The Political Friends Economic Plan

As I write this post, it is the first day since Congress failed to pass the economic bailout plan. We were told all last week, all this weekend, and all day Monday, that something had to be done, and it had to be done quickly. When the $700 Billion bailout failed yesterday, the market continued a tank that had started that morning. However, this evening (or as I prefer to call it, Apocalypse +1), the market has rebounded some, and investors appear ready to see what Congress is going to do. Most Americans spent last week, this weekend, and yesterday, calling their elected officials with instructions not to vote for this bill, or look for a new job come this fall. Speaker Pelosi seemed eager to sink the bill when she launched a tirade on the House floor denouncing Republicans and the President. I think the last few days have taught has a few lessons.

First, we will survive if Congress doesn't hand over a $700 Billion check to someone who has no supervision on how to use it. Second, the market can handle Congress spending time looking at alternatives. And finally, most Americans don't like the idea of bailouts. It's against our nature. Most of us believe people should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own. One other lesson that is starting to become clear is that the people who got us into this mess (the Government) are probably not the best people to get us out of this mess.

Keeping all of this in mind, and the fact that I think less government involvement is almost always better; I thought I would present my own plan for success. Some of these approaches are controversial, some seem like common sense. I welcome your input. Who knows, maybe Congress will adopt the plan we come up with.

Point Number One: No More Bailouts. I realize the government has already said this, and then bailed another bank out, and then started asking for the "bail-out-to-end-all-bail-outs". This time we stick with it. A few companies or banks may have to fail for Wall Street to believe us, but if we stick with the message, they will believe.

Point Number Two: No More Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. This is the first controversial point. I don't think the government, or an agency backed by the government, should be in the home loan business. I have searched through my copy of the Constitution and I can't find the Amendment that grants the right to "affordable housing". A business shouldn't be able to take risks and assume the taxpayers are going to bail them out. This can apply to point number one as well.

Point Number Three: No More Capital Gains Taxes. This is a temporary (maybe) item. Republicans last week started talking about a two year suspension of the capital gains tax. My plan takes it out to five years to make sure we nip this thing in the bud, and then would require a new vote to reinstitute it. Last week we saw two companies raise $10 Billion in one day each. Articles that I have read suggest these companies could have raised more if they had tried. Well run companies attract investors, and more money in the market to invest is a good thing.

Point Number Four: 5% Less Tax For Everyone. If I am doing my research right, the U.S. currently has six income tax brackets. The lowest one is 10% (single person earning less than $8,025 a year) and the highest is 35% (earning over $357,700 a year). My belief is the more money in the hands of people, the more money available to invest. I would cut each of these brackets by 5% (bringing the range to 5% on the low end and 30% on the high). This would be a permanent cut. If it gets us out of this mess, then I have proven myself right. The government was ready to hand over $700 Billion, they can just do without it instead.

These points are based on reading a number of articles, and some mental exercise on my part. I am not an economist, but neither are most members of Congress. I think more people would be willing to try this plan than the $700 blank check plan. Let me know your thoughts. I think we are as smart as the Congress, let's figure out the fix for ourselves.

Palin Phobia?

I haven't heard much coverage of the Sarah Palin / Katie Couric interview from last week in the mainstream media. There could be a number of reasons for that. I didn't think the interview was remarkable, so maybe those in the MSM didn't think it was worth covering. Perhaps becuase the interview aired on CBS and was conducted by Katie Couric, many people aren't aware the interview even took place.


Unlike the MSM, the blogosphere has been alight with discussion of this interview. To read blogs on the far left, you would think that Mrs. Palin either (a) spoke in tongues, (b) threatened to invade Russia, or (c) asked a wheel chair bound person in the audience to stand up. I have watched the interview, and have included a link to CBS with the transcripts and a few clips.


I will be the first to admit it wasn't her best interveiw. In all fairness, Katie Couric was a bit hostile and interrupted her a few times. However, any politician is going to have to deal with that from time to time. A couple of the answers Mrs. Palin gave were tough to follow, and she tripped over her own tongue once or twice. However, I also thought she made a few good points. During the interview, she pointed out that the American people were waiting to see what McCain did during this crisis. When Katie points out that Obama has gotten a boost in the polls from the latest crisis, Sarah gives a great response:


I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?


Some on the left have looked as this interivew and have said they are truly afriad of Sarah Palin. They are beside themselves that John McCain would pick her to be his Vice President. Was the interview a good interview for her? It was "ok", but not great. But it also doesn't deserve the panic stricken response from blogs on the left. She will have others that will be better, and she has given better interviews. If this is the worse interview she ever gives, she, and Senator McCain, will have nothing to worry about.

Government 101 – Me and My Soap box

I have been spending some time this week reading up on the economic crisis. I have been struggling with the question of if I believe our Congress should give the Executive branch a $700 Billion check. Proponents say if we don't do it, then our economy (and the economy of the rest of the world) will collapse. Opponents say that bailing out the market is irresponsible, will saddle taxpayers with a huge debt, will devalue our dollar further (thus hurting our economy and the world's), and may not fix the problem. Some have argued for other solutions such as suspending the capital gains tax for two years. They argue that there is private capital out there waiting for the right price to jump in. Warren Buffets infusion to the market of $5 Billion yesterday sure seems to give this argument some weight. What is the right answer? Honestly, I think all of the arguments have their strong points and their weak points. The bailout check would be used to buy up bad mortgages. Managed correctly (which I don't know if the government can do) this could actually return a profit to the government and to taxpayers. I am always a fan of removing taxes and getting private capital flowing, but is suspending the capital gains tax for two years enough to get that money moving? If we have learned nothing from the Great Depression, we should have learned two lessons. First, business and the market hate uncertainty. It scares them. Businesses will hold on to money, and not invest, until they are sure what the government plans to do. Second, passing laws just to pass laws can sometimes make matters worse. What if giving the Fed's a $700 billion check simply delays a much worse crash?

My wife made me watch Glenn Beck last night. If you didn't see it, you should go look for it on CNN or YouTube. I found the transcript for the show here. If I am recommending you view a CNN program, you really should sit up and take note. Glenn Beck had former Shell Oil executive John Hofmeister on and asked viewers to call in to ask any question they wanted of Mr. Hofmeister. Mr. Hofmeister has a new organization called Citizens for Affordable Energy. While watching that episode, and talking to my wife about the economic crisis and the energy crisis I realized we haven't come up with the correct solution yet because we haven't asked the right question yet. The right question is: When are we going to start legislating like adults, and not like children who just want to feel good?

Go look for articles on the economic crisis. Most of them blame it on the "Sub prime mortgages" or "bad mortgages" or "questionable lending". This is code speak for "loans that were given to people who should have never gotten a loan in the first place." Congress encouraged / forced banks to give loans to people who wouldn't have qualified for them. They did it under the guise of "making homes affordable for everyone." This is the problem. Any sane adult should be able to take a step back and look at the world and realize there are people in this world who will never be able to afford a home. There are charities that have as their goal fixing this. This is a noble goal. However, it isn't a realistic one, and it isn't one our government should be legislating to fix.

Another example is Polar Bears. How? Simple. Recently our government, under the evil George Bush, placed Polar Bears on the threatened species list. Bear in mind (no pun intended) that the worldwide Polar bear populations are at a high point. There are now more Polar Bears in the world than at any point in the twentieth century. Why did they get placed on the threatened species list? Because it "felt good".

We can't drill in water closer than 50 to 100 miles from our shores. Even though the most productive oil rigs are within the 50 mile mark, congress has decided we shouldn't drill there. Why? Sun bathers don't like to see oil rigs. What if there is an accident? Who will protect the birds? The safety record of the oil industry is actually pretty impressive. You have heard of a few spills, but by and large, oil is moved around this country every day and the only time we hear about it is when our gas prices go up. For those of you who think we can get rid of oil and replace it with solar or wind power, you are living in a pipe dream. If you think political environmentalist are going to let you construct wind and solar energy "plants" you haven't been paying attention. Already there are concerns with wind mills killing migratory birds. Sane adults can pass a comprehensive energy plan that uses oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and anything else we can safely squeeze energy out of.

What about our tax code? Here is a colossal waste. We have a cumbersome tax code that is designed to make the wealthiest people in the United States give their money to the "poor". Think Robin Hood with a gun and the federal government. We don't tax business and individuals to keep the government running and for the government to do those things the Constitution gives it power to do. We tax to try and earn votes, and because it "feels good" to stick it to the wealthy and to Big Business. What this really does is to drive businesses over seas and to take money from the people who might be able to bail us out of our current financial troubles.

I have great faith in the American people. At some point, Americans are going to wake up and tell their representatives to start passing laws like adults and not like 60's era hippies. When that happens, you will see a real energy policy, a tax code that makes sense, and as Glenn Beck would say, the few surviving hippies running for the hills while the rest of us chase them there with torches, cell phones, and SUV's.

A Quick Break from the Heavy Thoughts...

I saw this ad on TV while watching the NFL today. I thought my readers might like it:



I think everyone in Congress and the Senate should pay attention to the end of the commercial: ...the easiest job I ever had...

Preparing for my Trip to Washington...

A few months ago I wrote on here that I am planning my first trip to Washington, D.C. I asked at the time for any suggestions on sites to see and things to do while in the capitol. I picked up a copy of Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.


The book looks like it will be a perfect tour guide to Washington, D.C. It is written as a walking tour of some very prominent places in the capitol. It has selected photos, and a map. While thumbing through my copy, I found a quote I thought I would share here.

"The rights of man come not
from the generosity of the state
but from the hand of God."

-President John F. Kennedy

Food for thought...

What if Sarah Palin Becomes President?

I have asked a number of my more liberal friends what they think about Sarah Palin. One complaint I have heard is that they are afraid of her being, “a heartbeat away from the Presidency”. None of the people who have made this comment seem to understand what would happen if McCain were elected and died in office. I thought I would give a quick civics lesson to explain the order of succession.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that McCain and Palin win in November. They then take office in January, and begin the McCain presidency. If McCain dies in office (or is removed from office) Vice President Palin would then become President. Most people understand this. It is the next step that many people don’t understand.

The order of succession for the U.S. President starts with the Vice President. If for some reason the Vice President is unable to fill the spot, it passes to the Speaker of the House, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and on down the line. So, in the “parlance” of today, Vice President Dick Cheney is “one heart beat from the Presidency”; Nancy Pelosi is two; and Robert Byrd is three. I think a President Palin is much preferable to a President Pelosi or President Byrd. Many people assume the Vice Presidency follows this order of succession. In this line of thinking, if President Bush was to die in office, Dick Cheney would become President, and Nancy Pelosi would be Vice President. However, that isn’t the way it works.

According to Amendment 25 of the U.S. Constitution:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

The 25^th Amendment has been used twice in our history. The first was when Nixon’s VP, Spiro Agnew, resigned. In that case, Nixon named Gerald Ford as Vice President, and the Congress approved. When Nixon resigned, Ford became President and nominated Nelson Rockefeller for VP, and again the choice was confirmed.

In our example from the beginning, if President McCain was removed from office, Vice President Palin would become President Palin. She would then submit to Congress the name of a possible Vice President. If Congress approved, that person would become Vice President. Both Obama and Palin have had their experience level criticized by the opposing party. Obama decided to name Sen. Biden as his running mate to give him someone with lots of experience in the VP position. If Palin were to become President, she could do the same thing.

I hope this amateur civics lesson helped. Class is now dismissed.

Thank you, Mr. President

Sept 11, 2001 shocked our nation. We knew very quickly that we had been attacked on U.S. soil by terrorists. At the time, most everyone believed it was only a matter of time before the next attack. Seven years later, we haven't had another terrorist attack like we all feared.


Plots have been foiled over the last seven years. Some of them have been very public. There are untold numbers that have been foiled without the public ever hearing about them.


The number one job of the President is to protect the citizens of the United States from her enemies. The future will judge President Bush. Today, we should all pause and thank him for the job he has done over the last seven years.


Thank you, Mr. President.

Book Review: Sinner

A few years ago my brother gave me a book entitled Black by Ted Dekker. He told me that Ted Dekker was a "Christian Fiction" writer. He knew I was a pretty big Stephen King fan, and said that Ted Dekker was every bit as good as King. My thoughts went something like this: Yeah, sure he is. He's a Christian writer, there is no chance he is as good as Stephen King. When I was about 60 or 70 pages from finishing Black, and heading to the store to buy the sequel, Red, I had to call him an apologize.

I just finished my seventh book by Mr. Dekker. The more books I read by Mr. Dekker, the more I like him. His latest didn't disappoint me, and had a few themes I thought were directly related to this site. Sinner is set in the not too distant future (around 2033?). Sinner: The Books of History Chroniclesis the third in the "Paradise" series, and is possibly the 12^th in his "Circle Series" of books. In the United States of the future, tolerance is preached above all else. Those who are religious keep it to themselves. Any public expression of faith is viewed as "odd".

A string of lynchings sets new dominos in motion. Two of the central characters of the book (and from a previous book) begin to work to change the U.S. Constitution to make any expression of faith a hate crime, punishable with federal jail time. Add to this mix a group of 3,000 who wish to practice their faith as they please. They simply wish to tell the world about their faith in Jesus. They do so without attacking anyone else's faith. For this, they are instantly considered public enemy number one.

Sinner is a very fast read, and a very gripping story. I read the novel in about three days, and really couldn't put it down. There were a number of points along the way that I thought made for very interesting political discussion. At one point, a character justifies the new laws by noting that some areas of free speech are already limited. There are slander, libel, and treason laws. This character doesn't like any religion telling other religions they are wrong. Don't people have the right to live their lives without that sort or harassment? Surely people understand that some freedoms have to be limited in the name of tolerance.

On his website, Ted Dekker argues that the world he paints in his book is already here in some nations, and is starting to appear in the United States. He argues that it is only a matter of time before our Constitution is limited in order to avoid making people "feel wrong". This is one point I disagree with Mr. Dekker on. I believe there are enough people out there who still believe in our Constitution to protect our rights. I think a few of the recent court cases support me on this. However, if the wrong President gets the ability to appoint a few Supreme Court judges, I may owe Mr. Dekker an apology.

Sinner is a very good read. I highly recommend it for both its Christian message, and its political discussion. Remember, if you are a Stephen King fan, you will really love Ted Dekker.

Why “Windfall Profit Taxes” Are Just Plain Wrong

There has been a lot of talk in the public sphere about energy. How do we solve the problem of expensive gas and energy? Some believe that a good solution is to hit "big oil" with a windfall profit tax. I want to spend some time today discussing why a "windfall profit tax" is a bad idea. Before I start, some definitions are probably in order. By a windfall profit tax (WPT), I am referring to a measure that would tax a company if it received unusually high profits during one particular quarter. The company would then be forced to pay a tax. When applied to oil companies, most proponents of a WPT want the money taken from the oil companies to then be used to subsidize alternative energies such as solar and wind power.

At face value, many people find this attractive. "Why do the oil companies need so much money? Aren't they just getting rich at our expense?" Remember, oil companies do everything big. The taxes they already pay are pretty high. The cost to get into the industry, to drill for oil, to ship it, and to refine it are pretty large. If you don't believe me, go buy your own oil rig and see how much it costs. Also remember that any tax the oil companies have to pay is going to show up at the pump. If the oil companies pay a tax because they make record profits, that tax becomes a cost of doing business. In order to make a profit, they are going to pass that cost along to all the distributers and gas stations, who will in turn be kind enough to pass it along to you. In reality, this WPT becomes a tax on anyone who buys gas or oil. This simply causes all of the costs associated with producing oil to go up.

It's also interesting that whenever Congress starts talking about the WPT, they don't talk about the gas taxes that are already in place. The Government already gets "X" amount of taxes per gallon of gas. As of July 1^st of this year, the average gas tax in the United States was just over 49 cents per gallon. That is a combination of federal and state tax, and is only the tax at the pump. Any time the price of gas goes up, doesn't the U.S. Government (and most states) get a "windfall profit"? The U.S. government hasn't done anything to earn it. When the price per gallon goes up, should we demand a tax on the federal government be sent back to tax payers?

Personally, I find the thought of a WPT morally repugnant. If we are taxing oil companies in order to subsidize their competitors, how are we treating the oil companies fairly? Would we even consider passing a tax on McDonalds in order to get a smaller veggie burger chain up and running? How is it fair to take money from one company and give it to its competitor? Also, isn't a WPT counter to the very nature of our free market system? The American Dream is to build a company up and make huge sums of money. Why should the government come in and tax that money just because someone in Washington thinks you have made too much money?

In the end, a windfall profit tax is wrong and just a bad idea. It won't help out our government, but it will cause the price of gas and energy to go up. We need a real discussion with real ideas, not pandering without a real solution.

The Best Attacks on Palin?

Some of the criticisms that have been leveled at John McCain for picking Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President have alternated between insane and laughable. I thought I would devote a few sentences to rebutting those I have found the most humorous.

She doesn't have any experience. This is lobbed at the McCain camp from Democrats supporting Obama for President. She has executive experience, which neither Biden, Obama, nor McCain have. I saw Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Fox News tonight shoot the best holes in this complaint. He pointed out that Biden and Obama have never run a city, have never run a state, have never administered a budget, and have never been responsible for making a decision. Mayor Giuliani points out that she had more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined after her first day in office as mayor. On her second day in office she had twice as much.

She doesn't have any foreign policy experience. I am really expecting this to be hit out of the ball park by either McCain or Palin. As Governor of a state sandwiched between two foreign nations, I think she has some foreign policy experience. Remember one of those nations is one hostile to the United States. As Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard, I am going to guess she has had to run through a few "What if" scenarios.

McCain is just pandering to Clinton supporters. McCain is just pandering to the fair right / Limbaugh parts of the party. Surely we call all agree that he can't possibly be doing both of these things at the same time. Do Democrats really expect us to believe that women will vote for someone simply because they are a woman? Exactly which party is sexist?

She is embattled in scandal in her home state over a State Trooper. This remains to be seen. She is undergoing an ethics investigation. The details haven't been released, but it appears that a State Trooper her sister was married to threatened to kill their father. The question is whether or not she used her office to force his firing. A member of the investigating committee said that Mrs. Palin's office was cooperating fully. We will see where this goes, but I don't think it is going to resonate with the public.

She laughed when the President of the State Senate was called the "b" word. Really? This is your attack on a Vice Presidential candidate? Not that her issues are wrong, but she laughed when someone else used the "b" word? I did some looking into this one. Anonymous provided a link to the Huffington Post article that talked about this. If you have about twenty minutes to kill, go read the article, and listen to the full audio clip. Then read this article written at the time of the "incident" that goes into a little more detail. I am not sure I disapprove of the use of this word in this context.

And while we are on the Huffington Post, how about another article by them critical of Mrs. Palin. Why? Because she isn't what a feminist is suppose to be. Sarah Seltzer writes, "When I saw that John McCain had picked Sarah Palin as his running mate this morning, I was on the elliptical trainer, and my rage propelled me to the most furious workout I've had in a while." It amazes me that the writer would describe her "rage" at the Republican pick. I think William Kristol of the Weekly Standard captured what really scares liberals about Mrs. Palin:

A spectre is haunting the liberal elites of New York and Washington--the spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism, rising out of the American countryside, free of the taint (fair or unfair) of the Bush administration and the recent Republican Congress, able to invigorate a McCain administration and to govern beyond it.

Sarah Palin for VP

For the first time in a number of months I am once again excited about the Presidential Race. I was certain McCain was going to pick either Romney or Pawlenty. The more I look into the Governor from Alaska, the more excited I get. She is a true conservative. That will turn some people off, and excite others. She has only been in elected government for a few years, but she has some very clear opinions on a variety of issues. She is pro-life, her oldest son is about to go to Iraq, she is a lifetime NRA member, she has been billed as a “reformer” and has the experience to back it up. She supports developing America’s resources to provide energy independence. She got elected as Governor of Alaska by first defeating the incumbent Governor in the Republican primary, and then defeated a former Governor in the general election. She has a history of attacking both Republicans and Democrats when they make wasteful decisions in government.

She abandoned the “Bridge to Nowhere project”. She said that if Alaska needed a bridge, they would pay for it. I really admire that opinion at the State and Local level. Just imagine: an official who doesn’t believe the Federal Government is the solution to every problem. She is against gay marriage, while defending homosexuals from discrimination.

There has been a lot of criticism of McCain for picking someone with as short a resume as hers, when Republicans have been pointing out how thin Obama’s own resume is. I think there are two very large differences between Sarah Palin’s resume and Barack Obama’s. First, Palin was a Governor, not a Senator. That is a very important difference. As Governor, you are the one ultimately responsible for your state. As a Senator, you delegate, or work with others to pass laws that the executive branch then enforces. You may or may not agree with Mrs. Palin, but you can look at her experience and see exactly where she stands on most issues. The same thing can’t be said for Obama.

Secondly, she is the nominee for Vice President, not President. As President, Obama is the leader of the Executive branch of the U.S. government, and the leader of his party. As Vice President, Sarah Palin would only become President in the event something happened to McCain. Presumably, she would have some time in the office of Vice President before taking on the mantel of President. She will also be able to pick a Vice President to work with her that compliments her, much as Obama has chosen with Biden.

At the end of the day, voters will have to decide who they like more; Obama / Biden or McCain / Palin. I am very excited about the Republican ticket. I think a number of voters are going to start supporting McCain and Palin the more they learn about her.

I also think it is important to take a step back today. No matter which ticket is elected in November, we are truly living in historic times. If the Democrats win, the first Black man will have been elected President. If the Republicans win, the first female Vice President will have been elected. Both of these are historical firsts, and both dramatically change Presidential politics starting with their elections. Never again will the office of President and Vice President be the exclusive domain of old white men. For this, we as Americans should be proud.

Quick Notes: Biden and Russia

Once again, it is time for an exciting issue of Quick Notes. There has been some "exciting" news on the Presidential front, and some distrubing news on the international front. On to my thoughts...


Democratic VP Candidate Joe Biden: After a really poor performance by the chosen one last Saturday at Saddleback, Presidential candidate Obama tapped Joe Biden for his VP candidate. I think the best you can say for this pick is that it was a "safe" pick. Biden is a little closer to the middle of the road than Obama. Of course, Obama is so far out in left field it doesn't take much to get closer to the middle. Biden has some of the same "elitist" baggage that Obama has. During the announcement today, Sen. Obama introduced Sen. Biden as the next President. "President" Biden then refered to Obama as Barack America. I am hoping for a number of slip ups like this over the next couple of days to really make the DNC convention exciting.


Russia: Russia has pulled some troops out of Georgia, and entrenched others. I think very few people believe that Russia is ready to give up Georgia. Russia now controls the port of Poti. I believe this gives Putin control of oil shipments leaving Georgia. At the very least, it is a huge hold on what comes and goes to Georgia.


Talk and threats aren't going to work to get Russia out of Georgia. It is time for the United States, the United Nations, and NATO to act. I purpose the following response:


First, the International Olympic Committee needs to remove the 2014 Olympic Games from Russia. These games are set to be held a few miles from Georgia. There is no better insult to democracy than to go through with them. A boycott isn't enough. Athletes shouldn't be penalized for the actions of a nation that acts like this. The games could be sent to somewhere else, somewhere that might send a clear message to Russia. Perhaps the Ukraine?


Second, The G-8 should immediately disolve and reconstitute itself as the G-7, minus Russia. This has been an imperial grab by mother Russia, and Putin needs to know the other nations of the world will not accept this.


Third, the Ukraine and other former Soviet states should be offered expidited admittance into NATO. If Russia's actions are a message to tell the U.S. and NATO to back off, our response should be clear. We will not back down from bullying tactis.


Finally, Russia has been very unhappy with the missle agreement the U.S. has agreed to with Poland. We should offer the same agreement to the Ukraine.


Russia wants to make a play to control all oil in that part of the world, and control all of the former Soviet states. The rest of the world needs to show mother Russia that the days of the empire are done. If Russia wants to be part of the mature world, it needs to act like it.

Unelectable

The following is from the "debate" on Saturday night at Saddleback Church:

Question: Senator Obama, as a pastor I have to deal with this all the time, all the pain, all the conflicts. I know it is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Senator Obama, presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States: "You know, I—I, eh, er – I think that whether you're looking at this from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is above my pay grade."

Is that really the best answer Senator Obama could give? This is a presidential debate, and Obama can't give an answer to this question. Anyone who has thought about this issue has an answer for it. I would like to think that Senator Obama had some sort of answer to this question when he voted against abortion legislation as an Illinois State Senator. Rich Lowry writes today:

"In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion."

This is the "legislative priority" of a man who has a very definite belief on abortion. As a state senator, Obama voted a number of times against pro-life legislation. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against protecting the rights of babies who survived an abortion and were born. Think about this point for a minute. A baby survives an abortion and is born into the world. However, because the mother intended for the baby to be aborted, the doctor should kill the baby. Most people would do whatever they could to protect this newborn baby. Obama voted against protecting the baby more than once. He felt these babies had no rights and deserved no protections. He thought doctors shouldn't be required to provide life saving treatments to babies who were outside the womb.

His answer Saturday night was dishonest and repulsive. For someone who is running for President of the United States to take a serious question about a serious issue such as abortion and simply respond with, "…that is above my pay grade," should show the American people that the Senator is not ready to be President. Maybe we should all do Senator Obama a favor and keep him at his current pay grade in November so he won't be overwhelmed with these questions.

Book Review: Dark Horse

Of the 24 books I have reviewed on this site, only one was a fictional book. That should say that a fictional book has to be something pretty impressive for me to review it on here. Ralph Reed's first fictional book, Dark Horse: A Political Thriller, qualifies as something impressive. Dark Horse is a political thriller set in a present day election. The book opens up at the Democratic Convention where the presumptive nominee, California Governor Robert Long, has the nomination stolen from him at the last minute. But as the dust settles, and some questionable facts emerge regarding the Democratic nomination (and the delegation from Virginia) Robert Long starts to consider the unthinkable: an independent Presidential bid.

The book follows the election as the three candidates (Republican, Democratic, and Independent) battle for the White House. The story is told from the perspective of those closest to the candidates; their strategists. Many of the issues covered in this fictional election could easily have been taken from the current election. There were a number of times I recognized similarities between characters in the book, and members of real life presidential politics. Mr. Reed has the experience to make the book feel like a real election. Reed served as a senior adviser to the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns, was chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, and has been the executive director of the Christian Coalition. But don't think this is a propaganda piece for the Republican party. Two of my favorite characters in the book (and ultimately the main characters) are Democrats.

Dark Horse is a very easy read. The story is action packed with scandals hitting each of the candidates, political espionage, and an attempted terrorist attack on U. S. soil during the election. The main characters feel like real people. They aren't good or bad, but like most of us, have good and bad qualities.

I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys suspense or any type of "thriller" book. The cover says it is a "political thriller", and I thought it was a page turner. I hope Mr. Reed writes a sequel using some of the characters from this book. Who knows, there is always the bid for a second term.

A Return of Mother Russia

Russia has continued the war in Georgia, despite a EU brokered cease fire. This is likely to continue to get nasty, so I thought I would give my readers a quick history lesson, and bring everyone up to date on the latest reports from Georgia. I would also be disappointing my readers if I didn't weigh in on my thoughts as to what the motives are behind Russia and what the next steps in this conflict could be.

History

Georgia declared its independence just before the breakup of the Soviet Union. Around the mid 1990's, Abkhazia and South Ossetia began to have significant separatist movements. Prior to last week, these areas had been functioning independent of Georgia. Russia has had significant influence in the disputed areas including involvement in the government, stationing "peace keepers" in these areas, and even issuing Russian passports to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Last week, Georgia decided it was tired of the attacks into it from the South Ossetia region and sent in it's military to try and bring the area under control. They failed. Russia responded to the attack by sending it's own military into both disputing regions, and then launching a campaign into Georgia.

Today

Russia now has complete control of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Rumors prior to today said that the Russian military either controlled or had encircled the city of Gori. Between capturing Gori and launching an attack from Abkhazia, Russia now controls the major East West highway in Georgia, effectively splitting the nation in two. Up until yesterday, Russia stated there would be no more military operations, that Georgia had been punished enough.

Today found the Russian army moving towards the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Reports in the capital were getting messages to, "Get out now!" Russia has also cut off the capital from Georgian Ports. This evening, it appears that the Russian military did take control of Gori. The original claims by Russian officials that they had not take Gori were based on splitting hairs on how you define the term "capture a city".

Now What?

It looks as if Russia may be intending to annex not just South Ossetia and Abkhazia (something they have wanted for a long time), but Georgia as well. Georgia also has the only major pipeline that brings oil from the Caucasus to the West outside of Russia. I think Prime Minister (Tzar?) Putin may be hoping to destroy it before this is done. Whatever Putin's motives, this war is a clear signal to the world and to the former Soviet Nations: Russia is the big gun on that side of the world and if former Soviet countries make attempts to join NATO, or become close with Europe and the U.S., watch out.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been dispatched to France and then Georgia to try and negotiate a settlement. She will be working with the French to do this. Hopefully this cease fire will go over better than the last one. I expect any settlement will include Russia controlling South Ossetia and Abkhazia at a minimum. At the end of the day, Putin and Mother Russia will have invaded a free and democratic nation, and will be rewarded for their effort. I hope I am wrong, but I don't believe the EU or the United Nations are strong enough to force Russia back inside her own borders. My one hope is that immediately after a cease fire that holds, NATO will grant immediate membership to any of the previous Soviet states that want it.

Quick Notes -- Gang of 10, Energy, and Georgia

The late William F. Buckley once said, "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." I wish to change that just a little. After watching the campaigns of both Senator Obama and Senator McCain, I would rather be governed by a random lottery of 1000 people in the United States than our current elected Congress and Senate. I have lamented many times that neither Obama nor McCain represent the best from their parties. This week has further depressed me on the ability of our currently elected representatives. This means you get to enjoy a somewhat expanded version of Quick Notes.

Energy. Without looking at the polling data, I think it is safe to say that Energy has become the number one issue of the election. This can always change. On a daily basis, I see more in the paper, on radio, and on TV about energy and gas prices than any other issue. There are a number of positions out there. Obama wants to stop using oil in our country in the next ten years. He also wants to give "middle class families" a $1000 check to help with prices at the pump. How would he pay for this? With windfall profit taxes on big oil companies. If we put profit taxes on oil companies, what do we really think will happen to the price of gas?

McCain has been better on this issue. He has changed his position on off shore drilling. He wants to increase nuclear power in the U.S. He even wants to increase our alternative energy production. I agree with these issues, but don't believe they go far enough. I am an "all of the above" kind of guy. I believe we need to drill for oil in our country wherever we believe it is economically feasible. If that means off shore, in ANWR, or in the Grand Canyon, then do it. We need to build more nuclear power plants in the U.S. If France can get 80% of their energy from nuclear power, why can't we. The Pickens Plan calls for more wind energy. I am skeptical, but the plan calls for it to be financed 100% from private sector funds. Any alternative energy that private financiers want to go for, I support. They use their money, they drive the market, and if they are successful, they should reap the profits. This is Capitalism at it's best.

This is a long winded way of saying that there is an issue out there that both McCain, and the Republicans can win on this year. Conventional wisdom is that this year, Obama should win, and the Democrats should pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. Imagine turning that on it's head. However, into this discussion steps...

The Gang of 10. Democrats aren't the only one trying to drive a stake in the discussion of off shore drilling. 5 Republicans in the Senate have joined the fray. There is a great article on this at Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain. If you follow politics, and are a conservative Republican, all you need to hear is Lindsey Graham and bipartisan compromise. These two phrases generally mean Democrats get what they want, and Republicans get screwed. The Gang of 10 plan allows off shore drilling, but only in a few states, and with the permission of those states. It bars drilling in ANWR, it provides $84 billion of tax incentives for alternative fuels that are paid for with new taxes on oil companies. These senators have decided they can tax certain companies to provide incentives to their competitors. Imagine Congress taxing Microsoft and giving the money to Apple. Or taxing Starbucks and giving the money to McDonald's. It is arrogant, unwise, and against the very nature of our market economy. The five Republicans, Graham (R-SC), Chambliss (R-GA), Isakson (R-GA), Thune (R- SD), and Corker (R-TN), have shown a colossal lack of judgment.

Georgia. Turning to world events, Russia has started a full scale war with the nation of Georgia. This is a very complicated matter that I may more fully explain in a future post. However, something to keep an eye on is the possibility of a nuke being used in this engagement. When the Soviet Union collapsed, 5000 small nuclear weapons went unaccounted for. The government of Russia said they were destroyed, and that all evidence of their destruction, and all correspondence ordering their destruction was also destroyed. In addition, Georgia was sitting on some nuclear weapons, which they turned over to Russia in exchange for U.S aid. In both of these cases, there is a chance that some nuclear weapons (some as small as 44 lbs) may be in the hands of the Georgian government, or some of the smaller groups fighting in this engagement. If they feel that Russia is about to take over their entire country, Georgia may feel it has no option but to set one of these off. Keep an eye on that part of the world to see what happens.

Congress and Their 5 Week Vacation

Pack 04 has once again taken me up on an offer to write on here. Here is his guest post, hope you enjoy!

It has probably been beaten to death by now but why not pile on:

Sen. Tom Coburn: We’re fighting hard. You need to be fighting hard.

Sen. Jeff Sessions: If the government is not functioning, it’s difficult to know how to help them.

Rep. Chris Shays: If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages.

Sen. John Warner: An action of that consequence would send a very bad signal to the world that they don't have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today.

Sen. John Kerry: An Iraqi Parliament that spends July and August sitting around a swimming pool while their country descends into further unrest.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: While our troops are in harm's way there and the need for us to see strong political change, it seems they've left before their work was completed.

Words spoken around the time the Iraqi government was planning a 2 month vacation last summer. Last Friday by a vote of 213-212 the House decided to take a break and go on vacation. I suppose nothing bad is going on in America. Energy prices are high, we are in a “recession,” people cannot afford to get medicine or healthcare, the war in Iraqi is still going on. I guess these issues we were led to believe are not as critical as thought. Those are all things the House can do something about. Maybe they are just going to telecommute.

They are going on vacation using/spending money that they receive from our tax money. The Speaker of the House gets $217,400 a year, $169,300 a year for the rest of them. They also get a cost of living increase. I work for state government, most likely my promised cost of living increase is going away because the state has not collected as much. Do you think they will decide not to give themselves a cost of living increase?

They are going on vacation and my Dad who lives hours away from me had to cancel his vacation to see me because he cannot afford to travel down here. I get to see him very little every year. I cannot afford to get up to see him either for the same reason. Let’s look big picture, this month troops are going to die, people are going to get sick and stay sick because of lack of affordable health care, kids are going to go hungry because people had to choose between buying food or driving to work.

The evil republicans and a few democratic voted to stay to solve problems. They lost but I am proud of them. What do the republicans need to do now? Stay in DC and work. Send photographers out to take pictures of the Democrats on the beach. Run ads showing who is doing what. Win in November.

McCain’s VP Choices

There has been a lot of speculation on McCain's possible Vice Presidential choices. I have seen articles promoting particular choices and commentary attacking others. Since this seems to be the newest past time, I thought I would join in. There are a few generic qualities most Presidential candidates look for. The VP candidate should complement the policy choices of McCain. The candidate should be able to bring a state or two with him / or her. In McCain's case, I think the campaign would be wise to look for someone who also looks presidential. Obama and his advisers are likely to attack McCain on his age. Therefore, McCain should probably pick someone that he believes the American people would accept as a President. As such, here are my Good, Bad, and Odd predictions.

The Good. These are the candidates that I think would bring something to the table, and I would personally be excited about. First out of the gates would be Mitt Romney. Many conservatives would prefer him to McCain for President. Romney has an impressive business resume, and the economy is likely to be a center stage topic in October. Romney is also likely to take Michigan off the table, and may even deliver a few other states. A very close second could be Condoleeza Rice. I have written about her before as a great VP candidate. I think her resume looks good, I think she takes race off the table this cycle, and there are many voters who respect her and would respond to her.

The Bad. Senator Joseph Lieberman. There are a number of rumors about a possible "Unity ticket" with McCain and Lieberman. Let's put aside the fact that McCain almost did this dance with Kerry. Lieberman isn't a Republican and shouldn't represent the party on the ballot. I respect him (as many conservatives do), but I disagree with him on 90 % of the issues. Far from reassuring me, if something terrible happened to McCain, I would not want to see a President Lieberman. I call this the "doomsday option". If we see this ticket it is either because McCain really doesn't want to win in November, has been reading his press from the 2004 election cycle, or his senior staff has decided they don't like McCain or the Republican Party. If McCain picks Lieberman before the convention, I could even see a new Republican candidate coming out of the convention.

The Odd. What fun is speculating on the VP choices without throwing a curve ball that no one expects? Here is mine: Brett Favre. That's right, the record holding Green Bay quarterback who may or may not be in uniform this season. Before we dismiss this too quickly, let's look at the pluses. First, he has name recognition. A McCain / Favre ticket is likely to take Wisconsin and Minnesota. That's 27 electoral votes that went to Kerry in the 2004 election. Plus, Favre may do well in cities that have NFL teams. Many of those teams are located next to large cities. Where do Democrats traditionally do well? Second, it has been rumored that the McCain camp is hurting for cash. The Packers are rumored to have offered Favre a $20 million payoff to stay retired. If McCain could get Favre out of their hair, perhaps they could create a 527 (Concerned Packers for 2008) that could use the money advertising for the ticket. Finally, Favre looks healthy enough to take on the Presidency. Compared to everyone else in the race (Obama included) he looks like a Greek god.

Those are my picks. On the off chance we do end up with the McCain / Favre ticket, remember where you heard it first.

My Day as Al

As most of my readers know by now, I like to participate in the Mystery Topic Challenge put on by Blog Ninjas. If you are a regular blogger, or just enjoy reading blogs, I can't recommend these two sites enough. The latest challenge is a pretty interesting one:

Blogs, for the most part, tend to be personal and egocentric. For this challenge, choose someone, real or imagined, in the news, a world leader, or a bum on the street. Write a post as if you were in their shoes for one day. You can write on any subject you'd like, but it MUST be from someone else's point of view.

I was working pretty hard on this topic. I thought it was a very interesting one. I decided to burn the midnight oil so to speak, and I stocked up on fast food so I wouldn't have to leave the computer. I had been furiously writing an interesting article on the Supreme Court from the perspective of Justice Thomas when I must have dozed off…

I awoke in a private jet somewhere over the Pacific (or was it the Atlantic? I never can remember where I am in these silly private jets). I had been working on my Power Point presentation again when I must have fallen asleep. Luckily, my trusty Mac notebook was sitting on the desk next to me waiting for me to add the next image. I hate it when I mess up my presentation. It bothers me so much, I had a new computer (complete with three monitors) installed at my home in Tennessee with a backup of my work. If I spill a Diet Coke or Taco on this notebook, I can always get the backup.

My plane was landing. I looked out to see the familiar scenery of the United States. The Country isn't perfect, but one day it will be. I was starting to remember. I had just given a presentation overseas, and was due for another one in California in a few hours. I was pretty tired, but this was important stuff!

As the plane touched down, I climbed into my waiting SUV. The driver had the air conditioning running so I wouldn't have to suffer in the heat while the car warmed up. It was a little bit irresponsible, but I had made sacrifices. The last time I came into this airport, I had three SUV's waiting for me and my staff. This time, it was the one SUV, and two smaller cars. Off course my staff sacrificed by not starting the other cars until they were in them. This was all the more reason for my A/C to be running, I had to wait on them!

Tonight's dinner was an expensive one. This would help me raise more global awareness, and provide me with more money to buy carbon credits. I had encouraged attendees to drive to the function in car pools, use public transportation, or better yet ride a bike. Too bad I would need these three cars to get there.

Sooner or later the U.S. would realize it had to lead the world to stop Global Warming. Sure it would require sacrifices, but the things that are most important (like the glaciers and the polar bears) usually require a little sacrifice. It would mean slowing the U.S. economy down a little, and maybe curbing the birth rate, but we have a few too many people and a little too much money in the U.S. anyways. Who do we think we are? Shouldn't China or India have a chance at being the worlds' lone Super Power?

On the way to the dinner, I was able to insert a new picture from my Hollywood friends. It was a great image from the movie Day After Tomorrow, and it showed the damage we were doing to the Earth. Of course it was computer generated, but I hadn't been able to find any real pictures that looked as good. It's OK to tell a little white lie to help the environment. My staffers had left a news paper article for me. It seems the United States had just put the polar bears on the "Threatened Species List". I was proud. Sure there were more polar bears around today than at any point in recent history, but with global warming right around the corner, who knows what could happen 50 or 100 years from now. And besides, this opens the way to sue those Oil companies because of the damage they are doing through Global Warming to the "threatened" Polar Bears. It was looking like a good day (as good as it can look with Global Warming breathing down on our necks).

My assistant called from the front seat. "Mr. Gore, Senator Obama is on the line and would really like to speak with you," she had just said…

I awoke in a cold sweat. Wow, a few eco friendly miles in Al Gore's shows (or SUV). That really wasn't what I was expecting. Now, go enjoy the other entries to this challenge while I take a steel wool shower…


Now go enjoy these other entires. Remember to vote for your favorite!

Hiro Gets Game by Mr. President

In Someone Else's Shoes by Stella

My Day As Al by Andy D

Coming of Age in the Shoes of Another by MooPig

I Am A Woman Damned by Jayne d'Arcy - feel free to appreciate, but she's not eligible for the favorite vote.

To vote: Go to the MTC Blog

Political Friends Goes to Washington

It may be hard to believe, but I have never visited Washington, D.C. This October, I am going. I hope to make this the first of many visits. I love our nations history, and Washington is one of the places to really learn about that history.


I am looking for advice on the "must see" things in D.C. I am committing to going to the National Archives. Past that, I am open to suggestion. So, if you have any ideas, let me know. Thanks ahead of time for any advice.