It is very tragic how this election turned out. Our country (not me and some 56 million others) just elected a person with an undefined past, no accomplishments to speak of, and uses words that make people "feel good". In fact, our new "President-elect" would probably even have a hard time passing a national security background check for a top secret clearance as a private citizen, or at the very least be given a second look.
His rise to prominence came at a time when our country was having some hard economic times and was in a protracted, but necessary, war. It came at a time when the bulk of the mainstream media successfully talked down the economy to the point that many people actually started to believe it even before it really happened. It came at a time when the same media bashed the existing President for carrying out a war to protect the American people without regard to the fact that we haven't been attacked again since 9/11 and are a nation much safer than before.
Of all the elections I've been through since I first voted in 1964, this is the very first I actually fear for our country and what may be around the corner. I hope that our new president will make good decisions for our economic and national security while keeping our nation free from further government and foreign interference. However, I have severe doubts based on what he has said, or not said, and the fact that he is basically an unknown entity that has been successfully hidden from the past with the support of the media.
In his victory speech he tells his loyal supporters that the road will be difficult but "we will get there". Where is that? He never defines it, but yet they cheer.
He wants to "redefine" America "block by block". What does this mean? Yet they cheer.
He wants to "spread the wealth" and give tax cuts to 95% of working people even though many people already do not pay income taxes. He funds this by taxing the very people who help create the jobs. He never mentions that taxes will go up for many when he lets the present tax cuts expire in 2010. Yet they cheer.
He says we don't need to drill for more oil and gas and open up our vast land and waters to harness the energy it needs to further our economic growth. Yet they cheer.
He wants to add 100's of billions of dollars to the national budget to fund health care and other expanded entitlements to make more people dependent on government rather than themselves. Yet they cheer.
Our new President-elect says he wants to start a "civilian national security force" probably because he has little trust in our military. He has also said he wants to cut the military budget in a time when our nation has a perilous and cunning enemy and countries that could become our enemy any time. Yet they cheer.
With the help of a very biased media, a lot of money, and some "white guilt", I fear our country has gone down a dark alley with very little chance that when we reach the end we will be the same America that made our country the most free and prosperous in the world. My hope is that any damage that may result can be reversed to restore our country to the principles that made it great. Time will tell. Maybe we will have an answer in time for our next election cycles in 2010 and 2012.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Where's the Crisis?
Although I still have a lot of faith in President Bush to do what's right for this country, I wonder if he is being given good financial advice. It appears something has to be done to help stabilize our financial system, but does it have to be this drastic? I know some so-called experts say people and businesses will soon fail to get loans to buy cars and homes, but so far things seem to continue like in the past. I keep getting solicitations for expanded credit and auto dealers seem to be selling cars. Even homes are being bought and sold. Things seem to be going on normally from my limited vantage point, so I have to assume that the financial experts see something I'm not seeing. This crisis has the investment market in a free fall, but is it because we know there is a serious problem, or because we only think there is a real problem. Do we really know for sure? I'll leave it at that for now.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Optimism is Always an Option
Our government's bailout mentality that I wrote about some time ago, has now officially morphed into socialism. The so-called imminent collapse of our financial system resulted primarily from government interference with the free market of our monetary credit system via government controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other institutions - i.e. handing out bad loans and mixing them up with our investments. What do we get out of the mess that government helped create? You're right - we get more government control.
I'm afraid with the advent of the proposed "bailout" or "rescue" plan, along with the likely continuance and possibly strengthening of the liberal block of our congressional senators and representatives, the next few years will lead to an exponential increase in government control of our everyday lives including health care, education, the environment, energy, and now much more control of our financial system which is the engine of our economy. If you control the engine, you control the ship.
Moreover, if the Democratic nominee, whose past education and associations are linked to anti-capitalism and socialistic policies, gains control of the White House, combined with a liberal majority in Congress, our free market system and our way of life will be drastically changed in the years to come. The damage will take many years to reverse assuming we will gain the will to reverse it in the first place.
Those of us who have benefited from the greatness of this country over the past 50-60 years will not much be effected except maybe for a somewhat decreased standard of living in retirement, but the emerging generations will be greatly effected by an increased dependency on government. This greatness was built on hard work, personal accountability, self-sufficiency, and our capitalistic system over the past 230 plus years. We now approach a serious turning point and I'm not sure we have the collective will to reverse course and decrease government control, but optimism is always an option.
I'm afraid with the advent of the proposed "bailout" or "rescue" plan, along with the likely continuance and possibly strengthening of the liberal block of our congressional senators and representatives, the next few years will lead to an exponential increase in government control of our everyday lives including health care, education, the environment, energy, and now much more control of our financial system which is the engine of our economy. If you control the engine, you control the ship.
Moreover, if the Democratic nominee, whose past education and associations are linked to anti-capitalism and socialistic policies, gains control of the White House, combined with a liberal majority in Congress, our free market system and our way of life will be drastically changed in the years to come. The damage will take many years to reverse assuming we will gain the will to reverse it in the first place.
Those of us who have benefited from the greatness of this country over the past 50-60 years will not much be effected except maybe for a somewhat decreased standard of living in retirement, but the emerging generations will be greatly effected by an increased dependency on government. This greatness was built on hard work, personal accountability, self-sufficiency, and our capitalistic system over the past 230 plus years. We now approach a serious turning point and I'm not sure we have the collective will to reverse course and decrease government control, but optimism is always an option.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
"It's the Oil, Stupid"
We always heard "it's the economy stupid" in campaigns past, but today I think it more fitting because of the emphasis on high energy costs, that we focus on "oil" and its primary derivatives - gasoline, heating oil, kerosene, and diesel fuels. Most of our politicians bemoan the cost of oil and its effect on our personal lives, but hardly any of them really get at the heart of the problem, and that is we need more domestic oil production and refinery capacity.
