The Blog Less Traveled

Bailouts are stupid. With very few exceptions, they will only delay the inevitable. I can understand some government injection of money to keep the credit markets from completely freezing up and affecting the ability of businesses to conduct day-to-day operations. I can’t, however, see any rational reason to apply this to businesses in general. Businesses should succeed or fail on their own merit. If you can’t run your business profitably, then you shouldn’t be in business.

Bailing out the auto industry would be a huge mistake. The foremost reason for the auto industry’s current dilemma is labor cost. There’s an article by the Heritage Foundation that clearly and convincingly describes this. It’s almost unbelievable what the typical auto worker is making for a relatively low-skilled job. Overall compensation is almost $75/hour. Their healthcare benefits are beyond belief. For full medical, dental, eye care, etc., they pay only $10/month or $21/month for a family. That’s sickening! And get this. If they’re laid off, they get 95% of their pay not to work. Can you believe that? No wonder they don’t mind getting laid off. They’re basically drawing full pay NOT to work.

So what will giving the automakers billions in bailout money do for them? It’ll let them continue to operate on their current unsustainable labor contracts. Basically, the taxpayer is going to continue to subsidize the outrageous benefits package of the UAW. The Democrats control both Houses of Congress and the UAW and other labor unions own the Democrats. Do you hear any Democrats talking about letting the companies reorganize under bankruptcy law? The Democrats and unions don’t want anything to do with bankruptcy. Bankruptcy will allow the companies to reorganize and become competitive again by renegotiating their labor costs.

All you folks that voted for Democrats can blame yourselves when you see your taxes and wealth being redistributed to your poor old union laborers. Whether you want to admit it or not, you voted for Socialism and now you get to reap its benefits. What was the Democrat’s mantra for the elections, “Change You Can Be Deceived In”?

The elections are finally over and it will be nice not having to watch political TV ads every two minutes. It’ll be interesting to watch the new administration over the next few years. As I can only base my observations on Obama’s actual voting record and political and personal associations in the past, I’m not overly hopeful.

Unfortunately, his first significant decision since the election bares this out. Obama has run his campaign under the mantra of change and NOT Washington politics as usual. So what does he do? His first political appointment to Chief of Staff is a hard-line, liberal political hack, Rahm Emanuel. Talk about a Washington insider. He’s a former political and policy aide to Bill Clinton. And guess what? He was also on the board of directors for Freddie Mac. Guess who gave him that job? Surprise, Bill Clinton! This is a guy who once mailed a dead fish to someone because he didn’t agree with him. There’s some real “change”, Obama style.

I don’t trust the guy. He lied when he said he would accept public funding for his campaign. He’s been dishonest when talking of his past and present associations with unsavory people and organizations. My guess is that he will continue to surround himself with more sleazy Chicago politicians and past Clinton hacks. I’m sure he’ll offer a token job or two to some Republicans so the liberal media can show how bipartisan he really is. Maybe it won’t be Washington-style politics. However, I don’t think Chicago-style politics is a whole lot better, either.

I hope I’m wrong. Maybe he’ll have some kind of epiphany and will govern in the best interests of the country. The liberal left-wing organizations and media had a big part in getting him this far. Does he have the intelligence and strength of character to do the right thing? Time will tell. Until then, many Americans will look at him with suspicion and distrust.

There’s an old saying that says you can tell a lot about a person by the company that they keep. I don’t know about you, but I think it rings pretty true. I certainly tend to gravitate toward people who share my general beliefs and values. Not 100% of the time mind you, but most of the time. I’m not against hearing and seeing opposing viewpoints. It’s always good to get differing slants on things. However, in the long term and on the really important things in life, you move in the direction of your core values and those who share them. I think it’s a perfectly logical and natural phenomenon.

Having made this observation, it seems perfectly logical to apply this criterion to get a sense for the values and beliefs of the presidential candidates. For the most part, whom has Barack Obama sought out for guidance and associated himself with?

1. William Ayers – a self-proclaimed domestic terrorist who has absolutely no remorse for the death and injury that he caused. He’s spent numerous times with him on boards and committees and launched his Illinois Senate campaign from his home. This is not something you do with someone you only know casually.
2. Rev. Jeremiah Wright – I think everyone has seen and heard enough of the vile and hateful speeches from this man to see his Black Liberation Theology views. Barack Obama has specifically said that he attended almost 500 sermons in this pastor’s church. I can’t think of anyone who could not possibly know the true feelings and beliefs of someone after listening to them and their speeches over a twenty-year period. The guy married him, he baptized his kids and he said that he was his spiritual mentor. He’s been featured alongside him in church literature and speaks highly of him in his book. To say he didn’t really know this side of him is disingenuous at best.
3. Tony Rezko – A convicted felon and slum landlord. He worked at the law firm that provided him legal counsel and wrote letters on his behalf to secure loans for his slum projects. Also, on the very same day that Obama purchased his Chicago-area home, Rezko bought the lot next door for the full purchase price while Obama got a $300,000 price break. This is not something you do with a “casual” acquaintance.
4. Rashid Khalidi – A PLO sympathizer and Anti-Semite. Obama admits that the two had many interactions and conversations over dinner at the Khalidis’ home. He was in attendance and spoke well of him at a farewell dinner in his honor.
5. Acorn – Again, everyone has seen and heard all the factual reports and felony convictions in dozens of states of various personnel in the organization. Obama was a trainer for these people and provided legal counsel for this organization. His campaign gave one of their subsidiaries hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. Don’t people see this pattern at all? Are they so blinded by ideology and a general hatred for Bush that it makes no difference at all? These aren’t isolated associations or one or two youthful lapses in judgment. These are the political associations of an educated man brought up in the seedy arena of Chicago politics. These are calculated moves and clearly demonstrate his extreme political views. Only after he secured his left-wing party’s nomination did he start to try to portray himself as more of a centrist.

Don’t get me wrong. Obama is an intelligent, charismatic and well-spoken individual. However, actions speak louder than words and oratory excellence should not be mistaken as a sign of leadership ability. His demonstrated socialistic agenda, his dishonest responses to many questions concerning his personal associations and his attempt to downplay their significance should give pause to any American voter. Does a person who willingly associates himself with the likes of the above individuals deserve to get your vote? Would you trust that individual to have the moral clarity and judgment to make some of the life-and-death decisions that the President of the United States must deal with? Your vote next Tuesday should be an informed decision based on the facts. Don’t be driven purely by ideology or simply a perceived need for “change”. Change is good, but it must be the right change. I hope and pray the American people will choose wisely.

Democrats, as a whole, are hypocrites. When faced with truth and facts, all they can do is go into their gutter and make personal attacks or play the race card. A perfect case in point is the recent attack on “Joe the Plumber”. When Obama was caught on tape telling Joe Wurzelbacher, “I think that when we spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”, the Obama campaign and most of the liberal media did everything they could to discredit Joe. Here is Obama, like his running mate Joe Biden, caught on tape demonstrating their clear socialistic mindsets. Spreading the wealth and redistributing one’s income is nothing more than liberal-speak for Socialism. However, does the press have any concern about this? Not at all. What the Obama campaign does do is try to belittle and smear the man. Obama mocks the guy the very next day by saying, “Do you know any plumbers making $250,000?”. Then they try to deflect away from the real story, which are Obama’s political revelations, by smearing Joe and saying he’s not a licensed plumber, he has a small tax lien on his property and his first name isn’t Joe and he’s probably a plant by the Republican Party. How petty and sleazy can you get? Obama was the one that went to his neighborhood and walked by his house. He certainly didn’t ask him to come to his neighborhood. He doesn’t need to have a plumbing license as long as the guy he’s working with does. And he never claimed to be making $250,000. He talked about buying a plumbing business that might make $250,000 or more.

Want more hypocrisy? How about the Democratic representative in Florida, Tim Mahoney? Mahoney replaced Representative Mark Foley after he was caught sending email messages of a sexual nature to a House page. No actual sexual affair mind you, just email messages. The Democrats and the press were so outraged by Foley’s emails. Foley, like most Republicans, did the honorable thing and resigned. So what happens next? Mahoney runs his campaign on a platform of family and moral values. Guess what? Mahoney has now admitted to numerous affairs and paying off at least one of his mistresses. He was even having the affair while he was running for office under his moral values platform. Hypocritical? Not if you’re a DemocRAT!

How about Democratic Representative Jefferson of Louisiana? Jefferson has been indicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He was caught with $90,000 stuffed in a freezer. Prosecutors have also charged four other Jefferson family members with pocketing more than $600,000 in state and federal grant money intended for charitable and educational projects. One has already pleaded guilty. Is the press or the Democratic leadership outraged by all of this? Gosh, he’s still a House member and running for reelection. If this were a Republican, he’d be headlining all the papers and TV shows until he resigned.

I could go on and on with many more examples like Democratic Representative Charlie Rangel, Jesse Jackson, etc. I’ll spare you the pain. However, I’ll leave you with one last one that you probably haven’t heard of. Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office. A better than 250% pay raise in one year – not bad. The following year, 2006, Obama requests an earmark in Congress for $1 million for her hospital. Federal funds to help your wife’s employer. Nothing wrong with that if you’re a Democrat running for president, right?

In a few hours, the final presidential debate will take place. McCain has to do better than a draw if he expects to win this election. If he fails to attack Obama on several critical issues, his chance of winning in November is slim. So, what does McCain need to do specifically during this debate and in the final three weeks?

1. Confront Obama on all the associations with questionable people (Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Raines, etc.). He tries to say they are all casual or nonexistent, but records indicate otherwise.
2. Confront Obama on his association with ACORN (his legal representation in the 1990’s and his use of campaign funds to pay ACORN).
3. Confront Obama on why he won’t admit he was wrong on the “Surge” strategy in Iraq.
4. Confront Obama on his being the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions after being in the Senate less than four years.
5. Confront Obama on his liberal voting record (the highest of any Senator).
6. Confront Obama on his 97% voting record along Democratic Party lines.

If Obama isn’t confronted on these issues in a nationally televised venue, people will never see the true liberal, left-wing person that he really is. Ever since winning his party’s nomination, he’s tried to portray himself as a more moderate candidate. However, his record in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate show otherwise. Actions speak louder than words and his actions over the years are clearly and unequivocally liberal and strongly socialistic. He’s trying to paint himself as the moderate in all his speeches and ads. If people don’t see him confronted directly on these issues, he’ll get away with it.

A vote for Obama is a vote for a socialist America. The “Change We Can Believe In” is a hard left turn to Socialism and one that we won’t be able to recover from. Do you really trust the government to make the best decisions with your money based on what has happened over the past several years? Do you want them deciding what is best for you medically? Have they made the best use of your tax dollars in running all the social entitlement programs? If you truly want the government to take over most other aspects of your life, then vote for Obama.

Since the media seems to be on a feeding frenzy to belittle the GOP’s vice presidential candidate, it seems only fitting that the Democratic candidate should get a little scrutiny here. Unlike the media that many times distorts, takes out of context and outright lies at times, I will deal only in facts and give references for all my points.

Lies and Plagiarization

During his run as a presidential candidate in 1988, he stated the following when asked a question at a New Hampshire campaign stop:

1. “I graduated in the top half of my law school class” – This is false. He graduated 76th out of 85, which is approximately the bottom 10% of his class.
2. “I have three undergraduate degrees” – This is false. He has one degree with a double major. He graduated 506th out of 688, which is approximately the bottom 25% of his class.
3. “I was the only student in my class on a full academic scholarship” – This is false. He was on a partial economic needs scholarship.

You can view the video of his speech here (2 minutes). His lack of character and arrogance in demeaning the individual asking him the question is also quite revealing.

In one of his campaign speeches, he actually plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, the leader at the time of the British Labour Party.

He received an “F” in one of his first-year law school classes for plagiarizing a law review article.

The citations backing up the fact that he was lying or plagiarized are located here. They are found at reference numbers 14, 67, 68 and 69 at the end of the article.

Charitable/Other

Senator Biden tries to paint himself as a person who fights and cares about the average person.  However, his tax returns over the past ten years say otherwise. The chart below lists his tax returns from 1998 through 2007. On an income ranging from $210,797 to $321,379, he’s given a grand total of $120 to $995 to charity. That’s a whopping .06% to .31% – less than 1/3 of 1% that he gives to charity. His generosity is overwhelming, wouldn’t you say? These figures are taken from his tax returns as listed on Barrack Obama’s website.

