The Political Lizard

Congress Hits Rock Bottom

2008-07-08T22:26:00.000-04:00

Looks like ratings for the do-nothing congress have sunk to single digits.

Please tell me it isn’t so! I could have sworn that Nancy and her apparatchiks, Reid and Murtha were doing a great job…at accomplishing absolutely nothing. For the last two years these three clowns have been running around like the Hansen brothers from that movie Slap Shot. Except the Hansen brothers, despite their goofy antics, had a purpose… they wanted to win. Pelosi and company perfected their clown act after they won in 2006, and two years later there still seems to be no real purpose behind their actions.

Giddy from mid-term election success, Nancy, Harry, and the dangerously senile and corrupt John Murtha immediately picked up where John Kerry and his “blame America” coalition left off after their defeat in 2004.

Some of the more infamous missteps of this axis of stupidity include Pelosi’s trip to Syria in an attempt to undermine administration foreign policy, Reid declaring the war is lost, and Murtha [with no evidence] accusing a group of US Marines of cold blooded murder in Haditha. And who can forget the ridiculous, repeated attempts to impeach George Bush, going after Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, and just about anyone associated with the Bush administration? Apparently the Dems chose to adopt revenge politics instead of actually accomplishing anything during their majority. Great job Nancy, quite a legacy for the first female Speaker of the House.

Not many will argue the fact that Bush, like any leader, has made mistakes. And many Republicans are also to blame for this congressional debacle. However the Dems have continually tried to portray America as a declining, corrupted super-power, attacking not only our political and military leaders, but even our front line soldiers. All of this in a transparently pathetic attempt to gain political power. It’s no wonder that most Americans feel that our congress is doing a very poor job indeed.

Unfortunately, the Democrats decided in 2006 that it was more important to attack the Bush administration than to attack the problems facing Americans. In the last two years gas prices have skyrocketed, the mortgage and housing markets are in ruin, and no word from Nancy Pelosi. The Dems pinned everything on losing [or surrendering] in Iraq, and when American body counts declined and stability in the region improved, Nancy, Harry, and Murtha, all but disappeared from the news. Let’s hope it stays that way.

What new lows will they stoop to if Obama is elected? Don’t wait to find out, vote Nobama in November.

Obama's Political Stunt

2008-07-07T17:54:00.001-04:00

About one month ago John McCain proposed that both he and Barack Obama visit Iraq to assess the situation. The proposal made sense. Both candidates are the presumptive nominees of their party. Both candidates are Senators. John McCain has been an active supporter of the surge. Barack Obama has continuously derided McCain on Iraq. McCain has been to Iraq recently to see yhe surge results first hand. Obama has not visited Iraq for over two years even though he sits on the Senate Armed Services committee.

Obama derided McCain's proposal as being nothing more than a political stunt. Obama saw no reason to visit Iraq. Obama had a stated policy of withdrawal from Iraq at all costs no matter the circumstances. Yet today Obama has his surrogate deride McCain regarding his lack of judgment on Iraq. Yes John Kerry "swiftboated" McCain. Kerry claims that McCain was wrong about the surge. Yet the results of the surge could not be clearer. Iraq has somewhat stabilized. 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met satisfactorily. Yet Kerry has the audacity to say John McCain lacks the judgment to be president. John McCain consistently backed troop increases to quell the violence. John McCain stood up to George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and told them they were wrong. John McCain has shown he is the only candidate for president that got the judgment right.

In addition to sending his surrogates to trash John McCain, Obama has started to plan a trip to Iraq. This even though one month ago Obama told everyone that visiting Iraq was nothing more than a political stunt. Part of Obama's plan is to visit the Brandenburg gate and make a speech in Berlin Germany. Obama's handlers believe this speech will follow in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Now who is planning a political stunt?

Obama has spoken that he is the only candidate that has consistently been against the war. Obama has pledged to withdraw from Iraq immediately (two brigades per month). Yet Obama earlier in the week said he would listen to commanders on the ground and that Obama was refining his position. Who lacks judgment? The candidate that recognizes we are in a war and that we have responsibilities or the one that will say anything to gain a vote? Obama accuses McCain of political stunts, Obama sends surrogates out to demean McCains character, and Obama plans his own political stunt. Obama lacks the integrity, judgment, character, and truthfulness to be the local dogcatcher. Is this the messiah the left has been waiting for? A candidate that stands for nothing, a candidate with no principle, a candidate that smears his opponent all the complaining of smears himself? Obama is a childish egomaniac. Obama has an inferiority complex and masks that with his elitist ego. Obama is a political stunt.

Up The Middle

2008-07-04T11:52:00.001-04:00

Obama is making his run for the middle. Many of his policies are now changing to be more appealing to the center. Obama's claim to be a different kind of politician is definitely ringing hollow when you take into consideration running for the middle is the same play book that is always used. Obama is not moving to the center but rather abandoning his primary promises of a marxist world and picking up conservative values.

The playbook says pander to your base and move to the middle. The candidate that mobilizes his base and wins the center will win the election. The theory works like the following: Pander to the party base during the primary. This will solidify the base and energize your hard core believers. After the base is mobilized the candidate then slowly moves toward the center. This slow deliberate move to the center keeps the base mobilized and picks up supporters along the way. The candidate that successfully keeps the base mobilized and picks up the independent middle America will be the ultimate victor.

Obama's playbook is following the basic theory. However, he has a problem. Obama did not methodically move to the center. No, Obama lurched to the right of center. Obama abandoned his base. Obama ran a primary well left of Hillary. Obama was able to energize the far left extreme of his party. Communist and Marxist followers were mesmerized by the chosen one. After securing the nomination Obama morphed into a pseudo Republican. Obama now publicly backs faith based initiatives rather than big intrusive government. Obama just yesterday backed off his lose at all cost Iraq policy to one of flexibility and listening to military commanders. Obama was against NAFTA in the Primary (although his surrogates promised Canada it was all campaign rhetoric) and now is a free trade advocate. Obama through his votes and actions showed he was a staunch supporter of abortion rights no matter the circumstances. Now he is not so sure. All these policy refinements have alienated his base. Obama's move is not a smooth transition from party base to center.

All Obama has done is shown he is a typical politician unable to grasp the nuances of a national campaign. The move to the center must be a smooth transition picking up supporters along the way. Obama jumped over an important constituency. Obama could have done wonders by talking at the Democratic Leadership Council last week. Instead Obama stayed away getting a haircut and playing basketball. Obama has given up on half of his own party. Obama believes his reversal of spoken policy will go unnoticed. Obama believes the democrats will all come home regardless of what he says in the general. Obama feels he can successfully run to the middle all the while abandoning his base and running over the 18 Million that voted for his primary opponent.

