The Plight Towards Mediocracy

New Blog Location

2009-04-13T13:23:00.001-07:00

I have moved my blog location to:

http://patrickbohan.blogtownhall.com/

Did Obama Bow?

2009-04-13T06:26:00.000-07:00

The media exhaustedly covered President Obama bowing when he met King Abdullah. The Democrats deny he bowed, but it was a bow. But who really cares? No one! The only mistake the Obama camp made is insulting our intelligence and denying that he bowed. After all, aren’t there more important things for the media to cover? Absolutely! I for one am more concerned about the economy and our spending spree. I am also more concerned about foreign threats such as Iran and North Korea as they close in on obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yes, it is a bit funny watching the man who is the leader of the free world bow to an Arab leader, but it is no big deal. And yes, Obama is turning into a gaffe machine ala Joe Biden, but everyone makes mistakes. It is not easy to be President and to understand all the ridiculous protocol. I say we give the man a break and judge him on how he handles the tough issues and not on petty procedural or protocol things. I know the media loves to show Presidents making mistakes, but can we stop the pettiness and cover the things that really matter. I did not like it when the media covered inconsequential gaffes made by President Bush, nor did I like the media making President Ford out to be a klutz. It is not right, nor should it be of any concern. I see this as this as common courtesy and following the “golden rule” to treat others how we expect to be treated. I do not think the media would want media people following them scrutinizing every move they make. I realize that this is the day and age of technology and a camera is on the President at all times out of the White House, but the media needs to practice some restraint.

I have one other pet peeve about the media and their coverage of politicians or celebrities. They should not cover the families of politicians and celebrities. All family members should be exempt from coverage especially if they have not done anything wrong. For example, media coverage of Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter was not acceptable. Other recent media violations of this rule was the New York Times negative coverage of Cindy McCain and the media making an issue out of Dick Cheney’s daughter being a lesbian. All of these topics are not fair, unless the person injects themselves into the campaign and is publicly making speeches on their relative’s behalf. Obviously the Obama daughters should be off limits to the media however, Michelle has injected herself into the political process so she can be scrutinized to a certain degree. However, the media needs to use sound judgment when making decisions on what to cover about Michelle.

Is America Dying?

2009-04-10T09:56:00.001-07:00

An update on my new book: "Is America Dying?". It is now available on Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble web sites. You can purchase the book from the following sites:

www.amazon.com

www.barnesandnoble.com

www.justbookz.com

http://patrickbohan.home.bresnan.net/

Ted Stevens

2009-04-09T10:36:00.000-07:00

Ted Stevens is the former Senator from Alaska who recently lost his re-election for an 8th term by a narrow 4,000 votes. The main reason Stevens lost to Democrat Mark Begich in a conservative state is because he recently was indicted and convicted of seven felonies. However, just a few months after his conviction, Attorney General Eric Holder, dismissed the conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct. Many leading Republicans (along with me) called for Stevens to resign before being ousted by Mark Begich. Even though the conviction was overturned, I am still not convinced that Stevens was completely innocent. His reasons for many of the 250 thousand dollars in gifts he received were flimsy and lame at best. Thus, I am not sure he would not have been convicted even if the prosecutors did not deceive the defense by withholding critical evidence. However, there is enough doubt that Stevens would have been cleared if the prosecution followed the law. I do not see any difference between the Stevens case and the cases of many leading Democrats that had not paid their taxes or face other scrutiny such as Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner, Chris Dodd, and Tom Daschle to name a few. If Stevens really had received over 250 thousand dollars he did not report, he owed the government money just as many the Democrats mentioned above who continue to serve in their roles (I will be the first person to admit the U.S. tax code is ridiculous and needs to be overhauled – it is much too complicated and cumbersome). That is the double standard – The Republican loses his job even though he wins his case and the Democrats just have to pay their back taxes and not face any prosecution or even any fines. And if anyone thinks that Democrats do not steal elections, look no further than the criminal behavior by liberal prosecutors to take down Stevens at any cost. The timing of the trial and the charges tells a big part of the story since this all came to light the year Stevens was up for re-election. Maybe Stevens deserved to go, but we will never know for sure. The judge that threw out the conviction said it was the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he had ever witnessed in his 25 years on the bench. The prosecutors in this case that violated the law should have the book thrown at them. They should also have to serve whatever sentence that Stevens would have gotten. Thus, they should serve their sentence for prosecutorial misconduct and then the sentence that Stevens would have gotten. In my book I talk a lot about having stiff penalties for breaking the law to deter the act from happening. I also explain that we should follow the “Golden Rule” to do onto others as we expect to be treated. Hence, if we follow this rule, then the guilty prosecutors should serve the Stevens sentence as well.

Obama: America is not at War with Islam

2009-04-07T10:05:00.000-07:00

I guess I am confused, when were we at war with Islam? Why does Obama feel obligated to state the obvious and offend Americans while he grovels for Muslim support. America has been fighting a small number of fanatical radical Islamic followers such as the Taliban and Al-Qaida. I really think that 99% of Americans have absolutely no problem with Islam or Muslims. In fact, the last three wars America has been involved has been to free oppressed Muslims. America has liberated Muslims in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Why doesn't Obama mention this instead of stating the obvious? I think this blatant omission only shows Obama is ignorant to past U.S. foreign policy or he himself really thinks that Americans have really been a threat to Islam and Muslims around the world. This is preposterous! I believe Obama's thinking is misguided by U.S. foreign policy that recognizes and fully supports Israel. He must take this to mean that U.S. foreign policy is against Muslims. This does not mean that the U.S. is against Islam or Muslims, it only means we feel Muslims should also recognize the rights of Jews just as we recognized the rights of Muslims in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That is it. There is no conspiracy theory by the U.S. to destroy Muslims and Islam. I really wish Obama would get his facts straight before he feels it is necessary to apologize for past U.S. policy.

The Obama Administration’s Anti-American Rhetoric

2009-04-06T06:58:00.000-07:00

I for one am tired of the President Obama apologizing for past U.S. behavior as he did while he was in Europe. Obama tried to rally French and German support as he told their citizens that America had acted poorly over the past decade. If we are going to live in the past, maybe we should bring up WWII and how America saved the French from German aggression. I personally do not care if the Germans and French do not like us. I worked at a large global U.S. company and they had plants in many European locations. In fact, I had bosses located in Norway, Germany, and France during my employment. The people in these plant locations not only felt they were superior intellectually to the American worker, they also felt they were also superior with their liberal philosophies. A day did not pass that I did not hear how great they were and how Americans are stupid barbarians. Believe me the European superior attitude gets old fast. Now our President is apologizing for me. I find this behavior appalling and completely unnecessary. What did Obama get for all of his groveling to the French and Germans – Nothing! They will not support Obama or the American effort in Afghanistan. They will not support our economic sanctions against rogue nations such as Iran or North Korea. Obama will learn quickly what Bush learned – The United States cannot count on any European or U.N. support to fight terrorism. After the U.S. got attacked on 9/11, the world turned their backs on the U.S. Imagine if the U.S. turned their backs on the world during WWI and WWII? What if the U.S. turned their backs on countries that have been battered by natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis? More times than not the U.S. is there to help countries in need, but how quickly the rest of the so called idealistically superior world forgets. So I for one am tired of our President criticizing our country. If the President is that embarrassed to be an American, he can pack his bags and move to Europe where he is so enamored by their finicky citizens. The trend of the Obama Administration apologizing to other countries for American behavior continued last week when Secretary of State Clinton apologized to Mexico because she blamed U.S. drug use as the cause of Mexico’s instability. I was surprised she did not blame the U.S. for not allowing more illegal Mexicans from crossing the boarder.

One April 4th headline on Yahoo stated: German and France Embrace Obama’s Afghanistan Plan. What was missing in the headline is that they refused to help. By that same measure Germany and France embraced Bush’s Iraq invasion since they refused to help. The media continues to make this man out to be a God.

New Hypocritical Oath Addition Today

2009-04-03T13:42:00.000-07:00

Although the federal government had scrutinized 165 Million in AIG bonuses, they approved 210 million in bonuses to government run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Remember Fannie and Freddie are also in financial trouble just as AIG is. Once again everything is fair game for federal government to break the rules, but not the private sector. If we would simply treat others the way we expect to be treated all of these contradictions would not be occurring.

The Hypocritical Oath

2009-04-02T06:51:00.000-07:00

Doctors take what is known as the “Hippocratic Oath” when they become physicians. The Hippocratic Oath is to ensure that physicians practice medicine in an ethical fashion. Our government officials such as the President, cabinet members, judges, Congress, and so forth must also take an oath to swear that they will serve and protect our Constitution. I really do not see the sense in having an oath of office if these officials simply do whatever they want with no regards to the law or the Constitution. That is why I call political oaths of office “The Hypocritical Oath”. Everyday I view one contradiction after another where politicians violate the law and get away with it. Let’s view a few recent examples of politicians practicing “The Hypocritical Oath”:

Tim Geithner is the head of the Treasury Department which runs the IRS and he did not pay taxes or face a penalty for doing so.

Congressman Charlie Rangel is the head of the Congressional Ways and Means Committee that is in charge of creating tax laws and he also did not pay his taxes.

We put Bernard Madoff in jail for running an investment Ponzi scheme that that stole billions from his clients. However, our government routinely runs Ponzi schemes on the American People. Social security and Medicare are good examples of Ponzi schemes. Retiree’s social security and Medicare are paid for by today’s working man. Just as the money dried up when Madoff got caught, the money will dry up for some future generation and they will not get social security or Medicare despite paying into the system. If it is illegal to run a Ponzi scheme then why is it okay for the government to run these schemes to scam money from taxpayers?

Washington politicians are so outraged by the AIG bonuses that they approved in the stimulus package and are know trying to correct the error by levying a 90% tax on the bonuses. By levying the 90% tax on the bonuses Congress may be violating Article 1 and Section 9 of the Constitution. I am as outraged as anyone about the bonuses, but I am not outraged at AIG, I am outraged at Congress for approving the 170 billion dollar AIG bailout. The AIG bonuses amount to less than 0.1% of the bailout money. If we are outraged by the use of 0.1%, we should be outraged by the other 99.9% as well. Instead of protesting against AIG, we should be protesting against our government.

Geithner wants more government regulation on Wall St. and more governmental control over financial institutions. Once again the government is overstepping its bounds here. This too is Unconstitutional. Besides, where does the government get the right to take over financial institutions when they too are fiscally irresponsible and owe trillions in debt? Government run institutions such as The Post Office, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are losing the taxpayers billions of dollars each year. In fact, these government run institutions have absolutely no oversight so it is hypocritical of the government to request oversight in the private sector. So what makes us think the government will do a better job running Wall St if they cannot run their own government sponsored institutions?

The government wants to control CEO and bonus pay at many corporations. Where do they get the right? How come the taxpayers cannot demand pay cuts for politicians. The CEO for AIG (Libby) is doing his job for $1 a year, if he can cut his pay so can politicians. Most Washington politicians are millionaires and they should not accept a salary for serving the people. It should be a privilege. If I were a Washington politician I would not accept a dime in compensation and certainly would not run up astronomical bills on meals, travel or other privileges. I am appalled at how much many CEOs make, but I am just as appalled by how much politicians make and how they waste our hard earned cash.

Today, countless other politicians are being investigated for potential criminal activity: Chris Dodd, Ted Stevens, Rod Blagojevich, Elliot Spitzer, and Roland Burris to name a few.

Spending Vs. Investing

2009-03-30T09:39:00.000-07:00

If we listen closely to all the rhetoric carefully the Democrats call the Obama stimulus plan as investing and the Republicans call it spending. What is the difference? Waste! Government spending is generally wasteful. However, investing means the government and taxpayers will get a return on their investment. When have the taxpayers ever gotten a return on our tax dollars? I cannot think of any instance when this has happened. After all, if America got more than a dollar return for every dollar invested than spending would be great. Heck, why stop at 2 or 3 trillion dollars, we may as well pump more money into the economy. However, most realistic people living on planet earth know we do not get any payback for government spending. Besides, it is hard to measure the payback on government spending, it is mostly speculation. For this reason I believe the Republicans are correct that the Obama stimulus plan is nothing more than spending and we the taxpayers will be footing the bill for decades. Face it, the government cannot be trusted to run anything. Every business or large social policy the government runs or creates is bound to fail. Look at social security, medicare, and welfare that are now over 50% of our national budget and growing at a astronomical rate. Look at Frannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the IRS, and the Post Office are all losing valuable taxpayer dollars. We are being naive if we really think that the Obama stimulus plan that is putting us trillion of dollars will benefit us in the long run. Once Obama adds universal health care to our growing list of social programs bankrupting our government, the only way to get out of debt will be to tax Americans at outrageous rates of 50% or more. Just the interest on our debt will be hard enough to pay off without huge tax hikes. When this happens, the United States will officially be a socialized nation similar to many European countries. Capitalism will officially be dead and America will no longer be the land of opportunity. It will happen if our government does not learn to be fiscally responsible very soon and stop this ridiculous spending spree.

Why Move the U.S. to Socialism?

2009-03-27T10:36:00.000-07:00

Some argue that even if Obama gets his way on most of his policies the U.S. still would not be a socialistic society. That may be true, but what is the motivation to move this great country in that direction? I certainly do not understand it. Most of the world's nations are dictatorships, communist, or socialistic societies. There are only a few capitalistic societies that remain and we are thankfully one. Which country has the highest number of immigrants? The U.S., and the reason is simple: People want to come to the land of opportunity. A capitalistic society provides opportunities that socialistic societies do not. This is what we speak of when we talk about the American Dream. The American Dream is that any one person can become what they want if they are persistent. This is what makes this country so great. Now, we want to throw the American Dream away and move towards socialism. If there are Americans that believe socialistic societies are better, then why don't move to Canada or Sweden and live their dream. Why are they so determined that they want to ruin the last great capitalistic society? Our Hollywood elite can move to the place of their dreams. Michael Moore can move to Cuba to get the great health care he brags about in Sicko. Sean Penn can move to Venezuela to be with his buddy President Hugo Chavez. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon can move to North Korea or Iran since they disagree with our policy that they are Evil nations. All of these actors and liberal elite have one thing in common: They all talk about how things are not so bad in other countries, but they all choose to live here in the U.S. That is because they are liars, hypocrites, and idiots. They know they have it great in this country and will not go anywhere else. If Michael Moore wants better health care for Americans he should lose some weight. He is too self absorbed to realize that his obesity is the reason for our escalating health costs in this country. I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but I would pay more attention to a movie about U.S. Health Care (Sicko by Micheal Moore) if they person that made the movie is at least physically fit. Penn can live in Venezuela where all of the material in his films will be dictated by the government.

My half brother is liberal, but at least he had the common courtesy to move to East Germany to live his liberal and socialistic dream. I admire and respect him greatly for that. I wish the liberals would quit complaining and put their money where their mouths are. They should have the nerve to pack their bags and move to their so called land of opportunities. If you do not have health insurance, we can load everyone in a bus and take them to Canada. A word of caution, although everyone is entitled to health insurance in Canada, I would not get sick there. Everyone I talk to that got sick in Canada had a horrible experience of dirty hospitals and shoddy care.

So come on liberals, quit trying to change the U.S. and pack your bags and head out. Fanatical PETA followers can go to India where cows and animals are sacred. Global warming advocates can move to the Amazon and Antarctic to say goodbye to the lands they care so deeply about. Pro lifers can move to any third world country where there is no medical care to give abortions. So please quit complaining and trying to change this great nation and move to a place that will make you happy.

Obama: Hiding behind Technology

2009-03-26T11:06:00.000-07:00

In my book I talk about how technology has made us impersonal as a nation. Now our President is following suit by addressing questions on the internet. Obama already hides behind a teleprompter to deliver his messages, now he wants to hide behind a computer to answer questions. Face it, it is much easier and less stressful to answer questions on a computer without the nation watching. It is safe since the President cannot make a gaffe or an error. I may not speak for everyone, but I want to see how this untested man performs under the scrutiny of tough questions. I want to see if he has the persona to conduct himself under the intense pressure of the Presidency. It is one thing to be smooth and charismatic when giving speeches under the guidance of a teleprompter. It is a completely different thing to be able to conduct himself under the pressure of tough questions in an impromptu fashion. Heck, he may not even be answering the internet questions. The questions can be answered by anyone in his administration. Call me old fashion, but I want to see the President answer tough questions.

Obama has already shown his testy side and is not nearly as smooth when answering media questions as opposed to giving speeches. In last Tuesday's press conference Obama had only one tough question and that came from a CNN reporter. Obama first did not answer the question and when the reporter pushed him for an answer as to why it took him 3 days to show outrage over the AIG bonuses, Obama got testy and responded "I only comment when I have all the facts" (Or something to that effect). This is nonsense, he only responded when the American public showed its outrage. Everyone should remember how fast the Obama campaign machine responded to criticism during the campaign. Well, if he can respond in minutes during the campaign to a crisis or issue, he should be able to do the same as President. It as if Obama detests anyone that gives him a tough question. After all, who are they to question the anointed one. In fact, I think the questions Obama has gotten to this point are fairly vanilla and easy. Think of how the media scrutinized Bush over the Iraq War. Obama deserves the same scrutiny over the economic crisis. After all, he is spending more money in one year than any President in history. Obama's main response to tough economic questions is to say he inherited the problem. That may be true, but when a President spends nearly 2 trillion dollars to fix the problem, he now owns the crisis. It will be interesting to see how long he will blame Bush. Obama conveniently fails to mention that the economic downturn also occurred under his watch as a Senator is a Democrat led Congress. However, he feels he has no blame in this crisis and that is where he is wrong.

