Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama’s proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don’t cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

Obama is planning to crack down on tax havens. One of ways to force an American to stop using tax havens is charging him with something and putting the burden of proof on him that he has done nothing to warrant criminal charges. Though to be sure, the change is probably only related to the tax law.

However, as an old proverb usually goes, one small change leads to big changes. And that’s certainly the case here. One has to wonder what kind of major changes Obama has in the store for us? If Obama is able to get his way, then it will certainly influence how the court usually views the guilt in the areas other than tax law.

I fear that this will go overlooked, as everybody is so focused on the economy’s woes. We need to stop and think about it. Which is more important, worrying about the economy or guarding our cherished liberties? Maybe it’s true that we get the President we truly deserve. So, it’s important that conservatives start to fight smartly and defeat Obama’s attempts to reshape the legal landscape in America.

So, let us fight to keep the long held assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I have no work today because of bad weather, so I get to stay home and…bash President Obama!

Okay, I want Obama supporters to come up with a good explanation of why Obama is going to break a pledge on avoiding “earmarks” in the spending bill.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers’ pet projects, administration officials said. LINK

How come is it okay for Democrats to “overlook” Obama’s broken pledges, but not Bush’s?

Let’s face it, what do you call Obama promising one thing, while not doing it at all? I have just one word for that type of action, and let us say it altogether:

“It would be a horrible move. These regulations were a long time coming,” said Tom McClusky, a vice president at Family Research Council. “What they seek to do is protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences.”

An abortion isn’t like a medical emergency, where decisions have to be made in a split second.  In fact, only 1% and 6% of abortions occur because of rape or incest, and potential health problems to either child or mother respectively.  93& of abortions occur because of social reasons.  So, for most women, they do have time to consider whether an abortion is the right choice to make.  Therefore, time constraints aren’t a major factor here.

What happens when a woman picks a doctor who may have moral objections to performing an abortion?  Wouldn’t it make more sense if that woman simply switched to a different doctor who have no such moral qualms than to force the doctor she has right now to perform a medical operation against his or her own conscience?  What happened to freedom of refusing a service, which you may find objectionable? 

Why is it always that abortion proponents are seeking to force abortions down the throats of doctors and nurses?  There are plenty of abortion clinics that are willing to perform such disgusting operations, why couldn’t women go to these places?  I think the answer to that question lies in what kind of liberal agenda many people are pushing onto America.  I think we all agree on one thing: liberals want a perfect paradise devoid of religion, moral values, liberty, and all things that make America a great country, even if it means forcing everybody to agree and accept the liberal version of a more perfect Union.

But the worst is yet to come.  Pretty soon, we’ll see a seat vacated on Supreme Court, and President Obama will have an opportunity to appoint a young liberal judge, confirmed perhaps largely by a Democratic-controlled Senate.  That means all effort put into fighting abortions for the last 30 years or so will have come to nought at least for conservatives.  This is why every election is so crucial.  I know this can’t be said enough repeatedly, but elections do have consequences.

And now, it’s not just ordinary Americans paying the price of Obama’s stimulus bill, but also doctors and nurses who have moral qualms with abortion issues.  I wouldn’t be surprised if some doctors and nurses will now have to reconsider whether they might have to switch to different careers, if they find themselves no longer able to practice medicine without being forced to do things against their consciences.

At this point, I have only one thing to say to women who want abortions.  I can’t stop them from having abortions, but I’d urge them simply to find a different doctor to perform abortions.  They do have that choice, and as far I know, nothing in law prevents them from making that choice.  So choose a different doctor, please.

Cross-posted to Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog.

It’s easy to cut down the size of our armed forces, but it’s never easy to build up to new levels rapidly should a need arise in a major conflict. I’m sure Romans never thought that one day their empire would die a slow dying death, or that their armies would be annihilated for good. Beware of dangers of cutting down the size only to recognize finally the true danger once our enemies quickly build up to levels where it’ll be tough for us to beat them short of using nuclear weapons.

Our enemies are gearing up, while we’re gearing down. Obama will ask for defense budget cuts, while our enemies are increasing theirs. Mark my words, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Never say Cannae won’t happen to us, Romans were lucky to survive Cannae and other devastating defeats.  Can we afford to wait and find out if we could survive such military disasters?  I hope not.

If you were to ask me what areas I think our armed forces should maintain even in face of deep budget cuts, it’s a no-brainer for me to say US Navy and R & D departments.

It is theoratically possible for us to maintain a small land army with a large size of naval warships and other logistical units. I prefer we maintain a highly trained rapid deployed force capable of deploying anywhere within 48 hours, and the only way to obtain that ability is if we maintain vigilantly a high level of naval supremacy. So, we must have sufficient aircraft carriers with powerful, sleathy submarines to sniff out potential enemy submarines and be able to deploy Special Forces covertly. However, in order to avoid playing catch-up with our enemies, it is important for us to continue pouring tons of money into researching and developing the latest modern weapons, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and just about anything our men and women need to protect themselves.

Our enemies won’t rest while we make some defense budget cuts, they will go into overtime and work harder to catch up with us. May God help us should that day ever come true.

Sadly, I think that day is fast approaching us, as long we allow our politicians to neglect the defense of our country and throwing money on entitlement programs. Nowadays, I get the feeling that many people seem to think prosperity can only happen if we get rid of our armed forces. As more and more people are indoctrinated with liberal ideas, our armed forces will come under intense assaults that makes Iowa Jima look like a walk in park.

We need to maintain a large force if only to protect ourselves and preserve our way of life. Without this large force, our enemies will truly appear at the gates of freedom and liberty to crush us once for all. I’m not talking about an invasion of America, but eroding away its strategic interests and hog-tying us by going on offensive operations, knowing perfectly well that we can’t do anything about it. Once again, mark my words, that will happen if we let Obama and other people like him get what they want.

Cross-posted at Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog.

This kind of story breaks my heart, because here is somebody who tried to obey law and actually did his part in enforcing law on his property.  The illegals should be thankful that this rancher did not shoot them on sight, he’s well within his right do that.  Though, I can only imagine the kind of outrage liberals and media would have if he did that, he would be immediately arrested on the charge of first degree murder and lose his property.

But what is truly outrageous is that there are some people who actually believe that suing somebody in court means it’s okay to break more laws.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the illegals in this case probably thought, “I’m doing the jobs no American wants to do, you should be thankful for me.  Just because I’m entering illegally doesn’t mean I’ll break every law in book.  Wake up and smell coffee!”  No kidding, Sherlock!  The point isn’t whether you’ll be following law once you cross the border, but that you broke law by illegally entering the United States.  I don’t care if you are indeed a hardworking person, you broke law and you should pay the price, not Barnett or any other rancher for that matter, period.

