Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
This afternoon, I went to go shopping for a tree. I couldn't find one damn Christmas tree, but plenty of people were selling holiday trees. what the hell is a holiday tree? Are we becoming so over-sensitive in this country that we can't mention what holiday we're buying a freakin' tree for?
I wonder how far off political correctness will go before people finally say enough is enough because we're too afraid to offend anyone.
Maybe single people should be offended about Valentine's Day. Maybe we can start calling it something else like "friendship day," and when you go out for dinner you'll have to call it a "mutual emotions feast" and you have to deal with it and feel sorry for single people and be empathetic to them.
St. Patrick's Day is another holiday that may have to be changed. If you're atheist, you can't celebrate the patron saint of anything. If you're protestant, you don't pray to saints. However, if you're an alcoholic this is your day. Maybe we can change the name of this holiday to alcohol tolerance awareness day.
Anyway, enough of my ramblings, enjoy the rest of the holiday season. I'm going to read "Twas the Night Before the Non-denominational Winter Holiday" to my kids tonight after I make make some adulterated egg nog and string up my biodegradable energy efficient holiday lights.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Folks, this country is better off without a bailout to the auto industry. It will force the big three to rethink a few things and use business concepts to solve their business problems.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Luzerne County residents should make a little more noise about the tomfoolery that our elected representatives exhibit while holding positions subject to public scrutiny paid for by our hard earned money. Instead, we allow our courthouse to be a 3 ring circus because the majority of the registered voters in this county are just plain idiots. I know I once ran for public office and if I ever want to run again, calling voters idiots isn't necessarilly the PC thing to do. But how else do you describe someone who continually complains about the broken county system and the people who run it, and then votes for them again to keep them in office? I would describe the person to be a complete moron.
The typical voting moron generally doesn't have a clue about politics, doesn't know the difference between left and right, is ignorant as to how the system works, wouldn't be able to recognize an elected official if he/she were walking on the street next to them, watches the news for the weather or sports, generally votes for a particular party or person because "that's who ____ is voting for", either doesn't know the issues or votes one issue, believes anything that is said on CNN, and votes simply because they believe that it's the right thing to do. It is the same voter who allows Osama Bin Kanjo to continue to destroy our economy.
I just don't understand these people. Why vote if you have no clue? If you're house shopping, would you buy the first house you see, or would you look at several houses in your price range and figure out what you like about house A versus house B (and vice versa), what is it about house C that you could (or can't) live without, etc.? Why can't these people do that with candidates?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
- Nobody will buy cars from a company that filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.
- It's not the automakers' fault, the credit crisis is to blame for the Big three's inability to keep up with foreign automakers.
- The UAW conceded to placing high demands on the Big Three.
The UAW's concessions were not that great: the union barely budged. I've skimped out on more creamer for my coffee this morning than the UAW skimped out on their positions.
I will admit that the credit crisis/freeze is a big problem for any company that relies on consumer debt financing to generate revenue. This impacts more than just the auto industry. Besides the obvious problems with real estate not moving in certain areas of the country, the credit crisis is killing furniture stores, companies that build sunrooms and additions, landscapers, etc. I don't see Raymour & Flannigan asking for a handout!!! I don't see any of the businesses in these other industries asking for bailout money - and they probably won't get any because they're just too small for the government to give a shit about them (90%+ of these businesses are microbusinesses). Credit crisis aside, the Big Three have not been able to outperform foreign automakers in sales for at least 10 years. Why? American automakers aren't making the kind of cars that the market demands. It's that simple. the Big three don't need a bailout, they need better CEOs, transformational leaders with a clear vision and directive (besides survive), and an overhaul of the market research division. Osama Bin Kanjo will give a blank check to the Big Three, and they will continue with business as usual gradually watching their market share slip. I would prefer to see the free market take over and have these automakers get bought out by foreign competitors. Given the fall in our dollar, a better tax structure, and countless other reasons for maintaining operations here in the US, the Big Three would not really fade away; they would simply be owned and run by someone else who has a proven track record for giving the consumers what they want.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not the end-all for a business. It's merely a restructuring effort to help the company move forward. Many companies filed for Chapter 11, and people continue to do business with them (I bet you bought something from Kmart in the last 5 years). Saying that nobody will buy anything from a company that filed chapter 11 is like saying that a pregnant woman can pass up Ben & Jerry's.
I stand by what I said before: let the Big Three suffer and may the HR departments remember that a degree from Wharton or MIT is nothing but a piece of paper.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
I, for one, am thankful that I live in the greatest country in the world and that I am not eating at my in-laws today.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
This top-secret list of impending calamities was reportedly compiled by the CEOs of the Big Three Auto Makers in an effort to secure a $25 Billion bail-out from Congress.
9. The Earth will spin out of orbit, exacerbating global warming and turning the planet into a giant George Foreman Grill, slow-roasting its populace until dead, albeit delicious and heart-friendly.
8. People will start sincerely responding to Dennis Kucinich’s proposals with, “You know what, that’s a great idea!”
7. Baseball will extend its schedule to 300 games, and increases the games to nineteen innings. But on the positive side, the price of a beer at the ballpark will drop precipitously to $13.
6. Britney Spears stays sober, celibate, and leads a responsible life with her children, bankrupting all existing gossip magazines.
5. The discrepancy between the number of hot dog rolls and hot dogs per package will widen, with manufacturers opting to deliver their products in fractions, further befuddling consumers.
4. Cell phone companies will only offer two ring tones: Susan Estrich birthing a cape buffalo, and Barney Frank learning he has been forbidden from watching gladiator movies.
3. Every Friday and Saturday night will be declared “National Mother-In-Law Day” with government-mandated celebrations.
2. A remake of Waterworld as a musical starring Rosie O’Donnell and Harvey Fierstein.
1. Chuck Norris will wax his chest, tattoo it with a picture of Bea Arthur circa The Golden Girls, and for the rest of his life, only make topless infomercials where he sings the theme from Cats.
Monday, November 24, 2008
I did enough criticizing of FNMA and Freddie and by now you all know that I think these two corrupt organizations should be dismantled but I never discussed my feelings about the automakers and, now, Citigroup.
It's no secret that I believe that bailing out industry doesn't help anyone and is a bad use of tax dollars. Osama Bin Kanjo is authorizing the use of billions of dollars of your money to bail out companies that don't need the money to solve their problems. What these companies need to do is find better CEOs and put in better business practices.
If US automakers - the big 3 -really wanted to keep jobs in Detroit and other parts of the country then they should focus on making better cars. The reason why the big 3 have been losing ground, aside from the unions, is the fact that they refuse to make enough of the cars that the people want. In today's economy, people want affordability, durability, and great gas mileage. The US automakers are simply not delivering.
