And a grand time will be had by all, assuming they aren't Republican

Recently, Fox News has reported on a tape that supposedly exists showing Obama giving a glowing toast at a dinner party to a man who has come out on numerous occasions in opposition to Israel and who may have supported the PLO. Here's the news story from Fox News. Now, you might say "this is just Fox News" except they are reporting on a story reported by the L.A. Times in April. Here's that story. So what does this say about Obama? We don't know, largely because as with pretty much any allegation towards Obama, his campaign simply says it isn't an issue and expects everyone to go along with that assessment. Really? Okay, time and time again, people have brought up questionable relations in regards to Obama, when will enough be enough for someone to actually call him on it that isn't running against him in a campaign? Nonetheless, that isn't the point of this post. The L.A. Times refuses to release the tape, so we have only their word that it even exists. If this were a tape of McCain and it were not being released by the Washington Times, the Democrats would either say it doesn't exist and the Times is lying or they'd demand it's immediate release, regardless of what sources the Times might be trying to protect. While I think the L.A. Times has the right to protect their source, they mentioned no such protection in the original article and they also said it was an anonymous source. If it is anonymous, who are they protecting? At any rate, my point here is that I see a double standard, again, when it comes to Obama. Somehow, this tape would be the end all be all of the conversation if it were a Republican who was involved but because it is a Democrat, or perhaps just Senator Obama, it somehow is a non-issue? Really? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for the release of the tape, I'm just trying to point out the double standard that is clearly on display for anyone who cares and thinks to see.

Have the campaigns gone too far with the money?

I admit that I didn't see Obama's 30 minute advertisement last night. In fact, I've already voted, since we can do that here in Florida. However, I wasn't making an effort not to watch it, it is just that me and my family are at church on Wednesday nights, not sitting at home, so I haven't seen it. So, I really don't have anything to say about it one way or the other, at least in regards to the content. If you'd like a little bit of fact checking on the "advertisement", go here and see what the AP had to say. All that said, I think this was an awful waste of money. I know he's trying to win a campaign, but I've already pointed out on this blog that he simply, by refusing public money, has more money than he knows what to do with. When Ross Perot in 1992 bought a 30 minute add to make his proposals, people found it an interesting, but crazy and eccentric, diversion. After all, no Presidential candidate had ever done that before. None have done it since either, until last night. So, this is what unchecked campaign financing will get us. I guarantee, since Obama refused public money, that the next Presidential campaign will have neither candidate taking public money, otherwise the opposition will feel like they can't compete. So, here's what we can expect in four years if Obama wins. I expect that the amount of money raised will approach this astronomical amount for both candidates rather than just one and therefore we could be looking at having 1.5 billion dollars or more available to spend. So, we'll just have to live with our favorite prime time shows being preempted in the future for political commercials that are half hour in length. In fact, they'll probably follow each other. So, we'll have week long coverage of the convention, not to mention a now two year cycle leading up to said conventions, followed by the spending of money like we've never seen before. These 30 minute Obama shows are just the beginning. Wait until four years from now. They'll probably extend to an hour and they'll be back to back with the opposition, so you'll lose an entire night of otherwise entertaining diversions. All I can say is, thank God for cable.

More stifling of free speech rights

I am not going to try to defend the McCain campaign for running such an awful campaign, but I am going to condemn the Obama campaign for clearly trying to stifle free speech and free press all in one fell swoop. Recently, Joe Biden was being interviewed by a Fox affiliate in Orlando and he felt attacked by the reporter because she dared to ask such questions as whether Obama's "spread the wealth" ideas are marxist etc. Instead of saying they simply aren't, Biden responded with "are you kidding" and then the Obama campaign responded by saying they would do no more interviews with that station which including cancelling an already scheduled interview with Biden's wife. Now, after her selection, all we heard about was how would Palin respond to being asked the "tough" questions by non-friendly interviewers. She didn't always do such a good job, and the campaign sequestered her for a time because of it. However, all you heard was how this was wrong, that the people deserved to hear from her. Okay, so how is what happened to the Biden's and the Obama campaign any different? He went to an unfriendly interview (perhaps unaware) and wasn't prepared for it and then lashed out at the station rather than saying they had a right to ask their questions. So, now the Senator from Delaware comes out complaining about the interview and basically declares it nothing more than an unfounded attack.

