About Me

Name: Greg the Great's...
Location: Mars, PA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Why socialism does not work - from a 6 year old

   Okay let's sing...
 
Clean up, clean up
Everybody do your share,
Clean up clean up,
Everybody, everywhere.
 
6 year old - that's not fair, I just walked into the room
 
It goes against human nature to clean up after people who made the mess and don't have the respect to clean it up themselves.
Tags: solicalism  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

KUDOS to DeMint and Vitter!!!!!

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said he was concerned that Obama and Clinton would reverse the U.S. policy that prohibits U.S. aid to overseas groups that offer abortions.

"I do not plan to slow up this nomination, but I do find it difficult to support a nominee who I know will pursue policies so contrary to American sovereignty and the dignity of the human person," DeMint said, shortly before voting with Sen. David Vitter, R-La., against Clinton's appointment.

Thank God there is at least 1% of the Senate that still has common sense.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As I watched yesterday

A quote from the Lucas film "Revenge of the Sith" kept popping up in my mind...

"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause ... "
Padme
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Future of America

I was sad but not suprised to see this.  It show the true ilk of the people that support Obama. 

Picture of what liberals do to everything they touch

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush's Achievements

Bush's Achievements
Ten things the president got right.
by Fred Barnes
01/19/2009, Volume 014, Issue 17

The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That--defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his presidency.

Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly.

He stood athwart mounting global warming hysteria and yelled, "Stop!" He slowed the movement toward a policy blunder of worldwide impact, providing time for facts to catch up with the dubious claims of alarmists. Thanks in part to Bush, the supposed consensus of scientists on global warming has now collapsed. The skeptics, who point to global cooling over the past decade, are now heard loud and clear. And a rational approach to the theory of manmade global warming is possible.

Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved American lives. How many thousands of lives? We'll never know. But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, "Those are precisely the elements which kept us safe and which have prevented a second attack."

Crucial intelligence was obtained from captured al Qaeda leaders, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the help of waterboarding. Whether this tactic--it creates a drowning sensation--is torture is a matter of debate. John McCain and many Democrats say it is. Bush and Vice President Cheney insist it isn't. In any case, it was necessary. Lincoln once made a similar point in defending his suspension of habeas corpus in direct defiance of Chief Justice Roger Taney. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln asked. Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

Bush's third achievement was the rebuilding of presidential authority, badly degraded in the era of Vietnam, Watergate, and Bill Clinton. He didn't hesitate to conduct wireless surveillance of terrorists without getting a federal judge's okay. He decided on his own how to treat terrorists and where they should be imprisoned. Those were legitimate decisions for which the president, as commander in chief, should feel no need to apologize.

Defending, all the way to the Supreme Court, Cheney's refusal to disclose to Congress the names of people he'd consulted on energy policy was also enormously important. Democratic congressman Henry Waxman demanded the names, but the Court upheld Cheney, 7-2. Last week, Cheney defended his refusal, waspishly noting that Waxman "doesn't call me up and tell me who he's meeting with."

Achievement number four was Bush's unswerving support for Israel. Reagan was once deemed Israel's best friend in the White House. Now Bush can claim the title. He ostracized Yasser Arafat as an impediment to peace in the Middle East. This infuriated the anti-Israel forces in Europe, the Third World, and the United Nations, and was criticized by champions of the "peace process" here at home. Bush was right.

He was clever in his support. Bush announced that Ariel Sharon should withdraw the tanks he'd sent into the West Bank in 2002, then exerted zero pressure on Sharon to do so. And he backed the wall along Israel's eastern border without endorsing it as an official boundary, while knowing full well that it might eventually become exactly that. He was a loyal friend.

His fifth success was No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the education reform bill cosponsored by America's most prominent liberal Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. The teachers' unions, school boards, the education establishment, conservatives adamant about local control of schools--they all loathed the measure and still do. It requires two things they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability.

Kennedy later turned against NCLB, saying Bush is shortchanging the program. In truth, federal education spending is at record levels. Another complaint is that it forces teachers to "teach to the test." The tests are on math and reading. They are tests worth teaching to.

