Monday, December 31, 2007

The ad that was not to be by Mike Hukabee (AKA the Huckster)

I am not against negative ads, but Huckabee must really believe that evangelicals will follow him around like puppy dogs lapping up every word he says without question.

This is the story about the ad that was not to be that Huckabee decided to show before he didn't decide to show it after he showed it to the press. Got it!! In other words, it was a clever way to run a negative ad against Romney while trying to appear somewhat holier than thou.

The Huckster told a room full of reporters that he was planning to pull a negative ad because it was too harsh, but to prove he had actually made such an ad, he was going to show it to the press only once - the reporters, of course, burst out laughing. Even they weren't fooled.

This is similar to a lawyer saying something in a court room to which he knows will be objected, but once the jury hears it, its out there.

This begs the question Why was the ad made in the first place?

Huckabee's rational, "I only decided an hour ago to pull the ad." - Yeah right!

In that ad, Huckabee says about Mitt, "If a man is dishonest to obtain a job, he will be dishonest on the job - hmmmm" Who is he fooling?

I guess Huckabee has never heard of Youtube.

Honest Huck does not equal Honest Abe.

Now the real reason: Huckabee is broke. He has no more money to run ads. While the other candidates continue to run ads, Huckabee plays the American public as fools. This negative ad was already shown on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes and O'reilly factor several times. So, instead of having to pay for an ad only in Iowa, he now was able to enjoy a free negative ad that reached a national audience. The o'reilly factor and Hannity and Colmes are the two highest rated news shows.

Update: an non-partisan website that investigates claims of all stripes has discovered that the negative ad that Huckabee said he was going to pull has actually aired three times in Iowa. In part, the piece reads:

According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media intelligence, the ad appeared Dec. 31 on WHBF-TV and KLJB-TV in Davenport and on KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids. The ad ran once on each station. We will update this count as data for later dates becomes available. When we contacted the Huckabee campaign for an explanation, a representative expressed surprise to hear the ad had been on the air. We'll update this with any explanation we receive from the campaign.

Read the entire article here:

Friday, December 21, 2007

The subtext of Hillary's Christmas Presents

Hillary's Christmas presents should be a warning to America. Do we really want to travel down the failed populist policies of Europe and Latin America.

Hillary's presents

Universal Health Care - Socialized Medicine coming to a clinic near you. Of course, we must sacrifice a little for the common good (as Hillary puts it.) We will no longer have the best medicine in the world, but I suppose that is OK right?. To support such a system, your taxes will have to be increased a lot (not just on the wealthy) but on everybody - but not to worry, its for the common good. If you want to see what is waiting for you, go to a clinic that takes MediCal and see what kind of service you get. And, don't forget, she is including illegal aliens in her socialized health care plan too, so your increased taxes will pay for all those illegals streaming across our borders - but not to worry. Look at Canada's and Europe's health care. France has the highest tax rate in the world. So, to sum it up, if you want to get ahead, it will be that much more difficult, because your taxes will be raised to such a point to help the indigent here and south of the border - but its for the common good. ¡Arriba Hillary!

Alternative Energy - I strongly believe in alternative forms of energy, but Hillary's alternative energy means ethanol which has been proven to be expensive and ineffectual. It is also subsidized by the government. It does not mean the cleanest form of energy such as nuclear energy. It also does not include drilling for oil in our own backyard. The goal should not be alternative energy - the goal should be reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil instead of sending petrodollars to people who want to kill us.

Bring Troops Home - This has already begun under Bush. I do believe Hillary would be the most rational in bringing the troops home. She wouldn't be as cut and run as the other Democrats. But, then there would be no difference with respect with Bush. This has become a non-issue. The surge is working. You do not hear stories of car bombs much any more. But, the drive-by media neglects to report it. The drive-by media only reports if there is mass violence. The global warming myth has usurped the war in Iraq because of the drop in violence.

Middle Class Tax Breaks - Huh? I don't think so. She will be raising capital gains (owned by the middle class.), and she will be removing Bush's tax cuts (which affect many middle class households)not to mention reinstating the death tax. If you think the rich are going to pay for this universal health care boondogle, then I have a bridge I can sell you. And, wait til they start taxing you for all this global warming, and its coming. This is another pipe dream.

Universal Pre-K - These are the formative years of children where the children should be spending bonding time with their parents. Universal Pre-K is just another way for the government to have your kids that much earlier - a dangerous precedent. And, more socialism.

For the coming year, I have a new financial plan. I never gauge my investments on which party is in the White House. This time will be different. If I think Hillary is going to win, I am going to be dumping stocks for safer investments. I am not the only one. Hillary, a European Socialist, will cause the economy to go into a recession.

Europe is trying to extricate itself from the Socialist Policies of the past. It is a difficult process if it is possible at all. The United States will find itself in the same position. It will take years for us to unravel the mess Hillary will cause for all of us.

So, Merry Christmas to all - from now until never you will be paying for Christmas presents not for your family but for people you don't even know here and south of the border.

Monday, December 17, 2007

I am legend

I have always liked Will Smith. It is no different here. This was definitely a good movie. It reminded me of "The Omega Man" with Charleton Heston.

But and here is the But - I am glad civilization was wiped out from a man-made virus. I think I would have walked out if I had found out civilization was wiped out by Global Warming.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Mike Huckabee - The veil lifted part two

"Then I'll get on my knees and pray, we don't get fooled again." The Who

I was writing an entry on what was wrong with the GOP and my post turned into a post about Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls, so I thought it was befitting to issue a warning about a man skilled in the public debate arena but deficient in what it takes to be president of the free world. (Note: I have included several links. If you right click on these links (links are in red) and click open in new window, you can read more material on Huckabee without leaving my post. Spread the word about Huckabee.)

I have recently posted on Huckabee’s penchant for raising taxes in his own state of Arkansas but that is just the tip of the iceberg. When you roll back the veil even further, we get even a more frightening picture of this man. Huckabee would take us into the direction of the failed polices of Jimmy Carter. Huckabee represents the Howard Dean of the GOP. I just hope he crashes and burns in the same way Dean did.

If the GOP nominates Mike Huckabee, it would be a grave mistake. Besides being unelectable in a general election, I am forced to ask the question - can we afford to elect someone who is pro-life but lacks the qualifications for anything else? The New Hampshire affiliate of the National Teacher Association, (NEA) recently came out in support of Huckabee. This in itself should be a red flag to all conservatives. The NEA, a far-left organization, is very territorial and does not support anyone who would upset the NEA’s agenda. The NEA has never in its history supported a GOP candidate, and for good reason. The NEA supports Huckabee because he supports much of the NEA’s agenda such as its opposition on school choice. Huckabee is not only bad for America, but he would set the conservative movement back thirty years.

Huckabee is toeing the liberal line in more ways than one. Just this week, he publicly stated Bush's foreign policy was arrogant and he denounced the administration for its "go-it-alone-attitude arrogant bunker mentality.” Do we want our presidential candidate decrying the arrogance of the Bush administration? We all know that Bush has made mistakes, but how is this supposed to garner him the party’s nomination? He has come out and said America needs to change its “tone.” Huckabee talks about the same “Kumbaya” diplomacy of the Democrats. He believes we can talk rationally with terrorist governments. Huckabee recently stated to the Des Moines Register, "You treat others the way you'd like to be treated; to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries." I am sure Ahmadinejad will be glad to hear that, this type of diplomacy only serves to give Iran and other terrorist groups time to plot the demise of the West. It seems that Huckabee wants to snuggle up with Hugo Chavez with the likes of Cindy Sheehan. Huckabee sounds more like Hillary Clinton when Hillary refers to Bush’s foreign policy as “Cowboy diplomacy.” Huckabee says we need to change our tone with the rest of the world while he feigns ignorance on the new governments of Sarkozy’s France, Markel’s Germany, and Harper’s Canada. All three of these governments have come out in support of the USA.

When applying for a job, a prospective employee is always taught not to lie or exaggerate on a resumé. Huckabee did just that. In his response on why he is the best one for the war on terror, Huckabee said:

"I'm as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'm the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well."

I believe we are in a religious war, but does one need a theology degree to understand that? Political correctness has driven us to see Islam as a religion of peace. In any event, that is not the crux of the issue. Huckabee said he had a theology degree and “woops!” Guess what? He doesn’t. Apparently, his religious studies amount to one year. Huckabee is not running for president of the religious right, he is running for president for all Americans. Most of America would not even understand what he meant by saying a theology degree makes him more qualified to understand the war on terror. His ignorance on what it takes to run for president does not stop there.

