Political Pistachio

Blog Home of the Writer and AM and FM Radio Host, Douglas V. Gibbs.
- = - = - = - = - = - = -

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Debates in California, both Republican and Democrat

The Republican Debate in California was held at the Reagan Library. How fitting.

The Democrat Debate was held in Hollyweird. How fitting.

But before I continue on with this post about the debates, I wanted to offer an apology about my rant on the last post regarding liberal trolls and the libtards that love them. How ironic is it that at the same time I posted this on my Christian blog, Carried by Christ?

“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” 2 Timothy 2:15-16

My post was in fact profane and vain babblings meant to vent about the trolls that love to give me grief. I fed the trolls with it, and I wrote the post out of anger. My motive was not what it should have been, and I apologize for the rant (but, that does not mean that these people should not be exposed for what they are). My motives were wrong. However, what I had to say was not wrong. Hopefully, the trolls won't be so successful in baiting me into such a rant again. We'll see.

Okay, now let's talk about the debates.

In the Republican Debate at the Reagan Library immediately CNN attacked the candidates by trying to compare them to George W. Bush, and specifically tried to nail them down with what the liberals consider Bush's failed record. Is Bush's record spotless? Absolutely not. Many of his positions, such as with immigration, trying to convince Israel to give up even more land in an effort for peace, globalistic efforts like the superhighway down our central corridor, and his big government programs like the pharmacy program and No Child Left Behind Act (which are a large part of his overspending), are far from being something one would expect from a president that claims he's conservative.

Mitt Romney in the debate pointed out that he is not running on Bush's record, but on his own record. He defended mainstream conservatism, called McCain liberal (for good reason), and in my opinion won the debate.

McCain called his conservative record one of reaching across the aisle (yeah, we noticed). Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with trying to work with the Democrats, that is noble, but not in such a way that it compromises your supposed conservatism. . . McCain is no conservative. He voted against both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, supports (and co-authored a plan for with Kennedy) amnesty, pushed gun control legislation, and originally called the war a waste of American lives before the surge. Mr. Straight Talker is a Flip-Flopper for sure. People like him because he is a war hero, and I respect him for that, but a military background is not necessarily proof that one is capable of running the military well, nor that they have good positions in regards to the military. Kerry and Murtha are vets, and look how idiotic they are regarding the military.

Huckabee said very little in the debate, nor was allowed to say much, it was a battle between Mitt Romney and John McCain, but when he did get a word in edgewise at the end regarding Ronald Reagan, I was blown away. The question was, would Ronald Reagan endorse you, and Huck said he didn't know, but he endorsed Reagan because he loved America. The following remarks by Huckabee were, well, remarkable, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he is soft on immigration, wants Gitmo closed, and has supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Ron Paul was granted very little time to speak, as well, and was even cut off at one point. Apparently, CNN recognized what Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee have not yet realized - it is a two man race now between McCain and Romney. I wish Huck would step down so that his supporters will vote for Romney on February 5th.

The Democrat Debate was on tonight on CNN, and in the beginning I found the crowd's cheers different from that of the Republican Debate. Granted, this is my own perception of it, but what I picked up on blew me away. The applause for the Republicans before the debate began sounded like an applause of admiration, and respect. The over-the-top cheers and overhanded applause for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tonight reminded me more of the crowd responses to Stalin and Hitler on Historic video I've seen.

In the debate with Obama and Hillary right off the bat it was about the new buzzword: Change. Well, Barack Obama stated that we are in a situation of outrageous health costs, and people losing their homes, and though he didn't say it, the underlying statement he was making was that it was government's job to save everyone. Hillary stated the new president will inherit a whole stack of problems caused by Bush's "failed administration." According to her the Bush economy only works for the wealthy and well-connected (wouldn't that include her?). Then she emphasized that we "must" have Universal Health Care, solve the mortgage crisis, and make our foreign affairs a diplomatic effort, not a military effort.

In relation to Health Care, Obama stated his plan was similar to Hillary's by 95%, but that his did not "mandate" that people take the care as Hillary's does.

Both want to go after "predatory lenders" when it comes to the housing crisis. (I don't know, maybe people should pay the consequences for their stupid decisions, instead - oh, wait, that's not the Democrat way - here comes the government to the rescue!)

Then Obama said his usual cliche line, "I was against Iraq from the start." He stated that we need to elevate diplomacy, and offer incentives to the enemy (carrots on sticks).

Immigration was brought up as well, and they bickered over the driver's licenses for illegals (and Hillary Clinton's flips and flops regarding that issue), and Obama indicated that unemployment is not connected to illegals. Both candidates agreed that they believe we should know who is coming across the border with a registration program, and the deport policy of Republicans is wrong because it criminalizes people helping illegals, it is mean spirited (and about then Hillary invoked the name of Jesus Christ), and that with their immigration position the GOP was undermining American Values.

Then when asked about the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton thing, and whether or not another Clinton could truly bring change, she quipped that looking back it looks like it'll take another Clinton to clean up after another Bush.

My first question to the candidates after watching the debate was, "With all of these programs and plans they have, How Will You Pay For It?" Obviously, they plan to repeal the tax cuts, and even though they aren't saying it, you and I both know that they will increase taxes (and sock it to the successful Americans who already pay 90% of the taxes) to try to pay for their programs, and it will still not be enough (and you thought Bush was a big spender). The idea of Universal Health Care is so repugnant it shocks me that anyone even thinks it's a good idea. Who are they to mandate that I pay in my taxes for other's health care? Why should I have to pay for children when mine are all grown up? Government has no business "mandating" health like that. And then, when their system puts the heath insurance industry out of business, what are they going to do about the hundreds of thousands of unemployed? Give them government jobs for a quarter of what they were making?

Don't get me wrong, I abhor the insurance industry (and I once was an agent in the industry of health insurance - along with life insurance and securities), and people forget that health insurance is around because of a government mandate making it so (once again, government speaks, and you-know-what hits the fan). The insurance industry is a problem, and health costs are high because the health care industry knows that the insurance industry has deep pockets. But that doesn't mean we should replace a problem with a system that will be a bigger problem, and to boot, one that will allow government more control over your life.

When it comes to illegal aliens, Obama is full of it - illegals have a direct affect on problems with businesses and employment. One such example is Terry Funderburk, a construction company owner going out of business because he can't compete with companies hiring illegals. And the Democrats seem to think that the illegals will gladly be registered and pay their fines and wait in line and everything will be okay. These people came across illegally for a reason. They don't want to wait in a line, or they have something to hide, and will not come forward because their criminal record or health problems will result in you sending them back - - - they don't want a pathway to citizenship, they want to work under the table, and they want to take the Southwest back for Mexico. And why is it the Democrats wish to be so fair to these illegals? They came here illegally! By being fair to these criminals, you are unfair to American citizens! Sorry, in my opinion citizens of this country outrank illegal aliens. Seal the border, penalize employers for hiring illegals, enforce the laws heavily and effectively, stop handing out freebies to these criminals, and we won't have to worry about all of the illegals in this country, they will deport themselves!

As for their position on the war, they are idiots. Simple fact, the Islamic Jihadists wish to kill us, and destroy The West. Islam is a political ideology in the guise of a religion, and they will not stop until we defeat them. Period. Why is it so hard for the liberal left to understand that? Carrot on a stick? Give them things, then they use them against us? Are you mad, Obama?

Perhaps it'll take another attack under their watch to convince them that, though diplomacy is a grand tool that should be used when it can be, military action is a necessary move, and no amount of diplomacy will work with these untrustworthy, bloodthirsty, barbaric, American-hating and Jew-hating Islamic Jihadists! They understand only strength. We show weakness, and they will move on us again. Guaranteed.

------------------------------

Did you miss my show with Author Gary W. Moore, author of Playing With The Enemy, last Saturday? Listen to the Archive of Political Pistachio and Gary W. Moore.

Miss my interview of the two authors of "Seventh Psalm" tonight? Check out the archive at Political Pistachio Radio.

And this Saturday I will be interviewing James Houston Turner, the author of The Identity Factor on Political Pistachio Radio.

Thursday of next week J.A. Konrath, author of the Jack Daniels Detective Series of books, will join me - on that day we will suspend all political discussion, and enjoy Konrath's unique brand of humor, as well as learn how he pulls off writing about a female character, in the first person, so effectively. Don't miss that episode of Political Pistachio Radio!

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Idiots and Morons and Libtards, Oh My!