Although I personally promote the conservation of our natural resources, we cannot get carried away to the point that it will have a significant adverse effect on our economic growth. Unfortunately, we are now at that point, and our political leaders need to get the courage to advocate increasing our domestic production of oil and its fuel derivatives along with the increased use of nuclear power. To accomplish this they need to treat the environmental issues, such as "climate change" with much more skepticism and not so quick to dismiss the abundance of scientific facts that do not support man-made global warming.
This will take political courage since our media and the bulk of our politicians, along with our educators, have done a very good job of "indoctrinating" the public and our kids with the notion that we are destroying the planet with fossil fuels. This is hogwash. Lest we forget, oil, along with coal, are now and will be for the foreseeable future, our only economical sources of energy and there is plenty of it here on our own soil and offshore, contrary to the myth that there isn't. To shun this fact will doom our economic system and our way of life as we know it today. Many alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar power, are much too expensive and each have its own serious problems. We have made nuclear energy into an enemy by our "nuclear phobia" but it is a relatively practical and clean alternative source of energy. Until we get smart leadership on this issue, our national economy will suffer like it hasn't suffered since the Great Depression. We need to act now before it will be way to late.
OneConservative
Although I personally promote the conservation of our natural resources, we cannot get carried away to the point that it will have a significant adverse effect on our economic growth. Unfortunately, we are now at that point, and our political leaders need to get the courage to advocate increasing our domestic production of oil and its fuel derivatives along with the increased use of nuclear power. To accomplish this they need to treat the environmental issues, such as "climate change" with much more skepticism and not so quick to dismiss the abundance of scientific facts that do not support man-made global warming.
This will take political courage since our media and the bulk of our politicians, along with our educators, have done a very good job of "indoctrinating" the public and our kids with the notion that we are destroying the planet with fossil fuels. This is hogwash. Lest we forget, oil, along with coal, are now and will be for the foreseeable future, our only economical sources of energy and there is plenty of it here on our own soil and offshore, contrary to the myth that there isn't. To shun this fact will doom our economic system and our way of life as we know it today. Many alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar power, are much too expensive and each have its own serious problems. We have made nuclear energy into an enemy by our "nuclear phobia" but it is a relatively practical and clean alternative source of energy. Until we get smart leadership on this issue, our national economy will suffer like it hasn't suffered since the Great Depression. We need to act now before it will be way to late.
OneConservative
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Letter to RNC and McCain Campaigns
I'd like to share a letter I recently sent to the RNC and John McCain Campaign Chairman with a copy to the North Carolina Republican Party. I encourage others to take similar actions to try to get their attention before it's too late:
"I am very disappointed, to say the least, that Senator McCain has chosen to criticize the North Carolina Republican Party for running an ad that associates the state’s Democratic candidates with Senator Obama and the views of his pastor, Reverend Wright. Apparently, the Republican National Committee agrees with the senator because I have not heard anything to the contrary. It appears that Senator McCain is trying to distance himself from what he discerns as personal attacks when in fact they merely point out that Senator Obama, and those supporting him, closely associate themselves with those advocating radical views. This is a very legitimate argument, and to dictate that a political arm of the Republican party cannot advertise this argument is not only harmful, but downright insulting and, in fact, dictatorial. Senator McCain appears to take more comfort being critical of his own party than the Democrats, and the press eats it up. The close personal associations of a candidate for public office are fair game because they may reveal a person’s worldview. This is a very important element in any campaign.
The mainly liberal media loves it when the Senator is critical of his own party because in their eyes he is a maverick among the conservative political culture. Well, if Senator McCain can be a maverick within his own party, I guess I can be one also. Therefore, I have decided for now not to donate any more money to the RNC or to the campaign of Senator John McCain until Senator McCain and the RNC “grow up” and stop being afraid to criticize because it may be too offensive. The stakes in this election are much to high to risk the takeover of this country by radical elements bent on destroying the culture and infrastructure that made this country great. It is bad enough that I was reluctantly supporting Senator McCain in spite of his more liberal views on immigration and global warming, as well as his negative attitudes toward the oil and drug industry and the like, but this issue has taken it to a new level.
Additionally, Senator McCain is on record as opposing the so called “527” organizations on all sides of the political spectrum. He is basically trying to stifle political discourse in taking this point of view. Ironically, he helped create these groups with his campaign finance reform. How else does he think people should debate political issues? Gone are the days when individuals have enough political impact to make a difference so they resort to other methods.
I applaud the actions of the NC Republican Party in airing the ad in question and I hope more state committees and conservative 527 organizations take similar actions. In fact my future donations will be going to the 527 groups that support truly conservative causes. They will probably have more impact by taking the issues head on than Senator McCain or the RNC can even hope, or have the courage, to do".
OneConservative
"I am very disappointed, to say the least, that Senator McCain has chosen to criticize the North Carolina Republican Party for running an ad that associates the state’s Democratic candidates with Senator Obama and the views of his pastor, Reverend Wright. Apparently, the Republican National Committee agrees with the senator because I have not heard anything to the contrary. It appears that Senator McCain is trying to distance himself from what he discerns as personal attacks when in fact they merely point out that Senator Obama, and those supporting him, closely associate themselves with those advocating radical views. This is a very legitimate argument, and to dictate that a political arm of the Republican party cannot advertise this argument is not only harmful, but downright insulting and, in fact, dictatorial. Senator McCain appears to take more comfort being critical of his own party than the Democrats, and the press eats it up. The close personal associations of a candidate for public office are fair game because they may reveal a person’s worldview. This is a very important element in any campaign.
The mainly liberal media loves it when the Senator is critical of his own party because in their eyes he is a maverick among the conservative political culture. Well, if Senator McCain can be a maverick within his own party, I guess I can be one also. Therefore, I have decided for now not to donate any more money to the RNC or to the campaign of Senator John McCain until Senator McCain and the RNC “grow up” and stop being afraid to criticize because it may be too offensive. The stakes in this election are much to high to risk the takeover of this country by radical elements bent on destroying the culture and infrastructure that made this country great. It is bad enough that I was reluctantly supporting Senator McCain in spite of his more liberal views on immigration and global warming, as well as his negative attitudes toward the oil and drug industry and the like, but this issue has taken it to a new level.
