Nidal al-Mughrabi is an Idiot

I wrote the other day about anti-Israel bias in several news accounts. Here's another example of the intelligence of those Anti-Semites that strain as much as possible to paint Israel in a bad light.

In this Reuters' article again by Nidal al-Mughrabi, he states in his opening paragraph that, "Palestinians in Gaza observed a 24-hour halt to rocket fire against Israel at the request of Egyptian mediators who made efforts to restore a longer truce." Hysterically enough, nine paragraphs later, after he goes on for eight paragraphs about how much Hamas has done to create a new ceasefire agreement, he comically states, "The hold on firing seemed to be observed, with only two rockets and a mortar reported to have been fired on Monday from Gaza, and a rocket and four mortars shot on Sunday night."

My God if this wasn't real, it would be a great comedy but this is the type of intelligence that Reuters employs to inform its readership?! This is as bad as Keith Ellison of the NYT writing fiction and passing it off as news. It's no wonder that most of the "informed" world hates Israel, if they don't read more than the opening paragraphs of any of these news accounts, they'll only be capable of having negative "informed" opinions of Israel's actions. I think I can forsee now how the world would abandon Israel and not come to her aid in a future Middle East War against Israel. It's too easy to be an Anti-Semite.

Anti-Israeli bias

I read three separate news accounts describing the current operation Israel has undertaken against the Gaza Strip. It's interesting to note the language used by AP News, Reuters and AFP.

In the AP article by Ibrahim Barzak and Matti Friedman, the opening line of the article states, "Israel's air force obliterated symbols of Hamas power on the third day of its overwhelming assault on Gaza on Monday..." Let's examine what the facts are in this statement. Israel's Air Force attacked targets in Gaza on the third day, Monday. However, the writers of this article chose to insert their own bias by describing the targets as "symbols of Hamas' power" and by describing the Israeli Operation as an "overwhelming assault." In the fourth paragraph of the article, the authors admit that, "The strikes appear to have gravely damaged Hamas' ability to launch rockets..." So is Israel attacking "symbols of Hamas power" or are they reducing the ability of Hamas to launch rockets? In the second paragraph of the article 315 people, "including seven children under the age of 15," were killed as a result of the Israeli operation but five paragraphs later the authors admit that 180 of those killed were "Hamas security forces." Nowhere in the entire article is it stated that Hamas is the leading political party. Nowhere in the entire article is it stated that Hamas is a Terrorist Organization. The article goes on to call out other incidents and use language to paint the Israelis in a bad light and make the Palestinians look like victims.

In the Reuters article by Nidal al-Mughrabi, the opening paragraph states, "Israeli aircraft destroyed a bastion of Hamas's rule over the Gaza Strip on Monday, the third day of an offensive that has killed more than 300 Palestinians in the deadliest violence in the territory in decades." Three paragraphs later it's stated, "Hamas, an Islamist movement that took over the Gaza Strip in 2007, defied the Israeli assaults..." It's quite a humorous contradiction, that they defied the assaults as if they willed the bombs to not explode and the targets to remain intact, but it's the first time an indication is given regarding what Hamas is, however what is an "Islamic movement?" When that "movement's" goal is the eradication of Israel, to launch terrorist attacks on Israel via mortar rounds that land wherever and kill whoever happens to be there, say civilians in their homes watching TV, it completely fails to state that Hamas is a Terrorist Organization whose goal is to incite the Palestinian population into attacking Israelis. Halfway through the article it's stated, "...an air strike killed a local commander of Islamic Jihad, three other members of the militant group and a child as they stood in the street..." Islamic Jihad is also a Terrorist Organization. They don't wear uniforms, they don't use battle formations against the Israeli army, they attack Israeli civilians with suicide bombings and other means. It's even more ridiculous at the end of the article when it's stated, "In what it called a "terrorist" attack, the Israeli army said a Palestinian stabbed three Israelis in the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba in the West Bank before he was shot by a passer-by and arrested." The word terrorist is actually used for once in this article, but only in quotes when the Israeli Army used the term to describe an attacker in the West Bank that stabbed three Israeli civilians. It's almost a laudable use of the word if it weren't so laughable that the author put it in quotes.

In the Agence France Press (AFP) article, no author given, the second paragraph states, "Anger over the mammoth bombing campaign spiralled in the Muslim world, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon again deplored the violence..." Why the use of the word mammoth if only to illicit the mental image of unnecessary use of force or to de-legitimize in some way the bombing campaign itself? For good measure, the author reminded the reader that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon deplored the violence. How about a noteworthy statement from the Secretary General, like condemnation of the stupidity of Terrorists for launching mortars and rockets into Israel, or a statement about something truly deplorable like the refuge camp conditions under which the "Palestinians" in surrounding countries live in. The author continues six paragraphs later with, "In all, the Israeli blitz, unleashed on Saturday in retaliation for ongoing rocket and mortar fire from Gaza, has killed at least 318 Palestinians and wounded more than 1,400 others, according to Gaza medics." Interesting to note that the Germans invented the term blitzkrieg which when transliterated means lightening war, but tactically was a ground invasion strategy like that employed against Poland during WW2. An aerial campaign is hardly a blitz, but again another attempt to conjure negative thoughts/images which de-legitimize the Israeli bombing campaign. Further food for thought would be that the author might have purposefully chosen the word blitz to describe the Israeli bombing campaign when the Germans carried out the Holocaust of the Jews during WW2. Even more so because the author quotes Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum as stating, "Israel is 'committing a holocaust as the whole world watches and doesn't lift a finger to stop it.'" Really? A Holocaust? Because 60-75% of European Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. Does that compare to a few hundred Palestinian deaths, a people who voted into power the Terrorist Organization Hamas?

It's a frustrating fact of life that the world, save for now the US, is against Israel. The news reports we read are politicized to the point you think that Hamas is like the Republican and Democratic Parties of the US, that hundreds of innocents are killed and thousands wounded, that Israel is the aggressor and using disproportionate force as a response, but to what they're responding to isn't given or is left to the last sentence of the article. Does anyone question the sympathy given to the Palestinians when they're the ones that elected Hamas to power in the first place? That they're the ones that rally against the US and Israel and support Terrorist Organizations like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Liberation Front, etc. That they're the ones that carry out suicide bombings against Israeli Civilian targets likes buses, pizza parlors, wedding halls, checkpoints, etc. Anytime a Jew is killed in Israel no one blinks an eyelash, but if a Palestinian is killed then condemnation runs rampant up to and including the UN Secretary General himself. I'll only have sympathy for the Palestinians when they turn on the Terrorist Organizations that they support.

The retardness of CA's Judicial System

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6498405&page=1

Lisa Torti helped her friend, Alexandra Van Horn, out of a car wreck and allegedly the result was that Alexandra became paralyzed. Alexandra is now suing her friend because of her medical condition. The CA State Supreme Court had the chance to kill this lawsuit, but didn't. I would postulate that Republicans would argue that people should be shielded from these type of lawsuits. Democrats would argue that people have a right to recover damages due to accidents and would make slippery slope arguments to scare people from modifying laws that would prevent these type of lawsuits, and like I previously mentioned even if their logic was examined and criticized, they would call you a name and shame you from speaking. I postulate neither is correct, but that people successfully sue for monetary gain because we as a society are morally corrupt. This woman, Alexandra Van Horn, willfully neglects the fact her friend was helping her, and as stated in the article, Lisa believed she saw smoke coming from the car and pulled her friend to safety. Unfortunately for Lisa, doing the right thing supposedly resulted in her friend's injury, and with friends like Alexandra who needs enemies.

I can't understand the craziness of our Judicial system, from Judicial activism from the bench, to decisions that are contrary to the intention of the law, to creating rights that never existed like the Constitutional Right to Infanticide, err... Abortion, err... Woman's Right to Choose. I credit C.S. Lewis with the following thought. Our society has determined it's wrong to discriminate. At first, discrimination at the sound of the word, conjures negative thoughts. But yet we do it on a daily basis. We like Brand A over Brand B because of such and such reasons. We interview ten people for one position and select one person to extend a job offer. But this right of discrimination ends when it comes to describing a person's attribute. It would be nice to call Alexandra what she is, a wretched self-entitled wrench, but since she's disabled the first cry would be just that, that she's paralyzed you can't criticize her for wanting monetary compensation for her damages. But that's exactly the problem. She's not entitled to it or anything else unless she had a life insurance policy, be that she had one that covered disability, then that's what she's entitled to.

