Clinton's Economic Plan

Not to be outdone, Hillary discusses her plan to save the economy:

Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, made a major address in Philadelphia this week calling for additional federal action to help struggling homeowners. Today, speaking at Wake Technical Community College in Raleigh, N.C., Clinton proposed a $12.5-billion, five-year program to make job retraining available to all workers dislocated by industry closings.

"We are competing in a new global economy, but our policies to equip American workers for the 21st century are stuck back in the 20th," she said. "It's time for a president who is ready on Day One to be the commander in chief of our economy. Sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House and it's an economic crisis."

When in doubt, throw more government money at the problem. So where do they plan on getting all this money? That is right, taxpayer dollars. Would someone tell these people to stay the hell away from my wallet.

Obama's Economic Plan

Well not really a plan so to say:

"If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling," he said.

To fix the economy, Obama proposed relief for homeowners and an additional $30 billion stimulus package to address the nation's economic woes.

...

Instead, Obama said, the next president should:

_Expand oversight to any institution that borrows from the government.

_Toughen capital requirements for complex financial instruments like mortgage securities.

_Streamline regulatory agencies to end overlap and competition among regulators.

While he laid out a half-dozen principles for closer scrutiny of the financial markets, he offered no specifics, such as which agencies should be reorganized or exactly how the government should go about peering over the shoulders of bank executives.

Where are the specifics? There aren't any. But my idea of how to fix the economy does not include bigger government. My idea of fixing any problem does not include more government.

Obama Needs To Keep Michelle Off Of The Stage

This is a little old, but well worth a look:



Did she just call these students ignorant? Yes she did. This was not an issue back in January. But with all the stuff about Rev. White going on, this just stokes the fire.

Obama is in trouble. I think his camp has figured out they need to keep her out of the game for awhile.

I have been seeing a lot of polls showing Obama supporters will not vote for Hillary, and Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. Don't believe that for a second. They will come together when the challenger is from the "other" side. You know the "dark" side. The evil Republicans can not be given control of the White House again.

Oil Drilling In Alaska?

If we are lucky:

A controversial land swap proposal could open portions of an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, dividing Alaska natives and stoking opposition from environmentalists seeking to protect the bears, moose and birds that live there.

Supporters of the plan to exchange land in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, which lies just south of the more-famous Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, say they would like the plan to be approved by the administration of President George W. Bush before the election in November.

"The window is the election," Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young, a staunch backer of the plan, said at an Anchorage news conference. "We'd like to have an executive order out of the administration before they leave office."

With the rising cost of gas this could be a very positive step forward. Of course this article is slanted against the proposal. I am not. We should take advantage of OUR natural resources. The amount of oil we could drill could really help the price of gas. Any attempt to utilize our oil is a step in the right direction.

Iran Still Developing Nukes

From Breitbart:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday said Iran was developing a uranium enrichment program for military purposes.

"Obviously, they're ... heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons grade levels," Cheney said in an interview with ABC television transcribed by the White House.

Do ya think? I believe everyone in the world knows that Iran is still at it. Everyone also knows that Iran has vowed to destroy Israel and the United States.

What to do now? The sanctions are not working. Not even a little. Part of the reason for this is the fact that a lot of the countries that have signed on with the sanctions are still dealing with Iran. Iran has something that all countries need. Oil!

We need to ensure that Iran is not successful in the development of weapons grade uranium. If we are going to use sanctions, every country is going to have to abide by these sanctions. The world cannot afford an Iranian nation that has nuclear weapons.

Another Good Ruling By The Supreme Court

In Texas, Jose Ernesto Medellin is awaiting execution for rape and murder. The problem with the conviction is, he is a Mexican citizen. The Bush administration has sided with the "world court", who says Medellin must be given a new hearing. This is based on the court's decision that he and 50 other Mexicans on death row should be given new trials.

The Supreme Court has Made their ruling:

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.

The president may not "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law," Roberts said.

The decision was made by a 6-3 vote:

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

Chalk one up for the sovereignty of the state of Texas.

