Picking the next POTUS

Well, the people have spoken. The next POTUS will be a former senator. It will be the first time in 48 years since the President went straight from the senate into the presidency. (JFK was the last to do this. LBJ and Nixon were both senators, but had been vice presidents before becoming president.) There is a book by Andy Stanley called Next Generation Leaders: 5 Essentials for Those Who Will Shape the Future that I believe explains what it takes to be a leader and why we follow those people. It breaks it down into these 5 categories: Competence, Courage, Clarity, Coaching, and Character. I would like to review our candidates through this lens. 1. Competence: This is not only length of service, but your ability to recognize where you are competence and the willingness to delegate to others those things where you are less competent. Barak Obama: Born 8/4/1961. Parents separated when he was 2 years old and eventually divorced. Raised by his grandparents. Graduated High School in 1979.Attend Occidental College for two years, transferred to Columbia University in NY where he graduated in 1983 with a B.A. in political science with a specialization in international relations. After graduation he worked at IBM and New York Public interest group for four years before moving to Chicago to work as a community organizer. Obama was the director of Developing Communities Project (DCP) for 3 years, in which time he grew the organization from a staff of 1 (presumably himself) and a budget of $70,000 in donations to a staff of 13 and $400,000 in donations. In 1988 he traveled to Europe for 3 weeks and Kenya for 5. In Kenya he met many of his relatives for the first time. He returned to the US and entered Harvard Law School where he was elected editor of the law review in his first year. The second year he become president of the Harvard law review. He graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1991 and returned to Chicago where he had been a summer associate for a couple of law firms. Publicity from his election to the first black president of the Harvard Law Review garnered him a contract to write a book about race relations. In fact, the University of Chicago Law School offered him a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book, originally scheduled to take a year evolved into a memoir. He and Michelle traveled to Bali for several months so he could write in seclusion. The result was, Dream from My Father published in 1995. Obama’s accent into the Illinois Senate comes amid some controversy. The incumbent senator, Alice Palmer, tried and failed to run for the US House of Representatives. But when she tried to mount a campaign for re-election, Obama challenged her (and all of the other candidates) petition signatures. He effectively had every candidate but himself removed from the campaign so that he was the only candidate on the ballot. (see: Barack Obama: Showing his bare knuckles, Chicago Tribune April 4, 2007) His race for the US Senate was rather less dramatic, but no less controversial. In 1998, Peter Fitzgerald became the first republican since the 1940’s to win an open seat in the US Senate, over the very inflammatory Carol Mosley Braun. Fitzgerald decided to serve only one term leaving the Senate seat open. Obama’s main contender Blair Hull eventually succumbed under allegations of domestic abuse. Republicans first choice, former Gov. Jim Edgar, chose not to run. Eventually settling on Jack Ryan a former Wall Street multi-millionaire turned south-side Chicago high school teacher. Unfortunately, he was in the midst of a nasty divorce from actress Jeri Ryan and as it played out in public, his polls plummeted. After dropping out of the race, the GOP tried a futile attempt to run Alan Keyes against Barrack. Needless to say Barrack trounced Keyes. (see: The Road to Congress 2004 pgs 81-83) So that takes care of Barrack’s experience, what about his competence? For that we have to look at his accomplishments and voting record. Let’s look at his voting record objectively, you excluding the liberal/conservative ideology for a minute. He served one full term in the Illinois State Senate. He served 8 years as state Senator and voted “present’ (neither ‘yes’ or ‘no’) 139 times. There are various reasons for doing this some because he was making a political statement in regards to the validity of the legislation. (see: NYT: It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo). Elected to the US Senate in 2004, Barack entered the national stage in the run up to the elections by giving an address “Audacity of Hope” at the DNC Convention. He was elected and sworn in to the US Senate on January 4, 2005. He served 140 days in the senate before announcing he was running for POTUS. He appointed several key experienced (30+ years each in Washington) people to his staff. Ironically, he cosponsored the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” introduced by John McCain in 2005. Obama has missed the following number of votes on the chamber floor: 2005:8, 2006:3, 2007:166, 2008(as of 7/7/08): 97. What do you expect of a $165,200? (See: Washington Post Votes Database). Needless to say, I’ve gotten into a lot more detail that I planned on so I’ll have to continue this dissertation at a later date.

