Sunday, December 16, 2007

Important Web Site to visit

If you care anything about this nation, take time to visit this website:

Never Forget The 11th Of September!

To some, 9/11/2001 may seem like a long time ago, but only 6 years ago, thousands of people died because of the hatred of people towards everything this nation has stood for through out it's history. Stand up for this nation, be proud, and never forget September 11th, 2007. Thank you.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Case Closed: The Mike Huckabee Verdict

When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee chose to run for President earlier this year, I said to many, including on my radio show (which was mutually taken off the air in April of this year for personal reasons) that Huckabee was a Dark Horse candidate to be the Republican Nominee for President. Now months later, Huckabee leads the polls in Iowa and in some polls is second behind Rudy Giuliani. And a lot of good and bad has come out about him and now the more "face time" he gets, the more we learn about him.

I personally wanted to give the former governor a chance to prove himself to me, just like I have concerning other candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson (Republicans), along with Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden.

Well, here is what I have found out:

*Huckabee wanted to allow Illegal Immigrants to get be able to receive Scholarships and be allowed to pay in-state tuition in Arkansas when he was Governor.

*Huckabee's "new" immigration plan has an admitted "revolving door" clause where the illegals can come back and be citizens. Huckabee said in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace that: "You know, right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they're trying to feed their families. I don't begrudge them that."

*Huckabee also said about the Illegal Immigration issue:

"Be mad at the government, be mad about immigration," he said. "I'm mad about it, too. But let's punish the right people for breaking the law. A 6-year-old crossing the border doesn't know he's breaking the law."

*His clemency of Glen Green, who after being released from prison found a new victim who he raped and murdered is something that didn’t just happen once. Huckabee gave clemency and pardons to more than Bill Clinton did as Governor. Glen Green was referred to upon release as "a humble Christian man".

*Huckabee said he changed his position on Cuba because he is running for President. Huckabee asked President Bush to lift the embargo against Cuba because the embargo "has not helped the people of Cuba."

*According to The Drudge Report, Democratic insiders consider Huckabee an "easy kill in the general election" if he is nominated. Here is the breakdown of Democratic National Committee (DNC) Press Attacks against the Republican candidates:

[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]

*In Stephen Bainbridge’s blog, he breaks down why Huckabee is:
- "wowser" concerning Huckabee's position to institute a National Smoking Ban
- a "religious bigot"
- "sounds homophobic" when he is so "anti-gay" while Huckabee seems to have a
great deal of compassion for straight illegal immigrants
- takes issue with Huckabee's pardon for convicted Child Rapist Wayne Dumond
- Calls Huckabee a tax hiker
- Calls him "clueless" on foreign policy
- And says Huckabee is not a Fiscal Conservative, but a "Big Government Conservative"

Verdict: While a Huckabee Presidency is much more appealing and tolerable than a McCain, Hillary Clinton, Edwards, or Richardson Presidency, Huckabee is not the best choice to be the Republican nominee. What sticks out to me most are the pardons and clemcies Huckabee has issued and the fact that the Democrats seem to not attack him wanting him to win.

The Democrats know who is "dangerous". Just look at the DNC breakdown of attacks again:

[DNC Press Release Attack Summary:

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)]

When the DNC attacks, that means you are "most dangerous" to them while the RNC (Republican National Committee) just takes no prisoners. If the Democrats are that "scared" of Romney and Giuliani, compared to Huckabee, I want one of them because those are the people the DNC doesn’t want to face in a general election.

Concerning the pardons, I do not care if Green or Dumond were swell guys who tithed at church and knew the Bible from front to back, they committed horrific crimes before going to prison, and then after they got out. This is inexcusable, especially since Dumond was a convicted Child Rapist. Mr. Huckabee, where is your compassion and concern for the destruction of Child's innocent by a sick man? Do you care more that the man may have "changed" and deserves a second chance over the life, innocence, and pain of an abused child? Mr. Huckabee, Jesus said in Matthew 18:5-6:

5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

And Mark 10:13-14:

13And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Governor Huckabee, you were asked in the CNN/You Tube Debate "What Would Jesus Do?" and your response was that Jesus was too "smart" to ever run for public office. The correct answer is that Jesus wouldn't let a Child Rapist and a murderer go unpunished or change his positions because He is running for President. Mr. Huckabee, the charade is over, I see you for who you really are now.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Would you want your son to play football for him?

Petrino's been down this road before … and likely will again

The new University of Arkansas Head Football Coach is Bobby Petrino. So who cares, right? That is where you are wrong. You need to understand the background to understand why this story is significant at all.

On July 13, 2006, Petrino signed a 10-year contract worth up to $25 million dollars to continue as the University of Louisville's Head Football Coach. That season, his team went 12-1 (12 wins, 1 loss) and Petrino was being talked about as one of the top College Football coaches. He had gone to a school that many would never figure could have a successful Football program. High School football players were now looking at the University of Louisville seriously.

But only 6 months after signing that astronomical 10 year, 25 million dollar contract, Petrino found a new job. That's right, after signing a 10-year contract after building the school's football program in 4 years, Petrino was leaving. Petrino would sign a 5 year, 24 million dollar contract with the Atlanta Falcons of the National Football League (NFL). Petrino was getting his "big shot" at the "big show". Petrino would tell his University of Louisville players that the Falcons' head coaching position was "the best job in the National Football League."

Well, over the next 11 months, "the best job" in the NFL turned into a nightmare. The team's star player, Quarterback Michael Vick, would be charged and make plea deal for Dog Abuse charges stemming from a Dog Fighting operation that occurred on Vick's property. Petrino was now forced to coach a team without the player that the team was built to complement. But team owner Arthur Blank talked to the media about how the team would work to build a team to compliment their new coach, Bobby Petrino.

But Petrino had other ideas. The day after his Falcons team lost their 10th game of the season (1 more loss than Petrino had in four years at Louisville), Petrino resigned as the Falcons Head Football Coach. Petrino would the next day after the loss sign a deal with the University of Arkansas to be their Head Football Coach. The contract is reportedly for 5 years at $2.85 million per year.

Now, this is the third commitment Petrino has made to a football team (2 collegiate, 1 Professional) in a span of 17 months. His salaries for these jobs (respectively in chronological order) is approximately 2.5 million per year, 4.8 million per year, and now 2.85 million per year. Even the measly 2.5 million per year looks good to you doesn't it? What Petrino does not seem to care about is that a "contract" is a commitment saying, "I will be here working for you". He has already "broken" two contacts/commitments in less than a year. What kind of example is that for young people? These collegiate coaches are supposed to be leaders and role models for young athletes. But if a college athlete wants to transfer from one school to another, he must sit out one year before playing again. If a high school graduate made a previous "commitment" to go to College A and decides instead to go to College B, the media and others will put the young person down and complain how they "broke their word" and how this person is not loyal.

