Vote Again for Me?

It seems that after more than two hundred years, this Country should have been able to set up an effective election process. Instead, we have States with faulty equipment, registration fraud, voter fraud and recount manipulation---usually all by a specific party whose initials are D*e*m*o*c*r*a*t.

In recent years we've seen the chaos in Florida, Washington State, and Minnesota. Illinois, especially in the Chicago area, is story by itself when it comes to the above noted manipulations of the voting process. Chicago didn't get its reputation for nothing. Nor did the Democrat party over the years. "If you can't win it, steal it." Or, as seen recently with the---surprise!!---Illinois Governor: "if you have an empty Senate seat, sell it!"

In Florida in 2000, despite all the Democrats' tries, including the hanging chads and "intent" of chosen voters, the Republican Presidential candidate still won the state. The Supreme Court merely put a stop to the endless recounts and "hanging chad" attempts. Otherwise, we'd have had no President for the past eight years. We'd still have the endless recounts. [In fact, the Liberal press later finished another recount and came up with the same winner.]

In Washington State, the same process went on in the gubernatorial race. The Democrats kept "finding" more ballots, seemingly whenever they needed them during the recount.

And now we have Minnesota. Why the disgusting personage, Al Franken, was nominated, I'll never know. Why the original tally was so close, I'll never know. But here again, with the help of that same Washington State gubernatorial operative, the Democrats are finding Franken votes all over the place. Well, I don't believe they are proper nor was the initial count correct, either. I believe there were many frauds apparent and in the Democrats' favor. Simply do the math.

And now, Franken wants the names of some voters so he can check on their votes. [Leonid, call your office.] It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. He needs some serious institutional time---and not the Senate.

If Al Franken and the Democrats steal this election, my belief in a fair election system in the Country will be seriously shaken. We need a new, more countrywide conforming system: Picture ID, proof of residence and citizenship, and personally showing up to register; Picture ID for voting. No mail in votes other than for a dam good reason, like it was decades ago; no same day registration/voting; and severely restricted early balloting. The time to stop all this fraud and nonsense is now. Let's get together and get it done. The right to vote is too sacred a right in this Country to let it be constantly manipulated with registration fraud, voter fraud, recount manipulation, non-citizens voting, and the policy of voting early and often with the dead people.

Keeping Christ in Christmas

I've spent many hours watching Christmas movies and specials on both the broadcast and cable networks. And the references to the religious aspect of the day are few and far between. In fact most of the movies concern variations on "A Christmas Carol" or danger to Santa and the North Pole or the problems of his children or elves, etc. And this is only television.

In general society there has been and is an attack on Christmas from many sides. It seems that any type of 'Christmas' sentiment or display in public is case for a court battle. Or the party in question simply gives in and removes what was there.

This commercialization of and attacks on Christmas have gone too far. I realize that I grew up at a time when the religious nature of Christmas was still fairly strong. But now, not only do the children of the Country not know our religious heritage and special days, they aren't even brought up with a religious attitude. How are they supposed to understand right from wrong? Or even why?

This year, the University of North Carolina removed Christmas trees from its libraries at Chapel Hill NC because of several complaints.

Per the Charlotte Observer: "The trees, which have stood in the lobby areas of Wilson and Davis libraries each December, were kept in storage this year at the behest of Sarah Michalak, the associate provost for university libraries...Michalak's decision followed several years of queries and complaints from library employees and patrons bothered by the Christian display, Michalak said this week." [Scrooge call your office!]

Florida Gulf State University simply banned all open expressions of Christmas.

Per USA Today: "...The newspaper says FGCU administration has banned all holiday decorations from common spaces on campus and canceled a popular greeting card design contest, which is being replaced by an ugly sweater competition...University President Wilson Bradshaw, citing "legal limitations," [anybody know what that nonsensical phrase is supposed to mean?] told the faculty and staff in a memo that many public institutions 'struggle' with how best to honor and respect all traditions during the holiday and FGCU is no exception...He says the decision was not an 'attempt to suppress expression of the holiday spirit.' Staffers will be permitted to display holiday decorations on their desks, but not on their office doors or in common spaces..."

From World Net Daily: "At a time when Americans of many faiths – and even no faith – gear up to celebrate Christmas this year, a first-grade teacher in Sacramento Co., Calif., says she's been ordered by her principal not to utter the word "Christmas" at school...The 24-year education veteran, who wishes to keep her name and the school anonymous at this time, claims she and two fellow instructors were told that use of the word "Christmas" in the classroom or in written materials was now prohibited."

And Bill O'Reilly writes: "Just in time for the Christmas season, Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire has insulted Christians all over the world...Inside the state Capitol building in Olympia there is a traditional holiday display featuring a tree and the Nativity scene; perfectly appropriate since the federal and state Christmas holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem...But this year Gregoire decided to add another item to the display...Standing alongside the baby Jesus is a giant placard designed by atheists that reads: 'There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.'"

These are just a few examples of what's happening in our society. It's mind boggling. It seems the anti-Christ is arriving in many guises and in public places. Even retail stores and malls have changed 'Merry Christmas' to 'Happy Holidays.'

I recently read the story of a thirty-four year old woman who grew up areligious [thinking the Bible was just a book of fairy tales], became an agnostic, an atheist, spent time involved in modified Satanism and traditional Satanism, and finally settled down to some sort of Christianity because her new boyfriend is Christian. While doing all this she married and divorced a drug-addicted man, and spent too much time in an abusive and brainwashing relationship. This is not the way to live---going from one mess to another. Her parents neglected her upbringing, leading to the later difficulties. We have to try to prevent this sort of thing. We need to instill in our children a minimum sense of religion, anyway. We owe it to them to try. We're the parents, remember? We have a responsibility.

With many of our public schools prohibiting any sign of religion at or near the schools and church attendance down, one has no reason to wonder at the lack of religious thoughts at this time of year---not for Easter either. Much of it is due to cowardice in the face of ACLU threats. [Please, may I have a Christmas present: dissolution of the current ACLU?]

Children are now more interested in electronic games and cell phones [and Easter bunnies and candy] than they are of any religious significance of the day[s]. Creches are hidden if not forgotten. Many children don't see or have never seen the interior of a Church. Sadly, some of the older ones don't care about the day and its meaning or the attacks on it every year. They just want to go and see the new movies which open on December 25th.

We as a nation are forgetting that religious tolerance was a contributing factor in the setting up of our original colonies. It was a stalwart basis for the general responsibilty and work ethic of our new American country. And it was on the minds of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Our Country should be striving to "form a more perfect union" and not to deny religious expression anywhere except the basements and hidden caves or catacombs. Haven't we seen enough of that already?

Agnostics, atheists, and the infamous bastardized ACLU have joined together [though still a very small minority, mind you] to stifle religious expressions anywhere outside the home [for now, anyway.] While minorities should always be respected, they should not have the power to shut down expression in the majority. The majority rule has fallen prey to the minority 'rights' people, thus forcing our Country to become more and more areligious and forgetful of our common heritages and continuing religious rights.

Whether it be Church or Temple, Christmas or Channukah, let's do better to celebrate the season as it should be: with reverence, memory, and humility. It's a celebration of God. The gifts and movies can come later.

Awardi Liberali

When I was a kid, I had a lot of respect and awe for the winners of the Nobel Prizes, Pulitzer Prizes, and Oscars. I watched the latter every year with bated breath. [I also voted for Miss Rheingold] They were all awards for excellence in my young eyes.

As I grew older [past 12], I realized that there were a lot of somethings wrong with these awards. [Of course, not the Miss Rheingold election---that was one of real consequence.] Reality grew on me slowly---but it did grow. And now, I see so much Liberal crap and politics tied up into these awards---well, they are virtually worthless in my estimation. C'mon now! An award of excellence for Al Gore? Michael Mooooore? It seems that raw Liberalism, inane politicians and sex sex sex are the new manifestations of the 'modern' Liberal beliefs and activities.

Now, we know that a lot of Liberals get these awards for being Liberal and promoting Liberal propaganda. Can't refute that. Do a little research, and you'll find the processes in recent years [up to 30-40] disgustingly unfair and slanted with just that result. [Have you watched a Michael Mooooore movie?]

I've tried to watch, listen to, or read columns and articles by some of these prominent Liberals: Cynthia Tucker; William Raspberry; Michael Moooore; Maureen Dowd; Al Frankenstein; Ellen Goodman; Anthony Lewis; Tom Wicker---and of course those delightfully sensitive whackos on the radio, Don Imus and Howard Stern. I can't do it. They turn me off very quickly with the misinformation, assumption of divinity, vitriol in their hate of anything Republican, Conservative or religious [or in some cases, simple common decency], and basically poor or gutter-like writing or communicating skills.

And they're often hypocrites. Remember when William Raspberry wrote columns that promoted gun control and getting all guns off the street and out of the hands of citizens? It was shortly thereafter that he was arrested for having an unlicensed gun in his possession---and of course, he was released quickly with a slap on the wrist, and the story was conspicuously missing from the Liberal Press after the first, small print revelations. [I imagine if he had been a Conservative columnist, we'd still be hearing and reading about it.]

Liberal Mantra: do what I say, not what I do. And the mantra is normally written by its propagandists in many forms. I once visited the Daily Kos---soiling my mind---and found little there but the usual vitriol against Bush, McCain, Palin and the Republicans and---oh yes, some reporting of rumors in an attempt to find someone [other than the shooter] to blame for the VA Tech tragedy in recent history. [One, of course, set the responsibility at President Bush's door!]

Yes, Liberals do, as a rule, write nonsense, and they shouldn't be awarded anything for it. Some see an improvement in their grammar and basic skills as the years progress---but most don't. I wouldn't even give them an 'A' for effort because they usually fall flat from lack of truth and reality.

