Is Barack Obama a product of his environment?

Politics in Chicago is as crooked as it gets. Governor Rod Blagojevich is in the middle of the most despicable scandal since Watergate, which has the potential to reach the highest office in the United States. When Blagojevich essentially auctioned the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, he opened lid and let the American public have a closer look into the wheeling and dealing of Chicago politics. Now, Barack Obama, in my opinion, has clean hands in this entire scandal. However, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago Machine guy, is right in the middle. Rahm Emanuel wanted the Governor to select Valerie Jarret, a close Obama associate but Blagojevich was insulted that he would only be given "gratitude" for the appointment. If Rahm Emanuel knew that the Governor was basically giving the Senate seat away to the highest bidder, didn't he have an obligation to report it? When Rod Blagojevich is indicted, and he will be, there will be many within the Chicago Machine that will be very nervous. Blagojevich will be trying to get some sort of deal and the only way to receive such a deal is to bare his soul and tell the US Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, the entire story and disclose anyone who might have been involved. The grand jury will call Rahm Emanuel and will undoubtedly ask him some uncomfortable questions. Rod Blagojevich and his wife are elitist, corrupt and clueless individuals, as evidenced by the phone conversations caught on the FBI wiretaps. However, this is nothing new in Chicago. Blagojevich and Emanuel are involved in this scandal. Tony Rezko, who help the Obama's purchase their home, was recently convicted of fraud in connection with shady real estate deals. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church has obtained property worth tens of millions of dollars under questionable circumstances. William Ayers, the man who held a fundraiser for Barack Obama in 1995, helped launch Obama's political career. Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO member, current professor at Columbia University and another Chicago resident, is the founder of the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), to whom a foundation led by Ayers and Obama donated $40,000 in 2001 and $35,000 in 2002. The AAAN is well known for their anti-Israel rhetoric and pro-Palestinian stance. Nadhmi Auchi was introduced to Barack Obama in 2003 by Tony Rezko. Mr Auchi, who is known in Iraq to be a "Saddam guy", had many fraudulent dealings with Tony Rezko. In April 2004, Mr. Auchi traveled to Illinois to meet with Mr. Rezko, Governor Blagojevich, State Senate President Emil Jones, Jr., and with then-State Senator Obama, who had just won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Mr Auchi has since been banned from returning to the US by the State Department.
I have just listed seven well connected people within Chicago politics. Most of them have been convicted of fraud. Some of them are currently fighting criminal charges. I know that to make it in politics sometimes you have to rub elbows with some rather scrupulous people. However, Barack Obama always pleads ignorance when it comes to the criminal activities of all these men. Obama supporters always stress the intelligence of Barack Obama. How is it then that he could have all of these dealings with criminals and not have any clue as to what was really going on. I guess ignorance really is bliss. Is Barack Obama a straight shooter who had the misfortune of learning the political ropes in a crooked city like Chicago or is Barack Obama really just a product of his environment?

The REAL reason for the crisis

T minus 2 months. That is the amount of time Barack Obama and the Dems have to blame everything from the current financial crisis to the Holocaust on George W Bush. Who will they blame come January when Barack Obama takes office and realizes that, without bankrupting the country, it will be impossible to keep his promises of free health care and higher education for all? Who will they blame when Barack Obama taxes small businesses so much that they are forced into huge layoffs and even more Americans are out of work? Who will they blame when the auto industry still isn't "bailed out" after the bailout? The Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves when in 3 to 4 years the US is suffering astronomical inflation, record unemployment and millions of retirees without any savings. Lets go back to the basic problem of this economy; banks are failing. Why are so many banks at risk of going under? Because they offered money to individuals unable to repay their loans. Why did they do that? Because Congress (led by Barney Frank), after being leaned on and bullied by the Congressional Black Congress, made Freddie Mac loan money to individuals with poor credit scores. Democrats in Congress and the CBC threatened Freddie Mac if they did not grant more mortgages to minorities and those who had defaulted on past loans. Their reasoning was as follows: unless lending rules are relaxed, people of color would not own homes in relatively equal numbers as whites. This is ludicrous reasoning. Mortgages are not granted based on skin color or ethnicity but based on the likelihood of the applicant repaying the loan vis-a-vis their respective credit score. This assumption by the CBC actually demeans their constituents by implying that blacks would not be able to obtain mortgages without relaxing the lending requirements. Furthermore, when Republicans in Congress began to see the writing on the wall and the crisis emerging as a result of Freddie Mac purchasing these sub prime loans on the secondary market, the Democrats stated that there was no such problem. All the while pointing the finger at the Bush administration for their failed policy. Its high time that Americans know the REAL reason for the financial crisis that we are in now. Most citizens are ignorant to the fact that the Congress and the CBC were doing this. The average citizen only knows that George W Bush is the President and we are going through hard times right now so he must be to blame. The above video shows what really happened. Those who voted for Obama thinking he will solve the financial crisis are sorely mistaken. Unless he reaches across the aisle and works with the Republican half of Congress, Barack Obama will be pushing already failed policies and the American people will suffer.

