2009

Now that 2008 has come to an end, the election is over and the country has chosen a new President with an entirely different political agenda supported by a congress with similar political affliction, its time to assess where we are and where we can go from here.

Quick Summary of 2008: (the high/low lights)

The Election - The American chose style over substance. This may sound totally partisan but President Elect Barack Obama does represent so many things that are against the general public view that I must be at least partially correct. What made this so easy was the republican party's inability to present a candidate that embodies their core beliefs and instead chose an individual that seemed to have the ability to garner enough independent voters to get elected. This short-sightedness of the conservative electorate combined with an unpopular administration. Much of the public's distaste for the administration was generated by the leaders of the democratic party skill in assigning blame for all the country's ills on the President with the help of the media. Another item that made this accrediting possible is the enduring distrust of the republican party from abusing their positions when they had the power in recent history.

The Economy - Yes, the economy went into the tank in 2008. We can go back and review why this happened but its demise was triggered by increased gas prices. The financial system has been teetering on the edge of disaster for quite some time due to long term fiscal policy designed to artificially boost people's ability to own homes beyond their means. When world demand for oil exceeded the supply (due to emerging markets in China and India) gas prices skyrocketed and the fragile personal finances of many American households exploded. A much larger percentage of the household budget went to fuel the SUV and the cost of all products that had to be shipped increased and people could no longer make their overextended mortgage payment. Demand for products and services decreased, industries struggled (put mildly), businesses close and workers were laid off. They say the worse is yet to come and everyone is looking for the U.S. federal government to bail them out, although the government is overextended.


What to watch out for in 2009:

President Obama - I am going to watch has the President skillfully attempts to lower the massive expectations he created for the American people. The President Elect anticipated this maneuver and took his lofty goals off one of his websites shortly after the election. He has already begun this by rewording his employment goals from "Creating 3 million jobs" to "Creating or saving 3 million jobs". Now that reality meets expectations, it should be interesting.



The inauguration, or should we call it the Annointing of the Chosen One or The Mesiah Taking his Throne, should be fun to watch!

Democratic Congress - It will actually be fun to watch the administration and the congress battle over power. You can be sure that Speaker Pelosi will not concede to every whim of the President over the next four years.

Fairness Doctrine - The democrats will attempt to bring back this doctrine in an attempt to shut the opposition by making radio stations run unpopular liberal shows to counteract the popular conservative shows. This will put a financial burden on radio stations and force many to stop broadcasting conservative radio show.

Republican Party - We will see if the republican party can "clean their own house" and find their conservative values again and more importantly, can they make American believe they mean what they say this time. Governor Palin went a long way in establishing a return to this agenda but will need more believable conservative to follow and practice what they preach.

On a more personal note, I am going to determine if it is practical and feasible to begin a political career. I am going to try and meet with the leaders of the local republican party to see if they will support me. I am going to determine exactly what it takes to become a politician and if I have the means and personality and charisma to pull it off. Finally, I will be establishing a website to define exactly what I represent, what I believe and what I think will help this country.

As soon as I establish my website I will forward this onto all of you.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Now that the election is over the results have many implications:

This election was a referendum on Barack Obama. The economy was in the dumper, the President has been blamed for all the country's ills and the democrats did a good job painting McCain as another Bush. Let's face it, John McCain is not a conservative. He does not represent what the republican party stands for but he was who the republican electorate chose as their candidate to beat whichever democrat won their nomination. The republicans were never excited about their candidate (except for the brief period following the convention) so the election was really about if the American people trusted an eloquent, articulate, inexperienced Senator to run the country. Apparently, they did.

Conservatism is not dead. With the economy, the unpopular war and America's standing in the world; this was a lay down election for the non-controling party. Yet, the numbers were relatively close. Everything pointed to a landslide victory but many people stuck to their ideals and could not abandon their conservative beliefs. The problem is, they no longer had faith in who was leading the conservative movement.

Republicans deserved what they got. Not too long ago the American people turned over the keys to the government to the Republican party. They ran on a promise to be fiscally responsible. They were the party of morals, promised to do what was right in the eyes of God. They went to Washingto with all the power and abused the trust of their constituents. They passed "pork" laden bills, expanded the size of the government and had several incidents of illiciet or illegal or immoral behavior.

ANY man can achieve whatever they strive for. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Louis Farakan have been telling minorities that they cannot get a fair shake in this country and these men have gained power by representing the mistreated. Maybe they should all be out of a job. It is time for everyone in this country to quit blaming others for their failures. Its time to take a look and the mirror and ask themselves if maybe the reason they have not received what they feel they deserve is because of their own doing. You can never change a person's opinion of you by demanding it or legislating change. To change other people's attitude towards you, you must change yourself and represent yourself as you want to be treated. President Elect Barack Obama is a minority and was born of little means but now he is the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world. No longer can people say "The Man" is holding me down because the man is one of people.

If you say something long enough, people will believe it. The media has been the mouth piece for the democrats message and the people are finally willing to believe their word. Americans are frustrated with the way things are going and the democrats have been telling people how bad things are and just who to blame. Without researching things on their own, they wanted to blame someone for their problems so they finally listened.

I have had several people check on my status today. Apparently, they are worried about how I took the results of the election.

First, I am disappointed in the American people. Yes, they wanted change and that message is loud and clear but the change proposed by Barack Obama and the dems is not what this country needs, in my humble opinion. Disappointed people listened to a gifted messenger and ignored the message. Disappointed that people cannot look through the promises of a campaign and see that things don't add up. I am also quite fearful of what this change will mean. I have strong suspicions but only time will tell. I am thankful the dems did not get a super majority in the Senate. I am also hopeful that I am wrong on the direction the country will head and what it means.

GOD SAVE THE UNION!!!

MESSAGE VS. MESSENGER

I have talked to many people regarding this very important election. Every election is important but I think this one carries a special importance because it will give control to the Democrats to the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and the power to appoint judges to the Judicial Branch of the government. As Americans we need to decide if the liberal agenda is what is best for this country.

