Friday, February 29, 2008

The Mainstream Media Actually Reported Something Positive About the Economy

While every media outlets are trying to brainwash the country into a recession, I give "Mega Dittos" to ABC's "Good Morning America" and reporter Brianna Golodryga in trying something new for a change. They actually reported some positive highlights that this economy isn't as bad as other make it out to be.

I guess they are trying out a new format to be more "Fair and Balance" in reporting the news. "Good Morning America" host Diane Sawyer said "there are tangible tidbits of good news to be found about the economy."

Then reporter Bianna Golodryga told the viewers, "The high tech industry is doing well. Some economists argue that it's also a strong indicator of where our economy might be heading." Golodryga cited economist Russ Hancock, "As the technology regions go, the rest of the country quickly follows."

Brianna Golodryga shared the same positive sentiment that many of us, who are bullish on the economy, feels. If this were a recession, there are things that would come in play to reverse it and that is a lower interest rate and create a stimulus package. We have just seen it happen in the past week. Brianna Golodryga also added, "Exports are on the rise, interest rates continue to fall, and Congress has jumped in with a stimulus package and tax rebates would wind up in America's mailboxes by summer."

As I was watching this, I was anticipating the experts to come in and defunct Golodryga reports. I was curious what pundits would come on the air and give a negative spin about the economy. I sat in shock to see that I was wrong. Golodryga offered not to join in the media-wide trend of focusing on the negatives, but put on guests that reflected a "Fair and Balance" view. I thought I was watching the FoxNews network for a second.

She put on the pessimist views of Fed Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said, "wouldn't be surprised if this recession is deeper than the last two."

Then she used a more moderate view from former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who said, "this current economy would feel like a recession, but wouldn't be one."

Then she used a more optimistic view from economist and author Ben Stein, who said, "this economy is nowhere near as bad as the media is making it out to be."

After that segment was through, I had to sit back and reflect. Saying to myself, "Is this phenomenon going to change how the media will portray the news?" I had to chuckle and said to myself, "Nah. It's only a fluke." I guess the bosses were out for the day and it allowed journalists and reporters do what they ought to be doing and that is to report the news.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Letterman's 'Top Ten Ralph Nader Campaign Promises'

From the February 26 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Ralph Nader Campaign Promises." Late Show home page:

10. Fund universal health care by making Wesley Snipes pay his taxes

9. Give the presidency a rumpled, Walter Matthau quality

8. The freezing over of Hell should solve our global warming crisis

7. Get those people off that island in "Lost"

6. Send Gary Busey in to annoy and confuse our enemies

5. Can fill out a pantsuit better than Hillary

4. Will hover in polls between 1% and "Statistically Insignificant"

3. Force Starbucks to identify their sizes "Small," "Medium," and "Large" -- am I
right people?

2. Will not sleep with lobbyists, or for that matter anyone else

1. Get Bush re-elected like in 2000

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Barack Obama Admitted Using Drugs, But Gay Too?

Isn't it weird when one gets the big spotlight, every Tom, Dick, and Harry comes crawling out of the woodwork to join in the spotlight too? It seems so for a Minnesota man named Larry Sinclair who alleges that Barack Obama in 1999 had shared cocaine and committed lewd homosexual acts with him.

This closeted escapade occurred when Barack Obama was a state legislator in Illinois. Sinclair stated that his motive to make this public is to make the presidential candidate, Barack Obama, honest with himself and the American public. Since Obama admitted of using drugs as suggested in his book and during his campaign speeches, Sinclair felt it was important that Obama came in terms about his curiosity having a sexual encounter with the same sex.

I know this is like tabloid trash, but Sinclair is willing to submit to a polygraph test to validate his claims. So far, there is a website offering $10,000 for the rights to record it and $100,000 to Sinclair if he passes the polygraph test.
Even though these allegations were silence and ignored by every media outlet, Sinclair has filed a lawsuit in Minnesota District Court alleging threats and intimidation by the Obama's campaign headquarters. So far, the Obama campaign has declined to respond to such allegations.

I am not making this up. Sinclair made this story available to all media outlets, but was tossed as a hoax. Presently, Sinclair made his plea on YouTube, which I got this information, and so far it has been viewed about 598,000 times. You can do a search in YouTube under "Obama’s Limo Sex & Drug Party" or "Larry Sinclair" and it will direct you to the video of question.

With Obama feeling the need to experience all forms of decadence in order that he cannot be called a hypocrite, it seems that he went a tad far in his research. Whether true or not, it is an embarrassment to the Obama-maniacs in supporting a man that they hardly know.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Beware! Barack Obama is the "Manchurian Candidate"

Hillary Clinton may be associated with crooks, but Barack Obama is associated with terrorists. In the back of my head, I really believe Barack Obama is the modern day "Manchurian Candidate." The Manchurian Candidate was a movie presented on the sliver screen in 1962 starring Frank Sinatra and a remake version in 2004.

The plot of the movie is very unique. The story is about Major Bennett Marko, Sergeant Raymond Shaw and the rest of their platoon are captured during the Korean War in 1952. They are all brainwashed into believing Shaw saved their lives in combat, for which he receives the Medal of Honor when they return to the US. After the war is over, Marko begins to have a recurring nightmare in which Shaw kills two of his comrades. When he learns that another platoon member has been having the same dream, he sets out to uncover the mystery.

The Communists intend to use Shaw as a sleeper agent and, using the queen of diamonds in a deck of playing cards as a subconscious trigger, compel him to follow their orders, which he doesn't remember afterwards. Shaw is controlled by none other than his own domineering mother, who is working with the Communists in a plot to overthrow the US government.

And this is how I perceived Barack Obama. His association with a well-known terrorist and his personal relationship with them is damning evidence to believe that he is sympathetic toward entities against the United States.

Click here to read the article: "Obama Worked with Terrorist"

Even though Barack Obama was born in the USA, he is also born as a Muslim because of his biological father and then raised by his Muslim stepfather. Barack attended mosque service, irregular at best, enrolled as a Muslim in a Muslim school, and studied Islam couple hours a week as a child. The jury is still out what type of teachings were conducted when he attended school, but for those conspiracy theorists, it does make one think. It also ties in with his association with individuals that are involved with terrorism.

Whether Barack Obama claim that he is a Christian or Muslim is a double edge sword. To play devils advocate, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. If he was elected president of the United States, this status would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world. Either Barack would succumb to all Muslim countries for fear of a backlash or he would do "180 degrees about face" and implement the destruction of the United States by exposing us to the dangers of terrorism or what I like to call the Manchurian Candidate Syndrome.

It does makes you think. If he wins the general elections this fall, Barack Obama would be the first Muslim President of the United States. For a country founded on a Judeo-Christian philosophy, I am not sure I am ready for this. I was ready for an Afro-American or a woman president, but not this. I am not a bigot and any intentions to reflect as such, but Barack Obama has no experience to speak of and his power of speech is causing the hysteria of a rock star. By putting an inexperience individual, who served three short years as Senator, in the White House, it would only bring chaos and mayhem to this country. By putting it in this context, I am not ready for an Obama presidency.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Barack and Michelle Obama are Pompous-Ass Liberals

I hate rehashing old points, but there is something that the mainstream media hasn't brought to light. Remember Michelle Obama statements, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

While it was late in haste to clarify his wife's remarks, Barack said, "What she meant was, this is the first time that she been proud of the politics of America because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not along." Well, it was a nice try, but it didn't sell me. I believe that in her conceited way she sees that nothing in the history in the US as a positive with a Republican or a Democrat President. She sees only that as Obama as President things would be better. Hey, I didn't pull it out in thin air. She actually said it. Quote, "Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, though Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn't gotten much better."

Because Barack and his wife have the same meeting of the minds, they both believe that an Obama win will bring the only benefit to fix the mess of the US government. I have to admit that Barack and Michelle Obama as the most arrogant and pompous couple that I have ever encountered. I could have to put the Obamas and the Clintons in the same class.

Michelle Obama said at a Wisconsin speech, "Barack knows that at some level there is a hole in our souls . . . Over broken souls can be fixed by our voting for Barack Obama." Now, tell me Michelle Obama is a total loon.

Even Barack arrogance can be seen throughout his campaign trail by using a very clever rhetorical skill suggesting his candidacy appears more collective than individual. I hear sound bite from Obama's speeches and he can be heard to say quite a few times, "We are the change that we seek . . . We are the ones we've been waiting for.” It seems Obama is claiming himself as the “false messiah” to take us out of bondage. What a screwball.

I would think the most condemning talking point is with the thesis of Michelle Obama at Princeton University. It is very poignant to know that her thesis brings claim that she has an identity issue and how her perception on the racial divide is still strong in her heart.

A quote from her thesis, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

Also, let's add, " . . . further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

First, it was her decision to attend Princeton. It was a matter of choice than being force or coerce by Princeton University. If such apprehension of racism in the University was a concern, why go to such a place. We have come a long way since the 60's and racism. Racism will never go away. It will only grow tolerant. As long parents raise their children correctly, any concerns of discrimination on race should be minimized. Since I am Asian growing up in a predominately white community, I can say I have some authority on the subject. Michelle Obama using the race card to create herself as a victim to the system is laughable.

As stated earlier, I mentioned that racism will never go away, but society will be more tolerant to it. As long as the Black community and the Rap music industry portrays Blacks as victims and stereotype the minority groups, racism will be a constant reminder to the minorities of America.

If Michelle Obama has a problem with it, get over it. To play a double standard is ingenious and pathetic. I have never had a problem with it because I didn't see myself as an Asian. I see myself as a proud American. The problem with individuals whom play victim to the race card will end up as arrogant condescending jerks and the best example is to see Barack and Michelle Obama.

That is why McCain is the perfect alternative than Obama or Hillary. Not once I can recall McCain saying that he will fix our souls. McCain doesn't suggest he is the second coming of the messiah that everybody is anticipating. Instead, McCain is very proud of is country and puts country ahead of himself. His patriotism consists of deeds more transparent than speaking of flowery words in hiding the truth.

Therefore, the quote from Michelle Obama, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change," is exactly what it meant by taking the racist element to understand the true meaning.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

The New England Patriots are a Bunch of Cheaters

I don't usually stray from my political blogs, but I need to get this off my chest. For the past eight years, all I hear from the football junkies is New England Patriots and the dynasty.

I have never been a Patriots fan and I am annoyed by many from the Northeast with their fanatical obsession with the Patriots. They have accomplished as champions in 3 Super Bowls and were Division Champions in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

It seems so bewildered to see how the New England Patriots are unable to close the deal. They went 18 straight win until they got spanked by a wild card team called the New York Giants. It was then I started to question the abilities of the Patriots.

You may wonder why I am writing this blog. It has been a little over a month when the Giants won the super Bowl. The reason was from a pesky friend from the Boston area, who wouldn’t stop talking about how the Patriots got robbed and the Giants cheated. My friend Kevin was down for a couple weeks in Florida and he met up with me in Orlando for a day. We went to the Orlando Ale House for a couple of beers before he went on his tirade about the Patriots. After three grueling hours of his bloviated rant, we departed.

I could have kicked myself when I found out that there was news claiming of illegal taping by the New England Patriots. I just wish Kevin was here so I could have shoved this news down his throat. Reports accused that since 2000, Belichick allowed taping of practices of the Patriots' opponents to be used against them. The illicit videotaping of signals of the opposing NFL coaches is unethical and against the bylaw of the NFL. This is call cheating.

The secret taping of signals started from Belichick's debut as the New England Patriots’ coach and continued at least through three championship seasons to the 2007 season opener against the New York Jets. That was the first time when I heard of stealing opponents signals because Belichick and the Patriots got caught red handed. Sources pointed that other shenanigan by the Patriots took victims of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2000, the New York Giants in the preseason games of 2006, and St. Louis Rams during a walkthrough practice the day before they played against the Patriots, who won, in the 2002 Super Bowl.

Belichick only excuse is that he misinterpreted the league's bylaws. His testimony reflected; it was permissible to use electronic equipment as long as the information was not used in the same game. I had to smack myself in a V-8 moment for I was in utter disbelief. We are not idiots. Face facts and admit to your guilt and enjoy the punishment.

After Belichick submitted six tapes dating back to 2002 to the league commissioner, Belichick was fine $500,000. The New England Patriots were also fined $250,000 and forfeit their 2008 first round draft pick. The punishment doesn't justify the means, but one thing is absolutely clear, the Patriots tainted their franchise name. It is just like the steroid scandal in the Major Baseball League. Cheating is cheating and from this point on, the Patriots will be looked at as traitors. They are a disgrace as a team to submit themselves to a tactic that is unsportsmanlike. Their performance in 2007 was too good to be true. At least their form of punishment in terms that they couldn’t finish the job is my only satisfaction. No matter how many years down the road, the players on the 2007 Patriots team will see themselves as an embarrassment.

I have tried to call Kevin, but he wouldn't answer his phone. He knows that I know about "his" Patriots. Too bad he wasn't here long enough for me to gloat. Soon or later he will show up to face the firing squad. Don't worry. It will be quick and swift. HAHA

Friday, February 22, 2008

Lettermans Top Ten Reasons Fidel Castro is Retiring

Letterman's 'Top Ten Reasons Fidel Castro
is Retiring'

From the February 19 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Reasons Fidel Castro is Retiring." Late Show home page:

10. He has accepted the role of Dr. Ramon Vazquez on "General Hospital"

9. Achieved his goal of getting Cuba's unemployment rate under 83%

8. Wants to spend more time interrogating his family

7. Just got Season One of "Gilmore Girls"

6. Caught injecting human growth hormone into his wife, Debbie Castro

5. Too many tacos

4. He was adopted by Angelina Jolie -- honestly, how crazy would that be?

3. Always promised himself he'd quit torturing when it stopped being fun

2. Jane Fonda called him a blank

1. 49 years at the same job? Who am I, Letterman?

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Shooting Down The Satellite and Its Significance

While the news of today was the New York Times and McCain's alleged "relationship" with a female lobbyist, majority of every network and the main stream media ignored the success of the US Navy in destroying a crippled satellite above the Earths surface. It seems everybody looked at this event as boring news, but we need to look beyond that and understand its significance.

Last night as people watched the lunar eclipse, three Navy warships waited in the Pacific for orders to shoot down an inoperable U.S. spy satellite, using weapons designed for missile defense. This missile defense is about 40 years old in the making, but it was able to obliterate the satellite in outer space. The purpose in using high military technology was to prevent the satellite's 1,000 gallons of toxic fuel from falling upon the Earth's atmosphere.

While the American people didn't see the hype, the international community did. Personally, this display gave each country notice that the United States is still the powerhouse of the world. With China leading the coalition, concerned countries (Iran, the Middle East, North Korea, and China) is demanding a full detailed report of our missile launch. If I was the President, I would say, "Look up in the sky and see it for yourself." These arrogant countries knew that the US disclosed their intentions in bringing down the satellite many months before the actual date.

I really don't care if these counties felt we were trying to test an anti-ballistic or anti-satellite missile system. I want these countries to know that we have the capability and technology to challenge anyone who may threaten our democracy. If you can remember back January of 2007, China launches an interceptor missile releasing a warhead to destroyed their crippled satellite. Therefore, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Just imagine this. We launched a missile that traveled 150 miles vertically at a speed at 17000 miles/hr and hit a target moving 22000 miles/hr a size of a school bus. To put in better perspective, it would be similar to being on home plate on a skateboard batting with a broom stick and being pitched with a small golf ball. The task of hitting the satellite was difficult and never was suggested it would be easy. I give mega kudos to the technicians who calculated the coordinates of the precision impact. One may have the technology, but if you don't have a trained specialist who can configure the numbers using mathematics and physics, these expensive weapons would be meaningless.

This is a great day for America and the Department of Defense. Just knowing that we have such a system in place to destroy oncoming objects, whether it's a defunct satellite hurling toward the Earth's atmosphere or hostile enemy missiles, is a comforting thought.

To quote George Orwell:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Because of this quote, I can sleep well at night now.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Barack Obama and The Global Poverty Act

In search to find an accomplishment that Obama consistently claims in his rhetorical speeches, I have found something interesting. In his Senate website, , I found only one such accomplishment that is rather very disturbing.

In December 11, 2007, Barack Obama (D-Il), Chucky Hagel (R-Ne), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced their legislation (S.2433) called Global Poverty Act to the Senate floor. This intrusive bill calls for the President of the United States to plan a comprehensive policy to cut global poverty in half by 2015.

Obama said, "Eliminating global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges we face, with billions of people around the world forced to live on just dollars a day . . . We can – and must – make it a priority of our foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this legislation will not only commit to reducing global poverty, but will also demonstrate our promise and support to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy has to extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere.”

That is a very eloquent statement with no substance of hope or real change. As with all his speeches, they are superficial and filled with platitudes. May it be the same with all my reasons, "Who is going to pay for it?"

The cost of this wasteful spending bill is $850 billion. That is 0.8% of the GDP. If Obama becomes President, he will enact this bill and implement his empty promises from his presidential campaign bid. The total amount pledged comes out to $1 trillion.

It is nice to be compassionate to others, but I believe that charity begins at home. We have a lot to fix in our house before we can help others. Our Social Security and the Healthcare system are broken. Social Security pays out in benefits for this fiscal year approximately $625 billion. In comparison, the budget for our Department of Defense is approximately $575 billion. With our national debt reaching to $10 trillion, don't you think Obama's idea is kind of fruity? If Obama were to be able to make his plan come into fruition, this country will go broke. The Global Poverty Act is another wasteful spending program coming from a mind of a Liberal lunatic. If Obama’s wife, Michelle, believes that our country is not to our expectation, why would the junior Senator from Illinois endorse a bill that has nothing to do with America. We have poverty in America the last time I checked. Are we to believe that America doesn’t come first? Obama thinks so.

To entrust Obama with the oval office will create a setback in America similar to Jimmy Carter. With uncertainty around the world, The Global Poverty Act would have dramatic negative impact to the US economy. Obama was smart not to allow this to come out during the debates. Such inexperience to intern as president will have severe consequences. Such mistake will be huge in proportion and the American people would be taking the blunt of it.

Oh, to make matters worst, this bill subordinate U.S. foreign policy to the United Nation initiative called the U.N. Millennium goal. It is through the United Nation that Obama's plan will be implemented. We are talking about the United Nation using US taxpayers’ money.

Can you say "Food for Oil" Scandal?

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

I Despise Living In This Nanny State

I am astounded to hear the idiocy of educated people with a very modest income whine that they are in poverty. I am talking about co-workers and the like making anywhere from $50,000.00 to $75,000.00, driving nice cars, living in three bedroom houses, and buying anything they desire.

I had to open my mouth in disgust to point this out to them. I cited that we live in a nanny state. The ideology of "what can you do for this country" has turned to "what can our country do for you." We live in a corrupt culture of a Liberal society. Self reliance is dead and "gimme, gimme, gimme" is the norm. My co-workers and many others, who believe that the government owes them everything, relies and engross themselves to the empty promises from Obama and Clinton's speeches and rants. Yes, I do work with many Liberals in a Red State (Florida).

I'm amazed there are people that I know who believes in free handouts from the government. My co-workers want government intervention in lowering the gasoline prices, reduce green house gases, more money in education, lower the oil prices, helps those having trouble paying their debt, lower the energy prices, lower the price for a loaf of bread and milk, decrease the interest rates of student loans, help those in trouble in the housing crisis, and getting better health insurance.

My jaw actually dropped in disbelief. They actually embrace that the government’s role is to be entwined in the lives of each person living in the United States. My only question that they haven't the answer is, "who is going to pay for this?"

My mind was spinning all over. It was my opportune time to shine and expose some of their lunacy. The only topic I chose was their spending habits that lead to their problem in handling their debt. I had to tell them that they are responsible of their own finances. It is not the job of the government to step in and help bail those who are in defunct. It is like asking your retired parents to pay off your debt. It is very embarrassing and asking someone that you don't know is even more shameful.

I tell them that if they continue to whine about wasteful spending from Congress, they should be looking at their own problem before criticizing others. Just like Congress, self denial and lack of restraint are the chief reason for many poor spending decisions. Excuses for bad spending behavior are unacceptable.

Now, the discussion got heated. I was thrown many idiotic excuses of their spending habits. I can only recollect only four that stood fresh in my mind. They are "I live to spend today for I could die tomorrow," "I don't have a head for numbers," "I work hard, therefore, I deserve it," and "I'm too busy to manage my money."

I had to tell them they are all immature and to justify the attitude of “buy now and pay it somewhere way down the road” is the primary excuse for not saving. I had to agree it is okay to splurge once in a while for working ones butts off, but I had to remind them that they also deserve to live in a retirement that doesn’t include regular helpings of dog food. Working is an everyday process toward retirement. Living paycheck to paycheck will not get you there. The idea of not having the knack to manage money is bogus and very lazy. I told them if they can shut off the TV one night a week, they would have plenty of time to work out their finances. With the plethora of free online tools to help their finances, there should not be an excuse to say they can't manage to budget their paycheck.

I blame this on the Liberal society in making one feel inferior in succeeding. Getting an education does not mean you will be successful. Making a lot of money and not able to save is very sad. To ask for a handout without reason is humiliating to ones psyche.

We need to get off in depending on someone that we don't know and rely on ourselves to get out of this matrix. Success can be measured by ones achievement without outside influences. I personally despise living in this nanny state. We need to get back to be responsible of our own actions. It is a duty of us and the expectation of others that should be the ideology of our times.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Liberals Are Concerned About John McCain

I have read many blogs this past several days from the Left and I have found that many Liberals are calling foul on the GOP for playing an underhanded bogus trick on the Democrats. I began to scratch my head to understand their plight. The Liberals claim the GOP is "swift boating" the general elections by nominating John McCain as the candidate that will represents the Republican party in November.

It is hilarious that the Liberals are deeply concern as they describe McCain as a honest, courageous, likable and intelligent person, who will bring instant grief to the Democrat party. I do want to give support to John McCain, but I am trying to understand why the Liberal blogosphere is so intently up in arms and concerned that their own nomination of Clinton or Obama will be in jeopardy. I laugh when I read one Liberal comment, "Don't they (GOP) no shame?" It is worth to ponder and understand why the Liberals are so scared.

I hope I can comfort many of the Conservative base that the GOP has a chance to win the White House in November with honor and dignity.

It is the basic standard to understand that there are distinct basic fundamental principles that each party adheres and usually are polar opposite from each other. Ironically, this may not be the case. I can understand why McCain would give fits to the Democrat party. John McCain will be seen as a proponent to stretch his hands across party lines to bring a bipartisan Congressional support. Some good examples are the McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, and McCain/Lieberman bill.
I have seen Democrats are crying foul that Sen. John McCain can win and it is shown in the several close polls against Hillary Clinton and Obama. Most Democrats hoped that Huckabee or Romney would win the nomination, but they never figured that McCain would come out from the abyss as the leading front-running nominee. It seems that the immigration position McCain stood with Edward Kennedy, which was despised by the Republican establishment, showed favor among the Hispanic votes.

I can see that much of the McCain's record would attract many disgruntled Democrats and Independents. It showed during some primaries where voters were permitted to vote in the Republican primaries. Majority of these swing votes went on to support John McCain. With legislation co-sponsored with Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) preventing global warming, his recent stand against water-boarding, supporting campaign finance reform, his serious stance in corporation regulation in the wake of the Enron scandal, and his strict stance against earmarks or wasteful government spending, McCain will definitely win the support of many Moderates, Reagan Democrats, and Independents. It is that combination with supporting national security issues will help McCain get support from Conservatives and non-Conservatives alike.

Hillary and Obama cannot muster a record to match McCain's experience. Hillary's phony experience and Obama's three year experience as a junior Senator will be a record with a significant fault that will not garner the votes during these turbulent times. Not even Clinton nor Obama can attack the war in Iraq as a point of contention because the success of the surge, which McCain supported, will make it a mute issue. McCain can easily use the support in the surge that brought down a major reduction of combat casualties as a better argument in front of Moderates and Independents.

If Hillary or Obama uses McCain's "weak" knowledge on the economy as an issue, it may backfire on them. Such accusation is baseless and exaggerated. If the Democrats claim special expertise on the economy by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and increase the tax burden to the American people, it would be overreaching beyond comprehension. McCain pledged that he would not increase taxes, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and stop wasteful spending in Congress. The lost in 2006 election for the GOP was partly due to the wasteful spending and earmarks by the Republican Majority. Because wasteful spending is still fresh in the mind of the American people, McCain may be the only chance to change it.

Sooner or later the Conservative base will understand what is at stake. There is time for everyone to be on the same page and put a Republican in the White House.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Gov. of Pennsylvania Says Obama Won’t Get The White Vote

It seems only Democrats want to instill in the minds of the American people that black people are still victims. By doing so will encapsulate their dependency to the Democrat party. It is the Democrat party that wishes bigger government, preventing us to improve our financial well being, suppress our civil liberties and freedom, creating an endless nanny state, and to stir animosities among us by using the race and gender card and class warfare.

I have not seen a Republican using such tactics during this election year. If so, it is not as blatant as the Democrat candidates are using among themselves. We have seen the gender card being used to describe Hillary as a victim. We have seen the race and ethnic card being abused to an advantage in the Obama campaign. We have also seen the class warfare being used effectively to garner the votes for the Edward camp.

If a Republican ever tried to get away using such tactics, the Liberal Left would have a field day on it. It would seem hypocritical to describe Republicans for being discriminatory and racist. Unlike the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, who is supporting Hillary Clinton, made an unwise and foolish statement saying that Hillary will take Pennsylvania because many white Pennsylvanians are likely not to vote for Obama because he is black.

Governor Rendell didn't stop there. After realizing he made an idiotic blunder, he went on to say, "Senator Clinton has the same handicap. There are some men who have said, 'Look I have nothing against Senator Clinton but I don't want to see a woman . . . in charge of the United States military as commander in chief.'"

I will not believe that racism lives in America. We as a nation has come far improving our society and being less tolerant to such issues. I blame all this on the Democrats. It is the Democrats that enjoy using provocative sleazy tactics to suppress the American people and pitting one against the other.

Whatever happen to the good ole days of voting on substantial issues and accomplishments? We know that none of the Democrat candidates accomplished anything as Senators and it brings to reasons why they have to lower themselves to get notice. I call it pathetic.

Can anyone tell me what ACCOMPLISHMENTS Senator Clinton and Senator Obama done as Senators? I just don't get what is all the hype about.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Bill Clinton Wants to Divorce Hillary

Based on a new book about the Clintons by Carl Bernsten, the relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton is odd at best. For many years dating back to 1989, Bill wanted to divorce Hillary to be with marketing executive Marilyn Jo Jenkins. Imagine that, Bill wants to divorce Hillary for another woman. After the Monica Lewinsky embarrassment, it is Bill who wanted out in the relationship, but even though it was in the back of his mind, it never transpired.

Hillary's obsessive manipulative character convinces her husband time after time not to go through with it. As quoted telling a friend, "there are worse things than infidelity." Hmm, I would like to know of some examples. Obviously, she had a separate agenda. It is a power struggle of a demented feminist. Her ultimate goal is winning the nomination as a Democrat presidential hopeful and squeak her way into the White House.

There are books documenting of the affairs of Bill Clinton around the world while his wife is preparing for her campaign as Senator and now President. It’s incredible that Bill has a hunger like no other with his obsession of abusing his power of the presidency to get sex. I guess abusing a power is like a powerful 24/7 Viagra. Honestly, any women falling prey to this horny toad is desperate and deserves the humiliation and unrelenting press coverage.

I wonder what drove Bill in his ever ending quests to get that divorce. I wonder if it was Hillary's hiring a private detective to investigate Bill's mistresses or was it being frustrated who wore the pants in the family. Hillary Clinton is a very self-righteous bitch with a complicated compromising character that drives people away. With those qualities, I am not surprise of Bill Clinton's abusive infidelity. Her tunnel vision personal ambition to attain power has sacrificed her role as a wife and mother. In the book "Her Way,” Hillary made a secret pact with her husband Bill to formulate their aim to get into the White House and each having two terms as president. I would have to say that it is self-evident that if such plans do not come into fruition she would cry like a spoiled little child. Look how desperate she has become during the Democrat primaries. She has used the race and gender issue blatantly. If she cries one more time, I am going to throw up. With her back against the walls, she will be scratching her way out and it is going to get ugly. She doesn't care of Bill's infidelities. As long it doesn't compromise her overall goal, Bill can continue till it falls off.

One thing is weird about their relationship. They need one another in giving each other advises. Because of their personally and professionally strange bond, it is hard to distinguish who played what role. It is known that she gets the first and last word in matters that are important. It seems that Bill Clinton is a walking contradiction as an intellect when Hillary is around and a total buffoon with no commonsense when she is not around. Just look at the idiotic comments said in the past several weeks as he stumps around America campaigning for her.

It is very obvious that many people don't like Hillary Clinton. Pollster Frank Luntz once said that Hillary reminds most men of their first wife or their mother-in-law. People often suggest that you get hugs from Bill Clinton and you get a solution from Hillary.

Is this the type of President serving in the oval office? I think not. It will be another four to eight years of Hillary botching up her agenda and Bill chasing skirts with all the interns. At least Hillary doesn't have to worry about Bill getting impeached again.

Soon or later Bill will finally have the kahuna's to tell Hillary, "It's over!"

Monday, February 11, 2008

Questions a Moderator Should Ask Hillary or Obama at a Debate

I was talking to a friend regarding the debates that will occur during the general elections. We came to an agreement that McCain will get the GOP nomination, but we split who will get the Democratic nomination. Since we knew the type of rhetorical question coming from the Democrat side against John McCain, we didn't have a smoking gun question that would put either Hillary Clinton or Obama on the spot. I was thinking back during the Democrat debate when Hillary got stumped about illegal aliens obtaining drivers’ license and wonder how can we stump either candidate.

My friend sent me this email that he found and wanted me to post it on my blog. These questions are brilliant. It gave a scenario of a moderator at a debate giving questions to either Hillary Clinton or Obama. These are the type of question could cause either candidate to implode at the podium.

1. Sen. Clinton, you oppose the Bush tax cuts because they unfairly benefit the rich. Since the top 1 percent of taxpayers – those making more than $364,000 annually – pay 39 percent of all federal income taxes, don't all across-the-board tax cuts, by definition, "unfairly" benefit the rich?

2. Sen. Obama, you also oppose Bush tax cuts, and claim that they take money away from the Treasury. But President Kennedy signed across-the-board tax cuts in the 1960s and said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low – and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now." Was he wrong?

3. Sen. Clinton, you criticize President Bush for inheriting a surplus and turning it into a deficit. The National Taxpayers Union added up your campaign promises, and they came to an increase of over $218 billion per year. What would this do to the deficit?

4. Sen. Obama, if elected, you promised to raise the minimum wage every single year. But isn't it true that most economists – 90 percent, according to one survey – believe that raising minimum wages increases unemployment and decreases job opportunities for the most unskilled workers? What makes you right, and the majority of economists wrong?

5. Sen. Clinton, you want universal health care coverage for all Americans – every man, woman and child. When, as first lady, you tried to do this, 560 economists wrote President Clinton and said, "Price controls produce shortages, black markets and reduced quality." One economist who helped gather the signatures explained, "Price controls don't control the true costs of goods. People pay in other ways." Are those 560 economists wrong?

6. Sen. Obama, you once said you understand why senators voted for the Iraq war, admitted that you were "not privy to Senate intelligence reports," that it "was a tough question and a tough call" for the senators, and that you "didn't know" how you would have voted had you been in the Senate. And over a year after the war began, you said, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." How, then, can you say that you consistently opposed the war from the start?

7. Sen. Clinton, you want to begin withdrawing the troops within the first 60 days of your administration, with all the troops out within a year. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker of the Baker-Hamilton report said that such a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq would create a staging ground for al-Qaida, increase the influence of Iran over Iraq, and result in "the biggest civil war you've ever seen." What would you like to say to Secretary Baker?

8. Sen. Obama, the church you attend, according to its website, pursues an Afro-centric agenda. Your church rejects, as part of their "Black Value System," "middleclassness" as "classic methodology" of white "captors" to "control … subjugated" black "captives." Your pastor, Jeremiah Wright, recently called the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan – a man many consider anti-Semitic – a person of "integrity and honesty." What would happen to a Republican candidate who attended a Caucasian-centric church and who praised David Duke as a man of "integrity and honesty"?

9. Sen. Clinton, you recently criticized NAFTA, the free trade agreement signed into law by President Clinton. The conservative Heritage Foundation says that NAFTA-like free trade benefits the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico, resulting in increased trade, higher U.S. exports and improved living standards for American workers. Explain how President Clinton and the Heritage Foundation got it wrong then, but that you are right now.

10. Sen. Obama, this question is about global warming, something about which you urge extreme action to fight. You criticize President Bush for going to war in Iraq, even though all 16 intelligence agencies felt with "high confidence" that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs. Critics of Bush say he "cherry-picked" the intelligence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists consider concerns about global warming overblown. Isn't there far more dissent among credible scientists about global warning than there was among American intelligence analysts about Iraq? If so, as to the studies on global warming, why can't you be accused of cherry-picking?

I hope there is a chance that a real moderator at a debate during the general election gives any of these questions to the Democratic contender. I really want to see the dumbfounded look on the face of either Hillary or Obama. I would love to see either candidate begin their answer with a “DUHHH. AHHH. SHIT!”

Saturday, February 9, 2008

The Price of Gas Could Drop 50 Cents by Spring

This past week in Reuters, Timothy Gardner reported that gasoline could drop 50 cents/gallon by spring of 2008. I pondered in suspense of disbelief, but the article proved to be genuine.

The article reasoned that U.S. drivers are within sight to see this phenomenon as high fuel prices and the threat of a so-called recession would force the consumer to conserve.

Last week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration stated that U.S. gasoline supplies hit a near 14-year high of 227.5 million barrels. Therefore, in using the adage in supply and demand, when there is a high supply of gasoline reserve (increase supply), then the demand of buy gasoline will drop (decrease in demand).

AAA’s motor club stated that when they have done a telephone interview of households in America, they found that the general population in coping the high gas prices at the pump changed their driving habits and thereby, decrease of gasoline consumption. AAA’s motor club also stated if the numbers are able to sustain over the next couple weeks, there should be a dramatic reversal of the price of gas. Therefore, by spring, we should see the U.S. price of gas to fall 50 cents a gallon from the national average of $2.98 per gallon

Even though pundits with their negativism outlook say the total opposite, it is undeniable that drivers are buying less gasoline because they are feeling the pinch of gas price hovering around $3.00 per gallon and the ultimate fear that we are in a recession or heading close to it.

I would like to add that most business and consumers are making short haul deliveries and consolidating longer deliveries on one trip, which is contributing in less consumption of gas and lesser trips to the gas station.

If such a prediction becomes reality, no longer you will hear about the high gas prices from the media. It will be subdued just like the news coming out from the war in Iraq.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Yahoo! Bans The Word "Allah" As A Screen Name

It is apparent that the priority of America today is not to insult a Muslim. It is the most outrageous statement blurted by a Libertarian Talk show host Neil Boortz, but I have to agree with him without reservation.

With the political correctness as the norm in this twisted society, being a Muslim is the only group that gets a pass. Why should we cower when Muslims get upset with something? It seems to be very hypocritical when it is the norm to use the Lords name in vain, use the Christian symbol of a fish tagged against the bumper of a car, people naming their child Jesus, Moses, or Abraham, and depict a picture of Jesus, but it is so wrong to do the same with Allah. That doesn't make any sense. I thought God and Allah are the same people.

Case in point, Yahoo! is banning anyone in creating a new user email that contains any reference of being Muslim, especially the word allah, in their screen name. I was told of this and I had to check it out myself. As the story goes, a Linda Callahan tried to create a Yahoo! email and it was rejected because her last name contained the word "allah." The question that I posed to Yahoo, “why banned the use of allah, but allow to use the word god, jesus, and mohammad?” I’m still scratching my head of this logic.

It seems that this story has been circulating since 2006, but it wasn't until today till a friend mentioned it to me. It seems Yahoo! banned any reference to Muslims (allah, bin laden, osama, raghead) since 2000. As of today, there has been no comment from the Yahoo! headquarters for this idiotic reason.

Yahoo! will not accept the word osama, or bin laden, but will accept buddha, god, jesus, satan, nazi, and pedofile. This is an outrage. I actually tried to create a screen name "Hussein_Osama_Obama" and "Praise_Allah" and both were rejected. I cannot believe it. There is no rhyme nor reason for this logic.

If anyone knows Yahoo! reason for this please let me know. I have emailed them several times and still awaiting an answer. I will keep you posted. I have to put the blame on the ideology of Liberalism in placing political correctness for common sense. Michael Savage, another popular Talk show host, is right in saying that Liberalism is a very dangerous mental disorder.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Thank You Mitt Romney

Since writing that blog yesterday that Hannity and all talk show personalities needs to quell the bashing of a candidate that they never supported, former governor Mitt Romney took a very brave and courageous stance that took me by surprise.

Romney decided at 1pm at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. to announce that he would step aside to allow the Republican party and country to unite behind the leading candidate for the GOP nomination. Romney stated, "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

That was the most honorable and unselfish act by an ambitious and desirable candidate for the seat of the Presidency. Romney had put up a fantastic campaign and he would be a perfect running mate for the GOP nominee. I am humbled to see Romney put COUNTRY above his own ambitions. I respect his candor that he does not want this country to fall prey to a Liberal President. Also, Romney noticed that continuing this race will further divide this country and does not allow time to regroup the base in supporting the Republican nominee.

I was not the only one who felt that way when I wrote that blog yesterday. I feel the passion of your support toward your candidate, but we need to step up beyond that and acknowledge that it is between a Republican versus a Liberal Democrat in the November election.

I hope that the Conservative radio personalities will reflect what I just said. While driving home from work and listen to the evening talk shows, I notice a calmer attitude than it was a week ago. It seems that they are in shock and denial, which is acceptable. I am looking forward how they dictate themselves in the coming weeks. It is their responsibility as Conservatives that they ignite and unite the base. We cannot allow a Liberal Democrat to ruin this country. Their idea of change is to increase taxes, take away our liberties, restrict our voice, grow the size of this government without growing the economy, and destroy the military making us defenseless.

The man does not supercede the Conservative ideology. At the CPAC conference, McCain gave his pledge and went on record to keep Conservatism alive. Today, he made a good start in bringing the base together. He has a long way to go before the September Republican convention, but it is a good start.

One thing is for sure. McCain has not faltered in keeping his word. At least that is a comforting thought.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Sean Hannity, Please Shut Up!

I thought that talk show hosts are supposed to be “fair and balance.” I do not believe in using radio talk shows to demonstrate an agenda while stressing that it’s their own opinion and no one else. Leading or swaying the pubic to accept a belief or stance on a particular issue is ingenuous and violates our freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This is the problem I have with Sean Hannity, a renown talk show personality and the host for Fox’s Hannity and Colmes. I would accept Hannity’s tirade against a candidate’s policy, but once he crosses that fine line and supports a candidate, his opinions become somewhat biased and tainted when he talks about other candidates. None of the other radio talk show personalities endorsed a candidate except for Hannity. I feel that Hannity is starting to become the standard establishment of the biased Mainstream Media, which is something I personally cannot tolerate. He needs to stop attacking McCain and get back in giving constructive opinion on each candidate fairly and respectfully. Let us decide for ourselves which candidate we should vote.

Enough already. Super Tuesday has come and gone, but that is not stopping Hannity from attacking John McCain. Let me stress something to you all. I am a Fred Thompson supporter, but I will not see someone vilify another person who is leading in the primaries. Conservative radio talk show hosts are against McCain, but I blame them in not choosing the right candidate when it was early in the game. I have mentioned months ago that they have written off conservative candidates like Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and even Ron Paul. Now, what do we have left to choose? Of the only four candidates left in the GOP, John McCain is the only one that has the biggest chance in beating Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

If I have to hear Sean Hannity bring out Ronald Reagan, I am going to puke. Don’t get me wrong, I am a strong believer in the Ronald Reagan coalition, but I have to remind everybody that Reagan was not always a conservative and certain policy during his Presidency wasn’t in line with the conservative base. I resent Hannity in putting Reagan as the gold standard. This present society has been degraded under the influence of moderate Liberalism. All you need is to look at the choices we have left in the GOP presidential race. These candidates are not Reagan and we will not see another Reagan in our lifetime. Conservatism did not start with Reagan. Conservatism is the Republican party.

So I wish Sean Hannity shuts up and start to lead the other talk show hosts in bringing the Conservative base together as a unit than to polarize us. What would happen if McCain wins the nomination? Would Hannity, Rush, Laura, or Hugh Hewitt change tunes and support him after the fact they tried to bury him? I know passion, but I see these radio talk show hosts for being obsessive. Each need to take a step back and return to the fundamentals and that is to educate the listeners on talk radio of the differences of each candidate. It is more constructive this way than to attack them personally.

I will accept some of the faults of John McCain, but I am looking at the bigger picture. McCain went on record stating that he will not raise taxes and make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. He will stop spending in Washington and veto earmarks. McCain will make sure we are going to win the war in Iraq and in Terrorism. He will support in endorsing Conservative Judges to the Supreme Court. Take heed when you listen to these Conservative talk show hosts. There are always two sides of an argument. Find out what they are not mentioning and you decide.

I take offense that Hannity had the audacity to say that Huckabee is a “spoiler” and a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain. It is also ironic that in the North Dakota primaries there has been a controversy with automated phone calls to residences telling Huckabee supporters that their votes are being wasted away and should be supporting Mitt Romney, who actually won the state. Hmm, coincidence? You tell me.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

What The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You About the Subprime Hype

In the past week, I had dinner discussion with a real estate lawyer and a realtor, who are both my friends, regarding about the sub-prime mess and Florida leading the nation in foreclosures. I was concerned about the hype of the downward spiral of the housing market. Because I live in Florida, I have seen the housing market as the ground zero for the highest growth rate in housing prices during the boom and a severe spiral downturn in prices during the housing slump.

The information I will reveal will astound you. My first question was to confirm my current knowledge of the sub-prime mess. They both agreed that in the total mortgages sold in America 15% was a sub-prime loan. Of that, 5% went into default or foreclosed. The real estate lawyer told me that predatory lending was not a major factor, which I was surprised. He blamed that both buyers and lenders were equally at fault. It was revealed to me that Democrat Leaders on Capitol Hill would plan to file suit to lenders if they shun away anybody, including illegal aliens, from obtaining a loan.

My realtor friend went on to tell me that a large number of foreclosures mostly involved investment properties like vacation homes, land, and other rental properties. A small survey done on 70 foreclosures revealed that 68 of those properties were investment properties and two involved primary residence. Of the two involved as primary residences, just one involved a genuine and unforeseeable hardship.

I understand that my current location may not match that of the rest of the nation, but by inspecting a small piece of the pie in a state that has a dramatic national effect in foreclosures, I can surmise that a large number of foreclosures involve investment properties. I need to add that most of the foreclosures are not the horrific pictures portrayed by the mainstream media. Let me make it clear, people are not always losing their primary home (unless they squander their equity). This is a major contrast that the mainstream media does not want us to understand. It seems that many of the foreclosure statistics are ingenuously inflated by the large number of foreclosures on investment properties. As with the 68 foreclosures that are considered investment properties, they are counted in the state and national statistics. Of course, these figures will inflate and often exaggerate the national survey, which hopefully bring politics within the mix.

This hype is political in nature often seen as an artificial crisis during an election year. Bottom line, whoever solves this “Crisis” will garner the votes. Friends! It’s all about the votes! Your home is a long term investment. Treat it that way.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Giants WIN the Super Bowl

Oh, how sweet it is! Giants WIN! With all the pundits being wrong again, it seems that no one can predict an event with certainty. Every sports channel on tv and many newspaper doubts that the Giants can match the 18 winning powerhouse of the New England Patriots. Just like the political side of the spectrum, pundits cannot give with conviction of a prediction in the presidential race. Even ordinary citizens, who wanted to see the Giants win, cannot say with absolution that they could win the Super Bowl.

It is so true with the elections. My advice to all is not to fall prey to pundits’ predictions of events that has not been foretold. They are never right and there are no bases of their predictions. Their undeniable claims that they are right are ingenuous when they are wrong. These pundits have no accountability nor remorse of their lack of commonsense.

Take the example of the Giants win over a powerful New England Patriots team. Never count out anybody until all the cards are face up on the table. You will go crazy in determining an event before an answer become apparent. You are not in the business of guessing. You are acting more of a Liberal with a false sense of mix emotion to decide your plan of action. Therefore, predicting who will win on Super Tuesday would be like picking the right numbers in Lotto.

One thing is certain, the winners of both parties will be ones who have a great game plan and it will be those individuals that will represent their respective parties in the general election.

Hillary Want To Garnish Our Wages For Hillarycare

It is incredible how liberals will shove their agenda down our throats. Today, on ABC "This Week," when pressed on how Hillary will get everybody coverage under her Healthcare plan, she said she would be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Knowing she was in a corner saying something that stupid, she went on to say, "I think there are a number of mechanisms that are possible, including going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Did anyone tell Hillary that Healthcare is not a right? I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that we have a right to Healthcare. Clinton showed her weakness in giving such a idiotic comment when press by ABC's "This Week."

I don't know who is the weakest link, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton. It seems they have shown that they will do anything to gain access to the oval office. They are ingenuine and self-serving and only care in attaining absolute power.

It also bothers me when Hillary stated in the California debate when she said, "it took a Clinton to clean up the mess of the first Bush and it will take another Clinton to clean up this Bush." Did anyone tell her that it took a Bush to clean up the first Clinton's mess and will take another Bush (Jeb) or another Republican to clean up another Clinton's (Hillary) chaos?

Friday, February 1, 2008

The Perfect Campaign Song For The Current Republican and Democrat Candidiates

This facade of this year election is irritating me to no end. For example, we have Obama wanting to bring back Camelot, Hillary yearning to bring back the 90's, and the GOP anticipating to see a resurrection of Ronald Reagan. To put my personal spin in clarifying their intent, Obama is not JFK. I don't care if the Kennedy family endorses him. If Obama wants to bring back Camelot, he better understands the single bullet theory and embrace it. Hillary Clinton’s laughable intention to bring back the 1990's will be more of a circus. She wants to bring back the terrorist attacks of the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole bombing, her husband’s infidelity, Khobar Tower bombing, bombing of US Embassies abroad, tech-bubble, recession, Whitewater, turning a blind eye on the Middle East that led to 9/11, and using our force (illegally with no formal declaration from Congress) to support NATO in the war to help free Muslims’ in Bosnia. In her crude twisted mind, she may want it, but not us. And let's not forget the GOP looking for the next coming of Ronald Reagan. It is never going to happen. The possibility is great to see the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ than to see another Reagan-like candidate. Reagan was once regarded as a great man. I embrace his neo-conservatives ideology, but he is no savior.

These candidates from both parties are a joke. They all are pandering to obtain the lotto prize to name themselves President of the United States. What is worst than Flip-flopping? It is to change views to satisfy the base. Anyone can change their mind in a whim, but its ingenuous and a form of mockery to appease the general population. I haven't seen any candidate give reasons why they changed issues that they never supported initially. I am sure to think the American people can see through their transparent guise. All I see is desperation in getting votes on each candidate from both sides of the political spectrum.

For this general election, I would like to donate a campaign theme song for all these candidates. This song is from ABBA and the title is called "Take a Chance on Me." Here are the lyrics and I hope you enjoy it. I think this song is very appropriate for any campaign theme slogan for the current Republican and Democrat candidates. If you are unfamiliar with the song, go and borrow one of your parents cd's (also available in 8-track tape) or go download it from the internet.


"Take A Chance On Me"

If you change your mind, I'm the first in line
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know, gonna be around
If you've got no place to go, if you're feeling down
If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best and it ain't no lie
If you put me to the test, if you let me try

Take a chance on me
(That's all I ask of you honey)
Take a chance on me

We can go dancing, we can go walking, as long as we're together
Listen to some music, maybe just talking, get to know you better
'Cos you know I've got
So much that I wanna do, when I dream I'm alone with you
It's magic
You want me to leave it there, afraid of a love affair
But I think you know
That I can't let go

If you change your mind, I'm the first in line
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know, gonna be around
If you've got no place to go, if you're feeling down
If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best and it ain't no lie
If you put me to the test, if you let me try

Take a chance on me
(Come on, give me a break will you?)
Take a chance on me
Oh you can take your time baby, I'm in no hurry, know I'm gonna get you
You don't wanna hurt me, baby don't worry, I ain't gonna let you
Let me tell you now
My love is strong enough to last when things are rough
It's magic
You say that I waste my time but I can't get you off my mind
No I can't let go
'Cos I love you so

If you change your mind, I'm the first in line
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know, gonna be around
If you've got no place to go, if you're feeling down
If you're all alone when the pretty birds have flown
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best, baby can't you see
Gotta put me to the test, take a chance on me
(Take a chance, take a chance, take a chance on me)

Ba ba ba ba baa, ba ba ba ba baa
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best, baby can't you see
Gotta put me to the test, take a chance on me
(Take a chance, take a chance, take a chance on me)

Ba ba ba ba baa, ba ba ba ba baa ba-ba
Honey I'm still free
Take a chance on me