Goi Politics

Omnibus Spending Bill Passes

2009-03-10T17:36:00.000-07:00

"Dumb........"

-Old Spice Guy

Today, Senate passed an unprecedented 410 Billion dollars worth of spending which Obama will inevitable soon sign. If the bill was filled with money to fix our roads or social security program, i wouldn't be so mad. Instead, what the so-called "omnibus spending bill" is filled with barrels upon barrels of pork barrel projects. Notorious porker Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) inserted a whopping 123 million dollars worth of frivolous earmarks. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa), one of the few republicans who supported the stimulus package (and now supporting this spending bill) inserted a eye-popping 134 earmarks.

What happened to Obamas promises to stop earmarks and pork barrel spending? He has already confirmed that he will pass the bill shortly. The bill has a total of 8,750 disclosed earmarks worth 7.7 billion dollars. Here are a few examples of what our senators put in the bill (take a deep breath):

$800,000 for Oyster rehabilitation (Sen. Shelby, R)

$951,0o0 for "Sustainable Las Vegas (?), (Sen. Reid, D ; Rep. Berkely D)

$950,000 for Myrtle Beach Convention Center (Sen. Graham, R)

$200,000 for Oil Region Alliance. (Rep. Petersen, D)

And thats just the tip of the iceburg. So is there anybody with any integrity in the congress? Well Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is fighting to strip the bill of its ridiculous earmarks and Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) are going across party lines in protest of the bill. There is no one party who is the culprit here. Although Republicans definitely have more against the bill, Congressman on both side of the aisle are inserting earmarks and pushing the bill through to Obama. It's been barely two months since the 111th congress took over and already all those campaign promises of yester-year are gone with the wind.

2009-03-02T11:34:00.000-08:00

"A Conservative is someone who believes in

  1.   Life
2.   Personal Responsibility
3.   Less Government
4.   The Founding Principles"

-Jonathan Krohn

There is a lot of truth in this video. A lot of times, we conservatives stray from the true core and foundation of our ideology.

Quoted From the Bible, Matthew 7:24-27

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

We as a group will make the decision whether to be wise builders or foolish builders. Although Liberals scream that conservatism is dead, if we can stay true to our basic beliefs, conservative thought will never die.

Go to http://www.defineconservatism.com/ to learn more about Jonathan Krohn, a rising star in Conservative circles at just 14 years old!

Rush Limbaugh: Leading Voice or Polarizing Pundit

2009-03-02T10:54:00.000-08:00

“I hope Obama fails.”

-Rush Limbaugh

More and more Rush Limbaugh is becoming a rallying voice for conservatives and a huge target for liberals. In a speech to the CPAC last night, Limbaugh reiterated his desire for REAL fiscal responsibility and his hope that Obama and congressional liberals will fail.

At first glance, Limbaugh looks like a ridiculous polarizing figure. I mean who would want our President to fail? It goes deeper than that however. What Limbaugh really means is that he wants the policies and plans of Obama to fail. Why? Because they are ridiculous. Only 1 month into this presidency, Obama signed a 787 BILLION Dollar spending bill. The reason why we got into the recession in the first place is because people spent money they didn't have. Now, our government purports that it can magically save the economy by spending tons of money it doesn't have. Those Billions of dollars are gonna come from three sources: 1) Borrowed money from China 2) The American Taxpayers or 3) Printing more money (causing enormous inflation). In short the economic Stimulus is stupid.

So does Rush Limbaugh want this country to fail? NO! What he wants to fail is the whacked out policies of the government to fail. He wants spending bills to fail. He wants tax hikes to fail. And because of that i stand with him. There is however, one problem with Limbaugh's way of doing stuff: He isn't offering alternatives to the American people. In addition to voicing our opposition to Obama's plans, the Republican Party must offer alternatives. For example, we should tell the American people that we are for massive tax cuts on all levels. We should tell the American people that the power to reverse the economic downturn is in them, everyday Americans in the private sector and not in some government big shots. That is the base of fiscal conservatism and that is what we need to present as an alternative on Capitol Hill.

Wow!

2009-02-02T20:23:00.000-08:00

Yep, thats right, im back!

Since my leaving i would say that some semi-important events happened while i was gone....

Yeaaaah.......

Well anyway, im gonna try to start regularly blogging again so keep tabs on my blog...

Corruption rears its ugly head

2008-12-09T15:36:00.000-08:00

"With Great Power comes Great responsibility"

Ah, what a timelsess and memorable quote. Spiderman, Batman, and countless other heroes always live by this credo. So too do everyday americans. Throughout our lives, whether we know it or not, we are put in positions where our everyday desicions make a difference (Parents, small buisness owners, and pretty much everybody else) and because of this, 90% of us go through life exercising responsibility and care. So why can't dumb politicians do the same?

