Monday, June 30, 2008

Sarah Palin on the VERY Short List for Veep?

Bill Kristol seemed in high spirits as he announced his prediction for McCain’s running mate… and no surprise to me, it was Sarah Palin.

There is much speculation as to whom McCain should and will pick for his running mate, as well as the timing.
I firmly believe that Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin should be that choice, and that the announcement needs to come sooner rather than later. Let me explain.

Gov. Palin is a reform candidate in her home state of Alaska. She went to battle against a relatively corrupt Republican organization in her state with much success, and is very adamant about ethics in political office. This personality type makes her a great fit for McCain’s goal of holding politicians accountable for their financial earmarks and their relations with special interest lobbyists.

The VP pick should be a representation of where the party is heading. In this case, a young and attractive female on the ticket says that the GOP is not a good ‘ol boys club, and raise awareness that we are actually the party that supports true reform for women and minorities. Palin has the ability to represent a young and fresh juxtaposition to McCain’s age, and stands to act as a symbol of the longevity of this party.

And with symbolism being a theme in this argument, we need to discuss timing. Should Obama select Hillary Clinton as his running mate (they are getting along very well all of a sudden), a selection after the fact of a female on the GOP ticket would look like a case of monkey see, monkey do. McCain needs to look as if he is setting the trend in opening the door for women in the White House. McCain should select Palin sooner, rather than later.

Of course, I am not advocating a Palin veep pick because she is a woman, but I am suggesting that we use that to our advantage. The Democratic Party has done a great job in negative PR for the GOP, classifying us as a bunch of money hungry and greedy old white hairs, with no appeal to women, minority, or the youth. In fact, we are the very party that promises the most to ALL citizens of this country, because we advocate for smaller government and more personal responsibility. This is most promising to a true equal playing field for women and minorities… if you see people in that light… I, however, see people based on their ability and capability, rather than sex or creed.

Check out the Draft Palin website for a great radio interview. Palin is getting the question more and more about the VP spot, which may be an indicator that McCain has her on the very short list.

Friday, June 27, 2008

58 Years, Nearly to the Day - Korean War Ending

June 25th, 1950 marked the beginning of one of the first of many Cold War conflicts, in which the United States and her allies would fight against the spread of Socialism and Communism.

The major combat ended in a 1953 cease fire, but the conflict has never been resolved. There is still an active declaration of war between the two halves of the Peninsula, as well as a continuation of sanctions against the North Koreans for their unwillingness to cooperate and end the war. The sanctions have destroyed any chance at economic growth in the tyrannical regime, and their people have little been able to enjoy the fruits of the 20th and 21st centuries.

June 27th, 2008, 58 years later, the day is being marked as the beginning of the end of the Korean War. The Nuclear Cooling Tower at Yongbyon has been destroyed, and the United States is officially ending economic sanctions. The country is stopping short on disclosing information regarding the proliferation of the nuclear technology, but this is a momentous first step, and clearly the most visible step.

This does not mean that the Peninsula is going to be reunited overnight, or that relations between the US and the North Koreans are repaired... but it does represent a mend in relations that could lead to peace and prosperity in the Northern Country.

This move represents the continued strength and influence of the United States, in a time where even the US media would have us seen as weak and losing influence. This is a great step towards freedom and liberty throughout the world.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Breaking News – 2nd Amendment Upheld by Supreme Court

The first ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the right for private citizens to own weapons was handed down today, marking a turning point in the NRA’s struggle. The question was always whether the amendment was intended to be defined as the State having rights to train a militia and keep arms on their behalf, or if the citizens armed are the militia, and their private use and knowledge of the weapons served to better the protection of the state and the self.

The ruling was 5-4, along “party” lines, that the amendment should be understood that it is the right of a private citizen to own a weapon, and that laws to that effect cannot infringe on their ownership or assembly status.

The NRA finally gets a win. Fox News suggests that the NRA will now bring suits against other large cities that have a ban on hand-guns as well. This is a great day for the personal responsibility and liberty of a free society and free man (or woman).