Election '08 and Beyond...

What is it about this election that reminds me of the saying, "Lesser of two evils", or in this case three evils? Evil #1: "Barry" as he was known as a child, has come a long way from his Muslim school childhood. (Yes, he did attend a Muslim school from 1967-71 in Jakarta, Indonesia - look it up.) The Rev. Wright fiasco, has confirmed that he is now the newest addition to the champagne-socialist crowd (This is a level above the limousine-liberal and one more stop one the way to confirmed communist). In fact, the Rev. Wright revelations have confirmed that he hates America every bit as much as the Rockefeller’s, Kennedy's, Kerry-Heinz's, and right in there with Che Guevara. And B.H.O. didn't have to do a thing. It was truly a stroke of genius on his part. Evil #2: Ok, Mrs. Bill Clinton. Why do I keep thinking of the movie "Fatal Attraction"? She just will not go away! I love it! The Maha Rushie's "Operation Chaos" has been a success. He managed to keep her in the race long enough to reveal to the American people her true motive - POWER. She will not be denied what she feels is her right. After all she put up with being married to B.C., she feels it is owed to her. She has put in her dues, now it's her turn. Whatever... The "Lesser of 3 Evils": As a conservative, John McCain was not only not my first choice, he wasn't even my list. But, he is all we have so, to paraphrase John McCain’s mother, ‘I'll have to hold my nose and vote for him’. Hopefully he'll pick a conservative VP to whom he will actually listen. I'm not sure who that person is right now, though I believe it'll have to be a minority and/or a woman. While I would like Condi, she is not interested, and her negatives are almost as bad as Mrs. Bill Clinton's. Louisiana’s governor, Bobby Jindal is a good choice, but probably too new to the GOP scene. I’ve also heard good things about Alaska’s Governor, Sarah Palin, as well. Others for consideration would be, Herman Cain, former Lt. Governor Michael Steele, and even J.C. Watts. I doubt he will pick any of these people, but I assure you that if he picks a white male, he can kiss his chances of a win goodbye. Since McCain would only serve one term, he will basically be setting up the next V.P. for a run at the White House, so it is a very important choice this election cycle. So what about the future of our country? Well, for the next fours year anyhow, it looks pretty bleak. It took a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan. Maybe it will again. Or maybe this is the beginning of the decline of the “Great shining city on the hill”. Like most of the more advanced societies in history, they do not get conquered from outside forces, they disintegrate from the inside. I hope that’s not the case, but I see signs of it all over the place. The ultraliberal NEA running education system, the environmental-wacko’s trumping common sense energy plans, and so many people seeking a nanny state all portend a bleak future. Recent polls have suggested that people believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. I think I would have to agree. However, when the main stream media reports it, they report as if everyone believes that it’s too conservative and needs to be more liberal; have more government not less. I would argue that many of us believe it is headed in the wrong direction because it is too liberal; that we want less government, not more. I promise you that if liberals get control of the Congress, Senate and Presidency, this will likely start our tail spin into an abyss. Which leads to the question, “Will we be able to pull out of the tail spin, and if so, how?" I’ll leave you with this from the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” I believe that time is going to happen sooner, rather than later…

Answers For Illegal Immigration

Let me start by saying that I am a product of immigration. Since my great-great grandparents immigrated from Eastern Europe in the 1870’s they were not subject to any modern day immigration laws.

I believe stemming the flow of illegal immigrants is crucial to preventing further attacks on the US, winning the war on radical Islamic fascists, and protecting our sovereignty as a nation. We could discuss all day long (maybe several days) why the US is such a magnet for illegals. The solutions for illegal immigration are not particularly difficult to implement. Nor are they especially cost prohibitive given today’s technology. The steps are simple, the motivation is great, but the initiative by today’s policy makers is clearly sorely lacking.