...and now for Citigroup. Osama Bin Kanjo wants to export our tax dollars to NYC to bailout another company that preys on people with little or no credit.
Corporate welfare needs to stop. What are these companies learning by getting a handout? Is it really Ok to hire substandard managers and hold a low level of ethics, force your stock price to go down, do nothing and wait for the government to give you a check because you feel you're entitled to it? I don't think so.
If the federal government really cared about boosting the economy, they would create initiatives for small businesses (you know, the ones that hire 80% of the people in this country). I'm not saying that small businesses should get a free handout, but rather offer low interest loans that are guaranteed and structured similar to student loans (offer defferment in the event of hardship, collectability through future refunds in the even of default, etc.).
Maybe the government should invest in programs like Main Street America that would create economic development grants and loans for areas where Main Street is crumbling. We have many here in NEPA, such as downtown Nanticoke, Exeter, Edwardsville, etc., where a revival in Main Street could produce some good. In many of these areas, the businesses are closing, and the local residents - especially the elderly - are forced to go elsewhere for their shopping needs. Without commerce, these towns are losing valuable tax revenue which forces an economic downward spiral. The tax revenue created by stimulating small business growth and employment (and offering our elderly an alternative to driving to Wilkes-Barre) would be justified by exceeding the initial investment in these businesses over the long run.
The solution to the economy is not to give out welfare checks to big corporations. It's also not to punish the little guy like Joe the Plumber by raising his taxes and taking away his ability to support his family. The solution is the exact opposite of the Obama and Bush propose.
When I ran for office, I said that the economy was going to collapse because of failed leadership in the White House, Senate and Congress. I said that the policies established under the current administration and Clinton's are dangerous for the economic stability of this nation. I predicted that our economy was going to choke and that we were going to see economic times in this great nation of ours that we haven't seen in 80 years. Unfortunately, nobody listened and the GOP's lack of leadership dismissed my common-sense ideas. Maybe now these morons can see that I was right after all. Like Rush Limbaugh always says... See, I told you so!
Let's revisit my proposal to boost the economy, introduced October, 2007:
- Stop corporate welfare and reserve a portion of the money that would have gone to big companies to the smaller businesses that employ over 80% of the American workforce through a new loan program as described above.
- Offer of long-term tax incentives for businesses expanding and/or relocating operations to areas such as NEPA
- Invest in
Main Street America
- Extend small business tax relief deadlines
- Eliminate the self-employment tax for businesses in operation less than five years
- Eliminate the capital gains tax
- Eliminate the Alternative Minimum tax
- Adjust the Internal Revenue Code to include an exemption to the penalty for early withdrawal of retirement savings for people who use that money to start a small business.
If you notice, our esteemed idiots on Capitol Hill are doing the exact opposite, and our economy is going down the crapper.
If you notice, our esteemed idiots on Capitol Hill are doing the exact opposite, and our economy is going down the crapper.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake.
The AHA is a lobbyist group to promote humanism (AKA atheism). They are a bunch of liberal yahoos who are trying to attack Christianity. These are the same people who are trying to tell those of us who believe in God (including myself) that it's wrong to have Santa in the mall, have cards that say Merry Christmas, tell store managers that they can't have Christmas sales, put mangers in public places, etc. They are pushing weak-minded politicians and other leaders to keep Santa from saying Merry Christmas, tell Hallmark to write cards that say Happy Holidays, tell Macy's to have holiday sales, and to take down the manger from your county courthouse. These libs have a clear agenda: to persecute Christians, take away your right to celebrate your religion as you see fit, and destroy the very moral fiber our country was founded upon. If these leftists had their way, churches wouldn't be able to put crosses on their front lawns, kids wouldn't be allowed to see Santa at the mall, the pledge would be rewritten, and the Constitution would become nothing more than a piece of paper, more worthless than our dollar.
If these people didn't have an agenda to destroy Christianity, then why didn't they launch their campaign during Ramadan (or any other time of the year for that matter)? I am sick of the 8% of the population who doesn't believe in God to try to ruin it for the rest of us who do. Let them try to stop me from saying Merry Christmas. They can take their "happy holidays" and shove it up their asses.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Knoll died at
“Today we mourn the passing of one of the strongest, most dedicated public servants in
Knoll was diagnosed with neuroendocrine cancer in July 2008 and began radiation and chemotherapy treatments. She returned for the start of the fall Senate schedule in September, but showed signs of fatigue and on Sept. 22 announced she would heed the advice of doctors, family members and colleagues and take time off.
“Even as she fought cancer in recent months, she remained upbeat and dedicated to serving the commonwealth,” Rendell said. “Catherine was a very passionate and exuberant advocate for many worthy causes. Her passing is a tremendous loss for the many people whose lives she touched.”
A former schoolteacher and Democratic veteran, Knoll served two terms as state treasurer beginning in 1988. When she won re-election in 1992, she received one of the largest vote totals ever for a statewide Democratic candidate.
“I happen to think that
As lieutenant governor, she presided over the state Senate and chaired the state Board of Pardons and a local government advisory committee. Rendell also asked her to serve as chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Council.
Knoll was born in Sept. 3, 1930. Her father, Nicholas Baker, was the mayor of McKees Rocks, a
She met her husband, Charles Knoll, while she was a student and married him just before graduating.
She worked for local Democratic candidates, became a member of the party’s state committee and started working for PennDOT in the early 1970s.
In 1976, the party asked her to run for state treasurer. She lost to Robert E. Casey, a
She ran for treasurer again in 1984, losing in the primary by fewer than 15,000 votes.
She pledged to never run for office again, but changed her mind when her husband, a postmaster, died in 1987. All four of their children encouraged her to do so.
Knoll, affectionately known as CBK, won handily and pledged to clean up a treasurer’s office that she said was a mess. She said she was proud the agency provided $25 million in loans to small businesses through development centers at colleges and universities, as well as $100 million in low-rate first-home mortgages to single parents, first-time buyers and veterans. She also oversaw the startup of a college savings program for parents.
|Richaleen Ray Atterbeary|| |
| Richaleen Ray Atterbeary was born in Denmark, S.C., on March 12, 1903, the third daughter of Richmond and Hattie Ray. Sadly, her father died before she was born. Richaleen was delivered three months prematurely, and the midwife said the baby was too tiny to survive. She advised Richaleen’s mother to keep the baby close and warm. Consequently, Richaleen was a sickly child, so Hattie moved her daughters to the country to nurse her ill child back to health with fresh air and homegrown vegetables.|
During Richaleen’s teen years, Hattie moved her and her sisters, Portia and Ernell, back to the city. Richaleen met and later married the late Whaley John Atterbeary in 1919. They had one child, a son, the late Knowlton Richefield Atterbeary Sr., born March 7, 1921. When her son was 4, the family moved to Philadelphia. They were employed by a prominent family, the Weavers of West Mount Airy.
