Reverend Wright

The only thing I think would be good about Obama winning the presidency is that he is black. If a black man won the presidency, I think it would be great for the country and do a great deal at putting to rest the racial divide in America. Imagine black children growing up with a black president. What a different perception of this country they would have. I am not black, so I am not claiming to speak on behalf of black people. Race relations are a complicated thing that I don’t think can be understood by just one race. You would have to have lived as both to truly be able to speak with authority on race in America. If the tables were turned and white people had the American history that the black people have endured and a white person had a chance to be president, I don’t care what his politics were I would vote for him. I think Obama is huge for black people and for healing the wounds of an entire country. Reverend Wright brands himself as an angry man who has been wronged by a repressive government. He speaks to like minded people who seem to feel the government has and is actively working against them. Maybe he has done it for so long he can’t see he is hurting the very real chance he has to solve this very problem. Maybe he is so full of himself he can’t pass up a chance at 15 minutes of fame; to try to solve the perceived racist government by giving it a black boss. I am not an Obama supporter. I am not going to vote for him. The cost is too great for the capitalist ideals I hold very dear, but if I was Reverend Wright I would.

Earth Day

Global warming is the most confusing issue being debated. It is clear the earth is going through changes. The real question is; how much affect is our water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide having on this change. The answer is not as much as the environmentalists are leading us to believe.

Here are the facts. There were over 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air in 1880. The level of CO2 in the air has increased by 100 parts per million since 1880. It is now at 382 parts per million. The average worldwide temperature is up about one degree in the last 100 years and according to The U.N Climate Panel an increase to 550 parts per Million would mean an increase in temperature of about 2.3 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. No one knows for sure if the rise in CO2 by 100 parts per million was caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas. They are sure burning small amounts of coal, oil, and gas throws CO2 and water vapor into the air. It’s not proven that the warming trend is directly related to the increase CO2 in the air. They attribute 46% of the increase in the worldwide temperature to the increase in CO2, even though water vapor is a much bigger factor in keeping the earth's heat from radiating into space. There is no way to measure the level of water vapor in the entire world’s atmosphere. There is no proof that 46% of the one degree increase in temperature is directly attributable to the 100 parts per million increases in CO2.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing to cut emissions or stop littering. I would like our rivers and lakes to be clean. But why are the environmentalists exaggerating global warming and more importantly our contribution to it. What is their agenda and why does is seem like it always results in more laws and more taxes.


Sources:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htmhttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_cycle.png
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182


Even if humans stop burning oil and coal tomorrow—not likely—we've already spewed enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to cause temperatures to warm and sea levels to rise for at least another century.

John RoachNational Geographic News

Stalemate Debate

I spent the day extremely excited about this debate. I grilled some steak, cracked open a beer, and settled in, for what I thought was going to be entertainment on a Super Bowl scale. Needless to say I was disappointed. Being nice and respectful in each others presence and pointed and harsh behind each others back is not noble for the good of the party, it’s spineless. It doesn’t erase what they’re saying behind each others back. They won’t even look at each other when they are being slightly critical in each others presence.

It‘s clear taxes are going to be raised. They spent time arguing about how far down the ladder each of their tax hikes are going to be. But it’s clear for people who are creating jobs, those whom economic hardships have hit, and in turn have had to cut jobs and opportunity for workers, are getting a tax increase under a Clinton or Obama presidency. I just don’t see how seemingly intelligent people can ignore the fact that jobs are lost when the rich have less money. The rich are business; the rich are employers not employees. So helping the poor at the expense of the rich is like throwing bandages on a wound while twisting the knife that’s still stuck in it. It never seems to stop there, some how the middle class get their taxes raised too. Obama told us, in almost the same sentence, that he will not raise the taxes of those who make under $200, 000 a year, but will raise the capital gains tax. Even he admits this will affect people making well under $200, 000. To make things worse he ignores the fact that doing so has never raised more revenue.

The other thing that caught my attention was Hilary’s response to her Bosnia lie; she admitted just that; she lied. Either way… if she lied to pad her record or if she is simply a tired old lady who has trouble remembering the facts of events that have happened to her, it’s not good.

There are so many promises by these two that it’s ridiculous. The fact that they are going to pull us out of the war with our tail between our legs and then turn around and talk tough to Iran is laughable. If I was a friendly country like Israel, I wouldn’t feel very safe under a Clinton or Obama military umbrella.

