Thursday, October 30, 2008

Thank you, Sir!

Wow! As I read this article, I kept finding myself saying, "Thank you for providing this succinct and well written piece. Thank you for providing a collection of evidence that, as you yourself state, "every single word of it be true."

The article in the American Spectator clearly delineates why voting for someone shouldn't be about whether you like their personality, or whether you think they're a good speaker. The question of who to vote for is about who has demonstrated the capabilities to lead this Great Nation.

Obama doesn't have the experience to lead. The article clearly states that "Obama is a radical with very few real achievements," and should thus not be a serious candidate for the presidency. Only John McCain "has a record of making the right calls, again and again, when it comes to securing the American national interest around the world."

Again, why would anyone even consider Obama?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Every Day is the Most Important Day of Your Life

I've been on the road, which explains the lack of updates. I have, however, been trying to keep up with my reading.

I recently read this article and it made me think quite deeply about how we become who we are. It's interesting to note his take on the research. Each decision we make, everyday, affects who we are. So, your decision to do something (or not do something) will change your identity. And not just later in your life, but right away.

Read the article for yourself. This adds more emphasis to the statement, "Seize the day!"

Whoever you want to be tomorrow, start being that person today.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

McCain's Uphill Battle

A noted writer (and Democrat), posted an interesting article about the causes of the current financial crisis. The article provides some details, although nothing that hasn't noted before. However, his posting raises a bigger spectre, that of media bias and malfeasance.

This is not an isolated incident. Other bloggers have noticed quite a bit of media bias in favor of Obama, with a lot of animosity towards the Republicans. This means the Republicans and the McCain campaign have had to work twice as hard to get even decent coverage from the media.

Why is it so hard for the media to simply reporting the facts? If the Fourth Estate does not wish to be seen as irrelevant, they should work harder to actually inform the public about what is happening. As Card states, "You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know."

We need more basic facts and the honest truth from our media.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Real Energy Independence

OPEC has decided they're not making enough money right now. So, to help bolster their bottom line and line their pockets with everyone's money, they've decided they need to cut production.

OPEC certainly understands the power of supply and demand. They know that if they limit supply, they can control the costs because of the rising demand. This will happen even as the economies of the world take a hit. the sad thing is raising oil prices will only serve to slow future economic growth because it will increase the costs of other goods and services. The OPEC nations don't care about these global repercussions one bit, though. They are simply interested in earning money for themselves.

The solution is simple, we need real energy independence. This means we need to focus on developing short term solutions for high energy prices (drill for more oil, open more refineries, more use of natural gas), as well as develop mid term (nuclear power, wind power, more bio-fuels) and long term (increased solar, tidal and geothermal power) energy solutions for our country.

This is the realistic solution that allows us to really move away from foreign oil and their major impact on our economy.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself

So I won't even try. Take a look at this very comprehensive listing at Hot Air about why Obama is a dangerous choice for America.

This is a very well researched piece. Notice the writers never try to put words in Obama's mouth. Instead, they simply show video of what Obama stated about specific issues. Where their comments are particularly useful is dissecting what Obama says and why it is important.

And remember, these are simply Obama's own words about how he really feels and what he really plans to do. The definition of gaffe comes to mind. "Gaffe - When a politician tells the truth. "

Let's have more truth.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Birds of a Feather...

Flock together, as the saying goes. And so who does Obama count in his flock?

How about a terrorist who recently stated he felt he didn't "do enough," a preacher who stated "God D@mn America!", and a political fundraiser convicted of fraud.

Now, why are all of these associations important? Why should we concern ourselves with the types of people Obama surrounds himself with? There are several reasons these associations are important.

1) These are the people who have been affecting his thinking and helping direct his budding political career. Typically, when people have tough decisions to make, they turn to their friends and chosen advisers to find out what they should do. What type of advice do you think this flock would give?

2) He has constantly tried to distance himself from these people. Instead of being truly honest and stating, "Yes, Bill Ayers helped start my political career," he's simply using political double speak to tell the media and the voting public what they want to hear to make themselves comfortable.

3) Finally, because he has no real political experience, Barack Obama sought to run a campaign that emphasized his superior judgment. However, how discerning can the man be when these chosen advisers and companions top his list?

