Friday, August 29, 2008

McCain pulls rug out from under Obama


Last night we discovered Obama was in fact Zeus reincarnated as he delivered his fiery speech at Barackopolis with 80,000 swooning adoring sycophants. He wants us to believe that he is better on the judgment issue than McCain. He wants us to believe he is ready to run this country. While it was probably the best speech he ever gave, Barack Obama is in fact the most radical of any nominee this nation has ever produced probably more akin to the likes of Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He doesn't have a clue about the economy nor does he have a clue about the world, yet his fans swoon over him.

I do believe McCain wanted to pick his friend Senator Joseph Lieberman. I respect Senator Lieberman, but you can not put a pro-choice Veep on a Republican ticket. He is probably one of the few democrats who has a brain, but this pick would have torn the party asunder. When McCain tested the waters, and floated Lieberman's name around, he found out what he would be up against. The conservative party would have been split. It would have been the narrative during the convention, and conservatives would have stayed home in droves, and the most radical candidate ever would have been elected president. We would have been in grave danger. After a rocky start, McCain is now running a magnificent campaign.

Today, however in this high-powered political chess game, McCain made a brilliant move by putting Obama in check possibly check-mate by selecting governor Palin (nicknamed Sarah barracuda) of Alaska as his VP choice. This move sucked the air out of Obama's convention and it pulled the rug right out from under Obama. This was a magnificent choice. This will galvanize the Republican Party, and it proves that McCain wants to win, and I now predict with this move McCain will win.

McCain should use his convention on spelling out his agenda and answering the empty rhetoric that was Obama's speech, and what Obama's policies will do to this country.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Nancy Pelosi caught in a lie on Meet the Press


We all know how Barack Obama wiggled and squirmed when asked at the Saddleback Church by Rick Warren on when life should begin consideration. The problem is there is only one answer; consideration should begin at conception because that is when life begins period. Liberals have to squirm when asked when life begins because you cannot defend their position on pro-choice. There is no two ways about it. If you are a pro-choice Christian, you have to believe in a soul, and I always ask when do you believe God drops in the soul, one month, two months - they don't have an answer. That is why on Meet the Press, Sunday, Nancy Pelosi was asked the same question, she gave a straightforward answer. There was one problem, she outright lied on her understanding of the Catholic Church's position, her understanding on the historicity of the Catholic Church, and that she is even a student of Catholic doctrine. Her response was so outrageous, it prompted a response from the Archdiocese of Denver which is a piece that every Catholic and Protestant should read and distribute to their congregations.


 

ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE
A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH
IN NORTHERN COLORADO


To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

 
 

Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:

"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has

bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Archbishop of Denver

James D. Conley

Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Last Thoughts from Tony Snow

Tony Snow was truly one of the greats, and a Catholic convert to boot, something my father would enjoy. One year younger than I, but a mensch that is an example to all.

Blessings arrive in unexpected packages—in my case, cancer.
Those of us with potentially fatal diseases—and there are millions in America today—find ourselves in the odd position of coping with our mortality while trying to fathom God’s will. Although it would be the height of presumption to declare with confidence What It All Means, Scripture provides powerful hints and consolations.

The first is that we shouldn’t spend too much time trying to answer the why questions: Why me? Why must people suffer? Why can’t someone else get sick? We can’t answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer.
I don’t know why I have cancer, and I don’t much care. It is what it is—a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.

But despite this—because of it—God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don’t know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face.

Second, we need to get past the anxiety. The mere thought of dying can send adrenaline flooding through your system. A dizzy, unfocused panic seizes you. Your heart thumps; your head swims. You think of nothingness and swoon. You fear partings; you worry about the impact on family and friends. You fidget and get nowhere.

To regain footing, remember that we were born not into death, but into life—and that the journey continues after we have finished our days on this earth. We accept this on faith, but that faith is nourished by a conviction that stirs even within many nonbelieving hearts—an intuition that the gift of life, once given, cannot be taken away. Those who have been stricken enjoy the special privilege of being able to fight with their might, main, and faith to live—fully, richly, exuberantly—no matter how their days may be numbered

Tony Snow

Monday, June 30, 2008

Budget Crisis in California?

Every once in awhile the San Francisco Chronicle does a good investigative piece. Could this have something to do with the budget crisis in California?

(06-29) 20:24 PDT -- A nurse at a state prison in Monterey County collected $198,000 in overtime last year - bringing her total pay to more than $310,000.