The problem is that his policies changes were not morphed. There was no gradual, deliberate move to the center. Obama reversed his policies and now stands to the right of center on most issues. This does not follow Obama's past actions. Obama is the most liberal Senator in the Congress. Obama even made Ted Kennedy appear to be moderate. Obama's past actions and policies stances during the primary were well to the left Hilary. In a matter of days Obama has been able to move to the right of John McCain. It is no wonder the American people ask "who is Obama" or "What does Obama stand for" for it certainly seems Obama has no principles and will say anything to win election. His policies change continuously depending on the audience. Which Obama are we expected to believe in; The liberal senator, the marxist nominee, or the pseudo evangelical? Obama is change no one can believe in.

I've Always Said.......

2008-07-03T23:02:00.001-04:00

When Obama starts a sentence off with "I've always said" we need to listen carefully to what he is saying. We need to listen closely because Obama is changing his stance on something. Today Obama started a sentence off with "I've always said" and started down the path of "refining" his position on Iraq.

Now Obama has said he has always been against th war in Iraq. Obama has said he would start an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama has said he believes it not unreasonable to withdraw at least 2 brigades per month. Obama has said the surge was a failed policy. Obama has said Iraq was a quagmire. Obama has said just about everything imaginative that was negative in regards to the Iraq war. Yet today he says he would listen to commanders.

Today Obama says he is refining his position. A month ago Obama said it was a political stunt to visit our troops in Iraq. Today he is in the midst of planning a trip to Iraq. I wonder how Obama is going to "refine" his position that it is a political stunt. We all know by now that the surge has produced results. Iraq has successfully met 15 of the 18 benchmarks in less than a year. Last year this time Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were threatening to abandon our troops in a time of war. Reid in fact said "the war is lost". Reid staged a pizza sleepover party in the Senate in an attempt to abandon our troops. Obama railed against the surge. Yet today Obama says "I've always said" and starts to "refine" his position.

The position refinement is nothing more than an attempt to change his position to the opposite of what he has always said. This is an attempt at spinning an admission that he has always been wrong. Obama understands that the current facts in Iraq do not fit his stated position. Obama understands that his foreign policy positions are behind the times and out of step with mainstream America.

Obama stands for nothing. He has always said he was against the war. Now he is not so sure. Obama has always said there is nothing wrong with black theology. Now he says he has abandoned his church. Obama has always said he was against telecom immunity. Now he is for it. Obama has always said he was against free trade. Now he is for it. Obama's run to the middle abandons everything he ever stood for. This just goes to show everyone that he has no principles. Obama will do or say anything to win an election. He will change his position depending on the audience and then have the audacity to say "I've always said". Obama words are as empty as he is shallow.

Lock-Down of Anti-Obama Blogs Gaining Attention

2008-06-30T22:19:00.002-04:00

NewsBusters' Warner Todd Huston reports today on the recent shutdown of anti-Obama blogs on Google. As reported previously on this blog and many others, there has been a concerted effort by Obama supporters to silence blogs that do not agree with Obama's plan to ruin our nation and subjugate Americans to his socialist policies.

The actions of his supporters have only reinforced my belief that Obama and the malignant mass that follow him are willing to use any means necessary to get this toxic ideologue in the White House. The use of Chavez-like tactics to silence opposition seems to be part of the Obama game plan.

Although a temporary inconvenience, the locking of these blogs has been beneficial in exposing the left-wing for their intolerance and total disregard for free and open political discussion where their candidate is concerned. Google, whose flawed spam reporting architecture was exploited, should have been quick to realize that they were being used by deviant political operatives to close down selected blogs with a similar theme. Google possesses the technology available to avoid this type of abuse. They chose not use it in a timely or effective manner. Therefore Google, despite repeated apologies and excuses, remains complicit in these events.

What Do The Outlier Polls Tell Us?

2008-06-25T20:39:00.002-04:00

Last week Newsweek rolled out a shocking poll that showed Obama was up 15%. Yesterday the LA Times rolled out a poll that also had Obama up 15%. These polls show two things. One the methodology is probably flawed in their party affiliation makeup. Two they show Obama is in a lot of trouble on election day.

In light of these polls I believe they spell trouble for Obama. Both polls reported independents leaned towards McCain. This has to be troubling for Obama. In order to receive a 15% lead both polling organizations have to have a 10-12% lead in political party affiliation in favor of the Democrats. In the 2004 election cycle the two main political parties were essentially tied. Now the LA Times and Newsweek believe there has been a 10-12 point swing in 4 years? That is really out of touch with reality. It is true that the Republicans have dropped and yes the Democrats of increased their ranks. However, the biggest gain has been in people identifying as independents.

In closed primary states like Pennsylvania there were huge increases in the Democratic Party ranks. This was not due to this many people wishing to vote the Democratic ticket in the general but rather due to this many people wishing to have a voice in the closed primary. The only real primary was on the Democrats side. It is no wonder the Democrat party increased party affiliation. In the general these numbers will normalize and recent Rasmussen polls show Obama up only 4 points in Pennsylvania. With all of these new Democrats and at least a 10 point party affiliation difference should not Obama be up 20-25 points in Pennsylvania?

As long as McCain maintains a lead with independents he will win the general. If McCain maintains an 8 point lead in the independent voters McCain will win the election in a landslide. If the independent vote is closer to 1-2 points we will have a close election.

What these polls show is that Obama has problems. The only way to have the lead is to have a party affiliation difference of 10% in favor of the Democrats and have more democrats than independents. This polling methodology goes against what common sense says should be happening. Commonsense says independents should outnumber both Party's. Commonsense says the difference between Democrats and Republicans should be 5-7 points not 10+ points. Bottom line is that both of these outlier polls actually show problems for Obama. These polls show Obama trailing in the independent voter block. This spells serious problems for Obama in the general.

Obama: No Plan, No Ideas, No to America

2008-06-25T17:57:00.002-04:00

Here is a video of Obama saying no to every energy proposal from the other side of the aisle. Yet the Democrats led by Obama offer no energy plan whatsoever.

Columbia Professor to Lose Job after Noose Incident

2008-06-24T22:36:00.002-04:00

Back in October, Columbia University professor Madonna Constantine came to work and allegedly found a noose hanging from her office door. Despite the ensuing furor and an intense investigation by both state and federal law enforcement agencies, the perpetrator was never found.

Prof. Constantine is now embroiled in another controversy, but this one has nothing to do with hate crimes. Ms. Constantine has been suspended indefinitely for the most grievous of academic transgressions; plagiarism. An investigation by Columbia officials determined that the esteemed Prof. Constantine not only pirated the works of three colleagues, but that she also lied when she claimed the material as her own and accused her colleagues of plagiarism in an effort to obstruct the investigation that will eventually lead to her dismissal.

