On my way into work in the morning, I'll typically listen to Mike & Mike, maybe Bob & Tom, and some times, Free Beer & Hot Wings... that's a lot of ampersands!
Anyway, I was driving in the other morning, and I turned on AM 1230. I think the show was the Bill Press show. He was talking mainly to union workers from Detroit about the possibility of the 'Big 3' failing. Honestly, I was just amazed by what I heard. (and this isn't specific to him. I've been hearing this on TV news as well)
The talk is all about how we can make it work, and how we can make it so people don't lose their jobs. I keep hearing this 'too big to fail' talk, and it doesn't make any sense to me. Let's apply some logic to this situation, shall we?
Q: Why do people clamor for the government to bail out these big three car companies?
A: Because if the government did not, these companies would file bankruptcy, break up the powerful unions, and move down south where they can get labor for half the cost. Basically, people don't want to concede that they do not deserve a premium anymore. The fact is, GM sold more cars last year than Toyota. The difference is, Toyota made a great profit, and GM went in the red. If one has employees that cost 10-15 bucks and hour and the other has employees that cost 30-50 bucks an hour, who do you think will come out on top? It's unrealistic to think we can compete that way.
Q: Will the bailout solve the problem?
A: No way, not a chance, not in a million years! It's ridiculous to think that these companies, who will continue to do the same thing will get a different result. Again, companies that can get cheaper American labor will win out. That's the free market. It used to be that the 'Big Three' made an awesome product and had a stranglehold on the American market. Now, they make a sub-par product and are losing their monopoly. Should we as Americans take a lesser product and spend more money for it? I won't, I'll tell you that. (though Saturns are pretty good, and they're made in Tennessee, not D-town)
Q: So what about these workers?
A: People have this idea that all of a sudden there will be a lot of work gone in the US. Understand that 'Japanese' cars are not made in Japan and shipped here. There are plants here, and generally, 'Japanese' cars are made more by Americans than so-called American cars! People aren't going to stop buying cars, so there will be a great demand in the market, and either a new or reformed American car company will rise from the ashes to claim some of the market, or foreign companies will come in and add more factories here.
The point is, it doesn't make sense to delay the death of these companies, because it's going to happen. That's just the way it is. It has been coming for a while.
Ayn Rand wrote about the government stepping in and 'bailing out' companies who failed. The excuse they'd use for it was 'well, we can't let them go hungry' or 'they tried hard and made a good effort'. The fact is, if you are not providing a good enough product and/or service to stay in business, then you do not deserve to stay in business, and you certainly should not be bankrolled by the all-too-fleeced dream-chasing American people. Boo-yah.
Nov 26, 2008
Nov 17, 2008
Rebuilding the GOP, by Adam
Rebuilding the GOP is quite simple in my estimation. I think the Republicans should hold up the Constitution, say
1.) No foreign entanglements, no war without declaration by the Senate, and no bases in other countries. (this alone would solve many of the money woes and foreign policy issues)
2.) No US power can be given to outside or International body. (there is talk of a more central banking system and an international currency... guh)
3.) I think the Balanced Budget act ought to be very high on the new GOP's list of important moves.
4.) The federal government should have no part in: education, marriage (and when I say marriage, i mean that the federal government has no business recognizing and defining marriage. It ought to uphold contracts as part of its duty, but marriage is a religious recognition, not a governmental one), energy, subsidies...etc. I also think we ought to push for the removal of many departments such as 'homeland security'.
5.) No Patriot Act. (Though on could make the argument that this could still be applied to non-citizens, and I think that's fair.)
6.) No entitlements for non-citizens. None. (You want to stop illegal immigration? Here you go.)
7.) Either abolish the Federal Reserve (which would be my choice) or have lots of oversight over the group.
8.) Make property taxes illegal. This form of taxation is flawed because of the assumption that the Government, whether state or federal, owns the land and we simply lease it from them. The fact is, WE are landowners, and we let the gov't have some if we deem it necessary.
9.) I think the GOP should be the party of ideas, so it ought to push for more open election rules and debates and be willing to allow 3rd parties in. This would hold the 2 major parties accountable and represent the people better. (It's all about representation, isn't it?)
10.) I think we need to define what life is and when it begins. I think it's a shame that roughly 50 million children have been aborted under the pretense that they are 'not quite human' or 'potential life'. Read your history people. We used the same argument to excuse slavery. A man of a different color was three-fifths of person, legally. It's a shame. Semantics about what a fetus is doesn't take away the fact that this creature has brain functions, nerves, digits, a heartbeat...
That being said, I think the GOP needs to do a much better job with adoption rights. It ought to be easy, cheap, and the rights should be totally given to the adoptive parents. (barring bizarre circumstances) Also, we need to help promote good orphanages, help social workers (and stop criticizing them as they have a thankless and very difficult job), and start promoting better solutions for abortion. This is a two-part problem, and the GOP politicos haven't been the lifers they claim. Remember, to take an individual's life is the greatest infringement on liberty. If we can't recognize that, then we don't deserve liberty.
That's my solution... that and making Dr. Paul the House minority leader. Ha ha.
Paul/Nannini '12!!!
'We will only do what this says, and nothing further, and we will begin holding people accountable who knowingly violate this document, no matter what party they belong.'With that in mind, here are the 10 main points I would push as head of the GOP.
1.) No foreign entanglements, no war without declaration by the Senate, and no bases in other countries. (this alone would solve many of the money woes and foreign policy issues)
2.) No US power can be given to outside or International body. (there is talk of a more central banking system and an international currency... guh)
3.) I think the Balanced Budget act ought to be very high on the new GOP's list of important moves.
4.) The federal government should have no part in: education, marriage (and when I say marriage, i mean that the federal government has no business recognizing and defining marriage. It ought to uphold contracts as part of its duty, but marriage is a religious recognition, not a governmental one), energy, subsidies...etc. I also think we ought to push for the removal of many departments such as 'homeland security'.
5.) No Patriot Act. (Though on could make the argument that this could still be applied to non-citizens, and I think that's fair.)
6.) No entitlements for non-citizens. None. (You want to stop illegal immigration? Here you go.)
7.) Either abolish the Federal Reserve (which would be my choice) or have lots of oversight over the group.
8.) Make property taxes illegal. This form of taxation is flawed because of the assumption that the Government, whether state or federal, owns the land and we simply lease it from them. The fact is, WE are landowners, and we let the gov't have some if we deem it necessary.
9.) I think the GOP should be the party of ideas, so it ought to push for more open election rules and debates and be willing to allow 3rd parties in. This would hold the 2 major parties accountable and represent the people better. (It's all about representation, isn't it?)
10.) I think we need to define what life is and when it begins. I think it's a shame that roughly 50 million children have been aborted under the pretense that they are 'not quite human' or 'potential life'. Read your history people. We used the same argument to excuse slavery. A man of a different color was three-fifths of person, legally. It's a shame. Semantics about what a fetus is doesn't take away the fact that this creature has brain functions, nerves, digits, a heartbeat...