President Barack Obama

Its all but official, Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America. While I did not believe that Obama was the right person for the job, I will support him 100% as my President. I hope that President Obama, along with the largest Democratic Congress since LBJ in 1964, can actually bring about change in Washington the way he promised to do so throughout his campaign. Barack Obama is in an unusual position. He has a distinct advantage in trying to implement his liberal policies given the fact that the Congress is heavily Democratic. However, because we are a center/right country as a whole, I believe that during his first couple of years in office we will be surprised at some of the policy changes he tries to bring about. I believe that Obama's presidency will be similar to Bill Clinton's in the way that Clinton used public opinion polls as a guide when making many policy changes. I hope that Barack Obama is the Yin to the ultra liberal Democratic Congress' Yang. I hope that he even throws some policies in there that would make the Republicans happy. I'm very interested to see what the makeup of his cabinet looks like over the next couple of months and the caliber of people he surrounds himself with. I think the country as a whole needs to support this man who, whether we like it or not, was elected to the office in a system that is the envy of the entire world. Politics aside, some of the decisions he makes over the next four years will greatly impact our lives so waiting and even hoping for him to fall on his face would not be in the best interest of America as a whole. I pray that Barack Obama will lead this country with the tenacity and the courage that he so often spoke about on the campaign trail. I pray that he will indeed improve the quality of life for the middle-class, working families out there. I pray that some of the relationships that have been damaged over the last several years will be mended and that the world as a whole will look to America as that "shining city on a hill" as so many generations before us have. I pray that our country can move past partisan politics that have crippled our government for the last five or six years and we can get back to the sense of unity that we had after the September 11th attacks. Mr Obama, you have been given the chance by the American people to bring about the change that you have been preaching about, it is a rare opportunity, don't let us down.

Is Barack Obama eligible to be President?

There is a great video on Youtube of a man questioning whether or not Barack Obama even meets the criteria to be President of the United States. More specifically, he questions Obama's citizenship status and is actually suing Obama to produce a valid birth certificate. Barack Obama has some serious questions to answer that thus far have been swept under the rug or completely ignored by the mainstream media. The first is his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pflegler, and Louis Farrakhan. You can't tell me that Barack Obama sat in the pews at Trinity Church for 20+ years and never knew the hate filled, racist, America hating rants that were coming from his pastor and "father figure". The second is William Ayers. It has been proven by hundreds of sources that Barack Obama's political career began with a fundraiser in the living room of terrorist William Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorhn. Why has his relationship with a man who set bombs in the US Capitol, the Pentagon and several police stations never questioned by the mainstream media? How can an unrepentant terrorist be good friends with a man running for President and that relationship never be questioned? The third is Rashid Khalidi. Rashad Khalidi is a whack job professor at Columbia University in New York who has connections with the PLO (a terrorist organization according to the State Dept) and a man who preaches violence against Jews. The LA Times currently has a tape of Barack Obama at a function with Khalidi where he toasts Khalidi and his good work. The LA Times will never release this tape however because it would hurt the chances of "The Messiah" of getting elected. Fourth, it has recently come to light that SAUDI Prince Al-laweed Bin Talal paid for Obama's Harvard tuition and got him appointed to the Harvard Law Review. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWH9P57qg3k. There is so much about Barack Obama and his past that the American people simply don't know and will never know since the media is in his pocket. Still, most Americans know a little bit about these relationships and are still going to vote for him. Why? Because they hate George Bush so much? I always hear far left nuts talking about George Bush and his ties to big companies and how he is part of the so called NWO. I've got news for those people, maybe they should take a little closer look at the man they are supporting before they make such accusations about our current President. I have a feeling Obama has many more skeletons than GWB could ever dream of. If one bases their vote on their disdain for the current President then it says a lot more about their character than anything else. All of these revelations beg the question "Who is Barack Obama?" If you don't know the full answer maybe you shouldn't vote for the man to be President.

Obama and the irony of liberalism

Barack Obama has tried tirelessly to tie John McCain to George W Bush. For the non-thinking liberals Bush and McCain are basically the same person. Barack Obama blames the Bush administration for the economic mess that we are in now despite the fact that the mortgage crisis and subsequent market crash were a direct result of the failed, liberal policy of extending credit to those who can't afford it. Liberals in this country put up a front as if they are the guardians of compassion in America. They say that it's not fair that some individuals can't get a mortgage because they don't make enough money or even if they have defaulted on previous loans. Is it fair that hardworking, taxpaying Americans have to foot the bill for this failed policy? Is it fair that millions of hardworking Americans nearing retirement will now have depleted 401(k)'s because the Democrats in Congress handed out money to those who didn't deserve it? Barack Obama says he will create jobs. How will jobs be created if virtually every company in America will have higher operating costs as a result of an increase in taxes? Doesn't he understand that when a company's cost of doing business goes up that the higher cost is passed onto the consumer? Barack Obama said he will tax the wealthy and send checks to the poor. Is it fair that Joe the Plumber could potentially buy his company through hard work and dedication and then be penalized for his own success? How did we get to the point where Joe the Plumber could build a business and then the government says "Sorry Joe, you are making too much money, there are people on welfare who are going to get several hundreds of thousands of your dollars"? The Democrats are described as the party that champions women's rights. Yet the NY Times runs article after article slamming Sarah Palin for everything from her choice in clothing to her decision to run for public office. Can you imagine the uproar if a conservative newspaper questioned Hillary Clinton's choice to run for office, saying that she should be at home with her children instead? That newspaper would be labeled as sexist and supporting 19th century gender roles. But since the NY Times is a liberal publication and Sarah Palin doesn't agree with their views on the world then she is open to criticism and outrageous accusations that Democrats would never be subjected to. The thing about liberals is they act as if they uphold and defend the Constitution, especially when it comes to free speech, as long as you agree with them.
What will the world be like with President Obama? Can you imagine the Pelosi, Reed, Obama trifecta? The Fairness Doctrine will be passed immediately which demands that liberals get equal time on airwaves to counter conservative critics. The Dems have had many radio personalities over the years and even their own network (which eventually went bankrupt) in Air America, however, the American public just doesn't want to hear the far left ranting about how much they hate America. When will the Dems realize that fact.
If Obama wins this election, it is not due to his own greatness but rather to the poor job by the McCain campaign coupled with the low approval rating for the Bush administration. I guarantee that there will be a deep sense of buyers remorse in a year or two if Obama does succeed in winning the White House. He promises change but he supports the very policies that have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress and if he is elected, unfortunately we will see the hypocrisy first hand.

