Saturday, June 30, 2007

Congressional job approval rating at 24%, 71% disapprove.

I was intrigued by this, but certainly not surprised. Congress now has a lower approval rating than the President, even though they often cite Bush’s dismal numbers to their credit. But the interesting question is why? Here we have a Republican President and a Democrat majority in Congress, yet both are sub-30 in approval from the American public.

Here is my theory. Unlike some of the pundits, I don’t think there is a “moderate majority” out there anymore. Twenty years ago, yes. Even ten years ago this may have been the case. But now, we are very polarized politically. Maybe 20 percent of the voters would fit in the moderate middle, but I think even that is an overestimate. What I see in this country is a large number of people either very progressive (read: liberal) or very conservative, without much in between. This should make for a very interesting 2008 campaign.

How else could we explain the constant venom and vitriol that has infected this nation? Face it, there is a lot of nastiness out there from both sides of the aisle, no one is innocent on this matter. We have a Republican President who has veered in many ways from his traditional conservative agenda (i.e. the immigration bill and the huge spending). He has alienated his conservative base more than once, and it seems to be more common since he won reelection. And the progressive base will never approve of a Republican leader, hence the poor approval numbers.

And then there’s the Democrat Congress, yet another group of “do-nothings” like the prior Congress. They once had the support of the far-Left, but ever since the Iraq vote authorizing more money, this support has waned. And, of course, the conservative base will never approve of the Left in Congress hence their low approval ratings.

So we have a President and a Congress that have lost the support of their base, perhaps leaving only the moderates who approve of their middle-of-the-aisle antics. And still, so many of the presidential candidates make hardened efforts to look appealing to the moderate middle. One wonders, in light of these approval numbers, if that’s a wise policy.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

In a recent UK poll, 4000 people were asked about global warming and a surprising 71% of them feel that global warming is a natural, not a man-made, phenomenon. And this was in the UK, not in the US Midwest. So what gives? I thought the book was closed on this. I thought human-induced climate change was so generally accepted worldwide that anyone who didn’t believe it was naïve and irresponsible.

This supports my previous suspicion that so much of global warming is media-driven hysteria generated from an anti-West, and specifically an anti-American, mentality. In other words, it’s politics as usual. And when politics is in full bloom, I generally find that the people are able to see past it and have a better, more reasonable grasp on the issue. Such is the case here. These people just haven’t seen enough evidence to convince them that we are killing the planet, and that’s because there is way too much conflicting evidence out there. You wouldn’t know this from the news, of course.

The ultra-Left will sneer. They’ll consider it from their elitist, enlightened point of view and see people like me as ill-informed, ignorant and naïve. Of course, these are the same people who can’t tell me when human life begins, but let’s not split hairs. They have the answers. They have the knowledge, and everyone else just needs to be educated. Thank you Al Gore.

I predict impending doom for the theory of human-induced climate change. As we learn more about the subject, we’re discovering more sound explanations for the subtle changes in earth’s climate, and none of them involve carbon footprints. I predict the elite Left will continue to sneer and look down on the unenlightened, until the evidence overwhelms them and they have to find a new reason to hate America, not that this will be difficult. After all, in America people get rich and most of them do it without the aid of the government, and that’s reason enough for these people to hate us.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

“Pants” lawsuit over

Here is the background: a customer has a suit dry-cleaned, he returns to find that the pants did not match the jacket, so he protested and the business owners tried to find the right pants but it turned out that they were lost. So the customer, who also happens to a judge and an attorney, decides to file a lawsuit against this small business because they had a sign in their window that said “Satisfaction Guaranteed”. This sounds reasonable if he was suing for the cost of the suit and if the business owner refused to refund that cost. But, of course, that isn’t the case. No, this subhuman attorney decides that he wants to sue this business for $54 million! And lawyers often wonder why people hate them so much!

The basis for this number is some classic attorney number-manipulation, adding up years of fraud and faulty advertising and all the customers that were supposedly ripped off by these people, blah blah blah. And the lawyer felt that HE should have been compensated the full amount. Well, the presiding judge ruled in favor of the dry cleaner. Case closed, well, except for the thousands of dollars that this couple had to spend to defend the suit. Unbelievable.

So, here’s what I think should happen. First, ALL court costs should be charged to the plaintiff….ALL. That way he refunds the costs of this frivolous suit to the defendants, and repays the taxpayers for the time and money devoted to this waste of time. Second, he should be fined 10% of his claim against the defendant…$5.4 million…to be put into a trust to support small businesses that suffer these kinds of frivolous attacks so that we don’t lose small businesses to moron attorneys like this.

I think this is fair, and it should apply to ANY civil law suit heard in this country. It sends a message to lawyers, if you sue someone you’d better be sure you have a legitimate gripe and you’d better ask for a fair amount, otherwise it could come back to bite you. It would protect small businesses and limit unreasonable, unnecessary and costly lawsuits, and it would punch the plaintiffs attorneys in the pocketbook…which can never be a bad thing.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

How long will we drink the Kool Aid?

Take a look at these quotes from Washington. Do they sound familiar?

“Under this conference committee report the resources of the border patrol will double together with assuring additional sums for the INS to perform their functions.”

" of the items that has not been mentioned is the debate today is we are doubling up the border patrol. This immigration bill says we are going to get tough with immigration laws; we are going to expedite our exclusionary process; we are going to take care of the backlog; and we are going to blunt the economic magnets that draw these people into the country illegally."

“I believe we should vote to approve this conference report and get a bill to the President. Our country desperately needs to regain control over its borders. This bill will help us start that process and will provide the immediate relief on the border that we need.”

“Universal and mandatory verification of documents is similarly still required.”

“In my judgment, employer sanctions are essential if this country is to regain control of its borders. Indeed, it is our sovereign responsibility to do so…”

“I am glad to see that we are on the brink of resolving this important issue in a constructive and definitive way…In my view it is a good bill. We should all support it and be glad that this long controversy has been finally put to rest.”

“No legislation before this Congress is of higher priority. I am hopeful that enactment of this legislation will help us regain control of our borders and avoid a future repressive public reaction that will fail to distinguish lawful immigrants and refugees from illegal aliens. . … Mr. Speaker, I believe the conference report before us today contains the essential provisions needed for comprehensive immigration reform.”