When the noose incident occurred in October 2007, it was not widely known [or at least reported] that she was being investigated for stealing the intellectual property of her colleagues. Certainly this fact would have caused at least some degree of suspicion as to the timing and cause of the noose. Constantine has demonstrated that she is not above taking credit for the work of others, and then falsely accusing those same individuals of plagiarism. Recognizing this moral and ethical deficit, are we to believe that she is not capable of staging a racial incident in an attempt to hide behind her ethnicity and play upon the emotions of the hyper-sensitive, PC worshipping, academic community? My guess is that this ethically bankrupt professor thought she could dampen the plagiarism charges by playing the victim.

In the end professor Constantine has been exposed as a liar and a thief. Her dismissal should effectively end her career as an educator, and rightfully so. One has to wonder if such a person ever had anything of value to offer her students, or did she just pass on her own twisted values to those eager minds?

The Democrats Are Asleep At The Economic Wheel

2008-06-23T19:34:00.002-04:00

Last summer the news media starting portraying America's economy as beginning a significant downturn. Gas prices were high and the housing bubble had burst. Our economy has shown its remarkable resiliency but it is teetering on the edge. The Democratic Party promise of an energy plan that would reduce our fuel costs has never been presented. Now the "Populist Party" goes against the will of the populous.

Obama and the Democrats have only been able to produce fringe energy plans that do nothing to help the ailing economy. The democrats have offered to increase the federal tax on gasoline by 56 cents per gallon. The democrats have attempted to tax the evil oil companies. The democrats have threatened to take over our oil companies. The democrats have proposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts. Obama has pushed for alternative fuels like ethanol (more on that in a minute). Obama has proposed a $1,000 tax break for the middle class to help pay for higher fuel costs. All of these ideas and none of them help reduce costs. Obama has proposed investigating charges of speculators increases the price of fuel. Obama has said we need to change our habits. Obama has advocated higher fuel prices in effort to force Americans to change their habits. Today the Democrats said there are no short term fixes. We will have to live with higher prices. All of these plans and none of them address the real issue. The real issue is that the high cost of energy and fuel is crushing the economy.

Our transportation companies are cutting jobs. Truckers are paying $4.648 per gallon for diesel fuel. This is a 256% increase from one year ago. Airlines are reducing the number of routes and laying off pilots. Commuters are finding it difficult getting to and from work. All this and the Democrats and Obama push for alternative fuels like ethanol.

Unfortunately, Obama's ties to the ethanol industry are causing the price of food to increase. Ethanol is the main ingredient for ethanol. We are taking food products off the market. Increased production of corn due to the laws of supply and demand are taking other commodity crops off the market in order to make the profits from selling corn as fuel. The price for a bushel of corn is also causing meat products to increase in price. Corn again is the main ingredient for feeding our nations livestock. While this is not the first time food products have been taken off the market and sold as fuel products, it is the first time where food and energy inflation is coupled with reduced capital in the depreciating housing market. Americans are losing wealth everyday on their real estate capital all the while the cost for basic sustenance increases.

It is unclear why the democrats have failed to accomplish anything since the 2006 elections. Maybe it was "Bush Derangement Syndrome". The democrats have been trying to beat Bush since 2000. The Main Stream media has attacked Bush from day one. It is remarkable that Bush still has a 30% approval rating. I do not know of too many people that could be bashed daily for 7 years by the MSM and still retain a 30% approval rating. Maybe the democrats were too busy receiving sweetheart deals from the mortgage lenders to notice the growing housing bubble. Perhaps Senator Dodd should have been working for Americans rather than working his elitist credentials. Perhaps Obama was to busy playing president and designing a pseudo presidential seal rather than act presidential. Perhaps the democrats were too busy intentionally derailing the war effort to notice Americans hitting hard times. Perhaps the democrats really do not have any substantive ideas.

It is apparent that the populist party will go against the populous. They will not allow further drilling in America even though a recent survey showed 78% of Americans back more exploration and drilling. A full 64% of Americans strongly back drilling now. What are the democrats waiting for? Public support is there. We have vast oil resources in our own country. The democrats excuse is that we can't get the oil tomorrow so why start? Let me tell you why we should start now.

First drilling now will force the speculators out of the market. Second, we would offer more supply than demand, thus reducing the cost of fuel until an equilibrium is reached. Third we would create more jobs and reduce inflationary pressures. Obama and the Democrats are offering raised taxes, raised unemployment, raised inflation, raised mortgage defaults, and raised homeless rates. Is this Obama's vision of change? Instead of a resilient society we would become a vanquished society. The democrats have been asleep at the wheel for too long. They believe in their inevitability of winning election in 2008. They have become complacent and arrogant. Their elitist views will destroy all self respecting Americans.

Newsweek Poll Skewed Hard Left

2008-06-22T20:49:00.002-04:00

Late last week Newsweek published a poll that showed Obama with a 15% lead (51-36). It came at the end of the week and seemed to allow Obama momentum. Many have questioned the validity of this poll. I have investigated the polling data and find that perhaps the reason for the outlier poll is methodology.

In Newsweek's polling methodology there were 25.7% Republican, 36.1 % Democrat, and 34% independents. Additionally, only 22% of the respondents backed Hillary Clinton. I see these numbers as a problem in methodology. First of all, I do not believe there are 10% more Democrats than Republicans. That number is certainly only 7 or 8% difference. Most believe that the voting electorate is made up of 28-30% Republican, 30-33% Democrat 35-40% independents. Independents are certainly the biggest makeup of the electorate. Independents have registered in record numbers this year. Additionally, many democrats across web land have renounced the membership to their party since the nomination process as a result of disenfranchised Hillary voters and voters feeling left out of the process in Michigan and Florida.

What this means is that the sample was skewed hard left. In the grand scheme of things this means the poll is less than accurate and paints a much better picture for Obama than is really the case. Anti-Obama rhetoric is growing louder by the day. It is easy to see that Obama is losing traction and at a minimum is not gaining anymore followers. The talk of the internet is "buyers remorse". The gaffe machine is losing support amongst evangelicals even though earlier reports thought Obama may garner 36-40% of evangelicals. There is no doubt the hearts of the electorate are hardening against Obama. The drumbeat is getting louder and lines are beginning to form. Perhaps Newsweek sensed this building wall against Obama and tried to push a skewed poll in an effort to disguise serious problems in the Obama campaign.

It certainly appears that opposition to Obama is getting louder if not stronger. This outlier poll by Newsweek in all likelihood due to hard left skewing of the respondents. This is usually not a good methodology to provide an accurate picture of the race at hand. I believe the race is much closer than 15%. I believe the race is closer to the 5-7 points in other polls. This also coincides with the electoral projections and state by state polling. If Obama was truly winning by 15% McCain would be lucky to have 100 electoral votes. Right now most polls show McCain garnering 170 electoral votes. I would say put this poll outside the box and considered garbage in garbage out.

