Well evidentally economic downturn and an FBI investigation is not enough for the next President, he also has to deal with new and dangerous situations in Israel. Today Israel began heavy airstrikes against the Gaza strip. Hamas is claiming at 207 injured so far and Emud Barak in a press conference this morning stated that the operation will expand as much as necessary. Stating that this was a "time for fighting."
Pres. Elect Obama stated on his webpage during the election that his administration would never do anything to weaken the relationship between the US and Israel, and that he believed that Israel had the right to defend itself against attacks from terrorist organizations. The question now remains will he do as he has promised.
So far leaders of the UN, Egypt, France, Great Britain, EU and Russia have managed at least a comment on the situation, but Obama is silently on vacation at his family compound in Hawaii. (How many carbon credits does it take to fly from Washinton DC to Hawaii for a vacation?)
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Pre-Inaugaration FBI Investigation
What is the record for the shortest amount of a time from a presidential election to the first time that the victor finds himself tied up in a Federal investigation? I admit that I don't actually know the answer to that question, but I would guess that a month before inauguration would probably be pretty close to the number one spot.
Let's start with the Gov. Blagojevich scandal. By this time I hope that everyone has at least a little understanding concerning the Gov. Blagojevich. The Gov. attempted to trade the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama either for favors or cold hard cash. The FBI obtained a wire tap warrant from a Federal judge and recorded multiple conversations. So, other than the fact that Barack Obama used to fill this particular senate seat how is he connected to the whole investigation?
Well it is common for a politician who has vacated a seat due to a new election to speak with those who are in charge of filling his vacant seat. That much is normal. However a look into the Chicago politics has revealed a world where vacancies and cabinet positions can be bought. It is truly a sad day. Now the real question in the all talk is did Barack Obama know about any conversations between his cabinet and Blagojevich? If so did they know that Bagojevich was attempting to sell the seat?
Mr. Obama's initial response was that he had never had any conversations with the governor about his Senate seat. This comment from the beginning is suspicious since, as previously mentioned, it is common for the this type of conversation to occur. Shortly after the elections an Obama aid was on the evening news discussing how he knew for certain that Obama had talked with the Governor. Finally, weeks after the this story first broke, we know for certain that Rahm Emmanuel discussed the issue with some in the governor's office or staff. So what does this really mean? There are actually a few possibilities.
1) After spending months preaching about "Change" that everyone could believe in, Pres. Elect Obama filled his staff with a bunch of DC insiders who far from being different are actually old Clinton administration members. So this would be business as usual for Rahm Emmanuel, the man who once sent a pollster a dead fish because he did not like the results of a poll that he published.
2)Guilt by participation. Now we see that the people that the media refused to investigate last year in connection with Obama's presidential campaign are coming back to produce scandals before the inauguration even occurs. People like Rezko and Blagojevich. Now let's not put too much stock in everybody that Obama hangs out with, forms political coalitions with in the state Senate or has help with his fund raising. Just because Rezko has been convicted of selling positions and contracts in order to get campaign funds for other people doesn't mean that he did it for Obama right.
3) A terrible pattern of lies. Perhaps Obama just forgot that he had given Rahm Emmanuel a list of potential people to fill his vacancies, or maybe Rahm just made it up, but what I really see here is a pattern. It appears that Obama's typical reaction when confronted about a relationship or friend that may cause his political backlash is to lie and feign ignorance. I will set up the examples that illustrate this pattern for you.
A) During his campaign Obama is confronted concerning comments made by his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama's initial reaction was to say that he had never heard Reverend Wright say those kind of things. Eventually Obama "left" the church because of the degrading comments that he had just become aware his pastor had been making for the entire 20 years that he sat in the congregation.
B) William Ayers. Interestingly enough when reporters began talking about Obama's relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, once again Obama's initial response was, well that happened when I was 8, how was I supposed to know that he was a terrorist?
C) Blagojevich. Here we are now. Really, Gov. Blagojevich has been selling contracts since you were with him in the State Congress, he has the same fund raiser you had, and he states in FBI conversations that someone from your campaign would not give him what he wanted for your senate seat and yet somehow you are supposedly innocently ignorant of the fact that the man is using his position to get money in illegal ways? Get real. Even better do you really expect me to believe that you did not know that your staff was speaking with his office?
Now feeling that the pattern is properly established, let me ask this question. Does this situation seem familiar? Where have we seen this pattern of lies before? Of wait I know, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lies, the familiar sound from the Democratic White house.
Let's start with the Gov. Blagojevich scandal. By this time I hope that everyone has at least a little understanding concerning the Gov. Blagojevich. The Gov. attempted to trade the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama either for favors or cold hard cash. The FBI obtained a wire tap warrant from a Federal judge and recorded multiple conversations. So, other than the fact that Barack Obama used to fill this particular senate seat how is he connected to the whole investigation?
Well it is common for a politician who has vacated a seat due to a new election to speak with those who are in charge of filling his vacant seat. That much is normal. However a look into the Chicago politics has revealed a world where vacancies and cabinet positions can be bought. It is truly a sad day. Now the real question in the all talk is did Barack Obama know about any conversations between his cabinet and Blagojevich? If so did they know that Bagojevich was attempting to sell the seat?
Mr. Obama's initial response was that he had never had any conversations with the governor about his Senate seat. This comment from the beginning is suspicious since, as previously mentioned, it is common for the this type of conversation to occur. Shortly after the elections an Obama aid was on the evening news discussing how he knew for certain that Obama had talked with the Governor. Finally, weeks after the this story first broke, we know for certain that Rahm Emmanuel discussed the issue with some in the governor's office or staff. So what does this really mean? There are actually a few possibilities.
1) After spending months preaching about "Change" that everyone could believe in, Pres. Elect Obama filled his staff with a bunch of DC insiders who far from being different are actually old Clinton administration members. So this would be business as usual for Rahm Emmanuel, the man who once sent a pollster a dead fish because he did not like the results of a poll that he published.
2)Guilt by participation. Now we see that the people that the media refused to investigate last year in connection with Obama's presidential campaign are coming back to produce scandals before the inauguration even occurs. People like Rezko and Blagojevich. Now let's not put too much stock in everybody that Obama hangs out with, forms political coalitions with in the state Senate or has help with his fund raising. Just because Rezko has been convicted of selling positions and contracts in order to get campaign funds for other people doesn't mean that he did it for Obama right.
3) A terrible pattern of lies. Perhaps Obama just forgot that he had given Rahm Emmanuel a list of potential people to fill his vacancies, or maybe Rahm just made it up, but what I really see here is a pattern. It appears that Obama's typical reaction when confronted about a relationship or friend that may cause his political backlash is to lie and feign ignorance. I will set up the examples that illustrate this pattern for you.
A) During his campaign Obama is confronted concerning comments made by his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama's initial reaction was to say that he had never heard Reverend Wright say those kind of things. Eventually Obama "left" the church because of the degrading comments that he had just become aware his pastor had been making for the entire 20 years that he sat in the congregation.
B) William Ayers. Interestingly enough when reporters began talking about Obama's relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, once again Obama's initial response was, well that happened when I was 8, how was I supposed to know that he was a terrorist?
C) Blagojevich. Here we are now. Really, Gov. Blagojevich has been selling contracts since you were with him in the State Congress, he has the same fund raiser you had, and he states in FBI conversations that someone from your campaign would not give him what he wanted for your senate seat and yet somehow you are supposedly innocently ignorant of the fact that the man is using his position to get money in illegal ways? Get real. Even better do you really expect me to believe that you did not know that your staff was speaking with his office?
Now feeling that the pattern is properly established, let me ask this question. Does this situation seem familiar? Where have we seen this pattern of lies before? Of wait I know, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Lies, the familiar sound from the Democratic White house.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
One European I think has it Right!
I am interested to what changes occur ed in the EU following recent economic downturns. There is an interesting development on the continent. The position of EU president rotates between different countries that are members of the union (for a more detailed explanation you would need to ask someone who knows more about the EU infrastructure). Currently a Czech, Vaclav Klaus is preparing to fill the position. Mr. Klaus is a horse of a different color in Europe. He advocates for strong free markets, and blames the response to fictitious global warming for aiding in the financial demise.
He has called Al Gore an "apostle of arrogance" for his positions and recent actions with global warming. On this point I agree with Mr. Klaus. Other then inventing the Internet, what did Al Gore ever do to qualify himself as an environmental leader? His home uses ridiculous amounts of energy and he flies around the world on a private jet while criticizing other Americans for driving SUV's.
Anyhow, I am interested in what appears to be an unreported shift in some international political venues. Why did we not hear about Mr. Klaus on our evening news sooner? I thought all European heads of state agreed that global warming was bad. I believe it is the same media bias that downplayed the election of Pres. Scharkozy, a Pro-American French President. This election came at a time when the entire media was bashing Pres. Bush for his terrible international policies. It is obvious that we will never please everyone, but the idea that international consensus that the US is deplorable is false. It is a media over exaggeration.
He has called Al Gore an "apostle of arrogance" for his positions and recent actions with global warming. On this point I agree with Mr. Klaus. Other then inventing the Internet, what did Al Gore ever do to qualify himself as an environmental leader? His home uses ridiculous amounts of energy and he flies around the world on a private jet while criticizing other Americans for driving SUV's.
Anyhow, I am interested in what appears to be an unreported shift in some international political venues. Why did we not hear about Mr. Klaus on our evening news sooner? I thought all European heads of state agreed that global warming was bad. I believe it is the same media bias that downplayed the election of Pres. Scharkozy, a Pro-American French President. This election came at a time when the entire media was bashing Pres. Bush for his terrible international policies. It is obvious that we will never please everyone, but the idea that international consensus that the US is deplorable is false. It is a media over exaggeration.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
There is excitement at work today. This story is being ran by ABC 4 News here in Utah. It is about our department. James Anderson the owner of the property tried to establish an illegal Duplex. He tried to give the city the run around about what was really going on at the property. However, when he was finally taken to court he plead "No Contest" to all charges.
After court he evidentally went to the news who agreed to pick up his story. Unfortunately he wasn't completely honest with the news. He claims that he tenants don't pay, but his tenants claim that Mr. Anderson had them pay up front. The story suggests that Provo City kicked out a family that was hard up and homeless. If they are hard up, maybe it is because Mr. Anderson took all that money up front for a unit they couldn't live in.
After court he evidentally went to the news who agreed to pick up his story. Unfortunately he wasn't completely honest with the news. He claims that he tenants don't pay, but his tenants claim that Mr. Anderson had them pay up front. The story suggests that Provo City kicked out a family that was hard up and homeless. If they are hard up, maybe it is because Mr. Anderson took all that money up front for a unit they couldn't live in.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Iran Test Fires New Missles
Do you think they would be doing this is McCain had been elected President? Why or why not?
Can You Keep a Secret?
