A PoliChristian Point of View

Interesting Articles

2010-08-11T20:21:00.002-04:00

Fed Dissenters Thoughts

US Is out of Money

Another Stimulus will only Exasperate the problems

Republicans, not Democrats, created deficit problems

2010-03-03T15:01:00.003-05:00

Carter left office with about $1 Trillion in debt for the US. Reagan and Bush tripled this to about $3 Trillion. Clinton left it about unchanged, and W. Bush raised the debt to about $8 Trillion. Obama is pushing $10 Trillion now and may move that bar up to about $15-$20 Trillion before he leaves office.

But, of the current debt of about $10 Trillion, at least $7 Trillion is the fault of Republicans. So when Republicans complain about the budget, you can join with me in saying, "Hey Kettle, I'm pot, you're black!"

I'm Against Obamacare, but Use Nuke Option, Not Reconciliation

2010-03-03T14:56:00.003-05:00

Complaints have been that Obama is going to go around the filibuster to get his Healthcare passed. But, there is no constitutional reason to have a filibuster, only Senate tradition. Therefore, I hope Obama does not use reconciliation, but instead pushes to change Senate Rules to eliminate the Filibuster all together.

I hate this Bill, but Republicans screwed up majorly with the budget (and lost the Iraq argument), and got voted out. We as a country deserve what we vote for.

Democrats: Open Mouth, Enter Foot

2010-02-24T12:30:00.005-05:00

A few years ago, republicans wanted to end the Super-Majority needed to pass legislation. Democrats were very upset and said that a super-majority was necessary to keep the Checks and Balances in the Consitution.

I disagreed then.

Today, Democrats want to use procedure to pass health care with less then a Super-Majority. Republicans point back to last year with their problems with the democrats. However, Democrats are now changing their tune because they believe their issue is more important.

I still agree that only 51 should be required to pass legislation, even though I think this bill should fail.

Harry Reid, however, seems to not be so sure.

As my wife and I often joke, "What's good for the goose..."

Sarah Palin

2010-02-14T10:31:00.002-05:00

As a democrat, do you think she's dark and crafty like a snake, or ditsy and says what is popular?

Some columnist opinions:

"Palin, who is nothing if not cunning...sprung a trap..." -Frank Rich, NY Times

Democrats Fall Into Same Pit As Republicans

2010-02-05T11:17:00.004-05:00

My Political Roots
As a former staunch conservative, I often listened to Talk Radio such as Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Quinn and Rose. I often got angry at the Democrats, as they were portrayed either as stupid or brillantly evil.

During College, slowly but surely, the scales came off of my eyes. Though Conservative principles make much more logical sense, it is common sense and logical that must be applied to each situtation. Through using common sense, it is obvious that many conservative tenets are applied incorrectly or at the wrong time. As such, I became a moderate with conservative foundations.

Recent Turning Point
During the Election of 2006, I begrudingly voted for Republicans but was pulling for the Democrats. "The Republicans need a reality check. They cannot continue to run the country like rich fat cats or with blind idealouge. Common Sense solutions is what we need, and this election is the wake up call." And it was. Republicans scrambled, and Democrats cheered firmly about the success of their idealogue. Though they were wrong, the public was still ticked enough about Bush that the voters continued to "throw out the bums" in 2008. Republicans got hammered by their association with Bush, especially McCain.

Yes, I voted for McCain, as he would have been one of the best Presidents we ever had. A candidate for the middle and with common sense, McCain was a true breath of fresh air. Unfortuatenly, his independence won him the nomination, but the R after his name cost him the election and Obama won.

Enter Barack Obama
What Obama and the Democrats thought was the same as those Republican talk show hosts from 10 years ago. They knew everything and the Republicans were either stupid or brillantly evil. Of course, this is no more true about the Republicans then the Democrats. But, blinded by their idealogy and arrogant from the previous elections, Obama and the Democrats went straight for a hot button issue: Healthcare.

The Democrats Unraveling
Humerous as it may be, the Democrats acted as if the people were behind them ideologically. In reality, the people were simply mad at Republicans for not using common sense. The Democrats, have indeed, fallen into the same pit as republicans.

Democrats Big Problem
Moderate Democrats have been quick to realize the problems with their parties positions. The democrats took a terrible economy, dumped almost a trillion dollars into pet projects, continued Bush's trillion dollar bank bailout, and moved on to health care.

What the people wanted was someone to pay attention to the economy and use targeted programs to fix some of the worst areas, while cutting back on some wasteful areas to both save the government some deficit spending while improving the economy. Instead, they were pegged for huge deficits on spending they saw as nothing more then useless junk. Immediately after this, the Democrats began pushing a Health Care bill laden with Pork, and with a Price Tag of over a Trillion more dollars. The Republicans capitalized on this momentum by pointing out things that will or might happen if this plan passes.

The Revolt Continues
The party that had orginally promised fiscal restraint and a return to the glory days
has instead completely wasted a golden opportunity to gain a strangle hold on American politics. It instead has not only lost its momentum, but instead has turned the other way. The Republican Bums that were thrown out two and four years ago by Democrats can now laugh at those same Democrats being thrown out as bums themselves.

Republicans Beware
Though this tide is welcome to Republicans, there is still high skepticism against the Republicans. In fact, it would not be shocking if ALL incumbents of both parties were at risk of being tossed out.

Calling All Third Parties
It may sound crazy, but it may finally be possible for a third party to begin a meaningful entry into the political race. With the right funding and populist outrage, it is plausible for a third party to sweep in and pick up 30-50 Congressional seats. Their focus needs to be on Common Sense as their ideaologue, and approaching situations on a case by case basis.

AFTERTHOUGHT:
This column was inspired by Ruben Navarette's Column "Obama Must Pull His Party Into Line". Navarette argues that moderate Democrats are going wishy-washy despite huge majorities. The overtone is very similar to that of Republicans from 5-10 years ago. To any non-partisan, it is obviously not true that voters ever truely wanted a very conservative or liberal agenda. They wanted common sense.

Source: Obama Must Pull His Party Into Line, by Ruben Navarette
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/05/navarrette.obama.democrats/index.html?hpt=C2

Republicans vs Democrats

2010-01-13T15:58:00.003-05:00

Democrats often have the right emotional tone. They want to help the poor and the little guy and I appauld that. But they are often taking approaches that do not help people in the long term, but instead only the short term. Welfare is one glaring example.

Republicans are more logical and rational than democrats. They often have commonsense approaches to help out the country as a whole. However, they often forget that there are real people involved and that taxcuts does not help someone unless they have a job.

To expand, I really am leaning conservative at heart, but the Republican party is almost laughable in recent years. If asked what their solution to rising health costs is, they'd answer "tax cuts and deregulation." This answer would also be given for the money laundering scandals, and a solution as to how to help the Pittsburgh Pirates field a good team. Republicans, I need more from you before you are going to regain a majority!

Personal and Government Debt

2009-12-12T23:51:00.001-05:00

Our children are only two, and we’ve already decided how we will spend their paychecks. Is this generational theft or accepted practice? Perhaps both?? The major concerns we need to have as citizens are the purpose of debt, personal spending, and the spending of the government.
First, one needs to consider the purpose of debt and what it is and should be used for. The purpose of debt is to use someone else’s money today to achieve greater prosperity in the future as a result. This means to use debt, one needs to be sure or have a reasonable expectation that the amount of money used and interest paid will be outweighed by the benefit one receives from the debt. Most importantly and often overlooked, one must weigh against this the risk of things not going as planned. This risk includes, but rarely factors, the mental and psychological impact this risk has upon one’s decision making and stress. By combining all of these factors, one then can make a reasonable judgment as to whether debt is reasonable to dive into.
In general, reasonable risks can and are taken on a regular basis. If one were to go to college, it would be reasonable to finance part or all of their education through student loans, also known as debt. Another reasonable way to take on debt would be to buy a house or invest in business equipment. However, it should not be implied that it would be reasonable to take out loans and finance education in every situation, but rather it needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
By using this formula as a starting point, one may begin to wonder if the debt that has been entered into meets these standards. Items that most often do not meet these standards are credit cards, car payments, and personal loans. The most easy to consider though most controversial would be the car payment. Most Americans have car payments but refuse to consider just how or what they are doing by purchasing a vehicle or a period of years. Instead of buying a good used car for $2000, most buy cars for $200 a month over 60 or more months. Not only does this cost much more, but it also ties up a person’s income over a period of years. If there is an emergency or a change in income, it is impossible to wiggle out of this contract to free up cash.
Much more obvious and widely accepted is to not use credit cards to finance lifestyle choices such as restaurants, movies, and even vacations. Not only does the math stink on paying back interest every month forever, but how good does it really feel to be paying for that meal at the cracker barrel every month for the last 5 years?
Regardless of your personal income and spending situation, it is not anyone’s concern if you are not spending money appropriately. But, it is everybody’s issue that pays taxes to know of the government is spending our money wisely. Recent lights have shined on TARP, cash for clunkers, and entitlement programs. All of these programs were intended to help the US get out of a recession or help those hardest hit by it, but we have used unprecedented amount of debt to pay for these programs. The problem with using debt in the government is that the value of a dollar is based on the perception of the strength of the economy in which the dollar is printed divided by the number of dollars in circulation. By taking on debt, the US government devalues the perception of the strength of our economy, and adds new dollars into the system. In a mathematical way, we are decreasing the numerator while increasing the dominator. Any math geek or 3rd grade knows that this is going to be a smaller value.
Currently, the US government is taking on more debt then at any other point in its history. Just by looking at the graph on the discussion board, it is obvious that the US has taken on huge debt in expansion periods as well as recession. This is not a sustainable course. If the in balance is not corrected shortly, there will be a period of hyper inflation in conjunction with a recession. This is more popularly known as stagflation. The last time this occurred was in the 1970s with the OPEC oil crisis.
The ways in which the deficit should be cut are simple. A reduction in spending on unnecessary programs and pet projects, an elimination of middle and upper class people from receiving Social Security checks, an elimination of the social security tax cap, random drug testing for all welfare recipients, and eliminating Medicare benefits to upper middle and upper class citizens. None of these moves are politically popular in the least. But such drastic moves are necessary to eliminate government deficits. Finally, the excess money that has been floating around our system needs to be eliminated as this is what helped cause our last recession. This means raising reserve requirements, raising interest rates, and the banning of certain types of predatory loans such as Check n Go.
There are times that debt is necessary to achieve goals. But by using debt as a way to finance our lifestyles and avoid unpleasantness, we’ve created an awful mess in our personal lives and in government. For our children’s sake, it is time to tighten the belt in both realms and pay back this loaned out money. Let’s give our kids a great starting point through our sacrifice, just like all previous generations have.

Annoying Things About Christian Worship

2009-03-30T20:00:00.005-04:00

I love going to church and being part of a service dedicated to God. However, there are several things that irk me about services. So here is my top ten most annoying things that can happen during a church service:

10) Talkers
You know who I mean. People that can't shut up during church. Talk talk talk...laugh...giggle...just please go outside if you want to talk. Nobody likes being distracted by you.

9) Money Pastor
I think that people need to give more to their local church. Too many are just holding on to their pocket books. But, something that does not help and that is very annoying is the pastor that always is begging for money. I understand a need for reality. But reality is, God doesn't want Sunday service to be an hour telethon.

8) Regular Attending Non-Christians
I love it when non-Christians come to church to learn about God and see if He's real. But the guy who's wife makes him come, and he hates being there, and is cynical about everything, and is...and is...ect. Buddy, stay home.

7) CE Christians
Why do you come to church only twice a year? Does God exist or not? If He does, come! If not, Sleep in! Maybe more annoying is the fact that we real Christians don't subtly try to influence these CE Christians in life more often.

6) Slow Music
I love appropriately slow music. But what about really slow music that is meant to be played fast? HATE it. A....MIGHT...Y...FOR..OR..TRES...IS...OUR...GOD... I love hymns, but please play them fast and with pep!

5) Repeating Lines
I enjoy good praise and worship music, but I only need to sing a line once to understand it. Singing it a second time, I may be able to understand. But singing the chorus 5 times in a row, not cool. Even worse is when you repeat one line multiple times. Just give it a rest praise team!

4) Fake People
Yes, I have worked on myself and have improved myself markedly. But I am far from perfect, and I know you aren't. So please, PLEASE don't act perfect.

3) Touchy-Feely Teens
It bothers me greatly whenever we see teens in church all over each other. Please, this is church, not the local movie theater.

2) Attention seekers.
For some reason, these people drive me crazy. No, its not okay for you to throw your arms in the air and dance in the aisles in front of everyone every week. I understand if you really have a passion for God, but usually its not coming from passion for God.

1) Minister preaches unbiblical things.
I have had sermons where a pastor misinterprets scripture, twists language, or flat out says things that are unbiblical. Yes. Unbiblical. This bothers me greatly and will usually result in me leaving the church.

These are in roughly the right order, but could be shifted around.

I hope that you all go to church and don't fall victim to being angry about these silly things like me.

Individualism vs the Elite

2009-03-28T21:50:00.002-04:00

As I sit, my wife beside me types away furiously at her computer. You see, she's graduating college this year as an elementary education major. Her essays and resumes and other portfolio items need to be in great condition so she can get a job in her field. No one is currently paying her for this extra work she's doing to find a job...actually, she has done many things for free in order to boost her chances of getting that elusive teaching job.

She took on a long-term commitment as a babysitter while in college. 20 hours a week, every evening!

She worked at a day care with lots of children to gain more experience.

Every summer, she works at a Christian sports camp to gain a better understanding of children.

Actually...now that I am thinking about this, she does not do these things for just some money or for experience. She actually loves working with children.

In the market place, I am positive my wife will find a teaching job or a similar position that she'll really enjoy. But, unfortunately, this is not the way most people think.

Instead, most people today are content with blaming everything on the economy and their government. "Why can't the government fix my problems?" (That's not their job) "The economy is holding me down." (Unless you're in one of the big bust areas like Florida or California, I don't think this recession has had much day to day impact) "The government needs to do something."

Well, scary enough, the government is. Now that the masses have abandoned any individual responsibility for themselves, the elite will decide for you.

All I can say is, "Good day, Comrade!"

Obama Picture Starting to Crack

2009-03-23T19:49:00.003-04:00

I sit dumbfounded at Obama's lack of care about anything that has to do with policy. It seems that Obama is really just someone who wants to continue campaigning.

Not only this, but Obama actually says he was shocked to find out about the bonuses at AIG. Strange, where NPR reported that the White House and Congress knew about these bonuses ahead of time. Maybe though, the Liberal NPR got their facts wrong about a Liberal President. Not so as fellow rival Washington Post also published simliar information. Another news network actually upped the ante by reporting that they knew about it for months.

So Obama has gotten caught in his first web of deceit. Should we be calling for his impeachment like the Democrats would with a Republican? No, of course not. But Obama's situation seems to be deteroriating faster then one would imagine. He even made a slip up by making fun of the special olympics.

If only Obama's problems were so Superficial. Obama, knowing the people wanted the government to do something, did many somethings...many times over. We have just heard the annoucement of the fourth near Trillion dollar package in almost as many months. Yes, I count four:
TARP(Meant to Suck up Toxic Assets, actually used to buy into companies)
Pork to the Rescue (Nothing of value here)
Fed Buys T-Bills (Aka Printing Money)
Buy Toxic Assets by giving Private Companies Money with which to bid(TARP II except taxpayers get nothing out of it)

Economic Populism is now growing to a fever pitch in which Obama might get swallowed up in. People are angery because they wanted the government to regulate and exact vengence upon the greedy bankers who destroyed our economy. Instead, the Democrats are just pouring money into the system by means of pork projects or investments into those very same greedy banks that caused this mess in the first place.

Whatever happened to just letting this big corporations flop? Government could have helped by getting in on the bidding process to buy some pieces from these big broken companies with 1 trillion dollars which would have leveraged 3 trillion more in private funds.

Or, we could just keep throwing good money (freshly printed!) after bad...

Side Note: The unforseen consequence through all of this is going to be massive inflation. Hold on to your butts, its on its way. (Invest in the Euro)

The Beginning of the End

2008-02-11T16:09:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the beginning of the end.

The Republican race caused much chaos and enjoyment for all avid spectators. With McCain about to wrap up the nomination, Huckabee is still holding on to keep McCain honest.

Looking back, I want to note some of the most interesting quirks of the campaign season:

For each candidate:

Guiliani

Strengths
-national defense
-best manager
-percepion of being able to "get things done"

Weaknesss
-the leading candidate for the vast majority of the campaign season
-Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, and Anti-Gun

Strategy
-Let Romney roll early; Romney's heavy spending in early contests was impenetrable
-Emerge as the national front-runner and become the one to "Stop Romney"
-overcome weaknesses by being the best choice against Hillary

Why It didn't Work
-Romney was wacked off early by Huckabee
-McCain storms in NH because of Romney's apparent weakness; becomes the Anti-Romney
-lost because of a lack showing in early contests

Thompson

Strengths
-perceived as real conservative
-lots of interest in his platform

Weaknesses
-got in late
-hype made unrealistic expectations and a huge let down
-bad campaigner
-uninspiring speech

Strategy
-become the only real conservative viable and therefore sweep through with strong showings early and the tide starting in SC

Why It didn't Work
-Lack of funds, charisma, and a late entry made him seem more forced then willing
-Romney had already solidified the sheeple portion of conservatives with ads

Romney

Strengths
-pro-life, pro-family
-fiscally conservative
-novel idea on healthcare
-lots of money

Weaknesses
-seemed fake/distant from average Americans
-Flip-Flopping on major issues such as abortion and gay rights
-personal wealth

Strategy
-Roll through Iowa, NH, and SC creating a huge tidal wave of momentum into Super Tuesday.
-Use early states that others are not competing in as insurance and reassurance of his inevitability.

Why it Didn't Work
-Flip-Flopper image caused much anxiety after Republicans demonized John Kerry for it in 2004 (In other words, Flip-flopping was seen as worse then holding an unpopular position)
-fakeness wore against Iowa voters the wrong way
-Huckabee's pesonality and speaking skills won over many voters in a straw poll despite almost no money; Huckabee's popularity then grew in Iowa leading to Romney's loss and destruction of his strategy

Huckabee

Strengths
-Social conservative
-great speaking skills
-fiscally conservative

Weaknesses
-relative unknown
-little cash
-economically moderate
-no foreign experience

Strategy
-Get noticed! After doing so, steal Iowa from Romney, let him squeak by in NH, then clobber him in SC. This would lead to Huckabee's eventuality in FL and strength on Super Tuesday

Why it Didn't Work
-Huckabee got noticed and beheaded Romney in Iowa
-NH saw Iowa and catapulted McCain to victory as they felt Romney was a loser
-In SC, McCain carried momentum from NH and Huckabee was hurt by showings by Thompson and Romney
-Huckabee couldn't afford a push in FL, and did well on Super Tuesday, but Romney again stole attention with his cash, Huckabee did not nearly enough to show up McCain

McCain

Strengths
-War Hero
-Fiscally Conservative
-Pro-Life

Weaknesses
-seen as unreliable by conservatives
-vote against tax cuts
-supported blocking Bush nominees
-McCain-Feingold
-McCain-Kennedy
-Pro-Enviornment

Strategy
-Compete in NH, use its momentum to sweep through other states on Super Tuesday

Why it DID work
-McCain was helped hugely by Huckabee's win in Iowa
-In SC, McCain was helped again by the conservative vote being split
-McCain swept through Super Tuesday as seen as the only viable alternative to Clinton

Any of these candidates could have won with the right circumstances. My problem is, by using a system that allows two candidates to compete instead of 5, I do not believe McCain would have been chosen. Oh well!

Talk Radio's Irrelevance

2008-01-21T18:49:00.000-05:00

Talk radio was the new media, coming on an era where it challenged traditional media for the minds of American's everywhere. Newspapers and Television has been labeled as far left and the public knows it. But it still makes a huge impact in elections. What about talk radio?

In this election, talk radio's irrelevance has reached a new fever pitch. With all of the trumpeting for a "real" conservative candidate, talk radio saw what all the conservative voters have seen: No good conservative candidate.

Instead of admitting this problem and rejecting the current slate, talk radio piped up and tried on a couple of "okay" hats:

First, Thompson was seen as the savior. When the people realized Thompson had mediocre speaking skills, a poor sense of leadership, few credentials, and no ideas, his poll numbers dropped like a rock. Talk radio tried to keep him a float, but eventually abandoned ship.

Next, they went to someone they had first rejected: Romney. As the only one as a straight conservative on paper, talk radio shouted and waved for Romney's support. Romney was sunk in Iowa by Huckabee, in NH by McCain, and came in fourth in SC. Romney's only wins have come in three states that nobody else had cared about or campaigned in. With only cheap victories (cheap comes at a price tag with many zeros for Romney), Romney has been roundly rejected by Republican voters.

The only two candidates that were outright rejected by talk radio have been the ones who actually keep winning. As if talk radio were a salesman trying to get voters to buy an overpriced domestic car instead of a less shiny (and lower sales margin) import, this year's voters aren't buying.

I wouldn't go as far as the columnist to say that talk radio is irrelevant, but a salesman can only make so much of a difference when these shoppers know what they don't want.

Post-Carolina Power Rankings

2008-01-20T12:09:00.000-05:00

The past week has made some very interesting though not unexpected alterations to the GOP race. The candidates who were predicted to win did.

The one factor that has influenced the rankings other then the results has been talk radio. There seems to be an all-out support for Romney by Hannity and Limbaugh. This perturbs me because these two demonized John Kerry in 2004 for waffling on issues. Romney's flip-flopping on positions makes John Kerry look like the "Straight Talk Express." At this point, I am refusing to believe anything Hannity and Limbaugh say as they are obviously caught with their ethical pants down.

On to the rankings:

#1 John McCain - 50%
The "Straight Talk Express" has been resurrected and SC has given McCain the official status as front-runner. McCain is aided heavily by the fact that Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson continue to muddle Conservative voters. McCain will be the nominee if he can overcome a few different things:
If the economy talk keeps growing, McCain will need to at least nominally address it.
A win in Florida would bump up his chances to about 75% or 80%.
If someone other then McCain wins Florida, McCain could have a real dog fight on his hands. Probability down to about 35 or 40% with a loss in Florida.

#2 Mitt Romney - 20%
The Governor has elevated his status by virtue of a couple of cheap wins, Huckabee losing in SC, and Guiliani's poll numbers dropping in Florida. Romney could use a win in Florida, or really anybody but McCain.

#3 Mike Huckabee - 15%
Losing in SC hurts bad. Questions will be raised about his national viability as Iowa looks more and more like an aberration. He needs Florida. Bad. He can still win if McCain loses, but its going to be tough.

#4 Rudy Guiliani - 15%
Anything but a win in Florida is disaster. But a win in Florida makes him look like a genius and catapults him into prime contention as the lurking challenger to McCain. But Florida is going to be tough. A Four way race is going to be tight.

#5 Fred Thompson - 1 > %
Look for Fred to drop out before Florida. If he doesn't, its simply because he thinks he's sucking off votes from someone he doesn't like and is helping someone he does. Thompson is finished.

Power Rankings Update

2008-01-11T15:20:00.000-05:00

The boys of the GOP are jockeying for position in the most interesting primary race in US history.

I have to say that I have continued to be indecisive of who I want to win this race. Huckabee and Guiliani are my top two, followed by McCain, Romney, and Thompson. But my likes don't necessarily get reflected in chances. Here's my updated power rankings.

#1 - McCain 35%

He seems to be surging at the right time. Though I only give him about a 40% chance of winning the GOP nod, no other candidate looks stronger right now. (Not that it says much.) McCain is up in Michigan and SC, though only in some polls. If he wins these, it clearly makes him the frontrunner.

What concerns me is his support among the base. Though he looks strong now, a loss to Romabee in Michigan and/or SC means big trouble for McCain. If McCain loses in one or both states, he will drop like a rock in the rankings.

#2 - Huckabee - 33%

Trailing close behind McCain with 33% chance is a huge bump from the almost zero chance six months ago. Huckabee seems to be finding solid footing outside of his evangelical pocket. With a little polish, Huckabee could begin to really garner in the broad support needed to carry. If Huckabee wins SC and posts strongly in Michigan, I believe that Huckabee will have the best chance heading into Super Tuesday. To further excite his base would be a win or near fall in Florida which would almost guarntee him the Big Mo.

Huckabee's problem is McCain gaining traction in Michigan and SC. Currently the polls show a mix review of who's leading SC. In addition, Huckabee really has a problem he is unsure of in the Romney/McCain fight in Michigan. Huckabee doesn't really know which way he'll have to defend!

#3 - Guiliani - 15%

Chaos = good things for Guiliani. His best case scenario is a Romney win in Michigan, Thompson in SC, and Guiliani then winning Florida. That would give complete chaos to the system and allow the national star with the best chance at winning on Super Tuesday. A Huckabee win in SC would be helpful if Thompson couldn't win.

But if McCain wins Michigan and SC, even with Guiliani winning in Florida (which would then be tough) it probably wouldn't be enough.

P.S.: For all of you who think Guiliani's strategy is too unconventional, has any of this race been conventional? If there was any year that a candidate like Guiliani could win, its this one.

#4 - Romney - 12%

"Can you believe he spent all that money and still hasn't won yet?" Yes. But can you imagine what would have happened if he hadn't of? Romney can begin to claw his way back with a win in Michigan and a second in SC.

If Romney loses Michigan, he's toast. If he wins Michigan and doesn't place at least a strong second in SC, he's toast. Romney is not a good place. It remind me of school when a kid ran for all four political offices. He ended up losing all of them because nobody would vote for him more then once in any single race. Huckabee's only chance was in Iowa, he won. McCain's only chance was in NH, he won. Romney already had two shots though. Is Michigan really willing to give the guy that's batting 0-2 a chance? We'll see.

#5 - Thompson - 5%

Thompson needs to win SC and then hope upon hopes that all of his competitiors stumble, particularly Huckabee and Romney.

Thompson is done with a loss in SC. In effect, I really only believe he's playing a spoiler to Huckabee in SC. Merry Christmas McCain... Thompson is giving you SC. Should we start calling him Ralph Nader?

Iowa Helps Huckabee, McCain, mortally wounds Romney, Thompson

2008-01-04T15:54:00.000-05:00

The first lap has been recorded and all the fun is just beginning. The Iowa Caucuses led to a Huckabee victory and a rout of Mit Romney.

My Power Rankings:

1) Empty - There is no one with a clear inside track to the white house. Every candidate left has major problems of which seem to discount him of winning the nomination. It will be interesting to see the real winner.

2) McCain - Huckabee

Huckabee - The Values Guy

Huckabee clearly gains validation from the Iowa win. However, it will be a real test to see if Huckabee can build past this threshold. I'm not convinced that Huckabee can ride the monmentum especially if the focus turns very quickly to McCain's prospects in NH. If Huckabee can win another state early such as MI or SC, Huckabee could move into #1 status.

McCain - The Battle Scarred Veteran

McCain won as much as Huckabee with Romney's loss in Iowa. McCain now will get oodles of free press and a real "underdog victory" stamp with his likely win in NH. McCain will need to win another early state though such as SC or MI. With a win in one of these states, McCain will be a force to be reckoned with. If Huck and McCain split these two states, it will be a true three man race with Guiliani.

3) Guiliani - The Dark Horse

Guiliani has always been the Dark Horse candidate in my eyes. An outcast of the Values Voters, a Guiliani nomination has always been questionable. Guilaini's biggest strength is his opponent's weaknesses. Himself handicapped with his stances on abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights, Guliani has always needed help to be the Republican nominee. Guiliani's wishes are a muddled field splitting the values voters, or no values candidate at all. Guliani's biggest fear is a muddled field including John McCain, who feds from a similar base. Though he could beat McCain head to head, a three-way race including McCain spells disaster for him. Bottom line: I want a race that includes just McCain, or no McCain. A Romney victory in NH would be fabulous for Guiliani and would make him a clear #1 or #2.

4) Romney

Like a winded distance runner that started his kick too early, Romney is in trouble after being passed in a critical race in Iowa. Romney's strategy was to build a strong organization in Iowa and NH, gain support, and then use the momentum to propel to national victory. Romney's strategy of hitting Iowa and NH hard and early gave him huge early leads...and expectations just as high. Wow, did he screw up. Doesn't he know that the public loves an underdog? With a lose in NH now, Romney will be all but finished. But just on a side note, Romney's biggest problem has never been his mormonism, but his flip-flopping. With the demonization that Kerry was given because of it in 2004, Romney's bid in my opinion, has always been a stretch.

5) Thompson

Geez...you think that maybe you could, I don't know, mis expectations a little more? Thompson cannot win without a strong showing in SC. If he does not place a strong second in SC, perhaps even a win, he's completely done in will throw in his hat. Thompson, the waiting caused uncertainty, but the missed expectations following it were the killer.

Huckabee the sure "Loser"

2007-12-14T08:30:00.000-05:00

As I was reading a column by Rothenberg, I realized that he had read my mind

However, he needs to go a step further.

As a friend and I were talking, I suddenly realized how much media attention he was getting from liberal journalists. Wow, I thought, Huckabee is really on track. He's the darling of social conservatives and even getting publicity from liberal journalists.

But really, why are the journalists giving him this attention? The reason is not kindness, but rather because they would love him in a general election.

With the general election's biggest issue going to be National Security, Terrorism, and immigration, Huckabee has LESS experience then both Obama and Clinton. A victory for Huckabee means the easiest path for a Democratic White House.

I like Huckabee too...he's a nice guy. But think about why the liberal journalists like him, and wonder if that scares you at all.

Pulling Support for Huckabee

2007-12-13T12:37:00.000-05:00

I'm back. After tons of things going on in my life, I decided to start spouting off new blogs. In my first day back...

Here I am, bucking the trend again. I am officially pulling support for Mike Huckabee.

I originally supported Huckabee because he was the only candidate with a conservative streak who is an excellent speaker. I was hoping through gaining support, he would flesh out his positions in a positive way. It only seems that now with growing support, he doesn't know how to have practical positions.

Huckabee has been unspecific, dodged interviews, and increasingly relied on one-liners and quips. Unfortunately for Huckabee, the correct way to deal with Iran is not a one-liner and a deep thought. If that was true, Robin Williams would be the best President ever.

Though I am not completely opposed to Huckabee, he no longer gets me excited about turn over a new leaf.

Scary enough, I think the best President we could have is someone whose not running. This guy is cynical about government, and is willing to take on the established tax and spend ways. The guy I'm thinking of could be an immediate contender, even this late in the race. In fact, I believe he could win even entering now.

If only Newt would run...

At the end of Sept, Newt was considering a run if his supporters could find $30 million in campaign pledges. That didn't happen, and Newt bowed out. Newt was considering a run because he was "fed up with the excuses we're given for spending too much, doing too little and not being honest about reality. I think we need to have the moral courage, and frankly the psychological courage, to understand that politics is not a game. I am for a clean break."

Someone draft Newt...please...

I'll leave you with this line that I think sums up my believes on America today:

"this is a center-right country caught between an incompetent right-wing party and a ruthlessly organized, energized, militant, minority left-wing party."

JHH Dialouge Continued

2007-11-09T08:26:00.000-05:00

You seem to be stuck on this idea of fundamentalism. I am in fact a Christian (as my blog title indicates), but this doesn't mean that I'm a fundamentalist nut job. Of course, I guess that lies in the definition of what a fundamentalist nut job is. Regardless....

My personal positions on issues and other factors is what I look for in a candidate. Issues I care about most while voting for a candidate stem from my worldview. More specifically I am most concerned about the following:

The Federal Deficit - The Federal Deficit is astronomically high and is a economics and security issue. The government cannot continue to spend more then it takes in. Debt makes the US financial slaves to other countries, eats up our tax dollars with interest payments, and sets a bad precedent for American citizens as individuals.

International Policy - This includes Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Palestine, ect. There is no black and white answers to these questions, but rather some must be solved through force, others negotiation, and others through a combination with other factors. I believe that Bush made a mistake by invading Iraq and I said so before the invasion that it was a bad idea. But now that we're there, you also can't simply leave. Doing this would signal to the world that terrorism can force the US out of places and the America does not have the stomach for wars. Unfortunately, we're there until we finish the job of stabilization.

Immigration - The US must secure the boarders. Maybe I mis-wrote. The US must secure the boarders. There are millions who want to come in and live here but the US Immigration system takes much too long to process too few people. I believe the solution is two-fold: first stage, the US must stop illegal immigration by building a physical barrier, streamlining and increasing substantially legal immigration, and enforcing heavy fines and penalties to employers who hire illegal workers. Second: After stage one is complete, grant Amnesty to the illegals here, and have them pay back taxes to the IRS.

Energy - The US is just insane if it thinks that we can have energy with zero consequences. Every form of energy comes at a price. But which price are we willing to pay? Clearly we need to get off of oil, but then which form of energy can we move to? Ethanol, Bio-fuels, Hydrogen, and others look somewhat promising but are not self-sustaining. The only real ways to make energy that we can feasibly attain are coal, hydro, and nuclear. America needs to use power plants to fuel our cars. This can be done by increasing primarily nuclear power. Scary? Not as scary as being stuck on oil the next 100 years. How would nuclear fuel our cars? Let the free market decide what intermediary fuel to use. Ethanol, Hydrogen, whatever. The future is diversifying what kinds of fuels we use, with Nuclear backing it all up. Why? Because nuclear power is the only source we won't run out of.

Gay Rights - I do not believe its a "right" to do certain things. There are certain American traditions and societal networking that determine many of the rules of society. Ultimately, we have to ask what the government's role is in these Arenas. I cannot say I have all of the answers to these questions, but in short, in respect to Gay marriage, I believe that its a silly push to force societal values upon others. The only reason that government currently sanctions marriage is to give legal enforcement of a union that has been proven to be the best place to raise a children. In addition, marriage between a man and a woman has proven to be more fulfilling to those involved. Because of this, (and being able to tax at a higher rate), the government gives its blessing and title to marriages. Now, do I believe that homosexuals should be drug into the streets and shot? Of course not! Would I support some form of agreement that made it easier to share and transfer assets in times of death, or give visitation rights in hospitals? Of course I would.

Though, I must make this final declaration as a Christian, not as a statesman: I believe that every person has their own weaknesses and problems that must deal with for life. Some of them are considered worse then others, for which I disdain with extreme displeasure. Homosexuality is no worse then deceiving, greed, killing, stealing, coveting, pride, pride, pride, did I mention pride? In fact, I believe the homosexuality is simply a sexual sin that is no worse then anything else. (I do believe that pride, that shown by many "Christians" is the worst of sins.) Rather, as Christians, we must help those dealing with the homosexuality issue with compassion and an understanding of confusion and hurt by the vicitims. Bottomline: Many Christians believe that homosexuality is horrible, others that its perfectly okay. But as a Christian, just as any other sin, we must treat it as it is supposed to be treated, with a firm loving stance. (We help alcoholics don't we? Gamblers? Divorcees?)

Abortion - What a horrible horrible thing that we have to deal with today. I wish that abortion was never invented, but here we are. What should government do about abortion? Government could not today enact a ban of abortion without rioting, killing, and I believe it would not lower the number of abortions. Therefore, I believe that government should be proactive and not simply write laws. By encouraging adoptions, banning abortions in the last trimester, giving out information about how one could raise their child, and eliminating any federal funding; these strategies would decrease abortions more then any law banning abortion. I'd love to say that abortion could just be stopped through banning, but any reasonable person must see that it would be a naive position.

Economics - I propose a system of sales tax and income tax that would be tied together. My tax would be at a rate of 13% sales tax and 13% income tax. I believe that Bread, Milk, and essential items should be exempted such as in the Pennsylvania system. In addition, I believe that only income over $100,000 should be taxed. In this system, everyone would be taxed fairly and consistently with no tax breaks or loopholes. In addition, if the rate of 13% must be adjusted upwards or downwards, then both the sales and income tax should be adjusted together. The reasoning for this system is to eliminate class warfare while still giving room to the poor to live without a heavy burden.
The lighter income tax would free companies to become more competitive overseas. The sales tax would make American goods seem more expensive (even though it would be off-set by income gains) and therefore savings would increase. Coloring into another area, consumer debt is actually a security issue and the government should encourage the balancing of American checkbooks and elimination of debt. Though hard in the short-term economically to reduce consumption, in the long-run Americans could buy more goods because of their no longer need to pay interest.

The Candidates I've Endorsed:

My reasoning for supporting Huckabee is fairly simple. He's the only candidate who is pro-life, pro-family and has been for the extent of his career. None of the other candidates can say this other then McCain. Other issues I care about are reasonable assistance to the poor and those in need. This of course seems more of a liberal position that I happen to support. But, I do believe that the government has done a poor job of allocating resources to help the poor. He also supports the Fair-Tax and would stop illegal immigration.

Guliani is fairly consistent with my positions. In addition to this however, is his ability to manage and lead. Despite being consistent with my positions, Bush has been a terrible manager and is therefore not a good President. Guiliani however seems to be the best candidate to actually manage the country and accomplish things.

Now, JHH, why don't you make a blog, talk about all your positions on issues and candidates, and then let others criticize you? Quite frankly, I'm anything but a blind fundmentalist. But call me what you will, because thinking outside the box and breaking stereotypes is what I do!

P.S.: About the "racist" comment I made, I was in no part trying to be racist. Rather, I was describing the traditional voting blocs of the parties and criticizing the candidates to playing towards those bases. If you think I was being mean to non-whites, there was about 10 other groups I should be criticized for using in those lists as well.

Response to JHH Comment

2007-11-08T18:46:00.001-05:00

Jhh,

Somehow you've labeled me as a "Fundamentalist" Christian who has been "lead by the nose" as I am a "sheep" and these "leaders" of a fundamentalist Christians simply tell me "who to vote for" and I back them up.

Clearly, you haven't read any of my posts. Under a previous post titled "Don't Just Vote the Elephant", I vigorously attack those who want to simply use previously formed coalitions to maintain power. Instead, I advocate that people actually study for themselves and use their own judgments as to all of the qualities of a candidate, including but not limited to platforms, in which they wish to vote for. This actually makes me the exact opposite of what you are trying to paint me, an unthinking sheep.

Secondly, as for Pat Robertson, I personally do not care for the man's wielding of questionable statements as assertions for the truth. Furthermore, I question his authenticity as he has said in the past that God had "revealed" to him many things which turned out to be untrue. Therefore, I do not include him as a person that should legitimately be portrayed as a leader of real Christians. Though I will not question that he truly believes what he says or that he is a Christian, simply having a larger media bullhorn then most and declaring yourself a leader does not make you a leader speaking for all Christians.

The idea that as a group "values voters" is "collapsing on itself" is a little misleading as just four years ago they were declared to have given the White House to Bush.

This is not to say that the self-proclaimed leaders and their influence hasn't diminished in respect to their clout with candidates. But is this because the candidates are avoiding Christian Conservative voters or rather maybe the leaders themselves aren't closely aligned with those they claim to lead.

In summary, I believe that more people then most realize vote by making their own determinations. They gather information from news they hear or read, mail sent to them, conversations with colleagues, and by endorsements they hear about. But most do not simply hear what ol’ Pat says and blinded follows along. However, I do believe that most do not do enough of their own digging by watching what the candidates say in person, reading their press releases, and then do a little of their own background digging.

I personally advocate that people weigh all of the evidence they have, take some time to learn more, and then make their own choices. That’s what voting is all about.

Unholy Alliances

2007-11-03T08:17:00.000-04:00

The
Peacenics/Tree Huggers/Unions/Hollywood/Non-Whites and the
Gun Touting/Abortionist/Corporations/Libertarians/Rednecks
have decided for us that what we need is a person under the Democrat/Republican label.

Who are we kidding? A real person will never be elected. We force candidates to run to the left or the right, and then pull back center. How about someone who just believes in a balanced government, solid execution, and is just for the American way? Nope, not prepackaged enough. ACLU forbid someone came out for or against things.

Hillary Clinton did just this dancing at the last Democratic Debate, proof that the old adage remains true: You can't win a debate, only lose it.

Where's are the straight talkers? Oh, that's right, we are outing the straight talker. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with alot of what Bush does. But I do support him...because apparently he's the only straight talker we're going to see for the next 8 years or so.

Don't Just "Vote the Elephant"

2007-10-18T18:24:00.000-04:00

Upon reading one of my favorite blogs today, I checked out the comments and found a person who wished for the writer to fall under the umbrella "Vote the Elephant." I began to read this blog, but became very frustrated at what I read.

The author believes that there should be no litmus test and is frustrated with those who would disagree. Instead, the author popularizes the idea that if some agrees with you "80%" of the time that the person is in the words of Ronald Reagan, a friend. Instead, "The I Vote the Elephant Blogroll is dedicated to LOYAL Republicans who put their pragmatic determination to win elections in order to bring about a change to Republican Party Values ahead of their dogmatic determination to remain pure conservatives, moderated, or liberals."

Well, let me tell you something Mr. Elephant butt kisser, in the words of another conservative, Dr. Michael Savage (who I disagree with alot, but not on this), Republicans like you are nothing more then "George Bush Shoe Shine boys."

You ask, What's the point of being a Republican if you don't support the candidate nominated? The point of being a Republican is to get your ideas across to the candidates running! If the candidate disagrees with the issues most important to you, then you're not going to support them, Republican or not.

I support Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani for President. I support Huckabee because he most agrees with my positions on major issues. However, I support Guiliani because I believe he is the best person up to the job of President. More pointedly, I believe that we will have another Bush in Huckabee, one with great positions and terrible skills in carrying those out. The strength I see in Guiliani is that he would be a fabulous manager, though I don't agree with his positions.

My point is, people should support ideas and beliefs that they believe are best for the country. If the Republicans leave ideas that others find important, I believe they should leave the party. Not because I won't vote for Guiliani, but if he wins and they don't agree with his views, the moral thing for them to do is leave and try to get their message across in another way.

Vote what you believe, don't bow down to the almighty Elephant. If you do, nothing will ever change for the better, but for the worse.

New Life Live! and Other Programs

2007-10-17T13:59:00.000-04:00

New Life Live! is a ministry I support which does Christian Counseling. The Christian Counseling is a way in which these Christians show their love of Christ and provide a service which reaches people that might otherwise never know of Christ's love.

Go. Listen. Donate. Tell others!

Financial UnRest, A Scary Outlook

2007-10-04T21:20:00.000-04:00

Financially, the individual and the government are cash strapped. Through excessive borrowing, both are beginning to recognize that their cash is coming to an end. The government has borrowed and borrowed through almost its entire history. There are few times that the government has had a surplus. With a national debt of about $9 Trillion, the debt has almost reached the entire out put of the the U.S. Economy for one calendar year. This means every Dock loader, mall manager, McDonald's employee, IT guy, CEO, Stock Broker, and Banker...every thing the United States people accomplish in one year would just be enough to cover the national debt. We could not heat our homes, eat, or even see a movie. Not one road could be paved, insurance company insure a car, medical procedure be done. The entire output of the U.S. economy for one year!

The individual is no better. With credit cards, helocks, and encouragement from the government, the individual will continue to live beyond their means. The people can even be to blame for the government's financial excesses, the people demanding what they government can't afford or threatening to throw out the old politicians and bring in those willing.
Of course asking who is to blame is like asking if the chicken or the egg came first. The problem is, the people want too opposite things: the government to be financially responsible for itself, and also demanding that the government offset the debt of the individual and come to the rescue when in trouble!

Why do you think single-payer healthcare is so important? "Free Health-care?...yeah...why shouldn't it be free. Then no one would have to pay for it!" Think I'm kidding? I still get into arguments with people who don't understand why "The government just can't print more money for everyone so we can all buy more things and pay off debts."
If you think this is absurd, then you must not realize that this is exactly what the government is doing to us. By "borrowing" money from the Federal Reserve to cover expenses, the government is actually taking money out of thin air. How do they do this? Its the law. The federal reserve is allowed to create money and hand it to anyone it wishes. As of June 2007, the Federal Reserve is owed about $790 Billion from the federal government.

People need to begin to realize that there is a limit to the goods and services in this country, and if we would live on less then we make, payoff all bad debit (everything except mortgages), and give a tenth of our earnings to chartiable causes, everyone would be in great shape financially. As Dave Ramsey would say, some people "Live like no one else so that one day, they can live like no one else." If the majority of Americans did this, our country would be in great shape because people would have solid financial footing, depend very little on the government for anything, and money would be spent on not frivolous items, but those of quality. In addition, that nagging trade balance that we see would disappear. The reason America has a trade balance is because consumers purchase more then they make as a whole, hence we absorb more debt and have a negative trade balance.

The government also needs to get its act together, spending less then it taxes. The government currently spends over $15,000 per person, $9,000 of which is spent by the national government.

My point is, if we don't stop this insane spending individually and publicly, then when we hit the wall very shortly, the economy will be shattered. Sure our economy is currently strong, but it is artificially stronger then it should be. It would hurt us short-term but help vastly long-term to finally live within our means. If we don't, we're heading for a massive financial crisis rivaling the great depression. Don't believe me? Look at history. One of the primary causes for the fall of Rome was over taxation and government debt.

Live within your means and ask your congressmen to do so as well.

ChuckleChuckle*

2007-09-30T10:10:00.000-04:00

I love news stories that make me laugh.

The kind of stories I'm talking about are ones that scare many people, but that I have no problem with, because I'm not affected.

Free City Condoms Defective, Residents Say

This is funny because people are so poor, immoral, and...(you fill in the blank).

The good things that come out of this horrible is yes, a chuckle, a call for people to realize that immoral behavior results in consequences, and finally, another things to add to my tag list of "You want the government to run health care? (Fill in the Blank)""

You want the government to run health care? Remember the defective condoms story?

You want the government to run health care? Ever been to the DMV?

You want the government to run health care? Remember Hurricane Katrina?

You want the government to run health care? Ever seen how quickly and efficiently road construction gets accomplished?

You want the government to run health care? The same people managing the Iraq War?

You want the government to run health care? The same people who ran the Vietnam Conflict?

You want the government to run health care? When was the last time the government's budget was balanced?

You want the government to run health care? The same people who stop illegal immigration?

Do You want the government to run health care?

The Correct answer, is NO!

NCLB

2007-09-13T20:12:00.000-04:00

Post left for one of my Education Classes that I thought you might enjoy.

No Child Left Behind states that a goal is for all schools to be 100% proficient.

100% proficiency is unrealistic. Not everyone is going to be able to read, write, and do math at the state's standard. The fact that everyone isn't going to get there is a given.

BUT...

I do but want to be very careful on one thing that you
pointed out.

At the end, you said you knew someone who got good grades for twelve years but couldn't graduate because they were not proficient. That I may believe is very warranted.

We want to have the control as teachers, but it has been clear to me through my schooling that my classmates and I were just shuffled through the system, only failing if we didn't do the "busy work" they assigned us. The work was often so boring, I would skip parts of it at the expense of my grade because I just didn't care. I wasn't truly challenged until some of my college classes.

The reason I believe that students are shuffled through and only do busy work instead of real thinking is because then not everyone could pass. And the parental pressure on schools and teachers today is so great that most will buckle under the pressure or feel emotional attachments that color the true ability and work of students.

When will students be forced to think instead of do busy work?

Another reason why I believe that students are challenged is by simply looking at the classes that are now offered in high school. Juniors and Seniors in high school often go to take college courses. Not just the best of the best, but above average students go and take these courses. Have American students really gotten that much smarter? Or are the classes becoming so watered down that students can simply skip levels with little trouble?

I am not bashing teachers and schools because of the slide. However, I am saying that the slide is because of the pressure and power that parents and students have over the schools. We need to find a solution to this crisis, because in my opinion:

Not everyone should be graduating high school, but that's okay.

Many students who go to college should not be there. By making high school more challenging and teaching real job related skills, four more years out of the workforce shouldn't be necessary.

College should be more difficult. Most see it as a given and a stepping stone to adulthood, but it actually cripples the economy by leaving a huge part of the population out of the workforce for four years. Instead of work, many students just pile up loans and party.

When will we as Americans stand up and challenge schools to challenge our youth of today?

I'm afraid that NCLB was a sorry attempt to reverse the
"watered-down curriculum" trend.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll smarten up. No pun intended!

Fingerprinting , The DMV and...Healthcare??

2007-08-30T09:13:00.000-04:00

I needed to get fingerprinted. Yes, me. As a requirement for teachers, I was required to undergo fingerprinting. I believe its a wonderful idea as it could help solve some crimes of teachers going after students for the wrong reasons. However, despite the fact I support it, I couldn't help feeling like Big Brother was watching.

After this appointment, I was off to the DMV. I arrived at 12:45 and had prepared myself for a quick visit, maybe a wait in line to get a new picture. I guess the first sign of trouble should have been the 24 chairs facing the photo people. The second sign was the "take a number" wheel which I hesitatingly grabbed one. "Surely", I thought, "with my number being 41 there is no way they are on 27. That's 14 people. Oh well, it should only be about 15 minutes at the most to take 14 pictures."

The I waited.

I watched as one of the workers did nothing other then hand out printed licenses. He simply sat looking content at the ceiling, talking casual conversation with the customers.

The other employee decided this was her time to gossip and find out more about her customers. Before taking the photo, she would ask where they were from. Then she would talk about how she knows where that is, maybe a good restaurant near by, or simply to say "thats a nice neighborhood." I began making crude calculations in my head, and realized it was taking between 3-7 minutes per customer. Only one customer had a legitmate problem of which needed fixed.

At about 1:53, I finally got my license. (Pictures was taken at 1:50). I left and felt tempted to turn around on the way out and yell... AND YOU WANT GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE YOUR HEALTHCARE?!?!

In all seriousness, universal healthcare scares me more then anything else on the ballot this fall. I have heard horror stories about the European healthcare systems. Guiliani mentioned on his campaign trail that he had had Prostate Cancer. The survival rate in the US is 89%. The survival rate in Britian, the best in Europe, is 44%.

I was also talking to a co-worker at McDonald's who is from Spain. His Uncle who lives in London had to have double-bypass surgery. The government said his weight was too high and therefore the main problem was obesity. The government decided he had to go on a list that was 247 days long for surgery. The man needed surgery right away to save his life, so he flew to the U.S., has the surgery and was on a plane for home a few weeks later.

Please, don't let universal healthcare take root. It sounds good on the surface, but for anything the government will provide for free, I tell you its not free, and I want no part in it!

Huckabee is "A Democrats Worse Nightmare"

2007-08-19T09:34:00.000-04:00

"If he had money, he would be our worst nightmare," says Democrat strategist John Lapp.

Well, true to the nightmare, Huckabee finally is gaining some financial traction. This could help propel Huckabee to Tier 1 status finally. The real challenge will be to get his name listed on most public opinion polls. If that happens, we might finally start seeing real growth in his campaign.

If it doesn't happen for Huckabee, there's always 4-8 years from now. But another interesting development could be that not winning the nomination might not stop a run. Since his strong showing in Iowa every analyst who has ever stuffed an envelope suggests that Huckabee makes the perfect vice-presidential candidate.

A Huckabee gamble could end up with a focus on Iowa and New Hampshire. If Huckabee finishes in the top two or three here, he could really gain strength heading into the south.

Fed Update

2007-08-18T15:31:00.000-04:00

The more I think about it, the more I don't like it. Is it right for the Fed to "Rescue" anyone? NO! The Fed's job is to take care of the economy as a whole. Not mortgage companies, not the "little guy," and not even the stock market.

The job of the Fed is to take care of the economy as a whole. Therefore, looking through the prism of the entire economy, was the rate cut justified? NO! The market has been expanding with little pause since 1994. Of course '94 and '01 had some bumps, but the expansion has been unprecedented.

So now, with the economy still growing strong, money cheaper then water, and a vast new amount of money (yes, new money from more borrowing by consumers and the government and businesses) in the market, the government sees one sign of a bump and cuts rates. This will only add MORE money into an already saturated market. The results will not be pretty.

Anyone remember living in the 70's through some severe recessions? I don't, but from what I hear it was pretty severe. Well, that recession was compounded with something called stagflation. Typically either inflation is high or the economy is stagnated. During the 70's there was both. The reason why was because the Fed Cut rates when it should've raised them. Sound familiar?

As anger as I am about this and with some possibly scarey consequences, things could get even worse. The banks are clambering now for a target cut from the current 5.25%. This is the rate banks can borrow from each other with. If this happens, we're in big trouble. We're going to see some quick growth, followed by a heavy decline. The best thing we can hope for right now is unmoving interest rates, if not higher ones. Its time for the banks who made stupid choices to get snowed for it. If the government won't help me if I make stupid money decisions, why should it help a company?

P.S.: Where's Alan Greenspan when we need him?

Christian Persecution

2007-08-17T20:57:00.000-04:00

Its sad that I am posting on this topic, but Christians are in a terrible situation in the Mid-East. Christians in Afghanistan and Pakistan are receiving notes on their doors demanding they renounce their faith or die. The notes are preceded by a knock now being called the "Knock of Death". The notes also mention that "this is a final warning" and not a hoax.

Please read the ACLJ website, listen to their broadcast online, or simply add your name to their petition going to the UN.

Or even listen to the broadcast of todays show by clicking here.

Fed Rate Cuts

2007-08-17T09:18:00.000-04:00

What a sad sad day. The Federal Reserve Board has decided to cut interest rates because the market is "deteriorating."

The market is fine. The only problem is that idiot lenders gave risky loans to people who didn't need the money. Now that the loans are collapsing, the market is correcting stupidity.

In my estimation, the Fed seems to be hitting the gas (lowering rates) when it should be hitting the breaks (raising them). The reason lenders could offer these things was because of the cheap cost of lending money. The only thing lowering rates again does is encourage more bad lending.

These bad lenders need to take their medicine: You give out risky loans, your going to take a punch to the stomach.

Maybe the next government program should be loan counseling to anyone who makes a descent income but applies for rip off loans and can't pay them off. Really, what has our society come to with money?

It used to be Delayed gratification and getting out of debt.... now its borrow because you desire everything. Maybe those entitlement programs caused more damage psychologically then people realize.

The solution: GOVERNMENT! STAY AWAY! LET PEOPLE DO THEIR OWN THING!

Huckabee Intro

2007-08-15T16:22:00.000-04:00

Don't Know about Huckabee? Take a glimpse into his faith and his fiesty spirit.

No Geroge W. type fumbling with this guy.

Huckabee is My #1 Choice

2007-08-15T16:14:00.000-04:00

After much thinking and leaning, Mike Huckabee is my #1 choice for President in 2008. The change from leaning here and there comes from one simple fact: Huckabee is the only "regular guy" running for President.

Huckabee portrays all of the positive things I want in a candidate: honesty, intergrity, Christian. And unlike Bush, Huckabee is a Charismatic speaker and understands average people.

Call me crazy, call it a real long shot, but I'm proud to support Mike Huckabee for President.

Bush's Flaw

2007-08-14T23:13:00.000-04:00

Remember the Political Capital Bush had when he won the 2004 election? He really had a fresh batch of momentum to begin to achieve things.

Bush however did not accomplish much, but rather squandered his opportunity for change. This happened because he bit off much more then he could chew. Taking a moderate amount of influence gained from the election and applying it to a monstrous rock left almost no traceable difference. Social Security remained the same, and Bush ran out of Political Dollars.

Bush's flaw was taking on a huge issue at a time when he had a modest amount of momentum. Instead of using his momentum to knock off some smaller issues and gain more momentum, Bush squandered what he had.

Clinton was a master at building momentum and ended by steamrolling all the opposition with popularity. Its just a shame Bush didn't use the same tatic.

Karl Rove Article

2007-08-14T23:07:00.000-04:00

Karl Rove is definitely a great thinker, but he also has several flaws. A great article about Karl Rove and other Issues is found here.

Best Quote from the Article:

"(Rove's) assumption--a correct one, in my view--was that the conservative Republican base was closer to the political center in America than was the Democrats' liberal base.

I love the article so much because it really resonates my thoughts and feelings on Rove, Bush, and the country as a whole. Take a peak and you won't be disappointed.

The Lingering Uneasiness

2007-08-13T21:55:00.000-04:00

I have shocked myself.

Currently I'm supporting a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Anti-Gun, twice divorced man whose children don't even want to vote for him. The saddest part is there are other candidates much closer to my principles and beliefs who have a realistic if not great chance of winning.

Why...?

My support for Rudy Guliani stems from two major sources.

1. The Country needs a break from strong "conservative" ideologue, not because Bush touted conservative principles, but because Bush touted conservative principles and didn't act on them.
EXs: A. Bush did not change Social Security one bit, despite the fact it is going bankrupt.
B. Bush nominated two "conservatives" to the Supreme Court of which we are very unsure of their positions on anything. Luckily Meyers was ripped by the
conservatives and was withdrawn.
C. Bush invaded Iraq, talked nice to democrats here, tough to terrorists, tied the
soldiers' hands, and attempted to pour money on the problem. Dave thinks war
is very unpretty and that rough tatics should be used. Complaints from France
should have been ignored.
D. George W. Bush has expanded government in many areas including education.
E. The budget deficit. Need I say more? George W. needs to listen to Dave Ramsey.
F. Immigration has been a terrible security risk which George W. wants to ignore
to help collect Hispanic votes. If people are removed from the country, how can
they vote?

Bottom line: People are tired of a President who will act this irresponsibly. People really want a real conservative...they just don't know it.

2. People want change away from Bush and anyone labeled "Conservative." However, people still want someone who is conservative. How can this happen? The average American does not understand what the words conservative and liberal mean other then thinking they are hard line Republicans or Democratic. The upside to this terrible time for the Conservatives is that the people are equally as afraid of Liberals. For some reason, despite the beating the conservative image has taken in the last 6 years, Liberals are still disliked.

3. The Pendulum swings. Things are going badly for Conservatives right now because Bush is seen as the biggest one. Therefore people are going to start to back away from "Conservatives" and move towards middle.

Thoughts on the Above:

People really really REALLY want a change. They are sick of the same old hardliners getting up and trying to sway the crowds. Popularity for the parties has to be at a near if not record combined low. Quite frankly, I'm even getting sick of our politicians.

What I really want is a true shot from the hip unscripted politician. Can anyone get Teddy Roosevelt on the phone?

The Horse Race Anaylsis

Dems:

Nominating Hillary Clinton is a Democrats worst nightmare. As people want a real change. Most citizens don't want a woman, but having Bush-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush for twenty eight years as winning names on presidential tickets surely doesn't help. Can you imagine adding 2+ more Clintons on the end of that list?

Obama may be a real possiblity if he can beat Hillary.

Don't count out Bill Richardson either. He may be Tier 2, but he certainly is lurking around with a long time to go.

Edwards... would it be wrong to bring up he sounds and looks too much like a used car salesman?

Repubs:

Nominating Romney would be a disaster. John Kerry is written all over him. Definitely the worst choice.

Thompson has some real potential, but as I have mentioned in previous posts, he's shown us very little other then saying he's got a recognizable name and is the only real conservative. However, he is certainly little more then a wildcard until we see him out on the trail. Winning the whole thing could be really tough since he has little experience.

McCain is someone I feel kind of bad for. Though I don't care for him too much, he has really been troubled by being associated with the worst of Bush from both sides: Conservatives seem him as too moderate and moderates see Bush's Iraq tattooed on his forehead.

Guliani has many problems. He is socially liberal and economically conservative running in the Republican party. His biggest draw is his toughness on security and the success story of NYC. Guliani will have a really rough time making it through the Republican nominating process, especially with Iowa, NH, and SC coming up first.
If he makes it to the National Stage, Guliani has the most broad appeal and would hands down win if Americans agreed to come to a consensus. But, Guliani could face trouble in winning if the Religious right stays home and doesn't vote.

Conclusion
My current backing is for Guliani. The reason for this is not because I don't believe in conservative values. Rather I believe that Guliani's impact socially will be very little. However, on Defense, Economics, the Deficit, and even abortion (creating alternatives), I believe Guliani will actually be able to get something done. I can not say this for any of the other candidates that are Republicans.

Finally, if the country needs a break from conservatives, isn't Guliani much better then Hillary or Obama?

Straw Man

2007-08-12T18:51:00.000-04:00

Yikes! Mit Romney has crushed his way to winning twice as many votes in an Iowa straw poll as any other candidate.

So why am I not more impressed? An event gives us an indication of how underlaying factors are working. For instances, the Super Bowl shows us just how the Colts Offense will do against the Bears Defense.

Lets take a look at what we realized in this "preseason game":

The "Big Four" are Big No-Shows
Of the leading four Republican candidates Guliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney, three were missing. Two were fearful of an early loss while another hasn't even joined the race yet. This does show some early weakness from those who didn't participate, but its a long haul before the Primaries. Result: Very Small Negative for all but Romney.

Romney's Hollow Victory...a defeat?
Romney rolled to a strong victory in which he won a few free days of media attention. But without the other big names participating, the victory means very little in the way of a head to head matchup with any real contenders. This really deflates the meaning of the poll. Even more concerning is the amount of time and money Romney has put in to winning this poll...money especially that could have been used later on to help win something alittle more... meaningful.
Result: Medium Positive for Romney's media attention and Small Negative for Romney's Wallet

But this wasn't the biggest shocker in my eyes. No, not one bit. The real shocker was that Romney's "big win" came with 30% of the votes.

30%? That means other candidates not named Guliani, Thompson and McCain got 70%?

Even more scarey for Romney is Huckabee received half the votes Romney did. With 15%, its a huge boost for the Huckabee campaign, but really at Romney's expense. Though he hasn't been pelted in the media for it, I believe this really shows Romney's weakness. As the only candidate with name recognition, Romney should have crushed the opposition with at least 40% of the vote.

Maybe its too early to put stock in these polls. But if anyone thinks Romney really wants these to be accurate representations of Iowa voters feelings come January...they're very very wrong.

Result: Big Negative for Romney's real strength in Iowa. Romney needs this state very badly in January. If he doesn't win, he's out for sure.

Big positive for Mike Huckabee. I really don't mind Huckabee and would like to see him expand himself alittle more in the future. I'll be intrested in seeing what he does if on a bigger stage...such as maybe tier 2 instead of 3.

Fred Thompson

2007-08-04T18:09:00.000-04:00

It seems that conservatives are primed for Fred Thompson.

I'm about as excited as Ben Stein got on the Wonder Years.

Why the sarcasm? Fred Thompson might be the next great Republican, but he hasn't shown anything substantial in the least. Put simply, it seems to be that the Christian base is grasping at straws to try and avoid a Guliani President. Until now, the base has been spread out over a number of candidates at which they had huge problems. Romney's Flip-Flopping, McCain's love of Liberals, and finally the social liberal they want to avoid, Guliani.

I can't say I'm against Fred Thompson because he doesn't have a platform...but its for that reason I can't be for him either. The Thompson surge is easy to explain...there's just no other viable Republican alternative.

Prediction: Fred Thompson will continue to surge, and then begin to fail into the fall/winter. Guliani will continue to lead but be vulnerable until the Primaries. Guliani will win the nomination not because of his strength, but because the rest of the field isn't strong enough to take advantage.

Our Presidential Dilemma

2007-07-30T00:59:00.000-04:00

As unbelievable as this might sound, President Bush has few supporters and yet most Americans have the same principles and interpretations as President Bush. Bill Clinton on the other hand often varied greatly from American principles and interpretations. However, the former has had no good results while the latter did. Intriguing.

Am I suggesting that one only needs results to receive my vote for President? Of course not! But, I am saying that good results (or at least the belief of good results) is the key factor in public opinion. And quite honestly, without good public opinion, one is maimed into our current situation of a lame duck President.

I also do not want one to think that I am bashing Americans for wanting results: there is truly something to be said for getting results.

From all Poll indications, Americans agree as a whole with Republican values and interpretations, but they hate the way Republicans have done virtually nothing with the power given to them. What most Americans want is a President with a conservative philosophy but also one who can achieve results.

Don't believe me? Look at the polls and lets evaluate...

- Polls say people want a Democratic President...
- The head to head match ups between leading Democrats and Republicans favor the Republicans...why? (What this means is, in hypothetical match ups, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney all beat a match with Hillary, Obama, Edwards)

Americans are principled on certain ideas...abortion, same-sex marriage, guns, economics, immigration, but at the same time are frustrated because the Republicans are not getting results.

Need further proof that Americans, Republicans even more so, are desperate to see results? The Republican front runner is Pro-Choice, in favor of civil unions, and pro-gun control. The reasons why he leads? Guliani lead a major turn around of New York City through tough crime laws, restored economics and fiscal conservatism, and handled Americas attacks on the World Trade Centers with a steady hand.

Bush won in 2000 because Americans felt that their last President lacked a moral compass. The candidate who has the edge to win this year is the one perceived to attain results, the very thing our current President lacks.

Don't agree? Why else would Hillary and Giuliani be leading? Trust me, its not their good looks or great political philosophy, its the perception of being able to get results.

Premise

2007-07-24T20:29:00.000-04:00

This Blog will be used as an intresting twist of Christian values and politics.

I don't agree with many other Christians who view anything short of blind Republican allegiance as traitors or fake Christians. Rather, I say to keep an open mind is most logical and effective in creating a Christ Centered world.

I also don't agree with Liberal Christians who see government as a way to help all people. Yes, government is a good tool, but it is not a silver bullet. But rather, as a trusty hammer, it can be used as for much good, or can be used incorrectly and cause much damage.

More to come shortly. It should be an intresting ride.