This is where we come to Gov. Rod Blagojevich. If you haven't heard yet, he tried to literally SELL a US senate seat (vacated by Obama) for money or political favors to willing candidates. If thats not stupid i do not know what is. He seriously either a) is absolutely stupid or b) is literally insane. Although i know many scumbag politicians have gotten away with some pretty shrewd stuff, this is above and beyond. Selling a US senate seat?? This is definitely a new low. I wonder Remember kids, Corruption NEVER pays. You'll either be punished here or by God.

Why the Long faces, pacifists?

2008-12-02T11:51:00.000-08:00

Robert Gates, Jim Jones, and Hillary Clinton. Hardly the Leftist Pacifistst that the democrats have always dreamed of in the white house (although i always thought "Moderate" Hillary was just a guise). Gates, although he is a independent, considers himself a republican and has fairly conservative foreign policy ideas. Jim Jones, a long time friend of John McCain and Hillary Clinton, Obama's former rival who he once denounced for approving the iraq war.

If these early hints are correct, it seems that Obama is planning to govern from the middle. This is both a relief for conservative who feared an ultra liberal socialist machine and it is a bummer for the radical left. If he continues to make moves like this, he will surely be pressured by liberals in congress to go farther to the left.

The reason why this is confusing is because as a senator, He was the most liberal senator in 2007. Was this just a move to woo democratic primary voters? Or does he still have a liberal agenda that he is waiting to pull on the american people? Only time will tell.

Bush the scapegoat

2008-11-24T22:26:00.000-08:00

Do you hate George W Bush? If so, why? Many cite that he sent us to Iraq while knowing that there was no reason to invade ("Bush Lied, Kids Died"). Others says he caused the huge budget deficit that we currently have. They also Blame him for the recession, McCains loss, and why their spouse is so crabby. Seriously, I could spend a whole day naming off the things that people think Bush did to make their life miserable. But the big question is this amazing wave of anti-bush actually warranted or called for?

In one word, no. Yes, i thought going into the Iraq war was a mistake, but A) he was given faulty intelligence and b) Congress (including a majority of Senate Democrats) authorized the Iraq Resolution. For those who opposed his continued support of staying the course, look at the surge. And for those who blame him for the economic downturn, well congress is just as responsible as him along with irresponsible, stupid, corporate fatcats.

Has bush made big mistakes? Yes. But so has every other president in recent memory. Bill Clinton Lying under oath, Bush Sr. and "Read my lips no new taxes", Reagan and the Iran Arms deal, Carter and "stagflation (among other things). Did that make them horrible, impeachable presidents? NO! So why is Bush hated so darn much? I think it is a mix of two factors. First, Americans wanting a scapegoat, and second, hollywood and culture pushing Bush as the reason for all the problems in our lives. In all that i have observed, it is extremely unpopular to like Bush. Pop culture has so encouraged us to scapegoat Bush for our problems that we have followed like dumb sheep.

Bush obviously has the best of intentions. He has shown to be a personable, god-believing, man who always wanted to do best for our country. Anybody with a brain can see that. So STOP HATING BUSH! He probably isn't the cause of your day to day problems so just cool it.

Why the Big Three Bailout is stupid

2008-11-20T09:34:00.000-08:00

The Big Three Bailout plan is stupid. Plain and simple. Why? Ok I'll brek down a couple problems with it

1) We're capitalists darn it

The Big Three execs. got so much money from the capitalist system that you would think they would be happy with it. Think again. Giving federal taxpayer money to big companies like GM is pure socialism. The capitalist theory is that the squeaky wheel gets nothing. The reason why you are failing is because you screwed up somewhere. Not our fault. It's only common sense that they failed. They were making cars (gas guzzling SUVs and Trucks) that the people didn't want If they fail, it will also be a lesson learned that you can't hold up a company when you're paying 30 dollars more per an hour than the japanese companies. That brings me to the next point.

2) What about the other companies?

So why aren't all the other automakers around the world getting bailouts? As it turns out, 50% of autoplants in the US are from companies other than the Big Three. Who would've known. The reason why they don't get bailouts is because they aren't failing. This is pretty much based on two points: a) The other companies actually make what people want to buy and b) They pay they're employees reasonable wages. Its only common sense that you dont pay your employees double what your competitors do. Plain and simple, the reason why we aren't proposing bailouts for the other companies (who create just as many jobs) is because they are succeeding. So a bailout for the Big Three is just a reward for failure.