In doing so, he also compared Barack Obama to several famous statesmen and again showed his lack of historical foundation as he did with an earlier FDR statement. So, what did he say? First, he declared that these "attacks" were nothing more than people trying to stifle leaders with new ideas. He's quoted as saying: "The defenders of the status quo have always tried to tear down those who would change our nation for the better," They are being torn down? The question was logical. Marx consistently used terminology like "spread the wealth" in his arguments for communism, so isn't it logical to ask the question at the very least? Of course it is and to suggest otherwise, as Biden has done, threatens the freedom of speech and the press, but there's more. He goes on: "They said Thomas Jefferson wasn't ... a real Christian. That was the essence of the campaign against him. Well, does that sound familiar?" While this does indeed sound familiar, Biden again shows his lack of historical understanding since Thomas Jefferson was a Transcendentalist, not a Christian. So, he was in fact "not a real Christian". In addition, the "essence" of the campaign against him was not about his religion, but instead about his ideas of small government, states rights (he wrote the Virginia resolution for gosh sakes), and the power of individualism. Be careful before you compare someone who believes in larger government, higher taxes, more spending, federal power over states rights and social programs that steal the individual rights from one person in order to provide supposed "opportunity" to another to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson would be appalled at the America of today because it would remind him, not of the country he helped start, but the one he despised, Britain. Okay, so Obama is no Jefferson and Biden proves he didn't study history, but wait, there's more: "Ladies and gentlemen, they said Abraham Lincoln ... wanted to take away individual rights." So, what happened while Lincoln was President. As a disclaimer, I must admit to admiring Lincoln greatly. He did great things under very trying times, but I must take issue with Senator Biden right here. For in fact, as President, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, suppressed the freedom of the press and wrongfully imprisoned opposition all in the name of winning the war and wiping out rebellion. History has vindicated him since the North won, but I submit he would have been villified had the north lost. Nonetheless, the "individual rights" that Biden is referring to that Lincoln's opposition was so terrified of was the "right" to own slaves. Is this really what Senator Biden wants to defend? In addition, Senator Biden seems to be missing the point when it comes to Lincoln. Lincoln was the first Republican President. The Republican party was founded in the 1850s with the SOLE purpose of abolishing slavery. So, the opposition thought Lincoln would do just that, which they felt would be a violation of their individual rights to own slaves as well as a violation of their states sovereignty rights. They were right, but perhaps only because they rebelled. Nevertheless, Lincoln, Mr. Biden? REALLY?! Okay, so Biden still needs to take some history classes, but there's even more: "Ladies and gentlemen, they said Franklin Roosevelt would destroy the American system of life. Sound familiar?" Franklin Roosevelt did, in fact, dabble with socialist concepts, except at the time, fascism was very popular and do you know what they called what Roosevelt was doing in the 1930s? That's right, they called it fascism, not socialism. It wasn't until Hitler invaded his neighbors and then after the war when we discovered Hitler's atrocities did fascism become a dirty word. Before then, it was very popular, even in America. However, Roosevelt did establish a number of programs that might or might not have directly impacted the great depression. That point is arguable, nonetheless, he did massively grow government size and government spending in the pre-war and post-war period which set a precedent for the bloated, out of touch government we have today. And now Obama wants to grow the government even more. Is it any wonder that people who want the "status quo" as Mr. Biden put it don't like Mr. Obama? And now for the last quote regarding statesmen: "And ladies and gentlemen, they said that John F. Kennedy was, quote, 'a dangerous choice in difficult times.' ... Sound familiar?" I must admit, I don't know about this quote. It sounds plausible. However, Kennedy didn't win because he was popular, in fact, he most likely won because Nixon looked awful on television. Kennedy also turned out to be a fine President, but Mr. Obama is no John Kennedy, in my opinion, even if I am apparently the only person who thinks so.

So, back to stifling freedom of speech and press. Is making untrue and historically inaccurate comparisons while calling a reporter from one city out on ambushing him (which Republicans have to deal with a lot) really the kind of "inclusiveness" and "reaching out" and "representing all people" that the Obama/Biden campaign wishes to project? If they truly want to represent all people, then they need to realize that they actually disagree with almost 50 percent of the country rather than act like they have all the answers while throwing out clear statements that preach "if you don't agree with me, your opinion isn't valid and should be stifled". This is what Obama/Biden wants to project? So, finally, Biden, who has now shown a complete ignorance of U.S. history, says that the attacks on him recently are: "built on lies which are the last resort of those who have nothing new to offer. And that's where we find ourselves." Is it? It seems to me that both campaigns have failed when it comes to lies, so making lies (or at least poor historical statements) while proclaiming the other side is lying is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of speech, opinion, press, whatever. They don't like what was said, so there must be something wrong with the other person, not them. So, it comes down to this, while McCain projects simply that he doesn't know how to respond to the plethora of "new" (I would argue old, since most of the social ideas he's declaring as "new" actually have been tried before somewhere in the world and have almost universally failed) ideas Obama has puts forth, Obama has projected that he cares about everyone, so long as they agree with him.

Sorry!

I'm really tired of people having to apologize. It's not that I think people are saying bad things too often, I could care less what people say, publicly or otherwise. It is that we live in a free country and therefore, people have a right to say what they want, publicly or otherwise. That is what freedom of speech is all about. So...should someone call for an apology when they've been offended? Absolutely, why not. If something offends you, you have the right to say you've been offended. However, you do not have the right to EXPECT an apology. People in the public eye generally will apologize for whatever perceived slight they've made to whatever community claims offense. I don't buy this. Do you really think people are "sorry" or that they are just saying they're sorry because they don't want to lose dollars through some sort of protest or boycott? Hmm... No, all these public apologies are as empty as the public organizations calling for them. For instance, if someone offends a group, do you ever hear people from that group come forward in mass and say "we are offended"? No, you don't. Some public organization comes out and says so and so must apologize. I'd actually be impressed enough to think an apology is necessary if an entire community did come out on something, but they don't. I don't actually think so and so must apologize anyway. They said something, perhaps offensive, but last time I checked freedom of speech meant that we are able to shout at the top of our lungs that which our neighbor would shout at the top of their lungs against. The ability to stand there and take it and then get up and make a good counter argument is what freedom of speech is about. Listening to a statement or an argument and then screaming that you are offended and the other must apologize isn't freedom of speech, it is oppression of speech. Don't believe me? Try this scenario: A man stands up and says that he thinks a woman's place is in the kitchen. He comes off as a pretty offensive bigot and today people would recognize that. However, instead of the next man/woman getting up and saying that this is not true because ...(myriad of reasons why it isn't), we tend to just shout that it was offensive and he needs to apologize. So, his opinion is suppressed while another opinion is upheld, but it is upheld without any thought or discussion, which isn't how freedom of speech works. Freedom of speech works because the ideas that are clearly false get weeded out by people who see them as clearly false through discussion and argument rather than through the claim that someone is offended. I can choose to take offense at something virtually every day of my life, yet I CHOOSE not to take offense because I can see the ignorance of the person. So, instead of shouting for an apology with the insistance that someone has been offensive or insensitive or any number of negative words used to shut people down, just point out that the statement is obviously flawed because ... and GET OVER IT. If you live long enough, you'll be offended, that's the nature of things. If you are never offended, then perhaps you've managed to freely associate with only like minded persons. That's your choice, but I think you are missing out.

