Some Final Thoughts on Election 2008

America spoke. Obama was elected as President of the United States. I personally think it was a poor choice and I hope and pray that with the election out of the way Obama will abandon his far left rhetoric and shift to a more centrist stance during his time as President.

I wish Mike Huckabee had run against Obama. Huckabee had the personality and public speaking skills to counter Obama blow for blow. Huckabee also had some truly good ideas for America.

John McCain was extremely graceful in defeat and I wish his concession speech would get played as often as Obama’s victory speech.

The Democrats, while they gained in the House and Senate, did not get a super majority. That would have been a disaster. I hope that after dramatic losses in two straight elections that Republicans will realize that the abandonment of conservative principles (especially fiscal ones) is what has been their downfall. Hopefully, this election will force Republicans to return to small government, fiscal, and social conservatism.

Obama is now Commander in Chief and I hope, since he has no military experience, that he surrounds himself with unbiased advisors who understand the military.

Finally, George W. Bush can breathe a sigh of relief. I am one of a seemingly small number of Americans who think Bush has been a good president overall. I vehenmently disagree with the amount of spending and government expansion that he approved with his pen, but he played a huge role in helping to keep America from being attacked by terrorists again. We seem to have lost sight of that, but I remember and I am grateful. I hope that as the years pass and people have time to reflect on his Presidency that people will remember his leadership during the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

President Bush has caught a lot of flack and taken a lot of blame for things that were not directly his fault. This opinion piece from The Wall Street journal offers a good perspective on the Bush presidency and why our treatment of him has been a disgrace and why he ultimately deserves our respect.

Here’s an excerpt from the WSJ piece Jeffrey Scott Shapiro:

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Joe the Plumber, Obama’s Socialistic Tax Plan, and Mike Huckabee

First, Joe the plumber. He’s become and overnight political celebrity and here is some video and commentary about the statement that brought him his five minutes of fame:

Also, note the discussion about Obama’s tax plan. The idea that 95% of American’s will get a tax cut sounds good until you consider how many American’s don’t pay taxes. You know those American’s that don’t pay taxes? Yes? You know whose money will be giving them those checks? Yours and mine. Obama wants to take my hard earned money and give it to other people as he sees fit. Sorry, but I think I’m a much better manager of my money than the government and I can support the needy by giving to my local church and to other charities. The government does not need to become a charity. My wife and I work hard for the money we have. We don’t live outside of our means and are nearly debt free (just a small amount on some of my student loans). Why should the government punish my wife and I and many other Americans for being responsible? The only thing that will come out of this is you will have more people not wanting to earn as much because of the higher taxes. Good job, government, tax our productivity even more and then give it to those who aren’t productive. That gives me great motivation to go out and work my tail off. Fair Tax anyone?

Mike Huckabee will have Joe the plumber on his show this Saturday. If you haven’t watched the show yet, be sure and check it out. It’s laid back gives Huckabee a good forum to talk about conservative issues.

Negative Ads: McCain or Obama, who has aired more?

Here is an interesting article from the Weekly Standard blog about which candidate has aired more negative ads. The last two paragraphs are the most interesting. Here in the link to the article.

—————————————————————–

The Media Narrative on McCain’s Negativity

During last night’s debate, Obama claimed that all of John McCain’s ads have been negative: Obama: And 100 percent, John, of your ads — 100 percent of them have been negative. McCain: It’s not true. Obama: It absolutely is true. And, now, I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply. But professor Ken Goldstein of the Wisconsin Advertising Project issues a statement that the candidates have aired about the same amount of negative ads: from June 4 to October 4, we found that 47 percent of the McCain spots were negative (completely focused on Obama), 26 percent were positive (completely focusing on his own personal story or on his issues or proposals) and 27 percent were contrast ads (a mix of positive and negative messages). But what about Obama? Our analysis reveals that 39 percent of all general election Obama TV ads have been positive (solely about his record, positions or personal story), 35 percent have been negative (solely focused on McCain) and 25 percent have been contrast ads – mixing a bit of both. So, on a proportional basis, the McCain campaign is and has been more negative than Obama. But, Obama has aired over 50,000 more ads than McCain. So, hasn’t he simply aired more of everything – including negative ads – than McCain has this year, or than anyone in history, as McCain may have alleged? If one just looks at pure airings of negative ads, McCain has aired more than Obama. If one allocates contrast ads as half positive and half negative or considers contrast ads as negative – as the Advertising Project does – the tone of the McCain and Obama campaigns has been absolutely identical. Posted by John McCormack at 02:56 PM 2008 | E-mail the author | E-mail article

A Solution to America’s Health Insurance Woes

I confess that there is a part of me that is libertarian. I generally don’t like government interference and I think many parts of American society are over-regulated. Politics in America is all about telling people what they want to hear and then delivering on it marginally enough to continue to get elected. Politicians simply repeat this over and over and end up spending entire lifetimes in the Washington political system.