I don’t think either came out victorious. The debate simply highlighted and strengthened what we already knew about these candidates; Hilary will say and do anything to be elected and Obama has a full out socialist agenda; facts be damned.


http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4669713

Al Jazeera aired a new tape of Osama bin Laden. It was the usual stuff, he called Bush evil, the Great Satan, called him a war monger. Basically, the same thing you heard at last night's Democratic debate. Jay Leno

The pot calling the kettle an elitist…

Remember the old sane it takes one to know one. I don’t know Hillary’s true beliefs on the issues, no one does. She takes positions that she thinks are the most popular. What is clear is she is pompous and demeaning every time she opens her mouth. The first thing on my mind when Obama made his bitter comment was not what an Elitist, but maybe what a Democrat. Then it occurred to me why Hilary used the term “Elitist”. I don’t hang out with elitists; I don’t run around with the one hundred million dollar a year crowd. She knows how an elitist thinks about the common folk because they are her friends, she is one of them. She will mold herself into whatever she thinks people want at the time for her own political gain. She is not running for president because she believes what she is saying, she is running to be president because she wants to be The President. Let’s face it they’re both “Elitist”. I do think Obama has a little Paul Wellstone in him and believes in his socialist agenda. He thinks he is going to save the poor and unhappy with his magical government programs. That makes him very dangerous to the free market and the low taxes us republicans want. If we have to have a Democrat win this year maybe we should be hoping for Clinton? I think I just puked a little in my mouth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zotg92j0U6I&feature=related


Important principles may, and must, be inflexible. Abraham Lincoln

Obama wants us to focus on the real issues.

"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

From:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_el_pr/obama_bitter_voters

The emails cited this Huffington Post article, which quotes Obama telling backers: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/880232.aspx

Really!?! … That’s one of the strangest ways to look at the world I have ever heard. Obama talks about the cynicism that the people have for government. I guess there are people in government who are quite cynical about the way the American people vote. Can there be only one issue we vote on? Is it really that we just want a hand out and when we don’t get one we move to these other unimportant issues like constitutional law, social issues, border security, and global trade. We must be a bunch of retards. What a waste of time voting on these small issues when we should be just concerned about how much we can get out of the next President. Who’s really going to deliver all those hand-outs they’re all promising.

If we take the route of the permanent handout, the American character will itself be impoverished. Richard M. Nixon

Democratic Promises

Universal healthcare, pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, and turning around the economy is what’s promised. But what are the consequences of all this?

Pulling out of Iraq would be absolutely insane. I don’t know why we went into Iraq. Only the way this war ends will determine whether it was the right thing to do. I think September 11th really had an affect on Bush and he wanted to do something that would have a lasting affect on ending terrorism. What better way then make the entire region into democratic countries. If they’re friendly and stable other countries will trade with them and people will make money and be happy. I agree it’s hard to be a suicide bomber when you’re financially content and happy, but why start with Iraq? I don’t know, maybe Bush is a psychopath bent on revenge and a love for death and oil or maybe it’s because Iran is destined to be a problem and is located right next door or maybe because we know the lay of land better in Iraq then we do in other hostile countries or maybe because Iraq was hugely influential and wealthy and Bush thought it would send a message to the other smaller countries that they’re not untouchable. No one knows for sure what was in the President’s mind and heart, but I for one don’t care at this point. All I know for sure is if we pull out of Iraq and don’t leave a working democracy it will hurt far more then just Bush’s legacy. It will be a horrible problem that we will be dealing with whether we like it or not. The war will not end because we left. Innocent Iraqi’s will still be dying and the war will pull in Iran, Pakistan, Kuwait, maybe even Russia and China, and whoever else has a stake on the outcome of who controls Iraq. Who knows where it will go from there.

The greatest security for Israel is to create new Egypts. Ronald Reagan

I could talk about the war all day, but let’s move on to universal healthcare. It sounds nice, especially for me the poor republican who can barely afford my insurance premiums, but I think it threatens freedom itself. The more the government gives you the more it can take away. If you don’t believe that take a good look around… smoking bands, seatbelt laws. If we have universal healthcare they will attack everything from fast food to bungee jumping. In Europe right now their main concern is preventive care to try to reign in costs. Socialism just doesn’t work, it stifles creative innovation. The government is not going to throw money behind thoughts and ideas like private drug companies do because they can’t make the money on it like the drug companies can. The cost/risk ratio doesn’t make since for the government and they won’t be able to afford to back the research just because it will help people.

Now let’s move to the economy. I am a firm believer in leaving things alone. The economy always goes up and down. This $600 incentive thing is a joke. People are not going to spend more unless they know every month they’re getting more money… lower taxes. Maybe the fed did the right thing, maybe not, but intervention has real consequences. I think I’m going to exchange all my money ($123.89) into pesos!!

Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a hit man. Ronald Reagan