Our society is all about me. If I spill coffee on myself it's McDonald's fault for making it too hot that it caused skin damage, not because I'm a klutz. If I'm speeding in my SUV and it flips because I make a sudden lane change, it's the manufacturer's fault I'm paralyzed because they made the center of gravity too high, it's not my fault I chose to drive. Every ridiculous successful lawsuit can be boiled down to our societal fear of calling someone what they are otherwise we're judging them and who are we to judge anyways. Right? This inability to discriminate extends to other absurdities such as being unable to profile Muslims at airports despite the fact that white grandma's in their 80's don't commit acts of terrorism, it's Islamophobic to say otherwise. How about our public schools, it hurts little Johnny's feelings if he's held back so promote him to the next grade to preserve his ego and hopefully he'll catch up. Doesn't anyone wonder why spending more and more on public education hasn't worked, won't work, and will continue to punish this and future generations that suffer through it? At one point public education did work, but when our society determined it was bad to discriminate a downward spiral began, and until we recognize that and focus on the root of our problems, we'll never solve the disaster that public education is.

When we can safely call Alexandra's actions a proper adjective without fear of being maligned through a slew of pejoratives, we can begin to have honest debate about frivolous lawsuits. When we can safely discriminate between what's right and what's wrong, we can have an honest debate about public education, welfare elimination, immigration enforcement, effective security protocols at airports, abolish government mandated unscrupulous banking practices and create common sense monetary policies that prevent high risk loan making to sub-prime borrowers (try blaming the borrowers for this current economic debacle), etc. End the discrimination against discrimination!

For clarification's sake, I will say that my argument is not in favor of archaic nonfactual discrimination such as that of racial bigotry, etc. I am in favor of open debate starting with the facts and moving forth to a sound policy that reflects those facts. I think it's unhealthy when we can't have a debate about facts such as when the President of Harvard University, Larry Summers, discussed the differences between men and women's inherit intellectual differences to explain why more men than women study upper sciences, and following controversy surrounding his remarks eventually resigned.

Some more Change

Today it's announced that Obama will name former US Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as his Secretary of Health and Human Services. This could be an important position in the future Obama Administration if he goes through with his National Health Care plan. Like I said before, we just need Bill Clinton to be US Ambassador to the UN to complete this "change" in Administrations.

Another piece of Change

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/11/18/obama-s-attorney-general.aspx

"President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department..."

Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno during President Clinton's Administration. He signed off on the Presidential Pardon of Fugitive Billionaire Financier Marc Rich. In case you forgot, Marc Rich was indicted by Rudy Giuliani for US Tax Evasion and making oil deals with Iran during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crises in which American Embassy Staff were held for 444 days under President Carter. This is just ridiculous. I can't wait for Obama to name Bill Clinton as his UN Ambassador, then we'll pretty much have the Clinton White House back in the White House but under President Obama. Musical Chairs anyone?

Change???

Obama's mantra during the Campaign was "Hope and Change." So far that change has included naming Rahm Emanuel his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel was Bill Clinton's Senior Advisor and coordinated the '93 Oslo Accords between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. The Oslo Accords was the first formal meeting between PLO Chairman Arafat and an Israeli Head of State. It's eventual goal is the creation of a Palestinian State. Because of that goal, Israeli Nationalists , rightfully in my opinion, assassinated Yitzhak Rabin.

Second he has named Robert Gibbs his White House Press Secretary. Gibbs was Obama's Communication Director, he also was John Kerry's Press Secretary during the 2004 failed Presidential Campaign. He has also worked for other Democrat Campaigns, notably Fritz Hollings '98 Senatorial Campaign.

Third he has reportedly decided on Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. In the news today she has stated she would accept that cabinet post. Hillary Clinton also pushed Universal Health Care in the 90's, dubbed Hillary-Care, part of the reason the Republicans swept to power in '94. Not much more can be said about her that's not already known.

I haven't seen any change except that the Republican Administration will be leaving the White House on January 20, 2009 and will be replaced with Democrats. We'll see the same Liberal ideology forced upon us from Obama's platform National Health Care, which Rahm Emanuel also helped push under President Bill Clinton; we'll see the raising of taxes on the Upper Class, part of Obama's platform, which will further devastate our Economy, increase unemployment and depress the wages of Lower and Middle Classes; we'll see a stronger push towards dividing Israel (Obama calls himself a Christian, perhaps he should open his Bible and start reading from the beginning because he won't get far before he reads Genesis 12:3 and later Joel 3:2 which specifically mentions "they have divided up My land" and their punishment); during the Campaign Obama had "Truth Squads" which prosecuted "libel" and "slander," how long I ask myself as President would he tolerate dissension amongst the populace which leads me to further ask myself are restrictions on free speech possible when the 2nd Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) secures our 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech, based on Obama's past of voting to ban all semi-automatic weapons it's not a far stretch to believe he'll push to revive the Bill Clinton 1994 Assault Weapon Ban with even more restrictions.

Civilian National Security Force

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Can someone explain what's the purpose of a Civilian National Security Force? Is that similar to the Gestapo of Nazi Germany or the Stasi of East Germany? Are little Eichmann Democrats going to run around and spy on their Republican neighbors who dislike the politics of his Majesty President Obama? Democrats are after all the Party of Intolerance.

Why Obama should not be President

• Out of his four years in the US Senate, two years were spent campaigning. He's politically naive at the National level. He's the most inexperienced US Senator to run for Presidency in United States History.
• He told reporters that the US should go to the UN Security Council regarding Russia's invasion of Georgia only to find out that Russia has VETO POWER in the UN Security Council.
• He has no Executive experience to speak of and has never, not once, been the author of any policy, be it Illinois State Senate or US Senate.
• His political career was launched from the living room of William Ayers, a Domestic Terrorist.
• The impropriety of his relationship with Tony Rezko and the sweet housing deal Rezko setup for Obama and his wife to purchase a home they couldn't afford.
• His Tax Policy is Marxist. He will raise taxes on the "Rich" to cut taxes for the Middle Class. He will raise taxes on Corporations which already pay higher taxes than Europe. His Tax Policy will cause Economic Stagflation and devastate the Lower and Middle Class.
• He and his Running Mate Joe Biden both voted for the $700 Billion Bail-out of Wall Street rather than allow moral hazards to return to an unscrupulous banking and investment system.
• He's proposed; massive cuts in military spending, cutting off future weapons development, cutting off funding for anti-ICBM technology, cutting our nuclear arsenal.
• He adamantly refuses to recognize the successes we've had in Iraq, including the surge strategy.
• He's ardently pro-Abortion; failing to even vote to end partial birth Abortion.
• He's endorsed by Teacher's Unions across the country and thus unable to carry out the necessary reforms needed to improve our education system.
• He told Jews that there should not be a divided Jerusalem at one meeting. Then he turned around and told Palestinians there should be a two state solution with East Jerusalem as its capital at another meeting. Similar to his inability to pick a side and thus voted present 130 times in the Illinois State Senate. Similar to his inability to pick a team and thus supported both teams in the World Series. Similar to his inability to advocate a position while President of Harvard Law Review and thus wrote possibly one article during his one year term.
• He promised to run on Public Financing only to renege on his promise and raise over $600 million, with a preposterous advantage over John McCain's $85 million in Public Financing. He's buying the White House for crying out loud.

Simply summed up. OBAMA IS THE WORST CANDIDATE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY!!!

IF Obama were your CEO

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales commissions into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a "fair shake."
2. All hourly employees will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst you. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging its workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all.
5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth." Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic."

Obama is a damned Marxist

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/

How much proof does a thinking person need to change their opinion about Obama's Economic Policies? He first told "Joe the Plumber" he wanted to spread the wealth around; then he reaffirmed his comment in an ABC interview; then it comes to light in a 2001 radio interview in Chicago he stated the Courts weren't radical enough in redistribution and one can infer from his comments that the Court system lacks the ability to redistribute but doesn't discount the thought that the Legislature should/could in the Court's absence; in his 1995 memoir he stated that he chose carefully whom his friends were including Marxist Professors.