Richaleen was a pioneer in desegregating the C. W. Henry School, near where she and her family lived and worked. When their son was of school age, Richaleen attempted to register him, but received negative responses from the school. At that time there were no blacks in the C. W. Henry School. Yet, she persisted until she was successful. Knowlton became the first black child to be admitted to the C. W. Henry School.
For many years, the family summered in Ocean County, N.J., where they remained employed by the Weavers and enjoyed the country lifestyle. They eventually homesteaded in Toms River, Manitou Park, along with Hattie.
Under Richaleen’s guidance, her son went on to become the first recognized African-American orthodontist in the state of Pennsylvania. Her family’s successes are a source of continuing pride for Richaleen, and she has been known to sometimes rise in church and proclaim their accomplishments.
Later, her family lived in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, when her husband, a Baptist minister, was called to a church there. Although Richaleen and her husband were in their 70s, shortly after arriving there, they adopted an infant boy, John. After the demise of her husband, her sister urged her to return to Philadelphia with John. She reinstated membership with Canaan Baptist Church, and a few years ago, her vision of Canaan’s Children’s Church came to fruition.
Richaleen was always a very active person. She loved swimming, bicycling, fishing, traveling, and driving a “fast” car. In fact, she had to be urged by the family to give up driving at the age of 85! This lovely, great lady refused to live in the assisted-living building at Germantown Home and retained her apartment until after her 100th birthday. Until that time, she continued to help others, from preschoolers to the elderly, most of whom were younger than her. It was difficult to catch her because she was constantly on the go, by car, train, or airplane.
On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, at 105 years of age, Richaleen proudly cast her vote for the first black president of the United States of America. On Sunday, November 9, 2008, she departed this life.
Richaleen was very proud of her descendants, who all strive to emulate her. They include her grandchildren, Knowlton Richefield Atterbeary Jr. (wife Rosalynne), and Marlyn Atterbeary Oatts; her great grandchildren, Knowlton Richefield Atterbeary III, Vanessa Elaine Atterbeary Esq. (husband Paul), Cian Atterbeary Oatts, Curan Xavier Oatts and Courtnay Richaleen Oatts (husband Raynell); her great-great granddaughter, Ciana Renee Oatts; her nieces, Ernell Jones, Hattie Rice and Richaleen Draine; her nephew, James Hall; her son, John Whaley Atterbeary; and her many grand, great-grand and great-great-grand nieces, nephews; and friends.
In a speech coinciding with the missile launch, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that his government would act against any threats. "The Iranian nation defends its dignity. Should any power stand against the Iranian nation, the Iranian people will crush it under its foot and will strike it on the mouth," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television." When asked about the US, Ahmadinejad added "that it doesn't matter who comes to power in America because the important question will be how a future U.S. administration will behave."
I am curious as to which President will respond to this threat? Will Bush do the right thing and bomb Iran and put in a missile defense system, or will he wait for Obama to respond with coffee table talks and mere sanctions?
I believe that any time you get the government involved, you're just asking for a bigger mess rather than a practical and feasible solution. Our government can't even solve its own fucking problems.
We know that the government under the Bill Clinton Administration and the leadership of Barney instigated the entire mess that we're in. Don't forget that ACORN lobbied for deregulation - yeah, the same nuts that were brought up as a dog and pony show for voter registration fraud a couple of weeks before the election (I say dog and pony show because it was merely a side show - how come we don't hear about ACORN in the news now?). From the government side of the problem, we can easily see that liberal not jobs are responsible for fucking up this economy... and now we're going to rely on them to fix it under the Obama administration and a democrat-controlled Capitol Hill with Rahmbo as ring leader?
Let's not kid ourselves. The government started the trend that eventually lead to the economic demise we are seeing. Liberalism and the failure to put in laws based on traditional values are entirely to blame. Feel good liberal idiots like Barney and Kanjorski thought it would be nice if people who were in no financial position to buy a home could be given the same opportunity as those who busted their asses and saved for months or years to put a deposit on a home. Feel good liberal idiots like Barney and Kanjorski, who vote on key issues, couldn't do Americans a favor by passing sensible laws like mandating that public schools who get funding through the US Board of Education teach personal finance as a high school graduation requirement.
Yup, in lieu of doing the things that add value to America, Kanjorski destroys our economy by deregulating the banking industry. Smart! Tell people who have no clue how to handle their finances that they can take on a 30-year commitment. Half of America - thanks to Hollywood - can't even take a lifetime commitment like marriage seriously. Call me crazy, but I like the old-fashioned way of doings things, especially when it comes to money. 25 years ago, if you were to go out and buy a car, the salesperson would ask you what you want to pay for the car. Today, the question is: how much of a payment can you afford? Thanks to Kanjorski forcing banks to deregulate, people no longer had to save up 30% of the purchase price (20% down plus extra for closing costs and other incidentals for when you move in), have instant equity in their homes, and carefully think about what kind of home they could afford. The trend became: hurry up and let's close!!!!
Folks, don't get me wrong: what Paul Kanjorski, Barney Frank, Rahmbo (he lobbied for this reform), and countless other liberals did, is incomprehensible, unforgivable, and untrustworthy. Islamic Fascists tried to destroy our economy 7 years ago when they committed cowardly acts of terrorism, and they failed. Kanjorski and his band of marauders succeeded in doing what the terrorists failed to do. The people behind this mess should be held accountable, beginning with Osama Bin Kanjo.
Thank you, Sentator McLame. So why did it finally take over one week after the election for you to defend her? Where were you during the campaign? Why didn't you immediately defend Governor Palin when your own campaign operatives criticized her, when you immediately defended your opponent during the race?
Some fucking maverick you are. A real maverick would have done the right thing right away. McCain's lame and late attempt to defend Palin further proves my statements about GOP leaders being out of touch with the party's basic principles and behind the times. GOP party leaders and the McCain operatives strayed from the party's principle of exercising traditional values throughout the campaign and again when, instead of defending Palin and thanking her for giving the campaign a fighting chance, they trashed her. Instead of running on messages that would provide a greater response, the campaign and party leaders stressed the maverick theme - an idea that would eventually backfire (and it did).
I'm still scratching my head as to how this guy got picked to be our candidate.
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. — John Edwards didn't have to dodge tough questions from an Indiana University audience Tuesday, when the former presidential candidate returned to the stage three months after admitting to an extramarital affair.
The Democrat's 30-minute speech covered politics, poverty and his hopes for America and the world and he later discussed President-elect Obama and other topics from the audience.
But the half-hour question-and-answer period featured only written queries that had been submitted before his speech — and the affair he has acknowledged with filmmaker Rielle Hunter didn't surface.
After his public statements in August, Edwards said he did not plan to speak about the affair again.