3) Bankruptcy won't kill them

There have been many companies before that have survived a bankruptcy, so why can't the big three? I think that with bankruptcy, the automakers will realize what they did wrong and work to correct it. They will also cut a lot of things that aren't necessary and start fresh as a leaner, meaner company. The union workers will also realize (if the automakers go defunct and cut a lot of jobs) that its better to be payed the industry average than it is to have no job. It is not the job of the government to prevent natural events like bankruptcy. That is how the US economy works. If you don't like it, move to Sweden

4) How about the other industries

This one is pretty clear: How about all the other industries that are failing? Shouldn't we bail them out to? No. Thats why we shouldnt bail out the automakers either. The Buck stops here. No more bailouts. Period.

What Do you think? Feel Free to comment, and don't forget to follow me!

A good day for Dems

2008-11-18T21:56:00.000-08:00

Is the filibuster free 60 still in play? Probably not, though now that Stevens and Smith have lost, the republicans are mighty worried. I honestly think that the hope is unrealistic. Chambliss is fairly popular and if the independents split even,(or even close to that) he is sure to win. I also think that should the recount of the Minnesota senate race swing in comedian Al Franken's favor, the Secretary of state ought to be investigated.

Despite this, the democrats are already extremely powerful with their 58 senate seats. That's enough to ram through all but the most controversial legislation. So even if the Dems are stopped in Minnesota and Georgia, its a sad day for republicans and a happy day for democrats.

In other news, Sen. Joe Lieberman was allowed to keep his homeland security chairmanship. Although they probably wanted to expel Lieberman(Reid wanted to strangle him alive) from the caucus all together, they knew they might need him for future votes. He was stripped of his subcommittee in Environment and Public Works, which i honestly doubt he even cares about. Liberal bloggers across the nation are definitely angry, but it was clearly the smartest choice. Had Lieberman been stripped of his Homeland Security chair, he would probably have started caucusing with Republicans. Although some say that Lieberman is not needed in the new majority, i say they are short-sighted because: a) who knows when you'll need an extra vote and b) what if democrats lose there majority and need every man they can get? It definitely would be stupid to cut ties with Lieberman.

Since we're already talkin democrats, lets talk about the Secretary of State post. Obama is in a pickle here. Although he owes favors to Bill Richardson, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are both very powerful figures. Obama would probably personally prefer to pick Richardson, but he is facing a lot of political pressure to pick Clinton. So this is kind of a test: Is he the kind of guy who gets manipulated or the kind of guy who makes his own decisions?

The Neccessity of Ron Paul Republicans

2008-11-14T20:44:00.000-08:00

The Democrats had a heck of a campaign this season. Barack Obama, Gains in House and Senate, to name a few things. But the most amazing thing about this year's democrats was there youth support. So many young people were energized by Barack Obama's charisma. An overwhelming majority of youth voters voted for Barack Obama and generic democrats as opposed to John McCain and generic republicans. So the question is, are there any youth republicans.

The short answer is: Yes. Another short answer is: Ron Paul. Alright here's a little bit of background info for y'all. Ron Paul Started out in the beginning of 2007 as a little-known (borderline libertarian) Republican congressman from Texas. Then the revolution happened. Somehow, word spread like wildfire about Paul and his ideas. Millions of young people suddenly came out of no where with outspoken support for Paul.

Although he did have many supporters, he was never really a viable contender. But that's beside the point. The point is Paul's ideology. Somehow, his message of anti-intervention and fiscal conservatism had energized a corps of young people that we had previously presumed had just been liberals. If we were to entice that group within the folds of our party, who knows what will happen. We will have a new generation of republicans, and that voting power will mean a lot in the years to come.

Palin is not the future of the GOP

2008-11-13T10:37:00.000-08:00

I've got something for all you Palin lovers out there: Palin is not the future of the GOP. Although you could say republican governers are, Sarah is not. Sorry. Instead of showering one person who i doubt will actually get the nomination in 2012, much less the presidency, i say that the republican party look elsewhere. There are TONS of up and coming republicans that we should take a seond look at. Observing only Palin would not only be narrow-minded, it would be downright stupid.

There are many other republicans in the political world besides Palin, most of them governers. These include Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota governer, Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Governer, John Thune, South Dakota Senator, and Mike Huckabee Arkansas governer. All of these candidates are strongly conservative both socially and fiscally. They also are all(except Huckabee) under the age of 50.

