About Me

Name: Bob Wood aka...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Santelli's Chicago Tea Party

Santelli's Chicago Tea Party
 
CNBC's Rick Santelli and the traders on the floor of the CBOE express outrage over the notion they may have to pay their neighbor's mortgage, particularly if they bought far more house than they could actually afford.
 
 
As always, your comments are welcome...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Carville: A History Lesson for Rush Limbaugh

President Bill Clinton's Chief Political Advisor James Carville weighs in on Rush Limbaugh's "bipartisan" economic stimulus plan.  And, although Rush certainly does not need me to intercede on his behalf, I just can not help myself.  After all, I have been absent for some six weeks...

Carville: A history lesson for Rush Limbaugh


Carville seems to be rewriting history:
Quote:
Why surely it seems like just yesterday that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 (and arguably won the popular vote in Florida too).

Arguably, maybe. But the facts don't back you up, James.

Quote:
I'm sure President Bush and the Republicans in Congress graciously accepted their 49.5 percent share of everything. (Note: We would be much better off right now had this actually happened.)

Wasn't it Trent Lott, R-MS, who wanted to share the Senate leadership with Democrats? As for being better off, that IS arguable.

Quote:
With 50 percent of the federal government during President Bush's term, Democrats might have reduced the deficit (a truly Clintonista idea).

Wasn't it Clinton who kept saying "We could balance the budget in ten years. Six years. Eight years." The Republican Congress did it in four years. Too bad it didn't last...

Quote:
Wall Street might have been more heavily regulated and K Street's lobbyists might not have been running the Capitol.

Regulation, or the lack thereof, is not strictly a partisan thing. The Democrats effectively turned their back on regulating Fannie and Freddie, and, in fact, blocked any reforms there while their friends made millions.

Quote:
Democrats might have invested money into infrastructure improvements so that bridges didn't collapse or entire cities flood.

That would have required responsibility from an elected official. So, no, it would not have happened.

And floods happen. It was Louisiana (your home state, James) Democrats who wasted all of the federal money that had been allocated for levee improvements on pork schemes.

Quote:
Heck, had Democrats been able to control 50 percent of the government from 2000 to 2004, we wouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place. There might have been more spending on education and a fully funded No Child Left Behind Act.

It was President Clinton who established the national policy of "regime change in Iraq", and then left it to the next President to effect it.  And millions of Iraqis would not have gone to the polls this past week to elect over 450 representatives to run their government.  And some 200 of the people running for election were women, which would have never happened had our troops not overthrown Saddam Hussein.  
 
More spending on education? Bush allowed Ted Kennedy, D-MA, to write his first education bill. And what has all of the prior spending on education bought us? Lower results by every measurement and high school graduates who can not read the diplomas they have been awarded.  (Notice, I did not say earned...)

Yeah, I think it is Carville who is rewriting history...
 
As always, I welcome your comments...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fallout from the Blagojevich Arrest

Let's see if I've got this straight...

Obama Says He Had No Contact With Blagojevich on Senate Seat

Quote:
Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said he was unaware of the criminal investigation into an alleged attempt by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to trade an appointment for Obama’s Senate seat for financial gain.

“I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening, ” Obama told reporters today in Chicago.

But then, there's this: Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

Quote:
But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.

While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

But then, this comes along: Aide: Ax 'misspoke'

Quote:
An Obama aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, took back David Axelrod's remark last month that Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich had spoken recently.

"What the president-elect said today is correct, David Axelrod misspoke," the aide said.

So, I guess "misspoke" now means that "he said it, but he shouldn't have said it." Axelrod's statement above is spoken very authoritatively, it seems to me.

Sounds to me like politics as usual.
When do we get to the "Change?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Open Letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss

Dear Sen. Chambliss,
 
Congratulations on your 15-percentage point victory in the runoff election last night.  I was one of many who held their noses and voted for you in spite of your recent record of ignoring us voters back home in Georgia. 
 
I had fully made up my mind to vote for your opponent on November 4.  It would have been my first vote for a Democrat to Congress in many, many years.  I had become convinced that you had forgotten all about your constituents in Georgia and that maybe it was time for you to retire to your law practice in Moultrie.
 
First, let's talk about that "Gang of Ten" business that you and fellow Senator Johnny Isakson pulled together during the summer when gas prices hit $4.00 per gallon.  The supposed purpose was to get Congress to allow offshore drilling for oil in just four southern states while ignoring any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve or the South Dakota/Montana reserves.  In fact, Senator, oil is available off-shore in all of the continental states and Alaska. 
 