The opinion of the court reads, in part, {The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” }

It continues with a very well written opinion breaking apart the language, and how it is used throughout the rest of the document, in an attempt to fully define and interpret this Right accurately:

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” - a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural), implying a right of an individual, not the right of a plural state militia.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

There could not be a more historic event regarding personal freedoms from the government. The court, which I am often critical of, has made the correct decision today, fully understanding that there is a separation from what was being created to what was being agreed to… that the creation of this union was not intended to infringe on rights that free men already had in existence.

Let me state clearly, that through all the doom and gloom I hear about this country, moments like this are a shining beacon of hope… there is still hope in my heart that this country will remain a country of freedom and liberty.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008


The founding fathers, in writing the Declaration of Independence, stated that man was endowed with certain inalienable rights... amongst these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is part one of a three part series discussing these three rights specifically mentioned by the founding fathers.

It is most interesting to me that Life is listed as the first of the three mentioned rights... interesting, in that it must be revered with the highest importance. Life, a right Endowed by the Creator of Nature, or simply stated - a Right Inherited from the Creator Himself. To this end, the founding fathers understood that life was a Divine Inheritance not to be wasted.

This understanding of the appreciation of life is evident, and weighs heavy on the minds of any judge or jury responsible for sending a convicted felon to their death. It weighs heavy on the mind of a soldier sent to the battlefield to kill the enemy. It weighs heavy on the minds of those who have been unjustly victimized by a murder of a relative or loved one. The question, then, is who is the beneficiary of this endowment of Life?

The question of life is one that is a heated topic in the political arena, that is, the definition of life. When does life begin? What right does one have to end a life in the womb? Is the endowment only to the strong, or is it our responsibility to protect this blessing, even of the premature or sickly infants and fetuses?

In every discussion involving this topic, one looks at the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a controversial United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe due to the technicality of the first three words of this amendment - "all persons born". Their decision justified the lack of legal protection under the law for the unborn because these fetuses were not considered in the writing of the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to any equal protection from the acts of the mother.

Now, this is legal-ese at it's worst.

The equal protection clause states that States shall not deprive any person of life... So the definition of a person is the requirement of being born. I challenge any individual to reasonably deny that a child of any fetal development age is "not alive". My wife and I had a miscarriage during our first pregnancy at 9 weeks... the hardest punch I ever felt came when the ultrasound showed no heartbeat, and that our child had died within the last 24 hours. Anyone who understands the intent of the Endowment of Life understands that even at 9 weeks, life is life.

So the question I pose is this: If Life is an Inalienable Right Endowed by the Creator of Nature (Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, etc...even for atheists you have to admit that there is a natural order to life and the universe that is larger than humanity), what role do individuals have in determining at the fetal level which life is worth living and which not, without due process of law? Should we allow abortions, but only after a legal hearing where the fetus has legal representation? Should the United States reconsider the wording of the 14th amendment to retract the word born and replace with alternative wording to include the unborn life? What legal jurisdiction does a father have over the life of his unborn child? He is the owner of half of the chromosomes, does that give him legal standing to prevent an abortion?

If life in our free society is so precious that we fight to save the lives of murders and other criminals on death row, what justification is there for abortion other than "convenience of life for the mother" (put in quotes because I know that there is nothing morally convenient... the decision weighs on the mother).

To my liberal readers: what is the justification for abortion?

Monday, June 23, 2008

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

The most dangerous and lasting tool of war is that of the Nuclear variety. Not only are nuclear weapons the most destructive, intended for nothing more than mass casualty, but their blast results in radiation fallout leaving areas unlivable for years, and spreading sickness across the globe.

So why would any country in the world tolerate the current proliferation of this technology?

The simple answer is that no country should tolerate nuclear technology development.

The Cold war saw bomb tests that pushed the limits of what the world could survive, and eventually, with the detonation of the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb (50 MT detonation Thermonuclear Blast) the world put it's breaks on for "bigger" and began thinking "quantity". This nuclear stockpile was enough for each of the super-powers to destroy the world many times over. But what lesson did we learn from this nuclear contest?