When I was in High School, I would frequently get into trouble with my other siblings, and on occasion before I would receive my well-deserved punishment, I would ask my father with lachrymose eyes, “Why am I getting in trouble?” and my dad would respond, “Because you don’t know when to keep your mouth shut.” I am finding this same trait in Huckabee. He just doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut. In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Huckabee says to journalist Holley Bailey, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to start evaluating other religions.” But it didn’t seem to bother Huckabee when he asked the New York Times, “Don’t Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers?” If this isn’t evaluating Mormonism, not sure what is. For a political candidate, this question would only be asked by a neophyte in the political game. Even if this were a part of Mormon doctrine, the public discourse would be taken down a theological pathway that most Americans could care less about or that most Americans would not understand. There was such a backlash from this statement that Huckabee had only one recourse, he had to apologize. This only begs the question – Is Huckabee really qualified to be president? And then there are the flip-flops,,,

I am all for a candidate changing his mind. Reagan changed his mind on abortion. Timing, however, is everything. If it appears that a candidate is changing his mind for political expediency instead of his true convictions then I have a problem. Maxwell Smart, agent 86 of “Get Smart” fame when foiled by a plot by the evil organization "Kaos" would say, “It’s the old switcharoo trick. That‘s the second time I fell for it this month.” The switcharoo trick is better known in today’s vernacular as the flip-flop. Well, how many times are we going to fall for “The old switcharoo trick?” before we realize this guy’s rhetoric is too good to be true.

Switcharoo #1 – Cuba.

When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he came out against the trade embargo against Cuba. He said it was bad for business. As presidential candidate, he has changed his mind. Now that he has seen his poll numbers surge, and wanting to maintain his momentum, he has come out in favor of the trade embargo since he needs to garner the Cuban vote. The Associate Press quoted Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee when he criticized Huckabee for "changing his stance on Cuba on a dime to appeal to a particular group of people right before an election,"

Switcharoo #2 – immigration.

Again in his home state of Arkansas, two Years ago, Huckabee voted for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Huckabee was always viewed as soft on immigration. He was in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. Now when polls indicate that 70% of Americans want control of our borders and illegal immigration stopped, Huckabee has come out hard on immigration releasing a nine point hard-line plan on immigration. This should give you pause irrespective of whether you or for or against illegal immigration.

Switcharoo #3 – abortion.

Huckabee has always been pro-life. But, if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would return to the states. That is what the current debate is about. The legality of abortion resided with the states before Roe v. Wade, and that is where it would return. The ideal would be to completely outlaw it, but in order to do that you would need to pass a constitutional amendment, and as a practical matter, that will never happen, (At least not in the current political environment.) If I am wrong, someone can point that out to me. When Huckabee was talking to John Hawkins a conservative essayist, Huckabee stated that the legality of abortion should not be settled at the national level, it should be left up to the states. This is an exact quote which was on Huckabee’s website until recently. Why? You ask. Huckabee now says that such a deep moral issue should not be left up to the states. He now claims that he always believed in a federal ban on abortions.

As the saying going, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Apparently, Kerry does not have a lock on the flip-flop.

Rich Lowry, a conservative journalist, states the problem with regards to Huckabee this way:

Huckabee has been running his campaign out of his back pocket, and has done it extremely well. There's a reason, though, that serious candidates surround themselves with policy experts. It's necessary to running a campaign based on more than sound bites. Wherever you scratch Huckabee on policy, he seems an inch deep. Do Republicans really want to enter what is already a tough political year with a candidate apparently allergic to preparation, and who has shown no predilection for organizing or fundraising, when he can do cable TV appearances instead?

In an interview with Huckabee, newsweek makes the following observation:

Over the years, Huckabee made plenty of enemies, not all of them Democrats. Small-government Republicans in Arkansas, who fought the governor, over immigration, education spending and taxes, have long complained that he is really a closet welfare-liberal. he has all but declared war on big-business Republicans, believing that tax cuts and unfettered free markets have made the rich richer at the expense of ordinary Americans.

This shows a complete ignorance of how the economy works.

Californians feel the same unease with Arnold Schwarznegger (alias Schwarzenkennedy) about their governor. The number of Republicans who would consider Schwarznkennedy a Republican, you can fit inside a small room.

Our little Christian pastor seems to have also entangled himself with the Arkansas ethics committee. The Arkansas ethics committe has sanctioned or fined him five times for improperly taking cash, expensive clothing and other gifts from friends and contributors among other charges.

It should be obvious to all conservatives that when the veil is finally lifted from Mike Huckabee, the real man behind the rhetoric is revealed. Huckabee is a liberal in sheep’s clothing. He is a rhino, (Republican in name only) of the worst degree. I just hope conservatives in their quest to find a candidate who is socially conservative will understand who this man really is. He is not who they are looking for. Mike Huckabee is a liberal, tax-and-spend fledling who will change his views according to which way the wind blows. His qualifications for being the conservative Commander in Chief we need are nil. Be forewarned!

Note: Huckabee's nine-point immigration plan was lifted from the pages of National Review. He does attribute it, but what does that say about a candidate who can't even come up with his own plan. I wonder if he has even read it.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Green Hypocrites

This is from

Here are green hypocrisy’s top 10 poster children for 2007.

1. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Lifestyle. While the former veep and nouveau-$100 millionaire jets around the world squawking about the “planet having a fever” and demanding that we all lower our standard of living, his own personal electricity use is 20 times the national average, including an indoor pool costing $500/month to heat.

While Gore deflected criticism of his inconvenient electric bill during March congressional testimony by saying he purchased “green” electricity, the truth is, he didn’t start doing so until 2007.

2. Google’s Sky Pig. A photo-op of Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin plugging-in a hybrid car was part of the search engine giant’s June announcement promising carbon neutrality by 2008. But how this PR-fluff squares with the so-called “Google party jet” — Page and Brin’s gargantuan personal Boeing 767, which burns about 1,550 gallons/hour — is any one’s guess.

3. RFK Jr. Tilts at Windmills. Outspoken global warming activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently railed against coal-produced electricity because “climate change is the most urgent threat to our collective survival.”

Meanwhile, Kennedy vigorously campaigns against a proposed Cape Cod wind farm that would generate CO2-free electricity because it would “impoverish the experience of millions of tourists and residents and fishing families who rely on the sound's unspoiled bounties.” Unmentioned in Kennedy’s tirades, however, is the windmill’s unfortunate proximity to his family’s famed Hyannis Port compound.

4. The U.N.’s ‘Bali High’. Early December will witness 10,000 climateers descending upon the paradisiacal island resort of Bali for the 13th annual U.N. global warming meeting. The reason for much jet and limo travel — and other prodigious greenhouse gas generating activity associated with such a mega-conference — is relatively modest: setting the agenda and timeframe for a post-Kyoto treaty. Sure seems like something that could have been handled in a less carbon-intensive way — either by Internet and video conferencing or, if meeting is necessary, somewhere in North America or Europe where most key attendees are based.

5. Nancy Nukes Nukes. Supposedly concerned that “global warming and energy independence…have profound implications for our nation’s economic competitiveness, national security, environmental quality and public health,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to take the congressional lead on those issues.

So who did Speaker Pelosi pick to chair the committee? None other than long-time nuclear power opponent Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who appeared with anti-nuke celebrities Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne at an October Capitol Hill press conference to denounce legislation promoting the development of ultra-green nuclear power.

6. Every home a Superfund site? “Mercury is highly toxic to everyone, but particularly to children and developing fetuses,” says the activist group Environmental Defense, a long-time campaigner against mercury from power plant emissions and in automobile convenience lighting.

So it came as quite a surprise when the group began advocating that consumers bring the “highly toxic” mercury into their homes in the form of compact fluorescent light bulbs in order to reduce power plant CO2 emissions. CFLs are so hazardous, according to public health officials however, that special safety precautions must be taken for disposal or if the bulbs break.

7. Doesn’t everyone own a NASA scientist? In March 2007, NASA’s climate alarmist-in-chief James Hansen criticized “special interests” campaigning against climate regulation.

“By larding the campaign coffers of numerous politicians, the fossil fuel industry has succeeded in subverting the democratic principle…Until the public indicates sufficient interest, and puts pressure on political systems, special interests will continue to rule.”

Though Hansen poses as a humble civil servant, it recently came to light that his alarmist efforts have been bankrolled by leftist billionaire and sugar-daddy George Soros. Doesn’t Soros qualify as a “special interest,” Dr. Hansen?

8. Like a Virgin’s Carbon Footprint. London’s Daily Mail reported (“What planet are they on?, July 7) on the climate consciousness of Madonna and other Live Earth performers.