The chief investment officer for the state's pension system earned $403,000 in bonuses - for a total paycheck of $945,000.

<< Find state workers' overtime and other extra pay >>

And a deputy chief for the California Highway Patrol collected a lump-sum payout of $103,000, even though she retired almost two years ago and didn't collect a cent of regular pay last year, according to a Chronicle analysis of state workers' pay.

The extra pay is among $2.1 billion given to state employees in 2007 - including overtime, bonuses, premium pay, relocation allowances and lump-sum payouts.

Pushed upward by a surge in overtime, these payouts are helping to drive up the state's costs at a time when California is facing a $17.2 billion budget deficit.

"There's a lot of unaccountability around these types of extra pay," said Christina Lokke of the nonpartisan government watchdog group California Common Cause. "Who is making the decisions about who gets this money? Why are certain people getting these benefits that others don't get? Many of these things seem to be decided under a veil of secrecy."

The extra pay pushed the total earnings of 616 of the state's 364,000 employees to more than the $212,000 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would make if he accepted his annual paycheck. That included 274 psychiatrists, 48 investment officers, 23 prison guards, 18 nurses and three fire battalion chiefs.

Continue Reading

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Gordon Smith?

A Republican the Republican party does not need.




Any Republican who would support a far-left radical who is Obama is not a conservative and does not belong in the Republican party.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Pelosi and Obama

Pelosi continues to thrash the free trade deal with Columbia, our ally in South America. She continues her push to try and wreck our economy.

“This free trade agreement is in our national interests, yet that bill is dead unless the speaker schedules a definite vote,” the president said. “And it’s not in our country’s interest that we stiff an ally like Colombia and that we don’t encourage our goods and services to be sold overseas.”

Ms. Pelosi fired back, hurriedly scheduling a rare Monday meeting with reporters to suggest that the president was putting his trade agenda ahead of Americans’ economic troubles while pursuing stale economic policy.


Pelosi

"We cannot drill our way out of this," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California countered. Opening the wildlife refuge in Alaska would reduce U.S. gasoline prices by one penny per gallon, she said. She and other Democrats blame President George W. Bush's energy policies for the gasoline price spike.

"A barrel of oil now costs four times more than it did when President Bush took office," Pelosi said. "Two oil men in the White House, cost of oil four times higher. Price at the pump: $4 a gallon."


Obama

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers


The conclusion - they don't believe drilling for oil is the answer. Is that nuts are what? Since when is increasing the supply not part of the solution. Nothing will change with the Democrats in power

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

There is an energy revolt coming….


If you think your representatives are looking out for you, think again!

How many think gas prices are too high? I am not talking flatulence here – I am talking about that petrol one sticks in his/her gas tank, usually just under 100 dollars a pop.

If you ever get a chance to watch the Senate or the House energy debates on C-SPAN, you should gander on over (you might find it a bit boring, but you will also come to the realization to how many idiots we keep electing over and over again.)

First, write this number down, 202-224-3121. This is the congressional switchboard so you can make your voice known. Everyone should be calling and writing their congressmen and representatives so we can start drilling for oil (we have more oil in the United States than Saudi Arabia) and start building nuclear power plants. If we call now, maybe drilling will start by 2030. We need to flood the mailboxes and the switchboard.

If you don't think this energy crisis can lead to a worldwide recession or worse, then you better think again. If there is the slightest hiccup in the Middle East or if there is some other economic disaster, we can be in a world of hurt.

GOP Representative John Peterson of Pennsylvania was pushing his house amendment for offshore drilling yesterday, but Democrats don't really believe in energy independence unless it has to do with raising your food prices by corn ethanol or taxing the oil companies. They don't really believe in ethanol. What they believe in is subsidizing the corn lobbies since they have put huge tariffs on the sugar ethanol from Brazil. In any event, the bill for off shore drilling was killed yesterday. Everyone against was democrat. Everyone in favor was republican. The Republicans vow to keep pressing the issue. An FYI, Barack Obama is against the measure, and McCain is waffling. McCain will need another barrage of calls like happened on the immigration bill. What is it these guys don't get?

