The Bailout Blunder And A Corrupt Congress

After the brutal defeat of the first Bailout Bill, another "enhanced" version has passed. The Original Bill from the administration was two and half pages long, the new one, four-hundred. That's half the problem, if only we could get our economy on the same growth plan as our bureaucracy we may be sitting pretty. Ronald Reagan yous to say, "people don't get the government they pay for." In this case, Those words have never been more true.

One of the key issues the new legislation will enact is an authorization of $700 billion for the government to purchase troubled assets and buy equity in distressed financial firms. Which means the government is taking our money to buy trash, in hopes, that the people who have been dealing in trash don't go under. The thing is, however, trash is trash and those failing mortgages are trash. Since when is it the tax payers job to bail people out? I thought this was capitalism? I thought our market thrived on people individually trying to bolster their economic status, to the point that the market it's self bolsters?....bailing people out is socialism. What they should do is take that $700 billion and go and buy all the houses with failing mortgages, and tell the home owners (that shouldn't be home owners to begin with), "were not going to kick you out, you just no longer own this home you can't afford- now you pay rent to the U.S. government." Then the government should go sell those homes that are being rented to private investors. The problem is that sounds "mean" to those fiscal geniuses that buy expensive houses with little or no money down....go figure.

The legislation lays out a plan to phase in the money for buying troubled assets, with $250 billion available immediately, $100 billion to be released if the president certifies it is needed, and the last $350 billion available with another certification, but subject to a congressional vote. As well as require that the president establish a plan to recoup the cost from the financial industry if, after five years, there are any losses. Among other things the Bill will provide are business tax breaks for production of, investment in, and use of renewable fuels, increase personal credits against the AMT, shielding more than 20 million taxpayers from the tax, and increase, from $100,000 to $250,000, the limit on federal bank deposit insurance.

Beyond that, the Bill was nailed with pork-barrel spending. That's why congress has a record low 13% approval rating. Our nation is in potential crisis mode and what do they do?- add pork to bill that's unanimously disagreed upon already by two-thirds of Americans. This congress is ran by a bunch of scoundrels. The Democrats that pushed this Bill and Republicans that faltered by voting for it should be ashamed of themselves- John McCain included. Among the delegates that voted for the Bill only five states voted in absolute opposition for it, Wyoming, Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Thirty voted unanimously for it, while 15 States' delegates had split votes.

Let us not forget that the absolute disaster predicted if the first Bill wasn't passed didn't exactly pan out. Yeah, the market dropped 780 points, but it bounced back with 200+ of those points before Wall Street closed. Then, the next day- whata you know?...the Dow is up 200. The truth is if we let some people take the people responsiblity for this mess (Bankers and home owners alike), we might come under some recession like cloud for awhile. However, the market will adjust it's self and within a year or so we will be back on track- that's how capitalism works.

Is Racism Really Costing Obama?

The Associated Press reported a poll conducted by Stanford University, to find out why Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama has not yet been able to seal the presidential nod in an election cycle that experts on both sides of the political spectrum admit should be an overwhelmingly strong election season for the Democrats. The polls conclusion, shockingly, stated that a large number of white Americans harbor negative feelings towards Blacks. Here's the Breakdown:

• The Poll states that a Staggering 1/3 of White Democrats harbor negative views of Blacks
• The Poll states that 40% of ALL White Americans have "some" negative feelings towards Blacks.
• The Poll states that just 7 out 10 people who call themselves Democrats plan to support Obama, compared to the 85% of people who call themselves Republicans that plan to support McCain
• The Poll states that their are more whites who have positive things to say about Blacks then negative
• The Poll states that the 3 out of 10 Democrats that do not support Obama, do plan to support McCain
• The Poll claims that Obama would have at least a 6% point increase if not for white racism
• The Poll states that Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20% of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22% agreed with "boastful," 29% "complaining," 13% "lazy" and 11% "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.
• The Poll states that Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58% said they planned to back Obama.
• The Poll states that more than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." (Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama.)
• The poll states that about 20% of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24% said blacks were "violent."
• The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

The poll states and claims a lot of interesting and thought provoking information. Are one-third of all white Democrats really "racist?" Racism is widely viewed as ignorant minded prejudice in today's world. However, what truly constitutes racism?If Race really is an issue in this election, who is making it one? If their is racism on one side, is it likely that their is racism on the other? This poll provokes many of these questions, and others.

One interesting thing, I believe, would be if Stanford used the same polling techniques on Blacks over the same issues. What would be the outcome of that poll? It's no secret that Blacks are overwhelmingly and unanimously voting for Barack Obama. It would be interesting to see how many Black's are not voting for McCain because he is white and are voting for Obama because he is black. My only quarry with the poll is would that be deemed racist too? One definition of equality is being judged by the same standards. It's very conceivable that a white man would be labeled "racist" if when asked, who he was voting for and why said, "McCain because he's white." My question is would the same scrutiny be as conceivable if a Black man was asked the same question and answered, "Obama because he is black?" Would the same standards hold?

Another valid question is assuming the polls information is truly statistically accurate why do roughly 20 something percent of whites (Republicans/Democrats/Independents all) associate the word "violent" with black people? Furthermore, does that necessarily constitute racism? Any answer to those questions is only pure assumption without a plethora of truly unbiased research and study but perhaps 20% of whites connect blacks to rap music? Rap music which is widely known to glorify gang violence and crime life is predominantly recorded by blacks. Maybe whites make a connection? Or perhaps whites notice that violent crime rates when compared to blacks are widely disproportionate with blacks commiting a higher number of violent crimes? Now the reasons for differing crime rates is quite a touchy subject and widely debated. However, despite the reason the statistic is still accurate. So is it racist for a white person to connect the two? The poll states it is.

In my opinion it does not constitute racism to connect those terms. The poll even says there is a noteworthy amount of people who connect the terms and are still planning on backing Barack Obama. I believe to cry "racism!" is dangerous indeed. It reminds me a lot of the 'Willy Horton" ad in the late 80's. If Obama loses there is no doubt that many on the losing side will cry out foul because of racism. Now I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist, however, I am saying that i don't believe one third of white democrats are truly racist. I think the numbers have been stated in a way that doesn't accurately represent the demeanor of those white democrats. Furthermore, I am every bit the believer that racism exists on the same level among blacks as it does whites. However, I do not believe the average educated, job keeping, hard working American white or black harbors racism. On that note in no way do I believe if Obama loses it will be because of racist white Americans- I think that's simply a ploy.

A Different Obama: From somone who knew him.

RFFM.org conducted an online interview with Debbie Revor. In 1994 Revor was employed as a legal secretary with the law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland while Sen. Barack Obama was an associate with the firm. Mrs. Revor's interview sheds light on what Barack Obama was like in private and will help give Americans an impression of the man who is running for the presidency of the United States. The interview with Mrs. Revor was conducted by Daniel Zanoza, RFFM.org's Executive Director, and was not edited in any form.

Biography:
Debbie Revor graduated from Sawyer College with an Administrative Secretary Certificate in 1981. She was a legal secretary for 15 years in Chicago. Revor worked for personal injury firms and corporate law firms. Some of the firms she was employed by include Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland (Sen. Barack Obama's former law firm), Rudnick & Wolfe, and Landau, Omahana, et al. Revor does not work for any political party.
Mrs. Revor has two children, 11 and 9, and has been married for 12-1/2 years. She has worked from home for four years as a Legal Transcriptionist. Her interests include coaching her daughter's basketball team, reading, working out, going for long walks, camping and spending time with her family.