Just for comparison purposes, the IRS shows that the average taxpayer with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $200,000 per year makes over $20,000 in charitable contributions. ($200,000 or more of AGI:  $20,434 average charitable deduction)

Senator Biden went to a private college prep school, as did his own children. So much for his so-called “just one of the regular folks” upbringing.

So folks, here’s your choice. You can pick someone that the Democrats and media label as inexperienced because she’s only managed a private business, been a mayor for six years, a governor for two years and attended public schools as well as all of her children. Or, you can choose an arrogant, plagiarizing, lying uncharitable person who’s never held an executive position of any consequence and one who doesn’t walk-the-walk but only talks-the-talk.

Gosh, that’s a tough one!

Like most of you, I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when the 9/11 attack occurred. For those of us old enough, there is one other event that we can probably remember as vividly – President Kennedy’s assassination. I remember exactly where I was in the hallway when the principal came on the intercom system and announced the tragedy. Few events in our recent history have had as unifying an effect on our country. Regardless of our political affiliation, religion or ethnic group, we were Americans first and foremost.

Unfortunately, as time passes, we lose that galvanizing effect. The immediacy and importance of the event fades into our past. Other events take over and the priority it once had is gone. However, in the case of 9/11, many of the things we now see as priorities, are a direct result of this event. The war on terror, our economy, oil prices, and the airline industry – almost everything today has been impacted.
So, what have we learned and what have we forgotten? Fighting terror and evil in this world is hard – and expensive. We can debate the path we’ve taken on how we’ve conducted the fight to this point. It’s easy to armchair quarterback the steps taken thus far. It’s been far from perfect and mistakes were made. However, I think the President made the most difficult decision imaginable with the best interests of the United States in mind. To think otherwise is just plain wrong. I think few of us would have thought that we would go this long without another terrorist attack on our land. The President should receive some of the credit for this success. Statements from sitting Congressman calling the President a liar or saying the war is lost are disgraceful. It borders on treasonous and is just encouragement for our enemy. Public discourse is fine and part of our rights as Americans. However, personal attacks and blatant lies should not be tolerated. To not hold those accountable for these actions is a failure on our part as American voters.

Right now, the TV is on and I’m watching Senator McCain and Senator Obama at the former World Trade Center site. It’s a powerful image showing America at its finest. Even with the hotly contested Presidential election in full swing, both parties can put aside their differences and can come together long enough to remember and honor the lives lost seven years ago.

Let’s not forget we’re Americans first and Democrats/Republicans second. Our country can’t afford to be divided at this time in our history. The stakes are too high.

Well, this election just got a little more interesting. The selection of Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate will certainly add a little spice to the presidential race. She was definitely seen as a dark horse candidate by most political observers. The press will be burning the midnight oil over the next few weeks digging up everything it can about her, good and bad. Overall, I think that she is a net positive for McCain. She has proven to be a capable and formidable executive and campaigner. She doesn’t shy away from issues and takes strong ethical stands and makes fiscally sound decisions. I think what I like about her most is how she comes across as a real and genuine person, not some politically calculating individual. She definitely doesn’t fit the profile of a typical female politician – mother of five, good looks, a basketball player, hunter, fisher, etc. A refreshing change, don’t you think?

She has two potential weak points. The current ethics investigation in Alaska may or may not be of any consequence. Her experience in foreign policy is another matter. As I’ve said in a previous posting, I’ll take character with intelligence over experience almost any day. There are enough advisors and policy experts out there to get someone up-to-speed. Plus, if lack of direct foreign policy experience is going to be a showstopper for the #2 position on the Republican ticket, what does that say for the same lack of experience for the Democrat’s #1 position? I thought it was pretty funny how the first statement out of the Democrat’s campaign was her lack of experience. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! When those words got thrown back at them, they suddenly realized their “Duh” moment and backed off.
Of course, some will say that this is strictly a political calculation on McCain’s part. He wants to appeal to women voters and some Hillary supporters disenfranchised with her exclusion from the Democrat’s ticket. I’m sure there’s a certain amount of truth to that. It does take some of the air out of the Democrat’s balloon. However, on balance, I think she makes the Republican ticket a better and stronger one.

And now for my prediction. Assuming that McCain can hold his own against Obama in his two debates, I predict that the Republicans will win the November election if Governor Palin does a fairly good job in her debate against Senator Biden. Let the games begin!

I remember during the presidential election campaign in 1992 that the Democrat’s theme was something along the line of “It’s the economy, stupid.” People supposedly weren’t all that interested in foreign policy or other non-monetary matters. They were only interested in the economy and how it affected them. Although it looks like this election cycle will be a repeat of that theme, I’d like to offer the Republican campaign the “It’s the character, stupid!” for their theme.

I’ve always felt that the character of an individual trumped all other qualities when running for office. For that matter, I think it’s the defining characteristic for most things in life, not just in running for political office. Anyway, I’m not saying that knowledge and experience aren’t important when dealing with foreign policy or economic issues. They certainly enhance your credibility in tackling these problems, especially in our current environment. Now is not a good time to be learning via on-the-job training. However, having said that, I think that anyone who can think on their feet and has a basic grasp of these fundamental policy issues can make the transition rather quickly and with little negative impact on their office. Anyone can get up-to-speed by surrounding themselves with competent advisors and trusted colleagues. But they better be very competent and trusted in the present situations we face.
No, the problem is taking this information and experience and making the right decisions with it. A person with character bases their decision on what is morally and ethically right. It’s simply a decision to do the right thing. It’s that little voice in your head that always pops up and gives you pause if you’re about to make a decision that doesn’t quite seem right. I think we’ve all had experiences in life where we wanted to take the easy path or make the best choice for ourselves but ended up making a decision that was not in our best interest but deep down felt like it was the right thing to do.

Don’t get me wrong. Neither candidate is a paragon of virtue. We all have our failings in life. We’re only human. However, when I look at the candidates, their contributions and choices in life, their mentors and friends, then the choice becomes very clear for me. This election will be at a critical juncture in our country’s history. The stakes are as high as they’ve ever been. Do we come to our fork in the road and turn left toward a one-way street of socialism and feel-good policies or do we make a right turn toward individual and collective responsibility for our countrymen and ourselves? The decision on whom to vote for this election has never been easier.

I find that “changing” only one word in the Democrats’ latest slogan makes it much more believable. Here are a few examples.

Senator John Edwards – finally admits to extramarital affair after constantly lying to the public and denying it. The following was Edwards’ response in 2007 to CBS News anchor Katie Couric’s question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:
“Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans — including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it’s fundamental to how you judge people and human character — whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them. … I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness — sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And — and certainly that goes to a part of that.”

Senator Ted Kennedy – He’s all for the environment and alternative energy but has been fighting tooth-and-nail to keep a wind turbine farm from being constructed a few miles from his own home. Also, he has basically gotten away with murder or at the very least voluntary manslaughter. He drove his car off a bridge after drinking at a party and without a valid driver’s license and left his mistress-for-the-night to drown at the bottom of the pond. Didn’t report the accident for over eight hours. The first people he contacted after the accident were two of his lawyer friends. The only thing he was cited for was leaving the scene of an accident. Four years later, at the height of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, “Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?”

Senator John Kerry – “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

President Bill Clinton – one of only two presidents ever impeached. After lying to the public about his sexual encounters with a White House intern, he later lied under oath on more than one occasion. His pardon of friends and felons only hours before leaving office speaks volumes of his true character.

Vice President Al Gore – goes trotting around the country and the world in his private jet and SUV spewing tons of carbon telling all the “little” people about global warming and how everyone needs to sacrifice. Maintains a residence in Tennessee that uses more energy than 10-20 normal homes.

General Wesley Clark – Concerning his support of the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to go to war in Iraq, Clark said to the New York Times, “At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question.” Again, when asked by a Times reporter, he said, “I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it.” However, when asked the next month by CNN whether he would have supported a Congressional resolution on the Iraq war, he said, “The answer is very clear. The answer is, I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It’s that simple.”

These are the standard bearers for the Democratic Party. Democrats should feel proud. I could list dozens more, but I’ll get too nauseous. Yes, there are some Republicans that have been guilty of less than stellar behavior, too. However, they don’t normally stay in prominent leadership positions in their party. They’re usually honorable enough to go quietly. Democrats seem to be enamored with these people and think their transgressions are perfectly normal. Do you really think the current Democrats’ slogan, “Change We Can Believe In” really means anything?