With the passion I possess regarding politics I tend to bring up the election to most everyone I meet, much to my wife's dismay. Every time I talk to an Obama supporter I like to probe the reason for their choice and each time I am somewhat amazed. Never have I gotten a deal breaker issue, a contrary political philosophy or a solid explanation of their choice. Normally I get talking points put out by the opposing party with little understanding of what it means. "Bush has screwed up so bad", "the Republicans don't care about me", "John McCain has no new ideas", but when I ask what that means they either don't know or recite a reason which is totally contrary to fact. I was recently told my an intelligent, successful friend that he was supporting Obama but didn't know exactly why.

I can tell you why Sen. Obama is about to become the 44th President of the United States of America because he is extremely competent and effective as a public speaker. He has the ability to make people follow him to the unknown and make them feel comfortable on the way. If he was a salesman he could be GE's top salesman with only the Amish territory. He's the kind of leader who could convince his followers to drink the Kool-Aid. How else can we explain the blind followers of his flock? All these traits that Barack Obama possess John McCain does not.

The tough financial crisis in the U.S. has caused people to look for help and for some reason they are looking to Washington to fix their problems. My contention is that Washington has caused much of the problem and is not where the solution lies. John McCain is a member of a party that has a credibility problem. They promised America a smaller government but did not deliver, the promised fiscal responsibility and did not deliver, and they became responsible for an unpopular war which was supported by both parties. (Obama claims to have been against the war from the beginning but he did not have to back that up with a vote. I compare that to refereeing a game from the stands. Its different when the call actually has an effect.) The current White House has been blamed for the economy but if people really investigate the mess it is obvious the problem has many to blame.

I implore people to get beyond the person and look at the issues. Obama promises a larger government which requires more revenue and he promises more taxes on American companies which will make it harder to compete in a world economy and drives jobs away. Before he started making campaign promises he was dedicated to gun control. He is committed to National Health Care which WILL reduce effectiveness and drive costs up requiring more taxes. He does believe in a more powerful federal government which is taken from the states and the individual American people. Obama and the Democrats are committed to higher fuel costs to force Americans to demand alternative fuels. And most importantly he believes in the idea of redistribution of wealth. He told "Joe the plumber" this and he said it before in this 2001 interview.


Maybe he could lead the United States out of the bondage of a struggling economy into the desert of the unknown and deliver us the ten commandments of prosperity but I don't think he has the credentials. PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THE MESSAGE WITH THE MESSENGER.

CHANGE VS. CHANGE?

Both candidates are claiming they are the instruments of change. Can they both be right? What are they changing? Do we really need radical change? Can either of them deliver change?

First let's take a look at the political spectrum. Here is how I see it. On one end, the right, you have no government services and no taxes, pure capitalism. On the other end, the left, you have total government services and 100% taxation, pure socialism. Conservative are pulling the political rope towards the right and liberals are pulling it towards the left. Neither wants the pendulum to swing entirely one way or the other but both feel the nation needs to lean more towards their side.

Barack Obama promises of change are directed at the policies currently in place. He wants government to take care of its citizens with more government programs and, of course, he will need more revenue to acomplish this goal through higher taxes. He believes the current policies are leading the nation in the wrong direction and need to be changed. He has also claimed he will change the partisanship in the government but shows no sign of being able to accomplish this since he is considered the "most liberal" member of the Senate. In debates he has also claimed he will change some foreign policy decisions and change the way we are viewed by the world. Many of thsoe decisions appear very dangerous from the view of his opponents and exposed in the debates with John McCain and the Democratic primaries. Changing the way we are viewed by the rest of the world would be nice as long as it does not compromise our ideals and principles. The President must watch out for the interests of the U.S. and world view is irrelevant unless it is good for the U.S.

John McCain promises of change are more changes in the way Washington works. He wants to get beyond the bipartisanship currently plagueing our government where embarrassing or discrediting the opponent is more important than accomplishing anything. His view is that the current policies are headed in the right direction they just need to be administered properly. Less government intervention into everyday life of Americans and relieve the American businesses of excess regulation. McCain believes he has the ability to work in a bipartisan way. Standing up to the Democrats when they are wrong and the Republicans when they are wrong. He believes he can make policies with either side of the isle and is not scared to anger the others.

Obama is probably more equiped to change the direction and McCain is probably more equiped to change the tone of Washington. McCain has stepped across the isle more than once to write a piece of legislation with a co-sponsoring Democrat and pissed off the Republicans. Obama differs from the current administration on most matters and will create much more liberal policies.

The kind of change this country needs is to change the way Wasnington works. First, let's get rid of the leaders who have trouble following their moral compass. If they are cheating on the families or have problems with the law what makes anyone think they can suddenly do what is right for the country. If they are making decisions for personal gratification in their personal life they will make them in their votes. Get rid of all the adulterers, perverts, tax evaders and anyone else who does not follow a sense of common decency. Second, we need politicians to quit taking positions simply because of political affiliation. The political environment in Washington has become so nasty that nothing can get accomplished. As I stated earlier, neither party wants the pendulum to swing entirely to their extreme so why can't the politicians find common ground on individual bills.

The kind of change we don't need is the change in philosophy. We do need less government in our lives, we need the American people to decide how to spend their own money and not the government. BUT, we need people who will hold true these ideals and quite compromising them for personal gain, for more power or for more pork for their district. Let's put country first in every decision made in Washington. The Republicans gained power using these exact principles but went to Washington and did not fulfill their promise. They deserved their own demise. Let's get rid of them and put individuals in power who will promise smaller government and deliver and if not, get rid of them. We do not need to turn over our personal freedoms to the government and we do not need to make people more dependant upon the government.