It's All About Energy

2008-06-21T20:55:00.002-04:00

The 2008 election may very well come down to the candidate that can offer real solutions to our energy problems. Gasoline is at over $4.00 a gallon. This is having a ripple effect on food and other commodities. Former Maine Governor Angus King say catastrophe awaits this winter when we start thinking about filling the heating oil tank to keep warm. I think we need to look at the energy policies being pushed forward by our Presidential Candidates.

First we will look at Obama. Obama has said he would like to provide for a $1,000 middle class tax cut. Will this lower the cost of oil? No, Obama does not want the price of oil to decrease. He wants Americans to change "habits". Obama also is pushing for higher taxes on oil companies. Will this lower the price of oil? No, this will in all likelihood increase the cost of oil. Obama also says he would like further tax rebates to help us pay for high energy costs. Will this reduce the cost of oil? No, it will only allow us more money to pay higher prices all the while inflation further erodes our pay checks. Obama is on record as saying he thinks gasoline prices should rise. Obama is on record saying Americans need to change their habits. Obama believes Americans should not be able to afford heat for their homes. After all it is only a habit that we keep our homes warm. Obama believes Americans should quit working. After all it is a habit commuting to work. I guess we need to stay at home and freeze to death. After all, we can not afford to commute to work, we can not afford vacations or other activities, and we can not afford to keep our homes warm. Obama says John McCain is offering gimmicks. We will have to see if the gimmicks offered by John McCain are better that freezing to death under Obama's plan.

John McCain wants to ease the federal tax for gasoline this summer. Will that decrease the cost of oil. Yes, it will lower the pump price for gasoline. It may not be permanent but it will offer reduced costs today and perhaps help the fragile economy. McCain proposed lifting the moratorium on coastal drilling. Will this lower costs. Yes, right now the oil prices are higher than they should be due to speculation. If the US says it is going to be producing more oil the speculators will not bid the price higher because supply will increase. McCain proposed increasing capacity in our home refineries. Will this reduce the cost oil? Yes, we will increase supply to meet demands. When supply meets or exceeds demand the price of oil will reduce to find the equilibrium point. John McCain says is is open to reconsider ANWR. Will this reduce oil costs? If we were to start drilling in ANWR certainly prices would lower accordingly. In addition we would create jobs which would help the fragile economy.

Are these the gimmicks Obama talks about? John McCains proposals would reduce the cost of oil. Obama clings to the idea that we would not be able to increase supplies for five years or more. Should just wait around and do nothing? If we don't start doing something now we will be learning to live an Amish life style sooner rather than later. We will be reading by candle light. We can be back to time of our forefathers in less than a year and be back living in the stone ages in five years. Obama will return us to the dark ages. He has no plans or ideas. All he talks about is increased taxes. Unfortunately, all he will accomplish is to raise the unemployment rate, raise the interest rate, raise the inflation rate, and make the American life style a miserable one.

Yes I believe this election will come down to energy. The candidate that proposes a realistic plan to ease short term energy pains and resolve long term issues will win. Right now Obama does not have any clue. He offers increased prices for food and energy. He offers increased taxes. Now he has the audacity to say John McCain offers gimmicks?

Obama Lacks Three Key Leadership Traits: Honesty, Loyalty, and Judgment

2008-06-20T08:19:00.003-04:00

Barack Obama had the opportunity to live up to his promises yesterday. That is until he opted out of public financing. For a candidate that consistently says listen to my words and not the opponents spin this current move shows that the American Public can not trust the words of Obama. Obama is fast becoming the "Great Liar". The Great Liar will say anything to everyone to gain their vote. The Great Liar has no loyalty towards those who got him where he is at and the Great Liar has shown a distinct lack of Judgment.

Obama once claimed in a speech that he was the product of the Selma Marches. He claimed in MAR 07 that he would not have been born without the Kennedy's and their aid to the air lift. This turned out to be nothing but a lie. It made for a great speech line but was in reality a lie. Obama claimed he was against NAFTA in the debates; then promptly sent his advisors to meet with the Canadians and tell them not to worry. Obama's stance was that he would say things on the campaign trail that were simply untrue. Another instance of a flat out lie is when he said his Uncle helped free the concentration camp at Auschwitz. This lie was due to truth not being nearly as impressive or known. Obama also has conflicting statements on his stance on the issues. Obama tells Americans that he will enact a middle class tax cut but yet he falls far short of the revenue required to pay for his Marxist social programs. How are we to believe Obama when all he does is lie, cheat, and steal.

Obama blames everyone else for the lies and coverups. Obama will throw anyone under the bus that is not politically convenient. Obama showed no loyalty towards his curch. Obama shows no loyalty to his family. He threw his cousin under the bus for saying that Obama was raised in a muslim family environment. He threw his staffers under the bus for filing questionnaires in his behalf. The questionnaires were in an effort to gain the endorsement of a anti-gun agency. Obama said he would like to ban guns on that questionnaire; now he says he is not for a ban. Obama blamed unpaid volunteers for not allowing Muslim women to stand behind him rather than take responsibility.

Finally, Obama has a distinct lack of judging people. Obama's known associate's include a convicted felon, an anti American pastor, a bigoted spouse, a wanted embezzler, an admitted terrorist, and other shady characters. Why would anyone vote for a candidate that will stand for nothing? Why would we vote for a candidate that would lie for a better speech or lie for political convenience? Why would we vote for a candidate that has displayed a lack of judgment and has no experince to say otherwise?

Obama is a disaster. His empty rhetoric is just that. He plagiarizes lines from other people's speeches. He changes his tune for every audience. He stands for nothing. He is backing off his withdraw at any cost platform in Iraq. He backed off his appeasement philosophy in Iran. Obama is quickly becoming the biggest clown in America. Obama is a disaster America can live without. Obama represents change we will not believe. Obama is not loyal, lacks judgment, and a proven liar.

The Most Ethical Congress In History

2008-06-19T21:26:00.003-04:00

In 2006, Queen Nancy and Prince Harry told us they would run the most ethical congress ever. The Abramoff scandal had exposed many of our politicians as being corrupted by the money. The democrats demonized the lobbyist community even though they were and are a big part of the scandals surrounding lobbyists. While many republicans were caught up in the Abramoff scandal democrats like Prince Harry Reid were left alone. But lets look into some of the more recent scandals in the news and see just how ethical and transparent the democrats have been since they have been in power.

William Jefferson was caught with over $80,000 in his freezer. He has been indicted in federal court and is facing prison time for bribery. Has he been censored by Congress? No, the only thing the democratic leadership did was strip him of chairmanships. Was he forced to resign? No, in fact he is again running for reelection even though his family members are starting to plead out in federal courts.