I found out recently an Australian scientist claims that cremation is causing global warming [the furnaces, you know] and we should bury our dead in cardboard boxes underneath trees so the decomposing bodies can nourish them to great heights. I can just see Uncle Fred's countenance budding on a hundred branches. Owwwww! Anyway, isn't there a scientific award just for him? [The scientist, not Uncle Fred.] The Al Gore Award for Scientific Accuracy? Or the Michael Moooore 'Truth' in Liberal 'Science' Award? Or the Cheryl Crowe One Square on the Fly Award for Excellence?

One Townhall poster claimed that, since the left controls the awards, left wing writers should be winning most of them. Well, the last time I checked, being a Liberal [in its current or recent manifestation] was not among the original criteria for any of these awards. As I remember it, the word "Excellence" was always bandied about. And there aren't any Liberals of excellence---or at least I haven't come across any. Propaganda is NOT excellence. So again, why no excellent Conservative writers in the chase? Too sane for the judges?

I once owned a book store, and after Maya Angelou won the Pulitzer prize, I tried to read her books of poems and autobiography. They are unreadable, uninteresting, and definitely not worth the time invested. I found the same problems with other Liberal authors---whose books never sold. There are too many to mention individuals, but the names Koch and Greene come to mind.

Let's get back to 'excellence' instead of 'ideology' as the basis for awards. And, personally, I think my blog should receive and award from Joe the Pulitzer or somebody. At least it's not Liberal.

Global Warming by Golly

Since the Global Warming religion has been given a lot of air time, I thought I'd bring out some truths that are generally accepted. We anti-believers need the air time too.

Book of Genesis: "...So God created man in His own image...male and female...and God blessed them...be fruitful and multiply [hardly an approval of the gay life, is it?,] and replenish the Earth, subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth..."

Now, I'm no theologian or deep reader of the Bible, but I do believe it is the inspired Word of God; and it seems clear to me that Man [a traditional collective word to mean men and women] is responsible for the Earth, and he can use the animals as needed for food or other purposes.

Our bodies are not made to prosper with only grains, fruits, and vegetables [or tofu.] Beef, lamb, fish, crustaceans, fowl, pork, and other meats and delicious delicacies are traditional foods and necessary varieties in our omnivoric diet---along with the popular grains, vegetables, and fruits and related beverages. Of course those of you eating legumes may get a substantial amount of protein [and gas], but it's not the same quality. Meat of all kinds is a necessary and concentrated source of protein. 'Man cannot live on beans alone.'

Why do you think herbivores have to eat so much? It's not because they really like it [after all, they're eating grass, roots, leaves, hay, etc.], it's because they have to eat a great deal of vegetable matter to gain their needed nutrients.

By the way, animal carnivores aren't too fussy. They'll devour most animals they can run down and eat---including us. They seem to know which of their fellow animals they can devour---except those protected by nature like porcupines, skunks and the like. If the PC crowd wants something to do, how about working to change nature so that these carnivores can be satisfied with a vegetarian menu of salads and, oh say, watercress sandwiches. They can have well-dressed penguins serve them. I'll finance a trip to the Serengeti for two or three of the crowd to try their efforts with pride[s].

Now, I'm not promoting cruelty to animals in any way. We have pets and there are wild animals that need reasonable protection. As for raised, hunted and butchered animals, they deserve protection from cruelty until the end. It's what the human in us demands. Of course, many people don't like butchering, but they're fine eating the resultant products. They also wear shoe leather and use other animal byproducts, such as some perfumes.

One concept that most sane scientists grasp---but which Liberals don't---is that no matter what man does---or can do right now---he isn't going to affect the globe as a whole to a great extent. Really! And when there are global changes---and there still will be---they will be natural and in spite of all of our efforts to change them. 'Terraforming' is still a science-fiction subject. But of course, local climate can still be affected by us, such as smog and other pollution. But, that still will be localized [locality can encompass thousands of square miles], and we should fight it locally. So, stop the global panic, already. If a meteor hits or a volcano annihilates itself, our weather will change for quite some time, maybe even for a few years. But don't blame man.

[Actually, if a meteor hits and affects the weather, it will already have killed millions. So, we'll have other things to worry about.]

Our current global fair weather is not the norm, no matter how many Al Gores out there may think it is. Ice ages, warming trends, and additional earthquake and volcano activity are typical to Earth, and they aren't going to stop because we wish them to.

So, think about it. The Earth has survived greater problems than man can throw at it, what with meteors, comets, volcanos, deadly atmospheres, earthquakes, ice ages, solar flares and the like. But expensive 'solutions' to try and deal with unchangeable problems or natural changes in climate are just like 'pi$$ing against the wind'.

So, Liberals, lock the doors of your Global Warming Churches and Temples and go home. Your crabgrass is calling you.

Mark His Words

Many authors in times past have had unique commentary on the politics of the time. None seemed particularly enamored of politicians in general or Congressmen [male or female, and to include the Senators] in particular. And among the greater minds commenting on this subject was Mark Twain.

"Fleas can be taught anything that a Congressman can."

Congress isn't very popular these days---and with good reason. Over the last few years in particular, the work of Congress hasn't been above average in any way. Bills and attitudes have been far away from the good of the people but close to the interests of the same Congressmen and their friends.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Some Congressmen have been investigated for wrong-doing---though nowhere near enough---some convicted, and some running for the hills of their home states. And we still have un-convicted [and convicted] Ku Klux Klanners, manslaughterers, and bribe takers representing us. Constituent approval ratings have hovered in the single digits. Yet these criminals continue to be elected and ply their 'wares.'

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

And what about our courts? Noteworthy is the Supreme Court, where there may be several replacement justices in the next several years. They won't be Conservatives, that's for sure.

"I hate to hear people say this Judge will vote so and so, because he is a Democrat -- and this one so and so because he is a Republican. It is shameful. The Judges have the Constitution for their guidance; they have no right to any politics save the politics of rigid right and justice when they are sitting in judgment upon the great matters that come before them."

Unfortunately, a Liberal judge will always gum up the wheels of progress. There is a solid track record here. Legislating from the bench has been and will always be a problem---and yet it remains so very popular.

And what about the current crop of 'journalists?' I speak softly there because the journalism today is not what it has been in the past. It was more civil back in Twain's day, and he still had little good to say about the practitioners. Even in Franklin Roosevelt's time there was more civility. Case in point was the unwritten rule that no photographs of the President's crutches and braces were ever shown in the newspapers or newsreals. There were other such civilities from the press, notably in the war where so many embedded journalists wrote about the war with the idea of a victory in mind. Today, America is at fault---especially President Bush---for seemingly every conflict and problem in the World.

"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."

So, it seems Mark Twain---more than a hundred years ago---recognized the present and future pulse of Congress and Journalism. We've seen both fail us in numerous ways, and I don't expect it to stop. It's too bad honest people in Congress never seem to get the important leadership positions. If they could, they might be able to raise the Congressional approval rating a few points.

'Always do right; this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.'

Never Lose Sight

It's necessary for me to post to my political blogs today, in light of yesterday's win by Barack Obama.

Firstly, I stand by every word I've written in these past months. My thoughts and ideas remain as they were and have been. But, I must accept the reality of an Obama presidency. It's there. And I can't deny it. I can fear it, but I can't deny it.

My hope is that Obama's 'hope and change' don't damage us too much, though I sadly believe they will. With a future Liberal Supreme Court, hard liberal Congress, and Obama to guide them all, we as a Country may have bitten off more than we can chew. It could take generations to repair the damage to our society. But there isn't anything I can do about from here except speak my piece on a regular basis.

The biggest ray of sunshine remaining to me is Sarah Palin. You on the left have bitterly and unfairly attacked her and her family unceasingly, and she has survived with flying colors. I think the Liberals of the Country will have much to worry about from her sanity and competence. She's a conservative and pragmatic star, and I believe 2012 or 2016 will be her shining hour---and ours as a nation. She still has more knowledge and practical experience than our President-elect.

The other ray is that in two years we can make some needed adjustments. The entire House of Representatives and part of the Senate are up for election again, and maybe we can correct some of our mistakes. At least that would put some control over the Liberal agenda in force.

I wish Obama well. I just hope he doesn't follow his Liberal leanings too far and to the detriment of us all. Our nation, its freedoms, its free enterprise system, its strong military, and the respect---however grudging at times---of the World are all important. We must never lose sight of this.

Why I Support John McCain Part One

Here it is! Having been asked by a friend [now so far away] to explain why I'm supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin, I've provided this answer. [Please read this through before you attack me.]

Please note the following: I'm a college graduate having studied economics, statistics, and accounting. I'm a CPA with experience in numerous industries, especially small businesses. I've even worked in manufacturing as Controller. I was a Supply Officer in the US Navy, having gone through boot camp and Officer's Training. Now, I'm a writer. I've had a lot of business and personnel experience and the ability to see through bullshit.

Military

John McCain graduated from the US Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1958. As a flyer, he survived the devastating fire on the USS Forrestal in 1967. Later that year he was shot down over Hanoi, breaking bones when he landed in a lake. The North Vietnamese [NV] promptly treated his breaks poorly and sent him to the Hanoi Hilton. Later he went to a political prison where they broke more of his bones and tortured him trying to get military secrets from him. He didn't give anything more than the names of a football team's front line, so they gave him more torture.

In 1968, his father was given command of the US forces in and around Vietnam, so the NV offered him an early release as a propaganda move. He refused. He was further tortured. According to the Military Code of Conduct, prisoners should be released in order of capture, so he painfully saw it through to the end his POW prison term for his comrades. He was finally released in 1973.

After rehabilitation, he commanded a squadron out of Florida, and he retired as a Naval Captain in 1981. He was in prison at the same time I was in the Navy. I call my time 'endurance' because, although a Lieutenant, I thought I had been going through misery with necessary military restrictions in job and personal life. Little did I understand what misery really was. John McCain went through the real deal of misery and survived and succeeded. There's no need for anymore testing.