President George W. Bush had already lifted the Presidential directive against off-shore drilling.  The only impediment was a Congressional ban on off-shore drilling which had been in effect for some thirty years, and it was set to expire on September 30, 2008.  With just a couple of months before that expiration date, you and the "Gang" give the Democrats an alternative to rescinding the ban or just letting it expire.  Fortunately, they were too dumb to take the bait.
 
What in the world were you thinking, sir?  Were you trying to out-McCain Senator McCain with his "reaching across the aisle" to "work with Democrats?"  You should now see the folly of that approach.  Sen. McCain, who for all of his faults, would have been a much better President than his opponent, a freshman Senator with no experience who defeated him rather soundly.  You almost suffered the same fate in the General Election.
 
Second, let's talk about the $700 billion bailout for Fannie/Freddie and AIG, et al.  Where, sir, in the United States Constitution - which you took an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend" - is the authority for taking money out of my and my fellow taxpayers' pockets and giving it to failed business enterprises which paid their executives exhorbitant bonuses for criminally running their companies into the ground?  By the time you and your fellow Senators got through, the bill was up to $850 billion.  That is about 25% of the entire FY2008 budget!  And you gave it to the administration to be spent by one man, Secretary Paulson, with no Congressional oversight whatever!  How irresponsible can you guys and gals be?  I would accuse the whole lot of you of spending like drunken sailors, except that would besmirch the reputation of drunken sailors. 
 
For that matter, where was your voice when President Bill Clinton told Fannie/Freddie to make home loans available to people who could not afford them?  Where was your condemnation of now President-elect Barack Obama's receipt of campaign contributions or his cozy relationships with Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick who made millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses while hiding the corruption of these two "Government Sponsored Enterprises?"  Have you once questioned your fellow Senator Chris Dodd about the favorable loans and contributions he has received from Fannie/Freddie?
 
Third, let's discuss your campaign advertisements.  Over the last month, I have been barraged by television ads and robo-calls (I got 12 just this past Sunday afternoon alone), and the only thing they told me was that we can't let Obama have a filibuster-proof Senate.  Well, Senator, those first two points above make you look like a Democrat, so what is the difference?  The TV ads you ran were all about how bad electing Jim Martin would be - he's a tax-and-spend liberal!  You never really focused on your own record of lower taxes and smaller government with less intervention in our daily lives.  Oops!  Sorry...
 
As I said, I voted for you - in spite of all of the above.  Here's why.
 
The first commercial for your opponent that I remember seeing claimed that you, Senator Chambliss, wanted to raise sales taxes by 23% and then listed claimed price increases on groceries, gasoline, and other commodities.  I recognized this as the lie that every Democrat who knows about The Fair Tax uses to try to destroy it before it gets a chance at a vote.  I just figured if Martin would use this transparent a lie to try to discredit you, what else was he lying about that I couldn't catch?
 
I talked with your office at length about both the "Gang of Ten" and the bailout bill - close to 30 minutes on each call.  I had talked to many folks about each of these issues, and we were in agreement.  Your staff thanked me for taking the time to call, and I believed that your staff understood my position on both of those issues.  They told me I was not the first to call on either issue.  Obviously you either did not get the message or you chose to ignore it.
 
So you see, Senator, my vote was against your opponent more than it was for you this time.  I believe that you are an honorable man who really wants to do the right thing in Washington.  I hope and pray that you have not been so infected by the political class that inhabits our nation's capital that you have forgotten how your actions affect those of us in Georgia who have to live under the laws you pass there. 
 
Please start by re-reading the Constitution.  It provides very specific powers to the federal government.  Anything else is off-limits unless and until the Constitution is amended.  And the Tenth Amendment says that any power not granted by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved to the people and the States.  You are the lawyer.  I am just an engineer, but I can understand plain English.
 
Here is hoping that you and the other forty Republicans can forge together a coalition to prevent further unconstitutional usurpation of power by our government.  Let's see you become a leader of a conservative movement in the Senate instead of a go-along-to-get-along Senator.  The people of Georgia deserve that.
 
And you might pass this letter along to Senator Isakson who is next up for re-election.  We are watching.  Both of you.
 
Very sincerely yours,
 
Bob Wood
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Scalia: Foreign law isn't ours

Scalia: Foreign law isn't ours

Quote:  (bold-face mine)
Judges who use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution are rewriting it rather than respecting its founders, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a roomful of judges and top lawyers in Houston on Monday night.