I've been saying this for months

I will never publically endorse a candidate on my blog, however, if you are an avid reader, you might have noticed that I've been more critical of Obama. This is not because I'm Republican or even conservative. I am actually neither. However, I am clearly not a socialist as any avid reader is also aware and I've been critical of Obama for his obvious socialist leanings since the early part of the primaries (that was ages ago now). This criticism goes back well before McCain ever got around to pointing it out, even though it probably should have been the first thing out of his mouth. Nonetheless, this is what has always been my issue with Obama. I believe he will try to do exactly what he says and has promised as President. If he does, I also believe, with a Democratic majority, that he will largely succeed. Therefore, it is my belief that this country will emerge as a European style social state, if not entirely socialist, even if his Presidency were to last just four years. With one party in control of everything, they can pretty much do what they want. This has always been my concern. I know, you say I'm just towing the party line, except I'm no Republican. However, there is a conservative source that has an interesting perspective to provide on this socialism issue. Worldnetdaily published an article today that clearly links Obama to the New Party. What is the New Party? It was a socialist leaning organization with the stated purpose of electing people to office as Democrats to transform that party into one that would put forth the socialist agenda. To me, it looks like it is working, at least in some states and at the national level. So, if you don't think that is a good direction for our country, then listen to what Obama actually says, take off your rose colored glasses and then decide who you will be voting for. I'm not saying McCain is any better, nor am I endorsing him. I just want people to vote for someone for the right reasons and I don't think people actually care about reasons in this election. This election is all about history and charisma.

Brian P. Moore's Socialist party platform

I can't really hold my tongue on this one. I try to just make posts giving the candidates views and I'm generally successful, but you all know I don't like socialism, so here is how I read the Socialist party USA's platform: First, give power to the government, not the markets, in regulating energy and power and do away with nuclear and fossil fuels moving us back into the 19th century. Secondly, give health care decisions over to the government, not ourselves, and then promote an agricultural system that could support us but do nothing for anyone else in the world. Thirdly, do away with private corporations and actual incentives, causing the elimination of global poverty by making everyone impoverished. Fourth, an unconditional surrender of U.S. troops abroad, weakening our national sovereignty and abolish the military weakening our ability to defend ourselves. Fifth, shred the constitution since socialism and the constitution can't really exist together. Sixth, use propaganda to promote the socialist worldview and indoctrinate society.

Hmm... sounds like we've been fighting this kind of tyranny for a while now. Don't think I want to gamble with it.

Third party candidates - Socialist party USA

Well, it is time to do another third party candidate for President. This one is Brian P. Moore and he is running as the candidate for the Liberty Union party, the Socialist party and the Socialist party USA. His campaign website can be found here. According to this website (which has many spelling errors, fyi), the issues they find important are the following: "First, take control, restore and protect the basic elements for our existence: air, water, land and ecosystems. Develop renewable energy to replace nuclear power and fossil fuels. Second, give major importance to the human needs of food, housing and health. Promote an environmentally sound agricultural system and a national health plan. Thirdly, implement a fundamental transformation of the economy by focusing on human need and not on profit. This is to be done through community ownership and worker control of industry and financial institutions; resulting in the redistribution of wealth and elimination of global poverty. Fourth, we call for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of American military and corporations from Iraq and Afghanistan, and convert from a military to a peace-oriented economy. Fifth, defend and extend constitutional and bill of right liberties, abolish Patriot Act I & II and the Military Tribunal Bill. Sixth, promote art, culture, dance, music, history, preservation of heritage, leisure, recreation and access to public television and radio.

A very interesting platform.

What can be done with 600+ million dollars!

So, Obama rejected public financing of his campaign while McCain accepted public money. Forgetting the fact that Obama is the first Presidential candidate to do this since Nixon and that this legislation was meant to prevent corruption in political campaigns, what it really means is that Obama can raise and spend however much he wants while McCain is limited to 84 million dollars. You can argue the ethics behind these two decisions all you want, that's not my point in this post. I don't like the public financing system as it currently exists, but neither do I like a candidate saying he would take public financing and then repudiate that stance once he realized he was going to have way more money than the other guy to spend. Wondered why you see 6 Obama commercials to every 1 McCain one? This is why. Nonetheless, raising this kind of money to run commercials, make signs and buttons and generally lie (all politicians do this during campaigns, so this is a generalization) to the people is quite off putting. It seems that nobody cares though. I don't really get that. During this time of economic hardship, Obama has raised more money than any candidate in history and projections say he might make 700 million dollars by the time of the election. This is appalling. How can he justify continuing to raise money when he has a significant lead and the economy is so bad. His campaign manager, David Plouffe said this: [He] asked supporters over the weekend to dig just a little bit deeper, saying the campaign needs more cash to defend itself against McCain's "terrible" tactics in the final stretch. I'm not arguing tactics here, I don't really care, but to have 600 million dollars (the most of any candidate EVER) and to ask for more during one of the worst economic times in recent memory and surely in my lifetime is just plain irresponsible in my opinion. So, what could be done with this money rather than wasting it on signs, buttons, airplane rides and lies? Well, for starters, a person could buy 201 prime time, half hour, slots on three major networks (Obama has bought three to air on Oct. 29). Secondly, someone could buy all the shares of La Salle Hotel (with $58 million left over) and almost all the shares of Papa John's Pizza (needing just 2 million more). In addition, one could also buy almost all the shares of the Cheesecake Factory ($640 million needed) and more than 50 percent of Fannie Mae's outstanding shares. For the average American, the figure could buy 25,036 Ford Tauruses and more than 140 million gallons of milk. Finally, an individual making $50,000 a year would have to work 12,080 years to earn $604 million. One could argue that this much money being raised for him is a result of the passion he has stirred up in people and you'd probably be right to some degree. But by asking for more, he comes off to me like Richie Rich trying to pass himself off as Oliver saying "Please sir, I want some more!" Is this elitism (not saying McCain isn't, just giving a reality check to Obama supporters) really the "change we can believe in?"

Moral of this story -- Don't take dead animals home!

A biologist studying animals, specifically a family of mountain lions, in the Grand Canyon died of pneumonic plague. For the full story, go here. Fortunately, it was discovered quickly after his death and the CDC, etc. acted quickly to make sure nobody exposed got sick. Only 49 people were exposed and none of them got sick. This is something governments can actually be good at. Protecting the population. Anyway, the guy found the lion that he'd been studying dead and decided to take it home and do his own autopsy. Turns out he exposed himself to the disease this way and it ended up killing him. So, while I'm sorry for the guy and his family, I think it reinforces what parents have been telling kids forever. Don't touch that dead animal. Certainly don't bring it home.

