Sunday, October 31, 2010

The Importance of One Vote

(Matthew 22:21) "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."  Tuesday we have a very important election.  I was thinking about what Jesus said concerning rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesars such as taxes, our service to the community, and to the military (if called upon), etc.  One of the privileges we have as Americans is the privilege to vote.  I recognize in the age in which we live both political parties are very disconnected from the average American.  They're in it for themselves.  I recognize it has come to a point it doesn't make much difference who you vote for because America's headed in the direction towards communism.  However, the right to vote is a God-given privilege in America.  It's our civic duty.  We have a responsibility to cast our votes for the direction we would like to see America go.  Regardless whether we're voting for candidates or ballot initiatives, we need to take the time to exercise our right to vote this Tuesday, November 2.  I found on a website a list of cases where one vote made the difference.  Many of us feel that our votes don't count because we're one vote in a sea of millions.  However, all votes do count and they could make a difference between a candidate being elected or defeated.  History has been made in cases where one vote made the difference.  History is replete of instances proving the enormous power of one single vote.  I'll list a few of the cases where just one vote made an incredible impact.

1.  In 1645, one vote gave Oliver Cromwell control of England.

2.  In 1649, one vote literally cost King Charles I of England his head.  The vote to behead him was 67 against and 68 for--the ax fell thanks to one vote. 

3.  In 1776, one vote gave America the English language instead of German (at least according to folk lore.)

4.  In 1800, the electoral college met in the respective states to cast their two votes for President.  At that time, the U.S. Constitution provided the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would become President and the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes would become Vice President.  When the results of the electoral college votes were opened by both houses of Congress, there was a tie vote for President between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.  That threw the election of President into the House of Representatives where Thomas Jefferson was elected our third president by a one vote margin. 

5.  In 1824, none of the four presidential candidates received an electoral majority.  The election was again thrown into the House of Representatives, where John Quincy Adams defeated front runner Andrew Jackson by one vote to become the nation's sixth president.  Andrew Jackson received the majority of the nation's popular vote. 

6.  In 1845, Texas was admitted to the union as a state by one vote--that of Edward A. Hannigan from Indiana.  The 1844 and 1845 excerpts on the series of single votes leading to Texas statehood are from the book, Magnificent Destiny.

7. In 1846, a one vote margin in the U.S. Senate approved President Polk's request for a Declaration of War against Mexico.

8.  In 1850, California was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote.

9.  In 1859, Oregon was admitted to the union by a margin of one vote. 

10.  The Alaska Purchase of 1867 was ratified by just one vote--paving the way for the eventual annexation of America's largest state in 1958.

11.  In 1868, one vote in the U.S. Senate saved President Andrew Johnson from being removed from office.

12.  In 1875, a one vote margin changed France from a monarchy to a republic. 

13.  In 1875, Florida's U.S. Senators were still elected by the state Legislature.  Democrat Charles W. Jones of Pensacola was elected by the U.S. Senate by a majority of one vote.

14.  In 1941, the Selective Service Act (the draft) was saved by a one vote margin--just weeks before Pearl Harbor was attacked.

15.  In 1948, if Thomas E. Dewey had gotten one vote more per precinct in Ohio and California, the presidential election would have been thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives where Dewey enjoyed more support than his rival--incumbent Harry Truman.  As it was, Dewey was expected to win the general election by a landslide so most Republicans stayed home.  Only 51.5 percent of the electorate voted.  Truman defeated Dewey.

16.  In the 1960 presidential election, an additional one vote per precinct in Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Texas may have altered the course of America's modern history by denying John F. Kennedy the presidency and placing Richard Nixon in the White House eight years earlier. 

17.  In 1994, the U.S. House of Representatives enacted a law banning specific classes of assault weapons.  The vote was initially tied but one member changed his vote to approve the ban.

18.  Bills proposing amendment to the U.S. Constitution require a 2/3's vote of each House in order to be approved.  When the balanced budget amendment bill came before the U.S. Senate in March, 1995, the measure failed by one vote--Mark Hatfield, Republican from Oregon, was the sole Republican failing to vote with other members of the Republican Party which was the majority party of the U.S. Senators.  When it became apparent the measure would fail, Senate Republican Majority Leader Bob Dole changed his vote to enable him to bring the matter back up under parliamentary rules for a vote in the future.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Allegations of Voting Fraud

YouTube - Nevada voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid's name; voting machine techs are SEIU thugs

(Fox News) Suppose you are touching the screen in the voting booth and as you're supposedly voting for the candidate of your choice, the opposing candidate pops up as your choice.  That's what some voters claim has been happening in North Carolina, and now the North Carolina Republican Party is suing the State Board of Elections.  According to the complaint filed by the state party, when people cast straight line votes for Republicans, the computer screen show votes for Democrats.  "Their votes were not being properly counted," says Republican state party chairman Tom Fetzer.  He says they've gotten complaints from voters in several counties and charges voters are not being protected.  "We're going into federal court today to ask a judge to protect these citizens--Democrats, Republicans, independents, all--so that they can have a high confidence level that their votes are being recorded accurately.  The whole foundation of our election process depends upon people having confidence that the election process is accurate," he says.

However, the deputy director of the State Board of Elections, Johnnie McIean, says that the computers cannot be programmed to pick Democrats, and that some Democrats have even complained that their screens show they chose Republicans.  McIean says there is no evidence to indicate that wrong votes, either Republican or Democrat, were actually counted.  "We have had some reports to polling workers, these were corrected," McIean told Fox News.  "They were isolated instances but seem to have multiplied...There is no hard evidence voters were not able to cast their vote as intended.  The voters were able to correct the selection.  They may be inconvenienced, but they are not disenfranchised." 

Meanwhile, in Bucks County, Pa., the Board of Elections has decided to sequester 20,000 absentee ballots and ballot applications after allegations of potential voter fraud have surfaced there.  The board has tossed out nearly 900 absentee ballot applications so far, with the majority rejected because of problems with voters' signatures.  Often when signatures do not match records, experts say, that can be one sign of potential voter fraud.  The Republicans are pointing the finger at the Democrats, and the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of trying to suppress the vote.

This past Tuesday, there was a county in Nevada in which the voting machines were automatically checking Harry Reid's name.  I was listening to Fox News last night about this situation and one of the guests on "Hannity" claims he doesn't think that incident was voter fraud as much as there was a problem with the voting machine.  I can't say for sure whether there was voting fraud or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is---especially in states where the Senate races are neck-and-neck such as Nevada, Illinois, and Colorado, to name a few.  I wouldn't be surprised if SEIU thugs are trying to manipulate this election.  Only time will tell, but nothing would surprise me.  SEIU desires to see socialistic Democratic candidates such as Harry Reid re-elected and I wouldn't be surprised if they play a role in voter fraud in this year's election.

The U.S. Senate Debate Between Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina

According to the latest Rasmussen reports on October 28, Democratic incumbent Barbara Boxer holds a 49%-46% lead over Republican challenger Carly Fiorina.  This race is still very close.

Correction: I need to make a correction concerning a statement I made concerning one of the debates between Rand Paul and Jack Conway at the University of Louisville a couple of weeks ago.  The Conway campaign brought up the accusation during Rand Paul's days at Baylor University where it was alleged that Paul participated in a hazing where he was involved in tying up a woman and forcing her to bow down to an idol, "Aqua Buddha."  I had mentioned in one of my posts which was discussing the issue of handling "Skeletons in your closet."  I said that if Rand Paul wasn't involved in that incident that he needs to flatly state those allegations weren't true.  I didn't listen to the entire debate.  I spoke to different people and they said that he denied that he was involved with the hazing incident that the Conway campaign aired over television.  I want to make that point clear and say I'm sorry for any confusion or misleading information.  I just want to set the record straight. 

The U.S. Senate Debate Between Russ Feingold and Ron Johnson

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports in the Wisconsin Senate race from October 26, Republican candidate Ron Johnson holds a 53% to 46% lead over Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold.

Friday, October 29, 2010

The U.S. Senate Debate Between Patty Murray and Dino Rossi in Washington

According to Rasmussen's latest polling, three-term Democratic Senator Patty Murray has regained the lead once again.  She has a slim lead over Deno Rossi 49%-46%. 

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Alex Giunnalius-Mark Kirk Debate at MCP 2010 Annual Luncheon

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports, Mark Kirk holds a slight lead over Alex Giunnalius in the Senate race in Illinois.  Illinois is one of the tossup races in the U.S. Senate.  According to the latest Rasmussen numbers as of now, the makeup projection in the Senate is Democrats 48 and Republicans 45 with seven states in the tossup category.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Richard Blumenthal-Linda McMahon Debate in Connecticut

According to Rasmussen, Richard Blumenthal holds a double-digit lead over Linda McMahon.  The latest Rasmussen Reports of likely voters shows Blumenthal leading McMahon 56%-43%.  I project this state will go blue next Tuesday.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Ken Buck and Michael Bennet Debate in the Colorado Debate

According to the latest Rasmussen report, the Colorado Senate race between Ken Buck and Michael Bennett is a toss-up.  Both candidates are in a virtual tie Ken Beck barely leading 47% to Michael Bennett's 45%.  This race could go either direction.  According to Rasmussen, the balance of power in the Senate if the election were held today would be: Democrats--48 seats and Republicans--46 seats.  Six states are toss-ups.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Florida's Fourth Senate Debate

(Fox News) Independent Senate candidate Governor Charlie Crist tried out a new campaign strategy last Tuesday, eagerly distancing himself from President Barack Obama's health care act through the forum, calling it "probably unconstitutional," and derisively referring to it as "Obamacare.  This particular approach the last couple of months where he positioned himself as the alternative to Republicn front-runner Marco Rubio primarily at the expense of Democrat Kendrick Meek by targeting Democratic voters in Florida. "I think Obamacare was off the charts; it was wrong," Crist said last Tuesday during the fourth debate by the three Senate hopefuls in Davie, Florida.  "It taxed too much  It has mandates that are probably unconstitutional and it's no the way to go, and it was rammed through." 

Meek, who has been fighting off Crist's efforts to peel off voters from his base, was openly incredulous over Crist's usage of the term "Obamacare," an apparent move to appeal to Florida's Republican voters, who are fervently against Obama's health care plan.  "I'm just shocked to hear, you know, now the new lingo from the Governor talking about "Obamacare.  I wonder if he said that to the president when he was walking with him along the beach?"  Meek said, describing the photo-op between Crist and the president after Obama came down to Florida's Gulf beaches during the BP oil spill to encourage potential tourists to visit the region--a moment that the Crist supporters enthusiastically touted at the time.  "It is really mind-boggling to me how you, governor, you can stand there and start throwing out accusations and saying, oh, Obamacare, Meek said. 

Rubio said that the Obama administration, and Congressional Democrats had mishandled the massive health care law.  "It has broken every promise they have made," Rubio said."  We were told that it would make Medicare more solvent and stronger, we know that's not true.  And in fact people now losing their Medicare advantage plans.  Crist countered that his stance on Obamacare showed his centrist perspective that does not adhere to either party.  "You need to send an independent to U.S. Senate because you are either gonna end up with hard right Republican or hard left Democrat who can't find middle ground if it stared them in the face," Crist said.  More aggressive than he had been in the previous three debates, Crist went after Rubio on several facets, including Social Security and Rubio's pro-life stance.  "I am running against an extreme right wing candidate who believes in taking away women's rights, punishing seniors."  "And that is just not right," according to Crist.  Rubio cited his mom, who he says depends on her Social Security check.  "I would never support any changes to Social Security that would adversely impact her or people in her demographic," Rubio added.

With less than two weeks until the November 2nd election, Rubio holds a 12.5 lead over Crist, according to the latest average of recent polls by

Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel Discuss the November 2 Elections

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist.  Bob Beck is a liberal Democratic Strategist.  But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot. 

Bob: In my 30 years in politics I've never seen the voters as angry or impatient as they are today.  Sure, Democrats will take a beating in November, but don't assume that represents only anger at them.  This is an anti-incumbent movement, and Republicans should be thankful there are so few of them and hence fewer targets.  Both parties suffer historically low approval ratings, but in a bad year for Democrats, Republicans are viewed even worse.

Cal: Agreed.  The voters are beyond Republican vs. Democrat, Left, vs. Right.  They are angry at everybody, and I think this provides the best opportunity for Republicans to actually govern and begin to fix what has gone wrong, rather than posture and act like they are more politically righteous than the Democrats.  Very recent history proves they are not. 

Bob: The Republicans would be foolish to jump right in and try to, for instance, repeal President Obama's signature issues like health care and financial reform.  It might feel good, but one, they won't have the votes, and two, do they really want to start the next Congress with these political temper tantrums? Such actions also would lead to total paralysis.

Cal:  I might be convinced that paralysis is a good thing even given the activism we've been experiencing.

Bob:  Obama's best move--politically and practically--would be to meet Republicans somewhere in the middle and be willing to change parts of his agenda.  For starters, he could include tort reform as an add-on to the health care law.  It's not giving Republicans everything, but it would be a meaningful olive branch and show a willingness to go against the Democrats' trial lawyers base.

Cal:  We're not talking Bill Clinton and his triangulation after the 1994 election.  This president has shown himself to be a hard-core leftist with an agenda and not a practicing compromiser.  What Republicans must do is something similar to what is happening in New Jersey and Virginia with governors telling their people we can't go on like this.  In Britain, too, "Common ground" co-prime ministers David Cameron and nick Clegg are making significant cuts in government spending.

Bob:  A hard-core leftist?  Tell that to the real leftists in this country who think Obama has abandoned them.  To your point about Republicans behaving responsibly in other places, that's heart-warming.  But Republicans in Congress have not had a long historyof telling the people what they don't want to hear.  But there may be a silver lining in an otherwise dark cloud for President Obama.

Cal:  Only you could find any silver lining in the coming disaster for the Democrats.

Bob:  Obama promised a bipartisan effort at civility when he campaigned for president, but--to put it mildly--it never happened.  In my view this was because Republicans wanted Obama to fail from the beginning or because Obama insisted on ramming through his proposals on virtually party line votes--or perhaps both.  However one sees it, Obama has a rare chance to make good on his campaign promise.  It may look like back-peddling on the president's part, but I see it as a road to common ground if only for his survival.

Cal:  The public doesn't care about politicians "surviving."  They care more about their own survival.  New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote last week about "the paralysis of the state."  Brooks noted that many states can no longer afford useful projects because of deals they've made with unions "that drain money from productive ones."  New Jersey, he points out, "can't afford to build (a train) tunnel, but benefits packages for the state's employees are 41% more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company.  These benefits costs are rising by 16% a year."  The public is receptive to reducing these kinds of costs.

