Friday, May 30, 2008
Thank you all.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Maxine Waters is known for her asinine views on, well, just about everything. However, this is one of the first times in my memory that a sitting representative actually openly threatens a private industry with "socializing"/"nationalizing". Does this barking-mad moonbat really think that the government can somehow do things more efficiently, once they've seized control of one of our most important industries? Or is she simply throwing some red meat to her loony constituents back home? Methinks that given her track record (# 35) of hard-left legislating, the truth lies somewhere in between Marx and Mugabe, next door to Chavez.
We conservatives have long believed most of the Dems to be closet socialists in disguise, but they are beginning to get bolder. Between Hillary Clinton's constant harping on nationalizing health care, and her race to protectionist policies with Barack Obama, it seems our gilded (gelded?) class has entered a new age of economic idiocy.
Hit the link for the video. Watch it.
That is right, she would be about socializing/nationalizing the oil industry. They want it for health care, why not oil? Hell, why don't we just forget about that whole FREEDOM thing and go ahead and make this a communist nation? Yes, what a great idea. I mean, who wouldn't want Maxine Waters deciding how there lives should be run?
This line is exactly right:
We conservatives have long believed most of the Dems to be closet socialists in disguise, but they are beginning to get bolder.
Wake up people.
The Story is here. Read the whole post.
"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
We all knew it. It is just strange to see a Democrat admit it.
Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Under these circumstances, I simply cannot continue to support a man like John McCain for the presidency. Since that is the case, I have already written the campaign and asked them to take me off of their mailing list and to no longer send me invitations to their teleconferences. I see no point in asking questions to a man who has no compunction about lying through his teeth on one of the most crucial election issues and then changing his position the first time he believes he can get away with it.
Welcome to the club John. With all that McCain has said and done I just can't see how any conservative could vote for the man. Sure he is better than the Democrats on some things, but he is too willing to roll over on important issues in the name of bi-partisanship. Some things can be handled in a bi-partisan way. Many more can not. The difference between the beliefs of the two parties will not allow it.
The Republican party needs a leader that will stand up for it's basic principals. And spoken like the true hillbilly, gun loving, god fearing rube that Obama says I am: McCain ain't the man to lead in this manner.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Our good friend the Dowager Viscountess sent us a link to a great post on All American Blogger where Duane Lester explores what Ted Kennedy would have to expect from a nationalized health care system if he were an ordinary working class citizen:
Imagine for a minute that Ted Kennedy lived in an America where the government ran health care, and he was what pundits and talking heads like to call a “working class” American.
He’s sitting in his kitchen, reading the paper and eating his morning breakfast when he starts convulsing uncontrollably. His wife makes the call for an ambulance, only to be told that the ambulance would be there as soon as their government mandated break was complete. Unlike this British man, who died from a heart attack five minutes from an ambulance station while two ambulance crews took an EU-mandated break, the ambulance arrives before he expires and gets him into the back of the vehicle.Ted rides to the nearest hospital and his ambulance parks outside the building, but he is not unloaded. Instead he sits. And sits. And sits. For nearly five hours, Kennedy waits in the ambulance, “in a holding pattern”, waiting to be allowed in the hospital. He can’t be allowed in because the hospital can’t treat him immediately, and they have a government mandate that says patients have to be treated within four hours of admission. So rather than being treated right away, Kennedy is stacked outside the hospital in an ambulance. During that time, other 911 emergencies are left unattended by his ambulance because it is being used to meet government regulations.
You really need to read the rest at the link.
It seems to be a made up story. And it is. But all of these things happened to somebody. Follow all the links and see for yourself. I am not saying things do not need to be done to assist uninsured people, but turning it over to the government is not the answer.
During a break from his busy campaign grind, Barack Obama was able to unwind with some light reading:
The Post American World
Hit the link above for the picture.
This would probably not be a big deal, except for the fact that he has proven that he does not like America. OK, OK I know. I shouldn't say that. But the truth sometimes hurts. Listen to the man. We need to change this, we need to change that. Is there anything about the country he does not want to change? I can't think of anything. If he wants it to change, then he does not like it.
Obama's wife was never proud of her country until recently. Rev. Wright sure does seem to agree. What about Bill Ayers?
He don't come out and say he wants a post American world, but the policies he supports sure would work in that direction.
Malone's remarks were echoed by John Hofmeister, president of Shell.
"The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work," said Hofmeister. The market is squeezed by exporting nations managing demand for their own interest and other nations subsidizing prices to encourage economic growth, he said.