Now, as the pressure of his job mounts he is content to run and hide behind technology. I think this is how a coward would deal with problems. A real person will stand up and take the heat for their actions and decisions. If Obama is that confident with his strategy to handle to economy, he would not have to feel it is necessary to avoid the press and the tough questions. A good President would relish the opportunity to give his side of the issue with the whole country looking on.

Obama Administration: Failing Business 101

2009-03-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

I have seen this mistake made hundreds of times in the business world and the Obama Administration is falling into the same trap. Whenever a new manager or administration takes over an area or the White House, they impatiently try to push their agenda without first understanding their current budget. For example, when I was chartered to take over a lab for a new business, before I spent any money on new equipment I would figure out what I had first. I would first clean the lab. I would then inventory all the equipment that currently exists in the lab. I would finally calibrate and make sure all the equipment is in working order. At this time I now know what new equipment I need and would place a purchase order. Many managers and leaders do not follow these simple actions before trying to implement their agenda. I have seen corporate managers waste money by buying redundant equipment or make changes that worked for a previous business model, but will not for a the business model of new organization they are tasked to manage. These are common mistakes and they can be costly and devastating. If only corporate and political leaders would set their vast egos aside and display some patience they may make proper decisions.

The Obama Administration is no different. Take for example the billions of new spending they have proposed or introduced for education. Today, the United States already pays more tax dollars per student than any other country in the world. However, Obama has already pushed for more educational spending without understanding current educational spending. Obama has said time and time again he would cut wasteful spending, but he has done no such thing. This should be the first step he should be doing before proposing additional and more than likely redundant spending. I do not understand this. If Obama and his team were prudent they may be able to cut educational programs that do not work and reallocate the money to do what his administration wants to accomplish without introducing additional tax payer dollars. The Obama administration is arrogant and would fail business 101 because they are simply rushing into affairs and wasting money.

The problem with the government is that they are not spending their own money, they are spending our money. That is the main problem and why the government is so wasteful. Most people that rent an apartment or car do not treat these items as they would if they owned them. That is the problem with the government, they do not care about wasting money and continue to practice the concept that a problem will be resolved by throwing money at it.

Obama claimed during his press conference last night he does act unless he understands the problem and knows what he is saying. If that is true, he would not be in such a hurry to spend record levels of taxpayer money without first understanding how current money is being spent or allocated. This is fiscally irresponsible behavior. Now the Obama administration wants more control over Wall Street and the financial sector. This is the "pot calling the kettle black" and completely hypocritical. Now we have a completely fiscally irresponsible government that wants to take over the financial industry. Now that is an oxymoron.

Stagflation

2009-03-24T10:36:00.000-07:00

A prime concern now that the Obama Administration has flooded the economy with money is stagflation. Stagflation is when inflation is high and the economy is poor at the same time. A bad economy is high unemployment and little growth. Today, the economy is poor, but inflation is in check. However, inflation can spiral out of control with the excess money injected into the economy coupled with present day low interest rates. Obama and his administration are counting on the economy turning before inflation rises. Most economist agree that inflation will be on the rise due to the large amounts of money that the federal government has injected into the economy. Pumping money into the economy is going to cause high inflation, it is just a matter of when. Either way the American public is going to suffer from Obama economic policies. An economic policy that only hopes inflation happens after the economic downturn is not a very good policy. If inflation happens before the economic downturn is alleviated then the economy could be in peril for a much longer time period. This risk is unnecessary, because no matter what transpires the American public will pay for the Obama economic policies. We all will have to endure ridiculously high food and energy costs within the next few years. If we thought 4 dollar gasoline was bad, it may be much worse in the next few years. It is just a matter of when the inflation occurs: during or after the economic downturn.

The sad thing about the Obama economic policy is that they believe they are doing the right thing and there is little risk in their plan. A plan of tax cuts is a better way to flood the economy with money. Under a tax cut the federal government does not have to print additional monies to stimulate the economy. Less money in our economy will stagnate inflation. Tax cuts are supply side economics or a bottom to top method to help the economy. Money from tax cuts goes directly to the consumer to stimulate the economy immediately. A Keynesian plan to create demand by using government sponsored programs could have a devastatingly adverse affect on the economy. This is a top to bottom method to help the economy. A Keynesian plan is hopeful the money will reach the American public as some point. Maybe 50 cents on the dollar reaches the American public or less, but there is no way it is as efficient or effective as tax cuts. The Obama plan will lead to inflation, it is just a matter of when.

The Obama Fascination

2009-03-19T09:32:00.000-07:00

Everyday I hear news stories about the entire Obama family and it has nothing to do with politics. Stories that cover Michelle’s fashion sense and even stories about her chiseled arms that she likes to display. We see pictures of Barack at the beach without a shirt and stories about his good looks and physically fit body. We of course hear stories about how hip the first family is and how both Barack and Michelle are gifted orators. People have even studied and written about the Obama’s facial features and how they show they are great and intellectually superior individuals. Chris Mathews must have shown Obama making what he called a 40 foot jumper at least 50 times on his program. Mathews must not understand basketball, so he should not comment on it. Obama made a 3 point basket with no one covering him. A 3 point basket is about 21 feet, not 40 feet. Even I shot over 40% in my recreation league on 3 point shots and that is with people guarding me. I can make over 60% of my 3 point baskets with no one covering me and if I am not tired from running the court. What is this fascination that we have to make this guy out to be so great? I do not understand it, and I especially do not understand how we embellish stories to make him look great. Who really cares if the Obama’s are smooth and have charisma? I personally view these side stories as a way the media can gloat and boast about the Obama’s without looking at his abysmal performance thus far in the White House. I have not seen a published picture of the Obama family that shows them in a bad light. The media usually punished past Presidents by publishing poor pictures of them. Bush was made out to be a buffoon every chance the media got. President Ford was always pictured falling or banging his head. President Ford may have been the best athlete of any of our Presidents. He was an All-American center on the University of Michigan football team. The media uses propaganda to convince and influence how Americans view Presidents. The Obama media frenzy about their fashion sense and sculpted bodies is no different. First, the Obama family is young so they should be healthy and hip. In fact, he and the first lady are the youngest first family since Kennedy administration. There have been very few Presidents younger than Barack or first ladies younger than Michelle. Did anyone take a good look at Michelle, she may have tone arms, but her backside is fairly large. If I were to guess, I would actually say she is unfit and probably overweight. Barack may look good on the outside, but he is a chain smoker. I bet his insides are older than George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton. However, we never see him a picture with him smoking a cigarette. They talk about Barack like he is a great athlete and basketball player. However, we never see pictures of him trying to bowl or even dance. The man has two left feet. I am two years younger than Obama and I bet I could beat him one on one in hoops. I never played high school or even grammar school ball, but I am willing to bet I can outlast him and outwork him because I am in better shape. My 10 year old nephew can beat the man in bowling. So can we get off the Obama infatuation and cover the things that really matter like his ability to be President and Commander in Chief.

Michelle makes comments that go ignored by the press. For example, when her husband was on the brink of winning the Presidency she said “This is most patriotic I have felt.”. This from a family that would not have been in the position they are today without getting a great deal of help from this country. Both Barack and Michelle benefitted from Affirmative Action. Thus, they never would have gotten their Ivy League education without this country giving them every added advantage. I wonder what has become of the people they bypassed to get their Ivy League education? I wonder how patriotic they feel? How can Michelle make such a crass statement after what this country did for both her and Barack? It is absurd. Does the media cover this story? Absolutely not, they cover her attire, or her ability to give a speech, or her embellished figure. Is this what our media has been reduced to? So please, stop trying to convince me and the American public that the Obama’s are the chosen family or the anointed ones. I do not care what they look or sound like, what I care about is our economy.

What is Barack doing these days to show he is a regular and hip guy? He is filling out a NCAA basketball tournament bracket on TV. He is going on the Jay Leno show. What is Barack not doing? He is not worrying about the economy or the health of our nation. This guy does not get it. The President shouldn’t worry about his approval ratings and how Americans view him. He has a job to do and he must make sound decisions regardless of how the American public feels. You may not like Bush, but he made decisions that may not have been popular. He made decisions he thought were right and had the conviction to carry them out even when there was public outrage. Barack does not seem to have the conviction or meddle to make the tough calls. Especially tough calls and not blame someone else for the problem like Bush.

The Economic Blame Game

2009-03-17T09:57:00.000-07:00

I am tired of hearing Democrats say they inherited the bad economy. The Democrats are being naive if they think they have no ownership over what happened and what will transpire in the future. I wish they would quit playing the blame game and move on already and address the current problem. This is why Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans:

1. The Democrats let Frannie Mae and Fredie Mac give questionable loans to home buyers. This practice started under the Clinton Administration. Frannie and Freddie hold one half of all the bad mortgage loans in the country. When Republicans pushed for more oversight of Frannie and Freddie Democrats charged that Republicans want to kill the dreams of less fortunate Americans to be home owners.

2. Democrats held a majority in Congress when the financial meltdown started. Senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank led financial committtees and did nothting despite seeing many warning signs of a collapse.

3. I remember Democrats blamming Bush for the 2001 recession that started about a month after he entered office when the dot com bubble burst. They felt that Clinton had no responsibilty for getting us into that mess just as they feel that Obama has no responsibility for getting us out of the current mess.

I wish the Democrats and Republicans would quit playing the blame game and move on. Why can't we compromise and say Clinton is mostly responsible for the 2001 recession and Bush is mostly responsible for the 2008 recession. And we could say that Bush got us out of the 2001 recession and hopefully Obama will get us out of the 2008 recession. It is as simple as that. Lets move on already, the past is the past and nothing can be done to correct that.

The Perfect Liberal Storm

2009-03-14T09:13:00.000-07:00

The past few months could not have played out any better for the Democrats. The 2008 election cycle was going to be a good year for Democrats. Many people blamed an unpopular George W. Bush for everything that was wrong in this country. Since the former President was a Republican, his entire party was going to suffer. The financial meltdown a few months before the election was icing on the cake for the Democrats. Not only did they win the executive branch, but they gained a stranglehold on Congress. Now, the government is run by a huge Democratic majority without any checks and balances to keep them in line. The Democrats are free to pass any of their liberal or socialized legislation and there is not anything we can do to stop it.

I believe Obama and the Democrats want to keep this country in a recession for as long as possible. They want to use the financial meltdown to push their liberal and socialistic agenda. They will use fear mongering tactics on gullible Americans to pass their agenda. We have already heard Obama say that the lack of a Universal Health Care plan is the biggest threat to the economy. That is an outright lie. The U.S. economy has done well for years without socialized health care. The Obama administrations goal is use the economic crisis to their advantage. Thus, the longer the crisis lasts, the better the chances the Obama administration has to pass its liberal agenda through Congress.

Many may think I am crazy that the President wants the economic crisis to linger until they push their agenda through Congress. Well consider a few facts that show I may not be that crazy:

1. It has been nearly 2 months and Geithner has yet to formulate a plan to stabilize the banking system. Although billions have already been authorized to help the banking industry Geithner has not said how he plans to use the money.

2. Obama’s message has been nothing but “doom and gloom” about the economy and has said very little that is optimistic. This is fear mongering. He covers himself by constantly reminding the public he inherited this mess as if he has no ownership over the problem. Thus, it is okay for the economy to suffer for a prolong time frame because he can always blame Bush while getting his massive government in place.

3. Most of the money from the massive spending (stimulus) bill will not get into the economic system for several years. Thus, it will not stop the economic downturn in the short term.

4. As the markets continue to slide there seems to be no urgency on Obama’s part to stop the downward spiral and Geithner continues to sit on the sidelines. Obama has even stated he is not concerned about the stock market. The stock market is one of the best indicators to how the economy is performing, but he could care less that Americans continue to lose their life savings.

5. Obama still has not filled over half of the positions in the Treasury Department. How can he tackle the economic crisis if he does not have his team in place.

Yes, it was a perfect liberal storm over the past 6 months and the Obama administration and the Democrats will seize the opportunity to make us suffer more just to get their agenda pushed through Congress. It has always been my theory that Democrats want to keep the poor oppressed so they can count on their vote. If the economy suffers and Americans suffer it will help the Democrats to keep their vote and push their agenda.

Prediction: Obama will be the Worst President in U.S. History

2009-03-11T11:23:00.000-07:00

Okay, I have seen enough. Yes, I want Obama to succeed, but he has already proven he does not have a clue to what he is doing. To be the worst President in U.S. history he has to beat out the vastly overrated FDR and LBJ and he is well on his way. Here are some major blunders thus far:

In my book I admit that Obama is smooth orator. However, I did not realize until recently he uses a teleprompter and gets fed facts for all his speeches and press conferences. Maybe he is not as smooth or smart as we all thought. Think of what the left would say if Bush did this. The left always felt Cheney and Rove ran the White House. Well, who is running Obama’s White House?

In my book I say Obama has been a political genius by avoiding taking a stand on tough political issues. However, I am really starting to think he may not have been a genius after all and may in fact have below normal intellect. I think he is simply a puppet doing what Reed, Pelosi, and Emanual tell him.

As every job market segment in the U.S. shrinks, only governmental jobs are on the rise. A sure sign that we are getting big government. This is the first step towards socialism.

As much as Democrats criticize the Iraq War and its cost, the Obama spending machine has already spent more than the U.S. has paid to date to support both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

As many blamed the Republicans for using fear mongering tactics after 9-11, the Democrats are doing the same with the economy to sell their huge spending bills. In fact, Obama thinks Americans are so stupid that he is using the economy to sell his socialized health plan. It as if the United States did not prosper without socialized health care the first 230 years of our existence.

Spending and our national debt are out of control. I realize Republicans are to blame for this as well, but the budget this year is ridiculous.

He is already raising taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Even the most liberal Presidents would not do that during a recession.

One of his plans to raise taxes on the wealthy is to cut their charitable contributions. This is insane, especially during a recession. This will certainly affect monies going to charities that help people in tough times. This is obviously a counter productive measure.

Geithner is formulating all the ways to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy. This is the same man that owed the IRS money for nearly a decade before paying it off without a penalty. Charlie Rangel who heads the House Ways and Means committee that writes our tax code has also evaded paying taxes. He too did not have to pay a penalty. I do not think it is an era of new politics to have tax cheats running the IRS and writing our tax codes. I agree the tax code is too complicated. So let’s go to the Fair Tax and be done with Geithner and the IRS.

Obama has moved oversight of the 2010 Census from the Commerce Department to the White House. This is to make sure Democrats can rewrite district lines to ensure they optimize the number of House seats in 2010. This is one way to become a dictatorship and rid ourselves of the Republican Party. According to the Constitution, the Commerce Department, not the White House is responsible for the Census.

Even though his administrations looks likes Clinton’s with the same bunch of cronies, they still have not learned from their mistake of trying to do too much too fast.

Obama tells us to conserve energy and openly criticizes companies for their lavish spending. Obama keeps his office at 80 degrees and spends more money on weekly parties, the inauguration, and food then any of his predecessors. That is a true sign of a hypocrite. It is okay to critique company spending if and only if Washington is doing the same. That is not case.

In a speech to Democrat House Members, Obama ridiculed and lambasted Republicans with cynicism and sarcasm. Could you imagine if Bush did this? This from the man who said he would bridge bipartisan behavior. It only took him 2 weeks to break that.

Obama has openly said during every public appearance that he inherited the economic problem. He has openly bashed Bush when given the chance. When is Obama going to stop doing this and finally take responsibility? Bush had been nothing but gracious to Obama and his family, it is about time Obama stop being political and treat the former President with respect.

He closed Gitmo without a contingency plan to place the detainees. I do not agree with closing Gitmo, but if had a plan in place I may agree with him.

Earmarks. Bills are loaded with pork and he said he would put an end to this wasteful spending. He said he would go over bills line by line to cut waste. However, Obama was one of the biggest Earmark abusers when in Congress. So, it is just another lie. I really wish that Republicans would stop placing earmarks in bills. I vote for fiscally responsible Republicans, not big spending Republicans.

Bailout city. I am sick of every idiot and moron getting a bail out. This includes corporations. The auto industry should go to bankruptcy as should the banks. At first, I thought banks should be bailed out because they are the backbone to our economy. However, once these large banks dry up and fail, this will be an opportunity for some smaller and better run banks to gobble them up. It is the American way. I just wish I was stupid and bought a house I could not afford so I could get bailed out. We are a nation that rewards stupidity, but punishes fiscally responsible people with a larger tax burden. I am tired of hearing everyone’s sob story. This is America, if you are down, brush yourself off and do something about it. If you cannot do anything to help yourself, you should not ask the government for help.

Homeland Security Head Napolitano views on border control is a bit lax to say the least.

Obama has openly said he does not base his economic decisions based on how the markets are doing. The markets are the best barometer to measure a healty economy. Obama needs to realize this and get his act together. This just shows how out of touch he and his administration are. If he wants to help Americans he needs to preserve their 401ks.

Why is the Obama administration going after Rush Limbaugh? I have never seen an administration so obsessed with talk show host. The only reason that comes to my mind is that they want to avert the nation's eyes from their economic policy. The Obama administration should have enough to do than worry about Rush.

Obama is already instituting carbon taxes and caps. Why is Obama so anti-corporation. How are companies going to grow and hire new employees if they always have to fight the government. Corporations will be forced to pass the burden onto consumers. Yes, the already fragile economy and stuggling Americans will once again be forced to burden the cost of government blunders. If you are intested in a novel way to address supposed "climate change", please read my book.