“[T]he pop stars headlining the concerts are the absolute antithesis of the message they promote with Madonna leading the pack of the worst individual rock star polluters in the world… Madonna alone has an annual carbon footprint of 1,018 tons… the average Briton produces just 10 tons… [her] Confessions tour last year produced 440 tons of carbon pollution in just four months, simply in flights between venues.”

That’s one small footprint for the average Brit, but one giant footprint for celebrity-kind.

9. The NBC Poppycock. NBC-Universal kicked-off of its “Green is Universal” initiative by dimming the studio lights — but not two giant video screens and advertisements — during a break in the Nov. 4 Cowboys-Eagles game.

Candle-lit host Bob Costas then cut to video of Today show personalities Matt Lauer, Al Roker and Ann Curry reporting about climate change from the Arctic, Amazon and Antarctic, respectively. None gave even a nod to the energy-hogging effort required to send them and crews to do such pointless broadcasts from exotic locales.

10. California’s Hypocritenator. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared in June 2005 that, “California will be a leader in the fight against global warming…the time for action is now.”

But just two years later, the Los Angeles Times reported that state efforts had been derailed by the governor’s mismanagement and deceit. Schwarzenegger even fired the state’s chief regulator for refusing to limit the number of greenhouse gas regulations. Columnist Debra Saunders noted that, “Schwarzenegger boasts that he is a world leader in the fight against global warming — but his advocacy shouldn't keep him from flying in private jets or driving a Hummer.”

The one thing these honorees all have in common is that their real-life actions belie their carefully crafted green public images. If they don’t take their commitment seriously, why should you?

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Friday, December 7, 2007

Huckabee the Democrat

The more you find out about who Mike Huckabee really is, the less palatable he becomes.

Click here to read Mike Huckabee's foreign policy in powerlineblog

The author makes an analogy to Carter's foreign police to put it politely. After reading the above post, it would be hard to disagree.

and you can view an interview between Kudlow and Huckabee here.

Mike Huckabee interview

As Kudlow said to Michael Medved

Regarding Governor Huckabee, Governor Huckabee is a very interesting guy who is not running as the kind of traditional, free-trade, cut taxes, limit government, supply side conservative. He is not

Never fear Bush is here - a subprime rescue

Populism: A political philosophy that supports the rights and power of the people, usually in opposition to the privileged elite.

Populism may sound good on the face of it, but it is the main reason (populism and corruption) Latin America has continuously found itself in a quandary with regards to economic policy. Populism is anathema to capitalism. Populism is an irrational response of the have-nots to perceived injustices by the haves.

It is usually the Democrats who try and institute populist policies, but in the latest move to freeze subprime mortgage rates, I see Bush moving more and more toward populist policies. The Democrats no longer have a lock on populism. We are becoming more and more like a one party system – The Republicans are becoming indistinguishable from the Democrats. This is worrisome to say the least.

Hillary Clinton said Bush’s response to the Subprime mortgages was good but late in coming. Obama and Kerry said he didn’t go far enough.

I personally know individuals caught up in this subprime mess, and I do feel for them, and my earnest prayers are that they can find a way out without ruining their credit. But, individual cases are anecdotal. The employee affected by a layoff goes through a depression, not a recession as the saying goes.

Since interest rates are the prices banks charge consumers, and it is how they make their money, freezing rates are no different than the wage and price controls enacted by Nixon in the early 70s. Price controls in any form do not work in a capitalist or free-market system. President Bush should have learned his history lesson by Nixon’s wage and price controls. These controls popular at the time proved to be injurious to the US economy.

What they were running into was the problem of central planning in a market economy – the market will always undermine any attempt at control. One week the problem was textiles. Because of the political power of the farmers, the administration could not put price caps from the price of greige goods – unbleached, undyed woven cloth that is the first stage in textile production (greige is pronounced “gray”). So they couldn’t raise prices – and companies abandoning that part of the business. All of a sudden, the fabric finishers and clothing manufacturers were complaining that there weren’t enough greige goods…Rumsfeld asked, “Do we raise the price?” Situations like this came up week after week.

Source: The Age of Turbulence, Adventures in a New World by Alan Greenspan

In a centrally planned economy such as China or the former Soviet Union, price fixing is commonplace, but it runs counter to capitalism. In essence, Nixon’s price controls had unforeseen circumstances that just kept popping up. His policies eventually helped pave the way toward long gas lines, double digit inflation, and a stock market decline of 40%.

The only difference between what Bush is doing now and what Nixon did then is the size of the freeze. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, Bush’s plan applies to only 2.9 million homes.

But what will the effects of Bush’s subprime plan be? First Bush’s plan is only a band aid to the problem. It freezes rates for five years. Sub prime borrowers, by definition, do not know how to manage their money. If they did, they never would have taken out the loan in the first place. Irresponsible behavior begets irresponsible behavior. Five years from now, these borrowers will be in the same predicament they were in as they are today, (of course, by then Hillary will probably be president, and she will put through a bailout via your taxes and mine.) Houses will continue to remain artificially high, and borrowers will not learn from their mistakes. As in Nixon’s wage and price controls, there will be yet unforeseen adverse consequences to the economy. This is always the impact when government tries to control prices in a free-market economy.

Bush’s proposal will only delay the downturn and prolong the misery. In March 2000, the “irrational exuberance” of the dot-com bubble came to a head, and came crashing down. Pundits expected real estate to follow six months to a year later, because history told us real estate values fall following stock market crashes. It never happened. This is because banks became lax in giving credit, and borrowers were looking for a new place to make money. The effect was a housing boom that lasted for years. The longer a boom lasts (artificially), the harder will be its fall be it stocks or be it real estate.

A couple years ago, my nephew wanted to buy a house, I told him to wait because houses were going to have a precipitous decline. I was right. But he waited like many others who are trying to prudently invest their money instead of borrowing money they can’t pay back. Bush is rewarding those who made brainless decisions, and he is punishing those who waited to buy by keeping houses artificially high.

What should happen? Financial institutions that cannot afford to absorb the losses should go out of business. The remaining banks will emerge stronger and healthier. Borrowers who cannot afford to pay the loans back should be forced to go into foreclosure. The stock market will decline, and houses will become affordable to those previously left out of the market. If Bush let the markets work, we would avoid a recession, and the doom and gloom of the economy would be ephemeral.

Bush’s plan is more about political expediency and building his legacy than doing what is best for the US economy.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The man behind the rhetoric - Mike Huckabee

I often hear conservatives tout for a Huckabee presidency because they say he is socially conservative, but it takes more than that to be president. Behind Huckabee’s great oratory skills lies a liberal agenda that will impede economic growth.

A good orator doesn’t necessarily mean a good president. Reagan was a good orator, and he was a good president, but Hitler was a good orator, and we know what he became.

Dr Phil states, “Past Behavior is indicative of future behavior” and Huckabee’s past behavior is not a pretty picture.”

The following is from Club for Growth.

Huckabee on Taxes

While Governor Huckabee deserves credit for his modest tax cuts at the beginning of his tenure, several Arkansas papers have documented the fallacy of Huckabee’s “94 tax cuts” line. Overall, Huckabee’s substantial tax hikes far surpassed his modest tax cuts, with the average tax burden increasing by a whopping 47% over his tenure

Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996
to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and
1. He supported an internet sales tax in 2001.
2. He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002.
3. He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001.
4. He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements.
5. He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003.
6. In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law.

By the end of his ten-year tenure, Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher
sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes
according to Americans for Tax Reform, garnering a lifetime grade of D from the
Cato Institute. While he is on record supporting making the Bush tax cuts
permanent, he joined Democrats in criticizing the Republican Party for tilting its tax policies “toward the people at the top end of the economic scale,” even though
objective evidence demonstrates that the Bush tax cuts have actually shifted the tax
burden to higher income taxpayers

Finally, Governor Huckabee opposed further tax cuts at a 2005 gathering of Iowa
conservatives. On January 28, 2007, Governor Huckabee refused to pledge not to raise taxes if elected President, first on “Meet the Press” and then at the National Review Conservative Summit. The evidence suggests that his commitment to protecting taxpayers evidenced in his early gubernatorial years may be a thing of the past.

Spending – Huckabee is trying to outspend Bush

Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from
1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation. The number of state government
workers rose 20% during his tenure, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by
almost $1 billion, according to Americans for Tax Reform.40 The massive increase in
government spending is due in part to the number of new programs and expansion of
already existing programs initiated by Governor Huckabee, including ARKids First, a
multimillion-dollar government program to provide health coverage for thousands of
Arkansas’ children.

Huckabee is the only Republican presidential candidate to refuse to endorse
President Bush’s veto of a vastly expanded and expensive SCHIP program

Free Trade – Protectionist policies have always proved detrimental to a free market.

