Monday, June 30, 2008

Obama Stance on Guns and the 2nd Amendment. There is none!

Obama Stance on Guns and the 2nd Amendment. There is none!
Current mood: tired
Category: News and Politics


Is it John Kerry being relived? Is flip-flopping a new trend or just a fad? Well, it seems that Barack Obama has mastered this ancient craft under the guidance of his Jedi Master John Kerry.

We have seen him changed his mind out of political expediency throughout the primaries. Not too long ago, he promised to accept public funding and now he changes his mind. What upsets me is with his stance on guns and the 2nd Amendment. His famous quote, "I do support the 2nd Amendment and I support the decision of the DC ban on handguns as constitutional." It reminds me of John Kerry idiotic statements of "voting on the $87 billion before I voted against it " double talk.

Now with the verdict that gave Americans the right to own a handgun as an individual right, Obama is unable to make a coherent opinion of the decision. He won't give a straight answer. For goodness sakes, he is a Constitutional lawyer as a professor of a university. If Obama cannot make a very simple statement on the Constitution, he is an idiot!

Since we have no idea who is Barack Obama, the only way the American people can understand is to have his voting records and actions vetted.

When he was a candidate for the Illinois Legislature in the 90's, Obama supported a bill that ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. In the Chicago Tribune in November 2007, Obama believes that the DC handgun ban is constitutional, and in February 2008 during a televised debate, Obama said that supports the DC handguns ban.

But by March of 2008, Obama changed his mind to consider the ban on handguns unconstitutional. Then in April 2008, Obama refused to give a clear answer as he said, "I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence." Then last week when 5-4 ruling that overturned the ban on handguns, Obama said, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms," but wouldn't go further if he agreed with the court's decision.

As stated earlier, he taught Constitutional Law as a professor at a university. He should know what the answer is. To say he doesn't know is just being stupid. I am assuming that he doesn't want to upset the base because Democrats always took the policy on guns as a very touchy issue since Democrats opposed to it and want gun control. Period! This is why the NRA is a big thorn to the Democrat Party's side.

So what will Obama do next to get gun supporters to vote for him? Well, Obama can do a Senator John Kerry and his hunting for ducks with a shotgun? If that doesn't work, Obama can do a Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) ad showing the proper way to shoot a gun? Let me say this, if Barack Obama can't bowl for a lick, what makes you think he can shoot a gun? I cannot imagine the "messiah" shooting a gun. Oh, the humanity! LOL. But when the NRA supported 50 Democrats during the midterm election in 2006, which gave them the Majority, it seems a dire importance for Obama to get their support.

Now, this is what I call begging to get the support of the NRA. It would be a very big surprise if Obama got their endorsement. Remember, Obama made a sarcastic remark calling middle America as bitter people, who love clinging to their guns and Bible. I think that statement won't bode well among the majority of American. Let's face facts. Obama is an elitist whose goal is to win at any cost, and that will take a lot of ass kissing and changing his mind for political expediency.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Republican Introduce a New Bill to Increase Domestic Oil and Reduce Gas Prices

In the past year since the crisis of high gas price, Republicans were up to bat for the American people. Each time they proposed any form of drilling, the Democrats shot it down. The Democrats want to reap in the taxes collected from motorists. They don’t care of the American people. They use the rhetoric that drilling will save pennies at the pump and the only way to be energy independent is to conserve. As well know, that is a bunch of crap. The United States have lessened the consumption of foreign oil compared to last year and still, we are still in a pickle. They blow steam by bringing false hope to the American people that new technology is on the way. In fact, this is the same old rhetoric repeated every year. In reality, we are about 8-10 years to see major development in alternative energy technology. The question is what do we do now?

This past week, the Republicans have put another bill on the Senate floor. This past Thursday, the Senate Republicans unveiled the Gas Price Reduction Act (GPRA) of 2008. This bill will immediately open the way for production of more domestic oil and reduce consumption use by 4 million barrels a day. It is a four-step plan to promote offshore drilling, oil shale exploration, utilizing plug-in electric vehicles and improving the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with increased funding, staff and regulation. The only change is that ANWR is off the table and shall be excluded in any type of drilling.

The whole idea is to bring a bipartisan agreement by throwing a bone to the Democrats. With $5.00 gas coming soon to your local gas station, Democrats are strapped to do something that would be appeasing to the lobbyist and to the irrate American people.

The whole idea may be a good idea since Democrats are in support of battery operated and plug-in electric cars and trucks. The only problem that nobody is stressing is that it takes energy to charge the cars. It seems that it may decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but will shift the problem in producing more electricity. For this to work, we need more in the form of electrical energy like nuclear energy, wind energy, and solar energy.

None the less, this is a step toward the right direction. The bill is geared towardly to tap the oil shale resources in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. It is determined that America can produce more than three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. With new development in technology, we have found a way to heat the shale so it can collect the oil. It won’t take years in the making. The benefits can be seen less than a year. This is important because of the speculators has been driving up the oil prices and Republicans hope that this new bill will make it easier for the Democrats not to lose face to see real action for long term stability in this insane energy crisis.

Besides shale extraction, this bill will address deep sea exploration and offshore drilling. It is determined that up to 14 billion barrels of oil on the Atlantic and Pacific coast. The incentive for states to accept the terms of the bill would allow at least 50 miles from the coast to drill and the state would receive a 37.5% revenue in sharing profit.

I would like to see if the Democrats will compromise their position and bite the bullet and accept this bill. It is a good bill. I just hope they don’t throw in the usual earmarks that Congress automatically does. This just shows that Republicans are trying to do what is right and have heard the plea of the American people. The Democrats don’t give a “rats ass” what we think. For those die-hard Democrats, you call your Democrats in Congress compassionate? Yeah, right! I don’t know why you decide to stick with them. The Democrat party has loss their way. In the past two years as the Majority, they have done nothing that helped the American people. What they done have turned out to be a mistake and compounded the problems we face today. For instance, they sued all the banks to give every American a home loan mortgage whether they have good credit or not, which brought on the subprime mess. The student loan interest rate became to be a flop and the Democrats are seeking the Fed to bail them out like Bear Stearns. The minimum wage increases had its toll on small business community. The 5.5% unemployment has a part due to the hiring freeze from many small businesses, which is an integral part of our economy.

When are you going to get it? Democrats have lost their “mojo.” They are not the party of the FDR, Truman, or JFK. They are the party of the Lobbyist, Hollywood, and left wing radical organizations.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

"No Drill" Democrats are Pissing Us Off

"No Drill" Democrats are Pissing Us Off
Current mood: angry
Category: News and Politics


I found this on Congressman John Campbell's website on Townhall.com. I think the picture sums it all. Price of oil is now over $140.00/barrel. Congress is panding with idiotic solutions. We aren't that stupid. Have you had enough yet? Contact your Senator and Congressman today!


Congress: All Dried Up

Posted by: John Campbell at 3:03 PM
This past week in Congress, we considered a bill that that would try to sue our way to lower gas prices as well as another bill to create subsidies for only federal employees to take public transportation to work.

All I can say is are you kidding me?

The cartoon below has a greater meaning after this week.



Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The messiah Barack Obama Speaks and Denounces Dr. James Dobson

Barack Obama, the messiah, has spoken and Dr. James Dobson, a well renowned Evangelical Christian leader, is out of line. It kills me that Barack Obama understanding of the Bible was influenced from Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger, who are both notorious in twisting the meaning of the Bible, and has the audacity to criticize the leader of the evangelical Christian coalition.

Obama is criticized of playing a Pastor by asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy. For instance, Obama said Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination. Obama also cited Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." Then Obama had the gall to say, "You folks haven't been reading your Bibles."

Dr. Dobson went on to say, "I think Barack Obama is deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."

I really believe that Barack Obama thinks he is the true messiah. I cannot believe he is using certain parts of the Bible to distort his twist views of the world. I wonder if that is how he concluded that middle America's frustration has caused them to become bitter and that they cling to their guns and Bible and show antipathy to those who are different from them.