Early voting

I passed by a "Vote Early" sign today and it got me to thinking. Early voting sounds like a good idea. It allows people time to get to the polls and vote, especially if they know ahead of time they won't be able to make it on election day or if they need special assistance. All kinds of good reasons to do it. In fact, I even voted early in the state's January election. However, just thinking out loud, but what happens if somebody goes to vote early and then something tragically happens to that person. Therefore, they aren't even alive on election day. Isn't that tantamount to dead people voting? Anyone got a good response to my thought?

Ehud Barack reveals Israel considering suicide

An article in today's USAToday cites Ehud Barack as stating that Israel is considering a "peace plan" offered by Saudi Arabia in 2002 that would bring peace to the region and allow a pan-Arab recognition of Israel and its right to exist. However, the specifics of the plan include such things as giving up all claims to lands in the west bank, the gaza strip, the golan heights and other lands. Basically, anything Israel won in the 1967 war (which was started by their neighbors, not them, just for an historical reality check). In addition, the deal requires Israel to turn over east Jerusalem and allow a large influx of Palestinians into the "recognized" portion of Israel. While I agree that this may in fact bring temporary peace to the region and may have the unprecedented outcome of Israel's recognition by a large number of Arab states, it doesn't really get Hamas on board, nor does it achieve the goal of extremists (the total destruction of the Israeli state). In addition, I doubt Iran would join such a deal, so you'd still have to be concerned with nuclear missiles flying over the Arab world into Israel. So, this deal, as I understand it, would achieve two things. It would weaken Israel and undermine her overall position, setting her up for perhaps another invasion or even being bombed with nuclear weapons from Iran (pretty much suicide if they accepted it). Secondly, and more importantly to me, it would turn over east Jerusalem to Palestine. You ask, so what? Well, since the second intifada, the Palestinians have been excavating underneath the temple mount claiming they are building a mosque. While they have a right to build a mosque, the temple mount is considered one of the most holy sites in the world and is revered by three major religions and proper archaeological care should be taken in any excavation. Hamas and the Palestinians have been making a case for years now that there is no temple and there never has been a temple associated with the Jews. They deny the reality of Solomon's or even Herod's temple. This is called temple denying and it is a concept you can google, but here is a quick blog entry on it. However, the "temple deniers" have been gaining influence since Yasser Arafat gave the idea credence before his death. At any rate, the outcome of the "excavations" under the temple mount has been the destruction of archaeological finds that are incalculable in their value. Fortunately, a small group of archaeologists have been going through the rubble being discarded very cavalierly in an effort to preserve as much of the history as can be preserved under the circumstances. Some of their finds have included artifacts that would pretty much prove the existence of Solomon's temple and Israel's claim to Jerusalem if they'd been found in a proper archaeological dig rather than bulldozed out of the ground and discarded as trash. So, give the Palestinians control of east Jerusalem and expect temple denying to continue as well as the destruction (deliberately as far as I can tell) of any evidence to support the temple and Israel's claim. For those who are interested, here is another site dedicated to ending the wanton destruction going on.

Third party candidates - Green party

Cynthia Ann McKinney is a lifelong Democrat and long time member of the House of Representatives. She is running for President as the Green party candidate. In fact, she is running in Florida as the candidate for the Green party, the Mountain party, the Pacific Green party and the Wisconsin Green party. Her campaign website can be found here. Fortunately, the Green party has a very detailed platform and even more fortunately, they have an issues comparison chart comparing them to the Democrats and Republicans. The chart can be viewed here. Basically, the Greens are against pretty much every war the U.S. has been involved in in the past 20 years, they want to reduce our military, they oppose Israel's right to self defense, they support unrestricted abortions and nationalized health care and are opposed to the death penalty. In addition, they support carbon and greenhouse gas reductions (policies similar to those being instituted in Europe) which would barely make a dent in reducing greenhouse gasses and would certainly make a dent in our economic success. They support giving unions more power, they want to restrict free trade, they are opposed to the war on drugs, they want to investigate the 2000 Florida election, they want more campaign finance reform and they support restricting the use of GMOs or genetically modified organisms (pretty much all the food we eat in the U.S.). They seem to be opposed to all deregulation efforts which simply translates into bigger government and they are apparently for decriminalization of marijuana. Finally, they are opposed to the defense of marriage act and the candidates have included into the platform reparations for African Americans and full employment (a government guaranteed job to all).

How our tax system works

I get really tired of hearing about how tax cuts can be given to just the middle class or just the poor or how tax cuts disproportionately help the rich. In reality, our tax system does all of these things at once but can't do any of them individually. It is an essentially unfair system. To illustrate this, I saw a good example on a board. Below is the basic example of how our tax system works.

Suppose that every night, ten men go to their favorite sports pub. The tab for all ten comes to $100 for ten pitchers of beer. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh $7.
• The eighth $12.
• The ninth $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every night and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your nightly tab by $20.”

(Here's your tax cut)

So, now drinks for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their tab the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being ‘PAID‘ to drink beer! So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
• The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once drunk and outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up at the bar, so the nine sat down and drank without him. But when it came time to pay the tab, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the tab!

And that, to anyone who doesn't get that ANY tax cut or tax hike will ALWAYS disproportionately give more money back to the rich in total amount but ALWAYS give them a smaller cut than we get in percentage of income, is how our tax system works. So, go ahead and complain about your taxes and go ahead and ask for lower taxes. You deserve them, but don't expect anyone to deliver what is impossible under our current tax system. Taxing the rich and not you. Our government isn't Robin Hood and it is incapable of being Robin Hood.

Who's to blame! - The politicians of course, who else?

I can only assume that the attribution of this article to Charlie Reese, formerly of the Orlando Sentinel, is correct, but regardless of who originated it, it makes some VERY good points.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, then WHY do we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices, 545 human beings out of the 300 million [in this country] are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a
Senator, a Congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker of the House, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

***Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Now, a lot of good points. Extremely unlikely that we'd vote them out of office because everyone believes that their Congressman or Senator is the greatest and it is all the others that are the problem. Truth be told, sorry guys, ALL of them are the problem. Period.

We need socialism! - Okay!?