The Obama camp can't. Shortly after meeting with Pres. Bush, the Obama camp began releasing details concerning the discussion. Who wouldn't think that those conversations are supposed to be kept confidential? Of course the New York Times published a story only quoting a anonymous source. Now I wonder what would happen if a Republican close to Pres. Bush were to give information on a sensitive subject to the media. Would the media name names? Oh wait that has already happened.
Anyhow, I digress.
There a few possible reasons why the Obama camp would release the details. Here are a couple of thoughts.
1. The Obama campaign isn't used to being in the presidential spotlight so they didn't know they weren't supposed to talk about it. If this is the situation then why did the aide wish to be left anonymous? Even better if this explanation is the correct explanation, then that means in the first two public events that Barack Obama has taken part in since the election, he has trample etique and rules. Is this that the change we were hearing about; that change we can believe in? or is he really that inexperienced?
2. It was a malicious attempt by Pres. Elect Obama to take control of the White House two months early. The discussions between Bush and Obama turned out to be negotiations where Obama was asking for Pres. Bush to throw more money at an economic bail for the car manufacturers before the end of the year. Pres. Bush evidentally made a counter offer telling Obama to get the Democrats to approve free trade with Columbia and he would consider it. So in an attempt to push the matter, Obama starts leaking that Pres. Bush is responsible for the car manufacturers going under. Heck they have used him for a scapegoat for everything else.
3. It was the status quo for the type of people Obama has sought to surround himself with. I am NOT talking about Rev. Wright, Father Flager or William Ayers. I am talking about people like Rahm Emanuel. Let's see what did Mr. Emmanuel do... oh yes, he sent dead fish to people while working for the Clinton Administration. That's right. Someone who is supposed to be representing our country sent a dead fish to a pollster because he didn't like his numbers. Then there was that time that he told the opposition to F*** themselves in Hebrew. Evidentally that is acceptable social behavior if you do it in another language. Obama's judgement is flawed beyond all possible belief when it to comes to the people he chooses to associate with.
Anyhow, take your pick of the possible scenerios I have presented, or even better propose one of your own and I will post. As far as I can see right now, none of the scenerios are encouraging, or inspiring any HOPE for the future.
Anyhow, I digress.
There a few possible reasons why the Obama camp would release the details. Here are a couple of thoughts.
1. The Obama campaign isn't used to being in the presidential spotlight so they didn't know they weren't supposed to talk about it. If this is the situation then why did the aide wish to be left anonymous? Even better if this explanation is the correct explanation, then that means in the first two public events that Barack Obama has taken part in since the election, he has trample etique and rules. Is this that the change we were hearing about; that change we can believe in? or is he really that inexperienced?
2. It was a malicious attempt by Pres. Elect Obama to take control of the White House two months early. The discussions between Bush and Obama turned out to be negotiations where Obama was asking for Pres. Bush to throw more money at an economic bail for the car manufacturers before the end of the year. Pres. Bush evidentally made a counter offer telling Obama to get the Democrats to approve free trade with Columbia and he would consider it. So in an attempt to push the matter, Obama starts leaking that Pres. Bush is responsible for the car manufacturers going under. Heck they have used him for a scapegoat for everything else.
3. It was the status quo for the type of people Obama has sought to surround himself with. I am NOT talking about Rev. Wright, Father Flager or William Ayers. I am talking about people like Rahm Emanuel. Let's see what did Mr. Emmanuel do... oh yes, he sent dead fish to people while working for the Clinton Administration. That's right. Someone who is supposed to be representing our country sent a dead fish to a pollster because he didn't like his numbers. Then there was that time that he told the opposition to F*** themselves in Hebrew. Evidentally that is acceptable social behavior if you do it in another language. Obama's judgement is flawed beyond all possible belief when it to comes to the people he chooses to associate with.
Anyhow, take your pick of the possible scenerios I have presented, or even better propose one of your own and I will post. As far as I can see right now, none of the scenerios are encouraging, or inspiring any HOPE for the future.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Proposition 8
So if your gay and the people vote twice not to allow gay marriages what do you do?
Evidently you somehow get "The Governor" to switch sides of the sames sex marriage issue. Then you get him to issue a statement calling on the California Supreme Court to fail to uphold a Constitutional Amendment passed by the citizens through a referendum vote just a week ago. Now don't think that this is just part of the strategy for victory in California. Let's look at what is really going on here.
If the gay rights advocates get the California Supreme Court to shoot down Proposition 8, whether legal or not, the only way to overturn the decision is to file suit against the state of California which would inevitably take the issue to the US Supreme Court. My guess is that in light of the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, the gay rights advocates have decided that they can force a decision in their favor in the US Supreme Court. This is nothing more then the same forced social change of abortion.
Understand they are not looking for gay marriage to be legal in California, but in every place in the world. Think about it. Right now 30 states have Constitutional Amendments banning same sex marriage. If the gay rights advocates were to get the US Supreme Court approval, then they would override the preferences of all these states.
What kind of bigots are some of the gay rights groups? How about groups who put out a false and misleading commercial like this one. Who made that commercial? The Courage Campaign Issues Committee. Who supports the Courage Campaign Issues Committee? Oh just a couple of groups like ActBlue. ActBlue was an avid supporter of NO to Proposition 8 and Barack Obama. In fact according to their own website 15, 428 supporters donated $1,067,535 to his campaign. Imagine that.
Why wasn't this in the news when he was running for President? It seems pretty relevant to me! Now they are talking about making a holiday for a person who has yet to even take the oath of office. The same individual who is going to rescind executive orders that allow for current drilling in the US for natural gas and oil. The same individual who supports condoms over abstinence. Great job America. Some of you voted him because you thought it would be historic. Well it is historic; it will be historically catastrophic. Great job.
Evidently you somehow get "The Governor" to switch sides of the sames sex marriage issue. Then you get him to issue a statement calling on the California Supreme Court to fail to uphold a Constitutional Amendment passed by the citizens through a referendum vote just a week ago. Now don't think that this is just part of the strategy for victory in California. Let's look at what is really going on here.
If the gay rights advocates get the California Supreme Court to shoot down Proposition 8, whether legal or not, the only way to overturn the decision is to file suit against the state of California which would inevitably take the issue to the US Supreme Court. My guess is that in light of the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, the gay rights advocates have decided that they can force a decision in their favor in the US Supreme Court. This is nothing more then the same forced social change of abortion.
Understand they are not looking for gay marriage to be legal in California, but in every place in the world. Think about it. Right now 30 states have Constitutional Amendments banning same sex marriage. If the gay rights advocates were to get the US Supreme Court approval, then they would override the preferences of all these states.
What kind of bigots are some of the gay rights groups? How about groups who put out a false and misleading commercial like this one. Who made that commercial? The Courage Campaign Issues Committee. Who supports the Courage Campaign Issues Committee? Oh just a couple of groups like ActBlue. ActBlue was an avid supporter of NO to Proposition 8 and Barack Obama. In fact according to their own website 15, 428 supporters donated $1,067,535 to his campaign. Imagine that.
Why wasn't this in the news when he was running for President? It seems pretty relevant to me! Now they are talking about making a holiday for a person who has yet to even take the oath of office. The same individual who is going to rescind executive orders that allow for current drilling in the US for natural gas and oil. The same individual who supports condoms over abstinence. Great job America. Some of you voted him because you thought it would be historic. Well it is historic; it will be historically catastrophic. Great job.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I highly doubt anyone who knows will be surprised to find that I am disappointed with the events of this campaign. My blog is a place to rant, and so I will rant.
I blame John McCain and his personal hypocrisy for the loss in this election. He attempted to stand up to what his campaign called "politics as usual" while at the same time using the same cheap political tricks to win the Republican nomination. Lies, vicious lies were the center of his primary campaign. You cannot invigorate a base that puts morals and ethics first and be a liar. Two thirds of the party never fully sealed themselves to the campaign because they could see that John McCain was not the man he claimed to be.
John McCain was unable to pick a truly strong Vice Presidential candidate, because he would be overshadowed. Instead he picked an obscure Governor from Alaska with very little experience and plenty of ammunition for a liberal media to pick up on. When economic crisis hit the nation, he abandoned some simple conservative principles and spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. His economic plan was never well detailed.
In the primaries McCain attacked Mitt Romney's religion. In various push pulls in Iowa and Florida John McCain flooded the public with false images of Romney's religion. Then when something truly frightening came along, Jeremiah Wright and Father Flager, the public didn't want to listen.
He just didn't have it and two thirds of his party didn't want him, as could be said for all the Republican candidates. Tonight in John McCain's speech there was something he said that on which I will completely agree with him; this loss was John McCain's loss.
Well what now, what enough concerning the losses of this election what about the gains.
We definitely have the first black American president. Thankfully, that means no one who is under qualified will be able to pull that card out in the future. Be prepared because there is no affirmative action once in the presidency. There is no time for a president who isn't ready to take a couple years and learn how to really lead anything. If Obama follows through on his campaign promises there are a few things we can definitely expect.
1. American international influence to dwindle.
That's right if you thought that by electing Obama the US would increase in favor in the international arena you are wrong. The world in a large part doesn't want to see the US with as much sovereignty as we currently have. They expect us to pay for all the international assemblies. They want us subject ourselves to their own International Courts where they would be able to put citizens and members of our military on trial without fair representation in the courts themselves. They expect us to rescue anyone who cries for help without fair and proper personal contribution. If the US increases in favor in the international world it will be because Obama has made these concessions. If you think that Obama will in the international opinion of the US I ask you, "Are you really ready for him to make these concessions?"
Perhaps you felt that if we just talked with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that everything would work out. What exactly do you think that Obama will say to these people? To make these countries happy we must cease to be America. They want nothing less than to destroy the very ideals America was founded on.
Without a strong leader who can stand up and tell the international community to stick it, no one will take us seriously. We will be walked all over.
2. America's economic strengthen will decrease.
Here is a thought experiment a friend recently related to me. This experiment was first introduced by Ronald Regan. Say the government instituted a flat tax for all business transactions and that the tax varied from day to day in the following manner. All transactions on Monday were taxed 10%, Tuesday 20%, Wednesday 30%, Thursday 60% and Friday 80%. Tell me, how many days of the week would you do business on? By Tuesday or Wednesday at the very latest I would close shop. As my friend suggested all the really big business would be done on Monday.
In that connection why do you think that the stocks are starting to rise again? Why do you think that fell when Obama had his biggest lead and why did they climb when McCain surged back up? I would suggest the stocks surged when it looked more like Monday was coming and fell when CEOs saw Friday around the bend. I predict that stocks will rise for the next few months. Barring an immense tragedy, they will probably rise into next year, though at a much slower pace then they have in the past. However, with Obama as president, if he fulfills his promise to spread the wealth and legislation is passed to enforce those ideals, we will also see years of Fridays.
What incentive is there for me to go to Law school, get incredibly in debt and then have the government force to give them a large percentage of my money if I make it? The only incentive that looms in the Monday four years from now when perhaps we won't have to deal with Obama and his policies. I already give well more then 10% of my income to charities and causes as well as individuals who need help that I can help. Who is Mr. Obama to decide I haven't given enough? I grew up in Kansas also. My parents did have the money to travel the world and my grandparents didn't have the money to move to Hawaii. Perhaps Pres. Obama's plan will help me pay for college, but if I was a minority he would give me more money. Why? If a black man can be elected president then there is nothing stopping any person, or any race from accomplishing what they set out to do. In America, ultimately if you do not become what you want to be it is your own fault. Quit blaming everyone else. Get up and take responsibility for yourself.