Why the double standard? The fact is that Bobby Petrino has betrayed the University of Louisville and the Atlanta Falcons. He signed top notch contracts with both for what many in sports call "long term deals", meaning the school and professional organization made "long term commitments" to Petrino to be their Head Coach. He has abandoned both, very unscrupulously. The University of Louisville made a 10-year commitment to Petrino. He left after the first year of that deal. The Atlanta Falcons made a 5-year commitment to Petrino. He left with 3 games left in the season.

Now he is at the University of Arkansas and I ask all parents out there this question: is this the man you want your sons playing football for while attending college? How do you feel about Petrino's moral ineptitude? If he does well coaching at Arkansas should not overshadow the fact that he is a man who breaks promises and is deceptive. Not the kind of person I want coaching my child, that is for sure. We as a society need to hold such people, like Petrino, accountable for his unscrupulous behavior. We also need to uplift coaches and players, in all sports, who are loyal, good guys who our kids can look up to.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

"Bill (Clinton) is every bit as black as Barack (Obama)" WHAT?!?!?

Civil Rights Icon Calls Obama Too Young

Here we go again: "Bill Clinton was the first black President" stuff all over again. So what exactly makes the former President just as "black" (if not more black) than Barack Obama? I am still waiting for that exact answer. Andrew Young may be a Civil Rights icon and legend, but that doesn’t make him always in the right. And whether he is kidding or not, it is uncalled for to say things such as:

"He's probably gone with more black women than Barack"

Now, if you watch the video you will hear the crowd went berserk with laughter. Yes, Mr. Young did state after a few seconds "I was just clowning", but the damage had been done. This "Alpha/Chauvinistic" masculine pride in "Look at all the women I slept with" mixed with racial epithets disgusts me.

The fact is that Barack Obama has been happily married to his wife, Michelle, for 15 years this past October. But there is more pride taken in that Bill Clinton has slept with more "black women" than Barack has? In a nation where we have so many single parent homes and where so many "fathers" do not take their responsibilities seriously, in a nation were there are very few positive male role models for Black males, you are uplifting a man who has not been faithful to his wife? Why not "praise" the man who has stuck by his wife and is still happily married? But no, Mr. Young thinks it's funny and cute to poke about the former President's past extra martial escapades and belittle Senator Obama's faithfulness to his wife.

The political pandering and irrational dialogue by Mr. Young shows me how low this nation has gone in politics and racial affairs. Read below what else Mr. Young said and see if it looks familiar:

"I want Barack Obama to be 2016. It's not a matter of being inexperienced. It's a matter of being young....There's a certain level of maturity ... you've got to learn to take a certain amount of s**t."

Wait, if it not a matter of "inexperience", then why say he is "young" and needs more maturity and that Obama hasn't taken enough you know what? Obama is older right now than John F. Kennedy was when he was elected President (Kennedy - 43; Obama - 46). Theodore Roosevelt was almost 43 when he became President and Bill Clinton was 46 and a half years old. If Barack Obama was elected President, he would be almost 47 and a half years old on Inauguration Day. Too young? I do not think so. I had discussed the "inexperience" issue in a previous post.

Lets get away from the stereotypical arguments that are frivolous and demeaning. Lets debate and discuss the issues. Enough about how Obama has "lied". Enough with the imbecilic slander. Lets discuss issues and debate policy, enough with the race baiting and name-calling.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Romney speaks about his religion

Republican Presidential Candidate and Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney made a speech today to address "concerns" about his faith, Mormonism. Romney, who has been slipping in the polls, decided it was time to address these "concerns" head on. Taking a book out of President John Kennedy's Presidential Campaign, Romney said,

"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

Because Mormonism is considered by many to be a Cult, there has been skepticism according to numerous polls about having a "Mormon President". In attempting to quell this skepticism that some "rogue religious man" could become President, Romney stated,

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions....Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

But the most important statement of Romney speech was just a simple statement:

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

This is the real issue about Mitt Romney's religion. The First Amendment of the US Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

The Freedom of Religion clause in the US Bill of Rights is based upon the idea that any citizen is free to practice any religion without the government telling him how to practice his religion or the government having a religious preference. No matter what one's perspectives or feelings may be about Mormonism, the fact is that we are suppose to be a nation of Religious Tolerance. The only time a religion or religious sect might not be tolerated is if that group has creeds or dogma that is harmful to society (i.e. human sacrifices; suicide as a way to immortality).

People can debate faith, religion, creed, and dogma day and night, but still will not answer that if you were to take religion out the equation, answer the question honestly: Would you vote for Mitt Romney for President? Sadly, for some people, his religious preference is more important than his politics. All these people running around talking about Mormon conspiracies seem to forget that there just as much, if not more, conspiracy and secrecy (fiction and non-fiction) that overshadows the history of other religions such as Roman Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, Pentecostalism, along with others. No religious system or creed is without its closet of "dirt".

I say lets give Mitt a chance. Who knows, in the long run, he may be the better of the Republican candidates. But the fact that some will not vote for him or exclude him from discussion just because he is Mormon gives the impression of narrow mindedness.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Mike Huckabee: Genuine Conservative or Pro-Life Liberal?

As Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has risen in the polls and now in one poll has the lead in Iowa, the critiquing of his record has accelerated in the high gear.

I have been delaying the writing of this blog for weeks because it seems that whenever someone writes an article tearing Huckabee down, there is always another one "clarifying" Huckabee's positions. I want to break down really quick the "Negatives" brought against Huckabee than present the "clarifications" before giving my opinion.


* Without going into extensive details, Conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly, John Fund, Randy Minton and Ann Coulter point to Huckabee's past positions on Illegal Immigration and Taxes.

-According to Schlafly, Huckabee "destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles....Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee." (

-Ann Coulter has said, "On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, 'I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.' Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up 'those who are racist and bigots.' Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking — unless you're an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant." (

-John Fund has written, "But it's Mr. Huckabee who is creating the doubts. 'He's just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,' a former top Huckabee aide told me. 'As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I'll guarantee is that won't lead to competent conservative governance.'" (


*On the other side, those who support Huckabee point to his positions as a Pro-Life, Second Amendment supporter who is a "Christian Conservative" and either try to clarify or "dismiss" his record:

-Donald Wildmon, founder of American Family Association (AFA) has endorsed Mike Huckabee saying, "I feel that Gov. Huckabee understands the needs of our country and has the ability to lead us in meeting those needs...." (

-Janet Folger has written, "May I suggest a driver without a long record of traffic violations like driving the wrong way on one-way streets such as abortion, marriage and judicial appointments? .... To get to where we need to go, we need someone who won't negotiate on the non-negotiables of life and marriage. Someone who can reach the Reagan Democrats, union workers and African Americans. And someone who can take on Hillary." (

-Dick Morris, who has worked as a political consultant and strategist for Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee, has written, "He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.) He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax increase for Social Security. And he can win in Iowa. When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social conservative and an ersatz one." (

Conclusion: The real points of contention are about Huckabee's validation as a Conservative on the issues of Illegal Immigration, Taxes and Spending.