Sophomore Mariela Colindres told the Indiana Daily Student she thought Edwards was right not to address the affair during the speech.
"Nothing he could have said to make it better, plus it's a personal issue," she said.
Graduate student Kortnee Warner agreed.
"I heard about some of those issues," Warner told the student newspaper. "It happens more than you realize it. I didn't make any character judgments."
So, why is it that the media and these misguided youths didn't ask any tough questions or raise any issues about Edwards' character? At the same time, the same people wouldn't think twice about reminding us about Don Sherwood's affair over 2 years ago. This goes to show that there is no unbias in the media.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
On a personal note, my grandparents were of the WWII era. Both lived in Poland when Hitler invaded their country on September 1, 1939. My grandmother told stories about how she was forced to learn German and live in a quartered off section of Warsaw - to only later be put in a labor camp when she was deemed old enough to work. My grandfather joined the underground army (a resistance faction in Poland during WWII, supported by the British - something that history books don't tell you) strategically building bridges and destroying others. My other grandfather was locked in a concentration camp and had to sleep on a cold, concrete floor. Many people think that it was only the Jews who were locked up and tortured by the Nazis - there were many regular non-Jewish citizens who were also put in prisons, but they were spared the genocide. This doesn't mean that they had it easy. Neither one of my grandparents lost their sense of national pride, despite the fact that two were prisoners in their own home. So how come, 7 years after 9/11, we as Americans have seemed to have lost our sense of national pride? Wasn't our country brutally attacked by fascists? Didn't we feel terrified about our nation's future for a short while?
My grandfather, before he died, taught me what it meant to be an American and taught me about pride in one's country. Although we bicker and argue from both sides of the political spectrum, let us not forget those who protected our right to do so. For if it weren't for the bravery of tens of thousands, hundreds of millions would not enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. This is a value I hope to pass on to my children and grandkids.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Do you really think that the Pennsylvania government is going to use that money for improving drinking water? C'mon people!!! Use your fucking heads and put 2 and 2 together!!!!
The money will not be used to improve drinking water and water/sewer infrastructure. It's going to be used to cover the $400 billion in spending that our esteemed morons in Harrisburg voted on last year (to supposedly improve our roads). Don't you remember last year when the government wanted to toll I-80 to cover this spending??? When this didn't go through, Ed Rendell tried to lease the turnpike. This got shot down, too. Ed Rendell was forcing our state lawmakers to find a way to come up with the money that the state so desperately needed to cover that our legislators spent that they didn't have.
So where did they finally get the $400 billion? A bond issue... and you voted for it!!! Way to go people!
Of course, there's the issue that the democrats will use saying that it will help employment yadda yadda - yeah, but at whose expense? I was totally against the bond issue because by saying no, you're forcing the legislators to look at their own wasteful spending and cut it. There would be enough revenue in the system to pay for road improvements if they used funds appropriated for such improvements (i.e., gas taxes and other consumption taxes) and not blow the money on things we don't need.
Looks like Eddy pulled a fast one on the voters again!!!
...and you let him do it to you. Thanks for bailing out the state.... You gave the state another blank check! I hope you're happy
Oh, and food for thought: where will the state come up with the money to pay the interest on the debt?
Friday, November 7, 2008
Folks, let me tell you something. If it weren't for Sarah Palin, the entire election would have been a landslide in favor of Obama. Prior to Sarah Palin making it on the national scene, I - like many real republicans - didn't take McCain seriously as a candidate. The GOP was not just a joke, it was the punchline. A serious schism occurred because the morons who ruin (I meant run) this party believe that the republican party had to be more centrist.
We were never a centrist party, nor should we ever be. Real republicans like myself are still looking for the next Ronald Reagan, the individual who can effectively communicate that traditional conservative values, a belief in God and country, lower taxes and spending, promotion of individuality, and the belief that America would be a better place is government would stay out of our affairs are exactly what this country needs. Pundits from all over the country were praying that McCain would at least pick a conservative running mate to unify the party. These morons looked to RINOs like Mitt Romney (the most liberal governor in the history of the USA), rather than someone like Huckabee who truly is a conservative. These morons ignored Huckabee as a serious candidate.
These morons also missed the mark when they endorsed McCain as the republican nominee. While being a maverick in DC is a good thing and having a team of mavericks running this country would indeed shake up the beaurocracy and the corruption in DC, the ideal of having a maverick President is not exactly what this country needs at the moment. Voters are not concerned with the corruption and beaurocracy that pollutes our political system. Rather, throughout the campaign, people were concerned about soaring health care costs, the ability to retire comfortably, providing their children with the same or better opportunities they had, higher gas prices, avoiding foreclosure, and national security issues posed by open borders and Islamofascists.
Folks, a maverick isn't going to lower health care costs. A maverick will not resolve a fledgling economy. A maverick will not help someone from losing their home or job. The so-called geniuses behind the McCain campaign missed the mark when they posed McCain as a centrist maverick. None, not even the candidate himself, could effectively translate his experience and cowboy attitude as the solution to America's problems. At the same time, they had to deal with the fact early on in the campaign that not only was this nation split, but so was our party.
So the republican solution was to put McCain - a centrist who resembles nothing what our party is about - as the front man... fucking brilliant (yes, I'm being sarcastic). Back in August, half the people I know who are republicans thought that McCain as our Presidential candidate was a fucking joke and believed that our country was going to belong to the yahoo liberals who want to destroy the very moral fiber that our great nation was founded upon. I was one of them and wasn't going to give either McCain or Obama my vote - I was going to piss it away on a third party candidate like Barr.
Our centrist idiotic party leaders knew that McCain's chances were slim and none then. They realized that they had to get the conservatives behind McCain. These fucking idiots missed the mark again by thinking that the party should still be centrist, screw our conservative values, but ask for their support. McCain kept slipping in the polls. Some pundits had him down past 15 points.
Then one fateful day in September, 8 weeks before the election, I thought that maybe the idiots who are responsible for running the party finally got it. They didn't (as explained further down).
Putting Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate was the best thing that the republicans did in decades. With Palin, we saw a real chance to keep the White House and to re-energize the party. Sarah Palin is a true Reagan conservative, and she energized the base of the party - the majority who are not centrists. She proved through her record that by sticking to your principles, you can get things done and earn the people's respect - something McCain and the GOP party leaders could never do. 91% of the republican voters had a favorable opinion of her. 67% saw her as VERY favorable. Most republican voters viewed her as someone who saved the campaign. A good percentage of the American people (not the liberal media) liked her. If it weren't for Sarah Palin, I would have never voted for or campaigned for McCain.