If you think that Palin should be president in 2012, you, my friend, should wait a little bit more. You also have to factor in how well of a job Barack Obama does. If, in 2012, we are in an economic crisis, Mitt Romney would be an obvious choice. If we are in a Foreign Policy crisis, we will want a McCain-esque experienced candidate. If the American people are just tired of 4 years of failed democratic rule, any candidate will do.

What I am trying to get at here is that Palin is old news. The political world is a brutal place, and she has pretty much been ripped to shreds. We need new faces when 2012 comes around. Although i hate to write her off, i honestly dont believe that the american public wants to elect her. If she did run a campaign, i think it would fail for the same reason the John Edwards bid failed in 2008. He was old news. And so too will Palin be in 4 years.

The Arguement for Nuclear Power

2008-11-12T10:20:00.000-08:00

All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.

-Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

Why Nuclear? Nuclear Energy is clean, efficient, tried and tested, and renewable to name a few things. I honesty don't understand why the public and politicians continue to oppose Nuclear Energy. Nuclear will allow us to stop using foreign energy and start creating our power here, domestically. Environmentalists continue to whine that we pump too much carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. Then why not use Nuclear Energy? The only byproducts of Nuclear are steam, and a small amount of Nuclear waste.

This brings me to the topic of Nuclear Waste. Opponents of Nuclear Power continue to exaggerate it, acting as though the nuclear waste will kill anybody within a 500 mile radius. A 1000 megawatt reactor only creates 1.5 cubic meters of waste per year! This waste can then be encased in glass to prevent radiocactive leakage, then buried until no longer dangerously radioactive. The Plan in America is to bury the waste in the Nevada Bomb sites, already rife with radioactive byproducts from bomb testing, and is perfectly plausible because the land is already unsafe. However, enviormentalists and Nevada politicians like Harry Reid are blocking such measures.

One arguement against Nuclear Energy is that most emissions come from cars anyway, and you can't use Nuclear Power to power cars. I say you can. If we converted to electric cars, we could easily power cars with nuclear power. Not only would we be reducing carbon emissions, we would be filling up free(ever seen those Costco electric chargers). Also, since the government is giving tax credits to anybody using EV's(electric vehicals) We could buy our own at home chargers.

The main reasons why these two great ideas, nuclear power and electric cars, don't go forward is Big Oil. Oil companies know that Nuclear Power and electric cars will destroy there business so what do they do? They lobby politicians. And the politicians do nothing to help advance our country towards energy independence. Another reason why nuclear energy isn't liked by the public is because of an image of danger from popular culture (im looking at you, "Simpsons"). I just hope that America can look forward to a cleaner, brighter, and more efficient future with Nuclear Power instead of cozying up with big oil and foreign powers.

Infighting Rampant in GOP

2008-11-06T19:50:00.000-08:00

All over the news today were tell-tale sounds of GOP infighting. First of all, according to Fox News reporter Carl Cameron, McCain insiders are blaming Palin, saying she was inexperienced and did not even know the Africa was a country not a continent. Other McCain officials denied this but i wouldn't be surprised if it was true. And that's only the tip of the iceburg. Republicans all over the congressional spectrum were fighting to replace each other and calling others to stepdown. Sen. DeMitt (R-SC) is telling senate republicans to expel convicted Felon Sen. Ted Stevens. House Minority Leader John Boehner is dangerously close to losing his title to ambitious house republicans, and thats just the start.

Republicans of Congress, now is not the time to fight each other over petty things, now is the time to band together to fight the upcoming liberal policies of the Obama administration and a democratic congress. Unless republicans get their act together, they will lose even more seats in 2010, and thats the last thing America needs.

Over For Lieberman?

2008-11-06T08:32:00.000-08:00

Joe Lieberman is an important vote for this caucus."

-Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

Is it over for Joe Lieberman? Senator Lieberman pretty much spent the whole last year showering praises on McCain and bashing Obama's speeches, and the Dems are reasonably perturbed. Actually that's an understatement. They're pissed off. They would have just been slightly annoyed had Lieberman not spoken at the Republican National Convention. That was reaaallly did not sit well with the Democrats. Senator Lieberman and his good friend Senator McCain

Although Lieberman is technically an "independent Democrat" he caucuses with the democrats giving them a vital extra vote in many liberal measures that will barely squeak by in senate. With the 5 new seats though, that may no longer be even necessary. Because of this, Sen. Harry Reid might just kick him out of the democratic caucus meetings or he might go easier on him and just take away his leadership role in the Senate's Homeland Security Comitee. Then again he may just take no action at all.

Had John McCain been elected president, Lieberman would have been a key conduit between Senate Democrats and John McCain. They would call upon Lieberman to persuade McCain to make deals on a number of issues. However, since Obama has been elected and Democrats have a fairly sizeable majority in Senate, this is no longer an issue. Overall, i believe that Reid will strip Lieberman of his Comitee chairmanship but go no further than that. In case they need him in the future, Democrats (although very angry at him) must not totally alienate him. At the same time though, they need to send the message that running around and doing the things Lieberman did won't be let go without punishment. Is this Partisan and petty? Yes but that's how Washington works.

Draft Bobby Jindal for 2012

2008-11-05T14:26:00.000-08:00

Hahaha I'm already talking about 2012. Your question may be, isn't it time to put politics down for a second? My answer is no. Im a political junkie and this is what i do.

Ok back to the story. Bobby Jindal, the governer of Louisiana and the youngest governer in the United States. He has a record of stalwart social conservatism while having a stellar record on healthcare issues. He has extensive plans to reform medicare and was voted in unanimously by senate to be the "Assistant secretary of health and human services for planning and evaluation", the principal advisor to the secretary of Jindal at a political rally Health and Human services.

If the democrats say republicans are old and stodgy, the republicans show them Jindal. If the liberals say conservatives are racist, we show them Jindal. Should Obama completely and utterly fail in the next four years, the

Louisiana Governer Bobby Jindal at a political rally people will want a fresh breath of conservatism. Bobby will be the perfect delivere of this message in 2012. By then he will also be serving his second term as a governer, enough experience by anybodys standards (at least 10 times more than Barack). I will try to put up a Draft Jindal site within the next month. He may be the next Reagan for all we know!

Election Day Recap: President Obama, Democrat Congress

2008-11-05T10:08:00.001-08:00

One Party Rule of Obama, Reid and Pelosi

NOTE: I would like to start this article by congratulating Obama for his historic win and becoming the first African American to be elected president. I HOPE that he will do what's best for the country and not whats best for himself or the democratic party.

I know that last night republicans around the country at election turns as Barack Obama pulled ahead and Republican senate seats slipped away. Now we have a democratic president, a democratic house, and a democratic senate. As a result of this, far left bills like the fairness doctorine and bills to pull out of Iraq are sure to pass. Even if Obama takes a more centerist approach(which i doubt will actually happen) he will be hammered by the liberal base including Sen. Clinton, who although running a centerist campaign is a flamboyant liberal, Reid, the Ifluential (and idiotic) senate majority leader, Pelosi, the Speaker of the house, and countless other liberals. He will surely break under their pressure into signing bills that are not in the common interest of the US people.

So are there any upsides for republicans? Definitely. First of all, Democrats will not get their fillibuster free 60 senate seats they had hoped for. Instead, if Republicans win the 3 undecided races (likely), Democrats will only have 56 seats, four short of their goal. Republicans will breathe a huge sigh of relief at this because it means that theres at least some check for the liberals. At least they can't pass everything. Other good news for republicans is the fact that the last time democrats got elected in with a charismatic president and a liberal congress, they completely screwed themselves over. After the horrible job they did, thirty years of conservatism ensued (see Reagan, and the Bushes). Now im not hoping that bad things in america happen so that republicans get political gains but you see my point.

Although i trash talk Obama, i really hope that he can lead the country well. Besides, he's president and there's nothing that I or any other republican can do about it. America is at your mercy President Obama. Please don't ruin us.

All I've Got to say is........

2008-11-04T12:33:00.000-08:00

MAY THE MAN BEST FOR AMERICA WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

McCain and Obama: A breakdown, Issue by Issue

2008-11-03T09:09:00.000-08:00

Where do Mccain and Obama stand on the issues that us as Americans care about most? This issue breakdown will help you as a voter better understand who to vote for in this important election.

Energy Policy: Although McCain and Obama both say that they support reducing dependency on foreign oil they have very different approaches to this. Obama supports energy sources such as Ethanol and Solar to replace oil and coal. Although Obama does not oppose coal, he has said that under his cap plans coal companies could go bankrupt. John McCain's energy plan focuses on drilling offshore and using nuclear energy. While Obama opposes building new nuclear power plants, McCain says we need to build forty or more new nuclear plants. Overall, i think McCain's energy plan is more practical and responsible than Obama's