The recent economic woes this country is experiencing is not as a result of the current administration's policies but as a result of a compromise to those policies. Deregulation did not cause the problem but lack of oversight or a propensity to ignore the warning signs in favor of a more optimistic interpretation of the facts. More government intervention will hurt our economy, making it harder for businesses to compete in this world economy. Increase regulations, increase requirements and increased taxes will force some businesses to move their businesses abroad or raise their prices only to drive the buyers abroad.

Changing the view the rest of the world has of United State's would be nice. It would be nice to be seen as the great moral and economic leader of the world again but it cannot be at the expense of our security. The President will become the leader of the free world but it does not mean we need to appease the rest of the world. He needs to watch out for the interests of the U.S. and if those interests align with a rosey view from the world great, if not too bad.

Neither candidate match the needs of the country but Barack Obama's goals are dangerous for this country. So, for the kind of change that is needed in this country John McCain IS the better choice.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Yes, our healthcare system has issues we need to address but the quality of care in the United States is second to none.

Before we address specifics we need to address a misconception: A Right cannot be something that is taken from another. If someone else has to pay for it, it is not a "right". Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights, health insurance cannot. This was discussed in the second debate and Sen. Obama was wrong. My neighbor has no right to something I earned.

In 2000, the World Health Organization put out a ranking of the world's health care system and ranked the U.S. as having the 37^th best health care system in the world. 37^th??? How could that be? I thought we were the best. Let's take a closer look at why the ranking was lower than expected. First, the WHO has an agenda, they hope they can promote an ideological change to a more universal system. They want everyone to have health coverage and use their rankings as a tool to achieve this. The major factor that placed the U.S. as 37^th is the fact the U.S. does not have universal coverage. It has nothing to do with the quality of care. In addition, many of the factors they use are subjective and are based on assumptions on the relative importance of the components. This is not an objective report! They want to encourage countries to adopt a universal health care system so they created a report to help facilitate their goal.

Let's take a look at health care here in the U.S.

• Anyone can go to a hospital that receives government funds and they will not be turned away. They are not going to let someone die in the parking lot. When they realize the patient is unable to pay they write off the care. So, we are not talking health care we are talking health insurance.
  
• What we are really talking about is redistribution of wealth. Another program where the wealthy foot the bill for the many.
  
• No plans suggested have done anything to deal with the cost of the coverage just who is paying for it.
  
• Due to the bureaucracies, there is virtually nothing the government can do more effective or efficient as than the private sector.

What the system needs is competition and currently there is virtually none. Ask a doctor's office what a procedure will cost. You will get a variety of answers but not a price. Providers are use to billing insurance companies an excessive amount to max out the amount they will pay for a procedure. When someone else is paying the bill you are not too concerned about the price. What if providers were forced to publicize what they charge for the different procedures? Imagine, "I think we need an MRI and it will cost $1,200." What if everyone paid their own bills?

In 2003 President George W. Bush signed a health care bill and part of this bill was the establishment of Health Savings Accounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account The HSA works with a high deductible health care policy and gives the individual the ability to put that amount into an account tax free. Since the plan has a high deductible the premiums are cheaper. Any money left in the account after paying health care expenses is treated similar to an IRA. The worst case scenario is the bills are paid with pre-tax money. The best case is there are no health care bills and the individual gets to keep the money. Since they get to keep any savings, HASs make the individuals aware of what they spend and what is being billed to the insurance company. I have an HAS and here are some examples of the benefits:

1. I wanted to buy custom arch supports so I called a guy my Sports Medicine doctored recommended. I called the guy and asked him how much they were since I was paying and he said $250 so I set up an appointment. He molded my feet, ordered the orthotics, called me back when they were ready and I was on my way. I received a bill for $800. They had billed me for 3 therapy sessions (1 to tell me I needed them, 1 to mold my feet, and 1 when I tried them on when I picked them up) on top of the inserts. The guy worked for a hospital and that was the way they did it and that is the way most health care providers work. Since I was paying out of pocket I fought the bill.
   
2. In 2005 I had an episode where I thought I was having a heart attack. I went to the hospital and had several tests which all proved I didn't have a heart attack and I was feeling better. At this point the doctor had decided it looked more like an anxiety attack but still wanted to run some tests. After I told her I was paying out of pocket she was comfortable not running more test.
   
3. My daughter hurt her foot playing soccer and after the doctor reviewed the x-rays he wanted to have an MRI. I asked him what he could find that would change the treatment and he said nothing he just wanted a better look. We did not have the MRI.

Health Savings Accounts may not be the answer to everyone's needs. I do not have all the answers to our health care problems but there are characteristics that need to be part of the solution and most importantly is competition, both insurer and provider. Somehow we need to get competition in prescription drugs. The most important characteristic we DO NOT need is government control!!! Obama's plan is the first step towards national health care, a single payor system. His plan will not go far enough and will need to take it a step farther and government take over.

I believe neither candidate's plans make the changes needed to address our health insurance problems but I take great exception with a characteristic of Obama's plan, eliminating pre-existing conditions. This is a fundamental part of health insurance plans. Think about it, if there were no pre-existing conditions clause on a policy people could wait until they were seriously ill before buying coverage. I could pay for all my Doctor visits and prescriptions until I found out I was seriously ill and then buy a policy. This is just an empty promise that sounds so good but is totally impractical.

MORTGAGE CRISIS

There is so much blame to go around I don't believe there are too many involved who are not somewhat culpable. The Congress & the President, the Democrats and the Republicans, the lenders and the borrowers all are to blame for this problem.

Every four years we elect a President. He sells us on his vision for the country, how he will lead us on a road to better things. President Clinton believed that if people owned their homes they would better off than people who rent. All in all, a pretty sound thesis. The federal government pressured banks through the FDIC to make loans they normally would not. The current administration followed this same game plan to put even more in homes.

The mortgage brokers made the loans and immediately sold them off to the banks who in turn bundled them together and sent them off to Wall Street who did their manipulation and sold them off to investors in the form of bonds. No one cared what they were doing because each step along the way they made their money.