Jack Murtha tried to hide ear marks hat he set up and sponsored. Last year he received over $1 million for a fictitious organization. Jack Murtha was not even made to answer for this corruption. Murtha constantly plays a game with ear marks and says other congressman must pay to play. The king of ear marks also beared false witness against the Haditha Marines. He called them callous murderers. Yet thus far 7 of the 8 marines he accused of heinous crimes have had charges dropped or have been acquitted.

Harry Reid took money from Abramoff in exchange for voting on Indian reservation issues that would have benefited Abramoff. What happened to Harry Reid? He was elevated to Senate Majority Leader.

Now we have two sitting senators taking sweetheart mortgage deals from countrywide. Senator Dodd sits as Chairman of the Senate Banking committee and is in the process of sending historic legislation to bailout countrywide to the Senate floor. This legislation will benefit Bank of America and Countrywide. Bank of America donated over $20,000 to the Senator. Countrywide donated another $20,000 to the Senator. Bank of America is in the process of buying Countrywide out. The proposed legislation benefits Bank of America in this bid and places the taxpayer at risk of paying increased taxes to bailout Senator Dodd contributors. Senator Dodd should have recused himself during committee hearings and negotiations while writing this plan. Instead his contributors will gain financially at the taxpayers expense. Senator Conrad from North Dakota is also involved in this scandal. In fact 9 out of 10 people involved are democrats who will vote unanimously for this legislation to bailout mortgage companies as payback for being good contributors.

Are these the ethics Queen Nancy was talking about? They will rid the corrupt politicians as long as they are not Democrats? The problem with corruption will only get worse. Obama today reneged on his promise to take public funds. No one since Nixon has forgone public funding. Campaign financing is a serious issue that allows corruption and yet the Great agent of change wants to add more secrecy by forgoing the public financing. How corrupt can the democrats get? Americans must take action and vote all these corrupt politicians out of office. It does not matter which political party the politicians belong to. They are all corrupt and are beholden to the contributors. We must exercise our right and rid ourselves of the self serving politicians. This corruption is not change we can believe in. All we did in 2006 was change which corrupt politicians got the biggest slice of the pie. These people waste away our tax dollars to the benefit of their major contributors. Every day we hear more unethical behavior by our politicians and all this corruption after Queen Nancy promised the most transparent and ethical congress ever. Yeah right.

Democrats Following In Hugo Chavez's Communist Shadow

2008-06-18T19:42:00.003-04:00

Today President Bush outlined a four point energy policy. Bush proposed lifting the moratorium on off shore drilling. Bush proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Bush proposed lifting restriction on shale exploration in the Green River Basin. A final proposal was to ease regulatory processes to open more refining capabilities. John McCain proposed earlier in the year to place a moratorium on the federal gasoline tax. All of these proposals will reduce the price Americans pay at the pump for gasoline.

Gasoline is running at over $4.00 per gallon. Democrats promised an energy plan that would reduce pump prices if only we would get them the majority in Congress back in 2006. They never delivered on this promise. Earlier this month Obama said he wanted the price of gasoline to rise. He believes that Americans need to change their habits. Commuting to work and taking family vacations are habits Americans need to change.

The party of no ideas rejected the Presidents energy plan outright. Obama said "This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular". What Obama does not understand is that the economy is being crippled by rising energy and food costs. Obama does not understand that oil is over priced due to speculation; reduce the speculation that oil costs will continue to increase and we can burst the oil bubble. However, the Democrats do not want the bubble to burst. They need the economy to tank in order to make gains in their majority. If only we were to pass legislature promising the increase of oil supply we could stop the speculation and oil futures would move lower. Actually start producing more oil and increasing supply and refining capabilities and oil cost would reverse course. However the new Communist Party of America (Democrats) reject the energy plans outright.

The Democrats would rather follow in Hugo Chavez's footsteps. They wish to Nationalize our oil companies. Government would then control Americans. Our government would no longer be for the people by the people. People would not control the government. The true Communist beliefs are coming through. This is not a proposal to socialize our country but rather an attempt to make our Republic a Communism.

Europe has many Socialist governments and none of them Nationalize their businesses. The only countries that nationalize businesses are Communist regimes like Hugo Chavez. We already know Obama and the Democrats want higher energy costs. Now Obama and the Demcrats want to control the flow of oil. In this way, they will be able to play politics with our economy and energy. The Democrats have no idea how to develop a coherent energy plan so they demonize the oil companies and then try to take them over. What is going on in the democratic party. Are they that certain of election in 2008 that they feel making Communistic overtures will go by unnoticed?

One thing is certain; in 2008 Americans are demanding change. But can America live with the change desired by Obama and the Democrats? This type of change is not change we can believe in.

Hope and Change or Back to the Future?

2008-06-17T20:25:00.002-04:00

In November 1979, 52 Americans were taken hostage by Iran and held for 444 days. In February 1993, The World Trade Center was attacked for the first time by Islamic Fundamentalists killing 6 Americans. In June 1996, Khobar Towers was bombed a 19 Americans died at the hands of terrorists. In August 1998, two US embassies were bombed by followers of Osama Bin Laden, killing 23 Americans. In October 2000, The USS Cole was attacked by a suicide attacker, killing 17 brave Americans. In September 2001, The US was attacked again by Islamic fundamentalists and 2,998 Americans died as a result. In all over 3,000 Americans deaths at the hands of the fundamentalists.

What do these attacks have in common? The answer is they all occurred prior to America instituting a policy of taking the fight to our enemy. They happened at a time of uncoordinated intelligence gathering by our National Security Organizations. These attacks occurred because of our extremely light security measures. We had taken for granted that we were safe. We never believed anything "big" would happen in the US. 9/11 changed that for Americans. The enemy of freedom brought the fight to us. We were unprepared and limited our response. Prior to the 9/11 attacks we did little. We sent a few misguided missiles into abandoned terrorist camps. We searched for the culprits and sent them through our court system. In reality we did nothing. The lack of strong leadership and a strong response prior to 9/11 did nothing to lesson the resolve of the Islamic extremists to destroy our freedoms. They kept attacking and brought the fight to us. Since our strong response in the aftermath of 9/11 we have not been attacked.

Now Obama wishes to bring back the failed policies of pre-9/11. Obama said today that he sees no reason for strong responses. He believes that arrestin the culprits and putting them in prison worked just fine. He does not believe the weak responses prior to 9/11 emboldened our enemies to more brazen attacks. Obama's National Security Advisor Richard Danzig suggests we should follow the Winnie the Pooh doctrine. The Obama man likely to be the National Security Advisor in an Obama administration would resort to children's stories to run our National Security. Are these the practices we should be following? The war on terror hurts too much so we should just quit? It is better to have blood running down our city streets than to face our enemies on ground of our choosing? Mr. Danzig shows a distinct lack of maturity. Obama again shows his lack of understanding, experience, and judgment. Obama the "Great Appeaser" would rather have smaller attacks that become more and more brazen than face our enemies head-on. Obama is a foreign policy disaster. Obama would CHANGE us back to failed policies and HOPE for the best. So much for hope and change. Obama's change we can believe in is no change at all. His change moves us back to a time of failure and provides no hope for the future.