H/T: Michelle Malkin

Congress Passes Major Tax Hike

As if we were not paying enough:

The House- and Senate-passed budgets would raise taxes on every American taxpayer by an average of $3,000 per household. But don’t expect Congress to share in the sacrifice: The budget would hike discretionary spending by 8 percent, and not cut a single government program.

...Taxpayers will still pay $4 trillion more, regardless of which pocket lawmakers pick. The average per-household cost would rise from $187 next year, to $3,237 in 2012, and to $4,716 by 2018.

Read the whole thing at the link.

One thing is for sure, Dems love there taxes. The economy is uncertain and all they can come up with is raising taxes.

There are some good stuff in the article about spending too:

Regrettably, Congress did not propose any significant offsets for this new spending. Nor does it propose eliminating a single wasteful federal program -- not even unnecessary programs such as the Advanced Technology Program, which spends much of its $70 million budget subsidizing Fortune 500 companies.

In failing to offer spending reductions, congressional budget writers ignored $55 billion in annual program overpayments, $60 billion for corporate welfare, and $123 billion for programs that government auditors find have no evidence of success. No real reforms, just more tax dollars thrown at the same old programs.

As the Dems want to change, taxes and spending looks to change for the worst. My idea of change is letting me keep more of my money, and stop wasting the money that so many good Americans provide.

These are the reasons we need to vote. We need to push for the congressional candidates that are going to reverse these crazy ideas of change. Unfortunately for us, it appears the Democrats are going to retain control of Congress.

Even given all this, I cannot tell you to vote for McCain. He is pretty good on the economy. Not great but better than the Dems. I still feel he would prove to be just a little better than the Dems, and would do more harm than good.

The '08 Blues

I am truly sorry for not posting more, but I just can't seem to get motivated to write about anything right now. I hope to get back into high gear shortly.

Let's see, Obama is falling from grace. Hillary is a liar. McCain is cruising through, waiting on a challenger. Quite frankly it amazes me that any of the three have a chance to lead this country. Unfortunately for us, one of them will.

One thing that causes me concern is all the talk about race. It is an important issue, but because every time the subject comes up someone gets fired. If you listen to the talk shows you have heard a lot mentioned about race.

I think it was on bill O'reilly that I heard the best description of how I feel about the topic of discussing race. Many white people will not engage in meaningful dialog on race because it is too easy to get into trouble. It seems the whole conversation is spent trying not to offend someone else. The discussion is meaningless unless all sides can openly talk about their feelings without the possibility of being punished or being branded a racist. Until the day comes where everyone's opinion is considered equal, an open discussion is impossible.

What Qualifies As Experience?

They have finally started digging into Hillary's schedules while she was First Lady:

In her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has touted her experience in the Clinton White House as preparation to lead the nation in a time of crisis. "Ready on day one" has been her slogan.

But an initial reading of some of the more than 11,000 pages of Clinton's schedules from her days as first lady, released today by the National Archives and the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library, shows that she was often far from the site of decision-making during some of the most pivotal events of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Clinton, who was an accomplished attorney and first lady of Arkansas before moving to the White House, frequently claims more than 30 years experience in public life, contrasting herself with Barack Obama's slimmer resume - he served several years in the Illinois legislature and was elected to the US Senate in 2004.

Let us look at that last paragraph. What does Hillary's resume look like. She was a lawyer, although I don't know how accomplished she was. But let us face it, her public experience is about the same as Obama's. She has served as a few years in the Senate. Other than that she is married to Bill.

This is just a few examples of her "experience":

For instance, Clinton has said she helped negotiate the April 1998 Good Friday agreement between warring factions in Northern Ireland. But while Catholic and Protestant figures hashed out last-minute details of a power-sharing agreement in Belfast, Clinton was at the National Press Club in Washington at a party honouring Bella Abzug, a congresswoman from New York City who had died recently. While President Clinton phoned major participants in the peace talks, she met with Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel and joined a farewell party for Democratic operative Karen Finney. On the day the agreement was actually signed, she met with Philippine first lady Amelita Ramos.