I know the socialists are a fringe party who have no real hope of winning an election in this country, but considering how close to socialism the Democrats have become, I thought I'd take a look at the Socialist Party platform more closely. Anyone who reads my blog knows I am no socialist. History has shown real full fledged socialism to be a bad idea. However, that doesn't stop people from choosing that direction, especially when times are hard like they are now. So, point by point:

End the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. Bring all the troops home now.
Okay, a lot of people agree with this, but bringing the troops home now rather than finishing the job or at the very least cleaning up the mess we made would be irresponsible and akin to defeatism.

Stop U.S. blockades & sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Korea, Sudan and everywhere.
I can't help but notice that the five countries singled out here are five of the most outspoken adversaries of the U.S. in the world today, next to radical fundamentalism perhaps. Not to mention, these five countries are also some of the worst offenders when it comes to Human Rights. Really? These are the people we should stop being against?

End U.S. aid to Israel—Support the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination.
While I think that the Palestinian people might should have their own country, ending U.S. aid to Israel would serve only to undermine Middle East security, not secure it.

Free Puerto Rico.
Oops, sorry, I hadn't realized that Puerto Rico wasn't free. They are citizens of the U.S., are they not? Perhaps the socialists are ignoring history again since Puerto Rico has had multiple referendums on their status (an act of self-determination) and they have ALWAYS chosen to maintain the status quo. Why you ask? Because they don't want to be a state since they get all the benefits of citizenship without having to pay taxes and they don't want to be independent because they'd lose all those same benefits. Their status is their choice, although I do agree with the concept that we cut them loose and let them be independent if they are unwilling to be a state. Current policy is no longer acceptable.

International friendship and solidarity, not imperialist domination.
Oh sorry, I didn't realize we had to play nice. Let's see, ignoring history again I guess because if the U.S. had played nice, Eastern Europe would still be ruled by despots, Israel would have been defeated years ago, China would rule over Taiwan, India and Pakistan probably would have blown each other up. I can go on. That's not to say the U.S. hasn't made foreign policy mistakes. I'm just saying the statement here is naive.

Full employment—decent jobs for all. Job training for youth & the unemployed.
This sounds great. The only way to achieve full employment is to somehow require people be employed even if they aren't motivated or qualified. This doesn't breed efficient productivity, but instead breeds apathy so I'd have to disagree with full employment. As for job training for the youth and the unemployed, I think that someone isn't paying attention to what's going on around them. These opportunities already exist and maybe could be expanded, but you can't make an unmotivated person do anything. Without hardship, there would be no good times, we'd all live in a state of mediocrity.

Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour now.
Ouch! This would pretty much end the U.S. economy, so that'd be a NO!

Free, quality healthcare for all.
Yeah, I want to trust the government to handle my health care. How would you ensure quality anyway? After all, if health care were free, nobody would want to go into the business in order to make money (because after all, people choose their lifestyles and profession largely on that concept, like it or not) so you'd pretty much kill the employment pool, especially in hard times. So, how ya gonna make something free and of quality? The answer is that nothing of quality is ever free.

Expand and guarantee social security for all retired workers, disabled and unemployed people.
Okay, so you'd expand a system that is guaranteed to be bankrupt before I'm old enough to draw from it to include even more benefits for even more people. That's really a smart and wise thing to do. It would also bankrupt the country and destroy our economy.

Stop union-busting, expand the right to organize, including card-check recognition.
While unions serve their purpose, I doubt many people would agree that giving them even MORE power would be the way to go.

Free, high quality education from pre-school through college.
Thanks, but no thanks. Again, "high quality" doesn't happen with free. In addition, making it free means that all those student loans become student grants. Just where you planning on getting the money for that since you've already killed the economy with the ideas stated above?

Housing is a right—End foreclosures and evictions.
Sure, I have a right to property, I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. It is even in the Constitution, a document you don't seem to recognize. However, Housing is not a right. My right to property ends where my ability to pay for it does. If you say I can't be evicted or foreclosed upon, then no bank will lend to me, so the only way I'd be able to buy a home would be to pay cash (of which there would be none because of the dead economy due to all of the stated things above). Oh, I guess everyone just gets to move into a government provided house? Oops, tried that already, didn't turn out so good. Would you live in the projects created by the government?

Stop environmental destruction—Make the polluters pay.
I'm with you on this. If there is someone breaking the law and polluting, they should have to clean up their mess, even providing compensation to people hurt by their polluting. This isn't socialism though, it is common sense.

Rebuild New Orleans—Right of return for all survivors.
Rebuild it how? If you put houses and buildings right back on top of what was there before, you are just asking for it to happen again. Of course, I believe that's exactly what'll happen, so if I were a survivor, I wouldn't want to return to that. I do think it should be rebuilt and survivors should be allowed to return. But we HAVE to raise the ground level at least 20 feet since we've already destroyed the natural boundaries that used to protect the city.

Fight racism and the racist criminal “justice” system.
Agreed, but not through racial preferences because that is itself racist.

Defend women’s reproductive rights, including the right to choose.
How about the rights of the unborn, or are they just cells to you? Not saying I'm against abortion, just saying you have a stated belief in equal rights for all, so you all only includes the living?

Full rights for all immigrants.
Last time I checked, LEGAL immigrants do have full rights. So, you must be referring to illegal immigrants. Therefore, I'll have to respectfully disagree that people who blatantly violate our laws should be allowed the protections of our constitution. We don't even do that with our own citizens when they violate our laws.

Reparations now for the African American community.
Uh, that'd be a no since you'd be asking me, over 100 years after the fact, to pay for the sins of my ancestors.

Eliminate anti-LGBT laws—Equal marriage rights for all.
Hmm... have you considered the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state? After all, by requiring equal marriage rights, you'd be impressing onto the churches the beliefs of the state. That doesn't mesh with you statement of equal rights for all, in fact, it seems more in line with oppression of religion and speech to me.

Equality for disabled people.
I didn't realize they weren't. Hmm... I guess I'll have to research this one.

Stop police brutality and mass incarceration.
What mass incarceration? As for police brutality, it is a crime and should be a crime, so we'd agree.

Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, the Cuban 5, Angola 3, S.F. 8 and all political prisoners.
Yeah right.