Liberals have this weird mentality that some laws are meant to be broken, and we should overlook some of moral flaws on part of people like…tax cheats in Daschle and Geithner, not to mention the husband of Hilda Solis (it’s impossible for her not to know about the tax liens).  You know, it’s funny that the liberals went after Joe the Plumber for his tax troubles, but all of a sudden, fell silent on Daschle, Geithner, and Solis.  I guess it’s just not only okay to sue so that you can break laws, but as long you’re a registered Democrat and a bona fide liberal, it’s okay not to pay taxes at all if you’re not being nominated for Cabinet positions.  But I digress.

In Washington Times article, Barnett acknowledged that over a span of ten years, he stopped over 12,000 illegals.  That’s an average of 3 or 4 per day, nonstop. 

It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

Can you imagine walking out on patrol with a gun in your hand on Christmas Day or even Thanksgiving Day?  No rest for this guy, and really, he should get a medal or something like that.  He could simply moved out of there, but he choose to stay there.  What concerns me the most is the fact the border is increasingly getting more dangerous as Mexico starts to lose control of its government and law enforcement agencies with the rise of deadly drug cartels with highly trained grunts killing each other in power grab plays.

If the illegals win the case, $32 million could buy a lot of weapons and ammunitions, not to mention drugs.  Not all illegals enter the US in order to earn more money, some of them are here for illegal reasons: terrorists, drugs, arms smugglers, and perhaps even sex trafficking.  In addition, it could mean ranchers like Barnett will be stymied in doing something about the illegals.  With President Obama in power, it’s unlikely he or people in  his administration will be friendly toward guys like Barnett or border patrol agents doing their jobs too well.  It’s a wet dream come true for many illegals, which is disgusting to say at least.

It’s really amazing that Barnett hasn’t sued Mexico yet for the wanton desctruction left behind by illegals.  He pays out of his pockets to repair the damage done to his property, expecting nothing in return from “hardworking” illegals.  He’s the real victim here, and nobody at top level in government is doing anything about it. 

“This is my land. I´m the victim here,” Mr. Barnett said. “When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back.”

And it’s more unfortuante for victims, because let’s face it, criminals have more rights than them.  The criminals get due process to be determined guilty or innocent, on the other hand, victims don’t have this luxury when they face somebody violating their personal space and taking away the peace of mind from them.

Always remember this: liberals are only interested in you if you agree with their liberal philosophy or if you do so much as looking down on them, you’ll get the special treatment.  You get that when, God forbid, you actually follow law, and people so favored by liberals suffer mentally and physically by being forced to comply with (gasp!) law.  Only liberals and illegals get preferred treatment, while everybody else not in their camp get special treatment.  Always remember that!  Always.

Cross-posted at Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog.

When you become the newly elected leader of the greatest nation ever to grace this sorry world, you are entrusted with many responsibilities that can’t be easily ignored.  Some of responsibilities may seem trivial to you, but you should never ignore even the most basic duties…like being on time.  Some people might laugh at punctuality as an awesome responsibility for a president, but think about it.  A president is only a human being, not a superman, and he is burdened with many duties, so he can’t do all of them at once.  But he has to make best of them by using time wisely.

It’s just like what the Bible says in Ephesians 5:16, “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”  A president should use alloted time to each duty and attending an event wisely, after all, it does make an quite impression on ordinary people and elected representatives alike.  Being on time demonstrates that he cares enough about them not to waste their precious time, and display some seriousness in going about his presidential duties.  I am not saying President Barack Obama has to be on time all the time, after all, nobody is perfect, but one should not make it a habit to be late.

When it comes to following the clock, Obama closely resembles Bill Clinton, who was famously late to events when he was president. By contrast, Bush despised being late and punctual to a fault. He set the tone early in his presidency — he arrived at the Capitol five minutes early for his inauguration.

“To me, being tardy, it’s got to be one of two things,” said presidential historian Doug Wead, who advised both Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush. “Bad organization that can be corrected, or it’s arrogance. It sounds to me like this is arrogance.”

Mark Lindsay, a Democratic consultant and former senior White House adviser to Bill Clinton, disagreed, explaining that Clinton was late sometimes because he was making accommodations for logistics or average citizens.

How is being late an accommodation for ”average” citizens or an elected representative?  If you are late for an important meeting, then that tells people who attended it that you don’t consider it important enough to be on time.  Imagine a Pro-bowl player not showing up on time for team meetings, and watch what happens in the locker room.  The teammates won’t be happy with him, and coaches can’t impart some valuable tips to that player simply because there’s not much time to do it.  This leads to a small crack in team chemistry, perhaps only a minor one, but when you start adding up all those times, and you start to understand what an ugly picture it is for the team who needs this Pro-bowl player’s talents and leadership.

Guess what?  President Obama is our Pro-bowl player, for better or worse, he is effectively our new and current leader of Free World.  And he’s not  showing up on time.  He’s just acting like Bill Clinton.  Mr. President, being a president isn’t like playing in sandbox, where nothing gets hurt.  There are important decisions to be made, and if you can’t be bothered to be on time, then obviously it means you don’t consider us important enough.  In the other words, we’re just pawns in your playboy presidency.  This is pure arrogance at its worst.

I don’t like President Obama, but I want him to get serious on, you know, actually acting like a real president!

Allan Lichtman, a political history professor at American University, had a different explanation for Clinton’s tardiness.

“President Clinton was always late because he wasn’t very disciplined in general,” he said. “This was a man who marched to the beat of his own drummer, who liked to talk, liked intellectual discussions, had his finger in every pie.”

There are two kinds of presidents, Lichtman said: “Foxes and hedgehogs.” 

“Foxes know a little about everything. They have their fingers in every pie. … Hedgehogs only know a few things and know it well and leave the details to others. Clinton was a classic fox. Bush was a classic hedgehog.”

Obviously, President Obama shares some similar traits with Bill Clinton, and being late is one of them.  If both share this trait, it could only mean both are not disciplined at all.  And not being disciplined means somebody HAVE TO do some duties for them.  An undisciplined person means he’s not in control of himself, and to me, I don’t think either Obama or Clinton was ever in control of themselves.  They had someone to guide them around, because being late means they miss out some important information and have to play catch-up.  If President Obama cannot discipline himself being on time, then perhaps this is a symptom of not being experienced or ready enough to be the 44th President of the United States.