He's a damned Marxist. His Economic Policies will destroy this country. There is no Economic Principle in existence that would back the notion that wealth can be created from the bottom up. His Policies will have disastrous consequences on the Lower and Middle Classes. Jobs will lost, and income stagnation will set in as companies attempt to regain lost profits. America cannot afford an Income Tax increase from 33% to 39% on the Upper Income Bracket, nor can it afford a Corporation Tax increase from 35% to 49%. His Keynesian/Marxist Philosophy with Democrat Majority in the House and Senate will wreak havoc on the U.S. unlike since FDR's New Deal.

Liberals more blunt about taxing the Rich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

The title says it all. Watch as Barney Frank candidly tells the Interviewer there are plenty of Rich people out there to tax.

When Liberals attack

Poor Joe the Plumber. He made the mistake of asking Obama an honest question regarding Obama's tax policy. Unfortunately for Joe, when you point out something wrong with Liberal philosophy, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Liberals attack you personally instead.

Witness the attacks on Joe the Plumber for instance. It's now national news that Joe the Plumber owes back taxes, he doesn't have a plumbing license, and the business he's interested in buying doesn't earn more than $250,000.

Ask yourself, is any of that relevant to his question regarding Obama raising taxes on Income Earners of more than $250,000? No. When Liberals attack, you know you're on to something.

We should be asking ourselves, how many employees of Corporations that earn more than $250,000 will be affected by Obama's Tax Policy. How much good does a tax cut for 95% of the Middle Class do when they're unemployed or they don't receive a raise for years on end? Obama's Tax Policy lacks the foresight as to what effects it will have on the Middle Class, despite his best effort to limit their tax burden. There will be repercussions to his actions.

Nuclear Power

This chart is from the Nuclear Energy Institute and shows the Production Costs for Coal; Natural Gas; Nuclear; and Petroleum. The capital outlay of a nuclear power plant is 4x that of natural gas; 2x that of coal; but the cost is recouped and nuclear fuels can be reprocessed. For those who are carbon emission cautious, there are no carbons emitted from nuclear power plants unlike natural gas or petroleum. More information can be read at: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/

Joe the Plumber

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6047458

Joe the Plumber understands that Obama's Tax Plan is Marxist. Check out what he had to say in response to being mentioned 20-something times during the Presidential Debate on Oct. 15, 2008 and what he actually thinks about Obama's Tax Plan.

Obama's Destructive Tax Plan

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html

"The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

What’s the alternative? One place to look is the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points.

The McCain small business tax plan doesn’t end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment — which now must be slowly “depreciated” over many years — would be immediately expensed in year one."

My email to George Bush

This bailout of Wall Street is outrageous. This is a betrayal of the American People. Keynesian Economics didn't work for FDR, and they won't work for this mess. The only way to fix Wall Street is to allow moral hazards to exist to prevent unscrupulous lending practices. Cutting the Capital Gains Tax to ZERO percent would have stimulated investment in banks and other businesses, providing the capital necessary to leverage borrowing and free up lending to other institutions. If President Bush really believed in Free Enterprise, he would NOT have sought a solution that required Federal Government interference in a Free Market. This is Marxism when the Federal Government buys portions of Private Enterprises. This law is BULLSHIT!

Marx's No. 10 on Communism

"Free education for all children in public schools"

Marx wrote free education for all children was necessary under his notions of a supreme society. It allowed for a platform to indoctrinate the children of the proletariat (working class) to accept this transition from a Capitalist society to a Communist society. Simply summed up, to go from celebrating the individual to celebrating the people.

Today it's not uncommon to hear politicians make statements that, "It takes a village to raise a child" or "We need free pre-schooling" or watch a massive new Federal program be created like "No Child Left Behind." Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to involve itself in education. In fact, the few powers the Federal Government has are expressly stated, the other rights are left to the States. In a Republic, which is what we had before the 17th Amendment took away State Representation in Congress, this would never have occurred. One State would not be paying for another State's education, nor would all States be mandated by Congress to teach according to directions given by the Federal Department of Education. These programs are intrusions of the Federal Government into State's Rights.

It's obvious which Political Party is favored by public school teachers. Democrats. Most teacher unions have or will endorse Obama. Two articles below deal with Teacher Unions passing out Obama buttons or directing teachers to wear clothing endorsing the Candidate. NY Post article Washington Times article

In the NY Post article, "While department officials said the courts are on their side in the matter, many city teachers say their right to wear partisan buttons is a matter of free speech." But does this "matter of free speech" apply to students who wear anti-Obama attire or who wear pro-McCain attire? Not 11 year old Daxx Dalton of Aurora, Colorado (MyFoxColorado article).

Liberal indoctrination of children has been going on since the 1960's. Liberal radical Professors permeate colleges; Ward Churchill who called the victims of 9/11 little Eichmanns; Andrew Hallam who directed students to write an essay critical of Sarah Palin; Maulana Karenga who invented Kwanzaa which is based on an African Humanist Philosophy; U of M in Amherst which offered college credits to students who canvassed for Obama; Stanley Aronowitz who founded Duke University's "Social Text" which published an article by Professor Sokal of NYU later known as the Sokal Affair; Center for the Study of Popular Culture commissioned a poll that found over 80% of faculty at Ivy League Universities voted for Gore in 2000 and 9% for Bush.

Why does any of it matter? If you read my previous blog entry titled Democrats and Liberals can't discriminate you would know that arguing with Leftists always resorts to them using pejoratives to dismiss your arguments. If children and college students are being indoctrinated with a Leftist ideology that promotes the good of the community and chastises the individual, Marx is winning. As a country founded on the principle of the God given Rights of the Individual, we're watching our values slowly erode by an unchallengeable ideology.

74 Traitors

These 74 Men and Women betrayed the people of the United States:

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

George Soros' idea

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/soros-floats-alternative-bailout-plan-with-dems-2008-09-30.html

George Soros stated, “Instead of purchasing troubled assets, the bulk of the funds ought to be used to recapitalize the banking system.... The recapitalized banks would be allowed to increase their leverage, so they would resume lending.”

I agree with George Soros' basic notion that financial institutions need capital. I believe that's the basic premise Treasury Secretary Paulson is operating under as well. But I think an even better method, one that doesn't use Taxpayers and DOES NOT involve the Govt., is to stimulate investment. Congress should act immediately and place a two-year moratorium on Capital Gains Taxes in order to stimulate investment. If stocks went up for financial corporations, they in essence would be recapitalized to the point they could leverage borrowing or resume lending. An additional benefit would be that people could make money in the process, including the Federal Govt. when it collects Income Taxes in April.

The eventual plan has to be free of government interference, which would only exacerbate the financial situation much like FDR's Keynesian Economics worsened the Great Depression and dragged out recovery. The plan should instead focus on a means of using free-market principles to drive the economic recovery like cutting the Capital Gains Tax and not a Marxist bailout like the $700 Billion George Bush bullshit giveaway. Sound Economics should be returned to the system and crap laws like the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 should be abrogated. There is no reason financial institutions should be forced to lend to borrowers who don't have sound finances. There is no reason investment banks should be allowed to repackage subprime loans as securities which became possible because of Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

Jimma Carter signed the Bill into Law in 1977.

"The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities, to under-served populations, and commercial loans to small businesses." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Here's another act by Democrats which sabotages our Capitalist system. Lending Institutions were essentially forced to lend money to sub-prime borrowers, be they home buyers or small businesses.

Democrats today are blaming Republicans for the Economic turmoil our country is facing. Is it any wonder that Progressive Politics is the real reason we're watching hundred plus year old institutions disappear overnight? When banks are forced to loan to people who cannot afford the home they're trying to purchase, it's common sense the person will eventually default.

Democrats created the Federal Reserve under Woodrow Wilson. Democrats created the Glass-Steagall Act under FDR. Democrats created Fannie Mae under FDR. Democrats created the Community Reinvestment Act under Jimma Carter. Democrats undid parts of Glass-Steagall under Bill Clinton. Now Democrats want to bail out Wall Street with $700 Billion. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. How many times will we let Democrats fool us into believing they have a better plan for our Economy.