That being said, I think the GOP needs to do a much better job with adoption rights. It ought to be easy, cheap, and the rights should be totally given to the adoptive parents. (barring bizarre circumstances) Also, we need to help promote good orphanages, help social workers (and stop criticizing them as they have a thankless and very difficult job), and start promoting better solutions for abortion. This is a two-part problem, and the GOP politicos haven't been the lifers they claim. Remember, to take an individual's life is the greatest infringement on liberty. If we can't recognize that, then we don't deserve liberty.
That's my solution... that and making Dr. Paul the House minority leader. Ha ha.
Paul/Nannini '12!!!
Nov 5, 2008
An article I liked - by Adam
This is a really awesome perspective on the recent election.... sort of elitist, but interesting:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/an-american-dilemma/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/04/an-american-dilemma/
Nov 4, 2008
On This Election Day ~ by Phil Lowe
I remember well the day that Clinton won out against Bush Senior. There were many people then, as now, who thought the world would end. Apparently they had forgotten Carter. The world kept on turning after he was elected. Sure we saw unprecedented inflation, and soaring unemployment, but we were still around to elect Reagan four years later.
Is Obama worse than Clinton? In talk, no. They both stand for much the same policy. I think what has me worried this time around is the leadership in the House and Senate. If Obama doesn't push his leftist agenda, and I have no idea why he wouldn't, he would have congressional leadership pushing it for him. Through the lens of my fear, I can see the end of our representative republic.
Most likely, four years from now, we'll have another election season much like this one. Obama may have instituted Hillarycare. He may have replaced some recosntructionst judges with some more reconstructionist judges. He most surely will have raised taxes on anyone who pays them now. But I think we will come through ready for another Reagan. Is he or she out there now? Are they electable?
I'd love to see Ron Paul, but I think a large group of his supporters have damaged his image. I don't think Palin is the answer, but I'll listen to more of her policies, minus the McCain influence. The other conservative names we know have liabilities, or no personality. Where is the engaging speaker, who can take a winning argument, and present it to the American people?
McCain may pull out a last minute rally, but I don't think so. It should be closer than the polls are showing, but there are too many states he needs that are battle ground states. Would things be better under McCain than Clinton? I don't think we'd see 40% capital gains tax. I don't think we'd see a government run health care system, though something with some federal oversight is a given. Green taxes would be the norm. But I don't think he'd raise any other taxes. We'd see some better judges appointed, or at least an attempt.
Overall, I'm already looking to 2012, and fixing the problems left by either candidate.
Is Obama worse than Clinton? In talk, no. They both stand for much the same policy. I think what has me worried this time around is the leadership in the House and Senate. If Obama doesn't push his leftist agenda, and I have no idea why he wouldn't, he would have congressional leadership pushing it for him. Through the lens of my fear, I can see the end of our representative republic.
Most likely, four years from now, we'll have another election season much like this one. Obama may have instituted Hillarycare. He may have replaced some recosntructionst judges with some more reconstructionist judges. He most surely will have raised taxes on anyone who pays them now. But I think we will come through ready for another Reagan. Is he or she out there now? Are they electable?
I'd love to see Ron Paul, but I think a large group of his supporters have damaged his image. I don't think Palin is the answer, but I'll listen to more of her policies, minus the McCain influence. The other conservative names we know have liabilities, or no personality. Where is the engaging speaker, who can take a winning argument, and present it to the American people?
McCain may pull out a last minute rally, but I don't think so. It should be closer than the polls are showing, but there are too many states he needs that are battle ground states. Would things be better under McCain than Clinton? I don't think we'd see 40% capital gains tax. I don't think we'd see a government run health care system, though something with some federal oversight is a given. Green taxes would be the norm. But I don't think he'd raise any other taxes. We'd see some better judges appointed, or at least an attempt.
Overall, I'm already looking to 2012, and fixing the problems left by either candidate.
Oct 29, 2008
What's on your Ballot? -by Mitchell Crane
By Mitchell Crane
As citizens of this great country, it is OUR responsibility to elect officials into office that will represent us and abide by the Constitution of the United States. Not just the office of the president, but all elected offices. It is easy to get swept away by all the hoopla the presidential campaign creates. Just remember, the leaders we vote into our local governments could be our leaders in the senate or presidency tomorrow. It is just as important, if not MORE important to do your due diligence and choose your local candidates not on party affiliation, but by their ability to stand by the Constitution. Voting by party affiliation should be considered HIGH TREASON! Glenn Beck put it best in a recent commentary...
I have provided links to all the officials up for election in Michigan, and the proposals on the ballot. It is your civil responsibility to do your research before you vote! Voting all Republican or all Democrat is a CRIME! There are good candidates on all sides of the spectrum, including 3rd party options!!
2008 Official Michigan General Candidate Listing -- from www.michigan.gov
www.ballot.org -- This provides you with info you need to know about proposals.
In closing, I really encourage you to do your research. It is important now more than ever. America is at a crossroads, a tipping point, and if we don't take responsibility we could lost everything this country was founded on! If you forgot why it is so important to vote... read the Declaration of Independence, I swear it's a short read, but in their it lists the crimes that the Kingdom of Great Britain committed against us. The same crimes they committed against us, our OWN government is now committing against us.
Please, if these blogs have any impact on you, whether it's negative or positive, leave feedback! I will not be offended, and would be open to discussing these topics at any time!
As citizens of this great country, it is OUR responsibility to elect officials into office that will represent us and abide by the Constitution of the United States. Not just the office of the president, but all elected offices. It is easy to get swept away by all the hoopla the presidential campaign creates. Just remember, the leaders we vote into our local governments could be our leaders in the senate or presidency tomorrow. It is just as important, if not MORE important to do your due diligence and choose your local candidates not on party affiliation, but by their ability to stand by the Constitution. Voting by party affiliation should be considered HIGH TREASON! Glenn Beck put it best in a recent commentary...
The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them.
I have provided links to all the officials up for election in Michigan, and the proposals on the ballot. It is your civil responsibility to do your research before you vote! Voting all Republican or all Democrat is a CRIME! There are good candidates on all sides of the spectrum, including 3rd party options!!
2008 Official Michigan General Candidate Listing -- from www.michigan.gov
www.ballot.org -- This provides you with info you need to know about proposals.
In closing, I really encourage you to do your research. It is important now more than ever. America is at a crossroads, a tipping point, and if we don't take responsibility we could lost everything this country was founded on! If you forgot why it is so important to vote... read the Declaration of Independence, I swear it's a short read, but in their it lists the crimes that the Kingdom of Great Britain committed against us. The same crimes they committed against us, our OWN government is now committing against us.
Please, if these blogs have any impact on you, whether it's negative or positive, leave feedback! I will not be offended, and would be open to discussing these topics at any time!
Oct 28, 2008
The End is in Sight
Read this, and tell me America survives the next four years.
Talk me down off the wall.
America does not come out the other side of this four years a Representative Republic with a Constitutional basis. With this man in the Oval Office, and people just as radical running the House and Senate we are in for a wild socialist ride.