Additionally, Senator McCain is on record as opposing the so called “527” organizations on all sides of the political spectrum. He is basically trying to stifle political discourse in taking this point of view. Ironically, he helped create these groups with his campaign finance reform. How else does he think people should debate political issues? Gone are the days when individuals have enough political impact to make a difference so they resort to other methods.
I applaud the actions of the NC Republican Party in airing the ad in question and I hope more state committees and conservative 527 organizations take similar actions. In fact my future donations will be going to the 527 groups that support truly conservative causes. They will probably have more impact by taking the issues head on than Senator McCain or the RNC can even hope, or have the courage, to do".
OneConservative
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Big Bail Out Mentality
Here we go again. If the tax rebate bailout wasn't enough, we now have government talking about bailing out the home mortgage industry and mortgage holders who can't seem to afford what they agreed to pay for in the first place. Even though about 95% of mortgage holders have no problem paying their monthly payments, we have a bunch who the government says needs help. What is it with this bailout mentality? Can't we just let the system work to correct itself and leave it to personal accountability? I'm tired of having to pay for everyone else who can't seem to get it together. I guess the media who hype all our problems, and the supporters of big government can't leave well enough alone.
It wasn't long ago that people didn't always need to have big government come to the rescue, but today politicians need to have the Feds bail out every natural or man-made crisis to buy more votes. This wasn't the case in the past on such a massive scale. Where is the money coming from? You know where - from our pockets in the form of higher taxes. It won't be long before this country implodes on itself, and a revolution will be necessary to rescue ourselves from .... uh, well, ..... ourselves.
OneConservative
It wasn't long ago that people didn't always need to have big government come to the rescue, but today politicians need to have the Feds bail out every natural or man-made crisis to buy more votes. This wasn't the case in the past on such a massive scale. Where is the money coming from? You know where - from our pockets in the form of higher taxes. It won't be long before this country implodes on itself, and a revolution will be necessary to rescue ourselves from .... uh, well, ..... ourselves.
OneConservative
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Shooting Ourselves in the Foot
Well, here we go again. The price of oil hits another high and, guess what? It's not the fault of "BIG OIL". Here we have a combination of market forces due to normal supply and demand coupled with speculation on the future price of oil due to political events, and government intervention.
Normally, when a product is in high demand and the supply is limited, the price goes up resulting in the producer increasing supply to sell more product at the higher price. Eventually, the increase in supply will meet demand and the price will stabilize or fall if demand decreases and, in a free market environment, the cycle continues. However, oil as a commodity, unfortunately does not exist in a free market environment.
Our governments (federal and state) have chosen to limit production of raw oil and its by-products, such as gasoline, heating oil, etc. through environmental regulations and, more recently, the man-made global warming myth. OPEC which is a consortium of foreign oil producing countries exacerbate the problem by controlling production to keep the price as high as possible. This would be considered price fixing in our country and would be illegal, but our government essentially ends up doing the same thing through regulation. Thus, when the supply is limited artificially, and demand remains high, the prices will remain high as well.
Government also effects the cost of energy by subsidizing products that compete with oil, such as, ethanol, wind, and solar power, and the like. Most of these products cannot exist without subsidies and research grants because the costs of such new technologies cannot be sustained in a free market at the present time. Even if oil companies could produce more oil, they have a hard time justifying an increase in the product because of the unknown effects of the use of other forms of energy. Why would you invest more millions or billions of dollars to increase production when you weren't sure how much competing subsidized products may reduce demand for your product, even if these products may cost substantially more to produce than yours.
When we combine these market factors with the perversion of science that has embedded itself into the political process, we approach what I call a "perfect storm" - the combination of an self induced increase in the costs of energy with the fanatical belief that man is ruining the world and changing the world's climate. If this process continues and we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot, our economic system and standard of living will be drastically reduced to a mere figment of itself. Maybe this is what many of the global warming fanatics really want - a destruction of the capitalistic system and along with it, democracy.
We have to understand that oil at the present time is the only source that can produce the amount of energy that this country needs to sustain our economic growth. Oil reserves are plentiful enough to sustain the planet for many years to come. Nuclear power is a great alternative to our electric grid but we are so blinded by the word "nuclear" that our country resists any increase in its use. Many other alternative sources will take a very long time to become an affordable and practical product in a free market. All this hype on bio-fuels is causing world food prices to rise exponentially and is inefficient compared to oil.
The so-called Third World nations are unnecessarily stifled economically because the developed nations don't want them to use oil for fear of global warming. Do people really want windmills in their backyard and huge solar panels on their roofs that cost more to install and maintain than the money they pay to the power company? Do people want to give up the number of TV sets, computers, electrical appliances, cell phone chargers, video game players, etc.? Think of it. Most of the people you hear who are demagoging the environmental issues have large cars, a lot of home electronics and appliances, huge living spaces, and use personal jets. Will they give all these things up? Not a chance. But they want YOU to give them up and limit your choices in what you buy.
When are we going to realize that this self-induced hatred of oil will cause our economic downfall? It is amazing that our politicians are reluctant to speak out on this issue, probably because they think that everyone has accepted the man-made global warming myth and the blaming of "BIG OIL" for the world's woes, and are afraid to lose votes and be hated by the mainstream media. It is time for some political leadership calling the environmental myths for what they are and stopping the demagoguery on the evil of oil. If this doesn't happen soon, the results may be irreversible.
OneConservative
Normally, when a product is in high demand and the supply is limited, the price goes up resulting in the producer increasing supply to sell more product at the higher price. Eventually, the increase in supply will meet demand and the price will stabilize or fall if demand decreases and, in a free market environment, the cycle continues. However, oil as a commodity, unfortunately does not exist in a free market environment.