As Governor Huckabee fleshes out his thoughts on trade, his seemingly positive
record has taken a sharp turn for the worse. While he has not articulated a full-fledged trade policy, he has adopted protectionist rhetoric and suggested his opposition to the recent trade agreement between the United States and South Korea, (the largest free trade agreement since NAFTA that would eliminate over 90% of tariffs currently plaguing U.S. exports to South Korea).Instead of talking about the well-documented economic benefits of free trade, Huckabee
has taken to talking about “fair trade,” while focusing on what he believes to be the
negative consequences of free trade. Make no mistake about it: These are not the words of a free trader.


Governor Huckabee’s support for the 2003 Republican initiated
Medicare prescription drug plan, a huge unfunded liability shouldered by
taxpayers across America.


1. Raised the minimum wage in April 2006 from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour and
encouraged Congress to take the same initiative on a national level, a proposal that President Bush and most congressional GOP members oppose
2.Sought to take revenue from his tax hike proposal to be used on economic
development projects in 2002
3 Threatened to investigate price-gouging after 9/11 if gasoline prices went up too high
4 Ordered regulatory agencies in Arkansas to investigate price-gouging in the nursing home industry
5 Signed a bill into law that would prevent companies from raising their prices a
mere 10% ahead of a natural disaster; services like roof repair and tree removal
were targeted

School Choice

Huckabee’s education proposals put greater emphasis on
government intervention in the education system instead of calling for greater choice and competition. According to the Sioux City Journal, “Huckabee said he would make arts and music education tested curriculum and provide federal funds to do so.”

Governor Huckabee’s record on pro-growth, free-market policies is a mixed bag, with pro-growth positions on trade and tort reform, mixed positions on school choice, political speech, and entitlement reform, and profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending,and government regulation.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

This is Mark From Newark!!!

I am not sure what the exact test is for determining if you are a political junkie but I think I have come close as you can get to determining if you are one.

I often leave my radio on all night so if I wake up during the night I have something to listen to. So Sunday night I happened to wake up to Ray Taliaferro on KGO radio at 1:30 in the morning.

Ray, a far-left host (who says there are no liberal stations on the radio?) was talking about the economy. Now, let it be known, 99% of what Ray says I disagree with. But, he actually said something with which I agreed.

He talked about the devaluation of the dollar, and how Bush is spending us into oblivion. He is right. But he also blamed the problems with the economy on the subprime debacle, and Iraq.

So, I called at 1:30 in the morning. I had to wait a half an hour before I was able to get on the radio. Ray introduced me as "Mark from Newark." I told Ray I did not believe Bush was a conservative, and he was spending us into oblivion, but it had nothing to do with Iraq.

As usual, liberals understand little about economics or how the world works.

Wars are measured in terms of the Gross Domestic Product, (GDP). In terms of GDP, Iraq is a drop in the bucket. Iraq is only 2% of GDP compared with the Gulf War (3% of GDP), the Vietnam war (13% of GDP), and World War 2 (130% of GDP). The problem is Bush doesn't use his veto power.

I also stated the subprime debacle is just a phase that is a part of capitalism. If individuals want to take out too much credit, then it shouldn't be my responsiblity to bail them out, and in the same vein, if financial institutions want to lend to individuals who can't afford to pay the loan back, then why should we bail out those companies.

Ray, a proponent of Hillary's health care plan, asked my opinion on her health care plan, and I said I thought it would compound the problem. We need to bring competition into the health care system.

Europe has socialized health care, and it is killing them. Once a country finds itself in a huge social net, that social net becomes a crutch, and workers become complacent and expect it.

Ray, of course, disagreed with me but he let me say my piece. He did not hang up on me like most liberal hosts would do.

Of course, the interesting part was what followed. I created a firestorm For the entire hour afteward, the calls went like this, "That Mark from Newark doesn't know what he is talking about....." It was entertaining to say the least.

The following day, my daughter 17 years old told my wife, "Dad, was up last night yelling at someone on the phone for a long time."

I didn't sleep much that night.

Maybe I need to join PA - Politics Anonymous for political addicts - Does such a thing exist? or as my liberal friend Julie would say, "Get a life!!!"

Thursday, November 29, 2007

The CNN Republican Debate or How to plant questions.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.-- Mark Twain

And so it goes with CNN in last night’s debate.

Conservatives have always said there is a liberal bias in the drive by media, but liberals counter and say, “There is no such bias.” well last night, as Al Gore would say, “The debate is over.”

In the last Democrat debate by CNN, every one of the undecided voters were plants as shown in this video. I guess none were really undecided.

Okay, so that was a Democrat debate. Now we have a GOP Youtube debate, and you think CNN would have learned from the first debate. Within seconds of this video, and with a simple google search, Kevin Aylward of discovers a Democrat plant.

From the style of the question, it was obvious he was a plant, obvious to anyone but CNN. Retired gay general Brigadier Keith Kerr is affiliated with the Hillary campaign, and he is also on Kerry’s steering committee for gays, lesbians and transsexuals.

His question was concerning the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy of the military. Do they forget? That was a policy instituted by the liberal's beloved saint Bill Clinton.

Bill Bennett mentioned the plant on CNN. CNN said the General had lied to them. CNN said the general said he was a Republican. So, if that is true, then CNN is incompetent for not doing the proper vetting. The pajama media sitting at home using just simple google searches finds the general pop up numerous times. On the rebroadcast, CNN skipped his question.

But does it stop there no – with more investigation (and not much at that,) more plants are discovered.

As the night drags on, bloggers continue to find plants.

The Free Republic finds these plants

Michelle Malkin notes about the weeding out of Keith Kerr on the rebroadcast. “Keep pulling those weeds.” Of course, if they pulled all the weeds, we would have 15 minutes of commercials and no debate. Would that be a bad thing?

And then there was the guy who asked a question at both youtube debates. What are the odds of that? This is at National Review On Line.

The upside to this debate was it exposed the liberal bias in the drive by media. And as Al Gore succinctly points out, “The debate is over.”

Now on to some of the more salient points of the debate.

Why in every GOP CNN debate, does there have to be some seemingly crazed lunatic toting an AK-47 or cocking a rifle and asking a question about gun control?

On waterboarding – Mitt Romney did not make his point very well. He went along the White House line of not disclosing what we consider torture (with which I agree). “This is not 24” scowled McCain while refusing to look Romney in the face. It was more the facial expression Romney gave McCain. His facial expression (ie: his body language) basically said, “I am talking with a guy that was tortured so he knows more about this.” The one incontrovertible fact was that Romney was uncomfortable talking about torture to a man who was tortured. Romney’s facial expression made him lose that round.

We all know that McCain is a hero for enduring what he did during the Vietnam years, but you don’t have to be tortured to believe that if waterboarding is going to save lives, then it is justified. (We dropped two atom bombs on Japan to save American lives.) He also keeps referring to the fact it’s a violation of the Geneva Convention. Well first, the Geneva convention applies to a uniformed military, not terrorists or insurgents in civilian clothes.

Mccain is right on the war on terror, but wrong on so many other issues.

On Illegal immigration and Sanctuary cities
– Guliani tried to use a phrase to elicit a chuckle from the audience. It didn’t work. When Romney accused Guliani of using New York as a sanctuary city, (which Guliani denied), he said that Romney lived in a sanctuary mansion, because he had illegals working for him. These workers were contracted out, and the contractor is responsible for determining who is or who isn’t illegal, not Romney.

This exchange between Romney and Guliani was somewhat petty.

It is troubling that Guliani did operate New York as a sanctuary city, and he calls for a virtual fence instead of a real fence on the border between the United States and Mexico. I heard one talk show host comment, "maybe they should take down the fence in front of the white house and put up a virtual fence." He is in favor of a national ID card for non-citizens. That is good, but I hope he will not be another Bush when it comes to immigration. The problem is I still believe he is the only one who has a chance against Hillary.

Why doesn't Guliani just come out and say, "Although I was not as hard as I was on immigration in New York, my views changed after 9/11, and I now believe that our security is paramount." That would end the discussion. People's views change especially after some dramatic event such as 9/11. Of course, it's too late for that strategy. Changes in views, however, can't be suspect as Romney's flip-flop on abortion seems to be because of political expediency.

Would Jesus support the death penalty? What a stupid question! Another obvious plant. Read Romans written by the apostle Paul. From Romans, one could deduce the death penalty is left up to the state.