Debbie Revor "In Her Own Words"

Q. I understand CBS NEWS approached you to do an interview regarding your history with Obama. Why did you reject that offer and decide to discuss your experiences with the Democratic Party's presidential nominee with RFFM.org?

A. I am a private person and didn't want to be on TV. Since I also don't feel the media is fair right now to anyone but Sen. Obama, I didn't want my experiences to be shown in a different light than the truth. I just wanted the truth to be told about my experience with working in his law firm and I felt that RFFM.org would tell that truth and not change it to fit their preconceived opinions of Sen. Obama.

Q. Can you tell me how you first met Sen. Obama?

A. I met him when I went to work for Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland in January 1994, a civil rights law firm on the near north side of Chicago on Erie Street. I got the job through a friend who I worked with at a temporary job two years before. She worked at the firm and gave me a good reference. She was Sen. Obama’s legal secretary.

Q. What was your impression of Sen. Obama?

A. He wasn’t friendly and was standoffish and arrogant from the start of my job there. My first impression was that I didn’t like him because of this arrogance.

Q. What were his duties with the law firm to the best of your knowledge?

A. Obama was an associate at the firm and had been there about two years. I saw him have meetings with the other attorneys and he helped with hearings and did prep work for trials.

Obama probably did other things too, but I wasn’t his personal secretary. These are the things I observed him do or heard his secretary talk about.

Q. You told me the law firm you worked for dealt with civil rights. So would it be safe to say Obama was a champion for the downtrodden and less fortunate? What were your personal impressions of Obama? Did he seem like helping the poor was his primary agenda?

A. I didn’t feel at the time Obama cared about the downtrodden and less fortunate and I still don’t feel that way. I didn’t see any proof of that at all during the 11 months I worked there. I don’t have any knowledge of Obama helping in the community in any way. We as legal secretaries weren’t paid very much there and he could’ve started helping with that – speaking up about the low pay we had. I didn’t see that he cared about our state in life. I also saw him act in ways that were very self-serving, self-focused and ambitious.

Q. I know you are a person who cares deeply about your faith. Previously you told me that you did not feel welcome or comfortable as a Christian in your workplace. Why did you feel that way?
A. My friend and I were Christians. We liked to pray together sometimes at our lunch hour in my office with the door shut. After the attorneys found out what we were doing, they would walk in and interrupt us. After a while, Sen. Obama didn’t let his secretary take lunch at the same time I did as he would keep her working very late so she had to take a late lunch. I felt at the time it was because he didn’t want us to spend time praying. He didn’t like his secretary spending time talking about her faith or spending time with me. He rolled his eyes at her and I heard him and an attorney or two talking about her and/or us behind our backs. She felt very oppressed by him and wasn’t herself after a while. We really didn’t talk about our faith after that unless he was out of the office or we were outside the office. You know at other places of employment you could occasionally talk about matters of faith as people would want to in casual conversation or ask about it or ask me for prayer for something, but that never happened there. The attorneys, especially Sen. Obama, made us feel that wasn’t acceptable at all.

Q. It sounds like you feel Sen. Obama and some of those in the law firm were targeting you for your religious beliefs. This must have been distressing to you especially when you were working for a firm that was supposed to champion civil rights. How did this affect you emotionally?

A. I didn’t like to go to work after a while. I didn’t hang around with my friend anymore as I was so uncomfortable around Sen. Obama. He would give me these glaring looks and stare at me like I was invisible. It was very creepy. I became very depressed about the whole workplace situation and left there after 11 months.

Q. Sen. Obama claims to be an advocate for national healthcare. He constantly says in his speeches that everyone in America should be entitled to good healthcare. What was your experience at the law firm regarding this issue? Did the firm offer comprehensive healthcare for its employees?

A. We didn’t have comprehensive healthcare. We may have had a hospitalization plan, but I don’t remember even having that at the time. Why wasn’t Sen. Obama concerned about that? That would’ve been a small issue for him to take up and fight for, right? Better medical benefits for a small staff?

Q. Let’s try to get some of your more personal observations regarding the man, Barack Obama. Was he friendly to the staff? Did he seem like a regular guy? Was he approachable?

A. I don’t remember Sen. Obama ever going out of his way to be friendly or personable to the staff. He was definitely that way with the partners of the firm, but with the staff he was very arrogant and standoffish, very serious and never one to just chat you up or ask how things were with you or anything of that sort. I actually never even talked to him after a while because I was so uncomfortable with his manner towards my friend, myself and the other staff. He was not approachable and seemed very, very driven by ambition and not interested at all in the “little people” like secretaries and staff.

Q. Obviously this is not something that is easy for you to do. You aren’t a public person. You aren’t seeking public office. But yet you had the courage to come forward and share some very private experiences in your life. Some others might not be so brave because politics is a dirty business today or at least many think so. What made you decide to come forward and talk about your work experience with Obama?

A. So that the public would know that Sen. Barack Obama is not a nice, easygoing charmer as he portrays himself on TV. He was a hard, unapproachable, very driven and ambitious person. He was also very self-centered, self-concerned and self-focused. I wouldn’t ever want him to be President as I feel he would make a lot of mistakes in office because of his defensiveness and self-centered attitude. I don’t think he could care for the people of America as he acts like he does. If he couldn’t care for people in a small office with a small staff, which would have been relatively easy, how can he care what happens to the poor and downtrodden?

Also, people need to know he was a new attorney working as an associate with not much experience when I worked with him in 1994. How has he risen to where he is in 14 years? Running for the highest office of the land? How has America let that happen and why can’t people see through his façade? He is a good motivational speaker, but he is not ready to lead this country.

* To hear more of Mrs. Revor's story, tune in to the Dr. Laurie Roth Show on Tuesday, Sept. 16th at 9 P.M. Central. Roth will interview both Revor and Dan Zanoza, the Executive Director of RFFM.org, who conducted the above interview.
Roth's nationally syndicated program will be the first to conduct a live on-air interview with Revor. Roth's program is aired on the IRN-USA Radio Network.

(All credit of this article goes to RFFM.ORG)

Moose Shooter & Maverick, But Can Obama Handle Them?

With the newest USA Today/Gallup poll showing Senator McCain and his running mate 4 percentage points above Obama/Biden, it makes you wonder. It makes you wonder if anyone could have ever guessed the way this election would really turn out, and at this rate Lord only knows what lies ahead of us. The post convention 4 point nod to McCain is 11 points higher then his previous numbers (a larger bounce then Obama received after his convention...yes big stage and all) as well as being his biggest lead since January. The New Polls show McCain leading with a 54% support from likely voters compared to Barack's now 44%.

So does this have the Obama campaign scrambling?- according to them, no. “Up or down, we believe national polls are meaningless,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton told FOX News. Whether your for or against the Senator from Illinois you have to logically look at that statement with some scrutiny. Furthermore, if it were Obama in the lead you would likely here his campaign ascribe it to "Barack's nation wide appeal for change, his new direction, and a "unity" he shares with the needs of the American people." Except this time it's not Barack in the lead anymore.