Let's not forget Obama's promise to not have any lobyist in his administration. It is puzzling to me why politicians make so many promises they cannot keep. Anyone who has been in politics long enough knows this is not a promise any Presidential candidate could keep. So why make stupid promises? That is the question. I have no problem their lobbiest in his administration. All lobyiest are not bad people. The idiotic thing is why Obama made the promise to start out with. It simply makes him look inexperienced and quite frankley he looks like a typical politician doing and saying whatever to win an election.

A few things I think Obama has been correct on since coming to office:

He has not run out of Iraq. I am sure he is getting all the chilling and mind boggling security updates on a daily basis and that has changed his stance. It will be interesting to see if the left banishes him for this. Remember the left blamed Nixon for not ending the Vietnam War in a timely matter. Oliver Stone and other far left wingers fail to mention that Johnson got the U.S. in that mess, not Nixon. Thus, if the far left is consistent they should ridicule Obama.

I think he was right to change the Stem Cell research. Although, I do not think this is national issue, it should be decided by each individual state. Hence, I think he is overstepping his bounds as did the Bush administration.

He has not moved forward with the left views that Bush Administration personnel be punished for war crimes. This would be an injustice to go through with this witch hunt. How quickly we forget that Obama’s hero FDR imprisoned more that 110 thousand Japanese Americans during WWII. Thousands were tortured to obtain information. FDR is considered one of our greatest Presidents. However, Bush is a monster for his treatment to less than 1,000 Muslims. I hear of all the injustices that have taken place in Iraq, but forget that Harry Truman dropped 2 A-Bombs on Japan. If the U.S. was attacked again under Bush’s watch he would have been ridiculed for not keeping us safe. What is it? Do we want to be safe or are we worried about the rights of a few people? We cannot have it both ways.

New Book: Is America Dying?

2009-02-18T10:37:00.000-08:00

My new book entitled: Is America Dying? is currently in print and will be available in a month or so. It can be purchased from the following web site: www.justbookz.com

Here is a brief description of the book:

An in depth look at fanatical behavior that is generating turbulence, chaos, destruction, and unpredictability leading to the widespread division and polarization amongst Americans. What is wrong with the United States and the world as Americans head into the twenty-first century? The main issue seems to be that people are more divided and polarized than ever before. The six barriers polarizing Americans discussed in "Is America Dying?" are: Religion, National Organizations, Human Influences, External Influences and Traits, Politics, and Diversity.

Here is a brief bio on the author:

Patrick Bohan graduated from Penn State University with a B.S. in Electrical Engineering in 1986. He spent the next 21 years working for a high technology company where he held a number of positions from individual contributor to management. His greatest achievement was being elected Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff in 2006, for his technical contributions. He had more than 20 publications and patents in the field of Test Engineering. Patrick has also published an investment book entitled: “MoneySense: A Commonsense Road to Financial Security and Early Retirement”, in 2001. He followed his own advice, and retired in 2007, at the age of 43. He and his wife have moved to Colorado to enjoy the outdoors. Patrick is as avid hiker and mountaineer. He has climbed all of the state high points except Alaska (One failed attempt on Mount McKinley). He has climbed over 30 of Colorado’s 54 fourteen thousand foot peaks (14ers). His greatest alpine achievement is a winter ascent of the Grand Teton. Patrick has taken all of his life experiences, and uniquely related them to our national problems in this ground-breaking book. Thus, “Is America Dying?” is a cross between an autobiography and a political publication.

Republicans: A Lesson on How to Lose

2008-11-06T09:22:00.000-08:00

We need to commend the Republicans for being gracious in defeat. I know this election was not as close as the previous ones, but any loss is hard to swallow. The Republicans congratulated Obama and wished him success. Although Republicans are obviously not happy with the outcome, within 24 hours they have moved on. Republicans do not get so fanatical over the loss that they let their emotions take over their ability to reason. McCain's succession speech was eloquent and sincere. Meanwhile, the Democrats have still have not gotten over the 2000 and 2004 elections. They think they are the only ones that can have an election stolen from them even though their claims were unfounded. They and the media have made it as hard as possible on President Bush to be successful. They hampered his transition into office in 2000 which put his team far behind from the onset of his administration. It has been an up hill battle since. I know Bush blundered a lot of things, but it is no thanks to the Democrats and the media who wanted him to fail. This is sabotage and terrible for our nation that grown human beings can hold a grudge and be spiteful for that long a period. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves and take a lesson from the Republicans on how to lose graciously. This will make the transition for Obama into the White House easier and give him a better chance to succeed. Once again, the McCain slogan is correct "Country First". The Democrats slogan should be "Me First". Their poor behavior sets a bad example for our youth and every American.

The Democrats are sore winners. Watch as they punish those within their party that did not support Obama. Joe Liebermann will be banished from his responsibilities. We already saw Obama boot newspaper reporters from his plane after their papers did not endorse him. So much for all that talk of uniting and non-partisan politics. The message is clear, the Obama administration and Democrats will only deal with people and the media that believes in what they are doing. There is no questioning the Democrats now that they are in charge. I hope I am wrong, but this is the vibe I am getting at this point in time.

Can We Please Stop Talking About Race

2008-11-06T07:30:00.000-08:00

Two days after the election the media continues to talk about the historic nature of having the first African-American elected President. We talk about this as if it would have never happened. African-Americans around the country are joyous in their exuberant celebrations. Yes, it is historical and yes it is important and reason to celebrate, but am I the only one not surprised it happened? African-Americans have made astronomical progress over the past few decades in all fields, not just politics. Douglas Wilder was the first African American elected Governor to a state (Virginia) in the 1990s. However, when this barrier was broken, it never got the media coverage as Obama's election while it was every bit as important. Today, there are two African-American Governors, Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) and David Patterson (New York). Although Barrack Obama is the only current black Senator, there are 42 African-Americans in the House. Clarence Thomas sits on the Supreme Court and the past two Secretary's of State were black (Colin Powell and Condollezza Rice). However, the media nor did the African American community make a fuss over these appointments. Part of the reason is because Thomas, Powell, and Rice are Republicans and supposedly the enemy of minority progress in this country. This of course is a fallacy. Recently, when blacks were given the opportunity to elect African-Americans into prestigious offices they choose not to and instead vote in the 'right' political party. In the 2006 elections, blacks had the opportunity to elect Michael Steele Senator of Maryland, but 75% of the black vote backed the white Democratic candidate, so Steele lost. Blacks also had the opportunity to elect Lynn Swann Governor of Pennsylvania but opted to back the white Democratic candidate. In Ohio blacks also had the opportunity to elect Ken Blackwell Governor, but once again opted to elect the white Democrat instead. If Barack Obama had been the Republican Candidate in this election, he would have lost because minorities would have turned their back on him. The media and Civil Rights Leaders would have condemned Obama just as they did to Clarence Thomas. It is true that Democratic candidate Harold Ford lost his bid to be Senator of Tennessee in 2006. He lost in a very tight race by running as a moderate. Although blacks supported him, Tennessee is a very conservative state. Deval Patrick was the only black candidate for Governor or the U.S. Senate to get elected in 2006.

My point is: I am not surprised we have an African-American President today and I think it could have come sooner if Black Leaders united all African-Americans. I have seen many qualified African-American candidates running for the highest state offices and do well. I have seen African-Americans appointed to the highest courts and cabinet offices. If Harold Ford can almost win in Tennessee, blacks could do well in any state. I also felt that many barriers would have been broken down sooner if the Black Civil Rights leaders did not tell African-Americans to turn their backs on qualified candidates of color such as Steele, Blackwell, or Swann just because of their political affiliation. Barriers could have been dismantled if Black Civil Rights leaders celebrated the victories of Thomas, Powell, and Rice like they did with Obama instead of treating them like "Uncle Toms" and the enemy. Anyone who follows politics should not be surprised we have an African-American President. Unfortunately, the only thing that kept it from happening sooner was black leaders insisting the candidate come from one party and one party only. Blacks have had a lot of opportunities to get more representation in government but opted not to unite solely because of their political affiliation. It as if an African-American is only an African-American if they are a Democrat. Republican African-Americans are viewed as traitors because this is what the media and black civil rights leaders have brainwashed the black public into believing.

Jesse Jackson had some success running for President in 80s. He was able to unite and get a large portion of the black vote. However, he was not able to sway white voters for a number of reasons other than racism and bigotry. First, he was not qualified to do the job, he had very little executive or government experience. Secondly, he alienated many by using racial slurs against the Jews and they are big part of the Democratic electorate. Third, he alienated other whites because his version of civil rights was much more combative than those of Martin Luther King.

Can we finally move on and not act so surprised we have a black President. It is insulting, we act as if the African-American people are not competent enough to have this job. This is ludicrous, there are plenty of qualified African-Americans to be President. In fact, I think there are many much more qualified than Obama.

We Can Only Hope .........

2008-11-05T10:08:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Barack and his supporters. As most had predicted, a fairly easy win for him. I truly hope he proves me wrong and is one of our great Presidents. As for our nation:

We can only hope that Barack governs left-center instead of left as his record indicates.

We can only hope that Barack appoints judges who abide by the law and not empathy and emotion.

We can only hope that Barack reforms welfare instead of expanding it.

We can only hope that Barack will be fiscally responsible and balance the budget as he predicts.

We can only hope that Barack will transcend race and not be a person that believes in what Reverend Wright preaches.

We can only hope that Barack will be bipartisan even though his record is partisan.

We can only hope that his lack of experience does not cost us dearly.

We can only hope that Barack will not get us out of Iraq prematurely where all our loses would be in vain.

We can only hope that Barack follows through on his education plan and energy independence plan (including drilling and nuclear power)

We can only hope his tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy do not keep us in a recession or worse yet, send us into a depression.

We can only hope he does not want government to regulate every U.S. corporation or business.

We can only hope he does not grow our government to large, because that would lead to waste and inefficiency.

We can only hope Barack can stand up to Reed and Pelosi.

We can only hope his socialized plans of health care do not push our country further into dept.

We can only hope that Barack will promote more trade agreements to help our economy and national debt.

We can only hope that Barack will not sit down and give in to our enemies.

We can only hope that Barack will make the tough decisions instead of avoiding them in his past by voting "present".

We can only hope that he has some new ideas or policies instead of copying failed policies from past Democratic Presidents such as LBJ, FDR, and Jimmy Carter.

We can only hope that Barack will be a different person and legislator he had been in the past.

We can only hope his plan to surge troops in Afghanistan will work.

We can only hope he is fair with our ally Israel.

We can only hope that there is more to him than being a very charismatic orator that just told the public what they wanted to hear.

We can only hope because I think we are stuck with this guy for 8 years. Even if he does a bad job, I do not see the country electing Palin, Romney, or Huckabee.

Election Day Chaos

2008-11-04T13:28:00.000-08:00

Today, I volunteered as a poll watcher for the McCain Camp in Colorado. The first time I tried to call in with an update at my poll, the line was flooded with hundreds of Republican poll watchers reporting problems. It seems the Democrats were not following the state rules for poll watchers. The rules state that only one poll watcher is allowed for each party at each precinct. At a high majority of the precincts the Democrats had sent multiple poll watchers. In fact, at on precinct, there were 11 Democrat poll watchers.

I have always heard from the media that Republicans used intimidation to disenfranchise minority voters. However, my first day in the election day process illustrated to me that Democrats also play the intimidation game. Why else would violate a simple rule? We have heard how organized his campaign is, so then why have 2, 3, 4 or even 11 poll watchers show up to strategic precincts?

Obama's Misguided View on Law

2008-11-02T07:29:00.000-08:00

Obama's view on how judges should interpret the Constitution is freighting. He believes that judges should be biased and use their emotions such as empathy to rule on cases. Keep in mind, Obama has a law degree from Harvard. His view for example, is that the courts should rule in favor of the poor or the handicap against corporations, doctors, or the wealthy. That is not a problem, if they win the case based on law. However, if they won the case based solely on the fact they are poor and handicap, well that is different story. This view is not only absurd, but will increase litigation on frivolous lawsuits and will result in more financial payouts. Keep in mind, the increase in financial settlements to plaintiffs with questionable cases will have a direct bearing on ALL Americans. Our auto and medical insurance premiums will go up, the price for other goods and services will go up as well as people, doctors, and corporations are sued. If you think there are a lot of "ambulance chasing" and "sleazy" attorneys today, that number will go up exponentially if Obama changes how the law is interpreted. Also, keep in mind, the leftist radicals that support his view of the law that he appoints to the Supreme Court, will be there for their lifetime. We cannot have this. Face it, not interpreting the Constitution correctly is Unconstitutional, and against the law. Do not get me wrong, judges can have empathy for plaintiffs or defendants. That is not against the law. However, if their emotion gets the best of them and they rule in their favor only because they feel sorry for someone, that is a crime. We do not need judges making new legislation and policy, that is not their job. We need judges to interpret the law and that is it.

Prediction: Obama in a Landslide

2008-11-02T07:18:00.000-08:00

I think Obama will win this election in a landslide. To me, a landslide is winning the election by at around 10 points and having an advantage of around 200 votes in the Electoral College. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Republicans are organized enough to stop the Tsunami they are in. The economic downturn was the final nail in the coffin. The Republicans dodged bullets throughout the election cycle, but in the end the media was able to find something to sway voters. When the election cycle started, the war in Iraq was the main storyline. However, as the tide turned and victory was in sight, the story changed to the economy. First, it was soaring gas prices, but as gas prices have dropped by $1.50 over the past month this topic too took a back seat. Secondly, many claimed in the media claimed a recession, but that too did not fly because they were premature. Now it is the financial meltdown and this one will be fixed in time for the Republicans. The media is using fear mongering techniques by comparing this crisis to the Great Depression. This recession is certainly bad, but it far from the Great Depression. Amazing how we hear absolutely nothing about gas prices and Iraq these days. The Republicans will do well to keep from losing more than 6 seats in the Senate and 25 in the House. The American public is in a state of panic about the economy and that is how the media wants it. They also did their best to portray Sarah Palin as the devil and Barack Obama as God. It is a sad world we live in when we Americans are that gullible to be swayed by biased propaganda.

If there is a silver lining for the Republicans, it is a difficult time to be President and in charge of Congress. That being said, I am very confident that the Democrats will fail in their promises to the American people and will fall out of favor quickly.

I have a funny feeling election night will not have much drama. As the polls close on the East Coast and key states such as Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire are called immediately for Obama, the route is on. When Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida are called shortly after they verify the polling data is correct, we now know it will resounding victory for Obama. Obama will have 270 electoral votes before the polls close on the West Coast.

Obama has said that his success has "vindicated" his belief in Americans - In other words, we are all racist pigs that could not vote for a black man. Well Obama success has "vindicated" my belief that the American intellect is dwindling. Call me a racist pig, but I can give you dozen reason why not to vote for Obama and it has nothing to do with race. I would have no problem voting for a women or a person of color if they knew what they were doing.

Do Obama and Biden Spread the Wealth?

2008-11-02T07:04:00.000-08:00

Obama and Biden do not give nearly as much to charities as McCain or Palin. Palin’s family made 165K last year and gave over 8K to charities. Biden made over 2 million and gave just over 3K to charities. Obama has not helped any of his family members that live in poverty. Maybe if Obama and Biden practiced spreading the wealth by giving to charities they would not require a higher tax rate to spread the wealth. If Obama and Biden gave more to charities, maybe there would not be the big divide they claim between the middle class and the wealthy. What they fail to realize is higher taxes on the wealthy will certainly mean less money to charities that help the poor and middle class Americans. I certainly do not think Obama and Biden practice what they believe and they certainly had not thought about the repercussions of their tax increase on charities. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Obama should know that based on how much money he got for his campaign. If Obama wants to help the poor and middle class, he should set up some charities for them and have Americans give to the cause. This would work better than having the government take money from Americans without understanding the impact on the economy and to individual Americans. Obama calls those that argue higher taxes 'selfish', Biden calls paying higher taxes 'patriotic'. Based on their definition and their charity contributions I would say Obama and Biden are unpatriotic and selfish. Thus, they are hypocrites. It is also arguable as to whether Obama's contributions to Reverend Wright's church should count as a charitable contribution. It all depends on how much of that money is used to help people as opposed to using it to promote hate and bigotry. This I do not know the answer.

What is there to like about Obama?

2008-11-01T10:39:00.000-07:00

I like that Obama does not believe in the Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton version of civil rights. The fact that Jackson despises Obama is very refreshing to me. The fact that Obama preaches that African American males be more responsible is also refreshing. Every male should be responsible when they have children regardless of race. Unfortunately, only a black politician can ask that of his race. I like he has done that. Maybe, just maybe, we can see welfare reform in his Presidency. I am not going to hold my breath as Jackson and Sharpton will make sure to stop any legislation that will hurt entitlement programs. I like that there may be a new leadership of African Americans that will not only preach responsibility to strengthen the family unit, but will also preach stopping to use the ‘race card’ as an excuse. I think African-Americans can learn a lot listening to the likes of Obama, Bill Cosby, and Juan Williams instead of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Improvement in this area is dependent on the fact that Obama does not believe in all that ‘Anti White’ rhetoric preached by Reverend Wright when he was sitting in the pews. African-Americans have every right to be mad. It will also only happen if his administration does not play the “race card” as his campaign staff does every time someone becomes critical of Obama. I am sure every black person in this country has experienced racism, bigotry, and hate. That being said, it does not make it right to use bigotry and hate to fight bigotry and hate. Remember the premise of the Civil Rights movement under Martin Luther King was non-violence. Promoting bigotry and hate will only lead to violence. I agree that this is a two way street and white leaders have not done enough to curb white racism and that too has got to change. The reduction of racism is one area that I am hopeful an Obama Presidency can help implement for EVERY American. Obviously, having a black President is a good start to break down racial barriers.

