Big problems for Obama...

I saw in the news that some people are claiming that the press is guilty of “character assassination” in their coverage of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s words from the pulpit in the church that Barack Obama attends. I’ve heard some say that he was taken out of context. I’ve also heard arguments to the effect that he should be cut some slack because he is speaking to the “angry blacks” in America and that people just don’t understand “black preaching”.

I’m sorry but none of these are valid arguments. As a matter of fact, there is no valid excuse for anything he said. He was speaking as a radical black, white hating, racist pure and simple and he was preaching this to his congregation – leading his church to think like him. That’s what preaching is, is it not? You speak to your congregation to persuade them to the ideas that you want them to believe in. In most churches, it has something to do with what is in the bible. That’s clearly not the case here though.

This man stood at the pulpit and called on God to damn America. He said that rich white people run the country and intentionally released the HIV Virus into society to kill blacks. This is what he preaches. These statements weren’t taken out of context. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It was part of a sermon that was very much a racist rant against whites and America in general.

I think this is a major problem for Obama. His speech today helped but didn’t answer the question about his 20 year association with this type of man as his close spiritual advisor and someone he says is like family to him. I just can’t understand why someone would remain close to a man that harbors these kinds of racist, hateful views.

Why would a man continue to go to a church where the pastor is spewing this kind of hate and racism? A pastor preaches sermons to lead his congregation. How can a man participate in a church where the pastor is leading his congregation down this path if he doesn’t agree at least to some degree?

Would you sit there week in and week out listening to man you don’t agree with? Wouldn’t you change churches if you heard your pastor shouting “God damn America” and preaching hate against people of a different color from the pulpit? Would you take your children to hear a man preach this kind of hate?

I’ve heard people say that it shouldn’t matter, it’s only his pastor and he doesn’t agree with what he says but I was always taught that a person is judged by the friends that they keep. People tend to become friends with people that they have a lot in common with and have similar views with.

Barack Obama claims to want to bring America together and that he is the candidate that transcends race but one of his closest friends and someone he supposedly looks up to and respects is the exact polar opposite of his views, a racist that uses his position as a so called religious leader to spread the gospel of hate.

I hate to say it but I think a lot of voters are going to wonder that after 20 years of a close personal relationship, there isn’t just a little Rev. Wright lurking inside Mr. Obama.

This may very well be the beginning of the end for his run at the White House. He’s already dropping in the polls.

At least he’ll still have his spiritual advisor to console him…

John McCain is Right!

Well, I just have to say I wholeheartedly agree with John McCain when he says that Congress is “disconnected” from Americans.

Congress has lived up to there reputation of self interest and voted down the earmark spending ban co-introduced by Senator McCain. This bill would have ended earmark spending for 1 year. Instead, members of the Senate decided they couldn’t do without pork-barrel spending for even 1 year. Only 29 members voted for the bill while 71 voted against the will of the American people to maintain the wasteful, pork laden, special interest spending of our tax dollars.

Of the 29 who voted in favor, only 6 were Democrats but it included both Obama and Clinton. How ironic that both of them are two of the biggest users of earmark spending. Mrs. Clinton received $342 MILLION in earmark spending last year alone which ranks her the 10^th largest spender in the Senate. Obama got $98 MILLION for special interests in his state for fiscal year 2008 and requested $330 MILLION in fiscal year 2007.

For those of you that are reading this and you don’t know what “earmark spending” is, it’s basically a request by a Senator for federal tax money to go to some project or industry within that Senator’s state. In most instances, these projects should be paid for by the people of the state that reaps the benefits and NOT by federal tax money.

Since a bill for the spending would have to go through the normal process and probably wouldn’t have the merit to stand on it’s own and get passed, they attach it as a rider onto a piece of legislation (oftentimes totally unrelated to the earmark) that has a good chance of passing so when it does, their spending gets passed right along with it. Sort of like a Remora that attaches itself to a shark. It takes advantage of the shark’s skill to get food. The rider depends on the bigger bill to get passed but it’s our taxpayer dollars that they are feeding on.

Congress feeds on tax dollars and Obama and Clinton are some of the biggest gluttons at the trough. So why did they vote for the bill that would ban earmark spending for a year? Did they change their minds? NOT ON YOUR LIFE. The reason is very simple - they are trying to get the nomination for President. They realize that if they voted against it, it wouldn’t look good to the voters. So why did they suck so much from the trough before? Because they were already elected to the Senate and part of the “tax and spend” mentality that the Democrats subscribe to.

Last year, Congress passed 12,884 earmarks to the tune of more that $18 BILLION. Yes, that Billion with a B… that’s 18,000 million of your tax dollars being spent by these clowns.

Friends, I am here to tell you that this system is broken. We need to do something about it. We need to vote these fat-cats out of office and start voting for people that will fix the problem.

1. We need to ban earmark, pork-barrel spending.
2. We need to end the lobbyist system of influence in Washington.
3. We need the line item veto.

Just so you know, John McCain wasn’t my first choice for the Republican nomination but you know what?

He has NEVER requested an earmark for his state.

That shows me he not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.

Right now, he has my vote.

Politics -- getting pretty funny now

You know, I don’t usually talk about politics that much but it seems like in this particular campaign, things are happening that just beg to be talked about.

Here are a few things that have given me a laugh in the last few days.

First I have to say something about Hillary mentioning that Obama would be a good VP for her ticket. I just had to laugh. It just seemed such an arrogant thing for her to say. She would LET the leading presidential candidate be HER Vice President. Gee, I wonder why he didn’t jump at THAT offer… Pretty funny Hillary – you should go on the road with that act…

Actually, it was pretty calculating on her part. She hoped to snow the undecided voters into thinking that if they voted for her they would get both candidates in the end. It was a pretty obvious tactic that didn’t work for long since he didn’t want anything to do with it. Big surprise there… She ended up looking pretty pitiful actually.

Speaking of VP’s, I found it interesting that Romney made it public today that he would be interested in the VP spot with McCain. I had the opinion after he dropped out of the race so abruptly that it was do to a deal being made. He drops out in exchange for the VP spot. Kind of makes you wonder, huh? Things that make you go hmmmm...

The thing that has really been giving me a chuckle though is this whole flap over the Michigan and Florida primaries. What a 3-ring-circus this is. What really cracks me up is when the respective governors keep talking about how the voters deserve to have their votes counted. HELLO!!! Are you kidding me? It’s your fault their primaries don’t count. Each of you could have prevented the primary dates from being moved up and the rules being broken. But did you? NOOOOOOOOOO!

The rules were in place and the Democratic National Committee made it clear that if Florida and Michigan moved their primaries up, their delegates WOULD NOT be seated. You can’t be any clearer, but both governors chose not to do anything and now they are both crying after the fact. Well, duh…

They are trying to lay the blame on the DNC, but it’s not their fault at all. It’s all the fault of the political hacks in Michigan and Florida that allowed it to happen. In my opinion, the DNC should stick to its guns and let them stew in their own juice. They broke the rules so they don’t deserve to get their way now. They should also stand up and take the blame for their own screw up and apologize to the people of their respective states for rendering their votes meaningless. I don’t think either of them will have the guts to do that though.

They are trying to get the ok now to have new primaries, at a cost of millions of dollars – MILLIONS of dollars! Of course they want anybody else to pay for it but them. Any way you look at it, taxpayers are going to foot the bill for their mistakes. I’m sorry but these two idiots should be run out of town on a rail. They are entertaining though. Every time they appear on TV running their mouths, it gives me a good laugh.

I’ve got to watch the political scene every day now. It’s almost an addiction. I have to see what’s going to happen next in this combination of soap opera and sitcom.

Then there’s Geraldine Ferraro… The liberals are feeding on themselves and the media is at the head of the table. I love it.

Just sit back and enjoy the show.

He didn't waste any time...

Well, I'm actually impressed. Spitzer announced today that he was resigning. He did the right thing and even managed to do it with a little class.

Probably the smart thing for him to do actually. Now he can concentrate all his efforts on his legal defense without all those pesky duties of being governor getting in his way. He's already assembled a high powered legal team consisting of numerous attorneys.

Ever notice how when someone that has money gets into it deep, they don't just hire a lawyer, they hire a whole team of lawyers. I wonder if taxpayers are paying for that...

Politicians...

Well, I just had to blog about this…I read the stories today about New York Governor Spitzer being linked to a high dollar international prostitution ring and possibly money laundering and I just couldn’t help but laugh about yet another politician going down in flames.

What was he thinking? How can someone that is in his position, not just as governor but as someone who many thought of as a future contender for the White House, so callously put his career in jeopardy? At what point does someone in a position of power think that they can’t be touched? Why do they think they can get away with it? You would think that someone that has what it takes to get into a high position in government would have more intelligence than to do something that stupid wouldn’t you? Guess not…

Then I heard some of the Democrats talking about how he can weather this and not have to resign. Their rationale was that Larry Craig didn’t resign and Bill Clinton survived a sex scandal while in office.

Well, even though then-President Clinton used incredibly poor judgment and what he did was morally wrong, he didn’t actually break any laws. Craig’s situation was more embarrassing than anything else and even though he was arrested for lewd and lascivious behavior, it’s not a crime of the caliber we’re talking about with Spitzer.

Prostitution is against the law and is routinely prosecuted. His exact involvement with the prostitution ring hasn’t been made clear as of yet, as is any part he played in the money laundering operation, which is a serious crime and a career killer for a politician. Any wrongdoing involving money pretty much flushes ones political aspirations.

It’s not just a question of a person being caught breaking the law either. Not in my mind anyway. To my way of thinking, a person that holds a position in government has the public trust. He is elected and put into the office that he holds based on that trust. The acts that he willfully committed are a monumental disregard for that trust. It is a betrayal and an insult to the people of New York and the United States. He is not worthy to hold the office of governor. Period.

What really annoyed me though was his half-hearted apology, which was obviously written by his lawyer. He basically didn’t say much at all. He certainly didn’t admit to anything. He made it sound like all he did was do something to embarrass his family and his office. He said he acted “…in a way that violates my obligations to my family, that violates my or any sense of right and wrong…"

Well duh… if you get involved with prostitutes in any way, it kind of violates your obligations to your family. That’s kind of a no-brainer there…and you could say that anyone with half a brain would know that his acts would fall on the “wrong” side of right and wrong too.

Gee, thanks Governor for that heart-felt pouring out of your soul to the people you lied to and betrayed. I can tell you really mean it. Yeah right…

If he would have come out and said what he really meant, it would have gone something like this: “I’m not admitting anything but I’m sorry for something that I may or may not have done but the details haven’t been made public yet so I’m not going to say what it is until I know how much the cops know because there just might be a remote chance that I might be able to save my ass. But just in case I’m going down the tubes I’m going to give this lame, generic apology so I can later say I showed some remorse over my actions which may or may not have been criminal and that I may or may not have committed but I’m not saying I did at this point because it may be used against me later in court…” You get the gist.

In my opinion, he should show a little respect to the people he works for, the people of New York, and resign. Anything else is just making a bad situation worse. Somehow I don’t think he has the character to do the right thing though.

I guess he’s already shown that…

Is the Republican Party Broken?

In my opinion, if it’s not broken, it’s well on its way. It just doesn’t stand for what it once did. The recent and present party officials in power have slowly been moving the party away from its once proud tradition of standing for smaller government and more personal freedom for all Americans.

John McCain has captured the nomination but he certainly isn’t the most conservative candidate of the field. Indeed, he would be considered the least conservative. I can’t help but think that this may lead to a Democrat in the white house. I think he would stand a better chance of winning against Hillary, but the momentum has shifted toward Obama and if it’s a choice between Obama and McCain, Obama will win simply because the American public is sick of the war in Iraq and the Bush (Republican) administration in general. They will see Obama as the candidate of change and McCain as simply more of the same.

So why are the so-called conservative power brokers and the Republican Party backing him? Why are they backing the least conservative candidate in the field? I think they have strayed from the Republican Party’s platform. It appears to me that they have moved the party more toward the left so it’s not going to be as clear of a choice for the voters come November.

The Republican Party is the party of freedom, “…the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.” Our personal freedoms are constantly being eroded away by the ever increasing intrusion into our lives by the federal government. The premise to limit the power and scope of the federal government and put more power in the hands of the states has always been a Republican ideal. But now they seem to be following the Democrats down the road of bigger and more government, higher spending and more involvement in the affairs of other countries.

Thomas Jefferson once said that we should have “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none…” He knew that it was essential to have good relationships and free trade with other countries but wrong to get involved and try to influence or control their affairs. He was right then and it’s right now but the Party has moved away from this simple premise.

In some ways, John McCain will appeal to the more moderate Republicans. A lot of people are conservative in some ways but lean more toward what is traditionally considered a liberal point of view on issues such as the environment, global warming and alternative fuels. John McCain will appeal to these more moderate Republicans but on one key issue, he will not.

I believe we are at a point in our history when a lot of Americans are starting to believe we should get our troops and influence out of most other countries in the world. The Republican Party is not offering any indication that this is their goal. McCain comes off as just the opposite, a person that easily commits our troops at the drop of a hat and believes that we should continue or even increase our influence around the world. This may be his downfall in the end. Anyone that believes we should get out of the Middle East and other places around the world will have a hard time getting behind him.

The only thing the GOP has going for it at the moment that will appeal to voters is the ideal of lower taxes. It’s clear that either Clinton or Obama in office will result in much higher taxes to pay for all the programs and even more government control that they are touting.

Voters are faced with the choice of lower taxes but a continuing war or a promised withdrawal from Iraq but paying much higher taxes. In the minds of many voters, there is no clear best choice here. It’s either one bad thing or the other bad thing.

We need someone that will bring our troops home from Iraq and around the world but also lower taxes and revamp the federal government by downsizing and making it more efficient. That’s what the Republicans should be offering but they’re not and I think it’s a big, big mistake.

One thing seems clear. America has gone down the wrong road and I’m afraid that none of the present candidates, Republican or Democrat are offering the solution.

Tensions are high down south...

The saga continues in S. America. The Organization of American States passed a resolution condemning the Colombian military raid and calling it a violation of Ecuadorian sovereignty.

I somehow get the feeling that they weren’t entirely behind this resolution though. It seems as if they are only doing it to placate Chavez who is pushing all the other countries to be against Colombia. I get the feeling that without the influence of Chavez, they would applaud the action as a victory against world terror and crime. Unfortunately, they don’t have the guts to stand up to Chavez and take the side of right. They would rather mollify him and ignore the fact that his government and that of Ecuador are in alliance with the terrorists.

Chavez and Correa are now trying to divert attention away from that fact by screaming about the violation of Ecuador’s border. What I would like to know is, why wasn’t Mr. Correa upset about the FARC members violating his border? That violation didn’t bother him at all. As a matter of fact, it was just fine with him that they were taking refuge from justice in his country. He didn’t get upset until the Colombian military came across in pursuit of these criminals. Doesn’t that make you wonder just a bit?

Something else that didn’t seem to bother him is the fact that the FARC rebels would shoot across the border at the Colombian police and military. This happened on numerous occasions and it didn’t seem to upset him a bit. If he thinks that a strike against these people was an attack against his country, then these comrades of his shooting across the border could be considered an attack on Colombia by his country. Why didn’t he take any action to stop them?

Then we have Mr. Chavez. He just looks at it as a great opportunity for him to do some “saber rattling” against the United States. That’s why he hates Colombia so much. They are working with the U.S. to ferret out these drug trafficking terrorists to try and stem the flow of illegal drugs, not to mention all the kidnapping and murders that they commit in their country. Chavez looks at any alliance with the U.S. for any reason as a traitorous act against him and his Marxist, Socialist cause and even a personal betrayal. Again, it was none of his business at all. It was between Ecuador and Colombia and not remotely in the vicinity of his country.

Well, today they seemed to reach some sort of an accord at the meeting in the Dominican Republic. All the left-leaning countries stood together against Colombia. President Uribe accused Correa and Chavez of aiding the FARC rebels. Correa called Uribe a liar. Chavez got in some more ranting, name calling and personal insults. Uribe again apologized for Colombia’s actions and promised not to do it again. In the end they all shook hands and it seems as if war has been averted for the time being.

You can bet that won’t be the last we hear about it from Mr. Chavez though…

Shallow thinking

Here’s an interesting tidbit from the campaign trail.

The Republicans were having a campaign rally in Cincinnati and they had a Conservative talk radio host by the name of Bill Cunningham speaking to the crowd, to “warm them up” before Senator McCain came out to speak.