3. American will lose the fight against radicals groups and individuals. They will infiltrate our communities in an attempt to subjugate all that is so right about America.
Perhaps they will try a different tactic. There may not be another visually horrifying bombing, but there will be friendships with unrepentant terrorist, both foreign and domestic. The US will sit down with idealistic dictators and talk. We will turn against Israel and claim they are the cause for unrest in the Middle East.
Without the safeguards that have protected us from attack for the last seven years, we will see more danger on our own soil if we do attempted to stand up to a now emboldened enemy who will seek to destroy us in anyway possible.
4. Moral Corruption will increase.
I don't want the government telling me when they will educate my children about sex. It is not the government's job to instruct my kindergartner concerning reproductive organs. It is not the government's place to hand out condoms to my teenager. It is not the government's place to tell my children that disgusting behaviors such as homosexual relationships are okay.
The government never was suited for spreading morality. It was never intended to be the mechanism to insure the morality that the Founding Fathers felt necessary to enable the country to continue to function. That mechanism was religion. No radical idealism, but true religion based upon traditional Judeo-Christian values, whether you think that is discriminatory or not. Government was supposed to keep its nasty talons out of religion. Instead every time religion tries to teach the values and principles needed to maintain society, factions of government attempt to control what is taught. The result is the indoctrination of an entire generation with absolute lies concerning what is or is not moral.
5. Domestic Poverty will increase.
Why work when someone has promised you someone else's money? Why earn above the minimum amount before you taxes increase if you will get to spend less of the money according to your personal desires?
6. Charitable donations will decrease.
The government will have more of the rich populations money so why should they continue to give to private charities. The number of individuals free riding the system will increase so they won't have money to give.
Conclusion:
There are many more specific predictions I have, but it is too late and I have work in the morning. perhaps I will finish this then. In the meantime, I am disappointed with the position I find myself in this evening. The day will dawn again, politics are cyclical.
I blame John McCain and his personal hypocrisy for the loss in this election. He attempted to stand up to what his campaign called "politics as usual" while at the same time using the same cheap political tricks to win the Republican nomination. Lies, vicious lies were the center of his primary campaign. You cannot invigorate a base that puts morals and ethics first and be a liar. Two thirds of the party never fully sealed themselves to the campaign because they could see that John McCain was not the man he claimed to be.
John McCain was unable to pick a truly strong Vice Presidential candidate, because he would be overshadowed. Instead he picked an obscure Governor from Alaska with very little experience and plenty of ammunition for a liberal media to pick up on. When economic crisis hit the nation, he abandoned some simple conservative principles and spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. His economic plan was never well detailed.
In the primaries McCain attacked Mitt Romney's religion. In various push pulls in Iowa and Florida John McCain flooded the public with false images of Romney's religion. Then when something truly frightening came along, Jeremiah Wright and Father Flager, the public didn't want to listen.
He just didn't have it and two thirds of his party didn't want him, as could be said for all the Republican candidates. Tonight in John McCain's speech there was something he said that on which I will completely agree with him; this loss was John McCain's loss.
Well what now, what enough concerning the losses of this election what about the gains.
We definitely have the first black American president. Thankfully, that means no one who is under qualified will be able to pull that card out in the future. Be prepared because there is no affirmative action once in the presidency. There is no time for a president who isn't ready to take a couple years and learn how to really lead anything. If Obama follows through on his campaign promises there are a few things we can definitely expect.
1. American international influence to dwindle.
That's right if you thought that by electing Obama the US would increase in favor in the international arena you are wrong. The world in a large part doesn't want to see the US with as much sovereignty as we currently have. They expect us to pay for all the international assemblies. They want us subject ourselves to their own International Courts where they would be able to put citizens and members of our military on trial without fair representation in the courts themselves. They expect us to rescue anyone who cries for help without fair and proper personal contribution. If the US increases in favor in the international world it will be because Obama has made these concessions. If you think that Obama will in the international opinion of the US I ask you, "Are you really ready for him to make these concessions?"
Perhaps you felt that if we just talked with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that everything would work out. What exactly do you think that Obama will say to these people? To make these countries happy we must cease to be America. They want nothing less than to destroy the very ideals America was founded on.
Without a strong leader who can stand up and tell the international community to stick it, no one will take us seriously. We will be walked all over.
2. America's economic strengthen will decrease.
Here is a thought experiment a friend recently related to me. This experiment was first introduced by Ronald Regan. Say the government instituted a flat tax for all business transactions and that the tax varied from day to day in the following manner. All transactions on Monday were taxed 10%, Tuesday 20%, Wednesday 30%, Thursday 60% and Friday 80%. Tell me, how many days of the week would you do business on? By Tuesday or Wednesday at the very latest I would close shop. As my friend suggested all the really big business would be done on Monday.
In that connection why do you think that the stocks are starting to rise again? Why do you think that fell when Obama had his biggest lead and why did they climb when McCain surged back up? I would suggest the stocks surged when it looked more like Monday was coming and fell when CEOs saw Friday around the bend. I predict that stocks will rise for the next few months. Barring an immense tragedy, they will probably rise into next year, though at a much slower pace then they have in the past. However, with Obama as president, if he fulfills his promise to spread the wealth and legislation is passed to enforce those ideals, we will also see years of Fridays.
What incentive is there for me to go to Law school, get incredibly in debt and then have the government force to give them a large percentage of my money if I make it? The only incentive that looms in the Monday four years from now when perhaps we won't have to deal with Obama and his policies. I already give well more then 10% of my income to charities and causes as well as individuals who need help that I can help. Who is Mr. Obama to decide I haven't given enough? I grew up in Kansas also. My parents did have the money to travel the world and my grandparents didn't have the money to move to Hawaii. Perhaps Pres. Obama's plan will help me pay for college, but if I was a minority he would give me more money. Why? If a black man can be elected president then there is nothing stopping any person, or any race from accomplishing what they set out to do. In America, ultimately if you do not become what you want to be it is your own fault. Quit blaming everyone else. Get up and take responsibility for yourself.
3. American will lose the fight against radicals groups and individuals. They will infiltrate our communities in an attempt to subjugate all that is so right about America.
Perhaps they will try a different tactic. There may not be another visually horrifying bombing, but there will be friendships with unrepentant terrorist, both foreign and domestic. The US will sit down with idealistic dictators and talk. We will turn against Israel and claim they are the cause for unrest in the Middle East.
Without the safeguards that have protected us from attack for the last seven years, we will see more danger on our own soil if we do attempted to stand up to a now emboldened enemy who will seek to destroy us in anyway possible.
4. Moral Corruption will increase.
I don't want the government telling me when they will educate my children about sex. It is not the government's job to instruct my kindergartner concerning reproductive organs. It is not the government's place to hand out condoms to my teenager. It is not the government's place to tell my children that disgusting behaviors such as homosexual relationships are okay.
The government never was suited for spreading morality. It was never intended to be the mechanism to insure the morality that the Founding Fathers felt necessary to enable the country to continue to function. That mechanism was religion. No radical idealism, but true religion based upon traditional Judeo-Christian values, whether you think that is discriminatory or not. Government was supposed to keep its nasty talons out of religion. Instead every time religion tries to teach the values and principles needed to maintain society, factions of government attempt to control what is taught. The result is the indoctrination of an entire generation with absolute lies concerning what is or is not moral.
5. Domestic Poverty will increase.
Why work when someone has promised you someone else's money? Why earn above the minimum amount before you taxes increase if you will get to spend less of the money according to your personal desires?
6. Charitable donations will decrease.
The government will have more of the rich populations money so why should they continue to give to private charities. The number of individuals free riding the system will increase so they won't have money to give.
Conclusion:
There are many more specific predictions I have, but it is too late and I have work in the morning. perhaps I will finish this then. In the meantime, I am disappointed with the position I find myself in this evening. The day will dawn again, politics are cyclical.
Vote Today!!!
Today is the day to vote. If you haven't voted yet, and still can then vote. Wait in line for however long it takes. Vote Now!!!!!!!!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Palin Still a Poor Choice
I have recently been asked if I still think that picking Gov. Palin as a Vice Presidential candidate was a poor choice. Yes, yes I do.
I do not believe she is the worst choice that John McCain could have made, but she is definately not the best. I credit the media with creating such a fiasco the first few weeks after her nomination that the American public decided to overlook her flaws. The flaws still exist. It is still true that John McCain chose a running mate who was under investigation for misuse of power. I do not like her. Dishonesty is obvious in both of McCain and Palin. McCain produced lies about the other politicians in the primaries. Palin is at best accused of dishonesty. The ridiculous way in which the media chose to lash out at Palin actually restored some for of confidence in the honesty of the ticket.
Unknowingly the media created a victim and Palin supporteres took Liberal tactics and turned them against the left. Claim to be a victim and then every time anyone attacks play the role of the bigger man, the under dog who is fighting a biased system,
In any other campaign she would be a terribly weak VP. Today she is still weaker then other people who could be chosen.
I do not believe she is the worst choice that John McCain could have made, but she is definately not the best. I credit the media with creating such a fiasco the first few weeks after her nomination that the American public decided to overlook her flaws. The flaws still exist. It is still true that John McCain chose a running mate who was under investigation for misuse of power. I do not like her. Dishonesty is obvious in both of McCain and Palin. McCain produced lies about the other politicians in the primaries. Palin is at best accused of dishonesty. The ridiculous way in which the media chose to lash out at Palin actually restored some for of confidence in the honesty of the ticket.
Unknowingly the media created a victim and Palin supporteres took Liberal tactics and turned them against the left. Claim to be a victim and then every time anyone attacks play the role of the bigger man, the under dog who is fighting a biased system,
In any other campaign she would be a terribly weak VP. Today she is still weaker then other people who could be chosen.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Wrapping it Up
Well the election is coming to a close. We have one week left and we will see what comes of the last two years of fanangling. Who will win? I am astounded at this point that I still do not think the American public knows the candidates very well. There is a list of surprising developments that shouldn't have taken this long for media coverage to produce. My most recent favorite is Barack Obama's past.
For example:
Did you know that in 2001 he expressed his sorrow that the Supreme Court didn't use it's position to force wealth redistribution? Wow that one would have been important to know sooner! If he hadn't slipped while talking to Joe the Plumber, the media never would have investigated it. Aren't they supposed to do independent investigative research?
This media in this election has left an unsavory flavor in my mouth. During the primaries why were there not more stories on John McCain's flaws? I think the media dropped the ball. I feel the same about thier current handling of Barack Obama's campaign. Biased media. I amazed that with an election that has been going on for more then a year and a half, that bombshells can somehow be coming out one week from the election.