Sixth, Bush declared in his second inaugural address in 2005 that American foreign policy (at least his) would henceforth focus on promoting democracy around the world. This put him squarely in the Reagan camp, but he was lambasted as unrealistic, impractical, and a tool of wily neoconservatives. The new policy gave Bush credibility in pressing for democracy in the former Soviet republics and Middle East and in zinging various dictators and kleptocrats. It will do the same for President Obama, if he's wise enough to hang onto it.

The seventh achievement is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003. It's not only wildly popular; it has cost less than expected by triggering competition among drug companies. Conservatives have deep reservations about the program. But they shouldn't have been surprised. Bush advocated the drug benefit in the 2000 campaign. And if he hadn't acted, Democrats would have, with a much less attractive result.

Then there were John Roberts and Sam Alito. In putting them on the Supreme Court and naming Roberts chief justice, Bush achieved what had eluded Richard Nixon, Reagan, and his own father. Roberts and Alito made the Court indisputably more conservative. And the good news is Roberts, 53, and Alito, 58, should be justices for decades to come.

Bush's ninth achievement has been widely ignored. He strengthened relations with east Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, Australia) without causing a rift with China. On top of that, he forged strong ties with India. An important factor was their common enemy, Islamic jihadists. After 9/11, Bush made the most of this, and Indian leaders were receptive. His state dinner for Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh in 2006 was a lovefest.

Finally, a no-brainer: the surge. Bush prompted nearly unanimous disapproval in January 2007 when he announced he was sending more troops to Iraq and adopting a new counterinsurgency strategy. His opponents initially included the State Department, the Pentagon, most of Congress, the media, the foreign policy establishment, indeed the whole world. This makes his decision a profile in courage. Best of all, the surge worked. Iraq is now a fragile but functioning democracy.

How does Bush rank as a president? We won't know until he's judged from the perspective of two or three decades. Hindsight forced a sharp upgrading of the presidencies of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Given his achievements, it may have the same effect for Bush.

--Fred Barnes, for the Editors

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reid: We won't smell the tourists anymore

By Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin

POSTED December 2, 2008 | 11:00 AM

The Capitol Visitors Center, which opened this morning, may have tripled its original budget and fallen years behind schedule, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found a silver lining for members of Congress: tourists won't offend them with their B.O. anymore.

"My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway," said Reid in his remarks. "In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."

But it's no longer going to be true, noted Reid, thanks to the air conditioned, indoor space.

And that's not all. "We have many bathrooms here, as you can see," Reid continued. "Souvenirs are available."

 
$621 million well spent.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My talk with an Obama supporter

It is still strange to me that I have friends that are still voting for Obama.  It just suprises me.  My wife asked why last night in an email, and he responded.  This is the back and forth.  Black text is his, blue is mine.

Subject: President

Here it goes again. It’s 11:15, and I think that I can finish by midnight…


"So I am really curious, not trying to harrass you or anything. Tell me why you think he is a better candidate and more qualified to be president?"

I’ll try my best to answer you in a manner that is somewhat coherent.

1. Neither man is “qualified” to be president, in the sense of needing to be qualified to be a doctor, or a teacher, or an airline pilot. Only Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the two George Bushes are qualified to be president (and even that is debatable). The truth is that there is nothing that one can do to become “qualified” to be president.

1)   I disagree here. There are offices like that of the governor that prepare people to handle the situations of being president. Even a CEO that run a large company is more qualified to be president then others. The government is the largest business in the world. Just like any other job you find the person that has experience in running a business and leading people. While you are correct about being a candidate, like for medical school or teaching, you still have to have experiences that qualify you for the job before any one will hire you. I can sit in a plane but if I do not know how to fly it, the airline will not hire me to do the job. It is the same with presidents. Anyone can apply, but you do not hire someone just because they put a resume in.

2. Both men are qualified to be president, in the sense that the U.S. Constitution requires that one be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age, 14 years a resident of the United States, and not having already served two terms as president. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone while it was under U.S. control to a father serving in the U.S. Navy, so he is a natural born citizen. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and his mother was a U.S. citizen (from Kansas), so he is a natural born citizen. Obama is 47, and McCain has lapped the age requirement and then some, so they’re both good there.

2) Agreed here, they fit the minimum requirements to apply for the job.

Based upon the above criteria, I’d judge both men to be legitimate candidates for the office of presidency.

