How Bush Could Ruin (or save) the 2008 Elections

One word: Iraq

According to a CNN poll, 51% of Americans said that Iraq was going to be "extremely important" when they make their decision for the next president.

43% think healthcare issues are extremely important...

Trickling off after that are economy, terrorism, Social Security, education, etc.

So how is it, you ask, that Bush can ruin the 2008 elections? The answer is simple: Not fixing the mess in Iraq. Bush has about a year to make some MAJOR headway in Iraq, layout a political plan, get other Middle Eastern neighbors involved in securing the region, and be firm with (but PLEASE dont invade) Iran.

It is imperitive that the Democratic candidatates NOT be elected into the White House in 2008... for so many social, economical, and even American unity reasons...

I am not advocating an anti-war message... What I AM advocating is an anti-screw-up message.

I have my fingers crossed... Bush, fix this mess!

What is the main issue that will decide YOUR vote in 2008? Vote here.

Schwarzenegger on target, Hispanic Journalists in left field

English immersion... what a novel concept in learning English as a second language. In fact, anyone learning a new language is bettered by immersion in that language, as it is proven to hasten the process.

So why all the fuss?

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set and stay away from
Spanish-language television, books and newspapers... You're just forced to speak
English, and that just makes you learn the language faster...I know this sounds
odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say and I'm going to get
myself in trouble, but I know that when I came to this country, I very rarely
spoke German to anyone."

This was said to a group of hispanic journalists, National Association of Hispanic Journalists... who of course were outraged:

"I'm sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so
naive and out of it that he would say something like that," Alex Nogales,
president and CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, "[Illegal] immigrants need Spanish language media to stay informed and function in this society"

Function in THIS society... what society is that? The English based Amercian society, or the sub-society that the pro-illegal racketeers are attempting to create across our great nation? And naive? I think that Mr Nogalas is naive in thinking that anyone coming to this country would not be bettered by learning english, let alone using english as their primary language.


One reporter went so far as to chuckle at the idea, stating that [illegal] immigrants were "too busy working" to learn english... are you friggin kidding me?


So this is how I understand the current situation. There is a sub-class in this country, and those who appear to be FOR them, however, their constant shunning of english-based America is working to maintain this sub-class, or immigration class. Perhaps in hopes that the un-educated masses will, as their numbers grow, rise up and create their own society... in effect "winning" back a land lost in wars and trade hundreds of years ago... And who will be in charge of this new society? Most likely an educated, english / spanish speaking individual, with the ability to easily influence the uninformed mob to better his own situation... aka JUST ABOUT EVERY LATIN AMERICAN REGIME!!!!



Step one in controlling the masses is to keep them uneducated... Well done NAHJ... well done!



For everyone else:



God Bless...

The cost of a senator's vote

$4.4 Billion

I wonder, is that the cost of funding border agents who cannot do their jobs for fear of prosecution, the cost of sending National Guardsmen to the border who are aiding in smuggling illegals into the country, or the cost for a white picket fence that is nowhere near the maximum security fence that is required to stop the bleeding at the border?????

$4.4 Billion... If the Senate crumbles on this "compromise" then there really is no-one left who stands on their convictions....

Fences need not apply... build a friggin WALL!

Fixing the Middle East

World news... filling the front pages with images of violence, terror, religious unrest. But for what? To what end?

In Ireland, Christian is pitted against Christian. In Asia and the Middle East you find Muslims fighting one another (and everyone else). Africa is home to genocide of biblical proportions...

Try as we may, we (the powers that be) will never be successful in "fixing" the problems caused by religious indifference if we (the people of this planet) do not fully understand how it is that we are all connected.

The three main world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have a common beginning... the Patriarchs, none of which belonged to one of the "big three". Noah, Abraham, Moses, they are more than names in a religious text... they are the tie that binds the world together. They were normal men, entrusted with the word of God, and made to be left as a reminder for when the world is lost.

These men did not belong to a church, they did not have religious texts... they were upright men, and in their time that made all the difference.