If being married to someone counts toward experience, I'll be happy to let my wife fix your electronic equipment and I'll write your insurance policy for you. I don't think you would be satisfied with either.

I am sure she did get a few experiences from her time at the White House.

Of course she didn't pick up on the fact that Bill was running around on her, even though it looks like she was there:

Hillary Clinton was present in the White House, however, for at least one significant event of the Clinton presidency. On November 15 1995, when President Clinton is said to have begun his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, she was in the White House, according to her schedule.

Busy Day

I am having one.

So here is a few things I would suggest you read:

Second Amendment

Obama

Iraq

Iran

One side note is this:

I have been hearing of why I should vote for John McCain because of the Supreme Court nominees. Did they forget the gang of 14? I guess so. McCain would not appoint a conservative judge. The best we could hope for is another wishy washy judge that the democrats would not put up a fight against.

Updated: Here Is A Thought, Go By The Constitution

Washington D.C. is dead set on not going by the Constitution:

D.C. officials said yesterday a decision by the Supreme Court to strike down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns would force them to revamp the city's stringent gun-control statutes.

"There's just this really anxiety-producing proposition on what would we have if we relaxed these laws," said D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, a Democrat. "We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

If the Supreme Court decides to void the gun ban, then why not try it the way it is supposed to be. Washington D.C. has a very high crime rate now. Why not let the citizens of the city have the advantage of defending themselves?

Most, if not all of the cities that have strict laws against guns also have higher violent crime rates than the rural areas. The amount of property theft in Washington D.C. is about twice as high as the state of Tennessee. I would guess that more than half, if not two-thirds of the homes in Tennessee have at least one gun. Does it not even register to these people that a thief or mugger might consider this before attempting to steal from you? I know I would.

I know what you are thinking. Tennessee and D.C. are totally different places. Maybe one of the reasons for this is because the State of Tennessee trusts it's citizens enough not to take away there Constitutional right to defend themselves.

So that is what I suggest. Let the people in D.C. have the rights that most of America has. Don't treat these people as less than the people that happen to live outside of the city. As Americans we all deserve to be allowed our Constitutional rights.


Update: Check out this video of a D.C. resident explaining how silly the gun laws are there.

And, It looks like the Supreme Court is headed in the right direction.

Obama's Speech

Here is the transcript.

It did not convince me that he loves America. He did not convince me that he disagrees with Rev. White. Evidently he did not convince some others either. Check them out here and here. There are plenty more out there but you get the idea.

Does anyone out there believe Obama did not know about the content of the sermons in his church?

Why is he still a member of this church?

You know the answers.

I am glad to see this may stop him from winning. As I have said before. I disagree with him on every single issue.

Bush's Supreme Court Appointees Seem To Get The Second Amendment

From Reuters:

...

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Washington, D.C.'s lawyer, Walter Dellinger, in referring to a controversial provision barring the private possession of handguns.

Justice Samuel Alito, who like Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush, cited another provision requiring rifles or shotguns be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock, and said it did not seem as if they could be used as such for the self-defense of one's home.

I have been very outspoken in my opposition to some of President Bush's policies. It seems like he made a good decision on the judges he has appointed though. Of course there was that whole Harriet Miers fiasco, but I can cut him a little slack on that. Especially with news like you see above.

Just What Does The Second Amendment Say?

Tomorrow we begin the process of finding out:

On March 18, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court announced its decision to take the case in which plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the District's gun ban last Fall. The District of Columbia appealed a lower court’s ruling last year affirming that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home, and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violate that right.

For the first time since 1939 the Court will decide which interpretation we will adhere to. This is a big deal. I have read several statements in the press that this will only effect DC. Go ahead and believe that one if you want. If this goes the wrong way, the future of this country will change for gun owners. Not just in DC. but all over the country.

Look, the UN wants us to get rid of our guns. Hell, they hold a conference on it every year. Should they read it wrong, we will be headed in that direction.

We Need A Few Hundred More Like This In Washington

We could only hope for more Republicans to stand up like this. This is the issue that cost the Republicans the majority in '06. If more thought the way this man does, they would still have it.

H/T:Red State