His actions putting Country first are hard---if not impossible---to top.

John McCain has never shirked from admitting his mistakes, taking the heat, and going on. He blamed himself for his failed first marriage, and he took the heat for his connection to the 'Keating Five' scandal. He was fully exonerated of any wrong doing for the latter---as repeated by Democrat counsel Bob Bennett---and only given the equivalent of 'naughty! naughty! He has nothing to be ashamed of there or anywhere.

Barack Obama has no military or command experience. [Heading his own campaign committee over the years is hardly valuable experience.] Nor has he ever been tested to prove his mettle at anything! I firmly believe that in the same situation that McCain faced, Obama would have capitulated early and begged for his release.

Further, Obama will not tell his whole history or take responsibility for his own actions. His past is shady with ongoing relationships with terrorists Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, radical Father Phleger, and convicted Tony Rezco. He spent 20 years attending a church and listening to his mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright spout his racist and anti American venom. Twenty years? And he only repudiated his latter relationship recently when it became politically expedient?

Washington

In 1977, while still in the Navy, McCain was given the position of Naval liaison to the Senate. In 1981, after retirement, McCain moved to Arizona with his family. In 1982, McCain ran for and was elected to the US House of Representatives, where he served two terms getting his political act in gear. He did not jump-start his campaign in the home of two terrorists.

At one point during his campaign, many questioners derided him as a 'carpetbagger' to Arizona. His answer to one of these chargers at a candidates' forum was swift and to the point.

'Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.'

I like that answer and what it tells me about the man.

In 1986, he was elected to the Senate. All his re-elections came with 60% or more of the votes. As noted above, he was involved on the peripheral of the 'Keating Five' scandal, ultimately being CLEARED OF ALL WRONGDOING, though you'd never know it by the Obama campaign claims.

Among his later Senate accomplishments were bills to: announce to OPEC, oil produces, and oil speculators, that the US will be energy independent in the near future; a summer federal gas tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day; move to repeal the 54 cent per gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol, thus reducing the need for corn and reducing food costs; roll back corn-based ethanol mandates to reduce the cost of food. Most of these and others died in the Democrat-run Senate. But his votes on conservative legislation were on target.

On the other hand, Obama's Senate record is certainly unimpressive. In his 143 days of actual service as a Senator, he sponsored or co-sponsored bills: to honor Pierre Julian [chemist], Rosa Parks [black], sickle cell research, Irene Sendler [albeit a strong social worker during the holocaust], Gilbert Patterson [black bishop], Carl Stokes [black mayor of Cleveland]; resolution for no use of force in Iran; designate National Learning Day and a Disability Pride Day; to suspend the duty on gibberillic acid---a potent plant hormone [found in most plants] that is normally used to promote early flowering and plant germination; to suspend duty on triphenyltin hydroxide---a substance used to control potato blight etc.; suspend duty on sebacic acid---a derivative of castor oil used in candle making; suspend duty on bromoxynil octonoate---toxic, imported from China, and I can't find anyplace willing to identify it's use; suspend the duty for RSD 1235---a drug under current study; suspend duty on N6 Benzyladenine, MCPB acid, MCPB sodium salt, 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacitic, metsulfluron-methyl, dichlorprop-p acid, and dichlorprop-p demethlyamine salt.

None of these sponsored bills made it into law.

I emphasize 143 days, because he was hardly ensconced at his Senate desk before he started running for President. Obama does this regularly. He goes for one position, then when in the new position he spends his time seeking a higher office. Do over 130 votes 'present' tell you about the decision-making ability of the candidate? And you can't deal with Iran, Russia, or Pakistan with a 'present' vote. And if he succeeds in his run for President, what job will he immediately seek after? Will he appoint himself to the Supreme Court? How about Secretary General of the UN. Obama certainly believes he has international appeal. Pope? A Demi-God? Zeus, call your office.

Tell me Rich, friends, have you ever come across a Presidential candidate with less experience or more socialist leanings or one who has little other than oratory to speak for him? [And those socialists like Eugene Debs never had a chance of winning an election.]

As a matter of fact, Obama sponsored a bill to congratulate the Chicago White Sox for the 2005 World Series victory, and he couldn't even get that through the process to the President.

When the economy was sending warning signals, McCain was in the forefront, along with the administration, in trying to raise the alarm to Congress and take action to correct the process and forestall problems. All attempts were rebuffed by Democrats Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and even Obama himself---top recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.

When the dam broke, McCain suspended his campaign and returned to Washington to work with Republicans on getting an emergency bill passed. Obama stayed on his campaign trail, making snide remarks from afar. They both signed on to the bill, something I would not have. So there's no difference there, except that McCain signed onto an emergency bill, and Obama signed on to a socialist leaning bill. It's all in the mind, n'est pas? At least McCain and the Republicans prevented Congress from sending millions to Acorn as part of the Democrats' proposed bill.

Campaign

McCain has stuck to his promise to accept taxpayer money for the campaign. Obama reneged on his written promise and declined taxpayer money, thus being able to raise some $600 million dollars [I admit he's a great orator, especially when you understand that he doesn't give any details when he talks] in an attempt to seal the Presidency by overwhelming his opponent. Can you imagine that? Huge sums to socialize the Country? How much of that is foreign or duplicate, no one will tell. And such an amount is only the tip of the iceberg [among billionaires] of efforts to fund the complete socializing of the Country---bit by bit.

John McCain has spent four years in the US House of Representatives and 22 years in the US Senate. He has worked hard all these years for the people he represented, and he was not called a 'maverick' for nothing as he bucked the Republicans many times. His attitude has always been Country first. He sponsored or cosponsored numerous bills making it past the President's signature, lately including the federal partial birth abortion ban, more penalties for purveyors of obscene and indecent broadcasts; to enhance the FTC enforcement in re cyber spam, spyware, and fraud; and other bi-partisan bills/laws.

McCain has potential programs and ideas that I like: his tax credit for individual medical policies so people can travel and change jobs without changing policies; his desire to reduce the estate tax rate to 15% with a $10 million exemption; his desire to work on increasing World markets with efforts to reduce trade barriers, multilaterally, bilaterally, and regional; to enforce existing global trading rules; he wants continued and increased tax credits for wind, solar, and hydro power; he'd like to offer a $300 million dollar prize [it has to be big enough to warrant large research expenditures and be an incentive] for new battery technology for hybrid vehicles; green building and refitting US Government buildings throughout the World.

He wants to keep the maximum tax rate at 35%; a 15% tax rate for dividends and capital gains; a phasing out of the alternative minimum tax; to reduce the corporate tax rate of 35% to 25%. Our current corporate tax is the second highest in the World, thus leading to corporate shenanigans and reduced World presence; he wants more first year expensing of equipment and investment in technology; he wants a tax credit of 10% of labor costs for R & D. The US needs more research and development to better compete in the modern World.

These things help increase business opportunities and employment. The economy is best fueled by individual success. The American Dream. It is not served well with wealth distribution and high taxes on productivity.

As a small business owner [professional practice] I spent years working with average and wealthy people and businesses dealing with their accounting, investment, payroll and income tax returns, loans and varied business problems. We had to work with the complicated IRS code. I understand how these people will be affected or hurt by the various policies of McCain or Obama. None of my over 500 clients would want this 'socialism.' And I'm just one professional.

And I wish that you Liberals would get off the tired old mantra of Republican tax cuts for the rich. When the Republicans offer tax cuts, they offer them to all taxpayers. The top five percent of earners in the US already pay most of the taxes collected. So naturally, according to simple arithmetic, more of a tax cut goes to the person paying most of the taxes.

The second part of this essay is directly below in another blog post. I had to enter it first so the continuity of the essay wouldn't be damaged.

Why I Support John McCain Part Two

I'm particularly worried about this constant Obama wish to 'spread the wealth' by taking from one group to give it to another. Socialism and class warfare is un-American. He should be taken to the woodshed.

'Democracy is the road to socialism.' This quote would easily fit into Obama's view of the Country and what he and his Democrat cohorts want to accomplish in it: an increased 'nanny state', government run and heavily regulated businesses [that stifle growth], more handouts for those who don't work, loss of free speech on radio, loss of the secret ballot in union votes, and so forth ad infinitum.

'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' This quote fits Obama's 'spread the wealth' philosophy' along with his idea of a tax cut for 95% of Americans---including the 40% of Americans who don't pay taxes. Why would anyone want to send government checks to one group of people who don't contribute to the tax base, taking it from another group who contribute the most? Tax cuts should be assigned to those who actually pay tax. And success should come to those who work hard and earn it.

'The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.' Change 'socialism' to 'democrat-ism' [only a tiny difference] and that's what Obama and the Democrats want for this Country. Free speech disappears from talk radio; loss of secret ballots in union votes; sending money to Acorn to spread the vote to dead people, Disney characters, those who want to vote in two different states, and those who simply want to vote many times. The opposition will be vilified for any reason [something currently happening.] The defense budget will be cut by a quarter [per Barney Frank]. And any Democrats responsible in part for the current economic mess [notably Chris Dodd and Barney Frank] won't be investigated or punished for their parts.

These are all quotes from the works of Karl Marx. I hope you think about them.

Now, John McCain will do none of these in particular or promote any of these practices by acquiescence. He has strength of character and a firm belief in Country first. We can be sure that his term in office will shake up the 'good old boys' and root out corruption and greed. And he won't allow our military budget to be cut by a quarter---or anything for that matter. Nor will he permit cuts in Border Control or Homeland Security. These are all too important in protecting our freedoms and way of life.

McCain wants to leave Iraq and Afghanistan in victory with positive support for the troops; he wants to start paying off the deficit; he'll provide a one year spending freeze of the budget until we catch our collective breath; he'll knock down programs not working.