Ten Planks of Communism

Is our country communist?

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in the mid 19 century. He outlined ten steps a capitalist society must take in order to switch to communism.

1. Abolition of Private Property
2. Progressive Income Tax
3. Abolition of Inheritance Rights
4. Confiscation of Property
5. Centralization of all credit by means of a centralized banking system
6. Centralization of communication and transportation
7. Central control of factories, means of production, cultivation of land
8. Equal liability of all to labor
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries
10. Free education for all children by means of government schooling

Numbers 1 & 3 are somewhat related in that private property can be confiscated by means of taxing inheritance. If a farm is worth $1 million, and the government demands 15% estate tax, and the inheritor has no means of paying the 15% estate tax, the land is sold and the government collects its tax. The private property is thus confiscated. You can further extrapolate that the government would collect more taxes when new property owners acquire the land at an appreciated value.

Number 2 in the US is self explanatory. The more you make, the higher percent income tax you pay.

Number 4 in the US is what we call eminent domain. The government can seize your land, though sometimes justifiable to build infrastructure, most cities abuse this power to attract a more lucrative tax base.

Number 5. In 1913, Bankers met in secret on Jekyll Island to come up with legislation that would be signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. Known as the Federal Reserve Act, the US Treasury, as mandated by the Constitution, took its Constitutional directed authority to print money and handed it over to the Federal Reserve Bank. Look on your dollar and you'll see "Federal Reserve Note." The Federal Reserve Bank gladly prints our money and charges us interest. To this day, we owe more than $900 billion to the Federal Reserve for printing our money since 1913. Centralization of credit and banking? I think so.

Number 6. How about U.S. Department of Transportation which includes the FHWA, FAA, FRA and the FTA? How about the Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934 by the Communications Act? That seems centralized to me. Ask Howard Stern how he likes the FCC fining him, or as I call it, violating his Freedom of Speech.

Numbers 7 and 9. How about the Federal Department of Labor? The Federal Department of Agriculture? Have you ever tried to run a business, whether manufacturing, selling/buying goods, construction, farming, grocery store, etc. and not comply with Department of Labor or Department of Agriculture regulations? Hire children or pay less than minimum wage and see how quickly you end up in jail. Conversely, try and work without a permit when you're a teenager.

Number 8. Welfare? Social Security? Medicare? Disability? All those are taxes you pay, which by the way, taxes are confiscation of private property (No. 4).

Number 10. Federal Department of Education. State Department of Education. Local Unified School District. All three entities collect taxes too, or as I said in number 8, confiscate private property. Property taxes for instance help fund USD's, Income Taxes help fund the Federal Department of Education, States use Income Taxes or Property Taxes or Sales Taxes to fund their programs. Even if your child is home schooled, and you don't partake in government education, you still pay those taxes. Try not paying them, along with any other tax, and see what happens. If you think government education is necessary, think again. The US never had government education until the turn of the 20th century. The US actually had higher literacy rates before public education. Private schools cost half what public schools do, and have 100% more accountability, your checkbook. You don't even have the right to transfer your child out of an under performing school. That's one area Liberals think you don't have the right to choose.

The say anything Democrats

On a daily basis, I read to what new lows the Democrats have sunk in order to attack John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Democrats started with Jimmy Carter, that John McCain talks too much about being a Prisoner of War during Viet Nam. Is it that he talks too much about a real experience unlike John Kerry who went to Cambodia, but really didn't? Or is it more than John Kerry who talked incessantly about being the Captain of a Gunboat during the Presidential debates in 2004?

Second, Democrats started in on Sarah Palin, criticizing her "lack of political experience" and continously refer to her as the Mayor of a small town in Alaska, willfully neglecting that she's the Governor of Alaska and has served as Governor longer than the number of days Obama served in the US Senate (140 days). Then they criticize her for being the Governor of a small state, but again willfully neglect that Obama was one of 59 State Senators, representing approximately 12.9 million people, or approximately 220,000 people per State Senator. Hmm...

Democrats then went back to attacking McCain on economic issues. If you read one of my previous blog entries, you'll see that it was Democrats under Clinton who overturned the parts of the Glass-Steagall Act that separated Investment Banking from Banks that handle Deposits. Today it's being reported (http://www.modbee.com/opinion/national/story/440776.html) that Bill Clinton, when he was President, also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to absorb higher-risk loans from low income earners. Hmm... what happens when a Bank, or any loan institution for that matter, guarantees high-risk mortgages and they start to go bust? How about the current Economic crisis? Now Democrats are bringing up the Keating Five Scandal, which three DEMOCRAT Senators were found guilty of having interfered with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), but John McCain was exonerated. Robert Bennett, who investigated the scandal for the Senate Ethics Committee, also testified that there was no evidence tying John McCain to improper interfering in the FHLBB investigation into Keating. Robert Bennett is also the same lawyer who defended Bill Clinton during Monica Lewinsky.

Now Democrats are back on Palin. ABC news (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/florida-congres.html) reported that on Wednesday, Alcee Hastings, a Democrat Representative from Florida, said Palin doesn't care about black people or Jews. "If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through." This is the problem with ignorance. Blacks all too soon forgot what the Party of Lincoln did for them, Abolition of Slavery. A higher percentage of Republicans also voted for the Civil Rights Amendment. Democrats was the Party that spun off the segregationist Dixiecrats in 1948. Robert KKK Byrd, amongst many of the 35 that split, eventually rejoined the Democrat Party after the Dixiecrats 1948 failure. Furthermore, the base of the Republican Party is Evangelicals, most of which are ardent supporters of Israel. Palin has constantly spoke out in favor of Israel. It's anti-Semites like Jesse Jackson who called Jews "Diamond Merchants" and Al Sharpton who incited blacks, because of Tawana Brawley, that led to the death of an innocent Jewish man, both Democrat contenders for the White House, that Jews should fear. Democrats constantly exploit fear and race mongering in order to scare Voters into supporting their candidate. Read Fatimah Ali's article (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/27755834.html) in Philadelphia Daily News where she states, "If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!"

Obama maligns truth yet again

At a Campaign Rally in North Carolina Obama stated, "We're now seeing the disastrous consequences of this philosophy all around us on Wall Street as well as Main Street. And yet, Senator McCain, who candidly admitted not long ago that he doesn't know as much about economics as he should, wants to keep going down the same, disastrous path."

What Obama doesn't tell his followers is that he's second to Chris Dodd for the amount received in Campaign Contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, over $125,000 reported on Bloomberg's news service.

Why do the Campaign Contributions matter?

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were involved in a series of accounting scandals. In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee created a Bill that would have provided regulatory oversight on the $388 Billion that Freddie and Fannie managed.

Alan Greenspan told Congress in 2005 that if Freddie and Fannie "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road."

However, despite the warning from Alan Greenspan, despite the fact that regulatory powers over Freddie and Fannie could have averted the Economic turmoil we're now facing, Democrats opposed this Bill along Party lines.

Does Obama tell his followers what he did? No, of course not, he attacks John McCain as 'out of touch.' Does Obama tell his followers that McCain was one of the first co-sponsors of the Senate Banking Committee Bill that would have provided regulatory oversight on Freddie and Fannie? No, of course not, it's an inconvenient truth.

This is the second time Obama has maligned truth in order to make himself look better. The first being his political attack ad linking McCain to out of context comments from Rush Limbaugh.

$700 Billion Bailout

The 1929 Stock Market Crash was created by speculation in the Stock Market. People bought shares with 10% of their own money and 90% borrowed from the banks. When stocks began to plummet, and banks made calls for their 90%, borrowers were unable to pay back their loans thus banks became insolvent. Eventually the Stock Market lost 89% of its value by 1932. In 1933, in result to the Pecora Commission, the Glass-Steagall Act was created, part of which separated Investment Banking from Deposit Banking.

In 1999, the parts of the Glass-Steagall Act created to separate Investment Banking from Deposit Banking was undone by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As a result, the US saw unprecedented growth in the DJIA, from approximately 9,000 in 1999 to 14,000 in 2007. Part of this unprecedented growth also occurred in the housing market, from a median income to median housing price ratio of 1:4 in 1999 to 1:11 in 2006.