My Google Alert tells me whenever someone on the world wide web mentions me, or links me. More often than not I ignore the alerts that tell me that particular lefty bloggers have written about me, but a sick curiosity encouraged me to check out the latest post by Neurotic Tom the Idiot Leftard Blogger. The same day I received yet another idiotic e-mail (actually two idiotic e-mails) from Mudkitty the leftard fur-ball, and moronic comments by Caday5 over at my Townhall site (not to mention that now somebody has hacked into my MySpace site and sent out messages to all my friends with a sex site link attached). So, I guess it is safe to say it has been a banner day for Douglas V. Gibbs, Political Blogger.

When it comes to Neurotic Tom, I tend to ignore the idiot. He's about as bright as Mr. "I Got My Reasons" over at BlogTalkRadio, and usually by ignoring him he places a noose around his neck and tugs the rope without any outside help. The interesting part of it is, however, that more often than not while Tom is hanging himself, he doesn't even notice that the chair beneath his feet has fallen over.

Well, I have copied his post in its entirety below with my comments to show you, the loyal Political Pistachio reader, how idiotic Tom truly can be. And for those of you that wish to tell me that I am simply feeding the troll, perhaps that is true, but every once in a while I become so fed up with the idiot that I feel like standing the chair up under his feet so that he can adjust his noose.

Anyway, here is that latest post he has written regarding me (I have replaced a few letters in the profanity with asterisks), my comments are in red.


Flip-Flop

Doug last week;

"Are we heading into a recession like all of the newpapers and news channels are saying?" I answered with a quick, "No."


Doug this week;.. because of government's tendency to want to save everyone with federal intervention, they will send us into a recession.

I swear, you can't make this sh** up.. what a f***ing idiot.

Okay, here is where Tom proves that he can't see beyond the nose on his face, nor does he understand more than what lies on the surface. And yes, Tom, I know you are reading this, so I will address this directly to you. You, my friend, are the idiot, not I. The first statement, if you will read it carefully, stated that I believe we are not heading towards a recession. But, if you read the post further I explain that our economy will remain strong as long as the government entitlement people keep their paws out of it. Specifically, I said, "The idiot Democrats truly believe our economy is headed for big trouble, and are proposing huge economic stumulus packages that will result in higher taxes, which will take money out of the pockets of the consumers, hence taking away their ability to buy as many products, which will slow down the movement of goods, which in turn will slow the economy and send us into that recession they think they are trying to avoid." In other words, I did not flip-flop, you idiot, I said there will be no recession if there is no government intervention because the economy will adjust itself, but with government doing what it can to save us, it will actually create an atmosphere that will head us straight into a recession. Does your simple mind understand that?

Doug has a weird complex that I don't think has been defined by science yet. Okay, now Tom has decided my ability to have my own opinion which differs from his is some kind of mental fault . . . For example, the people at the Fed that control monetary policy are professional economists that have dedicated their lives to economic issues. These are the cream of the intellectual crop, and while other economists may disagree with the fine print, they generally are exceptionally qualified to make judgements about the economy. Doug is a heavy equipment operator with no formal education. Despite this, he feels eminently qualified to opine on any topic, no matter how complex or arcane, as the economy is. It's really bizarre, this sense of expertise he feels he has on any subject.


The people at the Fed, those professional economists, are so indoctrinated by the socialist agenda that they believe that Government can cure all of our ills, and have lost sight of the truth. . .as for your nice little comment about me being a heavy equipment operator with no formal education, once again, Tom, you show how much of an idiot you truly are. First of all, regarding my education, my transcripts would probably disagree with you. I was helping idiots like you with their homework while I was at it, too. Secondly, regarding my qualifications to understand the economy and economic conditions, do you know what I did for a living before I began working in the construction industry? Take a guess. Buzzzzzz, wrong again. I was a loan counselor at a major financial institution, a licensed securities agent, and financial advisor for six years - all of that just before I worked closely with revenues for a city for four years. Sound like someone that doesn't understand the complexities of economics? But why then would Doug enter the construction industry? Well, that is a long story, but in the end, I made a lot more money operating that 24,000 pound piece of machinery than I did in the office, that is for sure. Or, were you stereotyping me, Tom? Are construction guys just too stupid to understand such things? I thought you libtards had a problem with people who stereotype?

And bonus idiocy..

When the president addressed climate change, I shook my head. The idea of man-made global warming is not only idiotic, but has been proven to be false. In fact, a Russian Scientist has determined that the natural warming cycle has come to an end, and we are heading into a cooling cycle which will peak in 2041.

Because one Russian scientist says it, it must be true.. uh huh.

That one story was the one I decided to reference. Thousands of scientists have come out against the man-made global warming lie. Actually, all you have to do is take some basic classes to understand that the warming of the planet is caused by the sun, and the cycles are dependent upon solar flare activity/sunspot activity to be specific. It is much more complex than that, but Tom, I don't think your simplistic mind could handle it, so I will give you only two materials to read regarding this. Holly Fretwell's "The Sky's Not Falling!" and Chris Horner's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism."

The best bit though...

I am now once again actively pursuing representation by literary agencies. Now, in this free country of fairness, the rejection letters I am receiving read: "Real page turner, well written, but I cannot represent anything that glorifies Bush's 'illegal' wars." I know a few writers that have gone through the same problem (two of those writers are my guests on Thursday's radio show).

The list of conservative books in the last 8 years are endless. Doug doesn't seem to understand that it's possible the literary agents are just being kind.. because, in reality, he's a sh***y writer. I'm not referring to the content, or the opinion, I'm referring to the mechanics of writing. He puts out a sizable volume, but the skill is borderline child-like.

Idiot, of course the list of conservative books in the last 8 years are endless - but notice they are all by folks that have face and/or name recognition by publishers that DO NOT accept first time writers - second of all, you are referring to non-fiction. The Fiction industry is even more inundated by liberal agents and publishers that place their opinions above the quality of the work. As for you sh**ty writer comment, after reading your site and your necessity for profanity to get your point across, I may be a crappy writer in your opinion, but compared to you, I am a freaking pulitzer prize winner. And if my skill is so borderline child-like, you moron, then why in college did I not only excel at research papers, but helped others write theirs as well, with A's as the results? And if I am such a sh**y writer, then why are my blogs so popular? You believe I am not a good writer because what I write does not agree with your idiotic view of the world. How about you set aside allowing your emotions to dominate your politics, and look at things from a rational point of view for once. Heck, Tom, you may actually notice the truth for once.

Okay, on to the next moron. Mudkitty is a name I am sure you longtime readers will recognize. Well, guess what, she still e-mails me. First e-mail she sends says "your guy is considered liberal," with a link to this VIDEO. No kidding, you idiot. I've been telling people McCain is liberal for a long time. Thanks for the video, it proves my point. Obviously, he is not my guy, but honestly, as liberal as McCain is, he is still not the Marxist that Hillary is, nor the racist socialist that Obama is.

The other e-mail from Mudkitty really cracks me up. The subject line says "Doug's adult site." This is the second time she has tried to pull this. Apparently, over at my Yahoo 360 site, if you find where I have on my site my interests and you click on the one that says "Time With My Wife," one of the ads that Yahoo uses in relation to that is a less than moral site. That's her claim of my adult site? Mudkitty, you are an idiot. That is an outside advertiser used by Yahoo 360 in relation to what I put.

Now I am not even going to go into the details of the idiocy my troll at my townhall site puts, but if you are curious, he's the commenter that goes by Caday5. Read it and laugh.

Oh, one more thing, some moron, speaking of which, at MySpace has hacked into my MySpace page and sent out sex-site links to all of my friends in my name - so for those of you that are my MySpace readers, I apologize, and if this continues, I will close the site and open a new one.

Okay, I think I am finished ranting about the idiots and morons and libtards (oh, my). Tomorrow I will be back to my regular conservative commentary.

God Bless, and please pray for the troops.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Florida Primary Results and Ted Kennedy's Inability to Answer a Question

In Florida, John McCain has won the entire plate-full of delegates in this winner-take-all state, which came to a surprise to many because Florida does not allow Independents to vote in Party Primaries. Giuliani's staggering defeat will no doubt encourage him to step out of the race, and Mike Huckabee should be not far behind. The stubborn little, big eared, Ron Paul will probably keep tootin' along, but the race has basically come down to Mitt Romney and John McCain. . . and Super Tuesday on February 5th will be the day that may determine who will take the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States.

Hillary Clinton won in Florida as well, but it doesn't matter because the Democrat Party stripped Florida of its delegates mattering in the Democratic Party Nomination.