From everything I have read, defending Huckabee as a guy who will not be another "Amnesty Republican" is very thin and on this issue I would suggest wait and see if you like what he says about the issue. Track record is very important, but if one were to compare the track records and campaign promises of Presidents on "in the moment" issues such as George W. Bush with Education and Jimmy Carter with the Death Penalty, their Presidential policies were more inline with their campaign promises than their track records.

Concerning Huckabee's "Fiscal Conservative" credentials, just read Dick Morris' column entitled "MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE". In this column, Morris explains how many of the accusations put against Huckabee while he was Governor of Arkansas is exaggerated. Basically, Huckabee isn't as bad as everyone makes him out to be and he is more so a Neo-Fiscal Conservative than a Traditional Fiscal Conservative.

The fact is that in a Republican field of where the "leading" candidates have either questionable social track records (Giuliani and Romney), a past of flip flopping and appeasement (McCain), or just can't seem to gain traction (Thompson, Paul, Tancredo), Huckabee seems like "the best option" for many Republicans at this point. I, for one, am very skeptical of the opinions and perspectives of those such as Schlafly and Fund. Re-phrasing a term from the movie "Mean Girls", Schlafly and Fund are "almost too Conservative to function". What I mean by this statement is both are so staunchly positioned on the traditionally Conservative side of politics, they have positions that are a little "farther right" on issues than a large number of Republicans, Neo-Conservatives, and Moderates in this nation. As for Ms. Coulter, while she is for the most part a genuine, uncompromising Neo-Conservative, her brazen honesty leads her to take positions that are on the harsh side of reality.

The major problem with the criticisms of Huckabee lies with in the idea that Republicans and Conservatives keep looking for the "Next Reagan". But guess what people? There is and was only one Ronald Reagan! He is not coming back from the dead or will be reincarnated in another political individual. Reagan was the man the nation need at the time he was elected President. Today, we are at a cross roads in the political world where the "old guard" is making it's way out the door and "new blood" is rising up, the next President is one who will define how the next generation will stand and vote for the next 30 years, similar to how the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter Presidencies defined a generation of voters. In the same way, Bush Sr.-Clinton-Bush Jr. and who ever is elected in 2008 will define the next generation of voters. But in order to continue a "positive" direction for this nation's future, we need to get away from the sort of politics this nation has been molded to live with for the last 30 years.

People need to get out of this mold of wanting a Republican "Like Reagan" and a Democrat "Like Clinton". Huckabee doesn't fit the molds some Conservatives are looking for. In fact, none of the Republicans running for the nomination are not from the Reagan or Traditional Conservative molds. Many of the attacks on Huckabee are from those who nit pick. The end game choice comes down to this: If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, do you want her as your President for 4 years? Remember, it's your choice, your vote does count.

President Clinton was against "The Iraq War....from the beginning"?

President Bill Clinton is trying to claim he was again the Iraq Military Operation from "the beginning". Interesting, because his wife, Senator/Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton supported the Congressional Approval of US Military Action in Iraq. But you dont have to believe me just because I say all of this, watch this report on ABC's Good Morning America:

So all of this about the former President being against military action in Iraq from the get-go is mularky. The fact is that it was President Bill Clinton in 1998 who sign the Iraq Liberation Act which declared it was the duty of the United States to liberate Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Be informed, do yourself this favor. Take time out of your day and watch the following video from December 16th, 1998. It is President Bill Clinton addressing the nation about attacking Iraq. If you want to blame President Bush for anything, blame him for following Clinton's lead on Iraq while all the former President was doing was attempting to "finish" the job the first President Bush never finished:

Monday, November 19, 2007

Videos: Chuck Norris Endorsement; Infamous Tancredo Ad

I could not resist posting this. After watching the "Joe is Right" video, watch this.

Also, for those who haven't seen it, here is the "infamous" Tancredo Ad. It's true, but sadly everyone wants to call him a "hateful". I guess the truth isn't popular. Maybe the ending is a little mellow dramatic though.

So they want an "War" over Oil?

Politics overshadow gathering

Unlike Russia and China, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran both are publicly Anti-America. Now, Chavez wants OPEC to "set itself up as an active political agent".

So, Chavez wants to take the US down by using Oil to hurt us? Not the most original idea, but a resourceful one. It's ashame one the the largest US oil suppliers disagrees:

While Chavez's 23-minute statement was brief by his own standards, it drew a gentle rebuke from King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, who chided him for talking longer than the time allotted by royal protocol. He also turned down Chavez's plea, saying: "Those who want OPEC to take advantage of its position are forgetting that OPEC has always acted moderately and wisely."....

"OPEC has made a point, from its establishment, to work for the stability of the oil markets," said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal, at a news conference after the close of the summit on Sunday. "Oil should be a tool of construction and development, not one of dispute."

Ok, so Saudi Arabia is not onboard with the idea. Chavez had his say and we hear him loud and clear: Unlike Iraq, he wants a REAL War over Oil. Maybe President Bush doesn't sound so crazy when he says we need to get away from being so dependent on Foreign Oil. Maybe the US needs to start making major investments in other forms of energy and/or start drilling for oil in areas where we know there is oil to be found (Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, California, Montana to name a few). Until we do so, threats from people such as the Presidents of Iran and Venezuela will continue to scare investors and Oil prices will continue to rise.

There was a time in US history when we were the greatest exporter of goods on the International market. Now we are the greatest importer. Do you really think sending jobs and factories to China is helping our economy? It certainly is hurting our kids.

All the Democratic Candidates agree with "Joe"?

Honestly, it appears that indirectly, all the candidates for the Democratic Presidential Nomination agree with and support US Senator Jope Biden! Then why don't people just vote for him if he is the "genius" behind all the other Democrats positions?

Hillary: "I have experience" Obama: "What experience do you have?"

Obama to Clinton: 'You weren't Treasury secretary'

Well, first Barack Obama has been called naive, now he doesnt have any economic experience? In a recent speech, Senator Hillary Clinton said the following:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was in Iowa today arguing she has the experience to lead the economy out of a downturn and that signs of economic trouble ahead make it risky to elect a different candidate....
''There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for --our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history,'' Clinton said, according to excerpts released in advance by her campaign. ''Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting.''

So Senator Obama responded to Senator Clinton by saying:

"I am happy to compare my experiences with hers when it comes to the economy," Obama said. "My understanding was that she wasn't Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration."
"I think she's a capable person. She's been a senator, like I have," he added. "But rather than just assert experience, if she has specific differences with me with respect to economic policy, I'm happy to have those debates. But this general notion of experience based on longevity in Washington I don't think is sufficient."

I am 100 percent with Obama on this one. What makes Senator Clinton so "experienced"? This is the same argument I have against Senator John McCain, what makes McCain or Clinton so much more experienced? Just because Senator Clinton has been married to a Governor and a two term US President doesn't make her any more or less qualified. She was never the Governor or President. Under that explanation, why don't we elect Nancy Reagan as the next US President? Nancy's husband, the late Ronald Reagan, was Governor of California for two terms and US President for two terms. If we follow Hillary Clinton's logic, Nancy Reagan has "experience" too!