McCain wants to reform social security before it collapses. Is this another warning that will be rebuffed by Democrats in Congress? He'll investigate and punish those responsible for the collapse of our markets, to include Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, other Congressman, Senators, and highly paid executives former and present of the collapsed companies. Does anyone naively expect an Obama administration to investigate and punish Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and other Democrats involved with the crisis?

I think Social Security programs deserve and demand a carefully considered reformation. If you think the current financial crisis is huge, wait until Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid fail. [Personally, if I'm still around---well, I don't want to see this happen.]

McCain wants to reform Medicare and Medicaid, increase accountability, and reduce payments for preventable medical errors and mismanagement, with a zero tolerance toward fraud. He wants medical liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits that increase the cost of health care [and reduce the billable hours of trial lawyers.]

What he won't promote is the type of failed socialized medicine seen in Canada, England and other Countries. They don't work. Ask the people from those Countries, especially those who come to the US for their care.

McCain wants to increase domestic exploration for oil and gas, even closely offshore. Sarah Palin is still working on him about ANWR; he wants to encourage the development of clean coal. He wants to more quickly situate and build at least 45 nuclear plants, with a goal of 100. These are absolutely necessary in the American effort to achieve energy independence.

With what McCain wants to do, I expect he can meet his promise of a balanced budget within four years. These crazy, socialistic bailouts are not within the regular budget--nor are War expenditures. By the way, I'm very uncomfortable with government ownership or investment in free market companies. Our country grew strong and financially successful through the free market system, and I think the free market system should be protecting us now. Though I must admit, there's been a lot of fraud and greed out there in these past years, I think oversight should be swift and effective but short in duration. [Though I do worry about any swift and effective parts if Congress is involved.] The free market system will rebound and grow stronger if we let it.

Wall Street has been a national bugaboo for decades, and I think the free market will make the needed corrections---all in the activities for profits as usual. Trading practices have to be reformed. Remember, where companies fail, there's usually another one to step into the void. As in 1987, this current crisis will be an opportunity for the people, media, and government to work together to cut out the fraudulent executives and companies and force restructuring and reformation in the large companies.

But, don't take my word about it. McCain's economic policies have been supported by numerous economists: Paul Evans, Ohio State University; E Philip Howry, University of Michigan; George Schultz, Hoover Institute; Michael Porter, Harvard Business School; Michael Boskin, Stanford University; Barry Poulson, University of Colorado; and many others. He also has the support of many of our former Secretaries of State and over 60% of the current military. Ask Drs Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. These black economists have been supportive of John McCain all through the campaign.

Remember the NY Times and its recent hit pieces on McCain and Palin? This is what happened in January of 2008, when the paper endorsed McCain in the primaries.

'...Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field...

...We have shuddered at Mr. McCain's occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country's treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character...

...In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform...

...That doesn't make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party's presidential nomination...'

Of course, the NY Times---which is posting bigger losses every quarter---changed its tune in October 2008, and it endorsed the socialist-leaning Obama. [Is the paper looking for a handout too?] Add to this all the 'Republican' hit and hate pieces it has published recently as well. Disgusting!

Going on, John McCain wants to appoint a National Commission on Workplace Flexibility and Choice. This would involve bipartisan leaders representing small and large businesses, labor, and academics. This commission will report to the President on how modernizing our nation's labor laws and training programs to help workers better balance the demands and requirements of job and family.

He wants to modernize labor laws to allow for more flexible scheduling arrangements; he wants to insure labor laws don't interfere with those who work at home; he wants to promote more teleworking to reduce commuting congestion; as noted above, he wants to promote more portable healthcare; he wants more worker choice in retirement plans and job training.

On the other hand again, Barack Obama has no military experience as noted above. He spent his early years in Indonesia in Catholic and Muslim schools. [He had to be a citizen of Indonesia for that.] Such was arranged by stepdad Soeruto.

He has failed to supply a signed and certified birth certificate to prove his date of birth and location. [The document on his website is not a birth certificate, nor is it signed or sealed.] There are valid arguments that he was born in Kenya, and his mother did not pass the US citizenship test. He claims that his ailing grandmother in Hawaii is his last living relative, yet he ignores his paternal grandmother [who claims she was there in Kenya when he was born], half brother, and half sister in Kenya, all living below the poverty level.

He won't release his college transcripts, it is said, because they would indicate his foreign birth and citizenship for his financial help during law school, especially.

These are all legitimate questions for someone seeking the highest office in the Country.

According to an October 1996 page from the New Party [a now defunct, leftist alternative; self described as socialist democratic] ---it was involved with Acorn, which Obama later represented in court for one of its actions to force banks to give out bad loans [also training a number of leaders---in what it isn't clear], there were successful elections in the year.

'...Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)...'

We know when and where John McCain was born. His was [and is] a military family, and he was born where his father was stationed. He attended the US Naval Academy, and we have records of all that.

Whatever happened to honest, political openness?

All in all, I'm supporting John McCain for his belief in free markets, his honesty with the American people, his support of the US citizen's freedom, and the Constitution. I don't agree with everything he does, but then if I did than he would be me---and I don't want to be President.

Barack Obama is a believer in socialism, as his past history and present proposals indicate. He and a Democrat majority in Congress would run socialist roughshod over the American citizen, the Constitution, and our free market system. They will reduce our freedoms [consider the Union non-secret 'votes' and the un 'fairness' doctrine trying to get more Liberal voices on the airwaves---even though it's been proven that nobody wants to listen to them], raise our taxes [there's at least a $trillion dollars of spending to finance], and reduce the opportunities for businesses in the US.

Doesn't this ring a warning bell for you? You must know and understand these things.

As to the Vice Presidential portion of the ticket, we have proven facts and understanding of both candidates. Governor Sarah Palin is a proven executive who dealt with corruption and reform of her own state party, negotiated difficult gas leases and pipe-lines to the lower forty-eight, is well spoken, has conservative family values, opposes abortion and gay marriages, and has policies that are compatible with those of John McCain---except drilling in ANWR, which I believe she'll successfully negotiate with him. She is well spoken, intelligent, and a shrewd politician. She has had successful executive experience as a mayor and Governor of the Country's largest state. Some may say that being a mayor of a small city or governor of a low-population state doesn't mean much. But remember, Obama and Biden don't even have that much experience necessary for an executive position in the government.

Obama served as a community organizer in an area of Illinois known for corruption. In his capacity as organizer, he was setting the wheels of radical agitation in motion. He worked with Acorn is putting pressure on banks to make sub-prime loans. And he trained the Acorn workers---to do what? Phony up registrations and votes for the Democrats?

And yes, Palin did waver a little with her first interviews, but she was still new to the National scene. Check her out now. I suggest you doubters listen more closely to her speeches, especially those on policy. She's nowhere near the idiot the Obama supporters are trying to make her out to be, and despite the continued efforts of the press to 'sandbag' here with erroneous quotes and 'facts' during interviews.

On the other side we have Joe Biden. This is the well known gaffe-a-minute, foot-in-the-mouth good old Joe. His record in foreign affairs is filled with mistakes and wrong sides of reality. His Botox and hair plugs are ignored, but Sarah Palin's clothing [purchased by the RNC for her to borrow only since she came down to the lower forty-eight rather quickly] is played up as a scandal. He's a laugh a minute.

The media fears that Sarah Palin will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency [a good spot for her, by the way], but they don't fear the alarming specter of Joe Biden. Again, Palin has the only executive experience among the four candidates, having done things that Obama and Biden could only dream about.

The media has pounded on Sarah Palin while giving Joe Biden a pretty free ride. We've been inundated with stories on her daughter's pregnancy [no one's business], claims that her son Trig really belonged to her daughter [ridiculous], claims that she was secessionist [also ridiculous], claims that she tried to fire a trooper because of a nasty divorce with her sister [simply not true, although it should have been, considering how that trooper was acting] ; claims that she supported Pat Buchanan [she wore a pin as mayor of the little city he was visiting while it was happening]; and other inanities.

And Joe? Oh, we're told about his long term in the Senate [36 years; hardly a change for the ticket], but we're not told about how Liberal he is [I consider modern Liberals to be a heartbeat away from Socialist] or how he's been on the wrong side of numerous foreign policy decisions and votes. We're not told of all the gaffes he's spoken, though when he does on the campaign trail he illuminates the stupidity of him and unpreparedness of Obama. Can you imagine Joe the Gaffe representing the US to foreign power brokers? Who can tell what he'd say?

So, is there any choice other than John McCain and Sarah Palin? I think not. I believe they will bring to Washington freshness and their positive experiences and abilities to see this Country through difficult times, maintain an honorable military, and insure our freedoms.

The mainstream media is in the tank for Obama. No question about it. All their Obama interviews are complete with softball questions, never questioning anything 'detrimental' about the anointed one. Just listen to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC if you have a strong stomach. Ask a candidate a tough question and your station/channel will be stricken from the 'Friends of Obama' list [check out You Tube], and any future interviews scheduled won't happen.

Do I adore John McCain or Sarah Palin? Of course not. But I do support them.

And the opposition? The supporters of Obama are disgustingly trying to 'deify' him and carry on a religious campaign to lead the 'Obamessiah' and the Liberal/Socialists into power over the average Americans. Obama does nothing to dissuade such efforts. In fact he's preparing in Chicago for a huge election party. He probably has Greek columns again.

But don't cross the 'one!' Even a simple plumber can't ask the 'anointed one' a question without backlash. Obama supporters have tried to find all sorts of dirt on this poor man, just because he elicited an answer from Obama that confirmed his socialism.

So, I was asked, and I answered. A little lengthy perhaps, but I wanted to get a lot into it. Our Country is facing a difficult time, and I'm very concerned about potentials. I fear the Democrat/Liberal/Socialist takeover of Congress and the Presidency. The inmates will be running the institution as it were, and we'll all suffer from it. And we'll all suffer from it because these inmates are not anxious to protect freedom and free markets.