The Housing Market was in part driven by sub-prime borrowing through various ponzi schemes such as Alt-A or Interest only loans. Unscrupulous lending practices by the banks and greed of borrowers to buy properties they couldn't afford otherwise helped drive up median housing prices. The banks repackaged these sub-prime loans under securities and bonds and sold them off via the new Investment and Deposit Banking Industry.

When sub-prime borrowers began to default on their loans, due in part to the resetting APR which made their barely affordable mortgage now unaffordable, an unraveling disaster was let loose. Investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, etc. bought these bonds and securities. When that security is backed by sub-prime borrowing, and those borrowers default, the bond/security becomes worthless. As a result these investment firms kept writing down loss after loss and investor confidence decreased in their ability to remain solvent. Banks that were involved in lending to sub-prime borrowers, such as Countrywide or IndyMac, went belly up due to sub-prime mortgage defaulting and their inability to remain solvent.

Democrats and Republicans are both seeking a Federal bailout of Investment and Deposit Banks and Firms hurt by the collapsing sub-prime housing market, which also bought bonds and securities backed by sub-prime debt. DID WE NOT LEARN FROM 1929?! Undo the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, NOW! Let the bastards that borrowed money for a house they couldn't afford lose their house! Let the damned banks that lent money to these people fail! FORCE ACCOUNTABILITY INTO THE MARKET!!!

Democrats and Republicans are destroying this country with their deleterious economic principles. A free market system functions without the intervention of government. If people don't wake up and see what Democrats and Republicans are doing to this country, we're going to owe more than the approximately $30,000 EACH that we already do. The Federal Government is about to add another $2,300 to that $30,000 tab with this current bailout, and that's if it doesn't get bigger than the proposed $700 BILLION it currently is.

Rush Limbaugh addresses the race baiting Obama political ad

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178554189155003.html

"Mr. Obama's campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.

Much of the media that is uninterested in Mr. Obama's connections to unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright have so far gone along with the attempt to tie me to Mr. McCain. But Mr. McCain and I have not agreed on how to address illegal immigration. While I am heartened by his willingness to start by securing the borders, it is no secret that we have fundamental differences on illegal immigration.

"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

My point, which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers. I was criticizing the mind-set of the protectionists who opposed the treaty. There was no racial connotation to it and no one thought there was at the time. I was demeaning the arguments of the opponents.

As for the second sound bite, I was mocking the Mexican government's double standard -- i.e., urging open borders in this country while imposing draconian immigration requirements within its own borders. Thus, I took the restrictions Mexico imposes on immigrants and appropriated them as my own suggestions for a new immigration law.

Here's the context for that sound bite: "And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail."

At the time, I made abundantly clear that this was a parody on the Mexican government's hypocrisy and nobody took it otherwise."

What does Obama think?

Barack Obama said the following at a fundraiser held by Barbara Streisand, "A lot of people have gotten nervous and concerned. Why is this as close as it is and what's going on? Well, we always knew this was going to be hard. This is a leap for the American people."

The setting is Obama speaking to the Hollywood actors, actresses and other celebrity personalities. "We" would refer to him and them. But why the distinction between them and the "American people?" What does Obama think about the American people when he distinguishes himself from them in his comments?

I've believed from the get go that Obama has an internal conflict over race. He has spoken of his own grandmother regarding perceived racial sentiments of hers; he's written in his book about how it is one should speak to white people in a social setting; he attended a black-centered church for 20 years under Rev. Jeremiah Wright who espoused bigoted and prejudiced sentiments; he ran a race-baiting Spanish language ad yesterday trying to tie John McCain to out of context statements from Rush Limbaugh regarding illegal immigration; and now this latest comment about how it would be a "hard" election and a "leap" for the American people to elect him.

Bill & Hillary Clinton faced the same underlying racist statements from Obama during the Primary Election. Now John McCain will face the same statements, only worse now that Obama has Liberal elitists and pundits excusing him.

Obama invokes bigotry in ad distorting Limbaugh comments

Obama pulls a Hillary Clinton and invokes the name of Rush Limbaugh in his latest political attack ad.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Limbaugh_hitting_back_over_usage_in_ad_says_Obama_stoking_racism.html

The commercial, to air in Limbaugh's home state of Florida as well as Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, features a picture of the conservative talk show host and shows his words on the screen: "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out." It was first reported by the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe.

The first, "stupid and unqualified," was from the NAFTA debate of the mid-90s, he recalled. Limbaugh, a NAFTA proponent, said in the fall of 1993 he got a call from a listener who was upset at the potential loss of American jobs.

In response he said, "If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Explaining his comments, Limbaugh writes: "I was referring to jobs in MEXICO. I was not discussing immigrants, illegal or otherwise."

On "shut your mouth," Limbaugh produced an April 2006 transcript from what he described as a parody of Mexican immigration laws.

The talk show host read a list of stringent rules, adding "shut your mouth and get out," before revealing to listeners that the guidelines were those set by the Mexican government for immigrants.

The Abomination continues...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palins-e-mail-account-hacked-published-on-web-site/

"In the latest of a series of invasions into Sarah Palin’s personal life, hackers have broken into the Republican vice presidential candidate’s private e-mail account, and a widely read Web site has published screen grabs from it."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/17/mccain-camp-seeks-investigation-over-reported-e-mail-hack/

"FBI Spokesman Eric Gonzalez in Anchorage, Alaska confirms to CNN an investigation is underway. 'We are aware of the allegations and we are coordinating with Secret Service as far as the allegation that someone has hacked into Governor Palin's personal e-mail account,' he said. 'We are going to be working a joint investigation with Secret Service on this.'"

When will the invasion into a Candidate's personal life end? This is an abomination.

Democrats and Liberals can't discriminate

Discriminating, for the sake of argument, is defined as: To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: To make or constitute a distinction in or between (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition © 2006, Houghton Mifflin Company).

Over time, it's become a matter of observation that when engaging a Democrat or Liberal in debate, eventually they resort to using pejoratives. I wonder why it is that when one disagrees with them, they resort to pejoratives rather than discuss the subject. Ad hominid fallacies are all too common as a means to attack the speaker in order to distract from their argument, thus circumventing the need to discuss their arguments. I've come to the conclusion this is necessary for Democrats and Liberals because they're incapable of stating something is wrong or evil, thus they lend a hand to it for their inability to condemn it and for their unwillingness to call a tiger a tiger.

Airport Security. With the exception of the Oklahoma City bombing, terrorist activities have been committed by Islamic Terrorists. 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, all were Muslim. The bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were committed by Muslims. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, committed by Muslims. The first bombing of the WTC was planned by Sheik Omar Rahman, a Muslim. The leader of Hezbollah, a Terrorist Organization, is headed by Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, a Muslim. The bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's was carried out by Hezbollah, a Muslim Organization. The bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland was financed by Muammar Gaddafi, a Muslim. The killing of the 1972 Israeli Olympic Team by Black September, a branch of Yasser Arafat's Fatah Organization, of course carried out by Muslims. Despite all this evidence that Muslims carry out a disproportionate amount of terrorist acts in the US and around the world, Democrats and Liberals insist that we don't profile at airports and screen each and every single Muslim, Arab or Middle Eastern person wishing to travel in the U.S. Instead, we have this insane policy of dressing down white grannies and treating them the same as possible suspects. If you disagree with this policy, you're an Islamophobe despite all evidence pointing to the undeniable fact Muslims are the ones committing the acts of terrorism, not white grannies.

If we're a Nation of Laws, then all laws need to be enforced, including Federal Felonies. But Democrats and Liberals rationalize breaking this law when it comes to illegal immigration. They go so far as to create Sanctuary Cities where illegal immigrants can live without fear of being questioned over their status. If you disagree with their policies, as I noted earlier, you're a racist/bigot/xenophobe/nativist/etc. Democrats and Liberals refuse to acknowledge or debate the fact that illegal immigrants broke our Immigration Laws by their very act of illegally entering the country or overstaying their visa.