Obama uses the Bible to set his views by pandering about abortion. In his speech done couple years ago, Obama said,

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

"Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."


This is the passage that Dr. Dobson got annoyed. Obama is a coward by misrepresenting the meaning of the Bible in order that he gets a free pass. To combine politics and religion is a very dangerous thing to do. One's value that stems from the Bible would dictate how one will approach the decisions in politics. The Bible is not meant to be used to take particular verses to make an argument. For Obama to do something like that is something the devil would do because Satan is an expert in twisting the words of the Bible to suit its needs.

I would tell Barack Obama to leave religion out of the campaign. His anti-Christ persona does not suit him well. Besides, Obama is no expert of the Bible. Heck, Obama supports partial birth abortion and calls having a baby through an unplanned pregnancy as a punishment. One should not interpret the Bible alone without guidance from a higher religious authority. In other words, just leave it to the experts.

Barack Obama Broke The Law With That Fake Presidential Seal

Thanks to Terry Backs McCain ,




She brought an interesting fact that I wasn't aware of. United States Code 18 Section 713 states:
"Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness ofthe great seal of the United States, or of the seals of thePresident or the Vice President of the United States, or the sealof the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States Houseof Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, orany facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, anyadvertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or otherpublication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, orother production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, forthe purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated toconvey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by theGovernment of the United States or by any department, agency, orinstrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title orimprisoned not more than six months, or both."



The full excerpt of this Code can be read at http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/713.html



What Barack Obama and his campaign has done is to cause a criminal misconduct punishable to the fullest extent of the law. Because of his stupidity, he and his accomplices needs to be addressed by the attorney general for violating a United States Code.



I would like everybody to write to Washington D.C., and get a Congressional or Senate Hearing on this outcry. Justice needs to be served.



People can complain by notifying the White House of their object:


The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


President George Bush: president@whitehouse.gov
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice_president@whitehouse.gov

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461


E-Mail Or send your comments to: comments@whitehouse.gov

Monday, June 23, 2008

Barack Obama is a Pretentious Arrogant Jackass!

In the past two weeks, we have seen a total make-over of Barack Obama and the direction that the Democrats are intending to take this to the general election. I see it as the wrong direction and it is rubbing off the American people the wrong way.

He has determined that this presidential election will be base on race and Obama is the one who is responsible for kicking it off. In Jacksonville, Florida, he went to play the race card by saying the GOP will be using a scare tactic by describing Obama as young, inexperience, a guy with a funny name, and being black. Well, I would like to know what Republican is using the race card to scare the American people against Obama? I don't know what is the big deal because what Obama describes about himself is true. His accusation is utterly false and misleading.

It seems that he is playing the race card and showing the American people that he is a victim. On the other end of the spectrum, Obama is using a scheme to get America excited to vote for him as the first black president into the White House. By using guilt to get the vote is just shameful. At least his arrogance is still in tact. As displayed by this picture, all I can state, "a picture can say a thousand words." Obama is a pretentious arrogant jackass!



By SARA KUGLERAssociated Press WriterALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- A presidential seal graphically altered with symbols representing Barack Obama's campaign of change was just for one-time use and will not be used again, a spokeswoman for the Democrat's campaign said Monday.The seal, with its blue background and an eagle in the center clutching arrows and an olive branch, evoked the official presidential version, but had been altered with a new Latin phrase, instead of the original "E pluribus unum," which means, "Out of many, one."Obama's campaign changed the phrase to "Vero possumus," which can be roughly translated to his "Yes, we can" slogan. The seal also featured his "O" campaign logo covering the eagle's body, instead of a shield.When the altered seal was unveiled last Friday in Chicago, it raised eyebrows and prompted comments about how presidential it looked. The Republican National Committee gleefully ridiculed it as a prop.Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for Obama's campaign, said Monday that the altered seal would not be used again. She said it was only intended for that event, in which Obama held a round-table discussion with Democratic governors.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

My Rebuttal to the blog "How to Piss Off a Conservative"

I found this by a blogger who is obviously a Liberal sharing her talking point rhetoric in how to piss off a Conservative. I knew it would be childish of me to respond, but I couldn’t help it. LOL. Her premise came straight from MoveOn.Org. It was weak and pretentious. I just wanted to share this to all my Conservative friends and hope they can interject their wisdom of this particular matter.


Xanadu Radish (Lisa)




How to Piss Off A Conservative
Current mood: animated
Category: News and Politics


I've seen a number of blogs entitled "How To Piss Off A Liberal." So I've done, "How to Piss Off A Conservative."

Incidentally, spending a couple of hours on these Conservative blogs have reminded me why I avoid conversing with Conversatives.... It's so annoying to have to dumb down everything I say, so their tiny God-addled, hate-riddled brains can wrap around it.


How to Piss Off A Conservative

Ask them why they haven't adopted any unwanted babies, since they are against abortion.

Ask them why they aren't serving in their military, since they support the war.

Point out that they support their country's military 100%, as long as they can do it from the comfort and safety of their own homes.

Point out that they are against abortion, but jump at the chance to send other peoples' sons and daughters to die for oil.

Remind them that abortion is still legal.

Remind them that other religions besides Christianity are allowed in the USA.

Remind them that God Himself asks that they give 10% of their earnings as a tithe.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


"Ask them why they haven't adopted any unwanted babies, since they are against abortion."

Babies are being adopted on a daily base. There aren’t enough of them for many couples willing to adopt. Then tell me why most are going abroad to adopt. The cost is both the same. Why don't you ask Madonna and Anglie Jolie? They both went abroad to adopt babies.

"Ask them why they aren't serving in their military, since they support the war."

You don't need to serve the military to support the war. I see you didn’t serve in the military. Does that mean you don't support the war? Since it is a volunteer military, we do have a choice as American if we choose to enter the military or not. By supporting the troops and donate to their cause is all that is needed because only people who are unselfish and dedicated serve in the military. In this selfish self-centered society, you can’t expect everybody to serve.

"Point out that they support their country's military 100%, as long as they can do it from the comfort and safety of their own homes."
George Orwell said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." That is the purpose of the military and why we support them. That is because we can live in comfort and safety in our own homes. It is given to us the US Constitution- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness.

"Point out that they are against abortion, but jump at the chance to send other peoples' sons and daughters to die for oil."

This is a very poor comparison. Abortion is the woman’s intent to kill an unborn baby. The military is a volunteer serve doing a noble deed for this country. Therefore, how can abortion be a noble deed. Destroying life is wrong. The baby did not go to war against the mother. Then why should her mistake in getting pregnant commit another mistake. Two wrongs do not make a right. Oh, by the way, if we went there for oil, wouldn't it be easier to go and take it from Mexico and the Chavez government? It would be much easier.

"Remind them that abortion is still legal."

Partial Birth Abortion is illegal per the Supreme Court decision. In due time, "Roe vs. Wade" will be overturn and abortion will be under State level than the Federal level.

"Remind them that other religions besides Christianity are allowed in the USA."

This country is founded by a Judea/Christian philosophy. We know that there are other religions here in the USA. We need to remember that Christianity is still allowed to be practice in the USA. Why should we appease other religions and cater to their needs, if these other religions don't respect ours? Why does the ACLU want to ban crosses all over America that have been in place for generations, but support CAIR (Radical Islamic Organization) views for the annihilation Israel? Christianity has been tolerant to other practice of religion and supports’ it, but that is different when it comes to radical Islam. This country has many religions of all sects and all live in perfect harmony. Only the radical Islamic religion does not show tolerance of other religions. That is the problem.

"Remind them that God Himself asks that they give 10% of their earnings as a tithe."

This is better than what Congress is doing to us. Tell Barack Obama that he is imposing more of the tax on the American people than what GOD HIMSELF is asking. Do you think Obama is the "messiah?" I don't think he supercedes the Word of GOD! Heaven forbid! You need to keep in mind that this country is the most generous country in the world. We have taken care of chaos that occurred in this country and to other countries all over the globe. I guess you forgot when we help with aid in the devastation in China and the Tsunami victims, just to name a few.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Democrats New Energy Policy- Take Over The Oil Refineries

About a month ago, we witnessed Liberal Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Water’s (D-CA) revelation that she wants to socialize the oil industry. She went on to broaden her explanation that she wanted the federal government to take over the oil companies. This is the new ideal standard of the Democrats. If there is a problem, let’s take it over. Destroy capitalization and implement Socialism.

Well, that sentiment is shared by many Liberal Democrats in Congress. In fact, I believe that is the Democrats Energy Plan after all. Another Liberal Congressman, who is on the Appropriations team and Natural Resources Committee, came out and supported a federal government takeover of our oil refineries.

Congressman Maurice Hinkey (D-NY) said,

“Should the people of the United States own refineries? Maybe so. Frankly, I think that’s a good idea. Then we could control the amount of refined product much more capably that gets out on the market…” “So if there’s any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of refineries, then maybe they’d be willing to have these refineries owned publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put out on the market.”

Before reading between the lines, this shrewd Congressman used the word “American public” to sugarcoat as owners of oil refineries. In other words, it will be on the behest of the federal government in representing the American people who will take over these refineries. There is no mistake about it. The “no drilling off our shores” Democrats are going after the oil companies. Almost the same manners they tried to take over the pharmaceutical companies years ago.

I am telling each one of you that Liberalism will flourish into a socialist society. If you all these idiotic Liberal Democrats into office, you will get what you deserve and that will be an irreversible broken government system. If you think it’s worst now, just wait till Liberalism and Socialism takes a permanent grasp on our way of life.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Obama Is A Politician And Will Say What Politicians Usually Say

Let me tell you the difference between flip-flopping and changing a view to adapt in the change with time. Democrats and Liberals alike blame McCain that he flip-flopped his views on the offshore drilling and today with the possibility of reviewing his decision in drilling in ANWR. That my friend is not flip-flopping. With a new change of sky rocket gas prices and oil prices, something needs to be done to ease the prices back to reality. At first, McCain opposed to offshore drilling and exploration in ANWR, but with speculators manipulating the price of oil and the demand of oil from other countries, it is hurting the American people. I thought Democrats cared for the lower and middle class families. I guess not. Since taking power in 2006, the Democrat party did nothing to bring down the price of gas. I have not seen any legislation that would help the lower and middle class to cope with this travesty.

The Democrats are saying to increase alternative energy and to conserve. That is their only lame solution. Not once have you heard that they need to drill to bring the price down and decreasing the demand. Their excuse is to say that it will take years to see a resolution, but prolonging progress will cost more down the road. We had a chance in the 1990's, but Clinton vetoed the bill. If he didn't, we would be energy independent today. I see the ploy the Democrats are playing. They want nothing to happen so they can blame all this on Bush. I call it very stupid and naive.

Sorry to digress, but what McCain is doing is that he is being proactive and wants solution that ails America. He isn't playing politics, but providing a realistic remedy that we all want to hear. McCain is listening what America wants and he is providing what America needs.

In Obama's case, he tends to make things up hoping that he doesn't get caught. He flip-flops his ideas for political expediency. Just as Rev Wright eloquently said, "Barack Obama is a politician and will say what politicians usually say." In this particular case, Obama said that he would participate in the federal public financing system in the general election. In fact, back in 2006 and 2007 and the beginning part of 2008, he went on record that he supports federal public financing for the general election. Without disappointing Republicans, Obama went on record today that he will reject public funding. Oi Vey!

From his response in a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network, released Nov. 27, 2007, when asked: "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

He said, "Yes. I have been a longtime advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-Wis.) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fund-raising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., has already pledged to accept this fund-raising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

I cannot believe that he did an about face and lied to the America people that he rejects federal public financing. Now, that is a perfect example of flip-flopping. Even the late Tim Russert asked Obama the very same question and Obama said that he would sit with the presumptive Republican nomination and discuss what direction they should follow. Well, it seems McCain will accept public financing, while Obama will side with Lobbyist and special interest groups.

For those Obama Kool-Aid drinkers, when are you ever going to believe Obama is going to tell the truth or going to tell a lie? Are you going to be able to tell the difference since you are so star struck by his messiah driven rock star status? I bet you will find the minute excuse to give this blithering idiot a pass. Whatever the case, Obama just gave another gift to the McCain camp to be used in the fall presidential debates.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

I'm Voting Democrat this November Election

I just watch a satirical video from You Tube called “I’m Voting Republican.” Since it was created by Liberals, the video clip was not funny, but rather, it was stupid. To call us warmongers, racist, environmental rapist, and kool-aid drinkers for big corporations is so stereotypical and unfounded. So, to put my own spin as a Conservative, I want to call this blog “I’m Voting Democrat.”


I’m voting Democrat because the only solution to make ends’ meet is to have the government to provide us with everything. I like to have a “free lunch” by our generous government. I want to be totally dependent to our government.

I’m voting Democrat because I feel that I am not financially equal to people who make more than me. The solution is to have the government spread the wealth by taxing the crap of the rich people and give some of it to me.

I’m voting Democrat because the only way to energy independence is to raise the taxes at the gas pump so that we can change our habits to conserve more.

I’m voting Democrat because we need to take the profit from these evil oil companies (Wind Fall Taxes) and use it for research for alternative forms of energy technology.

I’m voting Democrat because the best way to win the war in Iraq is to withdraw in defeat. I believe in getting along with our foreign neighbors. I wouldn’t mind learning Arabic.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that the ideal family is having two loving gay couple help raise a child. All you need is love to make a successful family.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that a woman should do whatever she wants with her body. If she wants to kill a baby with its head in the birth canal that is her right. That is given to us by our founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution- “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit to HAPPINESS.”

I’m voting Democrat because I’m so pissed at President Bush because he couldn’t catch Osama Bin Laden. It is embarrassing that we can’t catch the only top radical Islamic terrorist of all time.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe we don’t care enough of the real victims of crime- the criminals.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe we need the permission of the other countries for me to water may lawn, turn down my thermostat, and when to take a shower.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe in changing the laws in relation to the change in times. I feel that unelected liberal judges qualify to make that decision for us.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that terrorist should have a day in our court system with other ordinary criminals. That is the fair thing to do.

I’m voting Democrat because our enemies captured should deserve a nice hotel room, cable television, and all the benefits as a United States citizen. That is the only humane thing to do to our fellow man.

I’m voting Democrat because everybody deserves the right to have healthcare. It would lessen the hospitals need to “eating the bill” for someone who cannot pay.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe this country is multi-cultural. We should learn more Islam and Buddhism, than Christianity, as part of every curriculum in high school so we are not ignorant of those people in that part of the country.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe strongly to free speech. The freedom to watch pornography via the internet, protest at soldiers’ funeral, and burn effigies of our President at rallies are rights as American citizen.

I’m voting Democrat because I like the word’s hope and change. It means a lot to me.

Most important, I’m voting Democrat because I want America to be like Socialist Europe, but don’t want to move over there. Unless, a Republican wins, I will threaten to move, but won’t.

If, by chance, I get hit by a car on election day, let an illegal alien go on my behalf and vote my conscience. I hope he or she votes Democrat.


(Can you see how ludicrous this is? Can you see how insane the ideas of a Liberal Democrat can be? If you are a Liberal, how can you look at yourself in the mirror?)

Monday, June 16, 2008

Senator Mel Martinez Bird-Brain Scheme For Cheaper Gas

After many emails to Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fl), his only solution is for all Floridians to decrease their usage of gas by 3%. Can anyone tell me how to decrease our usage by 3%? It is such an arbitrary number that I don't think it can be ascertained by the average American.

It seems that Senator Martinez wants to show by example through the use of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. By making the military decrease its usage by 3%, the Senator should be able to show that it is possible to can be done in the USA. My problem with Senator Martinez doubtful ignorance is by reducing consumption or making restriction in a military operation is not the best place to push an agenda. Why not put a ceiling on the speed limit that they can operate their tanks and trucks or rationing jet fuel and operational generators to meet the 3% benchmark? I found that rationing doesn't work and it may be a detriment to our force, who are trying to fight a winnable war. Why should an unreliable experiment be used if it may have an adverse effect to our troop and our mission. It seems that the Senator wants to sabotage the war efforts.

But what really kills me is that this is the only solution the Senator from Florida can conjure up. It is quite weak in my book. His solution is very vague and I think he didn't put much thought in the matter. It is very difficult for families to cut down on gas consumption if the commute to work is of a vast distance. I don't know about the Senator, but there are many people who drive 45 minutes one way to get to work. It is not only the distance that may be a factor, but also the time in the car that consumes a lot of gas.

Still, the Senator feels that drilling off the Gulf of Mexico and in ANWR is not an immediate solution. He says it will be years before the fuel ever reaches the consumer. Well, I say that showing the intent will stop the speculation on the gas prices in Wall Street. Today, Saudi Arabia is going to pump 200,000 barrels of oil a day starting next month to increase the supply and therefore, decrease the price at the pump. If we started drilling during Clintons Administration, we will be completely independent from foreign oil. Let's watch the price of oil in the next couple days after Saudi Arabia announcement. I bet that the price of oil will drop.

It is nice that the Senator drives a hybrid, but I don't think many American can afford to buy a vehicle if gas is this expensive. By the way, the Senator must be dreaming if we will be driving cars with coal and natural gas as fuel source. I can say that it is not any time soon.

The solution is a short term fix with drilling for oil. The long term solution is alternative energy technology. Drill here, Drill now, Pay less at the pump!

I can't believe that I vote for this idiot! Well, back to the drawing board and start bitching my grievances until the Senator does the right thing for his constituents.



Martinez Has Plan For Cheaper Gas
Monday, June 16, 2008 4:01:10 PM


Sen. Mel Martinez
Cheaper Gas Prices In Central Florida


ORLANDO -- Florida Sen. Mel Martinez has a plan to reduce gas prices, but he said it means making changes in how you get around.

Speaking to United Parcel Service truck drivers in Orlando, Martinez proposed his fuel saving plan, which would start with the military.

Martinez said he is in talks with the Defense Department to reduce military fuel use by 3 percent.

According to Martinez, that the reduction would not affect operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it could have a big effect on fuel supplies. What's more, he said, once that's done he'll ask every American to reduce their fuel usage by 3 percent.

"Let's see if we could use 3 percent less. If that commitment was not only present from our armed forces, but every American family, I think we could really make a difference in what the speculators anticipate is an ever-increasing demand for fuel," Martinez said.

Martinez said high fuel prices are especially hurtful to Florida's economy. He said the high gas prices keep people from driving and flying to the Sunshine State.

"Families trying to make a decision in the Midwest on whether they're going to come down to Florida for a vacation. They may decide to vacation closer to home. So this is going to hit our tourism economy and have wide impact on all of our economy," Martinez said.

As for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or up in Alaska, Martinez said that could help, but is not an immediate solution. It could be years before the fuel ever reaches consumers.

Martinez is pushing things like carpooling, hybrids and finding new fuel sources to cut down on oil use.

The senator said he has already started driving a hybrid car himself. He also said the nation should be looking into other fuel sources such as coal and natural gas.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Obama's Troop Withdrawal Rhetoric Is Pissing Me Off!!

I wish Obama stop acting like an idiot in regard to his position with the troops in Iraq. I remember Obama, being the arrogant ignorant tool that he is, making his victory speech at the same convention hall that will be used for the Republican National Convention stated, “my priority is to pull our troops from Iraq and give the Iraqis full control in taking responsibility for their future.”

It seems to be a stretch that Obama is making a conclusion without stepping back into Iraq to see for himself of the dramatic improvements. McCain offered the junior Senator to put political rhetoric aside and join McCain in a trip to Iraq. It would be beneficial for Obama since he hasn’t been back in more than two years. Doesn’t Obama know how to access the internet? Doesn’t he read the paper? It is absolutely appalling that Obamas judgement is blinded by free unreported dollars by lobbyist to support their twisted agenda.

It is important to note those major developments in Iraq has been very promising. This information is all over the internet. It is not that hard to find, but I guess, Obama is a lazy egotistical jar-head. If he continues to believe Senator Harry Reid’s comment that “the war is lost” to the game plan leading to a Democrat spanking of Republicans in the 2006 election, Obama is going to have a long uphill climb if he continues to use the same stupid rhetoric. I guess Obama must be drinking his own kool-aid because there have been many positive changes in Iraq. I like how Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) says that Obama and the Liberal Democrats continue to reflexively repeat their “narrative of defeat and retreat” as if nothing has changed. Man, I know that the government thinks the America people are dumb, but come on!

I know from many polls that the American people are weary and tired from the war (how, I just don’t know). I know that there is many Americans’ feel that we shouldn’t have engaged a war in Iraq (even though many support that bringing the fight in our turf is a bad idea). I also know that many to believe Obama is going to regurgitate his 2002 speech in opposing the war throughout the general election. But one this is clear, McCain’s mantra is to continue a winnable war. While the Democrats’ objective is immediate troop withdrawal, McCain’s objective is to win!

I need to remind everybody that we are winning in three different fronts of the Iraq war- against Sunni al-Qaeda, against Shiite militias, and against Iran’s interference. Also, I need to remind everybody that we didn’t go into Iraq to fight al-Qaeda. The war was started because Saddam Hussein violated the UN Security Counsel Resolution 1441. As it turned out, al-Qaeda decided to choose Iraq as the central front in its war against America. That choice turned out to be ill-fated for al-Qaeda. Now, Iraqis are turning their backs against them and al-Qaeda is on the run and within reach in meeting a stunning and humiliating defeat. The Shiite extremist, the Mahdi Army, is isolated and broken down to its weakest point in years. The axis of evil and sponsor of the war, Iran, has suffered major setbacks in Basra and from the Iraqi people, who are now against Iranian interference and rallying to the Maliki government.

Did you know:

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.

2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town -- Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah -- from Basra to Baghdad.

3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold.

4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces.

5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.

6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks -- a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.

7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth Cabinet position.)


We are within reach in achieving the goal that President Bush sought after. We need to continue with the fight so that our troops can come home with their heads held high and their dignity in tack. Obama is a meaningless tool for the left wing radicals of the Democratic party. Don’t lose sight of victory. If we went on and won the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, it would be a whole different story. Do not let this be a remake of Vietnam. It was a difficult time, which we rather not bear witness.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Has Anybody Thanked President Bush Lately?

Ann Coulter wrote a fantastic article in reminding every America that they need to prioritize what is important to them. It has been seven years since 9/11 and still people are content to accept being complacent. I haven't heard any "thank you" or "it was President Bush that took the Ronald Reagan approached to defeat the enemy." No, it seems that the American people are distracted on an economy is in a "recession" and not taking care of their own personal finances. It seems the American people liking to whine of their misfortunes that they brought upon themselves. Beside those who are truly hurt financially due to circumstances beyond their control, it seems that many Americans, who have a good job and acquired an enormous personal debt they brought upon themselves, are crying to the government and blaming the President of the United States of their woes. That is absolutely pathetic. Whatever happened to self responsibility or being responsible of their own actions. No one said to go and splurge in the luxuries of life with money that they don't have. No one said to go too far in debt without knowing there are consequences.

This is the society we are facing. We have become a nanny state and "blame it on someone else." We have lost our ways and becoming more dependent on the government. Those distractions have brought us to become less patriotic as a country as a whole and more selfish in our own desires. We have become a country that is disunited. This type of complacency is destructive to America. Consumer confidence is at an all time low. Why? It is because of the mistakes by these unscrupulous Americans whining that the government cannot bail them out. This brings reason that people forget that this country has not been attacked in seven years. Major terror attack has been foiled around the world. That is great news, but people don't see it that way. So before we go after the President, bear in mind that we should be thankful that he is doing his job. Our job is to live like proper decent Americans, whose responsibility is to provide to our family and prosper. That is a huge challenge. We should be accountable in our own finances and decisions that we make. We should go after the Congress, who wastefully spend our money, and make them fix the problem that the country face. We should not criticize the President, who is trying to do his job and doing it well. Protecting the citizens of this country is the Presidents top priority. Thank you President Bush and thank you Ann Coulter for point that out.



Bush's America: 100% Al-Qaeda Free Since 2001
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, June 11, 2008


In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of bearnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

Friday, June 13, 2008

My Email by my Senator about the High Price of Oil and Gas

Here is my email from Senator Martinez (R-Fl) about this high oil and high gas prices. Like every other Senator, they are full of crap. I also include my response to his email.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:11 PM, wrote:

Below is a response to the recent comments I received from you:


Dear Mr. Cyrus xxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the high cost of fuel in our nation. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond.

Oil prices, like most commodities, are highly volatile and result from a wide variety of factors. Some of the factors contributing to the current gasoline prices include the instability of oil producing regions in the Middle East, Africa, and South America, the lack of domestic production and refining capacity, redundant or unnecessary federal mandates, and the increasing global competition for energy resources resulting from rapid economic growth in Asia. Instability in certain parts of the world is unpredictable and U.S. policy makers can do little to avert these incidents; however, our own nation's policies of production and consumption are predictable and manageable so long as we are willing to face reality and make the necessary steps to ensure our own nation's energy security.

I understand your concerns about possible improprieties committed by the oil industry which may have inflated gas prices. On September 12, 2005, I joined 21 of my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ask the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Ms. Deborah Platt Majoras, to conduct an investigation into the possibility of price gouging and market manipulation by the energy industry. The FTC completed the investigation and submitted their findings to Congress. In the report, FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz observed that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could be largely blamed for steep price increases. Commissioner Leibowitz also detailed several other contributing factors including increased demand in China and India, complicated environmental requirements and American over-dependence on both foreign oil sources and fuel-inefficient automobiles.

On December 19, 2007, the Petroleum Consumer Price Gouging Protection Act became public law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6). This act prohibits the sale of oil or gasoline at excessive prices during any period declared by the President to be an energy emergency and prescribes the conditions under which the President is allowed to declare such an emergency. It also dictates civil and criminal penalties for price gouging violations and empowers the state Attorneys General office and the FTC to enforce this law.

As you may know, I have been a strong supporter of initiatives to develop and adopt new technologies to reduce our nation's unhealthy dependence on foreign oil as a way to regain energy independence. During negotiations of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), I worked to include new research and development funding for the production of ethanol from sugar cane, as well as loan guarantees for the construction of new ethanol plants. I also chaired an alternative fuels forum in Gainesville where researchers described the potential for cellulosic ethanol production and industry leaders reported on their plans to build more alternative fuel station in Florida and throughout the United States. It is critical that our nation reduce its dependence on foreign sources of oil, and the development and use of alternative fuels is an important step towards reducing this dependence.

As always, I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional comments or questions. In addition, if you are interested in learning more about policy issues, please feel free to visit my website at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator


**Note: PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. If you would like to reply to this message, please contact me through my website at http://martinez.senate.gov.



MY RESPONSE:

Senator Martinez or the aide that is writing on your behalf,

I have done the very same thing in answering emails in representing as a Congressional aide for a Congressman, but the response is not what I expect.

I am glad that you understand the factors that are causing the instability of the oil prices. If Clinton didn't veto the exploration of oil back in 1995, we would be independent on foreign oil. You did not give solutions, but only reasons and historical fact that I already know. You say that US policy makers have little to avert these problems, but I must concur.

DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LITTLE

I must disrespectfully disagree with you in your notion that you understand our plight. I know that Senators don't pay the gas for their vehicles and it is coming straight from the taxpayers. So, why should I believe that this Congress will do anything for the American people. We had ANWR since the late 70's. We had Reagan who wanted to tap its resource, but got resistance from Congress and the environmentalist. We had Clinton kill our pursuit in the mid-90's. It is more than 30 plus years and nothing got done. I do not blame the oil companies. Price gouging is not a factor. Oil companies are making money for the stockholders, which I adamantly own a good portion in stocks and mutual funds. This price fixing is a socialist ploy to distract the voters. Oil companies are not manipulating the prices. Wall Street speculators or hedge fund companies are to blame. To punish the oil companies is unRepublican! You are starting to sound like a Liberal and an anticapitalist. We know that corporations don't pay corporate taxes. It is pass on to the consumer.

Sorry to digress, but in your email, it showed me that Congress inability to act is pathetic. You stated that in 2005 you had a committee investigation and you got your results. It is now 2008 and I see nothing coming about from your findings.

It is obvious that the only solution is to contribute oil into the market. Since we are sitting on large deposits of oil, it is common sense that we should explore that route. Increasing the supply will decrease in the demand, which will decrease in the price. It is basic economics 101. It is nice that you support alternative energy, but that is a long term goal. By telling the world that we are going to drill, whether we do it or not, will change the psyche of the speculators in Wall Street and the psyche of the American people. I do understand that we it will take time for us to drill, but the intention will boost up the confidence of the American people, who are thinking twice in voting the incumbent back into office.

You say it is an urban legend that China and Cuba are not drilling 60 miles off our coast. Well, it is upon your burden to show us that proof. I have read numerous reports contradicting your premise. Please get back to me and state to me that I am wrong about this.

You said, "It is critical that our nation reduce its dependence on foreign sources of oil, and the development and use of alternative fuels is an important step toward reducing this dependence." Well, it has been 30 years and we haven't had any new nuclear energy, any drilling, nor any new refineries. Please do not spread rhetoric to me and your constituents. You had enough time to try to make a difference. I am afraid to say that it may be the time that we need someone who will do the will of the people.

Sincerely a disgruntled constituent,

Cyrus xxxxx

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Without a Teleprompter, Obama is a Blithering Idiot

I notice that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity made a comment about Barack Obama public speaking style and I was glad they pointed this out. I noticed it sometime back during the debate against Hillary Clinton at a meltdown with Charlie Rose and George Stephanopoulos debate in Philadelphia.

Without a teleprompter and a prepared written speech, Barack Obama is a blithering idiot. He is unable to make an concise statement without contradicting himself, or pissing someone off. Ironically, he is a lawyer, who suppose to interject and persuade his thoughts to the court. He is unable to conjure an honest answer because he is not ready for prime time. Barack Obama is a rookie and way over his head. His inexperience truly shows. This is not the right person in these dire times to lead as commander in chief. It is not the time to allow someone to intern as President of the United States. Watch next time when he gets cornered. He tends to be very defensive and saying, “You are wrong." He then makes strides to tell all that such statements is not appropriate for debate. Therefore, anything that may put Obama under due distress is off the table. What do you get if you took everything off the table? You get an empty shell of a man with a talking point Democratic rhetoric and an uninspiring sermon.



Look at these YouTube video, Obama says: "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer . . . I haven't had much sleep in the last 48 hours."

On the Rush Limbaugh Talk show, Rush said, "He hasn't had much sleep in the last 48 hours. Its inhaler. There's no such a thing as an inhalator. And a breathalyzer? A breathalyzer is what they give you if you've been overserved adult beverages and you're driving around and the cops catch you."



I also found another speech that Obama done in Bristol, Virginia, last week when he said, "What they'll say is, 'Well it costs too much money,' but you know what? It would cost, about . . . It -- it -- it would cost about the same as what we would spend . . . It . . . Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us . . . (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to . . . It . . . It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about -- hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad."

WHAT THE HELL DID HE SAY? I took each word exactly as said and it doesn't make any sense. He is embarrassing. This is the man who would talk to the Iranian President about stopping Iran’s nuclear ambition and decrease the rhetoric talk against Israel. Yeah, right! This is a man who said that he would agree to do 10 townhall meetings with John McCain. In fact, Obama declined to show up at a townhall meeting in New York with John McCain today. Well, it seems that McCain knows Obama's weakness and Obama knows it.

Before anybody says that George Bush is an idiot and George Bush can't speak a lick, you better look real close to Obama's off the cuff townhall talk before you stand by that statement. Obama rock star status that causes people to faint during his stump talks is losing its glitter.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The Senate Lose Millions in the Restaurant Business

Here is something not many people know. Did you know that the Senate own the restaurants, coffee shops and cafeterias located in the Capitol and Senate office buildings? That was news to me!

It wouldn’t take time for me to ignore that news, but for one thing. These businesses owned by the Senate have been a losing proposition for many decades, which the Senate is sticking the million-dollar tab to the taxpayer. Oh, aren’t they nice? Instead of wasting more money into a bad investment, the Democrats are doing a Republican thing. They are going to sell them and privatize these restaurants, coffee shops, and cafeterias. Once the bill authorizing to privatize these businesses, privately run restaurants and food courts would come in and draw profit from good crowds on a daily base from House members, Senate members, employees, and tourist.

I found out that to run these restaurants, coffee shops, and cafeterias it cost the taxpayers $1.5 million a year. The revenue collected from these businesses was estimated close to $300,000 per year and the restaurants, coffee shops, and cafeteria racked up a deficit close to $1.2 million per year.

So, based on commonsense, the Senate should be in the restaurant business. What is worst is that the Senate would consider a buyout to those employees who wish not to participate into the new system when they become privatized. Of the 96 permanent restaurant employees, 47 of them are expected to take the $25,000 buyout, which is coming from the taxpayers.

This is an outrage. If the Senate cannot handle something like a small business venture, they have no right in running this country. If they failed in making a profit in a business where everybody needs to eat, what makes you think they run a government efficiently?

Therefore, I see no reason to believe that they will do anything regarding the high price of gas, Social Security, and Healthcare just to name a few. I recommend anybody who read this blog to vote the incumbents out and put a respectable candidate in their place. These Congressmen and Senators in Capitol Hill are incompetent and idiots that need to be voted out from the US government.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Teaching a 6-Year-Old Child About Conservatism

This past weekend, I took a friend and his family to dinner. My buddy and his wife have a very Liberal political view point and they always consider me a right-wing nut. Since we are dear friends, we had many severe heated debates (yelling matches) in the past and it was decided that we would never discuss politics.

Roger and Tina have a beautiful little 6-year-old girl named Sarah, who is extremely smart. Since I know both parents, I believed that they would instil their twist Liberal political beliefs in her and that is something I could not bear to witness.

While I was in the living room waiting for them to get ready, Sarah came down to say hi. Not knowing how to start a conversation with a child, she wittingly said something that took me by surprise. She told me that she wants to be President of the United States. I was taken aback by her statement. I surely knew that her parents are teaching her about politics.

I asked Sarah what would she do as President and her statement was very honorable. She said, “I want to give every homeless person a house.” I had a sincere grin on my face and I knew that those words she uttered were the byproducts of her parent’s liberal teachings. Since her parents were still upstairs changing and because I couldn’t resist interjecting my two cents, I gave her some Conservative wisdom that hopefully she won’t forget.

I told her, “Why not come to my house and clean up the doggie poop in the backyard and give my dog a bath and I will give you $10.00. Then I will take you to the corner street not far from my house and you can give the homeless guy there the $10.00 so that he can use it to buy something later.”

She pondered with a disdained look for a minute. Then she said, “why not ask the homeless guy to come to your house and make him do it and give him the $10.00?”

I said, “EXACTLY, Sarah! It is called to be self responsible. Whatever you do, it is important to understand and be responsible of the actions you take. The outcome of your decision is yours and yours alone. Nothing in life is free. It needs to be earned.”

I knew what I did were my own decision, and it was the right thing to do. By allowing the child to see from both sides of a window, she should be able to make that important valued decision that will be a very part of her personality. I hope I was able to instil some Conservative values in her to help make up her mind.

I hope she doesn’t tell her parents what I did. LOL.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Oil at $135/barrel Will Be Short Lived

Oil at $135/barrel Will Be Short Lived
Current mood: anxious
Category: News and Politics


I came across this article and would like to share this with you. It gives hope that the high price of oil and gas will be short lived. Well, at least we will not have to endure the price of $135.00/barrel of oil. The author of this article is knowledgeable and made total sense of his premise.

If this guy is wrong and the price of gas hits $4.50 per gallon, heads will roll in Congress. The voting public will make sure that our voice will be heard. Unlike the war in Iraq, war in Terrorism, and the economy, this is the only viable issue that hits all American directly. Fear not. Democracy will prevail!



GET READY FOR THE OIL-PRICE DROP



June 6, 2008 -- THE price of crude oil has jumped as high as $135 lately, up from $87 in early February. The news encouraged some Wall Street analysts to suggest oil might approach $200 before long. In fact, that's quite impossible: The world economy can't handle current energy prices, much less a big increase.

Which in turn means that oil prices will fall.

Market analysts often claim oil prices are almost entirely determined by supply. Demand is said to be insensitive ("inelastic") to price. The standard example is that many Americans have to drive to work and most gas-guzzling SUVs will still be on the road even if the affluent few can trade theirs for a Prius. Whatever the price, we'll pay it.

This idea rests on two fallacies. The first is to exaggerate the United States' importance when it comes to ups and downs in worldwide oil demand. In fact, America is using no more oil than we did in 2004.

The second fallacy is to greatly exaggerate the importance of passenger cars in the United States. It's true that Americans are driving less and buying four-cylinder cars - but that's not where we should be looking for serious "demand destruction."

Two-thirds of petroleum in the United States is used for transportation - but half of the transportation sector's fuel flows into commercial trucks, trains, buses, airplanes and ships. As a result, only 44 percent of each barrel of oil is used to produce gasoline in this country, and some of that gasoline fuels business - delivery vans, landscapers' trucks, fishing boats, industrial and farm machinery, etc.

Most crude oil is used to produce diesel fuel for trucks, ships and trains, heavy fuel oil for industry, aviation fuel, asphalt, home heating oil, propane, wax, and innumerable petrochemical products ranging from detergents and drugs to synthetic fabrics and plastic.

In short, a huge share of crude oil is used to produce and distribute industrial products. That explains why the price of oil is extremely cyclical - that is, it tends to rise during economic booms and fall during contractions. It dropped 44 percent in the last recession (from November 2000 to November 2001), 48 percent from October 1990 to January 1992 - and 71 percent from July 1980 to July 1986.

Oil prices have a huge impact on producers' cost of production - profits and losses - not just on consumers' cost of living.

Firms that can't raise prices will find profit margins squeezed - and will have to cut back on production and jobs. Even if some producers of energy-intensive products can raise prices enough to cover higher energy costs, they'll nonetheless sell fewer of their products because of those higher prices. So they too will have to cut back on production and jobs.

Nine out of 10 previous postwar recessions began shortly after a big spike in the price of oil. Yet those recessions always slashed oil prices dramatically. People who have been predicting both a nasty US recession and $200 oil prices are contradicting themselves.

Recent news reports have expressed surprise that the US economy appears much stronger than the famously gloomy predictions at the start of the year. Indeed, the surprising endurance of US manufacturing and exports is one reason oil prices rose as long as they did.

But note that a US recession isn't required to bring down the price of oil. All that's needed is industrial stagnation or decline in many other countries.

In the United States and Britain, industrial production is nearly flat - only 0.2 percent higher than it was a year ago. In many other countries, however, industrial production has dropped over the past 12 months. It's down by 0.7 percent in Japan, 1.1 percent in Austria, 2.5 percent in Italy and Denmark, 2.9 percent in Canada, 5.4 percent in Greece, 5.7 percent in Singapore and 13.3 percent in Spain.

In April, industrial production also fell in India and China. Shrinking industry around the world shrinks demand for energy in general - and for oil in particular.

When the price of anything gets unbearably high, it discourages demand. The resulting drop in sales, in turn, causes inventories to pile up and the price to come down. That has proven true of overpriced houses - and it will likewise prove true of overpriced oil.

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the author of "Income and Wealth."

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

South Dakota Votes to Build an Oil Refinery! It’s About Time!

Things are looking up in our way to be less dependent on foreign oil and to become more energy independent. While the race between Obama and Clinton been splashed throughout the media, voters in Union County, South Dakota was voting to an approved rezoning that would allow an oil refinery to be built upon. This is extraordinary news since a refinery hasn't been built in more than 30 years.

With a vote of 58% in favor and 42% oppose, this is the first step of many long steps to see this become a reality. Next, the process needs to go through various environmental permitting, which will be a burden, but it is necessary to achieve the goal that has eluded us for so long.

Such a project of that size would bring not just refinery and construction jobs but also would spawn new positions for teachers, police and other professionals. This would be good for students graduating from high school and neighboring colleges in Union Country, who would be seeking good paying jobs.

I really don't think there will be a problem. So far, in Ponca City, Oklahoma and El Dorado, Kansas, two towns with oil refineries, hasn't had any problems and their respective communities have clean air and water. It means their refineries are environmentally safe.

The good news is that it would help the United States reduce its dependency on foreign oil. The refinery would process 400,000 barrels of thick Canadian crude a day. It will mean 2,000 permanent jobs and 5,000 construction jobs over a four-year period, which is good for the economy. With new technology, we will be able to produce ultra low sulfur gasoline and diesel and be able to be clean to the environment.

Critics usually side to the Left Wing Liberal organizations that tried to kill the deal. These are the same idiots who are complaining on the high price of gas. You can't have it both ways. Stop your whining and do what is right for this country.

If things go as planned, construction on this project should take place by 2010 and it will take about three to four years to be built.

Hillary Becomes Vice President, Obama Wins General Election, Obams Gets Assassinated

Obama wins and Hillary lose, but don’t count out Hillary fading away in the mist. Supporters and pundits are predicting an Obama and Hillary’s President and a vice-president ticket, but I am going to oppose such a combination. If there wasn’t a long-drawn-out squabble and if Hillary bowed out early in the race, then it is plausible to see that ticket, but since the primary has lasted this long, with all the dirty laundry for all to see, there is no way such a combination can occur without pissing off a lot of people.

You have Obama said in the debates and on the stump that “we need a change that doesn’t bring us back to the Bush and Clinton era.” To concede and say, “I change my mind. I want Hillary as my vice-president.” Such statements will set the message clearly that Obama doesn’t want change, but win. And by winning at any cost, this message will let everybody know that he is an ordinary Liberal politician.

Beside, Hillary’s base would be annoyed too. Hillary says that Obama is a very inexperience politician that has no knowledge of what the Oval Office will entail. Hillary said, “I believe in John McCain can bring his experience to the White House, I (Hillary) have the experience to bring to the White House, but Barack Obama only experience is a speech that he gave back in 2002.” If Hillary decided to be his VP, then it would be a slap to all the voters who voted for her. It will send a message that what she said meant nothing. For sure, if she did that, 30% of her voters would vote for McCain on grounds of her being a traitor.

Just image if Obama wins the general election with Hillary, Obama would not be wearing the pants in the White House. It would be Hillary with Bill right by her side as her co-Vice President. If Barack Obama can contain Hillary, there is no way he can stop Bill Clinton interference. Here is a nice conspiracy theory for those nuts out there. If the history of unexpected deaths during the Clinton Presidency (i.e., Vince Foster) and Hillary remarks of RFK assassination, I would not be surprise of an Obama assassination. That would put Hillary as President of the United States and by defunct, Bill Clinton as vice-president. Wouldn’t that be an icing on the cake?

But honestly, last night speech of Hillary Clinton was not a concession speech. It was more of an arrogant “in your face” tirade to Obama. She didn’t congratulate him on winning the nomination. With Hillary boasting 18 million votes for her candidacy more than once, she is positioning herself for a 2012 Presidential election. In the next five months, I predict that she will undermine Obama with talks and cynicism and indirectly push her supporter to vote for McCain. Hey, she owes it to Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos in helping her to become victorious in several important primaries. It’s time to reciprocate that favor back in votes for John McCain.

The drama is starting to unfold. She is expecting to end her quest for the presidency this Friday. I’m curious what she has to say. If I am correct with my prediction, there will be fireworks coming our way long before the 4th of July.

Hillary Becomes Vice President, Obama Wins General Election, Obams Gets Assassinated

Obama wins and Hillary lose, but don’t count out Hillary fading away in the mist. Supporters and pundits are predicting an Obama and Hillary’s President and a vice-president ticket, but I am going to oppose such a combination. If there wasn’t a long-drawn-out squabble and if Hillary bowed out early in the race, then it is plausible to see that ticket, but since the primary has lasted this long, with all the dirty laundry for all to see, there is no way such a combination can occur without pissing off a lot of people.

You have Obama said in the debates and on the stump that “we need a change that doesn’t bring us back to the Bush and Clinton era.” To concede and say, “I change my mind. I want Hillary as my vice-president.” Such statements will set the message clearly that Obama doesn’t want change, but win. And by winning at any cost, this message will let everybody know that he is an ordinary Liberal politician.

Beside, Hillary’s base would be annoyed too. Hillary says that Obama is a very inexperience politician that has no knowledge of what the Oval Office will entail. Hillary said, “I believe in John McCain can bring his experience to the White House, I (Hillary) have the experience to bring to the White House, but Barack Obama only experience is a speech that he gave back in 2002.” If Hillary decided to be his VP, then it would be a slap to all the voters who voted for her. It will send a message that what she said meant nothing. For sure, if she did that, 30% of her voters would vote for McCain on grounds of her being a traitor.

Just image if Obama wins the general election with Hillary, Obama would not be wearing the pants in the White House. It would be Hillary with Bill right by her side as her co-Vice President. If Barack Obama can contain Hillary, there is no way he can stop Bill Clinton interference. Here is a nice conspiracy theory for those nuts out there. If the history of unexpected deaths during the Clinton Presidency (i.e., Vince Foster) and Hillary remarks of RFK assassination, I would not be surprise of an Obama assassination. That would put Hillary as President of the United States and by defunct, Bill Clinton as vice-president. Wouldn’t that be an icing on the cake?

But honestly, last night speech of Hillary Clinton was not a concession speech. It was more of an arrogant “in your face” tirade to Obama. She didn’t congratulate him on winning the nomination. With Hillary boasting 18 million votes for her candidacy more than once, she is positioning herself for a 2012 Presidential election. In the next five months, I predict that she will undermine Obama with talks and cynicism and indirectly push her supporter to vote for McCain. Hey, she owes it to Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos in helping her to become victorious in several important primaries. It’s time to reciprocate that favor back in votes for John McCain.

The drama is starting to unfold. She is expecting to end her quest for the presidency this Friday. I’m curious what she has to say. If I am correct with my prediction, there will be fireworks coming our way long before the 4th of July.

Monday, June 2, 2008

Sean Hannity’s Top 10 Items for a Conservative Republican Victory

Directly from Sean Hannity's website at www.Hannity.com.

Top 10 items for the dismal Republican party to get back to the Conservative ideology that they have lost many years ago. It is time that Republicans need to make another contract with America and get back to the Ronald Reagan Conservative movement of yesteryears. If we don't get back to commonsense Conservatism, we are doom to see a Liberal Democrat in the White House.


Hannity's Top 10 Items for Victory

1) To be the Candidate of National security:
a) Victory in Iraq
b) Fully support NSA, Patriot act, tough interrogations, keeping Gitmo open
c) A Candidate that pledges to NOT demean our military while they are fighting for their Country. eg Harry Reid: "the surge has failed", "the war is lost"
d) Candidate that promises to ensure that our veterans can live out their lives in dignity.

2) The Candidate who pledges to oppose Appeasement:
a) The Candidate will oppose any and all efforts to negotiate with dictators of the world in places like Iran, Syria, N.Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela without "pre-conditions"

3) The Candidate Pledges to support Tax CUTS, and fiscal responsibility:
a) The American people are NOT under taxed, Government Spends too much
b) The Candidate who Pledges to ELIMINATE and VOTE AGAINST ALL Earmarks
c) The Candidate pledges to BALANCE the budget

4) The Candidate Pledges to be a supporter of "Energy Independence"
a) supports Immediate drilling in Anwar and the 48 states
b) Building new refineries
c) Begin building and using Nuclear Facilities
d) expand coal mining
e) realistic steward of the environment
While simultaneously working with private industry to develop the new energy technologies for the future, with the goal being that America becomes completely energy independent within the next 15 years.

5) The Candidate pledges to secure our borders completely within 12 months:
a) build all necessary fences
b) use all available technology to help and support agents at the border
c) train and hire agents as needed

6) Healthcare:
The Candidate will look for Free-Market solutions to the problems facing the Healthcare industry, and will vigorously oppose any efforts to "nationalize healthcare".
a) The Candidate will fight for Individual health savings accounts, that includes "catastrophic insurance" for every American, so people can control their own healthcare choices.

7) Education:
a) The Candidate pledges to "save" American children from the failing educational system
b) The Candidate will fight to break the unholy alliance of the Democratic party and teachers unions, which at best has institutionalized mediocrity, and has failed children across the country
c) fight for "CHOICE" in education and let parents decide
d) fight for vouchers for parents

8) Social Security and Medicare:
a) The Candidate will "save" social security and medicare from bankruptcy.
b) Options will include "private retirement" funds so people can "control" their own destiny.

9) Judges
a) The Candidate vows to support ONLY judges who recognize that their job is to interpret the Constitution, and NOT legislate from the bench.

10) American Dream:
The Candidate accepts as their duty and responsibility to educate, inform, and remind people that with the blessings of Freedom comes a Great responsibility. That Government's primary goal is to preserve, protect and defend our God given gift of freedom.

That Government's do not have the ability to solve all of our problems, and to take away all of our fears and concerns. We need their pledge that we will be the candidate that promotes Individual liberty, Capitalism, a strong national defense and will support policies that encourage such...

It is our fundamental belief that limited Government, and Greater individual responsibility will insure the continued prosperity and success for future generations.

We the people who believe in the words of Ronald Reagan, that we are "the best last hope for man on this earth," "a shining city on a hill," and that our best days are before us if our Government will simply trust the American people.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Gives Credit to Iran for the Success in Iraq

Did anybody list to talk show host Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham last week? They were referencing something so profound that would describe how the Democrats view on foreign policy. We all know the idiocy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We know she is weak as a House Speaker and unable to keep to her promises to the American people. Well, I found the source that Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham were pointing out of Pelosi’s gaffe statement. Click here:


Commentary magazine's Contentions blog


In a deep interview with her hometown newspaper, San Francisco Chronicle, the House Speaker said,


"Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians -- they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians."


Just because most of the generals and members of the Iraq Parliament, including the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, snubbed her when she went to Iraq does not make it right to get the facts wrong. She saw how the Maliki government has done an exceptional job in making a budget and passing many important bills through parliament, but had to put in her two cents. That shows her arrogance and diminutive intelligence on foreign policy. This is not a game. Pelosi needs to realize that her ideology on the war in Iraq and the war in Terrorism is something not to be taken for granted.


This shows how the Democrats never understood that if we don’t take care of matters around the world, it will soon come back to bite us in the ass. With Pelosi’s dramatic road to Damascus, Jimmy Carter negotiation with Hamas, JFK meeting with the Soviet President, and Obama close ties to terrorists, I hope the American people got the clue that Democrats are incompetent when it comes to foreign policy.


Hey, this is three blogs in one day and I’m tired. LOL.

Saint Barack Obama




Take a look what I saw on Yahoo News. Reuters had to put this crap on the internet. What is with the halo? I’m not stupid. Reuters is trying to portray Obama as a freaking saint. Caption under this picture says:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama waits to speak in Aberdeen, South Dakota May 31, 2008. Obama said on Saturday he quit his Chicago church in the aftermath of inflammatory sermons that could become a lightning rod in the November election.

So am I assuming that Obama is now to be regard to be Christ-like because he turned his back to the wickedness of the black community that he once regarded highly. Just like supporting Rev. Jeremiah Wright one day and then toss him under the bus the next is not a nice thing to do, but to admit that the church he belongs to for 20 years has gone too radical is totally hypocritical.

I know that the media is all orgasmic for an Obama Presidency, but this picture has gone over the edge. For one thing, Obama supports partial birth abortion. I do not think our Lord Jesus Christ would support or condone it. Anybody who supports this heinous procedure is the making of the devil. That is what Obama represents.

Congress Wants to Socialize the Oil Industry. AHA!!!!

It seems that this year is starting to go by fast, but this election year is slowly dragging. It is coming down to the wire and the Democrats hasn’t nominated their candidate to run against John McCain for the Presidency of the United States. As the American people prepare for another spectacle among the media jockeying for ratings, no one has mentioned what will be the main talking issue in the debates that await us. Honestly, the war in Iraq is contained, and the economy will rebound from the anticipated stimulus package. The only dire problem for the consumer is the high gas prices. High oil and gas prices is what I believe will be the most pressing issue that will be the forefront in upcoming debates. With the farm bill that was passed by Congress and the global warming bill pending, energy prices will be an ever growing concern with the American people.

Most of the American people get it. I even asked my 17-year-old cousin, who just got her license, this simple question to pose my point, “If Congress raised taxes on oil companies, how will it impact the price of gas?” Her answer was base on common sense. She explained to me that if oil company’s pay more taxes, gas will go up to recoup of loss in taxes they had to pay out. Now, if my cousin, who is a senior in high school gets it, why can’t our greedy Congressman and Senators in Congress? That is pathetic.

In the past five years, Congress had at least 40 hearings with industry regarding to high energy prices. Of those hearing, nothing was accomplished. It just made matters worst. I think after the last hearing, the price of oil ended up breaking the record of $135 per barrel of oil. Currently, it dropped down to $127.00 per barrel of oil. None-the-less, the current price of gas is still $3.83 per gallon in Orlando, Florida. The problem is not the oil companies, but the idiotic members of Congress, who fills their gas tank for free on the generosity of the American tax payers and turning a blind eye on this issue. For the price of gas that we pay, 4% goes to the oil companies and 15% goes to Washington, D.C. That is a very big difference. I keep hearing these numbers repeated from Rush to Hannity, two well-known Conservative talk show personalities, on some daily bases, and I think its sinking into the general public. These ludicrous hearings are only a deflection to fool the American people that Congress is working on the issue and blaming the wrong party for the American woes at the gas pump.

With summer approaching, I see the price of gas remaining high and the American people having no other choice, but to suck it up and pay it. This is why we cannot allow the Liberals attain the tri-fecta in Washington. A Democrat President, who is a Liberal and a Senator, will only turn a blind eye on this problem and will not do anything about it. We have seen it in the 1990 when Clinton vetoed the bill to drill in ANWR. In the 1970's, President Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Majority passed a bill in creating ANWR, but nothing was done since then. The Democrats banned drilling off the shores of Florida. That is quite a shame because there haven’t been any reports of any of our oil rigs causing a major oil spill in the ocean. Banning to drill off the shores of Florida will not prevent Cuba from drilling to support their communist counterpart China. Since Cuba is not careful in making their drilling environmentally safe, we may have to clean up after them when they spill the oil and it will wash up on our shores for us to clean up. That’s what Congress’ policy has given us!

Let us not revert to a time when Liberals will not do anything to improve our energy policy. For 30 years, Democrats tried to pursue a rational energy policy and failed, or out of spite, filibustered any Republican plan to make us energy independent. We haven’t had a refinery built in 30 plus years. That is the same with a nuclear reactor. ANWR is lonely waiting for someone to spike its resources. With the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill on global warming being debated this week, it will only screw our use for coal in the United States.

If the America people desire change, let’s change those idiotic members in Congress and put anyone who will listen to us - tap ANWR and within our 48 states, build new refineries, improve clean coal technology, and renew our interest in nuclear energy.

Every time we fill up our gas tanks, we must remember that Congress is to blame for our current dilemma and we must tell them that we are on to them.