We are living in troubled times. If it isn't the current financial crisis [due in part to Democrat recalcitrance], then it's the coming disaster about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. That disaster was set in motion by both parties over the years. When it hits, we'll be in much more shit than we are now. Only John McCain wants Congress to sit with his leadership to correct the problems before they hatch. Barack Obama and the Democrats are content to continue raising taxes and promote more governmental control.

Only John McCain can be trusted to oversee the Country, push for needed laws and cuts in programs, and appoint Supreme Court Justices who will actually base their decisions on the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench. And if it were necessary for Sarah Palin to become President, I'm perfectly happy with her there.

And now you know much about why I'm supporting John McCain.

Random Thoughts Late October

Has anyone really considered why Obama is so popular in Europe? Let me offer a few items for consideration.

Europe has for years been traveling down the socialist trail, to it's own detriment and suffering. Many of the European countries simply can't rehabilitate themselves anymore. Their citizens are too accustomed to the nanny states, even though the taxes to pay for them are increasingly sending these same citizens to the poorhouse, thus increasing the calls for more nanny statism. The never-ending vicious circle.

So naturally, these countries will favor Obama because he'd try to lead the US down the slippery slope of socialism. This will give the European leaders 'chills and tingling up their legs' because they won't feel so left out with America. With this scenario, all Western countries can go downhill together.

Another reason for the warm reception is that socialism will be expected to drain the US of much World prestige, perhaps enough to allow the European leaders to regain some World leadership positions. They are anxious to improve on the World stage despite their countries' bungling of their economies and military prowess. Remember the British, French, German and Austro-Hungarian Empires of the past? Such thoughts are still within the European hearts.

The cream will no longer rise to the top because America will no longer have any cream. Socialism stifles economic progress, inventiveness and material success for a country's citizens. Socialism destroys all that is great in America. It destroys the vital parts of our society that created the strength of America in the first place. I, for one, am not ready to allow a 'change' to a socialistic society to reign for my children and their children. A future little Topaz probably won't appreciate it.

'Tax breaks for 95% of Americans' is not only wrong---almost half of us pay little or no income tax---but the concept entails giving money to those who pay no taxes [funded by those who do.] As Obama says 'spread the wealth around.' And that is a major tenet to the practice of socialism.

Thank goodness Europeans can't vote in our elections. We only allow dead goldfish, dead people, Mickey Mouse, and the Dallas Cowboys [wrong state] to register and vote Democrat. Joe the Plumber is Republican.
***
Now, I'm sure most of us know Sheryl Crowe, even if we haven't listened to her music. [I tried to, but I couldn't keep my mind off the probable dirty guitar strings.] These quotes surfaced a while ago, but they remain 'fresh' in one's mind.

Newsbusters [noted the arrival of Sheryl Crowe and {Inconvenient Truth producer} Laurie David to the noisy environmental train---electric of course; maybe made by Lionel.]

'Here is [Sheryl] Crow’s “easy way” to be part of the solution to anthropogenic global warming:

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who's judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

[Don't snicker and grimace in disgust just yet. Sheryl went on:]

"I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold."

Newsbusters again: 'I’d like to say she was kidding, but based on other global warming “solutions,” it is hard to tell. Wacky ideas abound. A man-made volcano shooting sulfur into the air, giant 'space umbrellas' and even getting rid of toilets so we can compost our own waste in a box underneath the sink.'
*
[Amen]
***
According to Simon Romero, Michael Slackman and Clifford J Levy:
*
'President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela used it to jump-start a socialist-inspired revolution in his country and to back a cadre of like-minded leaders in Latin America who were intent on eroding once-dominant American influence.

Iran extended its influence across the Middle East, promoted itself as the leader of the Islamic world and used its petrodollars to help defy the West's efforts to block its nuclear program.

Russia, which suffered a humiliating economic collapse in the 1990s after the fall of communism, recaptured some of its former standing in the world. It began rebuilding its military, wrested control of oil and gas pipelines and pushed back against Western encroachment in the former Soviet empire.'
*
And yet, the Liberals still create roadblocks and nay-saying against more drilling and other needed energy resource use to wean us off these oil hungry barons of the World. They claim that America has only 3% of the World's oil reserves, so more drilling won't do anything. What they fail to say is that more oil and natural gas than in all the Arab States and Venezuela is off the American coast and in that small part of Alaska's ANWR that we more sensible Americans want to use. [and not part of that crowed 3%]

The Alaska Pipeline has harmed NO wildlife or environment. Neither will oil drilling and removal from a tiny part of the ANWR part of Alaska. We are grown-ups you know. We have fine technology in these sorts of things.

Furthermore, if the environmentalists and Liberals would stop blocking the construction and use of coal and nuclear plants and gasoline refineries, we'd have more than enough energy production and availability to become energy independent and off the enemy nipples! With energy independence, these international oil barons will no longer have the funds or abilities to strut around messing things up for the rest of us.

No one has ever died from radiation from a nuclear power plant in the US. And consider the Navy where thousands have served on nuclear vessels with no death either.

I continue to be amazed at why Liberals fight these energy resource actualities and want to join the Obama bandwagon of lofty rhetoric with no substance. When asked, none of you knows anything substantial about him. His past is shady and he hides it. He voted 'present' in the Illinois Senate so many times that one has to wonder why he wanted the job in the first place. Oh wait, I know! He didn't want much of a record for others to use against him as he aspired to the next level, the US Senate where he's accomplished nothing of note: no real bills, no leadership, nothing!---except, I suppose, running for the Presidency.

Actually, he's now announced for the Phillies and Rays in the World Series. He can't even make a decision there.

And yes, you believers of the appointed one, expect change in Washington. As some New Yorkers say: 'fugeddaboutit.' All you'd see is more socialism 'spreading the wealth of those who earn it to those who want it' from the emboldened Democrats, and more rhetoric blaming George Bush for his [Obama's] every mistake. But, hey, Obama has gained a new job. Now he must position himself for something higher. He probably thinks that Secretary General of the UN is a higher position. Then he can become 'Big Brother' and rule the socialist World. Then what? Pope? Demigod? Zeus! Call your office!

And Joe Biden is part of 'change'? Ha! Thirty six years of gumming up the works in Washington is hardly an impressive record, especially to promote 'change.' And his bumbling speech pattern with all the half truths and surprisingly naive statements would make him a subject of mockery throughout the World---not just Washington.

No folks. There's no positive change. Only misery for we citizens who work for a living to better our lives. Obama wants to take that and spread it around to others. What's so pathetic is that even with the truth apparent and available, many of you lemmings will still follow 'the one' over the cliff.
***
Another thought on Obama from Ken Blackwell, a columnist from Townhall.

'Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.'
***
I predict that that is the only way Obama can win a sash as Mr [un?]United States. I also predict that Susan Sarandon---who promised '..if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada...'---will not move as promised. She and husband Tim Robbins will continue their attempts to increase the Liberalism of Hollywood. Oh, it's so nice to be outspoken about a disastrous political system when you have a few million in the bank backing your play, isn't it?

Electric Re-Tooling

On October 1, 2008, I posted an essay entitled 'Will They Sing the B'rack Electric?', an obvious play on 'I Sing the Body Electric, the title of an 1855 poem by Walt Whitman; the title of a short story by Ray Bradbury and a 1962 Twilight Zone episode; the title of Bradbury's later [1969] book of short stories; and the title of the 1972 musical album by the Weather Report---the latter no relation to Obama friend Bill Ayer's Weather Underground group of terrorists.

Within this essay were references to the books of George Orwell, specifically the 1945 'Animal Farm' and the 1949 '1984.' The links below go to Wikipedia articles on the two books.

Animal Farm

1984

These are far better summaries of the books than I can give in a short essay.

While reading these, you might want to consider some of the reality of Barack Obama as noted below, and I'd like to quote a few lines from the Encyclopedia entry as a start:

'"Orwellian" can also refer to governmental propagandizing by the misnaming of things; hence the "Ministry of Peace" in the novel actually deals with war and the "Ministry of Love" actually tortures people. Since the novel's publication "Orwellian" has in fact become somewhat of a catch-all for any kind of governmental overreach or dishonesty and therefore has multiple meanings and applications. The phrase Big Brother is Watching You specifically connotes pervasive, invasive surveillance but can also refer to attempts to over-regulate or legislate societal behaviour.'
***
From Family Security Matters: 'And, after he [Obama] was elected to the U.S. Senate, his wife, Michelle, told a reporter, "Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change." Recalling her remark in 2005, Obama wrote, "I take that observation as a compliment."'
***
Ken Blackwell: '...Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant...'
***
Linda Chavez: 'Last fall, Sen. Obama stirred a similar controversy when he talked about his decision to quit wearing a flag lapel pin that he, like many members of Congress and others, had worn since the Sept. 11 attacks. He said that the pins had become "a substitute for … true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security." He added, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

It is as if both Obamas are suggesting that America is somehow lacking, unless a President Obama can change it. It is a theme that seems to resonate with liberals: America could be a great nation -- if only liberals were in charge.

[Since that time, Obama has been wearing the lapel flag.]
***
W Thomas Smith Jr: '...Obama did, however, receive Muslim training as a boy. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Muslim, as was Obama Jr.'s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro. And we are now discovering, Junior offered direct political support to at least one African leader, Raila Odinga, with ties to radical Islam as recent as seven months ago...'
***
'...I don't want to punish your success...'
'...spread the wealth...'
'...good for everybody...'

A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion. - Chinese proverb

Battle Hymn of Patriotism

What is patriotism today?