Obama is right. Why doesn't Hillary get down to the details and explain why her positions and policies are better? All she does is call Obama "naive" and talk about how she has "more experience". If "experience" is so "important" to the American people, why was the race between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 so tight? Lets think about it, Bush was a Governor of Texas. That's it! What was Al Gore? He was a US Congressman (1976-1984), a US Senator (1984-1993), a Presidential Candidate (1988, 2000), and US Vice President (1992-2000). If Al Gore can't be "elected" on experience ALONE, then what make Hillary Clinton so special?

Besides, one of Hillary's "great" ideas is to give a 5,000 dollar bond to every child born in the USA. Obama wants to make Community College education "free" for most college students. Hmmm, $5,000 US bond or $4,000 tax college credit? Tough choices...

Thursday, November 15, 2007

The Republican Field is getting out of control

Ok, for those of you who have not heard all of the noise or who cannot keep up with the changes, here is a quick summary of what's new:

*Rudy Giuliani's connections to Bernard Kerik and Charles Hill. Bernard Kerik has been indicted on federal charges and Charles Hill has some "questionable" positions on foreign policy issues. The Giuliani campaign is trying to minimalize these connections. These "connections" may be overrated, but since everyone keeps bringing up Giuliani's positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration, this is another thing to pile on.

*Fred Thompson got an interesting endorsement. He has been endorsed by the National Right to Life organization for Fred's "100% Pro-Life voting record". Interesting, this is after Giuliani being backed by a "Christian Big Name" (Pat Robertson), Romney and Huckabee being endorsed by other "Christian Big Names" (Paul Weyrich and Donald Wildman, respectively), and John McCain's odd endorsement by Senator Sam Brownback.

*Mike Huckabee cannot avoid the accusations that he's not a real conservative, but we also see Huckabee is having trouble keeping his facts straight about his past positions on taxes. It is hard to tell if Huckabee is truly gaining ground on the leaders and is now getting shot down, or he has become "one of the big boys" and is taking his hits like the rest. In the meantime, Rolling Stone likes Huckabee.

*Mitt Romney has been strong lately, but he also cannot get around the Mormon label and the fact people see Mormonism as a "cult". This I find odd, since we have elected presidents who come from different religious backgrounds that some have considered "cults" (for example: John F. Kennedy - Roman Catholicism; Richard Nixon - Quakers). Also, Romney has been attacked for some of his illegal immigration positions. Over the last several months, Romney has shown that his beliefs and positions are more a product of "reconsideration" and an "evolution" of thought than they were "Flip Floping". Unlike John Kerry and John McCain, Romney has not played both sides of an issue and ignored past statements, Romney has explained where he was and how he got to where he is now. This shows he is more thoughtful then many other politicians.

*John McCain cant avoid keeping his foot out of his mouth. Also, he parades his mom onto national cable TV and she shoots him in the foot. Good times, especially when you reply to a obscure question by calling someone a "jerk"

Conclusion: Rudy Giuliani gets big boost, takes three steps forward, two steps back. Mitt Romney gains strength, cannot avoid bigotry. John McCain continually takes two steps forward, four steps back at every turn. Fred Thompson is assumed for dead, then resurrects himself and then does not seem to do much with his "new chance" in the race. Mike Huckabee is gaining ground in the polls, but getting killed online. Tom Tancredo is getting trashed for being honest and truthful. Ron Paul appears to have a great deal of support from people who are not registered to vote or do not vote (see his Myspace page). Oh, and Duncan Hunter has been almost never heard from.

Welcome to Campaign 2008, where voters will need to seperate the facts from opinion to get the truth.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

America's Dynasties?

One of the major worries of the 2008 Presidential Race revolves around Senator Hillary Clinton. People fear the idea of two "Political Dynasties" ruling this country. Since 1989, we have had George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush as our Presidents. Now, the possibility of Hillary Clinton being the next President has caused concern on both sides because many Conservatives and Liberals both agree Hillary would not have the same kind of Presidency that Bill Clinton did. When people see the name "Clinton", they think of Bill first, not Hillary. Sarah Baxter in an article on the "Times Online" said summarized it best this past Sunday:

President George H Bush was sworn into office in January 1989. If Hillary Clinton wins two elections, the Bushes and the Clintons will have been in the White House for more than a quarter of a century.

So if Hillary Clinton serves two terms as President, it would be 24 years of either a Bush or Clinton as President! This is totally unprecedented for the United States of America. Let's quickly review other Presidents who were family members:

The Roosevelts:

*Theodore Roosevelt (September 14, 1901 to March 3, 1909)

*Franklin Delano Roosevelt (March 4, 1933 to April 12, 1945)

How Related: 5th Cousins

Years apart between Presidencies: 24 years

The Harrisons:

*Benjamin Harrison (March 4, 1889 to March 3, 1893)

*William Henry Harrison (March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841)

How Related: Grandfather (William)/Grandson (Benjamin)

Years apart between Presidencies: 48 years

The Adams'

*John Adams (March 4, 1797 to March 3, 1801)

*John Quincy Adams (March 4, 1825 to March 3, 1829)

How Related: Father (John)/Son (John Quincy)

Years apart between Presidencies: 24 years

But Father and Son Bush Presidencies are separated by 8 years! And so would Bill and Hillary's Presidencies if she was elected President. Be honest, are these four people truly the best or most qualified people be President in the last 20 years? While that is subject to opinion, everyone can pick at least one of these four people they do not like or would not vote for. I personally am troubled by this Bush-Clinton-Bush pattern. As some historians and political analysts have pointed out, it has the aura of a Political Dynasty or Political families controlling the nation. This is what happens in Europe, not the US.

One of the major reasons that our nation's Founding Fathers setup the nation via the US Constitution the way they did was to avoid any sort of monarchies or dynasties. The whole point was to avoid any sort of "King" or chosen family succession as the leader of the nation. There was still 24 years that separated the Presidencies of John Adams and his son, John Quincy. 24 years is approximately a generation (

I feel the same way many in this nation do: We need "new blood" in the White House, no more "Blue Bloods" or "Heirs to the Throne". Or any more of the malarkey "It is their turn" like the Republicans did with Bob Dole in 1996 and Richard Nixon in 1960 or what the Democrats did with John Kerry in 2004 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

When people complain there are too many "Career Politicians" and "Washington Burecratic Insiders" in the US Government, Hillary Clinton is the model of what these people DO NOT want as President. Hillary Clinton has lived off the taxpayer for 31 years. Her husband, Bill, was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976, elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978, and elected US President in 1992. Then, as her husband's Presidency came to an end in 2000, she ran and was elected US Senator, a position which she still holds today. She has not worked or lived in a world without a Political paycheck to live off of in 31 years. Is she really who we want in the Presidency? Someone who cannot truly identify with the every day American? Do we want another Clinton like we have already spent the last 7 years with a second Bush?

