|
|
|
Words do matter, words like change that keep on changing |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Tuesday, 08 July 2008 |
 There have been a number of articles in the national media about the breathtaking "change" in Senator Obama's stances on many key issues since winning the Democratic Party's nomination. The changes have been so dramatic that Democrats must now ask: Has Barack Obama "changed" into George W. Bush light?
The bastion of liberal ideals and thinking, the editorial board of the New York Times, questions the bona fides of Obama as an agent of "change" and a different politician. In their July 4th editorial "New and Not Improved" they state, "Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt."
The NY Times editorial board points out, "The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11."
"The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation." says the Times.
In this amazing statement the Times shows its outrage, "On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control."
Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law and criticized the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder referring to the Louisiana law requiring the death penalty for child rape.
Senator Obama wants to expand healthcare much as President Bush expanded prescription drug coverage under Medicare.
Finally, and perhaps the straw that will break the liberal lefts back, is Senator Obama's weakening if not complete shift on withdrawing from Iraq. As Tim Shipman of the UK Telegraph points out, "Mr Obama first emerged as a viable candidate through his long-standing opposition to the Iraq war. He has pledged to bring the troops home within 16 months, but on Thursday he vowed to "refine" his position after discussing the situation with commanders on the ground."
So, except for taxes and Supreme Court justices Barack Obama is George W. Bush light. As the Wall Street Journal said jokingly in an editorial that Mr Obama – not John McCain, the Republican candidate – is the one running for Bush's "third term". But is it really a joke?
Is Barack Obama a new politician? Or is he following the mold of previous Democratic candidates: run hard left in the primaries and run hard right in the general because that is where the country is. Is Obama just pandering for votes and money or is he really an agent of "change". Is Obama someone you can trust because he stands on principle or does he throw principle under the bus to get elected?
Arianna Huffington, the doyenne of liberal bloggers, immediately pronounced his move to the middle to be "Realstupidpolitik" and wrote: "Moving to the middle is for losers."
Is Barack Obama a loser? |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 11 July 2008 )
|
|
|
This is funny! |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Saturday, 05 July 2008 |
|
 I received two e-mails from close friends. One is a joke and the other real. You figure out which is which.
E-mail 1: Illegal immigration of Americans to Canada.
From the Manitoba Herald, Canada (a very underground paper). The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The actions of President Bush are prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal- rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken." When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. "They did have a
nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.
In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.
Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?" From the Manitoba Herald, Canada (a very underground paper). The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The actions of President Bush are prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal- rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken." When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. "They did have a
nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.
In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.
Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals.
A source close to Cheney said, "We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps."
"The President is determined to reach out," he said. E-mail 2: From Redstate blog.
Democrat Congressman Tim Mahoney (FL-16), fresh off the embarrassment of getting caught being so out of touch with America's military that he sent out a taxpayer-funded mailpiece "in honor of those who defend our freedom" featuring a photo of a Soviet veteran, decided to get out of the spotlight for a few days during the Independence Day recess. Unfortunately for Mahoney, while a Congressman may be able to leave the country for a few days, the spotlight is rarely far behind -- especially when the time you choose to leave the country and chill at your second house in Canada coincides with America's Independence Day, and your constituents -- and your opponent -- are dedicating time and energy to celebrating that most special of holidays. Further, Tim Mahoney's Web site contained no acknowledgment of the 4th of July in any way. Perhaps Mahoney is far more in line ideologically, and patriotically, with The Progressive magazine's Matthew Rothschild, who wrote: Why I’m Not Patriotic By Matthew Rothschild, July 2, 2008
(In memory of George Carlin.) It’s July 4th again, a day of near-compulsory flag-waving and nation-worshipping. Count me out. Spare me the puerile parades. Don’t play that martial music, white boy. And don’t befoul nature’s sky with your F-16s. You see, I don’t believe in patriotism. It’s not that I’m anti-American, but I am anti-patriotic. Love of country isn’t natural. It’s not something you’re born with. It’s an inculcated kind of love, something that is foisted upon you in the home, in the school, on TV, at church, during the football game. Yet most people accept it without inspection. In fairness to Mr. Mahoney, he may not agree with this; however, he was in Canada on July 4 and therefore unavailable for comment. Perhaps Mahoney simply doesn't believe in patriotism -- or his vision of "the New Patriotism" is so far out of touch with mainstream America's, and with the citizens of FL-16, that he thinks escaping the commemoration of what is the most important patriotic holiday of the year is something his constituents will neither mind nor notice. |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 05 July 2008 )
|
|
|
America the beautiful |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Friday, 04 July 2008 |
 I just returned from a naturalization ceremony conducted by the Department of Homeland Security at the Tampa Convention Center, Tampa, FL. We took a friend there to be with her at her naturalization ceremony because her husband could not because he is in the Merchant Marine and on a Navy ship in the Pacific.
At this first of two ceremonies scheduled in Tampa for today, July 4th, 709 men and women from 90 different countries took the pledge to "support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic". One was from Iraq. It was a moving and patriotic ceremony. I sat behind a woman who became an American today who was born in China. I sat next to another woman who became an American from Brazil. There were hundreds and hundreds of flags at the ceremony.
I pass on this story because we still have those who do not believe in the American flag as a symbol of liberty and freedom. Some, especially in the media as so sadly reflected below, do not believe in displaying our flag, even today.
ABC News Bans Flag Lapel Pins
Yesterday [September 12, 2001], the brass at ABC News issued orders forbidding reporters to wear lapel pin American flags or other patriotic insignia. Their reasoning was that ABC should remain neutral about 'causes'.
"We cannot signal through outward symbols how we feel, even if the cause is justified," said ABC spokesman Jeffrey Schneider. "Overseas, it could be perceived that we're just mouthpieces for the U.S. government, and that can place our journalists in danger."
Watch your favorite local or national news program today, tomorrow or the day after. Look to see if the newsman or woman are wearing a flag pin. If not I ask that you call or e-mail the station and ask simply, "Why not?" See what you get for an answer.
The newest Americans I met today in Tampa certainly would not understand why any American would not wear or display our flag proudly.
We must never forget 9/11 and what our troops are doing today to keep us safe and protect our liberty. Always remember: "Freedom is not Free". |
|
|
Barack Obama - Mr. Shifty |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Thursday, 03 July 2008 |
 July 20, 2007 – The Obama campaign launched a campaign to capture the conservative Christian vote. The campaign is called the “Joshua Generation Project,” named after Moses’ successor who led the Israelites into Canaan after they had wandered in the Sinai for forty years.
CBN’s David Brody has resurrected the substance of a 2004 You Tube speech by Obama in which he said, “Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation". At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”
Obama criticized the “Christian Right” for hijacking religion and using it to divide the nation. He said, “Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it is because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.”
In spite of what Obama might think, America IS a Christian nation. It was founded by Christians, it was populated by Christians, and it has been governed from the beginning by Christian values. The Founding Fathers were concerned that the United States not become a theocracy so they added language to our Constitution prohibiting Congress from establishing an official state religion, but that was in no way a denial of our Christian roots.
If we are a “Muslim nation,” as Obama suggests, then how should Christians react to the notion that, in matters of marriage, the Prophet Muhammad is the model that Muslims follow. Muslims claim that Muhammad took a girl named 'Aisha to be his wife when she was 6, but he didn’t start having sex with her until she was 9. Obama might want to explain to us exactly how we can square that idea with Christian values.
He might also want to reread some of the sermons he heard during the nearly twenty years he sat in the pews of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and then explain to us how his and Rev Wright’s brand of “G_ _ damn America” Christianity brings us together.
Obama rejected John McCain’s proposal for 10 joint town hall meetings, offering instead to have just one on July 4.
The Obama campaign said that their candidate offered to meet McCain in five joint appearances between now and November 4, but only one of those would be a town hall meeting, three would be traditional debates with questions selected and posed by Obama-friendly mainstream media figures, and one would be an in-depth debate on foreign policy. It’s not surprising that Obama, who recently said he would meet John McCain “anywhere, anytime,” would reject the idea of appearing side-by-side with McCain in ten town hall meetings. In recent weeks we’ve been witness to incidents where Obama was called upon to speak extemporaneously. In several instances he simply dissolved into a sputtering mass of “ahs” and “uhs,” incapable of uttering a simple declaratory sentence.
In one such episode, he came to a complete standstill in the middle of a stage, surrounded on all sides by his fawning supporters, pressed a finger against his earpiece… which had suddenly stopped transmitting the words he was supposed to repeat… and said, “Wait a minute, wait a minute, uh, wait a minute, uh, I can’t hear myself.”
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a “puppet” as a “small image in the human form… often with hinged limbs, moved by the hand or by strings… as in a mock drama. One acting as another wills; a fool.” It makes one wonder if we might one day find a picture of Obama next to that definition.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, struck down a Louisiana law allowing capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under the age of 12, saying it violates the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling spares two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8.
In a two-sentence, seven-waffle reaction, Obama said, “I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes… I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.”
In 1999, while serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama was faced with a decision to support a bill that would have allowed juveniles "who had gang-raped girls under the age of twelve, or who had murdered 8 and 10-year-olds in random drive-by shootings, to be tried as adults.
In that instance, Obama was running for reelection in an African American district in South Chicago, so he sidestepped the issue and voted “present.”
Clearly, Obama’s position on any issue depends on whether or not votes are at stake in the next election. He has yet to show where, in his fourteen years in public life, he has taken a stand on an issue that might have a negative impact on his own personal ambitions. Barack Obama is not only naïve and inexperienced…he is also a coward. |
|
|
Good news! Keep on reading. |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Thursday, 03 July 2008 |
 You won't see these headlines in the main stream media. Both, however, are true and the public should be told about each. The main stream media won't so we will. Read on.
Let's start with the first headline, "President Bush's approval rating more than twice that of Congress". Strategic Vision did a poll based on telephone interviews with 1200 likely voters in Florida, aged 18+, and conducted from June 27-29, 2008. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. Here are the questions they asked:
Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's overall job performance?
Approve 34%
Disapprove 57%
Undecided 9%
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is performing its job?
Approve 14%
Disapprove 71%
Undecided 15%
Here is an extra bit of good news for Florida Republicans from this same survey:
If the election for President were held today would you support John McCain, the Republican, Barack Obama, the Democrat, or Bob Barr, the Libertarian?
John McCain 49%
Barack Obama 41%
Bob Barr 1%
Undecided 9%
Now for the second headline, "Iraqi government making great progress, given satisfactory on 15 of 18 benchmarks!" Not heard about this? No wonder, none of the major news outlets or newspapers, with the exception of Fox News even ran the story.
According to the Washington Post, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad."
The Post states, "The embassy judged that the only remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government's failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi police. All other goals -- including preparations for upcoming elections, reform of de-Baathification and disarmament laws, progress on enacting and spending Iraq's budget, and the capabilities of the Iraqi army -- were rated "satisfactory."
"The embassy cited progress toward increasing the number of Iraqi security force units capable of independent operations. Although it says that the overall number of units that can operate independently has increased "marginally," it concludes that "70% of all formed units can now conduct [counter-insurgency] operations with or without Coalition support." says the Post article.
Finally, from the earlier mentioned survey by Strategic Vision are these two questions asked of Florida voters:
Do you favor an immediate withdrawal of the United States military forces from Iraq, within the next six months?
Yes 42%
No 44%
Undecided 14%
Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism?
Approve 55%
Disapprove 40%
Undecided 5%
Good news. Something that is sorely lacking in the main stream media. |
|
|
Should The President of the United States Talk to Ahmadinejad? |
|
|
|
Written by Cisco
|
|
Thursday, 03 July 2008 |
 Patrick O'Brian wrote a series of twenty-one novels that are set in the Napoleonic wars and that have Captain Jack Aubrey and Dr. Stephen Maturin as the protagonists. Aubrey is an English naval captain who always sails with Maturin as his ship's surgeon. If you are not familiar with the O'Brian novels, perhaps you will recall a movie, Master and Commander of the Far Side of the World, which was loosely based upon these novels and starred Russell Crowe as Captain Aubrey. The eighth novel in this series is called The Ionian Mission, and it has Aubrey and Maturin sailing to Greece in order to fight the French. At the time of the Napoleonic wars, Greece was part of the Muslim Ottoman Turk empire. In The Ionian Mission, the French have taken possession of the fictional city Marga, and it is Captain Aubrey's responsibility to negotiate with the Muslim beys (tribal chieftains) in the area in order to most effectively accomplish the removal of the French troops from the Grecian peninsula. There are three Muslim beys who are vying for power in the region, and the one factor that will tip the balance of power is the guns that the English are willing to provide to whichever bey is most willing to assist the English in fighting the French. Jack Aubrey meets with each of the beys, and in the final bey that he meets with, he finds a kindred spirit. This bey, Sciahan by name, is “much more what Jack had expected of a Turk: a plain man, and one that he could trust.” Jack unilaterally determines that he will support Sciahan and tells him that he will immediately send a ship to bring the guns that Sciahan desires. Captain Aubrey makes his decision about which bey he will support without consulting with the politico who accompanied him, a Professor Graham. When Professor Graham realizes what Captain Aubrey has agreed to, he becomes irate and begins berating Captain Aubrey for being so naïve. Professor Graham insists that “In all negotiation, and a fortiori, all Oriental negotiation, each side was expected to extract all possible profit from the balance of forces: if either did not do so, it was because there was some hidden weakness – a plain unconditional acquiescence in a demand must be taken as the greatest proof of weakness.” Professor Graham goes on to say that Captain Aubrey should have insisted on taking as hostage one of Sciahan's nephews, and should have held the nephew until Sciahan had indeed fulfilled his verbal commitment. Professor Graham goes so far as to intimate that Captain Aubrey was not fully committed by the words that he had spoken to Sciahan, and that he could renege on his commitment by begging a misunderstanding. Captain Aubrey “replied coldly that he regarded his words as wholly binding, that he was convinced that he and Sciahan understood one another.” Captain Jack Aubrey personifies the English and American spirit. We people of the Western world, especially those of us who are American, are very much attached to the idea that if we can sit down with a person, look that person in the eye, and discuss a mutually beneficial relationship, then we tend to believe that the person into whose eye we are looking will fulfill their end of any agreement that is reached. You may call it American naiveté or English gullibility, but we people of the Western world tend to trust verbal, personal commitments. If we make an agreement without extracting the last ounce of blood from the other agreeing party, we do not care if we are are perceived as being weak for doing so. We tend to accept people at their word, rather than taking their family members as hostage in order to ensure that they will fulfill their word. |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 04 July 2008 )
|
|
|
Obama hypocracy? Do as I say, not as I do. |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 |
 The Los Angeles Times reports that, "Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65-million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. He secured a $1.32-million mortgage from Northern Trust in Illinois.
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625% on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at a time when such loans in Chicago averaged as much as 6%. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers did to reduce their interest rates.
Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month."
The LA Times points out, "Within Obama's presidential campaign organization, former Fannie Mae Chairman James A. Johnson resigned abruptly as head of the vice presidential search committee after his favorable Countrywide loan became public."
Finally the Time article points out the Rezko connection, "Obama's house has been a source of controversy. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that on the day of the closing, the wife of Obama's longtime friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko closed on an adjoining lot that had been the estate's side yard.
The Obamas bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.95 million, while Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the neighboring lot for the asking price of $625,000. Rita Rezko later sold a portion of the undeveloped lot to the Obamas, enlarging the senator's yard.
Last month, Tony Rezko was convicted of 16 counts in an influence-peddling scheme that reached the highest levels of Illinois state government."
So adding up the other Democratic Senators who have taken loans that are sweetheart deals there are now three.
Two other prominent Democrats were are on the Countrywide take. According to Bloomburg.com, "[Democrat] Senator Kent Conrad said he was given preferential treatment on a mortgage from Countrywide Financial Corp. and will write a $10,500 check to charity. "It appears Countrywide waived one point on my mortgage,'' Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said in a statement today in Washington."
"Conrad and [Democrat] Senator Christopher Dodd, who [since 2006 and before the current housing crisis] oversees the U.S. mortgage industry as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were among those who received loans through Countrywide's "V.I.P.'' program, which waived points, fees and borrowing rules for prominent people, Portfolio magazine reported June 12. Dodd has denied receiving preferential treatment." according to Bloomberg.com. |
|
|
Off with their heads! |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 |
 In his June 27 open-line-Friday rant, our friend Rush Limbaugh unburdened himself at length on the subject of high energy prices. Most of what he said was true. He spoke of the hardships that high gasoline prices create for working Americans. He spoke of how the United States needs to provide as much of our own energy resources as possible. And he spoke of how Democrats are beating the bushes, looking to demonize someone else, anyone else, for their own culpability.
When Bill Clinton perjured himself before a federal judge and was impeached for his crime, Democrats didn’t blame Clinton for having an Oval Office affair with a young intern and lying about it under oath, they blamed House Republicans and the special prosecutor, Ken Starr.
When thousands of black people in New Orleans struggled to stay alive on their rooftops, on highway overpasses, and in the Superdome, Democrats didn’t blame an incompetent governor or a corrupt Democrat mayor, they blamed George W. Bush and his FEMA Administrator.
And when the world price of crude oil went to $120 or $125 a barrel and gasoline and diesel fuel prices went to more than $3.00 a gallon, Democrats didn’t blame their radical environmentalist friends, they paraded a panel of oil company executives before the TV cameras, threatening to nationalize the oil industry and hoping that their stage-managed attacks would convince the American people that it was the oil companies who were to blame.
It didn’t work. The American people may not know much about energy economics, but they’re not stupid. They know, intuitively, that the oil companies are highly efficient and highly competitive, and that they bring a quality product to market at a reasonable price while providing secure jobs for their employees and a reasonable return for their investors.
As the oil executives boarded their limos to head for the airport, congressional Democrats were already huddled like trapped rats in corners of the Capitol, trying to figure out who their next scapegoat might be. Then, viola! They were struck by an idea. There is a group of people who are even better targets for demonization than the oil companies. They work on Wall Street, they earn huge annual salaries, they dress in expensive suits, they fly in private jets, they live on large estates in Westchester County and The Hamptons, and they do all that without ever getting their hands dirty. They are the speculators… the people who trade in commodities futures.
It was then that Rush, applying basic but faulty conservative logic, got it all wrong.
First he attempted to explain the workings of the commodities futures market in simple layman’s terms… terms that people in Rio Linda or Palm Beach might understand. To paraphrase, he said that the futures market is a zero-sum game. When someone buys a futures contract at a certain price and makes a few dollars in the process… someone else loses an equal amount of money.
Then, when he sensed his listeners’ eyes were glazing over, he attempted a sports metaphor. He explained that, when the odds-makers in Las Vegas give the Pittsburgh Steelers six points over the Oakland Raiders, and the Steelers win by only five points, some people win and some people lose… but it has no effect on the outcome of the game.
What Rush was trying to get across is that, where commodities are concerned, some people bet that prices will be higher in the future and some people bet that prices will fall. His theory is that they’re all “side bets” and that they have no impact on prices.
What he suggests is true of almost every commodity… except petroleum. If weather forecasters predict a long hot summer, with very little rain, those who trade in corn, wheat, or soybean futures will logically bet that the per-bushel prices will be higher in the future because crops will suffer from the drought conditions. On the other hand, if the rains come and yields are high, prices will fall and those who were betting on high prices will take a beating.
The point is, in essentially every commodity except petroleum, there is a chance that prices in the future will be lower than today because of unforeseen circumstances. The same is not true of petroleum. The speculators on Wall Street understand that the petroleum supply curve falls just below the demand curve and that there is almost nothing in the foreseeable future that will cause the supply curve to rise above the demand curve.
In short, it is almost impossible to lose money in the futures market by betting that oil is going to be more expensive. With demand guaranteed to exceed supply, speculators are not about to sell at a loss. Why should they? It’s never a question of whether they will make money… it’s only a question of how much.
October 1978, Hillary Clinton, an inexperienced investor with an annual income of $25,000, the wife of the Governor of Arkansas, opened a commodity futures account with a deposit of $1,000. Her first trade was the short sale of ten live-cattle contracts at a price of 57.55 cents a pound… in other words, a commitment to deliver in December of that year 400,000 pounds of cattle with a market value of $230,200. One day later, she bought the contracts back at a price of 56.10 cents a pound, pocketing a one-day profit of $5,300 on a $1,000 investment.
Not even Hillary Clinton could turn $1,000 into $100,000 in ten months selling short in today’s petroleum futures market. She would lose her panties in no time, and Bill’s as well.
Rush must have had all of his brains tied behind his back. And as for the speculators? Off with their heads. |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 02 July 2008 )
|
|
|
John McCain - an American Patriot |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 |
 There is an interesting letter to the editor in my local paper titled, "Obama fits the patriot mold" by Ronald Riffel of Sarasota, FL.
Ronald says, "The American Heritage Dictionary defines patriotism as 'Love of and devotion to one's country'." I agree with Ronald on this completely.
Ronald goes on to quote Senator Obama who says patriotism, "involve[s] the willingness to sacrifice -- to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause." Again, I totally agree with Senator Obama.
Ronald says that Senator Obama is a patriot because, "For 18 months, nonstop, he has presented his vision of America changing directions...He and his family have had precious little time together. His girls must say good night to him on a cell phone." Ronald asks, "Is this not putting country first?"
Ronald let's look at Senator McCain using the same criteria you used for Senator Obama. First Senator McCain for the past 18 months has been, nonstop, presenting his vision of America changing directions, he and his family have had precious little time together and his two sons and two daughters must say good night to him on a cell phone. Is this not putting country first?
But wait lets look more closely at that American Heritage Dictionary definition and what Senator Obama said again. The key words are: love and devotion to one's country and willingness to sacrifice on behalf of a larger cause.
What has Senator Obama done using these qualifiers?
Let's look at what Senator McCain has done that might fit your and Senator Obama's definition of a "patriot". John McCain served his nation in uniform. He is a highly decorated combat war hero. He is a retired Navy Captain with 23 years of honorable and faithful service. He was a prisoner of war for five and one-half years. He was a Naval aviator. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He has two sons who are in the military, one just came back from Iraq and the other is going to Iraq.
Do these few things in John McCain's life qualify him as a patriot too? Is not John McCain's entire life one of love and devotion to country. Has not John McCain sacrificed for a greater cause? I think so. Much more than anyone else running for the Presidency of the United States of America. |
|
|
Democrats, Radical Islam and Communists an unholy alliance! |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Sunday, 29 June 2008 |
|
 The Democratic Party has hired a group named Voting is Power (VIP) to register voters for the upcoming Presidential election. Voting is Power is under investigation by the Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne for voter fraud. So who is Voting is Power and why does that mean anything?
VIP is actually a Muslim American Society (MAS) organization. So who is the Muslim American Society?
The Muslim American Society is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood whose militant credo states: "God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations" In May 2005, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reported in The Weekly Standard that [the Muslim American Society] MAS is a U.S. front group for the Muslim Brotherhood -- a claim supported by a September 19, 2004 Chicago Tribune story -- and, as such, wishes to see the United States governed by sharia, or Islamic law. "The message that all countries should be ruled by Islamic law," writes Gartenstein-Ross, "is echoed throughout MAS's membership curriculum. For example, MAS requires all its adjunct members to read Fathi Yakun's book To Be a Muslim. In that volume, Yakun spells out his expansive agenda: 'Until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.'" Closely linked to MAS is the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, whose Executive Director is Mahdi Bray, a former Students for a Democratic Society activist now affiliated with International ANSWER, an anti-war front group for the Communist World Workers Party. "Our mission," Bray has written, "is to build an integrated empowerment process for the American Muslim community." Toward this end, Bray and MAS have been involved in a voter-registration drive and an effort to train 1,000 "activists" in the "skills necessary for effective activism."
MAS also has close ties to Islamic American University, an unaccredited university in the Detroit suburb of Southfield, which teaches Islamic law and other subjects. (One IAU faculty member is Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, who until at least June 2003 was also the Chairman -- in abstentia -- of the university's Board of Trustees. )
In addition, MAS operates programs for educating the young, providing fellowship for Muslim youth, creating its own network of Islamic schools, and sustaining a nationwide Council of Imams.
MAS was a signatory to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist, condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations.
MAS strongly opposes the Patriot Act, which it says “strips away the fundamental checks and balances that safeguard many of our basic civil liberties,” and has “drastically infringed upon every American's rights by giving the government expanded powers to invade privacy, imprison and deport people without due process, and punish political dissent.”
|
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 29 June 2008 )
|
|
|
Energy Independence in ten years! |
|
|
|
Written by Dr. Rich Swier
|
|
Sunday, 29 June 2008 |
 Dear Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board,
Is it not time to put the good of Florida and the good of the United States above politics? Do we not all want "change"? Floridians and Americans are suffering under the extreme burden of high energy and gasoline costs. Isn't it time we look for solutions together regardless of party or ideology?
In your editorial, "On oil, the political vs. the practical" you restate what we Americans have been doing for the past 30 plus years. We have not drilled for our own oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though China and Cuba can. We have not built new refineries or nuclear power plants in over 30 and 40 years respectively. We have created environmental regulations and an EPA bureaucracy that is stopping the building of solar power plants in the deserts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. Congress has made it illegal to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and ANWR in Alaska. Congress and the 50 states are requiring over 45 different mixtures of gasoline to be produced to meet state and federal mandates on pollution. Finally, we are conserving our hearts out.
All of these self-imposed restrictions have gotten us in large measure to where we are. Is it not time for a change?
Is it not time for us to think outside the box? Let's not be afraid of "change". Here are some innovative ideas that local citizens and others have proposed to move Florida and America toward energy independence. Our state legislators and Congress need to consider each of them.
1. Select one environmentally friendly emission standard and mixture of gasoline, rather than the current hundreds of emission standards that require the production of 45 plus gasoline and diesel mixtures, and produce only that. This will have an immediate impact at the pump.
2. Cut federal and state taxes on gasoline, diesel and home heating oil. A tax cut has immediate short term and long term impacts on the economy and American's pocket books. Off set tax cuts with spending cuts. That is what Americans are doing.
3. Release one-third of our strategic petroleum reserves. That would have a short term impact on gasoline and oil prices.
4. Remove regulatory restrictions on the building of new petroleum refineries, solar power plants, clean coal plants, natural gas plants and nuclear power plants.
5. Challenge scientists and entrepreneurs to find immediate and long term solutions by using American innovation and developing new technologies. The $300 million challenge to create a new battery to power our cars is a just a start.
6. Look at the massive environmental damage and human suffering caused by biofuels like corn based ethanol and move to other biomass alternative fuels and technologies such as sugarcane based ethanol/alcohol, nitrogen power, and algae based fuels.
7. Provide regulatory and tax incentives to begin pumping oil from currently abandoned wells. These may become productive in the short term given current drilling technologies.
8. Stop placing blame and move to finding solutions. More hearings and talk do nothing. Action is needed. Attacking those who have spent their lives, time and treasure exploring for and drilling or mining for our natural resources is counter productive and drives up the price of gasoline. This would be a big "change" in attitude.
9. Drill in ANWR now. The plan for drilling in ANWR involves 2,000 acres of land in Alaska's far North Eastern border. Is that any more environmentally harmful than producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 from corn grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres)?
10. Explore and drill in the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental Shelf. It has been illegal to do so for 30 years. This would especially benefit Florida. According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil.
11. Recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves. The current high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.
12. Require oil speculators to put up 50% of the dollar amount they bid in cash rather than working off lines of credit.
13. Instead of burying our trash let's burn it.
14. Let every American pledge to buy a car over the next 3 years that is more fuel efficient by 10 miles per gallon, whether new or used.
We would do all these things and continue to develop wind, solar and biofuels. We would all, of course, continue to conserve. However, we must recognize the limitations of wind and solar. For example to power New York city using wind power would require blanketing Connecticut (3 million acres) with turbines. To gain the maximum from solar we need to build plants in the America's deserts.
Let's work together to find solutions. Let's both agree that nothing is off the table. Let's demand that both Presidential Candidates on this 4th of July set a goal that America will be become energy independent in the next 10 years. Let's vow to keep the over $650 billion we send overseas to buy oil. Let's use that money to build new technologies, explore, drill and mine our own resources and best of all create jobs.
Let's join together and ask our readers to come up with more ideas on how we can become independent of foreign oil. No idea is to be rejected. All ideas will be submitted with forethought by the person making the suggestion. Let's pass these ideas on to our Florida Governor and legislature, our President and Congress.
Anyone with an idea on how to become energy independent please e-mail me at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Warm Regards,
Rich
Publisher, FromTheDuke Blog |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 29 June 2008 )
|
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>
| | Results 34 - 44 of 99 |
|
|