“I know that this was a troubling issue to many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but I can assure you that it is our intention and the conferees intention that legalization be a “one-time” only event "

“But let me share with you that the alternative to legalization is to go hunt for them…The alternative to legalization is deportation. And the only way you are going to find the persons to deport is to go find them.”

“We will be bringing people out of a shadow economy, people will be paying taxes, people will be coming out in the sunshine, there will not be the abuse of workers, employers will not be able to provide poor-quality jobs for people, they will not be able to oppress people, sanctions will keep a magnet from attracting these people here—all of those things we know…”

"There are millions and millions of illegal aliens in this country that now will have an opportunity to start on the road toward citizenship. They will have the opportunity to come out of the shadows…"

"There has not been a perfect bill to come to this floor, but this bill certainly falls in the classification of making the best out of a bad situation…"

Any guesses? Every one of these arguments were made in support of the Simpson-Mazzoli comprehensive immigration reform bill of 1986. In that bill, amnesty was granted to illegal immigrants while Congress also promised to secure the border once and for all. That bill passed 21 years ago, and we all see how well they've secured our border. And now these idiots expect us to trust them to do what they promised to do 21 years ago. Is it "this time we mean it..."? Or is it "suckers, I can't believe they bought it again...."?

It's interesting to see Ted Kennedy's arguments against Simpson-Mazzoli, and then listen to him support the 2007 amnesty bill. The Left hated the '86 bill, but they love this one. Listen up, folks, IT'S THE SAME BILL. They're basically carbon copies of each other. The only thing different is the year and the number of illegals granted a free pass. This new immigration bill is nothing but a symbol of Congress's failure to enforce their own friggin' laws. What a bunch of inept, incompetent, incomprehensible baboons! Why the hell should we think this will be any different than Simpson-Mazzoli? It will cost the US taxpayer millions, and nothing will be accomplished.

ANY representative or Senator who supports this bill has lost my vote. I'm registered in Florida, and I'm not alone. This bill will sink the Republicans, and be the beginning of the end for the party that ignored it's constituents, and screwed the American people twice on the same issue.

Monday, June 25, 2007

R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

Like many scientists in his field, Patterson has devoted a lot of time recently to the study of global climate change. His findings are quite interesting. Patterson has found a link between the earth’s base temperature and the output of radiation from the sun. Sounds fundamental to me. Here are some of Patterson’s findings:

“Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.”

“…the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years”

“In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.”

“The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”

“But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.”

“Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.”

My position on global climate change has always been: we need more information. Patterson cites studies and comrades that agree that the science of climate change is in its infancy. The fact is, we don’t know what drives our climate change. But as the information comes rolling in, for example Patterson’s studies above, it seems to me that human behavior has a minimal if any effect on the global climate.

His theory is that the brightness of the sun has a more pronounced impact on the earth’s climate, and to me that is much more believable that the human-induced hysteria, which seems more political than anything else. My mind remains open, but the science seems to be moving away from the human-induced theory. For some reason, I don't think the "believers" share the same sentiment. No matter what evidence is presented, these people will never back away from their "people are killing the planet" position.

Why? Well, I've always felt that human induced climate change was more political than anything else, specifically anti-Americanism, and there is no group on this globe more anti-American than the ultra-left, which usually includes the enviro-nazis. So when a theory comes along that we are killing the earth, and thus killing the entire planet, and America is a primary player in that...well, it's an America-hater's dream. They'll never accept anything less, no matter what the evidence shows.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

GOP rivals take subtle shots at Romney’s faith

I’ve made some statements on this blog in the past regarding the GOP race and Mitt Romney’s faith. I feel a candidate’s faith should be known to the voters. It is reasonable for any candidate to be clear about their religious beliefs. There have been moments in the past, first with Kennedy’s Catholic faith, then with Joe Leiberman’s Jewish faith, where the issue was discussed. More recently, a Muslim congressman from Minnesota was voted into office. In my opinion, a candidate’s religion should not be “off the table”. The voters have a right to know what their candidate believes.

But what I will not tolerate is the slandering of a candidate’s religion, which is exactly what’s beginning to happen in the Republican race. This is, to say the least, despicable. Although no candidate has directly participated in this behavior, there is the suspicion that it’s not exactly taboo in the campaign offices. This article highlights a few instances in which campaign workers have made derogatory statements about Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. According to the article, those guilty work for McCain, Brownback and Guiliani.

Some of the claims made include: Mormons are not Christians, Mormons indirectly support Hamas, Mormons treat women similar to the Taliban. At the very least, this is a reflection of ignorance. At most, it is irresponsible bigotry representing an antiquated way of thinking that is far beneath anyone with any stature. It should not be tolerated by ANY US voter, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

The respective campaigns have “reprimanded” their workers for making these statements, but nothing more. I think these people should have been fired and the respective candidate should have made a public apology to Romney and indeed all Mormons, but that’s just me. I’m disappointed in McCain. I had respect for him, and felt that he was a truly decent man with honorable intentions, but now I seriously question that. If he is unable to judge a man as he comes, and not by the group that he belongs to, then I don’t think he is fit for office. But, again, that’s just me.

The fact that someone is Mormon or Muslim or Jewish or Catholic or Protestant has nothing to do with what kind of person they are. I can cite many examples of bad people and good people from any of these groups. I feel Romney is a good person and should be treated as such until he gives us evidence to the contrary, as McCain seems to be doing with his indirect attacks on Romney’s faith. If Romney is not the best choice for President, it certainly isn’t because he is Mormon.

And, for the record, I believe that Mormon’s are Christians. I haven’t seen any evidence that they support Hamas, or treat women like the Taliban treats women. This is petty, cheap behavior, and represents conduct unbecoming a US Presidential candidate. The GOP field has done nothing to secure my vote, and this recent behavior isn’t helping.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

I had something else planned for today, but I'm not done with the prior topic. I expected some fairly moronic comments in support of abortion, but I had no idea how bad it could be until I read the comment from "anonymous":

"I believe that guns and gun owner's are responsible for more death than abortion is. I believe that a fetus is as much a living, breathing human as an egg is a chicken. I know that hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos are thrown into a dumpster every year at invitro fertilization clinics all across the country. I guess it's OK to let them die of heat stroke than to use these cells or pre-embryos to help cure the diseases of those of us who have been through the womb - unlike a frozen fetus. Bush's "adoption option" will be as useless as FEMA, as life saving as the NRA, and somewhere someone will be making a pretty penny on this so-called plan."