Well, it seems that over the course of his “warm up”, he made some disparaging remarks about the Democratic nominees Clinton and Obama. He called Obama a “hack” politician and repeatedly referred to him using his middle name, which is Hussein. He referred to the name as being a “fine Muslim name” perpetuating misinformation that Obama is a Muslim.

Well, Senator McCain, known for being a gentleman who insists on running a clean campaign focused on the issues, apologized for the remarks made by Cunningham promising that “it will never happen again.” This was the right thing for him to do in keeping with the type of campaign he is trying to run.

Now, the story said that this Mr. Cunningham is a rather flamboyant, “in your face” type of radio talk show host, I can’t say personally since I’d never heard of him before reading the story, but I would guess that his remarks wouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

I would also think that he would be a McCain supporter. Why else would he accept an invitation to speak, right? If you are backing a candidate enough to come out and speak at their campaign event, you must believe it what they believe it right? That’s what I would think anyway.

However, and this is the part that really baffles me, after McCain said he disapproved of Cunningham’s remarks, Mr. Cunningham reacted as if it was a personal attack against him. He said he’d had it with John McCain and he was now going to support Hillary Clinton.

How could someone be so shallow that they would abandon their beliefs at the drop of a hat? McCain says he doesn’t approve of his remarks so he immediately goes over to the other side? Is this how people decide which candidate to back? Whatever happened to backing someone that you agree with on the issues and that you think will guide the country in the direction you believe it should go? What is he thinking? Or is he just being petty? I guess that would explain it… no thinking involved here…

I sure hope the majority of the voters in this country have more intelligence and responsibility than this guy or we ARE in trouble…

On the Brink of War

Well, with all the conflicts that are going on all over the world, now we have another one and it’s in our neighbor’s back yard no less. The governments of Ecuador and Venezuela have sent troops to their borders with Colombia and are threatening to go to war. Is this just posturing or are they really intending to start shooting? Who knows with these guys…

Since the government of Colombia has started really fighting back against the drug lords in their country, Hugo Chavez has been railing against them saying they are being controlled by the United States. The most recent incident to set him off is the strike by Colombian police and military against the FARC leadership just over the border in Ecuador. After the strike, President Uribe of Colombia called President Correa of Ecuador to formally inform him of the situation and apologize for the incursion.

I don’t think there was a problem until Venezuelan President Chavez decided to impose his influence that it became blown out of proportion and escalated to the brink of war. His influence over President Correa and his hatred for anything and anyone friendly to the United States is what is inciting this conflict.

Now, one might say that Correa is acting on his own but I highly doubt it. Nobody in their right mind would go to the extreme of massing troops at the border and threatening war just because a neighboring country took out some terrorist criminals that routinely commit their criminal acts and then flea back across the border for protection, criminals that routinely take hostages and frequently torture and murder them.

By the way, these terrorist drug traffickers are not Ecuadorian citizens. They are Colombians that seek refuge across the border into Ecuador so the Colombian military forces were going after their own and were NOT taking action against Ecuador.

Any sane government leader would be helping to bring these criminals to justice and wouldn’t allow them sanctuary. There would be cooperation between the governments to prevent these terrorists and criminals from operating at all.

That’s clearly not the case here. Chavez and Correa are showing that they support terrorism. They support and defend drug dealers and murders. They aide and abet them to carry out their hideous crimes. They give them safe haven and afford them protection and then honestly expect the rest of the world to respect them for this? Please…

You know, Chavez wants to criticize the U.S. for getting involved in the affairs of other countries but what is he doing? He’s sent 10 battalions of Venezuelan troops to his border with Colombia and is threatening war with that country. Colombia did absolutely NOTHING to him or his country. The Colombians struck across the border of Ecuador. It has nothing to do with Venezuela or Chavez so why is he sticking his nose into it?

I think we as U.S. citizens should start fighting back against this crackpot. It’s about time we start a complete boycott of Citgo Gas. And for those of you that don’t know it, Citgo is wholly owned by the government of Venezuela and the dollars we spend to buy Citgo gas go right into his pocket. Let's fight back people!

BOYCOTT CITGO GAS!!!!