In addition, Hofmeister said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. "I agree, it's not a free market," he said.
The executives pushed the idea that large parts of the U.S. that are currently closed to drilling - like sections of Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the continental shelf - should be opened.
"The place to start the free market is in our own country," said one executive. [The drilling ban] sets the stage for OPEC to do what we are doing in our own country, and that is effectively limiting supplies."
The oil companies make about 8.4% profit. The average profit margin for American companies is about 7.9%. So while they are a little higher, the numbers are within reason. I find it laughable that Congress (who takes about 18.5% in taxes) are blaming companies that take 8.5%. After all the companies are producing this product. The government is getting more than double what the companies are getting, and they do absolutely nothing for this money.
As a matter of fact, the government is already cutting the oil companies legs out from under them, by not allowing them to use the recourses underneath this country. Let alone allowing new refineries to be built. The Senate needs to open up the areas that can be drilled. I am getting tired of seeing our President beg OPEC for mercy.
Congress needs to take a good look in the mirror to see the real problem with the soaring gas prices.
Drill Our Oil!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The spokeswoman for President Bush says the thousands of scientists from across the United States that reject the theory of "global warming" about human-caused greenhouse gases posing a major threat to future life can have their "opinion."
But no further comment came from Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, when asked about the issue by Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House.
At today's White House news briefing, he asked, "WorldNetDaily reports that more than 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, now [have] signed a petition rejecting global warming, the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging the Earth's climate. My question: What is the White House reaction to these 31,000 U.S. scientists?"
"I would say that everyone is entitled to their opinion," Perino responded. "What's your next question?"
"That's all?" Kinsolving asked."That's all I'm going to say," she said.
What I want to know is why? Why can we not debate this issue. I speak out against "Global Warming/Climate Change" every chance I get, and I never get an honest debate. I get treated as if I have lost my mind.
Until we reach a point on this issue where we can hear both sides of the argument, this country is going to continue to throw our money, and corn down the "ethanol" drain. All while not doing a thing to help the environment, or stop Global Climate Change.
We have listened to Al Gore and his bunch, let's listen to some people on the other side.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Conservative Republicans in the House plan to urge their colleagues to rally behind a new manifesto that mixes antispending initiatives and tighter restrictions on government benefits as the party seeks a fresh message after a string of election defeats.
Leaders of the Republican Study Committee intend to use a closed-door party meeting on Tuesday to present a seven-point proposal calling for a constitutional limit on federal spending, a new simplified income tax alternative and a proposal to require recipients of food stamps or housing aid to meet work requirements.
...A draft of the conservative agenda calls for the endorsement of a constitutional amendment to prohibit federal spending from growing faster than the economy except in times of war or national emergency. The plan seeks support for an income tax overhaul that would provide a simplified flat tax and allow people to choose between it and the current system.
The conservative proposal seeks tax credits for buying health insurance, more domestic energy production and a streamlined terrorist surveillance program. The draft also said that House Republicans should extend existing welfare work requirements to food stamps and housing assistance “so that those who are not old, young or disabled are either working in the private sector or serving in their community.”
Read the rest at the link.These ideas would be a good start on the road to recovery for the GOP. I don't expect them to get much support though. The RINOs are not likely to go along with any of this.
President Bush's speech to Israel's Knesset, where he equated "negotiat[ing] with the terrorists and radicals" to "the false comfort of appeasement," drew harsh criticism from Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. They apparently thought the president was talking about them, and perhaps he was.
Wittingly or not, the president may well have created a defining moment in the 2008 campaign. And Mr. Obama stepped right into the vortex by saying he was willing to debate John McCain on national security "any time, any place." Mr. McCain should accept that challenge today....
On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.
Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.Like all human activity, negotiation has costs and benefits. If only benefits were involved, then it would be hard to quarrel with the "what can we lose?" mantra one hears so often. In fact, the costs and potential downsides are real, and not to be ignored.
Read the rest. It is refreshing to hear someone speak that understands foreign policy.
It is a shame this man is not representing this country in the UN. He has proven time and again that he has an thorough understanding of international affairs.
Monday, May 19, 2008
(Emphasis is mine)
Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
I would like to ask Omama a question; Why? So as not to upset other countries, we should not drive the car we want. We should not eat the amount of food we want. We should not be comfortable in our own homes.
Let me give you a little hint; We could walk everywhere, starve ourselves, and give up air conditioning and the countries that hate us still would. You want to know why? We are living in the best country in the history of the world. At least for a little while longer, we are the most prosperous nation in the world. We have done more to help other countries than any other nation. We have the best group of citizens there have ever been.