From www.michellemalkin.com

A 27-year-old federal moratorium has prevented offshore drilling in most coastal waters except parts of the Gulf of Mexico. Virginia lawmakers have expressed interest in pursuing drilling, particularly for natural gas. Peterson, who is retiring next year, said offshore drilling could provide enough oil to replace Middle East oil imports for 35 years. He said the plan would also yield an 18-year supply of natural gas. "There is no valid reason for Congress to continue keeping Americans from the offshore resources they own," Peterson said. But Democrats, who control Congress, said offshore drilling would have no immediate effect on the price of gasoline and would do little to lower the world price of oil. "We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem," said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis.…"The American people are going to have a lot to say about this," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the full House Appropriations Committee.

The Wall Street Journal has reported the following:

A century and a half after oil production began, there is ample evidence that a lot of oil — and natural gas — remains to be found in the U.S. and its territorial waters. Some of those areas are wide open to oil companies, including most of the Gulf of Mexico where deep-water floating rigs now routinely drill wells hundreds of miles from shore. Even in the gulf, areas are off limits, including most of the waters off the Florida coast. The entire East and West Coasts are off limits for new drilling. Last week, Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson chided President Bush for asking Saudi Arabia to boost its production, while not doing more to increase production at home in the U.S., particularly off the coasts of Florida and California."There is no question in my mind that there are significant conventional resources available," Mr. Tillerson said in an interview last week. "If you are looking for larger fields, they will probably be found in the offshore areas that are currently off limits."

Those offshore areas are closed to exploration and drilling under congressional moratoriums and presidential executive orders that command broad support among elected officials in the politically powerful states of California and Florida. Opening these areas up could prove nettlesome.

Little data exist about how much oil and gas might be found under the waters now closed for exploration. Federal agencies are prevented from doing rudimentary geological surveys in most areas to pinpoint areas of interest. The last time the industry shot seismic imagery was in the 1970s when this widely used search technology was in its infancy.

Other promising areas onshore also are off-limits. In a report last week, the federal Bureau of Land Management stated that at current U.S. consumption levels there are four years worth of oil and 10 years worth of natural gas under federal lands. However, more than 90% of that energy was under lands either closed to development or open with significant environmental restrictions. The federal Minerals Management Service said an additional three years worth of oil and gas is in offshore areas where drilling isn't allowed.

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

I was watching C-SPAN the energy debates. The Democrats talked of stopping speculation, windfall profit taxes, and solar and wind power. Only the Republicans mentioned drilling for oil and nuclear power. I do agree that something has to be done with speculators, but the idea we are not drilling for oil at this very second is imbecilic. In 1995, a bill reached Bill Clinton's desk to drill in ANWR. When he vetoed it, he stated he would veto any bill that came across his desk that would open ANWR to drilling. Had he signed it, we would be extracting that oil at this moment.

The Democrats love talking about a windfall property tax. We tried the windfall property taxes during the disastrous carter years, the 1980s. Windfall property taxes will hurt the poor the most. Why is it Democrats can't figure out when you tax the oil companies, the consumer is the one that picks up the tab, not the oil companies. If mandates are placed on oil companies, there is nothing that stops them from selling elsewhere. We will see gas lines again. Exxon Mobil's profit margin was 10.4% for the fiscal year 2007. Microsoft was 27% and Safeway was 2.7%, all normal for their respective industries. Taxing the excess profits of oil companies is not the answer, but taxing big oil goes along with the Democrats socialist mindset.

The Democrats also talked about solar and wind power, a Hillary favorite. Solar and wind power will take care of maybe 2% of the energy required in the United States, so now we have our swimming pools covered.

According to the book The Elephant and the Dragon by Robyn Meredith, the United States uses 20.6 million barrels of oil per day while China with a billion more people uses 6.9 million barrels a day. India uses about the same as Germany about 2.6 million barrels a day. Per capita, Americans today use thirteen times more oil than Chinese and twenty-six times more than Indians. Currently, the United States uses much more oil than both China and India, but there are a combined 600 million Americans and Europeans but more than a billion Chinese and a billion Indians. India's oil consumption has doubled since 1992, and China since 1994. China already consumes more coal and steel than any other nation. Both China and India have barely touched the surface of their oil consumption. By the year 2020, India and China will consume as much oil per day as the United States at their current rate. There is one problem. If that is the current trend, there will not be enough oil for the world.

Have you heard of the Warner-Lieberman bill? You should have. It is the latest cap and trade climate change scam by the Democrats. President Bush has promised to veto it, but for the time being it appears the Republicans have successfully tabled it, but it will be resurrected again especially if Barack is elected. According to the Heritage Foundation, a think tank, it will cost Americans hundreds of thousands of jobs annually, and it could double the price of electricity, natural gas and gasoline by 2030.

