Blagojevich Plays Racism Card

Rod Blagojevich, the democratic governor of Illinois, has accused the opposition to his senate appointment of being racists. See here.

There are no African-Americans in the Senate and I don't think anyone -- any U. S. Senator that's sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate ... Feel free to castigate the appointor but don't lynch the appointor.

I find it telling that the first reaction of democrats is to accuse their opponents of racism (while something like 98% of african-americans voted for Obama, but they aren't accused of being racists).

Why do people acknowledge this for what it is when Blagojevich does it, but not when the rest of the democrats do it?

Obama on Bush's Tax Cuts

President-elect Obama seemed to have a better feel for his tax policy during his general election campaign (and it wasn't very firm back then either as you can see from this clip). He's recently put all options on the table (including his bonus tax for the 95% highest income bracket, repealing president Bush's tax cuts, and removing both of these taxes).

In any case, Obama has admitted that the economy prospered under George W. Bush and this is why his tax cuts worked so well for generating government revenues.

Also: Obama's best card is his style (and that isn't a superficial card to play). Unfortunately he loses it a bit here in the rough and tumble interview with O'Reily.

2009 Inauguration Day

January 20th is the big day for Barack Obama.
I am curious to see what his wife will be wearing on that day? The campaigning is over. Is it safe to assume that all the socialist, oh, I am sorry they refuse to be called that name, what should we call them, liberals, will be perfectly content with her expensive attire?
I am sure she will also wear expensive evening gowns for the balls? Do you think she will wear only one gown to all the the balls? What woman would do such a thing? Will the press comment on the fact that during these dire economic times that the President's wife is flaunting her money and buying outrageous clothes? I think not. I put money on it that the press will go on and on about her style and class. I do believe ABC has already referred to her Jackie O style like attire.

What I think is sad, is the fact that Americans have to pay to be on the parade route. What I think is sad, is the fact that there is way too much money spent on that evening. It would be nice if the President spoke up and said that it was a waste and encouraged less balls. I would have been impressed if maybe he suggested that this year there should be a scaling back. Go to this site to see how many balls there are that evening. There are eight official balls and numerous unofficial ones. In addition the tickets for the parade route are $1395.00 a person.

Bottom line in the United States if we can figure out a way to make money off an event we will, that is the beauty of capitalism. I just don't care for hypocrites, you can't claim that you are not for it and then take part in it so shamelessly.

Raising Taxes is a BAD idea

We keep hearing it over and over no matter where in this great country you live: Democrats want to raise taxes to increase revenue.

It's a very bad idea. Raising taxes will actually hurt the economy. History has proven that when you decrease taxes, there is more money to put back into the economy.

When people have more money to spend, the spend it. This, in turn, allows more money to actually go back into play; and, in turn, end up actually paying more in taxes.

I figure this as well: by lowering taxes, I will have more money and will be much more likely to give charitably. So, all these social programs that my tax money is supposed to be going to, would benefit even more by lowering my taxes as well. When there is more money to be spent, people are more likely to share with others.

So, really what we should be looking at is lowering taxes to increase revenue as well as increasing revenue to charitable organizations. If the public can fund these programs on their own without taxes, how much better would that be for the socialists?

If their idea truly is to have citizens supporting each other, doesn't this make sense in the best way to do just that?

Confessions of Obama

Frank Rich, an op-ed writer at the New York Times, writes that George W. Bush and Barrack H. Obama have little in common. Very little.

They shouldn't even be compared at all.

In spite of Rich's claims, he also notes that Barrack Obama has invited Rick Warren -a pastor who claims homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia- to give his inauguration.

Would George W. Bush have ever done that?

Some bloggers are questioning whether the Obama administration could become George Bush's third term. [1], [2], and, ahem, [3]. This is exactly what the Obama campaign accused McCain of intending to do.

Obama's current approval ratings are high, something around 80%. Is this because of the radical leftist agenda he promised during the democratic primaries?

He has put several Republicans in his cabinet, most notably Gates. This seems to imply that Obama supports Bush's Iraq strategy -tabling his promise tell the joint chiefs to leave the region as soon as possible.

He has tabled all discussion of raising taxes -which he had promised to do during the general election.

Obama is no conservative, and he will not bring in George W. Bush's third term, but he seems to be making confessions. He seems to be agreeing with George W. Bush on the very issues he opposed during the campaign.