In another statement during a news conference in Ohio, Obama himself said, "This has been a good story to write about, and there's always something new. And my general approach throughout this process is not to worry about today's news or yesterday's polls." Perhaps, Obama, isn't worried but then how would you explain his distinct new approach to dealing with Governor Palin in the last few days?

While his campaign speeches have predominately remained primarily on policy there has been an obvious spike of remarks against John McCain and even more predominately his V.P. pick Sarah Palin, as a result of the new polls. He's began spouting utter disbelief that McCain and Palin have been painting themselves as the real agents of change. “This is a party that’s been in charge for eight years and now they’re trying to run against themselves,” he said at one campaign stop. “These folks are shameless.”

Baracks's latest accusation against the Republicans was made apparent Monday when he made these remarks, "Mother, governor, moose shooter, I mean, I think that's cool. That's cool stuff. But, so they talk about biography, and then they spent a lot of time talking about me. But you notice they didn't talk about the issues." Furthermore, Obama insisted that Palin was getting a pass by the media. In his own words Republicans are "working the refs" in the media. This coming from one of the most obviously media supported candidates in, perhaps, the history of modern day politics.

The most recent of Obama's remarks to fight against the wave of the new found enthusiasm for the McCain/Palin ticket, came from the twist of a line Palin made during her acceptance speech last week describing the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull being lipstick. Obama said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, It's still a pig." The pig line Ironically being the same line McCain had used to describe Hillary Clinton's health-care proposals.

So one of the most Historic elections we will likely ever see is truly gearing up. Both sides are coming out firing like an old west shootout. Obama trying to gain back any kind of momentum after being knocked on his heels by the Palin choice and McCain trying to keep the spirit going strong. No one can truly tell what November will bring, but theatrics and hard words are sure to accompany us all the way.

Democrats- Demonizing the American Dream?

When John McCain stated to the Politico that he was unaware of how many houses he owned, democrats swarmed on the statements like vultures. They attacked McCain eluding that he was unable to connect with "real" Americans because he was obviously an outlandish - out of touch political figure. Now pro-Obama democrats are running an overtime out lash on McCain.

Even Obama and his campaign got in on the attack. David Axelrod, the chief Obama strategist, in an interview with the New York Times, attempted to ascribe McCain as an outlaw for his abundant homes. Then the culmination of the entire side show came when the Obama campaign released an ad that closes with a shot of the White House and a narrator saying, "Here's ONE house Americans can't afford to let John McCain move into."

The problem is that the democrats argument is one, illogical and two, highly hypocritical. First on the illogical assumption that being wealthy and successful is bad thing. Since when? Of course democrats try demonizing the wealthy to gain the sentiment of "bitter" lower class voters (not that lower class voters are all "bitter" by any means, but the 'bitter" ones). We've all heard it before, the democrats preaching dependence on the government and a lack of responsibility. It's a direct attempt to try and demonize the wealthy by saying that they exploit the poor. Why cant a guy be wealthy because he worked hard, studied hard in school and never gave up?....no he has to be wealthy by somehow exploiting the lower class as the means to his success, at least according to democrats; which brings me to my second point.

What about the democrats who are extremely wealthy? Party leaders like Mr. Ted Kennedy- are they out of touch with "real" Americans too? No, because they don't actually believe this class war fare junk they spout. It's all an attempt to subdue a whole class of people keeping them dependant on the democrats power so that the democrats can retain that same power. The hypocrisy is crazy, last election cycle the democratic candidate for president John Kerry, too owned multiple homes. Was it an issue to them then? Was he not able to unite with average Americans? They would have said he was able then...so why isn't John McCain? Why is it different now?

The main dilemma is this: the democrats are saying that somehow achieving success is a bad thing. That the successful are villains, and the unsuccessful are simply exploited. This is in direct opposition to what the "American Dream" is all about. The dream that says I can work hard, despite my means to be successful at what ever I aim to achieve success in. That my government will not stand as an obstacle to my success, but as facilitator of a land where my dreams can be realities. A dream that says success is solution only equated by variables such as hard work and determination that propel both myself and my country. It's a dream that parallels Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" that states that an individual pursuing his own self-interest tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole.

Multiple homes is nothing too be ashamed of, it's a blessing. It's an affirmation that the idea's that success can be in any one citizens reach. That our country is still a land that promotes fiscal possibilities too all who dare to dream.

I Am America- & I Will Eat What I Please

Recently a Los Angeles city council unanimously approved a ban on new fast food restaurants in a 32-sq-mile area covering most of southern L.A. The Councilperson whom proposed the ban said that the measure is an attempt to try to reduce health problems in the district associated with fast food, such as obesity and diabetes.

The ban would restrict any fast food restaurant's such as McDonald's, Burger king, or the like from building new places of business in the area. However, it would still allow some restaurants such as Subway to build and operate within the ban zone (Quick Fact- The most popular sandwich Subway sells {the Meatball Marinara} is worse for you then a Quarter Pounder from McDonald's).

Since when in the Constitution anywhere does it give either federal, state, or local governments the right to police food intake? It doesn't, but by no means do i expect these idiot city councilmen to have an iota's worth of a clue on the slightest bit of Constitutional theory. Most of them probably got no further in government study then social studies in a public high school.

That doesn't change the fact they are clearly overstepping their boundaries here. What about that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing? If it makes someone happy to indulge themselves on a Big Mac, a large Fry, and a Diet Coke, however, absurd that might sound- Let them. It's their right. The government has zero authority under the constitution to regulate food like that. Moreover, their getting eerily close to stepping over our capitalist theory by regulating what business can run where. Giving, perhaps, preferential treatment to certain business over others.

So what should happen? Well McDonald's and Burger King and whomever else the ban effects should take time away from the great ground beef patty war and band together and drop a combined civil suit on these neanderthals that call themselves Los Angeles City Councilmen. They should cite their infringement on free enterprise to a judge. Secondly, the people of L.A., whether they enjoy self gratification of a juicy Big Mac every now and then or not, should stand together and launch a campaign against these councilmen.

I'm sure your asking, "is a few fast food restaurants really that big of a deal?" My answer to you would be most certainly yes. The reason being, because if we let the government meddle where the government doesn't belong we are inadvertently reducing our rights and liberties. Freedom usually isn't stripped away from a people in a day, it's chipped away slowly in hopes that a complacent society wont find the motivation to stand against it's tyranny. Today it might be fast food, but tomorrow maybe they will tell you want brand of medicine you have to buy, or what sports are too "violent," or what movies your allowed to watch, or what music is socially exceptable to listen too. That doesn't sound right, and "We The People' should not give those morons credence to indulge their opinions or vein desires for power.

Obama's "Tough love" Message

The choice words by Rev. Jesse Jackson about Obama got quite the media buzz. Jackson being a highly respected man in the African-American community, speaking negatively about the deemed "saviour" of blacks in politics took a lot of people back and left some liberals scratching their heads. Simply a lot of people where asking "why" would Jackson say that? A lot of pundits struck it up to nothing more then jealousy. I humbly disagree. The reason, I believe, is that Obama (in hopes of actually winning the darn presidency) is slowly floating away from a strictly African-American agenda- that angers people like Jackson.

The truth is Obama has no choice, he has to pander to the independents if he wants any hope of winning. By no means does he want to, I don't think. Simply, he has few other options. So goes politics, and so goes the world.