Please America, if we need a change, a centrist republican like McCain is a much better choice than a FAR LEFT democrat.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Crisis of "Distorted Markets"

Now that we have problems in the market, there seems to be a hue and cry for more regulation and government support, more government involvement in the economy. The only problem with this is that government interference is what caused this problem in the first place.

In an effort to foster "fairness" in lending, the Federal government passed rules and encouraged bad lending practices. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were set up to help offer guarantees on some of these bad loans. Freddie and Fannie were interfering with the markets and it blew up in all of our faces.

Now, if government interference caused the problem, with more interference fix the problem? I don't think so. Distorted markets are what got it into this problem and further distorting them can only bring more trouble.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Who's Running This Place?

The United States is a country of immigrants. Ever since our country was founded, immigrants have come from far and wide to this "land of opportunity." The new immigrants wanted to become Americans and have their chance in this country at living the American Dream. They chose America because of the ability for someone to come to this country and succeed on their own merits. You didn't have to be a member of a specific religious or ethnic group to succeed.

Now we have a group of immigrants who want to change the playing field. They come to this country, not be become Americans, but to forward a different agenda. Read this article and find out for yourself what their stated plans are.

Now, from this article, it appears these new immigrants are not satisfied with allowing everyone to decide things for themselves. Instead, they want to use our countries freedoms to change our country and put them in control. They want to make our country more like the country they left. Why? Because they feel their religious laws should be the law of the land. Sure, because that's worked so well in their country.

If you think I'm making this up, please look into things a little more and then get back to me.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

I'm from the government and I'm here to help - again.


After reading this Wall Street Journal article, I'm more afraid than ever for my country. If the polls hold true, the Democrats will have even more control of the Federal Government. And, as history acknowledges, when the Democrats are in the majority, they push vast government expansions. Expansions that actually encroach on the rights of individuals and limit the freedom of businesses.

If you think I'm wrong, just review the side bar of items that passed the House and were blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The listed items are all examples of government controls on your life, including prescription drug price controls and "windfall profit" taxes on the oil industry. These examples demonstrate how the Liberal Left is attempting to implement more Socialist policies.

And honestly, does anyone think any of these policies are really good for our country? Price controls on the drug industry? How will this help the drug companies that invent most of the worlds drugs? And we all know taxes on the oil industry would simply lead to HIGHER gas prices for you and I. How does this really help anything?

Please, we need more intelligent individuals in the Legislature and as President to help ensure these types of Socialist laws are not passed.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Why is no one else saying this?

Why do we not hear more about what is good and right with America? Why do almost all of our politicians, Left and Right, want to harp on the negative aspects of our country. Everyone already knows about the negative aspects of our country. We can easily see that not everyone is rich. We know there are economic issues to address. We understand there is a concerted effort overseas to attack our core values of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What we need is for our leaders to actually LEAD. We need them to stand up and remind us why people come from all across the globe to live in OUR country. Why people get in rickety boats and travel hundreds of miles or risk death crossing an arid landscape, just for a chance to live in our country. We need our politicians to remind us we are a great country that much of the world envies.

We need more of this!

Heck yeah! Palin/McCain '08!!!

Thursday, October 16, 2008

I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.

President Reagan said these are the 9 scariest words in the English language. I can definitely agree. When ever the government tries to stick it's hand in the markets and "make things better," the common man on the street, like you and I, tend to pay for it. History has shown that too much government meddling in the markets leads to economic trouble.

Recently, two economists completed a study looking at the Great Depression. In particular, the economists studies the effects of FDR's policies on the Depression. Their findings? Roosevelt's price and wage fixing policies PROLONGED the Great Depression BY 10 YEARS! I'm not making this up. See the research for yourselves.

Now, we find ourselves in another serious economic down turn. We're not in a recession yet (let alone a depression), but the economy has definitely started downward. Evidence shows that the troubles are tied to the collapse in the housing market, which can be tracked back to increased sub-prime lending. Now, why would banks and mortgage companies want to increase lending to risky, low-income borrowers? Because the CRA "encouraged" banks to make these sub-prime loans. Clinton signed legislation strengthening this push.