George W. Bush was an excellent president, and I wish Obama would have admitted it sooner.

The Price of Communism

Here are some tidbits on the Soviet Union I recently come across at this website:

In 1917, soon after the communists took control, the leaders began mass executions to impose communism on the people. It is mistakenly believed that Stalin was the only Russian who instituted mass killings, but Lenin and Trotsky were responsible for 4 million deaths.

Most of these deaths were the result of a state-sponsored famine. "The Bolsheviks started a massive program of confiscating the food of the countryside, and starved them into submission. The monsters Lenin and Trotsky deliberately started a famine as a political weapon. They caused the massive famine of 1921-2, deliberately killing 2.5 million men, women and little children, according to [Rudolph J. Rummel], or 5 million, according to [The Black Book of Communism]."

By 1920, the Russian currency (the ruble) lost 96% of its value. [The Russian leaders all knew their communism was destroying the economy ... their New Economic Policy deliberately allowed some forms of capitalism to continue because they knew it was far more successful than communal methods of redistribution.

Between 1932 and 1933, the Soviet Union deliberately starved to death 7 million Ukrainians. "Their food was stolen by the government, and every measure was taken to prevent them obtaining any food." (See the article on Holodomor on wikipedia).

The number one killer of Soviet citizens during world war II was the Soviet Union. "Even in wartime, Stalin's regime was killing more of its own people than even an invading barbaric army [Germany] could."

Estimates of Stalin's "Great Terror" range between four and eleven million people. By comparison six million people died in the Holocaust ... yet there are many laws against displaying Nazis symbols in the European Union and no laws against displaying Soviet symbology.

The mass killings by Joseph Stalin alone rank the third highest among the top three blood baths in history according to Twentieth Century Alias. The only two higher were Mao Zedong's regime and WWII (which included many of Stalin's victims).

Also check out this wikipedia link regarding "population transfer" (i.e. genocide) in the Soviet Union.

Also check out this link regarding human rights in the Soviet Union (which were considered expendable for the good of the whole). Soviet citizens had no right to vote, no right to practice religion, heavily suppressed access to literature, no property rights with regard to real estate, and no freedom to relocate or visit other locations within the USSR.

Another one worth reading is the Wikipedia article on the suppression of research in the Soviet Union, which notes how the Soviet Union suspended censored actual scientific research and funded their own pseudo-sciences.

TIME's 10 Ten Scandal List

TIME magazine recently released its list of the top 10 scandals of the year.

1) Eliot Spitzer Resigns
2) AIG's spa treatment for execs
3) Jonathan Edwards
4) Miley Cyrus photos
5) Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe
6) Teen pregnancies in Gloucester
7) Ted Stevens
8) Some obscure foreigner's scandal
9) Detroid mayor jailed
10) Lip Syncing in the olympic ceremonies

There is no mention of the Blagojevich's scandal trying to sell Obama's seat. What about the scandal of Obama promising to bankrupt the coal industry (which supplies 40% of the nation's energy)? What about Obama complaining the constitution gets in the way of "redistribution"?

Instead of looking at the serious scandals we hear about Sarah Palin's wardrobe "scandal" (when the democratic candidates get free clothes from their tailors and she had not asked for the clothes) and about Ted Stevens who had a free wing added to his house.

I dropped my subscription to TIME magazine because it was totally editorializing everything in the news. It's like the media is saying, "Yeah, we got Obama elected, and that's our right to do that. We're basically the fourth branch of the government."

Nothing is respectable about the coverage here. Obama was at the top of several of their lists. The man has done nothing except promise to take away what people earn, and his record is pro-marijuana and pro-infanticide.

Bush Legacy

I definitely recommend checking out this article by Ed Gillespie detailing some of the statistics of the Bush administration. I haven't seen them spelled out so well.

Some excerpts from the article:

The economic growth spurred by tax relief also spurred growth in Federal tax receipts. In fact, the Federal Treasury realized the largest three-year increase of revenue in 26 years, and tax receipts grew more than $542 billion between 2000 and 2007. And yes, much of that money went to investments in health care and education.

...

Despite the heated rhetoric over children's health insurance (S-CHIP) legislation last year, estimates from a 2007 Federal survey show that the number of uninsured children under the age of 18 actually declined by 800,000 from 2001 to 2007. From 2007 to 2008, the number of people covered by affordable and portable Health Savings Account-eligible plans increased 35 percent.

...