Back about a year ago, the only other thing that I liked about Obama being President is that it would keep the Clintons out of the White House. However, I have changed my mind; I would rather have the Clinton’s in the White House instead of Obama. Bill was at least fiscally responsible and I do not think Obama will be.

With Obama elected as President, it shows that most Americans are not the racist bigots that the world and even how many Americans view us. Hopefully this will start change how things are done in this country by putting an end to diversity programs, quota systems, and affirmative action as well as welfare as we know it. I think most Americans are fair and would treat any minorities with respect and fairness in the process to get into college or to get a job. Yes, there are still racists and bigots out there, but an Obama Presidency is proof that it is not as wide spread as many may believe. Some may argue that many whites still voted against Obama and it was the minority vote that got him elected. That may be true, but minorities and women are the "bread and butter" electorate that support any Democrat running for the Presidency. So just maybe, an Obama Presidency would finally have the public seeing each other as Americans and human beings and not white, black, or brown.

The Bradley Effect

2008-10-31T07:08:00.000-07:00

The Bradley Effect is when white voters overstate their support in polls to minority candidates. The Bradley Effect came about when in Tom Bradley the mayor of Los Angeles lost the 1982 California Governor’s race despite leading in the polls. Since then there have been several cases when the black candidates’ results on Election Day were skewed from polling results. Since Obama is an African-American, many wonder if the Bradley Effect is going to cost him the election. With Obama up in the polls, some wonder if white voters are overstating their interest in Obama. It is believed a white voter would do that to show that they are not prejudice. However, once they vote they vote for the other candidate since no one will know how they voted since it is anonymous.

I do not think that election will see a very large Bradley Effect is anything at all. First, a lot of the elections where the Bradley Effect came into play were over a decade ago. I like to think that we have come a long way in pushing aside our prejudices as a nation. Secondly, if you look at the democratic primaries, the poll numbers between Hillary and Obama were fairly accurate for every state. The only state that was a surprise as New Hampshire where Clinton won and Obama had a 7 to 10 point lead in the polls. The bottom line is that I would be surprised if there is more than a 1 to 2 point swing to McCain.

In actuality, there may very well be a "reverse Bradley Effect" in this election. This occurs when whites vote for a black person to prove to themselves they are not prejudice. This is ridiculous, but it can happen. Rational people do not have to do this to prove they are not prejudice. For instance, I know I could vote for any one of a number of black candidates if they were running for President (Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, or even Bill Cosby). I just cannot vote for a black candidate that says he will bridge divides by being partisan when his record is nothing but bi-partisan. The reverse Bradley Effect can also occur when whites openly admit they will vote for McCain to their conservative cohorts, but will vote for Obama in the booth. I definitely think this can happen.

Example of Spreading the Wealth

2008-10-30T06:54:00.000-07:00

Here is a spreading the wealth example I got from a friend:

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money".
Once in the restaurant I noticed that my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt.
When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him that while he had given me exceptional service, his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need, the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.
As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pissed that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.

I find it ironic that the waiter would be more than happy getting a rebate at the expense of someone else, but is not happy when the rebate comes at his expense. Some may argue that this is not an "apples to apples" comparison of what Obama plans since both the homeless person and the waiter would get rebates under Obama and no money would be taken from the waiter. However, the premise is appropriate in that no one really likes losing hard earned wealth at the expense of someone else. This example is also appropriate in its progressive rate of wealth spreading. The waiter is losing only $3, but a person making 200K could lose an additional 5% of their wealth at a minimum ($10K). I doubt $3 is 5% of the waitresses annual income. That would mean he only earned $60 for the year. If the waiter earned a measly 5K for the year (I am sure it much more than this), the $3 spreading the wealth experiment cost him .066% of his wealth! That is a tax rate 166 times lower than the 200K individual but an income that is only 40 times lower. That seems fair to me.

This example also points out on glaring problem with the Obama spread the wealth plan. How much money is going to "dead beats". People that do not want to work and only want hand outs to support alcohol and drug addictions. This number may be small, nevertheless, it makes no absolutely no sense to give money to people that will not use it wisely. Most hard working Americans must take a drug test to get work, do the spread the wealth recipients have to do the same? No. Does a spread the wealth recipient have to show that they are at least trying to get a job, or they are trying to better themselves? No. I say give "spread the wealth" money to individuals that work to fix up their neighborhoods and work to fix our city and road infrastructure problems. Handing out money for nothing in return is irresponsible unless you know the people are for a fact responsible. And how will we ever determine that? It is almost impossible.

The Fairness Doctrine

2008-10-29T11:18:00.001-07:00

Nancy Pelosi is leading the Democratic charge to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was introduced by the FCC in 1949 to regulate that both the conservative and liberal points of view on controversial political issues be heard over the airwaves. I personally agree with this Doctrine however, the problem is that is not applied equally over all communications mediums. The Democrats want to reinstate the Doctrine that was last enforced in the 1980s, because it deals mainly with radio stations where conservative talk shows dominate the airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine was developed before TV and the Internet were existent. I would agree with the Fairness Doctrine if it were not only applied to the radio, but to the TV, our newspapers, and Internet news sites as well. It should come as no surprise that the liberals dominate TV and Internet news that are not covered by the doctrine. This only shows how biased and partisan the Democrats are. I also think the Fairness Doctrine should also apply to our educational system. Especially to our higher educational institutions that are predominately liberal. Today, these educational institutions have quotas to insure all races and religious types get a fair chance at attending their school. However, the only breed that is dying and being discriminated against in our schools is the conservative student and point of view. Teachers and professors that do not teach both sides of the story should not be tenured, it is that simple. Teaching opinions and bias has no place in the educational system. Just as educational institutions should teach both sides of the Civil War, they should be required to teach both sides of political issues. As I said, I am for the Fairness Doctrine as long as it is enforced through ALL media outlets and our schools. The Democrats only want it to equal the playing field on the radio, but not on TV, the newspapers, the Internet, or in our schools that are dominated by liberal points of view. The argument against the Fairness Doctrine is that it violates the “Freedom of Speech” amendment. However, the doctrine does not tell anyone that they cannot preach their viewpoint; it just says that another person should be allowed to give an alternate viewpoint on the same outlet. That means that Bill O’Reilly can still give his opinion on Fox News, but someone like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow should follow his show with an alternate view point.

Maternalist Versus Feminist

2008-10-28T16:02:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin is not a feminist and that may be why many women despise her. She is a maternalist. A maternalist is a strong mother figure. A maternalist is not so much concerned with equal rights for women as they are for the rights of their children. Although, Palin does have plenty in common with feminists in that she can balance work and family. Do not discount the political prowess of maternalists. They are not just happy homemakers. They fought for child welfare reform and started groups such as MADD (mothers against drunk drivers). I do not understand why feminist attack Palin like she is evil. What is wrong with a parent putting their kids first? Absolutely nothing! This country needs more strong mothers to raise their kids with good values, intellect, and commonsense. Feminist are strong women, but so are maternalist. Both feminist and maternalist have important roles in our society and have accomplished a great deal in the rights for women and children. However, it is disheartening that they can not unite for a common cause to represent the strong resolve of all women. It is especially disconcerting since the major political divide between feminist and maternalist is abortion. Feminist believe in a women's right to have an abortion and maternalist are against abortion at all cost. Although it seems maternalist and feminist are at odds on abortion, they probably are not that far apart. Even most feminist would not have an abortion with the exception of rape or incest. When you get down to it, not really much separates the feminist and maternalist. I think this country would benefit from a strong mother figure in the White House. The root of all problems in this country can arguably be pointed at education and the moral values that our children will have. Who better understands these issues than a strong mother figure or maternalist? Let’s face it, the future of the United States of America is in the hands of our children and it is the maternalist that shapes their persona, not the feminist. Ironically, feminist attacks on Palin are the same as attacking the mothers that did a good job raising Barack Obama and John McCain. It makes no sense and is hypocritical. I just do not understand why women cannot respect each others opinions and values. If they would unite, they would dominate the political landscape in the United States. After all, there are more women in the United States than men.

2008-10-28T07:40:00.000-07:00

The Biden / Obama Double Standard

Last weekend Joe Biden had an interview with a TV station in Florida. The interviewee asked Joe what was the difference between Karl Marx’s view on socialism and Obama’s plan to spread the wealth? A fairly easy question for him to answer, but the question caught him off guard because he thought it was a joke. His answer was only a denial instead of intelligently answering the question. He could have simply stated that the United States has always had a progressive income tax where those who make more get taxed more and vice versa. He could have said that although Obama’s plan is to level the playing field between the rich and poor, it does not go as far as socialism to put everyone as equals when it comes to income. He could have answered the question as simple as that, even if he felt the question condescending. However, when Sarah Palin opted not to answer some bogus questions she found condescending from Katie Couric, she was portrayed as stupid and ignorant. Palin should have answered those questions such as “what does she read”. Yes, it is a stupid and condescending question when given in a way that it stipulates people in Alaska are different and do not read the same things as us ‘normal’ folks in the lower 48. However, the difference is clear, Biden is given a pass despite ‘all of his so called experience’ and Palin is made out to be dumb. The Obama campaign took it a step further and said they would have no more interviews with that Florida station. On the other hand, when Palin is kept under wraps by the McCain campaign by not allowing her to give interviews because every mistake she makes is amplified, they are incompetent. It is a double standard and it is sad that it this obvious. Just as the media did not give Palin a pass because she was green to the media interview process, they certainly should not let Biden and Obama get away with choosing what questions they feel are relevant from the media.

Should Everyone Have the Right to Vote?

2008-10-27T11:21:00.000-07:00

Everyone has the right to vote with the exception of people that had committed a felony and a few other exceptions. However, why should people who do not understand the basic issues have the right to vote? Time Magazine asked potential voters 5 questions:

Who is the Vice President?
Who is the Speaker of the House?
Who is the Secretary of the Treasury?
Which State is Obama a Senator from?
Who is the Chief Justice?

Only 65% got 3 of 5 correct. Only 1 in 8 got all five correct. One in 12 got all five wrong. If you cannot score a 60 on 5 simple questions, then why should you have the right to vote? If you do not understand the basic players in our government, how can you understand the issues and have sound judgment to make a choice to represent us in government.

With the drop out rates at high schools increasing we should be providing incentives to kids to stay in school. If you do not graduate, you do not vote. I understand that some have to leave school to work, so exceptions can be made. However, most drop out for no reason at all. Is it fair to have ignorant and incompetent people deciding who gets elected into office? I do not think so.

Congressman John Murtha: Those who Vote for McCain are Racist

2008-10-25T07:50:00.000-07:00

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha claimed that the elder people in the Western part of his state will not vote for Obama because they are racist. If you take that way of thinking, then he is basically saying anyone who votes against Obama is racist. Once again this shows what kind of incompetent leadership we have in Congress. I mean people can vote against Obama because they are fearful of his socialized tax plan, his proposal of 1 trillion in new spending on failed social programs, his socialized health plan, his inexperience, his lack of a voting record, his relation with questionable characters, his lack of foreign experience, his partisan voting record, or any number of reasons to go with McCain.

I am really getting tired of the ‘race card’ being brought up in this election. The liberals and the media think they can convince people to vote for an African-American candidate to prove they are not racist. A person’s religious affiliation or they color of their skin has nothing to with politics. It should have nothing to do with how any American views another American. Let’s stop this. People can be objective and vote for McCain because they think he is the better candidate. Unfortunately, morons like Murtha will get re-elected. These are the idiots that need to be voted out of office since they are promoting polarization of Americans.

The Latest Attacks on Palin

2008-10-24T12:15:00.000-07:00

The front page of the NY Times yesterday mentioned the RNC bought 150K of clothing for Sarah Palin to use during the campaign. It was suppose to make conservatives look like they are wasting money and to point out they too can be ‘elitist’. This is what the Times did not mention:

Palin is the only one of the 4 candidates that is not a millionaire and did not have appropriate clothing for a 6 week campaign.
The clothing was NOT GIVEN TO HER. It was donated. After the campaign the clothing will be donated to charity or auctioned off for charity.
Palin won the Alaska Governorship wearing modest clothing, including fleece during events.

Also, during a CNN interview Palin was told that many hard core conservatives have an issue with her. The interviewee pointed to a National Review (conservative publication) column that said she was any number of things including incompetent. The article in question was actually a glowing endorsement for Palin. The author simply stated that the media was acting as if Palin was incompetent. The author never made that claim. Either this interviewee did not read the article or was fabricating lies to make Palin look bad on TV. It is so blatant as to what ends the media will go to portray Palin as evil. This has got to stop, and intelligent individuals need to understand this.

Colorado Amendment 48

2008-10-24T12:14:00.000-07:00

Fellow Coloradoan’s, for those who believe the definition of human being starts at conception can vote yes on Colorado Amendment 48. If it passes it will amend the Colorado Constitution with a definition of person.

Obama:Is He Copying Clinton Policies?

2008-10-23T12:02:00.000-07:00

Since disposing of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primaries, Obama has begun to copy some of her policies. Obama’s Health Care plan has moved closer to Clinton’s. Obama’s economic policy to handle the housing crisis has moved closer to what Clinton proposed. It is funny how they debated these topics during the Democratic Primaries and Obama disagreed strongly with Clinton on these issues. Now with the financial crisis the top issue of the Presidential Election, Obama was desperate for a plan and he ripped one off from Clinton. He was too proud to pick her as his running mate, but is not too proud to copy her policies. I wonder what Obama and his administration plans to do once they are in the Oval Office since they will no longer be allowed to vote “Present” and will not have any policies to copy. It is scary that he and his campaign are clueless, but we Americans are too stupid to realize this. Obama flip flops on issues for political reasons, not the right reasons. Obama is all the sudden a moderate on key issues with his willingness to drill, he is against gay marriage, he wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan and so forth. It is amazing how a guy that was further left than any politician over the past decade is all the sudden a moderate. Does he really believe all his flip flops or is just convenient to get elected? The answer is obvious.

Biden: Obama will be Tested on International Crisis

2008-10-22T08:01:00.000-07:00

Speaking at a campaign fund raiser when he thought the cameras were off, Biden claims “Obama will be tested on an International crisis in his first year of office”. He compared it to how the Russian’s tested a young and inexperienced John Kennedy. This should play into the Republicans hands. That is why John McCain has said numerous times, the President does not have time for on the job training. Besides, rogue nations such as Venezuela or Iran will be much less tempted to test a man with John McCain’s temperament. They know McCain will not back down. However, it is hard to know how an untested Obama may react. Do we Americans really want to see if Obama can pass the test of International crisis? Or do we want the assurance of John McCain, who will not even be challenged by a rogue nation. It should be an easy choice.

NY Times Attacks Cindy McCain

2008-10-22T07:34:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought the media could not stoop any lower, the Times has. It has gone back some 20 years to paint Cindy as a bad person. I wonder why Barack Obama does not get the same scrutiny. When McCain brings up Ayers and other thugs Obama worked with, he is a racist. However, when the Times does it, it is good journalism. Let’s set the record straight. Some vital things the Times did not report on is that Cindy is one of the greatest Humanitarians for children of our time. She has gone on 55 missions to help the youth around the world. Her work is comparable with that of Mother Theresa. She is one of the most compassionate and caring individuals in this country and we should be humbled if she were the first lady. If the Times is fair and balanced, they would go after both Barack and Michelle Obama. Michelle is not even in the ball park when matched up with Cindy’s record as a humanitarian. Barack is not even in the ball park when his community service is matched up with Cindy’s humanitarian record. If everything in Cindy’s past is fair game, maybe we should start talking about Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright or his drug use twenty years ago.

Does everyone remember when Barack adamantly told the media to leave his wife alone after she was portrayed as unpatriotic. John will not do that because he understands that this is the nature of the beast in politics. I guess Barack's reaction was normal considering the media usually portrays him and his wife as the saviors.

Will "Generation Y" Decide the Election?

2008-10-21T07:29:00.000-07:00

I believe the answer to this is yes since it is these young voters that are going for Obama at a rate of better than 2 to 1. I believe there is an easy explanation as to why this is the case. For the most part Generation Y has had two extremes of parenting. First there are those parents that are not involved with the raising of their kids and then there are those parents that too involved in the raising of their kids. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of those Generation Y children have been parented correctly. The under parented kids are brought up without a strong family unit. They are raised by teachers, day care workers, and baby sitters. They do not get the love and nurturing necessary to have a normal childhood. These children are more likely to get in trouble and do poorly in school. Hence, most become blue collar workers and generally earn lower wages. These individuals are more likely to vote democrat in an effort to get the government to take care of them. On the other extreme you have over parented children. Signs of over-parenting are not only when mom or dad is involved in every aspect of their children’s development, but also when they bail their kids out when things go wrong. For example, a mom will call a professor or teacher to change a grade their son or daughter received. Over-parented children do not know how to survive in the real world since mom and dad did everything for them. As a result, they are not self-aware and lack responsibility and character. These children are often spoiled and do not have to do chores or a job and often live at home after college. They are isolated and do not want to stray too far from home for college or employment. What is frightening is that these children are the future leaders of the United States. If compromise and progress are non-existent in our government today, it certainly will not be any better once this over-parented generation moves into power. In fact, things will get worse because over parented children’s personalities are amongst the weakest in terms of good leadership skills. They will not be good politicians, managers, or parents because they lack the essential personality and mental qualities to be successful. Although these individuals have opsimath personalities in terms of learning and education, their success lies in whether or not their personalities can change and overcome all the negatives outlined above. Over-parented kids expect rewards for just doing their job, just as mom and dad rewarded them. They can not deal with conflict or differing view points because mom and dad always said they were right. Hence, they have fragile personalities and frequently think their persona is under attack in the work place when others disagree with them. They are so dependent on their parents that in many cases they are just unable to take care of themselves in the real world or even think for themselves. Just as these children became dependent on mom and dad to take care of them and protect them, they will expect the government to do the same. Hence, more are likely to vote democratic to have a large government there that they can depend on and think for them.

Why is McCain Losing?

2008-10-20T10:58:00.000-07:00

Money? The Economy? Bush? The Media? I think all of these factors are pushing Obama over the top. Less than a month until the election and we have an economic crisis that the media is comparing to the Great Depression as well as linking it to the Bush Administration. Plus, Obama has a 3 to 1 money advantage to pound this incorrect message the media is formulating to the mass public. You can read prior inputs in this blog to see why the above message is false. Besides, I want to throw one other thing into the equation as to why McCain is losing and that is organization. The Obama camp has been very organized and that may be because of money. The Obama camp is getting young voters registered and interested in the election. Republicans have no one to blame but themselves because they have not been able to come up with a clear message and rid themselves of the Bush Administration stigma. I live in a fairly conservative region in Colorado. However, who has come knocking on my doors? Who has called me? Who has filled my mailbox with propaganda? The Democrats! Everyday this past week I have been somehow reached out to by Democrats with some type of correspondence. I have yet to get one piece of correspondence from any Republican. Once again this may have something to do with money. However, I am not totally convinced. I have personally contacted the McCain campaign in Colorado and nationally through his web site to volunteer. I have contacted the local Congressman directly (been to his office) to volunteer. I have reached out at least a dozen times to volunteer for McCain and got nothing in return. I have taken matters in my own hands by making calls from the McCain web page phone bank. I have not even gotten a response for doing that. It is as if they are discombobulated. Elections are won by volunteers. Who ever can organize the best ground attack wins and to do that you need a lot of volunteers. Either McCain or his incompetent staff has not figured that out or they do not care. I doubt it is the latter. I am confounded as to why they will not sign me up to volunteer. I keep thinking it is because I am an independent, but you need to win over independents to win this election. If someone knows what is going on with the Republican Party and the McCain campaign, please let me know. I think conservative columnist Bill Kristol got it right by saying the entire McCain staff should be fired.

McCain has seemed to have several lives in this election cycle. He was left for dead in the Republican primaries. He was left for dead after the Democratic Convention. He has come back before, but time is running out on him to pull another miracle.

The Alfred E. Smith Banquet

2008-10-18T16:31:00.000-07:00

Obama and McCain were at the Alfred E. Smith Dinner on Oct. 16th. The Banquet is named after the 1920’s governor of New York and is a fund raiser for the Catholic Church. The banquet has an interesting motif in that it is a roast. Both candidate talked for about 15 minutes and poked fun at themselves, their opponent, and other government officials. It was really quite entertaining.

I really wish all the networks covered the dinner. It is a way to see the candidates in a different and much less serious setting. I think if more people saw this, it would have greatly helped McCain’s cause. During the debates McCain is being classified as grumpy, attacking, stoic, unrefined, irritable, nasty, and a variety of other negative verbs. Whereas, Obama has been portrayed as being eloquent, Presidential, smooth, and a variety of positive verbs. However, during the Alfred E. Smith dinner McCain was hilarious and on his game. If people could see McCain in this setting, I bet his approval ratings would have shot up and there would be more positive verbs to describe him. Obama did well at the dinner, but not as well as McCain. Besides, Obama’s approval ratings are already so high they could not have been helped even if he was spectacular. Obama did well enough that he certainly would not hurt his approval ratings, but McCain did. Too bad most Americans will not see it. It could have been of a game changer for him and his campaign. Maybe there is a reason that all the major news channels did not cover it except Fox. Once again, the media probably did not want to put something on that could only hurt Obama who is far ahead in the polls. Too bad because I think the American people deserve to see candidates in different settings.

Why the Media and Obama must Destroy Joe the Plumber

2008-10-18T16:29:00.000-07:00

Joe the Plumber did what McCain has been unable to do and that is to catch Obama off guard. Hence, Obama stated his clear intentions of “spreading the wealth” and starting a socialized America. Most intelligent Americans realize Robin Hood plans that spread the wealth do not work and only promotes mediocrity. Hard working Americans are not motivated to make a lot of money since most monies will be paid in taxes after 250K. Therefore, they realize it is not worth expanding their business because the pay back is not worth all the hard work. On the other hand, those collecting welfare at the expense from those that are hard working have no motivation to work since they get money for free. Socialism does not work. Now, the media and the Obama camp are attacking Joe the Plumber to show he is a phony. He has no plumber license and owes the government taxes. They also claim that no plumber can make 250K. It is mystifying to me why the working public does not see through this. The fact Obama and the media claim they are for the middle class, but who do they attack – A middle class American looking to try to get ahead to the upper class. They criticize and mock this man instead of trying to help him. This shows the mentality of what Obama and the media are all about. They see him as a threat to the Obama Presidential quest and must stop any traction that McCain can get from Joe the Plumber. The fact that Joe the Plumber has decided not to buy the business since it is not worth the risk because of the increased income tax he would have to pay demonstrates exactly what I have been saying. Spreading the wealth does not work because it does not motivate people to do better, it demoralizes Americans who just want to live the American Dream. When small businesses are unmotivated to expand and grow because of the tax burden the end result is that the economy slows because there is no job growth. It is simple logic, spreading the wealth does not make America better, it only makes us mediocre. Is this really what we want?

Separation of Church and State

2008-10-17T07:25:00.000-07:00

A lot has been made about several churches using the pulpit to endorse John McCain this past week. Many claim they should lose their charity exemption for doing this. They are right, they should. However, let’s not have another double standard. I have not heard the media making the same claims against Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright who have been very public in their endorsement of Obama. They too, should lose their tax exemption!

That One

2008-10-17T07:23:00.000-07:00

A lot has been made of McCain referring to Obama as “That One” during the 2nd debate. The media is portraying McCain as being very disrespectful. C’mon, let’s be serious. Obama may not have been referred to as “That One” before, but he is continually being referred to as the “The One” as in the “Chosen One” as in the 2nd coming of the “Messiah” by many of his supporters. Why is acceptable to say Obama is “The One” but not “That One”? Unfortunately, the media only picks what it thinks is relevant election news. Based on the background setting for the Obama speech as the DNC, he too thinks he is “The One”. I do not think you can have a bigger ego than thinking you are second coming of Christ.

Presidential Debate #3: McCain Wins, but not by enough

2008-10-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

Once again I thought McCain had a clear, but certainly not an overwhelming victory. However, once again, most pundits and the uniformed American public think Obama won. The obvious reason for this is because Obama is a smooth orator and can talk his way out of anything. I beg everyone to look at their voting records and still tell me Obama won. Besides we do not vote on the best debater we vote on the best candidate. This makes it nearly impossible for McCain to win this upcoming election. He needs another miracle of some kind. Let’s look at the debate topics:

The Economy – McCain proposes tax cuts for all including the wealthy and all corporations. This is obviously the best choice in a recession. Obama wants to spread the wealth with socialized tax plans of taxing corporations and the wealthy. Why do the Democrats and most people in this country want to burden corporations and the wealthy like they are evil? Remember corporation employ people, if you continue to punish them they will be forced to take it on the consumer and their employees to remain profitable. It is commonsense.

The Deficit – McCain has proposed a spending freeze to get spending under control. Obama has proposed nothing concrete on how he will control spending despite having proposed a trillion new dollars in spending. Obama mention one 15 billion dollar program that has to go. It is strange how Obama has continually said the 18 billion dollars in earmarks that McCain fights against is only 0.5% of the budge and not a big deal, but he only has the nerve to only mention 15 billion in cuts. I am curious, am I the only one hearing this guy contradict himself?

Negative Campaigning – I thought McCain won this point as well. Although he let Obama off the hook for Ayers, Obama still failed to answer his 832K contribution to ACORN. Obama also did not repudiate the charge made by supporter John Lewis that said McCain and Palin were in the mold of George Wallace politics of bigotry, racism, and prejudice when given the opportunity. I found this surprising since it makes it look like Obama is using the ‘race card’ as a crutch. This is extremely disappointing, especially in a man who says he can transcend race in this country. Again, am I the only one seeing Obama continually contradict himself?

Their VP Choice – I thought this topic was a tie. Obama did not go after Palin, but even though McCain said Biden was qualified to be President he pointed out where he was wrong in the past on Foreign Policy which is suppose be his strong suit.

Supreme Court Nominees – This was clearly McCain’s best topic. He pointed out how Obama voted against Republican nominees whereas McCain voted for liberal choices in the past. He clearly said and his record indicates that Roe vs. Wade is not his only litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee, but Obama and his voting record indicates that it is. This narrow and reckless thinking. McCain also pointed out Obama’s tendency to vote “Present” on tough topics to avoid controversy. On this topic McCain was able to show how liberal and partisan Obama is.

Free Trade – Once again McCain was very strong on this issue pointing out that Obama nixed the Columbia free trade agreement. Obama explained he did not like that it did not protect Columbia workers, but agreed it will help the U.S. No bill is going to be 100% acceptable for any politician, but to openly choose that he cares more about Colombian workers than U.S. workers is a huge mistake. Obama also referred to NAFTA as being to lax on the environment and other issues and blamed Republicans for that. However, NAFTA was brought in by Clinton and the Democrats. Obama has in the past wrongly blamed NAFTA for jobs going overseas. This is not only wrong, but reckless. It shows he has no idea on how to decrease or trade deficit.

Health Care – I thought this topic was a push since McCain did not respond to Obama’s claim that his plan would force insurers to drop patients. He had an opening since Obama’s plan would also be open for insurers to drop patients. Obviously, McCain has the best plan. Citizens without care get 5K to go get their policy they want. Obama’s plan forces citizens without care to take what the government offers. Are we Americans that stupid and incompetent that we want the government to make all our decisions for us? Are we really that helpless that we want government interference on every decision we must make? Americans used to be proud, but now we are so lazy and incompetent that we cannot even do the most mundane task without someone helping us. Do we really trust the government to insure us and keep costs low? The same government that could not keep Frannie and Freddie from going belly up. The same government that has used up our social security. The same government that has trillions of dollars in debt. We are so naive and we never learn our lesson that government interference is another disaster waiting to happen. Obama claims that McCain will tax health care benefits and give the money insurance companies. What is wrong with this? Nothing, McCain has to pay for the plan somehow. On the flip side, Obama has yet to say how he will pay for his plan. I find it curious that “Joe the Plumber” will be rich enough to be taxed more, but will not be fined for not providing health coverage to his employees. Obama also claims he will lower the health insurance costs of those that have health care. How does he plan to do that? He has not given specifics other than taxing the wealthy and corporations. I give kudos to McCain for mentioning obesity and for saying we need better fitness programs in our schools. Obesity is the single main cause for our sky rocketing health costs. At least one candidate recognized that fact.

Surprisingly, this is the issue that most people think Obama wins and pushes him over the top in the debates. It is not surprising. As I make calls for the McCain campaign, everyone that gives me sob story is Obama. They are the ones that want the government to help them. Most are pitiful and have no ideas or plans on how to help themselves. I certainly have empathy, but I am not going to feel sorry for people who do at least try to help themselves, and EXPECT the government to bail them out. It is unfortunate, but this country is going down the tubes fast.

Education – I think Obama has the better plan. However, this is one issue that McCain caught Obama on. The fact that Obama said vouchers did not work, but he agreed with McCain it was working in DC (who arguably have the worst school systems in the U.S. – Thus, if vouchers work in DC they could work anywhere). Because of this McCain won the point. However, I think Obama is right about parents being more responsible for educating their children and he is also right about improving preschools. That is the key to bridging the socio-economic divide. Neither candidate offered much in the way on how they would reform tax dollars going into education. We need to close schools that are not getting the job done and move those students into schools that are working.

As far as college education is concerned, I am tired of hearing about how unaffordable college is. This is not a new issue, it has been this way for as long as I can remember. I also think the so called 'elite' college education is over rated. People can get an excellent education at minimum cost at community colleges and then attending state schools. I had student loans galore and lived in poverty and I got no assistance to attend college and I was able to get by. I worked 30 hours a week and averaged 20 credits per semester in engineering and got by. I started working at age 12 and paid rent at home. My work load caused my studies to suffer in high school so I did not get any scholarships. The bottom line is anyone who puts their mind to it and works their ass off, can go to college and pay off their debts. Unfortunately, our pride and work ethic amongst our Generation Y youth is non-existent, they are spoiled and expect rewards without putting in any effort. Everyone has a sob story, the end result is if you use it as an excuse and blame everyone else for your tough time, or do you use it as motivation to better yourself. Our only mission in life is to better ourselves and become better human beings. If you are not working towards that you have no business complaining and asking for help.

It is not even close, but we Americans are too stupid to look at their records. Instead, we are influenced by an eloquent speaker that looks very good on stage. McCain looks bad on stage and is not a great speaker – hence he must not be a good choice for President. Is this how we base our decisions, petty things like appearance and orator skills? Obama is fooling the obviously gullible American public. I wonder how we would look if we were 72 and had been to hell and back. McCain looks pretty good for 72 considering all he has been through. We should give him the benefit of the doubt. He should look worse than a 47 year old Obama.

The Economy: Why is Everyone Over Reacting?

2008-10-15T11:40:00.000-07:00

Everyone needs to realize that the financial economic crisis is global and not isolated to the United States. This once again shows our ignorance to blame the incumbent Presidential party for everything that goes wrong. That is like blaming our President for banks failing in other parts of the world. Let’s face facts: Government regulation of the socialized nations of Europe could not stop the financial meltdown, then what makes us think the answer is more regulation and bail outs? People are in a panic and the liberals are using fear mongering tactics to take advantage of them. The liberals and the media are portraying the financial meltdown as the second coming of the Great Depression. This is not even remotely true. Markets went down 90% and the unemployment rate was over 25% during the Great Depression. Today, Markets are down 30% and Unemployment is under 6%. Look at the liberals voting records. They voted against regulation and over sight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but want to regulate Wall Street. This makes no sense, if they cannot run the government sponsored companies, what makes us think they can resolve the financial crisis? They can’t. The American people need to responsible and think before they cast their vote.

What makes this even more disturbing is that same people constantly return their local and state legislators to office at an alarming 96% rate. If you want change, vote out your local incumbents, not the President. We, as Americans, need to be objective and responsible when looking at our economic situation in this country. We also have to realize that recessions are a normal part of the economy. The economy cycles, it is natural and it usually does not matter who the President is. Congress has more effect on the economy than the President; after all they are the ones that create the legislation. We also must realize that global recessions last longer than U.S. recessions. Hence, this current recession can last up to two years and there is not much this or the next President can do to get out it, however they can do harm. I fear all of the bail outs going on will keep the country in a recession for a longer period of time.

On a positive note, oil prices have gone down over 40% in the past three months. I know the reason for the oil price drop is because of the financial crisis. However, I think it is important to note that while things look gloomy there is a positive that will help the American public as gas and energy prices decline.

I beg everyone to take a look at the Obama economic plan which includes billions of new spending in major cities. I have nothing against rebuilding crumbling inner cities and infrastructure, however with the economic crisis, we cannot afford to spend more money. Besides, there are better economic ways to rebuild inner cities than just throwing money at the problem. Instead, we should have people who collect entitlement money, work and fix inner city infrastructure problems. We can have volunteers, prisoners, and troubled youth do a lot of work. We give billions in entitlement programs and get nothing in return. It is about time our government should obtain some bang for the buck. Obama has already said in the debates that he does not plan on omitting any of his economic plans during the first four years of Presidency. If that is true, his policies should keep us in a recession for many years. Although, I do not like McCain’s call for another 300 billion to bail out home owners in trouble with foreclosure, his economic policies are far superior to Obama’s. The fact that he wants to lower taxes for everyone, including ALL corporations is the best plan of either candidate.

Election Fraud

2008-10-14T09:19:00.000-07:00

Election fraud has been going on for a long time and is not anything new. Mayor Daley in Chicago found tens of thousands of deceased people to vote for John Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election. There were similar claims in Texas during the 1964 Presidential election. In the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections fraud was claimed by the Democrats. The media wants Americans to believe that new voting machines are not going to count the public’s vote correctly. Voter fraud is going to happen regardless if the vote is done by machine or by paper. The argument is that it is much harder to hide and cover up if there is a paper trail. That may be true, but it is still debatable because there has been accusation of fraud throughout the history American Presidential elections.

Today, it seems only a Republican can steal an election and it is beneath Democrats. Take the 2006 election cycle as an example. During the 2006 elections the Republicans were on the opposite side of a lot of close races. Incumbent senator George Allen of Virginia lost to Senator Jim Webb by less than six thousand votes and had the right to a complete recount. He requested to canvass a few precincts but saw no irregularity and conceded the following the day. That same day Democrat Senate leaders such as Charles Schumer of New York stated publicly that Allen needed to concede and not request a recount that was within state margins for him to do so. These are the same Senate leaders who backed Al Gore’s fight for the presidency in 2000 and did not want him to concede. The Democrats are being hypocrites and they are certainly not following the motto preached throughout this text to treat others the same way you expect to be treated. Like Allen, all Republicans that lost close elections conceded the next day. Not one claimed any fraud or demanded hand counts despite the high number of elections throughout the country decided by a few thousand votes or less. Over sixty percent of the closely decided elections went against the Republicans. The only seat contested and is still in litigation is Florida’s thirteenth district where Republican Vern Buchanan defeated Democrat Christine Jennings by three hundred and sixty nine votes. The recount confirmed the results, but Jennings still has not conceded a year later. Her basis for contesting the election is because Sarasota County had a very large under vote of eighteen thousand votes, nearly one in six voters did not vote in the race. Jennings won Sarasota County by six percentage points meaning eighteen thousand under votes could gain her over one thousand votes. However, this election was highly contested with a very heated campaign where both candidates got nasty with each other. There was a lot of mudslinging. Many people polled about why they opted not to vote for a candidate indicated it was because they both turned off voters with their personal attack campaigns. This is another good reason to implement the “None of the Above” category on ballots. For people who select “None of the Above” there is no dispute as to the voters’ intent. This way, election officials can make it clear that voters should vote for each race. If they do not like the candidates they should choose “None of the Above”. This approach would certainly clear up any under votes in an election. This double standard that exists that only Republicans cheat and commit fraud is preposterous.

In the 2008 election, only Fox News is reporting the corruption of Acorn. Acorn is backed by liberals (Obama contributed 800K and worked for them in the past) to get people registered to vote. That is a noble cause, but when one of three people Acorn registers is under question, that is unbelievable. The city of Indianapolis has 105% registered rate. An 80% rate would be high and obviously any rate over 100% means there are more registered voters than people that live in the area. Although no fraud was found in the 2000 and 2004 elections, the conspiracy theorist Democrats are sore losers and want to make sure those so called “fraudulent voting machines” do not steal another election, they themselves are turning to fraud. It is a sad world we live in when it comes down to this. The unfortunate thing about the Acorn registration drive, it is possible that people with the right to vote may be purged from the system accidentally because of their attempt at corruption. The bottom line, their attempt at fraud does not help anyone and could in fact hurt their candidate and effort.

The Media's Role in the Presidential Election

2008-10-13T11:27:00.000-07:00

If Barack Obama is not brainwashing people with his outstanding orator skills to push a mesmerizing but substance lacking speeches, the media is doing it. It is unbelievable how slanted to the left the media is. I have said it a thousand times, if we had the media coverage that is available today during WWII, we would all be speaking either German or Japanese. During the Iraq War, the media has claimed the U.S. military and government has been responsible for many war crimes such as: Torture and killing innocent civilians. The media coverage of our troops such as ex NFL player Tillman who was killed by friendly fire got huge coverage. During WWII tens of thousands of U.S. military soldiers died from friendly fire. Anyone who thinks our soldiers did not torture or even kill prisoners simply because they did not have the capacity to guard them is simply mistaken. War is not a pretty thing, and horrific things happen. It is certainly not up to me or anyone who has not been there and done that to judge what happens and judge who did what. The media is out for a story and will endanger troops and take down anyone to make a name for themselves. This is despicable. And even worse, as troops got control of Iraq and turned the tide, the news coverage went away. The only conclusion one could draw from this is that the media wanted us to lose in Iraq so the next election cycle would go to the liberals. When the tide turned in Iraq, the media searched for a new story to incriminate the Republicans. They went to gas prices and then the financial crisis. They choose to report what is beneficial for them and choose not to report what is relevant to American public. Today, the coverage is directed at the economy and rightly so. However, the coverage should show that both parties have blame. The coverage, however only covers how the bad Republicans did not want to regulate Wall St. They conveniently omit that the Democrats did not want oversight on Frannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They fail to mention that the Democrats did not want to drill to bring down gas prices. During hard economic times the public is extremely fragile and the media knows that and they exploit them with one-sided brainwashing material to manipulate them into voting the liberal choice. As Joe Biden makes a gaffe a day, it is not reported, but any mistake made by Palin is made into a media circus. Palin, who has the highest approval rating of any politician in the U.S. is portrayed as the bad person while Biden and Obama who are part of the lowest approval ratings that the Senate has ever had in U.S. history are portrayed as the saviors. The media should be balanced and show no biases. They should be reporting the news fairly. It is extremely discouraging to see how the media abuses its power to push its agenda. The U.S. media has been critical of other nations'media outlets such as Al Jazeera as fostering propaganda to brain wash their following. How is our media any different?

Limiting the Power of the Legislative and Executive Branches

2008-10-13T11:24:00.000-07:00

There is something to consider when voting for President in the up coming election. It almost certain that the both the House and Senate of the legislative branch will have a Democrat majority. If Obama is elected President, the Democrats will control both the executive and legislative branches and he will have the power to get all his liberal and socialized plans put into law. Consider how things went when Clinton and Bush had the legislative branch on their side – not so well. I think government is most effective when the executive and legislative branches are run by opposite parties. This puts effective checks and balances so the President or one political party does not get too much power. Some argue that this could make government less effective and they will get little done. However, the American people do not need a big government to legislate every action of our being. That is strong case to vote for John McCain to keep government honest.

Obama Claims that McCain is Promoting Division

2008-10-12T07:56:00.000-07:00

Now that McCain has started to bring up Obama’s questionable relationships, Obama is crying foul. He says that McCain is promoting polarization amongst Americans. I find this somewhat ironic that Obama can make this claim considering his relationship with such radical human beings that have done nothing but divide Americans. Relationships with Bill Ayers who bombs and kills Americans, how much more divisive can someone be? Relationships with pastors that preach hate, conspiracy theories, and anti-Semitism. These preachers promote anger amongst African Americans that the government and every white person is out to get them. How do relationships with these individuals promote unity? Based on how well Obama is doing in this campaign, I do not think the argument of ALL whites being racist holds water. In fact, it is probably a very small number of whites in this country that are bigots and racist. Obama has done absolutely nothing to bridge the growing divide in this country. Do not forget Obama’s partisan politics. He has very rarely voted against his party, nor has he ever took on his party leaders. Once again, how does this promote unity? It does not, Obama talks a good game, but look at his record. He votes along party lines and has had questionable relationships with people that HATE America. I view Obama as one of the most divisive politicians of our time. America is already divided and Obama will only make things worse. Only John McCain’s moderate policies can our growing divide.

The media is also portraying McCain as promoting racism because of a handful of racist comments made by ignorant attendees at McCain rallies. Now, McCain is backing off his attacks. It is amazing how the media can portray McCain as promoting racism based on the remarks of a few ignorant spectators (That McCain does not even know), but the media does not want to report on Obama's relationship with Ayers and Wright.

The Cycle of Incompetence, Fear, and Dependence

2008-10-10T07:46:00.000-07:00

History has taught us many valuable lessons. Too bad we continue to make the same mistakes. A good friend pointed out a valuable premise in what most societies from the Roman Empire to the present have in common when chaos rules. First, there is incompetent leadership which insights fear into the public as conditions worsen. Finally, the masses become dependent and cling to a new form of government or regime. Look at what the Great Depression created around the world. As incompetent leaders took us into the depression and fear grew around the globe, the masses became dependent on tyrants who gave a message of hope. Thus, Hitler and Stalin came to power despite radical views. In the U.S., things did not get as bad as Hitler and Stalin, but things certainly changed. FDR promoted and got support for a more socialistic society. In fact, many of FDR’s socialistic views are still present today and causing us headaches such as Social Security.

We can see the same thing occurring today in the U.S with the financial crisis. We have incompetent leadership, not only in the Executive Branch with President Bush, but in Congress as well. Let’s not forget that the Judicial Branch, which is not serving the people by ruling on cases based on partisanship, opinion, and bias and not on the law. The U.S. public has also played a big role on the incompetence front. People continually live beyond their means and get greedy. People have been running astronomical debts that they can not repay. People get involved in financial bubbles by borrowing money in an attempt to get rich quick without using commonsense or rationale about the consequences if the bubble bursts. People never believe the bubble will burst. That is naive because all bubbles burst. Every U.S. recession was the result of a financial bubble bursting. Today, we have the housing crisis, in 2000 we had the dot com bubble bursting. Let us not forget the incompetent corporate leadership that handed out trillions of dollars of loans to people with bad credit. The U.S. has certainly had its fair share of incompetence over the past decade. Now with things crumbling, not only are the masses in fear, so are the corporations and government. The government is bailing out every incompetent person and corporations with hastily put together plans in hope it will stop the crisis from spiraling out of control. Good luck, because more government interference will more than likely make things worse. Now the American people are desperate and have hope in the Obama rhetoric of “Change”. Things could not have played out any better for Obama and the Democrats a month before the election. Remember these are the times when gifted orators such as Hitler and Stalin got into power. If you look at Obama’s record as a do nothing state or U.S. Senator, it is amazing how fear has everyone flocking to his mesmerizing, but substance lacking speeches. There is nothing ‘unique’ in his rhetoric. It is Jimmy Carter’s failed foreign policy and LBJ’s and FDR’s failed economic policies. If he wants to give every middle class person a 1000 dollar tax rebate, then why did he not ever propose such legislation over the last 10 years? The reason is because he is a liar and only telling the American people what you want to hear. This is the same thing Hitler and Stalin did in Germany and Russia during the Great Depression. When people are in crisis they lose the ability to reason rationally and to use commonsense when resolving problems. When people lose this ability they will cling to any message of hope. This is why people are flocking to Barack Obama rhetoric of hope. However, his rhetoric is nothing more than an empty message of hope.

If only everyone had some patience to let the economic situation play itself out. If only everyone had some commonsense and practical thoughts instead of letting fear get the best of us, we could come out of this a better country. Unfortunately, chaos is the rule of the day and Democrats will be taking over a lot of seats because we are just simply irrational in our behavior.

Comparing Obama with Bill Clinton

2008-10-09T07:06:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton will vote for John McCain. Not only does he speak more highly of McCain than Obama on the campaign trail, but Bill holds a grudge. Bill is still steaming at the Obama campaign for painting him as a racist. There is no love lost between Obama and Clinton. Besides, Bill knows if Obama wins, Hillary will have to wait 8 more years instead of 4 to get another opportunity for the White House. I actually think for the same reason he voted for GW Bush in the last election. If Kerry won, Hillary would have had to wait an extra 4 years to get her first shot at the Presidency. So the same logic dictates that Hillary will also vote for McCain. Make no bones about it, the Clinton’s want that White House.

Ironically, the more I see and hear Obama, the more I see Bill Clinton. They are both gifted orators. And that scares me. Bill could tell a lie detector he is a six year old girl and pass. Once Bill perjured himself, it made me skeptical about everything that came out of his mouth. He lost all credibility and trust with me. I am not saying Obama is a liar. However, what I am saying if he were to lie, I do not think anyone could tell. This would scare me about any politician, but it scares me with Obama because of some of his past questionable relationships and because of some anti-American comments made by his wife. The chance of a person to commit a white collar crime is directly proportional to the size of their ego. No question that most Washington politicians have a huge super egos. This explains why so much corruption has been uncovered in Washington over the last decade. Does Obama, who just got to Washington have a super ego? You bet. First, is his monumental rise to power in the Democratic Party, which is enough to give anyone a big head. Secondly, he has been able to raise millions of dollars – more than anyone in the history of political campaigning, also enough to give anyone a big head and enough money to become corrupt. Third, he created an “Obama Seal” that looks like it is replacing the “United States Seal”. Fourth, not only did he choose a bigger venue to give his speech at the DNC, did you see the setting? It looked like the background from the home of a Roman Empire emperor. What is this telling us? You got to have some kind of ego to give that impression. Fifth, look at his trip to Europe. He was trying to act as if he was already the President. I can go on and on, but he has all the qualities of having a super ego. He has all the makings of a corruption scandal: Power, Ego, Money, and the ability to lie.

When is it Acceptable for America to Interfere in an Effort to Stop Global Genocide?

2008-10-08T11:15:00.000-07:00

This is tough one to answer. If you listen to liberals around this country, they are disheartened by the amount of U.S. interference in Darfur and other regions of the world to stop the genocide. While at the same time, these same liberals are against the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a rogue leader who tortured and murdered thousands of innocent Iraqi’s. Iraq was a country in genocide. Why does it make more sense for us to use force in the Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur than to stop the genocide in Iraq? Why should we take our troops out of Iraq and lose that war so we can stop the genocide in Darfur? If we did that and Iraq got into the wrong hands then we would have two countries promoting genocide than just one. That means thousands would have lost their lives in vain. Some may argue that we would not have to use force to stop the genocide in Darfur. They are being naïve, the only way to stop the genocide in any region is to use force. If the U.S. sent forces into Darfur, they would be accused of doing so because of oil. In any case, you cannot win. Why is the Darfur genocide so much more important to the liberal elite (the media and Hollywood) than in other region of the world such as Iraq. None of this makes any sense. They complain when we interfere and complain when we do not interfere. This is hypocritical. Either it is an acceptable foreign policy to interfere and use force to stop genocide, or it is not. It must be nice to be an “arm chair quarterback” and disagree with everything a President does just because you do not like him or his party. These liberal elite are acting like a bunch of children that cannot get their way.

Why Liberal Robin Hood Plans Do Not Work

2008-10-08T11:13:00.000-07:00

Many of us have been faced with Robin Hood plans. Robin Hood plans take money from the wealthy and redistribute them to the poor. On paper it sounds great, but they do not work. We have seen this attempted in education, where legislators try to take money from wealthy districts and redistribute to poorer school districts. Let’s evaluate this example. Once again the government thinks throwing money at the problem can actually resolve the educational issues on hand. The other ridiculous side of this proposal is that it risks the educational standards of good school districts with only the hope that poor school districts will improve. This policy only promotes the theory of mediocrity where kids from a higher social economic status get a worse education therefore lowering their overall intellect. At the same time, extra money in lower social economic schools fails to raise their overall intellect enough to offset the lower education for wealthy school districts. Why? Simply because providing extra money into a poor performing school district will not erase a student’s poor home environment and it will not necessarily bring in better teachers to improve the curriculum. If the same teachers are used, the curriculum may not improve despite more money. This is how our government and legislators fail us because they always assume the issue is money and everything else is equal. Everything else is not equal and how would our legislators realize this without having gone through the experience of being poor.

The easiest solution to this problem is to close poor performing schools in lower economic areas and allow these students access to better performing schools. Transferring tax funds from poor school districts to better schools can be used to expand better performing schools to accommodate more students. This will give children from poorer school districts access to the same education, teachers and activities to succeed. This concept is actually being carried out in many areas across the United States. The problem with this proposal is that it eventually becomes a burden on the better school districts because the kids from the sub-standard schools are behind the other kids. Teachers are forced to spend a lot of time tutoring and mentoring the under performing kids in order to catch them up. This is a continual cycle because once the under performing kids learn a new concept they are still behind because the better performing kids have already learned new concepts that the poor performing kids still need to learn. The bottom line is that low achieving kids never catch up when placed in the better performing schools immediately at the kindergarten level. The emphasis of getting kids from lower economic backgrounds caught up unfortunately neglects the better performing kids. This once again, is an example of the “theory of mediocrity” at work. This problem can be resolved by getting children from lower social economic backgrounds into the school system before kindergarten. The sooner they are in the system, the better their chances. Their lack of means and educational opportunities during their first five years of life is already crippling their development. Their environment is holding them back and the sooner they can obtain new experiences, the better their chances are of developing at an equal rate to those from higher economic backgrounds. Statistics indicate children from lower socio-economic backgrounds adopted by parents from higher socio-economic backgrounds have an Intelligent Quotient (IQ) that is thirteen points higher than children raised by parents or guardians from lower socio-economic status. This reinforces that children are capable of overcoming their educational deficiencies if they are given the same means and opportunities as children from a higher socio-economic status.

Well, what is different about the Democrat’s policy of taxing the wealthy and corporations? Nothing, they think throwing money at poverty will solve it. Welfare and other entitlement programs do not work. Throwing money to poor individuals who live in slums is not going to help them get a job. It does not train them to do a job. It does not improve their education. It just does not work. Social programs should not be permanent, they should be temporary until the issue is resolved. Throwing money to the poor are band-aide fixes that taxpayers will endure forever. Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily resolve the issue unless the root cause of the problem is resolved. Worse yet you have taken money from people that can keep the economy growing. Taxing businesses more will only have them cut jobs or benefits to the working class. It does not work and will not work. FDR’s socialized plans of the 1930’s never got us out of the Great Depression. WWII got us out of the Depression. FDR’s policies failed for 10 years.

Hence, the answer of taxing the wealthy and corporations more will not necessarily help this country unless the root cause of the problems of poverty and education are resolved. What Robin Hood Policies promote is mediocrity. Why? Say for example, I have a small business. Why should I bust my butt and grow my business into a larger tax bracket? There is no incentive to do so. If I make 250K to 300K it will be the same as making 200K. Is it worth all that effort? Probably not. Also, if I have a small business struggling to get by, where is my incentive to actually do better and make a profit is the government is going to give me free money and assistance. The bottom line is that Robin Hood plans promote laziness. Hence, productivity and economic growth is slowed. It is such a demoralizing concept. Joe Biden says it is patriotic to pay taxes. What he means it is patriotic for the wealthy to pay taxes to support poor.

Another thing that Robin Hood plans would hurt is charitable contributions given to many valuable charities that help the poor and people without medical insurance. Obviously the wealthy give the highest percentage of dollars to charities. Taking their wealth will only have them stop or reduce their contributions. Thus, the policy would hurt the poor and middle class people in need of help.

Presidential Debate #2: McCain Wins but Obama is Next President

2008-10-08T10:35:00.000-07:00

I thought McCain won the 2nd Presidential Debate, but it was close. Since McCain did nothing to stop the bleeding in the polls, Obama now is almost certain to be the next President. I actually thought McCain won the first hour of the debate on the economy, but lost the half hour of the debate on Foreign Policy, so that was a surprise. For the most part it was a pretty dull affair. McCain tried to get his points against Obama, but he is too slick and smooth. He is such a great Orator he reminds of how Slick Willy Clinton could convince the American Public the Earth is flat.