So, because of a push to "balance" lending to "low-income" groups, we now have the Federal Government spending my money to bail out the banking industry who took risks they were encouraged to take by... wait for it... the Federal Government. Wow!

Of course, the most obvious example of government interference leading to economic problems is the fall of the Soviet Union. This collapse was not because of military attacks on the country. Instead, through micro-managing the economy and removing real market forces, the Russian Socialist system managed to take a resource rich nation and drive the economy into the ground.

Looking at this, it should be obvious that I think free markets are better for our economy. The less interference the better. I think this is an occasion where both of our presidential candidates are not serving us well.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Overt Socialism? Sounds like it to me.

Check out this video and listen for yourself to hear Barry's comments on why people with more money are supposed to give more.

Now, maybe it's just me, but I thought this was the land of the free, where success was rewarded... not punished. If you work hard and save your money, you can invest your money and earn the rewards. With Liberals, however, the money you earn should be invested to help others. It should be redistributed to others, as decided not by you, but by those who know better to give others a chance.

The funny thing Liberals always point out as a reason for "redistribution of wealth" is they want everyone to have a "chance" for success. The thing is, the way this country is currently set up, everyone has almost equal access to those things that lead to success.

You want an education? We'll give you access to public schools and teach you the basics. You want higher education? We'll give you access to subsidized loans and grants to fund your way through college. You want to be successful in the work place? We'll sponsor workforce incentives to give you access to work after you graduate. All of these are opportunities I personally have availed myself of.

The listed items above are just a short sampling of the assistance available. Now, with all of these resources (that we're already paying for), why does Obama feel the need to INCREASE taxes on successful families? And, furthermore, why did Obama feel the need to lie about it?

Questions you should ask before you vote.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The 2nd Amendment - The Right that Guarantees All Other Rights

I think this is the post that's going to get me in trouble. We'll see, though.

To me, the idea of restricting access to guns to military personnel and police forces is a bit odd. It means you don't trust your fellow citizens to come to your rescue or support you in times of trouble. Heck, if you believe in gun control, you don't even trust your neighbor to walk down the street with you. Instead, you only want people "in authority" to have ready access to guns. This is the essence of gun control. This is also a recipe for outstanding abuse.

We have the right to bear arms because out Founding Fathers knew we needed top protect ourselves, and not rely on the government. Our Founding Fathers wanted us to have weapons not just to hunt, but to protect ourselves. And we have the right to protect ourselves from harm brought on by other individual citizens and "any oppressive government which might arise." According to legal scholars, we have the right to be "armed at a level equal to the government." This means no bans on the types of weapons individuals can own. In other words, no 'assault weapons' ban, no limited capacity magazines and no limit on 'semi-automatic handguns.'

And now we have Obama and Biden running for President and Veep. Looking at their records, where do you think they stand on gun control? Instead of simply looking at their campaign websites, lets look at how they actually voted in the past, since past actions (not current rhetoric) are a better determinant of future actions.

Evidence shows that Obama would support such measures as the DC's recently overturned handgun ban, which is patently unconstitutional. Barak Obama would in fact appoint Supreme Court justices who believe the same thing. Definitely not someone we can trust in office.

Biden, as the vice-president, wouldn't raise his voice in opposition to additional restrictions on gun control. In fact Biden would be in support of gun control, including banning "assault weapons," ostensibly to curb violence. He helped author the initial assault weapons ban and he would work to reinstate it, as he did in 2007.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Fact Checking CNN's Fact Check

The hard part of the campaign for McCain has been the obvious media bias for Obama. Whether a reporter has a thrill up his leg, or just doesn't report all of the facts in a story, McCain has to work twice as hard to get even decent coverage.

To illustrate, I reviewed the "Fact Check" section of the CNN website and what do you think I found? What I found was definite evidence of media bias for Obama. Of the 20 "fact check" posts I reviewed, 17 were pro Obama, with just 3 supporting McCain. The three that were for McCain included one with definite numbers that couldn't be disputed with a separate study and another could not be disputed because of factual statements already existing in the press records.

What is particular is that some of the pro-Obama decisions should have gone McCain's way. At other times when the numbers supported McCain, they reported McCain's statements as "misleading," something they almost never did for McCain.

Check out these items for yourself.

