Our Newest Superhero!

Move over Superman, step aside Hulk, there is a new superhero on the scene, Super Witch! (well, it rhymes with that anyway!). Yes Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the planet from peril. I know this because she said in an interview "I'm trying to save the planet".  Obviously she has some hidden superpowers that we are not yet aware of (the ability to raise taxes with a single vote?, the ability to block domestic oil production faster than a speeding bullet?), for such a statement coming from a mere mortal would have to be considered the most arrogant thing a politician ever said, and that is REALLY saying something! Not only is the planet in need of saving, not only does Nancy possess the wisdom to know this,  but she has the power to save it!  Truly amazing for someone who appears to be just  a leftwing political hack from the Bay area. But that's how it is with superheroes, you can never see through their clever disguise.

Big Brother for President!

I don't call Barrack Obama a flip-flopper. It is fashionable now to attack a candidate as a flip-flopper if it can be shown that he has changed his position over time. It is however entirely reasonable to change one's opinion as time passes and situations change. What is not reasonable or acceptable is to lie about one's positions, to pretend that they were right when it is documented that they were wrong. Here is a quote from Obama, made at the start of the surge:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Very clearly he was opposed to the surge, he voted against it, he predicted it would make matters worse. Now here is a more recent quote:

  "Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."

Notice he now claims to have known all along the surge would reduce violence, yet he voted against it. Was he opposed to reducing the violence? Why did he then predict publicly that it would make things worse if he knew it would work? He claims to have said at the time that it would improve the security situation there, yet publicly he said the opposite. This is not a case of flip-flopping, it is a case of lying. As evidence mounts that the situation has improved dramatically, Obama wants to rewrite history, to unsay the things he said. This is why his team is scrubbing his web site to correct the past. Unfortunately for them this is not Oceania, Obama is not big brother, and we know the truth.

Media Fairness Demonstrated Again!

As if the network news anchor's pilgrimage to Iraq following Obama was not proof enough of the media's bias in his favor (McCain's last trip to Iraq was barely mentioned on the news), the New York Times has removed any pretense of fairness by publishing an editorial by Obama but refusing to provide equal treatment to McCain. This type of blatant bias is not something new for the Times, or a new trend for the media in general.

According to The Project for Excellence in Journalism, for the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. Not only is Obama given more coverage, the coverage is more positive, while McCain's coverage is often slanted to promote the theme that he is too old or out of touch, like today's AP article pointing out his lack of internet experience.  Of course, since the NY Time's op-ed editor David Shipley (the man who rejected the McCain article) worked in the Clinton White House, his bias should surprise no one.

 Since the Times doesn't want people to read McCain's response, I have posted it here:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Obama for Class President!

Other than hatred for George Bush, what is the reason for supporting Obama? How has he proven himself qualified to be President? Hillary Clinton pointed out that while McCain offered a lifetime of experience, all Obama had to bring to the office was a speech he gave a few years ago. Where is the landmark legislation he proposed? Where are the Senate bills bearing his name, the bills he worked with the opposing party to craft, like McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman? What great business experience does he have? What executive experience? What military experience? What can anyone point to that would show that this man is uniquely qualified to be the leader of the free world? Obama's like a teenager who knows just how to fix the world, without ever having left his parent's home, he should spend some time learning before he tells everyone else how things should be done.

Pelosi says "Drill Me Now!!"

AP Headline: "Democrats Try To Spur More Oil Exploration"

Now, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story, extracted from the body of the article:

Democrats are:

"Seeking to blunt GOP efforts to permit oil exploration off Atlantic and Pacific coasts ..."

"scrambling to appear pro-drilling — even as their leaders appear dead set against reversing the long-standing drilling bans along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts."

Their proposal is:

"an effort by Democrats to counter a push by congressional Republicans to lift a long-standing drilling ban on most offshore U.S. waters."

So there you have it. Once again the Democrats resort to lying to the American people, trying to trick them into thinking that they care about the rising cost of gas and are going to do something about it. The idea of increasing domestic oil production is a no-brainer for anyone with a brain, but Democrats can't grasp it. They instead try to block all efforts to do so while pretending otherwise, hoping that the American people are foolish enough not to see the truth, that the Democrats are just the lap dogs of the environmentalist extremist lobby who will oppose any effort to keep this country from turning into a third world nation.