Our governments (federal and state) have chosen to limit production of raw oil and its by-products, such as gasoline, heating oil, etc. through environmental regulations and, more recently, the man-made global warming myth. OPEC which is a consortium of foreign oil producing countries exacerbate the problem by controlling production to keep the price as high as possible. This would be considered price fixing in our country and would be illegal, but our government essentially ends up doing the same thing through regulation. Thus, when the supply is limited artificially, and demand remains high, the prices will remain high as well.
Government also effects the cost of energy by subsidizing products that compete with oil, such as, ethanol, wind, and solar power, and the like. Most of these products cannot exist without subsidies and research grants because the costs of such new technologies cannot be sustained in a free market at the present time. Even if oil companies could produce more oil, they have a hard time justifying an increase in the product because of the unknown effects of the use of other forms of energy. Why would you invest more millions or billions of dollars to increase production when you weren't sure how much competing subsidized products may reduce demand for your product, even if these products may cost substantially more to produce than yours.
When we combine these market factors with the perversion of science that has embedded itself into the political process, we approach what I call a "perfect storm" - the combination of an self induced increase in the costs of energy with the fanatical belief that man is ruining the world and changing the world's climate. If this process continues and we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot, our economic system and standard of living will be drastically reduced to a mere figment of itself. Maybe this is what many of the global warming fanatics really want - a destruction of the capitalistic system and along with it, democracy.
We have to understand that oil at the present time is the only source that can produce the amount of energy that this country needs to sustain our economic growth. Oil reserves are plentiful enough to sustain the planet for many years to come. Nuclear power is a great alternative to our electric grid but we are so blinded by the word "nuclear" that our country resists any increase in its use. Many other alternative sources will take a very long time to become an affordable and practical product in a free market. All this hype on bio-fuels is causing world food prices to rise exponentially and is inefficient compared to oil.
The so-called Third World nations are unnecessarily stifled economically because the developed nations don't want them to use oil for fear of global warming. Do people really want windmills in their backyard and huge solar panels on their roofs that cost more to install and maintain than the money they pay to the power company? Do people want to give up the number of TV sets, computers, electrical appliances, cell phone chargers, video game players, etc.? Think of it. Most of the people you hear who are demagoging the environmental issues have large cars, a lot of home electronics and appliances, huge living spaces, and use personal jets. Will they give all these things up? Not a chance. But they want YOU to give them up and limit your choices in what you buy.
When are we going to realize that this self-induced hatred of oil will cause our economic downfall? It is amazing that our politicians are reluctant to speak out on this issue, probably because they think that everyone has accepted the man-made global warming myth and the blaming of "BIG OIL" for the world's woes, and are afraid to lose votes and be hated by the mainstream media. It is time for some political leadership calling the environmental myths for what they are and stopping the demagoguery on the evil of oil. If this doesn't happen soon, the results may be irreversible.
OneConservative
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Empty Eloquence
I'm beginning to see a crack in Obama's armor. People now seem more aware that his empty words are in fact "just words" - words like "hope" and "change" with little real meaning, substance, or context. His so called "eloquence" is starting to define him as "just eloquent" and little else. Abraham Lincoln made some good words but they had substance and meaning in the bitter turmoil of the times. They weren't just vaporous words meant to stir a crowd. Obama's empty rhetoric reminds me of 1984 when Walter Mondale, the eventual Democrat presidential nominee, said to Gary Hart, his opponent, "Where's the beef."
Some have compared Obama to John F. Kennedy, but where is the comparison? In spite of the fact that JFK would probably fit in more today as a Republican than a Democrat, he had some 14 years as a U.S. Senator after serving valiantly in World War II. Senator Obama has about three years as Senator and a few years in the state legislature with very little to show in significant accomplishments, and he knows little about what it takes to defend a country in time of war. I remember when JFK said those famous words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Whereas, Obama seems to be asking not what you can do for your country, but what I can do for you. This is just the opposite of JFK's vision. In fact John McCain probably has much more in common with JFK than any of the two Democrat nominees.
OneConservative
Some have compared Obama to John F. Kennedy, but where is the comparison? In spite of the fact that JFK would probably fit in more today as a Republican than a Democrat, he had some 14 years as a U.S. Senator after serving valiantly in World War II. Senator Obama has about three years as Senator and a few years in the state legislature with very little to show in significant accomplishments, and he knows little about what it takes to defend a country in time of war. I remember when JFK said those famous words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Whereas, Obama seems to be asking not what you can do for your country, but what I can do for you. This is just the opposite of JFK's vision. In fact John McCain probably has much more in common with JFK than any of the two Democrat nominees.
OneConservative
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The First American Idol President?
Yes, it's true. Our country may be witnessing the first nominee for President that is campaigning like he is a contestant on American Idol. Just look at the MSM (MainStream Media) drooling all over itself while playing snippets of Obama speeches showing the wild near convulsions from his audience. For example, Chris Mathews of MSNBC, formerly an ardent Clinton supporter, said he felt a "thrill" up his leg after listening to one of Obama's speeches.
The American Idol TV show judges talent. In Obama's case this is his oratory skills. All you have to do is substitute the media for the judges. In many of his speeches Obama seems to stir the crowd with themes like hoping for hope, causing young people to almost faint. I keep looking for an audience applause meter while I watched Obama show that he is the best when it comes to saying something about nothing. In fact, it's almost like he is a character on the comedy show Seinfeld, the show about nothing.
While it's nice to hope, hope by itself never gets things done. People actually doing things get results, whether they be good or bad. It's nice to stir the crowd with themes like hope and change, but we need the know what specific actions the speaker is hoping for and what specific changes he or she wants to make. In Obama's case he is really hoping for changes that will make people more dependent on government rather than stirring them into accomplishing more for themselves and being more accountable for their own actions. Government doesn't make this country great, people do. That's the theme I want to hear. I want to hear the specific actions a candidate will take to reduce dependency on government and lower taxes, so people are free to achieve the best for themselves, their families, and their country.
OneConservative
The American Idol TV show judges talent. In Obama's case this is his oratory skills. All you have to do is substitute the media for the judges. In many of his speeches Obama seems to stir the crowd with themes like hoping for hope, causing young people to almost faint. I keep looking for an audience applause meter while I watched Obama show that he is the best when it comes to saying something about nothing. In fact, it's almost like he is a character on the comedy show Seinfeld, the show about nothing.