President Obama is indeed a fox.  And it’s very difficult to tame a fox, actually, I don’t know if it could be tamed at all.  And I’m afraid we’ve just left a fox to guard the henhouse.

And Obama? He appears to be a fox, too, Lichtman said.

It’s just so sad that 52% of voters choose Obama over McCain.  We get to see what kind of a fox President Obama will turn out to be.  In the world of post-partisanship, we can only have so many foxes running amok in Washington.  Despite this, at least we can take some comfort in the fact that being a foxy president isn’t an easy task to accomplish.  President Obama has the next four years to prove us wrong, but I don’t think so.

Cross-posted at Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog ]]>

When you become the newly elected leader of the greatest nation ever to grace this sorry world, you are entrusted with many responsibilities that can’t be easily ignored.  Some of responsibilities may seem trivial to you, but you should never ignore even the most basic duties…like being on time.  Some people might laugh at punctuality as an awesome responsibility for a president, but think about it.  A president is only a human being, not a superman, and he is burdened with many duties, so he can’t do all of them at once.  But he has to make best of them by using time wisely.

It’s just like what the Bible says in Ephesians 5:16, “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”  A president should use alloted time to each duty and attending an event wisely, after all, it does make an quite impression on ordinary people and elected representatives alike.  Being on time demonstrates that he cares enough about them not to waste their precious time, and display some seriousness in going about his presidential duties.  I am not saying President Barack Obama has to be on time all the time, after all, nobody is perfect, but one should not make it a habit to be late.

When it comes to following the clock, Obama closely resembles Bill Clinton, who was famously late to events when he was president. By contrast, Bush despised being late and punctual to a fault. He set the tone early in his presidency — he arrived at the Capitol five minutes early for his inauguration.

“To me, being tardy, it’s got to be one of two things,” said presidential historian Doug Wead, who advised both Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush. “Bad organization that can be corrected, or it’s arrogance. It sounds to me like this is arrogance.”

Mark Lindsay, a Democratic consultant and former senior White House adviser to Bill Clinton, disagreed, explaining that Clinton was late sometimes because he was making accommodations for logistics or average citizens.

How is being late an accommodation for ”average” citizens or an elected representative?  If you are late for an important meeting, then that tells people who attended it that you don’t consider it important enough to be on time.  Imagine a Pro-bowl player not showing up on time for team meetings, and watch what happens in the locker room.  The teammates won’t be happy with him, and coaches can’t impart some valuable tips to that player simply because there’s not much time to do it.  This leads to a small crack in team chemistry, perhaps only a minor one, but when you start adding up all those times, and you start to understand what an ugly picture it is for the team who needs this Pro-bowl player’s talents and leadership.

Guess what?  President Obama is our Pro-bowl player, for better or worse, he is effectively our new and current leader of Free World.  And he’s not  showing up on time.  He’s just acting like Bill Clinton.  Mr. President, being a president isn’t like playing in sandbox, where nothing gets hurt.  There are important decisions to be made, and if you can’t be bothered to be on time, then obviously it means you don’t consider us important enough.  In the other words, we’re just pawns in your playboy presidency.  This is pure arrogance at its worst.

I don’t like President Obama, but I want him to get serious on, you know, actually acting like a real president!

Allan Lichtman, a political history professor at American University, had a different explanation for Clinton’s tardiness.

“President Clinton was always late because he wasn’t very disciplined in general,” he said. “This was a man who marched to the beat of his own drummer, who liked to talk, liked intellectual discussions, had his finger in every pie.”

There are two kinds of presidents, Lichtman said: “Foxes and hedgehogs.” 

“Foxes know a little about everything. They have their fingers in every pie. … Hedgehogs only know a few things and know it well and leave the details to others. Clinton was a classic fox. Bush was a classic hedgehog.”

Obviously, President Obama shares some similar traits with Bill Clinton, and being late is one of them.  If both share this trait, it could only mean both are not disciplined at all.  And not being disciplined means somebody HAVE TO do some duties for them.  An undisciplined person means he’s not in control of himself, and to me, I don’t think either Obama or Clinton was ever in control of themselves.  They had someone to guide them around, because being late means they miss out some important information and have to play catch-up.  If President Obama cannot discipline himself being on time, then perhaps this is a symptom of not being experienced or ready enough to be the 44th President of the United States.

President Obama is indeed a fox.  And it’s very difficult to tame a fox, actually, I don’t know if it could be tamed at all.  And I’m afraid we’ve just left a fox to guard the henhouse.

And Obama? He appears to be a fox, too, Lichtman said.

It’s just so sad that 52% of voters choose Obama over McCain.  We get to see what kind of a fox President Obama will turn out to be.  In the world of post-partisanship, we can only have so many foxes running amok in Washington.  Despite this, at least we can take some comfort in the fact that being a foxy president isn’t an easy task to accomplish.  President Obama has the next four years to prove us wrong, but I don’t think so.

Cross-posted at Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog ]]> http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/2009/02/06/being-a-foxy-president-is-not-an-easy-task/feed/ http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/2009/02/05/real-dangers-of-obamas-revamped-faith-based-programs/ http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/2009/02/05/real-dangers-of-obamas-revamped-faith-based-programs/#comments Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:43:27 +0000 Cheetah772 (Profile) http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/?p=28

I usually don’t blog here at all, but it’s time for me to toss in my two cents over the issue of Obama revamping the faith-based program first founded by Bush.  Recently in news, President Obama signed an executive order to establish a revamped White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

But as we know, while President Obama speaks in the language of unity and strength in diversity, he remains a radical liberal.  In his inaugrational speech, he said that America is a nation of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-believers.  But what does it mean when addressing the revamped White House Office on faith-based programs?

The most contentious issue surrounding the updated office, potential restrictions on the hiring practices of religious groups that receive taxpayer dollars, will undergo a thorough legal review before Obama makes a decision on hiring guidelines.

If the religious organizations receive federal money, will that mean they have to compromise on hiring workers who may not share their religious beliefs?  Does that an evaneglical organization which receives federal money will have to hire homosexuals or workers whose religions are in sharp contrast with the aforementioned organization’s religious tenets?  Obama professes to be a Christian, but yet, he never demonstrates true Christian principles on touchy subjects like abortion.  So, it’s important to see what kind of hiring guidelines Obama will establish in regards to faith-based programs.

Obama’s advisers want to be certain tax dollars sent to the faith-based social service groups are being used for secular purposes, such as to feeding the hungry or housing the homeless — not for religious evangelism. The administration doesn’t want to be perceived as managing the groups yet does want transparency and accountability.

