Why Vote for McCain?

Why Vote for McCain?

I don’t like John McCain. He isn’t conservative and he is wrong on so many issues. Those that support him say that he is the only republican that can beat Hillary or Obama. I wonder where that idea comes from. Who will support him against the democrats? If one had to vote for John or Hillary, who do you pick? What a horrible position to be in. That is the dream choice of leftist and socialists. The liberals would love to put conservatives in a position of choosing between the lesser of two evils. They forced that with Al Gore. Vote for Bush or you get a lunatic environmentalist moron. So Pres. Bush won. Conservatives don’t like McCain but liberals and “moderates” like him. Liberals and the press will push McCain and call him a hero and the front runner but who will they tout in the general election? Will they want a moderate socialist like McCain or a leftist socialist like Obama? They will just keep pushing left and select the biggest government candidate they can get. McCain will be their second choice.

If McCain does well then my ideas lose either way. I won’t vote him over Hillary. I don’t want him and I won’t run up his vote numbers to make it looks like he has some support. I am not voting against someone like Obama just because McCain is just a little better.

People that think McCain is a good candidate listen to MSM too much. They hold him up now and make it look like he has momentum and potential to win but they will dump him when put up against a democrat. For example, the New York Times endorsed John McCain. Will they endorse him over Hillary? No way. So what does their endorsement mean? It means that they want McCain to run against her so she can win. That defines him as the worst candidate to run against her, not the best. The idea that he is the only one to beat Obama or Hillary is completely backwards. With McCain conservatives will lose whether he becomes president or not.

global warming: reason for population control

Taxes on people to support the environment.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_11_031207/wal10921_fm.html

This is a scary article. Some people believe in their cause so fervently that they are willing to enforce it on others. Very much like medieval muslims spreading their religion by the sword, these doctors and scientists aren't concerned about your beliefs. Or like 19th century arrogant philosophers and utopians spreading false ideology of socialism, they think they are smart enough to control everyone. This is how it starts but where does it lead??

Of course, they deserve to make the rules because they are smarter than you are. And if their plan fails then the cause is only that they weren't given enough control over your life to make you do what was best for yourself and everyone else.

We have seen the results of this thinking before. Some obvious examples? Hitler - 10 million dead. Stalin - 20 million dead. Mao - 30 to 45 million dead (but who's counting, there are still too many Chinese people)

I remember hearing about population control when I was young. I was glad that it went away, for a while anyway. The scare-mongers thought everyone would starve to death if more babies were born. The population was going to explode! But they were wrong and people found ways to make more food than we could ever eat. So they are trying a new tactic: Go Green! Don't breath, don't eat, don't breed. Or everyone will die and you will be responsible. If you can't control yourself then we will make you pay. If that doesn't work, then we will begin "selective reduction" of the worst offenders, and maybe some people that just don't contribute to society anyway. If you don't have skills and abilities that can contribute to the solution then you are just a parasitic free-loader draining the earth's dwindling resources.

These ideas have been wrong for a hundred years and that hasn't changed. They have no right to control people, especially how many children one has. That is a basic human right. All people are children of God and should be treated with respect. To play with them as cattle is horrific. We can always use more people and we will always find better ways to clothe and feed them.

No updates

My job has kept me swamped. No energy or time to write. It may be a few more weeks

Oil Conspiracy - price fixing revealed

Powerful groups are working against America. Powermongers and lobbyists have conspired to push up oil prices. They have schemed to prevent new oil from coming to market. They have rallied around oil industry chokepoints and hindered all attempts to build new refineries. They have isolated oil rich areas, keeping them hidden and undeveloped in order to increase power of foreign oil.

But you can fight back against this dark mob.

Vote them out of Congress and elect people who understand economics

FICA Tax

I am sure you have looked at your paycheck and seen a large sum of money taken out as FICA tax. Ever wonder where it goes? Into the lockbox? Ever try to get it back on tax return? I haven't complained about socialism for a few posts so here it is. Social Security and Medicare are a scam. If this money was invested by the owners then they could all retire on their own. Instead it is stolen and then wasted.

-Michael


Comments and article sent to me from a friend.......