With additional Liberal lunacy, check out this video where CBS asks Ted Kennedy if he fears an Obama assassination, and like the typical Liberal, he is unable to answer the question because his talking points control his mind. . .

Monday, January 28, 2008

The Presidential Divide

Tonight President George W. Bush delivered his seventh, and final, State of the Union Speech. For the transcript of the 2008 State of the Union address click HERE. That link will take you to the New York Times where they have published the full text of the 2008 State of the Union speech.

During this speech the president reminded Congress to trust and empower the American People, he recognized there is a bit of a slowdown in some aspects of the economy, stated that in regards to housing "We must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market," said a few words about his beloved "No Child Left Behind Act," emphasized his opinion of the importance of free trade, commented on improving our energy security, offered ideas regarding combating climate change, warned about spending on entitlement programs, and offered his two cents regarding illegal immigration. Then, President Bush turned his speech to the Surge in Iraq, and completed his address on our 2008 objectives in Iraq.

I agree that the Congress, and government as a whole, should trust and empower the American People, but I am not sure Bush, or the rest of those in office, fully realize that means in relation to the intentions of the founding fathers of this nation. "We the People" means more than just our ability to elect representatives and live our lives. "The People" is who the government is for, and by. . .

Acknowledging problems in the economy seems to be huge with the political pundits other than myself when it comes to Bush's speech. I do recognize a slowdown in the housing industry, and that the economy as a whole has become sluggish, but unless there is government intervention, I don't believe we are heading toward a recession in the immediate future. That's right, you heard me correctly. The economy will correct and adjust itself without the government sticking their noses into it, but I hardly expect that to happen, and because of government's tendency to want to save everyone with federal intervention, they will send us into a recession. Bush's stimulus package is one such government interference. Granted, eventually our economy will fall apart under the weight of the current habits of consumers, and any attempts to save it is actually like putting a bandage on a cancer. We have become a borrow and spend society - just like our trusted leaders when dealing with the growing global economy, hence one of the reasons for our large national deficit.

I do applaud President George W. Bush for his call to make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, but the question is, will he be willing to fight for them? Tax cuts grow economies. Reagan proved it, and John F. Kennedy believed it. Today's liberal does not understand it, nor do they wish for it.

Balancing the budget was also a topic he mentioned at one point, but I wonder why President Bush waited seven years before determining that balancing the budget is suddenly a good idea? Is he suddenly fearing that history would notice he never made an attempt when it came to balancing the budget?

I agree with Bush that we must trust students to learn if given the chance, and that we must give the parents the power to demand results from our schools. A big government program like the "No Child Left Behind Act" is not the way to accomplish that, however. Unfortunately, Bush is a big spender, and is willing to pile up dollars on the attempts to find solutions to problems, rather than just solve them. So tell me this: How can a government eliminate a deficit when every time there is a problem they throw money at it?

Trade is an important component in surviving in this growing global economy, but when free trade agreements are not structured properly, like NAFTA, they can spell disaster for economies. The current tendency of corporations to open operations elsewhere rather than here in the U.S. is one such consequence to such poorly written agreements. George W. Bush is a globalist, and cannot be trusted to protect the sovereignty of this nation. Hopefully the next president can be trusted to do so.

President Bush stated in his speech that we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I agree, but feel the need to add two additional comments. First, we must be willing to use some of our own oil (such as drilling in Alaska); and second, government interference will not create the environment necessary for our researchers and entrepreneurs to succeed in their tasks. As the free market economy has proven over and over, the driving force for new inventions is necessity and profit, not government mandates.

When the president addressed climate change, I shook my head. The idea of man-made global warming is not only idiotic, but has been proven to be false. In fact, a Russian Scientist has determined that the natural warming cycle has come to an end, and we are heading into a cooling cycle which will peak in 2041. So, Bush (and McCain) is in error to jump on the global climate change bandwagon, and I believe did so out of an attempt to appease the other side - a poor choice in my opinion.

Entitlement reform. Congress fails to address this issue because Congress desires to expand entitlement programs. Spending on these programs is growing faster than we can afford, and the solution does not lie in more government programs as the Democrats desire.

Illegal Immigration was not called by the proper name by the president, in my opinion. Illegal Alien Invasion is the term that better fits this problem. Problem is, the complexities of this issue are not complex at all. President Bush's globalistic leanings once again cloud his vision on this issue. The solution is simple. Seal the borders, and enforce the laws on the books. With no work available, and benefits withdrawn, we will not have to worry about the millions of illegals in this country, because with the opportunities and freebies withdrawn, they will deport themselves, and return whence they came.

The evidence that the surge in Iraq is succeeding is so strong that even the Democrats are beginning to admit the success. Bush was careful when speaking of the surge, however, trying to be careful not to be misunderstood as he was during his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Back then the mission was accomplished, but he failed to explain the necessity of continuing our presence. Saddam Hussein was like a cancer, and after being removed, it was not prudent to leave the body open and susceptible to infection, but the Democrats failed to recognize that because Bush did not verbalize it properly. The statement that summed up the surge best was this: "Some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists, there is no doubt."

The 2008 State of the Union speech was not the best speech Bush has delivered by far, but it was accompanied by sitting Democrats refusing to rise and clap, and by Pelosi behind the president seemingly put out by having to attend the speech.

Looked like more of the same in Washington.

Perhaps that is why the focus of the upcoming election for president seems to be "change."

Sunday, January 27, 2008

An E-mail Among Friends of the Opposite Political Stripe

My friend Dan wrote to his e-mail list recently:

Dear Friends,

Especially those of you (the vast majority) likely to vote in the Democratic primary on February 5.

Until now, I've been strongly inclined toward John Edwards. Not only because of his strong populist message over the past months, but also because I've been convinced that he would be the most electable. And though I still feel that way, and do have concerns about the electability of Obama in a still very racist America — and much stronger doubts about the electability of Clinton — I would now urge everyone still considering voting for Edwards to switch to Obama.

With Edwards only getting 18% of the vote in a state where one might assume his natural base would lie, and since I've always felt that he and Obama have very similar outlooks, I feel that with the winds of change blowing in Obama's direction, and with the kind of enthusiasm he clearly inspires, he deserves the support of as many as possible.

Obama, like Edwards, represents big changes. Clinton represents more of the same politics that got us into Kosovo, that supported programs like NAFTA, and that would make possible little more than band-aid applications to the gaping wounds our world suffers from. We need someone willing to look beyond, someone with whom there exists the possibility of a truly significant difference. Obama stands a real chance of being that person.

Below, a comment from the CNN website, which suggests a bit more about the way in which the Clintons will likely be continuing to conduct their campaign in the days ahead. With this in mind, I suggest that this coming vote may be the most crucial one you cast in your lifetime. I urge it be for Obama.

All the best, Dan

From CNN: The former President was actually the first Clinton to speak in the wake of Obama's triumph Saturday evening, and it only underscored how his outsized, vocal presence on the trail has threatened to overshadow his wife. Earlier in the day, Clinton had churlishly compared Obama's victory to that of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, a remark that will likely further fuel disaffection about the Clintons amongst African-American voters. There was evidence that Obama's victory was also a repudiation of the brand of hard-knuckled politics that both Clintons had brought to the South Carolina contest. Exit polls indicated that Bill Clinton's campaigning made a difference to about 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters. But of those voters, 47% went for Barack Obama, while only 38% went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent voted for John Edwards. The Obama campaign gleefully noted that in the mostly black precincts that Bill Clinton visted in Greenville, as much as 80% of the vote went to Obama.

***************************************

MY RESPONSE:

My dear friend Dan,

Thank you for your concern regarding my vote, and I assure you, I have taken a lot of time to study the candidates and determine who will receive my vote. However, since I am a registered Republican, and a strong Conservative (as well you know), I am inclined to vote for Mitt Romney. As a candidate he has the strongest Economic Background, recognizes the successes the surge has brought in this difficult war against the Islamic Jihad, and has grown to recognize his past errors on the social issues. He, also, unlike any of the moderate Republicans and any of the Democrats, understands that the U.S. Constitution was designed to "limit" the size of the Federal Government, and though atrocious laws like legalized abortion (which is actually unconstitutional since the Judicial Branch is not supposed to be the branch making law according to the U.S. Constitution) should be turned around, he also recognizes that it is none of the Federal Government's business, and that such laws are supposed to be Constitutionally left up to each individual state. The fact that he is a Mormon does not bother me nearly as much as it bothers many of my Christian Conservative brethren. The only religion (well, political ideology under the guise of religion in this case, anyway) I would reject for the presidency is Muslim. Honestly, my original favorites were Jim Gilmore, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter, but since they have all dropped out for various reasons, and I cannot in my good conscience vote Democrat, Mitt Romney has become my candidate of choice.

I hope all is well for you in France, if you still remain there, and would like to inform you that my blogs and Internet radio show, as well as my list of viable references in the entertainment industry (writers, actors, radio personalities), has grown to such a number that I am now once again actively pursuing representation by literary agencies. Now, in this free country of fairness, the rejection letters I am receiving read: "Real page turner, well written, but I cannot represent anything that glorifies Bush's 'illegal' wars." I know a few writers that have gone through the same problem (two of those writers are my guests on Thursday's radio show).

Well, it is disheartening, to say the least, because the poor dears don't understand the law as provided by the U.S. Constitution. Although Congress is tasked with "declaring" war, the President is tasked with "waging" war, and can do so without Congressional okay. This is in place because when the U.S. Constitution was written our Representatives did not enjoy lightning fast communication or transportation technology, and if a war needed to be waged, and a large number of members of Congress were in their home states, the President couldn't very well wait for all of the members of Congress to return before waging war. Also, in the case of Iraq, the invasion was justified by Saddam Hussein breaking numerous provisions in the cease fire agreement signed after the Persian Gulf War during which we protected Kuwait. Breaking these provisions, in the text of the agreement, gave the United States legal cause to return to the region with guns blazing.

Please remain safe, and I look forward to the next opportunity to sit and talk shop with you regarding writing, publishing, and of course a little smidgen of politics.

God Bless,

Doug
www.politicalpistachio.com

********************************

By the way, for those of you wishing to learn more about how the U.S. Constitution applies to our government, and about how today's American Government has it wrong in a lot of way when you take in consideration what the founding fathers intended, join Loki and myself on a new radio talkshow on BlogTalkRadio called Founding Truth coming up on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Today Was National Pistachio Day

Until I came across The Nibble today, I didn't even know that National Pistachio Day existed. According to the article linked above our beef with Iran after the rise of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, dated in 1979, resulted in better pistachios. Following the hostage crisis a U.S. trade embargo against Iran stopped the pistachio import from Iran. As a result, California farmers needed to plant the crop here in the United States, and as a result, using America's superior farming methods, a better pistachio resulted.

Thus, was the beginning of the California Pistachio in the increased number it enjoys now. That is a great story about nuts. Now, since it is National Pistachio Day, I thought this post ought to also address more nuts in the world than just pistachios.

The nuts over at the ACLU have decided that in an effort to assist Senator Larry Craig (the toe tapping Republican that got caught in a public restroom hoping for a gay sexual rendezvous) they would declare that sex in restroom stalls is private, and that Larry Craig is not only guilty of nothing, but should counter with the argument that in the public restroom he should have an expectation of privacy. Let me get this straight. The ACLU believes that public sex in a bathroom is okay? And they are willing to support a Republican to prove it? Not only was Larry Craig nuts for getting himself into such a stupid mess, but the ACLU is nuts for actually arguing such an idiotic point.

Those nuts over on the Democrat side had a primary today in South Carolina, and amazingly, Barack Obama kicked Hillary Clinton's butt, taking over half of the total vote, and gaining 25 delegates over Hillary's 12, and Edward's 8. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Barack Hussein Obama, but for some reason I derive pleasure from any setbacks the Clinton Machine receives.

Microsoft has decided that an increase in technology means they should take more of a Big Brother attitude with their workers. That's right, Microsoft is developing software capable of monitoring people's heart rates, body temperatures, movements, facial expressions, and blood pressure all in an effort to determine the employee's productivity, physical well-being, and competence. This type of intrusion can only mean two things. First, we are heading into an Orwellian Society that even George Orwell would find shocking; and second, the Democrats are inching closer to the elitist led, socialistic society of human automatons they have been dreaming of.

In Iowa a Muslim Imam gave a prayer in the Iowa Legislature (which to me is like asking a Nazi to do the same during World War II) and the prayer asked for "Victory over those who disbelieve," and "Protection from the Great Satan." (Remember, the Great Satan is the good ol' U.S. of A. Many of the local citizenry and some of those elected officials in the session were concerned about the Muslim prayer. Well, I don't blame them for being concerned. I would also be wondering who the idiot was that asked an Imam to open the session with a Muslim prayer in the first place. That is just nuts!

A week ago in New York City (Queens borough) Shi'ite Muslims flagellated themselves during a procession marking the festival of Ashura outside the al-Khoei Islamic Center. Ashura is the 10-day festival that marks the death of Prophet Muhammad's grandson (and revered saint) Imam Hussein in Karbala, Iraq over 1,300 years ago. That's right. This happened here in America, ghastly, bloody, self-mutilation on public streets.

Over a year ago (and I finally learned about this now) an Islamic Prayer Center was opened at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, accompanied by a huge dedication (could you imagine the ACLU's outrage if a Christian Church was given a dedication on a military base?), and in the shadow of the Haditha Marines situation, no less. My God, how much more nuts can this get?

In the meantime, in Iraq, Shiites of the crazy kind slashed their heads to bring on blood in the hopes of hastening the return of the Hidden Imam (or Mahdi, or 12th Imam), a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who disappeared as a child in the ninth century. The Mahdi will only return during a time of global chaos, and is predicted to bring about seven years of peace, and then will destroy all of the infidels (kind of sounds like the anti-Christ to me).

The fairytale, the "Three Little Pigs," has been found to be offensive to Muslims. Well, I suppose Little Red Riding Hood offends Wolves, Little Jack Horner offends plums, Jack Be Nimble offends lovers of candles, and Three Men In A Tub offends Gays who aren't promiscuous too.

And Finally, the final nut on National Pistachio Day: American al-Qaeda militant Adam Gadahn urged Islamist militants in a video to welcome George W. Bush when he visited the Middle East with bombs and traps, not flowers and applause.

--------------------------------------------

Okay, now for a non-nutty piece of information. . . did you miss today's broadcast of Political Pistachio Radio? Check it out. My guest was Gary W. Moore, author of Playing With The Enemy.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Another Reason Not To Like McCain


Have you heard? The New York Times has endorsed John McCain. To be honest, when a liberal newspaper that is willing to aid the enemy by releasing American Intelligence information endorses a Republican Candidate, red flags go up. The left has a crush on McCain because they remember when he voted against the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and they remember that he was a key player in trying to push the Amnesty Program through. Even McCain's mama has admitted that John McCain is getting no support from the conservative base.

But here's the real kicker. . . Open Borders Advocate Juan Hernandez has joined the McCain Campaign - - - that's right, those that wish for our borders to become nothing more than a dotted line on a map are in McCain's corner.

Yes, Romney may be a Mormon, but he is more of a Conservative than McCain will ever be.

Sorry, McCain supporters, I know John is a war hero and all, and I respect him for that, but he is too weak on border security, the economy, and way too chummy with Liberals (like Kennedy and Feingold) to get my vote.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

The Florida Debate, Economics, and Eating Muhammad

Tonight I participated with Ed Morrisey of the Captain's Quarters Blog, as well as a whole host of other bloggers and radio hosts, on Debate Central to discuss tonight's Republican Debate in Florida. We all agreed that Mitt Romney was the winner tonight, and that MSNBC, as expected, did a poor job of hosting the debate.

Mitt Romney's economic expertise was apparent in the first round of questions, and McCain had to battle explaining why he voted against the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003, and then is suddenly for making them permanent. Interestingly, Tim Russert made the statement that the Economy was the most important issue. Why? Was it because the surge is working in Iraq and so the war is no longer an effective issue to hammer with their doom and gloom scenario? Or is it because they wish to now continue to try to convince Americans that the Economy is crashing when in reality, like man-made Global Warming, that is an all-out lie? (more on the economy later in this post. . . )

Romney's raise of fees in Massachusetts was brought up, and like usual, Liberal MSNBC equated it with being a tax raise without recognizing all of the facts. In reality, over three-quarter of those fees haven't been touched in over 30 years. The Marriage License fee was still $5.00. What Mitt Romney did was raise the fees to the actual cost of processing the licenses and such instead of having the general fund subsidize them. In other words, he took the burden of the fees off of the backs of the taxpayers and applied them to those purchasing the permits or licenses!

As expected, when Ron Paul was asked about the economy and taxes he threw in that he would quit wasting money overseas in the war (is he saying that our young men's lives have been wasted?). Ron Paul and his oversized ears needs to step down from the race. He may have some very good views in regards to the U.S. Constitution, but his foreign policy is completely nuts.

The MSNBC questions included loaded questions with phrases like "Army too small and poorly resourced" (poorly resourced? Isn't that the fault of the Congress for refusing to fund the troops?) However, Romney's response was that in order to increase the number of enlisted, the military needed to improve the deal, offering more benefits for enlistment. He then rightly reminded us that we cannot turn Iraq over to al-Qaeda. Also, when faced with the statement that Democrats are now saying the surge is working because of their calls to abandon the region, he responded with "Our success is due to the blood and courage of our troops, and to Bush and General Petraeus."

McCain criticized Rumsfeld's handling of the war, Rudy proclaimed our goal is a stable Iraq, and of course Ron Paul bantered that the war was a bad idea and that he believes al-Qaeda is in Iraq because of our presence. (What an idiot)

Huckabee, in response to the question about the war, stated that he supported the president from the beginning, and that we owe him our thanks for his courage. "Just because WMD's weren't found it doesn't mean they weren't there." Then he later talked about his Fair Tax, which though unproven, intrigues me.

Where Mitt Romney really shined, however, is when asked how he would run against Hillary Clinton. "Hillary is out of step when it comes to taxes and health care. . . Hillary is rotten to the core. . . I will run it like Ronald Reagan. . ."

My prediction? Mitt Romney wins Florida and the nomination in the end because all of the Hunter and Thompson Conservatives have moved to support Romney because he is the most conservative of the remaining candidates.

Now for a few words regarding the economy. For those dummies out there quoting the mainstream media that the economy is headed for a recession, let me give you these following tidbits: Existing-home sales rose in November, and the Stock Market managed a dramatic comeback after troubles in Europe's and Japan's stock markets. The Economy will adjust itself if the government keeps its gloves off of it. No recession is coming as long as buyers take advantage of the dropping prices of homes, unemployment rate remains low, and products and services continue to move.

If the government wants to assist the economy, reduce taxes and eliminate red-tape so that they can provide an environment where businesses can flourish. As for Bush's stimulus package? Big mistake. It essentially creates a burden on the taxpayers that eventually will backfire and send us into economic woes. If Washington wants to save the economy, their best bet is to keep their nose out of the economy, and keep taxes low.

Finally, did you hear about the Christian infidels that plan to "Eat Muhammad?" Well, a new political television show planned to challenge Islam with biting humor by placing the face of Muhammad on a cookie and then eating it on camera. The show is called "Flamethrower" and desires to assist the populace in understanding that Islam isn't really even a religion, but an ideology of "might makes right" disguised as a religion. Their point was to declare that America is still a free country, and there is no need to cower in fear from Islamo-fascism.

Apparently, our nation isn't nearly as free as they thought. The Network censors gagged the Muhammad eating stunt, saying it was not in good taste.

Yet, our society proclaimed that a crucifix in a jar of urine was art, and that burning an American Flag is "Freedom of Expression."

Jeeez.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Remaining for a Red November

With the loss of Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson from the Republican Presidential race in Election 2008, the Republican Party has left little remaining for America's Conservatives. As the Florida Primary approaches on Tuesday, January 29, it is becoming clear that the battle has narrowed to Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy has placed everything on Florida, and a poor outing in that state will force him out of the race. Ron Paul never had a chance. Mike Huckabee has not campaigned in Florida due to a lack of funding, and his comment that he wishes to close Gitmo knocked him out of my support circle.

This leaves Mitt Romney and John McCain.

I have not forgotten McCain's Congressional record and his band of fourteen. I have not forgotten the fact that he was against Bush's tax cuts, and voted against just about every conservative item to cross the floor. He has produced bills with Kennedy, Feingold, and Leiberman. McCain supports amnesty, and believes in the Global Warming lie. He is hardly a conservative.

Though Romney is a Mormon, he has shown that he is a fiscal conservative that is in full support of the tax-cuts. Mitt was a successful governor of Massachusetts in a hostile, liberal environment. Romney has shown that he supports the surge, and the war against the Islamic Jihad. Although he has changed his position on a few issues, they have been in the right direction, and he has not flip-flopped back.

As much as I hate to say it, the remaining candidate that I am willing to support is Mitt Romney.

-------------------------

Join the Red November Blogroll

Monday, January 21, 2008

Martin Luther King Jr. and President Bill Clinton Sleeping


Today was a Federal Holiday. The Post Office was closed, and my mailbox is empty. Students remained home from school. The Banks enjoyed a day of rest. Why? Because today was the day we have set aside to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his message of hope and America's departure from segratation, and the attempt to finally become a society of one people: Americans.

I was considering writing a nice long post about how the idea of multi-culturalism actually teaches the opposite of what Dr. King preached, and how today's society seems to be more intent on segragating people in an attempt to not "offend" anyone. The sad thing is, Dr. King's dream is in jeopardy. We have forgotten how to be Americans.

But, as I was thinking about this, a fascinating article crossed my desk.

During a service at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church yesterday to honor Dr. King, Bill Clinton, who was in attendance, decided it was more important to take a nap.

When you go to the site above that I linked, be sure to watch the video too, or you may access the video by clicking on the picture of Bill Clinton napping above.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Misunderstanding Nevada and South Carolina - Election 2008

It seems that the mainstream media has forgotten what the primaries and caucuses are all about. The idea that it takes delegates, not percentages, to win the nomination, has apparently slipped their minds. This morning's newspaper proudly proclaimed that McCain and Clinton won the battles yesterday on January 19, 2008.

But did they?

On the Democrat side, even though Hillary Clinton won a total of 51% of the vote, and Barack Obama pulled off 45%, in reality, Obama was the winner because he gained 13 delegates over Clinton's 12.

And even though McCain has won South Carolina (which, by the way, the winner in South Carolina has always won the nomination), in the overall numbers, Romney (who won in Nevada) is still the leader in total delegates (even though the media will proclaim he's in serious trouble).

As a closing note, it is a shame that Hunter has stepped out of the race. Due to the lack of fire in his belly, Fred Thompson (as much as I hate to say it) may be next. Giuliani needs to step down. Yet another failed showing tells me he's done.

Note: Today was National Sanctity of Human Life Day

Friday, January 18, 2008

Eighth Grade Education


this is making its rounds through the e-mails, thought you'd find it interesting (note my commentary at the end):

("Only") 8th Grade Education

Let's give this to the Mexicans or all immigrants, for
citizenship.
(of course we wouldn't pass either)

What it took to get an 8th grade education in 1895 ...

Remember when grandparents and great-grandparents stated that they only had an 8th grade education? Well, check this out. Could any of us have passed the 8th grade in 1895?

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, Kansas, USA. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS - 1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.

2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.

3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph.

4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of
"lie,""play," and "run."

5. Define case; illustrate each case.

6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.

7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.


Arithmetic (Time, 1 hour 15 minutes)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?

3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. for
tare?

4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?

5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.

6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.

7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?

8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.

9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?

10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.


U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.

2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus .

3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.

4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.

5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.

6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.

7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?

8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.


Orthography (Time, one hour)

1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication

2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?

3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals.

4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)

5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.

6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.

7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.

8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.

9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.

10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.


Geography (Time, one hour)

1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?

2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?

3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?

4. Describe the mountains of North America.

5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.

6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.

7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.

8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?

9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.

10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.


Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.

Gives the saying "he only had an 8th grade education" a whole new meaning, doesn't it?

Also shows you how poor our education system has become!

END OF EMAIL

--------------------------

Political Pistachio's added note: Though this fascinating display of questions makes one think that we have been dumbed down, it takes one to consider the obvious to realize that this does not necessarily prove anything. I am not disagreeing that our schools are not what they used to be. I agree we are far from providing the level of education that was received over a hundred years ago. But think about it. . . how many of you could truly pass the same test with the same flying colors you passed years and years ago? Besides, education and tests have changed over the years. Take into consideration the lack of questions regarding, for example, literature, in the exam above. Or, do you really need to know in this day and age how many bushels of anything fits into something?

I am not questioning that an eighth grade education in 1895 was more than eighth graders receive nowadays. I am just pointing out that with the passing of years the questions have needed to change, and also with the passing of years we do not retain all that we learned, nor could we pass many of the tests we took when we were younger. The only reason I am up on what would be in an exam of this nature at all is because I read a lot, recently helped my wife finish pursuing her collegiate degree, and have a daughter in high school of whom I help with homework. . . and I still doubt I could pass the tests needed now to graduate from middle school.

As for the Mexicans, willingness to follow the law, and assimilate into American Society, is all I ask.