"I fear the courts' use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace," the 72-year-old conservative jurist said...

He told the 50 tables of lawyers that when judges use foreign laws or even U.S. legislative history, they are straying from their true purpose. He said judges do it to expand their own power because they wrongly consider "the views of all segments of mankind" and to make it appear they have something to rely upon.

Scalia said some leeway can be found even sticking only with the Constitutional text.

"It doesn't mean you can't twist the Constitution," he said lightly. "You just do it the good old-fashioned way: You just lie about it."

U.S. legislative history? Isn't that what the lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee (both Democrats and Republicans) call "stare decisis" (sp?) and insist upon from all appointees?

I have always thought that logic was stupid. How can one base a good legal decision (interpretation) on a bad historical legal precedent and expect to come up with the correct interpretation?

Isn't that sort of like throwing out all of the math tables and replacing them starting with 1+1=3 and expecting to get the correct answer to any math problem?

But, then, I am an engineer...  I would love to hear from some lawyers on this...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Bible study on poverty

Let me start by saying that I am not a Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination.  In my day job, I am an engineer and salesman.  I am also a Christian, and I do believe what I know from Biblical teachings to be the Truth.
 
Several months ago, I flagged this article and commented on it at a bulletin board forum of which I am a member.  Joseph Farah, the Editor of World Net Daily, published this column "A Bible Study on Poverty" on March 8, 2008.  In that column, he dissects the liberal theology of Tony Campolo, the noted evangelist, theologian, and spiritual guru to Bill Clinton, and author of the book "Red Letter Christians," which Farah takes apart in a previous column (and I recommend this column to you as well, although it is beyond the scope of the following comments.)  Joseph Farah is absolutely right, in his March 8 essay.
Quote:
Jesus did not suggest those listening to Him lobby Herod to take care of the poor. Notice Jesus did not suggest this was Caesar's responsibility. Notice Jesus did not suggest people, listening to His words then or reading them 2,000 years later, should mug the rich and distribute their wealth to the poor.

Jesus didn't suggest anything remotely like that to help the poor and truly needy. Instead, he speaks to each of us individually. He lets us know about this because it is the best prescription for both the poor and for us who make the sacrifice to help.

The poor are not government's responsibility. Both the Bible and The U. S. Constitution agree...
 
Let me be a little more specific. I believe this is what Farah was saying. 

We are required to do what we are equipped to do to help our fellow man when he needs help. By dealing with the poor on a face-to-face basis - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, assisting those who are sick - it should be our objective to show God's love through our actions, not our own love. We do that through our sacrifice (giving) of our time, our possessions, and our caring for their situation.

When government inserts itself, it robs us as individuals of the ability to willingly sacrifice a portion of what we are or have earned for the betterment of someone who needs that support. Government, through confiscatory taxation takes away so much of what we could give, keeps a large portion of it for administration costs, then puts government's name on what remains, and takes credit for helping in a way that no one else can - which is a lie.  As Farah says:

Quote:

There's nothing compassionate about taking from those who have and redistributing it. In fact, it would deny the Zacchaeuses of the world (Luke 19) from the gifts of repentance, forgiveness and salvation.

Would that be biblical?


Many doctors, clinicians, hospitals, and other health-care providers give a substantial amount to the poor in terms of truly free healthcare. In our litigious society, it has become very difficult for these folks to give away their talents and training without running afoul of the law or insurance regulations.

When you or I give our outgrown or slightly worn clothes to agencies like the Salvation Army or Goodwill Industries, we are a step closer to the individual who needs our help. When we give our time to help provide manpower, we are truly face-to-face with those we are trying to help.

Many years ago, as a single young adult, our Sunday School Class had a project we called "The Grocery Bus." Every other Saturday (we alternated with another class), about ten of us would take our church bus into a lower-rent duplex neighborhood and take several older ladies to the grocery store. A few of the ladies were not physically able to get on the bus and go with us, so they gave us their grocery list and their money to buy their groceries for them.

For the ladies that went with us, we helped them find the things they wanted, get through the checkout, and back onto the bus. We did the actual shopping for the ladies who could not go.

When we took them home, we carried their groceries in and helped put them away (if they wanted us to.) We delivered the groceries to the others, and helped put them away if necessary. And although each of the ladies lived a far more meager lifestyle than any of us, we never saw them count their change in our presence.