The first thing that has to be done is sealing the borders. The process starts with building the double fence across the southern border. The “no mans land” between the double fence would need to be monitored with motion and seismic sensors. Cameras on drones flying over head would be directed to investigate activity. Officer would be sent to capture illegals when they are identified. Next, begin to secure border crossings on our northern border and build the same type of fences along much of the northern border, starting at heavily populated areas. Finally, secure our ports and coastline using drones and satellite imagery. The desired result would be to shut off the influx of illegal immigrants. It should take about 18 months to complete the walls on the southern, using American contractors with American labor.

Once the southern border is closed we need to build a better immigration policy/process. This should begin by identifying how many immigrant workers are required by the US economy, then streamlining the process allowing company sponsorship for legal immigrants. Immigrants with college educations applying for visas to work in healthcare, high-tech, or other high paid professions would move to the top of the list. Companies should be able to apply for sponsorship of employees, be able to hire them for a 90 day probationary period and be able to apply to convert their status to the 3 year work visa via the internet with near real time (hours – not weeks) feedback. Companies would be required to report when probationary employees don’t work out so the government can make sure these immigrants either find new sponsorship or go back to their country of origin. I admit, this puts a heavy burden on companies. However, they are the beneficiaries of the low labor, so they should be required to bear the burden. When combined with the implementation of the Fair Tax (a discussion for another day), which includes the elimination of collecting payroll taxes and the corporate tax their ultimate costs would be lower.

Next enforce the current laws regarding illegal immigration. Begin by cutting off federal funding for “sanctuary cities”. Only law enforcement, hospitals and fire department would be exempt. Any public official (mayor, city board member, etc...) that publically endorses sanctuary cities should be arrested for treason (even if only for “publicity”). State drivers’ license would only be issued to immigrants with proper documentation. States violating this would forfeit federal transportation funding. Also, heads of companies must be held accountable for their hiring practices. Heavy fines/jail time for the owners of private companies and the CEO’s of public companies. This would result drying up the market for illegal immigrants and allow them to be replaced via the new stream lined process for legal immigration.

Change the rights of immigrants. The child of two illegal immigrants should be considered illegal, even if born here. Current illegal immigrants would be required to return to their country of origin and reapply for citizenship. The process for citizenship would require assimilation. Visa’s granted to immigrants should only be valid for them (i.e., they should not be allowed to automatically bring their family). Families would include only spouse and children who would be allowed to join the spouse after one year of proven work history. Families would NOT include brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, in-laws, etc…

The work visas should be valid for three years, with two one year’s extensions allowed. Application for citizenship would be required before the end of the first 3 year term. Substantial completion of the application for citizenship would be required by the end of the second 1 year extension. If the above is not met, the entire family should be deported. Spouse/children would only be allowed to stay if they have their own work visa, they are gainfully employed, and they have met all the application for citizenship requirements on their own.

Being granted citizenship would require: 1) Proven conversational English; 2) Proven reading of basic English (required for driving); 3) Proven knowledge of the REAL history of the US; 4) Sworn allegiance to the constitution of the US; 5) If convicted of a felony before completing application for citizenship, immediate deportation (not jail here first) to country of origin.

I believe this immigration policy would protect our boarders, stem the flow illegal’s, supply businesses with enough workers, and provide the US with the type of immigrants that will grow to be solid, taxpaying citizens.

For a great overview of the Immigration Act of 1965 see:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/historians/chapter11.htm

'08 Election Cycle

Ok, so we are all wondering, "What happened to Reagan conservatism?" The truth is the principles are still out there, but unfortunately no Republican candidate in this election cycle supports all of the Reagan conservative values. An analytical look at the candidate’s records and rhetoric can tell you who best fits the mold. Again, there are no Reaganites in the race. They are all wannabes... This is personally disappointing, but it is the sad reality.

The basic issues this cycle are the same as they have been for decades (appointment of strict constitutionalists to the SCOTUS, smaller government, lower taxes, strong military, etc..), with the added importance (at least in conservative circles) of winning the war on radical Islamic fascism and immigration reform. There is a great site, http://www.ontheissues.org/, that will take you through each candidate’s record on crucial issues.