Just a thought.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

A Fort Falls in Pakistan

According to the Associated Press, radical Islamic militants have overrun a Pakistani fort near the Afghanistan border, killing at least 25 soldiers. After the attack the Islamic insurgents abandoned the fort and disappeared into the hills.

This attack raises concern over the security of the area, and is evidence that the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is seen as an opportunity by the Islamic Jihadists to chip away at President Pervez Musharraf's administration. After all, how long before the Jihadists begin to oppose the Pakistani more openly at larger military complexes?

The insurgents who attacked the post are believed to represent Baitullah Mehsud, an Islamic hard-liner who is the leader of a group of Taliban sympathizers and who is thought to have links to al-Qaida.

The attacking force on Fort Sararogha consisted of about 200 militants who charged the fort from four sides. They used rockets to break through the fort's wall.

The military claimed the defenders killed 50 militants before being overwhelmed.

There was no way to verify casualty numbers. Both sides have long accused each other of exaggerating such figures.

Musharraf first deployed the army in Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal regions along the frontier in late 2001 to chase down al-Qaida militants fleeing the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.

The big question is, how long before the Islamic Jihad moves beyond the frontier, and sets its sights on the population centers of Pakistan, and Musharraf's presidency?

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

All of the Laborers Are In Mexico


Tonight I was going to originally post about the Michigan Primary, but I think a link and a quick explanation is good enough. Romney won, with McCain in second.

Tonight's post, however, actually began to grow within the depths of my gray matter during my eventless drive to the construction jobsite I was to labor at today. The place I had to go was a long drive south from where I live. Normally, in the morning, to go down to San Diego and her many suburban neighbors, it takes me about an hour and a half. Sometimes it takes me longer, rarely shorter. Yesterday morning and this morning I arrived very early to my destination.

Here in Southern California a freeway void of heavy traffic during rush hour (and often during any hour, for that matter) is relatively unheard of. Sometimes around certain holidays the traffic will be light, but the norm is heavy, bumper to bumper, nauseating, horn blowing, head-splitting, I just can't take it anymore traffic. But not yesterday, and not this morning.

As a result of the housing slowdown I am not on the freeways as often anymore, and I suppose I just never noticed before today how light the traffic had truly become. Today, I brought this up to one of my co-workers, and he says, "Of course the traffic is light, with the slow-down all of the laborers are in Mexico."

I thought about it. Hmmmm, he might be right. So, when I got home, I began to do a little research. Apparently, many illegals are departing the United States and heading back to Mexico, but not just because of the housing slow-down, but also because of the tougher new legislation regarding illegal immigrants.

Another interesting development is that with all of these American manufacturers heading to Mexico with their manufacturing plants, many of the jobs illegals came here hoping to land are popping up back in Mexico.

So, to answer the question of those that say we can't just deport all of the illegals in the United States, and that's why we need to give them amnesty - - - I say that we don't have to deport them. Along with the current conditions all we need to do is penalize employers for hiring illegals, quit handing out freebies to them, and enforce the law that is on the books, and they will all go back to Mexico willingly.

------------------------------------

and don't miss the next installment of Political Pistachio Radio on Wednesday night @ 10pm Eastern (our guest is Paul Ibbetson, author of Living Under the Patriot Act: Educating a Society).

Monday, January 14, 2008

Filipino Monkey


What is, you may ask, a Filipino Monkey? Well, although technically the little guy in the picture is a Filipino monkey, he's not the Filipino Monkey I am referring to.

Let's rewind to Sunday, January 6, 2008 when U.S. Navy warships encountered five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats. A four minute video (two minutes of which was shown on Sky News) was produced regarding the encounter. Some proclaim the video is a fabrication. Al Jazeera is careful to explain that Iran downplays that it was a provocation against the U.S. Navy. The American Media, with the USS Cole attack still fresh in their minds, report that the Iranians were a heartbeat from being blown up.

Oops, rewind. Shouldn't the headline have been that the American ships were taunted?

And then there is this little piece of information, which is in the above linked ABC News article, that people conveniently forgot. According to a Navy intelligence report on the incident, the Iranians radioed, "I am coming at you. You will blow up in a couple of minutes."

Now is the interesting part. Was it the Iranians that radioed that threat, or another source?

It is possible that the radio transmission that made the threat was by a locally famous heckler known among ship drivers as the “Filipino Monkey.”

Now, that transmission (I am coming for you. You will explode in a few minutes) may have been coordinated with the speedboats. Or, it may have been the heckler capitalizing on the situation, for the fun of it. The voice in the audio sounded different from the Iranian Officer shown speaking to the cruiser Port Royal over a radio from a small open boat in the video released by Iranian authorities.

One wonders if what happened in the Hormuz Straight on January 6 is no more than a misunderstanding, a prank (after all, we really don't know how many Filipino Monkeys there are), or a dry run for the next attack on U.S. warships in the style of the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000.

Regardless of the radio transmissions authenticity, the approaching boats were showing aggressive behavior, and the voice on the radio proclaimed that the ships were being attacked.

I am sure it was the current rules of engagement that held back the commanders from blowing those boats out of the water, but next time, it may not be a joke.

Next time they need to blast any vessel exhibiting aggressive behavior out of the water - because next time they might be weighed down with enough explosives to blow a hole in the side of one of our warships.

Added note: Commenters on the ABC site mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin. . . Give me a break. How stupid can you be? Do you really believe the U.S. is trying to pick a fight with Iran? That would be almost as stupid as your idiotic comment.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Economics, the housing market, and the coming recession


The other day my brother called me on the telphone to ask me an economic question. He asked, "Are we heading into a recession like all of the newpapers and news channels are saying?"

I answered with a quick, "No."

I explained to him that the unemployment rate has remained low for an incredibly long time. The unemployment rate is a strong indicator of a country's economic strength. When unemployment is high, the economy may be weak and hence its currency may fall in value. As long as it remains low, that means people are working, and buying goods. Of course, what keeps an economy moving in a healthy manner is the movement of goods.

The Stock Market has remained strong, with a few bumps in the road, but for the most part remaining healthy and breaking numerous records for volume trading in 2007. All of this, of course, comes to the surprise to those that wish to attempt to blame a poor economy on George W. Bush. Problem is, aside from the housing slowdown, the enonomy is strong, and apparently the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 are a large part of the stable economy.

Wait a minute. Our media and lefty friends swear up and down we are heading into a recession. The economy is falling apart. The housing slowdown is screwing our economy.

Wrong again.

Like our planetary temperature, the economy moves in cycles, rising and dropping on a continuous basis. The longer the period between fluctuations, the more severe the fluctuation. And the housing slowdown is no different.

When housing slows down, prices drop, and the Feds in order to attempt to keep order, drops the Prime Rate as well. Lower prices and lower interest rates, combined with a low unemployment rate, creates a buyers market with a surplus of employed buyers for first time home buyers, who tend to buy houses that have been standing for a while. This, then, results in a rise in "Existing-home" sales, which in turn stabilizes the market. And here's the thing; just because housing slows down in one part of the country, it doesn't mean the whole country is heading into a tail-spin. Even though housing has come to a crawl in Nevada, California, Arizona and Florida, it doesn't mean that new houses are not being built elsewhere.

As for those bad mortgages? Serves those consumers right. The bad mortgages were balloon-rate mortgages, which, after 5 years, blossom into a higher rate. Buyers receive these mortgages for the extremely low opening rate, hoping their income will rise enough to carry the balloon rate later when it arrives. Unfortunately, this type of budgeting is akin to gambling, and a lot of gamblers lost all at once this time around. So, now the greedy lending companies that gave these loans are going out of business, and a record number of people are losing their houses. The people out of a house, I am sure, have learned their lessons, and the houses being foreclosed upon are now being bought at a lower price by other consumers, allowing more people to qualify for a house, which in turn is beginning to stir the economy in a good direction.

In the meantime, the idiot Democrats truly believe our economy is headed for big trouble, and are proposing huge economic stumulus packages that will result in higher taxes, which will take money out of the pockets of the consumers, hence taking away their ability to buy as many products, which will slow down the movement of goods, which in turn will slow the economy and send us into that recession they think they are trying to avoid.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Columbia University Once Again Makes Me Scratch My Head In Disbelief


According to an article at Mehr News dot com, Columbia professors plan to visit Iran to apologize to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for what they consider to be insulting remarks Columbia University President Lee Bollinger directed at the visiting Iranian President on September 24th of 2007. Ever since the incident these professors have criticized Bollinger's behavior toward Ahmadinejad.