I know McCain is a neo-con, but he is no where close to Obama on this stuff. There's a good chance that getting a third party into position in four years won't even be an option.
Talk me down off the wall.
America does not come out the other side of this four years a Representative Republic with a Constitutional basis. With this man in the Oval Office, and people just as radical running the House and Senate we are in for a wild socialist ride.
I know McCain is a neo-con, but he is no where close to Obama on this stuff. There's a good chance that getting a third party into position in four years won't even be an option.
Oct 27, 2008
Party Time by Phil
Sorry this is late:
This year more than any other I’m leaning towards a third party. My stance is not solid though. Sorry Adam.
Of the ‘third parties,’ I find I agree with the Constitution Party’s platform, but I think Barr has a lot more name recognition. I think some of these third parties need to look into merging together. I know the Libertarians and the Constitution Party would never do that, but look at the Tax Payers party, practically the same thing as the Constitution.
I don’t think a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. I get that all the time when I suggest that option to people. Heck, I used to be that guy. Actually the third-party argument is the one I use on those people don’t really want to vote for Obama, but won’t vote for McCain. I would love to send a message to the Republican Party, but I’m not sure this is the year to do it. I look at Obama, and I see a nightmare situation for the country.
I’ve never been a McCain supporter. There was no way I was going to vote for him, until several things happened. 1) He picked Palin as a running-mate. No, I haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid, but I like the woman. 2) I read this article on Obama’s pro-abortion stance. Coupled with his horrendous tax & spend philosophy, the fact that the courts will be lost for two generations, and his inexperience on foreign policy (or really anything executive), I find myself swinging back for a McCain vote.
Until I’m in the booth (I wish they still had curtains) with the pen in my hand, I won’t know what I’m going to do. Where’s Ross Perot when you need him? I think that a third party with some money could have made a dent this year. Maybe even in some select House and Senate seats.
We should start now on the next election, regardless of who wins. I don’t know what needs to be done. Obviously funding is a big thing for these guys to be taken seriously. They need poll numbers to get into debates. They need TV time to get poll numbers. And TV time is not cheap.
My one hope (excepting God above) is the Constitution; the knowledge that whatever these idiots do in the next for years can be undone if We the People can get motivated.
This year more than any other I’m leaning towards a third party. My stance is not solid though. Sorry Adam.
Of the ‘third parties,’ I find I agree with the Constitution Party’s platform, but I think Barr has a lot more name recognition. I think some of these third parties need to look into merging together. I know the Libertarians and the Constitution Party would never do that, but look at the Tax Payers party, practically the same thing as the Constitution.
I don’t think a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. I get that all the time when I suggest that option to people. Heck, I used to be that guy. Actually the third-party argument is the one I use on those people don’t really want to vote for Obama, but won’t vote for McCain. I would love to send a message to the Republican Party, but I’m not sure this is the year to do it. I look at Obama, and I see a nightmare situation for the country.
I’ve never been a McCain supporter. There was no way I was going to vote for him, until several things happened. 1) He picked Palin as a running-mate. No, I haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid, but I like the woman. 2) I read this article on Obama’s pro-abortion stance. Coupled with his horrendous tax & spend philosophy, the fact that the courts will be lost for two generations, and his inexperience on foreign policy (or really anything executive), I find myself swinging back for a McCain vote.
Until I’m in the booth (I wish they still had curtains) with the pen in my hand, I won’t know what I’m going to do. Where’s Ross Perot when you need him? I think that a third party with some money could have made a dent this year. Maybe even in some select House and Senate seats.
We should start now on the next election, regardless of who wins. I don’t know what needs to be done. Obviously funding is a big thing for these guys to be taken seriously. They need poll numbers to get into debates. They need TV time to get poll numbers. And TV time is not cheap.
My one hope (excepting God above) is the Constitution; the knowledge that whatever these idiots do in the next for years can be undone if We the People can get motivated.
Oct 24, 2008
RETRACTION
So, I was disappointed last night. I will not be voting for Erwin Haas. Sadly, he didn't live up to my hopes, and neither did the libertarian party of Grand Rapids. That being said, I did meet a great candidate named Dan Johnson. He's running against Pete Hoekstra. I wish I could vote for him.
I still stand by the fact that we won't see change continuing to vote for more of the same. I guess here is my point: I am going to vote for a candidate outside of party... I will vote for candidates on the individual basis. So, if a blue dog democrat is most constitutional, I'll vote him... if a Republican is like Ron Paul or BJ Lawson, I'll vote for him. If a third party candidate, whether that be Libertarian, Constitutional, Independent, or Green follows the constitution, I'll vote for him.
I haven't lost faith in third parties... I just need to try before I buy a little more.
I still stand by the fact that we won't see change continuing to vote for more of the same. I guess here is my point: I am going to vote for a candidate outside of party... I will vote for candidates on the individual basis. So, if a blue dog democrat is most constitutional, I'll vote him... if a Republican is like Ron Paul or BJ Lawson, I'll vote for him. If a third party candidate, whether that be Libertarian, Constitutional, Independent, or Green follows the constitution, I'll vote for him.
I haven't lost faith in third parties... I just need to try before I buy a little more.
Oct 23, 2008
Sheep may go to heaven... but they create bad governments - by Adam
"This is the most important election of our time!"
I can't tell you how many times I've heard these words in the last three elections, and sadly, I followed right along. Both sides say it, and both sides say it because they know their constituents are sick to death of their parties, and they fear a revolt.
While it's not easy to vote for a third party candidate, it's the right thing to do when there is no candidate who seeks to preserve the constitution. There are so many disenfranchised democrats and republicans, that if people actually voted their principle, we would see a huge voting block for third parties.
I love how we will show our disdain for our current nominee by... voting for him. That'll teach him. I think McCain is dangerous as well as Obama. McCain, like Obama has a bad history, a la the Keating five, but I'm most concerned with policy. The fact is that McCain, like Bush, is a Neocon. In the past number of years, the Neocons have inflated the dollar to unprecedented amounts, trampled on the 4th ammendment, began talks on the North American Union (and the Amero), went to war unconstitutionally, betrayed our border guards Campeon and Ramos, did nothing to quell illegal immigration, expanded federal bureaucracies, expanded the fed, bought stock in private companies (Socialism!)... etc. (there's more... a lot more, sadly)
I understand that my vote may contribute to one evil being elected... but that's not the point. Whether I take arsenic or drano... I'm still dead. Pick your poison. To think that we will prevent the rapid unprecedented expansion of federal power (the one thing both parties agree on) by doing the same thing we've been doing is insane. It's time to vote principle. If we all vote principle, I think we'd see a drastically changed government. If we don't begin to vote principle... I promise, we will see a government without liberty, without representation, without any sort of leash by the people.
But this doesn't just apply to presidential politics. I'm voting against my federal representative, Vern Ehlers, as well. He voted for a socialistic bailout despite the overwhelming outcry of his constituents. While I don't agree with other stances he's taken, I think that this one unrepentant act is enough reason to throw him out. There's a saying... if a dog bites once, put him down, because he will surely bite again. When a representative politician betrays the constitution and his constituents once, he'll do it again. It's time we fire him.