Now that the election is over and the liberal media is calling it a landslide victory (with Obama winning by 5.61% of the popular vote), the morons who run the party and the stupid assholes who ran the McCain campaign are blaming Sarah Palin for the republican loss this year. They still believe that being centrist is the way to go and disassociate the GOP from the real person to blame - Bush. The party leaders just don't get it. The party leaders are behind the times. 4 years ago would have been the time to be centrist and disassociate themselves from the White House rather than play follow the leader. Now is the time to call for leadership and hope - which is why Obama won the election. Obama also won because during the last 3 weeks of the campaign he swung to the right - and McCain never did. McCain ran on the theme of being experienced and a maverick, but failed to tell the American people how that would solve this nation's problems. Sarah Palin was the only reason why McCain didn't get blown out of the water in this race. She gave McCain the fighting chance he needed.
Sarah Palin served as an inspiration for millions of Americans. I for one have never missed an election since I was old enough to vote. I don't ever recall being as excited to vote as I did the first time I went in a voting booth. I couldn't wait to hit that lever for the McCain Palin ticket. It was also because of Sarah Palin that close friends and family members were inspired to campaign for any candidate for the very first time.
Sarah Palin showed better leadership than McCain throughout the campaign. She, together with Huckabee, are the next hope for the party and this country. Sarah Palin energized the republicans, unified the party, and gave us an esprite de corps that we haven't felt since the Reagan era... and now the party leaders want to chew her up and spit her out rather than embrace her as the next leader of the republican party. These people just don't fucking get it. John McCain didn't have a real shot at the Presidency until Palin became his running mate. John McCain couldn't communicate any other message besides two key phrases: I am a maverick, and I have many years of experience in DC working with both sides of the aisle. Sarah Palin was the one who was energetic, aggressive, and attacked the Obama-Biden ticket, and republicans across the country clung to her every word. They came to her defense when stirred by Cuntie Kourick. She was the more likeable candidate. If the GOP leaders knew what was good for the party, they would stop these shameful blame attacks, humbly apologize, and help prep her for 2012.
I doubt Sarah Palin would ever read this blog, but if I ever had the chance to meet her in person, I would tell her from the bottom of my heart: Thank you.
If you still don't believe me, check this out.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Rahm Emanuel is a liberal pitbut. He's not the guy for the job for someone who promised to govern from the center and change Washington for the better. Here's his record:
- Cosponsored gun-control legislation
- Accepted campaign donations from crooks (particularly those from the Chicago water department)
- 100% pro-choice voting record
- Has a reputation for making ludacris and idiotic comments
- Was fired from his job as a Clinton advisor for overstepping his bounds
- Lobbied for NAFTA, the very agreement the libs claim took American jobs overseas (hypocrite)
- Lobbied for Socialized medicine, particularly the Clinton plan
- He sent a rotting fish to a pollster whom he said sent inaccurate and poorly prepared research to him while working as national campaign director at the DCCC during the late 1980s
The question lingering in the back of many conservatives' minds is: how bad will Obama and the libs fuck up our country? Will he act like a kid in a candy store with our tax dollars? Are the end times near?
...OK there exists more than one question now that the libs will be in control.
The debates will reign between now and Obama's first 100 days. On the one side of the debate among us republicans is that we have much to fear. On the other side is the issue that Obama and the libs - if they want to maintain control of the House, Senate, and the White House - cannot and will not abuse their power to push all their liberal agenda on us.
I don't believe that we should fear an Obama Presidency, but we should indeed be concerned about the future of our country and the direction he wants to take us in. With an Obama Presidency, we can expect higher taxes, a greater risk for another terrorist threat, a series of recessions, and a further divided country.
The last three Presidential elections were really close. This is an indication that the people in our country are divided. The only hope we have is that Obama finds a way to unite us. He's not going to do this with his empty rhetoric (just fewer than 50% of the voters didn't believe his bullshit). His record shows he can't make a decision if his life counted on it (He was in the voting booth Tuesday for 15 minutes - was he looking for the "present" button?). Perhaps he can use his leadership attributes (and I will be the first to admit he has some real leadership qualities - no punchline here - I truly believe that he can lead) to move this country forward, but this can only be done if the country is united. It's a tall order and I have my doubts as to whether he can fill it.
I know there's no talk of the world ending or panic here. Sorry to disappoint you all. I know he won't be the best President in the world. He probably won't be the worst - after all nobody can be as bad as Jimmy Carter.
I expect an Obama Presidency to be one similar to LBJ's: more social programs, higher spending, and a huge push for civil rights.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I picked Carney to beat Hackett under a 10% margin. Carney won by 12.77%
I picked Barletta to beat Kanjorki under a 5% margin. Kanjo won by 3.41%
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
It is a shame that such a large turnout does not occur every election.
Here's another plug for the Mt. Zion Volunteer Fire Company: If you're voting in Exeter Township, please be sure to stop by and by a cup of coffee or soda, or even a hot dog or whimpie or cake - you get the idea.
I took my 3 year old and 1 year old with me to the polls this morning, and someone actually asked me if they voted too. Being the wise ass I am, I told them, "yes, Acorn registered them."
Needless to say, I voted straight republican. Just for kicks - since she had no opposition - I did push the button for Phyllis Mundy as well. I may get some heat from my republican friends for saying this, but I think Phyllis Mundy has done a decent job in representing her constituents. What I like most about her is that she makes herself available to people. That says a lot. She pushed for some measures I supported, including:
- Act 23 (2006), Ounce of Prevention Act: provides grants to voluntary organizations aimed at preventing child abuse.
- 20% discount on malpractice premiums
- Fought against public utility surcharge increases
- Funding to repair the 8th Street bridge
I also voted "nope" for the bond issue.
I for one am proud to be a Pennsylvanian living in God's country. I enjoy my freedom to read the Bible daily, pray to Jesus, and go to church on a Sunday morning. I also enjoy my right to own my Ruger SR9 and a Keltec PF-9 for protection, and a Mossberg 12 gauge for hunting. I am proud to spend autumn afternoons in a tree stand with my PSE bow. I am proud to toss a line in a lake, stream, or river and hope to catch that big one. I am proud to pack a tent, a couple of sleeping bags, and a case of Yuengling in my truck and head off to the woods with my wife and three kids for a weekend camping trip. I am very fortunate to have married into the ultimate dysfunctional family - not just because of the comic relief they provide but because they show unconditional love. I am also lucky that my friends are real people who will help you out in a jam because you've been there for them so many times. I am glad that my neighbors are good people with traditional, conservative values. I am proud to have Lynyrd Skynyrd, Johnny Cash, Charlie Daniels, and Hank Williams Jr. in my music collection. I am also proud to be a small business owner, working hard to put food on my family's table trying to instill traditional values in my kids.
