


Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Have the Clintons Gotten Over It?

Have the Clintons Gotten Over It? - TIME:

"In private conversations, associates say, Clinton remains skeptical that Obama can win in the fall. That's a sentiment some other Democrats believe is not just a prediction but a wish, because it would prove her right about his weaknesses as a general-election candidate and possibly pave the way for her to run again in 2012. Clinton is also annoyed that Obama has yet to deliver on his end of an informal bargain, reached as part of their truce, that each would raise $500,000 for the other. 'Hillary has done her part in that regard,' says an adviser. 'Obama has not.'"

Monday, August 11, 2008

Obama tries to turn 'celebrity' label on McCain

Obama tries to turn 'celebrity' label on McCain - Yahoo! News:
"Celebrities are widely known and often loved by their fans, defined as being a 'celebrated person.' So what's so wrong with that when you're trying to win a nationwide election?"

So, Obama accepts his celebrity label, making him akin to Zsa Zsa Gabor, Paris Hilton, et.al.

The problem with this is that "celebrities" are called that because they can't be called anything else - they are famous for being famous. In Barack's case, it's a little deeper: he's famous for being black.

A great pedigree for being president of the US.

Now, if he just get those Gabor girls to endorse him...

Sunday, August 10, 2008

"President" Obama Expanding Affirmative Action?

Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric - Yahoo! News:
"“A lot of non-black people will say that the election of Barack Obama is now proof we don’t need affirmative action,” said Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who is concerned by the notion. Clyburn added that in an Obama administration he’d like to head up an affirmative-action task force that would consider class to some degree but maintain the current emphasis on race and gender."

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Government and Economy

"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan

THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I know that some of you don't like to read long drawn out
missives.......so here's the executive summary.

---------------------------Congress ----Military
John McCain ------- 26 Years --- 22 Years
Barrack Obama ---- 143 days ----- 0

Just think how great a professional of any kind you could be with only 143 days of experience!


People want change so badly?, maybe we should lower the experience requirement for doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, etc. This would cause some change!

Obama's 143 Days of Senate Experience

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory Committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. The one single Senate committee that he headed never even met - once.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, JFK and Ronald Reagan. Think about it.......143 days - 20.4 weeks - 4.7 months. Our children spend more time in pre-school getting ready for kindergarten.

Friday, August 8, 2008

On McCain being a Maverick

Obama Hits Back, Too Softly For Some - washingtonpost.com:
"Barack Obama released a television advertisement yesterday that questions John McCain's claims to be a 'maverick,' and he charged in a campaign appearance that the Republican displays independence only when it suits him politically."

This is so untrue. I recall as far back as 1995, when McCain was working on campaign finance reform, that conservatives had no end of trouble with him. That effort led McCain to work with Russ Feingold, a particularly liberal Democrat, and resulted in the so-called McCain-Feingold Bill. One would think this demonstrates McCain's unwillingness to toe a right-wing party line. The NRA even launched into a very strong campaign against him, even suggesting that Arizona voters should vote him out. If that's not getting on the bad side of conservatives, I don't know what is. But the liberal hate machine recasts McCain's efforts very differently from the truth.

Throughout McCain's career, he has typically done what he thought was right, on many occasions working with Democrats to get things accomplished that he thought needed to be done for the good of the country, rather than political expedience which has become the hallmark of Federal politics, the Democrats in particular.

If you doubt the veracity of that statement, look no further than Nancy Pelosi's efforts, or rather lack thereof, concerning the future of America's energy needs. In 2006, with gasoline at $2.91 per gallon, Pelosi vowed in her own press release:

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

In 2008, after the Dems have been in office for over 2 years, Congress has done NOTHING to address critical needs in this area. Pelosi, it seems, has decided to take any political heat in a re-election year, so that Democrats back in their home districts can blame her, get re-elected, and increase the Democrats lock on their do-nothing Congress. What a sham.

In looking at the two sides and how they address problems, if we want a president to end Washington gridlock and represent us all, it sure sounds like McCain's straightforward nature is the kind that's a good start toward that end.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

What causes high oil prices?

