Pale Rider or Dark Horse?

John McCain picked an outsider and an unknown for his running mate by selecting Sarah Palin. I don't know much about her, but on face value, she hits two or three notes right off the bat (Pro-life, Pro-gun, Reformist), which doesn't hurt her chances with folk like myself. That being said, she is running for just the VP spot, so how much does that matter? Also, I need to to know more about her before I can say this was a good or bad choice, so for now, I will abstain with commentary, but more will follow.

Thank you for reading this blog.

The Conventional Script

Update: Al Gore now compares Obama to Lincoln. Will the charade ever end? Who is next? Thomas Jefferson, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus Christ? Comparing Obama to Lincoln is like comparing an MGB and a Rolls Royce. All you can say is that both are from England.  

Just a short note: The current democrat convention is so scripted, patronizing and false, I have to wonder how stupid is the human race. Right now, Obama is channeling JFK and MLK. Heck, he may think he's the second coming of both men in one, and let me tell you, both had their issues, and some were the same issues. Obama makes his acceptance speech on the same day as Martin Luther King made the "I have a dream" speech. Also, he is making his acceptance speech in a stadium, just as JFK did, before 80,000 people. I have made analogies between Obama and JFK before, and now we have MLK. I believe Obama truly believes he can sneak this by the American people, by taking themes of past popular, honored, and respected people and weaving them into his own persona and existence. The problem is it shows no originality, and it shows a lack of character development. Who is the real Obama? I would posit even he doesn't want to know. The other side of the coin is that both men were terribly flawed. Both were serial philanders, whose public lives were not consistent with their private ones. That is something Obama does have in common with them. So after all the pomp and circumstance, have the American people taken this fairy tale to heart, or have they seen through this charlatan for what he really is, an unoriginal, cardboard cutout with elitist and marxist beliefs. Tell me what you think.

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Posting comments

I put the message below on the comments form:

Comments are moderated. I ask that you use your real name and email address, as I want to verify that you are who you say you are. I am putting my name out there behind what I say, so should you. It's the same if you call in to a radio show, they screen everyone.

I received a comment to my post Bona Fides, Beliefs, etc... and the person used anonymous. As much as I want to respond and refute their comments, I won't because they won't identify who they are. As I said above, my name is out there, saying whatever I have to say, and if you take the time to make an argument, and I appreciate that, you have to say who you are and I would like to verify that. I would do the same if asked. So, whoever posted that response I mentioned, you are welcome to submit it again with your name and email address.

The Current State of Things

Since my last couple posts, I have been asked to clarify some things, and I thought this would be a good time to have a current status assessment. Right now we pretty much have two candidates running for the office of president, Barack Obama and John McCain. For me, this election is just another election of choosing the lesser of the two evils, or really, choosing a candidate whose political, moral, spiritual and social beliefs differ in one way or another from my own. How important is it to have ones values line up with a candidate? I have never been a groupie and I am not the type of voter that puts superficial issues above others in choosing to support a candidate. For instance, when Rudy Giuliani ran in the primaries, I did not support him, even though he is a New Yorker and an Italian American. Those issues don't do it for me. He is pro-choice, anti-gun, socially very liberal, and has enough skeletons in his closet to populate Arlington National Cemetery. Rudy is also a somewhat autocratic individual that likes to surround himself with yes men, and this proved out with the results. 