While it's nice to hope, hope by itself never gets things done. People actually doing things get results, whether they be good or bad. It's nice to stir the crowd with themes like hope and change, but we need the know what specific actions the speaker is hoping for and what specific changes he or she wants to make. In Obama's case he is really hoping for changes that will make people more dependent on government rather than stirring them into accomplishing more for themselves and being more accountable for their own actions. Government doesn't make this country great, people do. That's the theme I want to hear. I want to hear the specific actions a candidate will take to reduce dependency on government and lower taxes, so people are free to achieve the best for themselves, their families, and their country.
OneConservative
Monday, February 11, 2008
Oh No! The Sun Actually Warms the Earth
Oh no! Is it true that the Sun is the main cause of global temperature change? I can't believe it. I thought that we are causing temperatures to change with our "greenhouse gas" emissions. Maybe there is a secret code that DaVinci left behind that may lead us to the truth that the sun is directly related to the warming of the earth.
Another report alleging that the Sun is the primary cause of global temperature change has once again punched a hole into the global warming hoax, or should I say, religion, since a lot of it relies on faith. The article, published in the Investor's Business Daily, reports that the sun fluctuates in an 11 year cycle, but so far in this cycle, it has been "disturbingly quiet". The Canadian researchers warn that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two it could possibly mark the beginning of a solar hibernation period similar to one that began in 1650 and lasting to 1715. This period was marked by severe winters resulting in massive crop failures and famine in northern Europe.
This is just another report that shows that if people continue to bow to the faith that global warming is man-made without taking into account other plausible scientific explanations, they risk destroying man's productivity and hope for future prosperity though unnecessary environmental burdens and massive government taxes. The world better wake up before it's too late.
Another report alleging that the Sun is the primary cause of global temperature change has once again punched a hole into the global warming hoax, or should I say, religion, since a lot of it relies on faith. The article, published in the Investor's Business Daily, reports that the sun fluctuates in an 11 year cycle, but so far in this cycle, it has been "disturbingly quiet". The Canadian researchers warn that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two it could possibly mark the beginning of a solar hibernation period similar to one that began in 1650 and lasting to 1715. This period was marked by severe winters resulting in massive crop failures and famine in northern Europe.
This is just another report that shows that if people continue to bow to the faith that global warming is man-made without taking into account other plausible scientific explanations, they risk destroying man's productivity and hope for future prosperity though unnecessary environmental burdens and massive government taxes. The world better wake up before it's too late.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Return of Conservatism: From the Ground Up
Well, unless the Republicans can miracuously come up with a candidate that represents the ideals of conservatism, the chances are that we will have a psuedo conservative President next year either in the form of a John McCain, or an extreme liberal President in the like of the Clintons or a Barack Obama. If that is the case, how do we get conservatism back into the mainstream? Michelle Malkin has an article that promotes the concept of working from the bottom up rather than from the top down. She basically says that we need to help get conservatives into our local governments, legislatures, and Congress if conservatism is to thrive. If we can't work conservatives in from the top-down than try from the bottom-up. It will take a couple of political generations but will result in a more solid conservative base. If we end up having an extremely liberal government take control over the next 4-8 years, it will eventually fail under its own weight, and hopefully the people will finally get the picture, and conservative principles will return with full fury from the bottom-up.
OneConservative
OneConservative
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Can John McCain be Trusted?
I don't know John McCain personally and I have no way of knowing if he can be trusted to support conservative issues. He seems like an honorable person and one who adheres to his true principals. However, from what I know of his track record on some important issues I have some serious doubt that he is the person to represent conservatives. Some examples: giving legal status and other benefits to illegal immigrants over those who apply for citizenship legally, employing a hard core open borders advisor to his campaign, resisting tax cuts, suppressing free speech through campaign finance reform, giving constitutional status to illegal enemy combatants, etc.
I have to give him credit on his strong support for winning in Iraq and his support of President Bush in this regard. I do question his apparent ill temperment and the cheap shots he takes on Mitt Romney. Also, he seems much more conciliatory to his Democratic liberal friends than he does to his conservative base and fellow Republicans. He seems to show disdain for those that oppose him, unlike President Bush who doesn't seem to have a vindictive bone in his body and never seems to show disdain for some of his political opponents (although I have to admit at times I wish he did, but that is my temperment speaking; however, I am not the one running for political office).
So far, if John McCain gets the nod as it looks like he will, I will reserve my judgment on voting for him in the general election or write in Mitt Romney's or Fred Thompson's name, unless he is able to sincerely show that he will take a more conservative stand on some important issues. But as it stands right now, I will vote for Romney in the Massachusetts primary.
OneConservative
I have to give him credit on his strong support for winning in Iraq and his support of President Bush in this regard. I do question his apparent ill temperment and the cheap shots he takes on Mitt Romney. Also, he seems much more conciliatory to his Democratic liberal friends than he does to his conservative base and fellow Republicans. He seems to show disdain for those that oppose him, unlike President Bush who doesn't seem to have a vindictive bone in his body and never seems to show disdain for some of his political opponents (although I have to admit at times I wish he did, but that is my temperment speaking; however, I am not the one running for political office).
So far, if John McCain gets the nod as it looks like he will, I will reserve my judgment on voting for him in the general election or write in Mitt Romney's or Fred Thompson's name, unless he is able to sincerely show that he will take a more conservative stand on some important issues. But as it stands right now, I will vote for Romney in the Massachusetts primary.
OneConservative
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The Global Warming Hoax
They say there is a consensus that global warming (a.k.a. climate change) exists and that it is primarily man-made. They (i.e. the mysterious consensus) say the world (mainly the U.S.) must sacrifice the use of oil and coal to stop the climate change. Well, I ask, where is the proof? And, don't say we don't have the time to wait for the proof.