Voter Fraud

Why does the same thing happen every October in an election year? There is currently a situation in Ohio where ACORN and other far left organizations are attempting to register hundreds of thousands of dead, fraudulent and fictitious individuals to vote. Anyone who has ever been pulled over by the police, bought cigarettes, cashed a check, bought a beer, flew on an airplane, opened a credit card account, applied for membership at Blockbuster, used a debit card, applied for a job, applied to college, applied for foodstamps, applied for housing assistance, went to the social services office, or applied for a loan at a bank has had to produce a drivers license or some sort of photo ID that shows that they are who they say they are. Why should it be any different for voting? If you are over 18, not a felon and are a legal US citizen you should have the right to vote and you should have the right to vote one time. The Democrats say that requiring identification at polling stations would be a form of discrimination. They say that people are required to show ID for those other things I mentioned because it is either prudent when lending money or serving beer to minors or a matter of national security. Excuse me but I think it is most definitely a matter of national security when voting for the man who will become, arguably, the most powerful man on the planet. Maybe I would understand this thinking if it were before WWII when there were farmers who lived so far from anything resembling a city that they just learned how to drive out of necessity and didn't bother a license or maybe around the time of the Civil War when only the wealthy or those in the military could afford a photograph or any form of identification. However, we live in the 21st century. A century where we have executives speaking with each other through teleconferencing on 3 different continents. A century where we can live in New York, have a business meeting in San Francisco at 9am and still be home in time for dinner. A century where CEO's can go to bed at night and while they are sleeping have presentations created in India and faxed to them so they will be on their desk when they get to work the next morning. Why, in this day and age can we not make voters provide identification when voting. It is our civic duty to do 2 things. Number one to vote for those who will represent and lead us. Number two, require that those elections are held in a fair and ethical manner.

The Economy

The United States' economy, and the world's for that matter, is in shambles right now. Both Republicans and Democrats are pointing the finger at each other and there is plenty of blame to go around. The root of this problem is the housing crisis. Homeowners are defaulting on mortgages, that they couldn't afford in the first place, leaving banks left without the cashflow that they so desperately depend on. A couple of decades ago, anyone who wished to purchase a home could do so. All they needed was to have about 15-20% to put down in order to get the bank to lend them money. In 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act was passed by the Democratic controlled Congress. This act required banks to expand their mortgages into areas where the economic fundamentals indicated borrowers would not be likely to make mortgage payments. The the Democratic Party started to complain that lower income families weren't able to purchase homes and that this was unfair and began to relax the rules required for individuals to get a mortgage. Shortly afterward, the banks decided that they weren't going to be left out in the cold and they wanted a piece of this trillion dollar pie; finally resulting in the mess we are in today. HELLO!! Don't loan money to people who can't pay it back. This isn't rocket science people. This is the liberal elite attempting to right all the wrongs in the world and it just might lead to one of the largest economic crisis' in US history. Above is a letter signed by John McCain in 2006 pleading for regulatory reform legislation for Fannie and Freddie so the American taxpayer wouldn't bare the brunt of the impending economic collapse. This is right around the same time that Barney Frank stated that Fannie and Freddie were doing "just fine". Barack Obama and the Democrats have been trying to tie John McCain to the economic policies of George Bush for the last month or so and according to the polls it is an effective strategy. It is a lie, but it is effective. In fact, not a single Democrat signed the above letter. John McCain again broke party lines in order to save the American taxpayer from economic collapse but of course this would never be reported by the mainstream media. Furthermore, in 2004 Democrats in Congress tried again to increase home ownership through further easing of mortgage requirements. Anytime the government interferes with the free market, it is almost always a very bad idea. Free markets are the basis of our economy. Changing lending rules got us into this mess and unfortunately it will be you and I who will have to dig ourselves out.

Sarah Palin

Over the last few weeks I have been hearing a common theme among undecided voters. They have been saying "I would've voted for John McCain had he not gone with Sarah Palin as his running mate." Why? What is it about Governor Palin that turns people off? Honestly I knew absolutely nothing about Sarah Palin before she was chosen by McCain, however, the things that I've learned about her over the past few months have actually endeared her to me not turned me off to her. Before running for Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin saw corruption within her own party and took matters into her own hands. She got onto the ticket, took on the incumbent Republican Governor and won the election. This is in stark contrast to Barack Obama who is embroiled in a scandal involving voter registration fraud with ACORN. Sarah Palin originally got into politics because she was concerned that a tax increase in her hometown of Wasilla was going to be improperly disbursed. Sarah Palin, throughout her career, has put her morals and the good of the people ahead of her political ambitions. Barack Obama wasn't even able to answer the abortion question at the Saddleback forum asked by Pastor Rick Warren, stating "That's above my pay grade," because he was afraid to offend ANYONE. Your morals are your morals, your values are your values and anyone running for office should have the guts to stand up to corruption and dishonesty, party affiliation be damned. Sarah Palin trumps Barack Obama in the integrity department, when will the voters finally realize this fact?