End the rule of the billionaires, bankers and militarists—fight for workers’ democracy.
Sure, the billionaires, bankers and militarists have a lot of power, as do the unions, the lobbyists and the courts. So, I think you need to have a lesson in reality. Power corrupts. Therefore, anyone with power becomes corrupted. Therefore, giving the government more and more control over people's lives makes the government more and more corrupt. Oh, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, making the U.S. a socialists country would ensure, not freedom, but tyranny.

We need a sustainable economy based on meeting people’s needs, not making the rich richer.
Under your ideas, our economy would be perfectly sustainable as it would impoverish the entire country.

We need socialism!
Really?! I don't think so.

Third party candidates - Party for Socialism and Liberation

Gloria E. La Riva is running for President in 2008 as the candidate for the Party for Socialism and Liberation. She has run for office many times going back as far as 1983, but has run for President or Vice President from 1984-2000 and now again in 2008. Her campaign website contains good information about what she believes. She is clearly a socialist and self describes herself as such. Here is her platform:
1. End the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. Bring all the troops home now.
2. Stop U.S. blockades & sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Korea, Sudan and everywhere.
3. End U.S. aid to Israel—Support the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination.
4. Free Puerto Rico.
5. International friendship and solidarity, not imperialist domination.
6. Full employment—decent jobs for all. Job training for youth & the unemployed.
7. Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour now.
8. Free, quality healthcare for all.
9. Expand and guarantee social security for all retired workers, disabled and unemployed people.
10. Stop union-busting, expand the right to organize, including card-check recognition.
11. Free, high quality education from pre-school through college.
12. Housing is a right—End foreclosures and evictions.
13. Stop environmental destruction—Make the polluters pay.
14. Rebuild New Orleans—Right of return for all survivors.
15. Fight racism and the racist criminal “justice” system.
16. Defend women’s reproductive rights, including the right to choose.
17. Full rights for all immigrants.
18. Reparations now for the African American community.
19. Eliminate anti-LGBT laws—Equal marriage rights for all.
20. Equality for disabled people.
21. Stop police brutality and mass incarceration.
22. Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, the Cuban 5, Angola 3, S.F. 8 and all political prisoners.
23. End the rule of the billionaires, bankers and militarists—fight for workers’ democracy.
24. We need a sustainable economy based on meeting people’s needs, not making the rich richer.
25. We need socialism!

So, there you have it.

Third party candidates - America's Independent party

America's Independent party has nominated Alan Keyes as their candidate for President in the 2008 election. The party's website states: "America's Independent Party is a conservative pro-life political party that stands for constitutionally limited government, national sovereignty, secure borders, economic liberty, and a Reaganesque "peace through strength" national defense and foreign policy. America's Independent Party endorses or nominates candidates for public office based on a proven adherence to constitutional principle, not mere party labels." This party has also joined forces with the American Independent party out of California as one of its affiliates. Alan Keyes has run for President before, as a Republican (1996 and 2000), but has never received the nomination. He was an ambassador under Ronald Reagan and spent many years as a radio talk show host. His campaign website doesn't really offer much in the way of information. It is basically an online form for donations with a link to the party's website. However, the party's website does give enough information to be informed about what they believe. They begin their platform with a strong statement supporting God and moral values. Then they state a strong belief in the right to life of the unborn which is followed by a statement of support for all enumerated rights in the Constitution and for all natural rights through the ninth amendment. By choosing the words they did here, it is clear they are not supported of positive rights theory or Progressive rights. The platform continues to express a strong support for an individual right to bear arms, against same sex marriage and calls for a repeal of the sixteenth amendment (income tax) and the seventeenth amendment (electing Senators by popular vote rather than by state legislatures). Finally, they express a desire to restore limited government, control our borders, fight efforts to weaken our sovereignty and to use our armed forces responsibly through their concept of "peace through strength". This sounds to me to be very similar to the Republican party, except for the fact that the Republican party has abandoned these principles in their power struggles with the Democrats to get elected.

Third party candidates - Boston Tea party

Charles Jay is running for President as the candidate for the Boston Tea party. The Boston Tea party, was a famous historical event protesting unreasonable taxation, but it is now a political party as well. Founded in 2006, the Boston Tea Party touts a one-sentence platform: “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.” That sounds good to me. Usually things work better if government gets out of the way. The campaign website is actually a blog, where Charles Jay writes posts on the issues. You can access this site at: http://www.cj08.com/.

Third party candidates - Socialist Workers Party

The Socialist Workers Party or SWP has selected Roger Calero as their Presidential candidate again in 2008. He also ran in 2004. While trying to find information on them, I found it interesting that there is little to no information on their actual positions. No website, no party website, not much at all in fact. However, I did find a lot of biographical information on their candidate. Mr. Calero was born in Nicaragua and immigrated to the U.S. in 1985. He was convicted of selling marijuana in 1988 and was threatened with deportation in 2002 after travelling to Havana, Cuba for a protest there. He became a permanent resident of the U.S. in 1990. How he was able to do that since he'd had a drug conviction I don't know, but he did nonetheless. He is running for the office of President of the United States without fulfilling the proper requirements. He is not a citizen of this country, not to mention he wasn't born here. So, basically, the SWP cares not for the Constitution since they blatantly run a candidate who couldn't even serve if elected (under the Constitution). In 2004, this guy actually managed more than 6000 votes under his own name and the SWP got over 7000 more votes under another name in states where Calero wasn't allowed on the ballot (rightfully so) because he didn't fit the qualifications for President. Now, which is worse, that a party who doesn't give us any information on their platform would run this guy, that many states would allow him on the ballot or that any people, especially as many that did, would vote for him?

Ya just have to wonder?