From 2001 to 2007, air pollution decreased by 12 percent, and fine particulate matter pollution is down 17 percent since 2001.

...

Some other items that are infrequently mentioned about the real record of the Bush Administration but are worth noting: Teenage drug use has declined 25 percent; in 2007, the violent crime rate was 43 percent lower than the rate in 1998; between 2005 and 2007, the chronically homeless population decreased approximately 30 percent; funding for veterans' medical care has increased more than 115 percent; and as of 2005, the most recent abortion rate is at its lowest since 1974.

And one last fact: Our homeland has not suffered another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. That, too, is part of the real Bush record.

I often get tired of listening to people say, 'Well, president Bush created an incentive to do this, but people are not going to are' Or, 'He created a punishment to doing it, but people are going to do drugs anyway.'

The War on Drugs is succeeding, the War on Terrorism is succeeding, and the Bush tax cuts are succeeding. Obama seems to have reversed many of his earlier views on these issues to agree with president Bush.

Just as Roosevelt continued many of Hoover's depression response policies (and Hoover only got the blame), I'm afraid Bush may be remembered poorly in the short term. This last election was just an artifact of the propaganda media. I think history will recall the Bush administration favorably.

Sliding down the slippery slope

Have you heard about this story? Sure, it isn't happening hear in the USA, but it potentially could and it's scary!

A couple in Britain has screened her embryos used for IVF for the gene for breast cancer and only implanted those that did not carry that gene. So, a life isn't valuable if there is a chance that you might grow up and develop cancer?

Sure, the intention is there, but what happens to the life that screens as positive for the gene for cancer?

We create all this life and just toss it out so haphazardly. Does it really mean nothing? We want to create embryos to be used in stem cell research...oh wait, no we just want to use the embryos that aren't going to be used. But why have we created all this life to begin with?

This is a very slippery slope that we have come to; it will so very quickly slide into deciding which embryos are worthy to have come to term and which we will just nonchalantly toss out. Where will it end?

I understand the desire to want to have your own children; I understand that people will go to all lengths to give birth to their very own. In the meantime, children are being moved from one foster home to the next because they don't have a place to call home. If it's truly about creating a family, a place full of love and warmth, there are too many children that need to be adopted and cared for.

We need to put a stop to the practice of screening embryos and tossing the ones we don't like; because that's what's really happening.

The Blame

The Associated Press has recently suggested Barack Obama's chief-of-staff Rahm Emmanuel is threatened by the Blagojevich case. This has the possibility of tainting Obama's administration before it begins. I'm not sure I would have understood it this way myself, but if the Obama-loving AP says it, there must be something to it. New evidence shows Emmanuel had a lot more contact with governor Blagojevich than the transition team originally noted.

Also, in the news:

President-elect Obama has blamed regulators for the losses in the sub-prime mortgage market. See the article here. Fox News has interpreted this as Obama attacking his own party ... and I don't see any other way to interpret it. Barney Frank was the main overseer of the subprime regulations. I can't imagine what would happen if Barack Obama had made this accusation during the general campaign ...

Disagreeing with Obama (for a change), the New York Times is said (by Matt Drudge to be preparing to blame president Bush for the collapse in the sub-prime market. Apparently, they are going to put this to press on Monday. I don't see how they can make the case: none of the Democratic leaders blamed President Bush when it would have been very politically expedient to do so. My hunch is the New York Times is hemoraging it's subscribers who have become loathe to its bias disguised as "news".

Update

For those of you who live in California, now is the time to act. This is an update from my last post. Democrates attempted to put through an illegal vote yesterday by calling all the tax increases fees and claiming they only need a majority vote rather than the 2/3 vote for a tax.

Arnold only vetoed it because there were other apects he didn't like and wouldn't even comment on the legality of the issue. To the untrained ear, it sounded like he would have approved this illegal budget had it had the other cuts he wanted.

This is absolutly scary around here! Since when can a politician basically say that they don't like the way budget negotiations are going so they're going to pass an illegal budget anyway.

Oh, I'm fuming mad and making many calls today. They cannot get away with this. We need to act fast!

Entitled Leaders

Two conservative voices objected yesterday to the way the press is pushing Caroline Kennedy to the Senate. They both expressed unfairness in comparison to the exact opposite treatment received by Sarah Palin.