At the end of the above linked article, it states, "Bollinger has so far refused to meet the Mehr News Agency correspondent to explain his disrespectful behavior toward Ahamdinejad when introducing him to the students and professors at Columbia."

Disrespectful behavior?

If you remember, Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger was being simply honest when introducing Ahmadinejad as a "petty and cruel dictator," and questioned the Iranian leader's record on human rights and his statements that the Holocaust was a myth. The moderator (John H. Coatsworth), during the question and answer period, also accused Ahmadinejad of avoiding questions about Israel and Iran's treatment of women and gays.

I wonder if these same professors, that are so offended by the Iranian President being called a petty and cruel dictator, have any problems with the ongoing verbal onslaught of much worse name calling by Americans against President Bush and our fine men and women fighting overseas? And what about Ahmadinejad's behavior towards Christians, Jews, Non-Muslims, women, gays, and cartoonists? Do those professors have a problem against that?

The only thing this action by the professors will accomplish is to confirm to the enemy that we are weak, quick to rip out our spines, and expose our underbelly. The Islamic Jihad will not see this as anything other than weakness. And it is a mistake to show these people any sign of weakness. Signs of weakness to the Islamic Jihad costs precious lives.

This isn't surprising, though, if you think about it. Lefties have a tendency to appease the enemy. It was true in 1938 and 1968, and it is true in 2008. The only difference is their willingness to be so blatant about it.

Now, my daughter is preparing for college, and when I see members of Columbia University's faculty visiting the fascist, genocidal dictator of Iran in order to apologize for Dr. Bollinger's introduction of him when he spoke last September, I think to myself that the fascist of Iran needs no apologies. He really needs a bullet in the head.

Needless to say, my daughter will not be applying to Columbia University.

Friday, January 11, 2008

The Republican Candidates - How fitting are they for the GOP?


In the hunt for a Red November, one may ask the question, "Where do the Republican Presidential Candidates truly stand?" The facts may surprise you:

Rudy Giuliani:

Rudy Giuliani has made it apparent that he believes that when it comes to the war on terror, he is behind the effort 100%. In May, 2007 on Fox News Sunday he said, "I've never heard of an army in the history of the world being required, if it's going to retreat, to give its enemy a timetable of that retreat." He has been a continued supporter of the notion that the U.S. forces also need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over. However, Rudy is neutral on the issue regarding the development of a Missile Defense System (Star Wars).

When it comes to the issue of illegal immigration in the United States, though Rudy claims that he believes that we should tighten security first, he also believes that the U.S. should provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here. In May 2007 in the New York Sun he is quoted as saying, "If they're working, and they're complying with the law, and they're making a contribution, then let's sign them up, let's register them, let's collect their taxes, and let's let them pay their fair share." In last November 2007 during the GOP debate in Florida Romney accused Rudy of allowing New York to be a sanctuary city. Rudy denied such, stating that it was not a sanctuary city, but "New York City had a policy of allowing people who are illegal immigrants to report crime and to put their children in school. Otherwise, we reported every single illegal immigrant that committed a crime. The results were pretty darn good. I brought down crime by over 60%. I brought down homicide by 67%. I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country." In fact, Giuliani's policy as mayor was not so simple as he claims. New York didn't describe itself as a "sanctuary city" for aliens. However, Giuliani told the New York Times early in 1994 that "Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens. If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive." The Times said back then that the mayor was "virtually urging illegal immigrants to settle in NYC."

Rudy believes the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be made permanent, and is widely known to be fairly conservative fiscally, though there are some bumps on his fiscal record. Though Rudy opposes affirmative action (the requirement to hire more women and minorities to meet some kind of quota), and supports the decrease in overall taxation of the wealthy, he has been neutral on the issue of more federal funding for health coverage, neutral on privatizing social security (he has not endorsed legislation or offered a detailed proposal, but he has voiced support for personal accounts and contends that people should have some choice in the way the system is handled), neutral on the issue of free trade, and neutral on linking human rights to trade with China. However, he has indicated, in regards to universal health care in America, on July 7, 2007, that he opposes the idea - but does support using a tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance, getting rid of insurance through employers. Leftover funds would be rolled over year to year for medical expenses.

When it comes to the sanctity of life Giuliani is quite wishy washy. On May 3, 2007 when asked on the MSNBC GOP presidential debate whether expansion of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would progress under his administration, Rudy replied, "As long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning, and we limit it to that, and there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations. In other words, he favors federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as long as the embryo is on its way to being killed anyway. As for the abortion issue, he favors legalized abortion in the U.S., but in an attempt to appeal to the pro-life movement, states he hates abortion. At the Fox News GOP presidential debate in South Carolina on May 15, 2007 he explained that "There are people, millions and millions of Americans, who are of good conscience as we are, who make a different choice about abortion. And I think in a country where you want to keep government out of people's lives, or government out of people's lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that."

Rudy Guiliani opposes giving the president a "line-item" veto. In an interview with Chris Wallace May 2007 Rudy said that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. He stated that it fundamentally alters the separation of powers.

Rudy supports federal assistance for the production of alternative fuels. On CNBC Kudlow and Company he said, "We've got to get serious about ethanol because Brazil is way ahead on ethanol."

Rudy opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, even though he has stated that a marriage should be between a man and a woman (once again trying to appeal to both sides).

Rudy favors the use of the death penalty for certain crimes, especially advocating for capital punishment for those who commit treason against the United States. He testified in convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui's death penalty trial, and urged prosecutors to pursue the death penalty against American Taliban fighter John Walker Linkh.


Mike Huckabee:

Regarding the war in Iraq Huckabee believes that we "broke Iraq" (stated we broke Iraq in the Fox Republican Debate last September), and believes there should be a timetable for the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. On ABC This Week last year he stated "We have to tell them, 'Look, we're not going to be here indefinitely. . . you're going to have to get control of this sectarian violence, this civil war is ripping this whole thing apart." However, he has also stated that setting timetables cannot be definite dates given because then the enemy will take advantage of that information and adjust there warfare accordingly. Sounds like he's trying to appeal to both sides on that one, in my opinion.

Regarding illegal immigration Huckabee believes that we should tighten border security, but also provide a pathway to citizenship for illegals already here. In an interview on ABC in February 2007 Mike Huckabee said, "We shouldn't have amnesty where we say, 'Fine, everyone's good.' We should have a process where people can pay the penalties, step up and accept responsibility for not being here legally. . . the objective is not to be punitive, but to make things right. Right for us. Right for them. What I object to is punishing the children for the laws that maybe their parents have broken." Huckabee is also known for passing legislation in Arkansas when he was governor granting the children of illegals financial aid for education.

Huckabee opposes universal health, is strongly pro-life, and opposes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. May 3, 2007 MSNBC GOP presidential debate he said he was opposed to expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Huckabee favors privatizing Social Security, and was a defender of Bush's 2005 plan for partial privatization of the system.

Mike favors giving the president a "line-item" veto (removing parts of a spending bill without needing to veto the entire bill), and voiced his support for a line-item veto on February 9, 2007.

He favors a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman, saying in an interview with Right Wing News that marriage has always meant but one thing. In Arkansas he supported and helped lead an effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment that does define marriage in that way, which passed by 70% of the vote.

Huckabee favors the use of the death penalty for certain crimes, saying in his book "Hope to Higher Ground" that it is a tough issue, but he believes some crimes deserve such a penalty. In a December 2005 interview on PBS he said, "I've had to carry out the death penalty more than any governor in the history of my state."

Huckabee favors a Fair Tax which is a national sales tax that would replace the current income tax system, and eliminate the need for the IRS. Huckabee, however, in Arkansas, raised taxes, and was known as a big spender.


Duncan Hunter:

Hunter believes that U.S. forces need to remain in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over. The key, he stated in a debate on May 3, 2007, is standing up the Iraqi army, ensuring that they are fully operational, and can move into the combat field effectively, displacing American units.

Duncan Hunter, when it comes to illegal immigration, believes that we must build a double fence along the border, and opposes granting legal status to illegal immigrants already here in the country. In a news release in May 2007 he said, "It's all too obvious that America is under threat because its land borders are largely porous and unprotected. . . Despite legislation calling for 854 miles of border fencing along the U.S. - Mexico border, the Department of Homeland Security recently announced its intention to build only 370 miles of the fencing, and none of that has been built yet. This directive, despite its clarity, appears to have been interpreted as a suggestion. It is not: it's the law, and the border fence must be built"

Hunter, as a Representative in the U.S. Congress voted to extend the tax cuts through 2010, and believes they should be made permanent.