That's why I am voting for Erwin Haas, Libertarian for congress. If we want actual change, let me tell you, it will not come from the two corporate parties. The best friend of the Republican is the Democrat, and the best friend of the Democrat is the Republican.
Vote your principle, and vote the constitution. A novelle thought, no?
I can't tell you how many times I've heard these words in the last three elections, and sadly, I followed right along. Both sides say it, and both sides say it because they know their constituents are sick to death of their parties, and they fear a revolt.
While it's not easy to vote for a third party candidate, it's the right thing to do when there is no candidate who seeks to preserve the constitution. There are so many disenfranchised democrats and republicans, that if people actually voted their principle, we would see a huge voting block for third parties.
I love how we will show our disdain for our current nominee by... voting for him. That'll teach him. I think McCain is dangerous as well as Obama. McCain, like Obama has a bad history, a la the Keating five, but I'm most concerned with policy. The fact is that McCain, like Bush, is a Neocon. In the past number of years, the Neocons have inflated the dollar to unprecedented amounts, trampled on the 4th ammendment, began talks on the North American Union (and the Amero), went to war unconstitutionally, betrayed our border guards Campeon and Ramos, did nothing to quell illegal immigration, expanded federal bureaucracies, expanded the fed, bought stock in private companies (Socialism!)... etc. (there's more... a lot more, sadly)
I understand that my vote may contribute to one evil being elected... but that's not the point. Whether I take arsenic or drano... I'm still dead. Pick your poison. To think that we will prevent the rapid unprecedented expansion of federal power (the one thing both parties agree on) by doing the same thing we've been doing is insane. It's time to vote principle. If we all vote principle, I think we'd see a drastically changed government. If we don't begin to vote principle... I promise, we will see a government without liberty, without representation, without any sort of leash by the people.
But this doesn't just apply to presidential politics. I'm voting against my federal representative, Vern Ehlers, as well. He voted for a socialistic bailout despite the overwhelming outcry of his constituents. While I don't agree with other stances he's taken, I think that this one unrepentant act is enough reason to throw him out. There's a saying... if a dog bites once, put him down, because he will surely bite again. When a representative politician betrays the constitution and his constituents once, he'll do it again. It's time we fire him.
That's why I am voting for Erwin Haas, Libertarian for congress. If we want actual change, let me tell you, it will not come from the two corporate parties. The best friend of the Republican is the Democrat, and the best friend of the Democrat is the Republican.
Vote your principle, and vote the constitution. A novelle thought, no?
Oct 22, 2008
Three's a Crowd...
By: Nate Asper
In his farewell address, President George Washington warned the nation about the dangers of the party system in politics. His prediction has indeed come true as America today is a country divided. Democrat vs. Republican. No middle ground. Two large umbrellas under which all Americans are expected to fit.
While I whole heartedly agree with our first president, the situation in America in 2008 presents many of us with an interesting dilemma. I, among many others, am a strong conservative who would have once considered themselves in alignment with the Republican party. While I currently lay claim to no party membership whatsoever, my voting record would indicate a strong lean towards the Republicans. This year, conservatives were given John McCain, a moderate Republican who brags about how close he walks to the line separating Democrats and Republicans, and how he will even step over it once in a while. Senator McCain was not a man I was eager to throw my support behind. Looking across the aisle, we see the other choice Americans have, Senator Barack Obama. Senator Obama can often be found in the far back, dark corners of the Democrat party. A radical liberal and European style socialist, he is the last candidate a conservative like myself would ever vote for.
I know many conservatives like myself who see two candidates that they do not particularly like. The dilemma we face is this: do we vote for John McCain, a man who does not represent our views in many critical areas, or do we turn to a third party candidate such as Bob Barr, who aligns much closer with our views but has absolutely no chance to win this election.
My advice to conservatives struggling with this same issue is simple. Vote for John McCain. Doesn't that make me a sellout for not voting for the person that most closely aligns with my beliefs? It doesn't and I will tell you why. This election is unlike any other in our country's history. Barack Obama is NOT the greater of two evils. He is an evil unmatched by anything American politics has ever seen. He is not merely pro-choice, he is the most progressively pro-abortion candidate in history, going so far as to vote against a bill preventing infanticide. He is not merely weak on defense, he has past relationships to radical terrorists who have attacked America. His political career began in the living room of Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground terrorist organization. Obama and Ayers also shared an office for three years while working with ACORN. Obama blurbed Bill Ayers book filled with radical views. He is not merely for raising taxes, he is a pure European style socialist who has been caught on tape saying Americans need to "spread the wealth." His economic views threaten to take our country from crisis to bankrupt. Barack Obama transcends anything we have ever seen in this country. I do not like John McCain, but I don't fear him.
The bottom line is that either McCain or Obama will be our next president. Under most circumstances, I would lean towards voting for a third party candidate over a "conservative" candidate that does not align very closely with my beliefs. 2008 is not most circumstances. I am an American first and foremost and when necessary I will vote to protect America. I will vote to protect my country from the purely radical dangerous figures like Barack Obama. For those conservatives who are considering voting third party, remember one very important thing about your vote. It will benefit one of the two major party candidates. It absolutely will. Barack Obama would be thrilled to know that you are voting third party.
This country needs a revolution. A Constitutional Revolution. A conservative revolution. Such a revolution will take a giant step backwards if Barack Obama becomes our next president. The most liberal and radical president ever, working alongside the most liberal Congress ever threatens to damage America in unprecedented ways. Revolutionize this country we must, and the first step is ensuring that this radical does not assume the presidency.
In his farewell address, President George Washington warned the nation about the dangers of the party system in politics. His prediction has indeed come true as America today is a country divided. Democrat vs. Republican. No middle ground. Two large umbrellas under which all Americans are expected to fit.
While I whole heartedly agree with our first president, the situation in America in 2008 presents many of us with an interesting dilemma. I, among many others, am a strong conservative who would have once considered themselves in alignment with the Republican party. While I currently lay claim to no party membership whatsoever, my voting record would indicate a strong lean towards the Republicans. This year, conservatives were given John McCain, a moderate Republican who brags about how close he walks to the line separating Democrats and Republicans, and how he will even step over it once in a while. Senator McCain was not a man I was eager to throw my support behind. Looking across the aisle, we see the other choice Americans have, Senator Barack Obama. Senator Obama can often be found in the far back, dark corners of the Democrat party. A radical liberal and European style socialist, he is the last candidate a conservative like myself would ever vote for.
I know many conservatives like myself who see two candidates that they do not particularly like. The dilemma we face is this: do we vote for John McCain, a man who does not represent our views in many critical areas, or do we turn to a third party candidate such as Bob Barr, who aligns much closer with our views but has absolutely no chance to win this election.