Through the federal government Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac financed many of the loans. The executives at these institutions made contributions to congressional leaders to keep them off their backs. The executives were paid bonuses for thier performances but they had to "cook the books" to reach their goals. In 2004 the unacceptable accounting practices were pointed out but congress wanted to continue to provide "affordable housing" so they proclaimed the report wrong. In a finance bill Sen. John McCain actually predicted the exact crisis we are experiencing but the Democrats fought any adjustment to business as usual. Now we are in a huge financial mess in this country and Congress is going to try to fix what the federal government helped create.

Mortgage companies were so anxious to make loans that the requirements became minimal. I even heard an advertisment claiming they would use your word for income verification. But even so, people should have an idea of what they can afford. Just because someone is willing to loan money doesn't mean the individual should borrow the money. Americans have become a society that lives for the moment that many people don't care about tomorrow as long as they can live the good life today.

Why should the federal government bail out Wall Street? The answer is, because our struggling economy will come to an abrupt halt if nothing is done. First, if all these homes foreclose the market will be flooded with homes and there will be a huge excess of supply which drive the home values even lower. Since no one will have equity in their homes the banks will not be able to make secured loans and credit will dry up. Second, if all these mortgages are not being paid the banks will be depleted of money and will not be able to make loans to businesses to invest in new capital to grow their businesses or in many cases to run daily operations.

Why did the supposed agreement fail? A couple of reasons, first, every member of the House is up for re-election and must face their constituents and these constituents are overwelming against the plan. So each member is putting their political career on line to fix the mess they helped create. The public is against the bailout because of the name, "bailout". Why should the American taxpayer bail out a bunch of Wall Street big wigs who have made their riches? The second reason I believe is that many congressmen were compromising their ideals in making this deal. Conservatives do not believe the government should meddle in the free enterprise system yet they were willing to vote for the bill for the good of the nation. Then Speaker Pelosi tried to mix politics into the equation and gain some political capital out of the mess and blame all the problems on the republicans which turned the bill into a negative for these "on the fence" conservatives. What was the purpose of her speach other than to stab in the back the ones who were helping her accomplish her goal of passing the bill?

The next question I want to pose is: Why did the democrats want the republicans to help pass this bill? They have enough members to pass a bill without GOP help. I think Speaker Pelosi wanted a scapegoat with the deal. Any fallout from the bill can be blamed on the republicans while the democrats, with the help of the media, can spin any problems on the back of the republicans.

I have always said that any problem the government tries to fix creates another problem. The government wants to help single mothers so they give them money and now it discourages them from getting married and encourages these women to have more children. The government wants more people to own homes and now we are in today's mess. Once again it becomes the responsible having to pay for the irresponsible, if not through our investments we ultimately pay through our taxes.

WAR ON TERROR

The War on Terror has been a central issue of this election. Criticizing the war and/or the handling of the war is what has incited the Democratic Party and vaulted them to positions of leadership in both houses of Congress. I think it is time to take a deeper look into this situation and the positions each candidate has taken and decisions they have made.

First, we are where we are and there is nothing going to change that so we need to address where to go from here. Although it is turning out that the situation in Iraq is presenting itself as a strong possibility many of the troops may be able to leave soon, this has only been possible because the surge in troops has allowed the Iraqi forces to get up to speed and will soon be able to provide security for its nation. Many Obama supporters will use this a proof that he was right about bringing the troops home but the success would not have been possible the other way around. The surge was supported by John McCain and denounced by both Obama and Biden as not a possibility of succeeding which proved to be wrong.

Leaving Iraq before the job was done and victory achieved would only embolden the enemy. This may sound like just a campaign phrase but it carries great meaning. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and were later repeled, by the help of the U.S., this embolded the Afghans. They realized the enemy could or would not be willing to sustain the casualties to bring about victory. Not only did that series of events strengthen the resolve against the Soviets it empowered them to believe they could expel any forces and especially the U.S. "If they can defeat the Soviets they surely can defeat the Americans, they do not have the stomach for a tough battle" is a mindset I heard to describe their resolve. With all the political postering here in the U.S. they were just about right. All that talk just strengthen their beliefs. Every time they hear American politicians or large groups of war protestors or movies made against our President they realize it is only a matter of time.

One of the major complaints about the way President Bush handled the situation in Iraq was that he was stubborn, unwilling to admit his mistakes and change course. Senator Obama was on the O'Reilly Factor recently and was asked about the surge. His response was that the surge was successful beyond anyone's wildest imagination but he was unwilling to admit he was wrong. First, if he possesses the same stubbornness as he and the Dems claim lead to the "failed policies" of Pres. Bush in Iraq why would we expect him to be any different? Second, it was not beyond anyone's wildest imagination. It wasn't even beyond any other candidate's wildest imagination. John McCain imagined it.

Barack Obama has the world hoping he will win this election. On a recent MTV awards show a Brittish comedian begged Americans to elect Barrack Obama and mocked the President. His great orator skills has persuaded the world that his demeanor will help the world deal with terror. The problem is the terroists, including Iran, hold positions that leave no room for negotiation. Eliminating evil zionists of Israel or the evil empire of the U.S. does not leave a starting point of negotiation.

I believe our national security is the most important issue of this election. It used to be our postion on the globe provided natural barriers to our enemies but no more. The U.S. is accessible to major terrorist damage and this must be the most important role of our federal government. Since 911 we have not been subject to any more attacks. President Bush has been so successful on this front it just might work against John McCain's biggest strength. American memories are short so their attentions have turned to our struggling economy.

Comparing the two candidates on our nation's security looks obvious. John McCain and Joe Biden have experience but Biden has made vital errors in judgement on several fronts. His plan in Iraq called for dividing it into 3 secular regions with a weak central government as well as opposing the surge. Biden's plan would have supported the Muslim's community claim we wanted to dismantle Iraq and prevented the success we have achieved today. Sarah Palin and Barack Obama have little to no foreign policy experience. This leaves the obvious observation that you can elect a candidate with great experience with a potential inexperienced backup or you can elect an inexperience leader with a potential experienced backup. Not sure if that is really a question. If you have any questions, just listen to Senator Biden.