For example:
Did you know that in 2001 he expressed his sorrow that the Supreme Court didn't use it's position to force wealth redistribution? Wow that one would have been important to know sooner! If he hadn't slipped while talking to Joe the Plumber, the media never would have investigated it. Aren't they supposed to do independent investigative research?
This media in this election has left an unsavory flavor in my mouth. During the primaries why were there not more stories on John McCain's flaws? I think the media dropped the ball. I feel the same about thier current handling of Barack Obama's campaign. Biased media. I amazed that with an election that has been going on for more then a year and a half, that bombshells can somehow be coming out one week from the election.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Polls Can be Decieving
When you are listening to poll numbers braodcast through the media, make sure you find out more about the particular poll. What is the margin or error? What is the confidence level within that margin of error? How was the poll conducted? What kind of sample did they use? What is the poll really telling you?
For example:
Real Clear Politics Average shows Obama up by an average of 7.3% with one poll show Obama up nationally by 14% and another showing Obama only up by 1%. If you look closer at the polls you see they are all sampling the entire US population, though they are using different methods with different margins of error and confidence levels. What does that really tell you? It says if you were ask everyone in the US who they support that the research company is confident at whatever level they express (usually expressed in terms like 95% confidence level, if it is under 85% confidence the poll sucks) you will find that the real numbers are within the margin of error (usually expressed as something like +/- 3%).
IBD/TIPP Polls show Obama ahead by only 3.7%* with a margin of error of . Why the big difference? Well for one IBD/TIPP polls different people. They only poll likely voters, or people who are statistically likely to vote this year. In other words, they are confident that if you ask all likely voters that you will find that Obama's lead will be 3.5% above or 3.5% be the declared 3.7% lead.
* New IBD/TIPP Poll shows the lead for Obama down to 1.1% with the same 3.5% margin or error.
So what do these polls mean as to who will win the election? Well not a whole lot since even IBD/TIPP polls show that with a week and a half to go until election day somewhere between 9%-15% of likely voters still don't know who they will vote for.
For example:
Real Clear Politics Average shows Obama up by an average of 7.3% with one poll show Obama up nationally by 14% and another showing Obama only up by 1%. If you look closer at the polls you see they are all sampling the entire US population, though they are using different methods with different margins of error and confidence levels. What does that really tell you? It says if you were ask everyone in the US who they support that the research company is confident at whatever level they express (usually expressed in terms like 95% confidence level, if it is under 85% confidence the poll sucks) you will find that the real numbers are within the margin of error (usually expressed as something like +/- 3%).
IBD/TIPP Polls show Obama ahead by only 3.7%* with a margin of error of . Why the big difference? Well for one IBD/TIPP polls different people. They only poll likely voters, or people who are statistically likely to vote this year. In other words, they are confident that if you ask all likely voters that you will find that Obama's lead will be 3.5% above or 3.5% be the declared 3.7% lead.
* New IBD/TIPP Poll shows the lead for Obama down to 1.1% with the same 3.5% margin or error.
So what do these polls mean as to who will win the election? Well not a whole lot since even IBD/TIPP polls show that with a week and a half to go until election day somewhere between 9%-15% of likely voters still don't know who they will vote for.
The latest in Iraq
Onward to victory in Iraq. Lately on the news we have heard either nothing about what is happening in Iraq, or only focussed discussion on the expiration of the UN mandate on Dec. 31st of this year. So what has been happening in Iraq?
This week the US turned over control of another Iraqi province; Babil. This region was once known as "Death's Triangle" because of the insurgent attacks, road side bombs, and suicide bombs. In the last year and a half the number of attacks and deaths have dropped 80%. Strange doesn't that coincide with the troop surge? The coalition plan has always been to turn control of provinces over to the Iraqi government as quickly as possible. Now 12 of the 18 Iraqi provinces have returned to Iraqi control.
So what is happening with the UN mandate? Are the Iraqi's going to just ask us to leave? Would you be surprised if I told you NO? The current negotiations between the Iraqi government and the US government concerning our future relationship with Iraq do not hinge around whether we remain close. They do not even hinge around whether we keep troops there. The negotiations right now are encountering the heaviest resistance regarding whether or not the Iraqi government will have the authority to prosecute US military personnel, or whether those trials will be handle by military tribunals.
The current agreement states that as of June 2009 all US military personnel will be stationed in bases in Iraq, instead of deployed throughout the country in the streets. Evidently the notions that the Iraqis want us to leave are wrong. I'm sure they do not want our tanks driving up and down thier streets. I do not want our tanks driving up and down my streets! I would like to point out that we already have an agreement with Iraq for continued support.
Of those provinces now left under the control of US troops, excluding Iraq, they are all part of a desert region bordering Iran. In other words, Iraq seems very content to let us sit between them and there arch nemesis. We ought to be grateful for this development. It allows us the ability to stop insurgents from recieving weapons from Iran, which has happened with ridiculous abandon. It also gives us cites for bases to spy on Iran. We now have ability to help isolate Iraq as it grows and strengthens.
How are things in Iraq? They seem to be going fairly well to me. That's probably why we haven't heard much about it on the news.
This week the US turned over control of another Iraqi province; Babil. This region was once known as "Death's Triangle" because of the insurgent attacks, road side bombs, and suicide bombs. In the last year and a half the number of attacks and deaths have dropped 80%. Strange doesn't that coincide with the troop surge? The coalition plan has always been to turn control of provinces over to the Iraqi government as quickly as possible. Now 12 of the 18 Iraqi provinces have returned to Iraqi control.
So what is happening with the UN mandate? Are the Iraqi's going to just ask us to leave? Would you be surprised if I told you NO? The current negotiations between the Iraqi government and the US government concerning our future relationship with Iraq do not hinge around whether we remain close. They do not even hinge around whether we keep troops there. The negotiations right now are encountering the heaviest resistance regarding whether or not the Iraqi government will have the authority to prosecute US military personnel, or whether those trials will be handle by military tribunals.
The current agreement states that as of June 2009 all US military personnel will be stationed in bases in Iraq, instead of deployed throughout the country in the streets. Evidently the notions that the Iraqis want us to leave are wrong. I'm sure they do not want our tanks driving up and down thier streets. I do not want our tanks driving up and down my streets! I would like to point out that we already have an agreement with Iraq for continued support.
Of those provinces now left under the control of US troops, excluding Iraq, they are all part of a desert region bordering Iran. In other words, Iraq seems very content to let us sit between them and there arch nemesis. We ought to be grateful for this development. It allows us the ability to stop insurgents from recieving weapons from Iran, which has happened with ridiculous abandon. It also gives us cites for bases to spy on Iran. We now have ability to help isolate Iraq as it grows and strengthens.
How are things in Iraq? They seem to be going fairly well to me. That's probably why we haven't heard much about it on the news.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Voter Fraud
The one question we don't want to be asking right now we all need to consider. "How will we know who was elected President?" The polls are really too close to call a clear winner in most of the battleground states, and once again John McCain is closing the gap in the battleground and national polls. Tight races like this one have recently been fraught with bad feelings and difficulty in declaring a winner. One thing that will definately make this one more difficult is a group called ACORN. ACORN is already under investigation in 5 states for voter fraud. In Ohio a teenager declared that ACORN gave him money and cigarettes to illegally register 73 times. It is estimated that nearly 30,000 fraudulent voters have been registered and possibly have already voted in Ohio alone.
In Nevada, Ohio, Missouri and Florida the group has been entering downtown areas and registering homeless people to vote. With recent elections being decided by a few votes this is very disturbing information, at least for Republicans. ACORN is so far left it nearly leaves the scales. It rubs shoulders with Moveon.org and the likes. Acorn actually registered Mickey Mouse to vote. This is not the first election ACORN has attempted to through. In 2006 the group was instrumental in possibly throwing elections in Missouri and Nevada in the Senate race. With investigation looming in all five states and others concerning ACORN's illegal actions I am confused with a couple of things.
1. The Media isn't covering the story completely. In 2006 moved to force Attorney General Gonsalez out of his position. The Democrats alleged that Mr. Gonsalez fired state attorney generals because they wouldn't prosecute voter fraud. The Democrats declared there wasn't sufficient evidence that a group called ACORN had anything to do with voter fraud. The Bush adminstration and Attorney General Gonsalez both acknowledged firing state attorney generals who would no longer prosecute voter fraud effectively. The case that received the most attention was that of David Iglesias of New Mexico.
The adminstration acused Mr. Iglesias of looking the other way while a little group called ACORN committed voter fraud by registering imaginery voters, felons, illegal immigrants and homeless people in New Mexico. The Democrats called the firing illegal and partisan. They alleged that it was focused merely on hurting Democrats. It definately hurt the Democrats more then the Republicans. Have you ever heard of a Far Right group committing national voter fraud? I personally think it is about time that the Congress apologize to Mr. Gonsalez for partisan bull crap.
2. Who was it that was heavily involved with ACORN, spoke at thier conventions and pledged to call them in to help shape the countries agenda? Oh, that's right, community organizer Barack Obama. At least this part of the ridiculousness is starting to appear in the national spotlight. However, it is almost always followed up with, oh McCain talked to ACORN once also. Really, is that the best there is? McCain gave a speech to ACORN that is the defense for ACORN's ridiculous actions and Obama's involvement with the organization? Come on! There is an obvious difference between speaking at a couple of events and promising the organization that they can help shape your administration. Obviously all of these illegal votes will be going to Barack Obama.
Is the election thrown? I don't know for certain but it appears so in at least Ohio. What can we do about it? Well maybe in the future the US public won't throw such a fit when the US Attorney General fires people who are prosecuting voter fraud.
In Nevada, Ohio, Missouri and Florida the group has been entering downtown areas and registering homeless people to vote. With recent elections being decided by a few votes this is very disturbing information, at least for Republicans. ACORN is so far left it nearly leaves the scales. It rubs shoulders with Moveon.org and the likes. Acorn actually registered Mickey Mouse to vote. This is not the first election ACORN has attempted to through. In 2006 the group was instrumental in possibly throwing elections in Missouri and Nevada in the Senate race. With investigation looming in all five states and others concerning ACORN's illegal actions I am confused with a couple of things.
1. The Media isn't covering the story completely. In 2006 moved to force Attorney General Gonsalez out of his position. The Democrats alleged that Mr. Gonsalez fired state attorney generals because they wouldn't prosecute voter fraud. The Democrats declared there wasn't sufficient evidence that a group called ACORN had anything to do with voter fraud. The Bush adminstration and Attorney General Gonsalez both acknowledged firing state attorney generals who would no longer prosecute voter fraud effectively. The case that received the most attention was that of David Iglesias of New Mexico.
The adminstration acused Mr. Iglesias of looking the other way while a little group called ACORN committed voter fraud by registering imaginery voters, felons, illegal immigrants and homeless people in New Mexico. The Democrats called the firing illegal and partisan. They alleged that it was focused merely on hurting Democrats. It definately hurt the Democrats more then the Republicans. Have you ever heard of a Far Right group committing national voter fraud? I personally think it is about time that the Congress apologize to Mr. Gonsalez for partisan bull crap.