The founders of this country gave it's people a platform in which we could not only live their lives, but excel. That is what we have done. Now a bunch of you liberals want me to feel ashamed because I had the unbelievable advantage of being born in the United States. I am proud to have been given this gift.
...the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."
All we hear from politicians is: We need to have an honest debate about... Why can't we have an honest debate about this subject? People have swallowed Al Gore's argument hook line and sinker, all while old Al gets richer and richer from it.
H/T: Michelle Malkin
Sunday, May 18, 2008
"The Republican idea is a great idea, but we can't go and get stuck with just the right wing," Schwarzenegger said. "Let's let the party come all the way to the center. Let those people be heard as much as the right. Let it be the big tent we've talked about.
"Let's invade and let's cross over that (political) center," he said. "The issues that they're talking about? Let them be our issues, and let the party be known for that."
You think he is out there, right? John McCain don't:
As Democrats get closer to picking their party's nominee, McCain is getting advice on his image "rebranding" from some of the same GOP insiders who helped Schwarzenegger win re-election. They include senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt and former Schwarzenegger communications director Adam Mendelsohn, partners in a GOP political consulting firm, Mercury LLC in Sacramento.
"The Republican brand may be in a bad position because of the Bush presidency, but people recognize that John McCain is not George Bush. ... John McCain has a long track record of being a nontraditional Republican - and so does Schwarzenegger," said Mendelsohn.
And then there is this:
It explains why, in the wake of losing a solid Republican seat in Mississippi in a special election last week, Republican leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio sent out a memo outlining what he called a "new positive agenda" for the GOP - titled "The Change America Deserves."
The GOP's desire to change in this way has cost them control of Congress in 2006. It has cost them three seats in special elections. It will more then likely cost them the Presidency in 2008. As well as, probably give the Democrats a super-majority in both chambers of Congress.
Congratulations GOP leadership! You have "CHANGED" the party into one that can not compete. You have done everything within your power to destroy the basic fundamentals the party was built upon. Go ahead, continue to spend money like crazy. Keep throwing money and corn into the "Global Warming/ Climate Change" machine. Run right along and act like good little Democrats. Just don't be surprised when you hold only about 25% of Congress, and you are begging President Obama to show mercy upon you.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.
Obama responded Friday to Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset. The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals—comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them. McCain subsequently said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders.
How is this dishonest? Obama said he would talk to the leaders of countries that sponser terrorists. He said it in a debate.
The President did not mention Obama's name at all. Although, it could be said about many people on the Democratic side of the aisle. Nancy Pelosi met with the leader of Iran. He could have been talking about her. Or he could have been talking about Carter, etc...
Mike Huckabee was on Mike Gallagher's show this morning. I think he described it best when he gave this saying: "When you throw a rock across the fence, it's the hit dog that hollers".
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama is already crying foul.
If you think this is just a smear, read this post. They used her own words. This is something she said. It also makes one wonder how much influence Rev. Wright has on the Obama family.
To answer the question; I am now, and have always been proud of this country!
H/T: Hot Air
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Read the rest of it.
The U.S. government has decided to list polar bears as a threatened species under its Endangered Species Act because of the effects of global warming — a decision that could deal a severe blow to the lucrative sport hunt in Canada's North.
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, who made the announcement in Washington Wednesday, said the decision was based on findings that the polar bears' sea ice habitat, vital to its survival, has dramatically melted in recent decades.
This decision is just another example of how the "Global Warming" crowd is effecting this country.
The earth has not cooled in a decade. The "experts" are now telling us that it will probably get cooler over the next 15 to 20 years. But that does nothing to prove global warming is not real. They claim that it is a cycle the earth is in. Where is the proof that the warming that occurred in the decades before then was not just a cycle the earth was in. There isn't any.
Oh yes, Al Gore said so. I forgot
The GOP loss in Mississippi’s special election Tuesday is the strongest sign yet that the Republican Party is in shambles. And while some Republicans see a light at the end of the tunnel, that light more likely represents the Democratic train that is primed to mow down more Republicans in November.
The third straight House special election loss in three conservative districts this year is a clear indication that the GOP brand is turning off voters and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is in disarray.
Of course they are playing the "blame" game:
In the wake of the devastating loss, the first question facing House Republican leaders is whether they will keep Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) as NRCC chairman. Speculation has been rampant that Cole would be asked to step down should Republicans lose in Mississippi, and on Tuesday that chatter intensified.