Note: in my opinion, the above does not apply to the vice-presidential candidate (this will be important later).

Now, I will attempt to answer the questions that each person must ask him or herself when trying to determine which candidate to select:

1. What is the job of the president? I believe that the primary responsibility of the president is to be the “leader of the nation,” not the “governor of the country.” The two are vastly different. The president needs to be a person who can calm, inspire, empower and communicate with the people of the country. Barack Obama definitely has the edge here.

1)  Agree here, yet everything that he has had to deal with he had pushed aside in political expedience. He has been consistent on changing his positions and views to suit the situation. Say anything to win. McCain has not changed on any issue of value. It takes a little more than smooth talking to lead. His plans to empower include taking away people's God given powers, funds, and gifts in order to make things "fair". Life is not fair and cannot be. We lived in a cursed world that only God can make fair again.

2. Can we trust this man in a crisis situation? I’d call this one a wash. I’d trust either equally in a September 11th type situation.

2)   the issue is not so much trust for me here. It is what I KNOW one of them will do. I know that McCain will take it seriously and fight back. I fear that Obama will sit back like Clinton did so often and say "oh well, let bomb a factory somewhere to show how tough we are". That is the policy and nature of the people who represent him in congress.

3. Who’s tax plan is better? Clearly Obama’s, which (according to a survey of economists done by The Economist) provides bigger tax reductions to more people than McCain proposals.

3)   Disagree here. The people that he wants to tax are the ones making more than $250K a year. This group is already paying out close to 50% in taxes. They are also the ones that support families and industry in the country. Who set this marker of 250K as "rich". We live in houses that cost more than that. Also his tax plan will undoubtedly be used to try to provide healthcare and better education. This is not the federal governments job. One of the first thing he will do is take back the tax cuts that Bush gave us, and then implement his. In the end we will be paying more over all. http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2114.cfm All of his cuts will result in larger government. It needs cut not enlarged like it has been over the last 20 years.


4. Who was on the right side of the Iraqi war? I’ve opposed this war all along. It was unnecessary and wrong, and John McCain was behind it from the beginning.

4) Everyone was behind it from the start in the congress. The entire world believed that there were WMDs. And through the war the corruption of the UN and many countries was exposed through the oil for food. Overall the people in Iraq are now free, the UN abuse was exposed and people are not being killed just because some dictator snaps his fingers. In the end, good was done and America has given a large group of people the ability to live free. McCain understand that there is evil in the world and it should be brought down if possible.


5. Which candidate’s campaign has been run with more fairness and integrity? In my view, Barack Obama has run a much more upbeat, fair and decent campaign. He hasn’t even played some of his best cards yet, and he probably won’t.

5)  They have both done a poor job in my opinion. Again, McCain has stayed firm on his positions while Obama has said whatever needed. Obama associations with people has been covered up at all cost. Integrity has to go to McCain. Every time something was said that was not fair or appropriate, he has public opposed it. Obama has never opposed the incorrect or unfair things said by his party in relation to the McCain campaign. Fairness, hard call for me, integrity, well it is one of things I find very lacking in Obama.

6. Which candidate do I agree with more on social issues? I’m with both on gay marriage (oppose), and I’m with the McCain/Palin side on abortion.

6)  Okay, this is not completely true. Obama does not oppose gay marriage, he just opposes making a federal law forbidding it. He thinks the states should decide. http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Gay_Marriage


7. Which candidate is more closely aligned with President Bush? McCain proudly touted that he voted with President Bush at a rate that was “higher than even many of my Republican colleagues.” So that’s a negative for me.

7)  Well dislike of Bush should have nothing to do with who you vote for. McCain bucked his party many times as well. To the point that some people felt he should just change parties. Obama has done nothing but voted right down the far left liberal line. He has never taken a stance against anything that his party has done. For this reason, I believe McCain will hold his ground and not give into the party or leaders in the party. He will do what he thinks is right. Also, just the fact that Obama started his campaign off with one of the most radical and socialist groups thus far formed in the US tells a great deal about his beliefs. The last time anyone was in office that believed this strongly in socialism was FDR and if it has not been for the WWII he would have killed democracy as we know it. This is slated, so please look into it if you wish. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913 I have and found nothing "untrue" in it.


8. Which candidate will help rebuild the good image of the United States internationally? Although this is a rather unsavory subject for me (the idea of sucking up to the French makes my stomach turn), I believe that Barack Obama is more equipped with diplomacy skills (and allies) to succeed in this most unfortunate necessity.

8)   I could care less about "image" around the World. The truth is every country that "disliked" us is now run by likeminded folks of the McCain types.

And finally….

9. The first decision any president makes is his selection of the vice-presidential candidate. Did each candidate select a running mate that would be a capable, competent president on January 20, 2009.

Obama-Unquestionably yes. There has been no critic from either party who believes that Joe Biden is unprepared to instantly be president in a emergent situation. He’d probably be a pretty boring president, and I don’t think he’d ever win at the top of the ticket, but he would be capable and competent.

McCain-In my eyes, not even close. Sarah Palin is not prepared to be president, and the most well respected Republican in this country, Colin Powell, agrees with me on that. She was selected as a stunt. They had a checklist, and she fit the bill. Female: check. Pretty: check. Christian: check. Pro-life, pro-gun: check, check. Kids: check. One of them has a disability? Perfect! Husband is a union member? Great! >From the west? Perfect!

The vice president has become president instantly in 21% of all presidential reigns (9 out of 43) and has ascended to the presidency by election five time (for a total of 32.5% of all presidencies, 14 out of 43).

The argument that Barack Obama does not have the “experience” needed to be “qualified” to be president is bogus. Winning enough electoral votes to become president is the ultimate qualification. This, however, does not apply in any way to the vice presidential candidate. This person is singularly selected to become the “president-in-waiting.” The presidential nominee from each party has a responsibility to every American of any political affiliation to seriously select a running mate who could be a capable, competent president on the first day they take office. Barack Obama succeeded in this and John McCain failed miserable.


9)   First of all - no sitting senator should ever be elected president. As a matter of fact it has only happened two time in history. One was JFK and he was killed the other was Harding and he died 1.5 years after taking office leaving Coolidge in office. Not that this is anything other than strange, senators make laws. They have no executive experience that might "help" prepare them for running a business like the government. Obama could have picked a little better by going out of the senate. McCain did at least make an effort to find a person that fit the bill of the people in his party. A Governor- of the largest state - a conservative - and someone who has likewise push against her party when she needed to. He picked someone that has a proven record of cutting out big government and taking a stance against nonsensical decisions made by the Federal Government. While I am not sure why you think Biden, who has really done nothing, much like Obama, in the senate that anyone can remember, is more prepared or capable of being president then someone like Palin who is indeed a governor and has more executive experience than Obama, McCain, and Biden put together. She has run a government, the rest of them have just voted. As you stated it was the "perfect" choice for McCain. You should take that into consideration. No one said "wow, McCain should have picked xxx instead". Obama got a lot of that. You might find this interesting about Biden as well. http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/09/24/bidens_financial_history_disqualifies_him_for_high_office Just something to think about.

In summation, selecting a candidate in this election, like every election, is a roll of the dice. In my life, I have never been excited about the candidate that I was planning on voting for. I like Bob Dole, but I cast my vote against Bill Clinton. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I didn’t want Gore to win. I voted in 2004 for John Kerry (holding my nose the entire time) because I couldn’t vote to re-elect Bush after he lied about the Iraqi war. I like John McCain, and I’d probably vote for him in almost any election other than this one. Will Sarah Palin someday be president? Probably. American politics is way more fun with her in it. I like her. But not right now.

Right now, in 2008, I’m proudly voting for Barack Obama because he really is a transformational figure. Is he very liberal? Yes. Does that worry me? Not really. He really is the leader we need, at this time of crisis. America has the chance that we don’t often have, to vote for real change, and not just more of the same. The rest of the world will take note of our bravery, insight and leadership. I really believe this.

ENDING - Liberal I can take, socialist, I just cannot. It has never worked. Not once. It is the foundation of everything that Obama believes. His past, that he denies and tries to hide shows this. I really wish the media was "balanced" in how they cover people. Anyhow, I would rather have a person like McCain who has shown integrity, even if you don't like his positions, than someone like Obama who has shown he has little. He is a smooth talker but there have been a lot of them in history and they normally don't lead well.