Now back to McCain and Obama. I could never support Obama because I differ with him on almost every issue. As far as I am concerned, he is a marxist in democrat clothing. McCain offers meat to chew on, but I can't find substance of agreement with every bite. He says he's pro-life, and pro-gun, which are two important issues, but he also believes in man caused global warming. Also, as a senator, he has sponsored legislation that creates more governmental control over people's lives, something I am definitely against. In the political spectrum, he is a moderate republican that has too much in common with the opposition. Now some of you may say bipartisanism is a good thing and shouldn't politicians work together on a common goal? From my standpoint, anything done by a committee dilutes the results and compromises people's values. In the case of the congress, it seems like the republicans have compromised more than the democrats, but none the less, the results are such that the congress has a sub 10% approval rating. Basically, you are prostituting yourself to a process instead of standing up for what you believe in. I would also ask, if your world view is different, how can one have common goals? The common goals that are truly shared between democrats and republicans are that they want to be reelected and they preach the same fairy tale every election, and we fall for it. At this point, my observations are that it is like 1996 again. My question is, is this the best the republicans can come up with? I thought Bob Dole was an honorable man, but not the best by a long shot. All he served as was cannon fodder for the democrats. The press plays an important role in this. By all surveys, the press, meaning print, broadcast and internet journalists are around 90% liberal or left leaning. When you look back on the past year, the New York Times for instance bent over backwards to promote John McCain, who was perceived to be the weaker candidate compared to Romney or Huckabee. If it weren't for the liberal press, John would not be where he is. So where does this leave us? It leaves us with two candidates whose candidacies were decided by the parties and the press by at least 50%, leaving us with poor choices indeed. No matter who gets elected, we have to face the possibility of  new cold war, illegal immigration, a fiscally unsound and irresponsible government, choices for the supreme court, energy, and the direction we will go as a nation in the 21st century. I find myself in  situation where I can't hold my nose anymore when I vote. We need someone that has strong core beliefs, and doesn't need polls to decide what to do. In that context, even if the person is somewhat inexperienced, they will have a sufficient moral compass to make proper decisions. Some of my right wing journalistic brethren have become quite the water boys for whomever the republican party puts up. Even though Rush Limbaugh swore he would never carry water agin after the 2006 elections, he still does so with loyal aplomb. It's the same with Sean Hannity. I like loyal people, but even loyalty has its limits. Until we put our foot down, they will keep giving us the same lame candidates. So come November, in spite of my support of McCain at times, I probably won't be voting for him. At least there's bread and circus no matter who gets elected and honestly, for many of us, the day after the election, like The Who said, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". At least with Stymie, I'll have more to write about. 

Now on to other explanations. I was asked about the "Stymie" reference to Barack Obama in my last post. I want to say it had nothing to do with race, but rather the character Stymie embodied, which was that of a con man. Enough said. As far as "The Swimmer" goes, you are on your own. :)

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Vice President ?

The word is out that Obama will announce his VP Tuesday morning. So far, Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Kaine, Kerry and Nunn have been tossed around as possibilities. I am surprised someone hasn't thrown in The Swimmer from Massachusetts,  or the Vampiress herself, Bella Pelosi. I don't think Kerry or Clinton would want to play second fiddle, the former having run and failed for the presidency and the latter still vying for it. Make no mistake, Hillary still wants it. In fact, it would be a good idea for Obama not to have her as a running mate considering the long list of dead bodies behind the Clintons.  Whoever it is, I hope they are more entertaining than Barack "Stymie" Obama. After the Rick Warren Show, Bernie Mac would be an improvement over the purpose driven cardboard cutout. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Prophet Pelosi: The Messiah has come

At a California fundraiser, Nancy Pelosi declared that Obama is "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time", according to Politico.com. Pelosi, must be having delusions of being the second coming of John the Baptist, paving the way for the new Messiah. I don't think Obama is what the Lord has in mind for the second coming. I am pretty sure Jesus was not pro-choice, although the liberation theologists, or what I like to call theo-socialists, would find a way to weave a pro-choice philosophy into the principles of Jesus Christ. That being said, Pelosi is more akin to Lev Davidovich Bronstein, AKA Leon Trotsky hailing the second coming of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, AKA Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. God or Jesus has nothing to do with Barack's candidacy.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Obama on abortion: He wants it both ways

During yesterday's question and answer with the Reverend Rick Warren, Obama said "he's pro-choice and supports Roe v. Wade, his goal is to reduce the number of abortions in America." That's like saying I am for drunk driving but I want to reduce the number of drunk driving deaths in America. But then again, this is the same candidate that said he favored abortion because if one of his daughters made a mistake, he wouldn't want them punished with a baby. This man is wrong on this issue morally, politically, and spiritually. As for the Rev. Rick Warren, I don't know the man, but he called both McCain and Obama his friends, and both patriots. I disagree with him in that regard. If Obama is a patriot, we could do with fewer of his type. 

Thank you for reading this blog.

Bona Fides, Beliefs and Values

Several entries ago I said I would outline and discuss my values, beliefs and bona fides. For those of you across the river, the definition of bona fides is “a person’s honesty and sincerity of intentions” and/or a person’s legitimacy, I.E. credentials. Outside of my profile and blog header, those that read my blog entries may not know where I stand, or what values I have. At this point, I think I have to make them known so there is an understanding, particularly in regards to issues I discuss.


Life – Pro Life.
My view is that a fetus is a unique human being, with it's own unique DNA, different from either parent. It is an individual and because it is not anything other than a human being, not a frog, fruit fly nor a meat loaf, it deserves the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

What pro-choice and pro-abortion types will say is that it's foray into the human realm does not begin until it is breached into the world. I would retort it is just one instance of potentialities in a humans life, just as is puberty, pregnancy, physical growth throughout childhood, and even death. It is not the defining moment of creation, but conception is, as this is when the potentiality of being human happens. Actually, if you want to get philosophical, that moment is the instant of intent on the part of the parents, but we are getting off track here...

To believe that the right of abortion is a right for a woman to control her reproductive rights is a fallacy. If that were true, why didn't she control it before she was pregnant? And even in cases of rape, how does that lessen the fetus status as a human being? It does not. It still is a unique individual.

In order for one to believe that they have the right to abort a fetus, they must believe in slavery of a sort, or hubris such that they have dominion over another human being in terms of that individual's very existence. Such dominion and ownership reduces a fetuses status to something less than human in their eyes. It has to...If it didn't it would be murder, to them. They must reduce the fetus to less than human for them to be comfortable with that dastardly act.

Just as no matter where you go the sky is blue, there are inescapable facts about our reality. In their case, they deny it, and in most cases, they put their very convenience before the life of another.

Another related retort relates to their convenience somewhat is they will assert, who will pay to feed this person? My retort it is the responsibility of the parent(s). Such is the case any and everywhere. I will also add that if that is the only condition of one being allowed to exist, why stop at killing the not yet born, why not the poor, why not the aged (or any other human potentiality that might be an inconvenience)? They can be an inconvenience too. Such false thinking on their part leads to a materialism that communists use to reduce us to our basic components chemically (basically our physical life form) and nothing more, so as to be able to do anything the state wants against us. Anything can be justified and usually is.

I usually leave these misanthropes with one question: If humans laid eggs like a bird, would they still believe that abortion is morally correct if they wanted to destroy their eggs?


Marriage – Marriage licenses by the government should not be called marriage licenses, but rather civil union licenses. Marriage is a rite and sacrament before god, and the government should keep out of it. The purpose of the government license is for property rights and other legal affairs that do not pertain to marriage as prescribed by the church. To that extent, the government of any state may decide to grant civil union licenses to whomever they chose (and some do) based on the sensibilities of their population, but churches are free to decide who gets married in their respective religion without regard to what the state does, and without interference by those (or the state) that oppose the churches views and doctrine.

Government – As small as possible, as low taxes as possible. I’d settle for the abolition of the IRS, and institute a consumption tax, so long as all other federal taxes go away.

Guns – Any law abiding citizen has the right to keep and bear arms if they chose, for whatever reason they choose.

Foreign Policy - Let’s see: We dole out foreign aid to people that hate us (a panoply of pan-arabic countries), support countries where only our economic interests are served (Saudi Arabia, China), but whose governments we abhor, we try to democratize countries where it either will not work, or there are not the necessary forces to make it happen by itself, and we allow politics to influence military decisions, as well as policy decisions, and in either case it leads to disaster. For instance, we pander to the Saudis because of their oil reserves, even when they personally finance terrorists that kill our citizens and soldiers. They are the epitome of back stabbing SOBs, and if we were both moral and smart, we’d divest ourselves of these people by developing our own oil reserves in ANWR, off shore and anywhere else here. Can’t do that. The enviro-terrorists in this country won’t let that happen. In fact, they hate any idea that involves current technology, instead promulgating windmills and non-existent means of energy, whereby putting us back 100 years because they don’t want the intention of polluting our environment to exist. I will continue this later with Energy, but you get the idea. Our values that we bring to politics and foreign policy lack a moral backbone. I think it is ok to help countries where the people are unduly suffering, but even there we get it wrong. While it is ok to invade Iraq because Saddam was a despot, it is not ok to invade the Sudan because of a despot. More people got shit hammered in Africa than in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran, combined. The shame of it is that Kofi “the feckless wonder” Annan, did next to nothing for his home continent. Of course that is de rigueur for the UN, which is the Organization of Feckless Peoples or OFP. It is more important to have good intentions than to accomplish anything. So, after our great Middle East democratization tour, what do we do now? We need someone in charge that has a strong moral compass. That does not start trouble, but does back down from it necessarily. We need someone where actions and results matter more than intentions by themselves, and results matter more than anything. Passing the same cup of piss around and calling it chardonnay doesn’t work anymore.

Immigration – Legal immigration is good, illegal immigration is bad. We need to punish the companies that hire illegal immigrants, deport when we can, and change the process of immigration to streamline it, and enforce it better.

Energy – For electricity, go nuclear, for transportation, drill here, drill well, and drill all the time. In spare time, look for other energy sources.

Religion – First, everyone has the right to believe as they wish, at least in this country, for now. For me, there is one truth and that is we are god’s creation and in that context, there are things you can do, and things you should not do. There is absolute right and wrong, and having opinions is fine. Judgement comes with the final exam.

Philosophy – I have always believed in an objective philosophy that there is right and wrong, and that facts are facts. I think this is why I like objectivism so much. From Ayn Rand:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

In my heart, her arguments and statements ring true as anything I have read. Even so, she and I would disagree on a couple things. One, she was pro-choice. I am not. Two, she was an atheist. I am not. For me, my goal on a philosophical level has been to try to combine and rationalize Objectivism with Christianity. The problems I have had with Christianity, particularly my Anglican and Catholic background, is that it tends to be collectivist in it’s interpretations, and has become suitable to those whose philosophies are what I would call theo-socialist. Part of this is that both Anglicanism and Catholicism are steeped in tradition and orthodoxy. To quote Barbara Tober, “Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected from happening.” Emphasis on group, as it implies collectivism. To be part of a group, you have to give up something. I have yet to find a group where I agree with everything, but I find it difficult to follow doctrine in any group if I do not believe it or in it. I liken it to having to eat a shit sandwich. In Collectivism, everyone has to take a bite, some more than others. So in a sense, my beliefs in libertarian and objectivist ideals are to minimize the shit sandwich eating escapades, particularly from the culinary expertise of those outside myself. So, in the context of Ayn Rand’s statements of Objectivist ideals, I try to exercise them with the moral rules set forth through my religion, for which there are but three commandments: Love your god with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, love your neighbor as yourself, and honor your father and your mother. A reduction of the original 10, but it covers everything just the same.

Background – Born and raise on Long Island, lived there until 2002. My father was the son of Italian immigrants, and my mother’s family background was much more diverse, with immigrants from England and Ireland in the 19th century and Danish and French Huguenot immigrants from the 17th century. There even is some native american thrown in along the way. Culturally, I grew up being exposed to an Italian-American experience. My father was fluent in Italian, but only spoke it when spoken to in Italian. Up until the 8th grade I attended Episcopal parochial school. Do not compare this with the current iteration of the Episcopal and Anglican Church, but more like Anglican Catholic. High Mass once a week, The Book of Common Prayer of 1928 and the Hymnal of 1940. Very strict, but without brothers or nuns. I attended W.C. Mepham HS after this, and went on to get a B.A. In American History and minor in Biology. In between then and now, I have had many different kinds of jobs and work, and it’s too much to list and discuss, but only to say that I have a lot of experience in different things, and an eclecticism that serves me better now than then. For the last 16 plus years I have worked in the information technology field, and I have since received a M.S. In Information Systems. I am Married, and I have 5 children. Outside of that, I like to ride my motorcycle, lift weights, and some point soon, start practicing Aikido again. I also like to Blog...

Thank you for reading this blog.

Harmony and the Dream: The collectivist nightmare perpetuated from the left on us all

In the New York Times this week, David Brooks discusses divisions in our society. Divisions that run deeper than economics, divisions that run all the way to perceptions. Mr Brooks simplistic, naïve and incorrect view can be deconstructed from the start. For some reason he juxtaposes democracy with authoritarianism, as opposites. That would be an incorrect assumption. The opposite of authoritarianism is libertarianism. Further on, Mr Books discusses the merits of a collectivist society. He believes that collectivists, using Asians as an example, see the world in terms of relationships as opposed to western individualists who see the world in terms of categories. He places the US and Britain on one end, China and Japan on the other. One of the benefits he lists is lower suicide rate. Really? I don’t believe the suicide rate in Japan is any lower than the US or Britain. Lets get to the crux of it. Brooks’ exuberance with collectivism stems from the coronation of Barack Obama as the democrat nominee and the possible future that represents. Obama talks literally in collectivist terms. It's a future where the government controls every part of your life, from cradle to grave. To the socialists and communists, this is music to their ears. But while I am on this talk of David Brooks, collectivism, and China, lets look at some facts. I would ask David Brooks how collectivism worked out for Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the millions of other Russians that died or were imprisoned in the gulag archipelago. I wonder how collectivism was such a great thing for the thousands of people that were killed in Tiananmen Square, their bones crushed into the pavement by the tanks, their blood paving the way for Brooks’ collectivist utopian China. Lets talk about Stalin, and the millions of people he had killed; so many that the number may never be known, but it is in the tens of millions for sure. Brooks’ opposition to an individualistic society is based on the assumption that it is an illusion. The inescapable fact that even Brooks cannot escape is that individualist societies do better economically.  The reason for this is that anyone can make it if they work hard. Expectations can be set high. May be the underlying reason he sees harmony in collectivism is that it destroys the individual and causes people to have low expectations. People living under such conditions do so without a lot of hope. Couple this with the nihilistic materialism that exists in such cultures, the totalitarian regimes, one can understand the low expectations and “harmony” that exist. I would also posit that if such collectivist harmony is such a great thing, then why do people flock here? I see no one flocking to China. It’s simple: the Chinese are not free. No matter the economic success China makes, it will be on backs of those in veritable peonage. Mr. Brooks, let me tell you a little secret. People want to be free. Free to believe what they want, free to say what they want, free to do as they want, free from the government killing them if they disagree, or possibly worse, being re-educated and shipped off to the far ends of the country. I would bet my life savings that if all Chinese people saw how people lived in the US, I bet they’d rather live here too. What isn’t an illusion Mr. Brooks, is that you would have us emulate their collectivism, which is conformity at any cost. The price we would pay is incalculable.

The Mexican Army, the Border Patrol and Idiots that bring knives to gun fights

I am late with this, but what the heck. Normally I have complaints, sometimes solutions, this time a little of both. Sunday, August 3rd, a US Border Patrol agent was held at gunpoint by Mexican soldiers on our side of the border. As outrageous as this sounds, it's happened over 40 times in the last year. The conventional wisdom out there says that the Mexican Army is working for drug lords and do these stunts to draw US Border Patrol Agents away from areas that smugglers are trafficking across the border. This is outrageous. One, we need to make the Mexican government understand from now on, we will defend our Border Patrol agents without regard to Mexico's sovereignty. If they do that stuff, we will chase them, and hunt them down like the dogs they are. We should also make it understood that we will terminate them, with extreme prejudice, if they train guns on our Border Patrol agents, particularly on our soil. They need to understand it will not end well for them. On our side, Border Patrol agents need to be armed better, trained better, and supported fully by their government. Where are the Texas Rangers when you need them?

Thank you for reading this blog. 

They're Back! Calling all Cold Warriors

For those that have been sleeping or living on the east side, it may be news that the Cold War is well on it's way to coming back. Russia, under ex-KGB Vladimir Putin's leadership has been building up to this for years. Russia has become an energy powerhouse, and has not been bashful in nationalizing foreign oil companies, taking assets that do not belong to them. Russia has also aligned with every enemy of the United States. In particular, China and Iran. China has also proven to be a supporter of Iran, both countries supplying Iran with technology to build nuclear weapons and selling Iran conventional ones as well. Shades of 1956 and 1968, Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia, so far having an easy rout. Lines are being drawn. Who will be our cold warrior? Bush is on his way out, a lame duck,  and Obama's tendency to play the Chamberlain role worries me. McCain is out there calling a reevaluation of our relationship with Russia. It remains to be seen who would be best to handle this, and McCain may get the nod here as Obama is too naîve, facile, feckless to take on Russia, Putin or China. With things brewing in Iran, the US being strung out in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia is going to start setting the tone and drawing the line in the sand. It's critical we set the tone where we stand and not back down at this point, but not to get drawn in to something and get over extended. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Jim Leach - The Strunza from Iowa

Jim Leach, former republican representative from Iowa, endorsed Barack Obama for president. This turncoat, and he is, suggests that Obama is attractive because of a “ new era of non-ideological, bipartisan decision-making''. What this means is that rather than having a backbone, and values, he’d rather find new ways to make sure politicians like himself stay in power. Let me explain. If politicians “work together”, without ideology,  I can guarantee the only thing they will want to do is to get your vote by bribing you with your own money, or worse. Their perception is to get things done. Change. Give people what they want. The problem with that is it doesn’t matter what it is. Bipartisan means they don’t stand for anything. So out of one side of their mouth, they will tell you they are pro-life, but out of the other, they will fund abortion clinics. Guys like this just want to make double dealing more palatable. By having no moral compass, they can’t be pigeon holed and their appeal will be broader. Think of Bill Clinton. In the case of Leach, which is a fitting name, some say he is angling for the presidency of the University of Iowa. The democrats control the government in Iowa, so by endorsing Obama, he is doing them a great favor and possibly expects one in return. Leach was a RINO republican anyway (in reality, now he's a democrat), and this isn’t much of a surprise. His reasoning shows lack of principles, loyalty and a lack of common sense. Democrats do not do favors for republicans in this state, or any other. He’s in for a big surprise if he doesn’t get it, and if the republicans have any principles, they will tell him to go to hell. Strunza is a perfect word for him. Look it up. And with that, I leave with a quote from Samuel Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Yet Another Update

Sorry for the long delay between posts. I have been having technical difficulties, which will be remedied shortly. Now for my 5 second analysis:

John Edwards - Scumbag

Vladimir Putin - Rat faced scumbag, neo-stalinist, and antagonist in the new cold war.

Republic of Georgia - My advice is that they should grab their ankles, no one is coming to the rescue.

Olympics - Who cares?

Update

Just a quick update. Podcasts will be coming shortly as in the next week or so and the posts will reflect podcasts and have summaries and excerpts, etc. I will also be posting my positions on various political subjects in the next few days. Thanks to anyone that takes the time to read this. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Lex Talionis or Rex Americanus: Guess who grew a pair?

John McCain, If you haven’t seen his videos, take a peek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg

And the quote of the week: , "Sen. Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign."
 

Chuck Hagel was critical of McCain for the comment. Since when is telling the truth wrong? Of course Obama will feign turning the other cheek and taking the higher road. I call it the rope a dope. Obama will go negative after the convention, and closer to the election. At this point, I think the election is still Obama's to lose, but the question I have is, why isn't it a slam dunk? As much as people are disgruntled with the economy, with immigration, and the republican party, vis a vis the democrats dominating the house, why aren't they behind Obama more than the polls show? My guess is while they want something different, they don't trust him. Right now they are looking for leadership from the right, and it's up to McCain to pick up the gauntlet and do it. The question is, will he?

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Guess who's the populist?

Populist: A person who holds, or is concerned with, the views of ordinary people. The problem is, on a personal level, Obama has no idea what it's like to be one of the common folk, or even know what their views are. Like a con artist that throws the proverbial spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks, Obama seeks to appease and bribe people, either with their own money or someone else's money and he must be a cheapskate as it's never his own. Today we find that Obama has a plan to tax the "windfall" profits of the oil companies, and use the money as an emergency rebate for the masses. Sounds popular, I mean big oil is evil, right? On the scale of net profit, oil companies make about 7-8%. Google made around 25%. Should we tax big internet? Oil companies make what they do by shear volume. In fact I would bet the federal government makes more money on a gallon of gas in tax than the oil companies make on that gallon. Talk about entitlements. The government does nothing to earn this money, but is willing to penalize the oil companies because they got a return on their work. Obama is trying to create a straw man to blame for rising energy prices, and he uses populist notions in the process. He was against oil drilling at one point, but after the backlash, and I am sure polling data, he now says he may be open to offshore drilling. If he was a true man of vision, he wouldn't need 300 advisors to educate him, he wouldn't need pollsters, because he would know what's right. Obviously, he has no clue. 

Thank you for reading this blog.