A true scientist doesn't go by consensus to establish a fact. The Law of Gravity started with a Hypothesis and progressed on to a Theory, and only later did it become a scientific Law. That is the way scientific thought progresses, not by unscientific consensus. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still just a theory. It hasn't yet, after all these years, been proven. Yet we take man-made global warming as a proven fact. Should we now call it the Law of Man-Made Global Warming? The hoax is that many have already declared it a scientific Law based on a measurement of global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. They said there is a cause and effect of fossil fuel emissions and the earth's temperatures, but they have only shown that the two are just a correlation. They don't know if one causes the other. I bet I can show a correlation between eating pasta and those involved in auto accidents. I bet that 99% of the people involved in auto accidents have eaten pasta in the last 6 months. Does that mean that people who eat pasta get involved in auto accidents? The fact is that there is no scientific basis for this hysteria. We don't even have the tools and techniques available to study the matter. Computer models can be flawed and even purposely manipulated to produce a certain result. Far fetched and unproven assumptions can also be incorporated into the models resulting in worthless results. I heard from one reputable scientist that we have no measurement of rainfall activity throughout the earth's surface and without that data the computer models predicting global warming are meaningless. There is a lot more geological and climatological evidence to suggest that variations in the earth's temperatures vary naturally, such as, variations in the sun's energy and the effect of the earth's magnetic fields.
Our country (and the world) better wake up and get over this hysteria about fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change. With the significant increase in the world's demand for oil, higher prices for energy caused by our fear of building new refineries and drilling for more sources of oil and gas, and our fear of nuclear power, our economic prosperity will not only be significantly curtailed, but even reversed, resulting in economic catastrophe for ourselves and the rest of the world. Brazil and Mexico have discovered new oil reserves and China is helping Cuba drill for oil off our Florida coast, while this country can't even use 2000 acres of a 19 million acre national wildlife refuge or do any new drilling off the Florida or California coast. In addition we are causing food prices to skyrocket while turning our food supply into alternative fuels while we have an abundance of fossil fuels that will last for at least a few hundred more years. There is even some evidence to suggest that oil is still being made under the earth's crust. Countries, including our own and the U.N., our talking about carbon taxes that will increase the size and power of government further reducing productivity. Some have already done it.
We are fast becoming like the frog sitting in a pot of cold water while the burner slowly heats the water up to a point where it's too late to jump out. We need some of our politicians to take a stand against this hoax and say that until climate change can be proven to be caused by man, we must continue to feed the energy needs of our economic engine, while seeking reasoned and sensible alternatives to fossil fuels.
OneConservative
A true scientist doesn't go by consensus to establish a fact. The Law of Gravity started with a Hypothesis and progressed on to a Theory, and only later did it become a scientific Law. That is the way scientific thought progresses, not by unscientific consensus. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still just a theory. It hasn't yet, after all these years, been proven. Yet we take man-made global warming as a proven fact. Should we now call it the Law of Man-Made Global Warming? The hoax is that many have already declared it a scientific Law based on a measurement of global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. They said there is a cause and effect of fossil fuel emissions and the earth's temperatures, but they have only shown that the two are just a correlation. They don't know if one causes the other. I bet I can show a correlation between eating pasta and those involved in auto accidents. I bet that 99% of the people involved in auto accidents have eaten pasta in the last 6 months. Does that mean that people who eat pasta get involved in auto accidents? The fact is that there is no scientific basis for this hysteria. We don't even have the tools and techniques available to study the matter. Computer models can be flawed and even purposely manipulated to produce a certain result. Far fetched and unproven assumptions can also be incorporated into the models resulting in worthless results. I heard from one reputable scientist that we have no measurement of rainfall activity throughout the earth's surface and without that data the computer models predicting global warming are meaningless. There is a lot more geological and climatological evidence to suggest that variations in the earth's temperatures vary naturally, such as, variations in the sun's energy and the effect of the earth's magnetic fields.
Our country (and the world) better wake up and get over this hysteria about fossil fuels, greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change. With the significant increase in the world's demand for oil, higher prices for energy caused by our fear of building new refineries and drilling for more sources of oil and gas, and our fear of nuclear power, our economic prosperity will not only be significantly curtailed, but even reversed, resulting in economic catastrophe for ourselves and the rest of the world. Brazil and Mexico have discovered new oil reserves and China is helping Cuba drill for oil off our Florida coast, while this country can't even use 2000 acres of a 19 million acre national wildlife refuge or do any new drilling off the Florida or California coast. In addition we are causing food prices to skyrocket while turning our food supply into alternative fuels while we have an abundance of fossil fuels that will last for at least a few hundred more years. There is even some evidence to suggest that oil is still being made under the earth's crust. Countries, including our own and the U.N., our talking about carbon taxes that will increase the size and power of government further reducing productivity. Some have already done it.
We are fast becoming like the frog sitting in a pot of cold water while the burner slowly heats the water up to a point where it's too late to jump out. We need some of our politicians to take a stand against this hoax and say that until climate change can be proven to be caused by man, we must continue to feed the energy needs of our economic engine, while seeking reasoned and sensible alternatives to fossil fuels.
OneConservative
The Clinton's Playing the Race Issue
I think Dick Morris and Rush Limbaugh are maybe right; the Clintons are playing the race card in the SC Primary. The theory is that by conceding to an Obama victory made possible mostly by the black vote, it is made to look like he is getting his support from mostly blacks while much of the white and Hispanic vote is going for the Clintons. The Clintons are hoping that the rest of the remaining states' white and Hispanic Democratic voter population will see this and support the Clintons when they see that it is becoming a race oriented election. It doesn't surprise me that the Democratic political machine is the party of racists playing the race issue far more than the Republican machine. Probably the voter exit polls will either confirm or disprove this theory. We will see if it works.
The Clinton political machine is very powerful and Obama has to show that he is capable of fighting back effectively if he is to move forward in his party. So far he is showing he is much too soft.
OneConservative
The Clinton political machine is very powerful and Obama has to show that he is capable of fighting back effectively if he is to move forward in his party. So far he is showing he is much too soft.