Obama stating that there's a problem in the black society, that so many young black kids are being raised without fathers is no new revelation. Good men like Bill Cosby and Juan Williams have been saying it for along time. In turn, however, many times these same men are attacked by there communities. Jackson's never been one to teach in responsibility. He's the kinda guy that points a big finger at the stars and stripes and says something like, "look what you've made us become- it should be YOUR job to fix it;" The old "woe is me" type of leader.

Obama can only play that card so much if he wants to gain the independent vote. His "tough love message" was asserted most notably in a fathers day speech in which he stated, "any ol' fool” could conceive a child –- but it takes a man to be father." Was Obama talking down to black people? Obviously not. Was he addressing a legitimate problem in the black community? Obviously, yes.

I agree with Obama that this truly is a crisis in society, there is no doubt about it. However, Obama believes that society has a whole should bear the grunt to fix it, which means the government- which means tax dollars. The Libertarian in me screams against that notion. I fail to see how tax dollars can efficiently persuade fathers to stay home and take care of their children? Can tax dollars keep a teenage boy from impregnating a girl and deciding he wants nothing to do with their kids? No, moreover, such problems were never intended to be handled by the state to begin with.

What we need is more leaders to stand up and encourage the communities. Quit propagating this "rap star" montage of worthlessness. Focus on school, college, and an in betterment of self- not feint hopes of being the next Alan Iverson or Lebron James. Especially not the next Snoop Dog or Jay-Z that glorify drugs and street life. The communities need to change their focus to change their station.

Will the Real Obama Please Stand Up?

Sorry to pick such a cliche for a title, but when it's so appropriate it's hard to relent. It seems that the new daring politician in town is really just the same ole Washington sweet talk. Barack Obama, Mr. Change, has come under some scrutiny recently...not by republicans but by liberals for "flip-flopping" on some issues. In fact, it was reported today that a large number of former Clinton supporters have voiced that they will refuse to vote for Mr.Obama in November.

Obama's pandering to the independent vote has begun to cost him. I suppose he thought that since he was this new politician, running a historic campaign that once he got the Marxist minded left on his side that he could do about whatever he wanted. I mean he's Barack Obama, he was wrong. Many in the left are being reported as being infuriated with the Illinois senator on his move to the middle.

In truth, however, you can't blame him. Predominantly this election is going to be decided by the independent vote. After those religious leaders he called friends caused him such a scandal he had to find away to appeal to the middle. The result, some promises from the rock star candidate on a few issues have changed.

• He stated that he would bring the troops home within 16 months of being elected- Now he states that will not be the case.


• He said he will rework NAFTA for "hard working" Americans- No longer does he plan to renegotiate NAFTA.


• He said I will meet with terrorists like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions- No longer does he think it acceptable to meet with the world's terrorists without pre-conditions.


• He said there will be no retroactive immunity for phone companies that helped the government implement warrant less wiretapping programs-Now he will not oppose retroactive immunity for warrant less wiretapping.

With his most recent announcement that he intends to make federal funding of religiously based organizations a key part of his push to help the needy, he has begun to alienate much of his liberal base. It will be extremely interesting to see how they react to his new found fondness with independent ideology. Will they scream for Hillary?

The 2nd Amendment to Obama

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -Second Amendment.

Whether you own a gun or not, a candidates views on your rights to own one if you so choose should be of some importance still. The history of the Second Amendment was to put in writing an already pre-exhisting right for an individual to possess a firearm. It was placed into the constitution to protect U.S. citizens from a corrupt government in search of absolute power. The fear was that perhaps down the line, a corrupt state might try to disarm it's citizens to impose rule through military force.

The Second Amendment was put in to the Bill of Rights to ensure that freedom could not be stripped away, or prohibited. However, it's no secret that liberals have for a long time been very anti-gun ownership. They don't find the need for an individual to provide some measure of their own security. Only makes sense right? Liberals like for everybody to depend on the State, it's how they get a large majority of their votes. They need people to be dependent, it maintains their power. The liberal will tell you to depend on the rich man for your money, depend on the State for your future, and to depend on the U.N. for your security but what about Independence? Independence to the liberal is "selfishness."

Barack Obama just happens to be one of the most liberal politicians in Washington. He is no centrist as he would have you believe, especially when it comes to your rights under the 2nd Amendment. Here is a list of what Barack Obama think about your liberty under the Second Amendment of the Constitution:

• Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.


• Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.


• Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.


• Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.


• Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.


• Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.


• Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.


• Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.


• Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and "research."


• Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America


• Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.


• Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military


• Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.


• Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers


• Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions


• Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.


• Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

Barack Obama doesn't care about the freedom's accorded to you and me under the Second Amendment. He cares about one thing and that's his liberal agenda.

The Why and How on Gas Prices.

With gas prices hitting the $4.00 mark, the great gas debate is going to be touted by all sides of the political spectrum and media power houses. Undoubtedly, the blame is going to be pointed in various places, ineffective solutions will assuredly be offered to gain votes, and the general public will be none the wiser. It's no secret that the average American simply doesn't understand whats occurring and that's why politicians are continually able to hoodwink the public with inept solutions. So lets get educated.

The truth is that we are not in an "all the sudden" energy crises, its been coming for awhile now. The gas prices are of no surprise to those in Washington and the global economy. So what's causing them?....well I'll tell you whats not.

As our presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama would like you to believe its not gasoline company profits that are spiking the pumps. To listen to Barack Obama talk economics is about as useful as nominating Britney Spears to represent the Southern Baptist Convention- it leaves you asking, "what?" The truth is refiners are making almost the same profit on gas today as they were a few years ago. Some people even believe that there making less of a profit. The reason is because gas prices are not as high relative to crude oil prices.

In fact according to the Energy Information Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy the refining companies only account for 8% of the total cost of gas. Now can someone please explain to Mr. Obama the fallacy of his gas rhetoric. It's simply illogical.

Secondly, the high gas prices are not caused by oil company profits either. It's the other way around. The profits are merely an effect, not a cause. Oil is a commodity, meaning it carries with it an actual value. It by no means is a right or an obligation. It's simply, worth what it's going for. It's determined by the law of supply and demand like any other commodity.

It's not the evil Wall street speculators either, as both presidential candidates have espoused. To speculators the number one rule is "the trend is your friend." Which means wherever the trend in prices on commodity's are going that's where the speculators capitol is going. As long as the U.S. continues to refuse to refine the vast quantity of oil it has in various parts around the nation, the more the trend goes up. However, speculation does exaggerate the problem by inducing the trend into a classic bubble, but the bubble will eventually pop.

So what's causing the high prices? First of all it's Washington's taxes. Taxes were recently slated as being the cause for approximately 12.3% of the price at the pump. Now remember how the gas companies profits only represent 8%? Those are the people who Barack Obama blames for the whole stinking mess, when the actuality is our government makes more of a profit from gas then they do. You won't hear tax mongering liberals like Obama admit that though, in retrospect you would be lucky to hear any republicans admit it either.

Beyond Washington's taxes you have....Washington's mandates. The chemical recipe that makes up our Oil is mandated by the bureaucrats in Washington, not chemical engineers. The effect is high cost producing and low efficiency ingredients that are required in the the oil. Ipso facto- Ethanol. Ethanol is highly expensive, and very corrosive. To even put it in the gas raises the price because it takes special refining equipment to implement the stuff, which effectively also raises the maintenance costs. Ethanol is great in one respect, it buys votes.