So in a world full of strife, pain, and torment... instead of world leaders demanding compromise, demanding revenge, or otherwise leading their followers along the same path, they should demand that each and every person on this planet look into their own hearts, asking themselves, "are my decisions upright?" If the inhabitants of the world took personal responsibility for the tears, sweat, and blood of every other member of our planet... well, that would be divine...

God Bless...

Where's the Outrage?

Each and every day I am so very thankful that we are one day closer to January 20th, 2009. For those of you not in the know, that is the day that we will inaugurate the next president of the United States, and hopefully let the healing begin.

I have held out for a very long time, but finally it is all starting to get to me, a long time and avid Bush supporter!

Now, the administration has gone too far. My disdain began with the attempted "push through" of the new immigration bill, which by the strong outcry by ACTUAL citizens, the Senate could not move to vote (45 of 60 needed votes to start the voting process)... but Bush, c'mon... give this bill a rest! Now Bush is stepping up pressure on Senators in the GOP to push this bill through. And he has received a response:

"Bush is wrong to push this piece of legislation so hard after we've
demonstrated the flaws that are in it. He needs to BACK OFF!"

Senator Jeff Sessions (R - Alabama) - Good boy! You get a gold star for the day! Send Bush the message that the Senate and the House represent the citizens, and he needs to keep his poor lame duck bills to himself.

And has ANYONE looked into the new Presidential Directive 51? I caught wind of this yesterday, and am still looking into it... but the long and short of it is that Bush has issued an Executive Directive that allows him to take control of all branches of government, federal and local, and to have full control of radio, press, commerce, free markets, etc. in the case of a "catastrophe". There was a similar directive on the books, but it required the approval of the Congress... now... it is at his own discretion...

Mr. Bush... Don't Tread On Me!

God Bless...

Let's Talk Domestic Issues

Today's issue has to do with four domestic issues that are getting very little discussion time in the Presidential debates. So I did some research on the issues, and have graded 10 candidates, 5 Republicans, 5 Democratics based on my proposed solutions in each category. Please visit OnTheIssues.org for yourself to find more information.


TAXES:
Across the board, citizens believe that they are taxed too much with an often confusing set of tax laws, seemingly set up to confuse them into paying more than their necessary share. Even John Kerry has said, "[When citizens] have to hire another party to prepare their returns, something is not right". Poll after poll nationwide, over the last 4 years, have shown taht nearly all citizens agree that the legislators should focus on spending restraint rather than raising taxes to address budget shortages.

Solution: Presidential candidates should promise to reduce government spending across the board, eliminate dead federal programs, cut beauracracies in the federal government, and cut taxes or support a simpler tax structure for the citizen.

EDUCATION:
When asked about the key problems with the education system, most will repsond "Funding". But it can be shown that a large percent of each stat'es budget goes solely to education. (Federal funding is less tahn 5%, but currently state's are responsible for their own education funding). The problem with funding is NOT the amount, rather the USE of the money. When so much money stalls iat the administration level, never making it to the classroom or to special education programs, therein lies the problem. As well, there is a problem with the structure of authoritiy in schools. Once upon a time, the teacher ruled the classroom... but this is less and less acurate. Teachers are losing authority, and thusly respect, in the classroom which leads to an increase in classroom disruptions.

Solution: Presidential candidates should have a solid track record on education, and the political will to enact sweeping education reform. They should support a financial restructure, as well as reforming the education system with a sweeping Educators Authority Reform.

HEALTHCARE:
Most concerns about healthcare come from high prices of basic care or lack of affordable insurance. Healthcare, I beleive, is a basic right...BUT I beleive that HEALTH is a personal responsibility. The US spends 17% of the GDP on healthcare, where the highest European country spends is no more than 11%. If we reduce our NEED for excessive healthcare, thus reducing the spending across the board to the European levels, the US could afford to pay off the entire national debt in less than 5 years. How do we accomplish this? By taking personal responsibility in your health.Lose the unhelathy weight, get regular exercise, eat healthier, and be healthier! As a society, we need to turn off the TV and turn on the walkman (or iPod), turn off the video games and pick up a frisbee... stop looking to the healthcare system as a reactive helath plan, rather start looking to yourself for a proactive helath plan.