OK, first, if anonymous truly felt that a fetus was not alive, then abortion would not be responsible for any death. So, in a way, anonymous is right about guns being more dangerous. Next, comparing a human fetus to a chicken egg is simply wrong. We, as a society, treat our supermarket eggs much better than we do the fetus, with those cozy crates and all. I think a better metaphor would be comparing a fetus to, say, a hangnail. It's just lifeless tissue that we remove and discard. But, for argument sake, we'll stay with the chicken egg metaphor. More to come later.

What amazes me about the pro-abortionists is that they can't come up with a sound argument supporting their position. For a crowd that's so passionate about what they believe, you'd think they'd be able to mount a formidable defense of that position but they don't, and I know why.

You see, to defend the right to abort a fetus, you must be able to definitively define the moment that human life begins. That way, anything before that can be killed, anything after cannot. This is were the pro-abortionists get bogged down. Advances in science and medicine make it tricky to set a definitive "life starts now" moment. Human rights activists like myself believe that life begins at conception. That's firm and unchanging. Man can't change it. The law can't change it. The Supreme Court can't change it. No advance in science can change it. You can't have human life without conception.

However, the pro-abortionists can't agree to this because that means that abortion would indeed be killing human life. So they need a different definition of human life, and they avoid this like a contraceptive. But, I'll take a look at a few.

A fetus is a human life once it can survive outside the womb. Human babies have survived premature delivery as early as 24 weeks gestation. Immediately, this argument is blown away because the pro-abortionists want to be able to kill a baby at any time during their pregnancy, and if we decide that 24 weeks gestation is the moment a fetus becomes a human life, then that will limit their "choice" way too much. This is an example of medical advances throwing a wrench in the abortionists plan. A few decades ago, babies couldn't survive prior to 30 weeks gestation. Now, it is becoming more and more common. Plus, if we agree on the 24 week mark, then we must also agree to deny women access to prenatal care, especially any government funded care, until they reach this point in their pregnancy. And all neonatal rescucitation efforts must stop. If that baby can't survive outside the womb, it's not a human life. Why waste medical resources on something that's not human?

A fetus is not a life until the moment of "birth". I don't get this one. First, define birth. Is it the moment the head crowns? Or when the chin clears the birth canal? Or when the entire body is out? Or after the cord is cut? What about a C-section? Is that actually a birth? Are C-section babies alive? You could make the exact same argument for each of these, which basically means the definition is artificial. And the C-section issue becomes interesting. If we decide that life isn't life until birth occurs, then we must agree that all emergency C-sections must stop. After all, that isn't a human life in there, why are we taking emergency measures to save it? Again, why spend valuable money and resources to save a non-life? Why do all of this for a chicken egg, or a hangnail?

The mother should have the freedom to decide when her baby is a human life. So now we don't establish any concrete definition, we just allow it to be a matter of opinion. For one person, life begins at conception. For another, at 20 weeks. For yet another, once the head is out. But, wait a minute, what about the mother who feels her child is not alive until they reach age 2? Or not until they can talk, or smile, or have their first poop? What about the mom who feels only true humans have blue eyes? Will we allow her to kill her brown-eyed baby? Obviously, making life a matter of opinion, at the discretion of the beholder, is a dangerous concept that should never be entertained. None of us would be safe in that kind of world.

So the arguments of the pro-abortionists just don't hold. Did I miss any? When you can't establish a definitive moment of when life begins, and defend that with a solid argument, then it would appear that a fetus is most definitely a human life. And it would appear that killing that fetus would constitute murder, which we all agree is wrong.

So when the abortionists can't agree on when life begins, and can't defend their position, why do they insist on the right to an abortion? Why the smokescreen? I'd prefer it if they came clean and basically said they don't care when life begins, as long as they have the right to end it whenever convenient. Why not simply admit that what they want is the right to have sex with someone they wouldn't marry without using contraception, and still be able to kill any baby that results from that sex. They seem so hesitant to admit that. Why? Because it's harsh or inhumane? Don't be ridiculous. If a fetus isn't human, then how on earth could it be inhumane to kill one?

I believe that human life is a sequence of events. A human being grows from a single cell, to an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, a teenager, etc...until life ends. This is a process that moves through many phases, but that process ALWAYS begins with fertilization. There is no other way for life to exist. Any 'boundaries' that are placed within that process are man-made, and thus can change. For example, if we place a boundary and say that life begins at birth, then who's to say that one day that boundary can't be moved to another age? Perhaps when the child is self-dependent, or capable of working or voting? Obviously, this is dangerous thinking. So the answer is to look at nature, and nature shows that the process of life has a beginning...and that beginning is ALWAYS at fertilization.

And by the way, last year alone there were nearly 1.5 million abortions in the US. From 1999-2004 (a SIX-YEAR period), there were 177,057 gun-related deaths in the US. That took all of about 2 seconds on an internet search.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

A different argument against abortion

For the longest time my position on abortion mirrored that of many of our political leaders. I was personally opposed to it, but I had trouble imposing that personal belief on others through laws. As time went by, I began to see things in our culture that troubled me – things that signify that we’re on a bad path and only getting worse. In many ways, I see a link in these problems to the fact that we, as a society, have lost respect for human life. It seems to me as though the value of each human life just hasn’t held over the past several decades, and it does indeed seem to be getting worse. It’s quite disturbing to me when I see how easy it is for one human being to do some of the awful things to another that are constantly filling our daily news broadcasts. It’s become much too easy for people to take a life with such little hesitation and I can't help but wonder what role Roe v Wade plays in that.

Whether we’re talking about a little girl being kidnapped, raped and murdered in Florida, or a college student randomly killing a number of his classmates, it all just seems like the sanctity of human life has waned in value. Every night there is another example of the innocent being brutalized by bad people. Of course, this all can’t be pinned on Roe v Wade, but I find it hard to argue that this particular Supreme Court decision is not in anyway connected to what we’ve become as a society.

Because of this, and because of some growing personal convictions and experiences, my position on abortion has evolved. Now, I realize that a human fetus does constitute a human life and carries as much value as any other innocent human life. I feel that life should be protected, as we would protect any other innocent person. But we have failed to do this. We’ve agreed as a nation to place more emphasis and more value on one person than another, and that attitude is spilling over into other areas of our society. I feel that we are paying dearly for Roe v. Wade. That’s why this should be overturned. That’s why I will not vote for anyone who is pro-abortion. That’s why I oppose embryonic stem cell research and applaud Bush's most recent veto. When a society begins to stratify the importance of its citizens, it has a deep and lasting impact on us all.