Vice Presidents II

Last week Obama chose Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate and I am on record as saying that, for the most part, I think it was a good pick. I think in a debate against almost any other potential candidate on foreign affairs he will sound more informed, more passionate. His problems include a case of verbal diarrhea (talks too much until he sticks his foot in his mouth), he has been proven wrong on many of the foreign policy opinions (dividing up Iraq and the surge), as one of the longest running Senator's in Washington he deemphasizes Obama's claim for "change" and he acts as an admission of Obama's lack of experience

This week is McCain's turn to show his decision making ability. McCain's short list was dwindled down to a handful. Joe Lieberman, Independent Senator would have shown McCain's "Maverick" side by choosing a running mate from the other side of the party. This choice would have divided his own party. Governor Mitt Romney would have secured the conservative base but he has does nothing to excite the electorate. Governor Tim Pawlenty would have been another safe pick but maybe too safe and too boring. John McCain stepped back into his "maverick" role and chose a female running mate, Governor Sara Palin, another "maverick", from the great state of Alaska.

Sarah Palin does a lot for John McCain. She is not only a very capable woman, she is from a hard working middle class family, she was a member of a union and her husband is still in a union. These qualifications will resonate with the middle class voters in the key states of the Midwest. After the Democrats convention and the feeling of disrespect many of the Hilary supporters felt was shown her by the DNC and the Obama campaign, she offers an alternative choice of breaking the glass ceiling although her pro-life stance will hurt her with women. She ran on an anti-corruption platform and has done much to clean up the way the government runs in Alaska as well as appointing Democrats and Independents to her administration which will play well people who people fed up with the way Washington is run. She has tackled government waste and even got rid of the Governor's jet. She is conservative, more than John McCain, and is an avid hunter and is a pro-choice candidate, as stated earlier, which will go a long way in securing the base. She was an athlete, a working mom and very attractive which cannot hurt.

The negatives of this pick are few in my estimation and each have a positive spin in comparison. She has little experience in politics being only the Governor for only 2 years as compared to Obama who has been in the Senate for 3 ½ years (half of that has been spent campaigning) and Biden who has been there forever. Although limited, it is Executive experience which none of the other candidates can boast as well as the experience is outside of Washington and when the theme of campaigning this year is change, her experience has value. Her lack of foreign policy experience somewhat moots the McCain emphasis of Obama's inexperience. Another problem might be the recent revelation that her teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. In a party that champions moral values her opponents will be attempt to spin this bad but that may backfire. Her daughter is not running for office and to challenge Palin's parenting because she works and her daughter got into a bit of trouble will play poorly with working women as well as parents of teenagers who almost all know is challenging. Finally, the incident with the Director of Public Safety's firing is a potential problem but we will have to see how it plays out.

Barrack Obama chose a running mate to strengthen his weaknesses while John McCain chose a running mate that secures his base with appeal to voters in demographics he needed help. Both made their ticket stronger. The way I see it, Palin is exactly what this country needs and is what both candidates are claiming they want to do for the country. I think the more we learn about her the more people will endure her qualities but it is up to how the media will spin her values. Clean up government and make it work for the people like it is supposed to not for the politician. Biden emphasizes the status quo of federal government politics, not change. In addition, Biden acts as an admission of Obama's lack of experience on foreign affairs. The Dems ticket is upside down, with experience on the bottom of the ticket.

NOW, let the race begin.

Vice Presidents

Just on the eve of the conventions, the candidates must now choose their running mates. Vice Presidents typically have very little authority in the administration. Their job description is to rarely find themselves in the same location as the President (in case the President comes under attack) and to sit around and wait for something to happen to the President so he/she can assume their responsibilities. If the administration ends on a positive note, the economy is doing fine and the country is in no crisis, there is an added perk to the position. He/she becomes heir-apparent to their party's nomination. Although the VP has done little for the previous eight years, the party deems this person ready to become next in line to the throne (in a manner of speaking.)

There are several schools of thought regarding what characteristics the VP should possess. Some believe is should be someone who can help the ticket carry a potential pivotal state while others believe he/she should be strong in areas where the candidate himself is weak and still others carry the conviction that the VP should mirror the candidate's position to unite the party or contrast the positions to collect more Independent votes. Whatever strategy you adhere to there is just as much evidence that the opposing your view.

There has been many prominent democrats mentioned as Senator Barark Obama potential running mate including the second place finisher in the campaign, Hillary Clinton, who garnished nearly as many votes and delegates as Barack himself yet he went with another candidate who received very few votes Senator Joseph Biden out of Delaware. The scars of the long drawn out nomination process must have been too deep for the obvious choice. There must have been so much animosity between the two that Obama's campaign never even vetted the runner-up. Instead, Sen. Obama went with a candidate that strengthens his obvious weaknesses. Obama is very inexperienced and lacks any foreign affairs background so he chose a candidate who the electorate felt was his only strengths. As a matter of fact, he chose a running mate who was rather vocal in his criticism of this weakness during the Democrat's debates. Rather peculiar for the "Candidate of Change" to one of the longest running members of the Senate!?!?

Actually, Senator Joseph Biden was a good choice in my estimation. He is very knowledgeable on foreign affairs, he is very good in a one on one interview and he has very similar liberal beliefs. The problems with Biden is he tends to talk too much until he makes a mistake and he comes off as unbelievable when campaigning. In the debates and on the stump he plasters on a fake smile and an insincere persona. Of all the democratic candidates I believe he would do the best job in the office but he has proved to be an inadequate campaign. In addition, he supported the war which the opposite has become the corner stone of the Obama campaign.