Health care is one of the areas where we are being told what we want to hear. I absolutely abhor Obama’s plan and I think McCain’s is a much more workable plan by offering tax breaks and opening up the market so that people can shop for insurance across state lines. I think that increasing competition will bring prices down dramatically.

Now, one of the things you hear in political stump speeches is how people can’t afford health care so the government should give it to them. Well, the fact is that many of those people just don’t want to cut some of the pork out of their lifestyle so that they can afford it. Watch this video and tell me if you think the tax payer should foot the insurance bill so that people who spend hundreds of dollars a month on beer and clothes can have health insurance?

Obama = Alpha and Omega? What next…

Some people are losing their minds with this election. First we have elementary kids singing songs for Obama that sound eerily similar to a song you might here a children’s choir sing in a church musical. Now we have a group of middle schoolers calling Obama the “alpha and omega” another Christian term used to refer to God that means “beginning and end.”

I’m sure the McCain campaign has to be sitting around a conference table scratching their heads and wondering how you compete with a man who some people seem intent on making into some sort of savior-pseudo Christ-like figure.

Here is the text of a Fox News article on the issue:

——————————————————————————-

By Jennifer Lawinski

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 06, 2008

A middle school teacher in Missouri was suspended  Monday for putting a video on YouTube of his students chanting lines from Barack Obama speeches and wearing military fatigues.

The video, called “Obama Youth — Junior Fraternity Regiment,” was posted by a YouTube user named “keepitwildtv” on Oct. 2. The school learned the video was on the Internet and took action against the teacher Monday morning.

Joyce McGautha, superintendent of the Urban Community Leadership Academy, a charter school for students in fifth through ninth grades in Kansas City, Mo., said that the video was probably taken last May during the Junior Fraternity’s morning meeting at the school.

She would not disclose the teacher’s name. “At this time because of the legal action that we’ll probably have to take against the teacher, I’m not going to give his name,” McGautha said.

Students at the school have 30-minute group sessions four times a week during which they are supposed to work on reading and writing. Once a week they are allowed to have “activities,” McGautha said. There are 12 groups at the public charter school.

The Junior Fraternity students studied Obama’s economic plan with the teacher, and the superintendent did not know whether the teacher or the students scripted the routine. The group should have also studied John McCain’s economic plan, the superintendent said.

In the video, eighth- and ninth-graders wearing military camouflage pants and navy t-shirts chant and perform a routine in the style of a step show, a dance popular among African-American fraternities at universities.

Click here to see photos of the group in action.

The students enter the room chanting “Alpha. Omega. Alpha. Omega.” Then, one at a time, they state things they were “inspired” to do by Barack Obama, including becoming an architect and a sheriff. At the end of the video, the students make statements about Obama’s healthcare plan. “Obama’s healthcare plan will be able to provide participants the ability to move from job to job without taking their healthcare coverage,” one says.

“People are upset that possibly taxpayer money is being used to support one particular candidate,” McGautha said, “and now I can understand that. And I didn’t condone them. I try very, very hard to remain within the limits of the law. I think this is unfortunate.”

She said she was aware of the video, and that many of the school’s activities are recorded, but that the teacher had been warned in a letter not to put it on the Internet. If he did, she said, he should seek legal counsel.

The teacher’s fate will be taken up by the charter school’s board, she said.

“Certain things don’t happen in public schools anyway, but there area lot of other ramifications when you take it public,” McGautha said.

“As far as [the teacher is] concerned, I think he gets what was supposed to come to him. But I don’t think the children should be the victims of his stupidity.”

———————————————————————–

Now, for your viewing pleasure…here’s the video

Live Blog of VP Debate

I will blogging about the VP debate live this evening! Hit f5 regularly to see what a person from Main Street America thinks about the VP debate.

Palin vs. Biden

Question 1-Bail-out, worst or best of Washington?

Biden-last 8 years of economic policies are a failure. Obama’s four criteria for rescue: oversight, focus on homeowners, no CEO benefits. Fundamentally change focus of economic policy by focusing on middle class.

Palin- Ask everyday American’s how they feel about the economy; fear, the economy is hurting. Government has not provided good enough oversight. John McCain has a history of providing oversight. McCain’s suspension of campaign was a good thing.

Question 2- How shrink gap of polarization?

Biden- Lists accomplishments, has as many Rep. friends and Dems. Goes after McCain for fundamentals of economy statement.

Palin- McCain was referring to the American workforce. They are the best in the world. Stresses track record of reform known for putting politics aside to get the job done. Obama has mostly voted along party line. Send Maverick of the Senate to the Whitehouse.

Question 3- Subprime lending melt-down, who’s at fault?

Palin- The fault of predator lenders who mislead Americans. Need to stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. Every day Americans need to band together and say they will never be taken advantage of again and demand strict oversight. Americans need to avoid getting themselves in debt.

Biden- Obama warned about this 2 years ago, and McCain said he was for cutting regulations. McCain supports traditional Republican stance of deregulation. Middle class needs relief.

Palin- Tax relief needed for Americans. Obama and Biden voted for largest tax increases in US history. They voted for tax increases 94 times. Government needs to learn to be more efficient and make do with less. Obama supported tax increases for families making as little as $42,000/year.

Biden- Obama did not vote to raise taxes, McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. Says Palin did not answer the question on dereg.

Palin- Stresses record on cutting taxes as Mayor and Governor.

Question 4- Obama proposed raising taxes on people making over $250,000

Biden- Fairness. Middle class is struggling. No one making less than $250,000 will see their taxes raised. 95% of people will get a tax break. Economic engine of America is the middle class. McCain wants 300 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy.

Palin- Says small business owners fall into the $250,000/ year category. Goes after him for suggesting paying higher taxes is patriotic. Government is not the solution, often it is the problem. Let the private sector have more freedom.

Question 5- Defend McCain’s healthcare plan

Palin- $5000 credit for families to purchase their own coverage rather than government run the program. McCain wants to allow competition between state.

Biden- It is not a redistribution of wealth, it is fairness. 95% of small businesses make less than $250,000/year and would not see tax increase. McCain taxes as income the healthcare plans of employers. 20 million people will be dropped from insurance.

Question 6- What promises will the campaign not have to keep in light of the economy?

Biden- No more double foreign assistance. No going forward with McCain’s tax cuts. Can’t slow up on education. Can’t slow up on providing healthcare for Americans. They will eliminate wasteful spending in the budget.

Palin- Energy plan: Obama voted for one the gave big oil tax breaks. Palin had to take them on in Alaska. CEO’s of oil are not her biggest fans. She put the people of Alaska first. Says she personally hasn’t promised anything to take off the table.

Biden- Obama voted for bill because it had support for alternative energy. He voted against big oil in other bills. They want to give Americans back $1000 like Palin has done in Alaska.

Question 7- Congress passes bill for making it harder for mortgage holders to declare bankruptcy, support?

Palin- Yes, again points out McCain’s calls for reform. Put politics aside to fix the problem. Need to make sure that credit markets don’t seize up.

Biden- Mortgage holders did not pay the price. Obama pointed out 2 years ago that there is a subprime crises. McCain said he was surprised by the crisis. Banks should be able to adjust the principle that you owe, not just the interest.

Palin- Talks about enery again. Says it is nuts not to allow Alaska to tap into its energy reserves. It would created tens of thousands of jobs. Energy independence is the key to this nations future. It’s not about tax breaks.

Question- Climate change?

Palin- Climate change is real, but it is not all caused by man. Cyclical changes of the planet. Encourage other nations to come along on climate change. Reduce emissions. Relying on other countries pollutes more than America would ever stand for.

Biden- It is man made. He knows what the cause is. McCain has voted against funding alternative energy. Obama believes in clean energy (coal, nuclear). Export clean coal tech.

Palin- McCain supports cap on carbon emissions. Obama/Biden say no to finding domestic solution to energy crisis. McCain also supports clean coal and nukes.

Biden- The answer is not oil for everything.

Question- Do you support same-sex benefits?

Biden- Absolutely. There will be no distinction between same-sex and heterosexual marriages. It’s only fair. The Constitution calls for it.

Palin- Does not want to redefine traditional definition of marriage. Says she would be tolerant of Americans choices. Defines as marriage as between one man and one woman.

Biden- Does not support gay marriage.

Question- Exit strategy from Iraq?

Palin- We have good plan. The surge has worked and was pushed for by McCain. Obama did not support the surge. Obama voted against funding troops in Iraq. We do not need early withdrawal in Iraq. We can continue draw down in Iraq and send more to Afganistan.

Biden- Obama’s plan is to shfit responsibility to Iraqi’s and draw down troops. McCain voted the same way on not funding troops because it had a timeline. Obama says there has to be a timeline. Time for Iraq to spend its own money. There is not end to war for McCain.

Palin- Obama plan is a white flag of surrender. They opposed the surge. We will be finished in Iraq when the government can govern and military and handle security. Biden said Obama not ready to Commander  and Chief.

Biden- McCain voted to cut off funding because of timeline. McCain has been wrong on the issues of war, Obama has been right.

Question- Nuclear Iran or unstable Pakistan, which is greater threat?

Biden- Pakistan already has nukes. Iran getting one would bad. McCain says central front of terror war is in Iraq, but it is in Pakistan. We will get Bin Laden.

Palin- Gen. Petraeus said Iraq was the central front in the war on terror. Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nukes. Israel would be in jeopardy. Obama would sit down with dangerous dictators without precondition.

Question- sec. of states say we should be engaged in diplomacy? Do you agree?

Palin- Yes, but we can’t engage at a presidential level. We will engage in diplomacy and have a plan in place.

Biden- Theocracy controls Iran. We need to go the extra mile in diplomacy to get our allies to sit with us. Goes after McCain for saying he would not sit down with Spain.

Question- Two state solution on Israel?

Palin- Yes, and would at the top of a McCain agenda. Need to assure Israel that there will be no 2nd holocaust. They will build and embassy in Jerusalem. Israel has track record of achieving peace agreements.

Biden- Biggest friend of Israel. Obama shares his passion. Bush policy on Israel is a failure. Iran has a stake in Lebanon and in Gaza.

Palin- No administration’s policy has been a failure. The administration has made mistakes. Obama and Biden keep looking back and not to the future.

Biden- The past is a prologue. McCain’s policy will not be different than Bush’s poicy. We will change policy.

Question- Use of nukes?

Palin- Ours are deterrents. Do not allow rogue leaders to get or proliferate nukes. McCain would have different strategy on Afghanistan. Institute an Iraq-like surge.

Biden- Gen. said surge will not work in Afghanistan. Spend more money in three weeks in Iraq than seven years in afghanistan. McCain voted against nuclear test ban treaty.

Palin- Gen. did not say surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Afghan leaders have not said the surge would not work.

Biden- Gen. did say that.

Question- Intervention with military? Will Americna public go for it?

Biden- yes, troops in Bosnia saved lives. It is now relatively stable. Said going in Iraq would be a mistake. Voted for giving pres. power, but not to invade. Lead NATO into Darfur and impose no-fly zone.

Palin- Biden voted for the war before not supporting it. Biden supported McCain’s strategies before joining Obama ticket. Palin agrees with Biden on Darfur. As Gov. she divested money in Sudan.

Biden- We have to have the capacity before we go in. Never supported McCain’s strategy.

Palin- Again, Biden did support McCain before joining the ticket. McCain knows how to win a war because he has been there. He knows to learn from mistakes and listen to commanders on the ground.

Question- How would VP admin be different than top of ticket?

Biden- carry out Obama’s policy of supporting the middle class, energy policy, foreign policy, reject Bush doctrine of regime change. This is most important election since 1932.

Palin- A team of mavericks does not agree 100% on everything (ANWR drilling). She would put government back on the side of the people. Bring main street reality back to Washington.

Biden- People say they are worse off under Bush. People see McCain as another Bush. The middle class has gotten the short end.

Palin- Need to increase education funding. Can no longer accept poor schools. Put more emphasis on profession of teaching.

Question- What does VP do?

Palin- Preside over senate. Supportive of president’s policies. She would lead on energy independence and overall reform of government according to McCain.

Biden- Point person for legislation. Will advise Obama on decisions. Was chosen for independent judgment.

Palin- Will do what is best for the American people in ushering in the President’s agenda, appropriately.

Biden- Cheney has been the most dangerous VP in American history. The primary role of VP is to support the POTUS. VP only steps in during tie votes in senate.

Question- Achilee’s heal?

Palin- She has the experience in her past to lead. Shares her worldview with John McCain.

Biden- Lack of discipline, excessive passion. He will not change. Will put his and Obama’s record up against his competitors. Understands the plight of Americans from his experiences (ie single parent).

Palin- People are not looking for more of the same. Willing to put partisanship aside. McCain’s supporters illustrate his appeal across the aisle.

Biden- McCain has not been a maverick on the things that matter (budget, healthcare, education)

Final question- Single policy issue where forced to change a long held view?

Biden- Ideology of judges does make a difference

Palin- There were budgets that she maybe should have vetoed and wanted to cut taxes. She has not had to compromise on any major positions because they have able to work together in Alaska.

Question- How do you change the tone?

Biden- I have been able to work across the aisle. Does not question motives of fellow senators.

Palin- Appoint people regardless of party affiliation as she did during her tenure. People will have a choice come Nov. 4th.

Closing statements-

Palin- Wants to speak without the filter of mainstream media, likes the debate format because she can address America directly. We have to fight for freedom.

Biden- Most important election in your entire life. There is a need for fundamental change. It’s time for America to get up from being knocked down.

Personal note-

Thanks to everyone for reading this evening. I will try to post my thoughts on the debate tomorrow. Thanks again!

Bill Kristol: “McCain’s bold move could reframe the election–and win it”

William Kristol had a good take on McCain’s recent call to suspend the debate later this week so that he and Obama could return to Washington to help shape the conversation about the current financial crisis. Obama seems to think that a 90 minute debate is more important than being on hand to deal with the biggest financial crisis of the decade and says that McCain should be able to do more than one thing at a time and should still attend the debate.

While most of the liberal media has been critical of McCain, calling this a last ditch effort to save the campaign (Google the news on this issue and you’ll see that most media outlets are critical of his decision). William Kristol, however, disagrees and says that ultimately this makes McCain appear more presidential.

————————————————————————-

A Presidential McCain
McCain’s bold move could reframe the election–and win it.
by William Kristol
09/25/2008 12:00:00 AM

THERE’S A REASON voters in presidential races tend to shy away from electing senators. The primary skills of a legislator–talking, compromising, “representing”–are different from those of an executive–deciding, choosing, “executing.” There are individuals who have the ability both to deliberate patiently and act energetically–but it’s a rare combination. The best legislators tend not to be great executives, and vice-versa. This year, for the first time in U.S. history, both major party nominees for president are sitting senators. The winner may be the one who can convince some portion of the electorate that he’s less “senatorial,” and more “presidential,” than the other. That’s why McCain’s action Wednesday–announcing he would come back to Washington to try to broker a deal to save our financial system–could prove so important. The rescue package that was so poorly crafted and defended by the Bush administration seemed to be sliding toward defeat. The presidential candidates were on the sidelines, carping and opining and commenting. But one of them, John McCain, intervened suddenly and boldly, taking a risk in order to change the situation, and to rearrange the landscape. Of course his motives were partly election-related. But “the interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” If candidate McCain, for whatever mixed motives, ends up acting in a way that results in a deal that is viewed as better than the original proposal, and that seems to stabilize the markets and avert a meltdown–he’ll benefit politically, and he deserves to. For McCain will have acted presidentially in the campaign–which some voters, quite reasonably, will think speaks to his qualifications to be president. As for the question of Friday night’s debate, which some in the media seem to think more important than saving the financial system–if the negotiations are still going on in D.C., McCain should offer to send Palin to debate Obama! Or he can take a break from the meetings, fly down at the last minute himself, and turn a boring foreign policy debate, in which he and Obama would repeat well-rehearsed arguments, into a discussion about leadership and decisiveness. And if the negotiations are clearly on a path to success, then McCain can say he can now afford to leave D.C., fly down, and the debate would become a victory lap for McCain. So the action of these few days becomes more important than the talk of that hour and a half Friday night. One could even say the contrast between the two men in action becomes the true debate over who should be president. The media, being talkers and debaters, love debates, overestimate their importance, and are underestimating the possible effect of McCain’s dramatic action. In the debate itself, McCain should mock the media’s greater concern for gabbing than solving our economic problems, and should associate Obama with such a talk-heavy media-type approach to politics. If the race is between an energetic executive and an indecisive talker, the energetic executive should win. William Kristol is editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Mike Huckabee Lambasts Republicans for Their Consideration of Wall Street Bail Out

Mike Huckabee today released a statement about the idiocy going on in both parties as they work with Wall Street to strap the American tax payer with hundreds of billions of dollars in bail out monies. Huckabee shows here that he is not merely Republical talking head by calling this bail out what it is: stupid. He also offers up some ideas to help get us out of this mess without charging the tax payers for the stupidity of Wall Street.

——————————————————————–

Bailing on Our Principles

Today at 12:14pm

by Governor Mike Huckabee

Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.

It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset – that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government—which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?

If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.

2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.

3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries—just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.

Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.

Obama Still Does not Support the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act”

I know that the issues that seem to be driving both the Obama and McCain campaigns right now are mostly economic related. The instability of the world markets, bail-outs that could potentially carry a price tag pushing a trillion dollars, and the question of what to do to prevent something like this from happening again.

With economic issues taking center stage many social issues seem to have been pushed to the back burner. In my opinion, the issue of abortion is one that should stay front and center. I think it is Obama’s stand on this issue that disturbs me the most about him. His failure to support a bill that would grant infants who survive abortions medical care and basic human rights is frightening and disturbing. His politically expedient answer at the Saddleback forum where he said issues of life are “above my paygrade.” Where do you draw the line, Sen. Obama? If a living, breathing infant is not worthy of basic human rights, where do we draw the line about when a person becomes worthy? Have we really become so hardened as to ignore the cries of a living baby all in the name of freedom of choice? What kind of freedom is that?

It is a very sad statement about our society that we have become so selfish that we would murder in the name of of convenience. That is why issues of life will always be on center stage for me when I choose a candidate, and that should also be the case for the rest of America.

New Spanish Obama Ad Misquotes Rush Limbaugh- “Shut your mouth or get out!”

I was listening to talk radio this morning and discovered that many of the conservative talking heads are up in arms over a blatant misuse of a statement Rush Limbaugh made over two years ago. I personally hate the way both sides will pick a two second sound bite out a much larger statement and try to make people believe something completely false.

I think the reason why this ad ticks me off so much is that it tries to pain the entire Republican party as anti-immigrant and in doing so, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will lead to statements like “Republicans are rascist.”

I went over Rush Limbaugh’s website to see what he had to say about the ad and what his explanation for the statement featured in the ad.

Here’s what he had to say:

We were making fun of Mexican immigration laws by trying to point out the stark difference between what you can do as an immigrant or illegal immigrant in Mexico versus what they can do here.  Now, let me just give you some of the highlights of this.  “Everybody’s making immigration proposals these days.  Let me add mine to the mix.  Call it the Limbaugh Laws.  First, if you emigrate to our country–” Now, you have to keep in mind that when this Update ran, we’re in the midst of another one of these high-pressured debates of illegal immigration, and we have learned what Mexican immigration laws are.  I’m simply, in this Update, informing people what Mexican immigration laws are.

“Everybody’s making immigration proposals these days.  Let me add mine to the mix.  Call it the Limbaugh Laws.  First, if you emigrate to our country you have to speak the native language.  You have to be a professional or an investor.  No unskilled workers allowed.  Also there will be no special bilingual programs in the schools with the Limbaugh Laws, no special ballots for elections, no government business will be conducted in your language, foreigners will not have the right to vote or hold political office.  If you’re in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers.  You are not entitled to welfare, food stamps, or other government goodies.  You can come if you invest here an amount equal to $40,000 times the daily minimum wage.  If not, stay home.  But if you want to buy land it’s going to be restricted.  No waterfront, for instance.  As a foreigner, you must relinquish individual rights to the property.  And another thing, you don’t have the right to protest.  You’re allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies.  You’re a foreigner, either shut your mouth or get out.  And if you come here illegally, you’re going to jail.  You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh?  Well, every one of these laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today.  That’s how the Mexican government handles immigrants in their country, yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets.  How do you say double standard in Spanish?  How about no mas?”

If you want to see all his comments you can check them out here.