One would assume that the lessons learned were those of awe of the raw power, humility in that power, and to be humble in our reaches to destroy our enemy... as there comes a point where the consequences of your technology will ultimately also destroy you (and everyone else). This ultimate destruction led the USSR and the US into the "mutually ensured destruction" mentality, which saved our two nations from moving forward with nuclear war...

But what about states that have no ill will towards their own destruction, or the death of their own people? What about states that choose to use these weapons as tools of offense against their neighbors?

The answer by any sane individual should be that this technology should be thwarted at all costs!

This is the very reality that we, as a group of logical and rational individuals, are facing in Syria and Iran... countries with an agenda of murder based on religion, in search of a technology that kills indiscriminately, en masse.

Israel, the target of Iran's nuclear weapon's program, is preparing to defend itself against the imminent threat of an Iranian Nuclear Program... and I completely support Israel's right to strike Iranian Nuclear Compounds.

In the lead-up to World War Two, Adolf Hitler made his intentions very clear... the annihilation of the Jewish population from the face of the earth. He stated this every time he spoke, and eventually had the power to begin his war of murder against innocent civilians. Similarly, Iranian leaders are daily calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, and the destruction of Judaism in the world... while subsequently developing nuclear technologies. They have stated their purpose, we all know their tool of choice... and it is our responsibility to never have to ask the question: "Why didn't someone do something?"

Iran is a state undeserving of political courtship. They are dangerous... to Israel, to the US, to their neighbors, and to the innocent citizens of that country who have no power over their insane leaders. The structure of that state needs to be re-thought, and the power needs to be put back into the hands of the educated and rational... not the militaristic religious leaders in power now.

But what consequences are there to Israel attacking Iran?

The leader of the AIEA claimed that he would step down because the Middle East would turn into a fireball. He claims that there is no clear and present danger, yet, and therefore no attack is necessary.

Israel attacked Iraq in the early 80's for the same reasons - destroying their nuclear weapons facilities. Iran has learned from the attack on Iraq, building their facilities further underground and spread throughout their country, so a more coordinated effort would need to take place to ensure the destruction of their program... Israel would have to strike many locations throughout Iran, giving resemblance to a full scale invasion... a move that would unite the Iranian people behind moving into emergency measures and retaliating against Iraq and Israel (Iraq because the US is there). Their attacks would come in the form of hundreds of suicide attacks, civil unrest, and general mayhem...

Suppose, however, that the attack included one on the leaders of Iran as well? The destruction of the leadership would isolate the chaos to Iran, with the occasional attack of US and Israeli interests (no more than usual, I would think)... and the country of Iran may be one step closer to returning to a peaceful country led by logic and wisdom.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of every human to ensure that nuclear technology is no longer allowed to be developed by countries around the world. Instead, I propose using the money to fund alternative sources of energy, such as solar or wind... A country could more easily stimulate their own economy by ensuring technical jobs, cleaner energy, and a more peaceful existence.

Of course... unless that is not their goal?

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Socialists in the Democratic Party

Just days ago I posted a blog on the dangers of an Obama Presidency, citing the Socialization of the United States, especially when it comes to energy.

Here is the proof: Democrats answer to the oil crisis is to nationalize the refineries so the government can control the flow of oil.

This is the FUNDAMENTAL CONTRAST between Republicans and Democrats in 2008. The Republican party still has ties to the far right, but very faint. The GOP has become a Political Party that would even be too liberal for the likes of John F Kennedy, should he be running for president today. However, the GOP maintains that Personal Property Rights are the fundamental basis of which rule of law and liberty are founded. The Democratic Party is hardly representative of it's name. They are Socialists, fundamentally. The very ideals that we fought through the Cold War have now come home to roost. The answer to every issue on the table is governmental control, or nationalization, of the land, industry, etc. Their belief is that the individual, or collective of individual private owners does not have the capacity to function in a way that meets societies needs, so they opt for control of those goods and services from their own offices. This is an ELITIST IDEOLOGY, that "they know better than I". It is a cancer in a free society, on every level... and now they are really showing their true colors (i hate to say it, but I told you so!)

What we need in 2008 is a rebirth of McCarthy. Someone willing to provide a list of all the members of Congress and the Senate who are outright Socialists, and point out the destruction they seek on the free United States.

Our Society is going the way of Atlas Shrugged, in which the government made it impossible for an industry to succeed with archaic laws, and when the industry could not survive, they nationalized it. Systematically the country fell to the whims of those in power... and the United States became a Socialist Hell-hole. Of course in the book the leaders of industry refused to continue to produce, and in so doing, took their knowledge of HOW to produce out of the hands of the government, leaving nothing. (a great read)

But I digress...

Every citizen of the United States needs to be made aware of the dangers that lie ahead with a Democratic Majority. There is nothing Progressive about Socialism or Communism. Public ownership / Government ownership of industry, property, and production are Marxist ideals that do not coexist with freedom. Freedom can only be achieved through individual rights, rule of law, and protection by the government of those rights... any role above these by the government is one that limits freedom.

The Democrats love to target the "Rich"... They love to tell stories about how the rich have become wealthy off the backs of the people. They have created a class warfare of blame and resentment. They want you to want what others have, and be willing to take it, if not by force, by granting them the power to take it on your behalf... WHAT YOU DO NOT REALIZE is that once they seize the property of the affluent, what protection do we, the proletarian, have?

When times are hard in America, we pick ourselves up by the boot-straps and we work through it. In the case of energy, we adapt... we evolve... we support an auto industry in favor of changing their power source from petroleum to electricity or other alternates. We support the free thinking imagination of the inventors, and rally behind great new technologies.

What we do not do is turn over all facets of life to the government, thus giving up entirely, and asking them to sort it all out for us. We are Americans. We do NOT take a back seat to our own destiny!

Take an active role. Contact your Senator or Congressman. Call the White House and leave a message for the President: We do NOT support the Socialist take-over of our refineries. We do NOT support the socialist tendencies of the Democratic party in these United States. And we will NOT support Socialist Democrats in 2008!

US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
White House Comments: 202-456-1111
White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Is Offshore Oil the Answer?

Before we delve into this question, we must first understand the history of the mess we are in with regards to the oil price spike.

I was recently attending a discussion by a representative of the gas and oil industry who covered the topic of oil output versus price, and why the oil/gas price spike began.

He began by showing a chart, representing the fixed price of oil based on supply from US wells.

He then made a comment that has to be retold: After Katrina and Rita, we have not been able to open up our Gulf of Mexico wells.

That was the key. The oil industry's inability (or unwillingness) to open those wells due to fear of continued storms (and the low cost of oil at the time to cover any future losses) created the first artificial spike in the oil and gas prices. Since then, subsequent drop in oil production in the middle east and throughout the United States has driven the prices higher yet.

Now Congress is being asked by President Bush if they will allow continued exploration off the coasts of the United States.

I say, let them. They should not have been stopped in the first place... assuming they have adequate protection for marine life and against spills, especially in sensitive areas.

Not to mention that the very oil that the US is unable to drill due to Congress, China is drilling. That is right. China is drilling off the coast of the United States with the help from Cuba. China is tapping into the United State's oil fields while we sit by and do nothing. There is something wrong with that picture.

There is one other problem with the oil crisis that must be spoken. In watching congressional hearings on CSPAN (yeah, I am one of the few who actually watch that channel), I noticed that the oil executives had a common theme (let us develop). They wanted to be able to explore and build new refineries... that comment struck a chord with me. Are the oil monopolies holding Congresses feet to the fire by way of artificially high fuel prices to get access to these additional fields?

If so, this is criminal. You are putting the very life of the country in jeopardy for your own gain, which I amount to holding the US hostage for a ransom. If this is, in fact, the case, I hope to see a drastic hammer falling in favor of the US people.

