Dan's Thoughts

Media Bias? Duh!

2008-07-25T21:38:00.002-05:00

Is there a media bias? Of course there is.

How would one go about proving that? See answer below:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

The American people are being betrayed by "the Fourth Estate." It is time for The People to take back their country from the liberal media.

Again, that's why I'm running for President. The American People deserve better. The American People deserve respect and integrity.

Aloha.

Disrespect - Updated

2008-07-25T11:17:00.007-05:00

Update at bottom.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrespect

Disrespect

Main Entry:
1dis·re·spect :
\ˌdis-ri-ˈspekt\
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1614

1 : to have disrespect for 2 : to show or express disrespect or contempt for : insult, dis

The below story is from this link: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/obama-cancels-visit-to-us-troops-in-germany/

Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the Illinois senator opted not to visit U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany because it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported earlier that Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, and the Ramstein Air Base.

The report came as Obama prepared to speak to thousands at a high-profile address in Berlin.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement saying Obama originally wanted to visit troops at Landstuhl to “express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice,” and noted that he already visited troops in Iraq while he was part of an official congressional delegation.

But he said the second leg of Obama’s trip was different.

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” Gibbs said.

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

He has time to make speeches to the world and "shoot hoops", but he doesn't have time to stop by and say "thank you" to men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend him (and everyone else in the nation). Disrespect.

Here's another take, from someone who was at an air base in Iraq when Sen. Obama visited: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/more-witness-em.html. Again, disrespect.

UPDATE: New story released by ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5449455&page=1. Now it is the military's fault he didn't visit? Complete disrespect.

Aloha.

New Video

2008-07-16T14:03:00.001-05:00

This is why I think my Presidential campaign for 2012 has a real chance:

http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/if47MpmmhEth8v7m

People are fed up with all professional politicians.

Aloha.

Iran - again

2008-07-11T05:06:00.002-05:00

Example of economic/information warfare through proxy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380324,00.html

Example of information warfare:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

Saddam did the same thing. Neither country has/had the military to back it up.

As I believe I have blogged before, thank goodness Israel will take their nuke potential out soon. Then the shooting war starts. However, the shooting part should be over quickly.

Aloha.

Presidential Movement

2008-07-07T08:46:00.003-05:00

First, let me state, this is not accurate/real.

Second, this is so cool. Check this out:

Finally, thanks to Topher for the info.

Aloha.

Presidential Issue - Budget

2008-07-05T14:05:00.002-05:00

Just like any other organization or person, the United States of America collects and spends money. The United States budget is prepared by the Office of Management and Budget and submitted to Congress. Congress then makes changes to the budget. If you would like more detail on the process, please follow the below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

When the government takes in more than it spends, we call that a "balanced budget". When the government spends more than it takes in, we call that "operating at a deficit". Not too complex.

To be fiscally responsible, the government should have a balanced budget. Just like a family, the government can borrow money. However, also just like a family, the government has to pay interest on the money borrowed. So, the government wants to avoid debt. However, the United States government is currently (according to my best numbers) approximately $9 trillion ($9,000,000,000,000) in debt. Wow. A lot of zeros. In 2003, $318,000,000,000 was spent on interest payments alone. Still, a lot of zeros.

On top of the explicit debt, there are other financial problems that need to be dealt with. The ones that concern me most are Medicare and Social Security. Some have described Social Security as a "pyramid scheme". I believe that description is close. Here's how it works: The government collects money from workers. It then promises to return money to those workers when they reach the age of retirement. Sounds simple. If it is so simple, why do we keep hearing debate about "when Social Security will run out of money"? Why are the best current estimates that Social Security will run out of money in 2041? Unfortunately, Medicare will also run out of money in 2019. This can be chalked up to the fact that the government takes the money it gets from you and sticks it in the general fund. Then, it pays out benefits from the general fund. So, they talk about "having money" when they are taking in more money than they are paying out. However, there is no saved money. The money you paid in was used to pay out to others that were then collecting Social Security, or to prop up the general fund. So, the money you put in is gone.

So, we have an even larger problem than the current deficit would indicate, because in the relatively near future (11 - 33 years) we have other obligations that will add to the federal debt.

Basically, we are in a very bad financial situation. We need to begin solving it soon, before it gets more out of control than it already is. While we can't cut enough or generate enough new revenue to change this situation overnight, we need to start turning the ship.

I don't have details on the federal budget. I don't know how long it will take to get the federal government a balanced budget. I don't know how long it will take to develop alternatives to Social Security and Medicare (whether those alternatives are alternative funding or alternative plans, I don't know). However, I do know that the longer we operate with poor financial planning (the kind that would make the average citizen eventually file bankruptcy) , the more difficult it will be to correct and the more likely we are to run into a financial crisis.

End.

Presidential Issue - Abortion

2008-07-04T14:59:00.002-05:00

The issue of abortion has divided this nation for well over 3 decades. While one can site the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, the debate over abortion preceded this ruling.

We can argue, as the Court did, over a "right to privacy". I will not. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a specific "right to privacy" outlined. When it comes down to it, any right to privacy that one can conjure up in the Constitution would never prevent a state from enacting drug laws, abuse laws, or any other laws due to a "right to privacy." There are a number of laws that restrict what citizens can do, even in their own home. For example, I cannot purchase a machine gun and keep it in my home. The "right to privacy" argument would just as logically apply to this example as to abortion.

However, I want to discuss the key issue: Who is a person? The Supreme Court reviews various beliefs and historical laws regarding abortion. What they fail to notice is that, as the understanding of what the thing growing inside the mother is changes, the laws change. The more those making the laws believe the thing inside the mother is alive, the more forcefully the laws are written. Some laws call it a capital crime to perform an abortion. (Murder). So, the question of life and personhood is critical. Nowhere in the history is there a discussion of privacy. This make complete sense if you look at the act of abortion as one that could be murder (depending upon your definition of person).

To quote from the Roe v. Wade decision:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Translation: "No one knows, so we're not going to try to figure it out either." This thing inside the mother is, even by their arguments, POSSIBLY life. Estimates are that over 44 million abortions have happened in the United States since Roe v. Wade. Isn't it worth the effort to try to figure it out?

To see a graphical representation of the scale of abortions in this country, follow the following link: http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

We enact laws to restrict freedom with the view to ensure safety. We restrict freedom of those we acknowledge to be people to help "protect" them from bad decisions. Our police can stop someone for not wearing a seat belt. We enact laws to protect animals, things that we acknowledge clearly are NOT people. A woman cannot legally kill a robin in the state of Michigan, but a woman can abort the thing inside of her that is possibly alive. I fail to see the logic in arguing that the government has more interest in a bird than in a possible human life.

We even have laws that speak to the "personhood" of the thing inside a woman. If a pregnant woman is murdered, and the thing inside her dies, the person charged with murdering the mother will also be charged with murdering the child. How can you murder a non-human "thing"? Answer: You can't. You can only murder a person. These laws, when analyzed, seem to offer a contradiction. When the mother wants it, it is a person. When the mother doesn't, it is a thing that can be disposed of more easily than a state bird. The actual thing inside the mother did not change one bit. The concept that the wishes of the mother somehow make the thing inside her a person is ridiculous.

So, is the "fetus" a person? We know "at this point in the development of man's knowledge" that a fetus has all of the necessary genetics to be a human being. We know that one clear differentiator between us and animals is genetic. One can clearly see genetically that the thing inside a mother will be a person, and not something else, such as a dog or rabbit. Unless someone unnaturally or something naturally terminates the pregnancy before delivery, the fetus will be born and be recognized by everyone as a person. While there may have been a question in the past on what that thing inside a mother is, that question can easily be answered today: That "thing" is a pre-born human being (person). Any other answer is a lie.

As I have said, I will not lie to you. That "thing" inside a woman is alive. It is a human being. Therefore, that "thing" is a person, entitled to any and all protection under the law. Any other philosophy exists simply to remove natural consequences for actions. At the cost of a human life, a tragically high cost to free one from responsibility.

Abortion should be as illegal as murder, as a person's life is ending against its will.

End.

Presidential Issues

2008-07-04T12:11:00.003-05:00

Below is a list of issues I plan on discussing in more depth:

Abortion
Budget and Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy and Oil
Environment
Families and Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure and Technology
Jobs
Military
Principles and Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War and Peace
War on Terror
Welfare and Poverty

Please let me know if there are other issues you would like me to discuss.

Aloha.

Quote

2008-07-03T13:55:00.002-05:00

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful." - C.S. Lewis

I would add that we question the nature of truth and are shocked to find that we have been lied to.

Aloha.

Presidential Question

2008-07-02T19:17:00.003-05:00

Here is a question I received from a supporter:

"Okay, I've got a question for you.

How much sense does it really make to base your presidential vote on whether or not the candidate supports abortion?

It seems to me that the president doesn't have a whole lot of effect on the issue since he can't really change the laws and that the vote might be better spent on issues for which the president is directly responsible.

I know that the president can certainly affect legislation, encourage or discourage it, and veto it, but apart from nominating Supreme Court justices, there doesn't seem much that the president can do with regard to moral issues."

I do not recommend being a one issue voter. While I feel very passionately about the issue of abortion, there are many other life and death issues a President will face besides abortion. With that said, this is life and death of babies on an enormous scale. I will be the first candidate who could have been legally killed before I was ever born. Again, I feel very passionately about this issue. But, again, the President faces many life and death issues.

The official role of the President is clearly outlined in the Constitution. In the negative, the President does not propose laws and the President does not rule on the Constitutionality of those laws. The President does have command of the military, signs or vetoes bills, appoints Cabinet members, grants pardons, plays a role in treaties, and appoints judges among other duties.

The most important function of the President at this time is his/her role as leader of the United States of America. While one may look at the official list of functions outlined by the Constitution and question the importance of the position, the true importance and power of the position is in its role as this nation's leader. Leaders set vision, set the agenda and set the tone of the discussions that happen over the issues.

Our government is designed to divide powers between the branches. Very few powers are reserved for one branch exclusively. The President appoints judges, the Legislative branch confirms them. The President signs or vetoes bills, but the Legislative branch sends the bills in the first place and can override a veto.

What this means is that, to effect change in our nation, there needs to be a certain amount of agreement between the three branches of government. So, what does this mean to the voter?

Voters are farthest away from the selection of Supreme Court Justices. Voters select a President, who nominates Justices and Congress confirms the Justices.

Due to the numbers of Senators and Representatives, an individual voter selects only 2 out of 100 Senators and only 1 out of 435 Representatives. That equals about 1/2 of 1% of the Legislative branch.

However, each voter gets to cast a vote for the President of the United States (I won't go into detail on the whole elector deal).

So, in direct response to the question, the President gets to set vision and lead the nation, would have the power to sign or veto legislation if a pro-life Congress passed such legislation, and nominates Justices who could rule on the issue of abortion. In essence, this is very similar to what was stated in the question. However, the importance of these powers/responsibilities of the President are such that no other person can execute them. I typically will not vote for a candidate that is pro-abortion. That candidate has, so far, always shared many other views which I do not agree with. This has made my decision simpler.

In general, you should vote for someone who you believe will make the best decisions for the nation. That's where my candidacy gains momentum. Most politicians today are concerned about their political career, their pay, their friends. I am running for President not because I feel that I am special and deserve power. I am running for President because the role of President (and any leadership role) should be filled by someone who understands and tries to live out the concept of selfless service. The President needs to make decisions on what is best for the nation, not what is best for himself/herself, for the party, for my "rich friends" (republicans), or for "those stupid poor people" (democrats).