Missing from all of this is the concept that all Ponzi schemes mathematically fail given enough time. That is why they are illegal to set up and execute, unless of course you're the government. Then it's called a "program".
The term "trust fund" is also a misnomer, as it implies that there is money sitting in the fund with your name on it. Not until the very last sentence does the real picture begin to emerge - the "trust fund" is nothing more than a stack of government IOU's.
Anyone ever see the movie "Dumb and Dumber"? They found a suitcase full of cash, spent it and filled the suitcase with slips of paper that said IOU $XXX? The crook came back to get his money, and when he had them at gunpoint, the idiots explained, "All the money is there. These slips of paper are as good as money. See, this slip of paper is worth $250,000. You might want to hang onto that one."
It was funny because no one in their right mind would actually believe those slips of paper were money, even though the two idiots in the movie thought they were accounting for it all. But the government can make good in its IOU's. The problem is that when it does so, it hurts the economy either by inflating existing currency, or stealing wealth from the private sector, or both.
To raise the actual cash, the government must:
(1) Print more money - which is just another tax that depreciates the value of already existing dollars, but don't expect the report to say that.
(2) Raise taxes - self explanatory
(3) Cut spending - no necessarily "in other programs". Likely they'll legislate that payouts are less but are distributed over a longer time, though they can't also legislate that you live X years longer.
Most likely a combination of all three will be done. The Feds will also print more money since this is a proven method of bamboozling more money from the public without their knowledge. They will also raise taxes, and likely will cut spending from the program itself as described above.
And oh yeah - the Supreme Court has already ruled that you have no actual claim to this money. Kind of redefines the concept of a "trust fund". The money isn't really there, and it isn't really yours anyway. Ladies and gentlemen, this is "our social safety net".


Social Security, Medicare Trust Funds Sink

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer 57 minutes ago
The trust fund for Social Security will be depleted in 2040, a year before expected, and Medicare will exhaust its trust fund reserves just 12 years from now, trustees for the programs said Monday.
Their annual report showed deterioration in the financial condition of both of the government's two largest benefit programs.
A year ago, the depletion of the Social Security trust fund had been projected to occur in 2041 and the Medicare hospital insurance fund in 2020.
The trustees, who include the head of the Social Security Administration and three members of President Bush's Cabinet, painted a sober assessment of the health of the two programs in advance of the looming retirements of 78 million baby boomers.
"We do not believe the currently projected long-run growth rates of Social Security or Medicare are sustainable under current financing arrangements," the trustees said in this year's report.
Bush's efforts last year to overhaul Social Security went nowhere in Congress. Even members of his own party refused to support the benefit cuts that would have accompanied the establishment of private accounts for younger workers.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, who is the chairman of the trustees' panel, told a news conference that the country faced a "looming fiscal crisis as the baby boom generation moves into retirement." He said the administration stood ready to work with Congress to come up with a solution.
"The serious concerns raised by the trustees' reports demand the attention of America's policymakers and the public," Snow said.
Bush, facing bleak prospects for winning approval for any changes in an election year, called in his State of the Union address for creation of a bipartisan panel to study the issue and come up with recommendations, just the latest in a number of commissions that have examined the programs.
While the depletion of the reserves built up over past years is projected to occur in just 12 years for Medicare and 34 years for Social Security, both programs will face financing issues much sooner at the point that the amount paid out each year exceeds the amount the government collects to fund them.
For Medicare, that occurred for the year of 2004. However, the program is projected to be in the black again before crossing over to paying out more than it takes in again.
For Social Security, the point at which the program will pay out more in benefits than it takes in will occur in 2017, the trustees projected, the same as in last year's report.
The trust funds contain the equivalent of government IOUs. To raise the actual cash to meet obligations, the government must either borrow more money from the public by issuing marketable Treasury securities, raise taxes or cut spending in other programs.
___
Social Security: http://www.socialsecurity.gov
Medicare: http://www.cms.hhs.gov

Gas Price Investigation

Terry Goddard wants to begin investigation into high prices and gouging. Silly man, there is no suh thing as gouging. Price controls mean shortages. If something is cheap than people buy a lot. The cause of shortages is bad legislation. Poor government has created the problem. More ill government will not solve it.

Great column on opinionjournal.com about prices and the messed up republicans
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008286

We need to reduce gas taxes, open more drilling and build more refineries and eliminate the EPA to get rid of high prices.

Phoney AIDS crisis

You may have heard about an AIDS crisis in Africa. Like global warming it is not true

links in the article from aim.org

Steyn on nukes

Iranian president is a nut - or is it just me?