However, the main reason for the high prices is none other then our friend "supply and demand." With nations like India and China quickly growing industrially, you have people trading in their bicycles for automobiles. The reverse effect is that the demand spikes. This is so much the case that the demand is actually outstripping supply. Furthermore, the price is representative to the imbalance of the demand worldwide. To that the blame goes on the U.S.

Instead of harvesting our own vast supplies of oil, the U.S. prohibits it. Which in turn causes a strain on everyone worldwide. Environmental extremism is not only costing you big bucks at the pump, but is absolutely nailing the global economy too. What's more frustrating is that the environmental effects of drilling around the U.S. would be so minuscule, the environment might forget to even notice.

So the blame goes on us. We refuse to play a bigger role in the refining, we over tax it, we fill it with expensive and inefficient ingredients and then we blame the guys that get it out of the earth. If Washington was to even rumor about beginning to start a surge in domestic drilling gas prices could fall as much as $0.40 in a week some experts say. So we have two options: meander around like mindless idiots and refuse to tap into the vast quantities of oil that we possess, or get to business and not only increase our economies capitol but take a bang out of the buck at the pumps. You decide.

I'm a Criminal, I'm a Former Terrorist, I'm a Racist: I'm a Freind of Obama.

"The only reward of virtue is virtue; the only way to have a friend is to be one. "

-Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The more we learn about the people Barack Obama calls friends, the more scrutiny he receives, however, justly so. It's true we cant pick what our friends do or say. Though, it is a fact that more often times then not our friends are an extension of ourselves. As Emerson said in the quote above, you have to be a friend to have one. There has to be means of common ground and common ideas....or perhaps in Obama's case common ideology's?

Barack's latest extreme and extremely out of touch with reality friend is the Catholic priest Michael Pfleger. About a week ago at none other then, Trinity United Church of Christ, (Obama's home church) the raving priest made some extremely controversial and racist statements and once again the congregation responded like he was a hero.

Pfleger's comments revolved around when the other Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton displayed some public emotion in the form of tears on national T.V. He argued that he personally believed that the tears where real, and that she was crying because a black man was beating her. Implying that Mrs. Clinton was perhaps both an elitist and racist.

He said, "She just always thought that, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white.' ... And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama." And she said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show." He then proceeded to mock Mrs. Clinton pretending to wipe tears out of his eyes with a handkerchief. Then continued by saying, "She wasn't the only one crying, There was a whole lot of white people crying."

The comments are absurd, but let me remind you that Barack Obama has called Pfleger both a friend and a great spiritual leader. Sounds eerily similar to his pastor of 20 years who made a slew of racist and insane comments himself. Such as "God Damn America"...and many others. The list doesn't end there, however. What about the slime bag Rezko, who is being charged with wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and attempted extortion. Obama called him a friend too. Furthermore, you cant leave Ayers out of the controversial list of friends that Obama has under his belt. William Ayers is only a professed terrorist, who has admitted to bombings in the U.S.

I personally believe at this point it's more then bad judgment on Obama's part. He is just as radical and out of touch with reality as these cooks are. The only difference is he's running for president so he's trying to hide it the best he knows how. Need I remind you of his comments that many Americans are "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."

Wow, were bitter and have antipathy to people who aren't like us and that's the source of our frustration. Any idiot could see the common logic in that statement and the one Pfleger made. These guys all think alike and share common ideals. Barack Obama is one of the most inept candidates to ever run for the office of presidency and its high time we see the radical for who he is.

McCain Splits With Hagee: Hagee Remarks

John Hagee, the Evangelical leader who endorsed Sen. McCain for the presidency came under fire this week for some remarks that he said 10 years ago in a sermon about the Holocaust and the call for the return of a Jewish State. The media immediately latched on looking for another Jermiah Wright incident and McCain was put under pressure to distance himself from Reverend Hagee.

The remarks that were under stipulation came in a 1990's sermon were Hagee made comments refereeing to Hitler as a tool that God used to bring about the prophesied modern State of Israel.

Through biblical verse, Hagee preached: "'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that."

He Continued, "Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

Many cried antisemitism as a result of the remarks. Hagee in response wrote this:

"The past 24 hours have been extremely disappointing ones to me. My disappointment has nothing to do with the fact that I parted company with John McCain this was best for both of us and for the country. It is time the candidates and the media turn their attention back to the pressing issues of our day and stop focusing on what I did or did not say decades ago.

But what has been disappointing has been to see my life’s work the great passion of my life mischaracterized and attacked. I have dedicated my life to combating anti-Semitism and supporting the State of Israel. In taking a stand for Israel I have received death threats from anti-Semites and neo-Nazis, and I’ve had the windows of my car blown out beneath the windows of the rooms in which my children slept. To hear people who know nothing about me or my life’s work claim that I somehow excuse the Holocaust is simply heartbreaking.

Let me be clear -- to assert that I in any way condone the Holocaust or that monster Adolf Hitler is the worst of lies. I have always condemned the horrors of the Holocaust in the strongest of terms. But even more importantly, my abhorrence of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism has never stopped with mere words.

I have devoted most of my adult life to ensuring that there will never be a second Holocaust. I have worked tirelessly to eliminate the sin of anti-Semitism from the Christian world and to ensure the survival of the State of Israel.

I have traveled the country teaching Christians to love the Jewish people and stand with Israel. Our ministry has given over $30 million for humanitarian causes in Israel. I founded Christians United for Israel to bring together all pro-Israel Christians into a movement that can support Israel during these very challenging times.

The fact is that all people of faith have had to wrestle with the question of why a sovereign God would allow evil in the world. After Auschwitz, this question became more urgent than ever.
Many people simply could not explain how a loving God would permit such horrors. After the Holocaust, they abandoned their faith in a sovereign God who intervenes here on earth.

While I disagree with this conclusion, I would never denigrate those who arrived at such a conclusion. But I and many millions of Christians and Jews came to a different conclusion. We maintained our faith in a sovereign God who allows both the good and the evil that is in the world. We therefore search the scriptures for an explanation for that evil. We believe that the words of the Hebrew prophets such as Jeremiah may help us understand the mind of God. But our search for an explanation for evil must never be confused with an effort to excuse it.

What is more important than how we answer the question of where was God during the Holocaust is what we as men and women do here on earth to make sure that there will never be another Holocaust. We must give meaning to the words “Never Again” through our actions. It is to this effort this effort to fight anti-Semitism and to support Israel that I now return. Thank you."

McCain's First Term- According to Him

Recently, John McCain, has begun talking about what his presidency would look like in 2013 if elected in November. He states a somewhat lengthy list of the accomplishments he hopes to achieve while holding the nations most coveted office. Every political cycle politicians make many claims and few make good on them. What about John McCain? Is he capable of getting the country back in line? It's hard to say. What we know about McCain is that he's quite the fearless politician, honorable man, and a bit of a maverick. Whats that maverick want to achieve though is a worthy question. Here's what he says:

1. By January 2013, at the end of my first term as president, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won and Iraq is a functioning democracy. The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated and there has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001.


2. The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth and Americans again have confidence in their economic future. Congress has lowered taxes and passed fundamental tax reform offering a choice in how taxes are filed. Americans, who through no fault of their own, lost jobs in the global economy they once believed were theirs for life, are assisted by reformed unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs.