Winner: McCain

Foreign Policy: John McCain and Barack Obama are pretty much complete opposites when it comes to foreign policy. Obama favors negotiation (without precondition) with foreign leaders like Kim Jong Il and Amhadenijad, and making better relations with liberal European powers. Regarding Aghgainstan and Iraq, Obama hopes to pull the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and also raising troop levels in Afghanistan. A big downside for Obama however, is his inexperience in foreign policy. He has been a senator for four years (two campaigning) and is still a novice in this area especially compared to McCain. Regarding foreign powers, McCain favors working together with friendly foreign powers like Britain, France (under Sarko), and Colombia while giving a cold shoulder to anti-American and socialist/communist countries like Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Since the surge strategy (which McCain supported and Obama opposed) worked in Iraq, McCain plans to use the same strategy for Afghanistan. Because of John McCain's experience, he edges out Obama in this category

Winner: McCain

Candidate for change: This category is very iffy and abstract, not concrete and transparent like the rest of the candidates. However if you think about it Conservative, the views which McCain holds, means keeping the traditional values of america while also playing it safe as far as economics goes, While liberal views, which Obama holds, means scrapping the social values of America and being risky with economic policy. So if you say that changing the very values on which America was founded on, i guess you could say that Obama is the candidate for change.

Winner: Obama

Tax Policy: Tax Policy is another issue on which McCain and Obama are night and day. Obama favors giving tax cuts to the "middle class" while raising taxes for those above "middle class". There are 2 problems with this plan. First, the "middle class" has been fuzzy in Obama's plan. First he said those making under 250,000 dollars a year, then he said 200,000 dollars a year, then Joe Biden said 150,000 dollars a year, then Bill Richardson, a political surrogate for Obama, said 120,000 dollars a year. The second problem with this policy is that it seems reminiscent of many socialist policies. When you tax the rich, the poor suffer. This is because if companies have more money, they can pay higher wages and give better benefits to their workers. We don't want to discourage the very businesses that keep us employed. McCain's tax policy is that everybody gets a tax cuts. There are a couple problems with this policy too. First of all, McCain is going to find that the amount of money that the government has just wont cut it. We need to fix roads, fix our education, take care of our veterans, and much much more. Lower taxes means that the government has less money to spend. That may be a good thing but it will also make us have to cut on the essentials which is not acceptable. Because i think that neither candidate is really going to cut taxes, I'm going to make this a tie.

Winner: Neither

The 2nd amendment: With gun control laws going way overboard these days, it is important to have a president that will veto ridiculous things like hand gun bans. Since Obama is a classic liberal, he of course opposes 2nd amendment rights and supports gun control laws. Of course he doesnt publicly say this but if you look at his senate record, its all there. McCain on the other hand is fairly consistent in support of 2nd amendment rights. Although he did vote yes on some assault weapon bans, overall he supports the bill of rights. Because of this McCain is the victor in this category

Winner: McCain

Abortion: Since there are only really two choices here as far as abortion goes, what really matters is what you personally believe. Barack Obama has consistently been Pro-Choice as his voting record shows. However, he voted no on a bill to take care of babies from failed 3rd term abortions. I find that downright wrong. Regardless, Obama is your candidate if you are pro-choice person. McCain on the other hand is strongly Pro-life. He believes that we should overturn Roe v Wade and allow the states to decide how they are going to handle the abortion issue. Overall this issue really just depends on what you believe

Winner: Depends

I could go on about some of the other issues in our society like school-vouchers and gay marriage but on all the issues besides the ones listed above, the candidates basically fall in with the rest of their party. So its really just an ideological thing. Do you believe in traditional values and tax breaks or do you believe in leaving old values and tax increases? Despite this I give my endorsement to John McCain. He is the most responsible and experienced candidate who will lead America in the right direction. Obama just isn't ready for the Oval Office.

Don't Count him out

2008-10-30T09:39:00.000-07:00

Can John Mccain beat the odds? Well lets take a look at history. In 8 of the past 14 presidential elections, more than half, late october poll numbers were horribly mangled and incorrect. In those 8 elections, the presidential race either completely flipped or tightened up (up to 12 points). On average, the elections were about 3 points closer to 50-50 than expected.

However this race is so different in so many ways. There are factors that can unpredictably in either way for these candidates. First lets talk about race. Yes, its a taboo subject but it will inevitably change this race. The race factor could either swing the election towards Obama or McCain depending on things like the Bradley effect, and whether more african-americans will go out out vote in key battleground states.

In 1982, California Gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley (an African American) was steadily ahead in poll numbers and was heavily favored to win the election. Come election day however, The race was much tighter than expected and eventually it slipped away from Bradley. This started the theory of the so-called "Bradley effect". The gist is that people being polled will say that they will vote for an african american candidate(for fear of seeming racist) but in the privacy of the voting booth will actually vote for the white candidate. There are however, several things that will probably make the bradley effect less prominent in this election cycle. First, Americans as a whole have become more comfortable with african-americans. Because of this, recent elections seemed to show that race had little effect. Second, there may be a reverse-bradley effect in which white voters dont publicly affirm that they would vote for a black candidate but in the voting booth do. All of this will probably cancel out each other and not have too much effect.

Another major issue in this election is the accuracy of the polls. Many of the polls are ridiculously out of the magin of error (one showing Obama leading by three, one showing Obama leading by 15) many of the polls include voters that say that they "might" vote. That pretty much means they wont, and i think a lot of young people belong to that category.

That brings me to young people. This campaign seems to have completely buzzed up the college students and young people of america, and they are heavily in favor of Barack Obama. As a result of an expected high turnout i believe that the polls are artificially inflated in Obama's favor when because young people probablly will be too lazy to vote as always. It truly is sad but its a fact of life.

In essence, what i am saying is that the polls are most likely off by a few points. Because of this, there may be more going on than meets the eye. Take Pennsylvania for example. Although the real clear politics polling average shows Obama up by 9 points, both Mccain and Obama are fiercely fighting for the state. Is there a chance for a Mccain win? Only time will tell. Theres definitely mischief afoot here.

Palin looking at 2012 run?

2008-10-29T22:19:00.000-07:00

: Absolutely not. I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught.

-VP nominee Sarah Palin, 10.29.08

Is Palin prepping for a 2012 run should John Mccain lose this election? well she sure is hinting at it(*wink, wink). Although she denounced the thought that Mccain might lose next week, Palin did say that she would stay on the national stage, which could include running for prez in 2012. Lord knows that she can energize the republican base. I think that even if Mccain lost this year, most republicans would blame it on Mccain, not Palin, and since she is well known and respected, she could easily win a potential 2012 nomination.

If John Mccain is elected, he may choose to quit in 2012 for age or health, or personal reasons. Should that happen, she would be a virtual shoo in in the primaries and a probable winner in the general election (Clinton, Palin 2012? Who knows). The main thing is, Palin is going to stay on the national scene either as the Vice President or as a future candidate for office. Love her or hate her, shes here to stay.

The importance of voting

2008-10-28T21:35:00.000-07:00

Why Vote? You've got better ways to spend your Tuesday evening, right? WRONG!(as Arnold Schwarzenegger would say) Voting is one of the key pillars to our society. People in dozens of countries like China, North Korea, Somalia, and yes, Russia (current day!) have given their lives to fight for the right to vote, yet we Americans blow it off as something that won't effect our lives. If you don't vote you are a bad citizen and a bad person. NO EXCUSES. I personally am a minor and not allowed to vote so I urge you to at least vote for my sake and make your voice heard. I don't care who or what you vote for just vote! Is that too much to ask?????

Although some people say that regardless of who wins everything will be the same, that is patently false. The first step to voter supression is the people losing the will to vote. You voting for the candidate you think is right may be the difference between a communist dictatorship and a nation to be proud of. VOTE HERE, VOTE NOW! alright! IM SERIOUS. Voter turnout in the US is on average 54 %. That means one half of you out there dont even feel like they need to fufill their obligations as citizens of the United States. It is unacceptable and outrageous. Anybody that is reading this and didn't register to vote should be ashamed of themselves. Men and Women die overseas in Iraq and Aghganistan everyday to protect our right to vote and have our voice heard. Do you want those deaths to mean nothing?

My point is:

GO OUT AND VOTE!!!!! (IF YOU STILL CAN!!!!!!)

Obama Bombshell dropped, MSM silent

2008-10-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

param>param>src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iivL4c_3pck&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

""The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical, it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted .... And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,""

-Barack Obama in a Radio interview, 2008

Warren Court not radical? HAHAHAHAHA! Good one Barack! Although the Warren Court made strides in Racial desegregation, there policies on crime and religion in schools was down right ridiculous and uncalled for. Because of their radical views on imprisonment and confessions, they caused the huge uptick crime during the 60s and 70s. Nobody knows exactly how much blood lies on the hands of the Warren Court.

Despite this Barack Obama thinks that it was tragic that they didn't go far enough. Obama suggests that the civil rights movement and the Warren Court fell short because they failed to redistribute the wealth of the US people. However, he said that it is still possible to redistribute income through legislation. This means that if Obama were to be elected, he would back a bill that would put into action Karl Marx's theory that "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I don't know about that but i think that defaces all of the policies that the founding fathers worked so hard to preserve. We don't need a socialist country and we do not need a socialist president.

Now the worst thing about this whole palooza is that the MSM (mainstream media) refuses to even talk about this story. The only news group running this potentially game-changing bombshell is Fox. This is downright unfair and stupid. This just supports my belief that 99 % of the media wants Obama to win the election. The first step to a communist nation is control of the media and the liberals already have that. If the fairness doctrine is enacted, there's nothing stopping a liberal congress and a liberal president from turning this country from the leader of the free world to the leader of communism. WE MUST STOP THE LIBERALS

Mccain wins Pennsylvania? nah.

2008-10-24T10:26:00.000-07:00

"Unless we win Pennsylvania, I don't think (McCain) is elected president,

-Tom Ridge,

Its 10 days until election day and the GOP is definitely getting desperate. Mccain has made gains in key battleground states and in overall polls but its still not enough. Virigina now is edging toward an Obama win. Even on the off chance that Mccain manages to hold Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada, he still loses to Obama 272 to 266.

Mccain and pretty much every member of the GOP realizes this, and know they have to do something. So what are they doing now? Going for Pennsylvania! The Real Clear Politics Pennsylvania polling average shows Mccain trailing by 11 points. Im sorry Senator, but i dont think that you're gonna somehow generate 11 points in 10 days. Instead of defending Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and a host of other "Toss up" states, hes going for Pennsylvania.Now i know that its crunch time and everything but don't you think thats a little brash? Even if you managed to pull off a miracle win in a solidly democrat state, you would probably sacrifice Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia in the process.Thats a certain loss.

So what strategy would I recommend for Mccain? What i would do is first of all, give up on Pennsylvannia. Obamas got you there. Just give up, pull out all of your resources. Next Do everything you can to keep Colorado. There is no winning strategy for you without Colorado.Even if you win Virginia, Ohio, and Florida, you will still lose because of an electoral college tie (darned liberal congress!). Finally, Dump everything in Virginia. Trust that everything else (Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Indiana) will work in your favor and just go for Virginia. Virginia has a strong conservative base and has always been a red state. You can win Virgina. You need win Virgina. Don't have fantasies about winning Pennsylvania, a notoriously liberal state. Heck even Western Pennsylvania (probably the most republican part) voted Murtha into office! Instead hammer hard on Virgina which has a time tested record for being red.

Phew, well thats it! Check out my Obama reccomendation tomorrow.

The Fairness Doctorine

2008-10-22T22:07:00.002-07:00

The ironic thing about the so-called "Fairness Doctorine" is that it is so blatantly unfair, biased, and constitutionally wrong. So what is the fairness doctorine? Back in the day, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) enforced a rule that forced TV and Radio stations to show both sides of the issue. Sounds ok right? Think again. TV stations like CNN and MSNBC, both notoriously liberal stations would be left out because the FCC feels that they're already unbiased (lol!). In the meantime, Fox News and almost every talk radio show would be shut down unless they were equally conservative and liberal. Luckily, this measure was shut down unanimously by the FCC in 1987, but if Obama and a liberal dominated congress win this year, it is bound to be reinstated.

To actually enforcing people to air certain things on air is down right censorship. The liberals know all the talk radio shows will be shut down if they have to show both sides of the issue, and thats exactly what they're plan is. They want to shut the conservatives up. If Obama wins this year, there will be no one to block this legeslation, and we will be taking our first step to a censored, communist society.In my opinion Freedom of the Press also applies to TV and Radio stations. What are they going to do next, cause bloggers and websites to show both sides of the issue too? This is going way to far.

Economic Stimulus Package No. 2?

2008-10-21T10:16:00.003-07:00

Do we need another stimulus package? Do we really need make our deficit bigger? I think that there is a way to stimulate our economy without spending billions upon billions of dollars that we don't even have. Consider this. Already Gas has gone down a dollar. Now lets say that half of the people in America, 150 million, burn about 2 gallons or more of gas a day. If gas stayed one dollar cheaper, the group of 150 million would each save 2 extra dollars a day. That means that everyday an extra 300 million dollars is circulated around! Instead of a one time hit, it would be a constant flow of cash into the consumers of America!

Of course the question is how exactly are we going to do this? Well i propose a two pronged attack. First, we take ourselves off of foreign oil in volatile countrys. We do this by do this by drilling domestically NOW(so that we can have an actual product sooner) and importing oil from stable countries. This will prevent the sudden crude oil panics when a terrorist attack happens in some middle eastern country. Next, after we have switched to domestic oil, we power our cars electrically and with Natural Gas. These new fuel sources are A) clean B) domestic C) cheap D)practical and E) will cut the demand for gas and therefore make it cheaper.

Thats all there is too it! Opinons? Ideas? Complaints? Then Post comments!