I am a proud American, and I for one take offense to what liberals like Murtha and Obama say about people like me. I know that there are more people like me out there reading this blog who also take offense to what these libs say about real Americans. Obama and Murtha made it clear that they don't like us and that they don't want our votes. I say we stand up and give them exactly what they want: a vote for McCain and Palin.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Imagine that you are a shareholder of a very wealthy and powerful multi-national organization, and you, like all other stockholders, have the opportunity to vote in a new CEO. The company is in a cut-throat industry. You are also an employee of this organization. You also consume the company’s products.
Two people have been nominated.
One is a very experienced businessman with a clear record of 30+ years in management. He is a company man and believes in making decisions that he believes are best for the company as a whole, even if those decisions don’t necessarily sit well with the Board of Directors, executive management, and/or a good percentage of employees. His idea is to break down the beaurocracy that governs the company, so that the company can be run more effectively and so that processes can be more efficient, thereby saving the company money. He ensures that the savings can be passed on to shareholder value, a theory that has been well published and validated by many business scholars.
The other CEO candidate has only been in management for two years. He is a Wharton graduate. Like many leaders, he has charisma, is a great public speaker, and can effectively share and communicate a vision. His management style is custodial, which means that the company’s job is to take care of the employees needs by offering an appropriate level of benefits – no matter what the cost to the company. The only way to offer the benefits that he believes that employees want is to raise prices or to increase the company’s already heavy debt burden. His marketing plan proposes that the marketing executives work with competitors to see how they can collaborate. He also wants to cut executive salaries and raise wages on lower-level workers. Business scholars believe that his policies are detrimental to the long-term health and viability of the company.
Who would you want to lead the company and why?
Part II - added November 4, 2008
As a business scholar, I can say that leadership is a developing trend in many organizations. There are scholarly articles written that state that one doesn't have to be experienced to be a leader, nor does one have to be a manager to be a leader. However, organizations that effectively implement leadership find CEO candidates with many years of business experience and the right leadership attributes to move the organization forward. For example, Jack Welch of GE was chosen to be CEO by his predecessor because he had a reputation for shaking things up, butting heads with executive management, and getting things done for the better. His words were not empty - they were backed by action. Shareholder value, under Welch, increased significantly, and people working for the organization had a sense of company pride.
The second candidate in the above question had only two years experience in management before being considered for the CEO position. I'm sure, that this candidate would be able to rally the "typical company worker" with no company pride or loyalty. Many American workers have no sense of company pride anymore. When you go to work, do you think about how great your job is or how wonderful your company is, or do you worry about where your next paycheck is going or what you're doing for lunch? During your work day, do you think about how fortunate you are to live in the greatest country in the world? Do you have any sense of national pride? My guess is that if you answered no you probably will vote for Obama because you don't really care about the country's future as much as you do about what's best for you now.
What if you elected the second CEO candidate and he indeed cut executive salaries and gave you a raise. Sure, your paycheck would be bigger; but since you consume the company's products your "extra" take home pay will go to pay for the increase in the products you use, making your raise null and void. If the company doesn't increase prices, then the company will have to increase its debt burden and in ten years the company would have to file for bankruptcy - and you'll be on the unemployment line. If Obama is going to take care of you, then expect to either pay more for gas, milk, prescription medication and other goods because there will be a heavier tax burden to help pay for your fair share. If he doesn't raise taxes, then expect to see the Social Security fund to be bankrupt in 10 years.
If you're a high paying executive who makes the strategic decisions that move the company forward and your pay is cut, would you work as hard? Would you care more or less about your job and the company's mission? What would your reaction do for the company as a whole? In the long-run would the company and its people suffer? If you raise taxes on people who worked hard to be successful, what would the impact be on the economy? Think about your own personal finances for a second. When gas prices went through the roof, what did you do? You cut back on items you enjoyed so that you can buy the things you can afford. Raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans who employ other Americans is a bad idea. If their costs go up, they will cut back on other costs, which means layoffs.
There is also the issue of collaborating with your competitors in a cut-throat industry. So you give up your trade secrets or work with your enemies, opening your company up to become more vulnerable.
Under the second CEO choice, you would certainly get more up front, but at what cost? you want benefits now, but you run the risk of losing those benefits and your paycheck by hiring an inexperienced leader who wants to promise you everything under the sun. Vote for Obama and you may get your free health care and a bigger check during tax time, but at what cost? Are you willing to take the risk that you may not have a job to support your family? Are you willing to take the risk that you're going to have to pay more for the things you can barely afford now? Are you willing to take the risk that when you retire you won't have a supplemental retirement check?
Many people vote because they want to elect the person who will do what's best for their interests now. The problem is that voters should consider what's best for the country, both in the short run and long run. When you vote today, think about not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. What you can do for your country is elect a real leader. Someone with experience with a proven track record to shake things up. Someone with a sense of national pride and who can effectively break down government beaurocracy (thereby saving us tax dollars and making our country more prosperous). That leader is clearly John McCain.
Here's the tape.
This asshole is nothing more than another socialist who is trying to destroy America. Together with Obama, these socialists are trying to take away our right to free speech. Obama's campaign and his supporters proved themselves to be nothing less than left wing socialists when they began investigating Joe the Plumber just because a working man asked the Obamessiah a question. How dare he?
Obama reminds me of two great speakers of the 20th century who preached change, got others behind them, and heavily investigated the private lives of individuals who opposed them (often getting their henchmen to put their opponents to death): Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
If you think I fell off the barstool, think about this:
Obama wants the government to run the people, not the people to run the government. It's the liberal way.
Obama and Biden want to take away your guns. Without guns we cannot defend ourselves against criminals or tyranny.
Many Obama supporters promote hatred and racism. The radio talk show host mentioned above is an Obama supporter. Also, take a look at this blog, written by a bunch of black racists.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Posted on Friday, October 17, 2008 5:43:01 PM by Former Farmer
Pressures to be politically correct prohibit considering Barack Obama's Muslim side, or even mentioning his middle name. How Muslim is he? Consider these issues.
1. Born a Muslim. The man who sired the candidate was an African Muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who named his son his own African Muslim name. The name "hussein" is Arabic for "good," and is normally given only to Muslims.
2. A Muslim by Law. Muslim law assigns the faith according to the religion of the father. Since his father was Muslim, by Muslim law and in the eyes of the Muslim world Barack Hussein Obama was and is a Muslim.
3. Raised a Muslim. After his biological father abandoned the family, his mother married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, who moved the family to Indonesia. Little Hussein was was first enrolled in a Catholic school as a Muslim student, then enrolled as a Muslim in a government school. This was not a fanatical madrassa as has been falsely reported. However, Muslim students were required to study Islam, read the Koran and learn Muslim prayers. Hussein Obama himself confirms his Muslim roots, stating in one of his autobiographies, Dreams of My Father, that he got in trouble for cutting up in Koran class. Only Muslims were allowed in Koran class.
4. A Muslim by Profession. Hussein Obama, in an interview with George Stephanopolous, referred to "my Muslim faith." While this may be an unconscious revelation, it might have been a mere gaffe. A man's tongue may slip, but will not slip into fluent Arabic unless he knows Arabic. Hussein Obama recited Muslim the Muslim shahada in perfect Arabic to New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristoff. The shahada is the First Pillar of Islam, the most basic Muslim confession of faith, stating "there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet." This is comparable to the Christian confession of faith, "Jesus is Lord." Very few Christians can, and even fewer would, pray the shahada in perfect Arabic. Obama then called the shahada “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”
5. A Mystery Month in Muslim Culture. As a young man, Hussein Obama traveled to Pakistan. How long he stayed is uncertain: his campaign says three weeks; other sources, several months. What he did or learned or decided during this immersion remains unknown.
6. Mystery Money for Elite Education. After returning from his immersion in that Muslim country, Hussein Obama proceeded to an elite Ivy League education: an undergraduate degree from Columbia, and a law degree from Harvard. The Obama campaign admits that he received no scholarship money from Harvard, but claims he self-funded his education through loans. Hussein Obama himself barred Harvard from releasing any financial records. Why would he ban access to records if they would verify his claim?
7. Endorsed by Foreign America Haters. Hussein Obama has been endorsed by Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and Muammar Qaddafi. Muslim terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah endorse Hussein Obama. Hamas and Hexbollah both are funded by Iran. Hussein Obama has offered to meet without preconditions with Iran's Achmedinajab, who denies the Holocaust and pledges to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Hussein Obama has described Iran as a small nation that is no threat to Israel.
8. Surrounded by Domestic America Haters. The inner circle around Hussein Obama includes the man he said he consulted before making any major decisions, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The worldview of Jeremiah Wright sounds like an ominous echo of Osama bin Laden. Osama said the massive terrorist attack on 9/11 was just American getting back what it had done to others; Jeremiah called it America's chickens coming home to roost. Osama calls America the Great Satan which must be destroyed; Jeremiah calls for God to damn America. How can Hussein Obama repudiate the worldview of one of these soulmates, while he has sat for twenty years under the teaching of one of the other soulmate? Who else do we find close to Hussein Obama? Domestic terrorist Bill Ayers hates America so much he bombed our Capitol. (In fairness to Ayers, we must note that he praised America on one occasion. After being acquited on a technicality, Ayers gushed: "Guilty as Hell, free as a bird. Is this a great country, or what?" ) The only regret Ayers has expressed about his terrorism is that they didn't plant more bombs. Black Muslim potentate Louis Farrakhan has condemned America so often and so severely he needs no citations. Probably the closest to Hussein Obama is his wife Michele, who has called America a mean place and stated she has never been proud of America before her husband's run for the Presidency. Her scowling face shows a hate that one cannot even imagine on the face of a Cindy McCain or a Sarah Palin.
9. Serving 57 states. In another slip of the tongue that could reveal hidden beliefs, or could just be a really stupid statement, Hussein Obama stated that he had campaigned in 57 states. In the fatigue of a long campaign, mistakes are expected and overlooked. A Harvard graduate is probably smarter than a fifth grader, and a fifth grader knows we have 50 states. The intrigue comes from the number 57. Why not 51 or 54 or 72? The number 57 makes sense in one context: all the Muslim nations belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference - all 57 of them.
10. Campaigning in Kenya. While a U.S. Senator, Hussein Obama traveled to Kenya and campaigned for a presidential candidate named Railo Odingo. It was widely reported that Odinga had committed in writing to impose of Muslim law, sharia, and re-write the constitution within six months to conform to the Koran. Whether or not this is true, why was Hussein Obama interfering in the internal politics of a foreign nation? If John McCain campaigned for a partisan candidate in Scotland on the grounds that his ancestors came from there, everyone would see it as almost insane. Some of Hussein Obama's mistakes may be simple goofs (I'll bomb Pakistan) or at worst meaningful slips (my Muslim faith). It requires a conscious, deliberate decision to travel to another continent and interfere in the internal politics of another nation. Either Hussein Obama was supporting a hidden Muslim agenda, or he was showing appallingly bad judgment. Neither belongs in the Oval Office.All these facts are in the public record. Why can they not be considered?
The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows.
In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.
The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear — it is simply listed as “for special purposes” in the group’s IRS tax form.
It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground.
Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network — which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers’ and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society — and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic.
The Woods Fund did not respond to questions about the funding.
When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself “a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students,” it gave to some of the same groups — partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.
It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg’s archived Web site, are “to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing.”
But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge:
“Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us,” one page of the application reads.
Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found the collaborative’s original application when going through Annenberg’s archives.
Asked to comment, Yvonne Williams-Kinnison, executive director of the collaborative’s parent group, the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore said, “I don’t want to put more fuel on the fire. You can call us back after the election…. I don’t want to compromise the position.”
Late Afrocentrist scholars Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard were both invited to give SSAVC teachers a training session, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge noted in a report, adding that the “consciousness raising session … received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey session.”
But Carruthers has been a controversial figure because of inflammatory statements he made in writing.
“The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy,” Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, “Intellectual Warfare.” “Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.”
In the book, he compared the process of blacks assimilating into American culture with rape.
“We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist,” Carruthers said.
Hilliard has come under fire for advocating what many consider an extreme Afrocentric curriculum.
He selected the articles for the “African-American Baseline Essays” published in 1987 and first used in the Portland, Ore., school district. The essays have been criticized for claiming, among other things, that ancient Egyptians were the first to discover manned flight and the theory of evolution.
An Obama spokesman called investigation of these ties “pathetic.”
“This is another pathetic attempt by FOX News to distract voters from the economic challenges facing this nation by patching together tenuous links to smear Barack Obama,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.
“The Annenberg Challenge was a bipartisan organization dedicated to improving the performance of students and teachers in Chicago Public Schools that was funded by a Republican philanthropist who was friends with President Reagan and launched by Republican Gov. Jim Edgar.”
But Kurtz says those founders of the Annenberg Challenge would not have known the details about to whom their Chicago office — one of 18 around the country — was giving money.
“If you read Ayers’ proposal to Annenberg, it doesn’t sound radical. But if you actually read Ayers’ education writings, they are very radical indeed,” Kurtz said. “Ayers, like so many other savvy professors, knows enough not to state his actual views frankly when applying for money. But you can find the truth in his writings.”
The controversial donations make up only a small portion of the overall amount doled out by the Annenberg and Woods funds. The Woods Fund gave over $3.5 million to 115 different groups in 2001, and the Annenberg Chellenge dispensed nearly $11 million to 63 groups at its height in 1999.
Most of the groups are mainstream and well respected, ranging from the Jazz Institute of Chicago to the Successful Schools Project.