A party that can't lose with a candidate that can't win

The Democrats couldn't possibly have hoped for a better scenario leading into the 2008 general election. The economy isn't growing as rapidly as the public is used to (although the press would have you think that we are heading into a depression). There is a war raging in Iraq that is becoming more unpopular by the day despite the fact that we are beginning to win (although the press is invested in us losing and their "news stories" reflect this). And we have a lame duck president battling an all-Democratic Congress despite the fact that G.W. Bush received more votes than any president in US history. The Democrats have all of these positives on their side and still they cannot win this election with the man they nominated. The American people are getting sick and tired of politics as usual and Barack Obama epitomizes this despite his mantra of "change". The people that are going to decide this election are not individuals who have already made up their mind about who to vote for, it is the people who are still wrestling with themselves that will cast the deciding votes.
One of the big issues in the coming weeks I believe will be the ability to be bi-partisan. Barack Obama has made several references to the fact that John McCain has voted with President Bush almost 90% of the time, while this is true, it doesn't tell the whole story. John McCain's voting record is not constantly in step with President Bush. In fact during 2005 John McCain only voted with Bush about 77% of the time (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html). Lets look at Obama's voting record ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html). Barack Obama has voted with President Bush about 45% of the time, however, he towed the Democratic line more than 97% of the time. John McCain is clearly more willing to break with his party and do what he thinks is right as opposed to doing what is in his best interest politically.
Another important issue in the coming weeks will be religion. The majority of Democrats abhor religion. They don't see how anyone could possibly simply have faith in a higher power. They believe that anything that cannot be scientifically proven cannot possibly exist. They despise the fact that a majority of Americans are Christian and try to supress Christian expression whenever they can. For example, Democrats try to limit saying "Merry Christmas" during the holidays and forbid the Ten Commandments from being posted in public places, or try to remove "In God we trust" from US currency. They say that these things might offend somebody or that the Constitution calls for the seperation of church and state. If we continue down this road there will be nothing that can be said for fear of offending someone. Also, the Constitution doesn't say anything at all about the seperation of church and state, look for yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
Another big issue is abortion. Some believe that abortion should be illegal, others say a woman should have a choice. Whatever your position, there cannot be a more disgusting position than the one held by Barack Obama. He believes that a woman should be able to have an abortion up to and including the day before her delivery date. In fact, he refused to vote for a born alive bill that was brought up in both the US Senate and the Illinois State Senate that would provide medical care to babies born alive after botched late term abortions. In short, he believes that if a baby survives a late term abortion it should be left on the operating room table until it dies. He was actually the only senator NOT to vote for this bill in the Illinois Senate.
Another issue that will be big over the next 2 months will be universal healthcare and other social programs. Universal healthcare is great in theory, however, many Americans don't ;like the idea of their money being taken through taxes to pay for the medical care of those who don't work. There are plenty of good people who can't afford healthcare and work hard, however, there are also plenty of people that sit at home all day and collect a check too. I have seen many, many people take advantage of the system. Americans don't like the idea of something for nothing or taking money from the rich and giving to the poor. Barack Obama should know this better than anyone. His mother was on foodstamps and had him when she was 18. He went to Harvard and is now running for President. If his story doesn't show you that with hard work and dedication you can pull yourself out of poverty and make the American dream come true then nothing can.
The final issue that will decide this election is taxes. Senator Obama has big plans for this country. Big plans cost money. The only way that Obama can give everyone free healthcare and a free education is by raising taxes. Americans are tired of being taxed. This well is dry. I don't like the idea of my money going to someone like my former neighbor who had 3 kids, didn't have a job, smoked weed all day while she was at home watching tv and her rent was 1/2 as much as mine because of section 8. Meanwhile I am struggling to make ends meet and my children are doing without some luxuries that her children have (Sony PSP's) because she has goverment assistance. Americans don't like the fact that some people will be handed things regardless of their willingness to work. Don't get me wrong, there are millions out there who genuinely need assistance, but there are also millions who aren't willing to help themselves.
The Democrats have the perfect storm brewing right now where they are poised to take back the White House. The climate is such that Americans are desperately searching for leadership and a vision for the 21st century. However, the Democrats nominated a man who's policies just are not in sync with the American public. The Democrats are going to lose the unloseable election because of Barack Obama.

Why our enemies want Obama to win

Leaders and dictators around the globe are praying that Barack Obama wins the American Presidential election in November. People such as Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and leaders within Hamas are praying that Obama wins the election. These are people that at the very least don't like us very much and at the most would like to see the United States destroyed and it's people die horrific deaths. Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than to see a weak America, an America that is unable to stand up to Russia in their bid to reform the former Soviet Union. Putin wants to forcefully regain control of former Soviet states such as Georgia and he knows that Obama would be more likely to appease Russia than McCain would. Hugo Chavez is a socialist and would view Barack Obama and and his various social programs as an important ally. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and Iran is blatantly trying to develop a nuclear weapon that would certainly be used to do just that. Ahmadinejad knows that Barack Obama wont put the necessary pressure on his regime to cease its nuclear ambitions. Kim Jong Il is probably the most ruthless dictator in the world today. Barack Obama would refuse to use tough talk and sanctions to stop Kim Jong Il from producing a nuclear weapon while starving millions of his own citizens. Hamas and other terror groups know that Barack Obama would be reluctant to act if another terrorist attack should happen during his administration.
There is a theme here. During the last 5 years, America has grown tired of war and rightfully so. War is terrible and ugly and sometimes we go to war unnecessarily. However, I am very afraid that if Barack Obama was elected president he will be reluctant to use military force, even if the American way of life is in jeopardy, because of the situation in Iraq. I think that even if another 9/11 were to happen and 3,000 people were killed in a single day, on American soil, Barack Obama still would not take military action. This is simply unacceptable. I know that plenty of people in this country and around the world do not like George Bush, however, our next president cannot be afraid to take action because of his predecessor's failings.

Dems walk while the GOP works

The lights turned off and the PA system went dead on Friday in the Capitol as the House adjourned until September. However, there are many Republican representatives still putting on their suit and tie and fighting traffic to come into work well after the last Democrat has boarded a plane to either go home or travel for the summer. Why? Because the Republicans are trying to do the job that they were elected to do. They are trying to pass an energy plan which includes drilling in ANWR as well as on the continental shelf and lessen the burden on the working class as quickly as possible. The Republicans recognize the threat of ever increasing gas prices to our economy. They realize that this is an urgent matter that requires their immediate attention. However, Nancy Pelosi said "This Republican hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to reduce the price at the pump and promote energy independence." Excuse me Ms Pelosi but it doesn't seem that you want to have any serious debate at all, otherwise you would be on the next plane to Reagan. Everyone can agree that alternative energy sources must be explored and developed, however, right now we lack the technology to efficiently harness it's full potential. Even if we figured out a way to be oil free by the end of the week, the infrastructure in the US would take years to catch up. While it seems to defy logic as to why these Democrats wouldn't be willing to spend an extra day or two or even a week if it meant bringing down the price of oil, it doesn't surprise me in the least. People like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have a vested interest in seeing the price of oil soar. They own stock and have money invested in alternative energy companies and therefore see oil as the competition. As elected representatives of the citizens of the United States it is Congress' obligation to support the will of the people. The members of the House that left on vacation obviously have enough money that a dollar or two increase in the price of gasoline doesn't hurt them as much as those in the lower and middle-classes. However, we as citizens have a responsibility of our own; and that is to hold our representatives accountable come November. While most of the attention is on the office of President, the voters have to send a clear message to Congress that ignoring the will of your constituents will have consequences.

Enough With The "Illegal War" Talk

It absolutely amazes me how people call the Iraq war illegal. Perhaps a history lesson will help them better understand. Following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 660. This resolution demanded Iraq to withdrawal all of their troops from Kuwait or face military action. Of course Saddam Hussein ignored this resolution resulting in the first Gulf War. After the US and it's coalition destroyed the Iraqi army, the UN Security Council drafted a peace proposal. This peace proposal consisted of 12 UN resolutions including Resolution 686 http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm. Resolution 686, among others, laid out the conditions through which peace would be attained. These conditions included Iraq obeying "no-fly" zones, which protected the Kurds in the north. Another condition that was agreed to was Iraq had to allow UN weapons inspectors full access to their weapons programs. Under the resolution, there would be severe economic sanctions placed on Iraq, however, there was an oil-for-food program established where Iraq could trade its one true natural resource for food to feed it's people. Saddam Hussein agreed to these terms as opposed to the alternative which meant that the US and the coalition would continue to wage war. During the next decade, Saddam Hussein repeatedly broke the terms to the cease-fire. He kicked out the UN team of weapons inspectors on multiple occasions as well as violated the no-fly zones. Hussein also pocketed many of the proceeds for the oil for food program which made him a very wealthy man while many of his countrymen starved to death.
The UN resolution, which Saddam agreed to, effectively stopped the Gulf War. Had he not agreed to these terms, the war would have continued. The UN Resolution clearly stated that failure to comply with these conditions could be met with military force. In the lead up to the current Iraq War, Saddam Hussein kicked out the UN weapons inspectors for the last time. However, the UN didn't have the backbone to back up its original resolution, so President Bush went to Congress and sought their approval. The Senate approved the use of force by a margin of 77-23 and the House followed suit with a vote of 296-133 (which was a higher margin than the 1st Gulf War vote of 250-183). After securing Congressional approval for the campaign, President Bush began to meet with his advisers to devise a plan and begin the war.
Although there have been many mistakes during the Iraq War; and certainly some questionable decisions made, this war was "legal" by all definitions. The use of force was approved by Congress and the use of force was approved by the UN since Iraq violated terms of the original cease-fire. Even if Congress hadn't approved the use of force, there have been many instances where the President commits troops without such approval. This occurred when President Clinton sent troops to Bosnia. There have also been wars fought without the approval of the UN such as the Korean War. I know this war is unpopular. I know that many of our brave soldiers have died. I know war is a terrible, but sometimes necessary thing. I know I want our troops to come home the minute they are not needed in Iraq. I know that this is not an illegal war.