So who is the loser from this debate? We are, the American public. With McCain proposing another 300 billion to buy up bad mortgages and Obama still has not said what he would cut as President, the taxpayer is the loser. Obama claims he will run at surplus. I am not sure how he is going to do that even if the war ends in Iraq. He has talked about a more expensive war in Afghanistan and even in the Sudan to end the genocide there. If he runs at a surplus he will really have to tax the rich and corporations heavily and that will backfire and most certainly keep the country in a recession. It looks no matter who becomes president there will bail outs galore and all kinds of government intervention in Health Care, Energy, and other programs. Welcome to the socialized United States of America. Expect higher taxes, larger government, and higher commodity prices with even worse service. Unfortunately, Americans are too stupid to realize what is transpiring before our eyes. Americans are selfish and expect the government to assist them when they are down. We have forgotten how to help ourselves. Heck, if I knew the government was going to bail millions out for buying a home a could not afford, I would have bought a bigger house on a large lot! We reward ignorance and incompetence, but people that follow the rules and are good citizens get the bill. What a bunch of crap! What ever happened to what John Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country"? What that means is we should live within our means and be healthy so we can keep health care costs low. What this means is that we should be continually trying to better ourselves. What this means is that if we lose our jobs, we should be competent enough to retrain ourselves to do a new trade. It does not mean we should expect to get bailed out for being stupid and incompetent.

Persona: Obama vs. Bush

2008-10-07T11:09:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama claims that President Bush is stubborn and has lead the country in the wrong direction because he does not listen to his staff and only does what he thinks is best. He is probably right. This is certainly the behavior of a super ego personality. Unfortunately, I highly doubt Obama would be any better. In an effort to show he could be Commander and Chief of the Military, he stated he would not necessarily do what the Military Joints Chief of Staff would recommend for Iraq or Afghanistan. That means if General Petraeus says Iraq is still to unstable to withdraw he may ignore his advice. The outcome could become an unstable Iraq that could become a haven for terrorist to live and train. How is this any less stubborn and egotistical than any blunder Bush has done? It is not. In an effort to show strength, Obama has showed his true colors that he is no different than Bush. He would make decisions based only on his own bias and political influences. By ignoring the advice of his political and military advisers it will inevitably lead to flawed policies. This is no different than the Bush persona.

Which Ticket Can Unite Americans?

2008-10-07T09:12:00.000-07:00

McCain / Palin have a record of working across party lines and going after their own party when they are wrong. McCain is disliked by most conservatives because he does not always agree with his party. He is more of a moderate than a conservative. Since he is more in the middle with his political views, he can effectively moderate conflicts between the left and right to find compromise to unite both parties. In this day and age partisan politics is almost obsolete. McCain has the best Senate record to insure we have a President that can be bipartisan and do what is right for the country. Palin has also demonstrated that she can be bipartisan. She ran on a campaign platform to be governor of Alaska pledging to clean up the corruption of the Republican Party. Senator Ted Stevens is being indicted for his involvement in a corruption scandal. Palin also placed Independents, Democrats, and Republicans on her staff showing bipartisan politics. On the other hand, Obama / Biden are the most and the third most liberal Senators in Washington. Considering that, then it is especially not a surprise to find out they have very little experience working across the isle with the Republican Party. It is probably even less a surprise to find out they have not taken on their own party. Even in this day and age of so many corruption scandals in Washington, Obama and Biden are quiet when their fellow Democrats are in a scandal, but show bipartisan politics when a Republican is in a scandal. If change is what Washington needs, the only ticket that can do the job is McCain / Palin since they have a record of taking on their own part and doing what is right for the country. With an Obama / Biden ticket you get partisan Washington politics as usual.

Experience: Obama vs. Palin

2008-10-06T11:39:00.000-07:00

Although Obama has actually been a Senator 2 more years than Palin has been a governor, their actual experience time is a push since Obama has spent half of his time campaigning instead of governing. I have said this before and I will say it again experience as a governor better prepares a person for the White House than a Senator. Governors run a state and Senators run nothing but a committee. Governors are Executives, Senators are not. President is an Executive job. Consider some of Obama’s major campaign promises: 1000 dollars back to every family making fewer than 250 thousand dollars, energy independence, and ethics reform. Palin has already implemented these policies in Alaska. She has given over 3000 dollars back to every family on revenues received from oil profits. She has also been pushing a 40 billion dollar “clean” natural gas pipeline that will benefit everyone in the U.S. She has been pushing for drilling in the Alaska Arctic, which has been stopped by Congress including both McCain and Obama. Palin has taken on her Republican Party in Alaska that has been corrupt. She is doing such a good job she has over an 80% approval rating. That is almost unheard of, especially today with all the polarization in this country. They both have about the same amount of foreign policy experience – practically nothing. Palin runs the Alaska National Guard, while Obama has done some travel.

Obama has valuable community service as well as Illinois State Senate Experience. Palin has experience in the Wasilla Alaska PTA, City Council and Mayor. She also ran the Alaska Energy Department and lost an election for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. Once again I see this as about a push. Overall, I do not see any difference in experience, but I give the nod to Palin because she has valuable experience as an executive. And more importantly what she has done as an executive has been exceptional as shown by her high approval ratings. Besides, as a legislator in Congress and Illinois, Obama has not authored very many pieces of legislator. In fact, there may only have been one or two laws in the Illinois Senate he co-authored. Considering his job is to legislate, Obama appears to be more of a follower than leader. Now, as Presidential candidate he is proposing lots of legislation. Why did he not try to implement any of his proposals why in the Illinois or U.S. Senates? I guess the millions he has made campaigning has enabled him to employ the foreign and economic advisers to tell him how to do his job. It reminds me of what my first boss told me after I got in trouble for being aggressive to get my job done: "Unfortunately, only those who do the work ever get in trouble". That is so true. Maybe Obama is afraid to hurt his record so he does not create any legislation. He hangs low and does not do anything controversial to hurt his political career. It works, I have seen hundreds of "oxygen thieves" skate through the corporate world and seen hard workers shown the door for "asking too many questions". It seems to be the American way of rewarding mediocrity or incompetence. This Presidential race is no different. The nation is enamored with a "do nothing" congressmen. Just like all the "oxygen thieves" I have dealt with in the past, Obama is a good talker who talks a big game that impresses everyone. People listen to all this talk instead of looking at what he has actually accomplished. Maybe this explains why Obama votes "Present" on over a third of the legislation he has seen. Can you imagine a Governor or President voting "Present" on legislation? They cannot do it. They must vote "yes" or "no". The only other explanation for Obama to do this is he is incompetent. I do not think that this is the case, in contrary, he is pretty smart to be able lay low and get away with having no voting record. Here is the the new American Dream: If you are a smooth talker and do not rock the boat, you will succeed and move up the corporate and political ladder.

Who’s to Blame for the Financial Meltdown (Republicans or Demorcrats)?

2008-10-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

Both parties probably have equal blame, but for some reason the current President gets ALL the blame. Let’s not forget that the Democrats have had a majority in the legislative branch the past two years. It would be irresponsible to solely blame them, but face it, what did they do even as they saw the housing market collapse the past two years? They did nothing. Now that it is too late, to stop the bleeding we, the taxpayers, got a 700 billion dollar tax. Anyone who believes that the Republicans are solely to blame because of an unpopular President are being irresponsible and naïve. The housing crisis started a long time ago and some of the fundamental problems that caused the collapse can be uncovered when Bill Clinton was President under a Democrat led government. That was the start of government practice allowing Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac to yield questionable loans to people with sub par credit. Frannie and Freddie are government institutions that got so big, but had absolutely no oversight or regulation. They were run predominately by Democrats and Congressional Democrats did not want regulation. Democrats wanted no regulation of Frannie and Freddie because the felt they were sticking up for middle class America. They wanted every American fulfill their dream of being a home owner regardless of their credit. This pushed Americans to get greedy and live beyond their means. Frannie and Freddie executives felt as long as the housing market kept going up, even if people defaulted on their loans, they could resell the homes at a higher price. However, all this came to an end when the housing market actually declined. It is preposterous to think the housing market would continue to grow at its astronomical rate it has for the past decade. The housing market like any market is suspect to cycles of good and bad times. As Frannie and Freddie led the way, banks followed suit to get a piece of the pie. They too allowed lax guidelines to give out loans to susceptible individuals. Democrats argue that Republicans blocked regulation of Wall Street and financial industry. That is true, but the Democrats blocked oversight and regulation on Frannie and Freddie. It is hypocritical to want Wall Street regulation, but block government regulation. Frannie and Freddie held half of all mortgage notes in this country. If government would have listened to worried Republicans like John McCain they could have prevented half the problem. Now, Congress thinks they are doing us all a favor by passing a 700 billion dollar bail out. It is unfortunate but Congressional bipartisan bickering and blaming is causing the problem. There is absolutely no strategic thinking or planning. The bottom line, Congress, both Republican and Democrats are to blame for the financial meltdown. You can blame the greed and incompetence of the Wall Street brass, but our government led as a poor example.

One thing the government and Wall Street must get under control is the investing in derivatives. Derivatives are risky – they can have great rewards or huge consequences. It seems most of the mortgage loans were somehow wrapped together in derivative investments. Derivatives can show up anywhere. In fact, many people may think they have safe investments, however they can be marred with derivatives.

To make matters worse, the financial melt down just may be the start of a chain reaction. Now, it is almost impossible for anyone with average credit to get a loan. This will force car dealers and other small businesses out of business.

Obama's Free Trade Policy

2008-10-05T08:24:00.000-07:00

Obama is a typical Democrat. During the primary season he blamed NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement - Between the U.S., Canada and Mexico) for having U.S. jobs move overseas. This was his slogan in states hit hard by the economy such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (Although there was not an official primary there). NAFTA was brought about by President Clinton and he used this against Hillary. He has also choose to vote against recent free trade legislation with Columbia. This is man willing to sit down with rogue leaders such as The Castro's and Hugo Chavez, but votes against free trade agreements with our allies. Does this make sense? He claims his economic policy will create jobs and decrease the federal deficit. How does he plan to do this without entering in free trade agreements. Blaming NAFTA for the plight of the blue collar worker in Middle America is simply a cop out and irresponsible. There are lots of reasons for the the loss of jobs in Mid America (And they did not necessarily go overseas): Poor leadership at our automotive and large companies, technology replacing jobs, illegal immigrants replacing jobs (That will continue under an Obama Presidency), Union policies, high company taxes (Will also continue under an Obama Presidency - They like to say Big Oil will get a tax break under McCain, but they fail to mention every company - Big or small will get a tax break to bring the economy back), and of course cheaper labor costs outside of the U.S.. Obama will not be able to fix our ailing economy if he does not understand what is causing the problems. NAFTA has very little to do with the loss of jobs, and in fact has created more jobs in the U.S. overall. This is a man that naive and out of touch with the work force. If he wants to fix the problem, he needs to correct our high corporate tax and illegal immigration before he nixes NAFTA. Deep down, even Obama can not actually feel NAFTA is the problem. As I said he is a politician and will say and do whatever it takes for him to win an election. He claims he brings a new style of politics, I see the same old liberal politicians as in Gore or Kerry.

Obama's Friends, Mentors, and Advisors

2008-10-03T09:33:00.000-07:00

Many may ask what does politics have to do with religion? That is a good question, and the answer should be nothing. However, a person’s religious affiliation could affect their political aspirations. Many politicians such as John Kennedy had to overcome religious backgrounds to get elected president. Today, Mitt Romney faces similar questions amongst Republicans, Conservatives, and Americans in general about being a Mormon. On the Democratic side, many pundits have portrayed Barrack Obama as a Muslim. Although these claims are false, even if they were true it should not affect a person’s vote. Most Mormons and Muslims are good people. If someone is a good candidate and person, it should not matter what their religious beliefs are. Maybe it is the media once again trying to make an issue out of nothing. If anyone is voting on a person based on their religious affiliation and background, then they are truly being discriminatory and a bigot. There is absolutely no difference between voting for someone based on religion, race, or gender because all are discriminatory. These are the worst reasons to vote for or to vote against a candidate. This once again shows the power that faith has on Americans, and how it can influence and even brainwash our behavior and personalities. This is just another example of how religion and faith based practices can divide and separate Americans.

The only time people should not vote for a candidate because of religious affiliation is if the religion has radically flawed morale values. For this reason, some believe the American public electing Barack Obama for President would be a mistake. Pastors at the church Obama attends have on occasion used racial and derogatory remarks. Although Obama has concealed his anger that is at times preached by his church, his wife has made an occasional anti-American comment. Obama preaches the opposite view point when his church over steps its bounds, but it is a mystery why he continued to affiliate himself with such a controversial church for over 20 years. That being said, it is easy to see how his Church has influenced his political views to be a liberal leader and to promote social programs to help disenfranchised Americans. So one can only hope he sincerely denounces the hateful message that his church has expressed on occasion. While some make the argument that electing a black President would go a long way to overcome racial barriers in this country, this is only true if Obama really has not become brainwashed into secretly believing the hateful message his church raises from time to time. Some argue that Obama should not be responsible for what others say. For instance, people cannot be held responsible for what a sibling says about issues. That is one hundred percent true. The key difference is that people cannot choose their siblings, but people can certainly choose who they associate with as friends or in terms of the faith they practice. Obama chose to be associated with a reverend that has at times been more than controversial with his sermons and beliefs. Obama’s association with the bigotry, racism, and conspiracy theories of Reverend Wright however, has had a negligible impact on his support. In fact, about two weeks after the story initially came out, his lead over Hillary Clinton reached double digits for the first time in national polls. This was very surprising to me and led me to believe that maybe I am exaggerating the effect religion has on most Americans. Whether right or wrong, I figured this story would crush him. Even more peculiar was the impact on Obama’s campaign a statement made about small town Pennsylvania citizens just a few weeks later. Obama said something to effect that people in Pennsylvania are “bitter about losing their jobs and cling to guns and religion to cope”. This statement had more of a negative impact on his campaign than his association with Reverend Wright. This was puzzling to me because I really did not think that his statement about the Pennsylvania citizens was all that offensive. It seems natural for people to feel bitter about losing their jobs. It is also natural for people to cling to something to get beyond the trauma of losing their jobs. It may not be guns or religion, but it could be anything like family or any hobby. The only reasonable explanation to the public’s differing reaction to these two incidents is that Obama made the latter statement whereas, he never actually said any of the words that Reverend Wright preaches. Thus, it appears Obama is personally attacking small town Pennsylvania citizens. It is amazing to me that the Reverend Wright situation is going to pass without any impact on Obama’s campaign. I definitely think it is okay to listen to controversial speakers and read controversial books to learn and gain a perspective on differing viewpoints. For example, I read “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler, but I would never join or be associated with a neo Nazi organization. The difference is that Obama is not only a member of Reverend Wright’s church, but he has donated a lot of money to it. He had Reverend Wright baptize his children and marry him. This is a strong association to man that routinely promotes hate, bigotry, and conspiracy theories. This to me is damning evidence that Obama may not be what the millions of people around this country, which are intrigued and mesmerized by his presence, really think he is: A person that can unite this country. I think this once again illustrates the lack of intellect of Americans and how petty and simplistic they are to be offended by a harmless comment, but ignore hateful comments that are contributing to the polarization of this nation.

Lets not forget Obama's association with Minister Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is one of the most racists ministers. His comments and antisemitism towards Israel is simply alarming. How a person can associate himself with such radical person and following with no retributions is simply mind boggling. This not only shows poor judgment, but it is scary to think what Obama may actually be thinking behind his calm and cool demeanor. And then there is William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. When Obama was running for the Illinois State Senate in 1995 he met with these radical individuals to get their support to help him win his election. Ayers and Dohrn were part of the Weather Underground in the 1960s who protested against the Vietnam War. The Weather Underground took responsibility for 25 bombings against "war targets". Ayers and Dohrn avoided arrest until the 1980s when they turned themselves in for their involvement in the Greenwich Village bombing. No charges where ever brought against them because of an improper FBI surveillance. How can anyone associate themselves with such radical left wing human beings? There is no excuse for this, and it is just poor judgement we do not need in a President.

If any of this is not bad enough, his top economic advisor is Jim Johnson who was once the CEO of Frannie Mae. Frannie Mae is the now defunct government financial institution that held nearly a quarter of the countries mortgage notes. Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created and run by government liberals so every American could live the American Dream by becoming a home owner. It is the Democrats and their liberal philosophy to help middle class Americans live above their financial means that has greatly helped in our housing and financial market collapse and melt down. McCain tried to get regulation on Frannie and Freddie, but the Democrats thought McCain was trying to take down the working middle class dreams and refuted his attempt (It was refreshing to hear Governor Palin preach fiscal responsibility not only to the government, but the American people to live within our means). When Obama is President, Johnson will be his chief economist, is this what we want? Doesn't it make sense for Obama to have a chief economist that was a successful CEO, instead of one that help lead us into our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? It awfully suspicious that he would stick with Johnson. Obama claims to be clean of lobbyist and kick backs. But this stinks of something that is terribly wrong. There is no question that Senator Dodd (Head of the Senate Finance Committee) and Obama have benefited from kick backs from both Freddie and Frannie. Sounds like Obama is no different than any Washington Politician.

The Democrats have fought back and claimed that John McCain has 19 lobbyist on his campaign staff. It should be pointed out that lobbying is not necessarily a bad function and it is protected under the first amendment. Most lobbyists get a bad rap basically because of all the corruption in Washington and politics in general. Lobbyists provide a function by petitioning the government over grievances. A lobbyist can protect people from losing their home because the government wants to tear it down to build a highway. Hence, lobbying does serve a valuable purpose to make sure altering viewpoints are heard. The problem with lobbyists only arises when their egos become too large and they become fanatical over a cause. When this happens, lobbyists begin to divide and separate Americans because they become unwilling to compromise to end disputes. They can buy off politicians to get their way (Just as Frannie and Freddie did with Dodd and Obama). Every American has benefited from a lobbyist, they serve more good than bad. Joe Biden's son was lobbyist, this does not make him a bad person. The bottom line is this: I would take 19 good lobbyist over one corrupt one that should be in prison for his role in the financial melt down.