Democrats and Liberals believe in living in a secular society, free from religious interference. We see this every year around Christmas with the renaming of Christmas Trees to Holiday Trees. The invention of Kwanzaa. The secularization of Easter with bunnies and eggs and candy. The removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses. The challenge towards the Pledge of Allegiance because of the phrase "One Nation under God." How soon before we challenge "In God We Trust" on our currency? Any person that challenges Democrats or Liberals about their challenge against religion in the public sphere is a Right-Wing-Christian-Fundamentalist, a Bible-Thumper, a Jesus-Freak, etc. Whatever happened to the First Amendment that no Governmental Agency has the right to prevent "the free exercise thereof" of religion?

Recently I've read and heard Liberals and Democrats attack Sarah Palin for her belief in Right to Life. They've said she doesn't represent the majority of women. That she would be a setback for "reproductive rights." That she would work to overturn Roe v. Wade and women would be forced to seek back alley abortions. I've read comparisons between Palin and Pontius Pilate and between her and Fascism. It's enlightening when you do some research and find out who the founder of Planned Parenthood was. Margaret Sanger was a Eugenicist. She wrote (In a Plan for Peace, 1932, p. 106) that "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." She also wrote (What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, 1915, p. 140) that "It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Her views are remarkably similar to the Nazionalsozialistische Deustche Arbeiterpartei or better known as the Nazi party of Germany and their favorable outlook on the Aryan race and purging Germany of non-Aryans. The Utopian notion that Democrats and Liberals share, intrinsically contains the notion via "Pro-Choice" that "an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge." Do Democrats and Liberals want to dismiss Pro-Life advocates as Nazis when their own Pro-Choice advocacy actually shares the Eugenicists roots of people like Margaret Sanger and the Nazi Party?

Next time you hear a Democrat or Liberal refer to an opponent's argument via a pejorative, not only are they most likely wrong on the position they're advocating, but the position they're advocating is one that given facts, would contradict a logical conclusion.

Liberal drive to make US more like EU

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

I find it pertinent to share this article solely based on the notion that American Leftists display a certain affection for their European counterparts. Being the case, England has decided to institute courts that base decisions on Sharia (Islamic law). I find the idea repulsive, and would make a call to arms against any American politician that would advocate similar notions. I wonder what informed Americans would make of a similar decision here in the U.S. and what they would be willing to do about it.

Palin before she was VP Nominee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY

Maaat Daaamon

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/171553.html

Matt Damon on John McCain dying in office, "1 out of 3 chance he doesn't survive his first term"

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

John McCain is a male aged 72. Per an actual Actuarial Life Table from the Social Security Administration, John McCain has a 3.3% chance of dying within the next year. If he were to serve a full term, at age 76, he would have a 4.8% chance of dying within that year. With this in mind, Joe Biden who turns 66 in November, has a 2.0% chance of dying within the next year.

Regardless, McCain has decades more experience in the US Senate than Obama, and Palin has years more of Executive Experience than Obama. I suggest Democrats come up with a new reason why McCain-Palin shouldn't be the winning ticket and if age is an issue, Obama should dump Biden and pick a younger running mate with a much lower percent chance of dying within the next year.

Nationalization of US Industries

The US has set a terrible precedent for American Industries. Comparisons between the US Treasury Department's bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are comparable to Chinese and Russian Socialism. There is no need for a collective ownership of financial institutions in this country, the same as we don't need collective ownership of any other industry. The free market will correct the unscrupulous lending practices of the banks when they know there is a risk involved in making those loans. If there is no risk, there is no means of restricting them from making further reckless decisions. The Federal Reserve bailout of banks has already cost hundreds of billions of dollars upfront, plus the interest that will be paid down the line, not to mention the immediate effects of inflation on everything from gasoline to food to clothes.

Government intervention in the banking process strips the risks involved in banking. It rewards the bankers for their selfishness. It hurts those who were financially smart enough to not take out ponzi loans to finance homes they couldn't afford. How are they benefited now when the government is bailing out unscrupulous lenders with their tax dollars? How about those who were trying to save up for a home but due to the artificial inflation in housing prices their median income never caught up to the median housing price. How are they benefited when the government bails out unscrupulous lenders with their tax dollars? This reckless policy of bailing out banks will exacerbate the situation much like FDR's New Deal exacerbated the Great Depression by dragging out the time until recovery began.

This joint effort by Democrats and Republicans is just another reason to get a third party into power that represents the American people, that understands the limits of Congressional interference in a free market. We need a Barry Goldwater, an advocate for "out of my pocket, off my back and out of my way."

51 seconds of Barack Obama's Military Strategy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

• CUT tens of Billions of Dollars in "wasteful spending" (pertaining to the military)
• CUT investments in "unproven" missile defense systems
• NOT weaponize space
• SLOW our development of future combat systems
• Develop a Committee to CUT future military funding
• Set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons
• NOT develop new nuclear weapons
• Take our nuclear weapons off alert
• Take deep CUTS in our current nuclear arsenal

So basically he proposes three different methods of cutting funding, he will stop research on missile defense on the assumption it's unproven, he won't weaponize space even though others are, he'll "slow" our development of future combat systems which would take away our military edge over our enemies, he won't develop new nuclear weapon technology despite the Russians creating bigger bombs, he'll take our nuclear weapons offline which will give our enemies a strike first advantage, and he'll cut our arsenal to put the cherry on top.

Obama has no business being the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. His policies are fanciful at best, at worse they're absolutely naive of the evil of this world.

Salem... err SF Witch Trials

Is it just me or is there a witch hunt going on in the Press?

Sarah Palin has been Gov. of Alaska for 20 months, as long as Obama has been a US Senator. She has Executive experience, he has none. In addition to being Gov. of Alaska, she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Be it a small town, it's still executive experience. Yet she's tauted as being inexperienced by Media Pundits and Liberal blowhards.

Sarah Palin is Pro-Life. Her child with Down Syndrome was born, known to her to have Down Syndrome beforehand. Does that conflict with a Pro-Life position? Nope. Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant, five months at that. Being that she's pregnant, she hasn't had an abortion. So, does this conflict with a Pro-Life position? Nope. So, exactly what does this make Sarah Palin? A bad parent? Perhaps.

She's also been attacked for her Christian views, such as teaching Abstinence and believing in some form of Creationism. Obama on the other hand must not support these positions otherwise it would be a non-issue. Why is it that when someone holds contrary opinions to what Liberals believe, they always have to resort to pejoratives to dismiss the contrary opinion? Why is it if that you believe in God having created the Universe (uni=one verse=spoken sentence) you're labled as a Bible Thumper or if you believe in teaching Abstinence you're a Right Wing Nut.

As reported in 2007 by the State of Georgia, when Abstinence programs were mandated by the state, in the following 11 years, Teen Pregnancy for 15-17 years of age dropped 46%. In an April 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation, teenagers after one year of an abstinence program compared to a control group that didn't receive the abstinence program, only 14.5% had sex compared to 26.5% of the control group. In the same study, 9.2% lost their virginity compared to 16.4% of the control group. Additionally, students that underwent the abstinence program were 8.1 times less likely to us illegal drugs, 1.9 times less likely to use alcohol, and 2.4 times less likely to smoke.

Sarah Palin is running as McCain's Vice Presidential Nominee. She's not running for President. She's not running for Best Mom of America award. She is pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-Life, believes in God, believes in teaching an abstinence program, has a record of breaking the Establishment and removing from Office corrupt officials, she was Gov. of Alaska which is responsible for 20% of America's Energy Independence, and comes from a simple background.

The fervent attacks on her these past few days, from attacking her for her pregnant daughter, to attacking her for JUST being the Gov. of Alaska, to attacking her for a corruption investigation into her, which btw she opened on herself to prove her innocence in the matter, all leads to the appearance of trying to derail the McCain Campaign by focusing on his Vice Presidential Nominee. By making a stink about her "lack of experience" Obama is opened up to further ridicule on his own lack of experience. By attacking her family, Obama should also receive the same attention for his ties to his Pastor, whom for 20 years he sat in his pews and listened to his racial politicking and "God damn America" speeches, who praised Louis Farrakhan (a rabid anti-Semite and leader of Nation of Islam) and his constant black-centered sermons. The implied ridicule of her beliefs in Creationism and Pro-Life positions, opens Obama to how much faith does he have in the infallibility of the Bible and his pro-Abortion stance on late term abortions in which baby's skulls are pierced with scissors or other sharp objects and their brains sucked out.