Hmm…12:11. Not too bad. I’d better go to bed so that I can hurry up and wake up.

Let me know what you think. I’m up for any reasonable and rational discussion on the subject. :-)
 
 
Tags: obama   mccain  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My letter to Nancy Pelosi today...

 What the hell is wrong with you? You are going to make me and my family suffer because you don't like President Bush? 

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."

Stop thinking about yourself and starting thinking about the people you are suppose to represent. Drill so the speculators will see the increase and lower prices.  

Sincerely,

Greg Kiker - US Citizen and Tax Payer
 
 
 
 
HER RESPONSE...
 
 

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

      Subject:    ONLINE CONTACT FORM

      Sent:7/17/2008 10:07 AM

The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:

      American Voices on 7/17/2008 11:10 AM

            The message could not be delivered because the recipient's mailbox is full.

            <HRM08.US.House.gov #5.2.2>
 
I would normally ask if you could believe that, but since she obviously does not care about the American people, no big shock.  I wish more people read my blog...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Amazing - NOT REALLY - Obama a Marxist

Obama and the New Party

Two weeks ago at RedState, we documented Obama’s 1996 endorsement by the New Party.  A review of the New Party establishes that not only was the party an amalgamation of far left groups, but Barack Obama knew that when he sought the party’s endorsement.

Most of the New Party’s history has been lost in the digital age. It was established in 1992 and started to die out in 1998, well before Google and the modern web were established. But through lengthy searches of the Nexis archive and microfilm at the local university library, I’ve been able to piece this together.

The New Party was established in 1992 “by union activist Sandy Pope and University of Wisconsin professor Joel Rogers,” USA Today reported on November 16, 1992. The paper wrote that the new party was “self-described [as] ‘socialist democratic.’”

The seeds, however, had been sown all the way back in 1988. Quoting John Nichols in the March 22, 1998 issue of In These Times, “The roots of the New Party go back to the aftermath of Jesse Jackson’s run for president in 1988. At that time, Dan Cantor, who had served as labor coordinator for the Jackson campaign, and University of Wisconsin sociology professor Joel Rogers began talking about how to formulate an alternative between the increasingly indistinguishable Democratic-Republican monolith.”

Joel Rogers sought to use the idea of “fusion” as a way to get the New Party into power.

Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let’s call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama’s New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.

The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful.  “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century …. In 1996, it helped Chicago’s Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district …. The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued.”

Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.

On December 1, 1994, after the Gingrich revolution swept the Democrats from congress and forced Bill Clinton to triangulate, the Chicago Tribune ran an article by Steve Mills entitled “Looking for the Left: The Old Progressives and Marxists Still Breathe Idealist Fire, but They’re Too Splintered to Generate Any Heat.”

“‘The Left is in crisis, and it has been for some time,’ said Carl Davidson, the former national secretary for the radical Students for a Democratic Society. ‘I don’t know if it’s even bottomed out yet,’” he reported to Mr. Mills. Mills continued, “The Socialist Workers Party is in this corner; the International Socialist Organization is in this one. The [communist group Committee of Correspondence] is in another. The radicals, or even the liberals with some radical leanings -- so-called ‘soft radicals’ -- seem to find it hard to abandon individual issues for a broader movement.”

But, Mills reported, “It is amid this political confusion that The New Party would like to step in. ‘If there’s anything that defines the American Left, it’s fragmentation,’ said Dan Cantor, the party’s national organizer.… The New Party aims to change that. By uniting the progressives behind a cohesive ideology, one that, in theory at least, will have room for all the factions that now litter the landscape of the Left, The New Party is confident progressives can again be strong.”

In 1995, the New Ground, the newsletter of the Chicago Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, noted, “In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

“Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics -- until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party.”

Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters.  By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body.  Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995.  He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals.  But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand.  In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters.  Printed names were not allowed.  Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot.  By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement.  The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party.  Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to.  The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists.  As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals.  Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with.  What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

For Further Information, Contact:
Adam King, 615.383.6431
adam@tennesseepolicy.org 


Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.



The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty. Visit TCPR online at: www.tennesseepolicy.org.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If I could be the supreme ruler of the US for a day...

We all have said if I could run things for a day...  Well, I will put it in print.  Some of it will not be politically correct.  :)

1)  Allowing drilling of oil in ANWR 

         This is just common sense.  As an added response, I would also commit to building three new state of the art refineries

2)  Commission 5 new nuclear reactors with facilities to produce hydrogen for fuel

         Again nothing special about this, just common sense

3)  Fast track the fence on both borders.  Shot to kill orders

         Well, simply, duh

These are three big ones.  You would, "Great, how will we pay for this?"  Again, complaints without solutions are worthless.  So here are some serious solutions.

1)  Shut down the IRS.

         Let get a flat tax.  Currently the IRS employs 86,585 people.  If you average a salary of $50,000 a year, that equals 4.3 billion dollars.  The reports show that about 2.2 trillion dollars is collected each year from returns.  I flat type tax would increase the revenue and save government funds. 

2)  Shut down the Department of Education

         A disastrous organization that has done nothing to better the education of the people.  After working in the field, I can honestly say they do a great job of paying Superintendents and building obnoxious schools for millions and millions of dollars.  They spend $70 billion dollars a year and have 5000 employees.  Just Crazy.  Education is a state issue; give it back to the state. 

3)  Shut down the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

         Good idea but needs to go now.  28.5 billion dollars and 10,000 employees.  I could go all day about why this should go.

4)  Shut down about half of the Department of Health and Human Services

         

Administration on Aging (AOA)

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 

Indian Health Service (IHS) 

Program Support Center (PSC) 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

         640 billion dollars a year.  Needless to say this is would take several hours in a day to reorg.  Some is good some not

5)  Clean up the Department of the Interior

            The Dept of Indian Affairs needs to go away along with all lease payments.  Just a waste of money

Overall that should fill up a day pretty well.  As a final act I would set term limits on congress.  12 years for senators, 8 years for representatives.  And yes, it would be retroactive.  If you have served it already, your done when you term is up.  I think that I would also be unconstitutional and not allow anyone who have served in congress to be allowed to run for President.  You did your service.  Let someone do theirs.  Oh, and finally, it will be mandatory for all males to server in the military for at least 4 years.  NO MATTER what.  If anyone can go to school in this country, there is no reason why everyone cannot serve. 

That is my day as ruler. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time for term limits

All the coverage of Ted Kennedy getting a tumor has made me think.  First of all, I cannot say enough things about the man, none of them good, but I would never wish this type of cancer on anyone.  I had a cousin die from one.  I was not a pretty site.  So after reading the coverage I realized something not so profound.  He is the second longest serving Senator currently in office.  Only trumped by Robert Byrd.  Another individual I could talk a while about.  Anyhow, after reading blogs and comments, I can see that this opinion of mine is not unique.  It is time for term limits. 
 
This seems simple, but it is amazing how many people are against it.  Makes a person wonder why.  The only thing that makes sense is corruption.  I have put a lot of thought into the subject.  I have read all the arguments for and against.  It has to be that people who have "broken-in" officials would have to go through it more often.  It is probably well known that the President has a four year term that has a lifetime maximum of two rounds.  Only one President has served more than two terms, President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Arguably one of the top 3 worst president in our history.  * There is a footnote about him at the bottom.  Okay a little more than a footnote.  He is not the focus of the posting. 
 
States have the right to set the limits on the local government officials.  Many have done so.  The damage that one person can do to the country through out the years is staggering.  Kennedy is a good example.  43 years.  While a very long list of things that he has done that has hurt the US, ones that affect us today and will never go away.  No Child Left Behind was more his than Bush's.  He has not been a friend to hard working Americans.  Continually raised taxes and increased benefits for the poor and lazy.  His college John Kerry is another one to look at.  Until the election Kerry has been there 24 years and really has little to show for his efforts.  Kennedy at least got a lot done.  There are many others that have been there for longer than 30 years:

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) 49 years
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) 45 years
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) 45 years
Theodore F. Stevens (R-AK) 39 years
Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) 35 years
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) 35 years
 
Senators serve 6 year terms.  Two of these terms would be sufficient. 
 
Representatives serve 2 year terms.  This could easily be increased to 4 years and two terms.  John David Dingell is the longest serving at 54 years.  That is just absurd.  While he has done much in that time, we were set up to be a Representative government of the people.  And yes we have the right to elect anyone we choose, but two generations of the same people in power does not help the country.  companies never have CEO's that are in power for 40 years.  The more we allow people to be lazy they will.  While I disliked the movie, The Distinguished Gentleman, I fear that the simple fact that we vote based on who we know has truly hurt the involvement of the people.  Give the people an option, they will look a little harder. 
 
There also needs to be a serious change in the way elections are paid for.  A solution...  cap the amount that can be spent.  Two million, no more on state elections.  Clear the field and make it affordable to run.  That is the rant for the day.  
 

* President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the run-a-way government that we have today through his policies of the New Deal. While his intentions were well founded in the relief, recovery, and reform of the U.S. after the great depression he opened a flood gate that has never been closed. It was a brilliant plan that responded to a critical situation in America. As the great economist Milton Friedman observed after the plan was in place, "The ‘cure’ came close to being worse than the disease." There will more of the details of this plan in the American History section.

F.D.R. was responsible for the formation of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and labor unions. His first term as President, 1933-1937, has been deemed one of the better Presidential terms ever. The following two proved disappointing to many historians. In retrospect his policies created a nation that relies on the government too much. Milton Friedman stated that the New Deal worsened and prolonged the Depression.

Why the focus on F.D.R.? The modern day 'liberal' began with his time in office. The problem is that liberal is the wrong term in my opinion. Socialist would be better. The term socialist has a negative connotation to it, but in simple terms it is a group that believes the government should take care of the people. Communism is a belief that everyone should be equal in society, equal in social, economical, and educational class.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homosexuality does nothing to further the Human race

Seldom is there a good argument against such things as homosexual marriage.  Here is one case that might compel someone to think instead of react.  In the current world we live in, there are two main theories of how humans became humans.  There is there the more secular view of evolution and the religious view of creation.  While I hold to the latter, there is good cause to show that neither support homosexual behavior. 
 
Evolution is defined b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=evolution
 
The key to this argument is with the phrase, due to modifications in successive generations.  Another point to the process of evolution is known as survival of the fittest.  The concept is self-explanatory, but can be researched at http://www.bartleby.com/11/4003.html
 
For the sake of argument this statement needs to be made...There are no known cases of naturally-occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild.  In layman terms, mammals cannot produce offspring (children) without a partner of the other sex.  Simple logic then becomes clear.  In the theory of evolution, if homosexual activity was anything other than choice, there would be no mammals left on Earth.  There are those that will argue against this, but in the light of facts, it would just better to admit it is a choice. 
 
Religious creation is simple as well.  God made them man and woman.  Adam in the Garden could not have reproduced without Eve.  For the sake of the next statements, it needs to be clear that there is a deference between religion and philosophy.  Religions are not tolerant or flexible in nature.  The term religious is: 3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful.  Philosophy is: b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.  Once religion becomes flexible or tolerant it crosses over to philosophy.  So from the religious prospective, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhism all discourage homosexual acts.  In the Jewish and Muslim faiths, it is a death penalty. 

The premise being simple, the act of homosexual activity adds nothing to the Human race.  It does nothing to further the Human race.  If it was practiced exclusively there would be no Human race.  Evolution made them man and female.  So did God. 
 
Why the rant?  The insistence of the movement to accept the behavior just because we should is annoying.  People have said, "it is the right thing to do".  Honestly and the empirical evidence shows that is it the wrong thing to do, scientifically and religiously.  Humans tend to enjoy things that do nothing to further the human race or make it better.  This will always be the case, but stop pretending that it is okay and that it should be accepted just because. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I was wrong - 31,000 scientists reject global warming

Scientific Consensus? - That Global Warming is Natural - and BENEFICIAL?


Dr. Arthur Robinson will be announcing Monday that over 31,000 scientists reject’s IPCC’s contention of anthropogenic global warming. They further hold that the natural global warming is beneficial. The site gives an excellent summary of supporting research. This cite and its history are instructive on the methods to overturn the ruling paradigm and media mentality.
 
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

21,000 Scientist gather to deny global warming

 I heard that 21,000 scientist are gather today to publicly denounce global warming.  FINALLY!  I doubt it will have much of an impact on the World, but at least they are standing up and making the statement.  I will post after the event or at least admit if I am mistaken. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »