Downsize

I did not waste my time writing The Right View this summer because nothing I, or any other right wing ideologue was going to write, or say, was going to change a thing.

All summer the hand writing was on the wall; Obama wins the election. Even the addition of Palin to the McCain ticket would not change the direction the country was heading.

Well, now with Obama’s election the country is headed somewhere, I just don’t know where, and I doubt if anyone else does. We will see change however, and not necessarily the kind most were expecting. These coming changes are economic. They will push us away from capitalism as we have come to know it. I’m talking about federalizing banks and industry, European style. These upcoming changes can not be attributed to Obama although he will make a contribution to exacerbating them. I’m talking about a very big bubble burst in the decades long running growth of the American economy. The bursting of the Dot com. bubble, and the Housing bubbles will be nothing compared to the bursting of the finance bubble together with the wild Washington spending spree. Add Washington’s Congressional influence on the economy and we will be assured of economic problems for the next year or more. The government is going to need money and they will be after you to get it.

So, what to do.

Downsize your life, your company’s and your future.
Pay off all revolving and short term debt while you still have a job.
Refinance and consolidate debt to lower outflow.
Save cash while you still have income, remember what a savings passbook looked like?
Sell off expensive toys you can live without, boats, ski mobiles, third vehicles, motor homes, trailers, etc..
Put off that expensive vacation.
Look for bargains, like foreclosures in multifamily housing for rental income.
Switch to securities that have low P/E’s and have paid dividends for many years, consecutively, and only those with a lot of cash on hand.
Own Treasuries.

Remember, prices go down in a recession so sell high buy low later. When the economy turns around you will be in a great position to run with the bulls.

Vacation

Taking a short vacation this summer from politics and working on my third book.
Obama vs. McCain can wait for me until this fall.

The Democratic Race Is Over

Now we choose between ideologies. On the one hand is Obama the dreamer and the other is a realist-dreamer with experience.

They both seem to think that a stronger Washington is the answer and the solution for all the ills of our democracy.

Democracies are never perfect and history judges them by how long it's people enjoy the freedoms of liberty and individuality. I think liberty with either these two running things is in more jeopardy than ever.

Obama wants a real swing towards European style of government, more hands on and more equalization of living standards among the people. He would like more government control of business , health care and your pursuit of happiness. And with a looming Democratic Congress on the horizon he will get his wishes.

McCain seems to push for more government controls as well but only to mediate social 'fairness'. He wants health care for everyone and that will get him some votes, and he wants the Iraq situation to be resolved in a fashion that will help stabilize a volatile Middle East and that will lose him some votes.

Both candidates are considered liberal by conservative standards with McCain being the lesser of the two evils. So with little choice McCain will receive the Conservative vote and the middle of the roaders. Obama will gain the exuberant youth vote, the black vote and many voters unhappy with America fighting a war. He will gain the intellectual vote, the union vote and 94% of the black vote, oops, did I repeat myself?

The choices are not great from my perspective but I forever hold out the hope that the Republican party of Reagan, conservatives at heart, will keep up the good fight. I hope they will keep in mind that this great country is made of people of stronger stuff, the kind of people that want to earn what they need in life and not have it taken from a neighbor and handed to them, minus a 20% government commission, for doing nothing to earn it. So I vote Republican knowing that there are many politicians left in the party that still believe as I believe, that we want to protect this countries interests around the world, be it for business's sake or for peace sake and we want to keep the drive strong to succeed in life.

I don't vote for a Democrat because they traditionally want a bigger government, stricter control of business, higher taxes, more domestic power, and an isolationist policy for our State Department.

I don't hold out much hope for McCain's success next fall and I'm really scared of the direction that Obama and a Democratic Congress may take this country in the next four years. this country can really fall into the doldrums with poor demoralizing leadership. Just look back at the Carter years.

Barack O'Carter here we come.

News flash:
Canadian doctors are now commuting and practicing medicine in America's norther states from North Dakota to Maine in record numbers. Why do you think that is with patients in Canada waiting weeks and sometimes months for and office visit?

Let’s Burst The Media Bubble.

Let’s burst the media bubble.

The Dot Com bubble burst in the nineties, the housing bubble burst in the first decade of the new Milena. Now it’s time that we burst the phony media bubble.

Ted Turner taught us that real news is a big, highly profitable business. In creating CNN, he expanded world news way beyond what CBS, NBC and ABC were doing.

Remember, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Edward R. Murrow and other trusted network reporters, commentators, and correspondents of the fifties and sixties? You know of course, that they had extended control of what they reported. We trusted our favorite reporters and they were careful and subtle about their bias’s.

Who knew, early on, that the New York and Los Angeles Times were left leaning socialist promoting Democrat favoring dailies?

Ted Turner came along and taught us that news is big business, really big business. He created a whole new medium in CNN and in so doing opened the eyes of the public about what really good news reporting is. He reported the simple news from where ever it was happening. It was exciting, topical, and profitable very profitable.

Then cable jumped it to compete with CNN and the big three networks. New news shows like, Fox and CNBC exploited the news revenue boom. Dan Rather was exposed and CBS as a big time left leaning channel that was anti Bush during his campaign for the President. Editorials in The Times were exposed as left leaning as well. They even took a poll among reporters during the Presidential Democratic Convention and found that eighty five percent were registered Democrats. To be fair, Republican leaning radio star Rush Limbaugh, Cable Fox News and The Wall Street Journal had chosen sides too, just like the country had chosen sides.

We have people in the media that have earned their chops not by toiling away as reporters for years but as well spoken media stars who are selling us daily on their points of view. Unfortunately they are not reporters, but salesmen. The public is not getting real news anymore but editorials, and that’s not real news to anyone but it's effect on the public is.

If the media is to be believed then we have the worst President of all time (the polls say so) because, they say, he created a tragic housing market, terribly high energy costs, a disastrous economy, and an unwinnabe war. Salesmen media have done a clever job of genetating revenue for their futures and by pointing the finger at Republicans. You can tell by the polls.

The facts are that America has a 5% unemployment rate, lower than most of the free world, low interest rates, lower than most of the free world, no more terror attacks since 9/11, a totally unpopular, uncooperative Congress, and ninety eight percent of home owners paying their mortgages on time. We have an oil crisis brought on by forty years of Congresses and environmentalists forcing America into becoming the most energy dependent in history. We have no new oil refineries in the works, no new oil drilling in Alaska or the west cost, the gulf cost or the east cost and no new nuclear plants in the works. We are fighting a war that we cannot afford to lose because we are up against an enemy that believes they are in a religious war.

We have had economic ups and downs in this country for many decades. We have had unpopular Presidents before, we have had Congresses that have had low ratings before. We have had darling Presidential candidates before. We have fought wars, had inflation, high unemployment , high gas prices, and companies losing money. But we have never had such strident bias in the media with such a powerful influence over the public before. The media has painted a mass hysteria, lock step picture that is leading the public down the proverbial garden path.

The public actually believes that the country is in terrible economic straits, that we are hated by the rest of the world and a new messiah is coming to save us. It ain’t true folks, it’s a irresponsible media hyped story with a political agenda that’s only good for advertising revenue and Democrats.

By the way CNN is no longer owned by Ted Turner and the mass media is no longer reliable. Trust only the Internet for the truth. I suggest The Drudge Report for starters.

All is not what it appears to be

Obama isn’t what he has claimed to be to his spell-bound audiences. His denouncement of Rev Wright has been cautious, careful and now showing anger comes too late. Obama claimed only a month ago that he never heard the kind of rhetoric that Wright was shown saying in the many video clips of his Sunday Sermons. That Obama must not have been in church that Sunday, he says, and his public bought that excuse. Then Obama mildly denounced Wright.
Well B.S.
As late as this Monday, in front of the National Press Club the Reverend re-affirmed his racist beliefs and now finally Obama get mad. Why, because he can’t make light of his poor choice of pastor, mentor, and friend any more. Now Obama has to put on a show of anger with this man like many sensible American’s have.
Only now when his run for the highest office in the land is jeopardized by Wright does he renounce his friend with anger, a friend that is a blatant racist.
Again, if Obama didn’t know that his friend was a racist for the past 30 years and that his friends, Farrakhan and associates weren’t also racist, than how can we trust Obama’s selection process and judgment of people that will stand by is side during his term in office.

I believe that his wife Michele, reflected Wright’s negative racial influence when she announced that because her husband received huge support to run for President that she was finally proud to be an American. What happens if and when he loses, will she go back to not being proud to be an American like Reverend Wright? What about Wright’s followers, will they be unable to find a reason to be proud Americans too?

I think this whole dirty race issue is shameful in America society in 2008. Eeveryone thought, including me, that Obama had emerged as a new breed of black Presidential candidate, abeit a left leaning one. One who had shed the old sixties black vs. white, and white vs. black issues and moved on. But no, despite all Obama’s denouncements of Reverend Wright, I just don’t believe him anymore. I think Obama was and still is more influenced by Reverend Jeremiah Wright and friends than we care to know.

Obama-Immigration-Hillary

Obama

Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Reverend Wright of Chicago have for years sucked the lifeblood from the blacks. They pretend to champion a cause that is no longer valid. They spew bitterness, hatred and anger to anyone who will listen.
Everyone has had it tough at sometime or other adapting to America starting with the Indians, the Chinese, Jews, Vietnamese, and Japanese, Germans and many others. All originally huddled together for security, language and custom reasons, some for generations while adapting to this country. They all faced discrimination. Eventually, like the Borg, they assimilated into the everyday fabric of American life. African American have no exclusivity on discrimination in fact the promotion of Black separatism needs to end for their own welfare like ending Black Entertainment Television and all black colleges, Black Caucasus in Washington and. It’s time for the parasite black leaders of the sixties to go by way of the dinosaurs and let their people go have a life.
It is an issue in today’s political arena because we have a Black Presidential candidate whose spiritual advisor is a hate monger from the Sixties. Obama’s friend of twenty years says things like, “God Damn America.” Does that sound like a minister trying to spread Gods word in a church, or a radical trying to cause trouble?
I would also like to see Obama address another issue during his campaign. How can one man garner nine out of ten black voters to his election. Question, are nine out of ten black voters against the war, and do ninety percent want to raise taxes, is that vast majority against McCain and Hillary because they are so on the other side of the issues than Obama is? Or are they a herd to follow blindly after their new black leader?

Immigration

Building a wall along our southern border seems to be the only way to stop illegal immigration. Some say walls don’t work and that building them goes against the spirit of the Statue of Liberty and what this country stands for.
We have caught a very high percentage of undesirable illegal immigrants bringing in drugs, weapons and people that want to do harm to this country.
American has never refused legal immigration. We have laws that all citizens must obey so the law must apply to everyone.
Try entering any civilized country in the world and you will be arrested and deported.
Never before were controls and fences necessary, now they are.

Hillary

Hillary won 55% of the Pennsylvania primary vote to 45% for Obama. She campaigned by telling her voters that she will end the war, bring home the troops and end the Bush tax cuts. She pushed again for Universal Government run Health Care. Obama essentially did the same but he was carrying some baggage like the Rev. Wright issue, and his blunder on rural Pennsylvanians clinging to there guns and religion because they are bitter over the condition of their lives. Oh, they both bashed Bush along the way, naturally.

The major overriding argument from the beginning of both campaigns has been change. They both offer change. What change? Congress is Democratically controlled now and it wants to end the Bush tax cuts, end the war, have national health care, doens't it? Bush hasn't vetoed any proposals of Congress. So what change can Hillary or Obama bring to a Congress that will not cut off funding for the war, hasn't stopped the Bush tax cuts, and has not put forward a univerasal health care plan. Hillary and Obama are both Senators, they could put forward bills that do the things they say they want right now or could have put those bills forward any time in the past seven years for Hillary or three years for Obama.

Bush’s approval numbers are the lowest all time, although Carter’s numbers compete well.
Congress’s approval numbers are the lowest all time too. Why?
I offer this reason for why this campaign slogan of change is ridiculous and insulting.
We all know our government has become dysfunctional and that Americans are and impatient people. We want instant gratification in every thing we do in life. We have not known real hardship in in over sixty years. American of today wants instant promotions, instant stock appreciation, goodies like, Plasma TV’s, iPods, and Play Stations, low interest rates, double digit home appreciation and Hummers. We want a war against terrorism and if we don’t instantly win we say, screw it, blame Bush and we change direction. We want the border closed overnight and when it is not we blame someone, Bush most likely. We did have a solid economy but when we suddenly did not we wanted and instant bail out from our financial problems so it would not hurt so bad. And we blamed Bush. We are lazy in that we are so into ourselves we have no time for boring goings on in the Capital. We have politicians in Washington that are more interested in retaining power and office while placating the lazy apathetic public than cooperating with each other as and efficient functional body.

We can’t change Washington any more, forget it. We have ourselves to blame for we are a polarized nation of two very entrenched and opposite mine sets.
One of old fashioned ideals, Republicans, the other of unrealistic idealism, Democrats.

Real change in politics (Washington) is a slogan, not a reality.

Democrats believe corporations don’t pay enough taxes and are selling that idea right now on the campaign trail!

The U.S. corporation is the second highest taxed in the world. No wonder they are setting up home offices, registering their corporations, and setting up factories off shore.

Every large foreign competitor that U.S. corporations compete with pays only a consumption tax, a tax on the materials they use, in other words their profits are not taxed only the raw materials they buy. Their incentive isn’t taxed only the stuff they use. Local consumers pay a value added tax at the time of purchase for the stuff made in their country, but foreign consumers are exempted. While our corporations are mired in an outdated tax code that penalizes success, profits, and innovation our competitors have a huge advantage over us.

Bush and the Republican controlled Congress in Bush’s first term were not innovative enough to change the corporate tax code. There have been many advocates for tax code changes including Gov Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and other Republicans, but none have been successful in bringing about change in the tax code.

There is a great debate world wide on a way to tax corporations to level the playing field. All have agreed that taxing profits hurts the corporations, but this seems too complicated for our Washington politicians. They don’t even offer the debate to its citizens. The media seems reluctant to tackle the subject because it is either too boring or they would rather report that there are hundreds of major US corporations headquartered in a four story building in the Cayman Islands trying to beat the system.

Our clever Congress has not devised a way to tax profits made by U.S. Corporations in foreign countries unless the U.S. corporations bring the actual profits into the U.S. If corporations leave their profits off shore it’s not taxed. In fact, it’s illegal to tax such profits. It’s dead money. Do you know how many billions and billions American corporations are holding in profits off shore?

If Congress can somehow change the Corporate Tax Code American corporations would let the money enter the U.S. and spend it. This was quietly debated in Congress for a time and just as quietly shelved.

Can you imagine what that influx of American dollars would do for our economy? It would make Katrina bail out dollars look like pocket change.

Do you know how much better off America and American corporations would be if they could use those profits to build more of what they build and build it right here in the good old USA?

"No legal line to United States citizenship"for aliens as touted by GWB and Sean Hannity

"Non-preference" (open) immigration to the United States was ended in 1965 with immigration law proposed by JFK before his assassination and implemented by LBJ. Since 1965 an alien can only immigrate to the US if the alien has an "immediate relative" in the US or a "skill we need." (An additional small number of aliens are admitted to the US each year as refugees or diversity lottery winners.)

An immediate relative is the mother, father, sister, brother, or spouse of a United States citizen or the spouse or child of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) alien. A "skill we need" is skill certified by the Department of Labor as not being readily available in defined places by defined employers in the US. An example would be a nurse in Burlington, Vermont. Unskilled labor such as farm field workers is not considered a "skill we need."

This means that there is "no legal line to US citizenship" that an alien inside or outside the US can get on to become a US citizen, or even an LPR.

Of the 6.2 billion people in the world outside the US it is safe to say that "non-preference" (open) immigration would result in at least a billion immigrants to the US. This would be more than 3 times the present US population of about 300 million.

Right now the only "preference" for immigration to the US is walking (or running) across the US/Mexico border. Aliens from Africa, The Middle East, South America, India, China, Europe, Russia, and elsewhere cannot just get on a plane and upon arrival at a US airport simply walk (or run) past Immigration Inspectors into the US. This is true even if these illegal immigrants are "good people, who would pay their taxes, and would do work that Americans don't want to do."

The difficult to accept answer to illegal immigration is that there must be a penalty for violation of immigration law just as there is a penalty for robbing a bank of $5,000. The penalty must be arrest, detention, and removal from the US of the illegal alien who has "stolen" something more valuable than $5,000, namely, the precious opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the United States of America.

Norman Henry, guest contributor

Bits and Pieces,

Michele Obama yells, “More white people, we need more white people.”
This quote was caught just before her speech, and while she was in the midst of staging the background audience that would be seen on camera during her talk.

Hillary wants a timetable to get out of Iraq and said that troops will begin coming home immediately after she’s in office.
Question; Will she consult the Pentagon first?

McCain says that we need to keep a presence in Iraq for as long as necessary.

Obama vacillates on what he would do about Iraq troop levels.

General Petreaus and Ambassador Crockett were grilled for the second day and instead of insightful questions there was camera posturing and speeches by the politicians of both parties. The public did learn that progress is being made, they should have learned a lot more.

Iran is the owner of 3000 new centrifuges. Why? Duh--they want a nuclear bomb. Does anybody know what they plan to do with it, or why they want it? Is Bush the only one that believes Iran is a terrorist state exporting and campaigning for upheaval and domination in Iraq? Was Ambassador Crockett asked that? He should have been. What is Hillary or Obama going to do about it?

Hillary says we just leave Iraq to fend for themselves like we did in Viet Nam. Results; Thousands died in reprisal after we left Viet Nam and Iran takes Iraq over with the bomb in hand. Lesson learned? I don't think so.

Oil at $112 a barrel, gas is over $3.35 a gallon on average, houses falling in value,
mortgages becoming scarce, foreclosures left and right, the dollar buys forty percent less than a few years ago and food prices rising incredibly fast. Obama and Hillary solution is to tax the oil companies and terminate the Bush tax cuts. Naturally.

Obama’s twenty year association with pastor Wright brings his judgment into question, again.

Condi Rice as Vice President? Not gonna happen. She's had enough of Washington.

China’s Olympic Torch should be burning for Tibetan freedom, instead it burns as a symbol of repression.

Security or Challenge

Security or Challenge

The appeal of the Democratic Party to 80 per cent of journalists and academia has always intrigued me. Democrats foster and vigorously promote the idea that all Republicans are rich, selfish and don’t care about those that are less fortunate. That propaganda has been selling well for the Democrats ever since FDR’s promise of a ‘chicken in every pot’ speech in the 1930’s. Problem, who pays for the chicken and who decides who pays for the chicken?

In the coming months Americans will be asked by presidential and congressional candidates in a round about way, whether they prefer the government to expand to better direct their future, or you be left with the challenge to fend for yourselves. Choose Democrats and you will not have to fend for yourselves.

For hundreds of years people across the world have hoped and prayed for the all powerful benevolent king, or dictator, or president to provide financial security with freedom from want and worry. As desirable as that wish is, it’s a wonder all the past failures of kingly benevolence aren’t a required course in eight grade classrooms.

The Soviet Union tried to make a benevolent socialist dream work for eighty years. It failed miserably. Putin is now allowing the challenge of capitalism to flourish. China is following the same course. Result, vibrant economies.

On the other hand, and purely for the sake of power, liberal democracies are currently targeting capitalism, creativity, and ambition for unintended destruction. When governments choose professed benevolence at the expense of a vibrant economy by over taxing, over regulating, and otherwise dictating personal and business policy they undermine the chance of ever achieving their goals.

Security is capitalism’s end product.
Kill capitalism and you kill security.
China and Russia have learned this, why can’t America’s liberal left?

As for compassion and benevolence? Take that job away from the ineffective, inefficient central government. Let the private professionals, like insurance companies, clergy, Red Cross, Salvation Army, and cities and towns etc., do the job that they do so well, supported by the federal government.

Another lesson learned by the Russians.

The Economy and Politics

In the 1980’s the economy was growing strong enough that the average person was starting to interest himself in investments outside his home and savings accounts. Penny Stocks became the rage. Small start-up companies around the country were looking for capital without giving away half ownership in their companies to investment bankers. They found backers in small independent penny stock brokerage firms. These investment brokerage firms underwrote and merged small firms into public corporations with just a few millions capitalization. Everyone hoped the gamble would pay off against long odds. These small mining, manufacturing, drug, brewing companies, etc. would prove to be a big risk for the small investor. Many companies failed, and some stock brokerage firms were guilty of exploiting small investors by putting them into investments that were too risky. Consequently they lost money they couldn’t afford to. Many companies did go on to achieve great success earning their small investors huge returns like, Microsoft, Apple, etc.. These companies were too small originally to attract investment from the large brokerage firms like Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, etc.. These big firms do not generally bother with a few million dollar under writings.

Because of a few unscrupulous brokerage firms in the eighties the SEC had more than fifty percent of the small independent firms shut down by implementing a catch-all compliance rule that all investment houses must follow called, “The Suitability Clause” which asks, “Is the investment suitable for the investor?” The suitability clause was and is a government bureaucratic nightmare for all brokerage houses that pretty much closed the door for small companies going public with just a few million dollars capitalization.

In the 1990’s the stock market took off. 401K’s were suddenly making everyone rich share holders in the booming stock market. Stocks for corporations and investors were making money hand over fist and those 401k’s were making everyone look like over night millionaires. Then there was a scandal, and another one, and all of a sudden some people lost money and the stock market balloon burst. Those same retirement account’s were taking a big hit. The SEC catch-all-rule of suitability seemed to come into play again with the government stepping in and throwing a few people in jail and heavy handedly changing accounting rules for corporations and brokerage houses.

Next, in the late 1990’s, to the mid 2000’s, the housing market went crazy. Every year saw five to ten percent growth in housing prices. Everyone that had been renting was now buying. Builders were building like crazy, investment bankers were offering more and more types of loans with more and more creative financing to meet just about every type of credit buyer. Sub prime loans were the rage. Everyone was buying and refinancing a couple of years later at new lower rates. Everyone was suddenly finding equity in their home that just a few years before they had purchased for nothing down. Flipping houses was so popular it even got it’s own TV show.

Creative financing for housing moved up to the big investment bankers who provided money to smaller brokerage firms because the risk reward ratio seemed to attractive too pass up. Then, because of overbuilding, falling prices, and short term sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages of, one, two, and three years started becoming due or rates re-adjusted. Failures began appearing and in a vicious cycle, news of these failures began spreading, housing stocks began to fall, home prices began to fall, lenders began to require better and better credit ratings. Suddenly, there was no new money for mortgages and the housing bubble burst. Who cried the loudest, besides the media? The government. The media and government blamed the speculating investment bankers, the investment bankers blamed the mortgage companies for low lending standards and the mortgage bankers blamed the borrowers for lying about their credit, their ability to pay and not reading their contracts. Wall street and the investment bankers were suddenly conscious of their mortgage portfolios. They didn’t know what percent of their assets were quality assets so they started writing them off. Now they want the government to reimburse them for their losses with tax payer money.

So, because of the overall perceived economic crisis, and for political reasons, the government wants to appear that they are coming to the people’s rescue with a bailout. First to the general public, then next to the investment banking houses. Then as a penalty for causing the embarrassing problem, the government will implement new suitability rules for mortgage borrowers that will be enforced by some new law.

Every time more stringent government suitability rules are implemented it stifles the future economy. After every crisis the government steps in and slaps the capitalist’s hand and further quashes growth in the overall economy. The government has to let the people and corporations be responsible enough for failure. They take the risk, so long as it’s not fraudulent, and they must take the loss when they over speculate.

Many small companies got their start up capital in the eighties by going public until the government pretty much closed the door.

Many workers in the nineties became share holders for the first time in their lives then the Dot Com bubble burst. Investors are now more cautious, but the government not satisfied and not wanting further embarrassment, has imposed accounting rules that make 401k’s more conservative and less attractive for corporations to manage and offer it’s employees.

In the new millennium, ninety four percent of new mortgage holders are paying their mortgages on time. They own houses they never would have been able to buy with out sub-prime lenders. Some sub prime lenders are getting burnt so now they will be more discriminate with loans, but the government plans to step in suggesting we make laws that go back to self-imposed rules-by-lenders that were prevalent in the sixties when you needed twenty per cent down to buy a home.

When corporations and individuals make bad decisions, without breaking the law, it seems to be an excuse for the government to impose new rules. New government rules against creativity kill creative venture capital, the life blood of a healthy growing economy.

What happened to buyer beware and act responsibly?

Barack has a chance to make history

Barack has a chance to make history

Barack made and eloquent speech defending his relationship with Reverend Wright but he failed to change the perception that he is not from the same mold as many other black leaders across this country.

He has a chance, a very rare opportunity that only comes along once in a lifetime. That chance will still be there for just a little while longer but not much. This is his moment, in the midst of the hot campaign and while he still has his credibility, he has a chance to change the course of history.

He has the chance to end that deep seated fear that his grandma and many others have harbored since the black power movement of the sixties. Black and white people split in the sixties. Black Panthers, Malcolm X and some Olympic champions had given the black man a new powerful, black is beautiful, feeling, and it was good, initially. It must have been exhilarating, The white man, instead of respecting the black man for this new found inner pride, feared it because this new found pride was the in-your-face kind of pride. Newly emerging black leaders exploited this new black pride by spewing hate and vengeance on (Whitey). Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Wright and many other black leaders old enough to have struggled in the sixties are still exploiting blacks today. They took advantage of this new found black power by using it for self aggrandizement, for power and out of genuine hate.

Martin Luther King went in a different direction, he gained the respect of the vast majority of the public by marching against injustices. He wanted to peacefully bring people together, blacks and whites, all people to share in his dream. He inspired inner pride , like Gandhi, rather than waste his time on fruitless hate. He told people that they were equal and as good as any other, rather than point fingers at whites and blame all the ills of America on the past.

Barack Obama has a unique chance to end race divisions in this country right now, forever, by simply saying, to the effect, 'Race prejudice ends right now, starting with me, a new beginning is right now. The negative past is over, put away, gone, forgotten. Anyone trying to keep it alive is wrong and I will denounce him as should everyone else in their Church, in their home, everywhere. Rev. Wright is wrong in his thinking and his hateful words and needs to repent and see that a new day has dawned, today, now. Jessie Jackson is wrong in perpetuating divisions in America among races and I call for him to join me in denouncing race divisions. There is simply no room in this country for preachers and politicians to spread anymore hate, fear, and blame on their fellow Americans. Complainers of past injustices need to stop whining and move on right now. We must fight injustice where ever we find it but do so it in a civil, peaceful and in and understanding manor. Injustice is everywhere and can be found among all races. Blacks no longer have a special corner on the market’.

Barack needs to say, with deep conviction that he was wrong for not stopping Wright from preaching his hateful sermons years ago, but that he was weak and could not quit the church. America forgives as easily as it forgets. He must say that he realizes now more that ever in this defining moment of his life that negative preaching is counterproductive for blacks and whites and it must stop. Wounds among races will never heal so long as someone is pouring acid in the sore.

If Barack truly wants ‘Change, a New Beginning’ as his campaign slogans continually call for, then he has a unique opportunity to show his presidential leadership skills while campaigning and while he has the nations attention. He has the talent and has shown himself to be a brilliant orator and statesman. He has a chance to make history. He has a chance to turn the negative race issue into a positive.

But maybe Barack does not feel the way I've described at all. Maybe he doesn’t see that this is his defining moment in his life. If he doesn’t see it than he is just another pretender to the throne and he will lose the presidential race. Maybe Rev. Wright was sucessful over the past twenty years, in ingraining in Barack some resentment for whites and in America .

Tiger, Derek, and Obama

Tiger, Derek, and Obama

Tiger Woods, won another golf tournament today. He is absolutely incredible,and mesmerizing. I watched him play all day yesterday and today, and when he sank that final putt for the win my whole family cheered and declared that what we are watching is legendary. Tiger is someone who comes along in a sport once in a lifetime. In fact, if it weren’t for Tiger I wouldn’t even watch golf.

And I am a die hard Yankee fan. My favorite player is Derek Jeter and has played for ten years on the world stage before millions of his fans. He is a winner, a class act, and he never seems to be controversial, no drugs, no drunken brawls, no nothing. He’s even been questioned about how and available, single, party going guy like him never seems to get in trouble, like many of his peers. He says simply, and repeatedly, "I choose my associates carefully".

It occurred to me that if Tiger and Derek had been attending Barack Obama’s church for the past eighteen years and had Pastor Wright’s hate filled sermons to listen to I would not be watching Tiger this Saturday or Sunday and Derek Jeter would not be my favorite baseball player. I choose carefully who I follow in the sport of baseball and golf. Sports writers would have long ago exposed to the sports world Derek and Tiger's questionable choice in Pastor Wright and his hate filled sermons.

Tiger, Derek and Barack have similar backgrounds. They all have mixed parentage and had to work extra hard, under very difficult, but different circumstances, to get where they are today. They all have had to make choices along the way to further their ambitions and careers. One of the most important choices they made is who they associate with. We know now that Barack made a bad choice in selecting Wright as his mentor and pastor. Barack’s decision making skills are now more than questionable.

Does Barack think anything like Pastor Wright? Why should we not think so? How could he listen to this pastor all these years and not absorb some of this hate thinking himself? Barack has refused to wear the flag pin on his lapel, and he has chosen not put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is sung. Does that mean something to us? Is that indicative of something? It is to me.

Michele Obama has just recently became proud to be an American. What does that mean? What about her previous forty some odd years? I have been proud to be an American since I was born.

Barack’s pastor says, and I’m now quoting and paraphrasing, ‘God Damn America, God Damn America,’ ‘Whites created HIV to get rid of the black man,’ ‘Chickens came home to roost and that caused 9/11.’ These quotes are just a few of the highlights uttered by this hate filled pastor.

Is Barrack Obama to be given a pass for associating with a hate monger? Should Barack to be viewed in the same light as Governor Spitzer or Michael Vick? Would Tiger and Derek be given a pass? Can you see Obama as our President?
I can’t.

Global Alarmism, Al Gore and George Bush

Global warming and world wide terrorism.

Al Gore won a big prize for alarming the world about global warming with some pretty tricky film footage in spite of the overwhelming number of scientists that disagree with him.

George Bush sounded the alarm about Muslim Extremists despite the recent and overwhelming number of people who disagree with him.

Somebody must think we are fools. Is the American public foolish enough to think that a few light bulb changes or a few Prius cars running around will make a difference in the world ? Are emerging consumer economies around the world going to slow their growth to save a few pounds of carbon emissions? Will India, China, Viet Nam, Russia, with South America, and Africa, put Catalytic Converters on cars and join us in putting expensive scrubbers in their smoke stacks? I don’t think so, not for many years to come. I don't think India with it's one billion people know what a muffler is. We use twenty five percent of the worlds fossil fuel, the rest of the world uses seventy five percent and growing at an incredible rate. What chance have we got to save the environment when we are competing with the rest of the world and a bunch of volcano’s. But at least we can keep Los Angeles from turning purple.

How about Europe joining us in the war against radical Muslim terrorists? What’s the reason for their hesitation? Bush claims this scourge of terrorism is a threat to our very freedom. Evidently Europeans don’t think so, or is it that they are used to having us fighting their battles for them? Maybe they just don’t see the battle as necessary. How come England and just a few other countries supported us? Is Bush a Global Alarmist, a fool?

Most sane scientists believe the earth is evolving, as it always has through the ages, from global warming to the ice age and we are somewhere in transition. Ice bergs have been melting and refreezing for thousands of years and one large volcano eruption produces more carbon than all the cars and trucks on earth ever have. So why does Gore and others make what I consider false claims on the changing environment and man being the cause? They make the claims for notoriety and money or maybe they are the fools, rich fools.

What's the real reason Bush and his alarmist notions are ignored and scoffed at by Europe and now half this country? Most people don’t like facing grim realities. Most of us would rather not face problems until they come right to our doorstep. France scoffed at Hitler untill he and his boys marched down the Champs elyseese. Europe has faced terrorism for generations and when 9/11 hit us the reaction from the Europeans was; what’s the big deal? Europe has had it’s 9/11’s as almost a way of life and they accept it as a mater of course. Europe doesn’t go to war over it, they try to handle it as a small civil disturbance and get the police involved. And they make concessions, and concessions. America hasn't and I hope they don't.

America saw 9/11 as a wake up call and we were indignant, angry and wanted to stop future 9/11’s. How radical is that? In most European eyes, very radical.. Bush called on Congress and the UN to respond. He enacted a new Cabinet post, Homeland Security, to co-ordinate all spy service’s activities, he developed the Patriot Act, in other words, he reacted in decisive, positive steps to both protect and prevent, and Congress approved his every move. Rightly or wrongly he acted. Obama says it was wrong and he didn’t vote with the majority in Congress.

Quote:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke.

Next, Bush saw the threat from al Quida extending to supportive countries like Iraq and decided not to wait for a second 9/11, he decided to take preemptive action. He received overwhelming approval from Congress and he acted when all the UN could, or would do is offer another resolution, the fourteenth. Obama says he was against preemption.

Results:
Whether you agree with Gore or Bush’s actions, it's your choice, but remember, there has not been another 9/11 in six years, and the makers of those screwy-type light bulbs are making a hell of a lot of money for somebody. Obama, the all_seeing, all-knowing is capitalizing on isolationist policies.

Wishful Thinking

My friend is a pacifist. He hates the killing in Iraq, hates the killing of death row prisoners in jails, and hates killing babies by abortion. He’s a pacifist so life is precious to him. The Commander in Chief is, basically, a killer. So he wants change. Simple really, Obama appeals to that issue.

So the election for my friend is really a one issue election, and Barack Obama offers, possibly, a new paradigm, a change. The economy, the border, health care, are other lesser important issues. Barack offers hope, effective slogans, and little else but wishful thinking for my friend. Barack says he can stop the killing and that he will talk the enemy through their differences with us. He has a dream, and millions are buying into it.

I see Barack and Hillary’s offer of that false hope as deceitful, and a dangerous near-sided selling off of America’s future to get elected. Osama ben Ladin is a dedicated killer, and the Taliban and radical Muslims are dedicated killer-fanatics. My friends thinking ignores reality as do Barack and Hillary's. Their plan will cost more American lives in the future than opposing the forces of world disruption today, only my friend can't see it. He just wants killing to stop. Don't we all.

The old George Bush quote of, “I would rather fight them over there, now, that have to fight them here tomorrow,” reflects good, solid Commander in Chief thinking to my mind.

This war in Iraq issue will be argued right up to Election Day. Hillary or Barack will promise to withdraw all troops immediately and give us hope. McCain will call for patience as Bush does and give us reality and security.

The American public has paid a high price in treasure and lives for this war but the people have not really experienced any pain since 9/11. The kind of pain that normally comes when a nation is at war is deprivation, sacrifice, and death. These are things that have not been with us on a daily basis so most of us don't really relate. Of course, the relatives of the 4000 soldiers slain and the 20,000 injured soldiers who have come home feel the pain more closely than any of us and the overwhelming majority of those soldiers and family feel that America and George Bush is doing the right thing.

If the Taliban, or the radical Muslim fanatics, or Osama ben Laden had been more effective in bringing the war to our door in the last six years then maybe we would be more, sad to say, enthused and supportive of the war, but Bush's war-winning policy's have kept us safe here at home and Americans have become complacent and bored. If we pull out of Iraq the problem will all somehow go away is the hope, but wish full thinking at the poles will not make terrorism go away, but it might elect Hillary or Barack.

I encourage you to forward this web site on to your friends and come back next week for another pointed political column.

If you would like to suggest or comment on this or any other article please click the, 'comment' button below.

Racially Motivated Electorate

I began writing this article about the upcoming election to see where the not so easily broached subject of ‘race’ would lead me. I got this uncomfortable revelation from an article I just read.

Famous black civil rights leader John Lewis, of Georgia, has just switched his endorsement from Hillary Clinton to Barrack Obama and will cast his Super Delegate vote to Obama. Lewis said he was following the lead of voters in his state that voted three to one in favor of Obama, and nine out of ten black voters voted for Obama as well.

Why does Obama garner ninety percent of any one group of voters? What’s his secret? Is it just because he is black, or is he offering something for blacks that Hillary isn’t? I don’t think so.

I began thinking, how come Hillary doesn’t get ninety percent of women voters? Will McCain get ninety percent of Veteran voters? Can either Hillary or McCain expect to receive ninety percent of the white voters?

Are we talking some kind of racism here? Democrats, historically, have won ninety percent of the black voters just as they have won an overwhelming percentage of labor voters, Hollywood voters, media voters, teacher voters, and poor voters, but ninety percent of black voters for Obama? Something is wacky.

History in politics teaches us a lot, like trends in voter sentiment, voter apathy, and voter expectations. Four years ago half the country voted against Bush for President, he became President anyway. But ninety percent of the black vote went to Kerry. Kerry wasn’t black, but African Americans believed Kerry offered them more of what they wanted than Bush did so nine out of ten voted for Kerry. Is Bush's economic, social, and military policies so much more damaging on blacks than Kerry's would have been?

What do black Americans really want? Hillary offers pretty much what Obama offers, a socialistic, economic style government, a very tightly reined in military, and it sounds like both Democrats will be offering a soft hat-in-hand foreign policy. (Sorry, my conservative leanings crept in there.) So what's the difference? Certainly not a nine to one difference.

I think that Obama, and/or McCain should address this issue of ninety percent of blacks voting for Obama as being wrong. I can’t conceive of any one President or Senator or Representative reflecting the all the views and interests of any one group of his constituency ninety percent of the time.

I don’t think this seemingly herd instinct to follow the Democrats or a black candidate into the voting both can be good for the black voter, history says it just can’t be. It seems racially motivated and against all the things that have brought race relations this far, or am I wrong?

The Middle East, scary, explosive, and radical

The men of the Middle Eastern want a chance to succeed in life. They want dignity, a future and the opportunity to live in a strong independent society. They have no chance in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran.

Most countries of the Middle East are either run by a few Muslim power hierarchies, dictators, monarchs, or the military. Many countries around the world are Muslim. All of the Middle Eastern countries are Muslim and Radical Muslim Extremist leaders prey upon them. Unemployment is ridiculously high yet most Middle Eastern countries are rich with oil revenues. Their leaders are millionaires, drunk with power and greed and are in danger of being replaced by a new power elite, Radical Muslim Mullahs, and Imams.

The average worker in a repressed, controlled society like Egypt earns wages of fifty to hundred dollars per month. They have been educated all the way to college level to perform white collar jobs where there are none, unless you are well connected. They can't afford the things that you and I take for granted, like your own home, tv and car. Most jobs in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East are blue collar. Egypt is and above average, per capita, income and educated country compared to the rest of the region, however, they are increasingly frustrated with no job prospects and are showing it by becoming enamored with Radical Muslim Extremism in larger and larger numbers. Unemployment, poor training, no opportunities, and corruption is the culprit.

Living in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Turkey where democracy is flourishing or just beginning is showing the way of the future. There is being offered to their people an alternative to the way it’s been for generations. They have hope and they have freedom and they have free unrestricted capitalism. If and when security is assured, Iraq and Afghanistan will be a beacon to others in the region, at least that is the way Bush’s legacy will read. The key word is, ‘if’.

Nine-eleven drew world wide attention to the Middle East in ways that no one ever looked at the region before. The fact that most people are still living in the thirteenth century, ruled by their religion and their simple hatred for the Jews because they occupy a part of the Arab world.

Except for their oil we in the West have had no interest in the people of the Middle East. Just like we have no interest in most countries of Africa and South America unless they offer something we need. Some, like Osama ben Laden, were bitter about changes effected by the West in their region. We were infidel invaders trying to insure continued flow of oil by flexing our muscles. America showed up with military in Desert Storm to free Kuwait from Saddam.

Osama felt that America was propping up a corrupt family Monarchy in Saudi Arabia by protecting it militarily. He wants the region to resolve it’s own problems without interference from the invading Crusaders from the west. We are sorry but we have our own interests to protect. It’s that plain and simple. I can say it but no American politician will say it without saying goodbye to his career. We did and are supporting a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia to insure the uninterrupted flow of that oil and for no other reason. We supported the Shaw years ago for the same reason. I don’t buy Bush’s professed friendship with the Saudi family for a minute.

We are and have been in the Middle East for only one reason, OIL. To think otherwise is naïve’. After all, we have all the sand we need in Arizona.

A Political Discussion,

Obama vs. McCain

The latest arguments over the kitchen table with family and friends is over Barrack Obama vs. John McCain and who can win and why. Assuming Obama can beat Hillary Clinton and it seems he has the momentum to do just that.

The hope at the table for most is that McCain can win but we have our concerns over the oratory skills of Barrack Obama. Obama can sure rouse up a crowd to a frenzy. He says the things many of my Democratic friends want to hear. He offers them change and new direction. Meaning I guess, that; let’s get our troops home and let’s provide health care for everyone, let’s move forward.

Obama leaves us with a lot of cloudy and semi-cloudy issues like not continuing the tax cuts, the border, illegals, immigration, the Patriot Act, Iraq, Iran and most importantly, appointing Appeals and Supreme Court Justices, one of the most important jobs of a President. Bringing troops home for Obama and raising taxes are not cloudy. Both are on his early agenda.

He also talks about regaining respect for America around the world. Has anyone seriously analyzed what that means? It’s a great sound bite but what amount of security must we give up to be touchy, feely with the French, Germans and Russians and do they really care how much we appease them? In the end will it change anything if we buy more wine, Vodka, and Schnapps to make the French, et .al., really like us? Will they rally to support us against Iran gaining a nuclear bomb or shouldn’t we as be concerned as George Bush is?

Does Obama see the threat to world peace from radical Muslims that most Republicans see or are the Republicans simply overreacting ? What will he do if we have another 9/11? You see, I just don’t know, he’s cloudy.

Experience in dealing with problems like that does count for something, doesn’t it? Hillary and McCain have their points with that argument. Obama does not have experience but then neither did G. Bush. I just hope that if Obama wins that he surrounds himself with good, experienced people and he listens to them. So far some of his pacifist supporters actually scare me with their naivety. Listening to his generals would be his first duty, of course that’s exactly where he proposes change.

McCain stresses security, and the War. I’m not clear on his other concerns, although I would like to be. I’m not sure he’s fiscally conservative, for smaller government and lower taxes and I’m not sure of the kind of judges he would appoint to the lower federal courts and Supreme Court. I would hope that he would not be liberal. But because McCain has, so far, kept me guessing on how he would choose, qualified hope is all I have.

I’ve avoided the moral issues like abortion and religion so far because I don’t happen to believe that the executive or congressional branches of government should be in the bedroom. Abortion is a very personal issue and the Supreme Court should stay the arena for that subject, for it or against it, Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land.

Democracy is the best, but still flawed form of government. For the most part democracy decides issues that the whole usually can live with on a fifty one percent versus forty nine basis. Abortion is such a divisive issue that fifty one percent of the people for it is not enough, so nine wise people must decide, for now, until the issue resolves itself over time. Trying to regulate abortion enters into trying to regulate religion, not a good area to enter into with out stirring a lot of angry emotions. Politics is best left out of religion and abortion is a religious subject.

The last time the government tried to constitutionally abolish something it was booze. Government will not make that mistake again.

Please comment to this article by clicking, ‘comment,’ below. Thank you.

Interesting point of view

As an avid sports fan I have often been amazed by the sports writer that devotes a column to the ball game I just saw and as I read the column I scratch my head and ask myself, was he watching the same game I was? He says, 'the big play was a fluke', I say it was brilliant! How can that be?

Then there's the sports writer that loves to write about drugs, high payrolls and owners profits and easily puts aside the game and who's playing. What we love about sports, is the game, not who's testifying before Congress. Obviously, some love to read about the low side of the game. Too bad really, the game is a wonderful thing. So is America. It's the same with politics, there are two points of view about everything from abortion, to the economy, to defense. Conservatives vs. liberals, even the media has multiply points of view.

I think of America as an optimistic, can-do, should-do, nation, always has been and always will be, but there are many that disagree. They believe in the Dark Side; we have done to much, we should hold back, slow down, back off, don't be so pushy. They believe America is to blame for warming the planet, for imperialism, causing an economic world crisis, creating an unstable Middle East, etc. If something is wrong in the world America is surly to blame.

I, quite naturally, disagree. I'm not going to bore you with my reasons just now, but suffice to say that if you believe America is to blame for a screwed up world, I'm not interested in your gloom and doom reasons just now either.

What I will concede is that I don't see any American leader on the horizon that will have the moral strength of character, leadership and vision to guide the Dark Side into the light of optimism.

Too bad we don't elect the most qualified leaders, only the one's who run the best campaigns.

When history is examined it proves that winning the game is the reason it's played. America plays the game around the world every day, and we play to win. Our corporations play to win, our military plays to win, our state department plays to win, and I like it that way. Those that stand in the way of winning are the problem, not the other way 'round as many would have you believe.

After The Primarys in New Hampshire

Romney lost, Obama lost, meaning Hillary and McCain won. Or did they?

Hillary won by a tight margin but did she stop Barack's momentum?

Obama fires up a crowd to the point that all he needs is a slogan and the audience starts shouting it back.'Change we can believe in', believe again, etc.' He continually finds hot buttons to press and it's working. I don't know if anyone knows what he means by those slogans but he's got them riled up. I don't think it will last. I think he will run short of slogans and be exposed as a young, very well intentioned spokesman for the party but his lack of any executive experience in running a government will be glaring in the near future by Hillary.


Hillary is old school politics. She is well connected with a lot of old bureaucrats in Washington and believe me that counts for a big voting machine. They want jobs and they know what to do for Hillary to get them. They have no idea what Obama wants or what he will or won't do for them. Hillary has had a well known, long term leftist political agenda since college. She has wanted to turn America in to the European model of socialism. Her health care agenda is only the beginning, watch her push for nationalising business including oil, energy, and communications. Think of all the new bureaucrats she will create. All this is all scary stuff to me but to the casual voter and observer maybe not.

Most of today's voter is a whole lot less interested in politics than I am. Most are living good and happy with their lot until they are told that we need change, or we need to end this war, or the economy is failing, or we need health care for those forty seven that don't have it. Catchy slogans, scare tactics, sound bites, good hair, groomed appearance, Hollywood endorsements, is the order of the day. Voters have no more idea on what they are getting themselves into than what their kids teacher is teaching their kids.


They don't know that of the forty seven million without health care, that most are fifteen million youngsters working in slow and fast food industries, (I didn't have health insurance for me and my wife until we were in our thirties)or twenty to twenty five million are unregistered and registered aliens, and the rest, a very small minority, are the very, very poor, like the homeless, the unemployed, the chronic unemployed and .


Voters forget, if we don't fight the islamofasists over there we will be fighting them over here. My choice is to fight them over there.

The capitalistic economy has yo-yo ed for years. When the government keeps it's hand off it always rights itself.


The border fence is leaking to the point of our country being unsafe. I say fix it, throw out the bad aliens and make a law to permit US children with alien parents be allowed to gain citizenship, give the rest temporary work permits with expiration dates.


Romney, McCain, Guliani, and Huckabee have a long fight going forward.