Mark Steyn wrote great column on Iranian nuclear strategy.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html
Back when nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, your average Western progressive was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute. The mushroom cloud was one of the most familiar images in the culture, a recurring feature of novels and album covers and movie posters. There were bestselling dystopian picture books for children, in which the handful of survivors spent their last days walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now a state openly committed to the annihilation of a neighboring nation has nukes, and we shrug: Can’t be helped. Just the way things are. One hears sophisticated arguments that perhaps the best thing is to let everyone get ’em, and then no one will use them. And if Iran’s head of state happens to threaten to wipe Israel off the map, we should understand that this is a rhetorical stylistic device that’s part of the Persian oral narrative tradition, and it would be a grossly Eurocentric misinterpretation to take it literally.

Kill him already

It is an embarassment and a violation of justice that Moussaoui hasn't been hung yet. He is an evil murderer. We have an obligation to kill him. It is a legal, Christian, patriotic, and humane duty.

Politics and blogs

FEC ruled that blogs will not be subject to all campaign laws. Aren't they kind to allow people to write what they want? Even if it contains political messages or endorsements they will only be restricted in terms of disclosure of finances. Ad payment will have to be dislosed, for example. Sen. McCain should be run out of the country for this violation of rights called Campaign Finance Reform. Maybe we should revive the practice of burning in effigy. What a slime. And of course he excluded the Indian Gambling where he gets millions of dollars.
But my real question is why? Why don't they regulate internet content? Some people want to. I am sure McCain will come up with a new law and the President will sign it. I think I know why they back away from trying to control political speech on the internet - because they can't. No one will care or listen. No one would obey such a stupid law. And you can't have mass violation of the rulings of government or the power of government would be undermined. They would rather back down and maintain illusion of supremacy.

May Day

Of course the illegal immigrants would plan a big march for May 1st. Because they are fools misled by communists and socialists.

Religious schools

From comments: The only alternatives are either private or home schooling. Private schools can be cost prohibitive for many families or depending on the community, the majority of the private schools can be of a different faith, which can be uncomfortable for some people. I don't know that I would send my kids to a Catholic or Baptist (or whatever) private school. I don't like home schooling either. So what is a parent like me to do?


See the problem? If someone isn't Catholic then they are not comfortable with idea of sending their kids to a catholic private school. Why then is it okay to send them to school where they are told there is no God? Maybe the obvious contrast is easier to correct and teach than the confusion of slightly different doctrines among churches. My children are young and mostly focused on basics like grammar and multiplication but even now there are getting reading assignments to test their comprehension that include political/moral statements. One involved a thief running away from the scene. Multiple choice answers led reader to conclude that you shouldn’t get involved and let the police handle it. That’s garbage. Another involved global warming and how people are destroying the world. My kids don’t believe that because I have taught them better. Another incident with a cousin: teacher contradicted student who stated belief that Adam and Eve were first people on the earth. It starts early. It can be corrected but why do we allow it to happen? They should be reinforcing Sunday school not opposing it. Education cannot be separated from religious teaching. All the real lessons are the moral ones. Why shouldn’t they cheat on tests? Why shouldn’t the biggest kid be first in line? Why sit quietly and respect the teacher?

What don’t you like about home schooling? Private schools don’t have to be expensive. If people could get their tax money back that goes to schools they could use that to pay tuition.

illegal immigration marches

Seeing marches of people waving Mexican flags and demanding so-called “rights” angers me. Did they learn this socialist garbage from the French riots?

Arizona legislature is considering resolution to make English official language of Arizona. I don't think this is a new law, just a resolution stating purpose and opinion. I didn’t think much of it at first. I would generally agree with critics that these things are a waste of time. All the recent marches show that such action is needed. All these illegals marching in the streets waving Mexican flags is just wrong. They should be rounded up and driven to the border. All the kids ditching school can have fun explaining that to their parents. "mom, can you come pick me up?"

The Arizona taxpayers have no responsibility to teach people English. People should pay for such services. I definitely don't want my property taxes going to school classes to teach such things. One more reason to have each parent right a check for their student's school tuition. If they want to pay someone to teach their children English that would be great.


Some might think it strange but I am in favor of guest worker programs. I think people should be allowed to come here to work. I have no problem with that. It helps everyone. Work is good. Socialist welfare is not.


Part II

The marches will gain nothing except the wrath of working Americans who don't really begrudge illegal immigrants as long as they do what they came here for: Work. Marching in the street for non-existent rights will back-fire.

Congress may notice large crowds now because they put on a show but they will get another message come election time from the millions who are too busy to march for their cause but will take the time to vote later. Elections will go against those who make concessions to non-voters. Illegal aliens shouldn't be surprised at being treated like "second-class citizens". They aren't even that. They are criminals.

What is all talk of immigration reform to protect immigrants rights? They have human rights because they are human but they don't have civil rights because they are illegal aliens. You can't kill them because that violates Christian principles but you can deport them. They can claim rights like those described in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty and Property. But they don't have civil rights desccribed in Constitution because they are not citizens.



p.s. I am opposed to line item vetos

more on labor unions

Interesting article on unions. It is another in a series from Paul Weyrich trying to plot out strategy of next conservativism. He separates labor from union and says that we need to work with labor to help them keep good jobs with out sending union dues to causes that damage them.
here

Lead in to war

I am a better reader than a writer. I don’t think I can finish the essay I wanted to write on slavery. But I will tell you the theme and you can read some of the material below to see if you agree.

Slavery is bad. The founders of the country realized this and struggled with it. But something so pervasive in one region is hard to get rid of. Slavery was part of the debate in Constitutional convention. Several compromises were added. The goal was to limit the power of slave states and to contain the practice. They did not successfully solve the problem but instead decided it was best to have a country and get rid of slavery later rather than have slavery and no country. It was debated from day one but not fixed. They only succeeded in delaying the fight for generations.

As soon as was allowed by the new Constitution the Atlantic slave trade was stopped in 1808. There was a self-sustaining population of slaves, however. Slavery was abolished in the northern states and in the northwest territories. Problems were created as vast new territories were added to the US possessions. Each required a new compromise as to how slave issue was to be handled. Louisiana Purchase, Texas and California, later New Mexico and Utah Territories. As the population grew and spread new states were added to the union. Balance was maintained with various agreements so that national abolition laws could not be forced on states that allowed slaves. Missouri Compromise of 1820 seemed a good attempt at this. A north/south line was established but needed to be extended because of western expansion. It seems talking and compromise worked until about 1854 when Stephen Douglas tried to get the planed railroad connected from California to Chicago instead of St. Louis. He also wanted to be President. It was a bad idea with too much given up to slave owners. Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed Compromise of 1820 and created confusion as to future of slavery. Containment was destroyed and talks broke down. In theory, all open territories could have slaves.

Dred Scott case was finally decided in 1857 and was another blow to peace because the court gave opinion that not only was a slave not free just because owner had resided in a free state for years. Plus they added a few things. They wrote that slaves were not citizens and descendants of slaves could never be citizens. As non-citizens they had no right to bring suits to court. They declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. (Second time that ever happened, I read.) They basically said that all laws restricting slavery were not allowed. Slavery should be allowed everywhere. This got people upset of course. This is similar to the so called right to privacy. They just made it up.

Lincoln countered Douglas in his 1854 speech. Good speech, I will include a link below. Basically the fighting didn’t stop after 1854 and led right into the War Between the States. Bleeding Kansas, attack on Sumner in the Senate etc. With all this I'm not sure why the first shot is considered to be fired at Fort Sumpter in 1861. But after reading his speeches I can see why the slave states were so opposed to a Lincoln presidency.



These are some of the better websites I read. Not all are that great but you should read Lincoln’s speech about Kansas.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=51

In no particular order
Bleeding Kansas http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/Kansas/
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
Rise of republican party http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/biography6text.html
Dred Scott http://www.gdg.org/Research/Causes/causes5.html
dissenting opinions http://www.hrcr.org/docs/US_Constitution/dscott4.html
impact of Dred Scott http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html african in america
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html dred scott
http://www.mce.k12tn.net/civil_war/compromise_of_1850.htm
http://www.mce.k12tn.net/civil_war/kansasnebraska_act.htm
http://mattstodayinhistory.blogspot.com/
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/slavery.html
http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/2Slavery/SlaveryLevelOne.htm
http://members.aol.com/digasa/dubois.htm war to preserve slavery

Immigration Law needs reform

Marches in support of immigration lately in LA and Phoenix are crazy. How can anyone support illegal aliens? What a stupid idea. And why was the march targeted at Senator Kyl? I wonder if it has anything to do with the senator’s re-election this fall? He is a much better leader than McCain. Why didn’t they march on him? I might have joined them. This is a political ploy to get the opposition excited about the election. And make the republicans waste a bunch of money on the campaign to keep him in office. They can’t beat Kyl because he does a good job but they can force spending millions here in strategic move for other elections.