We not only must become free of foreign oil because we send our petrodollars to countries to nations who hate us. We need to become free of foreign oil because China and India will continue to push the demand of oil to the brink. It is vital we free ourselves from foreign oil yet the Democrats keep pushing bills and introducing legislation that will not only not work, but will reduce our competiveness in the global marketplace. We could even lose our status as a world power.

What did Barack Obama tell CNN's John Hardwood yesterday?

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers

So Barack Obama doesn't mind high gasoline prices just as long as they go up slowly, not too fast. Nor, does he have any solution to the energy crisis. He doesn't believe in drilling nor does he believe in nuclear energy, but he does believe in global warming. If you are a global warming advocate, how you plan to solve it without nuclear energy is beyond me. With Barack as president, you will be paying higher prices for gas, because to him, it doesn't matter. Tax the rich give to the poor. Of course anytime, the Democrats have tried that, it always backfires, and Barack Obama has yet to explain how doubling the capital gains rate and dividends rate doesn't affect the middle class. He just tells an untruth. The middle class doesn't buy stocks except in their 401Ks. He also doesn't have an answer as to why when you tax capital gains or dividends, the stock market and economy is always adversely affected.

If Democrats really listened to what their party was saying about the price of gasoline, I do not know how they could vote Democrat, but most Democrats don't listen. They are still in the "Bush derangement syndrome" phase.

I am a Republican, but I look to common sense first. If it doesn't make sense, I look for another alternative. I have seen what the Democrats have to offer, and I am not impressed. I have seen what the Republicans have to offer, and I am not impressed. But, the Republicans go a lot further in the path this nation needs to head. The Democrats are still trying the failed policies of the Carter years. You often hear, McCain is just another Bush term. There were things that worked in Bush's term, and there were things that didn't work. You fix it. But, you don't choose a leftist Radical in the vein of the leaders of Latin America who doesn't have a clue on the economy or on foreign affairs. That is just stupid.

My son who is apolitical and never pays attention to what is going on around him knew how much he was paying in taxes on a gallon of gasoline, (about 47 cents state and federal.) He knows because he is starting to pay attention because he is feeling the bite, but until we start a revolt, until we start throwing out the incompetent politicians head first, and until the message is heard loud and clear, the politicians will just keep going down the same path. And, now that the Democrats will have control of both houses, don't expect any changes. Look for the politicians who are making a difference, and vote out the rest. There is only one thing I heard from the Democrats that made any sense – control the speculators. Currently stock traders can borrow up to 50% of their stocks (this is called margin), but oil speculators are only required to put up 7% of their own money in the speculation of an oil contract. This amplifies the oil price in an up market, and has the opposite effect in a down market. Margin requirements have always been regulated. Connecticut Representative John Larson, a Democrat stated "But what I don't understand is that people are buying oil even though they'll never get it from people who never had it, and making big profits as they run up the price of oil." He is right. Speculation probably increases the oil price by 40%. Requiring more stringent margin requirements can have the potential of decreasing the price.

But nothing will have more impact than candidate John McCain coming out with a Manhattan type of project calling for the drilling of oil, the building of nuclear power plants, and viable alternative sources of energy like natural gas to become energy independent. Will it happen? I don't know. With the Democrats, there is no chance. With the Republicans, we might have a chance. McCain wants nuclear power and he wants to drill for oil, but he needs to come out and be more aggressive in his energy policy, and it needs to be paramount in his platform. McCain also needs to change his stance on ANWR and cap and trade. We need leadership. The Democrats are adrift in the ocean without a sail. They haven't a clue. The only hope is to elect John McCain and hope that he will follow through on his promises and start paving the way to make us energy independent.

If not, we are headed for rough waters. Remember this election cycle who is really getting us off foreign oil, not the populist rhetoric we have been hearing that helps no one except for special interest groups. It is time we start a revolt.


 

Monday, June 9, 2008

Barack Obama



Video on Barack Obama. Note: video starts out by saying Dreams of my father. Should be Dreams from my Father.

Friday, June 6, 2008

The Dating Game starring my favorite daughter Raeann

This is my daughter's Spanish project on the dating game. She is the one on the far left. She is the one on the left. The other girl is her friend Alejandra who did the project with her and her brother.
 
Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member