OneConservative
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thompson is Out
Well, sadly, my favorite candidate, Fred Thompson, dropped out today leaving McCain, Romney, & Guiliani as the probable survivors into Super Tuesday. I leave out Huckabee because he seems to be losing steam and he is almost out of money. Although he could still revive. McCain has big problems if he is the chosen one because in the general election, a lot of real conservatives could stay home. Guiliani needs to finish strong in Florida if he is to survive.
Obama and the Clintons are really going at it now. Its starting to get nasty, and its nice seeing the Dems going at each other.
Well, as Rush Limbaugh states, Harry Reid says we are in a recession which means we are not, so that is good news, because Harry is the one who said we already lost the war when we were starting to win.
OneConservative
Obama and the Clintons are really going at it now. Its starting to get nasty, and its nice seeing the Dems going at each other.
Well, as Rush Limbaugh states, Harry Reid says we are in a recession which means we are not, so that is good news, because Harry is the one who said we already lost the war when we were starting to win.
OneConservative
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Delegate Race Thus Far
I find it a little comical that the mainstream media (MSM) is emphasizing who won what state and not concentrating more on delegates which is the essence of the race. For example, the Clintons only lead by about 50-60 delegates out of 400 or so delegates cast thus far, and Mitt Romney with 59 actually leads John McCain (32) and Mike Huckabee (38) with only about 140 or so of the 1191 needed to win the nomination. The press is enamored by McCain and Huckabee because of their more liberal tendencies. I think they are more afraid of Romney or a Thompson because they are actually running on a more thoroughbred conservative philosophy with a solid vision for the future, who are not afraid to argue the real issues.
Although Thompson is my first choice, thus far, I feel Romney or Guiliani would also serve my preference for a conservative candidate. Thompson doesn't seem to be getting the traction that I hoped and Guiliani has yet to enter the fray waiting for Florida and beyond. My preferences are not based on electability right now, but on the political issues at stake. I feel any one of them could win the argument on issues, but the Republicans are definitely on the defensive and have an uphill fight to win the Presidency. With the MSM on their side the Democrats certainly have the advantage, but we have a long way to go. The MSM has done a good job in running down the present administration because of their extreme bias. If it weren't for the alternative media (talk radio, Fox News, and the blogs), it would be a lot worse.
More to come .....
OneConservative
Although Thompson is my first choice, thus far, I feel Romney or Guiliani would also serve my preference for a conservative candidate. Thompson doesn't seem to be getting the traction that I hoped and Guiliani has yet to enter the fray waiting for Florida and beyond. My preferences are not based on electability right now, but on the political issues at stake. I feel any one of them could win the argument on issues, but the Republicans are definitely on the defensive and have an uphill fight to win the Presidency. With the MSM on their side the Democrats certainly have the advantage, but we have a long way to go. The MSM has done a good job in running down the present administration because of their extreme bias. If it weren't for the alternative media (talk radio, Fox News, and the blogs), it would be a lot worse.
More to come .....
OneConservative
Saturday, January 5, 2008
My Take on the Presidential Race Thus Far
Here’s my take on the Presidential race thus far, from a conservative point of view.
First the Democrats:
Obama is running as a liberal populist who can garner a great deal of enthusiasm even though his liberal agenda will raise taxes significantly through an expansion of entitlement programs such as health care, etc. Where there is a populist, the people overlook the real issues and their consequences and are more concerned with how the populist makes them feel. The Clintons (I use the name in the plural because it would be truly a co-presidency) would also significantly increase taxes through the expansion of entitlement programs, but they would not be running as populists because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives.
Both would cause a massive increase in government spending with less emphasis on national security and our military and intelligence capability. However, Obama’s coat tails would probably result in an increase in the Democrat congressional majority beyond the point where Republicans could significantly stop the liberal agenda. Whereas, Clinton negative coat tails might thwart the Democrats from increasing their control or possibly losing control altogether. I understand that many congressional Democrats are very worried about this result.
If Obama gets the nomination, he will be much harder to beat because of his ability to make people feel good about him. If the Clintons get the nomination, they will be much easier to defeat and result in a much better chance for the Republicans to reduce or even eliminate the Democrat majority.
Edwards tries to be a populist but he just doesn’t cut it and will not be factor, but will steer a lot of his supporters to Obama if he drops out. Maybe he hopes to be a contender for the VP slot.
Now the Republicans:
Romney is trying hard to be a conservative but people aren’t quite sure that he means what he says. He appears very competent and I think will make a good President and leader, I am not quite sure he will stand up to the liberals when it comes to taxes, and immigration, but I could be wrong. He certainly seems to have more specifics when tackling the country’s problems.
Huckabee, like Obama, is a populist. People feel good about him, especially Christians, without much regard to the important issues of the day. Yes, he is against abortion and he calls himself a conservative, but his record does not appear to be consistent with core conservative values, such as smaller government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense, less government interference in our everyday lives, less taxes, less dependence on government entitlement programs, strong stance against illegal immigration, etc. I fear he has some liberal tendencies, but I have to see more to be certain.
Of all the Republicans, Thompson is probably the candidate who most stands up for almost all the conservative principles. He is not afraid to speak his mind and run a different kind of campaign. However, he doesn’t seem to taking hold, maybe because he seems “outdated” to some people and doesn’t speak with enough “fire in the belly”. I hope his campaign can get a little more fired up because, so far, he is my choice based on what he believes.
McCain is known for his honorable character but he may have too much “compassionate conservatism” leading to a more liberal view of increased taxes and government entitlement programs, as well as his softer stance on illegal immigration. He would certainly be strong on national defense and have the respect of the military. However, I was taken aback about his view of our health care system and feels big drug is cheating the public by making too much money.
Giuliani has shown that he can lead and I feel would continue the present war on terrorism with fervor but I’m not so sure he will be fiscally conservative. He seems strait forward on his ideas. However, I believe he falls short on some important conservative issues such as abortion and illegal immigration. I tend to believe him that he would support the appointment of strict constitutional judges.