Now what egregious error has Sarah Palin committed other than having the audacity to run as the first female Republican Vice Presidential Nominee?

Overt Liberal Radicalism of the Obamas

"Barack stood up that day, and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about "The world as it is" and "The world as it should be." And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two, and settle for the world as it is - even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves - to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be. And isn't that the great American story?" - Michelle Obama 2008 DNC Speech

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be." - Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals Chapter 2

Again, cry me a river

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080827/D92QIKFG0.html

"Alegria, 26, a Mexican immigrant, was working at the Howard Industries transformer plant Monday when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents stormed in. 'I'm very traumatized because I don't know if they are going to let my husband go and when I will see him,' Alegria said through a translator Tuesday as she returned to the Howard Industries parking lot to retrieve her sport utility vehicle."

I have a solution for Alegria, you can see your husband in Mexico where you belong. If you want to work in the US, apply for a visa like every other immigrant in the world and wait your turn. If she hadn't circumvented the system in the first place, she wouldn't be in this predicament. As a result of her illegal activity, her two sons are withheld from school out of fear, and her life is full of uncertainty because of her illegal resident status.

If the laws of our country were upheld, $100,000 fines for employers per illegal immigrant instituted, and a means to prevent illegal entry into the United States implemented, these stories would become far and few between causing Liberals to worry about something else. The solution is a Third Political Party with America's interests at heart, and one that carries out the full writ of the Constitution. Democrats and Republicans are failures when it comes to illegal immigration. The Democrats want the vote of the illegal immigrants when/if ever they become Citizens because they can state they opposed cracking down on illegal immigration, and Republicans want the vote as well because of business interests.

"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away," said Velez's son, Robert, youth pastor at the church. "It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals." <== The irony is ridiculous. "They got handled like they were criminals." Doesn't entering a country ILLEGALLY make you just that, a criminal? What adjective would one use other than criminal to describe someone that does something illegal.

America's Energy Independence

America's Energy Independence is quite simple, start drilling. The US Department of Energy estimates that with current technology, the US has 430 billion barrels of oil to be had, and with tomorrow's technology, that number climbs to over 1.2 trillion barrels of oil. This information can be found at the DOE websites http://www.fossil.energy.gov/ and http://www.fossil.energy.gov/. Our current fix on oil had us importing, per 2007 report, almost 522 million barrels of crude oil, per Energy Information Administration website http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wceimus2w.htm. So doing the math, the US has enough oil for 824 years of imports at 2007 levels. Guessing that we import 60% of our oil, that would be 494 years of Oil Independence. Nancy Dumbass Pelosi thinks that drilling now will save us two cents in ten years. I think we need a new Speaker of the House, and one that has brains at that. Kick that SF Windbag back to SF.

Poor Illegal Immigrant???

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgKHp1TXx0_0g5KiMUZ23pPwMM5QD92OPRA80

Umm... doesn't Julie Watson realize there are consequences to breaking US Law and entering the United States illegally? What's sad is that Americans have to waste billions of dollars deporting Mexican Nationals. Mexico should be forced to take a more proactive role in stopping their Citizens from fleeing Mexico.

Once again, what are Democrats and Republicans going to do about Illegal Immigration? The same thing they've always done, nothing. Until then, we'll continue to hear these sad stories of poor unsuspecting Mexicans who illegally entered the United States and now are faced with how to make a life for themselves in Mexico after their deportation. Cry me a river.

Heritage Foundation - How the Modern Liberal thinks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

The first 34 minutes are worth watching.

Mexico dumping their problems on the U.S.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gZNE-4pPMe91hGyh4qwLba1rHZ6wD92L9PJ00

Another example of how illegal immigrants bring down America's school system and how gangs permeate illegal immigrant communities. Do people honestly believe that after decades of illegal immigration, that Democrats or Republicans care about solving this issue? I've said before, and I'll say it again, Democrats and Republicans are Harlots of Campaign Contributions, whoever gives them the most, is who they'll listen to. Neither political party cares about Americans.

A Dollar today worth 15 cents in 1967

http://johngaltfla.com/blog2/2008/07/24/how-now-dollar-dead-sacred-cow/

Could cracking down on Illegal Immigration decrease crime rates?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=70728

"One of the wealthiest counties in America reports crime skyrocketing by 22 percent in the first quarter of 2008, while its neighbor saw crime plummet by 19.3 percent in the same time period – coinciding with a get-tough policy on illegal immigration."

Seems to me if the U.S. as a whole took a tough stance on illegal immigration, our crime rates nationwide would decrease. We would also see less heinous crimes like those commited by illegal immigrants in New Jersey (which shot four students in the head execution style) or San Francisco (MS-13 gangbanger shot a father and his two sons with an AK-47 for blocking traffic).

Deport Hector Villagra and LA Mayor Villaraigosa

In the following article, Lawyer Hector Villagra of the ACLU inadvertently admits that Illegal Immigrants are specifically one ethnicity/race and LAPD Officers should not be allowed to inquire about Immigration Status of Suspects. Perhaps because his name is Hector Villagra, it would be safe to assume he cares more about Mexicans than he does America, in which case he should be stripped of his Citizenship and deported to Mexico. We need less Hector Villagras in the U.S. and more Americans with testicular fortitude like Maricopa County Sherrif Joe Arpaio of Arizona. How much longer will the Americans in America take crap from asses like Hector Villagra?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_re_us/immigrants_police

Hector Villagra, an ACLU attorney, said the decision affirmed that the federal government, not local law enforcement, is responsible for carrying out immigration law.

By asking that Special Order 40 be thrown out, Villagra said, plaintiffs are "asking for carte blanche to engage in racial profiling," he said.

Women have no place in church leadership

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080617/lf_nm_life/germany_lutheran_gay_dc

First the Lutheran church puts a woman in the position of Bishop, now they nominated an openly gay Pastor for the position of Bishop.

"'After careful consultation, we have nominated two experienced provosts as candidates who have excelled in their localities and in the region in a variety of ways,' said election committee member Bishop Maria Jepsen, the world's first woman Lutheran bishop."

Is it any wonder that when a woman gets authority in the church body, they destroy that church? The Bible is very specific regarding the role of women.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."

1 Timothy 2:11-14 "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

Stupidity

Elias Bermudez is a joke. When the law of the land is that you must have a Visa to enter the US and reside, that's the law. To bypass that law and enter and reside without a Visa is illegal, and thus in defiance of US Law. I wouldn't expect anything better of a former Mayor arrested and convicted for laundering drug money in a US-Mexico Border town. Ship this trash back to Mexico along with the rest of the Mexican Nationals illegally residing in the US. They have NO RIGHT to be here.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080616141549.vhjwoa2r&show_article=1

Elias Bermudez heads Immigrants Without Borders, an immigrants' rights advocacy group. Arpaio's policies are discriminatory and "not conducive to a county that is 30 percent Hispanic," he said.

"He has abused his authority and his elected position to create havoc and a feeling of terror in our community," Bermudez said.

"He has capitalized on the fear and vulnerability of people who came into this country without documents, not in defiance of the laws of the United States, but because this country does not have a legal mechanism to seek work with documents.

Pinche Espanol

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356861,00.html

I'm so damn tired of Mexicans that want Americans to accommodate Spanish when living in the United States. Our language is English, if you don't like that, go to the country where your language is spoken. Assimilate damnit!!! I'm also tired of Politicians that call themselves Patriots but are never patriotic. Where is your testicular fortitude Congress?! Congress better get the ball rolling on asserting American sovereignty, otherwise it's time for a Revolution and get a Government in place that stands up for its Citizens and not Foreign Nationals.