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Obama almost has the right idea...

Obama: I deserve a tax increase

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama almost gets that idea, but falls short again. On "Meet The Press" Obama said that his way of fixing the problems with Social Security would not be to cut benefits or to move up the "Retirement Age".

Good so far.

His plan is to raise the income tax to accomidate the lack of funds in the Social Secuirty "bank". Obama said "I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected."

Ok, maybe this guy is seeing the light.

Then Obama explained how "only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. That cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from higher payroll taxes, he said." (Source:

Nevermind, I thought there was hope. Here we go again. Another Democrat who doesnt want to really change the Income/Payroll tax structure. He wants to raise the tax accross the board and "protect the middle class". And what about the "lower/Working" class Senator Obama? You see, this was one of the great farces of Clinton's infamous "tax cuts". President Clinton wanted to raise taxes on the "Rich" while cutting the taxes of the Middle Class. But what no one talks about is with these "doughnut hole" gaps or "cuts" for those in the Middle Class, the poorest still suffer.

Hither to, this is one of the greatest blinders and weaknesses of those who are Fiscal "Moderate Liberals" or "Liberals". They want to raise taxes on the Rich, protect the Middle Class, but forget about the Working Class Poor.

Sure, it is cute when Obama says stuff like this:

"Obama also invoked his friend, billionaire Warren Buffett, who Obama said has expressed concern that he is paying less in Social Security taxes than anyone else in his office.

'And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need,' Obama said." (Source:

Yes, good points. But what about cutting the Payroll or other taxes on the Working Class Poor and Middle Class and only raise the taxes on the "Upper Class/Rich"? If we are so desperate to stick with the current tax system and want to still appeal to "Moderate" swing voters, just run on this instead of the ridiculousness that Obama has suggested and that President Clinton did? And don't tell me it cannot be done because you would be suprised what Politicians can get done when it means getting re-elected. This plan would boost any Democrat in polls and would lead to an almost guarantee in getting elected. And if they actually got it done, the momment they sign that new tax setup into law, they would guarantee their re-election just because they did what "no one thought would be done".

While I am not advocating the US Government playing the role of a Burecratic Robin Hood by taking from the Rich, giving to the Poor and Elderly, while easing the financial worries of the Middle Class, I know it is not a losing campaign idea. I know from experience that President Clinton's "tax cuts" did not help my Working Class family. I do not want to see the same sham occur again to the Working Class Poor of America.

Hypocritical Republicans!!

Ok, so after the Republican Presidential candidates all agreed in Florida last month that the Republicans would not punish Florida for moving up it's primary date like the Democrat Party has, the Republican National Committee makes liars out of their Presidential Candidates:

*GOP Punishes Five Early-Voting States by Stripping Half Their Delegates

Oh, but they are not as bad as the Democrats because the Republicans are still allowing half of the delegates. Look, why do we need to at all "punish" anyone? This circus of "who's first" concerning Presidential Primaries is ridiculous, even to a Political Guru such as myself. Hey, Republicans, there is a reason why the voters kicked you out of power in 2006 in the US Congress and why the current Democrat controlled Congress has the worst approval ratings EVER! Stop with this same old rhetoric and burecratic mularky! Stop being like your rival Democrats or you will meet the same fate you met in 2006 and 1976: out of power. Start learning from history instead of repeating it.

Friday, November 9, 2007

The "Religious Right" pick sides

Over the past week, some new Republican Presidential endorsements have been appearing from those who have been characterized by the media as "The Religious Right". After recently all the "leading Evangelical Christian" leaders got together to discuss what to do since they didn’t have a candidate to support. Now all of a sudden, 3 have decided that they have a candidate they want to support. Pat Robertson, who had founded or been behind the creation of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), the Christian Coalition, Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation, and Regent University, Robertson has decided to back former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. American Family Association (AFA) founder Donald E. Wildmon has personally endorsed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee today. There were rumors on the internet that Focus On the Family founder James Dobson would endorse Huckabee as well, but Dobson has denied any endorsement anytime soon of anyone. In the meantime, Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Moral Majority, has thrown his support behind former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney while Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (known for his "core Christian" beliefs).

For months, many "Christian leaders" had been hesitant to endorse any of the Republican candidates. And the typical stereotypical reasons fall inline here: Giuliani isn’t Pro-Life, Romney is a Mormon, McCain has flip flopped on various issues, Thompson is not an ideal or strong candidate, and Huckabee is too good to be true and not well known. But now, everyone is picking "their" candidate. I guess those rumors of supporting a "3rd Party Candidate" are out the window? Maybe, maybe not, especially since Dobson has not officially changed his positon yet. Each endorsement says something unique, because Wildmon now endorse Huckabee since he is gaining ground in polls and Huckabee is a ordained Baptist minister. Brownback choose McCain, both who have "strong" Pro-Life voting records, but also have flip flop on other issues over the years. Weyrich's support of Romney might speak to the fact that Romney has the financial firepower to sustain after getting the nomination, a reflection on Weyrich's background with the Moral Majority. Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is purely a political pick, nothing that has to do with Christian or Moral beliefs (he talked about National Security and the threat of Islamic Terrorism at the official endorsement press conference).

Now we need to see how each endorsement affects how people will vote. I have the feeling that the endorsements help Huckabee and Giuliani, while they hurt McCain and Fred Thompson. Romney is still going to poll well in Iowa and New Hampshire no matter what. Watch for Huckabee to start doing even better in polls, he is my Dark Horse in the Republican race. McCain is trying so hard to gain traction, but it just is not happening, while Thompson has not really excited anyone. So this race is looking like it will develop into a three man contest between Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee.

As for Dobson, dont forget what happened back in earlier this year with Fred Thompson.

Friday, October 26, 2007

"They are not our friends" follow up

Putin warns Europe ahead of summit

Putin: US Plan Evokes '62 Cuban Crisis

This post is a quick follow up to my last post about Russia's continued friendliness towards Iran and hostility towards the US. While Russian President Vladimir Putin claims US President Bush is a "personal friend", he words are very volatile and hostile. Russia has been working for the last year to try and monopolize who controls the oil market in Europe and Asia. Russia is responsible for 25 percent of the European oil market. Now that Russia is working to ally itself with Iran, another major exporter of oil, but promising to help them with their nuclear ambitions.

We must also mention that Putin has rejected the implementation of a US missile defense system in central Europe that would be used to protect Western Europe and the US from any missile strikes that could be launched by Iran or any other hostile countries. And how would Iran be able to launch such an attack? Because Iran in recent months has purchased North Korean missiles and access to their missile technology, as well as Russian and Chinese military technology.