This article presents some interesting trends that have occurred since Roe v. Wade. Here is a sample:

"One often misunderstood fact: Legal abortions just didn't start with Roe, or even with the five states that liberalized abortion laws in 1969 and 1970. Prior to Roe, women could have abortions when their lives or health were endangered. Doctors in some states, such as Kansas, had very liberal interpretations of what constituted danger to health. Nevertheless, Roe did substantially increase abortions, more than doubling the rate per live birth in the five years from 1972 to 1977. But many other changes occurred at the same time: • A sharp increase in pre-marital sex. • A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.• A drop in the number of children placed for adoption."

I’ve heard the arguments for abortion. What about women who were raped or molested? What about a fetus with severe birth defects? What about safety? They are very tough questions, with no easy answers. I’ve heard that it’s a privacy issue, that no one is harmed. I’ve heard the notion of “safe, legal and rare”, but is that how things are playing out?

Here are some recent statistics: In 2003, nearly 24% of all pregnancies in the US ended in abortion. So much for the “rare” thing.

As for rape/incest: that accounted for less than 0.5% of all abortions in 2004. Concerns for the mother’s or baby’s health accounted for 7% of abortions that year. So for all the arguments given, only 7.5% of abortions are carried out in support of those arguments. The rest? Reasons given basically supported the mother’s preference, either she couldn’t afford it, didn’t want to be a single mom, was too old or, my favorite, was “unready”. At what point do we admit that legalized abortion has become a form of birth control? At what point do we admit that this is just about protecting our rights to engage in inconsequential, irresponsible behavior, and not about protecting those 7.5% of women I mentioned? At what point do we admit that Roe v Wade is about our right to behave as sluts?

Latest estimates (mainly because in some states abortion stats may not be as accurate) show that since Roe v Wade, approximately 30 million abortions have been performed in the US. Can anyone argue that this practice doesn’t harm society? Why on earth is there not an outcry to, at the very least, impose severe restrictions on when these procedures can be performed? How did it become so easy to have this procedure done?

So, religious beliefs aside, being an evidence-based kind of guy, when I look at the abortion statistics on one hand, and then look at the rise of illegitimate births, drop in adoptions, sharp rise in “inconsequential sex” and the erosion of the sanctity of human life…I have to ask: What good has come from Roe v Wade? What problems have we solved? What problems have we created? Is it worth it?

The pro-life crowd, myself included, has been painted as a bunch of religious fanatics who want to impose their beliefs on others. Well, when you look at the numbers I just posted then you see that’s simply not the case. This is about much more than religion. Abortion is bad for society, and that alone should be a driving argument against it – never mind the moral issues behind it. We have failed at what we set out to do. Legalized abortion has become much worse than we could have ever imagined, and the ramifications are seen in every day life within a culture of death. We've done no good with this, but we have done a lot of bad. How long does this continue?

I have come to the conclusion that Roe v Wade represents a turning point in our society, and I feel the statistics support that. It symbolizes how selfish and irresponsible we truly are. It symbolizes how cheap human life has become in our eyes. It symbolizes our gluttonous “me” society. It symbolizes the right to “take” rather than “give”. All of these are bad things that erode our inner fabric as they build, and if we are to recover then we will have to do something about this. We can legislate and educate all we want. We can use catchy slogans like “safe, legal and rare”. But if we want to restore America’s moral fiber, then that will have to somehow include an overturn of Roe v Wade.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Today’s campaign update: Mitt Romney seems to have adopted and interesting strategy. He is focusing the majority of his efforts on the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire and it appears to be paying off. Currently, Romney leads in the polls in those two states.

I see a similarity in what he is doing and what John Kerry did in ’04. Kerry was a middle-tier candidate early in the race and looked to be well behind Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt. But he focused on Iowa and New Hampshire and won both of those states, and every state after that seemed to fall in line. Romney is obviously playing the same strategy.

Well, I see a problem with that. We’re talking about two very different political groups. Those who vote Democrat, in my observation, tend to be much more sheepish and less independent in their thinking, unless they are adopting those wacky conspiracy theories which is their idea of independent thinking. But when it comes to politics, they tend to follow the crowd, making Iowa and New Hampshire critical for the Dems. They are socialist by nature, which means they have a tendency to follow. They are much more likely to believe what they see in the newspapers or on the local news broadcast hence the reason why the mainstream media is such a powerful force in this country and can almost pick a candidate for them. Dem voters are not likely to investigate candidates themselves, and will often take the people of Iowa and New Hampshire at their word. So, a candidate who wins the first two states has established himself as “the choice”, and anyone who doesn’t vote for him after that is now bucking the trend, a behavior rarely seen among Democrats. When’s the last time you ever heard a Democrat with a “new” idea? In New Hampshire, since 1976, the winner of the primary went on to win the nomination 4 times (Carter '76, Dukakis '88, Gore '00, Kerry '04). This does not include years in which the incumbent was running unopposed. Meanwhile, in Iowa the numbers are similar. Since 1976, 4 Iowa winners have gone on to the nomination (Carter '76, Mondale '84, Gore '00, Kerry '04).

Republican voters are different. These people are capitalist in nature, and therefore have much more independent thought. They are less likely to be affected by trends, and could care less who wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, when you eliminate the unopposed incumbents, since 1976, only 2 winners in Iowa (Bob Dole '96, Bush '00) went on the the nomination. And since 1976, the GOP has had 2 non-incumbent winners from New Hampshire go on to the nomination (Reagan '80, Bush '88). Bucking the trend is not something that is feared among Republican voters. That’s why I think Romney’s efforts will fail. But what other choice does he have? He’s trailing substantially in the polls, and is even behind someone who hasn’t even entered the race yet. This may be his only option.

I predict Romney will probably win at least one of these states, but will come nowhere close to winning the GOP nomination.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Just when I thought the global warming hysteria couldn’t get anymore ridiculous, I read this article about the Darfur crisis. The UN Sec General seems to think that global warming is now part of the reason behind the genocide that’s occurring in Darfur. Yes, that’s right, something about the Indian Ocean being too hot and the monsoons diminishing and a butterfly flapped it’s wings somewhere in Malaysia and that becomes the mass murder of 200,000 people.