3. The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil; progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well.


4. Scores of judges have been confirmed to the federal district and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, who understand that they were not sent there to write our laws but to enforce them.


5. Voluntary national service has grown in popularity in part because of the educational benefits used as incentives, as well as frequent appeals from the bully pulpit of the White House, but mostly because the young Americans understand that true happiness is much greater than the pursuit of pleasure, and can only be found by serving causes greater than self-interest.

Can he accomplish these things? I believe personally, he's able to make good headway on them. There is absolutely no doubt that he would be more a benefit to this country then Barack Obama ever could be.

While Barack yells for what he deems a "fair" economy he would cripple it. Marxism talks about "fair" economies. John McCain sees the strength in capitalism and the ambition of Industry. He sees the value in hard work and a good education in determining the prosperity we enjoy in our lives. Governments handing out prosperity to be equal has never worked. It's a flawed theory in an attempt to balance and distribute wealth. When this happens you deny ambition, and the quality of life in every aspect abruptly lowers.

My votes for John McCain.

Are Churches Under Attack?

On November 5, 2007, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) sent letters to six prominent Pentecostal-Charismatic ministries requesting that they provide certain information to him as the Ranking Member of the United States Senate Committee on Finance on or before December 6, 2007. The six churches the Senator targeted were:

• Without Walls International Church (Revs. Paula and Randy White)
  
• World Healing Center Church (Pastor Benny Hinn)
  
• Joyce Meyer Ministry (Revs. Joyce and David Meyer)
  
• New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (Bishop Eddie Long)
  
• World Changers Church International (Dr. Creflo Dollar)
  
• Eagle Mountain International Church (Revs. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland)

The Letter from Sen. Grassley inquired about various aspects of church business, requesting specific information about each church's compensation, accounting, and financial practices. Furthermore, some of the letters went as far to ask for the identity of the various church's board members, amounts paid to visiting ministers, speakers, and musicians, and donations made from other churches and ministries.

For the most part, many of these requests from Sen. Grassley exceeded what churches are required to publicly disclose. Subsequently, much of the information is material that if obtained by the IRS would not be publicly disclosed and treated as confidential by the state.

According to the Churches website (BelieverStandUnited.com) the churches do not represent a broad spectrum of churches. In fact, they all are very similar in their ministries and beliefs. all six ministries under investigation preach the "Word of Faith" message, which is based on the religious belief that God wants His children to be spiritually, physically, and financially blessed, and that prosperity in all areas of one's life is an outward sign of the fulfillment of God's promises contained in the Bible.

In a press release Sen. Grassley conveyed that it was his "obligation" to review the manner in which these churches have spent the tithes of their members. Suggesting that the individuals that make up a church body are no different then the relationship of a donor to a charitable organization.

Some of the churches questioned denied answering some of the 42 questions asked by Sen. Grassley citing constitutional and/or statutorily based privacy and confidentiality concerns under the protections provided for Churches under the United States Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, Kenneth Copeland Ministries, in its December 6, 2007, response stated that the most efficient manner for the Senator to obtain the information he desires would to simply request the information from the IRS. That would both supply the Senator with his desired info while still allowing the Church its rights under the Constitution and the IRS tax code.

The senators response, was that the churches with the exception of Without Walls International Church, "had not cooperated." KCM responded to Senators Grassley and Baucus in a March 31, 2008, letter in which it declined to provide additional information in response to Senator Grassley's request. KCM reiterated the Church's position that the most timely and efficient manner for the Senators to obtain the requested information - without compromising the Church's, its members', partners', and friends' constitutional and statutorily based rights - is to request the information from the IRS.

At the conclusion of a properly conducted IRS church tax inquiry, Senator Grassley could ask the IRS for the information obtained through that process. A request from Senator Grassley to the IRS would be covered by section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which protects the privacy of information that the IRS obtains from all taxpayers. Senator Grassley would not be able to use information obtained by the IRS to subject the Church or its members to scrutiny by the public, but he would be able to fully use the information to accomplish his stated goal of determining whether the Church is complying with federal tax laws.

If KCM were to provide the requested information directly to Senator Grassley or the Committee, however, the protections from public disclosure afforded to the Church under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code would not apply.

It's simply outrageous that a U.S. Senator seeks to ignore the religious rights and freedoms afforded to churches under the Constitution. Sen. Grassley is demanding to see private documents, and refusing to cooperate according to proper tax procedure under the IRS. What Church is next? The Senator has absolutely no right afforded to him under the guiding principles of legislature to make these kinds of demands. To stand up for religious liberty and rights please sign this petition.

"Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" Bill.

Tennessee Congressman John J. Duncan signed legislation about two weeks ago that would give the wealthiest tax payers the option of returning more of their incomes to the federal government. The Legislation, HR 5783, is literally named the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" Act.

Essentially what this bill would do is reconstruct the current U.S. Tax Code allowing citizens to make voluntary donations, above their normal tax obligations to the government to help fund federal programs. Why would anyone wanna do that?

The Bill was introduced in response to the wails of many extremely wealthy liberals that taxes should be raised on everyone. However, tax increases especially in time of economic uncertainty would only hinder middle town Americans and further damage the economy. So what should we do? Lets give the ability to contribute more money to those people who whine and complain that taxes should be raised. Their bank accounts can most likely handle tax increases, but the average American isn't going to be able to adapt so easily.

What seems like a lot of money to most Americans does not even faze people that have enormous wealth,” said Duncan. “Many of these wealthy people wouldn’t even notice if they had to pay more in taxes. So, this bill would give them the opportunity to contribute more without increasing taxes and further burdening middle class families.”

I'm never for increased taxes, and am quite the Reaganomics fan. In no way do I think that the upper-middle class and upper class should be responsible for bearing the burden of the lower classes. I think that it's nothing less then thievery for the government to take so much from businesses and hardworking Americans to fund the poor. I don't mind, however, for people to contribute on their own and in fact commend it. I am just extremely against a federal power demanding my money to fund anyone else other then the essentials. Fiscal responsibility is key.

So kudos to Congressman Duncan for giving people the ability to contribute more of their funds to the federal government voluntarily. Now maybe liberal millionaires such as our two democratic presidential hopefuls, Holleywood -types, and any one else who may be fans of inefficient social programs can "put their money where their mouth is."

Obama: The Hamas Poster Boy?

In an E-mail a few days ago John McCain's deputy campaign manager, Christian Ferry wrote some interesting things. The E-mail in it's entirety was about the overwhelming ineptitude of Sen. Barack Obama and his policies. His talking points emerged from the recent democratic debate in Pennsylvania between the Sen. and his rivalry Hillary Clinton.

"Wednesday's Democratic debate provided insight into Barack Obama's positions on key foreign policy issues. As president he says he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq- even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation's top military commanders. He would also hold direct talks with the Iranian regime- a regime that does not recognize Israel and is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran's president has even called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," Ferry wrote.

He continued by pointing out Obama's insistence on refusing to condemn former president Jimmy Carter for holding talks with the terrorist organization Hamas. Which is a group supported financially, politically and military by Iran. However, this is no surprise. Obama has said he would open talks with terrorists and dictators alike if he were to become president. Then came the most interesting part of the E-mail, what Mr. Ferry says Hamas thinks of Obama.

According to Mr. Ferry: "Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America." Now, Isn't that just wonderful news? Even the terrorists like Obama!