Until such time that we can sort this mess out, let us open the capped wells in the gulf, and continue drilling in new offshore fields.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Eurofication of the American Left

The left is afraid to let the United States fight the war that needs to be fought. I have written about my frustration in this war against Islamic Totalitarianism, in that our goal is to make everyone love us instead of doing what is right.

I blame the left. I blame the weak politicians on the right for giving in to the left.

I was at my graduation ceremony last night for the LPR (Leadership Program of the Rockies), and our keynote speaker was Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager said something that inspired my column today: "Instead of learning from the Great Wars that it is our job to Fight Evil, Europeans learned that it is Evil to Fight." (this in response to a report that German soldiers are ordered not to fire on Taliban troops, despite their actions, unless fired upon first)

The Europeans became pacifists in world and internal affairs, in hopes of a unification of Europe. They have their unification, but at the cost of the downfall of all that is and ever was Europe. There is no spine in Europe, no one to stand up for values that have shaped Europe over the last 2000 years... and no desire to act as the same atrocities that occurred in Germany and Poland in the second World War are taking place throughout Africa, Pacific Island Nations, and throughout the Middle East... as such, America is left to do what is right... and be the police to the world.

Prager also said that it is better to do what is right and be hated for it, than to do what is wrong and be loved. If you are loved by all, then you have done something wrong... you have sacrificed your principles... This is true for the military intervention in the case of genocide... Rwanda, Congo, and other African Countries have seen more sheer numbers of dead due to Genocide than all military and civilian deaths in World War Two worldwide... yet the world, and namely Europe, does nothing.

They do nothing because they refuse to be hated as the United States has been seen as being hated around the world... and in their silence, they sin. Their very inaction is a crime against Humanity.

And the American left is under the same spell... it is more important to them to be loved around the world than to stand up and do what is right. Send aid to Darfur, but not the military necessary to stop the Genocide. What good is aid when you are murdered by a machete, raped, and burned in your home with your entire family?

No... the left is more interested in appearing to be doing the right thing... but no action is taken for fear of being hated... because they, much like the European Pacifists, have learned that to Fight is Evil.

Deep in the gut of every man, woman, and child around the world is a feeling... a pinch... you know the difference between right and wrong.

If you see someone committing a crime against humanity, you know it is wrong. And if you get that pinch, but do nothing, you too have committed a crime. You are at fault for not doing all you could to help... to stop the rape, to stop the killing, to stop the violence... even if it means giving your life to save another. That is the American Way... not Pacifism... not sitting by and watching as the world burns around us.

I don't care how the conflicts started... All I care about is how they are ended.

If you went in to a doctor to cure your lung cancer, and instead of curing you he continually blamed you for smoking... you should find another doctor!

So if it is our job to stop genocide in Africa, and prevent it in Iraq by up and leaving, we should do the job, not obsess on how we got there in the first place.

How do we save as many lives as possible?

By doing what is right.

The left, somewhere along the way, have learned that it is evil to fight.

The truth is that it is our duty, our moral authority, to stop killing, raping, and inhumane acts around the world... all things that we can consider evil... it is our obligation as a free and enlightened society to fight evil. That is real change!

Thursday, June 12, 2008

The Case Agaist Obama - Race Over Reason?

I am a Racist.

At least that is what the Democratic Party is going to try and make me believe. As Republicans begin building the case against Barack Hussein Obama, we are going to be met with counter attacks void of reason but full of emotion.

For instance, How can the Republicans feel that they are doing the right thing by blocking the election of the first black president of the United States? As if because he is Black and because he is a major party nominee, he deserves to be President. Can someone please explain to me how the color of a man's skin qualifies him to be President? I was under the assumption that it was the content of his character?!?

So let's look at his policies, let's look at his character. In doing so, we can fight emotion with reason. we will always be labelled as the racist party because we are fighting to block a "Black President"... but what we are really doing is attempting to preserve the fundamental rights and roles of the government by supporting the candidate who has a more conservative understanding of the founding of this nation, and the role that the government should play in our lives.

Barack Obama is a Marxist. Most youths who support him don't even fully understand what this means, or what it means to a truly free America.

Obama lives by the dictum of taking from those who have to give to those in need... no free will or free choice about it. If you have it, they deserve it... regardless of what they did or did not do to earn it.

Visit his campaign website and look at his policies.

Regarding Education - He plans to fully federalize a state institution of education. Where in the 10th Amendment does it stipulate that the States must give up rights such as education of their population?

Regarding Energy - Obama is a supporter of the "Tax the Profits" ideology coming out of the Senate regarding Oil. Instead of taxing the oil industry, which will only help to bankrupt and turn the industry over to the government (can you believe it, under President Obama we will seize the private lands of the Oil Fields and nationalize them! In America!?!) Instead of putting faith in the private sector, and incentivize car companies and power companies who offer alternative energy... or what about providing tax breaks for those who go solar at their homes? Or who buy fully electric cars? Instead, the answer to Obama is to seize Private Property and have the government regulate energy entirely on behalf of the people. (sounds more like Venezuela than America)

Socialized Health care - A system which most countries are currently trying to move away from, Barack Obama will rush the US headstrong into a crippling system that will further bankrupt this nation. Instead of removing regulation on the health care industry (which is an industry, not a right) and having faith that the free market will fill the need of the many by offering low cost group care programs, the intent of Obama is to seize the health care system and nationalize care, cost, and coverage. He complains that the HMO doesn't know what the best doctor is for you, so how is a bureaucrat in DC going to know any more? This is a ploy.

Race over reason... Unless his supporters are true socialists, they have to be blinded by being part of a group that elected the First Black President... never mind that there are more able candidates, more appropriate (non socialist) policies, or more appropriate "causes". Their reason is blinded by race, by the color of a man's skin...

I challenge that anyone supporting Obama because he is the going to be the First Black President, or anyone who uses that as a campaign cry, is the actual racist.

When I see a man, I see character... content filled character. I am not so low as to rally around the campfire of skin color. I demand content!

Obama is a black man running for President... who cares? I need a candidate who understands that this country does NOT need to go the way of the Soviet Union... we demand politicians who understand that this is a Free Nation. Period.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Radical Islam's War Against the West

Adolf Hitler knew that if his ideology was to survive beyond his years, he would need to train the next generation... thus was born, the Hitler Youth.

The same tactic is being used across the Muslim world...It is not an ideology that is found only in circles of Islamic Totalitarians, but in the moderate areas as well. It is in schoolbooks, children's shows, even "summer camps". The Radical Muslims have successfully raised a generation of Muslim Youths that would make Hitler blush.

Where the West teaches it's children to love life and respect life, the Muslim World teaches their children to embrace Jihad and give their lives for their god.

An entire generation, ruined. Filled with a hatred that can little be erased. A child is not born with hatred... They must be taught to hate.

The West is inundated with reality television, while the Muslim world is under a barrage of propaganda against freedom and liberty.

To win the war against Islamic Totalitarianism, we must eliminate their ability to fight. The struggle is currently going on inside the hearts and minds of every child in the Muslim world. They are being lied to in TV shows, Schools, and in every facet of their lives. To win, we must stop the message, stop the messenger, and change the way the youth see the US and the West.

The Radicals understand that this is a thousand year war... if we think we can win in 4-5 years, we are gravely mistaken. This is not about Iraq... This is about Islamic Totalitarianism. The threat is real, the fight is real... and with time, it only gets worse.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Electricity Killed the Petroleum Car

There was a time when an electric car had it's rightful place - On The Moon.

But here on earth, dwindling fuel reserves and increased fuel prices have driven the need for alternative energy sources for daily travel.

Toyota started the trend with the oddly shaped and eventually trademark "electric car", the Prius. Toyota set the standard before the fuel crisis began... but it hardly has the market cornered.