2. Who was it that was heavily involved with ACORN, spoke at thier conventions and pledged to call them in to help shape the countries agenda? Oh, that's right, community organizer Barack Obama. At least this part of the ridiculousness is starting to appear in the national spotlight. However, it is almost always followed up with, oh McCain talked to ACORN once also. Really, is that the best there is? McCain gave a speech to ACORN that is the defense for ACORN's ridiculous actions and Obama's involvement with the organization? Come on! There is an obvious difference between speaking at a couple of events and promising the organization that they can help shape your administration. Obviously all of these illegal votes will be going to Barack Obama.
Is the election thrown? I don't know for certain but it appears so in at least Ohio. What can we do about it? Well maybe in the future the US public won't throw such a fit when the US Attorney General fires people who are prosecuting voter fraud.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Socialism
The US government, along with many governments in Europe, is looking to nationalize, to differing extents, the banking systems. How did we get here? In reality we are talking about an institution which required financial institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. The same institution through corruption, mostly in the Democratic Party, ignored false earning numbers coming out of the financial institutions. Now we are saying, "Why don't we give them control over more financial institutions?"
I can think of a couple of great reasons.
First, where exactly do you think that are going to get the money to pay for these purchases? Your pocket book and mine. Taxes, taxes, taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes to the extent both candidates claim they want to, and then increase the budget so drastically. Wealth redistribution NEVER works. It NEVER has been successful anywhere, at any time. It has ALWAYS led to the eventual extinction of any society dumb enough to try it on a national basis. The same people who argue this is a good way to go will argue that the US military is corrupt enough that they need to be held accountable by a court comprised of people from other countries. Oh, I get it. The US military is corrupt, but the Congress isn't that bad.
Second, isn't the US already in debt? This doesn't make sense. Why would we give control of a financial market to a government entity that cannot balance it's own books? Most times they don't even know where they are at?
I can think of a couple of great reasons.
First, where exactly do you think that are going to get the money to pay for these purchases? Your pocket book and mine. Taxes, taxes, taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes to the extent both candidates claim they want to, and then increase the budget so drastically. Wealth redistribution NEVER works. It NEVER has been successful anywhere, at any time. It has ALWAYS led to the eventual extinction of any society dumb enough to try it on a national basis. The same people who argue this is a good way to go will argue that the US military is corrupt enough that they need to be held accountable by a court comprised of people from other countries. Oh, I get it. The US military is corrupt, but the Congress isn't that bad.
Second, isn't the US already in debt? This doesn't make sense. Why would we give control of a financial market to a government entity that cannot balance it's own books? Most times they don't even know where they are at?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Illegal immigrant loans
Here is just a very short article about illegal immigrant who stole identities and then took out mortgages under the social security numbers. HUD estimates there are 5,000,000, such loans at least in the US.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Scary International Events
There are two events I will write more on later.
First, Iran forced a Hungarian plane to land and there are problems breeding in the region.
Second, Kenya has detained a US citizen Jerome Corsi, who is an openly anti-Obama figure. He was scheduled to announce today his findings from research into Barack Obama's past and connections. He was detained shortly before he could make the announcement.
UPDATE
Jerome Corsi was deported from Kenya for "not having a work permit". More later.
First, Iran forced a Hungarian plane to land and there are problems breeding in the region.
Second, Kenya has detained a US citizen Jerome Corsi, who is an openly anti-Obama figure. He was scheduled to announce today his findings from research into Barack Obama's past and connections. He was detained shortly before he could make the announcement.
UPDATE
Jerome Corsi was deported from Kenya for "not having a work permit". More later.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Beware of Falling Stocks
A three ring circus and an approval for 700 billion dollars and today the DOW Jones falls below 10,000 points for the first time in 5 years. Do I still think we are over reacting? Yes. First it rebounded over 10,000 points.
Lets look at the chart from before but with more current data. In January of 2002 the stocks also fell well below the 10,000 mark after being well over. Between January and April the market seemed to be on a course for serious depression or recession. However, it pulled out. The recent lemming reaction of the US people to pull their money out of the market is actually leading the American people on a straight course for the cliffs ahead.
Irresponsible individuals including NBC's Jim Cramer appear to refuse to be satisfied until the entire market crashes. It is irresponsible to stand up as an investment individual and tell everyone to take their money out of the markets if they will need it in the next five years because there is no way it will recover. The 2002 market slump lasted almost a year before the market began to climb again. When it finally stopped, the US had hit the highest point ever in the history of the market.
Self-fulfilling prophets and irresponsible individuals need a straight jacket until this is over. The stock market never was meant for individuals with weak constitutions. At a time when so much seems uncertain, there is one thing is stable; it is better to be in the American markets right now then in the other markets in the world. The US dollar hit a 13 month high on the markets. While people here at home at freaking out, the world is saying, the US has a better chance of making it through this well then anybody else.
Lets look at the chart from before but with more current data. In January of 2002 the stocks also fell well below the 10,000 mark after being well over. Between January and April the market seemed to be on a course for serious depression or recession. However, it pulled out. The recent lemming reaction of the US people to pull their money out of the market is actually leading the American people on a straight course for the cliffs ahead.
Irresponsible individuals including NBC's Jim Cramer appear to refuse to be satisfied until the entire market crashes. It is irresponsible to stand up as an investment individual and tell everyone to take their money out of the markets if they will need it in the next five years because there is no way it will recover. The 2002 market slump lasted almost a year before the market began to climb again. When it finally stopped, the US had hit the highest point ever in the history of the market.
Self-fulfilling prophets and irresponsible individuals need a straight jacket until this is over. The stock market never was meant for individuals with weak constitutions. At a time when so much seems uncertain, there is one thing is stable; it is better to be in the American markets right now then in the other markets in the world. The US dollar hit a 13 month high on the markets. While people here at home at freaking out, the world is saying, the US has a better chance of making it through this well then anybody else.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Senate Bill
Here is a copy of the bill that the Senate passed yesterday, actually this is a summary of the different sections, the real bill is 475 pages long.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The speech that killed the bill!
Bipartisanship helped to kill the bailout bill on Monday. Listen here to Rep. Pelosi's speech that was meant to gather support just before the House voted. This linked contains a little exerpt. Is it any wonder people weren't jumping across the isle. Instead of rallying everyone in a crisis, she just blames Bush.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Economy
Well who isn't a little worried about the current economy? Today things seem even more shaky then usual. News agencies are quick to point towards doomsday as the Dow drops 775 points today. This leaves a lingering question, How much is 775 points in realtion to the market as a whole? What do these numbers look like on a long term scale? Perhaps I can helpt with that.
Let's start with a chart for the Dow for the last year. Using the previous link you can see that for the year the market is definately headed in a downward direction. If you look at this year alone, the market drop in the market by 28%. Now 28% is a alot. How do these numbers relate to Dow in the Last five years?
Here is the chart for the last five years. As you can see we are still up by nearly 1000 points from where we were in 2003. How does that relate in the market since the Great Depression?
Here is the chart for the last 80 years. At the bottom of the Great Depression the Dow was 42, now it is 10,403. It appears to me that the consumer inconfidence prodded by the media is about the only think that can make our current situation lead us into a new Depression. All previous quaters this year have show positive growth rate in the economy, yet the media continued to cry Depression or Recession. Irresponsible Congress people stood in front of the media and labelled institutions as failing. Amazingly they fell. The way to save an entity with a falling value is to support it and label it as hopeless. These instances were self fulfilling prophecies. We run the risk of the media creating another self fulfilling prophecy, a true long term Recession or Depression because of lost consumer confidence.
In a final attempt to put it in perspective according to the previous chart, between 1929 and 1932 the Dow fell 3058 points or about 98.6%. If you refer to the chart from before for the last five years, since 2003 the Dow is still up 1000 points or so, or a gain in the five years of nearly 11%.
Let's start with a chart for the Dow for the last year. Using the previous link you can see that for the year the market is definately headed in a downward direction. If you look at this year alone, the market drop in the market by 28%. Now 28% is a alot. How do these numbers relate to Dow in the Last five years?
Here is the chart for the last five years. As you can see we are still up by nearly 1000 points from where we were in 2003. How does that relate in the market since the Great Depression?
Here is the chart for the last 80 years. At the bottom of the Great Depression the Dow was 42, now it is 10,403. It appears to me that the consumer inconfidence prodded by the media is about the only think that can make our current situation lead us into a new Depression. All previous quaters this year have show positive growth rate in the economy, yet the media continued to cry Depression or Recession. Irresponsible Congress people stood in front of the media and labelled institutions as failing. Amazingly they fell. The way to save an entity with a falling value is to support it and label it as hopeless. These instances were self fulfilling prophecies. We run the risk of the media creating another self fulfilling prophecy, a true long term Recession or Depression because of lost consumer confidence.
In a final attempt to put it in perspective according to the previous chart, between 1929 and 1932 the Dow fell 3058 points or about 98.6%. If you refer to the chart from before for the last five years, since 2003 the Dow is still up 1000 points or so, or a gain in the five years of nearly 11%.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Presidential Debate
I was impressed by the debate last evening. I believe that it may have been the most civil debate I have seen so far. I will try and provide some of the highlights. For the entire transcript you can go here.
Economy
Barack Obama: He stated that he would help the economy by bringing home US troops in Iraq, but then stated in foriegn policy debate that he would send more troops to Afganistan. He also stated that he wanted a tax increase to everyone who makes over $250, 000. This he says he will need for the additional $800 billion he plans to add to the national budget. He plans to help make the life of US citizens better by nationalizing health care. When asked what he would need to cut in order to maintain his budget he stated that may have to cut some portions of the renewable energy plan. He stated that he has stopped asking for earmarks, though John McCain pointed out that was only after he started running for President. Obama concluded that with the economy the way it is, he may not be able to do all the things he wants to.
John McCain: He stated that he needed to cut economic spending and veto all earmarks. He through out a statistic that Barack Obama has spent for then $1 million dollars a day in earmarks as a Senator totaling more the $930 million dollars in his first year. McCain also advocated cutting the business tax stating that the US has one of the hieghest business taxes in the world at 35%. He also stated that he would raise the child tax credit from $3000 to $7000. McCain positted that by giving US companies more money and decreasing taxes for everyone, he could help ensure that US jobs don't leave the country. He stated the with the slowing economy spending would need to be cut everywhere. He specifically pointed to military cost plus spending where developers often charge much more then anticipated. He also stated that he wanted to give a $5000 tax credit for all individuals with health insurance. He also stated that he would cut the amount of money we are sending to countries who don't like us, which right now is nearly $700 billion a year, this statistic was not argued by Obama.
Winner on Economy: Tie. Neither candidate had a wow moment. The extreme differences were pointed out between a liberal and a conservative.