The fact is all of them have moved significantly to the left, and borrowing a term from the good Rev. Wright- The chickens are coming home to roost.
What amazes me is they seem to be surprised by the results. Did they expect to keep alienating the base and keep their support? The answer unfortunately is yes they did.
Republicans win elections when they hold to their conservative principals.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Read the rest at the link.
It looks like Republicans will counter the Democratic push for change from the years of the Bush administration with their own pledge to deliver, drum roll please, “the change you deserve.” The first element of the party agenda developed over the past few months by the leadership and select party members will focus on family issues.
“Through our “Change You Deserve” message and through our “American Families Agenda,” House Republicans will continue our efforts to speak directly to an American public looking for leaders who will offer real solutions for the challenges they confront every day,” said the memo prepared for lawmakers.
Conservatives have spent the entire campaign season eviscerating Democrat candidates who’ve tattooed themselves with the empty “change” slogan. So what do the brain-dead strategists and p.r. market wizards of the GOP go and do?
Wrap themselves in “change.”
I don't know how much more I can take.
However, that same common sense forces me to disagree with almost everything he says intentionally.
I do not believe his statements regarding Rev. Wright. I cannot believe that a man could be active in a church for 20 years, and not know how his pastor felt. Especially one as outspoken as the good Rev. Wright.
My common sense lets me look at a government controlled health care plan and ask; How in the hell is letting the government (one that screws up everything they touch) control health care a good idea? It is not. It would soon become a boondoggle the likes of which we have never seen.
Common sense is the reason why I do not want Sen. Obama (or anyone else) raising my taxes. It is also responsible for my desire to end all earmarks. Not for a year, FOREVER! If it is worth spending the taxpayers money it is worth a vote.
I could go on and on, but you get the message.
There are plenty of things to discuss about Barack Obama. Why waste time on a misspoken phrase?
Monday, May 12, 2008
"For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction — toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain.
"Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world."
So how does he want to solve "Global Warming", I mean "Climate Change"?:
Industries would be given emission targets, and those coming in under their limit could sell their surplus polluting capacity to companies unable to meet their target.Oh, I see. Create a tax increase disguised as "extra emissions rights". This would require businesses to charge more for their products. That is right, an increased tax on the consumer. Great plan McCain, spoken like a true liberal.
McCain wants the country to return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level sixty percent below that by 2050.
"As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt — and that is good economic policy."
Friday, May 9, 2008
That is just one example, I could go on and on. I got a suggestion for all these politicians- grow up.
John McCain has been using "smear" tactics, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says today in a pre-recorded interview that will go on the air during CNN's The Situation Room (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. ET).
Specifically, says Obama, it is "offensive, and I think it's disappointing" for McCain to say that Hamas would prefer that Obama be elected in November.
"John McCain always says 'I am not going to run that kind of politics,' and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his," Obama tells Wolf Blitzer.
First, let's look at what "smear" means:
... 4.to sully, vilify, or soil (a reputation, good name, etc.).
... 12.vilification: a smear by a cheap gossip columnist.
Was McCain "smearing" Obama when he said Hamas prefers Obama? No. Hamas does prefer Obama:
This is not a "smear". It is a fact. McCain was not soiling Obama's reputation. He was stating a fact. If Obama does not like it, he should blame himself. He is the one that has been the weakest on Terrorism, so it only stands to reason that Hamas would chose him.
During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.
“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
As I stated, this is just one example out of hundreds. With all the candidates taking both sides on this topic.
Let me give you an example of a smear. If I said McCain hates America. That is a smear. It is untrue and there is nothing out there to support it.
If I said McCain is old. That is a fact. While I am not saying he is too old to be President, the fact is he would be the oldest one ever. That is not a smear.
Of course I have taken issue with a few things that while factual, should not have been said. Like the ass that said something about McCain's teeth looking funny. That is a fact, not a smear. The only thing is, his mouth was practically destroyed while in a POW camp in Vietnam. So while this was not a smear, it was improper to say. Should McCain whine about this being said? No. He should simply present the fact that they were damaged in the POW camp, and let the people decide whether this should disqualify him to be President.
Politicians, if you do not want damaging facts to be brought out about you, do not do anything that would be considered damaging. If something is brought out about you, and it is true, acknowledge it.
This partnership would support coordinated strategies to:
- Produce a safer and more secure hemisphere where criminal organizations no longer threaten governments and regional security; and
- Prevent the entry and spread of illicit drugs and transnational threats throughout the region and to the United States.