Obama Wooing Michigan

2008-06-16T21:34:00.002-04:00

Obama campaigned in Michigan today. The chosen one says he plans to assist in transitioning Michigan workers into a competitive global workforce. Obama blasted McCain for not having plans to revitalize an area hard hit by economic woes in the auto industry. But what does Obama offer them?

Obama has plans of destroying the auto industry as we know it. Obama favors rising fuel prices in order to force a change in Americans "energy habits". Obama derided McCain for not having a plan. Obama derided McCain for saying we can not bring back the auto industry jobs of the past. But Obama offers no plan whatsoever. All he provides is more rhetoric. His campaign stop today was nothing more than a stop to say "hey vote for me. I am not George Bush and McCain will certainly bring George Bush Plans".

How does this rhetoric help the unemployed in Michigan? Under a Democratic State Congress and a Democrat GOV what help has been provided to the middle class voters? Unemployment in Michigan stands at 6.9% as of April 08; this is almost 2% higher than the rest of the US at the end of April. I find it difficult to believe that the "Messiah" can not bring something to the table besides his "cowboy diplomacy" and empty rhetoric. McCain spoke in JAN about transitioning Michigan's economy from the auto industry to manufacturing for the future. The industry base in Michigan needs to change. McCain is right when he said he would not promise to bring back the auto jobs that have previously been lost. These jobs are not coming back. McCain wants to move Michigan forward with an eye to the future. Obama wants us to change our habits. His philosophy will place more blue collar jobs in jeopardy. Obama's energy plans will increase the unemployment rate of Michigan. So I leave with this one question: Why should Michigan vote for Obama?

2008: A Major Setback In Race and Gender Relations

2008-06-15T04:57:00.004-04:00

This primary season made history. Barack Obama is the first minority candidate for President to gain the nomination from one of the two major parties in the US. Hillary Clinton could have been the first female to gain that lofty status. After New Hampshire it was apparent America would make history. The first African American or the first female would be at the top of the ticket of a major political party. On the surface there is the appearance that America is healing the deep wounds of racism and gender bias. On the surface there is the appearance that America came to terms with the divisive issues of the past. However, as it turns out this is quickly becoming a major set back for race relations and gender bias.

There is evidence that the Barack Obama campaign is creating an atmosphere with racial tensions and gender bias. In an effort to quell female voter dissension Obama will have a platform filled with wedge issues. The candidate for change will have a platform that divides America. Obama has stated that his number one priority as President will be to provide women the right to abortion no matter the circumstances. Obama will attempt to win over women voters on just this one issue. Obama's supporters have continuously disparaged and trashed the women that voted for Hillary. The Democrats would like to kick a female delegate out of the convention for dissenting. Obama's attack dogs have belittled and berated the women voters. Obama's cult like following has stated they do not need the Hillary supporters. Seems to me that Obama has the same kind of "cowboy" diplomacy that George Bush has. Obama's attitude of your either for me or against me is eerily similar to Bush's statements regarding terrorists. The tone of the Obama campaign is dangerous for America. The politics of division is alive and well within the democratic party. The courting of the women vote by utilizing wedge issues and trashing those that do not fall into the trap of divisiveness will set back the womens movement 50 years. It will take generational change to heal the wounds being created by the Obama campaign tactics.

On race relations it will even be worse. Obama has already interjected race into the general campaign. It has not even been a week since Obama became the presumptive nominee and he already has started the race baiting. Obama came out and said the Republicans will make him and Michelle "Scary". Obama has said the republican tactics will be to tell Americans he is not "black enough". The racist undertones of the Obama campaign will set American race relations back two or three generations. Liberal blogs like FireDogLake have already begun the race baiting. That particular blog says if Obama is elected there will riots in the streets by the American Right. However, my concern is the riots that will be started should Obama win or lose. If Obama wins, his marxist ideals will create a racial divide. Obama's failed policies of the past will make him the second Carter administration. Similar to Carter, Obama will be a one term failure. When the Obama presidency fails, race relations will rise to the surface and further divide America. If Obama should lose in November, the racial tensions will erupt. Representative Clyburn has already promised open rebellion should Obama lose. Obama and his fanatics have placed race front and center into his campaign. Many of the Obama hit squad participants already visit independent and right leaning political blogs and scream racism. If you are not for Obama you must be a racist.

This campaign season will do more damage to race relations and gender bias than ever before. Obama is a divisive candidate that is using race baiting and gender wedge issues to win an election. Obama has no substance behind his rhetoric and therefore resorts to claiming victim status and further creating wedge issues. This campaign season should be about change. Americans are demanding change. Obama has claimed the change mantel. The only problem is rather than move the country forward Obama is moving backwards on serious race and gender issues. It will take multiple generations to heal the wounds Obama and his cult followers are creating. Obama's "cowboy" diplomacy is dangerous. Making comments like "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" is not change. It is eerily similar to George Bush.

The Eloquent One: Obama Frightened of McCain Refuses Townhall Debates

2008-06-14T10:35:00.003-04:00

Barack Obama refuses to accept John McCain's proposal of 10 Townhall style debates. At first Obama said it was a great idea. A few Days later Obama said while the idea was great but he would propose a counter offer. Today Obama has his counter offer. The offer is one townhall style debate. One must ask how the idea of having ten townhall meeting is a great idea but then only offer one? Usually if the idea is great the stakes would have been raised. Instead of having a counter offer of one Obama should have countered with 20. Alas, the eloquent is showing his true colors.

Obama is simply afraid to debate McCain in a townhall style. Obama has not fared well when he is unable to speak from a canned speech or a teleprompter. When Obama has been forced to speak off the cuff he gets in trouble. His off the cuff remarks got him in trouble with his philosophy of appeasement and unconditionally meeting with Iran. His off the cuff remarks regarding Jim Johnson and his stance that Johnson should not have to be vetted got another body thrown under the bus. Obama was trounced in the ABC debate when he did know what questions they were going to ask. Obama constantly gets in trouble when he speaks without the aid of a teleprompter.

Obama is frightened of McCain. Obama is afraid that he may actually have to explain his idea of change. Obama is afraid he may have to answer how he intends on paying for $3 trillion dollars in government programs and handouts. Obama is frightened that he may have to answer questions regarding the Countrywide developing controversy. Botom line is the eloquent one is only eloquent when someone else develops his speech. When all Obama has to do is speak someone else's words he becomes the messiah to his legions. When he has to speak his own words he becomes a bumbling marxist.

The human gaffe machine is afraid of McCain. He is frightened of his own unique ability to be a walking talking gaffe machine. Is this what we want as President. An eloquent speaker with no ideas? A gifted orator as long as he is speaking the words of others?