Angelina Jolie was quoted in the German edition of Vanity Fair through the Associated Press as saying: "Naturally, an American president like Barack Obama would be nice for my family." Okay, I haven't read the article and I suppose it is remotely conceivable that this statement could mean something else than it appears to say when placed in context. Nevertheless, it appears to suggest that Jolie would think that Obama would be good for her family. I understand how she would agree with Obama on foreign policy and several domestic policy issues, but how could she possibly think he'd be good for her family? He says in virtually every one of his way too many commercials that he is going to tax the rich (those who make over 250,000 dollars) and give tax breaks to the poor and middle class. Last time I checked, both Jolie and Pitt make well over 250K a year based on what they make per picture, so Obama is going to raise their taxes, right? They obviously don't think so if this statement is taken to a conclusion on being good for their family. Maybe they think he'll only be taxing companies and the ultra rich (except they are ultra rich). People who can send their children to the nicest private schools and will leave them tons of money when they die. Perhaps they think they'll only get taxed when they die? I don't know, but Obama being good for "my family" when that person is one of the ultra rich Hollywood elites seems a bit odd to me. Perhaps I'll get it after he wins. Maybe, just maybe, Hollywood will get it after he wins. I doubt that since they are more interested in "positive rights" theory than in protecting real rights.

This is what we've been waiting for?

Okay, so Palin abused her power. Not like the Democrats can really say anything about that *cough* Clinton *cough*. Nonetheless, you can read about it in USAToday if you wish. According to this story, Alaska spent 100,000 dollars to hire an investigator to look into whether or not Palin abused her power and broke the law in firing someone. Okay, if I'm the guy getting fired, I'd really want to know this. In addition, I'd probably want my job back. As to whether he'll get his job back, or even wants it (and if he doesn't, why the fuss), the story doesn't say. What it goes on to say is that the panel and the investigator found that Palin violated a state ethics law in firing the guy. It continues that the law is basically such a minor thing that she can't lose her job as governor and the legislature doesn't even have justification to censure her over it. What can be done is that the state senate can decide whether or not to fine her up to 5000 dollars for her violation of this ethics law. Based on my understanding of the case, she might deserve a 5000 dollar fine. Except for the fact that the report released by the investigation says that she did have a legitimate reason to fire the guy (which suggests he won't be getting his job back). However, assuming she did abuse her power, 5000 dollars is certainly more than Clinton ever got. However, the true tragedy here doesn't even lie in whether or not she is guilty. After all, this whole thing did become sort of politicized after she was made the VP running mate so guilt is more a matter of which party you belong to. Again, although I hate doing it, I'll cite the Clinton impeachment as an example (as guilty as OJ, but got off just as scott free, at least until recently for OJ). Nonetheless, the real tragedy here is that the state spent countless man hours, time and effort, and over 100K dollars on an investigator and an investigation to look into the violation of a law that might gain them a 5000 dollar fine but really doesn't hurt Palin or her governorship in the long run (although it could successfully hurt McCain in the short run). I'd say that's money and time well spent, eh? Oh wait, it isn't. It is in fact a WASTE of money. Right, I forgot, I tend to look at things logically. It isn't a waste of money if it helps the Democrats win. Of course. Oh wait, but it doesn't discredit her enough to get her out of the race or to keep her from running for national office in the future? Oops, we're back to waste of money. Remember, politics are never about the truth and they certainly aren't about we the people, they are ALWAYS about politics and this whole event smacks of little more than political maneuvering. Period.

What's with Gadaffi?

Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi (forgive the spelling) has always been a little bit crazy. However, he's never been one to just say things for the sake of hearing himself speak like Castro was. So, who is he trying to convince in this video? Barack Obama has spent a lot of money to discredit the idea that he was once Muslim, only to have the leader of a prominent Muslim country call him exactly that? While I choose to believe Obama's conversion experience was real, Gadaffi suggests here that either he believes Obama is Muslim or he is trying to convince others in the Arab/Muslim world that he is Muslim. Either way, I still have to ask: to what end?

Socialism? What do you think?

So, I keep getting told that I'm an alarmist for thinking this country is heading down a road that could lead to real socialism (as opposed to socialist programs like we have now) or even worse towards communism. So, here's my thinking. The definition of socialism is: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole (government control of these things) or procedure or practice in accordance with this theory (acts taken that are in line with the previous idea) or according to Marxist (communist) theory, the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. So, who would like to be the first to argue that social security (as currently constituted) is not a socialist program. It certainly fits the dictionary definition. In addition, the idea of government health care that so many people are excited about. Socialism, pure and simple. How about the concept of political correctness that is so endearing to Democrats. Socialism at its very core in that it declares what speech is good and what is bad based on communal principles. Finally, when the economy turns sour as it has now and we see people struggling, what does the government do? It makes the taxpayers pay for the mistakes of the companies and is now even discussing nationalizing some or all of those companies, or at least "owning a stake" in those companies, which is the same. What's the next step. The government is going to own all these bad loan homes, right? Is property the next casualty? If so, socialism in entirety. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think we spent 50 years after WWII trying to defeat the obviously flawed concepts of communism to allow our country to slowly transition into the very thing we were fighting. After all, in the definition above, socialism is the in between step from capitalism to communism, so why go down the socialist road at all if we don't intend to keep going down it, which therefore leads to? At any rate, I was raised to rely on myself and my community (those I choose to associate with). I really don't understand why anyone thinks reliance on government or government control of anything is a good idea. So, are we becoming more socialist? Absolutely. Therefore, Democrats should consider this. They (Democrats) constantly rail against the authoritarianism of Republicans (while of course completely ignoring it in themselves (political correctness, etc.)) while supporting all the while a system (socialism) which opens the door to authoritarian practices and even despotism or communism. Don't believe me? Ask the people in China or Venezuela what they think of their leaders. Oh, that's right, you can't because they live in despotic societies and would be shot or simply just disappear for speaking out against them. Consider this as you espouse more government control because it would only take one election of the wrong person, be they Republican or Democrat, under the system you are espousing to destroy every single freedom we have.