To achieve these goals, President Bush has requested $550 million as part of a multi-year program to provide:
- Non-intrusive inspection equipment, ion scanners, canine units for Mexican customs, for the new federal police and for the military to interdict trafficked drugs, arms, cash and persons.
- Technologies to improve and secure communications systems to support collecting information as well as ensuring that vital information is accessible for criminal law enforcement.
- Technical advice and training to strengthen the institutions of justice – vetting for the new police force, case management software to track investigations through the system to trial, new offices of citizen complaints and professional responsibility, and establishing witness protection programs.
- Helicopters and surveillance aircraft to support interdiction activities and rapid operational response of law enforcement agencies in Mexico.
- Initial funding for security cooperation with Central America that responds directly to Central American leaders’ concerns over gangs, drugs, and arms articulated during July SICA meetings and the SICA Security Strategy.
- Includes equipment and assets to support counterpart security agencies inspecting and interdicting drugs, trafficked goods, people and other contraband as well as equipment, training and community action programs in Central American countries to implement anti-gang measures and expand the reach of these measures in the region.
Does this sound crazy to you? Me too.
We can't spend money to secure our own border, but we can dish out $500 million to a country whose leaders keep encouraging it's citizens to thumb their noses at our laws.
Well it sounds good to Bush:
...The White House is trying to stuff major portions of the Merida Initiative into the war spending bill–while our fences go unbuilt and immigration chaos reigns on our soil:I have a great idea. Use the $500 million to protect the United States from illegals trying to enter this country and undermine our sovereignty.
President Bush on Wednesday showcased his request for $500 million in U.S. military assistance to help Mexico combat murderous drug cartels in a bid to build congressional support for the more contentious part of his spending package — the latest multibillion dollar request for emergency war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush crafted plans for the U.S. military assistance to Mexico at a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon 14 months ago and sketched details last October, including money for military equipment such as helicopters, training and assistance in combating corruption in the criminal justice system.
Of course, with the current candidates for President, this is the type of thing we will grow accustomed to in the years to come.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Over the past 30 years:
Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?-- Democrat
Read the rest at the link.
We need to become more energy independent. How is this so hard to understand? We have a lot of this resource right under or feet, and oil companies are not allowed to get it. Oh, I know the big bad oil companies are evil. Right. I look at it this way. They are producing a product that allows me to drive to the store and pick up almost any product I want. If they were not there, not only would I have to walk to the store, but there would be no products there.
This country runs on oil. It will until someone discovers a better product to use. No, using our corn supply is not a better solution. Not only is it less efficient than oil based products, it is driving food costs through the roof.
Drill our oil!
Well it looks like Obama will be the nominee for the Democrats. The only way I could see him losing now would be for a major scandal or blow-up. Clinton is going to stay around because she can't stand the though of losing. You never know what will happen.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
First of all, I can not prove this is true. This is just my opinion:
The NAACP, Rev. Wright, Rev. Sharpton, etc... do not want to see an African- American President. Not yet anyway. They have spent their entire lives living off of the perception that the United States is a racist nation. I understand that when they were growing up America was a lot different place to live. Things have changed a lot.
Sure, there are still some people in this country who are racist. There will always be. But this country has made great strides to rid itself of this.
They were all too happy to have Barack Obama in the race until it became a reality that he could win. As this became more apparent we began to hear statements such as "If we elect Obama does it mean that the debate about America being a racist society is over". The last I heard the split on the white vote it was Clinton 55% / Obama 45%. That is pretty darn close.
As soon as it became likely that he would win, we started seeing people that should be trying to promote Obama, trying to hurt his chances. Rev. Wright came to the forefront of this group. He has done considerable damage to Obama. Just when all this starts to die down, the NAACP brings Rev Wright in to give a speech and bring it all back out.
Basically they are doing this for one of two reasons. First, they are doing this intentionally. Second, they are stupid. I do not think any of these people are stupid. Most of them have spent a lifetime in or around politics. They know how the game is played. So given the two choices I will have to go with the "intentional" one.
Why would they be intentionally trying to derail Obama? Their whole existence relies on racism. If they cannot claim racism, how could they keep going? Who would support them? How could they get the "air time" from the media?
I am sure most if not all of them would be happy to see an African American President. I don't think they want one now. The race debate is still going on in this country. An Obama win would do as much damage to their case as they have done to his campaign.
I may be out in left field on this. If you think I am let me know.