Who Senator John McCain chooses as his running mate is yet to be seen. It has been rumored that he might go with a governor of a key state, or someone who is strong on the economy (his self-described weakness) or in the way of the "maverick" John McCain is known he has even considered a democrat.

Although advisors and analysts are paid to make more out of this choice than, in all practicality, it really deserves the media will become obsesses with anyone rumored to be the running mate of the candidates.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/presvplist.html

Iran

Iran is a Muslim republic that is run by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei , and has final say in all internal and foreign policy and is elected by the Assembly of Experts. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , is in charge of the government but the Supreme Leader still has some executive powers such as over the military and declaring war.

The Muslim religion is a peaceful religion unless you talk about the fringe elements just as in any religion. (Catholics and Protestants fought for years in Northern Ireland.) The problem is today the Muslim fundamentalists are powerful, outspoken and have hijacked the religion in world’s view when reality is they are the minority. This minority is what is governing Iran. Ahmadinejad has made many inflammatory statements, “...the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime...”, Israel should be “wiped off the map”, the Holocaust is a “myth”, and more recently “the life of the regime has come to an end”. These statements clearly exhibit his intentions in the Middle East. Let’s make no mistake about it, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a terrorist and has supported terrorist activities in Iraq since the war began as well as others in the region.

Ahmadinejad has been acquiring the ability to enrich uranium, a process in attaining nuclear power/weapons. He states it is for energy purposes but his statements lead us to question his intentions. The U.S. has insisted they are developing nuclear weapons and has worked with the world community to put as much pressure on Iran to abandon their nuclear goal. The European community agreed this was more of a regional problem and worked to come up with their own solution to no avail. Israel has stated that they will use preemptive strikes to eliminate the threat only to have Iran as well as Russia claim that their response would be “devastating.” Israel has been carrying out military exercises to demonstrate they are capable of destroying Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran has given every indication they want to destroy Israel and is developing the nuclear weapons that can carry out the threat. Israel cannot wait to respond to Iran’s actions that would be devastating and too late. Iran is daring Israel to take action which would bring the world community down on them but it may be too costly to call Iran’s “bluff” if they are bluffing. Hopefully this plays out like the Cold War with the threats being enough to provoke restraint but this very well could be the beginning of something much bigger.

If attacked Iran promises to shut off the oil supply from the Persian Gulf and if you look at the map they could easily accomplish this feat. We would be talking gas prices 4 to 5 higher at the minimum. Talk about crippling our economy. We need to begin to drill for oil if for no other reason national security in case the unspeakable happens. If we wait and if what some say it will take 10 years to harvest the oil the U.S. as well as much of the free world suffer extreme hardship. I think this is a very real possibility considering the parties involved.

I hope all of you who think I am nuts can show me where my logic fails me

Race in Politics

Race stills plays a role in everyday life in America including politics and with the nomination of Senator Barack Obama it seems to be making the headlines on a regular basis. I am going to address a few aspects where race plays a role in today's politic but first a quick history lessons. The United States is a relatively new country. This new nation inherited a commerce that was highly depended upon slave labor. In a short period time this nation went to war against itself for one of several reasons, to abolish slavery. Americans today owe nothing to the descendants of slaves for their ancestors were the ones who risked their life to secure the slaves freedom.

Every person is prejudged by their appearance, the way they carry themselves and the way they speak. A beautiful person has advantages over a less attractive person. A wealthy person has many advantages over a poor person. Tall men have an advantage over short men. A white man in America has advantages over a minority. This is just human nature but it does not mean you cannot succeed. Your path to success may just be filled with a few more hurdles. You can fight it or you can accept it and work within the system. You cannot expect to change anyone's mind by continually demand more and more. You need to conform to the rules of the successful. Keep your underwear in your pants, put your hat on straight, walk like you are proud and with a purpose and for the love of God speak properly and respectful. Picture this in your mind:

A kid is walking down the street towards you. He has pants 3 sizes too big for him and they are pulled up just under his rear showing his boxers. He walks with a certain rhythm in his step and his head bobs from side to side. He wears a white tank undershirt known as a "wife beater" and has gold jewelry around his neck as well as in his mouth. He has a baseball cap on with a flat bill and turned to the side. What do you do? Do you fear nervous as he approaches?........What race did you depict the kid in your mind?

Bill Cosby has it right. The only way minorities are going to reduce prejudices and racism is by changing their stereotype. Take care of your own house before you expect to be treated differently. Take responsibility for your own actions and make those actions respectful to others and others will judge you differently. But what you cannot expect is to act antisocial and expect people to change how they treat you. Change must come from your own actions first and society will follow.

The black community has several self proclaimed leader, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Reverend Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhon all derive their power from claiming they speak for the black community. If there is a situation with an apparent racial bias these men are quick to the news media to condemn the so called perpetrator of the injustice and sometimes followed by investigating the actual facts of the case. If the offender happens to be the police these leaders are even more enthusiastic about their representation. The problem with this profession is they are actually holding down the people and issues they are trying to promote. You cannot continually tell people they are getting cheated and expect them not to hold the powers to be with contempt. You cannot tell people they cannot succeed because they are being held down and expect them to play within the system which is the only way to succeed. Terrorists find sanctuary in failed or failing states, they thrive in poor communities and they prey on endemic poverty and despair. To a degree, many of the black leaders use the same strategy to derive their power. I look at it this way, if my kid thought they were getting an unfair chance at something, how would I advice them. Would I tell them to protest and keep yelling for equality or would I tell them to try harder and make it harder for the powers to exclude you?

Now Barack Obama and his quest for the Presidency of the U.S: Many think he has to overcome prejudices to succeed and this puts him at a disadvantage. I say this is huge advantage for him. Yes there are people who would never vote for an African American but there are more people voting for him BECAUSE of his race. The black community is almost unanimously in his corner just like there is a large contingent of white Americans who support him because they believe electing a black president will be a huge step in solving racial equalities in America. Being black may cause some to pull the opposite lever but more are pulling his lever because of his color and that is just as wrong.