Foriegn Policy:
McCain: On Iraq John McCain stated that his surge had worked, which was not disputed by Obama. He stated that the new strategy of clear and hold had worked and would shortly free up troops to do the same in Afganistan. He refused to talk about the decision to go into Iraq focussing on where to go from here. On Iran McCain posited that tougher sanctions a from a league of democracies was imperative. He stated the a president must be prudent with what he says and that Obama's comments about blowing up Pakistan were irresponsible. He also defended sending monetary aid to Pakistan because they have delivered multiple Al Queda opperatives and are a recovering recently failed stated with nuclear weapons.
Obama: Stated he only voted against troops funding that didn't include a timeline. He stated that he would pull troops out of Iraq, all troops within the next 16 months. he focussed more on the decision to go to Iraq then what we do now with Iraq. He stated that he wanted to put more troops in Afganistan, which John McCain agreed with. He stated that he would have diplomatic dicussions with Iran without preconditions. He stated that he would not act on greater sanctions without the help of nations such as Russia and China. He said he would bomb Pakistan if Pakistan was unwilling to kill people he wanted killed. At point he attempted to defend a universal soveriegnty of every government and then stated that US was more important then Pakistan soveriegnty.
Good Jabs: McCain pounded Obama for saying he would blow up Pakistan. Obama pounded McCain for stating that the war in Iraq would be a quick victory. McCain pounded Obama for setting a timeline to leave Iraq without making sure the job was done, comparing the idea to the US leaving Afganistan once the Russians were defeated without ensuring a stable government.
Bad Wording: McCain stumbled on Achmenemijads name before getting it right. Obama said McCain was right several times and deferred some public policy decisions, including what to do in Afghanistan to his Vice Presidential Pick.
Winner on War and Foreign relations: McCain. He came out looking experienced and prepared to lead.
Winner of the Debate: I will go with John McCain because I believe that they tied in the economic debate. McCain needed to go more into why the US fundamentals are sound and why capitalism is good. Obama needed to tell people how in the midst of a shrinking economy he was going to be able to provide even a majority of his proposals on a smaller budget without incurring even more debt. In the two thirds related to foriegn policy and war John McCain was more convincing. He came off more experienced then Obama. Obama also multipled times stated that John McCain was right on many of the issues. John McCain was able to inspire a little with his stories of fallen solidiers, reenlistment cerimonies and personal experiences. He ended saying that he knew how to heal a country after war. Obama's stories were to illustrate someones mistaeks rather then peoples achievements. They came off as bitter counterpoints to McCain's story. Although not a blow out. I think McCain edged past Obama in this one. If people call this one a tie I wouldn't disagree a whole lot. I just McCain ended slightly better then Obama.
Economy
Barack Obama: He stated that he would help the economy by bringing home US troops in Iraq, but then stated in foriegn policy debate that he would send more troops to Afganistan. He also stated that he wanted a tax increase to everyone who makes over $250, 000. This he says he will need for the additional $800 billion he plans to add to the national budget. He plans to help make the life of US citizens better by nationalizing health care. When asked what he would need to cut in order to maintain his budget he stated that may have to cut some portions of the renewable energy plan. He stated that he has stopped asking for earmarks, though John McCain pointed out that was only after he started running for President. Obama concluded that with the economy the way it is, he may not be able to do all the things he wants to.
John McCain: He stated that he needed to cut economic spending and veto all earmarks. He through out a statistic that Barack Obama has spent for then $1 million dollars a day in earmarks as a Senator totaling more the $930 million dollars in his first year. McCain also advocated cutting the business tax stating that the US has one of the hieghest business taxes in the world at 35%. He also stated that he would raise the child tax credit from $3000 to $7000. McCain positted that by giving US companies more money and decreasing taxes for everyone, he could help ensure that US jobs don't leave the country. He stated the with the slowing economy spending would need to be cut everywhere. He specifically pointed to military cost plus spending where developers often charge much more then anticipated. He also stated that he wanted to give a $5000 tax credit for all individuals with health insurance. He also stated that he would cut the amount of money we are sending to countries who don't like us, which right now is nearly $700 billion a year, this statistic was not argued by Obama.
Winner on Economy: Tie. Neither candidate had a wow moment. The extreme differences were pointed out between a liberal and a conservative.
Foriegn Policy:
McCain: On Iraq John McCain stated that his surge had worked, which was not disputed by Obama. He stated that the new strategy of clear and hold had worked and would shortly free up troops to do the same in Afganistan. He refused to talk about the decision to go into Iraq focussing on where to go from here. On Iran McCain posited that tougher sanctions a from a league of democracies was imperative. He stated the a president must be prudent with what he says and that Obama's comments about blowing up Pakistan were irresponsible. He also defended sending monetary aid to Pakistan because they have delivered multiple Al Queda opperatives and are a recovering recently failed stated with nuclear weapons.
Obama: Stated he only voted against troops funding that didn't include a timeline. He stated that he would pull troops out of Iraq, all troops within the next 16 months. he focussed more on the decision to go to Iraq then what we do now with Iraq. He stated that he wanted to put more troops in Afganistan, which John McCain agreed with. He stated that he would have diplomatic dicussions with Iran without preconditions. He stated that he would not act on greater sanctions without the help of nations such as Russia and China. He said he would bomb Pakistan if Pakistan was unwilling to kill people he wanted killed. At point he attempted to defend a universal soveriegnty of every government and then stated that US was more important then Pakistan soveriegnty.
Good Jabs: McCain pounded Obama for saying he would blow up Pakistan. Obama pounded McCain for stating that the war in Iraq would be a quick victory. McCain pounded Obama for setting a timeline to leave Iraq without making sure the job was done, comparing the idea to the US leaving Afganistan once the Russians were defeated without ensuring a stable government.
Bad Wording: McCain stumbled on Achmenemijads name before getting it right. Obama said McCain was right several times and deferred some public policy decisions, including what to do in Afghanistan to his Vice Presidential Pick.
Winner on War and Foreign relations: McCain. He came out looking experienced and prepared to lead.
Winner of the Debate: I will go with John McCain because I believe that they tied in the economic debate. McCain needed to go more into why the US fundamentals are sound and why capitalism is good. Obama needed to tell people how in the midst of a shrinking economy he was going to be able to provide even a majority of his proposals on a smaller budget without incurring even more debt. In the two thirds related to foriegn policy and war John McCain was more convincing. He came off more experienced then Obama. Obama also multipled times stated that John McCain was right on many of the issues. John McCain was able to inspire a little with his stories of fallen solidiers, reenlistment cerimonies and personal experiences. He ended saying that he knew how to heal a country after war. Obama's stories were to illustrate someones mistaeks rather then peoples achievements. They came off as bitter counterpoints to McCain's story. Although not a blow out. I think McCain edged past Obama in this one. If people call this one a tie I wouldn't disagree a whole lot. I just McCain ended slightly better then Obama.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Non Energy Bill
Michael requested that I express some thoughts on the current "energy" bill proposed by the House of Representatives and being debated by the Senate Energy Committe. I feel that a better title for the bill would be the "Non-Energy Bill." I will explain. I am under the opinion that all avenues for energy independence need to be pursued including greater access to off shore drilling and ANWAR. In a few days the drilling ban for off-shore areas will expire. Basically all the Congress needs to do to provide an increased access for off-shore drilling is nothing! The current proposed bill will allow drilling in the off-shore areas that we will be able to drill in anyhow. Proclaiming this bill will increase the ability to drill for oil is very misleading.
Furthermore, the bill would discontinue the ability for states to obtain revenue from oil drilling off of there coasts. This means fewer states would be likely to allow the drilling and those that did would charge huge up front costs to cover any "potential" problems that may occur. Basically if Congress did nothing there would be more drilling and a greater decrease in cost, then in they enact this bill.
The bill does contain language concerning alternative fuel sources. However, the disadvantages of the main alternatives proposed, natural gas and biofuel, greatly out weigh the advantages. Biofuels hurt the world's food market. I find it annoying that the same people who want to tax us to feed other countries want to use biofuel that will make that goal all the more expensive. If we do not help other countries with the price of food it will also cause more people to die of starvation. Not the best alternative.
Natural gas is also not a smart alternative. Try this thought experiment. A super majority of the US heats there homes and water using natural gas. The gasoline market has jumped nearly 300% in the last 4 years. Imagine what would happen if the fuel source used to heat homes jumped by 300% in the next four years. This is a terrible idea. Natural gas is a terrible alternative.
The proposed bill does allow for some oil shale development; at least this is an innovative way to get the fuel source we are all already using. Good Job! The bill does very little for any type of new nuclear energy and some for solar energy. In the end it is obvious that the Democrats finally understand that the US people want energy reform, but they are too far left to allow the policies that would make a change. This is ruse to decrease pressure from the public while actually making the process of becoming energy independent more difficult. At least Pres. Bush has promised to veto the bill if it comes to his desk. I would suggest going to the previous link for most references. This was a long writing with few references.
Furthermore, the bill would discontinue the ability for states to obtain revenue from oil drilling off of there coasts. This means fewer states would be likely to allow the drilling and those that did would charge huge up front costs to cover any "potential" problems that may occur. Basically if Congress did nothing there would be more drilling and a greater decrease in cost, then in they enact this bill.
The bill does contain language concerning alternative fuel sources. However, the disadvantages of the main alternatives proposed, natural gas and biofuel, greatly out weigh the advantages. Biofuels hurt the world's food market. I find it annoying that the same people who want to tax us to feed other countries want to use biofuel that will make that goal all the more expensive. If we do not help other countries with the price of food it will also cause more people to die of starvation. Not the best alternative.
Natural gas is also not a smart alternative. Try this thought experiment. A super majority of the US heats there homes and water using natural gas. The gasoline market has jumped nearly 300% in the last 4 years. Imagine what would happen if the fuel source used to heat homes jumped by 300% in the next four years. This is a terrible idea. Natural gas is a terrible alternative.
The proposed bill does allow for some oil shale development; at least this is an innovative way to get the fuel source we are all already using. Good Job! The bill does very little for any type of new nuclear energy and some for solar energy. In the end it is obvious that the Democrats finally understand that the US people want energy reform, but they are too far left to allow the policies that would make a change. This is ruse to decrease pressure from the public while actually making the process of becoming energy independent more difficult. At least Pres. Bush has promised to veto the bill if it comes to his desk. I would suggest going to the previous link for most references. This was a long writing with few references.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Biased Education system
Here are two articles for those who feel that the education system isn't biased. The first concerns a fifth grader who was suspended for wearing at anti-Obama shirt. The second concers UMass student who obtained college credit for campaigning for Obama. There is much more to this story including discussion on the content of the shirt, but I don't have time right now.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Late breaking news reports an assault on the US embassy in Yemen. You can visit this cite for more information. If everyone would remember, this is the same pattern that proceeded the September 11th attack. The attack on the USS Cole should have aroused the sleeping giant before New York was struck. Hopefully the US pays attention and does not elect a defensively weak president in a couple of months.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Whose responsible for the Housing Market Failure?
This weekend the Democratic candidates have been blasting Republicans for causing the current economic troubles. In a recent article Rep. Pelosi said that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about and that lack of regulation caused the problems. However, the congressional records shows differently.