Emily Yoffe mentioned in one of her Slate.com articles (which you can read here) that Sarah Palin was accused of being totally inexperienced by the media, even though she was elected by the people as governor (among other positions). Caroline Kennedy has never been elected for anything. No one has voted for her. She hasn't served in any public office.

However ill-prepared Palin was for the vice presidency, she was chosen to run because she got elected governor of Alaska. And she did that without money, connections, or a famous name.

Emily also suggests giving the position away to someone as an entitlement sends a message to children that the successful are handed their success while those who work to achieve are left in the dust.

Rush Limbaugh also claimed:

It is kind of interesting, though, folks, it's quite illustrative to sit here and have ostensibly a serious conversation about the qualifications of Caroline Kennedy, which are zip, zero, nada. I mean let's be honest, there are none, in the real sense, and yet, and yet the Drive-Bys spent months, the Democrats telling us Sarah Palin is not qualified, and she's a governor! She's been elected to a number of offices.

Also, liberal blogger Pat Oliphant is dismayed. His comic is posted here and I've reposted it here:

(The picture at the top of Caroline Kennedy eating with the uppidy Al Sharpton in a semi-snobby restaurant is courtesy of newsday.com. Check out their articile criticising this appointment prospect here).

PBS Racism

Gwenn Ifill -who recently presented herself as an unbiased moderator in the Vice Presential debate- had this to say last Friday about her companions on stage:

"Here we are in the year that we elected the first African-American President, and I get to share the stage with four white guys."

Here is the source.

Can you believe we are paying this woman with our tax dollars? Can you imagine what would happen if someone had said this about sharing the stage with four black guys?

Yahoo today released a poll saying entertainers and journalists are the least trusted of all workers. I don't find that hard to believe.

They'll only "negotiate" if they can raise taxes

Still no budget here in California and, to make matters worse, the Republicans have proposed a great budget, just like the governator had requested, and neither the Democrats nor the Governor are willing to accept it.

The way I see it, they don’t want to accept it because it would mean not taking more of our money through taxes or “fees”. They will be able to get $6.5 billion dollars just by redirecting funds that are currently not being used:

• 2.1 billion would come from Prop 10 monies which are currently not being used. This money is directed for early childcare centers; I work in a funded center and I can tell you, we don’t need that money. Sure, some of it comes in handy; however there are times when we are buying junk that we don’t need because it’s there. Knowing that there is that much left over…that’s a lot of wasted money!

• 3.9 billion would come from Prop 63 monies which are not being used. This money is directed for mental health issues. Now, I haven’t talked to anyone personally in this field, but from the reports I’ve read and heard, this money would be missed about as much as the Prop 10 money would be missed in the early childhood care centers.
  
• 484 million would come from some fund transfers.
  
  

That’s it. There is no more money coming out of the tax payer’s pockets or hands. The Republicans are seeing exactly what the public is seeing: there already is more than enough money available to them and not enough for us.

So, how does that compare to what the Democrats and Governor want to do? Every one of their plans involves raising taxes in many forms:

• (Democrats) 5.7 billion to increase the vehicle license “fee” (read tax) to 2% of the vehicle’s value. (Schwarzenegger) has a similar idea, but it would just be a flat $12 per vehicle to give a 451 million increase to revenue
  
  
• (Democrats) 2.4 billion to increase the income tax and freezing the tax brackets rather than letting them adjust with inflation. Now, Schwarzenegger doesn’t want to increase the INCOME tax…no he has other plans (read on)
  
  
• (Schwarzenegger) 9.1 billion sales tax increase by 1.5 cents for 3 years (cause of course they’ll drop it back down after 3 years and forget the fact that we have one of the highest sales tax in the country)
  
  
• (Schwarzenegger) 1.4 billion sales tax on services not currently taxed (things like taking your pet to the vet, amusement parks, sporting events, and of course let’s hit those cars up again with a tax on vehicle repairs)
  
  
• (Schwarzenegger) 1.2 billion for a 9.9% tax per barrel on oil extracted from California
  
  
• (Schwarzenegger) and last but not least 829 million by raising excise tax on alcohol to 5 cents a drink
  
  

Of course, according to the Democrats they are willing to “negotiate”; to them this means that they will be willing to make SOME cuts if the Republicans would just agree to increasing taxes.

Let’s see, the Republicans are willing to cut 15.6 billion dollars from the budget, the Governator 9.3 billion, and a whopping 4.5 billion for the Democrats. Who really is serious about get our budget back in order?