Herein lies the main problem.  There are some faith-based programs that use social services as a means of preaching the message of salvation through Jesus Christ’s atoned blood on the Cross for our sins.  By avoiding to preach the Gospel and offering social services at the same time really defeats the main goal of such programs.  And they are more likely to be excluded from receiving any sort of federal money.

If Obama professes to be a Christian, then how can he tell Christian organizations to shut up on offering the free gift of God while at the same time sending off people with cookies on way to Hell?  Yes, that’s right you heard it correctly, I do believe there is a literal place called Hell, and that’s for people who have rejected God’s love through Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.  I know that it’s a touchy subject, but I believe in being blunt here.  Religious evangelism is an imporant part of many Christian organizations.

I thin it’s only fair to let faith-based programs do their work without having to compromise their religious principles.  After all, as a born-again Christian, it pains me to pay taxes to federal government which has just lifted off bans on providing federal funding to agencies that promote abortion aboard.  In short, I’ve just paid taxes so that an unborn baby can be murdered at will, without giving it a chance to live a life full of potential possibilities.  There you go.

To be perfectly honest, it seems to me that Obama is using federal money as a means of enforcing his idea of religious unity on all faith-based organizations.  However, to be fair, if any organization receives some sort of federal money, there would have to be some strings attached to it, after all, there’s no such thing as a free ride.  But avoiding religious evangelism?  Come on.

How can Obama call for accountability and transparency if he nominates tax cheats and display flawed moral judgments on the issues like abortion?  But I guess the only thing Obama can say is, “I won.”  Yeah, right.

Cross-posted at Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog ]]>

I usually don’t blog here at all, but it’s time for me to toss in my two cents over the issue of Obama revamping the faith-based program first founded by Bush.  Recently in news, President Obama signed an executive order to establish a revamped White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

But as we know, while President Obama speaks in the language of unity and strength in diversity, he remains a radical liberal.  In his inaugrational speech, he said that America is a nation of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-believers.  But what does it mean when addressing the revamped White House Office on faith-based programs?

The most contentious issue surrounding the updated office, potential restrictions on the hiring practices of religious groups that receive taxpayer dollars, will undergo a thorough legal review before Obama makes a decision on hiring guidelines.

If the religious organizations receive federal money, will that mean they have to compromise on hiring workers who may not share their religious beliefs?  Does that an evaneglical organization which receives federal money will have to hire homosexuals or workers whose religions are in sharp contrast with the aforementioned organization’s religious tenets?  Obama professes to be a Christian, but yet, he never demonstrates true Christian principles on touchy subjects like abortion.  So, it’s important to see what kind of hiring guidelines Obama will establish in regards to faith-based programs.

Obama’s advisers want to be certain tax dollars sent to the faith-based social service groups are being used for secular purposes, such as to feeding the hungry or housing the homeless — not for religious evangelism. The administration doesn’t want to be perceived as managing the groups yet does want transparency and accountability.

Herein lies the main problem.  There are some faith-based programs that use social services as a means of preaching the message of salvation through Jesus Christ’s atoned blood on the Cross for our sins.  By avoiding to preach the Gospel and offering social services at the same time really defeats the main goal of such programs.  And they are more likely to be excluded from receiving any sort of federal money.

If Obama professes to be a Christian, then how can he tell Christian organizations to shut up on offering the free gift of God while at the same time sending off people with cookies on way to Hell?  Yes, that’s right you heard it correctly, I do believe there is a literal place called Hell, and that’s for people who have rejected God’s love through Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.  I know that it’s a touchy subject, but I believe in being blunt here.  Religious evangelism is an imporant part of many Christian organizations.

I thin it’s only fair to let faith-based programs do their work without having to compromise their religious principles.  After all, as a born-again Christian, it pains me to pay taxes to federal government which has just lifted off bans on providing federal funding to agencies that promote abortion aboard.  In short, I’ve just paid taxes so that an unborn baby can be murdered at will, without giving it a chance to live a life full of potential possibilities.  There you go.

To be perfectly honest, it seems to me that Obama is using federal money as a means of enforcing his idea of religious unity on all faith-based organizations.  However, to be fair, if any organization receives some sort of federal money, there would have to be some strings attached to it, after all, there’s no such thing as a free ride.  But avoiding religious evangelism?  Come on.

How can Obama call for accountability and transparency if he nominates tax cheats and display flawed moral judgments on the issues like abortion?  But I guess the only thing Obama can say is, “I won.”  Yeah, right.

Cross-posted at Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog ]]> http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/2009/02/05/real-dangers-of-obamas-revamped-faith-based-programs/feed/ http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/2009/01/26/a-positive-thing-about-obama-the-deaf-and-closed-captioning-service/ http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/2009/01/26/a-positive-thing-about-obama-the-deaf-and-closed-captioning-service/#comments Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:21:07 +0000 Cheetah772 (Profile) http://www.redstate.com/cheetah772/?p=23 A positive thing about President Obama?  Who in his right mind would say this?  Normally, most conservatives on this site would say no.  And I am a conservative just like most of you are.  However, I am unique among conservatives due to the fact I am Deaf.  I turned conservative just a little over 10 years ago the moment I became a born-again Christian.  But like every other thing in this world, it has both positives and negatives.

Well, I am here to talk about one specific negative in relation to the Deaf and closed-captioning.  I like Redstate, and some other conservative websites as well.  They’re fun to read and quite informative.  I love to read what other conservatives, who are certainly better writers than I am, have to say on a number of important issues pertaining to US and international politics.  But I have to say this: every time a video clip is posted, there is no closed-captioning feature available at all.

Please bear with me for a moment.  Go over to GOP website and look through multimedia stuff, and tell me if there is closed-captioning available on every video clip you can find.  In fact, why don’t you check out House Republican leader John Boehner’s weekly radio address, and see if closed-captioning is provided here.  That’s right, it’s not provided at all.  Now, please hold your nose and click on the Democratic Party’s website, then click on President Obama’s weekly radio address.  Make sure you click on the clip itself, it will open a new window to YouTube.com, which is a larger version of the same weekly radio address, but it provides closed-captioning feature.

Now, do you see the problem here?  As a Deaf person, I must admit that President Obama has just won me over, never mind the fact his ideas and values are all out of alignment with conservative principles.  To be sure, I would never support President Obama in any meaningful way, but stop and think about it.  There is no good estimate of how many deaf and hard of hearing people live in America, but it is probable to say about 1% of US population is part of this category, which translates into about 3 or less million people (for a more in-depth analysis, here is the link).  It is true not all of them are born deaf like me, many become deaf later in their lives.  However, it is safe to say many deaf and hard of hearing people depend on closed-captioning to understand the speeches, dialogs, and sounds on TV, movies, and Internet.

The Democratic Party and President Obama is trying to reach every segment of our society in order to gain numbers and add some to their bases of support.  Can anybody tell me why GOP isn’t doing that?  Please don’t tell me it’s partly due out of ignorance and negligence, I don’t buy it.  There is really no excuse for this kind of thing.  While it is true ancedotically that the deaf and hard of hearing population tend to support Democrats in great numbers, we could make some inroads with this group if we only bothered to listen and provide some services to them.

Look, when I argue with liberal supporters who are Deaf just like me, they often retort that as long Democratic Party provides closed-captioning services and is more receptive to Deaf and hard of hearing issues.  Then what I can say to them?  I can argue with them on economics, military, social programs, and a lot of stuff, but they will always trump me over the issue of who provides the most services, especially in the realm of communicating the ideas or messages to every segment of US population, not just to “normal” and “hearing” people only.

Look, I know, this is probably a minor issue at most, and might not change the thinking of most of the Deaf and hard of hearing people who usually support Democratic Party and President Obama as well.  But if GOP could show it’s on an equal footing with Democrats and demonstrate an equal amount of attention to people like me and others, then perhaps it can also sway some of undecideds over the issue of who is most receptive to the Deaf and hard of hearing concerns.  In fact, I know one Deaf person, a young black man, who routinely votes Republican, but was frustrated by GOP’s inability to provide closed-captioning and other services in its messages.  When President Obama announced he was running for president, at first, this Deaf man was relcutant to support him.  But after checking up on every presidential candidate, he fell in love with President Obama.  Why?  Because President Obama and his team went out of their way to provide services like closed-captioning in every speech he made.  GOP lost this Deaf man’s vote, because it failed to meet his basic requirement — to understand every speech given and anything else that GOP might have wanted to communicate through TV, radio, or Internet.

I’m hoping that Redstate, conservatives, GOP, and well…just about everybody understand this issue, and how communication remains the top tool in reaching out to everyone, no matter who you are or what political beliefs you hold.  Is GOP up to the challenge of accomplishing this task?  I sure hope so.  GOP won’t lose my vote, because while I might feel frustrated, as a born-again Christian, I have to be patient and yearn for a more perfect body, which I shall receive at my death or Rapture.  At least that’s what the Bible teaches, but I can’t say the same thing for other deaf and hard of hearing people who have different views.

Thanks fo reading this lengthy dairy.  Maybe this won’t get a lot of hits, but I feel it’s an important issue that I have to express my feelings in a written dairy.  I know I’m not a great writer, but i hope this dairy gets the message out on the point and…loudly, if I may say so…

Naturally, Pelosi shrugged off such suggestions, she said that:

Perhaps he’s not visited Alcatraz,” Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. “Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It’s a prison that is now sort of like a — it’s a national park.”

To this statement, the only thing I can respond is by stating that yes, Gitmo facility is indeed a tourist attraction and a national park.  Why?  Because it attracts terrorists who happened to be tourists with tour guidance provided by the armed forces of United States!  And it’s a national park, because terrorists (who are now tourists) are enjoying their walks in a park all paid at the United States’ expense.  It’s a wonderful package for such tourists, as they don’t have to pay for anything.

Thus, Alcatraz can be a wonderful tourist attraction for terrorists, they get to enjoy the California weather and even have bodyguards all paid at Uncle Sam’s expense.  Moreover, they get to breathe liberal atmosphere that’s truly refreshing when compared with well…you know what I am talking about, right?

But on the other hand, it’s expensive to move all those tourists, so it’s really best for everybody if the Gitmo facility remains open.  Wouldn’t you think so?

And this was what the black lady said to the reporter when asked what line of President Obama’s inaugural speech touched her heart the most.

You see, this black lady came from Chicago, so she paid lots of money just so that she could show up in cold weather and witness this historical day. And she couldn’t remember the best line of President Obama’s inaugural speech. Unbelievable.

I suppose this is what we can expect of President Obama for the next four years. Wouldn’t you say so?

America is a big country, so it’s a real must for most people to have a decent car.  We love to drive.  I should know, because I love to drive.  I live in Silver Spring, Maryland and I’m no stranger to riding on Metro buses and subway rails, but I’ll take driving over riding public transportation anytime and anyday.  I just like to have my personal space.  I don’t want to get up and sit on a public bus, only to smell smoking and somebody whose stench clearly indicates he hasn’t showered in days.  But I guess that’s about to change.

How?  You know how it is always with liberals quipping that we have to raise gasoline taxes in order to force us to buy or drive a more fuel-efficient car.  We need to raise gasoline taxes, because oil resources are dwindling and more conserving is needed.  Maybe you hear an occasional statement that gasoline taxes should be raised so that more money can be put into researching alternate energy sources or repairing roads.  We’re supposed to love taxes, because it’s the only thing that’s keeping our civilization alive and thriving, or so say liberals.

But tell me, what happens when everybody is driving a fuel-efficient car?  What happens to gasoline taxes?  Wouldn’t that mean revenues in gasoline taxes might decline significantly as you get more miles out of gas?  Yes, it may mean that.  You see, some Democrats and liberals are starting to worry about that, and they don’t like it when taxes don’t work out so well.  Thus, they must find a way to put more taxes on us, whom they have castigated as a bunch of nothing more than Joe the Plumbers.

Oregon (and other states) is experimenting with mileage taxes. It means you get to be taxed a mile as you drive your car. I have no idea how one can mathematically calculate how one pays in gasoline taxes on the same mileage as one is paying on mileage taxes. But I imagine an average American drives 12,000 miles a year. If this average American only pumps gas once a week, and gasoline tax is maybe 50 cents per gallon. If his car’s tank holds 10 gallons, that means he pays $5 in gasoline taxes per week. Since a year consists of 52 weeks, so you take $5 and multiply 52, and you come up with $250 in gasoline taxes yearly.

On the other hand, say if you’re going to pay in mileage taxes, it’s more likely you’ll be taxed a few pennies on every mile you drive. Leaving aside all legal technicalities like what happens when you drive out of state, let’s say you pay 5 cents per mile. And you drive 12,000 miles per year. How much do you pay in mileage taxes? $600. You multiply 5 cents by 12,000 miles, and that’s how much you come up with — six hundred dollars. That’s four hundred more than regular gasoline taxes. And who is to say that mileage taxes won’t be raised more every year?