As far back as 2005, Sen John McCain and other Republican Congressmen began speaking out concerning a pending housing crash brought on by corruption inside Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In his speech on the Congress floor, Sen McCain describe false accounting practice that created criminally misleading earning reports for the two institutions. Sen. McCain further warned that if these two institutions were watched more carefully and the offenders pursued, then the two giants would fall and create tormoil in the market place.
As part of this presentation Sen. McCain devolved a list of Congressmen who recieved campaign contributions from the two institutions in the since 1989. Sen. Obama had only been in the Senate for three years, but he had recieved more money from the two institutions then any other congress people other then Sen. Dodd. (Legistlative Update
American Banker. New York, N.Y.: May 11, 2006. Vol. 171, Iss. 90; pg. 5)
This is a little Post Script. I found an update list of the 25 Congress people who recieved the most campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008. Visit this cite for the entire list.
The top 5?
1. Dodd, Christopher J Senator D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John Senator D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack Senator D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary Senator D-NY$75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E House Represenative D-PA$65,500
As far back as 2005, Sen John McCain and other Republican Congressmen began speaking out concerning a pending housing crash brought on by corruption inside Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In his speech on the Congress floor, Sen McCain describe false accounting practice that created criminally misleading earning reports for the two institutions. Sen. McCain further warned that if these two institutions were watched more carefully and the offenders pursued, then the two giants would fall and create tormoil in the market place.
As part of this presentation Sen. McCain devolved a list of Congressmen who recieved campaign contributions from the two institutions in the since 1989. Sen. Obama had only been in the Senate for three years, but he had recieved more money from the two institutions then any other congress people other then Sen. Dodd. (Legistlative Update
American Banker. New York, N.Y.: May 11, 2006. Vol. 171, Iss. 90; pg. 5)
This is a little Post Script. I found an update list of the 25 Congress people who recieved the most campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008. Visit this cite for the entire list.
The top 5?
1. Dodd, Christopher J Senator D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John Senator D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack Senator D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary Senator D-NY$75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E House Represenative D-PA$65,500
Monday, September 15, 2008
Other blogs have beaten me to an amazing idea. There are surely people currently reading my post who have not decided who they are going to vote for. I will therefore compare the two candidates policies in different areas. If you want a specific area examined let me know and we will do it.
I thought we would start with health care reform. Here the two candidates have vastly different ideas. I will be taking the policy statements for both candidates straight from there websites. You can find Barack Obama's statements here and John McCain's here. So let us begin.
Sen. Obama's health care policy: the very first bullet point states "Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. " I hope we all understand what he is saying here. He is saying that irregardless of the rules of economics, he will make a government insurance company which will except everyone. I do not know anyone outside of the libertarian party who does not feel a sense of need to make sure that all Americans are insured. Barack Obama is suggesting that a form a discriminatory national healthcare. Everyone pays for it in taxes, but only some get the benefits. Who gets the benefits? The government will decide. How expensive do you think it will be to run a bureaucracy that is supposed to provide healthcare to "46 million" Americans? Where is he going to get that money?
Well how about private insurance companies under Barack Obama? Sen. Obama believes that those Americans who do choose to still go with private insurance companies need not be dismayed. Sen. Obama is going to organize a watchdog group that will review insurance policies to "ensure fairness". Wow! How exactly are you going to pay for that? The last time I checked companies were allowed to make their own policies. If those policies can now only be set by the national government, then are these companies really private? Welcome the end of private health care.
At least one way Sen. Obama has decided to pay for these policies is to make the employers pay for it. That's right all employers will be required to pay for healthcare even if the employees are getting Obama's national healthcare plan. So if you are an employer you will be taxed heavily as an individual and then receive greater taxes on your business. There are more specifics that you kind find at the link provided, but these are the main highlights.
So what is John McCain's plan?
John McCain's plan makes it obvious that he will be focussing on making the private insurance plans work for Americans, instead of a national healthcare plan. His platform recognizes that currently there are problems with coverage and costs. To make health insurance more affordable he will reform the tax code to give higher tax credits for people who are insured. He will also seek for portability. Currently health insurance companies are limited to the scope they can cover individual by geographic boundaries. In other words, you cannot keep an insurance policy form Massachusetts if you move to Wyoming. John McCain wants to stop this. He also wants to make it more possible to leave a company, but maintain your insurance.
He also has a proposal for insuring individuals who cannot afford it because of the expensive diseases they have. John McCain is suggesting a guaranteed access plan through nonprofit organizations. Here I have to interject my personal opinion. I have been advocating this very system for years. Why not allow a individuals to contribute money in the form of a tax deductible charitable donation to nonprofit organizations who then use the contributions to liaison with insurance companies and therefore provide insurance through subsidized premiums and deductibles? No government oversight needed. No wasteful policies, no politics in the decisions. Beautiful idea.
At the end of the day, I believe that McCain wins out big in this area. His plan is feasible and easily established.
I thought we would start with health care reform. Here the two candidates have vastly different ideas. I will be taking the policy statements for both candidates straight from there websites. You can find Barack Obama's statements here and John McCain's here. So let us begin.
Sen. Obama's health care policy: the very first bullet point states "Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions. " I hope we all understand what he is saying here. He is saying that irregardless of the rules of economics, he will make a government insurance company which will except everyone. I do not know anyone outside of the libertarian party who does not feel a sense of need to make sure that all Americans are insured. Barack Obama is suggesting that a form a discriminatory national healthcare. Everyone pays for it in taxes, but only some get the benefits. Who gets the benefits? The government will decide. How expensive do you think it will be to run a bureaucracy that is supposed to provide healthcare to "46 million" Americans? Where is he going to get that money?
Well how about private insurance companies under Barack Obama? Sen. Obama believes that those Americans who do choose to still go with private insurance companies need not be dismayed. Sen. Obama is going to organize a watchdog group that will review insurance policies to "ensure fairness". Wow! How exactly are you going to pay for that? The last time I checked companies were allowed to make their own policies. If those policies can now only be set by the national government, then are these companies really private? Welcome the end of private health care.
At least one way Sen. Obama has decided to pay for these policies is to make the employers pay for it. That's right all employers will be required to pay for healthcare even if the employees are getting Obama's national healthcare plan. So if you are an employer you will be taxed heavily as an individual and then receive greater taxes on your business. There are more specifics that you kind find at the link provided, but these are the main highlights.
So what is John McCain's plan?
John McCain's plan makes it obvious that he will be focussing on making the private insurance plans work for Americans, instead of a national healthcare plan. His platform recognizes that currently there are problems with coverage and costs. To make health insurance more affordable he will reform the tax code to give higher tax credits for people who are insured. He will also seek for portability. Currently health insurance companies are limited to the scope they can cover individual by geographic boundaries. In other words, you cannot keep an insurance policy form Massachusetts if you move to Wyoming. John McCain wants to stop this. He also wants to make it more possible to leave a company, but maintain your insurance.
He also has a proposal for insuring individuals who cannot afford it because of the expensive diseases they have. John McCain is suggesting a guaranteed access plan through nonprofit organizations. Here I have to interject my personal opinion. I have been advocating this very system for years. Why not allow a individuals to contribute money in the form of a tax deductible charitable donation to nonprofit organizations who then use the contributions to liaison with insurance companies and therefore provide insurance through subsidized premiums and deductibles? No government oversight needed. No wasteful policies, no politics in the decisions. Beautiful idea.
At the end of the day, I believe that McCain wins out big in this area. His plan is feasible and easily established.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Response to Zpolicy.blogspot.com
When considering the candidates we should consider all of the foreign policy platforms. Sen. Obama has stated that he would meet with countries like Iran who are obviously state sponsors of terrorism without any preconditions. During a this Presidential election, under the guise of a Senate fact finding mission, he spent millions of tax payer dollars to fly threw Europe and the Middle East because he had never gone there before as a representative of the United States. He has had zero experience with foreign policy. None.
The United States has been a leader in world. In the past there have been isolated incidences of perverse behaviors in the US military. We are all familiar with the pictures from Abu Grabi. Isolated incidences should not make a determination on how an entire system works. Hold the individuals responsible who committed the acts. If the action is widespread hold a large part of the entity responsible, but you cannot link a few events to an entire nation.
The idea that the two current candidates have differences of opinion on whether torture should be allowed are absurd. Partisan individuals try to link John McCain with George Bush, but in the areas that really matter they are truly different.
John McCain opposed Pres. Bush's position on torture. If any person is truly endowed with an ability to decide what is or is not torture, surely it would be an individual that no one doubts suffered it himself. In this instance, John McCain has a huge advantage over Barrack Obama. I would not wish torture on anyone, but in this instance having survived it gives John McCain greater ability to understand the problem then Barrack Obama.
The idea that America has really, "Gone it alone" is more of a campaign attack then a reality in my personal opinion. As I recall multiple nations have participated with the US in every international military conflict in the last eight years. Name one military campaign that the US has entered alone in the last eight years. France even elected a new President in 2007 who adamantly supports this current policy. Although, Gordon Brown from Great Britain has endorsed Barrack Obama, he was elected on foreign policy platforms that more closely mirror John McCain. Even the German Chancellor is in the same position.
Finally, telling countries that they are either for us or against us is not disrespecting their sovereignty. If anything it illustrates their ability to decide where they stand, but does make them decide. Some issues cannot be discussed on some infinite time table. Decisions have to be made. Telling other countries that we need their decision now does not diminish their own sovereignty to make the decision.
I myself do not intend to support a candidate whose fpreign policy experience is limited to an expense summer vacation/campaign stunt courtesy of the US taxpayers.
The United States has been a leader in world. In the past there have been isolated incidences of perverse behaviors in the US military. We are all familiar with the pictures from Abu Grabi. Isolated incidences should not make a determination on how an entire system works. Hold the individuals responsible who committed the acts. If the action is widespread hold a large part of the entity responsible, but you cannot link a few events to an entire nation.
The idea that the two current candidates have differences of opinion on whether torture should be allowed are absurd. Partisan individuals try to link John McCain with George Bush, but in the areas that really matter they are truly different.
John McCain opposed Pres. Bush's position on torture. If any person is truly endowed with an ability to decide what is or is not torture, surely it would be an individual that no one doubts suffered it himself. In this instance, John McCain has a huge advantage over Barrack Obama. I would not wish torture on anyone, but in this instance having survived it gives John McCain greater ability to understand the problem then Barrack Obama.
The idea that America has really, "Gone it alone" is more of a campaign attack then a reality in my personal opinion. As I recall multiple nations have participated with the US in every international military conflict in the last eight years. Name one military campaign that the US has entered alone in the last eight years. France even elected a new President in 2007 who adamantly supports this current policy. Although, Gordon Brown from Great Britain has endorsed Barrack Obama, he was elected on foreign policy platforms that more closely mirror John McCain. Even the German Chancellor is in the same position.
Finally, telling countries that they are either for us or against us is not disrespecting their sovereignty. If anything it illustrates their ability to decide where they stand, but does make them decide. Some issues cannot be discussed on some infinite time table. Decisions have to be made. Telling other countries that we need their decision now does not diminish their own sovereignty to make the decision.