Americans need to wake up. The MSM is not going to vet Obama. We must demand the opportunity to vet him ourselves. Obama wants to hide from McCain. The eloquent one is afraid of debating. What a shame.

Ethcial Lapses in the Democratic Party: Change We Can Believe In?

2008-06-14T07:37:00.004-04:00

Change We Can Believe In. This is the theme of Barack Obama's Presidential campaign. Obama has never outlined what changes we are in store for. However, one thing Obama is not changing is the unethical behavior of our politicians. Yesterday it was learned that 2 democratic party senators were provided "sweetheart" deals from Countrywide. Now Obama hads spoken out against Countrywide as creating the mortgage mess but now we find that it is the democrats that are in bed with the unscrupulous lenders.

Senator Dodd from Connecticut and Senator Conrad of North Dakota received favorable loans from Countrywide. They received deals that are not possible for most Americans. Senator Dodd speaks vehemently against the lending practices of Countrywide and has led the call for investigations and mortgage bailouts and yet unethically received favorable loan consideration simply because he was a friend of Angelo Mozilo.

This corruption scandal comes on the heals of learning that Laura Richardson defaulted not on one mortgage but three mortgages. Laura Richardson then voted in favor of a mortgage bailout bill. Senator Dodd and Senator Conrad are also in favor of bailing out home buyers. All this pseudo outrage when the democrats are in bed with the lenders. When these corrupt officials take what is essentially a bribe from corporations they became a part of the problem. By receiving special deals they increased the burden on individuals that were not able to get these sweetheart deals. By taking these "gifts" others had to pay higher fees and higher interest rates. The average American subsidized these corrupt politicians. Average Americans made it possible for Dodd and Conrad to milk the system.

Is this the change Obama envisions? Is this the transparency in government the democrats spoke of in 2006? Are these the ethics Nancy Pelosi spoke of? Obama says he is for change we can believe in? All he has shown is that we will change which set of corrupt politicians bilk the American taxpayer. All of Obama's change rhetoric is nothing more than allowing another set of special interest groups to ruin our government. We as Americans must stand up and take our country back. Vote all the incumbent corrupt politicians out of office. We need to start fresh. Obama is not the One. He is for the corruption just like his friends in the Senate.

Social Security: Another Tax Plan

2008-06-14T05:06:00.004-04:00

Barack Obama is using fear tactics in describing Republican plans to fix the social security issue. This in spite of the fact that the only plan Obama and the Democrats have is to increase taxes. Increasing the social security tax on people making over $250,000 sounds like a great idea but....

Obama has already proposed taxing the so called "rich". He plans on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. He plans on a costly socialized medicine plan that would tax the rich. Obama plans a environmental program that would further tax the "rich". Obama's energy plan would increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents a gallon. Every time we turn around Obama wants to further increase taxes.

Our economy is a mess right now. I do not believe it is as bad as the alarmists would have us believe but we do need real plans to reduce energy costs and food costs. Yesterday's CPI shows that energy and food are making up the brunt of our inflationary concerns. The core rate of inflation is relatively flat and under control but food and energy are creating chaos.

Obama has no real plans to fix any of these issues. His plans are to fear monger seniors on social security. He asked yesterday "imagine if your social security was invested in the dow jones". Yes please imagine this. While the market is in a state flux right now the trend over the last 100 years is always up. In the last 30 years the market climbed from 1000 points to over 13,000 points. This means that $1,000 invested 30 years ago would be $13,000 today. Does not this increase over the long term make more sense than the democrats plan?

The democrats plan is to tax more. In order to fix social security without investing funds one has to raise taxes. Why you ask? This is because social security as we know it is a pyramid scheme. Todays workers are not paying into their own account but rather into an account for today's retirees. The baby boom generation has more people than the current workforce. There is no possible way of staying ahead of the game without further increasing taxes and even that will not be enough to keep social security solvent. Allowing younger workers to pay less into the pyramid and pay into their own account would change the pyramid. It would allow people to be in control of their own retirement rather than the government. Investment will assist in allowing the system remain solvent.

Now if the democrats would stop trying to scare our seniors and think about the future they could be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. They could raise taxes for social security while allowing younger workers to invest a part of their social security into private retirement accounts. This would be a win for the American people. It would make social security a real program instead of a pyramid scheme.

I am not sure how much Obama believes the rich will absorb in the form of taxes. Taxing the "rich" makes great rhetoric but poor policy. The increased taxes on the "rich" reduce jobs, reduce incomes, and reduce revenues. This year was a record year for the Treasury Department. America collected more in taxes than ever before. Yet we pay a lower percentage of our incomes in taxes than in the 1990's. Taxing is a policy that comes from a lack of imagination. Leaders have vision and fix problems. The Democrats lack vision and will implement a future in the image of their past failed policies. Talk about back to the future.

Obama Wants Preconditions

2008-06-12T17:23:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama has established that his foreign policy would include sitting down with discussions with the likes of Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Yet when John McCain offers 10 town hall style debates Obama sets preconditions. Obama will sell the farm to our sworn enemies yet refuses to discuss real issues on a national stage with John McCain. I must ask the question " what gives?".

Obama said just last month that Iran is no real threat. He says the threat that Iran poses is smaller than the Soviet Union. Obama believes we should open high level discussions with terrorist organizations and rogue nations. But yet refuses to take on John McCain in a simple town hall style debate. Does this mean that McCain poses a greater risk to Obama than does Iran?

Iran seeks to destroy the US and our allies. Iran spoke with the Japanese Prime Minister and spoke of a world without the United States. Yet Obama does not see this as a threat to our National Security. Why does the "eloquent one" believe that John McCain is a bigger threat than the Iranians?

I believe that Obama views John McCain as a threat to his electability and Iran as only a threat to National Security. Obama does not have much to worry about in terms of Nuclear war or dirty bombs if he is president. After all he will be wisked away to some bunker in the event of a unconventional nuclear attack. He will be safer than the masses he presumes to defend. After the masses are decaying in our city streets Obama will be able to negotiate away our strengths as a way to heal the country. He will be able to get get Americans to cower away from retaliation and tend towards appeasement. However McCain is different.

McCain is a real person with real ideas. McCain represents Americans that believe America's best days are ahead of her not behind her. Obama will bring us back to the days of the misery index while McCain offers hope and prosperity. Obama offers the country the second Carter term while McCain offers us a move towards the future. Obama offers us a government filled with corruption while McCain offers a way forward. The DEMs have controlled congress for 18 months. They have done nothing to help the economy. Yesterday the Republicans offered a way ahead for the economy. While grown adults may agree to disagree, what can Obama offer? He and the DEMs have no plans for energy. In fact Obama wants fuel prices to rise just not so quickly. The DEMs and the MSM have wished for and created the environment of economic woes but have no plans to cure our economic woes. Yes Obama is afraid.