Tesla motors is creating a vehicle that makes the Prius look like a hippy-mobile, and will likely leave the Prius to the same fate that befell the VW Vanagon... A funny looking vehicle that sparks nostalgia in our Woodstock Friends. Tesla's Roadster is 100% electric, high performance (0-60 in 3.6), and gets over 200 miles to the charge. Unfortunately the cost makes the Roadster a playtoy for Playboys.

Meanwhile, the American Automaker, General Motors, has made an announcement that could signal the death of the Internal Combustion vehicle as we know it... at least for SUV's.

General Motors has announced that it will begin suspending production of their SUV's, selling off the Hummer division, and making the staple "American Made American Car" the Chevrolet Volt. The volt is an E85 / electric hybrid, with the potential for fuel cell upgrades as technologies advance. The primary power source is an electric motor, which can travel 40 miles before a charge is required. The internal combustion engine will run as a generator only, powering the charge of the batteries... it will not be used for propelling the vehicle directly.

GM is betting the bank on this move, and I think it will work!

I recently posted a blog about electric cars, and how solar cells on rooftops could be used to provide for the core of our national energy supply, if implemented properly. Electric cars need to also mean that we are getting off of oil and coal burning power sources. Unless we do this, we are still at the mercy of "Big Power".

The Internal combustion vehicle may be a thing of the past... But the future never looked so sweet!

Monday, June 2, 2008

The End of the Democratic Battle?

After months of unbelievably entertaining, and often all too desperate Primaries, the Democratic contest is officially over tomorrow (June 3rd).

Or is it.

The Democrats need a combined delegate count of 2118 to win the convention.

Barack Hussein Obama has 2076 combined voters and super delegates.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has 1917 combined.

Up for grabs tomorrow:

Montana's 25 combined delegates
South Dakota's 23 combined delegates

Should Obama win 100% of the remaining delegates, he would break the threshold by 6 delegate votes... which is not going to happen. The delegates are split by a percentage of votes won, not winner take all as in the Republican contests.

Which brings into question Michigan and Florida... both Clinton landslides (namely because she campaigned and won there, though the delegates were never going to be seated). Should she decide to seat her allotted delegates from Michigan and Florida, Hillary Clinton could take the Democratic nomination.

If not, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are so close, that a Ron Paul style "coup" at the convention could sway the Obama voters for the second round of voting.

This is where being a delegate gets confusing, and interesting. If, after the first round, there are no clear winners, the delegates are released and able to vote for whomever they so chose. If Clinton was able to stack the delegate crowd who made it to the national convention, and is able to pull off a stalemate prior to convention, she could win the convention by a landslide.

However, this tactic may back-fire in the general election.

As well, if Clinton cashes in her chips, those in the know would have to assume that she doesn't have the political will to lead her party, and as such could never be considered a serious contender in the future.

Clinton's chances for victory have never been so sweet as they are now... make Obama believe that there is no chance of victory... play the delegates HARD... and hope for a second round vote blowout. Clinton has played her cards right 100%. This could be the political story of the century.

Or her flame could flicker out after the June 3rd contests, as she bows her head in submission to Obama.

I suspect that the battle continues through the summer, and the Clinton campaign machine moves forward to the convention, and ensures that every vote is counted... and then changed in her favor.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Memorial Day: Birth of a Future Blogger

Last Monday my life changed, and I knew love like never before. I became a father for the first time.

My daughter, Sawyer Dru, was born at 11:54 pm on Monday May 26th... at 6 lbs 3 oz and 18.5 inches long.

As such, the rest of my world had been put on hold.

Now that we are beginning to settle into our routine, and I am more and more confident that this blessing is in good hands, I am going to begin bloggin regularly... starting tomorrow.

For the time being, please help me welcome my beautiful baby girl to this world... and know that what we do in discussing the issues and taking on grass-roots actions, we are working to provide a better world for those that we love and hold dearest to our hearts... our children and future generations.

God Bless you all for your support and understanding in my absence.