And ironically, some liberals are now afraid that we won’t buy better fuel-efficient cars simply because we don’t like paying more taxes in any form or shape. So, if one wants to force us to pay more in gasoline taxes if that means weaning us off oil and less fuel-efficient cars, I get it. I don’t like it, but I get it, okay? But I don’t get it when somebody comes up with an idea of finding a way to tax us more if we drive a better fuel-efficient car! If one is driven away from regular cars to more exotic cars with better fuel-efficiency rates, then what happens one is driven away from BOTH types of cars?

You know how it is we often say that in politics, America truly gets what she deserves when she elects leaders like Democrats and President-elect Obama? It’s true. We get leaders we rightfully deserve, good or bad. Heaven forbid we find ways to reduce tax burdens on ordinary Joe the Plumbers, because that would mean the end of world for many social elites and Democratic leaders.

Maybe it’s time for us to buy a bike and do it old-fashioned way….using raw human power to travel to another place. But I wouldn’t put it past those idiots to find a way to tax our human legs or bikes…

I am on a brief break as I type this blog. It’s something I always wanted to bring up, but could never find time to do it. Today, I’ve decided to force myself to type this brief blog, and hoping to update it as soon as I have data available, which is left at home.

The reason I wanted to do this blog is I did a short, amateurish research on how Obama won Virginia. To be truthful, I was in shock as I watched on news that Obama barely won Virginia and other states. I had always thought Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Ohio all would go for McCain, if for no reason other than the fact many of counties in those states went red in 2000 and 2004. As it turns out, it’s not quite the same case this year.

I was hoping that somebody more experienced than I am in researching this type of case would provide some rundown on statistics and other facts on how Obama successfully turned such states from red to blue. So far, it has not happened yet, thus I’ve decided to take upon myself to do it, because I think it’s important to study those cases in preparation for 2012, making sure GOP presidential candidate would not repeat the mistakes made on part of McCain campaign.

Of course, every election year is unique, and every candidate is unique, in which each has different strengths and weaknesses. But every candidate must work hard to win states, and some states aren’t just worth campaigning in, like California, with near 100% certainty, would always go blue regardless of how good a GOP presidential candidate is. Despite economic troubles, I always figured this would be the same scenario, with a close McCain victory.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it turned out, so I took a look at at how Virginia, aka Old Dominion, went for Obama.

I did research at county level, and what I found was quite interesting. In 2000 and 2004, the numbers at county level were similar, with no real major differences, but in 2008, Obama managed to gain 18 counties and cities, while losing just three counties to McCain. It turns out that in my research, the reason those three counties were lost to McCain is because each county had its population declining in numbers. On the other hand, in every county Obama won, the county population rose, in some cases drastically.

However, it is worthwhile to note that even in 2004, when some of counties’ population increased, Bush still won some of them anyway. It demonstrated that Bush ran a disciplined campaign. You can say anything about Bush, but at least give him due credit when it comes down to being skillful in campaigning hard and winning states. It is my personal opinion that McCain this year simply ran an awful campaign, and while this is pro-Democrat year, there is still no excuse for McCain not to win Old Dominion.

In my research, I attempted to match Obama’s regional offices in Virginia to that of counties that were contested hotly this year. It would appear that Obama poured huge resources and rented offices even in counties that’s supposedly red…heavily. It shows that Obama was a smart campaigner, and at least some of his subordinates in Virginia knew what they were doing in order to contest every vote.

I will update the information tonight or tomorrow, depending on how much free time I have. But all information is in excel format, so I’m not sure how to upload that anyway.

UPDATE #1:

I used the following sources:

Here is my spreadsheet in excel format: My amateurish case study of Obama winning Virginia.

I wanted to find out how many people lived in all Virginian counties:

The list of county population estimates (scroll down to population estimates)

I used the poll numbers for 2000 and 2004:

Data for Election 2000

Data for Election 2004

Recent polling data on Election 2008

Thanks for your patience, and have a good day!

However, on the other hand, France was bankrupt when it bankrolled American Revolution, leading some within King Louis’s ministry to present radical proposals that would have swept away much of noblesse privileges and tax exemptions for the wealthy class. Needless to say, at its most basic level, because of French bankruptcy, social unrest led to French Revolution with socialist tendencies to take control of French society. Shortly thereafter, French revolutionary leaders attempted to propagate such incendiary ideas throughout the continent, leading to wars and the eventual rise of Napoleon.

The point here isn’t to analyze the causes and effects of American and French Revolution, but to demonstrate what effects public debt can lead us to be persuaded major and necessary changes are needed in order to reform the current economic system we have right now. President-elect Obama firmly believes such changes are not only necessary, but long overdue. It is with the greatest fear that once Obama is officially in power, he will order sweeping changes to US economy, permitting socialist principles to be firmly entrenched with no chances of painless removal.

That is why I believe that we are in midst of a unique historic moment, where we will witness lasting changes made in the veins of American political and economic systems. President-elect Obama is no Clinton, and let me to say this bluntly, I view President-elect Obama to be a far more dangerous threat to the domestic welfare of the United States. I could not help but to view in retrospect how similar circumstances in relation to monetary conditions America were once and where we are right now. America is spending a lot of money on Iraq, and I feel strongly that while it’s a worthy objective, media and President-elect Obama are using that as an opportunity to present radical reforms that will leave mostly conservatives uncomfortable.
I don’t think we’re in a bad situation right now, I don’t think we’ll be seeing a lot of bloodletting in streets (after all, the United States is not France!), I do not and will never view President-elect Obama as another Danton or Robespierre. But neither will I consider him to be in the same vein as Alexander Hamilton and so many other American giants. But I believe that President-elect Obama does view that we are in a terrible situation and sweeping changes must be made to address some of difficulties America is facing right now.

This is more than about opposition party winning the contest; I also firmly believe that President-elect Obama in person is the epitome of cultural war that’s been ongoing for the last forty years. He was raised by a radical liberal. He’s been imbued with radical liberal philosophies and beliefs. In all, I do personally feel that President-Obama isn’t just a powerful authority figure, but also a revolutionary figure with powerful authority to effect major changes.

This is why we have to keep fighting for what we believe in, we cannot allow President-elect Obama to have his ideas and agenda passed without much of a fight. We have to find ways to fight with the same intensity Hamilton and other supporters fought for in establishing a capitalist foundation that made America a wealthy nation and prosperity a sure thing in America. Were it not for Hamilton and his ideas, who know what kind of a nation America would be? The question is, can we fight with the same intensity as our forefathers did over 230 years ago? Let us hope against hopechange for best…

I’m on a quick break, and I came across this interesting article on FoxNews website. Here’s the link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426764,00.html

It would appear that Democrats are letting the drilling ban to expire next week, though with some new drilling legislation pending. Nevertheless, for months now, GOP has been pounding Democrats hard on the energy issue, and we’re starting to see the fruits of GOP attacks on the energy issue. Indeed, this is a great victory for GOPl, though the battle isn’t over yet.