As I run my campaign, I will not lie to you. I will state my positions as clearly as I can, and stick to them, unless I come to believe differently. If that happens, I will explain why that has happened clearly. I won't simply go "middle of the road" with my positions so that I can waffle on them later. My goal isn't to make myself look good or woo you to vote for me. I will tell you what I believe and I expect you to vote for me because you believe I will make the best President out of the available candidates. I think the most fundamental questions you must ask of any candidate is "Do I trust him/her? Can I believe what he/she says?" Without trust, all else is meaningless.

Aloha.

Nerd Test

2008-06-30T11:53:00.002-05:00

I think one of the prerequisites for President of the United States should be that he/she should be a nerd. Here is my score:

I took this test after one of my friends did. For the record, I did not lie on this test. I beat this nerdy person soundly, which makes me wonder.

Aloha.

Presidential Election 2012

2008-06-18T22:05:00.003-05:00

The Presidential Election in 2012 happens on Nov 6. That means there are only 1601 days left until the election and there is a lot of work to do.

Here is a link to a countdown clock:

Presidential Election 2012 Countdown Clock

Please, help me stay focused and win the Presidency in just 1601 days.

Aloha.

The Reason Why Good People Should Carry

2008-06-17T20:19:00.002-05:00

The situation described is horrible. I had heard about it before, but this is a good tie-in.

http://op-for.com/2008/06/the_reason_why_good_people_sho.html

This is one of the reasons why I support citizens, with proper training and character assessment (background check and mental health check), carrying weapons.

I am going to make it a priority to get my CCW (or CPL) permit very soon.

Citizens should not rely on the government for all protection. Police cannot be everywhere. People need to take personal responsibility for their own protection. Then, the legal system needs to ensure that people are not persecuted for protecting themselves. The legal system needs to reasonably examine every shooting, and possibly prosecute, but not persecute.

Aloha.

More Responses

2008-06-15T14:35:00.003-05:00

At 6:57 AM, Blogger Cherith said...

I have been silently watching this dialogue develop and I was wondering . . . isn't running for president something you should discuss with your wife before announcing it to the world?

Typically, it would be. However, I am a long shot, to say the least. If it all ends up working out, I know my wife will support me. If not, no big deal. I don't plan on "quitting my day job" to campaign or anything.

Also, I did have a couple of questions about your platform . . . what is your view on all the money NASA spends on space? Please address the distinctions between value of exploring vs. the panic to find a way to make Mars habitable in case the world faces imminent destruction. How does this fit in with your world view?

I think when it comes to the destruction of the Earth it will be at the hand of God. It doesn't matter what planet anyone is on when that happens. If God wants humanity destroyed, it is gone. We can't "run from God".

I think there could be value in exploring. There are mineral resources on other celestial bodies and, of course, there is the necessity to militarize space. If we don't militarize, someone else will. (If they haven't already.) So, space is important to me, but not at the "this is the only hope long-term human survival has" kind of level. More at the "this is how we keep the Chinese and Russians from militarizing space and mining Mars first" level.

. . . Could you expand a little on your immigration policy? We are a nation founded by immigrants . . . not that we just let them flow in illegally and wreak havoc on our economy, but what about reviewing the laws and policies to see if they are fair about who they let in or do they naturally weed out the most desperate just because of the "hoops" they have to jump through?

Well, we didn't really immigrate...really we invaded. And, it depends on who "we" is, because some of my ancestors were the invaders and some were the invaded. Anyway, however we put it, this land was conquered. The United States of America currently controls it. I think it is important to review who we let in and in what numbers. One important thing to do, however, is to bring back our national identity. People would immigrate to the United States, and then be United States citizens. I, for instance, think of myself as a citizen of the United States. I don't think of myself as a German-American, Dutch-American, Native American, European-American or Scottish-American. I am an American. Part of the transition to this country was to build a stronger affiliation with the present country than the previous one.

Also, who do you give preferential treatment to? Most would agree to start with those being persecuted in foreign countries for fundamental American beliefs, such as freedom of religion. Beyond that, it gets complex. We cannot fix the world. That is also not any government's role.