Here's my synopsis of the '08 elections cycle as it stands today. Despite Obama's best efforts, the Clinton machine will roll over him and secure the nomination. It is widely speculated that Mrs. Bill Clinton has already chosen Evan Bayh (D-IN) as her running mate. However, in the race so far, she has had to take very moderate positions in nearly every far left-wing issue. This erodes her base. She may be forced to pick a far left running mate to shore up that faction of the party. In this case, Barack Hussein Obama seems like the right choice, as he would also guarantee the minority vote.

So then the question becomes, "Who can beat a Clinton/Obama?" (or Clinton/Bayh)

Without regard to my opinion of who would be best suited to run the country, Mccain seems like the only Republican candidate who would stand a chance. If the biggest issue is going to be the war on radical Islam, Clinton equals surrender, while Mccain (despite his stand on torture) advocates winning the war on radical Islam. Some of the other issues he'd win on are controlling government spending, de-federalizing education, etc... Mccain has enough appeal to the moderates (i.e., liberals) that he will steal votes from Hillary. However, will it be enough to replace the far right conservatives that may choose to sit out? Time will tell.

Now, for my choice. Since there is no "Ronaldus Magnus" type in the race I laid out the issues then assigned them a weighted value based on my view of their importance to me and scored each candidate accordingly. I have given the most weight to principles & values since I believe this is a much better judge of how a president, when faced with critical decisions, will come down on the issues. I identify most closely with Mike Huckabee. I don’t like his record on immigration, raising taxes, and on social welfare type issues. However, I recognize that governing a state is different than governing a nation. There are certain mandates from the federal government that states are required to submit too (i.e., educational, infrastructure, etc...) to which a president is not bound.

Also, I like his support of the Fair Tax. He is the only candidate who "gets it". Personal and corporate income tax, capital gains, etc... are all taxes on productivity. The US still has the world's 3rd highest corporate income tax (after Japan & Germany). I'm not here to sell you on the Fair Tax, you can learn more about it on your own at: http://www.fairtax.org/ . Having said that, I like that Mike is openly discussing the fair tax, because changing to the fair tax would have the largest impact on the economy in the history of this nation.

I do believe Mitt Romney, as of today, probably is probably better suited to drive change in Washington D.C. because of his corporate experience. I am by no means equating corporate America and the US Congress, for one while both are driven by their market, their decision making processes are diametrically opposed to each other. Corporate America makes decisions based on profit motive guided by identifying and fulfilling customer needs. Corporation are quick to kill projects that are not profitable & productive. The government, on the other hand, is a giant behemoth that wants to redistribute wealth (after skimming off enough money to line the politicians pockets) in order to keep buying votes for reelection. Having said that, I looked into how Romney approached his governorship in Massachusetts and I liked it. I believe that same approach could work at the federal level.

I also believe that Fred Thompson probably has the most conservative record on any Republican, but he has not shown the initiative to do the campaigning that it takes to get the job. (I actually like that, but it will keep him a fringe candidate.)

So who would Mccain choose as his Vice Presidential candidate? We shall see… It all depends on who the Democrats nominate. A Hillary/Obama ticket will be much more difficult to defend in some ways (common sense would tell you that they would garner more women & minority votes) and easier in others (it would be so far left that it might turn off some moderates). Fred Thompson & Mccain are close friends and Fred would strength the conservative base (as would Huckabee). However, a Hillary/Obama ticket would require "balancing the ticket" with a woman and/or minority as a running mate. (think Michael Steele, JC Watts, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc...)

Some of you may wonder why I have not mentioned Rudy Giuliani yet. I don’t believe Rudy is a serious contender, nor do I believe he can be considered a serious conservative. I do not believe he is electable. Aside from name recognition and his stance on the war on radical Islam, he has nothing to offer to the Republican Party. Besides, two candidates from the same state would be an awful thing for the American political system.

And as for Ron Paul, well..... Not such big fan.....

'06 Election - Why did it happen?

Some thought it was a "Thumping". I'm not sure I'd describe it as that, however I do believe that I can outline some of the reasons why the GOP was "thumped".