Ron Paul, is basically a libertarian, and I agree with him on many issues including very limited government, but disagree on his stance on national defense and his isolationist tendencies. We no longer live in a world where we can ignore the global nature of our economies and the threats from within and outside our borders. We sometimes have to defend ourselves by taking preemptive action where deemed necessary.
Some thoughts on electability:
I believe Obama may be hard to beat if he is nominated. Although, Republicans could be successful in painting him as a tax and spend liberal and soft on national defense. His inexperience or naiveté could be his Achilles’ heel. The Clinton’s may be much easier to defeat because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negativity, and a much better chance of Republicans taking control of congress or, at the very least, achieving minimal losses.
It is hard to say who is best to win in the general election on the Republican side. Giuliani and McCain, maybe Romney, probably have the best chance against an Obama or the Clintons, but the risk is that true conservatism loses. They are not true conservatives and their winning will redefine conservatism moving it more to the left. Thompson is the closest to conservative issues, but may not be able to pull it off especially against a populist Obama, but he could pull it off against the Clintons.
Effects of a Third Party:
If Bloomberg runs, I think he could put the general election in a tailspin. I think he will pull mostly liberals, some independents, and maybe some moderate Republicans, but I think he could pull enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives, that is, if any one candidate cannot get the minimum of 270 electoral votes. That would favor whoever is the Democrat nominee. Nader running would hurt the Democrats mostly. A Ron Paul running as an independent would hurt the Republicans mostly. If all three run as independents, anything could happen.
OneConservative
First the Democrats:
Obama is running as a liberal populist who can garner a great deal of enthusiasm even though his liberal agenda will raise taxes significantly through an expansion of entitlement programs such as health care, etc. Where there is a populist, the people overlook the real issues and their consequences and are more concerned with how the populist makes them feel. The Clintons (I use the name in the plural because it would be truly a co-presidency) would also significantly increase taxes through the expansion of entitlement programs, but they would not be running as populists because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives.
Both would cause a massive increase in government spending with less emphasis on national security and our military and intelligence capability. However, Obama’s coat tails would probably result in an increase in the Democrat congressional majority beyond the point where Republicans could significantly stop the liberal agenda. Whereas, Clinton negative coat tails might thwart the Democrats from increasing their control or possibly losing control altogether. I understand that many congressional Democrats are very worried about this result.
If Obama gets the nomination, he will be much harder to beat because of his ability to make people feel good about him. If the Clintons get the nomination, they will be much easier to defeat and result in a much better chance for the Republicans to reduce or even eliminate the Democrat majority.
Edwards tries to be a populist but he just doesn’t cut it and will not be factor, but will steer a lot of his supporters to Obama if he drops out. Maybe he hopes to be a contender for the VP slot.
Now the Republicans:
Romney is trying hard to be a conservative but people aren’t quite sure that he means what he says. He appears very competent and I think will make a good President and leader, I am not quite sure he will stand up to the liberals when it comes to taxes, and immigration, but I could be wrong. He certainly seems to have more specifics when tackling the country’s problems.
Huckabee, like Obama, is a populist. People feel good about him, especially Christians, without much regard to the important issues of the day. Yes, he is against abortion and he calls himself a conservative, but his record does not appear to be consistent with core conservative values, such as smaller government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense, less government interference in our everyday lives, less taxes, less dependence on government entitlement programs, strong stance against illegal immigration, etc. I fear he has some liberal tendencies, but I have to see more to be certain.
Of all the Republicans, Thompson is probably the candidate who most stands up for almost all the conservative principles. He is not afraid to speak his mind and run a different kind of campaign. However, he doesn’t seem to taking hold, maybe because he seems “outdated” to some people and doesn’t speak with enough “fire in the belly”. I hope his campaign can get a little more fired up because, so far, he is my choice based on what he believes.
McCain is known for his honorable character but he may have too much “compassionate conservatism” leading to a more liberal view of increased taxes and government entitlement programs, as well as his softer stance on illegal immigration. He would certainly be strong on national defense and have the respect of the military. However, I was taken aback about his view of our health care system and feels big drug is cheating the public by making too much money.
Giuliani has shown that he can lead and I feel would continue the present war on terrorism with fervor but I’m not so sure he will be fiscally conservative. He seems strait forward on his ideas. However, I believe he falls short on some important conservative issues such as abortion and illegal immigration. I tend to believe him that he would support the appointment of strict constitutional judges.
Ron Paul, is basically a libertarian, and I agree with him on many issues including very limited government, but disagree on his stance on national defense and his isolationist tendencies. We no longer live in a world where we can ignore the global nature of our economies and the threats from within and outside our borders. We sometimes have to defend ourselves by taking preemptive action where deemed necessary.
Some thoughts on electability:
I believe Obama may be hard to beat if he is nominated. Although, Republicans could be successful in painting him as a tax and spend liberal and soft on national defense. His inexperience or naiveté could be his Achilles’ heel. The Clinton’s may be much easier to defeat because of Mrs. Clinton’s high negativity, and a much better chance of Republicans taking control of congress or, at the very least, achieving minimal losses.
It is hard to say who is best to win in the general election on the Republican side. Giuliani and McCain, maybe Romney, probably have the best chance against an Obama or the Clintons, but the risk is that true conservatism loses. They are not true conservatives and their winning will redefine conservatism moving it more to the left. Thompson is the closest to conservative issues, but may not be able to pull it off especially against a populist Obama, but he could pull it off against the Clintons.
Effects of a Third Party:
If Bloomberg runs, I think he could put the general election in a tailspin. I think he will pull mostly liberals, some independents, and maybe some moderate Republicans, but I think he could pull enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives, that is, if any one candidate cannot get the minimum of 270 electoral votes. That would favor whoever is the Democrat nominee. Nader running would hurt the Democrats mostly. A Ron Paul running as an independent would hurt the Republicans mostly. If all three run as independents, anything could happen.
OneConservative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)