Bob: And they're receptive to responsible and civil government, too.  Pew Research asked a question in April of last year whether people thought Democrats and Republicans have been bickering more in Congress.  Fifty-nine percent of Republicans, 55% of Democrats and 50% of independents thought so.  In the same question asked this month, 80% of Democrats and Republicans agreed, while 78% of independents agreed.  That's a staggering rejection of the Washington mess.  If both sides made a serious effort at compromise, the voters would reward them.  If not, their time in office will be very short.

Cal:  After every presidential election, the pundits look at the final tally of votes and decree whether the incoming commander in chief has that all-important "mandate."  Well let me say this, the American people have already provided a mandate for this election: Get America's fiscal house in order, and do it in a civil way.  That's it.  The rest is background noise.  Consider it, "It's the economy, stupid: Version 2010." 

Bob:  Congress is paralyzed because special interest money has a stake in the status quo.  And the money load we're seeing in this election is proof that all is alive and well in the world of peddling influence.  Much of this comes from stealth contributors who are not forced to report until late 2010.  This Supreme Court is too partisan to stop this atrocity.  But once again, it gives Obama a chance to open the process up and make his contributors transparent while challenging the GOP to do the same.

Cal:  That awful Supreme Court, allowing the First Amendment to be the law of the land.  Just terrible.  That's not where the real problem lies, Bob.  And with nearly 10% unemployment, the only people wringing their hands over that court decision are embattled Demcorats and think tank fixtures.  What a sideshow!  It's what happens after people are elected that's the problem.  I have to say, though, I wonder why Democrats aren't this interested in finding out where the unions' cash is being collected.

Bob:  Let's get back to the meat of the matter: Spending and our nation's dysfunctional fiscal situation.  In any polling you can find, the economy is where the people's minds are.  It's about jobs.  It's about spending.  It's about the trajectory.  Democrats and Republicans have a historically unique situation here--especially those new to Washington.  They can be a part of a Congress that puts the United States on a fiscally sustainable path.  The path we're on right now ends in a ditch.

Cal:  You're right, and the solution doesn't have to be a partisan solution.  It really doesn't.  Republicans and Democrats--especially the incoming freshmen--can start anew in this Congress.  Show up and stand up.  There is a residual strain of that old Puritan ethic left in America that could be revived with the right type of leadership.  That ethic says: live within your means, avoid debt, don't covet.  A political leader who lived by that example might persuade the rest of us to follow him (or her) into national solvency, which would strengthen this country far beyond its military might. 

Bob:  So we're going to hope political Washington can change?

Cal:  I think we've had enough "hope" and "change."  At this point, I think the American people would settle for "competent." 

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Being of One Mind

Philippians 2:2 "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind."  One of the things that God expects of his people in the church is that they be likeminded when it comes to the things of God.  When I speak of being likeminded or of being one mind, I'm not saying that all Christians are going to agree one hundred percent on everything.  But it's imperative for God's people in the local assembly to be likeminded when it comes to the propagation and furtherance of the gospel.  One of the problems many churches have in this day is strife.  One of the reasons for that is due to lack of unity and lack of one mind.  In order for Christians to be likeminded, there must be unity among the believers.  There must be unity when it comes to truth.  First of all, a church needs a man of God that stands behind the pulpit proclaiming God's word before the congregation.  A church also needs members who will follow and stand behind the man of God to fulfill God's will in that local assembly.  Being of one mind is crucially important.  A church won't go forth preaching the gospel and be an effective witness to the community if the members of the church aren't of one mind.

Being of one mind is when we all are in agreement or unity in the church.  What are some things we need to be likeminded about?  We need to be likeminded when it comes to salvation.  Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works lest any man should boast.  The church needs to be one mind when it comes to salvation.  There's only one way to salvation--that's through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.  Man can't be saved apart from what Christ did on the cross.  We're also to be of one mind when it comes to the Great Commission in Mark 16:15.  God has a purpose for the church and that is to propagate the gospel to the entire world.  We must be faithful in spreading the gospel in our communities and unto the ends of the earth.  That's one area in our churches in which we're lacking.  We must also be of one mind when it comes to sin.  We must recognize God hates sin and he won't bless it.  We're to be of one mind concerning holiness.  God expects His children to live holy and honorable lives unto Him.  We're to eschew sin.  The church is to practice discipline towards those church members that are living in sin. 

The church is also to be of one mind when it comes to supporting the pastor.  The man of God needs to be followed as he follows Christ and supported by the congregation.  We're to stand up for him and defend him when he's preaching the gospel and fulfilling his role as a pastor.  We're not to allow people to lay a hand on him or speak against him.  We're to be of one mind concerning the direction of the church.  Whenever the man of God says he believes God wants the church to head in a certain direction concerning ministry, the church is to be of one mind and follow him.  A church won't go where it needs to if we don't determine in our hearts that we are going to support and follow the man of God.  Finally, we're to be of one mind concerning the coming of Christ.  Matthew 24 mentions that Christ is coming back.  I Thessalonians speaks of Christ coming for his bride in the rapture and then following the rapture will be seven years of Great Tribulation.  Following the Great Tribulation will be the Battle of Armaggedon and then the Millennial Reign will begin where Christ will be king upon this earth for a thousand years.  What a time that will be.

It's imperative that the saints in the church be of one mind.  God's will won't be fulfilled in the church when there's strife and dissension.  When there's not one mind towards the things of God and the direction of the church, then strife always results.  A church that's of one mind will have harmony.  It will be a church which will honor and please God.  It will be a church which has the power of God.  When a group of people in a church determine to follow and serve the Lord, then God will bless that church and he will perform great things through that church.  But that will only happen when we are likeminded and in one accord.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

The Florida Senatorial Debate

This is the Florida Senatorial debate which features Republican candidate Marco Rubio, Independent Charlie Crist, and Democrat Kendrick Meek.  This is the Democracy 2010 debate.  This is the second debate between the candidates.

Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey in Senate Debate

(Fox News) Candidates in Pennsylvania's closely contested race for the U.S. Senate jousted over bailouts, terrorist trials and Social Security in their first debate Wednesday while accusing each other of dishonesty and beholden to big backers.  Democrat Joe Sestak and Republican Pat Toomey also dodged questions in the hourlong debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia while trying to portray the other as reckless, extreme and responsible for a stagnant economy that's left Pennsylvania with fewer jobs than it had in 1999.  Toomey often brought up his background in business--he traded currency and interest rate swaps at banks in New York and started a restaurant chain.  Sestak, a retired Navy admiral, recalled his 31 years in the service, which included commanding an aircraft carrier group in war after the September 11 terrorist attacks.  The men--ideological opposites--also relentlessly assailed the other's record in Congress: Sestak's votes for spending increases, Toomey's for corporate favoritism. 

Sestak contended that Toomey's support for a plan to allow Social Security payroll taxes to be invested in private accounts would endanger America's retirement security while benefitting Wall Street and borrowing money to support the shift.  Toomey said his plan would protect the benefits of older Americans, yield no profits for brokers and save a retirement system that is going broke. 

The two are vying to succeed five-term Senator Arlen Specter, whom Sestak beat in the May primary.  National party committees, business advocacy groups, labor unions and more are pouring millions of dollars into the state in TV ads and get-out-the-vote efforts to influence the race.  Questions were asked by a panel of news professionals, including "Good Morning America" co-host George Stephanopoulos. 