Reason for losing #1: The war in Iraq. There has been a lot of spin on both sides of the issue regarding the war in Iraq. You could argue that we invaded Iraq because of WMD's that did not exist. Maybe so, but the records show that everyone on both sides of the aisle and in the UN's IAEA believed they existed. Regardless, we are there and in the process the US removed one of the most tyrannical dictators of modern times who killed (conservatively) 100,000 Iraqis in his 30 year reign of terror.

Here's where I see we went wrong. "Piece follows victory." The average US citizen wants to fight wars to win. Unfortunately, since the Korean War era inside the beltway they want to fight wars to limit casualties. So, this war has been run the entire time with the throttle pulled back (in my opinion to about 20%). What should have been done from the beginning is an all out full throttle attack and complete devastation of the enemy (this includes in Afghanistan). None of this house-to-house search for "insurgents". It should have been more like: "You have 48 hours to surrender or we will level your city." One or two campaigns like this against strategically placed cities and the insurgents would have been laid on the doorstep of Coalition Forces when new cities were faced with the same decision. Had we begun the war like that Iran & Syria would not have been able to place "foreign insurgents" into Iraq to stir up trouble and we would be on the downside of this war by now.

Reason for losing #2: The Republicans did not govern as conservatives nor act like winners. I'm not sure who to credit for this analogy, but it's like before '94 when the GOP was on the outside looking in at congress they saw it as a cesspool. But once they got control of the whole works they decided it was more like a hot tub. The GOP blew the only shot they've ever had to completely implement conservative policies. Instead, they thumbed their nose (I'm being nice here, because it felt more like being flipped the bird) at us conservatives and spent money like drunken sailors, trampled on the "Contract for America" and basically stabbed us in the back. I guess I don't completely blame them, as we should all know by now that in the words of Kissinger, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". It all starts at the top. The Republican leadership on the hill took its cues from the President who (as discussed in an earlier blog) is not the leader of a conservative movement like Reagan. While I agree with him on lowering taxes and fighting Islamo-Fascism, there is little more in which I see eye to eye with him. Bush started off his presidency by letting Kennedy (The Swimmer) write the education bill. Follow that up with "Campaign Finance Reform" and the largest increase in entitlements since "The Great Society" of LBJ (Medicare prescription drug plan) and you have the most non-conservation (as opposed to Neo-Conservative) Republican President in modern history.

Reason for Losing #3: Illegal Immigration. You could argue that illegal immigration is a subset of reason #2. However, this is one issue for which congress actually attempted to act conservatively and actually had to drag the President along with them. The President took no action to secure our borders after 9-11. I'm not sure exactly what his reasons were, but I can only assume it was because he decided (probably rightly so) that America needs more entry level workers. Of more concern to me personally is his complete 180 degree stance from the Republican Congressional Leadership on amnesty.

I suspect I could go on listing reasons, some of which would sound like excuses (the MSM, the Libs incredible ability get way with criticizing without having to give alternatives, etc...), but I'm not sure there's much reason at this point. One could say the Abramhoff and Foley scandal didn't help matters, but again they are more indicative of the MSM liberal slant. Ultimately, the GOP did not govern as conservatives. Well, the American people are about to see the alternative. I'm going to prepare another entry predicting what's coming next and outlining how the GOP can set themselves up for victory in '08. Here's a hint: Hand them all the rope they want and watch them swing in the wind in '08...

Guns have replaced God in our schools....

As should be expected....

On the September 12, 2006 "The View". (Rosie) O’Donnell: "And just one second, radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

Then.....

Ms. (Rosie) O'Donnell exploits the Amish tragedy to blame the National Rifle Association and "gun lobby." .... The "queen of nice" opined: "I think the horror of imagining 6- to- 13-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution-style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."

She went on to blame "the lobby organization of the NRA, allowing no rules and no registration and absolutely, sort of, carte blanche to make guns available to Americans in a way they're not in the rest of the world."

Click to Watch Video

Only a complete idiot would not miss the correlation between the lack of God in schools and the increase in violence at schools. This is what can be expected as we are told we have to take God out our lives.

Q: Why where public schools in the USA first created?