You can tell they are trying to compete with a real non-partisan website,

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

The 2nd Amendment is About Empowering Citizens

And apparently Obama wants to take away those rights our Founding Fathers gave us. He wants to replace it with the "right" to medical treatment. How asinine.

I love this video.

The reason why is it emphasizes how true evidence trumps rhetoric.

This video is damning for a few reasons.
  1. The evidence the NRA provided and that she reads on the air is damning. We see the same question answered in the same manner TWICE!! And once with the candidate's hand written notes on the questionnaire. To say that because Obama did not initial each individual page means he may or may not be represented by the questionnaire's answers is ridiculous. This is a questionnaire that his campaign responded to TWICE!! That means they had 2 times to cover the material. At least he didn't flip flop in his position.
  2. The Democratic spokesman seems to approach this interview as if it is somehow beneath him, as if Fox News was a second rate station, instead of a national leader in ratings. He castigates Fox for giving the NRA "free air time" to post their message, while not acknowledging that they have brought him on specifically to answer the acusations. Instead, he tries the old Left's tactic of vitriolic attack. He calls the ads "complete crap" because the ads interpret real data in a manner consistent with the data and not consistent with his rhetorical stance.
  3. Even Obama had just come out and stated his reasons why he's for gun control (which he obviously is), I think we would see very different ads from the NRA. Instead of putting Obama on the defensive, he could actually win some more support with the gun control crowd by owning up to his position. Of course, he pretty much has a lock on the Left anyways, so we know he won't do this. Stating his real position on gun control would lose him some of the independents he's trying to woo.

Watch this video again, then pass it along to any of your friends who think Obama would be a good choice to lead this nation and select new Supreme Court justices.

God help us.

Does Experience Really Matter? Depends on who you ask.

And who you're asking about. For the Democrats, Obama's (who is running for the HEAD OFFICE) dearth of experience is not important because he he has superior judgment to lead. However, Sarah Palin (the Veep on the ticket) does not have enough experience to run for the BACK UP POSITION.

Really? Let's ask Newt.

And these people can vote?

First things first. Listen to this short MP3 file.

Now, listening to this, my first thought was, "They let these people vote?" I'm surprised not because the interview was Harlem. I'm surprised because the people they interviewed were so ill informed. These people didn't know where any of the candidates stood on the issues. They didn't even know who the VP candidate was, for heavens sake.

The power of democracy isn't the same as the power of the mob. Our Founding Father's wanted an informed electorate. They intended the republic to select leaders based on informed review of the different candidates positions. They didn't intend for demagoguery, sophistry and personality to be the deciding factors in an election.

For this election, things seem to be exactly backwards. Obama won the Democratic nomination because he represented himself as someone farther left than the other candidates. Suddenly, during the national campaign, Obama has reinvented himself as a more centrist candidate. All of this based on his rhetorical position.

At least with McCain, he won the nomination based on the positions he has espoused. His positions have been pretty consistent over this long campaign. In addition, he has an established history that shows he not only talks the talk, but walks the walk.

Actions we can trust. Words... not so much.

Hello World - A Presidential Debate First Thread

While watching the debate last night, something occurred to me. Obama talks a good game, but there is no proof to back up what he says. McCain punched home his experience when answering the various questions. He pointed out not only what he wanted to do, but examples where he has done something similar in the past. Obama? Not so much.

Why is this important? Because anyone can say anything they want, but the 'proof is in the pudding.' We need to see actions from a candidate, not just rhetorical devices. From McCain, we have a history of voting in the Senate, and a history of service to his nation even before that. We can look at bills and laws he's supported and compare that with our positions to determine whether we will vote for him.

With Obama, we do not have that same history. Obama has not even served an entire term in the Senate and has never held an executive office in government positions. Even the possibility of related history, such as educational background and past work positions, is unavailable. More importantly, there is a strategy by the Obama campaign to hide the work he did do. We've heard about McCain's grades. Where are Obama's? Where is a copy of the thesis he wrote? What about details on the work he did for the Chicago Annenburg Challenge? ALL of this is being withheld, by choice.

Now remember, evidence is the real mark of who someone is, not sophistry. We need to see it to believe it. So far from Obama, we haven't seen much.