Obama is afraid that McCain may make a town hall debate about McCain's vision of "peace through strength" and Obama's vision of "peace at any cost". Obama is scared that McCain may have an idea or two about resolving our energy crisis, while Obama can only hope the price of gasoline increases so Americans "change their habits".

The eloquent one is afraid. The gaffe machine knows that when pressed to speak impromtu he is about as eloquent as a fish out of water. The Messiah is afraid of McCain but yet unafraid of destroying American strengths in the name of peace. What a shame that the gaffe machine would be more afraid of a political opponent than an enemy of the state.

Another Body Under The Obama Bus

2008-06-11T17:04:00.004-04:00

The public learned yesterday that Obama selected the former CEO of Fannie Mae Jim Johnson to be his lead for the committee in his Vice Presidential search. Today we learned Jim Johnson resigned and Obama accepted.

Seems Obama shows no loyalty to anyone. Yesterday Obama said it did not matter that Johnson had ties to Countrywide. Obama said the VP selection committee members were volunteers and therefore immune from vetting. However, as the controversy boiled over Johnson decided to write his resignation letter. Now if Obama truly meant what he said yesterday he should have come to his friends aid. He should not have allowed his friend to be scapegoated if there was any once of truth and belief behind Obama's words.

Of course Obama has a history of throwing people under the bus that get into the way. Obama had a chance to endorse a candidate for change in Chicago. This candidate was a friend of Obama. However, his friend was not the establishment candidate. So what does Obama do? He throws his friend under the bus and never looks back. Obama tried to defend his racist and anti American Pastor. When the heat got to hot what did Obama do? He folded. Obama had the opportunity to defend his church? At first he admirably defended the church tooth and nail. In the end though Obama quit his church when the church was no longer a political advantage. Obama could have come clean with the Rezco relationship. However, Obama said this is not the person I knew after he was convicted.

Obama will not stand up for anybody. He shows that he is not loyal to anyone or anything. He will change his church, change his friends, and dismiss associates when they are no longer politically convenient. Does America really need a President that is disloyal, that stands for nothing, and lacks judgment? Is this the change Obama speaks of? Just another day and another body under the Obama bus.

Have The DEMs Lost Their Minds?

2008-06-11T16:23:00.004-04:00

A gallon of gasoline costs over $4.00 per gallon and yet all the DEMs can do is discuss impeachment proceedings against the setting President. Never mind that the Bush administration has only 7 months left. Dennis Kucinich introduced impeachment articles that must be dealt with in two days.

Have the DEMs lost their minds? Why would Congress be worried about impeachment articles on bogus charges when the economy in the US is in the words of the left "tanking hard"? Is this what the American taxpayers shell out tax dollars for? The DEMs see no problem trying to stifle what little economic growth we do have by trying to increase the regressive gasoline tax but now they become negligent in their duties in an effort to embarrass the President. Everyone knows there are no grounds for impeachment. If committing perjury is not grounds for convicting the impeached then whatever thoughts Kucinich has on impeachment are frivolous at best.

I know the DEMs require an issue to run on in 2008. They can not run on their record as the only thing they were able to pass from their agenda was a minimum wage hike that is complicent in our current economic crisis. They can't run on their energy policy because they do not have one. They can't run on Iraq because with the current improvements in the theater to withdraw now would be an utter mistake and a humanitarian disaster. The party of no ideas is showing just how out of touch they really are. They have nothing to run on and zero ideas to improve the economy so fall back blame Bush and threaten to impeach. Throw the bums out. America deserves better than our current crop of politicians. Vote out all incumbents and show the career politicians that the people own the government.

Obama's Judgment Problem

2008-06-10T15:41:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama has a serious judgment problem when it comes to his associates. Obama sees no issue with his lead person for the Vice Presidential search committee. Former CEO of Fannie Mae Jim Johnson is the chair of Obama's VP search committee. Johnson received a "sweetheart" deal from Countrywide. Countrywide has been criticized by the Obama campaign for unscrupulous lending practices. According to Obama companies like Countrywide and Fannie Mae are the reason for the mortgage crisis. However, Obama defends Jim Johnson because well "he is not a paid advisor". Johnson is a volunteer. It does not matter to Obama that the VP position is an important decision. Obama has monumental poor judgment.

The gaffe machine is unable to judge character. He has surrounded himself with an anti American bigoted spouse, and anti American bigoted spiritual advisor, an admitted terrorist, a convicted felon, a Clinton advisor that allowed Marc Rich to receive a pardon, and now Jim Johnson. How many more corrupt, anti-American, terrorists is Obama going to be allowed to associate with before the MSM decides enough is enough and starts to vet Obama. Obama is not the messiah. He is nothing more than an empty suit incapable of making wise decisions. Obama has an issue with judgment. Most of his decisions are poor because of this lack of judgment. Is this the change America is seeking?

When in doubt Tax

2008-06-09T15:36:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama has never introduced an energy policy. Today he unveiled an attack on McCain and the oil companies. Obama lacks the vision needed to turn our energy woes around. His only answer is to jump on the victim bandwagon and blame Bush. The problem with that theory is that democrats have no idea of how to solve the problem.

In an earlier post I suggested that the DEMS need to implement a energy plan as promised or implement the McCain ideas. At least McCain and president Bush have ideas. They may not be what the DEMs want to hear but they are ideas. What is the hangup with drilling in ANWR? What is the deal about not forsaking the gasoline tax for the summer? Is it easier to play the victim? Is it easier to blame the oil companies?

The impending disaster concerning energy is an American problem. It is not the fault of Bush and the oil companies. It is the fault of short sighted politicians that attempt to smear everyone else.

Obama's great energy plan is to tax oil companies. What do you think will happen there? I guess the oil companies will just say OK mate here is more of our money. No! they will make Americans pay even more for gasoline plus layoff employees to cover the additional expenses.

The DEMs are wholly to blame for this crisis. They came into power on the promise of providing cheaper energy. They do not have a plan on how to accomplish that in 18 months. Now Obama falsely accuses Bush and McCain for the high energy costs. This in spite of the fact that in less than a year the gasoline costs have doubled. This in spite of the fact the DEMs have offered no energy plan with the exception of the failed Global Warming farce bill that would have further increased the gasoline tax. Obama your rhetoric may be bought by the ignorant but your when in doubt tax theory is not going to work. 5 months is a long time. In that five months I would suggest better energy plans.

Taxing the oil companies and moving towards ethanol will destroy the economy. Ethanol will increase the cost of food. Higher energy costs will create more unemployment. Your policies are designed to crash the American economy. Is that the only way a DEM can win? Crash the economy and we win? What a shame that power is all that matters to the elitist DEMs. How out of touch.