A: The founding fathers thought that everyone should be able to read the Bible...

Talk about irony....

What we need are consevative leaders....

What's Missing

The missing ingredient in the Republican Party is a true conservative leader. Someone who, like Ronaldus Magnus pounded away and pounded away on what it meant to be a conservative. It seemed like in every speech and every news conference, even every comment on the way to Marine One on the grass of the White House he worked into the conversation how important it was for each of us as individuals to be the best we can be, so that collectively we would be a greater nation. And in order for that to happen, he would say, government has to get out of the way. I contend, there is currently no one in GOP leadership that can articulate that message as well as the 'Great Communicator'. If Ronald Reagan were president, he would speak right past the Democrat Leadership and directly to the American people. Reagan understood from his first shot at politics in the 60's that his message would always be that of The Conservative Movement.

“Our hopeful joy upon the 1994 takeover of Congress was like finding a new pony by the Christmas tree. Now it’s more like finding it slumped over dead on top of the presents.” —Jonah Goldberg

There are pockets of individuals in the GOP who believe much of the Reagan Doctrine of Conservativism. Rick Santorum comes to mind. Unfortunately, he has sided with President Bush on too many occasions, especially when it comes to the out of control pork barrel spending that is all too common in Washington, which explains why The Club For Growth (http://www.clubforgrowth.com/) gives him only 73% rating. Until Congressmen and Senators start looking at what is best for all the people instead of what is best to line the pockets of their biggest contributors this situation will never get better. But even more importantly, until we get someone with a national voice that can articulate our message, we will continue to elect RINO's (Republican In Name Only) like Linc Chaffey, Olymipia Snow, Arlyn Spector, etc... Without strong conservative leadership we will be stuck until the next Ross Perot comes along and pulls the rug out from under us again.

Leadership on the Issues

The current economy can sustain us in the short term, but there are several major economic changes coming that require leadership now. For instance, since the national debt is largely financed through issuance of bonds to foreign governments we are relying on countries like China, Japan, S. Korea to buy our debt so the government can continue to finance entitlements while we continue to buy their products. Between our debt being sold overseas and our reliance on oil from other countries, they will have us literally over a barrel pretty soon. Additionally, to have a truly self-sustaining economy we have to be leaders in converting raw materials into finished goods whether in through mining, manufacturing or agriculture. Right not (I have not checked my facts, but I'm sure someone will...) the only one of those three items where we are close to a net exporter is in agriculture. And yet agriculture employs less people every year.

However, immigration will be the next big issue. There are several ways to look at immigration. The easiest one for people to wrap their mind around is the national security risk we take by not having our borders secured. It's quite simple really. How many of you sleep with your door unlocked. How many sleep with the door open? How many of you have no walls to your house at all? The area of concern it the strain on public infrastructure the uncontrolled growth causes. Emergency rooms are shutting their doors in the Southwest because they cannot afford to treat these people for free, they cannot afford to pay someone to translate and the problem is spreading east. The last issue with the uncontrolled growth is that they do not seem to integrating into the United Stated of America. Instead, they look at the US as a suburb of Mexico. They come to the 'burbs to work, take the money & send it home. Again, this provides a huge strain on our economic system.

Taxes will also be a hot button issue. Soon less than 50% of the US population will even be paying taxes. Once that happens you can forget any major tax reform. Here are the latest data (FY 2003):

• 96.54% of the taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.
• 65.84% of the taxes are paid by the top 10% of wage earners.
• 54.36% of the taxes are paid by the top 5% of wage earners.
• 34.27% of the taxes are paid by the top 1% of wage earners.
• Only 3.46% of the taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of wage earners.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

So, what so you, oh great ones.....?

Is it the Twilight Zone?

