Obama, I knew Dan Quayle, and you're no Dan Quayle

Dan Quayle served two terms in the House, and was in his second term in the Senate when he was nominated to be Vice President. The press immediately declared he was too young and inexperienced for such an important job (a job that even Al Gore was able to handle!) The press had a field day every time Quayle made the smallest mistake, like when he said he had visited 57 of the 60 states, or the time when he acknowledged the fallen heroes that he saw in the audience for his memorial day speech. Oh, wait! No, it was Obama who made those gaffes. Obama, the man who has a grand total of three years of experience yet is declared by the media to be a 'rock star' of politics. Quayle was ridiculed for not correcting a spelling mistake made by someone else. There is no indication that he didn't know how many states are in the union or that a fallen hero is a dead one, but he was made a laughing stock while Obama is lauded as an eloquent speaker and a 'brilliant' politician. This would be yet another example of the bias of the media that liberals constantly refuse to admit exists.

Who's in charge, who's to blame?

Before blaming Republicans for all the problems in the country, answer this question. Which party has been in control of Congress for all of Bush's presidency ? The answer is the Democrats. Yes, Pelosi and Reid took formal control in 2006, but the Democrats have been in charge far longer than that. If Republicans really were in control, then Bush's plan to add private accounts to Social Security would be in effect now. We would all have an account in our name with our money in it that we could invest as we saw fit. The DOW would be at 16K or higher due to all the new money flowing in, and people would be far wealthier than they are now. America would be free from the environmental wacko's strangle hold on the Democratic party. Oil from ANWR would be reaching the market now, along with that from the outer shelf and the Gulf, and production would be under way in the western tar sands, ending our dependence on middle eastern oil. New refineries would be nearly complete, and the cost of gasoline would be a fraction of what it is today. Coal and nuclear plants would be coming online soon to further reduce our energy costs. Food prices would not be skyrocketing due to ill conceived ethanol policies enacted by Pelosi. The democrats may not have held formal control, but due to their dogmatic solidarity and willingness to filibuster everything, they have been setting the agenda for some time. So if things aren't going the way you would like, remember who should really get the blame.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Sadly, the answer for the FBI seems to be a resounding NO. Yes, the agency J Edgar built into the finest police force in the world, is now in a steel cage match with the CIA to win the coveted title of most incompetent government agency. Seven years after the anthrax attacks and they still have no leads, but are focused on government employees at Fort Dix. Let's look at the facts in this 'mystery'. The letters began appearing shortly after 9/11. Atta was reported by Czech intel as meeting with an Iraqi intel officer in Prague. Iraq was the country most involved with anthrax as a weapon. The first victim was the landlord of 9/11 leader Mohammed Atta. Atta and a fellow hijacker were recognized by a pharmacist as buying salve for their hands burned by exposure to bleach (bleach used in an attempt to sterilize something?), and one had a pronounced hacking (anthrax caused?) cough. After the initial set of letters, there was never another attack, or any attempt at communication by the attacker. Why? To believe the FBI theory, you have to accept that there were disgruntled governmental employees who had access to weaponized anthrax, and decided immediately after 9/11 to mail out contaminated letters and make it appear to be the work of Islamic extremists. Or you could believe the more probable theory that it was the work of Islamic extremists, as the letters themselves indicated. No, the government chooses to blame scientists here, and as a result just had to pay a $5.8 million settlement for smearing the name of one of those scientists.

In Defense of the President

The democrats and the media (redundancy defined!) constantly tell us that Bush's popularity is at historic lows, and then launch into yet another attack on him, while gutless so-called republicans sit by silently and allow these attacks to go unchallenged. Democrats blame Bush for 'taking his eyes off the ball' by invading Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan, hoping that we all forget that they were dead set against attacking the Taliban at that time. Now, since that war proved popular, they rewrite history to claim they supported it all along, that they only opposed the war in Iraq (despite voting to authorize it). So, the simple question is this: Is the war in Iraq, which toppled a cruel and ruthless dictator, a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, who killed hundreds of thousands more in wars against his neighbors, a man who supported terror groups worldwide, is that war an unjust war? Does fighting to bring democracy and freedom to 25 million people tarnish the image of the United States? When Bill Clinton sat by and watched over a million people get slaughtered in Rwanda, did our indifference boost our image worldwide? The United States should stand for freedom. We should oppose tyranny. We were right to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, we should have stopped it in Rwanda, and we were right to depose a brutal dictator like Sadaam. We should use our power diplomatically, economically, and militarily, to topple other thugs like Mugabe, Castro, Chavez, Ammadinijhad, Assad, and others. People will ask 'are we the world's policeman?' My answer is, would you rather live in a world without one?