Solution: A presidential candidate must recognize the need for better health across the board, not just reactive health care. They must support healthy living reforms that focus on personal health.

ENERGY:
Rising gas prices, electricity costs, pollution, war... it is all too much! Energy independence has been a talking point for over 30 years, yet no effective or drastic changes have been made. Great Job Lobbyists! You have one-upped us once again! And look where you have gotten us... cars are no more fuel efficient than my mid 80's Toyota (I get about 38mpg), and we are no closer to independence.

Solution: The presidential candidate MUST come out strong on energy independence! We need a sweeping and radical energy plan that will take the money out of the middle east, out of big oil, and clean up the mess the world has gotten itself into. Secondly, we need to take a more personal approach by changing our own habits...Flourescent bulbs, push mowers, adjusting the thermostat a bit...

And now, how do the candidates compare on these issues? You may be very surpised! Remember that I am grading based on these issues alone, with no prejudices based on political leanings or other involvements.

You will see that the positions of the main candidates serves to maintain the current condition, with very little drastic change.

To get anything ACTUALLY accomplished in the next 4-8 years, it is essential that we look to leaders who have sweeping reform plans, across the board. At this point we should be throwing our support behind candidates who have the big ideas, not the big names.

Remember, don't just for change, vote for positive change!

God Bless!

What is the role of "Government"

It is quite often referred to as a separate entity: "The government is taxing us to death", or "I don't agree with the government". But what ever happened to the "We the People" mentality that formed this great Union? Why is it that the founders, who envisioned an independent nation of free men, are being left to the history books, being replaced by the "common understanding" of the overbearing government.

In fact, this is the very situation that led the founding fathers to cast off the tyranny and form a "more perfect union".

I am not saying that GW is the "king", and we are his minions... what I am saying is that the separation of the people and the government is the danger that leads a state to revolution, as was the case some 231 years ago. The government was SO out of touch with the people, that they cast off the government and decided to govern themselves. We are at a point now where we have to decide: Do we want to govern ourselves, or be governed?

Let's take a look at some historical views of the government, and it's role... perhaps to better understand how we got here...

George Washington, in his farewell address:

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

George Washington so eloquently spoke of the love of freedom, and with the blood of freedom so fresh on the ground, to always remember the freedom from tyranny, and to be jealous with the ability to self govern. He declared that all men should fight for the control of the government, and revere our form of government, as freedom of man is the ultimate goal of life...

James Monroe (5th President) in his inaugural address:

Such, then, is the happy Government under which we live--a Government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact is formed; a Government elective in all its branches, under which every citizen may by his merit obtain the highest trust recognized by the Constitution; which contains within it no cause of discord, none to put at variance one portion of the community with another; a Government which protects every citizen in the full enjoyment of his rights, and is able to protect the nation against injustice from foreign powers.

President Monroe, an anti-Federalist, and one of the fathers of the Republican party, believed that the role of the government was to uphold the constitution - that the rights and liberty of the people should be upheld, that the people should be protected from enemies (foreign and domestic), and that the role of the government should not be separated from the action of the people - thus adhering to a limited form of existence.

Thomas Jefferson's original version of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created
equal & independent , that from that equal creation they derive rights
inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.

Jefferson was so adamant that the government was only to exist at the consent of the people, and NOT to exist as a purpose to rule.

Now let's look at more modern views of government...

The role of government had been pretty much as intended by the founding fathers... limited involvement into the lives of the citizens, with expected involvement from the citizens into the dealings of the government. It wasn't perfect, as history showed (Civil War, Manifest Destiny, etc). But there was a turning point in our history where the role of government became less "By the People" and more "For the People"...