I was never quite sure who was more blessed on those Saturdays - the ladies or us. They were always so grateful that we had come to help them. We were grateful for the opportunity, and the fact that God blessed us with the ability to help them do something which would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for them to do for themselves.

If the government had required this action from us, or if we had been forced to pay someone else (a bureaucrat) to do this job for us, the blessing of God would have been lost to both us and the ladies. I am sure the same must be true of the health-care providers I mentioned above.

By the way, I should point out one additional fact which we never thought about during these years. All of these ladies were black; we were all white. It did not matter to any of us
.
 
I don't necessarily believe that the United States is a "Christian" nation, but it was founded by Christians of various sects. The overall reason for leaving everything they owned and the familiarity of their surroundings, they risked everything - including their lives - to try to build a better life in an unknown land? They were seeking freedom - freedom to determine their destiny without the heavy hand of the king.
Unfortunately, the king has been replaced with a Congress and a bloated bureaucracy the ignores the Constitution that each member swears to "preserve, protect, and defend." And with the swearing of that oath, its members forget all about the words of the Founders.

And THAT is what drives me wild with anger. As we all know, words mean things. Specific things! And the Founders chose their words carefully to preserve the right of each American "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We were not guaranteed happiness - only the right to pursue it.

Anything that gets in my (or your) way of the pursuit of happiness is in direct contradiction of the Founders' intent. Freedom was their major interest in the design of our government.  With every additional tax or regulation, we lose a bit of that freedom.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. ---Winston Churchill
Churchill was exactly right. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, including in the early colonial settlements of our country with the Mayflower Compact. And socialism - not capitalism - will eventually be the downfall of our country if we let it gain more of a foothold.  Socialism is where we are headed with the philosophy of "spread the wealth around" and any other law that comes down the pike in contradiction of the United States Constitution.
 
As always, I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another New Seal? And a New Web Site?

On Tuesday night, November 4, 2008, Mr. Obama said "It's not about me, it's all about you (meaning the people assembled.)"
 
 
Looks to me like it's all about Obama on just the third day after the election.
 
And he rolled out a new website at Change.gov - The Office of The President-elect - with a daily countdown timer to Inauguration Day.  (We will dissect that later.)
 
Mr. Obama, you were just elected to the most powerful office in the world.  We know it.  We get it.  You won.
 
Show some humility already.  You ain't the President yet!  We only have one at a time!
 
(And they called George W. Bush arrogant.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He's back!

We strayed from our message. But it won't happen again if we act now...

Food for thought for conservatives. Liberals probably won't like it. (Besides, we don't want you to know what our future stategies are.)



This is well worth watching to the end. Yeah, I know it's nine minutes, so watch him with a cup of coffee.

We conservatives have the message. We need to pick the right delivery system.

{His name is Zo - Alfonzo.  Am I the only person who thinks this guy could have a political future?}
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They've come a long way...

I could not resist this from The Onion:
 
 
Admit it… you laughed because you know someone just like this.
 
Special thanks to The Texas Rainmaker!
 
Your comments and suggestions are welcome...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Historical Amnesia

Wynton Hall is a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and author of "The Right Words: Great Republican Speeches That Shaped History".  In his excellent article "Karl Marx is Not the Father of Capitalism", he says that Sen. McCain could not make the "socialism" charge stick to Obama is that the term has little or no meaning to the voters.  In our public schools, we teach multiculturalism, but seldom if ever do we teach the basics of free market economic principles.  Hall says:
Joe the Plumber understands free markets because he’s operated a business. But without proper economic education or real world experience, young people are left in economic darkness...
 
Unlike Ronald Reagan (who majored in economics at Eureka College), Sen. McCain missed critical opportunities to play the role of “Educator in Chief.”

Take, for example, Sen. Obama’s “soak the rich” tax proposals. Sen. McCain missed huge opportunities to teach the American voter a lesson that Ronald Reagan pounded home often: businesses don’t pay taxes!  (emphasis mine) Oh sure, on paper they pay taxes, but in reality they merely pass taxes along to consumers or cut jobs to make up the difference.

Here’s how Ronald Reagan taught this principle during an interview with Reason magazine:

Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can’t tax business. Business doesn’t pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can’t be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business. Now what they’re going to do is make it easier for demagogic politicians–and you’ve got plenty of them in the state legislature–to say to the people, look, we need money for this worthwhile project but we’re not going to tax you, we’re going to tax business, now that we can do it by a one vote margin. So they’ll tax business and the price of the product will go up and the people will blame the storekeeper for the rise in the price of the product, not recognizing that all he’s doing is passing on to them a hidden sales tax.