But Kurtz says that this should not obscure what he describes as controversial donations.
“If John McCain had given to white supremacist groups and people said, ‘Hey, the majority of funding didn’t go to supremacist groups’ — that wouldn’t even cut the ice,” Kurtz said.
“I feel certain [Obama] knew about these radical groups,” Kurtz said. “We know that he read the applications because he made statements about the quality of proposals.”Source: FOX News
Friday, October 31, 2008
Chris Hackett somehow seemed to continually get under Carney's skin. Carney often seemed a more than just a little irritated while answering questions and providing rebuttles. I give credit to Carney for being to still stand up and throw a few good punches of his own, though.
I cannot and will not call the entire debate a complete slaughter of Carney, as Chris Carney did have his good moments and had many opportunities to throw a few punches. Carney won the arguments around earmarks and the overall political process. It wasn't his experience as a freshman Congressman, though. Don't forget that Chris Carney was a professor of political science at several good universities. Someone in Hackett's campaign must have forgotten to bring that up to him. As a result, Carney danced around Hackett when it came to these issues. Hackett's campaign should have prepped him better in these areas or advise him to stay away from them altogether.
Outside the arguments surrounding political processes and the attacks on Hackett's tax liens, Carney clearly was getting beaten down in this debate. Here's how:
Hackett clearly won the arguments stemming around economics. As an MBA, he has a clear understanding of textbook economics and its real world application. It should be no surprise to anyone that someone with these credentials could stand his/her own ground in this realm.
Hackett threw some strong punches that made Carney look like a liberal when Carney tried to defend himself, especially when exposing Carney's records on earmark spending. Even though Hackett didn't win the earmark argument, he did indeed paint a picture that Carney enjoys wasting our tax dollars in areas such as "a race horse farm in Kentucky" and "salmon fishermen in San Francisco" - Carney admitted in the debate that he will continue to vote yes on earmark spending. As a side note, Carney, if you like to throw around our tax dollars why didn't you throw some in your home district's way? Several million went to his home district in Iowa but not a penny went to the 10th CD of PA.
Carney's fatal mistake that the Hackett campaign should take advantage of and go aggressively on is that of how Carney thinks we should resolve the the social security crisis (that within 10 years there will be 3 working people for every person receiving social security). Carney clearly stated that "we should put people back to work." The Social Security issue above is a direct result of the retirement of baby boomers. Is he insisting that retired people go back to work and that baby boomers don't retire (or if retired go back to work) so that we can preserve social security? Way to go Carney!!!
Holy Shit. If I were running against Carney I would have been all over that statement last night and dig a 6 foot hole for the Carney campaign. Then, I'd follow up with aggressive advertising to put the nail in the coffin. For the 5 people that watched this debate, I hope that they decided to vote against Carney.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Uncle Paul, however, had a central theme: "I did many things in the last 22 years. Anything good that came out of Congress was solely my idea. I deserve credit for all the good ideas. But for all the bad things that came out of Congress I had nothing to do with any of it."
The high point of the debate was when Uncle Paul also showed off his illustrious ignorance (and I'm paraphrasing here): I am Paul Kanjorski. I've been in Congress for so long that I have my own stall in the men's room and my but cheeks left a permanent mark on my seat. I can do whatever I want, get whatever I want, and give you whatever I want because I have been around for so long. If you're not aware of how Congress works, I'll tell you. It works on seniority. Even if you think you don't want these things, I know better than you and I know you want me to continue to provide you with all the goodies like an inflatable woman (I mean damn), wasteful project spending like we see at the cesspool (Susquehanna waterfront), and a choo-choo train to New York City (of course I'm only blowing smoke here). Lou Barletta won't be able to get you any of these things as a freshman Congressman.
Paul Kanjorski is out of touch and he has to go. Initially, I wasn't crazy about Lou Barletta and I still think he'll be a puppet in Congress (to be re-elected he will have to be one for a while), but Lou proved to show himself to be somewhat of a quick learner last night impressing upon me that he knows more about what's going on on the Federal level than just the problems caused by lack of illegal alien reform. After watching last night's debate, I feel more comfortable with Lou as a representative for the 11th District.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I admit I was trying not to get to excited about the series and I expected the Phillies to somehow find a way to lose but am happy to see the Philadelphia Phillies win a pennant in (correct me if I'm wrong) 25 years. Thanks to Gort, I am now corrected to restate that the Phillies haven't won in 28 years.
My favorite flip flop is when he tried to convince the American people that he will not make a perversion of our military. He tried to make himself sound tough against terrorism. Mr. Obama, inviting Ahmenidajad, Putin, and Ill for a coffee table talk is not being tough on terrorism.
Kanjorski will lose to Barletta by 8-13%. Uncle Paul made a series of errors in his campaign, including waiting too late to get aggressive, going over-aggressive, and failing to show up at key appearances. Barletta's been busting his rear end being out in public and is gaining ground. The only chance Kanjo has is if the voters in the 11th push the "D" button like they did in the last 2 Congressional elections (A number of local voters called in the Sue Henry show admitting that they forgot that they wanted a republican but were just too accustomed to hitting the D button).
Carney will beat Hackett under a 10% margin. Hackett's campaign in the general, much like the republican primary races in the 10th, was just a disgrace. He just didn't run a strong enough campaign.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Foreclosures are going through the roof. People losing their jobs in this economy. Energy costs are soaring. The list of problems that we as American face is endless, but these are just as few.
The credit crisis is causing our market and economy to go down the toilet, and all we got so far were bandaid solutions and bandaid proposals. Real working solutions that would appease the masses afflicted, DC libs, and the media will come if a liberal is elected into the White House and a liberal majority is attained on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, the real proposal will be of a socialist nature.
While nobody on the Hill or from the Obama camp are discussing this solution, it isn't far fetched to see what they will come up with to control the American population (oops, I meant help what's left of the middle class), solve the credit crisis, attempt to control energy costs, and allow people who are in threat of foreclosure (because they bought houses they couldn't afford) to keep their homes. Here's what they will come up with:
Legislation will be introduced and passed that will allow the federal government to buy the distressed properties and allow those who bought the houses that they had no business buying to remain in their homes by issuing new favorable terms.
Doesn't sound bad? Look at the specifics of the plan when it comes out:
- The federal government buys your home and pays off your mortgage. In exchange, you sign a lease-to-own agreement. To make this attractive, the government will probably lower your payment by 50% but stretch the length of payment to 60+ years. Desperate homeowners about to lose their houses would probably bite hook, line, and sinker
- The government will mandate that you make certain improvements to your dwelling to make your house more energy efficient.
- The government will also mandate the energy consumption of your home. In other words, the government will tell you how much in utilities you're allowed to consume. If you go over that amount, you'll be fined.