SEC: Short on Brains!

In July of 2007, the SEC changed a rule that had been in effect since 1929. Known as the uptick rule, it was designed to prevent short sellers from shorting a stock that was dropping in price, forcing them to wait for a price uptick before they could short. Since that ill conceived  change, the market has dropped nearly 4,000 points. It's time the SEC admits it made a mistake, and acts to prevent short sellers from destroying the markets. Reimposing this rule would be a good start, prohibiting naked shorting also needs to be done immediately. In fact, all shorting should be eliminated, it is a relic of the past when markets were manipulated to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Numerous companies have been destroyed and countless jobs lost by allowing this practice, Bear Stearns was just the latest victim. It's time for the SEC to wake up and restore order to the markets.

Witch on a Witch Hunt

When Bill Clinton was being investigated for various crimes, he responded by firing all 93 Federal prosecutors and replacing them with people more to his liking, since obviously firing and replacing just those investigating him would look like he was trying to obstruct justice. Democrats at the time went on the news talk show circuit to explain that there was nothing wrong in this, that the President has absolute authority to fire prosecutors for any reason or no reason at all. Now that the President is a Republican, and a few prosecutors (8 of them) were fired (because they were refusing to investigate corrupt Democrat officials), we have a major scandal. Obviously I feel for the prosecutors, since they were understandably confused. Having seen the precedent that they should not investigate a corrupt Democrat or lose their job, they didn't understand that this administration expected them to actually enforce the law, even when it was being broken by Democrats. So now Pelosi has organized an official Congressional witch hunt (I'd suggest she try looking in a mirror) and is targeting Carl Rove, demanding he testify. As he is a Presidential adviser, the President will assert Executive Privilege and refuse, and the courts will  concur he cannot be forced to testify. Not that this matters to Pelosi, as it is just political theater for her to prove to her leftwing supporters what a good job she is doing, hoping that they are unaware of the soaring food prices and skyrocketing gas prices since she took power 2 years ago.

Obama's Plan to Destroy the Economy

Senator Obama loves the working poor, so much so that he wants all of us to be in that category, and his economic plan will go a long way to seeing that dream become a reality. He plans to raise capital gains and dividend taxes by 100%, even though he admits it will generate less revenue and therefore increase the deficit even more. This should keep the markets down, and with them your 401k's. He wants to raise corporate taxes, which he apparently doesn't know are not paid by corporations, but by employees, shareholders, and customers. This will reduce the number of jobs and keep the salaries of those working nice and low, which is good since when the Bush tax cuts expire that lowest bracket will go from 10% back to 15% so they can enjoy a further reduction in pay.  In addition he wants to remove the Social Security tax cap, so companies will be hit with the another 6.2% for higher paid workers. Of course, the company isn't going to just eat that extra cost, so that added expense will get passed on to the consumers as well. Those higher paid workers are looking at more than a 10% cut, and they are going to demand higher pay to make up for it. Too bad the companies will be already struggling to pass off the costs of the higher taxes, so they will have to have some more layoffs. In addition, Obama wants to bring back the windfall profits tax, the disaster from the 70's that caused domestic oil production to plummet. This will further drive up the cost of gasoline and make us even more dependent on the volatile middle east. If you want to know where it will all end, look to the 70's (the last time we elected an ultra liberal president). Skyhigh interest rates, soaring unemployment, and inflation out of control.