Why are our lawmakers, Dems and Repubs alike, continuing to foist lies on us about the reasons for the high costs of gasoline? Could it be that they're incompentent, or looking for a shield for their own bad energy policies, including taxation? This is an enlightening tidbit from OPEC:

What causes high oil prices?:
"...Sentiment is also an important factor: if traders in the oil market believe there will be a shortage of oil supplies, they may raise prices before a shortage actually occurs. Other factors influencing the price of crude oil include accidents, bad weather, increasing demand, halting transport of oil from producers, labour disputes (strikes) as well as other disruptions to production including war and natural disasters.

"Crude oil now represents less than a quarter of the price of oil products in many countries. Therefore, taxes have more influence over the price of oil products. When oil taxes are raised, end consumers often mistakenly blame the oil producers, but it is really their own governments that are responsible."

So much for Obama's windfall profits tax on oil producers as a means of lowering gasoline prices.

Just goes to show how little he knows.

When in high school, Yogi Berra didn't do too well. His teachers asked hin, "Don't know anything?" His response: "I don't even suspect anything."

So it must be with Obama.

What does he do for us, today?

FactCheck.org: Straining a Point:
"An Obama ad says he'll 'fast track alternatives' to imported oil. Actually, his plan is a 10-year proposal with no guarantees."

Obama's Lie du jour

FactCheck.org: Obama's Oil Spill:
"Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.


It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount."

Why we vote badly

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
- Charles Mackay"

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Obama du Jour

Obama, in New Stand, Proposes Use of Oil Reserve - NYTimes.com:
"Mr. Obama has veered in recent days toward increasing access to fossil fuels, both in seeking to tap the strategic oil reserve and in softening his opposition to offshore oil drilling."

Pay no attention when I'm a hypocrite

Critical of McCain, Obama quiet on own energy vote - Yahoo! News:
"Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, said, 'Barack Obama is opposed to offshore drilling and is also opposed to admitting that he voted for the same corporate giveaways for Big Oil that he's campaigning against today.'"

Sunday, August 3, 2008

A Chicken for President

Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge - Yahoo! News:
"Obama's reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he's adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama's the front-runner.


On Saturday, in a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the short period between the last political convention and the first proposed debate made it likely that the commission-sponsored debates would be the only ones."

Friday, August 1, 2008

Buying the vote

Obama proposes $1,000 energy rebates for consumers - Yahoo! News:
"ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday called for a $1,000 'emergency' rebate to consumers to offset soaring energy costs amid fresh signs of a struggling economy with the nation's unemployment rate climbing to a four-year high.

ADVERTISEMENT

Obama told a town-hall meeting the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry."

Now, wait a minute, didn't Obama denigrate Bush for his rebate, AKA Stimulus Package?

But the real issue is where the money is coming from - windfall profits from oil companies. If you think this is a good idea, then you also think higher prices are a good idea, too.

Liberals and democrats never seem to realize that that "windfall profit" isn't created out of thin air - it's actually consumer money, having been paid for a product or service.

Think of it this way: anything you buy is made up of costs associated with materials, labor, and anything related to the operation of the business. This includes TAXES. Therefore, anytime the taxes are increased, it increases the cost of the good, which then increases the price.

Considering the drag Congress's policies of taxing the bejesus out of big business (a popular villain in liberal circles), and that other countries, like China, prop up their homemade goods by injecting cash into their industries, is it any wonder that American products are no longer price-competitive?

So, Obama's success depends on your politics-induced poverty (or greed), your ignorance of economics caused by bad public schooling, and apathy.

So what's for lunch?

Jobless rate highest in 4 years | Reuters

So unemployment is up. That's not good, but why has no one cited the impact of illegal immigration on this? After all, illegal aliens are not eligible for unemployment benefits, but they are eligible to take the jobs of those who are.

Let's start putting the blame where it really is: Congress's (controlled for the last 2 years by Democrats) inability to stop the influx of illegals.

Can you say, "Enforce the law?"

Jobless rate highest in 4 years | Reuters