We need to improve security at the border. My vote is to close the border. Here is what needs to be done to solve this problem. For a start anyway…

1. Eliminate social programs that bait people into entering the US
2. Make entering the US illegally a felony
3. Add a worker program
4. Revise 14th Amendment so that children of aliens and tourists are not automatically US citizens. The slavery question that this clause addressed is long past. Should read “All persons born to citizens or those naturalized in the United States….”

Missouri Compromise

I sent the following question to History According to Bob. Hopefully he will respond in his podcast (which I highly recommend).


I have a question about the Missouri Compromise and later actions taken to repeal it.

I read in the Dred Scott decision (1857) that Justice Taney declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Odd that, and wasn't it already repealed because of the Kansas- Nebraska Act (1854)? And the Compromise of 1850 appears to negate most of the 1820 Compromise. The deal struck in 1820 seems the best of them to me. Situations change but why go back and destroy what seemed a good idea? Doesn't seem like the best compromise is to throw out all the last compromises that have kept the peace.

Do you have a podcast on this or book to suggest on the topic?

Government schools not religiously neutral

Should government education continue? Is government education beneficial? Is government education allowed according to powers granted to government in Constitution?
Education is good. Everyone agrees on that. Quote from Washington:

"Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions
for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the
structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is
essential that public opinion should be enlightened. "

-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)

I know some people think these organizations are crazy but I agree with stance taken by ExodusMandate.org on education. They say Christians have mandate to leave government schools. They refute argument that children need to be an example to the world. That is more the job of the adults.

Be a light? Salt of the earth? Yes, but only in cases where the children are not in danger. The Christians sending their children to government school are assuming the education they receive is religiously neutral. Something along the lines of the Freedom of Religion or "Let all worship according to the dictates of their own conscience". Government school is not religiously neutral. It is godless, humanistic, pagan by design. Most children not yet ready for that environment and that challenge. Would the same parents send their children to Jehovah’s Witness or Unitarian Sunday school for their religious teaching? That would be spiritually forbidden and morally irresponsible.

Socialism makes people worse

Ah, the French.
They are a like a crystal ball, letting us see our future if we try to act like them. What a disaster. They are rioting again because the country is falling apart and someone expects them to work. Economic cannabalism. They believe the myth that they can all support themselves off the labor of others. Legal plunder gone mad where everyone spends the whole day stealing from others pockets.
Go get a job!

Okay, that is my rant. Inspired by Dennis Prager's latest writings about the riots over at Real Clear Politics. (thanks Ross)

And it is time again for a plug of the greatest book written about socialism, from a frenchman no less, "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. It is short - Read it.

And now I will accept submission of French Jokes.

such as......
(from purepolitics.com)



Why did the French Army cross the road?
The road just happen to be in the path of their retreat.

What do you call a french woman who sleeps with every man she meets?
Married.

And why are French streets tree lined?
So the Germans can march in the shade.

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
No one knows. It's never been tried.

What do you call 100,000 Frenchmen with their hands up?
The army.

How many gears does a French tank have?
Five, four in reverse and one forward (in case of attack from behind).

How do you identify a French soldier?
Sunburned armpits

What do you call someone in France taking a bath?
A tourist

FOR SALE: French rifles . . . never fired, only dropped once.




p.s. another good one about french youth from Investor Bus. Daily
I had to add this because I love the last line comparing French and American systems:

Why the big difference? The U.S. system is based on the realities of economics, not the delusions of socialist policymakers who dream up nonexistent rights and believe that labor and risk should not be required to achieve comfort and security.

Amen

Katrina and gun control

Good articles on NCPA on Katrina and unlawful gun control during that time of crisis. Ask you lawmakers to protect your rights so they don't try this again during the next emergency.

http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/dpdarticle.php?article_id=3064

"New Orleans was the first city in American history to disarm peaceable American citizens door to door at gunpoint, says NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, and it must be the last."