. . . Could you also be more detailed about your views on oil and the spotted owl?

The point of the comment about oil and the spotted owl is that we need to realize that man is more important than any animal. I will not sacrifice a child for a dog and I will not sacrifice people (through conflict with oil rich nations) for the sake of a few spotted owls (or any other species). While we should never unnecessarily sacrifice any of the things God has given us to steward, we should not sacrifice people to only protect things.

At 9:09 AM, Blogger Joshua said...

You didn't talk to your wife about this campaign.

I hope you are not going to try and run with "Family Values" as a part of your platform.

The second line: Family Values are those values that support a family. I fully intend to support Family Values. I also believe that my concern over the value of my wife's opinion is more significant than any other candidate since Reagan. (Note the cheap political way I tied myself to a great conservative?)

Aloha.

Must Watch Video

2008-06-12T13:03:00.001-05:00

Go watch. Now. 13 minutes, but worth every minute.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?rsrcid=2036

Props to my friend Greg who found this.

Aloha.

Dan's Campaign Continues

2008-06-11T19:42:00.004-05:00

This video was sent by a friend who thought this might help my campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU&

Please read my response along side watching the video. They parallel each other. My response follows:

I'm voting democrat because I believe a free market economy is evil. Successful corporations and successful people are evil. Only "the people" are good. Communism is the only way to go.

I'm voting democrat because I believe there is some magic cure that can be found immediately if only the federal government taxes me more and gives that money to any crackpot who has a crazy idea.

I'm voting democrat because, again, I believe a free market economy is evil. Communism is the only way to go. Drug companies are evil too. They don't gain anything if people live.

I'm voting democrat because I believe the federal government can do a better job educating my child than I can. I am also against charter schools, where class sizes can be reduced dramatically. (By the way, the teacher's unions who thrive on 35-to-1 classroom rations and no accountability are voting democrat too.)

I'm voting democrat because I believe that, even though that thing in a woman could be nothing else other than a person, it is inconvenient to me. So let's kill it. Then do it again. It is fun.

I'm voting democrat because I believe that drastically limiting supply we can use domestically is somehow saving the environment. And democrats hate nuclear energy, the cleanest form of energy on the planet today.

I'm voting democrat because I believe judges should make laws. To Hell with the Constitution and separation of powers. (By the way, Republicans hate black people and are racist...right?)

I'm voting democrat because I believe homosexuals are better than heterosexuals. Morals...who needs those? A hetero couple shacks up...no benefits. A homo couple shacks up and pretends its serious and...poof...benefits.

I'm voting democrat because I believe whatever the government touches gets better, not worse. The world has gotten cleaner since the EPA began. (Please forget that in the 70's when the EPA began, we were worried about global cooling and not global warming.) FYI, birthday of EPA is Dec 2, 1970. See, the world is much better environmentally than in the 70's.

I'm voting democrat because I believe again, big corporations are inherently evil. It doesn't matter if new technology is safe or not. I'm afraid and I need the perfect government to protect me. The government can fix everything.

I'm voting democrat because I believe (did I mention big corporations are inherently evil?) Ignore the fact that the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do. Republicans put minorities in prison, not the entitlement mentality that democrats provide. Hybrids have more CO2 footprint than that used SUV (check Wired Mag latest issue). The perfect government can give health care to all (just look at the success of the Soviet Union and the long lines in Canada). Again, big corporations and successful people are evil. And I don't understand the Constitution. I believe the whole world should be run by one big government. Because we should do anything for the sake of peace, even facilitate genocide. Ditto. Ditto.

I'm voting democrat because they say they can do all of these things and only increase taxes a little. So what if "a little" is 98%.

Aloha

Responses

2008-06-10T10:10:00.002-05:00

Comment 1:

Close minded
Right winged
Gun tooting
Militaristic
Disillusioned realist (You think you are a realist but you really aren't.)
B---tard

I agree with all of that, except disillusioned. Delusional realist perhaps, but not disillusioned. I take the final comment in the spirit intended. :-)

I am glad to see that a former colleague is keeping up with my blog.

Comment 2:

I think a cabinet should heavily influence a President. One person cannot be an expert on every topic necessary to lead this nation. Indeed, one person cannot even devote the necessary time to be personally adequately informed about every topic. Therefore, the President needs to rely on people he/she trusts to filter out information and present the important decision factors to the President. Top CEOs function the same way. However, the problem that usually occurs for the President is that he/she puts people in place, not because of their critical thinking skills, but because of personal relationships. Both are critical to advising a President. The President has to trust the cabinet and the cabinet needs to be able to filter and report on information to the President after using some of that critical thinking.

Are there some situations where the President should be the primary filter and "decider"? Absolutely. However, due to time limitations, these items need to be chosen carefully. War and disaster relief would be two examples.

Aloha.

Interested?

2008-06-06T22:50:00.001-05:00

I asked for questions about my political stance previously. Do you already know what I think or are you simply not interested? If not interested, what are you interested in?

Aloha.

Obama Update #2

2008-05-31T18:39:00.003-05:00

Obama has decided that his church is causing him political problems, so he resigned his membership.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/

I am under-freaking-whelmed.

The point is he has been a member of a radical church for 20 years. It is so radical, even he knows that the future President of the United States shouldn't belong to that church.

Only problem...the future President of the United States should never have been a member of that church for 20 years.

Hello. Get a clue. WAY TOO LATE.

First he was a member. Then someone thought that pastor was crazy. So, Obama defended his past pastor. Then a bunch of people thought that pastor was crazy. So, Obama said he didn't share his pastor's views. Then everyone thought his pastor was crazy. So, Obama distanced himself from his former pastor. Then everyone thought his whole church was crazy. So, Obama decided to leave the church.

Get a backbone and do what is right in the first place, not just because you got caught. If my kids do that they get punished...as should Obama. To be clear, punish him by not electing him.

Aloha.

Obama update

2008-05-30T08:48:00.003-05:00

This picture gets me:

The white priest holding the "ban assault weapons" placard, standing next to Rev. Jesse Jackson, is the priest who spoke in Obama's church last weekend. His name is Rev. Michael Pfleger. According to CNN, Obama has known him for 20 years.

Obama, the self-billed "unifier".

Let's play a little Karnak.

Answer: Assault weapons bans, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the speach (note, I didn't say sermon) Rev. Pfleger gave in Obama's church on Sunday.

Question: Name three things that are divisive.

Wow.

Aloha.

Big Announcement

2008-05-29T21:40:00.002-05:00

I am very pleased to announce that I will be running for President of the United States in 2012.

My motivation is simple: I have reached my limit with today's politicians. There is no limit to the immoral, selfish, and dishonest ends politicians will go to in order to win an election. I will not take any more.

Here is my platform: I will always tell the truth, even if it hurts my campaign. Is the reporter that looks like she hit every branch on the ugly tree on her fall out of it asking me if she is ugly? My response: Your face makes small children run away in fear.

What do I think about abortion? It kills a human being and is evil.

What about the war in Iraq? Our intel was screwed up and we went in when we probably didn't need to. With that said, I think we should continue to kick a** and take names. In 5-10 years, Iraq can stand on its own two feet.

What about Iran? Not to worry. Israel will take their nukes out before we have a chance to. One Israeli has more juevos than every politician in the U.S. Why would they? They understand what we don't: Five minutes after Iran has nukes, they will use them on Israel, then smuggle them into U.S. and use them here.

What about gas prices? Big oil is making too much money on it, oil futures people are making too much, OPEC is making too much. Let's cut them all out of the loop by finally making it a national priority to get rid of the internal combustion engine. Let's get this done in the next 10 years (2018). Once out of the loop, let's ensure we never help them with anything ever again, unless we "help them" like they are helping us now.

What about the economy? Vocabulary word for the day...tariff. Tax crap coming into the country. This will encourage things to start in this country. Once we have stuff made here, we have jobs. Too easy.