Third party candidates - Libertarian party

Robert L. 'Bob' Barr Jr. is the Libertarian party candidate for President in 2008. Bob Barr has had a varied career as an attorney, professor and a United States Representative in the House. His campaign website can be found here. According to that website, he believes in drastically reducing the federal budget and spending, that charity is an act of the private sector and so government should get out of the entitlement business, that the free market should determine America's energy policy without government interference in any way, that we should scale back the ability of the government to invade our privacy and gather intelligence on Americans while still protecting against crime and terrorism. In addition, he wants a quick end to the Iraq war, but he wants to bring home all troops from around the world as well. Moreover, he says that government has made health care as expensive as it is so they should get out of the health care business and give it back to the free market. Also, he believes that education is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government and so the Department of Education should be abolished, he also believes in strong property rights with only a very limited eminent domain and he believes in a strong second amendment gun ownership right without government regulation or restriction. A few final issues. He believes that marriage is an issue to be dealt with at the state level, not at the federal level, that taxes should be cut significantly to go along with federal budget cuts, that the Federal Reserve should be made accountable to the people, that the borders should be secured but that we should welcome immigration as vital and good and finally that the Declaration of Independence states that "ALL" men are created equal and therefore the government should have no laws which discriminate based on sex, religion, race, etc.

Are these Redskins for real?

I don't live in the Washington, D.C. area anymore, so getting to see the Redskins on television is difficult. However, I've remained a loyal fan, as do many Redskins fans who move away. I'm one of those people who tend to root for their team during good times and bad, no fair weather over here. So, I've gotten to see only the Redskins loss to the Giants in the opening week. There wasn't much to see on the offensive side of the ball, although, the defense looked pretty good, especially in the second half. Since then, I've watched on Gametrax and the live over the internet and listened to friends and family describe events over the phone to get my information about how my beloved team is doing. I did get to see the last quarter of the 'skins-'boys game on tv, but only the last quarter. Therefore, I'm having trouble knowing if this team is for real. I really want them to be, and seeing that they won two of their three division road games (a difficult feat in any year), I think maybe they are. So, why were they treated as an afterthought by virtually everyone at the beginning of this year? Is it because people just thought N.Y., Dallas and Philly were better and therefore Washington couldn't possibly compete against that or did they think having a new coach would be enough to make them stumble. It seems to me that people forget that coach Gibbs led this team to the playoffs last year. So, the team is already playoff caliber, otherwise, they wouldn't have been there last year, but it didn't get that kind of treatment at the beginning of the season. Maybe it was that expectations were low because of a new coach and coaching staff in general. I hope that's all it was. Nonetheless, it seems that maybe, just maybe, Danny boy has managed to hire himself a good coach to replace Gibbs. This is no small accomplishment considering the pre-Gibbs debacles under Snyder. At any rate, one could argue that the Redskins have gone 4-1 facing the toughest part of their schedule with three road games against their own division. That suggests a team that is for real and leads one to have hope that they just might make the playoffs again this year. So, Hail to the Redskins, hail, victory! Braves on the warpath, FIGHT for all DC!

An interview with our first President

I thought I'd take a break today from looking at third party candidates and have a chat with our first President.
Me: So, Mr. President, may I call you George?
George: No.
Me: Right, I just have a few questions today. First, I'd like to know what you think of our current election. Which party do you think you'd support?
George: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."
Me: So, you think the party system itself is flawed and prone to corruption and could lead us as a nation into despotism?
George: That's correct
Me: Wow George, I haven't heard anyone today say it quite so eloquently. On another topic, in your opinion, how should we as a nation deal with the partisanship that now exists? In addition, how should we deal with the threats from our enemies and from within?
George: "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."..."While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other."
Me: I see, so value our unity and our freedom at all costs. Gotcha. Now, Mr. President, what advice do you have regarding our current economic crisis?
George: "Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."
Me: Thank you Mr. President for graciously speaking with me today.
George: It is my pleasure.

Now, the remarks in quotes and italics are actual statements of George Washington from his 1796 farewell address. If you'd like to read the speech in its entirety, go here. It seems to me, based on this speech and recent events, that over the last 212 years, we as a nation have learned nothing.

Third party candidates - Constitution party (What's with all the other parties)

Today's third party candidate is Charles O. "Chuck" Baldwin. He is running for President in Florida as the Independent, Write-In, Alaskan Independence, Constitution, Constitution Party of Florida, Constitution Party of Illinois, Independent Green, Nebraska, Reform Party USA, U.S. Taxpayers, U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan ticket (too many). Baldwin is basically the Constitution party candidate. He is a Pastor, author and radio talk show host in Florida. His campaign website is here. He has been publicly endorsed by Ron Paul. His public comments indicate that he believes the Wall Street bailout currently before Congress is a mistake. In fact, I quote from his radio website: "The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. This means dismantling the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, overturning the 16th Amendment and the personal income tax, and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver". His campaign website also clearly states many of his positions. First, he would "abolish the Department of Education", he strongly supports the individual right to bear arms, he wants to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, but this isn't limited to Iraq. He wants to bring all our troops home and cease foreign operations by the military while insisting the U.S. not get involved in the affairs of other states but not allow them to be involved in ours. Baldwin is opposed to nationalized health care, he supports strong border security and says he would pardon border agents Ramos and Compean, he wants to impose tariffs on all foreign imports and he wants a strong military that is used to defend the U.S. and would only fight under the U.S. flag. Finally, he says he is a strong supporter of the 4th and 5th amendments rights, he is opposed to North American globalists who support NAFTA and a common North American currency, he would stop all U.S. payments to the United Nations and he supports a very strong anti-abortion (pro-life or sanctity of life) stance. So, he seems to be appealing to Republicans on life, health care and immigration issues, libertarians on foreign policy issues, democrats on trade and rights issues. However, I couldn't find anything that specifically stated his views on domestic issues such as social security, welfare and other govt. funded programs, although based on what I did read, I'd bet he is opposed to those programs, but I'm open for correction if anyone can provide any information to the contrary.

Third party candidates - Prohibition party

I thought I'd take a look at some of the third party candidates running in the 2008 election. Someone pointed out that they get absolutely no press, so I'm giving it to them, whether I like what they have to say or not. I'll try to do a different one a day, or every couple of days depending on my time schedule. In addition, I'm only going to look at the ones who actually appear on the Florida ballot, since I'm in Florida. So, if I can cast a vote for them, you'll eventually see something here about them in my blog. Here goes with the first one on the list: Gene Amondson from the Prohibition Party. This one is easy. The Prohibition party is a one issue third party. Not hard to understand why they haven't been successful, is it? At any rate, they are committed to the prohibition of alcohol in this country. Hmm... it seems we've been down this road before.