Franklin D. Roosevelt at a speech in Boston in 1932:

We have two problems: first, to meet the immediate distress; second, to
build up on a basis of permanent employment. As to immediate relief, the first
principle is that this nation, this national government, if you like, owes a
positive duty that no citizen shall be permitted to starve. In addition to
providing emergency relief, the Federal Government should and must provide
temporary work wherever that is possible. You and I know that in the national
forests, on flood prevention, and on the development of waterway projects that
have already been authorized and planned but not yet executed, tens of
thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of our unemployed citizens can be
given at least temporary employment.

Roosevelt enacted his "New Deal" legislation that put the government in the authoritative role that we see it as today. Granted, his ideas were necessary in a way that the the US needed to think and care for it's citizens, but he left the door open to corruption and "overstepping" of government as a separate entity into the affairs of the individual... believing that it is the DUTY of the government to intervene and help whenever it sees fit.

Right up to the politicians of today, this idea of government involvement has grown like a weed:

Hilary Clinton in a comment made May 29th, 2007:

Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies.

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals - a report from Rick Scarborough:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting in New York, just
issued a ruling which would hamstring the FCC's efforts to keep the worst
obscenity off the airwaves, if it's allowed to stand.

So now we are looking at a government that is separated from the people, that does not trust or allow the individuals to determine "fairness", and is refusing to protect the youngest and most vulnerable citizens from the worst form of obscenity.

So I ask you... what IS the role of the government? Do we need the government to give us policies dictating our rights and liberties? Do we support a government that no longer protects the citizens? Does the government represent the will of the people, or does the government rule with (in the words of Thomas Jefferson) an "act of force, and not of right"?

And I ask you this... Are the "media favorite" candidates upholding your belief in the role of government, or are they simply more of the same?

As a citizen of the United States, the greatest nation of free men, what role will you play in repairing the United States? and do you want to live in a country where liberty or government prevails?

God Bless

Polling and the 2008 Presidential Race

I would like to first thank my friends at the Huckabee '08 blog for alerting me to this article. Please check their blog for a complete Arkansas based analysis of the results and possible race.

The Rasmussen Reports polls have FINALLY conducted a Huckabee poll, pitting him against Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for 2008. The results? Clinton holds only a single digit lead (Clinton 48% / Huckabee 43%). What this means is that Clinton, who most likely holds the lead on name recognition alone, is within reach of this up and coming candidate. Obama and Edwards were polling higher than Clinton against all candidates in this 800 voter study, 47% of which declared that they definitely would not vote for Hillary. That leave a 10% undecided on the Clinton/Huckabee poll. How to get that 10%? Let Mike talk about education, arts in education, and taxes... and stop ONLY asking him about his religious views in the debates! Enough already - the man is a level headed Christian. Move On!

Regarding the Iowa Straw Polls - WOW... what a choice for the slipping top tier candidates!

Giuliani and McCain have both decided to not participate in the Ames Iowa Straw Poll, and for good reason: Romney is expected to beat them both. A Romney win in those polls would be a BIG hit to their campaign, and a trump for Romney. So what should we expect to see? With Fred Thompson also not participating, we should see a Romney lead with a great showing of support for the other candidates, namely Huckabee!

"No candidate has skipped the straw poll and gone on to win the caucuses in the past 30 years..."
The Ames poll is a huge benchmark test for the nomination, measuring the organization ability and strength of the campaigns, and the fact that two of the "top three" are declining to participate because of an expected poor showing is disappointing. I say, if you are in it to win it, let's see what the PEOPLE think! I mean, honestly, NYTimes polling can only get you so far... Leave it in the hands of the voters, and let's see what the NEW direction of the party is going to be.

One thing that I have been saying for some time now, the "Top Candidates" want nothing more than to maintain the status quo. We need to put some spin on this story and expose the "Top Candidates" for what they are... beatable!

Lightning Strikes, but No Major Sparks Fly

The highlight of the GOP debates: God silences Giuliani during his defense of his abortion stance, after being compared to Pontius Pilate (in reference to the crucifixion of Christ where Pilate did not agree, but did nothing to stop the act). The building (or immediate area) was struck several times with lightning, cutting power to his microphone. Better yet, he acknowledged God's presence by saying that he was afraid of the timing of the strikes, and all the other candidates moved away, as if to let God do his dirty work. So for those of you who believe in coincidence only and not God, what were the odds of that???