My advice to conservatives struggling with this same issue is simple. Vote for John McCain. Doesn't that make me a sellout for not voting for the person that most closely aligns with my beliefs? It doesn't and I will tell you why. This election is unlike any other in our country's history. Barack Obama is NOT the greater of two evils. He is an evil unmatched by anything American politics has ever seen. He is not merely pro-choice, he is the most progressively pro-abortion candidate in history, going so far as to vote against a bill preventing infanticide. He is not merely weak on defense, he has past relationships to radical terrorists who have attacked America. His political career began in the living room of Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground terrorist organization. Obama and Ayers also shared an office for three years while working with ACORN. Obama blurbed Bill Ayers book filled with radical views. He is not merely for raising taxes, he is a pure European style socialist who has been caught on tape saying Americans need to "spread the wealth." His economic views threaten to take our country from crisis to bankrupt. Barack Obama transcends anything we have ever seen in this country. I do not like John McCain, but I don't fear him.
The bottom line is that either McCain or Obama will be our next president. Under most circumstances, I would lean towards voting for a third party candidate over a "conservative" candidate that does not align very closely with my beliefs. 2008 is not most circumstances. I am an American first and foremost and when necessary I will vote to protect America. I will vote to protect my country from the purely radical dangerous figures like Barack Obama. For those conservatives who are considering voting third party, remember one very important thing about your vote. It will benefit one of the two major party candidates. It absolutely will. Barack Obama would be thrilled to know that you are voting third party.
This country needs a revolution. A Constitutional Revolution. A conservative revolution. Such a revolution will take a giant step backwards if Barack Obama becomes our next president. The most liberal and radical president ever, working alongside the most liberal Congress ever threatens to damage America in unprecedented ways. Revolutionize this country we must, and the first step is ensuring that this radical does not assume the presidency.
Oct 16, 2008
Show Me Your Friends
And I'll show you your future.
by Phil Lowe
Franklin Raines
ex-Chariman and CEO of Fannie Mae. Walked away from Fannie Mae with $90-Million golden parachute. Raines is currently an advisor the Obama campaign.
Tim Howard
ex-CEO of Fannie Mae. Walked away from Fannie Mae with $20-Million golden parachute. Howard is now a Cheif Economic Advisor to Obama.
Jim Johnson
ex-CEO of Fannie Mae. Walked away from Fannie Mae with $28-Million golden parachute. Johnson is Senior Obama Finance Advisor and ran Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
by Phil Lowe
Franklin Raines
ex-Chariman and CEO of Fannie Mae. Walked away from Fannie Mae with $90-Million golden parachute. Raines is currently an advisor the Obama campaign.
Tim Howard
ex-CEO of Fannie Mae. Walked away from Fannie Mae with $20-Million golden parachute. Howard is now a Cheif Economic Advisor to Obama.
Jim Johnson
ex-CEO of Fannie Mae. Walked away from Fannie Mae with $28-Million golden parachute. Johnson is Senior Obama Finance Advisor and ran Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
In light of the recent presidential debate.
This is a repost from a blog I wrote earlier. I thought it would be good to repost this after the final debate. Just remember why 3rd party candidates are not allowed... My vote is for Chuck Baldwin!
by Mitchell Crane
In light of the recent debate, I asked myself why third party candidates are not “invited” to presidential debates. Until recently, I had no real understanding of this situation. So I did my due diligence. I found out that the Commission on Presidential Debates was founded in 1987. Their organization was founded to “educate” the voters. Cha.
So Prior to the CPD, who hosted Presidential Debates? The League of Women Voters. They were actually supposed to host the 1988 presidential debates. Instead they released a statement why they were not. This is that statement, directly from the LWV:
Couldn’t have said it better myself! Why would the League of Women Voters release that statement? That was because the two presidential candidates in the 1988 elections; George H.W. Douchebag (Bush, the father of one of the tyrannical presidents of all time), and Michael “kaka” Dukakis (sorry, those are my own personal nicknames) reached a “Memorandum of Understanding”. What this entails is basically this: They could decide which candidates participated in the debate, which panelists were allowed (and therefore controlling which questions are asked), and even the height of the podiums. Take it for what it is, it’s an infringement on our Freedom!
In 2000, the CPD instituted a new rule that only a candidate with more than 15% support can participate in a presidential debate. Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit against the CPD citing it is a violation of the Federal Election Campaigns act. Not to mention a violation of our basic freedoms, and distorting the truth.
The reason they are not allowed to participate is they don’t want them to challenge the status quo. The Federal Government now has enough powers to take away most of our freedoms in the constitution. If you don’t think so, do your research, and think again. The message of Freedom and Liberty is a powerful one, if it catches fire again like it did when this country was first founded, we can put America back on the right track. In closing, I think everyone should petition or send a letter to your congressman/woman and the CPD requesting that all presidential candidates be invited to participate. You can do that through www.congress.org
P.S. A little tidbit of information… the two co-chairman of the CPD are:
Paul G. Kirk, JR. – Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, JR. – Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee
Resources (I really recommend the LWV press release!):
League of Women Voters Press Release from Oct. 3rd 1988.
The Commission on (controlling) Presidential Debates
Federal Election Campaign Act
Paul G. Kirk, JR.
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, JR.
by Mitchell Crane
In light of the recent debate, I asked myself why third party candidates are not “invited” to presidential debates. Until recently, I had no real understanding of this situation. So I did my due diligence. I found out that the Commission on Presidential Debates was founded in 1987. Their organization was founded to “educate” the voters. Cha.
So Prior to the CPD, who hosted Presidential Debates? The League of Women Voters. They were actually supposed to host the 1988 presidential debates. Instead they released a statement why they were not. This is that statement, directly from the LWV:
“The demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself! Why would the League of Women Voters release that statement? That was because the two presidential candidates in the 1988 elections; George H.W. Douchebag (Bush, the father of one of the tyrannical presidents of all time), and Michael “kaka” Dukakis (sorry, those are my own personal nicknames) reached a “Memorandum of Understanding”. What this entails is basically this: They could decide which candidates participated in the debate, which panelists were allowed (and therefore controlling which questions are asked), and even the height of the podiums. Take it for what it is, it’s an infringement on our Freedom!
In 2000, the CPD instituted a new rule that only a candidate with more than 15% support can participate in a presidential debate. Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit against the CPD citing it is a violation of the Federal Election Campaigns act. Not to mention a violation of our basic freedoms, and distorting the truth.
The reason they are not allowed to participate is they don’t want them to challenge the status quo. The Federal Government now has enough powers to take away most of our freedoms in the constitution. If you don’t think so, do your research, and think again. The message of Freedom and Liberty is a powerful one, if it catches fire again like it did when this country was first founded, we can put America back on the right track. In closing, I think everyone should petition or send a letter to your congressman/woman and the CPD requesting that all presidential candidates be invited to participate. You can do that through www.congress.org
P.S. A little tidbit of information… the two co-chairman of the CPD are:
Paul G. Kirk, JR. – Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, JR. – Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee
Resources (I really recommend the LWV press release!):
League of Women Voters Press Release from Oct. 3rd 1988.