Do you believe this book? Another plant lifts up the Bible, the obvious assertion being "do the candidates believe the literal interpretation of the bible?" One of the reasons for Europe’s decline is because Europe has become devoid of faith. They live for their 35 hour work week and their social benefits. Unless there is a principle for which one is willing to die, (not a work week), a nation will not survive. Islam is taking over Europe because Muslims believe it is a religious duty to convert or conquer the Infidel. Europe is on a downward spiral. In Europe, churches are empty, and relativism has replaced Christianity. I hope we are not headed in the same direction.

Farm Subsidies – Both Guliani and Romney were for subsidies because they said other countries subsidize agricultural products. Of course,subsidies destroy the foundation of a free market. Alan Greenspan talks about a bill in May of 2001 regarding a 200 billion dollar handout on cotton and grain that reversed hard-fought earlier initiatives to scale back agricultural subsidies, and heaped new subsidies on everything from sugar to chickpeas. It passed. The remedy of course would have been a presidential veto. Farm subsidies today are in large part to enhance the ethanol fraud to make ethanol seem cheaper than it really is.

Black on black crime
– Why is their black on black crime? Why do blacks kill blacks? Isn’t it obvious? 60% of Blacks are born out of wedlock, and the father’s leave. Stop that and you stop black on black crime. Of course, this was another obvious plant.

Here is my recommendation for the next Republican debate. The candidates should boycott CNN and have their debates on Fox News. They should use conservative moderators such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume or other well known conservative bloggers or commentators.

CNN spun this debate to make Republicans look bad. They do not understand conservatism nor do they understand what is good for this country. CNN plants known activists they call "undecided voters" and spins the debate towards issues that are not important to Republicans. Much of the debate was on silly questions about who to charge with a crime on abortion, gays in the military, etc. If there were an issue important to Republicans, it was worded in a way that gave it a liberal spin. There was no question on the war on terror except for torture and with a liberal spin. Other inane questions included: Do you believe in this book (referring to the bible)? while some obvious planted atheist flails a bible in the air or what would Jesus do (with reference to the death penalty)? by another obvious plant.

Liberals can't even figure out why someone would be pro-life and still be for the death penalty. When you can't comprehend even that, how can liberals presume to ask the more complicated questions that concern Republicans.

Questions should be asked by serious Republicans who understand the essence of what they are asking. We do not need any more inane debates like the Democrats seem to enjoy.

Why can Republicans debate on a CNN forum or on a Fox Forum, but the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox? It should be obvious.

Questions need to be hard hitting and not softball. Questions such as the diamond/Pearl question posed to Hillary Clinton in the last debate (which by the way was not the question the individual wanted to ask) are just a reflection of the idiocy driven by nescience of the average voter.

And on one final note. I learned what a log cabin Republican was last night. I had never heard that before. The log cabin Republican questioner was posed by a Barack Obama supporter.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Ron Paul nails it

Who out there is concerned about the devaluation of the dollar?

I am not much of a fan of Ron Paul. During the presidential debates, he comes off as a raving lunatic. His view of the world with regards to the war on terror is just plain nuts. But in his feedback to Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, he acutely and succintly exposes the problem of the dollar.

You often hear, the devaluation of the dollar is a good thing because we are able to export more goods at a lower cost. If there were a bright side to devaluing a currency then Argentina would be a wealthy country.

It is an oxymoron to say we are a world power while at the same time we devalue our currency - 40% in a three year time frame. That is almost par with a third world country.

Here is what Ron Paul has to say

Thursday, November 15, 2007

And now for your listening pleasure

A break from the mundane world of politics.

I started a Joke - The Bee Gees

I can't take my eyes off of you. Franki Valli

Adoro, Armando Amanzanero

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Can America learn something from Spain?

And now for a Spanish lesson. Here you see an exchange betweem socialist president Zapatero of Spain speaking to Hugo Chavez with deference while Chavez continuously tries to interrupt him. Chavez calls former president Spanish Jose Aznar "a fascist." Zapatero tries to explain to Chavez that Jose Aznar was duly elected by the Spanish people. Zapatero says, "I demand respect," and Hugo Chavez continues his diatribe. Suddenly, the king of Spain interjects, "Porque no te callas?" Why don't you shut up?

I just loved the sound of that

It was king Juan Carlos who transitioned Spain from a dictatorship after the death of Franco in 1975 to a democracy.

and on another note - yesterday, was veteran's day. We saw a house welcoming back a son from Iraq so we stopped and thanked him for his service. If you see a man in uniform stop and thank him for his service.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Will the Real Hillary Clinton Stand Up?

Last Sunday, the attractive and alluring Christina Fernández de Kirchner rode into the Argentinean presidency on the cusp of her husband and President, Néstor Kirchner. “Es la hora del pueblo”, It is the people’s time intones the Argentinean singer Teresa Parodi on Christina Kirchner’s official website. Christina won a clear mandate 44%, from the Argentinean electorate, 23% above her nearest rival. Her election cements the Kirchner dynasty in Argentinean politics, and it will allow her husband to be reelected after her term according to the Argentinean constitution. Christina, a Peronista, has been compared to the former vice president and first lady of Juan Perón, the still venerated Evita Perón. She has also been compared to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Christina is the first female Argentinean president to be elected to office, and she is currently riding a wave of popularity. This is definitely the era of the woman in global politics.

Uxorial politics, a tradition in Argentina, is coming to the United States. Like Christina, Hillary Clinton seems to be riding a wave of popularity among her constituency beating out both Edwards and Obama by a wide margin. She will almost certainly win the Democratic nomination, and probably the presidency. I do not understand it.

Saturday, I was listening to Bob Brinker’s money talk. I occasionally listen to his show because he does sometimes have good insight into the market. He correctly predicted the dot-com crash. However, Brinker also had some disastrous predictions, and had you followed him then, the effects to your portfolio could have been dire.

Brinker’s show is usually never political in nature, but I was amazed at the volume of callers who were concerned about what a Clinton presidency would do to investor’s portfolios. This does not bode well for consumer confidence. There is a lot of concern and trepidation among investors about the impact raising taxes will do to their investments, and Hillary has promised to raise taxes.

These are just some of the comments made by Brinker to caller’s responses

HILARY AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX: Brinker guessed that she would settle for 20%, but she might want more, “……..because she is a big believer in re-distributing the wealth. She really loves that notion of re-distributing, so she might want more.” On dividends, “She hasn’t made it clear." On income tax, “Over $200,000, you are getting a tax increase.”
BOB BRINKER TAX WARNING: “So what does this mean? It means you have the balance of this year and all of next year to make money at today’s income tax rates – maximum federal 35, capital gains 15, dividends, qualified dividends, 15-Federal. You have until the end of 2008 because George W. Bush is not going to raise your taxes. "
(source: ( Honeybee’s summary of Bob Brinker’s Moneytalk radio show

I have never seen an election since I have been voting where raising taxes, (a central platform of the Democrats), is a plus rather than a negative. Hillary doesn’t even lie about it. Hillary makes no qualms about raising taxes. She continuously touts new ideas such as $5,000 baby bonds, matching 401K contributions. Adding up all her programs could increase the average family’s taxes in real terms by more than 20%. These taxes would be enacted as the United States continues to reel from the subprime mortgage debacle, and as the dollar continues to fall against major currencies. This can only be a recipe for disaster.

When Bill Clinton left office, the country was on the verge of a recession due to the dot-com crash. A year and a half later, during the second Bush administration, the twin towers were hit. The impact of the dot-com crash was still being felt. The ephemeral patriotism of the country soon led to a decline in consumer confidence. Had Bush raised taxes, we would have gone into a recession, but he didn’t, he decreased taxes. This increased consumer confidence, and we averted the recession that pundits said we were going to have. Now we are facing another crisis. It will take years before the cost of this subprime debacle is fully realized, and Hillary plans to raise taxes. This will throw us into a recession. This doesn’t even count the cost of Hillary care, which will make the cost of Bush’s Medicare plan seem like petty cash.

Hillary believes that redistribution of wealth is good for America. She believes in big government. The government will take care of you. This is the opposite of laissez-faire capitalism, and it will impede economic growth.

The Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter coined a term which he described was the central dynamic of capitalism, “creative destruction.” Creative destruction is the process of destroying the old (the obsolete) while creating the new. Some examples that underwent the way of creative destruction are the telegraph, the selectric typewriter, the railroad, and the computer chip. Creative destruction is necessary for capitalism to work. Governmental interference impedes this process

As creative destruction takes place, employees are displaced. Employees must have to continuously acquire new skills and knowledge to advance or maintain their place in society. It has been proven time and time again that creative destruction makes a nation wealthier (including the poor.) Innovation and risk taking are the hallmarks of creative destruction. All socio-economic classes take part in this process.