According to USA Today back in July: 'six in 10 of those surveyed in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say sporting an American flag pin indicates that a person is patriotic...Barack Obama stopped regularly wearing a flag pin last fall. He said it had become a substitute for "real patriotism"...[Obama] began to wear one more often again this spring...Republican John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, says he occasionally wears the red-white-and-blue on his lapel —de rigueur for many politicians since the 9/11 attacks — because "I'm proud of the American flag."'

So, how can we feel and express patriotism?

In that same poll, it was determined that 80% of those polled felt that supporting US foreign policy was patriotic. 60% also thought that disagreeing with US policy is patriotic.

I think most of us can agree with the latter figures. But speaking for many, I think that disagreeing with US foreign policy is one thing, actively trying to thwart it is another. And those who cater to the adversary by speech or action are not expressing patriotism. They are expressing anti-american obstructionism, pure and simple.

Is it patriotic to threaten to move to a foreign country if a particular politician loses a race? And then reneging on the promise? Personally, those Hollywood 'stars' who threaten this would probably be well gone.

Is it patriotic to countenance groups of youths singing your praises and marching around before an election? Why do some politicians insist on using juveniles who can't even vote or---according to the criminal courts---form a rational opinion? Are we going back to the 1930s?

Is it patriotic to break the law and wear partisan political symbols and shirts to school where the students cannot form a proper opinion and vote? Is it patriotism? Or is it anti-American to flout and break laws designed to protect the youth?

Again, according to USA Today: 'In the poll, taken June 15-19, serving in the U.S. military and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance were seen by a majority of Americans as saying "a great deal" about a person's patriotism.'

There are many politicians who won't profess faith in the military or recite the pledge of allegiance. In the next 'townhall debate', perhaps someone should ask both Presidential contenders to recite the pledge of allegiance. I would expect John McCain to say it fervently. If Barack Obama doesn't try to 'snake oil' his way out of it, he'd probably have to stumble through it.

And since the Liberals have been successfully deleting references to God in the schools of our Country, how do you teach anything historical to our children? If you leave out religion, you have no history to discuss. Abe Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson would be rolling over in their graves every time a modern Liberal speaks.

So, it's refreshing to find a public school, non-partisan musical performance that thwarts these anti-religious efforts and sings easily and thrillingly. Please follow the link below to discover a thrilling and patriotic rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

http://www.greatdanepromilitary.com/Battle%20Hymn/index.htm

Strong Liberals from Faulty Acorns Grow

If you think I'm rather harsh with the Democrats/Liberals, you're right I am. But I'm only telling the truth that the main stream media skips over. The media spends most of it's time bashing John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush and the Republicans, fairly or unfairly makes no difference to them. They'll jump at anything that promotes Barack Obama or the Democrats and debases the Republicans of any stripe.

Never mind the teachers, I'm waiting for the press corps to show up on camera in their blue t-shirts.
***
According to USA Today: 'British Bank Barclays would buy Lehman for $15 a share [it's market price was near $20]' On it's face that sounds like a good investment.

At the same time, the BBC was reporting that 'Bradford and Bingley has become the second British bank, after Northern Rock, to be rescued by the government - this time in partnership with the Spanish bank Santander.' And today I read that the British public is lining up to deposit money in Northern Rock since it's been taken over by the government and all the deposits are guaranteed.

Does anyone besides me wonder why Barclays is investing in America instead of it's own Country? Maybe we don't need this huge bailout Congress is foisting on us.
***
An editorial in USA Today is another hit job, but some of it should be disturbing to the writers if they were thinking clearly---which they are not.

'The reality is, as governor of Alaska for fewer than two years, and as a small-town mayor before that, Palin has had little exposure to the extraordinarily complex issues a president faces. Even with her quick-study skills, she couldn't possibly come up to speed in such a brief period on the array of economic, foreign policy and national security challenges facing the next administration.'

How does that stack up in the minds of the Liberal writers with Barack Obama, a man who was---a failure according to his own words---a community organizer with Acorn [an organization he helped lead into the future---but later is in serious trouble in fourteen states for voter fraud among other things]; a state senator where he could only bring himself to vote present [read: couldn't make a decision] over 130 times; has only spent a couple of years in the US Senate where he has been continually running for President [some people may vote for him in disgust just to get it over with]. He was in Washington at his job only about 143 days.

He's always running for something [think back to the 'present' votes; he doesn't want to commit to anything that can be used against him in the next election], but he never stays where he is long enough to accomplish substantive things or learn anything from the experience to help his growth. Obama claims he has executive experience from running his campaign. Imagaine that! Oh! Shades of George Orwell.
***
Another story from USA Today: 'Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised eyebrows at a press conference Wednesday when he said a member of his party caucus had talked about a major insurance company being on the verge of bankruptcy. At the time, Reid referred to the company as 'one with a name that everyone knows.''

The next day, Reid backtracked on his scare tactic: 'Today, however, Reid's office sought to clarify the comment. His spokesman, Jim Manley, said Reid 'is not personally aware' of any particular company being in trouble and has 'no special knowledge' on the topic. Reid, the spokesman said, meant to refer in general terms about the financial sector and 'regrets any confusion his comments may have caused.''

So what else is new, Senator?
***

Will They Sing the B'rack Electric?

Does anyone see disturbing parallels in this so-called 'Age of Obama'? [Oh sorry, I know that's the name of the book to be published on election day by the moderator of the Vice Presidential debate.] We can best formulate our answers after reading George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' and '1984.' I guarantee you'll see what I mean with respect to Barack Obama. Get the books and read them. They may be the most important books in this election cycle.

[Hope! Change! Obama our Saviour!]

With his political scenario, the rules of life will change, the populace will work hard, and Mr Obama will tell us what to do and how to do it. Obama has already been telling interviewers that he wants to take money from the 'rich' earning $250 G a year and give it to the poor. But, according to him, that's not socialism, that's just a nice thing the 'rich' person will want to do. [Yes, I heard him say this!]

[Pay high taxes as a factor of patriotism!]

When he's campaigning, the kool-aid crowd chants and serenades him as he speaks---notably in generalities, just enough to get the crowd active. He has the 'Obama Youth' as exemplified by his rush to have Ohio students registering and voting on the same day. Hmmm. Wasn't there someone else with a 'Youth' movement?

Now, Obama has children singing his campaign slogans. Check out You Tube if you want. These are further examples of his messianic position. And frankly, it's getting scary. Are we electing a President or anointing a Saint? Once again, does an empty suit flap in the wind?

[Something vague we can believe in?]

But why all this hysteria? Obama has never done anything worth noting. He has no experience. He has too many and too deep connections with vocal radicals, law breakers and socialists [To put it mildly.] All he does is fantasize about a mythical hope and change.

[Trust me! I know all the answers!]

His photos and campaign posters [with picture] are almost enshrined in many homes as the families living there gather together and sing hymns to him every evening. They know no other candidate, and they pray before his arrogant pose for the Sainthood ceremony. He is mythical hope personified---and never mind the fact that he wants to run the most powerful Country the World has ever seen---and when he preaches [that's what he does] he wants to sound like your Big Brother and righter of all wrongs.

He has no practical or theoretical experience for this position, but he wants it anyway. Based on his personal history, he'll immediately start looking for another office. Will he appoint himself to the Supreme Court?

This is truly the start of a Big Brother. Will our country be awash with huge photos of Obama as the communist countries are with their leaders? Will our new taxes be akin to confiscation so that he can dole the funds out to the 'poor' people, whether or not they exist in fact as he envisions them, and whether or not they want the government Obama meddling in their lives? Will we all be required to tune in and listen to him when he's pontificating on the television---on pain of friendly caning?

Cameras on every street corner? [Oh, right. That's already being done in Liberal London.] Everybody marrying everybody else? Nationalization [so they don't fail and hurt the little guy] of everything from autoplants to the local bar?

[Take from the rich and give to the poor: Robin O! Robin O! Ridin' through the glen...]

'Everybody is equal---except that some people are more equal than others.'

Don't follow a leader who is actually working for you, follow one with the biggest pack at his beck and call. We are lost in a bad novel! Unfortunately, we're going to have public riots no matter who wins the Presidency.

Read Orwell's books, and then think about Obama again. It's scary.

He's Barack Obama, and I doubt he'd approve of this message.

Gas Pains for the Environment

Common sense dictates that some of the more important keys to American energy independence are: more oil exploration and drilling; more natural gas exploration and drilling; more nuclear plants; more wind farms and solar panels---but not more bio fuels because diversion of corn and other plant life to the fuel market increases food prices more than is reasonable.

T Boone Pickens---with the concurrence of Aubrey K McClendon---both bigwigs in the Oil and Natural Gas industries---has created a plan for our energy independence. I checked it out on both their websites. Steven Milloy of Junk Science.com has covered the subject of Picken's Plan in detail on Townhall about the Iran claims and several other misrepresentations. I'll take a different tack here.

Pickens states that Compressed Natural Gas [CNG] is the answer to our skyrocketing fuel prices. While it may be part of a solution, it's certainly not the only answer. There are far more compelling choices noted above.

In the words of Pickens:

"Converting just 10% of America’s vehicles to CNG will lower U.S. oil consumption enough to save nearly 50 billion dollars each year. That’s $50 billion less spent on foreign oil. Let Washington put those billions to work as incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.

This can be accomplished in less than 10 years if you have the right leadership.”

Pickens goes on to give us the mathematical reasoning behind his plan.

"According to the Energy Information Agency [EIA], the amount of 'Finished Motor Gasoline' used in 2007 was 9,286 thousand barrels per day.

9,286 thousand barrels/day = 9.286 million barrels/day. This is roughly 10 million barrels/day and 10% of this would be one million barrels/day. (The 9,286 number also appears on the EIA's 'Petroleum Basic Statistics' page.)

1 million barrels/day x $130/barrel* x 365 days/year =
$47.57 billion ("nearly $50 billion")
*$130/barrel as of July 2008."

