Why Sarkozy Will Return as France's Next President

This week, Nicolas Sarkozy announced that next year he will be running as a conservative contender for the presidency of France.   A job he held before being ousted by the current socialist President Francois Hollande in 2012.  But, Sarkozy sees his return as a near shoe-in because of this one chart:

In essence, 88% of France disapproves of Hollande.  With such a high disapproval, even a dog catcher would have a decent chance of winning against him.

References:

Sarkozy announces bid for 2017 presidential race: https://www.yahoo.com/news/frances-sarkozy-run-2017-presidential-election-142713975--business.html

Graph Source: Nearly 90 percent of the French now disapprove of their president: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/05/nearly-90-percent-of-the-french-now-disapprove-of-their-president/

Ben Carson, Islam, Shariah Law and a Muslim Presidency

Once again, Dr. Ben Carson is taking heat for something he said.  This time for his statement that a Muslim should not be elected President.

Well, basically, he's right.  If the person running for the country's highest office is a Muslim who believes in the teachings of the Quran and/or Shariah Law, then there's a problem.  Much of the Quran and most of Shariah Law is in direct contradiction with our rights under the Constitution (see references below).  For example, we don't stone people to death; behead them; or whip and beat them for certain offenses.   All of which appear in the Quran as punishments for specific crimes. We also have a civil judicial system which is counter to the Muslim belief that criminal behavior should be judged by clerics.

Thus for a Muslim to be President, they must set aside much of the teachings of the prophet Muhammad in order to uphold and defend our Constitution; which is the primary responsibility of a U.S. President.

References:

Ben Carson: US shouldn't elect a Muslim president: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/20/politics/ben-carson-muslim-president-2016/index.html

Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible: http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111055/

Shariah Law vs the Constitution: https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah_VS_Constitution.pdf

Why The Tax Code Must Be Streamlined

Several GOP contenders for the Presidency have said that they would simplify this country's bloated tax code if they were elected.  But, no one really explains "why" we need to do something about it.

As of April 15th of this year, there were more than 74,600 pages of federal tax code to wade through.  In 1913, when income tax was adopted, it was just 4 pages long. In 2011, General Electric (GE) filed a 57,000 page tax return for their 2010 taxes. Using every tax break available to them in those 74,600 pages, GE managed to pay zero taxes on $14 billion dollars in profits.  And, I suspect that a legion of IRS agents were needed for months to insure that GE's 57,000 page tax return was completely legal.

If we had a simplified tax code without a bunch of tax breaks, GE would not have been able to avoid paying any taxes in 2011.  Also, Americans wouldn't spend 6.1 billion man hours preparing their returns each year. 

Let's put the most hated of Federal Agencies -- the IRS -- out of business by reducing our tax code to what it was in 1913.

References:

Look at how many pages are in the federal tax code: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look-at-how-many-pages-are-in-the-federal-tax-code/article/2563032

GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

It takes Americans 6.1 billion hours to prepare their taxes: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/15/virginia-foxx/it-takes-americans-61-billion-hours-prepare-their-/

Hillary Should Not Be Seen or Heard

Over the last three decades, the Gallup polling organization has been able to track Hillary Clinton's approvals; first as First Lady; then, as a person running for the Senate; also, as a Presidential contender; and now with another run at the presidency.  Here's the result of that polling:

As First Lady, she eventually achieved a 62% approval rating by 1994. Two years later, her favorability numbers were down almost 20 percentage points to 43%.  This was because, to many, Hillary was seen as untruthful.  In fact, in 1996, the late Bill Safire, a New York Times opinion writer for a very liberal newspaper, made that quite clear by calling her a "congenital liar".

Then, as Hillary sunk back into hiding, her approval numbers rose again until, by 1999, she stood at an all time of 67%.  However, following her and Bill's exit from the White House, she  decided to run for U.S. Senator from New York in 2000.  By 2001, her numbers had fallen to 44%  and, if she hadn't been running against such a weak GOP candidate as Rick Lazio she probably wouldn't have won.  After her senate victory, her approval numbers climbed back to 58%, until she ran for President against Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008.  Then, her rating plummeted again, to just 46% and Obama won.

Now, since 2013 -- when she started her ill-fated book tour and it was presumed that she was pursuing the Presidency again -- she's gone from a 66% approval down to the current 48%; which, I am sure, will be going even lower in the future.

Essentially, all this proves is that Hillary is a bad candidate.  The more people hear from her, the less they like her.  Bill Safire had her accurately pegged in 1996 as a liar.  Her explanation of her private email server is more proof of that.  Then there's her claim that she and Bill were "dead" broke when they left the White House after they had just spent $2.85 million for a new home in Washington D.C..  And, then, there was a little matter of that $8 million book deal advance in 2000.

No one should ignore history; especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton.  She opens her mouth and people develop negative attitudes towards her.  She is not a good campaigner and the Democrats would be wrong to anoint her as their Presidential candidate.  But, as a Republican, all I can say is "Run, Hillary, Run!"

References:

Gallup: Clinton's Favorable Rating at 48%, But Dems Still Like Her: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182351/clinton-favorable-rating-dems.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles

Bill Safire: A Blizzard of Lies: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html

Clintons Buy $2.85 Million Washington Home - NYTimes.com:  http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/30/us/clintons-buy-2.85-million-washington-home.html

Hillary Clinton Book Advance, $8 Million, Is Near Record: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/16/nyregion/hillary-clinton-book-advance-8-million-is-near-record.html

Why Ted Cruz Might Not Be Eligible To Be President

After Ted Cruz announced his run for the presidency, many in the media made note of the fact that he talked about his non-citizen father who was living in Texas while he and his U.S. born mother were living in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Well, it took just a couple of seconds for the media to also disclose that Cruz was actually born in Canada.  Thus, many questioned his eligibility to be president because it is assumed that, as stated in the Constitution, he isn't a natural born citizen.

However, those defending Cruz's eligibility misquoted federal law by stating that you are a citizen at birth -- no matter where you are born -- if at least one of your parents is a U.S. citizen. Cruz supported that belief by previously providing the media with his mother's U.S. birth certificate.

But, there's still a problem.

U.S. law states that if you are born outside of the U.S. to one or both parents who are U.S. citizens, the citizen parent or parents must go to a U.S. consulate or embassy in the country where the child was born and apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA).  This form insures that the birth certificate isn't a fake in an attempt of circumvent our immigration laws. And, this application must be done before the child is 18 years of age.  Once the consulate/embassy verifies that birth right to citizenship, an FS-240 form will be issued as proof of citizenship.

That's the form that Cruz should have produced.  Not his mother's birth certificate. Obviously, he doesn't have that form or he would have provided it. That document is something that he should have  with him for life since it supersedes and replaces his actual birth certificate.  Yet,  Cruz, instead, produced his Canadian birth certificate in 2013:

Click on Image to enlarge

Simply, without having obtained a FS-240 before he was 18 years of age, Cruz is not a citizen by birth; and, thus, not eligible to be President of the United States.  After age 18, he can become a citizen through the naturalization process; but, still, can't be President.  Thus, proof of a FS-240 must be provided before he can even participate in the primaries.

I was unable to find out if there was a federal database to determine if a FS-240 existed for Cruz.  The only database available was from Ancestry.com and its records only span from the years 1910 to 1949.  Cruz was born in 1970.  But, what the Ancestry database proves is that the consular birth requirements existed long before he was born; just in case someone thinks the law was somehow recent and not applicable in this case.

References:

Ted Cruz - Wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=calgary+alberta+canada&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Is Ted Cruz, born in Canada, eligible to run for president: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/aug/20/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president/

Ted Cruz releases his birth certificate: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-born-in-canada-ted-cruz-became-a-citizen-of-that-country-as-well-as-u.s..ece

State Department: A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met:  http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

U.S., Consular Reports of Births, 1910-1949 - Search: http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1664

Radical Islam: The President of Egypt Gets It

It was the first time, I actually heard an international leader and a Muslim, express the scope and intent of radical Islam.  That leader -- Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi -- put it concisely into the following words of a speech he gave before a gathering of imams back in November:

"Is it possible that 1.6 billion [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants – that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!  I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma [international Muslim community] is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands."

Clearly, he understands that radical Islam wants to destroy the non-Islam world.  But, he also knows that radical Islam is willing to kill Muslims that won't follow their radical form of religion as well.  He explains that the problem of radicalization is welling up from within the religion itself, through the radical teachings of all too many imams.  As a result, Islam, as it is known today, "is being lost by our own hands."

That is the key element of the speech.  Simply because it exposes the fact that radical Islam cannot be stopped by a top-down attempt to conduct battles that eliminate already-radicalized soldiers.   Soldiers who believe that killing and dying in the name of Allah is their pathway to heaven.

Instead, we must focus on destroying radical Islam from the bottom-up by stopping the teaching process by which children are being radicalized.   Until then, for every one we kill on the battlefield -- no matter what they call themselves (ISIS, Taliban, Al Qaeda, or whatever) --  there will always be more who, radicalized as children, are willing to kill in their place.  One sure way to end this is to convince Saudis and others who fund these radical schools that their actions are ultimately hurting Islam itself.

References:

Egypt's President Urges Muslim Clerics to End Violent Islamic Ideology, Lead Peaceful 'Religious Revolution' in Groundbreaking Speech:

Madrassas: https://www.google.com/search?q=Madrassas&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Analyses - Madrassas | PBS - Saudi Time Bomb:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

Yawn.....Rand Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll 3 Years In a Row

Last week, the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC) ended with Senator Rand Paul winning the straw poll as their most desired presidential nominee.  However, that fact alone, speaks volumes regarding the makeup of this annual meeting.  By voting for Paul, CPAC shows that it is extremely conservative; almost as libertarian as Paul himself  and, libertarian philosophies have been soundly rejected in the past.   For example, the Libertarian Party -- in Presidential, Senatorial, or House elections -- have generally received less than 1% of the votes.

In my opinion, CPAC is a worthless exercise because its views are out of step with greater America.  I may be wrong but, my guess is Rand Paul will never be President; even if he, somehow, gets the nomination. 

References:

Conservative Political Action Conference - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Political_Action_Conference

CPAC straw poll: Rand Paul wins, Scott Walker surging: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/28/cpac-straw-poll-rand-paul-wins-scott-walker-surgin/

Rand Paul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarian Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29

Rand Paul's Long History Of Controversial Views: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/rand-pauls-long-history-o_n_621071.html

History Is Against A Democrat President Being Elected In 2016

In terms of U.S. presidential politics, one thing is quite sure: Very rarely is an eight year reign of one political party occupying the White House, followed by another of the same party.

The fact is, that since the end of World War II, only one President, Ronald Reagan, was able to hand the reigns of  his eight-year Presidency to another of the same political party: George H.W. Bush.  I believe the only reason this happened was because Reagan was considered the best President since World War II and Americans wanted to give Republican leadership another chance.

But, other than George H.W. Bush's win, this is how the Presidency has cycled between Democrats and Republicans:

Harry S. Truman, a Democrat who served 8 years, was replaced by Republican Dwight Eisenhower.  After Eisenhower's 8 years, John Kennedy (assassinated) and Lyndon Johnson -- both Democrats -- served 8 years and, were followed by Richard Nixon, a Republican.  After 8 years of Nixon (resigning in shame) and Gerald Ford, Democrat Jimmy Carter then occupied the White House.  Four years later the 12 years of Republicans Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush were followed by Democrat Bill Clinton. Then, Clinton, after 8 years, was replaced by Republican George W. Bush; replaced 8 years later by Democrat President Barack Obama. 

In total, since the end of World War II, 6 Republican and 6 Democrats have been presidents of this country.  It appears that Americans can't take much more of one party or the other after 8 years.  Not  a glowing testament to one being better than the other.

So, for Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat hoping to be elected President in 2016, history is not on your side. Especially with Barack Obama having such low approval ratings and now being considered this country's worst President.

Reference:

Wikipedia: List of Presidents Of The United States:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Obama worst president since WWII, new poll shows. Reagan the Best: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/?page=all
 

Obama's Legacy: Being the Worst President?

In two separate, recent polls, Barack Obama has found himself in the unenviable position of being the "worst" of his presidential predecessors.

In a Gallup poll, he found himself dead last among all other living presidents.  Adding insult to injury he even trailed behind Jimmy Carter -- arguably, the previous worst president in modern times. Along with finding himself at the bottom, those polled awarded him with a favorability rating of less than 50%. All others managed to at least score over 50%.

And, in a Quinnipiac poll, the current President found himself, once again, at the bottom of the heap with 33% of those respondents labeling him as the "worst".  Second from the bottom was George W. Bush -- the same guy that Obama seems to blame for everything that's gone wrong since he's taken office.  Obviously, Americans don't share his opinion of George W.

I think that both of these polls reflect the incompetence of Obama's handling of both domestic and foreign policy.  Like or not, he is not a strong President.  Unable to negotiate or compromise, he is constantly going around Congress by issuing executive orders; many of which, are overreaching, violate the Constitution, and are being struck down in the courts.  On the foreign policy front, one is hard pressed to find a success. Most of the Middle East is in flames, or on the verge of it. China and Russia are flexing their muscles against their neighbors, and both of those countries are vying to be the biggest kid on the block.

Sadly, Obama is not listening to what the polls are saying because he just continues to barrel down his ideological highway by declaring that he will continue his planned end-runs around Congress and the Constitution.  While some pundits might be pooh-poohing either of these polls in isolation, the reality is that two separate sources independently came to the same conclusion: Obama is the worst President in modern times.

References:

Of Living Presidents, Obama Has Least Favorable Approval Rating: http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx

POLL: Obama Worst Modern-Day President: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-obama-worst-modern-day-111329150.html

Obama And Post-Racial Unhealing

When President Obama was elected, it was supposed to represent the final atonement for this country's sins of slavery, racism, and segregation.  He was referred to as the post-racial President; meaning that racism has now been put behind us.  However, Obama's term in office has only exacerbated the racial divide in this country.  The Democrats have used the Obama presidency to examine every word said or action done by Republicans for any signs of racism; whether real or, as in most cases, imagined.

This fact was never more apparent than during the RNC Convention. On a daily basis, liberal columnists at the New York Times, Washington Post, or at MSNBC managed to write something confirming that Republicans are all racists.  One MSNBC commentator said that minorities were being staged to be in front of the cameras so this "white guy" party would look like it was something that it wasn't: racially diverse.  Mike Elk, a labor journalist, tweeted: "Eastwood chair rant was RACIST, white man putting dirty words into mouth of black man like a puppet...".  MSNBC intentionally cut away from every minority speaker to insure that their audience only saw white people speaking at the Convention.  After Mia Love, a black woman, gave a rousing speech before the RNC conventioneers, her Wikipedia page was edited by some liberal; calling her a "house n**ger" and "dirty whore" who was a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”  Then, too, Chris Matthews said that every time "Chicago" was mentioned at the Convention, it was actually a super-secret GOP racist reference.

But, the Convention comments were no rare instances of calling out the GOP as racists. Over the years,  any criticism of this President has been labelled racist instead of constructive.  You can't even refer to Obama as being "cool" without it being racist.  This according to the Congressional Black Caucus.  Then there's the use of the term "ObamaCare".  It is considered by many liberals as a racial slur because it negatively refers back to a black man; rather than to the president who promoted it.  Then, there was this gem from Joe Biden.  Speaking before a nearly all-black audience, Biden said that Romney and Ryan want to "put y'all back in chains".

The real fact is that racism and slavery is alive and well in this country.  Unfortunately, it's alive and well in the Democrat party; the very party that claims to be non-racial.  The Democrats, for decades, have "kept" blacks as literal slaves by using racial tensions to insure that blacks cling to their party.  At every possible turn, the Democrats try to make Republicans look like racists.  If any black does stray away and become -- God help them -- a Republican, the Democrats keep them in check by assuring that they will, for ever more, be labelled as "uncle Toms" and "plantation slaves" or "house n**gers".  

In my opinion, Obama's election wasn't post-racial.  It has become hyper-racial.  Instead of celebrating the fact that the Republican party has become so diverse, the Democrats have done everything possible to damage or hide that diversity.  Obama has become a tool for the Democrats to throw racists labels around in a manner and frequency that they were unable to do before he was elected. 

When The Partying Is Over

Today is a day of celebration as we usher in a new President. As in 43 times before this day, there is a peaceful transfer of power from one President's Administration to a new one. As the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama joins an extremely elite group of Americans who have lead this country.

Today, there are parties, dancing, and drinking at the various balls that have been planned in celebration. But, tomorrow, the new President must go to work. While, as of today, he assumes the power of the Presidency to act on those challenges that now face our country, the blame for current problems will remain with George W. Bush. However, at some point in the future, those major problems that now confront our country, if not corrected, will become the responsibility of this new President.

I would expect that our always-impatient nation will give Mr. Obama a pass of about a year on the economy; even though our liberal media will continue to blame Bush forever. If, however, the economy doesn't stabilize or even gets worse towards the end of that year, I believe Mr. Obama will start taking the blame. Not from the press; but, the people. That's just the way our nation is.

On the war in Iraq, I think things have substantially changed to a point where we could actually believe we have won this one. For that reason, this is a positive for the outgoing Mr. Bush; even if the rationale for going into that war, in the first place, is still in question. If Mr. Obama maintains or improves the relatively peaceful situation that Iraq now finds itself in, he won't assume any blame for that war. If he starts removing troops too early and things, once again, become unstable, it will then become his war.

In Afghanistan, things are already deteriorating and Bush will maintain blame for that situation. On this particular war, I believe Mr. Obama has an opportunity to shine if things improve. However, the minute that things start to dramatically fall apart, the blame for Afghanistan will transfer to him. What he does in the next few months will make all the difference.

As to the war on terror, we have been without another attack since 9/11. For this, Bush gets his gold star. I would hope the mechanisms put in place by the Bush Administration will maintain that situation. However, if an attack occurs after any new policy or operational changes are implemented by the new Administration, Mr. Obama will take serious heat. It could, in fact, spell the end to his chances for a second term.

On the general foreign policy stage, I think anything that happens will be Mr. Obama's responsibility from the get-go. That's because, other than Iraq, the Bush Administration has maintained multilateral coalitions in dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia and it's recent movements and gains in strength, and other hots spots. Foreign policy is one thing a President makes his own from the day he takes office. What happens in Israel and Palestine will quickly become Mr. Obama's responsibility. How he responds to those problems and the result of those responses will formulate how is judged as President.

One thing that could hurt Mr. Obama could be on the energy front. If his "green" policies result in intolerable high energy prices, Mr. Obama will suffer. If the economy is bad and energy prices rise in addition, we could have a disastrous economic situation. Beyond that, domestic policies, any of his programs relative to Social Security, nationalized health care, education, veterans, etc. will all be things that he will take either praise or blame for.

Quite frankly, I don't think that any other incoming President other than Abraham Lincoln or FDR has had to face so many challenges. Did the people get it right in picking this man with so little experience? Only time will tell.

The Bush Years In Retrospect

After eight years of President Bush, he leaves office with little recognition for the good things that he has done and with a "high disapproval rating" based on every thing that went wrong during his time in office. In his case, the bad, at this juncture in time, is definitely outweighing the good. Some of that has a lot to do with the bias of the news media in this country. They have punished him dearly for having beaten their favored son, Al Gore, in the 2000 election. Today, many on the left, including the left-biased news media, believes Bush to have stolen that election.

History will ultimately judge George Bush. And, only history, in hindsight and without the politics of the moment, can appropriately pass judgment on Bush. Some of that judgment will be based in comparison with other Presidents that came before him and will come after him. Some of those things that may be considered poor decisions, today, might be reversed by the effects of time and the consequences of future events. Similarly, things that may have been seen, by some, as being good practices and policies by the Bush Administration may fail the test of time.

I know one thing that has hurt Bush more than anything. That was his feeble attempts at public relations over the last 8 years. He just didn't keep people informed and he didn't get out and ahead of problems. In the business world, you can avoid a lot of after-the-fact problems by being 'proactive' from the very start of any project or program. Being proactive is a well-worn business philosophy of the 1970's and 1980's that is still the foundation of good management techniques, today. Bush just wasn't proactive. In the case of the Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac problems and the ultimate meltdown of our economy, he clearly knew that these pseudo-governmental agencies were going to eventually fail; going back to his and his cabinet member's speeches, starting in 2001. But, he didn't hit hard enough on that issue and bring the problem to the people before it blew up in his face.

The same was true with Katrina. He would have best served himself and the occupants of the Gulf Coast cities if he had been up front with the people that this was a seriously large and powerful hurricane. Afterall, it was a Cat 5 just days before it hit. He could have avoided a lot of problems and the blame after the fact if he had hit the airways with a press conferences to warn people and to advise them of what steps the government was taking in the event of a major disaster. Certainly, as the President of the United States, he had access to the best weather information in the world. FEMA was actually mobilized to handle Katrina but, based on Bush's lack of taking it to the people, no one ever really knew that to be the case. There was a lot failure on the local levels, that got transferred to Bush, because he wasn't seen as working with those local governments.

Similarly, the biggest P.R. failure, either before and after the fact, was the Iraq War. There was no clarity of facts being given to the people on why we should invade Iraq. Bush would have been best served by having a series of speeches in order to keep people informed as to what was going on in the Security Council prior to the run up to the war. People, today, seem to blame Bush for "going it alone". But, does anyone realize that we were put in that position by the French, Germans, and the Russians and their veto powers in the U. N. Security Council? Those three countries used the threat of vetoes because they had such cozy trading commitments with Saddam. They put business concerns well ahead of anything else. Certainly, human rights.

That's my biggest problem with Bush. For that, I would think he will be judged more harshly than the reality justifies. Just my opinion.

Will a Democrat Really Pull Us Out of Iraq?

Yesterday, with all of the political candidates for President making their 5th Anniversary of the War in Iraq speeches and commentary, it was no wonder that the cable news stations were filling their airtime with discussions about that war. Most networks used the point-counterpoint tactic by having both Democratic and Republican surrogates on at the same time so they could slug it out over their respective candidate's positions of either get-out (for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) and stay-in (for John McCain).

There is really no fun in listening to John McCain on the war because he's been a consistent hawk. But, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are a stitch. Since the campaign started, it is as if someone yelled fire in a crowded movie theater and the both of them are scrambling over each other, like two of the three stooges, to see who can get out the Iraq door the fastest. It is somewhat like that old game show, "Name that Tune", where the two contestants try to top each other by alternately declaring that they can name that tune in fewer and fewer notes. Except, in the case of Iraq, it is who can start pulling troops the earliest in their new Administration and who can get them out in the shortest amount of time. Of course, if things go awry, both Hillary and Barack reserved the right to put troops back in.

I was listening to one round table discussion on the topic, yesterday. Two of the panelists, both left but both moderates, thought that "neither" Hillary or Barack will actually pull troops out as fast as they have declared. Their consensus thought was that both Clinton and Obama would "not" go through with their campaign rhetoric on pulling the troops because of the grave consequences. Both thought that the two candidates have enough wiggle-room in their campaign promises that they can actually renege on those promises without looking badly. For example, they can start pulling troops from the day they take office and this will make the anti-War Democrats happy. However, they could slow the overall process to a snails pace so we, as a country, could continue to take advantage of the stability afforded by the surge while maintaining our commitment to the Iraqis and, while assuring our allies that we won't just dump them once we have made a commitment. Of course, that kind of logical thought won't sit well with the far-left anti-war Democrats who contribute a lot of money to the Democratic Party.

One of the panelists thought that the "polls" will ultimately drive what a Democrat as President will do. If we start pulling troops and things start to go badly, with public support waning, the troops will stay in Iraq. Knowing how poll-driven Democrats can be, he is probably right in this regard. However, my take on whether or not a Democrat, as President, will "actually" pull the troops out of Iraq is completely different. I think that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will "have to" because they will be "forced to do so" by the far-left-driven Congress that exists today. The only reason that the current Congress has not been able to do so, thus far, is because of the existing "balance of power" that gives President Bush the power veto their attempts. And, because this Congress doesn't have enough non-Democrat votes to override it. But, if a Democrat becomes President, the balance will probably shift because, more than likely, both Houses of Congress will remain Democratic. In that scenario, I hardly think a Democrat, as President, will override the wishes of his or her Democratic Congress; and, the Republicans will be in the minority and totally unable to launch any effective veto-override. My guess is that the a Democrat-controlled Congress will either de-fund the war or mandate a withdrawl and a Democrat, as the President, will be forced to comply with his Party's wishes. It's just that simple.

Let's not forget that the Democrats are being "steered" by a vast amount of campaign funding from the likes of George Soros (through his well funded, far-left political organizations), by other groups like MoveOn.org, and by the members of organizations like Code Pink and the Daily KOS. "Not" to get out of Iraq and "not" to do it quickly may jeopardize the flow of all that money; and, as had been said many times throughout history, money talks.

Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and Barack Obama

I am sure by now, anyone reading this blog has heard the black-separatist, anti-white, anti-American, anti-Jewish and pro-Muslim rantings of Barack Obama's spiritual adviser, Jeremiah A. Wright. Given the total number of these "speeches" by Wright that are now playable on the Web, it is hard to believe that Barack Obama could have missed any or all of his "anti-" sermons during his near-twenty years of attending Wright's Church and listening to his weekly rantings.

Those defending Obama against his pastor say that Obama can't be responsible for the political beliefs of his Pastor. Obama, himself, jokingly compares Wright to "an uncle" who may say things that he doesn't always agree with. However, the fact is that Wright does say these things. And, he says them all the time! He says them on purchasable DVD's that are being peddled directly by Obama's so-called "uncle" and his Church.

I just know that I, and I think, most people of any faith would walk out of aChurch where the Pastor, Minister, Rabbi, or Priest started preaching any form of hatred towards our fellow man. That is because it is so unbelievably anti-Christian by its very nature. And, I am sure, any true believer in Christ would never come back to such a Church, ever again.

Obama has listened to Wright and he has elected to stay in that Church. And, most telling, he has stayed with Wright and that Church for 20 years. He and Michele were married by Wright. His kids were baptized by him. Wright was such an influence on Obama that he borrowed the title of his book," The Audacity of Hope", from his preachings. When Michele Obama said she had never "been proud to be American in all her adult life", it was no wonder! Listening to Wright, there is nothing to be proud of as an American. And, that, too, tells the world how influential Minister Wright has been in the lives of Barack and Michele Obama.

Even if Obama denounces Wright at this juncture, it is too late. It will be seen as a purely political and hollow gesture. But, that is the game that Obama has played and his followers have bought in on every time he has been caught giving double-speak and every time he has been caught giving one of his "wink-wink" comments; such as in the case of NAFTA and the Canadian Consulate, and such as in the case of the accelerated pullout of Iraq and the contrary comments by his adviser, Samantha Power. I just don't believe that Obama can be trusted with OUR country when he, his wife, and Pastor don't see it as THEIR country. Obama's removal of the American flag from his lapel and his failure to place his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem has a more significant meaning than ever before. And, those actions, coupled with his association with known anti-American, 1960's radicals and his wife's "never proud to be an American" comment can be summed up in the very ugly words of Jeremiah Wright: "God Damn America!"

Stubbornness: Bush or the Democrats

A lot of people say Bush is stubborn and refuses to change his mind on the war in Iraq. Maybe? Maybe not?

However, is Bush any more stubborn than the Democrats who "continue" to see Iraq as the "war that is lost"? Another Vietnam? A country that is mired civil war? Who continue to see absolutely "no political gains"? Who continue to ignore the near 80 percent drop in violence? Who fail to recognize that journalists and visitors can "now" walk the streets without any body armor or helmets in areas that were previously the most violent in Iraq? Who ignore the current revenue sharing of oil profits as step in unifying the country? Who ignore the importance of bring Baathists back into the government and into their former jobs as means of stabilizing the country?

Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is a separate issue from "what should be done" in Iraq, today. We went into it because nearly 80 percent of the Senate said we could. And, of those Senators who voted "yea" to the war, nearly 60% of all the Senate Democrats agreed to the effort. On that basis, it was a bipartisan decision. To ignore the stability that is forming in this country is pure stubbornness. It is a lie to the people of this country and it is being downright deceitful. To place political gain above the reality on the ground in Iraq, verges on "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the Democrats; even treason. Truly an impeachable offense if only "they" were as constitutionally bound as the President of the United States!

In January of 2007, Senator Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released a joint letter that they had just sent to President Bush. (Click to see press release.). In that letter, they declared that the "surge" wouldn't work because Iraq was in the midst of a civil war. Of course, this was "before" the surge had even started. On April 19, 2007, before we had added "even" a fourth of the additional troops needed for the surge, Harry Reid declared that surge isn't working and "the war is lost". (Click to see the full Story) When it was obvious, that the surge was working, the Democrats then said their was no political gains in Iraq; despite the surge. Now, with the political gains starting to show fruit, the Democrats are now using "spending" as the "latest" rationale for leaving Iraq.

This has been a "game" that has seen the Democrats moving the goal posts back, constantly out of reach, a total of four times. It is a "game" of politics to appeal to the Democrat's left-most base such as Moveon.Org. It is a game that must be played to insure that steady stream of campaign funding continues for that base. And, unlike Bush, their stubbornness is for pure political gain. Certainly, Bush's stubbornness has resulted in nothing but political losses: ie. the House and the Senate and, maybe, the Presidency in 2009. So, unlike the Democrats, you can either say his stubbornness is because of self-pride and foolishness or, just maybe, because he actually believes he is doing the right thing.

My guess is that the effectiveness of the surge will allow troops to be removed at some point in 2009 and will result in reduced spending for the War. So, as time marches on and the war costs start coming down, it will be interesting to see what excuse the Democrats come up with at the point where "spending" no longer becomes an issue. I am sure that their stubbornness will prevail and we'll see a SIXTH reason why we should be in Iraq. Of course, if Barack Obama is elected, they won't need an excuse. We'll get out because "he" didn't vote for the war and "not" what would be good for the long-term benefit of this country.

Obama Has No Concept of Military Structure

In last night's debate, Democratic Commander-in-Chief wannabe, Barack Obama, related a story about an Army "Captain" who complained that he was sent to Afghanistan with only, I think, 24 men and that this was 15 men less than normal because those 15 men were sent to Iraq, instead. This whole story really confused me.

Even though I served in the United States Air Force during the Vietnam war, I have enough understanding of "the" military structure of the Army to know that this story didn't sound quite right. In the Army, a platoon. like a squadron in the Air Force, is made up of smaller units called squads. In the Air Force, squads are called flights. Either way, a squad typically has about 30 or more soldiers in it. That means that a platoon is normally made of 4 squads with a minimum of 30 men each, for a total of 120 soldiers. Not 24 men as in Barack's story.

Further, a platoon or a squadron is generally the smallest unit that can be commanded by a commissioned officer. Typically, these "little" units are lead by a first or second Lieutenant; and, not a Captain. Sometimes, when short handed, a platoon or squadron can be led by a non-commissioned officer like the rank of Sergeant. A Captain, when given command authority, usually heads a "Company" of Platoons in the Army or a "Group" of Squadrons in the Air Force. I have never heard of a Captain being a Platoon or Squadron commander. There just aren't enough Captains allocated to the entire Army to afford that kind luxury. In proof of this fact, how often have you heard the expression "Platoon Sergeant"? And, how often have you heard the "never used" expression of "Platoon Captain"?

The size and structure within military organizations are firmly set. The Senior Military Command would prefer to completely "disband" a specific unit, like a platoon or a squad, rather than send that unit into combat with fewer than the minimum compliment of men. For example, if a squad didn't have the minimum compliment of men, it would be disbanded and those men would be reassigned to other squads. Or, a squad with too few men could receive men from other squads so that a minimum compliment of soldiers was maintained. That how it works.

Obama's story plays well to his political belief that we are diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan because we are wasting time in Iraq. However, it shows a complete failure to understand military structure, military procedures, and normal military operations. But this is to be expected from someone who has never served in the military and who "would" command one the greatest military forces in the history of the world.

A Red Tricycle With Blue Trim for Christmas

Well, McCain has all but won the nomination as the Presidential Candidate for the Republicans. If you listen to the far right of the party, you would have thought they were in the process of "having" to swallow a big spoon of castor oil. They wanted that gleaming red tricycle for Christmas. Instead, they got one with some blue on it. And, they "just" can't take their eyes off of the blue. Even though the tricycle is predominately red, all they see is blue!

And, so, the temper tantrum under the Christmas tree is being unleashed with tears, kicking, and screaming! Boo-hoo! Wah! They cry out that McCain will bring an end to the conservative movement. The sky is "definitely falling! They wanted a red-blooded Reagan conservative, and they got one that has a touch of blue blood.

Please! This is just unbelievable! McCain was elevated to the nomination by Republican voters. Not by Rush Limbaugh... Not by Ann Coulter... And, not by the rest of the far right radio personalities and pundits. Instead of looking at McCain as the "most electable" candidate that the Republicans could possibly put up against a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama (based on the current polling), the far right sees him as the "gate" to hell.

These people seem to forget that the Republican party (and the conservative movement) may have reached its peak and might be on its way down. The conservative movement seems to be on its wane "because of" this current President and "because of" the former conservative control of Congress. They blew it! The Republicans decisively lost both Houses of Congress in a "sweep" the last time out. And, without McCain, they are well on their way to losing control of the White House. There will be no "house" they can claim as their own. They will be "homeless" in the world of government. McCain is the only chance they have to cling to some control. Without him, and his appeal to a broad range of the national electorate, the Democrats will have a near-complete and veto-proof control of government. The 60 vote threshold in the Senate, that Republicans "now" enjoy as the "minority" party, will vanish. The Democrats would have the near-unfettered ability to pass tax increases; repeal the Bush tax cuts; get out of Iraq; implement the first steps to socialized medicine; slash military spending (again, and at a time of war); hamper our intelligence community's ability to eavesdrop; install liberal judges throughout the Federal system, and probably vote in, at least one, liberal, Supreme Court justice in the next four years. The balance of power will decidedly tip to the Democrats, and their "doing over" during the next four years (and possibly longer) will take a decade or more to undo.

Just listen to the polls. In poll after poll, the concept of "change" keeps ringing out. And, in poll after poll, the President and Congress' approval ratings just keep falling to new lows. The concept of "change" is hard to "specifically" put your hands around because it means different things to different voters; the better and bottom-line concept of "change" seems merely to be the getting away from business-as-usual "partisan" politics. I believe that the electorate is tired of partisan politics that always puts the needs of the political party in front of the needs of this country. McCain offers that change. He is "the" more middle-of-the-road candidate that is now left standing; on either the right or the left. And, while Obama and Hillary talk that game, neither has ever really demonstrated that fact. Their actions as politicians have clearly proven their partisan behavior. That is why Hillary has such a far left voting record. And, Obama is even farther left in his record. McCain has crossed over to the other side of the aisle.. That is why he is well known as the "Maverick". And, that is why this massive "hissy fit" on the far right proves that McCain is the "right" candidate to lead this country, at this time in history; and, not just the "right" candidate - politically.