Human tendency, however, is to avoid change, and to want security. Change and insecurity are essential components of creative destruction. The creative destruction component of capitalism causes societies to gravitate towards socialist governments where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave. Third world nations are very susceptible to Socialist governments. The thinking goes something like this, “It’s my right, and I am entitled to it.”

As Alan Greenspan notes in "The Age of Turbulence, Adventures in a New World."

Capitalism creates a tug-of war within each of us. We are alternately the aggressive entrepreneur and the couch potato, who subliminially prefers the lessened competitive stress of an economy where all participants have equal incomes.

Socialism has proven to impede economic growth in every society that has tried it. The more socialist a government, the less efficient an economy will be. This doesn’t seem to matter to Hillary. She still seems to believe in a socialized, centrally planned government in spite of all the evidence that such governments hurt economies.

Once entrenched in socialist style governments, governments find it difficult to extricate their way out. Citizens become used to the social net that is provided. Margaret Thatcher was a proponent of capitalism, and she took on Britain’s socialist policies with an iron hand. The new intrepid French president Nicolas Sarkozy has offered hope against France’s socialist policies including its 35 hour mandatory work week. In Switzerland, the far-right Swiss party has been gaining popularity and according to the Economist, has offered expulsion of foreign criminals, no EU entry, tax cuts—the SVP captured seven more seats in the National Council. With 62 seats and 29% of the vote, against 26.7% in 2003, it recorded the best result of any party since.

What is happening in Europe? A recent poll according to Alan Greenspan shows that 71% of Americans agree that the free-market system is the best economic system available, but only 36% of the French agree. Three-fourths of the French also prefer to work in the government sector, because the government offers security. France has double digit unemployment, a mandatory six week vacation, a mandatory 35 hour work week, and socialized health care. Taxes are a heavy burden on French society. The French view capitalism as “The law of the jungle.” The dichotomy is that while polls suggest that the French still view capitalism as an “evil.”, France elected Sarkozy, a protectionist, but a firm believer in free-markets. An ally of the United States, Sarkozy has promised France sweeping change.

Socialized health care has also proved to be deleterious on governments that practice it.

West Germany was forced to absorb East Germany into its social net after the fall of the Berlin wall. This proved to be a heavy burden on West Germany, and resentment grew among West Germans. Think illegal immigration.

Bush has destroyed the GOP. He has alienated his base from Immigration, the Medicare drug plan boondoggle to the deficit. But Hillary is not the answer, and all the other Democratic nominees are to the left of Hillary (if you can believe that.)

After decades of failed policies, Europeans are beginning to realize that with such heavy burdens on society, it is hard to compete in the global marketplace. Hillary, a European socialist, plans to take us in the direction of those same failed European policies.

Rudy Guliani was prescient when he said, “American can’t afford you (Hillary).”

Who needs Usama Bin Laden to destroy our economy when we have Hillary? If Hillary is elected president, she will take us down a path of “no return.” It will be decades before we can unravel the mess that Hillary will cause.

By Mark Dias

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Hillary Clinton

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Vicente Fox Veracruz, Mexico

What does this remind you of? Vicente Fox has his dissenters. Maybe they didn't read his book, "Revolution of Hope." Oh, that's right, he wrote it in English. Oh and it wasn't even written by him. He used a ghost writer. That is what Hillary Clinton did in her autobiography. How does one call it an autobiography when the book is not written by the individual claiming to have written it. That is called a biography.

I read about a book a week, but I have a policy of sorts, never read a book written by a ghost writer. If the so-called writer can't take the time to write the book him/herself, I can't take the time to read it.

Pete Stark Stark Raving Mad - or a Contiuation of the Bush Derangement Syndrome

This lunatic happens to represent my area. I have gone to one of his town hall meetings, and they are love fests with all the liberals in the area. Of course, What do you expect from a town that is 90% liberal.

Pete Stark needs to go, but he is entrenched as deep as Kennedy is in Massachussets.

This has always been Pete Stark's modus operandi.

Flood his switchboard with phone calls 510-494-1388 (fremont) 202-225-5065 (Washington)

Interesting tidbit - Stark voted against the original S-CHIP bill, before he voted for this current S-CHIP bill which Bush rightly vetoed which began Stark's tirade. Sound familiar - I voted against it before I voted for it. He isn't partisan on the issue is he?

God help us all. This is what we have to expect if the liberals retake power.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The libs and Bush derangement syndrome

In my post "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I wrote,

The Democrats carp about our civil liberties, they carp about the patriot act, they carp about wiretapping and they carp about anything that will help against the war with Radical Islam. I would rather have my civil liberties a bit curtailed for a little bit of safety. Of course, No liberal can ever point to anything different that has prevented them from doing what they did before 9/11. In other words, big brother is not watching anymore now than it was then. Google keeps records of anyone who enters anything into its search engine with the corresponding ISP address. You visit porn sites, Google will know about it. You visit hate sites, Google will know about it, Google knows what you look at and its advertisement is target specific. By knowing the sites you visit, Google can target its advertising to specific markets. The majority of sites you visit will generate small software programs in your computer called cookies. Most are innocuous, but some track sites you visits. In effect anyone who uses the Internet is being monitored by third party entities more than any government entity, but liberals continue to use the Internet, and you never hear them carp about their civil liberties being abused by Google or any other third party.

Well, in today's news we find this about Yahoo.

Callahan testified that in the case of Chinese dissident Shi Tao, Yahoo did not know who the e-mail address belonged to or why the Chinese police were seeking the information.

The information Yahoo gave the government - including an IP address, log-on history and contents of e-mails - helped the Chinese track down and arrest Shi, a dissident who used a pseudonym to post information about a government crackdown on Chinese media. Shi posted the information on an overseas Web site, Democracy Forum.

At the time Callahan testified about the case in February 2006, Chinese police had written Yahoo that they sought evidence about Shi in a case in which he was suspected of "illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities," according to documents released in July by the Dui Hua Foundation, a San Francisco-based human rights group.

Yahoo officials said that Callahan did not try to mislead the committee, and that he did not know that a Chinese lawyer working for a Yahoo subsidiary had been notified of the police's "state secrets" complaint against Shi.

"This issue revolves around a genuine disagreement with the committee over the information provided," Tracy Schmaler, Yahoo's spokeswoman in Washington, said. "We had hoped that we could work with the committee to have an open and constructive dialogue about the complicated nature of doing business in China."

Yahoo and other Internet companies have said that when police in China or other countries seek information on users, it's difficult to distinguish between legitimate law enforcement requests and cases of political persecution.

Shi is now serving a 10-year prison sentence for "divulging state secrets abroad," which human rights groups say means he was criticizing the government. Shi has appealed the verdict and is also seeking damages in a U.S. court against Yahoo and its Hong Kong-based subsidiary

I have yet to hear the libs complain about invasion of privacy with Yahoo, but yet libs will continue to click away at their keyboards knowing full well they are being watched, and Yahoo or Google will know every click heretofore.

There could be only one answer to this folly, and that is "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

Make sure to get innoculated so you are not infected.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

A GOP Debate Starring the Geriatric Fred Thompson

click image to enlarge

Yes, once again I sat through the two hour debate the other day, so I thought I would post my observations. I missed a little of it, because I was trying to help my daughter for an English exam, and that of course, was infinitely more important than watching nine buffoons vying for attention to see who can get in the most memorable sound bite. Helping my daughter with her homework also prevented me from falling asleep.

Statistics were thrown around by the candidates and moderators alike. I wonder how many of these statistics are actually true. I would venture a guess that probably a good portion of the statistics is just wrong, but who would know? There should be a fact check site where we could check the accuracy of these statistics.

So on to the candidates ---

Ron Paul,

If anything, you have to admit Ron Paul is entertaining. One wonders how this dolt ever made it to public office. He actually said something with which I agreed. When other candidates were saying the government should continue paying for farming subsidies including ethanol, Ron Paul was against it. I guess he does understand the concept of a free market.

In one part of the debate, Ron Paul started flailing his arms about yelling that the United States needed congressional approval before launching an attack against Iran. He then said, In 220 years Americas has never been under imminent attack. Guliani chimed in and retorted that there were 23 plots against the United States since 9/11. I am betting that 23 figure is correct since Guliani was probably just waiting to use it. There was no response from the other candidates. Somewhat puzzling.

Okay – I am going to give all the candidates help with this one – Pearl Harbor!!!! Can you believe it? Not one of the candidates mentioned it. They should have watched the recently aired PBS special The War by Ken Burns.