It's been a while.... Too long actually. A lot has changed in the last couple years. I look around the world and I see so much that I can't seem wrap my mind around. It's said that, "Common sense is not all that common." Lately, I'd say I agree with that statement. My head is spinning from all the crazy news lately. The looney-left is clearly becoming caricatures of themselves. The pictures of multi-millionaire hypocrites Danny Glover and Harry "Calypso Louie" Belefonte welcoming the murderous dictator thug were priceless. I can see them all now chuckling and high fiving about Chavez's Bush=Devil remarks. Then there is the performance of the kidnapper turned "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's equal comical speak at the UN. If I took all the MSM's (Main Stream Media) coverage seriously I would think that this was all terrible for the US. But, as all the coverage continues all I hear these communist dictators do is spout the Democrat '06 Party talking points. The Dem's should get all kinds of great commercials from these visits. You would think that people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would get clue that they are wrong on the issues when they listen to the two crazy dictators spout the Dems party line. They are just as clueless at the MSM. In the meantime, limousine liberal hypocrites Chris Kristofferson and buddy Bab's can sleep well at night knowing their hero (H.C.) reads the same author (Noam Chomsky) as them. Unfortunately, they (C.K. & B.S.) don't even understand that most people in Venezuela could never read, nor afford to purchase, the book, which incidently, would never be allowed to be published if it spoke so severely of Venezuela. Does anyone besides me see the irony here? How can people who are sooooo wrong think they are soooo right?

Are There Two America's?

Why is it that we are such a divided nation when it comes to politics? We are Democrats or Republican. Liberal or Conservative. Rich or Poor. Could it be that there really are two Americas? How do I know that this is the way it is? Because I am a have staked my claim; picked my side. I am a Republican. To about half of you, that is repulsive, to the other half it means we are brothers (or sisters, as the case may be). So what made me a Republican? For starters my Father owned his own small business most of his life and as such was a Republican. In fact, I remember agreeing about the Ford/Carter election in 4th grade with some "liberal" kid, which Dad was a farmer, which made him a Democrat. Of course, I eventually suspended to the government education I was receiving and began to pay more attention to organizations like Green Peace. I came of age in the 80's where it was nearly impossible not to like Ronald Reagan, while still being scared of his "Evil Empire" tactics that were surely going to lead us to Armageddon. Of course, it was not until the far of the USSR that I could look back with complete and undying admiration for a man that used the power of his convictions (and exploiting his enemies impression that he was a dim wit) to set in place the economic policies that drove this nation to great heights and thereby toppling the Soviet Union under the weight of it's own empty shell of an economy. Again, some of you who are reading this think I have it all wrong. It makes me ask myself, "How can anyone not look at the facts and conclude anything else?" Apparently, some of you can. One theory would be that you were raised to believe that the govenment created jobs. I was razed believe my Dad (and eventually other small business) created jobs. Maybe someone taught you that the government controls the economy and can either slow it down or speed it up (like there was a throttle behind the President's desk in the Oval Office). Where as I learned that in spite of whether which way the economy was headed, I would always be alright if I worked hard sacrificed a little. Maybe you grew up getting a government check that you depended on and that taught you that money fowed from the government. Of course, after my Dad died when I was twelve, we recieve a two government checks from the government until I graduated High School. Yet, it once occurred to me that I shouldn't go to college, that I shouldn't get a job (sometimes 2 or 3) to pay for college and eventually start a career. But, others choose different paths. You see liberal Democrats believe that by extending benefits to people without them having to work for it helps people. I believe that this prevents people from being all they can be. It holds them back and sets low expectations. I believe that safety nets should be in place for the most critical of cases, but by and large charities should be in the business of helping people, not the govenment. Regardless, I have always had a deep conviction that the path I took, while certainly not the easiest way or shortest way, was what formed my belief system today. I also find it diffictult to understand why people (especially people that are older, have good jobs, and are raising families) can still be liberal Democrats. From my perspective, I have been a liberal and could sense it was wrong then and know it is wrong now. I have grown into a conservative Republican by getting knocked down and getting back up largely without the help of the government. Lately, (i.e., since 9/11) I have become much more entrenched in my political beliefs. While I understand that people can look at George Bush's record and say, "I don't agree with his policies," but I cannot understand the great distain the neo-libs have for him as a person. Everything he had done since 9/11 has been no less than incredible. I guess I'd like to hear from some of you Libs. What is it that drives you? Have you ever looked at facts (not feelings - facts)?