If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread–it accounts for more than half the of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can’t be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver’s license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn’t far behind and nobody had to make that. There’s a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn’t put them there!

They didn’t call Ronald Reagan the Great Communicator for nothing...

Reagan understood that you have to teach voters why Leftist policies are wrongheaded. He also understood that you have to pound home a message before it will stick.

Rebuilding the conservative message will demand that the next generation of conservative leaders do the same.

In her article "Peggy the Moocher," Michelle Malkin writes:

Sorry to break the bad news to Joe the Plumber. But the winner of Campaign 2008 is Peggy the Moocher. ...

Who is Peggy the Moocher? (video link mine)
 
 
She's Peggy Joseph, a voter in Sarasota, Fla., who exulted earlier this week at a Barack Obama rally that this was "the most memorable time of my life." Why? As she told a Florida reporter on a YouTube video that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands: "Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he's gonna help me."
The conservative message and the concept of the free enterprise system is totally lost on our electorate.  Someone needs to teach them, or the conservative movement will be dead forever.  While the financial markets were melting down in mid-October, the Republican message was that we needed to clean up Wall Street and protect Main Street.  The real message that government was the true cause of the problem was lost, and government needed to be cleaned out.  We should have been quoting George Bernard Shaw (often attributed to John F. Kennedy) "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."  Or more simply, as my California friend Fred says, "We need a lot less people voting with their hand out waiting for government to fill it."
 
Both of the presidential candidates voted for the $850 billion bailout-and-pork bill.  And on top of that the $85-plus billion to AIG; the $25 billion to automakers; and the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie.  Who's next?  New York, California, Massachusetts, and all of the other Peggy the Moochers lining up with their hands out.
 
Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews.  In "Wanted: Small Government," Jeffrey outlines the history of government spending but makes this observation:
Up until the 1930s, the United States maintained a small federal government that mostly focused on the limited number of things the Constitution authorized it to do.

Americans were responsible for their own food, clothing and shelter, and if they could not take care of themselves, they looked to their extended family, their neighbors, their churches and local governments to give them a helping hand.

Charity in America in those days did not mean the federal government compelling you to hand over some of your property to the state so the state could hand it over to someone else.

Americans did not believe in spreading the wealth -- they believed in earning it. The term compassionate conservative had not been coined.

That is precisely what the conservative movement is all about - Americans taking responsibility for their lot in life.  Then along came Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal in the 1940's.  Mr. Jeffrey details the intervention of government making it very difficult for the average Joe (the Plumber, or otherwise) to provide for himself and his family.
That year, according to historical data published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the entire federal government spent only 3.4 percent of gross domestic product. Because federal tax receipts equaled to 4.2 percent of GDP in 1930, there was a federal budget surplus equal to 0.8 percent of GDP...
 
Federal spending in 1940 was 9.8 percent of GDP. Federal tax receipts were 6.8 percent. The Treasury borrowed 3 percent of GDP to make up the difference.
 
In fiscal year 2009, according to OMB's estimates, the federal government will spend 20.7 percent of GDP while taking in 18 percent of GDP in taxes. The Treasury will borrow 2.7 percent of GDP, much of it from foreign creditors, to make up the difference.
And that does not include the bailout!
 
More of our lives are controlled by the federal government, and we are more dependent on the federal government.  With that dependence we have given up much of our freedom.  The Government Accountability Office informed the Senate in January that it estimated there was a $53 trillion gap between the entitlement benefits the federal government has promised to pay over the next 75 years to people now living in the United States and the tax revenue that can be expected to pay for those benefits.
 
Then-Comptroller General David Walker said that for the government to cover this gap, every American household would need to put up about $455,000. Our economy - both government and personally - can not handle this.  This trip toward national bankruptcy can not be sustained.
 
We conservatives need to find a way to reign in the interference of government in every aspect of our daily lives.  The goal must be to force government to live within the powers enumerated by our Constitution by closing down programs and agencies.  Our government worked very well until the New Deal.  As we scale back government and its relentless spending, we need to keep it from making future promises that it can not afford to keep while protecting those promises that have already been made.
 
Your comments are welcome...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Economic Wheels Are Coming Off?