Annie Oakley Rides Again!

Someone should tell Hillary that talking about another candidate being assassinated is not a way to win yourself a spot as that candidate's running mate. If anything it should convince Obama why he should keep Hillary as far away as possible. The idea of willingly putting yourself one heartbeat between Hillary and the Presidency is far crazier than talking one on one with Amadinijhad. I mean, on the one hand you would be putting yourself close to a ruthless psycho that is bent on world domination, and on the other you would be meeting with the president of Iran.

Give Piece a Chance!

Democrats, as lead by Obama, are in a furor over the suggestion that talking to Amadinijhad (note that Obama didn't originally say 'talk with' but 'negotiate with') is equivalent to Chamberlain talking to Hitler in 1939, the difference as they see it being that Hitler was unique, expressed brilliantly by a liberal pundit as "Hitler was Hitler". But Hitler was not unique, he was not different from any other tyrant before or since who dreamed of conquering the world and avenging percieved past wrongs. The nut case in Iran, like Hitler (a man he openly admires), wants to become the dominate player in his region. He wants to destroy the Jews, who he blames all his peoples troubles on, and he is willing to destroy his country and the majority of his people to accomplish his goals. Oh, and he has openly written about his plans. No, he is nothing like Hitler! What would talking to this man, or any lunatic, accomplish? You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable. Any dialog will revolve around placating him in some way, giving in to some demand or another, in exchange for some empty promise to not develop nuclear weapons or wage war on Israel or to stop sponsoring terror. At the end of such negotiations, only one side (the non-lunatic side) will intend to keep their promises. So he will emerge with enhanced prestige, some concession from us giving him something he is not entitled to (like the piece of Checkoslovakia that Chamberlain gave up, in this case likely a piece of Iraq), and he will continue on with his lunatic agenda, just like Hitler, surprising only the liberals who thought for sure this time would be different.

Energy Surplus, Intelligence Shortage

The greatest scam ever perpetrated against the American taxpayer (bigger even than the global warming hoax) is the idea that there is an energy shortage in this country. We have enough coal to meet our demands for at least a thousand years, enough uranium to meet all of our electrical needs for even longer, and enough oil in the gulf, offshore, in ANWR, and in oil shale to eliminate any need for middle eastern oil imports for many decades. We have abundant supplies of energy. Unfortunately, we also have an abundant supply of idiots, and many of them are in Congress. The Democratic party (where most of the idiots congregate) is completely subservient to the environmental extremist lobby. So, they prevent us from drilling for oil. They block the construction of refineries. They prohibit the use of coal, and oppose building nuclear plants. They even oppose hydroelectric power, the cleanest energy source possible. The only sources of energy they support are those that don't exist, aren't cost effective, and can't meet out needs. Which is really the point, they don't want to meet our needs. They want us to do with less, to live like the third world. There is no shortage of energy in this country, just a shortage of intelligence.

Social Insecurity

Thank you Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, and the other left wingers of the Democratic party for blocking President Bush's attempt to add private accounts to Social Security. At the time Bush first made his proposal, the DOW was at 8K. After winning the 2004 election and deciding to make this proposal a centerpiece of his second term, the DOW was at 10K. Now the DOW is at 13K. So had Bush's plan been implemented, each of us would have a private account that contained OUR retirement money, an account we would own and could bequeath to our heirs, and we would be up around 40% or so. That's not counting the dramatic effect on the market of pouring in hundreds of billions of new money into it. Had the Democrats not stupidly blocked this idea, the DOW would likely be at 16k or higher. Yes, we would all be wealthier and the economy healthier, but no, the Democrats couldn't tolerate that. They are willfully ignorant of economics, preferring a state controlled plan that loses money for you but gains power for them. It's no accident that the Jackass is the symbol of their party, it is a fitting identifier for their supporters.

Chairman Obama

Chairman Mao, the man who brought communism to the world's most populous country, needed to invigorate the Chinese economy. So he lowered the tax rate on the peasant farmers to 25% from the previous rate of 33%. Yes, the main man of communism believed in supply side Reaganomics, that lowering taxes wold provide incentives and increase production and revenue, and he was proven correct. Mao would be considered a right winger by Obama and Hillary, who would both like to raise tax rates significantly higher than those set by the communist icon. So, if a communist isn't left enough for you, what is ?

Obama, King of the World

Here is an actual Obama quote from his rally in Oregon. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK" So there you have it. Under an Obama presidency, other countries will decide how much food we can have and how much energy we can use. Don't expand our supplies, don't drill for more oil here, just learn to do with less. Sit at home, in the dark, with no food, and no AC. Live like a third world peasant and learn to like it. The whole 'world government' idea is back, and Obama wants to be the leader, and he is willing to sacrifice the needs of Americans to appease his foreign constituents.

Diplomacy for Dummies

Apparently Obama doesn't grasp what the problem is with the President of the United States sitting down for a personal meeting with a two bit thug. Iran's Amadinejad has openly stated his hatred of the US and his desire to destroy Israel. He is defying the world and pursuing nuclear weapons, he supports terrorism around the world, and is responsible for supplying the weapons and training that have killed hundreds of US troops in Iraq, yet Obama would meet with him one on one with no preconditions (for example, stop killing our troops, maybe? stop supporting terror perhaps?) and elevate him in the eyes of the Arab world to the status of Saladin, an equal to the US. What a brilliant plan to ensure Iranian dominance of the Arab world. Just as brilliant as his plan to meet with the dictator Chavez while snubbing our only South American friend, Uribe in Columbia. Just part of the change we can believe in. Strengthen our enemies and punish our friends. Just what I would expect from a Harvard man.

Obama's twisted logic

Two things came out of the recent Obama press conference. One, Obama thinks it is wrong for us to support democracy around the world, unless we know that the person who will win the election will be favorable to us. Secondly, that he wants to negotiate with terror states like Iran, with no preconditions, because the Bush policy of requiring that they give up nuclear ambitions, acknowledge Israel, and end support for terror groups, is a failure. Oh, but also that he would require the same preconditions before he would talk with them, because he supports tough diplomacy. The first point shows that he is just plain stupid. If you only support democracy when you like the outcome, you don't really support democracy at all. The second point shows that he is beyond stupid and approaching insane, as he argues both for and against the same position in the same response. He condemns Bush for a policy that he advocates, while then explaining that he would do something different that he clarifies is exactly the same. I can't explain where he stands on the issue, and apparently he can't either.

Outrageous outrage!

President Bush has outraged Democrats by stating that “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along". The first thought that should occur to one reading what Bush said, is that it is an undeniably true statement. There are people who believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals. The second thought that should occur is that Nancy Pelosi (recently returned from groveling before the dictator of Syria) is certainly one, as is Jimmy Carter (recently returned from a tea party wth Hamas). Since Obama has stated he would hold talks with Amadinejad (who has repeatedly said he would like to wipe Israel off the map) with no preconditions, he clearly seems to share their views, making it difficult to see how he could be upset if Bush mentioned him by name. Bush didn't do that of course, he simply citicized 'some' who believe that. 'Some' that could have easily been Carter or Pelosi. It is obvious by his reaction that Obama knows he should be included. He doth protest too much.

President McCain

Get used to hearing that, because barring some Satanic interference to help out Hillary, it looks like it's impossible for the Democrats to win the White House in November. More than half of Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama. He has failed to win in any state lacking a significant African American population, and has lost all the biggest states. He was absolutely trounced in West Virginia, a state that the dems must win. So, if he is the nominee, they lose. If Hillary gets the super delegates to go her way, it will alienate the black vote and the college vote that supports Obama, and she will lose. If the ticket combines the two, putting two people with high negatives together, they lose the anti-Hillary vote and the anti-Obama vote, and lose. So, welcome to the White House John McCain.

Meet the new democrat, same as the old democrat

The Democrats have perfected their new strategy to win elections: pretend to be Republicans. In other words, lie. So far this has produced fantastic results for them, as voters are duped into supporting 'conservative' democrats who then go on to pledge allegiance to Nancy Pelosi and the San Francisco wing of the party. None of the Democratic victories that they are so proud of involve a candidate who openly supports the ideals of the Democratic party. They are all fiscally conservative, pro military, supporters of traditional family values. In other words, Republicans. Sooner or later it has to dawn on the voters that they have been tricked, that their conservative congressman is conservative only when talking to the folks back home, not when actually voting on legislation. After all, you can't fool all the people all the time. Then again, maybe you can.

Greed is good, Jealousy is just stupid

OK, I understand why Republicans back reducing dividend and capital gains taxes. First, it has been shown to increase tax revenue and invigorate the economy. Second, and perhaps somewhat less altruistically, it benefits them financially. But why do democrats so oppose it, and in fact want these taxes raised? It won't benefit them personally, and it will damage the economy and decrease revenue. Obama acknowledged that raising the tax would likely decrease federal revenue (and therefore require other taxes to be raised as well), but he still supported the idea. So the Democratic plan requires people to act against their own best interests. Why? Fairness. Yes, he believes it to be unfair that investors pay only 15% tax on their dividends (profits returned to shareholders on which the company has all ready paid a corporate tax of 35% ). True fairness would dictate that they not be taxed TWICE, but that's not how Democrats define fairness. They want to punish those who are successful, even if it harms them as well. That's just plain stupid.

Al Gore - Oscar winner, Nobel prize, still an idiot

So the Goreacle has emerged from under his rock and declared that the recent typhoon in Burma is a result of global warming. After Katrina, Gore made similar claims, but since the next couple years produced no serious storms, it made that claim (which was debunked by Hurricane experts) seem suspect. But now global warming is back, after a 2 year hiatus! Just in time to save Al from being lynched by a starving third world mob upset with him burning all their food to gas up his private jet. Since daily temperatures fluctuate by 20 to 30 degrees, and this year produced the coldest temperatures recorded in decades (including snow in Baghdad for the first time in memory) and the heaviest and latest snowfalls ever recorded in many areas, it's comforting to know that Al can divine the presence of a less than .1 degree increase. Soon I predict all of us will see the wisdom of Al, as the temperature will begin to climb dramatically. After all, it is almost summer!

Hillary Loses Mind

Coming after her promise to 'obliterate' Iran if they attack Israel, macho Hillary has now decided to take on OPEC. Outraged at climbing oil prices, she has decided to blame the oil companies and OPEC, ignoring the significant role her party plays in restricting exploration and development of domestic supplies. Threatening OPEC with WTO sanctions will provoke only laughter from them. They are well aware of our policies that make all of America's vast oil deposits off limits. If we don't want to buy their oil, what option do we have? Unless the Democratic party breaks it's subservience to the environmental lobby, none. That's not going to happen, and they know it. Hillary, if you really want to scare OPEC, and want to lower oil prices significantly, save your tough talk for the environmentalist lobby that would sacrifice our economy and our national security simply to demonstrate their political clout.

The cost of being green

Quick. Which single person is responsible for the greatest number of human deaths in the history of the human race? Hitler? Stalin? No way. How about Rachel Carson. Yes, Rachel Carson, the environmentalist, who led the crusade to ban DDT based on her unproven theory that it harmed birds, and as a result condemned 50 plus million people to die of malaria. A tally that grows each year. Scores of millions of people dead based on a theory. Sacrificed to save birds. Congress recently passed a law demanding the increased use of ethanol to fight global warming, resulting in massive increases in corn prices and threatening a worldwide food shortage, as we burn food for fuel. So around the world people will starve because we are burning food for fuel to fight global warming that has never been proven to exist. My point is that there are consequences to all choices. Maybe politicians should spend some time thinking before rushing to pass feel good legislation that just might have some very bad side effects.

What year is this anyway?