Don't boo McCain, it's not nice

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0208/CPAC_to_all_CPACers_Dont_boo_McCain.html

CPAC to attendees, do not boo McCain. What is that?! Is that not similar to the suppression of free speech that McCain-Feingold supports? It's ridiculous, that bastard should know what actual Conservatives think of him. He's a Benedict Arnold "War Hero" who wears his past on his sleeve more than any veteran I've ever known. My grandfather fought in WW2 and never talked about his experiences, neither did my uncle that fought in VietNam, but not John Kerry, I mean John McCain. This should be a wake up call to all Conservatives that the Republican Party is not the Party of Conservatives. Conservatives to Republicans are blacks to Democrats, a group of blind loyalists hoping to get tossed a bone every once in a while.

John McCain created the most blatant anti-free-speech legislation in history, more egregious than Lincoln's shutting down unfriendly newspapers during the Civil War. He's proven himself time and time again with outbursts, insults and inflammatory language towards fellow Republicans that would even "dare" to oppose him, that he by all means, is a tyrant, and we shouldn't expect anything less if he were elected President.

Summer of 2007 showed that he's willing to sell out the American people, the actual Citizens of this Nation, in order to appease a segment of society that illegally remains in this country. He's a traitor and McCain-Kennedy was his confession.

He's also proven himself under McCain-Lieberman to be a supporter of pseudo-science. His bill would have capped greenhouse emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. So we're supposed to destroy our Economy while China and India continue to pummel ahead? We're going to allow them to become the Economic powerhouse of the world so that we can feel good about ourselves? What is McCain going to propose as President to stop the temperature inceases on Mars? What about the storms on Jupiter? Or is only Earth feeling the heat from mankind and not increased solar activity? How about the shrinking planet Mercury?

It's not only those three bad pieces of Legislation that should worry actual Conservatives. It should be his opposition towards tax cuts as well. So what if they don't have attached budget cuts, since when has Congress ever cut the budget? Whenever in history has a following year's budget been less than the preceding year? What cuts has he ever proposed? What does it cost the taxpayer to keep McCain in office every year? How about you cut taxes, and then work on the budget which is a seperate issue?

If that's still not good enough, how about his refusal to answer questions in a "straight talking" manner? I recall in the last debate, he was asked if a certain piece of legislation came to him as President if he would sign it, and he said the bill wouldn't, so he doesn't need to answer the question. He's ridiculous!

I say boo McCain until his ears bleed. I say that Conservatives shout with all their rage and hatred towards that which they despise. Then, I say we form a Third Party, a Party whose platform supports our principles, our values, our doctrines. A Party that puts America and Americans first. A Party that shrinks government, cuts our taxes, and works towards increasing our freedoms while securing us from threats both foreign and domestic. We need "change we can believe in!"

Pre-emptive or Reactionary? What should our Foreign Policy be

In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, before they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it's critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our "war against terrorism", keeping in mind that "Amnesty" is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. Mitt Romney is exceedingly strong on each of these principles; while his opponent, John McCain, ( who conducted himself like a petulant child in the recent Republican debate ) has proven that illegal immigration is an issue on which he can NOT be trusted. Don't be misled by McCain's "Clintonian-Lies" concerning Romney's record.

Posted by Greg Neubeck at http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0628190220080206?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

GO VOTE!!!

I voted this morning, and every informed person should get out there and vote for their candidate. I actually voted for Romney because I really do not want McCain to win the nomination. If McCain wins, I agree with Conservative Commentators that it will be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. I also believe, and hope, as this is the purpose of my blog, that if McCain wins, a third political party with a viable platform will arise out of the ashes of the Republican Party.

I also agree with the political wisdom that if it comes down to McCain vs. Obama or Clinton, that it will be better for a Liberal Democrat to wreck havoc on the Nation than a Liberal Republican and for the Democrats to take the heat of a collapsing United States.

Hillary cries again

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_crys_in_connecticut.html

She turned on the waterworks once again, she must fear her lead is slipping in the polls. This reminds me of the adage, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Appears to be a calculated political move now after the "tears of New Hampshire."

This is how terrible McCain is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

McCain is so terrible, that in a McCain vs. Clinton contest, even ANN COULTER would vote for Clinton.

This is why we need another Political Party

I'll preface my blog with my simple belief that this is the worse Election in American History. I have never seen such a terrible choice of candidates. There is no way a person can be Conservative or Libertarian and support any of the four main candidates left.

I believe the contests are between Obama vs. Clinton and McCain vs. Romney. I hope that Obama wins, simply because he'll be defeated by the Republican Candidate. His superb rhetoric is without substance, and people have no clue about what his platform is. We know his mantra, Hope and Change, but that's meaningless unless Clinton's mantra is Despair and Stay-the-Course. Clinton would be more difficult to beat, but she has too much baggage which is still in the closet. This leaves the Republicans.

McCain is simply terrible. A friend told me his mom actually cried at the prospect of him winning the nomination. Romney earned his fortune which makes me more comfortable with the possibility of him forming Economic Policy, but where exactly does he stand on the other issues? Is he going to create a National Health Care buy-in plan like what he did in Massachusetts? I hope not. People need to learn to prioritize their spending and live within their means. We've pushed consumerism for so long people think they're entitled to live easy lives supported by credit. Which brings me to my next point.

In Congress the Legislatures are figuring out how best to stimulate the Economy. This caused me to wonder if they believe in giving us money to spend to stimulate the Economy, does it then not make sense to minimize Government's burden on our Income so that we can continuously "stimulate" the Economy? I could do so much more with my Income if I could actually get my hands on it. I don't mind paying taxes to support the military, to pay for Legislature expenses and a salary that was maybe 3x poverty (which would force them to actually come up with solutions that fixed poverty rather than subsidize it), and anything else mandated by the Constitution, but that's it. Everything else should be voluntary.

It's also disconcerting to hear that Congressmen want to "fix" the sub-prime mess. Shouldn't people that were too poor to buy homes in the first place own up to reality rather than be subsidized by me and everyone else to stay in their home that they can't afford? Remember what I said about consumerism. Why should I as a taxpayer also bail out banks that were IDIOTIC when loaning money to people without verifying their income and credit history, etc. Let those banks fall and let the remaining banks know that no one will bail them out of bad practices. That's why we have a Free Market after all. Let the unscrupulous Buggers die!

Conservatives and Libertarians should recognize by now the Republican Party doesn't support their views. Conservatism and Libertarianism as a Republican Platform died under Bush. We don't believe in increasing Social Services (Rx for Seniors). We don't believe in rewarding law breakers (McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform from this past Summer). We don't believe in economic redistribution of wealth (what's happening now in Congress under the Economic Stimulus Package i.e. giving checks to people that don't even pay Federal Income Tax). We don't believe in rewarding the financially irresponsible by giving them more money ("fixing" the sub-prime mess). We don't believe in bailing out unscrupulous lenders. By definition we're insane if we continue to support Republicans and expect different results in the future.

At the very minimum, a third Political Party that's both Conservative and Libertarian would force accountability to Republicans that espouse Conservative beliefs. We wouldn't have the current mess of McCain and Romney smearing each other with paint brushes dipped in ink the color of Liberal and claim that they're the most Conservative Candidate. Is McCain joking when he tells us that or does he think we're more senile than him?

Since the Third Party I want doesn't exist, and I have a choice to make essentially between Romney and McCain because a vote for another Candidate is essentially a vote for McCain, I have to vote for Romney and hope with all my might that the current position he holds on the issues is the position he'll advocate as President.

Huckabee... Huckabee... Huckabee

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/NATION/8463148/1001&template=nextpage

It's like a mom that states your name repeatedly only to tell you in the end how disappointed she is with you. The worse type of feeling one can get from a parent in my opinion. That's how I feel about Huckabee. The man is just a disgrace as a Republican. To read this article from the Washington Times about how money was given to Democrats in an Election year can only be described as disappointing. I wish there was more information out there in the media regarding how the Republican Party members from Arkansas feel about Huckabee. I only hear about his Evangelist constituency, which support him solely because of his religious background. Coupled with his record on illegal immigration, it's just another reason to not support this snake.

Bill Clinton the Racist white Hick

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Check out Bill's postcard to Mammaw (Hick for grandma) that he sent to her during the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's.

Ron Paul 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s08RJ2_o_MM

Just another reason to consider Ron Paul. His exceptional explanation as to why Free Market Capitalism is the solution to this Nation's Health Care woes.