Why won't the media ask the tough questions?

This years election is one of the most important in the history of our country, yet the media and others responsible for getting information out of the candidates, refuses to do their job; why? The "journalists" charged with interviewing Barack Obama constantly lob softballs to the presumptive Democratic candidate and it is doing our country a disservice. How can the American public make an informed decision if Obama is not asked the tough questions? The answer is that we can't make an informed decision and that is the goal of the liberal media. For if we were able to make an "informed" decision, Barack Obama would lose by a healthy margin. I wish just once that someone sitting down for an interview with Barack Obama would ask him "If we pull out of Iraq before the country is secure, as you have suggested, and Iraq becomes similar to Somalia, where there is no effective government and terrorists and warlords rule the country, what would you do?" or "If we pull out of Iraq before the country is secure, as you have suggested, and Iran fills the power vacuum, what would you do?". Of course these questions will never, ever be asked because Obama is the media darling and keeping the public in the dark about the possible disasterous implications of his foreign policy decisions is in the best interest of the Democratic party. Here's another one, "Senator Obama, you have repeatedly stated that you are against offshore drilling and want to move away from our dependence on oil. You are also against nuclear energy, coal, and natural gas. Does your energy policy consist solely of solar and wind power?"
The elite, liberal media is hurting the American people. Rather than simply informing the public, they are trying to influence public opinion. This can have very dangerous consequences. The media has already convinced the public that we are dead smack in the middle of a recession. Although oil prices are at record highs, which in turn affects the price of many goods, we are no where near a "recession". Our GDP and our economy have actually grown over the last 2 quarters as opposed to a recession in which the economy shrinks over 2 or more consecutive quarters. The high oil prices combined with horrible judgement of banks in mortgage lending has led us to where we are today; an economy that is not expanding as fast as we would like it to but hardly a recession or, as the media would have you believe, the end of America's reign as the world's sole superpower.
The media in the US has enormous influence over public opinion. With this influence comes the responsibility to have some integrity and honesty in performing your job. I don't know when exactly the media switched from fact giving to preaching but it has been going on for quite a while now and I believe that the American public is growing tired of it. Until the media shows some respect for the position that they hold and the responsibility that comes with their position, I am afraid we will end up electing people like Barack Obama.

Why Universal Healthcare is a bad idea

One of the big issues in the upcoming general election will certainly be health care. Democrats have proposed universal health care for a while now. On the surface universal health care sounds like a great idea. everyone, regardless of income will have access to medical services. However, there are many drawbacks to universal health care and, in my opinion, this arrangement will ultimately have more drawbacks than benefits. First, and perhaps most importantly, how will the government pay for this? Higher taxes, of course. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't feel like having more money taken out of my paycheck each week in order to pay for someone else's insurance. With the increases in the cost of gas, energy, groceries and other necessities I am tapped out. I think I speak for the majority of Americans when I say that this well is just about dry. The second negative effect of universal health care is the quality of care. Currently, if I have a condition that requires urgent care I can either go to the local hospital or, if I have the money, I can fly to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and see the worlds best doctor or specialist. If I happen to blow out my knee, I can drive to the doctor immediately and have an MRI to determine the extent of the damage. In Canada, a country which currently offers universal health care, the waiting list for an MRI is 10 weeks. 10 WEEKS!! That is ridiculous. I recently read a story about a man living in Windsor, Ontario, Canada who has the same type of brain cancer that Ted Kennedy has. Because he had to wait for so long to get an MRI, his doctors (the same doctors that performed Kennedy's surgery in Boston) told him that the tumor was inoperable because it had grown too large. The wait for care among cancer patients in Canada exceeds the time limit standards set by both the US and European societies of oncology.
Right now free markets determine the cost of care, drugs and procedures. If competition suddenly ended tomorrow, what incentive would drug companies have to develop new cures for the worlds most deadly diseases? Don't say to help people. Although in an ideal world, helping people would be everyone's goal. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Businesses exist for one reason, to make money. Why would young med students strive to perform their best to get residencies in the best hospitals? Their pay would be roughly the same whether they graduate at the top or bottom of their respective class. The bureaucratic red tape that would accompany universal health care would almost certainly tack on additional, needless costs that would be passed on to the middle class.
Anytime the government is in charge of something, whether it's health care or social security, it is a bad idea. Economist Adam Smith wrote that individual ambition in competition serves the common good. This is the basis upon which our capitalist society is built. While changes are certainly needed within the health care industry, socializing health care is not the answer. Free market solutions are the only way to solve this industry's problems. There is a big difference between universal health care and everyone getting the care that they need.

Who is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama? You can a tell a great deal about an individual based on the company that they keep. Now, many people said that conservatives were judging Barack Obama based on a 30 second sound bite of his Pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I on the other hand, thought that the sound bite of Rev. Wright spewing racist and hateful words from the pulpit was probably a decent indicator of who Jeremiah Wright really is. Last Sunday Father Michael Pfleger spoke at Obama's Trinity Church in Chicago. The sermon that he gave made Rev. Wight seem mild in comparison. He painted whites in this country as wholly racist and having a sense of entitlement. His sermon was despicable and divisive (See above clip). Worst of all, his speech was given a standing ovation by many in the congregation.

After watching this video of Father Pfleger it is becoming more and more apparent who Barack Obama really is and at the same time less likely that Rev. Wrights comments were an anomaly. These hateful sermons are the norm at Trinity Church, the church Barack Obama has called home for the last 20 years. It is hard for me to believe that Barack Obama would attend a church where hate speech is preached so regularly without espousing those same views himself. It is ironic that in an election year featuring both the first African American and the first woman running for President, an election year that was considered a great opportunity for both blacks and whites to come together, that the rift between the races is actually widening. It is reasonable to assume that after Rev. Wright's first comments Barack Obama really didn't know the extent that his pastor spewed hate speech. However, following Pfleger's comments, a trend is beginning to emerge. Lets look at some of the people Barack Obama associates with. Michelle Obama, Barack's wife, recently made several controversial statements. First she said that she wasn't proud of her country until her husband ran for President, she also questioned how her and her husband were possibly going to be able to survive on "only $500,000 per year. The Rev. Wright whose comments have been well documented. Father Pfleger, whose comments can be viewed above. Louis Farrakhan the leader of the Nation of Islam who has called Judaism a "gutter religion" and said that the white man is a "drain on society". William Ayers, the terrorist who set bombs at the Capitol and the Pentagon and who also said that his only regret is that he didn't set more.

According to recent polls, the general election will be a very tight race. The people who will decide this race might very well be undecided white voters, the very people who are the target of Trinity Church's vile rhetoric. For the most part, these voters will be very turned off by this type of language. Only the extreme liberals (who are probably already decided anyway) will disregard these types of statements. It is my opinion that Barack Obama cannot recover the votes lost due to his church's controversies, therefore, he can't win the election itself.

I challenge Barack Obama to give his own speech at Trinity Church. I challenge him to condemn any remarks that are meant to divide our country. I challenge him to admonish his fellow church goers for applauding and cheering while Pfleger continued his anti-white and sexist rant. I challenge Barack Obama to leave his church and their racist ways behind. Of course he won't do any of those things. Because the individuals that he associates with represent his core group of voters. Barack Obama actively seeks out the radicals within our society and asks for their support. Perhaps this is who Barack Obama really is.

Gas Prices

Enough already. Gas prices are getting a little ridiculous. The average price for a gallon of gas in the United States has reached $4.90. Heaven forbid you are a trucker and are forced to pay $6 per gallon for Diesel. President Bush went to Saudi Arabia last week and requested that the Saudis increase oil output to lessen the burden on our economy. The Saudis declined, after all, they just increased output by 300 million barrels per day last month. The legislators in the US have the answer at their fingertips but they refuse to pull the trigger. Oil is now at well over $125 per barrel. That $125 price tag represents the future of oil prices, so you can count on your wallet hemorrhaging even more dollars at the pump for the foreseeable future. Unless, of course, the US legislators in Washington decide to pony up and actually do their job. There is enough oil located off the coasts of North Carolina, Texas, California, and Washington to supply us with gasoline for several years. Recently, scientists located oil pockets in North Dakota that rival some of those in Saudi Arabia. Not to mention all of the natural gas located in these places. The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge currently contains enough oil for the US to be completely self sufficient for the next 50-75 years depending on the estimate. 50-75 YEARS!! That should be plenty of time for us to invent new technology and explore new ways to power our cars. Can you imagine what would happen to the price of a barrel of oil if the US were to even suggest that we begin to drill in ANWR? The speculators might drop the price by 30-40%. If that much supply all of a sudden flooded the market, prices would have no choice but to plummet. I know what you are thinking; ANWR is a beautiful place filled with rare and endangered species. Drilling there will further damage habitats of already suffering animals. Let me ask you this question then. Is any polar bear population worth even one child going to bed hungry because daddy's trucking company went out of business due to the rising diesel cost? The picture posted here is of ANWR. Far from the veritable "Garden of Eden" that some environmentalists would have you believe. The Senate and the House need to get off their ass and start looking out for the people that put them in office in the first place. I would love to see a public vote on a bill proposing drilling in ANWR and for the representatives to explain themselves if they vote against it. Ideally, we would have cars that do not run on gasoline and houses that don't rely on natural gas, however, we are not there yet and until we are, let's start looking at real options before our economy tanks due to our stubbornness.

Obama in 08?

I have a confession to make. After watching Barak Obama speaking at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, I really liked him. I even told my mother that I think I just watched the first black President speak tonight. He was charismatic, charming, a great orator, and just downright likeable. A sharp contrast to the Democratic nominee that the Dems were honoring, John Kerry. Obama rode the coat-tails of that speech and his newfound stardom all the way to Washington after winning a landslide victory to become the Dem's US Senator from Illinois. Soon after his speech at the Convention, Obama seemed like a shoe-in to one day run for President. However, does a Freshman Senator have the experience and political savvy to run for the most powerful office in the world? According to Barak Obama...No. (See video at bottom of page) Is America ready for it's first black president? Without a doubt. Obama's numbers are proof enough that a black man can at least be a serious contender for the White House, if not win it all. However, in some ways America is not ready for a black President at all. At least not someone in the Obama mold. My beef with Obama is strictly political and has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. Having said that, in order for a black man to occupy the White House he cannot be in any way associated with someone like Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright is the kind of person that scares white people. His racist, anti-establishment remarks are not the type of words that sit well with middle America. That is what is hurting Obama the most. If both the Rev Wright and Obama were white, those remarks would not have hurt him in the way they are currently hurting him. Furthermore, the American public is now figuring out who the real Barak Obama is. The Barak Obama who sought out the support of known and unrepentant domestic terrorist in William Ayers (shown above stepping on the US flag). Obama has had many speaking engagements and recently served on a charity board with Ayers who admits to setting over a dozen bombs in late 60's early 70's. We now know the Barak Obama whos wife said that she was not proud of her country until recently and was quoted as asking how her and her husband can possibly survive on only $500,000 per year. (http://www.wowowow.com/conversation/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-elitist-election)

What a difference 4 years make. It appeared that in 2004 Barak Obama was destined to be the President of the United States. After the public actually saw the real Obama and how different his views of this country and the world were with ours, we may not be willing to throne him America's savior just yet. Maybe after a few more years of warming up to him and his far left politics, we may elect him President. I just don't think it will be in 2008.

Global Warming

Global warming is getting alot of headlines these days. I believe global warming does exist, however, I don't believe that it is a manmade problem and I don't believe that the temperature will rise so rapidly that it will cause a catestrophic series of events. Before this post, let me preface my comment by saying I am not an expert in this field. I do, however, have a little bit of common sense and, frankly, I believe that there are more questions than answers when it comes to global warming. For example, scientists agree that the last ice age ended between 10 and 15 thousand years ago. That being said, since we are not in an ice age at this time, wouldn't it suffice to say that there had to have been a period of global warming for the earth's temperature to rise to current levels. Like I said, I am no expert but I imagine that 15 thousand years ago man's industrial prowess wasn't to the point where it would have a profound effect on the earths climate. Furthermore, how is it possible for scientists to say that the increase in the earth's temperature isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon that has happened every 20 thousand years or so for the last 100 million years? Scientist do have readings showing an increase in the earth's temperature of between 0.3 and 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years which is well within the natural fluctuations over the last millenium. Al Gore and other left-wing liberals would have you believe that we are all going to die within the next 50 years if global warming is not brought under control. In fact, a British court recently released a list of 11 falsehoods that were stated as fact in his propoganda "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth. (http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/10/a_british_court_comes_up_with.php). So don't run to the store to pick up life preservers and rafts just yet, because there isn't any evidence that this phenomenon is anything more than mother earth just doing her thing.

The candidates and Iraq

We can debate the logic, intelligence and true reasons behind the Iraq war until we are blue in the face. The fact is WE ARE THERE. No matter what you thought of the decision to go into Iraq, leaving now would be a total disaster and, in my opinion, could lead to World War III. The vaccuum that would be created in the absence of US forces would be chaos, the likes of which have never been seen. If you really want a country called "Al-Qaedastan" then by all means pull out. War is an ugly undertaking and this is no exception. Iran's support for the Shiites within Iraq is creating instability within Iraq right now. Can you imagine what influence they would have if the US were to pull out? Their goal is nothing less than Sharia law in Iraq. They envision an Iraq where women are treated as property, homosexuals are stoned to death, and Israel is "wiped off the map". I can't believe that Democrats, with their emphasis on womens and gay rights and general civil liberties would want this to happen. Furthermore, al-Qaeda's main objective is to kill as many Americans as they can. Do you really think that if the US were to pull out that this goal would change even the slightest bit? No chance. In fact it would strengthen their resolve, they would declare "victory over the infidels" and begin planning another 9/11.

I don't want to be in Iraq one day longer than we have to be, however, right now we have to be there. It is not only an issue of national security but, I believe, an issue of moral obligation. We overthrew their government and we have an obligation to the Iraqi citizens to leave their country safer, with better infrastructure, better schools, more civil liberties, a strong military to defend themselves, and a unified government once we leave. But those demanding a withdrawal don't want Iraq to have any of that.

Obama and the NC GOP Ad

I feel bad for Barak Obama, I really do. I mean for the first time in our country's history there is a legitimate African-American candidate for the White House and his campaign is in danger of being derailed by an outspoken pastor who can't seem to keep his mouth shut. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Obama's presidential bid. While Obama may still win, it will be on pure momentum alone as opposed to a month ago when it seemed like he would win this one running away. Barak Obama can't seem to distance himself from his former pastor fast enough. Just 30 days ago Obama said that he wouldn't disown his pastor. In light of recent, even more inflammatory comments made by Wright, it seems that Obama will do just that. Now, to the NC GOP ad (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JhpcIH_Hw18&feature=related) that has so many democrats in a tissy fit. Living in Raleigh, I am amazed to hear people call the local talk radio shows expressing their anger over this ad and denouncing it as racist. Maybe I'm just a stupid white guy in need of an education, and if you can explain why it's racist I would greatly appreciate it, but I just don't see any racial overtones in the ad whatsoever. Is it because the relationship between Wright and Obama is hurting his campaign? What is it about this ad that is racist? Anyway, there is a huge push to have the ad pulled and local TV channel WRAL has refused to run the ad altogether. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Aren't Republicans allowed to inquire about questionable relationships when a candidate is running for the highest office in the world? Or is that honor only reserved for Democrats? I have seen real racism, in it's most hateful and vile form. I have seen people judged solely on the color of their skin. I have seen the damage that it can do to people who are the victims of REAL racism. I just don't think that this ad is an example of real racism, not even close.