Divided States of America

At what point did the divide between Republican and Democrat transform into a version of the split between Sunni and Shia? When did we become Red States and Blue States, instead of the United States? It didn't happen overnight, but the divide is growing, and unless checked, violence is the certain outcome. The country used to come together after an election, but the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a watershed moment. Republicans remembered how Nixon was forced to leave office over official misconduct and murky allegations of corruption, and they expected when Clinton was caught committing perjury and obstructing justice, as well as being implicated in at least 3 cases of sexual assault, he would face the same fate. Democrats however rallied around Clinton, after earlier assuring that if guilty he would have to go. Republicans felt a double standard was in effect, Democrats felt Clinton was being persecuted for a minor offense, and tensions grew. Then came the election of 2000, where the Gore campaign refused to accept defeat, leading supporters of both sides to face off in street demonstrations. The split has intensified with each passing year. Our right to express our views or even express our support for a candidate is being met with intimidation. A recent search on 'Bush/Cheney campaign signs' resulted in numerous stories about yard signs being stolen or destroyed, and cars and homes vandalized. Now it is common for someone to be verbally attacked (as opposed to debated) if they express a different view on an issue. In some cases the attacks are becoming physical. Where will it end? Is it possible for either Obama or McCain to put an end to this? I don't know, but if it continues the eventual outcome is certain and grim. As Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand", or as the philosopher Rodney King once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

Stop the population explosion, vote Democratic!

Not content with their previous efforts to eradicate humanity through abortion and preventing the combat of tropical diseases by banning DDT, together responsible for well over 100 million deaths, Democrats have a new plan to end our species. By irresponsibly supporting a dramatic increase in biofuel production, they have pushed a significant portion of the world to the brink of starvation. The latest report from the World Bank points the blame for skyrocketing food prices on the push for biofuels. Pelosi pushed a 600% increase in ethanol production through Congress in December, and as a result, people world wide are starving.

Patriot Games

Obama and McCain have both written pieces today on the meaning of patiotism. Both are well written, but while words are important, actions are more so. McCain volunteered to serve his country in a very unpopular war. He was held as a prisoner for 5 years, but when released continued to serve in the Navy for many more years before entering politics. He fits the classic definition of a patriot, one who has sacrificed, put his life at risk, not for personal gain but for his sense of obligation to his country. Obama chose a different path. There were no wars calling out for his service, and though he could have joined the military and served in peace time, he chose not to. That may make him less qualified to be president, but it does not define him as unpatriotic. Many very patriotic people never serve in the military. There are other ways to serve ones country, and working in ones community to ensure public safety, justice and opportunity is just as valid as serving in the military. Police, Fire, EMS personnel all serve their country, as do social workers and health care workers (though at less personal risk). No, patiotism is not defined only by military service, or community service, but rather by a belief that this country is worthy of service, by pride in the recognition that this country has played a unique role in history, and by a respect for it's traditions, values, and fellow countrymen. A patriot is not someone like Bill Ayres who sets off bombs to kill his fellow citizens and decades later only regrets not bombing more, or Rev. Wright who blames this country for all the world's evils and calls from the pulpit for God's damnation of it. Obama claims to have been raised in Indonesia by his Marxist mother to love this country, but he certainly makes a habit of hanging out with those who clearly do not. That might not be a reason to question his patriotism, but it is reason to question his judgment, and coupled with his lack of experience, more than reason enough for me to not vote for him.

They can't really be this stupid.

I don't believe that the Democrats can possibly believe what they say publicly about oil exploration. They say that drilling for more oil will only increase our 'addiction' to oil. We are addicted to oil in the same way we are addicted to food and air, we need it to survive. They prefer to view energy as something we must learn to live without, something that we can give up as easily as that morning latte from Starbucks. They can't be this stupid, so the only other possibility is they are simply corrupt. Someone must be paying them to keep America's oil reserves off the market. All of their policies are designed to make us more dependent on foreign oil, from a windfall profits tax redux that was demonstrated to reduce domestic production to blocking offshore drilling, blocking ANWR drilling, and blocking development of our huge oil shale reserves. Coupled with their campaign against our nuclear industry (which totally crippled it), and their crusade against coal, it is obvious that their goal is to leave America completely devoid of domestic energy sources. They support wind and solar energy of course, because they can't provide anywhere near the amount of energy we need and are totally cost ineffective.  This is simply to give the illusion that they are not working to destroy our country for the benefit of their Middle Eastern friends, that they have a plan. They do of course have a plan, which is to transform America into a third world country. Either that, or they are just the most inept, ignorant, collection of morons the world has ever known.