On top of all of this, Putin announce recently that Russia is developing a New Atomic weapon and building more atomic subs. The same Russia that is conducting military exercises with China. China, who has numerous ballistic missiles pointed at the US and Japan. But the USA is the hostile nation? We are the one's creating a "crisis"? Putin is a former head of the Soviet KGB and he is appearing to be more and more to be wanting to rebuild Russia to the Soviet power it use to be via military strength and oil market control.

Who is the aggressor now? And what is our politicians worried about in Washington, except for political posturing to get re-elected while we have nations who are working together to "balance out" the US strength in the is nice to know though that President Bush is a "personal friend"...makes me feel a whole lot better.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

They are not our friends

Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday, October 16th, and President Putin warned the US or any other nation about threatening to prevent Iran's nuclear prospects. Iran is working on building nuclear facilities where they can develop nuclear energy and potentially create nuclear weapons. Also, within the last few weeks, China and Russian militaries conducted military exercises together. The purpose of both nations' militaries working together is to "balance out" the United States' military power.

So, Russia is meeting with the leader of a nation that has stated in front of audiences in Iran that he wants to destroy Israel and the USA. Russia is working with China's military to counter-balance the US military. And now China is mad that President Bush will be meeting with the Dalai Lama tomorrow to award him the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. China has threaten that this act will "severely damage" US-China relations. Also, let us not forget that this past Sunday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Russian leaders in Moscow "that she's concerned over Russia's recent increase in arms sales to Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Burma."

Ms. Rice, you are "concerned" about a nation, that is suppose to be on friendly terms with our nation, is rebuilding its military and helping the militaries' of nations that are anti-American? She says these actions by Russia "are really not helpful to security." Oh, is that all?

Russia and China have been siding with or meeting with anti-American nations for years now. The US government since the 1990's has thought that these people are our "friends". But China has missiles aimed at the US. China got mad when the US government asked China to stop sending defective and harmful goods to the US (recalled pet foods, toys, etc.) and China threatened to sell off all it's US bonds, which would immediately send our economy into an immediate economic recession, if not a "mini-depression". Russia has been working with Iran to building nuclear plants. Russia has been selling its old weapons to anti-American and terror supporting nations such as Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and many others. Our CIA has found out that some of the former Soviet Union's nuclear weapons are in the possession of Al Qaeda and Syria.

But we wanted to be "friends" with these people? It's is as if Al Sharpton was trying to befriend David Duke or if a Jewish family wanted to invite the Neo-Nazi, racist neighbors to their Hanukkah celebration. I have said numerous times, negotiating with terrorists is like trying to negotiate with a person with a gun that is being held to your head. It is not happening. But the Bush Administration wants to "work" with China and Russia, hoping that US relations can influence them to become "good, democratic, capitalist nations". Well, the closest we have gotten is China has implemented a pseudo-capitalist economy. Not because they want to be like the USA, but because a Capitalist economy works better than socialist and communist economic structures.

The US government has become weak in its foreign relations. Our politicians are so worried about what everyone in the world thinks about our nation that they are compromising our National Security and National Sovereignty. If our founding fathers during the US Revolutionary War or US Presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries cared as much as today's politicians about what the world thinks and feels about the USA, then our nation would have destroyed itself or been destroyed by another nation long ago. Presidents Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington stood up in the face of scrutiny and did what was right, not what was popular. We need another bold, Pro-American President to lead this nation, not try to assimilate the USA into the rest of the world. We need to stop electing wimps who don’t want to upset or offend people and only care about their careers, legacies, and agendas. Because guess what? It was Julius Caesar's "friends" who assassinated him! So be careful when people call China and Russia a "friend" or "ally".

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Refuting Stereotypes

Ok, so I saw this post called "Friends dont let friends vote republican" and I read it and it is full of stereotypes and half-truths! Even though I am still annoyed with Republicans and am really TIRED of President Bush, I still am passionate about the truth, so be ready for a reality check:

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

*Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him,
A bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him,
A good guy when Cheney did business with him and
A bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Response: This is a very simplistic and stereotypical statement. If I were to use this same concept against Democrats I could say:

The Soviet Union were good guys when Franklin Roosevelt faught World War II with him, Bad guys when John Kennedy almost declared nulear war with them, Good Guys when Nixon wanted to negotiate with them, and Bad Guys when Reagan called them the "Evil Empire".

Such analogies and storylines are cute, but not fact based. When Reagan "armed" Iraq, it was in an ongoing war with Iran. The US believed at that time that Saddam was the lesser of two evils when compared with a powerful, radical Islamic Iran. While I agree, helping Saddam financially and militarialy fight Iran was stupid, at the time people thought it was a good idea. Hindsight is always 20-20. President Bush Sr. "made war" with Saddam Hussein because Saddam had invaded Kuwait, threatened to bomb and take over Saudi Arabia, and destroy Israel in 1990. The US had an invested financial and military interests in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. So the US went in, pushed Saddam back, but didnt finish the job of "liberating" Iraq and left the revolutionary fighters to get slaughter by a ticked off Saddam. The legend of "Dick Cheney, Haliburton extrodinare" are exaggerated, especially since Haliburton did most of it's business with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and some business with Iran and Pakistan, not Iraq. Very little, if any business done with Iraq, especially since the UN had major sanctions on Iraq at the time. Saddam did do business with the UN as a part of the "Food for Oil" program, that turned out to be a dirty money scandal. And then President Bush Jr., he went into Iraq because Saddam was threatening Israel and other countries in the region AGAIN, violating UN sanctions, and after 9/11, anyone who could hurt us or our allies was dangerous. Now, we all have our issues with how the Iraq Military Action was conducted, but dont let that overshaddow the justification of the action within that momment.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Response: The issue with Cuba goes back the the early 1960's. For those of you who never learned anything in school, the Soviet Union was planning to place Nuclear missles in Cuba. Since Cuba is not far from the US, this was a major threat to US security. After a standoff between President Kennedy and the Soviet Union, they came to an agreement for the Soviets to remove the missles from Cuba and that we would leave Cuba alone for as long as Fidel Castro was the Communist Dictator. So we have a history of being at odds with them. China on the other hand, the US has been trying to do trade with and work with since the 1970's when President Nixon went to China to "re-develop" relations with the "New China" which was now Communist. Before World War II, the US and China had a long relationship via trade and strategic alliances. But in the 1950's when they "went Red", there was a time when neither side talked at all. People today believe that we can make China "not Communist" by making them capitalist. This hasnt exactly worked, especially since China is now doing military excercises with Russia (i.e. the washed up Soviet Union). I disagree with our extensive trade relations with China and trading with Vietnam is as pointless and as much of a formality as trading with Luxomborg, so why even bring that up.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Response: Ok, the above statement is based upon whether someone is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. This is also based upon the idea that Republicans are for big business, while Democrats are for "the little guy". The fact is that both parties are at the whim of big money donors and financers who own big businesses. The Pro-Life position has nothing to do with woman not being "trusted with decisions about her own body", but about the potential life within the woman's body. That potential life within a woman is a life we dont know what it will do, who knows if that baby would have been the next great scientist or President or the doctor finds the cure for AIDS, etc. There is a major difference between the girl who was raped and the girl who doesnt want to deal with the burden of having a baby. Concerning the infamous "multination coorporations", both sides are guilty of pandering and not being tough enough on big business. Why else do we trade with China? A bunch of our companies sent our factories over there so the company can spend less money paying their workers and in turn Americans loose jobs along the way. That helps big business, not everyone. And whose fault is it that we have such a messed up business atmosphere? People like Clinton, Bush Sr, Nixon, and all those idiots in Congress who voted to give China "Most Favored Nation" Trade Status and decided for the US to not enforce tarrifs and change the laws so these companies to do what they do. See, Republicans and Democrats are both to blame. And there are also Pro-Life and Pro-Choice politicians in both parties.