On the McClendon site is offered:

"America uses a lot of oil. Every day, 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone."

And:

"Cheaper: Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon...

"Incentives For Consumers To Drive CNG Vehicles: "A modest federal incentive is now in place for American consumers to buy CNG-fueled vehicles, and some states and cities add to that amount. It applies to the purchase of the Honda Civic GX, the only CNG vehicle currently made in the U.S.

But additional incentives are needed to help consumers convert their current vehicles from gasoline to CNG.

An additional federal incentive is available on the purchase of a home refueling appliance. It’s basically a compressor unit that is installed to draw on the natural gas pipeline in your home."


Now, let's consider this plan for a moment. My data and calculations just don't jive with those of Pickens in many places. Firstly, he claims how clean and efficient a CNG fueled vehicle would be. We should build or convert enough vehicles to equal 10% of the cars on the road. Fine and dandy, but he doesn't tell you that a CNG vehicle costs about 40% more than a standard car of the same make. Expect conversions of on-the-road cars to be pricey as well. Since supply and demand will regulate the CNG prices, they'll end up to where the gas prices are now. There's no economic reason for making the change to CNG. You'll never get your money back.

And the price of CNG? CNG per gallon [actually shouldn't this be cubic feet?] costs range from [one station at 70 cents] from about $2 to over $4 in California alone. The rest of the Country [impossible to find CNG in the middle states] ranges from about $2.50 to $3.90 per gallon. I saw prices less than $2 in the Tulsa area, but still above $1. And we can't all go to Oklahoma to fill up, can we? But the prices on Pickens' price maps don't have an explanation. Are they for gallons or cubic feet? And what can a car see as miles per gallon [cubic foot.]

Pickens' Plan conveniently leaves out any discussion of miles per gallon in converted vehicles. According to recent data, a CNG fueled car has only half the range of a gasoline vehicle. Of course, Pickens doesn't say that either.

Besides, if 10% of the vehicles around are CNG fueled, do you think the per gallon price will stay the same?

I'd look for these two gentlemen leading the charge towards higher prices as 'fair' in light of the cleanliness. And, they also want you to buy a government-subsidized appliance to tap into your home natural gas supply to fuel your car. Do you really want to play around with your home gas supply? And---wait a minute! What he's really getting at is to increase not only automobiles but the number of homes that use natural gas as well. There it is. This whole plan is a clever ruse to increase his income through increased natural gas sales. And I bet he'll be selling those tapping appliances as well.

But back to the ideas. Pickens' idea that oil production peaked in 2005 is seriously flawed. For one thing, the Eastern potentates have partially closed the valves to keep the prices high. They need to open them up again. And, coincidentally, the powers-that-be seem to be delaying delivery of oil to keep the prices high.

If we can get the Democrats in Congress to let us drill offshore [where the oil is and not 50 miles away] and in that tiny portion of the landscape called ANWR, World oil production will be substantially increased, mostly in the US. And we can wave goodbye as the Middle East oil money begins to dry up and the Emirs have to reduce the number of wives and sizes of their palaces. Now those would be great reasons for rejoicing here in the US. Maybe the Saudis will have to delay importing sand for their palace moats.

The Pickens Plan features are based on incorrect calculations because they have faulty assumptions. According to Elmhurst College: "Although all fractions of petroleum find uses, the greatest demand is for gasoline. One barrel of crude petroleum contains only 25-35% gasoline. Transportation demands require that over 50% of the crude oil be converted into gasoline. To meet this demand some petroleum fractions must be converted to gasoline. This may be done by "cracking" - breaking down large molecules of heavy heating oil; "reforming" - changing molecular structures of low quality gasoline molecules; or "polymerization" - forming longer molecules from smaller ones."

Thus Picken's use of the current per barrel oil price is wrong. It should only be half as much. Thus with the corrected calculation below includes exact figures instead of gratuitous 'roundings.'

928,600 barrels/day x $106.89/barrel* x 50% x 365 days/year =
$18.1 billion
*$106.89/barrel as of Sep 26, 2008.

Quite a difference isn't it?

But, while we might save $18.1 billion in gas costs, how much does he expect us to pay for CNG? There won't be any savings no matter how he presents it.

For argument's sake, the Pickens' savings figure presented is not $50 billion but only $18.1 billion. But why does Pickens think that money we supposedly save is going to be used by the government? Pickens says: 'Let Washington put those billions to work as incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.' So, who pays for our CNG fuel?

Is he proposing a tax equal to his proposed pitiful savings? Where else would the money come from?

No, I think the Pickens Plan is a dud, and we should stay away from it. Thank you Mr Pickens and Mr McLendon, but please be honest in your advertising and stay away from environmental issues that you can only solve with flawed data and conclusions and self serving expectations.

Shoring up the Falling Building with Balsa Planks

Is anyone surprised at the current contentiousness about the proposed federal bailout? And is anyone surprised that some of the people trying to solve it are the same ones who screwed things up in the first place? It's no news that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Presidents Carter and Clinton and their cronies are largely responsible for the failures. Frank and Dodd, right up to the blowup, kept claiming everything was fine [as they accepted large donations from F & F], and they led the efforts to rebuke Republican attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie. And all of them, going back to 1977 [Biden was in office; McCain hadn't run yet], have been pushing and prodding the F & F twins to put pressure on banks and other financial institutions to provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. They made these loans to illegal immigrants! They made large loans to people who had no income except food stamps and welfare! They lent 100% or more of the value of the home in some cases! And when those homes couldn't be sold quickly at a profit, the owners defaulted. Surprise!

During the Clinton years we had the same thing. In 2005, John McCain and the other Republicans tried to create oversite and reform for F & F, but were stopped by Democrat/Clinton pressure and votes. And that was only one of the many tries from the Republicans, though they weren't as noisy or insistent as they should have been.

Step back a moment. We must recognize that our economy is based on capitalism, and such a system, by definition---just like morality and the World---requires both successes and failures, good and evil, wealth and bankruptcy. Now, I'm not saying that this current huge failure---which everyone but the main stream media seems to know how was created---should continue without some government aid. I'm just not sure how much aid should be proffered [if any] or how it should be considered.

The 'nanny state' concerns me very much.

Currently, I don't trust Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Clinton, Obama et al to propose or structure relief in this crisis. They haven't solved anything of importance yet. So, I have no problem with the Republican efforts to change the bail out.

And if you think this is bad, wait until the eleventh hour when Social Security is about to collapse, and the Democrats cry 'woe is us!' when they've been the ones who have fought tooth and nail to keep saner minds from doing anything to fix it. It was the Democrat Congress that perpetuated taking the social security payments into the general fund providing the Social Security Administration with 'paper' to cover it. And the Congress has never, and doesn't appear to ever want, to pay the funds back.

The quick fixes of tax increases, later retirement ages, and other band aids won't work in the long run. Republican suggestions including partial privatization [just a tad folks, just a tad] keep being rejected. [Listen, nobody's going to be investing his paltry sums in risky home mortgages. Get a life!]

Maybe now, the Democrats will sit down to serious discussions concerning Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Maybe. But I doubt it. There's still too much posturing and blaming the other side around us now. So, we who are still here to see the actual demise of the Social Security system can thank the Democrat Congresses from over the years for another debacle. Oh, but oh, if the Congresses had simply left the system alone with it's collections, the SSA would be solvent for many years to come.

Besides, Congress likes to wait until the last minute when their children are about to collapse before suggesting socialism to save it.

And I'd like to remind you, my friends, of all the debacles---especially in the economy [via socialism] defense [via weakness], war on terror [via weakness], and foreign policy [via wishy-washy words without force]---you'll be seeing if Obama wins the White House.

Snake Oil and Vinegar?

It's a shame how the Democrats want to punish Joe Lieberman for speaking at the Republican convention. It's a shame that the party of 'tolerance' can't accept the free choice and speech of a US Senator. It's a shame that the Democrats want to 'punish' a Senator who is no longer a Democrat. But, as usual, the Democrats are shameless and self-serving. They are the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Clintons.

What's next for the Democrats? Oh, I know. They're trying to punish the Governor of Alaska for wanting to protect infant life; for exercise her second amendment rights in owning and using a gun; for wanting to protect and raise her family in private with her husband; for having much more executive and decision making experience than their ideal, Barack Obama---say, that makes her better qualified than the entire Democrat ticket, doesn't it?

It seems the only people Senator Obama doesn't want to punish are his daughters if they ever make the 'sex' mistake that befalls so many teens. He doesn't want them 'punished' with a live baby. What a sad way to talk about the miracle of birth.

And the Democrat vultures have descended on Alaska to dig [or manufacture] dirt about Sarah Palin. And in the same spirit, the 'independent' investigator of the 'non-event' 'troopergate' has ceded subpoena power to the Democrats. Even though the fired official in question says that he was never asked to fire anybody, nor was he pressured to do anything, the waste of time goes on. And as usual, the Democrats don't want any facts to get in the way of their march to personal destruction.

Well, that's okay, because Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. And she doesn't really care that the Democrats want to punish her for being pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-family, a woman not a Liberal.

And you know what? The Democrats will never succeed. Sarah Palin is now on the national scene, she's a strong executive and will make an excellent Vice President. The Democrats can look to nothing but failure and continued irrelevance in the future.

American Voters! Don't let yourselves and your neighbors down by falling prey to the snake oil salesman of the Democrat Party!

Palin, Obama and the Future

Well, of course the left has gone ballistic over the selection of Sarah Palin. She stands for everything they want to destroy: life, 2nd ammendment, glass ceiling, etc. etc. and so forth [sorry King!]

Sarah Palin is pro-life in all cases and willing to raise a 'special needs' baby instead of aborting it; the left [the mainstream media is to be included within the term 'left'] is pro-abortion, or murdering the unborn baby---or partially born baby---if the woman [or the leftist pundits] want it. Talk about playing God.