Democrats argue that McCain has had his dealings with many so called criminals in his day. If you work in Congress as long a McCain, it is unfortunate but there will be associations with some corrupt individuals. The difference between McCain's and Obama's association with criminals is evident. When McCain dealt with these individuals, they were not known criminals at the time. As soon as their corrupt activity was revealed, McCain severed the relationship. Meanwhile, Obama chose to associate himself with individuals that promote racism, hate, and bigotry on a daily basis his entire life. He also chose to associate with radical individuals who have admitted to being involved in and promoting bombings in the 1960s that killed many. There is nothing wrong for us to be friends with our neighbors. However, our character and judgment are tested once we find out that one neighbor is a racist, pedophile, adulteress, or a follower of any other morally wrong activity. Do we choose to continue to associate with them or do we choose to what is right and disassociate with them? Do you do what McCain does and disassociates himself with the individual or do you do what Obama does and embraces the individual? To be President you have to have good judgement and Obama clearly does not.

VP Debate: Biden Wins, but ..........

2008-10-03T08:28:00.001-07:00

No question Joe Biden won the VP debate on points. I think he won 2 out of every 3 categories. Sarah did well on energy and Biden's experience won him foreign policy. After all, Biden was naming legislation that involved he and McCain in the Senate when Sarah was still in school (Although I am not sure how much Biden claimed was actually factual on his and McCain's voting record. Fred Thompson came up with at least 10 errors off the top of his head). In any event, there was no way for Sarah to combat that history or knowledge. Also, it should be noted that Palin had to perform with a biased moderator. I am surprised that this did not come up, but Biden got the last word 60% of the time and the "blow horn" consistently went over his time allotment without a warning. Thus, he controlled over 55% of the debate. Considering all this and she has only been in Washington for 5 weeks, she more than held her own.

Oddly, I thought McCain won the first presidential debate by showing he had more foreign policy experience. However, Obama showed he was competent on what was suppose to be his weakness. I believe that only made people think that Obama would in fact be a better presidential candidate since most believe he is better on the economy (although these people are sadly mistaken).

With all that said, Sarah did extremely well for one important reason - People can relate with her. People see her as one of them and that is refreshing and resonates with voters. While Joe rattled off a plethora of legislative voting records, he seemed stiff and very political. Sarah did not seem political and was having fun. She represented any mother in this country that could have been going one on one with one of Washington's most experienced politicians punch for punch. Palin also showed she is a political outsider by simply not knowing how to respond to all of Biden's chargers. And that too is refreshing to many because they think Washington is broke and a political outsider may be needed to fix the mess. I actually think that this is the same reason so many liberals are infatuated with Obama. They view him as a Washington outsider ready to fix the problem. However, I still think Palin has much more appeal than Obama. When I see Obama, I still see a silky smooth politician. When I see Palin, I see an ordinary American.

Sarah's favorable impression can be partly attributed to the media's negative portrayal of her. That left expectations low and she outperformed them easily. It also raises questions as to how fair those TV interviews were with Palin. Palin has done well on live TV so how come she does so poorly on staged interviews? Her claim is because they edited her answers and whether that is true or not, it holds muster because she has done well live. I think the more the media goes after her, the better it will be for Republican ticket as women rally to support her. Joe Biden makes a gaffe nearly every day, but none of that is shown on TV like Sarah's interviews. Biden makes statements equivalent to what Dan Quale has said such as "I need to brush up on my Latin" when referring to a trip he was making to Latin America. Biden claims his family watched FDR on TV, before TV existed. Biden has also extorted the truth by claiming to have been shot at in Iraq, which was not true. He is a typical politician. Meanwhile, Sarah is typical human being.

Palin may not be ready to lead today, but anyone can do it if they are able to surround themselves with the right people. Barack is not ready yet, but he has come a long way since he started his campaign some 18 months ago of learning the nuances. But lets not kid ourselves, Governors make better presidents than Senators. Governors actually run a state. Senators run absolutely nothing other than a committee. This year will be the first year a Senator is elected President in over 40 years. It is also the first time two sitting Senators have run against each other. Face it, Governors have the best experience to become President. I think she has the most potential of any of the candidates and Biden.

Barack Obama's Campaign Finance Policy

2008-10-02T14:14:00.000-07:00

Politicians accepting campaign contributions from the American public can also be hypocritical and have an adverse affect on the economy. Barack Obama feels he is doing this country a big service by only accepting campaign contributions from the American public. However, a great deal of his contributions has come from middle class and poor Americans. Although this appears moralistic on the surface, it is creating more division between the rich and poor. It is also hypocritical to accept money from people who cannot afford it. This is especially true considering his campaign centers around helping middle class and poor families whom he claims are struggling to get by. Obama is a smooth talker and reminds me of a deacon, pastor, reverend or religious leader that mesmerizes their congregation with words in order to exploit them into donating to their cause. It is great that Obama refuses to take money from corporations or lobbyist that could expect favors for their donations. However, it would be even more moralistic to accept money from only those that can afford it. It may be hard to ascertain who can or cannot afford to donate to a campaign, but he could most certainly donate a portion of his record breaking campaign contributions back to the public. Why doesn’t he or any candidate do this? Let’s face it, it is more important for them to get elected to public office than it is to help any Americans struggling to survive in their jurisdiction.

Lets not forget that Obama originally agreed to accept public financing for his campaign until he realized he can take in millions more by exploiting Americans with a mesmerizing message of change. Thus, Obama backed out of his claim, just as any old politician would have done. So much for the claim of "change" for a new type of politics.

Barack Obama's Corporate Tax Policy

2008-10-02T13:56:00.000-07:00

Our country is moving towards a socialistic society everyday as our federal government increases its power and size. A socialistic society is one where the central government is very large and taxes its people heavily to support all their social programs such as health care to aid their people. The United States is moving in this direction. John Edwards and Barack Obama, both Democratic presidential candidates that insist all of America’s problems are due to large corporations. This is Edward's main campaign principle and slogan he is running on. They both believe large businesses are making middle class Americans lives more difficult in terms of less wealth. Edwards and Obama want to punish big businesses and tax them heavily to support the middle class. This policy is supported by nearly all the liberal people in this country. This is scary because Edwards and Obama do not understand basic economics since the result of their actions to raise taxes on big businesses will have a huge fall out. Corporations will see their stock values decrease as their revenues go down forcing the United States into a recession. Another possibility for corporations to maintain their profit margins through higher taxes is to pass the tax burden onto the consumer. Corporations may also try to stay profitable or competitive by laying more people off and sending more jobs overseas increasing the national unemployment rate. Corporations will be forced to reduce and possibly eliminate benefits such as 401K, pensions, and health care insurance to stay competitive. Hence, this action could have an opposite effect on the middle class by sending more people into poverty.

Even a moderate corporate policy of providing tax relief to companies that keep jobs in the United States and heavily taxing those companies that allows jobs to move overseas has flaws. This action would benefit companies whose competition is only in the United States. American companies would not be able to compete against global companies that have access to cheap labor. The result of such a policy may have an opposite effect on the American middle class if United States corporations are forced out of business. It is these philosophies that will continue to destroy the United States’ capitalistic society and send us further towards becoming a socialistic state. Edwards and Obama are brainwashing Americans into believing that the federal government is the savior while big business and capitalism is the enemy. Edwards and Obama are correct with his assessment that large corporations and their lobbyist certainly influence political decisions and policies. They are right that this practice has got to stop, but it is not just corporations to blame since it takes two to tango. The government and its members are allowing it to happen. Edwards and Obama fail to see the main culprit of our problems and what is hurting the middle class is the federal government’s excessive and double taxing of its citizens to maintain failed social policies they had no business creating in the first place. Instead, logic should dictate that by lowering corporate taxes it would help businesses become more profitable and encourage growth and employment and prevent jobs from going overseas. Edwards is a lawyer and should understand that frivolous litigation against corporations, which he supports, is also lowering their profits and causing the same effect as raising taxes.

There are a lot of factors contributing to companies moving jobs overseas, but the main reason is financial. Labor is substantially cheaper overseas due to a plethora of reasons. First, many up and coming industrialized nations such as India and China do not have any enforced labor laws. This means employees do not have many rights and are forced to work for sub par wages. Second, corporate taxes in most industrialized nations have lower federal tax rates than in the United States. Third, India and China corporations do not have nearly as many governmental controls and bureaucracies to deal with such as trade or environmental restrictions. These measures make it almost impossible for American corporations to compete with foreign corporations. Hence, they are forced to move jobs overseas or go bankrupt. The unfortunate realization of the above claims is that our government has little control over correcting the problem. Other than lowering taxes, the United States can pressure India and China to meet acceptable labor laws and environmental regulations, but they cannot make it happen. Thus, preventing jobs from moving overseas is going to be hard to correct, but it certainly will get worse if corporate taxes are raised.

There are other factors, excluding cheap labor, which will continue to force more American jobs overseas. Today, the American “blue collar” worker averages over fifty years old. When they retire, there will be no Americans willing or capable of doing the work other than illegal aliens. First, many Americans refuse to do any labor jobs for a variety of reasons. There are those lazy Americans that are content to earn welfare and there are those spoiled “over parented” kids unwilling to do any labor work. Secondly, children lack the proper education and preparation to do “blue collar” jobs. Although there are trade schools that teach children how to perform labor jobs, however regular schooling falls short of teaching children how to use their hands to perform even the most mundane task. Schools have taken physical education, art, shop, home education, and any other classes out of their curriculum. These classes would prepare kids for “blue collar” jobs because it teaches them not only how to use their hands, but it instills the coordination, confidence, and physical strength needed to do “blue collar” labor jobs. It teaches and trains youths that there is more to education than a computer and the Internet.

No matter what the reason is for jobs moving overseas, it is obvious that our government has absolutely no clue on how to stop and prevent it from happening in the future. When our leaders stress higher corporate taxes and standardized testing at the expense of a balanced education for our children, it only indicates the growing trend of jobs moving overseas will continue. Leaders are out of touch with the American people and reality when they blame corporations for causing the problem. Our leaders have an elitist attitude with a super ego personality that inhibits them from recognizing it is their policies that is causing the epidemic.

Joe Biden's Social Security Plan

2008-10-02T13:49:00.000-07:00

One way to save and prolong social security is to increase the social security tax. Some Democrats (Joe Biden proposed this during the one Democratic Presidential Debate) are in favor of this while most Republicans are against the idea. Currently the social security tax is capped at $97,500 dollars. What that means is that a person who makes $90,000 dollars per year has all of their salary subjected to social security tax. On the other hand, if a person makes $500,000 dollars per year, only $97,500 dollars is subject to social security tax. Some Democrats feel that by raising the social security tax cap to $120,000 a year, and then it could prolong social security for an additional twenty-five years. The problem with this tax is that it will once again take money from wealthy people. This money could bolster the economy when it is used to purchase goods and services. Hence, the higher tax could have a negative effect on the economy and could put the United States into a depression. This could have an opposite affect on social security funding as discussed above. One thing that Democrats fail to consider when they proposed this tax increase is that each employer is also responsible to match our social security tax to the government. By increasing the cap to $120,000, corporate taxes on both large and small businesses will also increase. For small business owners this can be a huge burden. However for large businesses it may not hurt them as much but it will still affect their bottom line. If corporate earnings go down, the stock market and the economy will be affected. A compromise would be for the government to raise the tax cap for the wealthy, but not for small businesses and or large corporations. However, any tax could affect the economy. For these reasons, I am against raising the social security taxes because it will affect trickle down or supply side economics and corporate earnings, which will hurt the economy. The worst thing that the government needs to do is to take an unnecessary risk that could jeopardize the economy that could possibly lead this country into a recession that would negate the purpose of the social security tax increase. The other key factor to keep in mind when raising the social security cap it does not permanently fix social security. It only saves it for another twenty-five years at which point the government would be forced to make another tax rate increase to fix social security for another few years. Raising taxes is the easiest and the laziest way for the government to handle problem. It is their way of passing the burden of their failed policy on the American public. It is another example of irresponsible leadership that fails to learn from its mistakes and continues to solve problems by throwing money at them instead of fixing the root cause of the problem.

Barack Obama's War On Terrorism Policy

2008-10-02T13:42:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama does not want to give any credit to the “surge” strategy in Iraq for turning the tide in the war. Then doesn’t it sound a bit ironic and hypocritical that his strategy for handling the growing violence in Afghanistan is to do a troop surge? This is evidence that Barack has a huge super ego and will not admit to being wrong.

Barack Obama's Tax Plan

2008-10-02T13:24:00.000-07:00

Consider Barack Obama’s plan to provide a tax cut to yield one thousand dollars of additional income for each middle class and poor family. There are approximately seventy million such families in the United States. That means the increased tax on the wealthiest families (approximately two percent of the people) to support the middle class income increase would be seventy billion dollars. That equates to a tax increase of over fifty thousand dollars for each wealthy family. A wealthy family includes families making more than two hundred thousand dollars a year. This does not include additional tax increases needed on the wealthy to support his social programs such as universal health care. Additional tax money would also be needed to balance the budget. Even if Obama decides to end the war in Iraq, the money saved in the budget from this action would not be enough to support his social programs. Each family that receives a one thousand dollar income increase will spend the money on everyday items such as gas, energy, food and so forth. Meanwhile the thousands of dollars taken out of the pockets from the wealthy would have gone for cars, homes, computers and other luxury purchases needed to keep the economy growing. Does anyone think an additional one thousand dollars in middle class families’ pockets will end the current housing crisis? Actually, there is a higher probability that it will make the crisis worse if it deters the wealthy from purchasing homes.

Obama claims that everyone making less than 250,000 dollars will not see a tax hike. I am retired and like many retirees we live off stocks and mutual funds. When Obama changes the tax on long term capital gains, my taxes as well as other retired folks will have their taxes go up. His reasoning is that only rich people have stocks and mutual funds. My tax bracket this next year may be borderline poverty, but I will have less income under an Obama administration. Obviously Obama has not thought this through and is mistaken when he says EVERYONE who makes under 250,000 dollars will have lower taxes and more income.

Barack Obama's Change: A Step Back

2008-10-02T11:26:00.000-07:00

The analysis of Congressional leadership yields many similarities when compared to corporate Wall Street leaders who have us on the brink of a financial meltdown. Who ever came up with the word “Congress” really provided us with a clever play on words and foreshadowing. If “progress” means forward movement, then logic would dictate that “Congress” should mean backwards movement. Backwards movement would be an excellent way to describe our present day Congress and our government leadership. It is also ironic that the 2008 Presidential election is the first ever to ever pit two current sitting Senators. What makes this ironic is that the American public has given our congressional leaders only a twenty-two percent approval rating. So then, why nominate two congressional cronies to be the next President? It makes absolutely no sense and once again shows how ignorant the American public has become. It shows how easily the American public can be brainwashed by Barack Obama’s mesmerizing but substance lacking speeches or Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s overrated experience.

Obama’s platform of “Change” also illustrates how easily the American people can be manipulated and brainwashed. Struggling Americans are flocking to Obama’s message because it provides them hope that someone will take care of them. However, if any one believes that an Obama White House will be any different from his recent predecessors is sadly mistaken. Obama claims he can make changes because he can unite Americans. Unfortunately, if you look at his record and listen to his speeches he is no different than any other politician. First, Obama is the most liberal Senator and has not shown much in terms of crossing the isle to work with Republicans on legislation during his short tenure in Congress. People are delusional if they feel a person that is the furthest left in Congress is going to be successful to bring people to the center. Secondly, Obama lives in the past and plays the blame and fear monger game as well as any politician. This is what you need to do to get elected, but he fails to demonstrate more forward looking or strategic vision. He blames the Iraq War on everyone else. Maybe it is not his fault, but how is blaming everyone going to resolve the crisis in the future? It is not, it is only going to create more tension and division amongst both Democrats and Republicans. He has yet to admit to ever making mistake since being in Congress (like all candidates), thus he has the super ego complex. People with the super ego complex cannot compromise and unite people. He also uses fear monger tactics on the American public by convincing them that their economic situation is only going to get worse if he is not elected. His manipulation of the American public is no different than any other politician, but he seems to be the best at it since Bill Clinton. If Obama wins the White House it will not change anything. Things will be just as The Who song goes: “Here is to the new boss, same as the old boss”. The truth of the situation is that the President’s power is limited and to be effective it must rely on support from an already divided Congress. Face it, there is absolutely nothing unique proposed in all the Obama rhetoric and worse yet he has very little substance in his message to indicate how he plans to meet his objectives. He plans to sit down with our enemies and use diplomacy to overcome our differences. This is straight out of Jimmy Carter’s failed foreign policy in the 1970s. His domestic policy rhetoric send a message that is anti-corporation, higher taxes for the rich, lower taxes for the poor, and universal health care. This sounds like any liberal democrat running for President since the Great Depression. There is nothing new in his message and agenda so what makes everyone think he will succeed where all his predecessors failed. He will need more than words and charisma to achieve his goals. That is why the likely end result will be a continuation of failed promises and division amongst Americans. It is not surprising that most of Obama's supporters are young Americans who did not live through the Jimmy Carter era or felt the wrath of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" and his social programs that we are still paying for. Unfortunately, most of these young supporters of Obama probably never did well in history class (Oh wait, the chances are that their history teacher was a liberal biased clown that helped brainwash their young minds).