Everyone is willing to cut spending on the schools: 10.6 billion from the Republicans, 4.5 billion for Democrats, and 3.2 billion for Schwarzenegger. From what I see, way more than all that combined gets WASTED in the schools every year.

At least Schwarzenegger and the Republicans are close to what should be cut in SSI/SSP. When looking at the Democrats, it seems they aren’t willing to cut more than 750 million for ANY program other than the schools.

The Republicans specifically say they want to cut 738 million from UC and CSU by increasing the student fee and eliminating in-state tuition for UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS! I seriously want to know HOW they can get in-state tuition if they aren’t legal residents here. Someone want to explain that to me anyway?

There is also an agreement from the Republicans and Schwarzenegger in cutting spending on transit grants. I am all for this considering how little the transit is used in this state anyway. Oh, the Democrats are willing to cut, but only 156 million.

My favorite, the Republicans actually have proposed a 5% pay cut to the legislation! They see that if they are cutting from everywhere else, they need to cut themselves as well. I admire that!

A message to the California Republicans: Keep up the amazing work, stay strong, we are all rooting for you!

Time for Choosing

This speech for the Goldwater campaign is considered by some to be the speech that launched president Reagan's career. If you're as young as I am, you might not have gotten a chance to hear it for yourself.

I recommend giving it a watch. It's only 4:15 long.



Below are some of my favorite quotes. You're better off watching him say it the way he says it, though, and not reading the words here.

Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

Thanks to the Holcombe's for posting the transcript.

The Press Opens Up

The shoes were thrown by at president Bush by an Iraqi reporter.

And once again, the people who are supposed to be "objective" are the ones pushing an agenda.



"It is the farewell kiss, you dog!" He shouted.

So much for letting people form their own opinions.

View the article here.

You can watch the video here.

(Nice duck, Mr. President!)

Who To Trust?

The FBI has recently claimed Illinois has the most corrupt state government in the nation. Fortunately, Yahoo has told us what to think about that:

And while the AP is writing about how Obama used his wits, his intelligence, and his common sense to remain 'above the fray' of Illinois corruption, the liberals are openly criticizing Obama (never thought I would see that happen).

Obama's most recent critics have included Pennslyvania governor Ed Rendell and talk show host Ed Schultz. Both of them think Obama could have been more up front about the whole Blagojevich scandal.

Here's my take. Governor Blagojevich -who tried to sell Obama's Senate seat- cursed Obama on FBI recordings for not offering payment to install Obama's pick for the position. Good for Obama, to not give into corruption and bribery.

What's bad for Obama is that many, many lies have been circulated by his staff -saying at times of convenience that they had been talking with the governor about the selection and other times that they hadn't. Secondly, Obama was reluctant to call for the governor's resignation.

Emanuel Rahm is now on the hot seat. ABC News reports how Rahm (and the entirety of the staff) are avoiding questions about their previous statements.

Ben Smith at the Politico has surmised that Obama has tried to keep a fairly neutral policy toward Illinois corruption. Neutrality (often a foe of earnesty) is what is not in Obama's favor. If he knew about scandalous offers made by Blagojevich, he should have reported the information to the authorities.

In my opinion, to have secretly overlooked the offenses of the governor (which other 'clients' refused to do) and not reported them to the authorities is really to have condoned and enabled them. Obama is not entirely clean on this one.

Here's my breakdown:

Earnesty of Blagojavich: 30%
Tried to look one way while he was acting another way.
At least he leaned toward one side: money.

Earnesty of Obama: 60%
Refused to bribe a wayward official,
but also somewhat neutral in the face of lawlessness.

Earnesty of Yahoo: 20%
Earnesty of the Associated Press: 20%
They pretend to be the news, but they'd rather slip us their opinions.

Earnesty of Ed Rendell: 80%
Earnesty of Ed Schultz: 80%
Not conservative, but earnest to admit their leader's faults.
Hard to know if it had more to do with expedience.

It's been 5 months!

Out here in California, we had the “benefit” of not having a state budget until well into September. Those of us who worked for state-funded programs had to sit by and hope that there would be money to run the program until it was finally passed while those who were creating this budget were still collecting their paychecks. Why shouldn’t they get paid by our tax money when the rest of it is being held up by their lack of competency to finally get a budget passed?