He believes that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research should not be expanded, voting "no" on a bill in January 2007 that would have expanded research on embryonic stem cell lines.

He is pro-life, saying at the March for Life rally in Washington in January 2007, "Who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life?"

He favors the privatization of the Social Security System.

Hunter favors giving the President a line-item veto, voting in favor of a bill on June 22, 2006 that gave the President the power to propose a veto of any provision of a bill that results in an increase in budget authority and establishes requirements and creates procedures for congressional consideration of the proposed vetoes.

He supports federal assistance for the production of alternative fuels.

Hunter favors a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. On July 18, 2006 Hunter voted "yes" on a House resolution calling for such an amendment.

Death Penalty? In April 1994, Hunter voted against a bill to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, giving evidence that Hunter favors the death penalty for certain crimes.


John McCain:

McCain has stated over and over that U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over. "Ultimately, Iraq's future lies in the hands of its people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war and intervention by its neighbors, and energize al-Qaeda and other jihadists around the globe. This would gravely jeopardize American security." However: I will never forget when he said, "We've wasted a lot of our precious treasure, which are American lives, over there," essentially saying that our American troops lost in this war effort were "wasted." That comment continues to burn in my brain to this day.

McCain is the only major Republican candidate proclaiming that he's on board with the belief in man-made Global Warming - reiterating his support of man-made Global Warming in the recent debate in South Carolina, January 2008.

Regarding illegal immigration, McCain supports a temporary guest worker program, and "specific enforcement and security triggers." And none of us can forget the Kennedy-McCain Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005, whose highlights were:
• The USA would accept at least 400,000 foreign workers each year. Their visas would last three years.
• Illegal aliens already in the U.S.A., and they number more than 10 million, would have to register, pay a $2,000 fine, clear a criminal background check, and pass an English language exam. If they did that and had a job, they could stay in this country and apply for citizenship in six years.
• The act would also increase fines for employers who hire illegals and strengthen border security.

Good attempt, but too much allowance for illegals already here.

McCain supports making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, saying, "If I didn't vote to make those tax cuts permanent, it would have the effect of a tax increase."

McCain opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, is consistently pro-life, and opposes universal health care. On ABC's This Week in June 2007 he said, "I think we can make health care affordable and available without a mandate."

John favors the concept of privatization of Social Security. He said in a speech in 1999 that the only solution was to allow workers to invest some of their Social Security savings privately in higher yielding accounts. He also stated that the idea is not solely Republican, that Senators Bob Kerrey and Pat Moynihan have also endorsed the idea, recognizing it as the only way to save Social Security without raising taxes or cutting benefits.

McCain favors a "line-item" veto, authoring the Line Item Veto Act of 2006 which was crafted to ensure its constitutionality.

He does not support federal assistance for the production of alternative ethanol and/or biofuel alternatives to oil. However, in the past he has been all over the map on this issue. On May 12, 2007 he said he supports ethanol, but opposes subsidies. Previously he had said that ethanol was not worth it. He voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Voted "no" for the Environmental Effects Caused by Ethanol Amendment, and voted "no" for the Energy Omnibus Bill in 2003.

He opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, saying in 2004 that "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He believes the issue should be up to the states.

McCain favors the death penalty for federal crimes, but is against the use of racial statistics in death penalty appeals, and voted to ban the death penalty for minors. He supported legislation to allow the death penalty for acts of terrorism and has said he would consider further expansion of capital punishment laws for other crimes. However, he has recently determined that water boarding is "torture" and should not be used on captured enemy combatants in an attempt to withdraw information from them.


Ron Paul:

Ron Paul is known for his position that supports the immediate and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and other theaters of war. He believes a military victory in Iraq is unattainable.

Regarding illegal immigration, Ron Paul supports building a fence along the border, and opposes granting legal status to illegal immigrants in this country. On April 4, 2006 he said, "We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who come here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty."

Ron Paul supports making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, and was named the House's "top tax cutter" by conservative Human Events magazine.

He opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He voted against a bill expanding stem cell research on June 7, 2007.

Ron Paul opposes the concept of universal health care in America. In an online column he wrote, "When government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone to keep costs down. As long as somebody else is paying the bill, the bill will be too high."

Ron Paul opposes legalized abortion in the United States, but does say that the issue should be left up to the states.

He does not favor the concept of privatization of Social Security to any degree. He contends that Congress must stop spending in order to fix the problem of insolvency. He opposes personal accounts because he believes that Social Security is unconstitutional in the first place. Instead, he believes individuals should have total control over how to invest their money and is in favor of cutting payroll taxes to allow this to happen.

Ron Paul opposes giving the president a "line-item" veto, voting against a bill in June 2006 that would give the president the power to propose a veto of any provision in a bill that results in an increase in budget authority and establishes requirements and creates procedures for congressional consideration of the proposed vetoes. Ron Paul has stated that the line-item veto is unconstitutional.

Ron Paul does not support federal assistance in funding the production of alternative fuels to oil.

He opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, voting "no" on July 18, 2006 on a House resolution calling for such an amendment.

Ron Paul opposes the death penalty.


Mitt Romney:

Concerning Iraq, Romney's opinion is that the U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over. He has stated, ". . . so long as there is a reasonable prospect for success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population."

Romney has indicated that he believes the U.S. should build a fence along the border, and that he opposes granting legal status to illegal immigrants. He disagrees with McCain's immigration bill, and has said that strengthening the border must be our first priority, followed by an employee verification policy. His website says, "No Special Privilege Or Special Pathway to Citizenship For Those Here Illegally." He also voiced the opinion that we can't give illegals special privilege of being able to stay here illegally on the Mike Gallagher Show on May 21, 2007.

He supports making the tax cuts permanent, and opposes the concept of universal health care in America. However, the health care question is sometimes difficult to determine with Romney because his website says, "The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or through new taxes, but through market reforms." Yet, when he was governor of Massachusetts, he supported and signed a bill providing health care insurance to every resident with significant state investment.

He states he is pro-life, but was once pro-choice. Did he truly see the light? Or did he change his position just in time for his candidacy? When asked that question last November in CNN's You Tube Debate he said he was wrong in originally favoring a woman's right to choose -- his position when he was elected governor of Massachusetts.

He has no position regarding the privatization of Social Security.

Mitt Romney favors giving the president the line-item veto. In an interview with Sean Hannity on April 4, 2007 he said that a line-item veto, ". . . allows you to pick out the pork and pick out the waste and to zero in on it. And then the legislature can overturn it, if they want to. If you waste money, if you put in place earmarks or pork spending, then somebody is going to say no and point it out to the American people."

He supports federal assistance for the production of alternative fuels.

He claims he favors a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. He has said, "I have always been somebody who opposes discrimination, but I also consistently feel that it's critical to have marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman." (Romney said that at the Fox News GOP presidential debate in South Carolina on May 15, 2007)

Mitt favors the death penalty for certain crimes, specifically for deadly acts of terrorism, killing sprees, murders involving torture and the killing of law enforcement authorities. As governor he filed a bill to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts that required verifiable scientific evidence such as DNA in order to impose the death penalty.


Fred Thompson:

Thompson has consistently supported the war effort against the Islamic Jihad, having the opinion that U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over. He has said, "We need to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of weakness."

Fred Thompson has indicated that his position regarding illegal immigration in the United States is that we must build a fence along the border, and he is opposed to granting legal status to illegal immigrants.

Thompson supports making the tax cuts permanent, saying that "Lower marginal tax rates have proven to be a key to prosperity by Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush."

He opposes universal health care saying on the ABC Radio Network in June 2007 that, ". . . there's nothing about Americans that would make us any better able to run a government health care bureaucracy than the Canadians or the British. In fact, we've got less practice at that sort of thing than they do, and we might be a lot worse at it. His voting record shows that he bounced back and forth on issues regarding government paid medicine:

Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)

Thompson favors a limited privatization approach to Social Security. Favors the line-item veto, voting in favor of granting the president such authority in 1996. He opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, telling the National Right To Life Conference in June 2007 that he supports adult stem-cell research, but not "stem-cell research where embryos of unborn children are destroyed."

June 3, 2007 Thompson said he thought Roe v. Wade was a bad law and bad medical science.

He favors an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

He favors the death penalty, and while in the Senate voted in favor of a bill limiting death penalty appeals.


In November 2007's CNN You Tube Debate all of the candidates indicated they supported the private ownership of guns, though three admitted they did not own guns. Those three were: McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.



Join the Red November Blogroll!