MEDIA BIAS

I have never been a big proponent of media bias. There is a common belief among conservatives that the main stream media has a bias towards the Democratic Party but, until recently, I have been a little skeptical of this observation. Of course the media has championed issues that the Democrats call their own but there is a reason for that. The media loves stories that have an appeal to the public. They are trying to attract viewers or readers or listeners and there are stories that accomplish this and there are stories that do not.

Democrats are hand-me-downs from the Nationalists from the first congress and they believe in a strong federal government, so they support issues that give more and more control to the federal government. If they see a problem, they want the federal government to fix the problem. This is the exact opposite of Republicans. Republicans are the ancestors of the ones who originally opposed a strong central government, later called the Wigs. They believe that the states should control their own destinies and the federal government should do only what a federal government can do basically defense, diplomacy and interstate issues. Just by the shear nature of their existences, the Democrats support issues that make good stories and that will pull on the heart strings of the American public. So although the media and the Democratic Party are normally on the same page, it is a self serving partnership for both entities. Columbine makes a good story for the gun control issue. Katrina makes a good story for federal social programs. The working class poor make a good story for national health care. All these are Democrat issues. What is a good story for personal responsibility? Fiscal responsibility? Both Republican issues.

With all that being said, let's talk about Barack Obama. Barack is definitely the story of this presidential race. The media attention given to Senator Obama mirrors that of a rock star and so he has been nicknamed. Is this a case of the media following the story or creating the story? I think it a little bit of both but it is definitely given him an unfair advantage over his rival John McCain. The atmosphere in American politics is bland and Obama has proclaimed himself a "Candidate of Change", an exciting concept although empty (see previous post where I discuss this). The media has taken the buzz Obama started and turned it into a frenzy. Senator McCain has gone to the Middle East several times with minimal coverage but when Senator Obama goes for the first time it draws the attention of all three major networks anchors, not just correspondents but the public leader of the networks, the anchors. Recently Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times but when McCain wrote a response they denied him stating it did not mirror Obama's piece. I think few can defend this decision from a known left wing slanted publication.

Fox News Network has deemed themselves "Fair and Balanced", a description the Democrats have always disputed. Are they fair and balanced or do Democrats argue the point because they are use to a media bias? I will agree that a majority of the programming on the network is more conservative than liberal but their presentation of the actual news is what is in question and I cannot disagree. One morning I watched the news on Fox and heard that the unemployment numbers were nearly the lowest since they kept records although they were hoping for a little lower. I stopped to get breakfast where they were playing CNN on the TV and there story reported, "Unemployment numbers fall short". They put a negative slant on a very positive report. I think the biggest argument for Fox's objectivity is the Hillary Clinton campaign who recently declared that "Fox has been more than fair" and a chief strategist, Howard Wolfson, has joined Fox claiming that it is "distinctively fair." Not that Fox has changed but at least for the Hillary Campaign the media appears a little different from the outside looking in.

Candidate of Change?


This blog is addressing the issue of Sen. Barrack Obama as the “Candidate of Change”. I am not addressing his candidacy as a whole but the title he bestowed upon himself.

The media has helped dub Barrack Obama the “candidate of change.” With all the discontent in America today regarding, primarily, the economy change must be a good thing…. or maybe not. I imagine pre-WWII Germany wanted change and voted the great leader Adolf Hitler, was that good change? I traded in my old Chevrolet Vega for Ford Pinto then found out they tend to burst into flames in rear end accidents, was that a good change? I think I made my point that just because something is not considered good at the time change for change sake is not always good.

Barrack Obama has said he will bring change to Washington. I think most everyone will agree that the partisan way Washington works is not an effective way to run a country. What makes anyone think Barrack will be able to bring members from both side of the isle together? Barrack was considered the most liberal member of congress in 2007, which does not sound like he will be able to unite the two parties. Maybe people just want to change the party leading the country. Well, most of the economic problems began in 2006, exactly when the Democrats took over the control of the congress. This country has always given the President too much credit/blame for market conditions. When the economy makes one it’s cyclical turns we need to change leadership. Stupid!

Maybe people sense change from the way Obama campaigned. When a candidate gets behind they usually tend to go negative on the other candidate, to knock their opponent down a notch. Early on in the Democratic primary Barrack was the front runner, he was the candidate that needed to be knocked down. Almost from the beginning he did not need to close the gap by using negative campaign ads against his opponent(s). Even after he won the nomination and the Presidential campaigning has begun he is the odds on favorite to become the next President. Yet, he has always found a way to negative on his opponents. He took shots at the Clinton presidency, indirectly attacking Hillary. When he directly attacked Hillary he claims he was just pointing out differences. Recently he has resorted to using surrogates to attack his opponent and then he dismisses the charge. This way he gets the attack out there and appears to me magnanimous. Wesley Clark’s attacking Sen. McCain’s military record at the same time Sen. Obama dismisses the charge was pretty transparent to the thinking public. Obama originally said he would operate within the rules of public financed campaigning. This way both candidate would be on equal ground and no one would have a money advantage but since he realized he could raise more money he has flipped on that pledge. Politics as usual, fair is fair unless he can gain an advantage. He may have changed the look of a campaign but the tactics remain the same.

If we need real change, we need to change the type of individual running for the public office. We need individuals with values, conviction and courage: Values to know what is right and wrong for the country and not for the individual, Conviction to stand up for what is right and to fight to change what is wrong, Courage to resist the temptations that have found their home in Washington. At this point we do know if Barrack Obama has these characteristics. All we do know is that he is not the Candidate of Change he would like America to think he is.

We once had a baby sitter we did not feel proved to be competent so we wanted to make a change. Did we hire the best looking or the best speaking individual who applied? Did we hire someone because they were from a certain race or gender? Did we hire someone just because they were from a group different than the one we fired? No we looked into the qualifications of each applicant and hired the most qualified. Now we are looking for someone to run the most powerful nation in the world. Don’t you think that requires the same due diligence?