Sarah Palin is pro-second ammendment, and a lifelong member of the NRA. She owns guns and uses them in hunting to keep meat on the table. The left wants guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but have no answer for the criminals---or those on the left who surrepticiously own them. They don't care that homeowners and others can't defend themselves. They also, logically, are attacking the US military, probably in part because they have guns and use them. 'Can't we all live together?

Sarah Palin has been an effective and laudable Governor of Alaska for the past two years [while Obama was in the midst of his multi-year run for the Presidency] with many listable accomplishments [I'm not going to repeat them here; they're available on the net to anyone who wants to read them again]; the left questions her abilities and experience to 'be a heart beat away from the Presidency' while never questioning Obama's complete lack of experience and proven ability to be a Governor, let alone President.

Obama, himself, has said that he was a poor 'community organizer' [and the meaning of that 'job' is yet to be understood], yet the left chooses that mundane [but locally important?] job to be good experience to be a President of the US.

Sarah Palin's family is off limits, and the radical media and bloggers need their butts tanned for the smears, innuendos, lies, and irrational contempt.

The list goes on, but it should be noted that it's quite obvious to any thinking person that Sarah Palin is more qualifed in temperament and experience to be President than Obama or Biden is.

So, is it any wonder at the attacks from the left? They'll continue, because no matter what Sarah Palin and John McCain do, the radical left will always berate them, smear them, and lie about them.

And oh, by the way. A McCain election could mean the thrusting of Sarah Palin on the National stage with such force that she'll automatically be the front runner for the Presidency after McCain. And the Democrats can't survive that. And that may account for the panic and anger.

Presidential Politics

It seems the rats and vicious insects of the leftist Democrats and Liberals have been released to do their dirtiest now that John McCain has selected a Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. From Daily Kos and the other Liberal blogs to the 'in-bed' media of most of the networks' anchors [notably MSNBC] sing the naysayers, dirtsayers, and general nabobs of negativism.

For a varied list of Presidential factoids, I offer the following.

'Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.' - Bill Burton, Obama Campaign spokesman.

What he fails to note is that his candidate for the TOP post [with the actual beating heart] has much less experience, judgment, and executive ability than has the Republican woman running for the second post.

'...What has Sen. Obama ever run? What business, city, or state has he ever been in charge of? What employees and advisors has he ever had to get the most out of? What cabinet meetings has he ever orchestrated? What corporate agreements has he ever negotiated? What National Guard units has he ever been commander of?' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.

Even I, Topaz, with no political history, have more general aptitude and experience than Obama---though I'm not as tall or colorful.

'Sen. Obama’s entire career – from community organizing [what exactly is that?] in urban Chicago, to failed political bids, to the Illinois legislator, to 143 days in the Senate before announcing a bid for the presidency – has been one of constant up-the-ladder maneuvering.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.

One might also note Obama had the 'judgment' in Illinois to serve his constituents and the State by voting 'present' 130 times, and speaking out and voting against [one of those rare times he actually voted yes or no] the 'IL born Alive Infant Protection Bill.'

'I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.' - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin

'Whenever Senator Obama has sought to ascertain a position of high political prestige, whether he failed or succeeded in that endeavor, he has immediately begun looking to ascertain a position of even higher political prestige.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.

Rather like the professional student as it were. Senator Obama was barely in the Senate long enough to find his seat, before he announced his intention to run for the Presidency, thus leading to the longest Presidential campaign in history. I hope Illinois is proud of it's only working Senator, Dick Durbin.

'Obama seems to like the winning, but not the job or responsibility that comes with the winning. With no cheese at the end of the maze, the young lawyer/professor from Southside seems to lose his focus.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.

'...and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.' - David Brookes

'...The next president will have to finish the denuclearization of North Korea; prevent the nuclearization of Iran; organize a departure from Iraq that maintains some level of stability; defeat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; establish, nurture, and make the most of a relationship with Pakistan’s new leaders; and confront a revanchist Russia…' - Peter Skoblic, The New Republic.

On speaking terms with most of the World's leaders, John McCain is by far the abler candidate to deal with these problems. In contrast, Obama made a noisy trip to the Middle East and a speech in Germany, where he declined a visit with wounded US soldiers because he couldn't make a political event out of it.

'But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.' - Sarah Palin.

This is a direct challenge to those Liberal, Obama-adoring media types who nit-pick the life of a good Governor trying to find something negative to talk about---even if they have to invent it.

'...voting for the 1980s nuclear freeze and against Reagan’s defense buildup; against the original Gulf War in 1991; for the Iraq trifurcation into ethnic enclaves and against the successful troop surge in the present; and against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards 'terrorists' - Nicholas Guariglia re Joe Biden.

Just what are Joe Biden's qualifications again? Sitting on committees and making speeches?

Senator Joe Biden recently announced to Israeli leaders that they should get used to a nuclear Iran. Well, that's another sign that Obama-Biden aren't going to be serious about meeting and dealing with our adversaries [not to mention their betrayal of our Government's support of Israel.] And they have the nerve to classify a more experienced Sarah Palin as a lightweight in the foreign policy arena?

'Yet according to Obama, his foreign policy experience consists of 'ties to relatives in poor villages in Kenya and the years he spent growing up in Indonesia. Now he has added a new personal detail to that résumé: a trip to Pakistan while a college student.' Perhaps his recent whirlwind trip to the Middle East and Europe, where he spoke in front of thousands of adoring Germans, can be considered another notch in his belt.' - Pam Meister, Family Security Matters.

Don't these facts ring a bell in your heads, oh genuflecting adorers of the Obamessiah? Does an empty suit flap in the wind?

And more recently, the Obama-Biden ticket has promised to prosecute anyone they could from the Bush administration for---well, for anything including excessive use of pencil erasers. If, God forbid, they get into their offices, most of the time will be spent on other than the Country's business. Obama isn't qualified to do anything anyway. And by the way, what would Obama aspire to run for after that? Pope? World Emperor?

While in the Illinois legislature, Senator Obama argued against the 'IL Born-Alive Infants Protection Bill', something that would have protected the life of the baby if born alive. I read Obama's argument on the Senate floor and found it to be rambling, incoherent at times, and bad enough for him to claim just about any sentiment from it. His later comment that if he were in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for the federal 'Born-Alive Infant Protection Bill' is just a gratuitous statement of fancy.

It was recently announced that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and not married. She and her boyfriend/fiance have been planning marriage and will probably wed before the baby is born. Bristol has the complete support of her family, and she has a great opportunity to live a happy life with her own family as it grows. On the other hand, if she chose abortion or welfare, the left would love her to death. Don't kid yourselves readers, the left is the death dealer of your lifetime. It's idea of 'choice' doesn't include life, but it does include death even when the baby is almost born. Knocking heads together is nothing compared to crushing skulls, is it?

'Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,' he [Obama] said. 'I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.' - Barack Obama

It's so sad to hear a candidate for the highest office in the land state his belief that 'motherhood' is a punishment---and again by the way, 17 is at or past the age of consent in all the states, parents notwithstanding. He seems to forget that without motherhood and close parental care, we'd all be---well, we wouldn't be.

Sarah Palin's husband quit his 17-year British Petroleum oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with his wife’s administration---a wise move.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's wife was promoted and given 160% pay raise by U of C hospitals within months of her husband’s election to U.S. Senate. Furthermore, her employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion. Just a coincidence, you say? Can pigs fly yet?

John McCain, a Navy veteran, was shot down and spent some five and half years in a North Vietnamese prison camp under horrid conditions. Besides basic deprivation, he suffered numerous broken bones in both arms and legs, shoulder, and ribcage. Yet, he refused to give up any strategic military information to his captors. He refused early release because his fellow prisoners weren't offered a similar release. His captivity showed his character and perseverence even under torture. He commanded a huge Naval group while on active duty, and he spent productive and active years as a US Senator---a bi-partisan maverick for most of them.

On the other hand you have Barack Obama. [You have him, I don't want him.] Now think deep in your hearts. Do you think that Barack Obama could have stood up against such captivity? Could he have kept his mouth shut under torture? With broken bones? Somehow, I doubt it. And he'd find that flowery oratory doesn't cut it in the real World.

Barack Obama wants to be President 'real bad', doesn't he? Well, since he has no experience, we should grant his basic wish and make him President of a small business in an area where he and his cronies can't exert political pressure. If he's successful, we can consider him for jobs higher and higher on the scale [we certainly don't want to give him something that's not in his 'pay grade'] until we come to political office: a full term as a mayor, maybe two; a state office where he actually has to work; and then maybe for Congress, where again he'll have to be there and actually get something done. After a few terms there, he consider running for the Presidency. He'll still be defeated, but he can logically run at that time. If he can't hack it early on in this program, then he should promise to go away and let the adults take care of matters he doesn't understand.

Governor Sarah Palin was vetted by the McCain campaign and the people of Alaska. But who has vetted Senator Obama? certainly not the American people. With the National media tripping over themselves and getting goose bumps every time they hear or come across Obama, they aren't about to report fairly and accurately to the American public. Could Obama even receive a top-secret security clearance? I doubt it. His past and present relationships with convicts, communists and purveyors of hate and terror would easily prevent that. And you on the left would give this man the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth?

And what about experience? Obama's a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington, especially on the left. The Senators and Representatives are: primarily lawyers, many of whom are strictly in name only; and they aren't qualified for city council, let alone National office. They are mostly 'good-old boys' living beyond their mental means, and scaring the public with their radical and illogical stands about National policy.

Would you hire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama, to run your business profitablly and with good will? Once again, I doubt it.

Finally: 'In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.' - Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

As a sidelight, this is a detailed comparison and contrast between Palin and Obama:

http://www.betterconstructed.com/sarah_palin.htm