Fred Thompson,

Needless to say, I am not enamored of Fred Thompson like so many of my fellow conservatives seem to be. Here are a few adjectives that I would use to describe good ole Fred during the debate: laconic, lackluster, lethargic, uninspiring, humdrum, insipid, geriatric, and torpid. I think I have adequately described Fred – Reagan, he is not. I don’t think a moribund candidate who appears excessively tired can ever win the presidency especially against Hillary. Remember the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon Debate?

Chris Matthew did try to stump him with a gotcha question, “Who was the Prime Minister of Canada?" and Thompson retorted, “Harper.” – That was good. I actually forget what the original question was, since I was so impressed with him knowing who the Canadian Prime Minister was. He nailed it – so there Chris Matthew!!. Now Matthew should have asked the other candidates some additional “Are you smarter than a 5th grader questions.” Come on, let’s be fair.

Mitt Romney,

The poster boy for Mattel’s Ken (Barbie’s friend), in my opinion, was never electable anyway. For too many evangelicals, Mormonism is a cult, and without the evangelical vote, you can’t win the Republican nomination.

In any event, Mitt made his biggest guffaw when he said he would consult with his attorneys before he goes to war with Iran.

Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee

What’s the point of talking about them, they aren’t going to even be a blimp on the radar screen come election time, and they have no money anyway.

Rudy Guliani,

There is so much about Guliani I do not like, but I believe he is the only viable candidate who has a chance at beating Hillary, and Hillary must be beaten at all cost.

Guliani is fiscally conservative, and he will be a good warrior in the war against radical Islam.

There is a movement afoot led by Doctor James Dobson and other evangelical leaders to bring in a 3rd party candidate. If this happens, Hillary will win by a landslide as predicted by a recent Ramussen poll. This will be a huge mistake.

I agree with Dr Dobson on most everything, but I disagree with him on this. As a Christian and a conservative republican, I believe we can only further our cause if we can prevent the Democrats from regaining power. A vote for a third party candidate or a vote not cast at all is a vote for Hillary.

I understand the frustration with Guliani, but I am not willing to hand over the presidency to Hillary without a fight. Four years of Hillary can devastate this country and this economy.

Because of Guliani’s position on abortion, many pro-lifers will not vote for him. I look at this as an absurd position. Would it have been better for him to change positions as so many politicians do for political expediency, or is it better for him to maintain his honesty? He has said he will put strict constructionists on the bench, judges who interpret the constitution rather than legislate. If we had strict constructionists on the bench during Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade would never have become law, because there is nothing in the constitution that gives a woman a right to an abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue of abortion will just revert back to the states anyway.

There was a point when I would never have voted for a pro-choice candidate, but after 9/11 that changed. We can choose to stay home and let Hillary win. We can choose to vote for a 3rd party and let Hillary win, or we can choose to be apathetic and let Hillary win. The war against radical Islam is now paramount in my mind.

There is no other Republican candidate that can beat Hillary!!! None!!

Judges under a Hillary presidency will be much worse than anyone Guliani would appoint to the bench.

We have people in Islamic countries actively pursuing our demise. The Democrats have attempted to dismantle every measure put forth to keep us safer. Most Democrats don’t even believe there are people trying to kill us. Democrats believe We can just talk to our malevolent dictators and hope they will listen (you know like Stalin and Chamberlain did during World War ll with Hitler) and then invite them to our universities. If there is a nuclear bomb dropped, it won’t matter whether or not we have choice on anything.

If Hillary is elected, she will dismantle much of what the Republicans have put in place to fight the war on terror. She will head towards a far-left socialist agenda leaning towards a more centrally planned economy. It will be easy to pass her leftist agenda since both houses will be controlled by the Democrats.

The Economy

I surmised early on in this morass of a debate that these candidates fail to understand the basics of economics. Two books I suggest they read are Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations published in the 1700s, the first written account in the defense of a free market system. The second book I recommend was just published by Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence.

Chris Matthew asked McCain if Bernanke (he should have first asked him if he knew who the Fed chairman was.) should have lowered interest rates, McCain actually said, “He didn’t know. He was not an expert.” At least it was refreshing to see an honest politician. But then McCain continued, “it would be nice if interest rates were zero.” Huh? He should have stopped at the point where he said he wasn’t an expert, because saying it would be nice if interest rates were zero not only showed he wasn’t an expert, but it just showed he was stupid.

Interest rates control the liquidity in a free market. Rates are lowered if you need more liquidity in the market such as you needed in the subprime mortgage debacle. Rates are increased to decrease liquidity. You decrease liquidity if the economy is growing too fast, and you want to prevent inflation. It is a delicate balance.

I have a follow-up question for senator McCain, "If interest rates went to -0-, who would purchase our treasury bonds to finance our national debt?"

Continuing with the economy, Thompson adds that protectionism is a bad idea, but never expounds on why. Most of the electorate probably does not understand what these terms even mean, so the candidate needs to be able to explain why something is bad if he brings it up. Protectionism has always proven to be a failure. Protectionist policies or the idea of adding tariff barriers to prevent imports from entering into a country inhibits a free market and the free flow of capital. Countries were very protectionist before World War ll. These protectionist policies led to a decrease in international trade and eventually contributed to the collapse of world economic activity. Alan Greenspan writes is his book The Age of Turbulence, “The postwar liberalization of trade helped open up new low-cost sources of supply…it facilitated the foreword thrust toward global market capitalism even during the years of the cold war.” In essence, countries are wealthier because of non-protectionist policies.

I know the Democrats don’t understand the economy, but I thought the Republicans had a better grasp. I guess I was wrong. but how can you run for president if you do not understand how the economy works? Am I missing something?


I get so tired of hearing about ethanol. Ethanol won’t work, and all the candidates keep talking about it as the panacea to our energy crisis.

Guliani said France is using Nuclear Power – why aren’t we? Yeah!!! One of the first intelligent comments I have heard in the entire debate. But no one mentioned ANWAR.

This is what I think we should do to become energy independent. first, we should build nuclear power plants, second start drilling for oil. We have an abundant supply of oil, but we somehow would rather send our petrodollars to people who want to kill us, and third look for feasible alternative energy sources. But nuclear power and oil should be first on the agenda, because we already know they work, and then we can look for alternative energy sources. We should then do what Kennedy did when he made a vow to go to the moon in ten years. We need a vow to become energy independent within some time frame (what a concept!), but not by schemes like ethanol, but by using common sense and what we already know works first.

Instead of the global warming fraud, why don’t the candidates come out and say why global warming is pseudo science. There is sure plenty of evidence. But they not only jump on the band wagon, they want to subsidize alternative forms of energy. This is just plain not conservative, and it belongs on the Democratic aisle.

At the end of the debate, there was some repartee between Thompson and Romney. I guess Thomson still had some comebacks left over that he wanted to use. Needless to say, I didn’t think the exchange was funny. There was laughter, so others may have thought he was funny.

Democrats are winning because conservatives are forgetting why they are conservatives.

After this debate, I could only think to myself, we better start getting used to a Leftist, Socialist (Pinko-Commie) President Hillary and first man, Bill.

If Hillary is elected get used to hearing this:

A little bit of forced cackle

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Gore and Thompson together

I think the truth about Gore's movie is finally coming out:

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

And Fred Thompson is not the white Knight we Republicans hoped for.

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he's reversed his position on ethanol subsidies, saying his new stand is based on changes in energy prices and security issues.

Thompson spoke about the issue after touring an ethanol plant, one of dozens in Iowa, which leads the nation in ethanol production. The actor and former Tennessee senator was finishing a five-day trip to the state, where precinct caucuses begin the presidential nominating process

Fred needs only to tour an ethanol plant to reverse his position. Hmmm - not bad. It might help him if he did a little research on the subject. I wonder how Fred Thompson does when he needs to buy a new car? Does he actually believe what the salesmen tell him without checking out the car himself. Maybe he does. Corn ethanol is subsidized by the government, is corrosive, and economically not feasible. Remember the MTBE fiasco. Ethanol is not the answer.

Maybe, he only needs to visit planned parenthood to see a crying teenager to reverse his position on abortion.

I think Rudy Guliani is our last great hope - don't blow it

Friday, September 28, 2007

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

I thought I would answer one of the comments from a previous post from my favorite liberal blogger Sims. You can read his comment in the post, “America’s love fest with Ahmadinejad.”

His answer to my post "America's love fest with Ahmadinejad" is why I always say, “you can be friends with a Democrat, but never give him/her the reigns of power.” Sims like most Democrats fail to understand the difference between the Cold War and the war with Radical Islam. Bush calls it a war on terror. I say that is dishonest. We are not fighting a war on terror, we are fighting a war with Radical Islam. The Cold War was a dangerous period in history, but I believe we are in a much more perilous situation now than we ever were during the Cold War (except for maybe the Cuban missile crisis.).