GOP’s victory notwithstanding, one thing I am greatly concerned is that Pelosi could use this expiring ban as a sort of leverage with White House in order to force White House concessions on the bailout plan. Therefore, I am left with a greatly nagging question: Is White House going to trade energy independence for bailing out Wall Street firms or vice versa? Is it even a plausible possibility that White House might give in to Pelosi’s gamble?

Maybe Pelosi gambit will fail anyway as I don’t think Congress has enough time to resolve the bailout plan and enact new drilling legislation before it adjures for recess. So, it maybe that White House could have no choice but to let stock market suffer some painful turmoils, simply because Pelosi and others have chosen to play games with White House.

I’d like to have both the bailout plan passed without additional tacks on it, and let every state with potential offshore drillings to work out details on its own without additional federal interference. But I have a feeling we’re not going to have that ideal scenario become a reality. Oh well, life isn’t fair, right? Yeah right.

This is indeed a sad day for all of us. Nobody deserves to be shot and left dead in cold blood. It’s called murder, period. What this shooter did is horribly wrong, no question about it.

He has only himself to blame for all trouble he’s in now.

Let’s make it clear to everybody that while we are conservatives, we have no desire to take out our anger on anybody, no matter how liberal they are, or whether they truly deserved it. This evil man deserves to have death penalty slammed on his head.

As much I despise liberals, I also acknowledge they’re still human beings, and should be treated accordingly.

Again, I am reminded of a famous biblical verse, which I think applies perfectly here.

Romans 12:18-21, KJV: If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

My condolences to victims’ families, they will need all comfort they can get from each other and God, as well.

Obama believes this will spark bottom-up economic growth, but like most of his views, he usually gets it wrong.

Let’s get something here straightened out first before continuing with this blog: making $250,000 is no chickenfeed. It’s a lot of money, in fact, it’s a luxury not enjoyed by large segments of this world’s population. As it may be, however, it’s utterly ridiculous to cast down those who are wealthy enough to enjoy luxurious lifestyles.

The rich are, in my view, neither our friends nor foes. Even so, we do need the rich to provide us with sources of venture capital, jobs, corporations, stocks, and other things. We work for the rich, and the rich works for us, as well! How is the rich working for us? By providing us with goods and services that nobody else could afford to provide. When the rich is taxed heavily, it leaves little investment into our economy.

However, Obama is saying certain things that’s not necessarily true.

Read on.

In the London interview, Obama states:

“We’ve got to deal with the fact that a lot more people are unemployed and are going to need unemployment benefits. We’ve got to shore up the housing market because people are experiencing foreclosures,” he said.

For the record, the statistics on unemployment indicate that the current percentage is holding at 5.5%, despite the recent rash of job laid-offs. That’s still quite low as compared to other countries like Germany (11.7%) or France (9.9%). However, these rates were taken from 2005 estimates, so who knows what current percentages are right now. But that’s besides the point I’m making, which is the United States’ unemployment rate is still low.

So, it’s true, that perhaps on surface, more people are losing jobs, but is it a good reason to go out and start taxing the rich to death? Obama’s plan is deceptive at its heart. It attempts to play on Bush tax cuts, offers a grumbling acknowledgement that they did work, but still insists on taxing the rich. It plays well on some of the middle class families, because let’s face it, who really cares about the rich?

Truthfully, I’ve never seen a personal paycheck that goes over $1,000, so I don’t know what it is like to be rich. Some of you do. Good for you. Yet, I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what kind of lifestyle you are living right now. I don’t know what your spending habits are like, and I don’t want to know. That’s between you and God. I could care less about your wealth, I don’t carea if it’s the result of hard work or family inheritance. I don’t care at all. But it’s time for everybody to acknowledge that the rich and middle class need each other.

I am not your friend, but neither am I your enemy.

So if some wealthy (or middle class) people lose their houses, that’s their problem. Don’t expect me to be happy to bail them out through taxes. I believe Congress is making one of biggest mistakes, bailing out troublesome house mortage payers. It would appear that more and more people are expecting government to bail them out of every problem that comes their way. Thus, it’s something that’s terribly wrong with America and its values she upholds right now.

The last thing I want to see is an Obama presidency making those kind of bad values a permanment part of American political traditions. The rich certainly doesn’t need it, neither does the middle class.

Have you often heard from Obama how he feels that he is capable of making good judgment calls? Obama contends that though inexperienced, what matters the most is his capability to execute good judgment calls. You can hear it in his voice when he gave the grand speech in the front of Victory Column. He feels he has a lot of confidence in himself and his hopechange philosophy will inspire others to do good to each other.

He believes that global warming, redistribution of wealth, the fight against racism, a more open immigration policy, and a whole host of other issues put forth are more than just stances to him. He sees himself as making the right judgment calls on those important issues.

And, my friend, is what so frightening about him and his unorthodox, liberal philosophy.

Moreover, what truly scares me the most is that in this overheard conversation Obama was making a point that others have been trying to pound the message home. Obama needs to listen to others more knowledgeable on certain issues than himself is. And yet, Obama is blind to all kinds of advice, namely his dangerous thinking that it’s high time to pull out of Iraq immediately, despite the fact that a lot of people are starting to see this war as the one that’s winnable.

READ THE BELOW FOLD TO SEE WHAT OBAMA SAID TO CAMERON

OBAMA: And, well, and you start making mistakes or you lose the big picture. Or you lose a sense of, I think you lose a feel …

CAMERON: Your feeling. And that is exactly what politics is all about. The judgment you bring to make decisions.

OBAMA: That’s exactly right. And the truth is that we’ve got a bunch of smart people, I think, who know 10 times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you’re trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante, but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you. (emphasis mine)

It’s not just about Iraq policy anymore. What about economics?

Countless experts, economicists, and oil businessmen now mostly say it’s time to permit offshore drilling as one of ways to push down oil prices, though that won’t have an immediate effect on current gasoline prices. Obama is still against that idea. Not to mention the fact the idea is now strongly favored by the majority of American public.

Obama insists that the rich needs to pay more taxes, never mind a number of knowledgeable people have come forward to criticize his tax plan. The Bush tax cuts brought in more revenues from the rich, because with more money, they were abe to reinvest it into the economy, thus making the economy grow. Naturally, that’s a simplistic way of saying it, but it doesn’t mean it’s not true. Obama’s purpose is to keep Social Security afloat, but the best way is privatizing it altogether and give ordinary Americans more power to invest their hard-earned paychecks as they see fit.