Within a month after the budget was passed, our fine Governor called them all back to redo the budget because we were already not going to be balanced according to the first quarter’s revenues. Now, I do have to commend our Republican representatives for standing their ground and not allowing any tax increase. They said from the beginning that they would not approve a budget if it had even the slightest tax increase (or “fee” increase as they also like to use); and they stuck with it even when it looked like there was going to be no give.

However, we are at it again; they are in budget negotiations once again and, as usual, the Democrats are talking about raising taxes, increasing fees, etc… They have the full support of our “centralist” Governor who keeps coming out and telling everyone that the Republicans just keep saying no to all the budgets and will not “meet in the middle.”

No, they won’t meet in the middle. They have already said that they will not vote for any sort of tax increase. They have already stated that the only thing they will consider is a spending cut. I think they proved that they are willing to stand their ground until the right budget gets passed.

The thing is the rest of our fine representatives don’t want to cut spending. They want to increase spending. They want to increase taxes…oh but only for 3 years. Yeah, because every tax increase has been brought back after it’s time was up. We are still paying taxes on tires from World War I!

Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying "That is not the way to negotiate. You have to say this is what it takes and then I'm ready to increase the revenues." So, he and the Democrats have not learned; there is no “ready to increase the revenues.” That is just another code word for taxes!

I am extremely proud of my Republican representative for sticking his ground. I hope they all stay strong. Goodness knows they are the only ones there who are truly looking out for what the people want.

We want all of you to stop wasting our hard earned money! These Republicans will remain in office for a very long time if they keep it up.

Congressmen Lookout!

My fellow Americans it is time to stop voting just for your President. Please, we need to pay attention to our Congressmen. Obviously, our leaders in Congress have no respect for us. We should be outraged that they have placed a bill in the House about College Football. Unbelievable. Quite Frankly, as Americans we should be appalled. We should be making it quite clear that we will pay attention who votes 'yes' on this silly bill. We need to make it clear we will take the only course we can and vote them out of office.
I sincerely hope our President Elect, Obama, has learned a valuable lesson. He made an 'off the cuff' remark about the fact that he believed that there should be a play off system. Look what happened. Mr. Obama needs to be very careful about what he says in his new found position. Oh, but no one was worried about his lack of experience. Here we go!
I am saddened to see that two Representatives, Bobby Rush (D-Illinois) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas) placed such a bill in our Congress. Do these two Representatives not have enough to do for this country? They need to worry about College football? Maybe, Americans could submit in writing suggestions for these two gentlemen.
I must have missed that Congress has settled economy issues, immigration issues (I am sure Texas has concerns with that issue), Iraq, and the list could go on and on.
In closing, it us up to us to take care of Congress. The people in Congress need to feel that their position's are at stake. We have to vote for them just as zealously as we vote for the President.

Murder Rates

I found this piece of information from a fact-check organization interesting.

The counties that voted for Al Gore in 2000 were separated from the counties that voted for George Bush in the same election. The murder rates for these counties were aggregated and it came out to this in this:

Gore counties: 6.5 murders per 100,000 people.
Bush counties: 4.1 murders per 100,000 people.

Joe Excited About Sarah

Joe Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) has recently admitted to the Politico that he was appalled by John McCain. Wurzelbacher reported that he asked McCain hard questions and was dismayed by his reponse.

In particular Joe asked McCain how he could support the bailout when so many people were against it. Apparently the plumber was not very impressed by his reponse (I wasn't very impressed by McCain and Bush's support of the bailout).

Joe has mentioned that he is very excited about Sarah Palin. That's just about exactly the way I view the 2008 Republican ticket. When Joe was asked why he didn't speak of his dismay for McCain before the election, Joe said he was quiet about it because Barrack Obama sounded so much worse as a president than McCain. Honestly, I believe that if elections were held today (even without the Illinois Governor scandal) Sarah Palin would handsomely defeat Barrack Obama. For an extended length of the campaign Sarah Palin had higher favorability ratings than any of the other running mates.

Spread the Love

Did you know that today was "Day without a Gay"? Yeah, it hasn't gotten much publicity.

When I first heard about this, my first thought was, "huh? Why?" I mean, do they think they want to impact the economy like the illegals did a few years ago? And really, how does that help their message?

The illegals message was supposed to be, "You want to send us away but look at how it would hurt you." Well, I think we know how well that DIDN'T work for them. Seriously, that just showed us who were the illegals and, many people that I know, cut them loose; people hired legal workers to do their gardening and nannying. It worked out well for us in the end.