Beldar posts this at HughHewitt.com:

Quote:
Dow-Jones at 9633.01 as I write this
Posted by: Bill Dyer at 11:53 AM

(Guest Post by Bill Dyer a/k/a Beldar)

Barack Obama wants you to believe that John McCain was simply insane when he insisted that the "fundamentals of the American economy are strong." Yet the Dow-Jones average is back within striking distance of 10,000 again — which ought to be a huge relief to those who've been fretting over their 401k and other retirement accounts.

That's not to say that all is rosy on the economic front. But we're not in another Great Depression — and the greatest threat on the horizon is that a tax increase could turn a short and relatively mild recession into something worse in 2009.

— Beldar

The DJIA closed at 9625.28 - up 305.45 or 3.28%
The S&P closed at 1005.75 - up 39.45 or 4.08%
The NASDAQ closed at 1780.12 - up 53.79 or 3.12%
 
In November 2000, the DJIA was at 10300, on its way to a low of 7400 in October 2002. Then the Bush tax cuts kicked in and the market began a steady climb to a high of 14198 in October 2007. That was steady growth through five straight years! Bush economics was not such a bad thing after all, it seems.

And, by the way, the lowest point for the DJIA occured on October 10, 2008, at 8451. In a bit over three weeks, the market has gained 14%, or 8.27% of the value from October 2007.
 
Why have ALL of the politicians - especially those on our side - kept so quiet about this news?

Seems John McCain was right all along. And Obama and the rest of the Democrats were wrong...
 
Your comments are welcome...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Am My Brother's Keeper

Does Barack Obama keep "the promise of America" when it comes to his own family?
 
 
Oh, yeah, it's another thing when you talk about Obama spreading his own money around instead of your's and mine.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Has No Class

Well, actually, he has a lot of class.
 
It just happens to be LOW class.
 
Watch as he flips off John McCain, just as he did Hillary Clinton during the primaries.
 
 
UPDATE:
Here is the video of the Hillary flip-off:
 
 
This "man" is ahead in all of the polls, he has more money in his campaign war chest than any candidate in history has ever amassed, and he has the LameStream Media in his hip pocket.  And yet he feels that he must be demeaning to his opponent - even in a most subtle way.
 
Does Barack Hussein Obama deserve your vote?
 
I think not!
 
If you think he could be a gracious loser, think again!  He can't even win graciously.  The word gentleman can not possibly be applied to this man.  And the word "president" should never be used in the same sentence with his name.
 
As usual, your comments are welcome and appreciated...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Final Argument...

The Final Argument Against Barack Obama
 
 
 
 
I always welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry (UPDATED)

Obama Called Out for Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry

Quote:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- With only hours before election day, coal has become a major topic of Decision 2008.

Sunday an audiotape surfaced from an interview Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did with the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

In the interview, Obama talks about the importance of coal. He went on to talk about his cap and trade proposal to help curb global warming.

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.
 


 
This would be bad news for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. And although he made those statements in January, they are just being reported now - two days before the election?

Where is the MSM? 

{Oh, yeah! In the tank!}

Quote:
The Obama campaign says the quote is being taken out of context and that Obama is actually from a coal state and is a strong supporter of the industry.

The campaign sent a statement today saying "the point Obama is making is that we need a transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies."

Talk about trying to have it both ways! It's a wonder this campaign doesn't have a permanent case of whiplash!

But is he being quoted out of context? ABC's Jake Tapper has the answer:

Quote:
Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:

“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”

Yes. Obama plans to "fine" the "polluters" (power companies) heavily which will do two things:
    • Make electricity more expensive to everyone.
    • Increase the likelihood of "rolling brownouts."
Just remember, when you tax something, you get less of it. If you like the fact that the light comes on when you flip the switch, Obama is definitely not for you!  And he wants us all to be driving electric cars.  Just how does he think we are going to charge the batteries.

And he won't let us build nuclear power plants, and that is the safest, cleanest form of energy production available. The United States Navy has safely deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - the biggest ships in the fleet - around the world for fifty years.  And now, the Navy is planning to build and deploy nuclear-powered destroyers and battleships because...  It does not make sense that the central ship in a battle group only needs refueling every 30 years, and the support ships are running on convential fuels that must be replenished much more often.  (But that is probably part of Barney Frank's 25% cut in the military budget.)

And there are people planning to vote for Obama? How much evidence of the harm he can do is necessary?
 
UPDATE:
Here's the video of the entire Obama statement:
 
 
I can only marvel at the smoothness with which this man can say nothing that makes any sense.
As always, I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive