I'll Back Mac!

Nearly every day at work someone tells me that they wish we had a Ronald Reagan conservative running in this year’s election. Well, Ronald Reagan he is not, but John McCain is, in my opinion, clearly the better choice for Americans. While Obama’s flashy campaigning and articulate speeches have inspired many, the truth is that voting for Barack Obama in this day in age will take us straight back to the Carter administration levels of inflation, taxation, and general “malaise” of the people.

With government spending out of control and an uncertain economy, we don’t need a president who is going to ignore the problem and worsen it by creating new bureaucracies and instituting entitlement programs that, however nice they might be, we simply cannot afford. As Ronald Reagan once said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” If elected, Barack Obama will institute policies and create governmental bureaus that the United States will never be able to recover from. The issues that we are facing right now with Social Security are ten times less problematic than universal health care would be in fifty years!

As a citizen of the state of California, immigration is another issue that is important to me. I support increasing border security and providing easier legal avenues of entry to this country, as John McCain does. I do not believe that it is right to grant illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, as Barack Obama does. I think that granting this privilege to illegal workers completely rewards illegal behavior. My mother came to this country legally, and only recently became a citizen, something I am very proud of and celebrated with her. I think that by allowing these illegal immigrants it undermines the accomplishments of my mother and millions of others who have come to this country legally and taken the necessary steps toward citizenship.

While I personally didn’t vote for John McCain in the primaries (I have a crush on Mitt Romney like Scarlett Johansson has a crush on Barack), I am nevertheless ready to wholeheartedly support the candidate I disagree with 10% of the time as opposed to the candidate that I disagree with 95% of the time, and I have demonstrated that support working on the McCain-Palin campaign. I’ve worked both here in California as well as in Nevada making sure that people know the issues and are able to see past the rhetoric to the truth. And the truth is that no matter the hope inspired or the change invoked, America simply cannot afford to elect Barack Obama into the White House.

NOOSE! Come on, people, get riled up!

Last year at Denison University, there was a lot of commotion regarding university race relations after a poster depicting a noose was placed around campus with the caption "Come Hang with the Hilltoppers," the Hilltoppers being our men's acappella group. Admittedly, the student responsible for the posters was a foreign exchange student that didn't understand the historical significance of the noose symbol, but it was a growing experience for most on campus after several forums allowed students to understand the feelings and hesitations of students of color at a predominantly white institution.

Now, when a noose on a flyer is distributed to 2200 students high on a hill in rural Central Ohio it evokes images of racially motivated hate crimes and causes the campus to shut down for several hours over two days for race forums. But, when a mannequin is placed in the outfit of a prominent political figure and STRUNG UP from a home in West Hollywood it's "art" and not a big deal, simply because the figure is a white woman, not a black man? I'm sorry, but that is not okay.

I'm not trying to say that the noose means as much or carries as much historic significance for white Americans as it does for black Americans. I understand that the noose is a very racially charged symbol that has instilled fear, created panic, and ended in awful atrocities for many people. I understand that.

What I am trying to say is that, if this homeowner had been  member of the GOP rather than a Democrat, and had he decided to hang Barack Obama in effigy from his roof rather than Sarah Palin, you KNOW that it would be the top headline on every major news media in the country. Can't you just see the headlines? 'Bigot strikes fear into residents' hearts,' or 'Racism rears its ugly head in West Hollywood.' There would be interviews and video footage and protests all over the place. The NAACP and the ACLU would have, I'm sure, issued condemning statements, the Rev. Al Sharpton would be giving interviews every ten minutes, and this would be very, VERY bad for Republicans.

But is any of that happening? No.

Because it's Sarah Palin, because it's a white woman who is on the unpopular side of the trend that has become politics, there are no FBI agents swarming to determine whether there is an assassination plot in the works. There are no bright lights, no hounding reporters, no death threats on the homeowner's life. Hell, there hasn't even been a citation issued to the homeowner because of his First Amendment rights. It's considered "spooky" and described as "political satire" and "Halloween art." 

If that had been Barack Obama it would have been described as "a lynching" or "racist" or any number of terms that would have ensured prompt chastisement for the homeowner.

GET RILED UP PEOPLE! There is no reason for this to be simply a display for laughs in a liberal area of a liberal state. This should be seen for what it is: a display of hate that should evoke very powerful sentiments from people who pass by.

I'm sorry, but this is NOT okay.

Let's discuss taxes over a drink, shall we?

This is an email I received a few weeks ago that I think is a very persuasive argument against Barack Obama's tax plans to "redistribute the wealth" (hello, socialism):

Suppose that every day ten men go out for beer and that the bill for all ten comes to $100. If these men paid their bill the way that Americans pay their taxes, the breakdown would be something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day when the owner threw them a curve. "Since you all are such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, so he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. 

And so the fifth man, like the first four, is now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men begin to compare their savings. 

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed at the tenth man, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute!" yelled the first four in unison. "We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between ll of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

That seems pretty DARN fair to me!

I'm pro-McCain, but that doesn't mean I'm biased, right?

The talk of the water cooler today is the looming debate between the two vice presidential candidates that is happening TONIGHT (at 6pm PST for all of you sadly not in the know). Everyone is on the edge of their seats -- er, well, maybe not, but people are definitely excited about it.

The reason for the buzz of interest is not because these two people are particularly known for their eloquence and articulate nature. Oh, no. Both of the candidates have a slight history (well, Biden's is more than slight) of rambling, sticking their foot in their mouth, and generally being confusing when asked to answer questions to inform the American public. And people are looking at this debate like Dane Cook looks at someone in the path of a moving car-- it's tense, and it could be terrible, but you are NOT missing this kind of action.

Sarah Palin has had to debate before, when running for governor of Alaska, and although a lot of people hadn't even heard of Palin before she landed the job as #1 Bulldog, there are a lot of nasty edited and chopped up transcripts going around, preparing everyone for the complete annihilation of the hockey mom. And although a lot of people are giving Palin crap for not directly answering a question when it's asked to her (hellllooooooo, that's what you're supposed to do when you debate - you answer the question you wish you were asked and tie it in to the question you were actually asked), Andrew Halcro, a Republican from Alaska who ran against Palin in 2006, points out that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and that it probably helped her win those two dozen times she debated him. Two dozen times! And you said she had no experience. If you'd like to see the Palinator in action click here and here.

And yet we have long-winded, foot-in-his-mouth Biden, who just last month asked a man in a wheel chair to stand up and let the crowd see him, as her opponent. Yes, he's spent more time in Washington. Yes, he has more experience in elections than she does (let's not forget, he's run for President twice and never even gotten close). But all the experience and all that time in the Senate has just earned him a reputation for giving long, boring, CONFUSING answers to questions that are fairly straightforward and simple, and an inability to relate to his audience (something Sarah Palin is quite good at). Not only that, but when he gets caught up in the (slow) momentum of his (unmotivated) speeches, he makes silly mistakes.

I think people are going to be watching this debate even more closely than they were watching the presidential debate (which scares me, but it's true). And at this point, quite honestly, it's good for the GOP that people are interested, because there's a potentially tragic oversight that has occurred in the preparation for this debate that will need to be watched carefully to ensure fairness. I'm talking about the selection of moderator, of course.

Gwen Ifill has been chosen to moderate the upcoming debate, and on the surface that's fine. A journalist and political pundit, Ifill actually moderated the 2004 debates, so she has experience (something we seem to be placing quite a bit of importance on in the election season). But, let's take a closer look, shall we?

1) Ifill, a Democrat (although host of a News Show on the relatively polite PBS), when moderating the 2004 debate between Cheney and Edwards got snippy when Cheney said he needed more than 30 seconds to address the points Edwards made in a one minutes long response. Gwen said, "Well, that's all you've got."

2) She was seen visibly frowning and making faces while Palin was giving her acceptance speech at the RNC this fall -- several PBS viewers called and wrote in to complain.

3) She's writing a book entitled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which actually has a chapter in it praising Obama, his work, his campaign, and his policies. It's to be released on January 20, 2009...the date of the inauguration of the next President.

Now, when I say an oversight has occurred, I don't mean that the McCain campaign was slacking and didn't look at her biography. Ifill actually "neglected" to disclose the subject of her book when asked to apply for the spot as moderator! That's not just neglect, that's shady. And, to make matters worse, this debate format actually gives Ifill MORE power and control than the 2004 format did!

Gwen Ifill has demonstrated a clear preference for Barack Obama and the liberal agenda, and I think that it's completely unfair to allow her to continue on as moderator of this debate. Think of how unfathomable it would be to have a moderator who had written a glowing biography of McCain! Liberals would be UP IN ARMS. And so, we should ensure that a fair debate occurs, if not by getting Ifill out of the spot then at least by being the guard dogs against bias, and raising hell if the bias is there.

I'm watching the debate...

Obama's a bitch.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

If Saddam was still alive HE would vote for Barack Obama

I'm sure you've seen by now the headlines everywhere: The WORLD wants Barack Obama elected. I mean, Russell Brand, the host of the most recent MTV VMAs and a BRITISH CITIZEN used his time at the bully pulpit to ask Americans not to be stupid and asked them to vote Barack Obama into the White House.
He's EXACTLY who we should be taking advice from: an admitted sex addict/crazy comedian who can't even legally vote here, and has vested interest in the British realm. Did you see Forgetting Sarah Marshall? Right. I'm with THAT guy.

But it's not just Russell Brand out there stumping for the big O....oh no, Gordon Brown, the idiot Labour Prime Minister even has backed Obama as his candidate of preference. Never mind that he's breaking hundreds of years of protocol and precedent in backing any candidate in an American election. Never mind that there is a definite advantage to him backing the President that would be least likely to increase American supremacy. Hell, let's even forget what happened the last time that a British politician even seemed to back an American political candidate (cough, Gerry Adams, cough).

Ugh, the less said about Gordon Brown the better, right?


A BBC poll actually recently surveyed 22,500 people in 22 different countries and concluded that all 22 countries would prefer to see Barack Obama in the White House over John McCain -- by a margin of almost four-to-one. Countries like China, Russia, France, Lebanon, and the UAE would all prefer to deal with Barack Obama in international situations than with John McCain. Aggressor Russia, Communist China, Islamic/Oil Rich UAE, America Hating France, and Hezbollah Infested Lebanon would all vote for Barack Obama if they could. Hmmmm, wonder why?

The fact that the world wants Obama should tell us just how unsuited for the position he actually is. I mean, who in their right minds would pick a person to be the POTUS who isn't going to make America his number one priority? There is no reason for the French or the Chinese to be watching America's back. They're going to prefer someone who is more likely to increases the stability and economy and prosperity of their own regions and nations, and the two, while not always mutually exclusive, can be at loggerheads with one another.

Now, I'm not saying that Barack Obama is pro-France more than pro-America, and I'm not doubting his love for our country. I'm just saying that we shouldn't necessarily take this poll as it's headline would have us take it -- "World Wants Obama." That sounds pretty positive to me. The fact is, that MIGHT not be a good thing.

The diplomatic correspondent for BBC admitted that the poll could be a result of the media fascination with the Obama phenomenon. Because Senator Obama is far more mentioned and focused on in the international media (and, who are we kidding, the media here at home), it could be that many foreign citizens polled just don't understand what exactly McCain stands for in comparison to Obama. And, the overwhelming majority of people polled indicated that they didn't believe that foreign relations would decline should McCain be elected, simply that they would prefer Obama to be elected.

I think that the media fascination with Obama in an international setting is causing the same problems as it is here at home. A lot of people are just so uneducated about the issues that they believe whatever crap they are exposed to by MSNBC or CBS. And that is pretty darn dangerous.

Really? Sex-ed for 5 year olds?

Well kids, Sarah Palin it is (I know, I know, behind the times, but I've been too busy at work to blog. Sorry for the "duh" moment). And it turns out some people (mostly radical feminists) are not too happy with the pick. Feminazi's, however, seem to be all hot air when it comes to Palin (I think that they're just mad because, by picking Palin, McCain effectively took the gender card right out of the Dems hands).

The whole point of elections is strategy. Whose strategy will win them the big race? Whose strategy will effectively draw in voters without alienating their own people? The only reason people like Gloria Steinem (and other femenazis) are bitter about John McCain choosing Sarah Palin over Joe Lieberman is because they understand that had McCain picked Lieberman the Conservative Republican base that is so key to the GOP party would have been completely alienated by the pro-choice former Democrat, and would not have thrown their full support by McCain, effectively handing the presidency to Obama. However, to say that Palin is alienating women is completely farcical. Since announcing his running mate, John McCain has enjoyed an almost 12 point bump in the support of white women…going from trailing Obama by 4% to beating him by 8%!

When Gloria Steinem (ugh) points out the John McCain chose Sarah Palin to “please the right-wing ideologues,” she neglects to mention one thing: Barack Obama didn’t exactly choose Joe Biden to be his VP because they’re BFFs. In fact, the two exchanged some pretty bitter words while they were campaigning against each other in the primaries. But Obama knew that there were a lot of Democrats that actually for once AGREED with Republicans in thinking (rightly) that Obama didn’t have any sort of foreign policy experience to fall back on as president, and his running mate needed to have some or we were going to have some seriously trashed international relations. If that’s not trying to please the left-wingers I don’t know what is.

And speaking of experience, let’s try this one on for size: what sort of executive leadership experience in government does Sarah Palin have? She’s been the mayor of a 9,000 person town, and the governor of a state (the most popular governor in the modern history of the United States, I might add, with approval ratings consistently between 80% and 90%). What kind of governmental executive leadership has Barack Obama had? None. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. His only job in the government has been as a state Senator, and then a US Senator. But history has proven that the executive office of president is better filled by those with executive experience (like generals, others with military command positions, and governors) rather than those who COMPROMISE for a living (senators and US representatives).

Let’s face it…a community organizer has nothing to do with governmental executive power. It’s like comparing beans to grapefruits. They’re not even in the same family. And Barack Obama got into the senate and two months later was already sending out campaign feelers about running for president, not to mention he’s been on the campaign trail for the majority of his term. So can we honestly say he’s been focused on passing helpful and constructive legislation to brighten the future of America? And while in the state legislature, Obama, who touts education as one of the primary issues in the campaign and has spoken about it dogmatically, has made one significant contribution to the education reform in Illinois. Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Give me a break.