Jesus loves you,
And shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Response: Another imbicilic, simplistic statement. Anyone who actually reads the Bible and understands it, knows that God doesnt hate anyone, especially not Jesus (If 1 John 4:7-8 says God is love, where would the hate come in?). The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, not that the people are evil. Jesus died to save everyone, including homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. Also, not all Republicans are Christians. There are plenty of Democrats who are Christians or "Chritian-esque". If some hates someone, thats a "you" problem. And there are plenty of people who have problems with Hillary Clinton on ethical, Political, and policy grounds who are Democrats.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches
while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
Response: This generalization was true during the Vietnam war. Blame Nixon (a Republican) there and cronyism in Congress. But today, blame everyone. No one in Washington seems to care that our troops need more and better weapons, body armor, and vehicles. No one publically and vocally cares that our military hospitals are old. No one cares that those in the military get paid less than atleast 70 percent of the US working populace. But what do Democrats and Republicans in Washington care about? Giving themselves pay raises, building bridges with the Senator's name on it in West Virgina and Alaska, or putting sand on New Jersey beaches or building new Libraries in Alaska or Texas with a certain Politician's name on it or complaining about Bush, tell me why Congress has lower approval ratings than Bush if these Democrats actually care about the troops more than Republicans? Both sides are in the wrong!

If condoms are kept out of schools,
Adolescents won't have sex.

Response: *Sigh* While handing out condoms in school does seem kind of low and creepy ("Mr. Basile, can I get a condom? I want to have one because I plan on getting laid tonight"), but the issue is more so the extreme "Sex Ed" we have in schools today. There is a difference between explaining about sexual intercorse (sperm meets the egg, creates baby=family planning class) and talking about sexual positions (you place the penis here while siting here=Penthouse class). No one should have to listen to their teacher talk about their sex toys they have at home, it's school, not sex chat time.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy.
Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
Response: It's socialism whether it is done in Iraq or America, period. Why does Donald Trump or George W Bush or Sean Penn or John Kerry or any of those guys need Government provided health care? They can pay for anything they need themselves or afford to have their own Health Care provider or HMO. If you want everyone to have health care, lets have Government health care (Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs) and Private health care (HMO's and the such for those with well paying jobs or work in big companies that offer medical benefits). Lets be reasonable, not inefficient. Besides, it's not "Republicans" fault that Democrats believe in a right to health care and it's not the "Democrats" fault that Republicans believe in the right to live happy.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best
interests of the public at heart.
Response: Yes, lets blame the companies for how the government passed certain laws...really smart...and is that the Republicans fault too? Lets blame the Republicans for the Democrat controlled Congress in 1993 not working with Hillary Clinton on Health Care Reform too....please, seriously.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
Response: More and more evidence is coming out that there is more Climate Change going on than Human-faulted Global Warming. And tobacco's link to cancer is pretty well accepted, except by those indenial. Yes, there are some whose body's become so use to the smoke their lungs adapt, but they will get ill somewhere else because their bodies work so hard to not let the tobacco kill their lungs they become weak and vulnerable in other areas. Since Evolution is a Scientific Theory and hasnt been proven, why not teach Creationism and Evolution side by side so the kids can learn all sciences, not just the one angled aspect? People are so obsessed with Evolution that anything that might show it to be wrong is evil in their eyes. These people dont care about science or facts, but an agenda.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Response: Lying under oath is a felony, and if done by the man whose job is to uphold the Constitution is impeachable, not the lie itself. The "Bush lied, Kids died" crowd wants everyone to forget that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and numerous other Democrats supported going into Iraq in 2002 and 2003. I have the audio clips, I've seen the video, it wasnt a Bush "follow me" deal. If anyone lied about Iraq, almost everyone in Washington DC lied to the American people: Republicans, Democrats, CIA, Department of Defense, the President, Congress, everyone.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
Response: Let us view what a law dictionary's definition of marriage is:

Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law. (

So the real problem is the definition of a marriage is one that does not allow for two people of the same gender to marry. In turn, you want homosexuals to be able to get married? Change the laws and statutes pertaining to marriage. On the other hand, the legal definition of a Civil Union is:

Civil Union: Ceremony between same-sex persons which conveys to them certain aspects of marriage for purposes of that state's laws (but not those of other states or the federal government). Rights are conferred in respect of property and probate law, adoption, insurance, hospital visitation, and wrongful death actions as well as insurance and state income tax laws. 744 A. 2d 864. (Law Dictionary. Copyright © 2003 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved. )

Basically, a Civil Union is a marriage without the costs and taxes that go along with marriage. So is gays not being able to be married so bad?

Concerning censoring the internet, the only things censored online is that Pornographic website have a "You are at a porn site, are you 18? if not, leave now" warning and otherwise, the only things "censored" online are Child Pornography (people under the age of 18) and websites that advocate/promote terrorism and crime ("This is how you create a bomb" sites and "Lets talk about killing the President" blogs) If you are not for even limited forms of censorship, please proceed to go join the Libertarian Party or move to Amsterdamn and leave the rest of America alone.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's cocaine conviction is none of our business.
Response: I dont care if you are Republican, Democrat, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, or Ted Stevens, if you have a shaddy or corrupted record/past, the public deserves to know. Let the public decide for itself what is just baggage or something that is akin to one's character. President Bush was an alcoholic and did cocaine. Does he do it anymore? No, so that was a part of his past. President Clinton did marajuana. Does he do it anymore? No, so that is in the past. If you want to talke about someone's dealings and how their past may affect the present and future, look at people who have a record of "dirty" stuff. Being human, people make mistakes and are not always in perfect moral/upright character. Consistantly doing something (habitual actions) like John Kerry's flip-flopping or Ted Steven's name on tons of "Pork" legislation, people such as that we can almost predict their every move.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,
unless you're a conservative radio host.
Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Response: Or if you are an NFL Quartback right? I bet many of you did not know that Green Bay Packers Quartback Brett Favre was once a pain killer-addict too. Favre went into drug rehad and came out a better man and player than he was before. Rush Limbaugh also developed such an addiction to pain killers, which he was charged with obtaining illegally. And actually, Limbaugh was in and out of rahab a few times before surrendering to a Police warrant in 2006, paid bail to get out of jail, plead "not guilty" and reached an agreement with the Prosecutor to pay the costs of the investigation as a "punishment" instead of inprisonment.

Now that you know what really happened, I want to just mention that people can fall into all kinds of addictions, its not so "unique". Our drug laws are a mess and need to be redone, not modified. Scratch the whole code and redo it. Why should an individual from the urban section of a town who had an ounce of cocaine go to jail longer than someone who lives in the suburban section of that town who had almost a pound of cocaine? Why should those charged with "Possesion" of drugs be in prison longer than a man who raped a 10 year old girl? "I rest my case your honor"

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft
can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
Response: Ok, let me preface what I am about to say with the understanding that I do not like John Ashcroft and know alot about his past that disturbs me and I see his 4 years as US Attorney General as another lousy AG in a line of lousy Attorney Generals over the last 14 years (Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, and Alberto Gonzalez). Ashcroft's involvement and workings as US Attorney General were not the best, but this was not something that was so "bad". If you want to know what "Republicans" think about state's rights, look up what US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says. Ashcroft was a career politician who happened to have an "R" next to his name and ran around claiming to be a devout Christian. Dont judge the party by what kind of person he is or the work he has done.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Response: This is the same argument that was made earlier, which claims that Republicans are biased when it comes to digging into people's pasts. Well guess what? So are Democrats and like I said earlier, perspective upon accusations is very important when making a judgement call upon anyone's character and what opinion(s) you may make about them. Get the facts before you decide who is doing what

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Is George W. Bush the stupidest President since James Buchanan?

(Originally Posted on Myspace February 9, 2007 - Friday)

Is George W. Bush the "stupidest" President since James Buchanan? (History lesson)

Some guy made the statement that George W. Bush is the stupidest President since James Buchanan. Although I only agree with the President maybe, 50-60 percent of the time on a good day, saying he is the stupidest President since James Buchanan is very childish sounding. So, we need to set the facts straight:

1. James Buchanan wasn’t stupid; he was a weak and ill-equipped President. Buchanan was an idealist who believed that the nation's problems were not that complicated or hard to solve. In essence, he was right, but wrong on a technicality because the issue was only as bad at the opponents on each side treated the problems. Buchanan was an “end of an era” type of President who just couldn’t get the job done anymore. Buchanan was more like a James Polk or a Franklin Pierce than any of his predecessors until Calvin Coolidge came along.

2. Concerning stupid Presidents, let’s discuss some "idiotic" Presidents since Buchanan because someone doesn’t know much about history and is obsessively anti-bush for the sake of being Anti-Bush:

*Andrew Johnson: Became President when Lincoln was assassinated. Johnson has the dubious reputation for being the only other president aside from Clinton to be impeached and it was all over a man in Lincoln's old cabinet he disagreed with.

*Ulysses Grant: Great General, lackluster president. Had trouble exerting Presidential powers, couldn’t keep a rogue congress in check, and even was known for make executive orders that were never enforced because he never signed them...Also, happened to not be "aware" of corruption in his own administration.

*Benjamin Taylor: Didn’t keep half his campaign promises, ended up losing his re-election bid to the man he had beaten 4 years earlier (Grover Cleveland).

*William Taft: Never wanted to be President, it was his wife's idea. He got what he wanted a decade later when another President gave him his dream job: Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Taft went through the motions as President, did his best, but after awhile the nation realized what they had done: elected a man into the presidency whose greatest purpose of being there was so his wife could be first lady.

*William Harding: Aside from putting a former president on the US Supreme Court, had numerous scandals in his administration before he died while traveling. One newspaper said of Harding "Corruption was his middle name". But one of the things Harding ran on was "keeping the white house clean of big money/party politics" and then proceeded to have the most corrupt and topsy-turvy administration the nation had ever seen until some guy name Nixon showed up...

*Hebert Hoover: Some believe Hoover was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Others believe he only made things worse. Either way, Hoover couldn’t and didn’t know how to handle the crisis of the Great Depression and his "initiatives" actually made things worse. Hoover thought the government should help its people, but all that rhetoric and little action didn’t do too much for the nation, his legacy, or re-election bid.

*Harry Truman: When FDR died in Georgia, where was VP Harry Truman? In a special area in the white house basement drinking with his Senate 2pm in the afternoon. Thankfully for the nation, there was no 24 hour news network that would have demanded to see the VP, because the nation would have been presented with a tipsy man who was drinking under the white house and talking political deals. Its bad enough Truman was the democrats 3rd option for VP and not any of FDR's picks. Everyone thinks Truman was so smart for ending WWII by dropping atomic bombs on Japan, but the facts are that even a high school drop out presented with the evidence and information in the presentations and discussions given to Truman would have done the same thing. Truman initially didn’t want to drop the bombs because he thought that was "excessive force". Oh, and lets not forget the fact he got the nation into a war he couldn’t get us out of (Korea) and fired the only General who had the brains and ideas to win the war in Korea. Why was Gen MacArthur fired? According to Truman aides, (some paraphrasing for space reasons) "Truman didn’t like the General's aggressive tactics. He had plans to crush the communists in Northern Korea and weaken the red Chinese forces and wanted to scare the Russians. Winning was not the option, containment was."

*Lyndon Johnson: "The Great Society", what a asinine plan that messed up the nation's welfare system up so bad that no president since has been able to totally fix all the problems and try to reconnect the dots. Johnson was a blow hard who thought he would make a great president after JFK was done his presidency. LBJ got his chance sooner than he thought and what do you know, he is credited for signing legislation (Civil Rights Act) that he never publicly supported until the bill passed the House of Representatives and that JFK had been calling for a year before the passage of the Act. Oh, and LBJ made things worse in Vietnam, while going on the radio and saying things were going one way and assuming something was happening when the opposite was.

*Richard Nixon: Who on earth breaks into the building of a political opponent who you know you are going to beat in your re-election and then beat them by an overwhelming majority? Nixon. Watergate was all about political revenge. But also, Nixon was an imbecile with the Soviets where he offered them things and the Russians never held up their end of any deals. Man, D├ętente really was working then. Oh and Nixon hated Reagan and considered him "very dangerous". Funny, because Reagan handled the country better than, umm, Nixon did. Nixon ran on an "anti-abortion on demand" platform and 3 of the 4 judges he puts on the Supreme Court were in the majority 7-2 ruling in Roe v. Wade. Yup, Nixon was real smart, let me tell you....

*Jimmy Carter: Sure, let’s not send our young athletes to the Olympics to show the Soviets what we are really made of...which was our stupidity. Sure, let’s crush the dreams of hundreds of young girls and boys who trained their entire young lives for that Olympics because we got to be diplomatic with the Russians. Then there was the Iran hostage crisis. Admitting in a debate that he asked his daughter for advice on nuclear policy was probably not very smart either. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Stupidest President since James Buchanan? Whether Bush is stupid or not is subjective, but he certainly wasn’t the only one in 150 years. "