So, how exactly are "gay rights" related to the economy? And really, are they missing out on any rights? A gay couple can support each other on their insurance, they can open joint checking accounts, they can live together as a couple. No one is stopping them from doing anything other than getting married.

Oh, but wait, marriage is actually a religious act that most religions don't support them participating in. The only right they DON'T have is to infringe upon our religious beliefs. No one is stopping them from living as a united couple or family. Heck, they can even adopt children and get pregnant any way they choose.

What's this "Day without a gay" really about? Well, I looked it up (they have their own website). This day is: "A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love" This day is about having a day without love!

Well, since I'm not really feeling the love from a gay right now, I guess I'm not too worried. Besides, if you continue to read it says:

"On December 10, you are encouraged not to call in sick to work. You are encouraged to call in "gay"--and donate your time to service!"

Hm, so they ARE going to be spreading the love...to all sorts of non-profit organizations that, especially at this time of year, could really use the help. Maybe my agency will be getting some much needed volunteers.

Yeah, I think this is going to work out for them just as much as a day without an illegal worked for the illegals. What do you think?

Why go Off Shore?

Why doesn't the media research thoroughly why companies go off shore to build plants? Oh, that's right, the media is LIBERAL. (sorry for the caps) Sometimes, the frustration overtakes my fingers. They call themselves journalist and I want to puke. But, I am digressing from my original post.

Americans are constantly informed that companies go off shore to build plants because they get the land, buildings and people all super cheap. Actually, they insinuate that these companies go to other countries and 'rip' the other countries off big time. Whatever. Who determines the rip off numbers? Just because it would cost more here does not mean they are 'ripping' the other country off. The United States was founded on capitalism and therefore companies have a right to look out for their interest.
It is up to the United States and the American people to make it worthwhile for companies to want to invest in our country. What is preventing this?, Unions. Unions are stagnating company growth. Unions do not promote the interest for their workers anymore. At one time Unions were valuable but they are no longer needed. We have government agencies that protect worker rights. Unions are preventing worker growth. Employees feel protected by their Union and they have no incentive to get skilled and/or educated to better compete with their global competition.

Americans need to stop 'whining' about the companies. These companies have all the rights in the world to look for better opportunities. It is time for the employees to get off their bottoms and start fighting for their jobs.

Go to the link below to see why Americans are losing the battle and really have themselves to blame. Please note that it isn't a 'sweat shop' environment.
Really, that image needs to go away. Oh, that's right the media is liberal, how silly of me.

http://info.detnews.com/video/index/.cfm?id=1189

Smell the Tourists

Harry Reid has been trying to motivate the building of the Capitol Visitor Center by telling the news media how much they have to smell the tourists in the summer.



How much sympathy should our lawmakers get for having to 'smell the tourists'? Can it be any more clear that the Democrats look down on the common man?

Capitol Visitor Center

This frightens me.

The US Capitol Visitor Center has just been completed. It's a big extension to the Capitol building. The senate majority leader Harry Reid has publicly stated that he hopes he will not have to 'smell the tourists' anymore.

Smell the tourists? Can there be any doubt these people in Washington DC think they are beyond and above all other Americans? His comment isn't appearing in the news, and I wonder if the media has basically said, 'The Democrats can say anything they want'.

The frightening aspect is the propoganda carved into the exhibits at the Capitol Visitor Center:

We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.

To me, this seems like a move from secularism (which is lukewarm and therefore evil) to anti-religion (which is explicitly evil). These phrases remind me of the Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, and French Revolution propaganda from their failed regimes.

The Hill, one of the few papers to cover this, has noted some of Jim DeMint's comments on the exhibits:

The current CVC displays are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history. Exhibits portray the federal government as the fulfillment of human ambition and the answer to all of society’s problems. This is a clear departure from acknowledging that Americans’ rights ‘are endowed by their Creator’ and stem from ‘a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.’ Instead, the CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government. Visitors will enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is an intentional misrepresentation of our nation’s real history, and an offensive refusal to honor America's God-given blessings.

President-elect Obama has released a plan to spend billions (trillions?) of dollars on a gigantic road building and rebuilding project. I'm disappointed to see the government make its recent moves to be all things to all people.

I make no apology for the fact that the only temple I have is my body, and the only Oracle I consult is my Jesus, the Word of God. Every other substitution is a terrible, terrible counterfeit.