I always hear the Democrats or the liberals say I don't fear the terrorists. Of course, how can one fear that which he/she does not believe? The Democrats do not believe there is a war on terror. They do not believe Islam's goal is to take over the world even when there have been reams of books written on the subject by people who have lived it, but then again Democrats do not even believe evil exists. They believe we can have a dialogue with any malevolent dictator that comes along. Of course, how can one believe terrorism is a threat when he/she believes that global warming is the greater threat? It is like an alcoholic who is in a continuous state of denial.

I don’t believe the Democrats or liberals understand what would happen if a nuclear bomb were ever detonated or some other WMD were released on United States Soil. Either they don’t understand, or they are just being intellectually dishonest. First, terrorists will try to release a WMD in several major cities. The economy will come to a screeching halt. Life as we know it will change forever. Immediately, there will be a 50% unemployment rate, panic will set in, the stock market will crash, and the global economy will fall making the depression in the 30s look like a recession. Everyone will be asking themselves why the government didn't do anything. The liberals will start screaming why we weren't wiretapping, etc just like they do now with the war. Well, if the government had trouble handling a minor situation like hurricane Katrina, how do you think they will handle a WMD? It will be every man for himself. Radical Islam understands this better than most Westerners. We will not recover from this scenario in our lifetime.

Intel, a fortune 500 company, was a manufacturer of computer chips. But in the early 1980's Intel was on the verge of bankruptcy, The Japanese began to produce these same computer chips at a much cheaper price. Andrew Grove, the former CEO and holocaust survivor coined a new term "inflection point" in his book, Only the Paranoid Survive. An inflection point is a turning point in a company's life. Either change with the times or fail. Intel's time came when the Japanese were able to manufacture computer chips at much cheaper prices. Grove had to revamp Intel from manufacturing computer chips to manufacturing microprocessors, a huge endeavor. Intel created the first microprocessor. Intel once again began to thrive. I love that phrase, and I use it often - Only the paranoid survive. In other words, if we are not careful, we, as a nation will not survive.

I mentor a nursing student. She is 25 years old, and she is always afraid the nursing program will drop her, because it is tough program even though she consistently performs above average. But, if she ever fell below 70%, the program would drop her without batting an eye. It is also very difficult to even get into the nursing programs because nursing schools are so impacted. I tell her, remember the phrase, “Only the paranoid survive.” If she becomes lackadaisical, she will suffer and the nursing staff could drop her from the program. She always has to be on her toes.

Islam has always had as its goal the domination of the world. You can see that in history where it conquered and controlled nations for centuries. You can see that when Islam slowly took over Lebanon, and you can see that in Europe as the Muslims continue to Islamize Europe. Islam spreads its ideology in several ways; by brute force, by immigration and by birthrate. The birthrate in Europe for Muslims is 7 to 1, and for Europeans it is less than 2 to 1. You need a birthrate of at least 2.1 to just maintain a society. After awhile there will be a point where there are so many, it will be almost impossible to control.

In the last French elections, pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy was elected over France’s Hillary Clinton, Ségolène Royale. Since the inception of France’s fifth republic and its first president Charles De Gaulle, France has moved further and further to the left. France like much of Europe had very liberal immigration policies because they wanted to help the indigent immigrants. This was not unlike Lebanon. Islamic immigrants began pouring in with no intention of ever assimilating into French society. The Muslim population currently represents about 45% of the people on France’s social welfare system. The French for years have been uneasy with the immigration problem. Most French however ignored the problem for fear of being called racists or bigots. After the Muslim youth rioted throughout France, French citizens had enough, and Sarkozy won a mandate. Like the United States, and most of the Western world, we do not heed the warning signs until it is too late.

It is interesting to note that Britain, Germany and France have ratcheted up the rhetoric that military force may be necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining the bomb.

The Democrats carp about our civil liberties, they carp about the patriot act, they carp about wiretapping and they carp about anything that will help against the war with Radical Islam. I would rather have my civil liberties a bit curtailed for a little bit of safety. Of course, No liberal can ever point to anything different that has prevented them from doing what they did before 9/11. In other words, big brother is not watching anymore now than it was then. Google keeps records of anyone who enters anything into its search engine with the corresponding ISP address. You visit porn sites, Google will know about it. You visit hate sites, Google will know about it, Google knows what you look at and its advertisement is target specific. By knowing the sites you visit, Google can target its advertising to specific markets. The majority of sites you visit will generate small software programs in your computer called cookies. Most are innocuous, but some track sites you visits. In effect anyone who uses the Internet is being monitored by third party entities more than any government entity, but liberals continue to use the Internet, and you never hear them carp about their civil liberties being abused by Google or any other third party. If ever there were a nuclear bomb dropped, civil liberties would no longer be a matter of importance. Survival would be paramount in people’s minds, and the blame game would begin (irrespective of the president's party affiliation) everyone will ask the question why wasn’t enough done? “Remember Katrina!” will be the battle cry.

During the American Civil war, on April 27, 1861 Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. This was a necessary evil, but a necessary tool to effectively prosecute the war against the Confederacy. The writ of Habeas Corpus requires that a person be charged with a crime or let go. Just today fourteen "high value" terrorism suspects at Guatanamo Bay have been offered attorneys - another victory for the liberals. Have we gone completely insane? Democrats even want to close Gitmo. We have actually recaptured or killed former detainees on the battlefield that we have previously released. That is Hillary's "suspension of disbelief."

Every leading Democrat believed Sadaam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction Now the Democrats are in backpedal mode. This is no longer an American war, it is Bush’s war. Since when did any war become the president’s war? The reason is simple – it’s Bush derangement syndrome, the Democrats hate Bush so much, they will do anything to try and destroy him. They want power back so much.

In Walid Shoebat’s book, “Why we want to kill you,” Walid describes an Islamic term “Hudna.” Hudna is simply a “ceasefire” in Islam, but not as we westerners would think of a “ceasefire.”. “Hudna is meant to produce a period of calm with an enemy in order to gain concessions, regroup, rearm, and re-attack at an appropriate time.”

If Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long as is related by Abu Dawud (‘Umdat as-salik, 09,16) .

This is exactly what happened with Hamas and Israel. Israel was made to look like the villain and Hamas the victim. Condoleeza Rice arranged a ceasefire with the maladroit Olmert without ever retrieving the soldiers for whom the country went to war. This was about the most inane outcome that could have ever transpired with Hamas and Israel. Iran saw how weak we were, and we fell right into Hamas’ hand. They just went into “Hudna.”

Why is Islam so strong? It is because of all the petrodollars we send to them. We have become so reliant on Middle Eastern oil, that now it is hard to extricate ourselves from it. At a time when more oil is being found in Mexico, Australia, the Soviet Union, and the list goes on, we sit on our hands while the Democrats prevent us from drilling in a cold pinprick of a wasteland in Alaska. We have oil throughout the United States, but the Democrats block us from getting it. We send our nuclear technology to France while the Democrats block us from building nuclear plants here. Only recently, Texas applied for two new nuclear reactors. The nuclear reactors may get built, not because of energy independence, however but because of another fraud perpetrated by the Democrats to which many Republicans have now succumbed, global warming. Of course, I don’t care what the reason; nuclear reactors need to be built. Research in alternative fuels is fine, but why don’t we use what we know works first?

Sims then points out that Iran doesn’t want us to leave Iraq. That is a new one on me. Not sure where he gets that from. I didn't even think liberals even thought that. Ahmadinejad is sending in insurgents to kill Americans and conducting proxy wars whereever he can in order to keep us there. Doesn't quite make sense to kill Americans if you want them to stay. Does it? Ahmadinejad wants to be the power in the Middle East just like Sadaam Hussein wanted to be, and the oil fields in Iraq will help a long way in that endeavor When we left Vietnam, Pol Pot slaughtered millions, and millions more were enslaved in forced labor camps. We paid no attention. There would be no difference with Iran and Iraq. We don’t learn the lessons from the past, but Ahmadinejad does. His economy is in shambles, and getting control of the oil fields would mollify the Iranian population.

Remember Sadaam Hussein? When we left after the first gulf war, the opposition tried to overthrow him, and Sadaam Hussein crushed it. Why would it be any different with Iran?

We already know now what happened when Ahmadinejad returned to Iran after speaking at Columbia University. The Iranian people heard the applauses from the “useful idiots”, and they walked away with the conclusion that the Iranian press is not bad, because we agreed with Ahmadinejad. Mark another win for Ahmadinejad and another loss for the United States.

It's no wonder Islam believes it is winning. It's 1939 once again.
Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member