Other than that, my take of the evening was pretty bland from the top tier.

McCain is a broken record... I understand the philosophy of staying on message, but you don't have to repeat the same phrase over and over. It is like listening to an elderly man who's memory is starting to go, so he tells the same story over and again!

Romney came off as the flip-flopping Republican version of 2004 John Kerry. As I recall, he was even called a flip-flopper by one of the audience members during the Q&A portion of the night. Not a good sign, Romney... And his response: I'll do what I have to do to get the votes... ummm, what? so instead of standing on your principles you will lie, cheat, and steal to get the votes... In the words of Trump, "You're Fired!"

And I think that Brownback got it right, when he told the audience that the party cannot be considered a conservative party if they nominate someone who is as socially liberal as Giuliani. There is moderate, and then there is a Liberal on the Republican ticket...

So other than McCain fumbling, Romney defending his flip-flops, and Giuliani defending his very liberal social issues, there was nothing helping the "head of the pack" candidates... i.e. their attempt to maintain the status quo (hmmm... sounds familiar - see my post about the Democratic debate).

What WAS amazing were the "others". Huckabee came across as the witty and confident underdog that he is, with great answers to open ended questions about the greatest moral issues in America today... and wonderfully, the rest of the field followed... In fact, whenever Huckabee spoke on any topic, the rest of the candidates seemed to try and build off of Huckabee's intelligent remarks, perhaps hoping that the audience will think that they came up with the thought... It was a series of great moments for Huckabee.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Republican Party has “lost credibility” said former
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee when he was asked what happened to his party during the 2006 midterm elections, when the GOP was swept from power in
Congress.
“We didn’t do what we were hired to do and the people fired us,”
Huckabee said at Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate.
Citing the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, corruption scandals involving GOP lawmakers and other issues, Huckabee said, “The Republican Party as a whole deserved to get beat. "We’ve lost credibility.”

And that is why Huckabee is the guy to fix the party... he stands for honest conservative values!

Paul is getting further and further out into left field... He has some very good moments, but all in all, he is OUT THERE!

Brownback did a good job in re-emphasizing the diplomatic solution to Iraq. Everything else was pretty forgettable from him.

And the rest... well, a few good moments surrounded by blandness.

I would score it as a Huckabee win overall, with the top tier candidates starting to lose steam.

Angry, Dark, and No Surprises

Political analysts Bill Schneider, James Carville, and J.C. Watts (all from CNN) have dubbed the 2nd Democratic Presidential debate as Angry, Dark, and without any surprises.

From Bill Richardson's bumbling to John Edwards' rant about Obama and Clinton not doing more to voice their discontent with the Iraq War, the debate seemed to be more of the same. The frontrunners are attempting to maintain their lead by keeping the status quo, while the tier two candidates are attacking them to get the headlines.

“They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote — but there is a difference between leadership and legislators,” Edwards said at the Democratic presidential debate in Manchester, New Hampshire. And Edwards is right. The two frontrunners are wavering on their "message". If you are against the war, come out strong against it... stand for something, instead of hiding behind a silent vote. If you want to be the next president, you MUST have substance... and this goes for candidates on both sides of the aisle!

In all, the debate and the candidates seem to be lacking two things: Content and a Message.

Biden and Edwards came out on top. But in all, the feel was that the Democratic field of candidates are angry, dark, and lacking a clear message - none of which make a good candidate to lead our country.

We need to hold our leaders to a higher standard.

So my message to the Democratic Leadership - Lose the anger! Try running a positive campaign where you attempt, however slightly, to rise to the higher ground. Challenge not just your opponents, but yourself, to clearly state their stance on the issues and use that stance to reach out to the people in a positive manner.

If you cannot, you are not fit to lead this great nation!


God Bless!