I wonder why? Is he the most sympathetic U.S. leader to their cause? Perhaps it's because he's the most marxist candidate to maybe ever run for the White House. What kinda change do terrorists think Obama will bring that will be good for them? Well, maybe they know if he's in office they don't have to worry about Lady Liberty sticking a boot in their .... if they get out of line, or could it even be they see him as one of their own? If his Idea of change lines up with Hamas's we would have to be nuts to put him in office.

Sadly way too many Americans are simply brushing off the facts, for his slick rhetoric. If the Debates showed one thing it's this: Barack Obama thinks he is above tough questions, that somehow he should get a by on them because he's so good, that he's extremely in-experienced and has a basic lack of knowledge on economic theory. His economic theory has one component- punish every one else for the poor, just to be fair. Ah-lah Communism?

"We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad."

-Christian Ferry

From All The Whitey's, I'm Sorry!

As I ponder the current social dynamics between the African American Community and the Caucasians I am confused. I have grown up in the deep South all my life and am always careful as to what I am saying and try to be as politically correct as possible. A few weeks ago I heard one of the most racist men in America speak. Who was it you say? The leader of the Klu Klux Klan? The President of the Neo-Nazi's? Amazingly it was not! This man was a preacher, and he was black!

I listened as he bashed America and then began to bash us....the whitey's. I was astounded..Astonished... In utter disarray. All my life I was taught that all men were equal no matter of race, creed, etc... I found out that one of the biggest racists in America is Reverend Wright, an African American. Why? Does he harbor so much hate in his heart for people who years earlier had helped give him and his race the liberty they so desperately wanted?

He is teaching an entire generation of African-Americans a doctrine of hate, plain and simple. How a man who wants to be our President can sit in this man's congregation and not believe in this philosophy of hate is beyond me. I was going to vote for this man, but I am beginning to see the big facade being constructed by the Democratic Party. To think that at one time I was going to vote for a man named Barack Hussein Obama. Ponder this notion, if a doctrine of hate is being taught in today's prominent African-American churches; how can we truly be at peace with one another.

This goes against everything that Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of. Do the leaders of the African-American communities have to keep claiming racism and keep spreading idea's of hate to have a sense of purpose? I challenge every white person in America to go to Reverend Wrights church and sit and listen to his hate mongering, even better I am going to start a new college called The University of Whitey... Whites only. What you say? It's racist to have a school completely dedicated to one race and for that race exclusively? Wow, how many African-American colleges and African American organizations can I, a white man join?

To Reverend Wright I say you are a disgrace to your wonderful race, quit propagating hate. Start preaching some ideas in the Bible like love, tolerance, acceptance, etc. I am tired of these racist African-American leaders using the problems of their people not as a solution for a problem but for a Political Platform! Grow Up Sir! Your hate is a spreading cancer infecting everyone.

Jimmy "the joke" Carter

Former president Jimmy Carter has decided to travel to Syria to meet with Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal. Hamas being a terrorist organization and Khaled Meshal- being an intense anti-Semite of course. In perspective, Meshal praises Iranian leader President Ahmadinejad for his comments that the Holocaust is a myth and that Israel should be wiped off the map as "courageous declarations."

Is it any surprise that Jimmy Carter wants to meet with this guy? No. Many people are outraged by it, however, saying that Carter is abusing post-presidency. In fact, he has been suspected of being anti-Semitic at times. A few quotes:

"It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse
a balanced position between Israel and Palestine"

"When I met with Yasir Arafat in 1960 he stated, "The PLO has never
advocated the annihilation of Israel. The Zionists started the 'drive the Jews into the
sea' statement and attributed it to the PLO"

The two quotes above are terribly misinformed of Mr. Carter. At one point many of the people on his staff quit because of the possible Anti-Semitic talk circulating. However, I don't tend to think that Carter is a true full blown ant-Semite. What i do think is he that he is ignorant and that his opinions on Israel and the Middle East are most often based on fallacy.

Carter in a recent interview defended his trip by saying, "It's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians."

He thinks we should cooperate with terrorists. I bet their a bunch of compromising guys that are just misunderstood. All they want is peace I'm sure....Not. Carter's logic on the matter is absolutely incoherent, and he should be ashamed. The truth is no one really cares what Jimmy Carter says or does for the most part. His presidency was a joke, and he's following suite.

Disdainful Democrats

Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller recently reiterated the extremely obvious feelings that the democratic party holds for our military. To any normal/ logical person it comes as no surprise. Democrats have pandered and ridiculed anything having to do with the military for years (Even before Iraq). The Senators remarks, however, were directed at republican presidential nominee John McCain.

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues," Rockefeller said.

The logic behind these remarks is almost completely absent. In fact, they are some of the most ignorant remarks I've heard in awhile minus the absolutely racist Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric. These remarks just go to bolster the fact that the Democrats do indeed hold little to no respect for those that serve our country in the military.

It was extremely evident in the Clinton administration. According to a Heritage Foundation study, Clinton nearly cut the U.S. Army divisions in half and cut total U.S. Naval ships by roughly 40%. He didn't think possessing a strong military was of much importance. Now, even a number of prominent democrats think it would be best if the U.S. didn't have a strong national military, thinking it better if we gave way to a military governed by the U.N. These anti-militaristic idea's are absolutely insane; the problem is theses ideas are absolutely the face of the Democratic party today.

It's no secret that the vast majority of the serving men and woman of the country are republicans. Perhaps they know all to well the dangers of this fallacy inspired thinking.

These Democrats curse and protest military recruiters at college campuses, they refer to The U.S. soldiers as terrorists, they label men such as Gen. Petraeus with sharp names like "General Betray Us", Would rather provide adequate housing to convicted felons over U.S. veterans, and the disgusting list continues. However, let me be clear that i don't believe all Democrats retain these ignorant beliefs. Nevertheless, it is painfully apparent that there is a strong sect of them that do.

God bless our troops.

Petraeus Reports

The head U.S. Military commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus began briefing both the Senate Arms Services committee as well as the Senate Foreign Relations committee today. Gen. Petraeus continued to cite positive strides in the growing success of maintaining security in Iraq due to the recent surge of troops. However, he remarked the progress was still fragile and easily reversible.

Throughout his report he was questioned by members of the senate on various issues dealing with the war. However, one in particular stood out. The Democrat from Michigan, Carl Levin. Levin, opened the meeting with intense words and continued to make sharp remarks towards U.S. strategy.

His main point of concern was the responsibility of the Iraqi government. In regards to Gen. Petraeus' suggested strategy of some troop withdrawal, and 45 day assessment period, Levin remarked, that such a move "takes the pressure off Iraqi leaders" to responsibly govern their own country. Levin continued to remark on how and who should now bear the burden of the war citing the billions of dollars the Iraqi government is storing in there treasury from oil revenues.

Levin said that the failure of the Iraqi government to use these billions of dollars "highlights the need to change our current course in order to shift responsibility from our troops and our taxpayers to the Iraqi government, to force that government to take responsibility for their own future -- politically, economically and militarily." Later he advocated a demand to the Iraqi government to begin to bear much more of the burden of rebuilding their country.

While in fact, I do not disagree with Levin's beliefs that the Iraqi government should begin to bear more of the fiscal burden instead of U.S. tax payers, I find his logic comical. Honestly, you have a liberal democrat demanding responsibility? Since when have the democrats demanded or even advocated fiscal responsibility? They certainly do not advocate responsibility to their constituents. Year after year, they run on political platforms advocating government hand out after government hand out. They sponsor complete dependence for their constituents on the hand outs of others, not responsibility.

They base the entire substance of their campaigns on the "importance" of social programs and welfare. Almost the entirety of their supporters would get offended if any boss, or person demanded them to be responsible. No, they have unions to keep that from happening. Responsibility? It would seem that the only time responsibility is important to the democratic party is when it's to further partisan politics instead of producing logical results.

The Truth About Oil

As I was perusing through Facebook.com today I noticed a group that caught my eye. The group was called " How to get GAS back down to $1.30 per gallon," so i was intrigued to say the least. This is what it said:

"Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace...not sellers." "The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT HURTING OURSELVES."

"Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit."

So is this a good idea, is it even feasible?...No it's not. The reason being, the Oil industry is an open market. Which means prices are determined by competition. To successfully work a plan like this, we would have to find a way to compete with OPEC. OPEC is the dirty word. What about alternative energy? Ethanol?

The odds are Ethanol wouldn't even survive in the Free Market, if it wasn't government mandated. Why don't you know this? Because it's one of the biggest political running platforms there is. Accredited studies prove that Ethanol has a net energy waste in use. This means that Ethanol is not an efficient source of energy, not to mention the devastatingly negative effect that Ethanol is having on our agricultural economy. Some experts say that it could cripple the beef industry in a year. That's bad news for a tipsy economy. So what could work? ALASKA!

In 1987, The U.S. Department of Interior, stated that there are projected billions (somewhere between 4.8 - 29.4 billion) of barrel's worth of unrefined oil in Alaska's coastal plains. They also reported finding 26 different oil and gas prospects that could each have giant fields containing up to 500 million barrels each. That's a lot, and it's on our own soil. Furthermore, if we began drilling it would create a staggering 250,000 - 735,000 jobs. Not only would we begin to drastically become less dependent on foreign oil, gas prices would plummet and the U.S. economy would be boosted tremendously. Think about it.

The Clinton Controversy

With both sides of the democratic party going at each others throat, some democratic leaders have called for Clinton to throw in the towel. According to her, however, that's not happening and to be honest she has some basis in the argument. A recent Rasmussen survey states that 22% of the public believes Clinton should drop out of the race, while another 22% believe that Obama should drop out. "62% said let it go on,” Clinton remarked in a personal interview yesterday.

“That is what people are telling me. That is what we have to do. Let the voters have a chance to be heard. Nobody should be writing obituaries on this race, because it is a long way from being over,” Clinton said further. Her plan is to go all the way to the convention which she says is what credential fights are for.

Then you have Florida and Michigan, the thorn in the Democrats side. Clinton continues to spout a firm belief that those delegates should be counted, while Obama firmly disagrees. “Let’s have the Democratic party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general election? I don’t think that will happen. I think they will be seated. So that’s where we’re headed if we don’t get this worked out,” Clinton said.

There lies the rub... While it will be extremely difficult and expensive to hold re-votes in the those two states if something doesn't happen the democrats could be signing their death warrant. Do you honestly think that Michigan voters and Florida voters are going to want to jump on the Obama train if he wins the nomination, after he continually argued against letting their voices be heard? Both states are very important in the general election, especially Florida. If the Dems. don't win Florida odds are they don't win the White House.

Another interesting poll to sum it all up said that according to Clinton supporters if Obama wins the nomination 28% of them will vote for McCain. That's almost one-third! The same poll revealed 19% of Obama supporters would do the same if Clinton won the nomination. The Democrats are in a world of trouble, and I don't see how they can honestly come out ahead.

To Big for its Britches

While I may regularly hark on liberal democrats that's not my only beef. Most people would call me republican. I would not. While i have up to this point, only voted republican I refuse to label myself. Why? The reason is I'm no fool. Any body that shamelessly defends a party no matter the offense is simply that, a fool.

What I am is a staunch conservative, not a Neo-con. I get sick and tired of people arguing against bush and throwing conservatives right in with him. READ THIS: BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE.

Anyone, who would argue that he is would either be very mis-informed or confused. A Conservative is a strong federalist, who believes in SMALL government. That is what I am.

The basis of a conservative is not the stance of pro-life, and anti-gay marriage. That's a Neo-con. A real conservative goes intellectually into the founding of our government. It was never supposed to be the governments job to oversee so much. Social programs and overspending have crippled the towering giant of the United States of America. Republican's under Reagan understood this but since then they have become just as bad as democrats at throwing money around.

Now we hear economic cries in the streets again, whats the answer? NOT throwing money into peoples hands. can we say- Inflation? The Federal Reserve needs to get reserved. Democrats and Republicans alike need to quit spending so much. We have gotten our selves in a world of trouble being the international humanitarians. Trying to solve poverty, has hurt as well. It is not, nor ever has been the governments job to make poor people- not poor. Don't believe me? Read the Federalist Papers and you will get a world of radical talk...... except the thing is that radical talk is supposed to be the basis of our functioning as a government.

Ever heard of the free Hand? Supply and Demand? Social Security and Medicare going into projected trillions? We must quit taxing business to death and bring them back on U.S. soil. We must quit being a consumer bolstered economy and become a production bolstered economy again. Cut the social spending, cut the pork, and cut the crap.

Obama & a Connection With Terrorists?

An explicit new scandal involving Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has surfaced. Just off the tail spin from the Jeremiah Wright (the racist, black separatist whom Obama has looked up to for 20 years) problem comes a new scandal. The Fact, is however... this time its far more damning then Jeremiah Wrong- I mean Wright.

"A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer" (ConservativeVoice.com).

Khalid is the guy who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University. According to the proper sources Khalid is directly tied with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The PLO is a known terrorist organization as defined by the U.S. State Department.

The connection lies with Bill Ayers, who sat on the board of the Woods Fund with Obama. Mr. Ayers is an active member of the Weather Underground group, which is a radical left-wing group which advocates violence against the U.S., and is responsible for the detonation of a bomb in New York during the 1970's that killed three people. The Weather Underground also participated in bombings of the US Capital, the Pentagon and a State Department building.

Ayers who was released because of "government misconduct" wrote in 2001, "I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Mr. Ayers is known to have held a fundraiser for Senator Obama.

The actual scandal took place when Obama was serving his last year on the Woods Fund board where he and Mr. Ayers participated in awarding grants including a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based group founded by Rashid Khalidi. Rashid Khalidi also held a fundraising event in his home for Barack Obama. Now recall that Mr. Khalid is tied with a known terrorist group and the lines between bad judgment and bad guy begin to get pretty blurry for Barack Obama.

When Kahlid left Chicago for Columbia University A party was thrown for him and among the attendees were both Barack Obama and Mr. Ayers, furthermore, Ayers and Obama both gave testimonials praising Khalid.

Can Barack explain his friendship with men who claim responsibility for U.S. bombings? Can he explain his friendship with Arab leaders who are directly tied with terrorist organizations? Not to mention, his Friend Rezko(Donated 85,000 to Obama) who now faces criminal charges for corruption in Chicago. Their is no way a man who is either so naive or so corrupt should ever lead the United States.

He yells for change... but not all change is good.