Is it just me, or does it seem like history is repeating itself. Think back to the 70's. Energy crisis, skyrocketing gas prices, gold and other commodities soaring in value, dollar falling, stock market stuck in a rut for years. On the political front, an unpopular war winding down(Vietnam/Iraq), with a very unpopular conservative Republican president (Nixon/Bush), replaced by a longtime Congressional insider and moderate (Ford/McCain) who defeated a charismatic conservative (Reagan/Romney) for the nomination. The democratic nominee, a political novice and unknown left winger (Carter/Obama). So, this looks like an Obama victory is in the cards, followed by 4 years of disastrous economic and foreign policy blunders before Mitt Romney sweeps to victory and Republicans rule for the next 12 years.
Now, just to make things weirder, we also have parallels to 79-80, with a bitter battle between 2 democrats (Carter/Kennedy - Clinton/Obama) going all the way to the convention. If McCain picks Romney as VP, it will be the inverse of the Reagan/Bush ticket. So maybe we have a McCain landslide, and after one term the torch is passed to Romney who serves the next 2 terms, again inverting the Reagan/Bush presidencies. It all depends on what year this is, 1975 or 1979.

Global Stupidity

The sky is falling! Global warming will drown the polar bears and kill us all! So says Oscar winning chicken little Al Gore, the pied piper of environmental extremists. Before everyone panics, we should pause to look at the facts. First, CO2 is not pollution. It is necessary for life, as plants cannot survive without it. Breathing produces CO2, as does forest fires and decaying plants. Natural sources release 40 times more CO2 yearly than man made sources. As such, our contribution is in the noise, well within the yearly fluctuation of the natural emissions.
Man made global warming is a man made global hoax, perpetrated by leftists and enviro-wackos, and spread by a complicit media. A former Canadian Environmental Minister was quoted saying "No matter if the science is all phony...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world". This is what it is really about, crippling the economies of western democracies to the advantage of a developing world exempted from Kyoto restrictions. So stop using electricity, avoid air travel, give up your car, and stop breathing. It'll reduce CO2 emissions, but it won't affect the climate, and the polar bears won't notice a bit.

Flashback to the roaring 70's

Well, both major Democratic candidates have endorsed a version of the wildly successful windfall profits tax. You remember how that solved the energy crisis in the 70's, right? Yes, it single handedly crippled domestic oil production and ensured our continuing reliance on hostile foreign governments for our vital energy needs, while simultaneously producing sky high prices and long lines at the pumps. Obama's plan is actually stolen directly from that brilliant economist, communist dictator Hugo Chavez, even setting the same $80 per barrel baseline price. Maybe someday the Democratic party will stop being a slave to the enviro-wacko lobby and allow us to exploit our domestic supplies of oil. There is more oil in ANWR than in all of Mexico, and maybe as much as in Nigeria, both major oil producers. If you add in the oil from the outer shelf and in the gulf, and the oil in the sands of Utah,Wyoming, and Montana, we are sitting on the world's largest reserves. Yet we refuse to develop these resources because of the power of the environmental lobby and their hold on the Democrats. Remember that next time you fill up.

Obama's New Idea - Socialism

Recently Sen Obama unveiled his plan to 'fix' our economy, by raising income taxes, doubling the tax on dividends, doubling the capital gains tax, and increasing the corporate tax. Obviously he means to 'fix' the economy in the same way the vet 'fixes' the cat. His 'plan' is nothing new, it's the same old plan that has failed socialists around the world, yet they never tire of it or learn from it's failures. Obama is nothing but a re-treaded McGovernite, a flashback to the 60's socialist-pacifist democrats, who believe in big government, big spending, and big taxes. He campaigns on calls for 'hope' and 'change'. He hopes you won't mind him taking the change from your pockets. Please Mr Obama, show me anytime, anywhere, anyone, has EVER been able to tax themselves to prosperity.

NY Times attempts Damage Control for Obama

Frank Rich's latest article attempts to equate the 20 year relationship of Obama and Rev. Wright with a campaign endorsement of McCain by the Rev Hagee. For those out there too dim to comprehend (that would be you liberals) let me simplify it. Hagee offered his endorsement to McCain. Obama has offered his support and endorsement of Wright for 2 decades. Obama has referred to Wright as his 'uncle', his 'spiritual advisor' and 'mentor'. He has provided Wright with tens of thousands of dollars in support over the years. His relationship is far deeper than that of a candidate seeking support for his election efforts. Of course the Times knows this, they just think you are too stupid to know better.