Oh, I see. I’m glad the UN cleared that one up, because for the longest time I thought that the UN’s lack of action in actually stopping the genocide was a major contributor to the violence, but that seems to not be the case. It’s actually global warming that caused it all. I’m sure the UN has a perfectly good explanation for why they sat by for the past 4 years and did nothing. But something tells me that explanation will be a long time coming. After all, I’m still waiting to hear why the UN sat idle while 800,000 people were killed in Rhuwanda, and over a million were killed in Cambodia. I’m sure they have their reasons.

So with Ban Ki-Moon’s recent statement, it appears we will continue to get more of the same from the UN…excuses, inaction and incompetence.

On the same subject, here is some information quoted from Professor Bob Carter, an environmental at James Cook University, as published in an Australian news source citing some fairly interesting climate statistics.

"The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.

Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system."

Hmmm, interesting. If there has been no global increase in temperature since 1998, then how could that have caused 200,000 dead in Darfur in the past 4 years? And if we go into a cooling trend in the next few decades, will Al Gore make a movie about that?

Friday, June 15, 2007

Recent big news is that the Amnesty Bill of 2007 suffered a major setback when it was shelved after the Senate could not agree to expedite the debate to a vote. This doesn’t mean the bill is dead, but it’s certainly ailing. In my mind, that’s a good thing.
I’m sure many of you know the main components of the proposed legislation. My big problem with it is that it doesn’t secure the border, and the program is entirely voluntary for illegal immigrants, and there is no penalty for not participating. Basically, the bill has no teeth. It amounts to more government bureaucracy with little chance for good results. If the bill called for fully securing the border with deadlines, and mandated that any illegal immigrant not participating faced deportation, then it would be more apt to get my support. But it doesn’t, and is therefore bad legislation.
The illegal immigrant problem is just another example of Washington turning a simple problem into an extremely complicated one. We already have immigration laws, but they’re not being enforced. And Congress has already passed a bill mandating border security, but they have done nothing to act on it. So this whole argument over what law should be passed is completely unnecessary. The laws have already been passed, why not simply enforce them?
Of course, we have no laws dealing with the estimated 12 million illegals in our country now, which again I think could be dealt with in a simple manner. Now, we can’t seek out, round up and deport these people. It would be costly and foolish. But we can deport those that are discovered through the course of everyday activity. Namely, we can deport those that commit crimes and misdemeanors, or anything else that brings them to the attention of authorities. If an illegal immigrant gets stopped for speeding, and can’t show proof of citizenship, then he/she is deported.
We can require proof of citizenship for government entitlements. Anything from school lunches to WIC to Medicaid should require citizenship status before eligibility can be granted. We can repeal the law that anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen. We can impose penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and give employers the power to demand proof of citizenship prior to hiring anyone. We can withhold federal money from any city, county or state that acts as a “safe haven” for illegal immigrants, and even impose certain taxes on these same communities that don’t comply with policy. We can require citizenship status for public school education. We can implement a mandatory guest worker program, allowing illegal immigrants a short time period to work and get affairs in order before they return to their country of origin to legitimately apply for immigration to America.
As for health care, obviously we can’t refuse emergency care to illegals, but we can limit that care to lifesaving measures only, and then bill the nation of origin for the expenses, taking the money out of foreign aid to that nation if necessary. Anyone requiring inpatient hospital care should be deported for that care as soon as it’s safe to do so.
But before any of this is done, the border must be secured. That should be top priority in the immigration debate, and for some reason it is not. That alone shows that Washington is playing politics with this whole issue, which means that likely nothing will be done to solve the problem and illegal immigration we be put next to social security reform on the list of priorities for our elected “leaders”. Every day it becomes more evident that our politicians lack the spine to address the tough issues and do anything to make this country a better place. It's obscene to me that with these problems facing us, their concern is a vote of no confidence in the Attorney General. What???

Until we replace them with the right people, this will never change.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

For those of you who watch Bill O’Reilly, and maybe a few of you living in Kansas, this story will be familiar. For everyone else, given the lack of media coverage, it will be news. I’ve been following this for a while, and it’s time to comment. In Wichita, Kansas, Dr. George Tiller advertises his Women’s Health Clinic as having “more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia”. Well, he certainly can’t be charged with false advertising.

According to some figures, Dr. Tiller has performed thousands of these late term abortions. Yes, late-term meaning at 24 weeks gestation or older. Many states have outlawed late-term abortion, but some still allow it for limited reasons. In Kansas, a late-term abortion can be performed if the pregnancy poses a serious risk of death or permanent disability to the mother. I’m not going to get into the right or wrong of this. It’s Kansas law. I’m a states-rights kind of guy. The law isn’t the issue here.

The issue is how Dr. Tiller defines serious risk. As of now, all that’s required of Dr Tiller is a simple statement for each patient that her pregnancy indeed posed a serious risk of death or disability. If he makes that determination, then he can perform a late-term abortion. He does not have to provide a specific diagnosis. He is, however, obligated to report cases of rape or incest, which may not be happening. I say may not, because there has been a lot of resistance in allowing these medical records to be reviewed.

But some have been looked at, and the findings are startling. One woman received an abortion because the pregnancy prevented her from going to concerts. Another because she was no longer able to participate in rodeos. In many of these cases, the threat of serious harm comes from “depression” or other mental issues which, as you can see from these two cases, are open to one’s own definition. It’s safe to assume that if Dr. Tiller’s records were fully reviewed, we’d find that he likely performed abortions for unwarranted reasons, and that should be concerning for ANYONE, regardless how they feel about Roe v Wade.

So it appears, at least on the surface, that Dr. Tiller is performing late-term abortions with little medical indication. Basically, if a woman wants an abortion, she gets it, and Dr. Tiller uses mental disorders as a fall-back for justifying the procedure. Honestly folks, is someone’s inability to perform in a rodeo grounds for terminating a fetus? Has the sanctity of human life fallen to this level? In a society where more people know about Paris Hilton’s prison sentence than about Dr. Tiller’s murderous practice, this certainly seems to be the case.

The Kansas legislature recently passed a law requiring doctors to provide a specific diagnosis for a later-term abortion. No names or identifying information is required, just a simple reason for doing it. The Governor of Kansas vetoed the bill, citing privacy concerns, yet clearly pandering to the abortion-on-demand feministas. And so Dr. Tiller is allowed to continue his practice unabated. I’m wondering why the people of Kansas tolerate this nonsense.