The Commission on (controlling) Presidential Debates
Federal Election Campaign Act
Paul G. Kirk, JR.
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, JR.
Presidential Comparison - Economy/Bailout
by Mitchell Crane
So the media has given you two options. John Obama, and Barack McCain. Sorry, John McCain and Barack Obama. People will argue to the ends of the earth that these two are very different. While their skin color and age (McCain’s a geezer!) may differ, their political stances are actually so close it could be considered scary. Now you may not find this by reading their web pages, but instead by watching their voting records. Remember folks, actions speak louder than words.
So let’s take a look at the things that made
So with each of these comparative blogs, I’ll take a quick glance at a piece of legislation, or a stance on a position. During these comparisons, I will try to back everything up with fact.
So how do our candidates compare on the bailout issue? For starters, we do know that BOTH candidates voted YES on the “bailout” (nice term for nationalizing banks, eh?). For proof that both candidates voted “YES”, go to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213. Read my previous post of the CNN article Jeffery Miron wrote. He talks about how dangerous this will be, and how politics will effect the banking industry.
By the way, presidential candidates Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin STRONGLY opposed these bills.
Oct 15, 2008
CNN: Why this bailout is as bad as the last one
This from an editor at CNN, and an excellent read might I add!
Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders opposing the government bailout plan.
Economist Jeffrey Miron says the government bailouts of banks will hide problems and spread inefficiency.
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Ten days after passage of its $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, the U.S. Treasury has announced that it will implement this program, in part, by giving banks $250 billion in return for shares of their stock.
In other words, the U.S. government will acquire a significant ownership stake in the banking sector.
The goal of this stock purchase is to "inject liquidity." This will, in principle, improve bank solvency and increase bank lending, thereby minimizing the chance of a recession.
This approach appears to be favored by the Treasury over the previously announced strategy of buying "troubled assets" from banks. The Treasury is also planning to guarantee new bank debt and expand insurance of bank deposits.
Alas, the new approach is no better than the first. Here's why.
If banks were fundamentally sound but temporarily in need of cash, they could sell stock on their own to private investors. Few investors now want bank stock, however, because they cannot tell which banks are merely illiquid -- short of cash for new loans because their assets are temporarily sellable only at fire-sale prices -- and which are fundamentally insolvent -- short of cash and holding assets whose fundamental values are less than the bank's liabilities.
This lack of transparency is a crucial impediment to new investment, and therefore to new lending.
Don't Miss
Government injection of cash, however, does little to improve transparency. A bank with complicated, depreciated assets is in much the same position after the government gives it cash as it was before, since outside investors will still have limited information about the solvency of any individual bank.
Perhaps the new cash will spur the sale of bad assets, or nudge banks to reveal their balance sheets, but that is far from obvious. Banks, moreover, might remain cautious even with this increased liquidity simply because of uncertainty about the economy. Thus it is hard to know whether cash injections will actually spur bank lending.
In any event, government ownership of banks has frightening long-term implications, whether or not it alleviates the credit crunch.
Government ownership means that political forces will determine who wins and who loses in the banking sector. The government, for example, will push banks to aid borrowers with poor credit histories, to subsidize politically connected industries, and to lend in the districts of powerful members of Congress. All of this is horrible for economic efficiency.
Government pressure will be difficult for banks to resist, since the government can both threaten to withdraw its ownership stake or promise further injections whenever it wants to modify bank behavior. Banks will respond by accommodating government objectives in exchange for continued financial support. This is crony capitalism, pure and simple. iReport.com: What do you think about the bailout?
Government ownership of banks will not be a temporary expedient. Politicians can swear they will unwind the government's position once "economic conditions improve," but no one can enforce this promise. The temptation to use banks as a political tool will be permanent, not temporary, so government ownership will continue for decades, or forever.
Worse yet, government ownership of banks sets a precedent for ownership in every industry that suffers economic hardship. Some might argue that banking is "essential," but many industries -- autos, steel, computers or agriculture -- will make similar claims when it is their turn to demand a bailout. Thus banking will be only the first victim in an enormous expansion of the government's role. This again will have disastrous consequences for economic efficiency.
Last but not least, a government "injection of liquidity" is still a bailout in all but name.
The injection means that banks get cash, and they get it now. This benefits current stockholders and bondholders, which is why stocks have jumped on news of the injections. iReport.com: Check out a cartoonist's take on the Wall Street crisis
The government, however, gets stock that might end up being worthless, since some banks will fail anyway. The government gets stock that may never trade in a market or have its value determined by fundamentals. The government gets stock that it cannot sell for years, if ever, without generating turbulence in asset markets as investors interpret the government's decisions or position themselves to profit from them.
Government purchase of bank stock, therefore, is a transfer from taxpayers to people who took huge risks and lost. The United States, and the world, got into the current mess by trying to insure away risk, which everyone should have known was a fool's errand. Thus bailing out risk-taking -- or providing new guarantees for loans and deposits -- will generate even greater problems down the line.
It is time for the government to do the one thing it does well: nothing at all. This might mean serious economic pain in the short term, as more banks fail and the economy suffers through a recession. As for a cancer patient who has a tumor removed, however, the long-term benefit will more than compensate.
Tonight's Debate... my take
Argh. What I wouldn't give to have a Presidential debate moderator like Ron Paul, or Jesse Ventura, or.... me! ... but I digress...
"I was the first to bring climate change to the senate." (in other words, I was first to bring up the idea of regulating 'carbon output' at the federal level)
"I would use 300 Billion dollars to buy up bad loans." (My advice to you homeowners who pay their mortgages... stop! The government will take care of it.)
"I voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg." (Ginsburg believed in changing the age of consent to 11. ELEVEN!)
"I will give a 5,000 tax credit for healthcare to every American." (Like Ron Paul says, when the government subsidizes something, you'll get more of it. For example, in this case, insurance will simply go up as it has at the advent of Medicade... etc)
Why is it he doesn't bring up the constitution... ever?
"If you oil companies don't use land, then you'll lose it!" (Wow! I didn't realize they were borrowing private property from the government. Ownership of property is a huge requirement for a free nation, and this idea that we are simply leasing land is becoming more and more pervasive)
"I will give 95% of Americans a tax credit." (Lemme translate. People who don't pay taxes will get money from taxpayers. No matter where you stand, socialist, capitalist, fascist... the fact is, the constitution does not allow for a 'Robin Hood' program)
"I will invest..." (He said this a lot. I think it's great that he'll invest. Wow, I wonder how much he'll invest. [someone whispers in Adam's ear] Oh. Oh, he's not investing his money? He's investing our money? Wow! That's swell.)
Why is it he doesn't bring up the constitution... ever? Well, actually, he did bring it up once tonight. The 'right to privacy', which I assume he means the 4th amendment, no illegal search and seizure. Problem is, he's already trampled on that amendment by voting for illegal, unconstitutional, warrantless wiretaps. Weird.
Ugh. I know a few guys that quote the constitution. Maybe you ought to consider them. Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, even Nader and McKinney would be better than these bought and sold corporate candidates.
Remember, voting for a third party candidate in whom you believe is not a waste. Voting for the lesser of two evils, a la, voting for someone that you don't believe in, is the true waste. Continue the revolution.
Here's what I heard tonight from McCain. For those conservatives out there who supposedly 'cling' to the constitution, this is what I heard...
"I am for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.""I was the first to bring climate change to the senate." (in other words, I was first to bring up the idea of regulating 'carbon output' at the federal level)
"I would use 300 Billion dollars to buy up bad loans." (My advice to you homeowners who pay their mortgages... stop! The government will take care of it.)
"I voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg." (Ginsburg believed in changing the age of consent to 11. ELEVEN!)
"I will give a 5,000 tax credit for healthcare to every American." (Like Ron Paul says, when the government subsidizes something, you'll get more of it. For example, in this case, insurance will simply go up as it has at the advent of Medicade... etc)
Why is it he doesn't bring up the constitution... ever?
For those Liberals who go weak in the knees every time Obama speaks, here's what I heard...
"I will force companies to take care of health insurance, or they will be fined." (Yikes! That's change I suppose.)"If you oil companies don't use land, then you'll lose it!" (Wow! I didn't realize they were borrowing private property from the government. Ownership of property is a huge requirement for a free nation, and this idea that we are simply leasing land is becoming more and more pervasive)
"I will give 95% of Americans a tax credit." (Lemme translate. People who don't pay taxes will get money from taxpayers. No matter where you stand, socialist, capitalist, fascist... the fact is, the constitution does not allow for a 'Robin Hood' program)
"I will invest..." (He said this a lot. I think it's great that he'll invest. Wow, I wonder how much he'll invest. [someone whispers in Adam's ear] Oh. Oh, he's not investing his money? He's investing our money? Wow! That's swell.)
Why is it he doesn't bring up the constitution... ever? Well, actually, he did bring it up once tonight. The 'right to privacy', which I assume he means the 4th amendment, no illegal search and seizure. Problem is, he's already trampled on that amendment by voting for illegal, unconstitutional, warrantless wiretaps. Weird.
Ugh. I know a few guys that quote the constitution. Maybe you ought to consider them. Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, even Nader and McKinney would be better than these bought and sold corporate candidates.
Remember, voting for a third party candidate in whom you believe is not a waste. Voting for the lesser of two evils, a la, voting for someone that you don't believe in, is the true waste. Continue the revolution.
Oct 13, 2008
A Wasted Vote?
by Chuck Baldwin October 10, 2008
When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.
In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."
Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!
Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?
But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.
With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.
I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!
So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out: BALDWIN '08
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.
In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."
Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!
Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Neither candidate will do anything to rid America of the Federal Reserve, or work to eliminate the personal income tax, or disband the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?
But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.
With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.
I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!
So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the US out of the UN. Someone who would stop spending billions and trillions of dollars for foreign aid. Someone who would prosecute the Wall Street bankers who defrauded the American people out of billions of dollars. Someone who would work to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and stop the NAFTA superhighway. Someone who would say a resounding "No" to the New World Order. Someone who would stop using our brave men and women in uniform as global cops for the United Nations. Someone who would stop America's global adventurism and interventionism. Someone who would steadfastly support and defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out: BALDWIN '08
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Oct 8, 2008
Yom Kippur
The day of atonement.
I'm not a believer in the Jewish religion, but I must say that I think the idea of atonement is one that strikes home across all humanity. While I stay frustrated at our constantly expanding government and the corruption and abuse that goes along with it, it's good to be reminded, even by another faith, to keep the real Power in mind.
Every day is a good day for atonement and reconciliation.
Ecclesiastes
I'm not a believer in the Jewish religion, but I must say that I think the idea of atonement is one that strikes home across all humanity. While I stay frustrated at our constantly expanding government and the corruption and abuse that goes along with it, it's good to be reminded, even by another faith, to keep the real Power in mind.
Every day is a good day for atonement and reconciliation.
Ecclesiastes
Oct 7, 2008
The Spiraling Cost of...
...Oil and Gas: Have gone up 108% since 1985. Plenty of real if not good reasons for the increase.
War, growing populations, advancement in China.
...Health Care: Has gone up 251% since 1985. I blame insurance companies and out-of-control lawyers for the bulk of this problem, though there are some other real reasons.
...College Education: Has gone up 439% since 1985. Reason? Government guaranteed loans.
War, growing populations, advancement in China.
...Health Care: Has gone up 251% since 1985. I blame insurance companies and out-of-control lawyers for the bulk of this problem, though there are some other real reasons.
...College Education: Has gone up 439% since 1985. Reason? Government guaranteed loans.
Oct 3, 2008
To know Adam
Dealing with Politics:
Do you feel the US Constitution as written is a static document or alive and subject to cultural evolution; to what extent?
The Constitution is a static document that has methods by which it can be changed. This is not what I think, this is a fact. Unfortunately, since the early to mid-20th century, we have stopped amending the constitution, and have simply relied on court rulings and assumed powers. The danger in all of this being that when we lose the power of the constitution, we lose our reigns on the federal government.
It's a shame that people forget that fact. Too often, we think the constitution gets in the way of progress, or even controls us, while, in fact, it is the document that controls the federal government by means of checks & balances. Sadly, it's as if we're the English begging the King to tear up the Magna Carta.
Like George Bush said, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
In light of the first question, what do you feel the job of the Federal Government should be in today’s world?
It should have little to nothing to do with "today's world". The fact is, the federal government needs to act as a Bulldog, telling the world not to mess with us, or else. We ought to mind our own business. The founders didn't want us to get involved with foreign entanglements.
The federal government, amendments pending, can only do what the constitution declares it can. The 10th amendment is clear on that issue. We've let federal power grow wild, and it needs to be reigned in. At this point, we've stopped being represented and where there is no representation, there can only be tyranny.
What has been your political growth, and how has the led to your current affiliation?
I've been a republican for most of my life. Growing up in NH, a libertarian state, I always thought that Republicans were simply Pro-life Libertarians. While this is true occasionally as in my hero Ron Paul, this has become farther and farther from the truth since the advent of the Neocons.
The Neocons of the 00s share the ideas of the Democrats of the 90s, and the Democrats of the 00s are the European Socialists of the 90s. Sadly, the greatest lesson I've learned politically in my years is that the best friend of the Republican is the Democrat and vise versa. This is illustrated in the prohibition of 3rd parties in debates, and the one thing upon which they both seem to agree anymore... expansion of federal power.
Who is your favorite president and why?
I suppose my favorite President would be Taft. The reason being that he understood how to limit government, and he understood what America's government's role in the world ought to be. I suppose I would consider myself a Jeffersonian in beliefs, as I find Hamilton's ideas appalling, and if you read the federalist papers, he was wrong again and again concerning the wishes of federal power and expansion.
On matters of Faith and Philosophy:
What has been more influential in your life, religion or philosophy; are they different?
I am a Christian. I believe in God and the forgiving power of Jesus. I believe that Jesus pushed Love Love Love. I do think that religion has no part in government, but I don't believe that religious politicians ought to be censored for their personal beliefs. We can't expect people to stop being who they are, and people are most defined by their faith.
That being said, I don't think that government should ever push a religion over another. We don't need a Constantine in Washington. The reason I think this is to put myself in other's shoes. Imagine if another faith attempted to impose their beliefs on us via the government. Faith can only be true if there is a free exchange of ideas, and can be chosen freely without any force.
Is your general outlook on life optimistic or pessimistic, or where in between do you fall?
I am pessimistic, a critic... I am just shy of cynical. I wish I wasn't. But I am. Deal with it.
Just for Fun:
What do you want to be when you grow up?
Ron Paul.
Do you feel the US Constitution as written is a static document or alive and subject to cultural evolution; to what extent?
The Constitution is a static document that has methods by which it can be changed. This is not what I think, this is a fact. Unfortunately, since the early to mid-20th century, we have stopped amending the constitution, and have simply relied on court rulings and assumed powers. The danger in all of this being that when we lose the power of the constitution, we lose our reigns on the federal government.
It's a shame that people forget that fact. Too often, we think the constitution gets in the way of progress, or even controls us, while, in fact, it is the document that controls the federal government by means of checks & balances. Sadly, it's as if we're the English begging the King to tear up the Magna Carta.
Like George Bush said, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
In light of the first question, what do you feel the job of the Federal Government should be in today’s world?
It should have little to nothing to do with "today's world". The fact is, the federal government needs to act as a Bulldog, telling the world not to mess with us, or else. We ought to mind our own business. The founders didn't want us to get involved with foreign entanglements.
The federal government, amendments pending, can only do what the constitution declares it can. The 10th amendment is clear on that issue. We've let federal power grow wild, and it needs to be reigned in. At this point, we've stopped being represented and where there is no representation, there can only be tyranny.
What has been your political growth, and how has the led to your current affiliation?
I've been a republican for most of my life. Growing up in NH, a libertarian state, I always thought that Republicans were simply Pro-life Libertarians. While this is true occasionally as in my hero Ron Paul, this has become farther and farther from the truth since the advent of the Neocons.
The Neocons of the 00s share the ideas of the Democrats of the 90s, and the Democrats of the 00s are the European Socialists of the 90s. Sadly, the greatest lesson I've learned politically in my years is that the best friend of the Republican is the Democrat and vise versa. This is illustrated in the prohibition of 3rd parties in debates, and the one thing upon which they both seem to agree anymore... expansion of federal power.
Who is your favorite president and why?
I suppose my favorite President would be Taft. The reason being that he understood how to limit government, and he understood what America's government's role in the world ought to be. I suppose I would consider myself a Jeffersonian in beliefs, as I find Hamilton's ideas appalling, and if you read the federalist papers, he was wrong again and again concerning the wishes of federal power and expansion.
On matters of Faith and Philosophy:
What has been more influential in your life, religion or philosophy; are they different?
I am a Christian. I believe in God and the forgiving power of Jesus. I believe that Jesus pushed Love Love Love. I do think that religion has no part in government, but I don't believe that religious politicians ought to be censored for their personal beliefs. We can't expect people to stop being who they are, and people are most defined by their faith.
That being said, I don't think that government should ever push a religion over another. We don't need a Constantine in Washington. The reason I think this is to put myself in other's shoes. Imagine if another faith attempted to impose their beliefs on us via the government. Faith can only be true if there is a free exchange of ideas, and can be chosen freely without any force.
Is your general outlook on life optimistic or pessimistic, or where in between do you fall?
I am pessimistic, a critic... I am just shy of cynical. I wish I wasn't. But I am. Deal with it.
Just for Fun:
What do you want to be when you grow up?
Ron Paul.
Ron Paul We Need You Now
Adam, I’m joining you buddy! I cannot vote for a man who says we need a 700 billion dollar bail-out plan (I’m sorry, and economic rescue plan) to save Wall Street and Washington from their own mistakes. I cannot vote for a man who campaigns on the issue of ending earmarks for bills and we end up with millions of dollars of earmarks.
John McCain could have won this election by standing up and saying how ridiculous this bill is. He could have told America what we really need to do to get back on track. Instead he listened to the party. He listened to the President. He listened to the people that got us into this mess in the first place, the whole time pointing their fingers at capitalism.
Why does a bill that is suppose to rescue our economy, because we spent too much money, need all of this stuff in it:
Section 309, tax credit for economic development in America, defined as American Samoa.
Section 503 gives tax breaks for the manufacturer of wooden arrows used in toys for children.
Price tag, $6 million
Section 325 provides essential tax breaks for the wool research fund.
Section 316, a tax break for railroad track maintenance.
Section 317, a tax break for racetracks.
Section 502, qualified television and film productions given an extension of favorable expensing rules.
Price tag, $10 million.
Section 111 provides for the expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credits.
Section 112, expansion and modification of the coal gasification project.
Section 113, increased funding for black lung disability fund.
Not to mention the $119 million dollars going to Caribbean Rum makers. Really?! That NEEDS to be in this package?!
I am amazed at the sheer audacity of the Senate. Hopefully with more calls, faxes, and emails, we can encourage the House to be the voice of reason again.
John McCain could have won this election by standing up and saying how ridiculous this bill is. He could have told America what we really need to do to get back on track. Instead he listened to the party. He listened to the President. He listened to the people that got us into this mess in the first place, the whole time pointing their fingers at capitalism.
Why does a bill that is suppose to rescue our economy, because we spent too much money, need all of this stuff in it:
Section 309, tax credit for economic development in America, defined as American Samoa.
Section 503 gives tax breaks for the manufacturer of wooden arrows used in toys for children.
Price tag, $6 million
Section 325 provides essential tax breaks for the wool research fund.
Section 316, a tax break for railroad track maintenance.
Section 317, a tax break for racetracks.
Section 502, qualified television and film productions given an extension of favorable expensing rules.
Price tag, $10 million.
Section 111 provides for the expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credits.
Section 112, expansion and modification of the coal gasification project.
Section 113, increased funding for black lung disability fund.
Not to mention the $119 million dollars going to Caribbean Rum makers. Really?! That NEEDS to be in this package?!
I am amazed at the sheer audacity of the Senate. Hopefully with more calls, faxes, and emails, we can encourage the House to be the voice of reason again.
Oct 1, 2008
To Know and be Known
Here are some questions; general, specific and varied for our contributors.
Dealing with Politics:
Do you feel the US Constitution as written is a static document or alive and subject to cultural evolution; to what extent?
In light of the first question, what do you feel the job of the Federal Government should be in today’s world?
What has been your political growth, and how has the led to your current affiliation?
Who is your favorite president and why?
On matters of Faith and Philosophy:
What has been more influential in your life, religion or philosophy; are they different?
Is your general outlook on life optimistic or pessimistic, or where in between do you fall?
Just for Fun:
What do you want to be when you grow up?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