I myself do not intend to support a candidate whose fpreign policy experience is limited to an expense summer vacation/campaign stunt courtesy of the US taxpayers.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Polling Results
Real Clear Politics is one of the best sources for accurate polls. They take the average from everyone elses polls and figure out there own average. Go to take a look via the link provided and you can even see the general trend over the last year.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Is calling someone a pig politically correct?
Today the Barack Obama fell to a new low in my book when he described the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Palin or Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain. To quote, "A pig with lipstick is still a pig." I don't even know what more to say about this. Can you imagine what would happen, the outrage in the news media, if anyone called Barack Obama a pig, or any other animal for that matter. Why, it would be outright degrading. This is a terrible political move by Sen. Barack Obama. The McCain camp said that referring to Gov. Palin as a pig was way out of bounds, while the Obama camp reply was that they were actually talking about Sen. McCain. Is there really a difference? To make matters worse, McCain used the same language when critisizing Sen. Clinton last year. However, he hasn't done it lately.
I have never been the world's strongest proponent of Sen. McCain. I think that he has some huge turn offs, not the least of which is over exaggerating an opponents position for his own political gain. His political tactics are nothing though compared to the onslaught from the media concerning Gov. Palin. Once again, even if Gov. Palin is new, so is Sen. Biden, why are we not being constantly reminded that Sen. Biden was said that Delaware was a slave state. Why do we not hear that he voted to end funding for the war in Iraq when he complained on the floor on the Senate that he wanted greater equipment for the solidiers? Why do we not hear really anything from him lately?
In a previous post I stated that I thought Gov. Palin was a poor choice for a Vice Presidential Candidate. While I stand by my previous comments that Gov. Palin was a poor choice, I am amazed at the outcome. I did not think that the media would choice to focus on the most outrageous claims against Gov. Palin first. They completely destroyed any credibility that they might have previously had with most of the US public. They excited the masses into watching Gov. Palin's stunning address followed by McCain's address which attracked a greater television crowd then even Barack Obama's acceptance speach. The continual extreme attacks from the Democratic candidates against Gov. Palin are not helping their case. In fact, Sen. McCain has taken another lead in the polls.
If the Republican's win this one, it may just be because the opposition blew it. When you have the fartherest left Senator in the Congress and the third fartherest left Senator in Congress on the same ticket, that is a mistake in and of itself.
I have never been the world's strongest proponent of Sen. McCain. I think that he has some huge turn offs, not the least of which is over exaggerating an opponents position for his own political gain. His political tactics are nothing though compared to the onslaught from the media concerning Gov. Palin. Once again, even if Gov. Palin is new, so is Sen. Biden, why are we not being constantly reminded that Sen. Biden was said that Delaware was a slave state. Why do we not hear that he voted to end funding for the war in Iraq when he complained on the floor on the Senate that he wanted greater equipment for the solidiers? Why do we not hear really anything from him lately?
In a previous post I stated that I thought Gov. Palin was a poor choice for a Vice Presidential Candidate. While I stand by my previous comments that Gov. Palin was a poor choice, I am amazed at the outcome. I did not think that the media would choice to focus on the most outrageous claims against Gov. Palin first. They completely destroyed any credibility that they might have previously had with most of the US public. They excited the masses into watching Gov. Palin's stunning address followed by McCain's address which attracked a greater television crowd then even Barack Obama's acceptance speach. The continual extreme attacks from the Democratic candidates against Gov. Palin are not helping their case. In fact, Sen. McCain has taken another lead in the polls.
If the Republican's win this one, it may just be because the opposition blew it. When you have the fartherest left Senator in the Congress and the third fartherest left Senator in Congress on the same ticket, that is a mistake in and of itself.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Felt Cold Lately...Blame it on the Sun!
I think this story should help us all understand global warming a little better. I will post more when I am off work.
Palin's Problem
The attacks on Gov. Palin intensified this weekend with all aspects of her personal life being flashed on most news channels. It is amazing that even a hurricane hitting New Orleans couldn't slow the medias response to Sen. McCain's Vice Presidential pick, considering they still haven't gotten around to fully investigating the Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Of course, Sen. McCain didn't help himself by picking a running mate with a history of prospective issues. How has the media responded in a lopsides way to the different compaigns.
Internet and tv news organizations have run non-stop programming concerning Gov. Palin's family and there individual problems. The same sentence that announces her as the candidate also states that her son and husband are not Republicans. In a breaking story earlier today, every news organization has been quick to announce that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. The New York Times has actually run three page one stories on these rumors just today.
The Washington Post has published stories connected with as yet unsubstantiated allegations that Gov. Palin misused her authority in an attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a State Trooper. These connections and reports wouldn't be so agrivating if they weren't coming from news organizations that have continually ignored character stories concerning Sen. Obama.
For example you will not find a story in the Washington Post concerning Barack Obama's connections to ACORN, a radically left group. An examination of the history of ACORN is schocking. An article by Stanley Kurtz scrutinizes this relationship. ACORN has been tied to multiple possible voter fraud schemes. Also Sen. Obama's decisions for the dispersion of Federal Gant Money are also questionable. Whenever someone tries to discuss these character issues they are called partisan bigots. The problem isn't that the media is looking at Gov. Palin's flaws. The problem is they aren't also looking at Barack Obama's.
Internet and tv news organizations have run non-stop programming concerning Gov. Palin's family and there individual problems. The same sentence that announces her as the candidate also states that her son and husband are not Republicans. In a breaking story earlier today, every news organization has been quick to announce that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. The New York Times has actually run three page one stories on these rumors just today.
The Washington Post has published stories connected with as yet unsubstantiated allegations that Gov. Palin misused her authority in an attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a State Trooper. These connections and reports wouldn't be so agrivating if they weren't coming from news organizations that have continually ignored character stories concerning Sen. Obama.
For example you will not find a story in the Washington Post concerning Barack Obama's connections to ACORN, a radically left group. An examination of the history of ACORN is schocking. An article by Stanley Kurtz scrutinizes this relationship. ACORN has been tied to multiple possible voter fraud schemes. Also Sen. Obama's decisions for the dispersion of Federal Gant Money are also questionable. Whenever someone tries to discuss these character issues they are called partisan bigots. The problem isn't that the media is looking at Gov. Palin's flaws. The problem is they aren't also looking at Barack Obama's.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Maverick
Coming into this morning a poll on drudgereport.com showed most people thought that John McCain would pick Mitt Romney for his running mate. Similarly, the polls showed that people wanted Mitt Romney for a running...enter the Maverick.
Aides and consultants have told us in the last 24 hours that John McCain decided his own Vice Presidential running mate. We are informed that he alone made the decision. Now we can only hold him utterly responsible for a weak and terrible pick. Gov. Palin of Alaska. In this pick Sen. McCain exposes some key characteristic flaws. Gov. Palin is a woman, a conservative woman, but a weak candidate. It is obvious that John McCain is hoping to steal disenfranchised women Democrats in the upcoming fall election, but his announcement of a woman Vice Presidential candidate is a day late and a dollar short.
On Fox News, prior to either candidate taking the stage on August 29, Gov. Palin played to the woman and reminded them how conservatives value them and how this Vice Presidential pick shows this. However, what the pick really shows is that Sen. McCain is chauvinist and arrogant. What will the spin say? That will say Sen. McCain has chosen a woman for self motivated reasons. He is using Gov. Palin like most men use women, to get what they want. Although I don't think that MOST men use women to get what they want, this is what Sen. McCain has done today. Gov. Palin had no hope to run for national office on her own; not because she is a woman, but because she is a weak candidate.
Besides Gov. Palin aiding in gathering the women vote, why would John McCain pick Gov. Palin and the base of his party wanted someone else? First, he is not the strongest candidate. It is distinctly possible that Gov. Romney would overshadow Sen. McCain in the upcoming election. With McCain's age being a factor for the public and early talk circulating that he would not be able to run for more then one term, he could not afford a Vice President who at the end of four years would look better then himself.
Second, Gov. Romney and Sen. McCain dislike each other. I don't think they could get along well enough to be an effective presidency.
Third, Sen. McCain is a Maverick through and through. A Maverick does not listen to anybody, including the voting constituents. They do what they want when they want. Sen. McCain has encapsulated the true spirit of a Maverick today. This concerns me. For now he is saying what we want him to, Most of the time, but will he ignore the public for his own concerns and ambitions when in the presidency? Has this Congress endured the lowest approval rating ever? YES.
Now we left with the choice of a Maverick or a Liar, a far Leftist or a Bi-Polar Elitist. In the end I will probably vote for the Bi-Polar Elitist since at least half the time he will be on my side, but it won't be because he has listened to the American people, but because he, The Maverick, has somehow coordinated with my own opinion.
Aides and consultants have told us in the last 24 hours that John McCain decided his own Vice Presidential running mate. We are informed that he alone made the decision. Now we can only hold him utterly responsible for a weak and terrible pick. Gov. Palin of Alaska. In this pick Sen. McCain exposes some key characteristic flaws. Gov. Palin is a woman, a conservative woman, but a weak candidate. It is obvious that John McCain is hoping to steal disenfranchised women Democrats in the upcoming fall election, but his announcement of a woman Vice Presidential candidate is a day late and a dollar short.
On Fox News, prior to either candidate taking the stage on August 29, Gov. Palin played to the woman and reminded them how conservatives value them and how this Vice Presidential pick shows this. However, what the pick really shows is that Sen. McCain is chauvinist and arrogant. What will the spin say? That will say Sen. McCain has chosen a woman for self motivated reasons. He is using Gov. Palin like most men use women, to get what they want. Although I don't think that MOST men use women to get what they want, this is what Sen. McCain has done today. Gov. Palin had no hope to run for national office on her own; not because she is a woman, but because she is a weak candidate.
Besides Gov. Palin aiding in gathering the women vote, why would John McCain pick Gov. Palin and the base of his party wanted someone else? First, he is not the strongest candidate. It is distinctly possible that Gov. Romney would overshadow Sen. McCain in the upcoming election. With McCain's age being a factor for the public and early talk circulating that he would not be able to run for more then one term, he could not afford a Vice President who at the end of four years would look better then himself.
Second, Gov. Romney and Sen. McCain dislike each other. I don't think they could get along well enough to be an effective presidency.
Third, Sen. McCain is a Maverick through and through. A Maverick does not listen to anybody, including the voting constituents. They do what they want when they want. Sen. McCain has encapsulated the true spirit of a Maverick today. This concerns me. For now he is saying what we want him to, Most of the time, but will he ignore the public for his own concerns and ambitions when in the presidency? Has this Congress endured the lowest approval rating ever? YES.
Now we left with the choice of a Maverick or a Liar, a far Leftist or a Bi-Polar Elitist. In the end I will probably vote for the Bi-Polar Elitist since at least half the time he will be on my side, but it won't be because he has listened to the American people, but because he, The Maverick, has somehow coordinated with my own opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