This was never the intent of Roe v Wade, and it’s cases like this that will ignite more anti-abortion sentiment in this country, which is why I feel it should be a unifying situation. All citizens, pro-abortion and anti-abortion, should be able to unite on this and agree that Dr. Tiller needs to be stopped. But I doubt that will happen. Somehow I see the feminazis sticking by him, somehow protecting a woman’s right to engage in unprotected and irresponsible sex.

I’ve often wondered before why it’s so difficult to simply use birth control. And if birth control fails then why does it take nearly 6 months to decide that you no longer want to have a baby. Seems to me that would be clear from day one, and thus late-term abortions simply wouldn’t be necessary. But the feminazis won’t give any ground on this. They want the right to kill a child right up to the point where the head has emerged from the birth canal, and some want that right even after that point. Women’s rights has gotten out of control in this country, now to the point where the rights of baby’s have been trampled upon. No one seems to be able to make a sound argument that a human fetus does not constitute a human life, and yet the extremists have no problems ending that life for so much as the convenience of the mother. Again I ask, if a society does not protect the sanctity of all human life, at what point will it eventually fail to protect ANY human life? And so we find ourselves again on the slippery slope, and people (using the word loosely) like Dr. Tiller emerge, willing to kill any baby just so long as the mother brings her checkbook.

I challenge anyone to make the argument for Dr. Tiller’s practice without sounding like a maniacal fool. This is reckless abuse of human life, even though the human rights groups are silent on the matter, and it is wrecking the lives of many women as well. Read this chilling account from one of Dr. Tiller’s patients if you need more perspective.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The LA Times just released a poll that shows a very interesting trend. Guiliani and Fred Thompson are currently in a statistical tie. And on Real Clear Politics, a collaboration of polls nationwide shows that Thompson has catapulted into second with nearly 20% support, putting McCain and Romney into a battle for third. This is happening while Thompson has yet to officially declare his candicacy.

I think this is evidence that grassroots America is still a strong political force. Several months ago, Thompson hadn’t even considered a presidential bid. But a grassroots campaign to generate support for him built, and now he is on the verge of officially entering the race. Why? I think it’s because we’re getting tired of typical politicians. Thompson represents the Reagan-Republicans like no other candidate out there. I’ve seen this man speak multiple times, and each time I am instantly reminded of Reagan. He is perpetually positive, unafraid to point out the shortcomings of his opponents, but yet doing so in a dignified, non-politician manner. But what impresses me most is his ability to inspire. Thompson’s oratory skill is enough to give any Reagan-admirer goose-bumps.

So, in light of what the polls show, it appears that the GOP race is a two-man affair, and I think it’s going to be very close between Guiliani and Thompson. Rudy will get a lot of the moderate vote, basically from people who aren’t bothered by his socially-liberal positions but are attracted to his tough foreign policy. Thompson will solidify the base, which will make for some very dedicated support but may not be enough to win the nomination.

In the general election, I think Hillary beats them both, mainly because she is a genius at politics and will stoop to new lows (anyone see her talk about religion lately?) to get votes. But, if Obama wins the nomination I think it will be a different story. Obama’s appeal is similar to Thompson in his ability to look positive, but lately I’ve been disappointed with him. He’s beginning to throw the race card around and seem more negative about things every day. This will not play well against Thompson, and the fact that he will be very weak on national defense will make him vulnerable to Guiliani. I don’t think Obama can beat either one.

So what I think happens is that Hillary wins the nomination and Obama accepts a position as her running mate, setting him up for a 2016 run. This would eliminate the “inexperienced” knock against him. Guiliani or Thompson wins the GOP bid, but the running mate issue will be intriguing.

Personally, I think Duncan Hunter has set himself up as an ideal running mate. This guy’s platform on the issues is incredible and his record is very appealing. Plus he could bring California into play. Condi Rice is also a possibility, but her connection to Bush may be too much of a liability. But what if Thompson wins? Would he ask Guiliani or McCain to be on the ticket? This could be huge, since it would bring in some blue-dog dems and many other moderates. I don’t know, but I think this campaign is shaping up to be very interesting.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Judge Thomas Wilson has just overturned the sex-crime sentence of Genarlow Wilson. The young Mr. Wilson engaged in oral sex with a 15 year old. He was 17 at the time, and is currently 21 years old. He has served 28 months of a 10 year sentence for aggravated child molestation. Upon reviewing the case, Judge Wilson dropped the charge to misdemeanor child molestation and sentenced the perpetrator to 12 months in prison including time already served, which means that Wilson is now a free man. Because of the misdemeanor status, Wilson will not even be required to register as a sex offender. Wilson’s lawyer, BJ Bernstein, applauded the decision, saying “this has been a 2 ½ year fight over consensual teenage sex”. Even Jimmy Carter has spoken out in support of Genarlow Wilson.

Geez, where do I begin? First, the fact that the phrase “misdemeanor child molestation” even exists in our legal community is obscene. Anyone who would downgrade child molestation to the level of a speeding ticket should be forced to have these misdemeanor offenders baby-sit their kids for a month. We’ll see their opinions on the matter change quickly. And if Judge Wilson has a teenage daughter, I’d like to know his opinion on allowing the offender to take her out on a few dates.

And Mr. Bernstein is whining about his fight over consensual teenage sex, which again is somewhat of a misnomer. There is no such thing as consensual sex with a 15 year old child. It’s the equivalent of recording a symphony for the deaf. A 15 year old child lacks the psychiatric maturity to consent to sex in the same manner that a grown woman lacks the ability to consent to sex if she were severely intoxicated, thus anyone who engages in sexual activity with someone like this has just committed a crime – regardless of how old the offender is at the time. Bernstein is way off on this one, but then again he is a criminal defense attorney. He makes money by being way off on matters like this.

Of course, it’s no surprise that Jimmy Carter has gone on record supporting Wilson. It is a favorite past-time of the bleeding hearts to advocate for the rights of criminals with little mention of the rights of the victim, and yes there is a victim in this case. Notice the child's parents haven't been given the oppurtunity to give their thoughts on what should happen to Wilson.

I doubt Jimmy Carter cares about the 15 year old girl, and he obviously isn’t concerned that having sex with a 15 year old is considered a misdemeanor in the state of Georgia. It seems to me that we should all be concerned about this, especially in light of cases like Kelsey Smith, the 18 year old who was abducted and murdered in Kansas. We’re going in the wrong direction here. Giving someone 12 months for child molestation is not going to deter others from committing similar crimes. Exactly what message are we trying to send? Not that Carter or Bernstein care. In their eyes, society is to blame whenever someone rapes a child, and the rapist need not be punished for something that society has done. And when Scooter Libby gets a longer prison sentence than someone who has sex with a 15 year old child, that's evidence that something is terribly wrong in this country. Talk about screwed up priorities!

I salute the prosecuting attorney. He will no doubt come under heavy fire from the criminal-rights people, but I hope he sticks to his guns. Several race organizations are already rallying against him, trying to turn this into a race issue. The simple fact is that if Wilson were white no one would give a damn about him getting 10 years for this. Seems like these days the only thing worse than putting a man in prison is putting a black or hispanic man in prison.

The simple fact is that Wilson committed a crime. Even worse, he committed a sex crime against a minor and crimes like this need to be punished. 12 months is hardly enough. If we don’t start protecting our kids, then no child is going to be safe in this country.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Maybe I’m missing something, but when did the minimum wage become a matter of national security? In a classic move typical in Washington politics, the Dems have finally come to an agreement on a war-funding bill that does not include a date of surrender and retreat. However, attached to this bill is a minimum wage increase of $2.10. Unbelievable. At a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of astronomical gas prices, we now have to deal with this.

Raising the minimum wage is cheap and superficial. It makes the Dems look like the "friend to the poor" that they love to portray themselves as, but below the surface we see something quite different. Raising the minimum wage puts strains on small businesses and retailers. As a result, these businesses either, 1) cut jobs, or 2) increase prices of consumer goods, or both. This effects all citizens, but especially hits the middle and lower classes the hardest. Of course, the Democrats don't care about that, because the average voter doesn't know these things. All they know is "the Democrats are giving me more money!" They have no idea that in the long run the Dems are taking money out of their pocket. But that's how that party works, folks...on deceit and keeping the voters uninformed.

It won’t be immediate, but what we will see is a gradual rise in unemployment, and a slow down of economic growth. Of course, by the time it’s in full effect, someone else will be in the White House suffering the consequences. So watch the economy. May-June 2007 is when this went into effect. Two years from now, we’ll see how the unemployment rate and the economy is doing.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

The GOP candidates had their chance to debate in New Hampshire yesterday. I wasn’t very impressed. Michael Reagan once said that the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that it will take one week longer for the Republican to become a Communist. I tend to see what he means every day. Here are some of the debate’s highlights:

- CNN sucks at this. They asked two of the most irrelevant questions I’ve ever heard: Do you think gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military?, and Do you believe in evolution? (which is the second time this was asked, the first being at the MSNBC debate). Two words…who cares? We’re engaged in a world war for our survival. If we lose, there will be no military and America will become a radical Muslim nation in a radical Muslim world. If that happens, the gays will be executed for their behavior. Military service would be the least of their concerns. And these idiots at CNN want to talk about some social experiment with the military that’s fighting this war? It’s incredibly ridiculous and expresses the Left’s vast lack of understanding of what we face today. Romney and Guiliani did well with this question, as did McCain. Huckabee was brilliant when answering the evolution question, saying that he doesn’t see the relevance, that he is running for President, not asking to write an 8th grade science book. Good job!

- As these questions were asked, there was no discussion about our current tax system, and no discussion about Social Security. We’re facing perhaps the most unfair tax system since we were dumping tea in Boston Harbor, and the Social Security system is crippled. It’s threatening our economy, and will become a major hindrance to several generations if it’s not fixed. But these things weren’t discussed! I am extremely disappointed about this, and it’s not all CNN’s fault. The candidates need to make it clear where they stand on these two issues and fast.

- Ron Paul has embraced the role of the kooky Ross Perot-type candidate. He’s the Kucinich of the GOP, and yes he frightens me just as much as Kucinich. He actually said Iran is not a threat to our national security! Really! A nation that advocates the complete destruction of Israel and attacks on America while supporting global terrorism and actively pursuing nuclear weapons is NOT a threat to us. This guy needs to become a Democrat.

- Tom Tancredo gets the award for cheap shots, saying he wouldn’t allow Bush to darken the door of the White House. He was trying to look tough and “anti-Bush” but it didn’t work. He’s starting to sound whiny and inconsequential. I once thought he’d be a good VP candidate, but now I’m having second thoughts.

- Romney did well, again looking very Presidential, and has a good plan for healthcare.

- McCain shined when speaking to a woman who lost her brother in Iraq. I may not agree with him on much, but I do feel he is a patriot and things like this will regain some of the favor he’s losing on immigration.

- Guiliani did well when speaking about abortion, and yes lightning DID actually strike while he was addressing the issue. Granted, he’s wrong about it, and it will hurt him with the GOP base, but he may pull some blue-dog democrat voters because of this.

- Brownback said the GOP shouldn’t support a candidate who wasn’t pro-life, then said he’d support the GOP nominee regardless. That says to me that party loyalty trumps individual principles in Brownback’s eyes. He officially lost any chance of getting my vote because of this.

- Huckabee did very well on the evolution question, and when asked what was the biggest moral problem this nation faces (his answer: our failure to respect and glorify human life…I couldn’t have said it better myself)

- Duncan Hunter has the best platform of anyone on the stage, but the guy has to work on his delivery. He needs to watch and learn from Guiliani on how to look tough and ready to take on the Democrats.

All in all I think Guiliani looked the most impressive. He attacked the Democrats’ policies, not his GOP opponents’. He looked like a tiger eager to dig his teeth into Hillary, and I think that’s what appeals to the GOP base. Although I’m not sure about voting for him, I have to admit that it would be very entertaining to see him and Hillary debating. With Hillary’s skills (or lack thereof), I think Guiliani would tear her apart on just about every issue and certainly on defense. It would be brutal. But his pro-abortion position will likely keep me from voting for him. I can look past his gun-control and gay-marriage positions, but not this one.

As for my vote, among the Republicans still in the running…I’m leaning towards Romney, with Hunter and Huckabee still possible and Guiliani possible but highly unlikely. Among the Democrats, Bill Richardson is the only one I’d consider voting for at this time (although I’d have to overlook his pro-abortion stance, which I’m simply not willing to do, being pro-abortion is a deal-killer in my mind). Gingrich probably wouldn’t get my vote because of his adulterous behavior, although he has a phenomenal grasp on the issues, what a shame. Fred Thompson may, but he needs to stop waffling and commit soon, then make a strong early case for his candidacy, starting with taxes and social security.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

It’s always entertaining when a group of Democrat presidential hopefuls start talking about religion. An awkward and thick cloud just seems to descend around the audience. You just get the sense that they’re trying so hard not to look like they’re trying so hard to look like they know what they’re talking about. I can’t help but feel sorry for them in their awkwardness.

In their most recent debate, several of the candidates took the opportunity to discuss how faith impacted their lives. Hillary said it helped her cope with Bill’s adulterous behavior. Edwards referred to God as “the Lord”, and appeared to be feigning an air of familiarity with the Almighty. Obama seemed to be the only sincere one of the bunch. I have no doubts that man is deeply rooted in faith, even though much of his political policy may not reflect it.

I realize it may be presumptive of me to question someone’s faith, but I can’t help doing it when the only time they talk about faith is when they’re running for office. I mean, when has John Kerry ever talked openly about God other than the 2004 election? And I’m sure I don’t have to remind people how Edwards made his millions, but I will. He did it suing doctors, ruining lots of careers on very bad science and has not been even remotely remorseful about it. And then there’s the abortion issue. It’s difficult for me to understand how someone deeply rooted in faith can advocate the selfish slaughter of human fetuses for the sole purpose of maintaining the mother’s convenience. In my mind, someone like that is either immature in their faith, or has no faith at all.

As for Hillary? Well, the woman despises the military, seems to look unfavorably upon the stay-at-home mom, advocates for government control and socialism, is firmly pro-abortion, and is okay with destroying human life for the purpose of saving other human lives. Is any of that faith-based? Maybe I’m missing something.

Anyone can see this is a gimmick. After 204, it became a strategy of the Left, namely Howard Dean, to go after the "religious vote". What we see now is this strategy taking shape. I personally don't think it's working, but we'll see. I have to give Hillary credit. Somehow I knew she'd find a way to take advantage of Bill's infidelity.

So, I’m sure there’ll be more to come as the election draws nearer and the candidates all compete for the “faith vote”, and I’m certainly sure the entertainment factor will not wane.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Last night, I watched the Democrat Presidential debate, brought to me courtesy of CNN. It was a legitimate effort on my part. I have not completely ruled out voting for one or two of the candidates and, in the interest of fairness, I want all candidates to have an opportunity at getting my vote. Here are some of the things that I learned.

-- They all will raise my taxes substantially. Of course, they didn’t say this. It was disguised as “increasing revenues” and “rolling back tax cuts”, but anyone with an ounce of independent intellect knows what that means. I am still extremely disappointed in Barak Obama’s claim that he can provide government-funded health insurance to all Americans by simply rolling back the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250K a year. Either he is lying, or he has absolutely no grasp on how much socialized medicine will cost the government. Come one, Senator, you’re a better man than that. Just tell us it’s going to cost us an exhorbitant amount and let us decide from there whether it’s worth it. Hillary wants to increase gov’t revenues, but she didn’t mention that federal revenues under the Bush tax plan are at record highs, maybe she doesn’t know, or maybe she’s being deceitful.

--When asked about earmarks, everyone said they wanted to end them. This was odd, especially since many of the candidates voted for the Iraq war funding bill that included billions of dollars of earmarks for things like peanut farmers and dairy ranchers.

-- Hillary is becoming as slick as her husband on certain issues. When asked if military action should be used on Iran, she said she wasn’t going to engage in hypotheticals. When asked if she would kill Bin Laden if given the chance, she answered yes. Biden said that he would take out Iran’s nuke if it was on a warhead and poised to launch, which basically means that he would be too late in acting, and would allow Iran to develop thermonuclear war capabilities so long as they didn’t attach them to a missile and place the missile on a launching pad. I guess Senator Biden isn’t concerned about Iran giving this technology to terrorists.

--Edwards is pathetic. He’s an ambulance chaser. I have a hard time respecting anyone who actually votes for the guy.

--There were a lot of promises for government funded entitlements, with no detail about how they would pay for them. I heard things like four years of college for one year of federal service, more funding for retirement, more funding for education (including a minimum salary for teachers, regardless of performance), more funding for health care, government funded daycare and preschool, ending “corporate welfare”, repealing NAFTA, tougher emissions standards, etc. There was a lot, and it all sounded like more socialism to me. Bill Richardson was probably the least socialist, but even he had some worrisome ideas.

-- Then there was Darfur. Many candidates agreed that American troops should be used there (except Hillary, of course, who again said she wasn’t going to deal with hypotheticals). They also said this should be done even if the UN fails to act. They also said regime change is appropriate for the area. That’s when something donned on me. The Left isn’t against the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of regime change and restoring human rights. According to last night’s debate, they all seem to favor it. They seem to only oppose it if a Republican is leading the charge. I’m not exactly sure what Hillary stands for, if anything.

All in all, no one earned my vote last night, and when you couple that with the GOP debates that I’ve seen, so far I have no idea who I’m voting for. I’ve yet to hear what Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich says. Maybe someone will emerge who is worthy of receiving my vote for President.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Here is a recent article on Socialist….err…Democratic front-runner Comrade Hillary Clinton and her economic vision for America.

“it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity”

Karl Marx couldn’t have said it better himself.

On the other side of the Presidential race, Rudy Guiliani became the latest victim of the radical Left and their shout-down tactics when a group of protestors interrupted his campaign stop, accusing him of being a “criminal of 9/11”. According to them, Rudy knew what no one else on the planet knew (not even the attackers), that both towers were going to collapse and yet he insisted on continuing the rescue efforts, sending hundreds of firefighters and police officers to their deaths. That’s what these lunatics are claiming. Despicable.

So here are examples of today's modern-day Left. Their leader is advocating for socialism, and their foot soldiers are shouting down their political opponents.

Meanwhile, John Edwards charges UC-Davis $55,000 for a speech. The title of this costly speech: "Poverty, the Great Moral issue Facing America.” This article speaks for itself. I guess there is no moral issue in charging college students $31 a head to hear you speak about poverty while you're living in a 28,000 square foot estate and paying $500 for a haircut. There appears to be no limits in Edwards’ lack of shame. And I'm wondering just who the hell would vote for this guy. He's clearly going for the Amway target audience.