There are many other examples that can be used here, but hopefully you all get it. I’d wager that people here on Redstate are generally much smarter than Obama, despite not having a Harvard degree in your hands to wave around in public.

Even so, he still refuses to take his own advice, listening to people 10 times smarter than him. If he is going to act like that, then how can we realistically expect him to make good judgment calls based on expert advice given to him, especially of military who are doing the actual dying part and protecting the vital interests of the United States? Do we dare to trust him empowered with making long-lasting impact decisions on economic, fiscal, monetary, and foreign policies?

Unfortunately, Obama also thinks he is indeed a Messiah in making, and nobody is going to dare him otherwise. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is precisely why Obama is the most dangerous man in America right now. Better swallow your pride and vote McCain, otherwise may God save our country from the likes of Obama.

Read this link:

Here is the excrept from the link….

Enquirer Editor-in-Chief David Perel told FOXNews.com his reporters caught Edwards visiting Hunter and her baby at the hotel earlier Monday evening. Perel said Hunter and Edwards have been occasionally getting together so Edwards can see the baby. Hunter came to Beverly Hills with a male friend, Bob McGovern, said Perel. Hunter and her companion reportedly booked two rooms under McGovern’s name, and McGovern picked up Edwards to bring him back to the hotel.

Perel said Enquirer staff had been given information about the planned Edwards-Hunter meeting, and the tabloid sent reporters to the hotel in anticipation of Edwards’ arrival. According to the Enquirer, Edwards was first spotted being dropped off at the hotel at 9:45 p.m. PT, about 25 minutes after reporters watched McGovern leave the building in his BMW.

Edwards went to Hunter’s room and the two left the hotel together and returned 45 minutes later, Perel said. Edwards reportedly entered her room and stayed there until after 2:30 a.m. PT.

However, to be sure, allegations haven’t been independently confirmed by FOXNews.

It’s a sad day for everybody. Whether it’s true or not, Edwards’ life is definitely ruined, and not just his life, but also of his wife and children’s lives. They’re ones who will have to live with Edwards’ sins.

Look, I don’t like Edwards that much, but God knows I don’t have any personal malice toward this person and his family. Seeking out to destroy a life isn’t exactly my idea of fun, no matter how much it may have given me pleasure. No one should go through like this. I wouldn’t wish this one on anybody, not even Senator Obama and his family.

That’s all I have to say on this one. Comments, anybody?

*with apologies, I’ve been trying to re-edit this blog entry, as paragraphs are not split neatly. I don’t know if this is a glitch or not.

**this is third attempt to re-edit, I was forced to use “br” code to break up paragraphs. Redstate directors, if you are reading this, I thought this was supposed to be done automatically? And what about a preview button?!

*this is the fourth attempt, I forget to add “br” tags above. Here goes nothing…(yeah, I’m holding my breath here)

What is my question for him? Easy enough. Why don’t you spend one week in Iraq (or Afghanistan) instead of just one or two days? I think you could learn a lot in one week instead of one day, wouldn’t you say so?

Obama spent an hour of his time giving a grand speech to 200,000 foreign (German) citizens who aren’t even going to influence the race he’s in, not even one iota. Is that wise use of his precious time and energy? Perhaps Obama thought so, but to each his own.

In any case, does Senator Obama really need to travel to Great Britain, France, and Germany? Why make a grand speech in Germany instead of Iraq or Afghanistan? You’ve got reporters following every step you’ve taken, so I’m sure they could cover any speech you can give over there. Though, to be sure, it’s hard to beat 200,000 Germans coming out to stare at you for an hour or so. It’s not like they have anything better to do anyway.

Which group would you prefer to give your speech, to 200,000 Germans or American troops who are actually doing the dying part, you know?

So, Mr. Senator, what’s your answer? I’m waiting for one.

We’re in middle of an energy crisis, and so many liberals (greenies as well) want America to continue trying out different alternate energy sources instead of doing the right thing: allowing domestic oil drills. Now, they try to turn the table on us by saying if we don’t try out alternate energy sources like wind turbines, that would mean no potential jobs, hence no way to simulate economy!

You know, at this point, I’d have to ask a greenie or a liberal if he wanted America to create more wind turbines, would that mean he is willing to accept migratory birds could die from flying into wind turbines? Obviously, you can’t have it both ways: saving birds and creating a viable renewable energy source.

But I digress.

Getting back on track, if stopping wind turbines prevent the creation of more jobs, can’t that also be applicable to building more domestic oil fields? If we’re so concerned about creating new jobs in energy sector, shouldn’t we look for credible, proven methods of producing energy before alternate sources finally become cheaper and viable?

In any case, I want you to sit back and muse on this for a while: if we are able to build more domestic oil fields (or offshore oil drillings, either way is fine with me), that means five or ten years from now, the gasoline prices will drop. To be sure, we’ll never see $1.50 gasoline prices again in our lifetimes. Yes, I know, it’s sad, life sucks, well, at least for me anyway. However, one thing we’re all hoping is that we don’t have to stare at $4 or more per gallon for a long time. But I want you to think critically here: if gasoline prices drop, don’t that lead to more businesses willing to expand operationally and people going out to shop more often? Consequently that also leads to greater profits (or revenues, if you like), so it’s a win-win situation for everybody.

That may even mean creating new jobs! Yay!

The line of reasoning also led me to conclude that if more domestic oil fields were to be built, don’t that mean oil refineries would have to be built? So, here my somehow innocent and ‘naive’ thinking goes saying, building oil refineries and maintaining them also mean more jobs! Isn’t that what we want for our country? If we want to create more jobs and finding a way to make oil cheaper, then truly the best way to achieve is building more domestic oil fields, refineries and anything else that requires oil production to be at maximum efficiency rate. If oil supply is plentiful, even if demand is still high, then prices will go down, and as the result of prices dropping, more jobs could be created. Though, to be sure, it’s not a guarantee, and let’s be fair here, nothing in life is guaranteed, ever.

Maybe whosoever designed that poster on a Metro subway rail ought to redesign it so that the following caption will say: Caution! Stopping oil drilling results in the loss of jobs!

That’s the way it should say, at least in my mind. How about you?

Finally, there is one more thing I want everybody reading this to chant the onlhy thing that made any sense in the last few months: Drill, Drill, Drill Now! Drill, Drill, Drill Here and Now! Drill, Drill, Drill!

Drill, Drill, Drill!