What about taxes? Flat tax. Everyone pays the same percentage. Deductions are only used to encourage good behavior, like giving to charitable organizations and raising children.

Illegal immigration? Again, too easy. First word is illegal. Anyone here illegally gets a 1-way ticket back home. They come back, they go to jail. Not nice jail, but Gitmo or crazy Arizona sheriff kind of jail. Hard labor. Oh yeah, and instead of breaking rocks, they pick crops.

2nd Amendment? Someone wants a gun, allow its expense to be deducted from taxes. CCW? Follow Michigan's lead and do the same thing nation wide. Guess what, no more Virginia Techs. One crazy person with gun gets shot by 20 sane people with guns. Woo Hoo.

Environment? We are put on this earth by God and expected to be good stewards. We should live up to that expectation. Does that mean the spotted owl overrules the needs of the nation. Not a chance.

Gay marriage? If gays want something like heterosexual marriage, that's fine with me. They just need to call it something else, like "Gay hooking up." It will come with no privileges, without the ability to adopt children, and with no special standing in society. The word marriage is already taken by heteros. You don't like it, too bad.

Mass media? They are protected, but we will federally subsidize any mass media outlet that drops opinion and starts reporting facts. On day one the cost of this program will be $0.

Military? Double its size now. Also, you don't win wars by defense. Department of Defense goes back to War Department. When we determine someone is a threat, we attack and destroy. As I read earlier today "a dead tango is significantly less trouble than a live one." Also, bypass the whole "augment a person" technology and go straight to having 18 year olds sit at home and "play X-box" with non-AI T-100s. Total casualties = 0. Plus, how bad does it have to suck to go up against a killing machine operated by someone half a world away.

I will post later on cabinet appointees and other topics.

Please post questions for me to answer regarding policy. Also, please start spreading the word. 2012 is coming sooner than you would expect.

Aloha.

Obama = racist

2008-05-29T18:52:00.001-05:00

Is anyone surprised by this title? If so, where have you been? He's also anti-American.

New story:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/29/at-obamas-church-chicago-minister-says-clinton-felt-white-entitlement/

This goes on top of Rev. Wright, comments about Pennsylvanians "clinging to their guns and religion", his wife never being proud of America, he associates with terrorists (Bill Ayers) and the list goes on.

If he was white and associating with people saying correspondingly horrible things about African Americans or any other minority, he wouldn't last 5 minutes in the public eye. He would be shunned by all who ever heard his name. But, since he is racist against white people, it is OK with MSM (main stream media).

Aloha.

Making Renewable, Carbon-Neutral Oil - From Algae

2008-05-29T18:22:00.003-05:00

This ROCKS!

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/making-renewabl.html

I can't wait for this. Then we can forget the acronym OPEC and stop funding terrorism.

Aloha.

Good National Guard video

2008-05-19T13:22:00.001-05:00

If you ever wondered what a typical RSP/RSB weekend is like, check out this video. The reporter did a good job with this story.

http://op-for.com/2008/05/pretty_good_national_guard_vid.html

Aloha.

Iron Man

2008-05-17T16:07:00.002-05:00

Last Wednesday, my wife and I had my dad watch the girls while we went out to the movies, some light shopping and supper. It was a wonderful time. As is probably typical of a couple with small children, we don't get out often. So this was (again) wonderful.

We went to see Iron Man. I have nothing bad to say about the movie and plenty of good things.

First, they did a good job of modernizing the movie without rewriting the basics of the character. In fact, the story became more believable because of the modernization.

Second, Robert Downey Jr. is the perfect actor to portray Tony Stark. He is very intelligent but troubled. He definitely lived the "playboy" lifestyle. It is like Woody Allen playing a crazy person, OJ Simpson playing a murderer or Rev. Wright playing a racist.

Third, the supporting cast was spectacular. They played their roles well and it seemed natural.

Finally, the evolution of the story and character were superb. It was believable. You could really see this happening today.

I would highly recommend this film.

Aloha.