Energy Crisis

I thought it only suiting to follow up manmade Global Warming with an assessment on energy. Gasoline prices have soared to over $4 a gallon in the US and estimates only predict prices going higher. I have heard from some that Bush is an oil man and since he took office the oil companies have recorded record profits so prices must be the result of the “failed policies” of this administration. The prices have definitely risen since W’s election so what are the policies he has enacted that have caused the prices to soar?

Both President Bush and Congress can share credit/blame for ethanol. Uncle Sam began subsidizing Ethanol production in 1978 and has done nothing but increase since to the tune of $7 billion in 2006. The goal of ethanol was to reduce our dependency on oil and reduce greenhouse gases, a noble cause! Ethanol is blended into the gasoline to reduce our oil consumption 10-12%, but at what cost? Ethanol is 20-30% less efficient than gasoline, it takes 450 pounds of corn to fill one SUV (that would feed one person for a year) and takes 1700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol which also adds a corrosion element into the equation. On top of all this, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested & shipped using as much fossil fuels as the process produces. (Unconfirmed) With the ethanol producers consuming a large amount of the corn crop, what do you think this has done to the food supplies as well as the price of many of our foods?

Withh the emergence of the economies of China and India the world knew the demand for oil was going to exceed the supply so basic economics tell us the price goes up. What has the President or Congress done to affect this foreseen problem? US oil companies are very small in their industry. They must buy 90% of the crude they refine from foreign companies or governments, usually hostile. It is estimated the US sitting on some of the largest fossil fuel reserves in the world and yet the federal government will not allow US oil companies to tap into these natural resources for “environmental” reasons. If they were able they could be a much larger player in the market and actually influence price.

The largest reserves are in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). ANWR is roughly 19 million acres and it would take approximately 2,000 acres to drill for this oil & natural gas. The portion of ANWR where they want to drill is in the Coastal Plains region on the northern part of the refuge. The “environment” in the area is tundra, a virtual vast wasteland.

It has been said that it will take years for ANWR’s oil to make a difference in the price at the price but that the effect would almost be immediate. The price of oil is not determined by supply and demand of the oil but for the demand of oil futures. So as soon as the US government allows oil companies to drill in currently prohibited areas the speculators would change the price the price of the oil. The problem is that speculators are a small part of the market so their affect is minimal.

We are told we need to develope "alternative" energy sources yet the alternatives are blocked from being developed. France derives 75% of its electrical energy from nuclear energy. Over decades of improvements have made this form of energy safe yet, once again, many in Congress block any new nuclear power plants from being built. When a wind farm was proposed on the windy island of Cape Cod, Senator Edward Kennedy effectively blocked the project to protect the view from his Nantucket home.

The President as well as Republican nominee John McCain proposed drilling while the Democrats are blocking all efforts as well as other sources of energy. I can only speculate the Democrats reasoning and that I will. First, I believe they are puppets to the environmentalist lobbyists. They are paying off a debt, plain and simple. Second, these are just political issues they can use to make the President look bad. Just keep the American public complaining so they will elect a President from their party. Third, I believe this goes to the overall desire to get the US off a dependency for fossil fuels. An artificial high price for gasoline is the only way Americans will change their habits and reduce their dependency on oil. This may be a national security issue, it may be a future economy issue or it may be ozone issue… It all goes back to the Global Warming debate and today’s America is paying for future generations.

I will address the candidate’s plans for energy in future posts.

GLOBAL WARMING

First, I must admit Al Gore is a genius. He creates a crisis that will have 2 outcomes which both make him look like a hero. If the world changes as he predicts, Al was the alarmist who informed the world of the problem. If the world does not go through the problems he predicts, he gets credit for helping put the world back on track with his policy changes. In addition, he predicts unpredictable weather patterns during this climate change, giving him credit for Mother Nature's fury. Genius!

The flaw in his theory is the composition of greenhouse gases. The largest component of the greenhouse gases is water vapor. In fact, the CO2 Al Gore claims to be the major factor to global warming is less than 10% and man is only responsible for less than 10% of total CO2 in the atmosphere so that makes man responsible for less than 1% of the total greenhouse gases. Hardly enough to change the climate of the earth. He tells us 1998 was the hottest year in history and the CO2 levels were high. You know what else happened in 1998, El Nino. This weather phenomena caused a lot of precipitation from a lot of water vapor, excess greenhouse gases and a hot globe.



Most of the "Inconvenient Truth" dealt with the suggestive consequences of global warming not proving man is responsible, effectively scaring people. The time the movie did deal with the proving it used faulty data or results from inaccurate cause & effect. When he shows the correlation between CO2 levels and the earth temperature it is very convincing until you realize rising CO2 levels follow the rise in temperatures, meaning the change in the climate causes the rise in CO2 and not vise-versa. Bottom line, although there are signs the earth's surface is heating, the data does not support the conclusion that man is the cause.

Once an idea is placed in one's mind everything then appears to support the hypothesis often ignoring other obvious facts. This week it has been reported that the North Pole has a great chance of totally melting. Obviously Al Gore's global warming has caused this phenom, or did it? I do not know the answer for sure but just last week it was reported (not by the major networks) that volcanic activity has been reported below the North Pole. All that molten lava pouring into the ocean below the pole could not be causing the pole to melt. Right or wrong, it did not support the popular global warming so it did not make the headlines.

It has always been said that you can tell the validity of an argument by watching the conviction of the participants. Al Gore has won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for championing global warming but do his actions back up his words. Since his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" his carbon footprint has gone up. So he thinks we all need to become less dependent on fossil fuels while he uses more. The only conviction Al Gore has on the subject is his bank account which has benefited from his global warming campaign.

If you are interested in seeing the other side of "The Inconvenient Truth" I suggest you watch the movie "Global Warming or Global Governance?". I have attached a link to ots website. http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.com/ I found a copy on Ebay for a couple of dollars.