California's NOW President Says Calling Whitman a "Whore" is Accurate

(Fox News) The president of the National Organization for Women may have said it's wrong for anyone to call a woman a "whore," but the head of the California NOW affiliate says Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is one.  California NOW President Parry Bellasalma told the TPM blog on Thursday that the description of the Republican candidate for governor of California is accurate.  "Meg Whitman could be described as a political whore."  Yes, that's an accurate statement," Bellasalma said after a TPM blogger called to ask her about a story that appeared on the Daily Caller website. 

In the Daily Caller report, Bellasalma said a conversation recorded by a voicemail system after Whitman's Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, thought he'd hung up on the Los Angeles Police Protective League demonstrates that Whitman is a sell-out and thus deserving of the description.  "The very troubling issue that is embedded in that call is what prompted the description of Meg as a "whore" is basically that she sold out Californians for an endorsement and a $450,000 independent expenditure campaign," Bellasalma told the Daily Caller.  Brown's wife is said to be the voice heard on the recording discussing strategy with her husband after learning that the police group was considering endorsing Whitman.  Whitman has said she would protect the pensions of the state's public safety workers; Brown has not. 

National POW President Terry O'Neill condemned anyone who would call someone else a "whore", even as the state group endorsed Brown for governor.  "This term is hate speech that carries with it negative connotations associated with women, and it has no place in contemporary society," O'Neill said in a statement Wednesday.  "NOW calls on Brown, from this point forward, to fire any member of his staff who uses this word or any hate speech against women."  Brown apologized for the remark during the candidates' debate on Tuesday.   "Californians deserve better than the traditional politics of slurs and personal attacks," Whitman told CNN on Thursday.  But I accept (Brown's) apology." 

Friday, October 22, 2010

Juan Williams Terminated From NPR

(Fox News) On Wednesday, Juan Williams, who's worked at NPR (National Public Radio) for 10 years, was fired for his comments on the O'Reilly Factor he made Monday night, when he said when he's on an airplane and he sees Muslim dressed in their traditional garb, it makes him nervous to fly on an airplane with them.  Williams, who was on the O'Reilly Factor yesterday evening, said, "They take something totally out of context," Williams said Thursday night, adding that his point was that Americans must come to grips with their prejudices.  "I have always thought of journalism, in a way, as a priesthood, you honor it and you protect it," he said, before criticizing his former employer.  "These people don't have any sense of righteousness, of what's right here.  They're self-righteous."  "I don't fit in their box," he said.  "I'm an unpredictable black liberal."  Williams said NPR wanted to get rid of him because he's a Fox News contributor.  Williams is a guest on the O'Reilly Factor on Monday evenings and he's also a guest on Hannity on Wednesday's "Great American Panel. 

Fox News has re-signed Juan Williams to an expanded role with the network in a multi-year deal," according to Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive officer of Fox News.  Ailes, in making his announcement, said, "Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997.  He's an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis."  NPR terminated Williams in the wake of a discussion he had with Bill O'Reilly concerning the dilemma between fighting jihadists and fears about average Muslims.  "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot.  You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," Williams said Monday.  "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried.  I get nervous." 

Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square Bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Ameridans that the fight is coming to the U.S.  "He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood.  I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.  NPR issued a statement Wednesday night saying that it was "terminating Williams' contract over the remarks.  "Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a senior news analyst for NPR News," CEO Vivian Schiller and Senior Vice President for News Ellen Weiss said in a statement.  "Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret.  However, his remarks on "The O'Reilly Factor" this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," they said.  "We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio." 

Williams said on the O'Reilly Factor that this decision was made up the chain and he didn't even have a chance to do this eyeball to eyeball, person to person, and have a conversation.  They told Williams he was fired from NPR over the phone.  Williams said he said exactly what he meant because that's the fear he has when he's on airplanes with Muslims on them.  He said he has a moment of anxiety given what happened on 9/11.  I guarantee you he's not the only one that feels this way.  If I was on an airplane and several Muslims were on board, I would be very apprehensive myself.  That's due to what took place on 9/11.  There was nothing bigoted about what Williams said. 

Williams, a liberal African-American commentator who has written extensively on civil rights in America, previously got in trouble with NPR for comments he made while appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" in February 2009.  At the time, he described first lady Michelle Obama as having a "Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going."  Carmichael was a black activitist in the 1960's who coined the phrase "Black power."  After that Carmichael quote, Williams' position at NPR was changed from staff correspondent to national analyst.

What you're seeing is a case of political correctness run amok.  I saw on Fox News yesterday that billionaire George Soros has donated over a billion dollars to NPR and other liberal think tanks.  They want to oust those from the media that don't think according to their politically correct views.  Today, you can hardly say anything negative about Muslims whatsoever, or else you will be ousted if you work for some media network like NPR.  NPR is very far left in their ideology.  They express their opinions all the time.  I do agree with O'Reilly NPR was looking for an excuse to fire Juan and the excuse was that he's a contributor to Fox News.  President Obama and some members of Congress have been on the attack against Fox News because there are some commentators on Fox that are highly critical of President Obama's administration such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, for example.   NPR CEO Vivian Schiller needs to be ousted from her position at NPR.  Whatever happened to to the First Amendment right to free speech?  The First Amendment was placed there to protect unpopular speech or speech that may not be politically correct for the occasion.  Congress needs to defund NPR.  No taxpayer dollars should be going to fund NPR.  Let NPR compete with the other media outlets.  If NPR was defunded by Congress and they had to compete on their own merits, they would go into bankruptcy just like Air America did.  No taxpayer dollars should be going to fund propaganda such as what NPR spews out.  The problem today is the media has become nothing but an arm of the government.  The media is to be separate from govenment.  The purpose of the media is to make the government accountable.  The media is to hold the government accountable.  Instead, the media is a lapdog for the government for the most part; esp. the progressive media such as CNN and MSNBC. 

What's ironic about NPR's firing of Juan Williams is that Juan Williams is a liberal.  He's no conservative.  I disagree with a number of his opinions.  Whatever happened to Williams right to free speech?  I believe he's on the wrong side of the fence on a host of issues, but that's his right as an American.  He said something that was offensive to CAIR, a radical Muslim group trying to halt any type of criticism towards Islam.  Free speech is one of the great privileges we have as Americans.  We have the right to be correct or the right to be wrong.  Williams said nothing out of context that deemed him worthy of being fired.  He made a statement that I actually agree with and most Americans undoubtedly agree with.  America is a country where we have the privilege to debate in the arena of ideas.  I agree socialism and the big government agenda is wrong.  I'm totally opposed to it.  However, Americans have the right to spout off their views in the philosophy of "big government" if they so choose.  Instead of allowing for honest debate on political issues in America, the Progressive fascists such as George Soros are trying to silence those who are opposed to their worldview.  That's not what America's about.  We must stand for the right to free speech.  Those of us who are conservative in our philosophy towards governnment have the privilege to prove we are right when we debate our opponent.  America's been known for debating issues since colonial days in America.  Have we come to the point where America will no longer be the place to debate and share our ideas without being silenced?  I'm afraid we're closer to that point than we may realize.

An Interview with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Maria Bartiromo interviewed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  The interview was printed in the USA Today on Monday October 18, 2010.  Bartiromo says that "New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says the U.S. unemployment situation should end debate on the Bush tax cuts and that they should be extended for everyone for a few years.  The hard-charging governor, who has been cutting programs aggressively in New Jersey to cut expenses, tells me the U.S. can balance its budget over the long term but must encourage businesses to invest and hire workers first.  Less than two weeks before the mid-term elections, Christie says it's time for his party to put up or shut up.  And he says Obamacare needs a second look by the new Congress in January.  Following are excerpts, edited for clarity and length." 

Q.  What is it going to take to get the economy moving again?
       A.  The job numbers were obviously really discouraging, and I have real concerns about a federal government that continues to talk abou raising taxes in light of numbers like these.  The number should probably end the debate and discussion about whether or not we should be raising taxes on anybody, because obviously this economy has not recovered up to the extent that it was promised it would recover by the president.

Q. So do you favor tax cuts?
       A.  I would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone at least a couple of years.  I don't believe that in an economy where you're shedding private-sector jobs that you raise taxes on the private sector.  That's just counterintuitive.  Unemployment at 9.6% is intolerable.

Q.  You've been aggressively cutting expenses and programs to cut New Jersey's deficit.  How can America, at the federal level, balance its budget?
       A.  You have to make sure that everybody has a seat at the table and that there are no sacred cows.  Everybody's got to look at everything that you spend money on and how you have to justify it.  The principle of how you attack that problem is for everybody to have a stake and be willing to join in shared sacrifice. 

Q.  What is to be done with entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare?
        A.  It's a very difficult question because you have these entitlement programs growing significantly, but you also have a significant percentage of Americans who really rely upon those programs for their well-being.  We have to look at ways that we can buttress those programs and make them solvent.  I would not be a proponent of trying to reduce those programs significantly at this point because of how difficult the economy is.  But there's going to have to be sacrifice for everybody at some point.  We also don't know what effect this Obamacare is going to have on all these things and whether that's going to drain ever more money out of the economy.

Q.  Do you support repealing health care reform?
       A.  Yeah, I did not favor Obamacare in the first place.  I thought it was too big a grab by the federal government for our health care system.  It should not have been voted on in the form that it was in the first place.  Business folks are very concerned, and they're sitting on a lot of capital because they're just not sure of how much more cost the government is going to load onto them not only through Obamacare, but through the higher taxes the president is talking about.

Q.  McDonald's hinted it won't pay for health insurance for some workers.  What if more do that?
       A.  There's grave concern out in the business community.  I hear it all the time, about the fact that this was jammed through and was not completely thought out.  And whenever that happens, there are often real ramifications.  It certainly deserves a second look by the new Congress.

Q.  What will it take to get businesses to create new jobs?
    A. Certainly in terms of the costs that government foists upon them.  I'm seeing positive things in New Jersey so far in our first few months because the business community knows that I'm going to stand up and not raise taxes, that we're lowering regulation so that their costs can be either stable or maybe reduced a bit.  That's going to encourage people to invest more.  Right now, it's the uncertainty what government will cost business that is causing business to sit on its capital and not create new private sector jobs. 

Q.  How do you cut taxes and still get your arms around the deficit?
       At the federal level we're talking about maintaining taxes where they are, not cutting taxes.  I'm not advocating additional tax cuts.  But I'm certainly opposed to tax increases that the Obama administration is advocating by allowing the Bush tax rates to increase.  There's no way you're ever going to solve the deficit without economic growth.  To get economic growth, we have to provide a stable marketplace for business.  Government cannot continue to increase the cost on business and expect that business is going to hire more employees, raising their costs even more. 

Q.  What are you expecting from the midterm elections?
         A.  I've said to my own party that if we do take over the House or the Senate, and any of our gubernatorial candidates that are elected, it's put up or shut up time.  We've talked about getting spending under control, reducing the size of government.  We lost our way as a party during some of the time of the last decade, and we now have to deliver on what we've talked about.  So I think it's put up or shut up time for the Republicans if we're elected in November.  You'll see them taking some very aggressive action to put America back on the right track from a fiscal perspective.      

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The West Virginia Senatorial Debate.

(Fox News)  The Senate candidates who are vying for the old Senate seat of the "king of pork", the late Robert C. byrd, laid out decidedly different approaches Monday night to bringing the bacon home to West Virginia.  Millionaire Republican industrialist John Raese complained that federal earmarks create career politicians in a bloated government and indicated he'd be reluctant to pursue public dollars for projects best left to the private sector.  "I don't think it's the best answer for the problems of West Virginia," he said in the only scheduled debate with Democratic Governor Joe Manchin, aired statewide on West Virginia Public Broadcasting.  "I want to bring back the spirit of create the freedom of an individual." 

Raese argues state economies would be better served by cutting taxes and easing regulations on business.  But Manchin said states depend on the federal government for key infrastructure like roads, water, and sewage lines, and broadband internet access.  Without government, he said, poor, rural states would suffer.  "The free enterprise system is not going to go there.  They're only going to go there.  They're only going to go where the market is," Manchin said.  "And for all of us to have an opportunity there has to be a partnership.  The federal government and state government should be your partner, not your provider."  The candidates also clashed on federal health care reform, cutting taxes and the federal minimum wage.  Manchin and Raese are running for the seat Byrd held for more than a half-century.  Mountain Party candidate Jesse Johnson and Constitution Party member Jeff Becker are in the running too, but the two frount-runners are locked in a tight and bitter race that has national groups on both sides sinking cash into campaign advertising.  Raese, who has twice run for Senate, is chief executive of Greer Industries, which owns a radio network, a newspaper, steel, asphalt and limestone operations, a golf course and Seneca Caverns. 

Manchin is a popular governor serving his second term and known even by West Virginians who don't closely follow politics.  To a state that witnessed the Sago mine disaster, which killed 12 men in 2006, and the Upper Big Branch explosion, which killed another 29 in April, he is seen as comforter-in-chief.  To overcome the popularity of Joe Manchin, the Republicans are trying to make the election a referendum on President Barack Obama.  Manchin is banking on his popularity and track record, telling West Virginians to trust he'll be an independent voice.  Raese called the state of the nation's economy "almost catastrophic" and focused heavily on creating a pro-business environment, saying he would push for less regulation and taxation of corporations.  He also advocated making tax cuts for people who earn more than $250,000 permanent, arguing it would stimulate investment.  Manchin, however, said he wouldn't mess with or increase taxes during a time of turmoil and touted his own ability to cut taxes by $235 million since he took office.  "We have a proven record that it works," he said.  They also diverged on federal health care reform, which Raese called "pure, unadulterated socialism...the worst bill that has ever come out of the United States Senate and House." 

Manchin acknowledged problems with the legislation but said there are elements worth keeping, including provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.  "There's a lot of good in the bill that Democrats and Republicans can agree on," Manchin said.  "Medicare, Social Security, and the Children's Health Insurance Program cover the needs of many Americans, Manchin said, but there are others who are denied."  "A working person today is the one most vulnerable in our society," Manchin said.  "If you're getting up every day and going to work, you're probably the most vulnerable part of our society.  That has to change."  Johnson rejected the reference to socialism, calling health care reform "capitalism on steroids."  "You're having to pay a private corporation, and you're under penalty of law for not doing so," he said.  "This is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination." 

Raese also reitered his call to abolish the federal minimum wage, saying government should not set prices or wages.  The free market, he argues, would determine the proper level for wages if the playing field were leveled and businesses were allowed to prosper.  Manchin said he believes in the minimum wage so workers can get "some dignity and reward" from even menial jobs.  In a free market, he said, the question would become "how low is low enough?"  The candidates also talked about coal and its importance to the economy and about the need for safer coal mines.  Manchin said his aides are working on state legislation for proper ventilation of underground mines that he would carry to the federal level.  The bill will be completed once the investigation into the Upper Big Branch mine disaster determines the cause of a blast that killed 29 men in April, he said.  When concensus is reached, the conclusions will be worked into the legislation.  But Raese said government needs to hear more voices when it comes to regulating industry, particularly corporate voices.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

How Political Candidates Should Address the "Skeletons in Their Closet"

One of the disturbing, negative things about election campaigns is all the negativity and mudslinging that takes place each election.  It's nothing new in American politics.  It seems in recent years it's reached a new low like never before this year is no exception.  It's become fashionable in recent elections for candidates to bring up the issue of "skeletons" in their opponents lives.  What do I mean when I use the term, "skeletons in the closet".  I'm speaking of situations where a particular candidate used to perform or do something crazy, wicked, or ridiculous during their "youthful" days whether it be in college or something of that nature.  I remember back in 2000 five days before the presidential election, someone brought up the issue of George W. Bush receiving a DUI when he was either 29 or 30 years old which was around 1976.  I was strongly opposed to that simply because I knew that Bush no longer drank alcohol.  He repented of what he did.  Therefore, it was stupid for someone in the Democratic Party to bring up Bush's "skeletons"  relating to his alcohol problem.  If a candidate has repented of past sins and no longer practices it, I don't care about what they did in the past.  I believe in repentance and forgiveness.  I'm concerned with the moral character of the candidates while they're running for office.  I'm not that concerned about their past as along as they repented and learned from past sins.

During the 2010 midterm campaign so far, there have been allegations that have sprung forth concerning skeletons in both Christine O'Donnell's and Rand Paul's past.  Christine O'Donnell had appeared on "Politically Incorrect" in 1999 in which Bill Maher was host and she admitted that she dabbled with witchcraft during her youth.  The Jack Conway campaign in Kentucky raised allegations about Rand Paul belonging to a fraternity during his college days at Baylor University.  It was alleged that he was involved in a hazing where they tied up a woman and made her bow down to worship an idol called "Aqua Buddha".  The Conway campaign alleged that Paul was poking fun of Christianity for what he was doing.  Both candidates didn't respond very well to the allegations.  O'Donnell made light of the witchcraft comment.  Paul said what the Conway campaign did was ridiculous.  However, Paul didn't flatly deny he did it. 

I want to point out I'm not in favor of mudslinging your opponent.  I'm opposed to revealing skeletons in your opponents closet especially if it isn't characteristic of that candidate today.  Did Christine O'Connell dabble in witchcraft?  We've seen the clip that Bill Maher aired where O'Donnell admitted she participated in witchraft.  However, she didn't give any type of explanation.  Paul has tried to avoid discussing the issue about his college days at Baylor and instead accuses Conway of attacking his "Paul's" faith.  When you're running for office and "skeletons from your closet" is made public in the news media, it's imperative that they respond to that allegation.  I totally agree it was unfair for their opponent to bring up an issue that should be moot. I don't believe past sins should be brought forth in public unless that candidate is presently battling with that problem.  For example, if a candidate who's running has an issue with the opposite sex, it would be appropriate for past issues (concerning the opposite sex) to be brought up by the media.  It helps us to know more about the character of the candidate.  Otherwise, I think past skeletons should be left in the closet. 

I have a little advice for Christine O'Donnell and Rand Paul:  As painful and embarassing as it might be when the media reveals past sins, you must face it and give an explanation.  You don't have to give a lengthy explanation concerning all the details.  What you should do is to answer the question whether you did or didn't commit the act that was alleged you committed.  If you didn't participate in that act, then you need to be specific and flatly state you didn't committ it so the discussion can be halted.  On the other hand, if you were guilty of the past transgression, then you need to admit (1) you committed it.  Following that confession, you need to (2) apologize to the public for that sin and say you're ashamed you did that.  I thought of something else this morning.  If you've repented of that particular transgression and no longer commit it, you should say that you may have done it years ago, but you're no longer the same person now.  You're a different person and you wouldn't do something like that today.  That's all that has to be done.  It doesn't have to be complicated nor lengthy.  I believe the voters won't hold it against you as long as you respond to that allegation properly.  If you don't address that issue, then it makes the voter think you may be hiding something.  The proper thing to do is to face the issue head-on and address the issue.  Once you address the issue, you can move onto other things.  I hope that will be beneficial.

Rand Paul and Jack Conway Have Heated Debate at the University of Louisville

( U.S. Senate candidates Rand Paul and Jack Conway both came out swinging Sunday night in their most contentious and personally bitter debate, with Paul saying Conway had "descended into the gutter" with campaign ads about his past.  Paul hammered Conway for ads focusing on allegations Paul joined a group at Baylor University that mocked Christians and once tied up a woman and asked her to worship an idol.  "Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself," said Paul, who describes himself as a "pro-life" Christian and refused to shake Conway's hand after the debate. "Have you no decency?  Have you no shame?"   Paul even stated that he might skip next week's debate with Conway next week.

During the debate at U of L, Conway defended his attacks, which stemmed from published allegations about Paul's time at Baylor, and refused to apologize.  "Why did he freely join a group known for mocking, for making fun of people with faith?"  Conway asked.  "And . . . when is it ever a good idea to tie up a woman and ask her to kneel before a false idol, your god, which you call Aqua Buddha?"

This particular allegation against Paul reminds me of the smear against Christine O'Donnell, who's the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Delaware.  Bill Maher aired the video clip in which O'Donnell was a guest on his show in 1999 and she admitted dabbling in witchcraft in her 20's.  She has not properly responded to the witchcraft allegations against her.  Rand Paul reminds me of O'Donnell in that sense because he hasn't addressed that issue.  If the allegations that the Conway campaign made are wrong, Paul needs to be adamant and say that he didn't participate in a hazing where they tied up a woman and made her  worship an idol.  If he did do that during his college days at Baylor, he needs to admit it and say his actions were wrong years ago and that he's not the same man today that he was then.  It doesn't have to be lengthy or complicated.  The voters in Kentucky would overlook that incident if he would just properly address it.  Instead, Paul was irate in his response.  Now, Kentucky voters who were leaning towards Paul are probably having second thoughts about voting for him; for no other reason than how he responded during the debate Sunday night at the University of Louisville.  He shot back at Conway and wouldn't even shake his hand.   Paul could've handled it a little differently.

As of right now, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Jack Conway gaining ground on Paul.  Rand Paul now leads Jack Conway by just 5 percentage points.  The spread was 11 at the end of September.  The latest attack ad by the Conway campaign concerning Paul's faith during his days at Baylor is more than likely causing likely voters to reconsider their votes.  The only good thing going for Paul is Kentucky is a conservative state leaning Republican.  Whereas a state like Delaware is liberal and Democrat.  If Paul was running for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, he wouldn't have a chance to win.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

We Get the Government We Deserve (Part 2)

On June 28, 2010 I wrote a post entitled, "We Get the Government We Deserve."  I was listing some of the reasons why I felt we as Americans are getting the government we deserve today.  I was mentioning such reasons as American forgetting God, the type of candidates America votes for, and the list continues.  I've developed some different thoughts on this subject so I've decided to continue this series.  I highlighted some basic themes in the very first post that I had written about concerning why we have a government that's taking America toward communism.  It didn't begin overnight.  It began many decades ago.  We're in the process of seeing our nation transformed in a dramatic fashion into a socialist country with the Federal government taking over the banks, the insurance companies, General Motors and Chrysler, and our healthcare system with the recent passage of Obamacare in March.  I'm going to continue this thought but I'm going to elaborate on a different point each post so we have a fuller understanding why America is in the condition she's in today.  Many people will say that today we hardly have any choice of candidates.  It's nothing but the lesser of two evils.  That's true.  But I'm not basing this argument that we get the government we deserve by the last few election cycles.  Listen, I understand.  I know there are some Americans that voted for President Obama out of protest in what they witnessed with the previous administration.  President Bush himself started taking us toward the path to socialism.  President Obama picked up where Bush left off and he's pushing the petal to the floor.  I know that President Obama wasn't the one that engineered the destruction of America.  However, he's the one chosen that's playing his role in placing the final touches on implementing this "new order" that those who are pulling his strings desire it to be. 

One of my favorite talk show hosts is Jim Sumpter.  He now lives in Florida by the space station.  He lived in Utah for several years and aired his program, "The Jim Sumpter Show" on K-Talk Radio in Utah as well as other radio affiliates across the country.  He doesn't have the celebrity status as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Michael Savage have.  I had the privilege to first hear him in 2007 when he was placed on air in an Owensboro radio station called AM 1490 WOMI.  He replaced the time slot in which Michael Savage was on.  His program was carried on WOMI for approximately two years, then his program was dropped.  When I first heard him, he made some of the same stands as Michael Savage did.  Sumpter is a registered Republican and is very conservative.  However, he's very critical of the elected elite that comprise the Republican Party.  I had the privilege to hear Sumpter the last year-and-a-half of George W. Bush's presidency.  I can honestly say that he rightly criticizes the Republican Party when they're in the wrong.  He hammered the Bush administration and the things that were taking place on a daily basis.  The first program that I listened to he made mention of President Bush appointing a War Czar.  Sumpter pointed out that a War Czar was unconstitutional and that the President is to be the Commander-in-Chief.  President Bush appointed a War Czar to oversee the wars in the Middle East--which was the reason why the position of War Czar was created.  Sumpter also said that the Department of Homeland Security was unconstitutional and that it was the job of the Defense Department to protect our country.  He said the Department of Homeland Security is just another bloated bureaucracy--which I happen to agree with.  He didn't leave the Bush administration any slack simply because they wore the name "Republican."  Sumpter's even made the statement that we have Obama as president because of the former president.  Sumpter is also very critical of the Obama administration.  He's even went as far to allege that he doesn't believe that President Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States.  Sumpter's made that argument on the basis of the research he and his producer have done as well as from the book Obama authored entitled, "Dreams of My Father.  Sumpter is no Obama fan.  Some people who have just recently starting listening to his show might think Sumpter's nothing but an Obama-basher.  However, when Bush was in charge in Washington, Sumpter stated how he felt about the Bush administration.  Democrats bad--Republicans good doesn't fit in Sumpter's paradigm and thank God for it.  I can vouch and say he hammered the Bush administration when Bush was in charge.  I wish more conservative talk show hosts did the same while Bush was in office.  Allow me to mention another brief note about Sumpter and that is he used to have a working relationship with Glenn Beck during Glenn Beck's early career as a DJ.  Sumpter knew Beck in the late 80's and early 90's.  Sumpter was the one that even paired Beck and his sidekick, Pat Gray together years ago when Beck needed someone to work with him during an early morning show.  Anybody that's listened to Sumpter's show any length of time has heard him mention his relationship with Glenn Beck years ago repeatedly. 

I know my narrative about Jim Sumpter was lengthy.  Now I'm going to make my point.  Jim Sumpter has been advocating for the last few years on his program that the problem with America is the career politician incumbents that are occupying Capitol Hill.  Sumpter's theme the last few years has been to void the election and vote the incumbents out regardless whether they're Democrat or Republican.  He feels that serving one term is sufficient for a politician to serve.  He feels that if they serve any longer in Washington they become part of the problem and could eventually commit a crime which could land them in jail.  There are too many allurements in Washington D.C.  There are politicians who went to Washington who weren't wealthy but came out wealthy.  Most of our politicians are doing the bidding of the lobbyists who donate to their campaigns instead of the politicians serving the American people.  That's why he promotes voting out all the incumbents.  For the most part I agree with that statement.  I haven't yet gotten to the point where I think it's wrong to re-elect any incumbent, but I do agree there aren't many incumbents worthy of re-election--Democrat or Republican.  I'm speaking of incumbents on the national level, which happens to be my theme for today.

One of the reasons why we get the government we deserve is simply because we keep on voting for the same incumbent politicians.  This isn't a new phenomenon.  This has been happening over and over for decade upon decade.  That's one of the reasons why Washington is in the mess it's in.  They keep on running for re-election and they keep getting voted back in.  It shouldn't be that way.  Congressman Barney Frank is on the Banking Committee in the House and he was responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which of course fell apart due to many home mortgages defaulting.  The Massachusetts voters should've voted out Barney Frank in 2008 when the revelation of the mortgage meltdown took place.  Instead, he was re-elected.  I venture to say he'll probably be re-elected in a couple of weeks.  The Massachusetts voters in their district are getting the government they deserve.  Whenever a Congressman that's a crook is re-elected over and over, what does that say about their constituents?  It tells me the voters of that district don't care.  One of the problems with some Americans at-large is some of them have a "welfare mentality" where they can expect the government to take care of them and provide various goods and services to them.  Many Congressmen and Senators are voted based on what they can bring back home to their constituents, regardless of their character or what the Constitution says.

During the presidential election of 1992, there were allegations that were brought about concerning then Governor Bill Clinton regarding his affairs he's had with women such as Gennifer Flowers as well as some scandals that took place as governor of Arkansas.  However, the media said that "character didn't matter."  "It's the economy, stupid."  Those were some of the campaign slogans of 1992.  Sadly, the American people agreed with that and as a result America elected Bill Clinton as president that year.  Character matters less and less to the American public each year.  Part of that is due to the fact there are a great number of people with no morals nor character.  The end justifies the means is the slogan for today.  As long as they speak well in public, are handsome, and will promise benefits from the government, the American people will buy it.  It's not until recently following the election of Barack Obama along with the rise of the Tea Party movement that Americans are beginning to realize big government isn't a good thing.  A government that can give you benefits can also take away your freedoms.  With the expansion of the federal government, more and more Americans are losing some of the freedoms to make their own choices.  Government is becoming more and more intrusive into the lives of the American people everyday. 

In many communities across America there are prominent community leaders that will campaign for incumbent politicians that are of low character and crooked.  Why do business and community leaders campaign for incumbents that are crooked?  Because of the money some of these career politicians bring to their respective states.  Congressman Barney Frank has been in Congress for over 30 years.  I guarantee you he's brought in a lot of money to his district.  Therefore there are some community leaders that will continue campaigning for him simply because of the money he brings into his district.  It doesn't make any difference what they do in Washington as long as they bring home the bacon.  Barney Frank along with other Congressmen on both sides of the aisle are responsible for not sounding the alarm when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were on the verge of bankruptcy.  People like that should be thrown out.  They should also be prosecuted and put in prison.  You wonder why America keeps on going the direction it's going.  It's partially due to the re-election of these incumbents.  If the American people don't have enough sense to throw out the crooks in Washington, then we deserve a socialist country.  You can't keep on voting for the same incumbents over and over and it eventually not take its toll on this country.  Just think of the damage that's been caused to this nation due to the re-election of politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Barney Frank, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, to name a few.  Today, it's come to the point it doesn't make any difference what their party affiliation is or the ideological label they wear.  They're both working together towards the pathway to socialism.  The finish line is just a few more yards.  That's why our politicians are so arrogant and they ignore the American people like they do.  The utopian socialist agenda that people like George Soros have envisioned is very closed to coming to fruition.  They no longer have to pay attention to the angry electorate.  Their agenda will go forth regardless which party takes control of Congress.

Many people will make the argument that the only choices you have are the lesser of two evils.  That is true in the general election.  In the party primaries, you have more choices than in the general election.  I can understand the frustration of the electorate due to the fact that there's not much of a difference between either party on the national level.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,and Mark Levin would take me to task over that but the truth is the Republicans are worthless on a national level.  They haven't used all the resources at their disposal to stop Obamacare and other facets of President Obama's radical agenda.  The fix is in.  In 2008 I was very frustrated due to the mortgage meltdown and our elected elite coming together to vote for the TARP bailout.  For the first time, I wrote in a candidate's name for different offices.  For president I wrote in Alan Keyes as president.  In the state of Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was up for re-election.  For the first time I didn't cast my vote for McConnell.  However, I didn't vote for the Democratic candidate which was Bruce Lunsford.  Instead, I wrote in the name of a dead Senator.  I personally don't enjoy writing in the name of a candidate, esp. when it's not a choice of either "A" or "B".  But I'd rather write in a name that I know won't win the election than to vote for the lesser of two evils when there's hardly any distinction to make between the two of them.  With the mortgage meltdown taking place, I decided I wasn't going to vote for the names of some of the candidates on the ballot.  I decided to write in names.  I wasn't going to vote for a Democrat because I know that most Democrats on a national level are socialist.  Therefore I decided to write in names of those that I thought would fulfill their role in that office if they were to run.   It was pathetic in 2008.  There were hardly any candidates on the ballot worth voting for.  Almost all of them stank to high Heavens. 

I would encourage all Americans on November 2nd to please vote out these fraudulent incumbents regardless of party affiliation.  These incumbents are destroying our nation.  They don't care for the welfare of this country.  They're spending us into an oblivion.  Both parties are part of the problem.  I know the Republicans don't have the votes to stop the Democrats' agenda, but they could've filibustered Obamacare in the Senate or could've conducted a filibuster of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  The only thing the Republicans are concerned about is regaining power.  However, we need to vote these fradulent incumbents out.  I recognize many of the new candidates we will vote for this November probably won't be any better once they're in office.  During the next election cycle in 2012, we need to repeat the process and vote out the candidates we voted in this year.  We need to continue the process of voting out the incumbents until they get the message.  This election is the most crucial election America's ever had.  America is on the ropes.  If America is to have any glimmer of hope, we must start by voting out most of the incumbents and vote in new candidates; some of them probably will be Tea Party candidates.  However, it doesn't end with November 2nd.  If we're going to turn America around, we must keep on fighting.  Once we elect a new Congress, we must hold their feet to the fire and demand accountability from them.  There are too many evil temptations in Washington.  Washington needs to hear our voices on election day and they need to continue hearing our voices following election day.   If we vote back in Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority on November 2nd, I believe our nation will be finished.  America can't stand another two years of a Democratic-controlled Congress along with President Obama.  I'll finish up the thought I have about voting in the next post.

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Chilean Miners Finally Rescued

YouTube - 1st Trapped Miner's Freedom Turns Worry Into Joy

(USA Today) In one of the most amazing rescues after being trapped in an underground mind for 69 days, all 33 miners in Chiles have finally been rescued and are safe.  Applause --and chants of "Long life to Chilean miners" erupted each time a motorcade of police cars and motorbikes--sirens wailing-pulled into the hospital here Wednesday with an ambulance and its miner patient.  "He looked very pale, very fragile, but in a good mood," said Eva Gomez, whose brother Mario Gomez, 63, the oldest miner among the 33 miners, was rescued at 6:00 a.m. Wednesday.  All day rescued miners were being shuttled in helicopters to an army base in Copiapo and then driven three blocks to the hospital.  Once there, miners were undergoing medical exams, reuniting with relatives and getting slowly ready to face worldwide attention in person.  Bystanders and reporters gathered outside the hospital to wait for the ambulances to arrive.  The last miner out--emerging to cheers from the Phoenix capsule that rescued the men one at a time--was Luis Urzua, the shift leader when the mine collapsed 70 days ago.  He arrived at the surface just before 10 p.m.  (9 p.m. ET), 22.5 hours after the first miner was rescued.

"We have done what the entire world was waiting for," he told Chilean President Sebastian Pinera immediately after his rescue, the Associated Press reported.  "The 70 days that we fought so hard were not in vain.  We had strength, we had spirit, we wanted to fight, we wanted to fight for our families, and that was the greatest thing."  Pinera told him: "You are not the same, and the country is not the same after this.  You were an inspiration.  Go hug your wife and your daughter."  All six rescue workers who descended into the mine to give technical and medical support to the trapper miners later followed Urzua to the surface.  Relatives who earlier in the day had yet to see their miners said they appeared healthy in the videos that have aired over the past few weeks.  During that time, government officials and rescue team members had been reluctant to go into details, feeding rumors and generating anxiety among the families of the trapper miners.  "I talked to him last Saturday, and the only thing he said was that he was scared, that the mine was making creaking noises, that he was tired, that he felt sick," Eva Gomez said.  By Wednesday evening, miners were undergoing exams in the hospital that included chest X-rays, cardiac ultrasound scans and dermatological and ophthalomological tests. 

"Considering their ordeal and what they went through the last two months, the miners are in very good medical conditions and in an extraordinarily good mood," Health Minister Jaime Manalich said.  "We are taking good care of them; in face, we are spoiling them."  Manalich said some of the miners will undergo special treatments.  Some needed urgent dental care, up to the point that two miners were scheduled for surgery last Thursday.  Another miner has pneumonia and started receiving an antibiotic treatment four days ago, while stuck 2200 feet below ground.  Mario Gomez had a previous condition called pneumoconiosis, also known as black lung disease, a relatively common disease among miners who have worked for decades exposed to rock dust.  The hospitalized miners are to be quarantined for 48 hours, but some are in such good shape that they might be released sooner.  Others need extra days of treatments, Manalich said.  Many who have arrived here are only now realizing how much of the world has been following their ordeal.  "I really don't think they know what's awaiting them.  They might have a vague idea about it, think they can cut a book deal or even a movie, but this is much more than that," said Francisco Lermanda, a rescue expert with private contractor SigTech, which has been providing technical help to the resuce operation. 

Manalich said all of them will need psychological care for at least a month to deal with worldwide exposure.  They are being offered to continue with therapy for a least six months to help them to adjust after being trapped for 69 days.