Flipside Show Blog

Is The Obama Administration Trying To Destroy Toyota?

2010-02-18T01:33:00Z

I am not a conspiracy nut. I generally don’t believe in conspiracies whether it’s a cover-up of aliens in Roswell, the tri-lateral commission, skulls and bones, multiple shooters in the Kennedy assassination, or that the U.S. government destroyed the twin towers on 9-11-2001.

And I am not saying that I am convinced the Obama administration has decided to destroy Toyota. But I am wondering—am I the only one thinking that it is at least possible that the crisis at Toyota has been caused by the Obama administration and the Democrat congress? Why would I consider such a possibility?

Well, think about it. Obama has not only taken over banks and targeted Wall Street, bankers, Insurance Companies, the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, the Small Business Administration, Oil and Gas companies, manufacturing, and the gun industry. They also have targeted the auto industry and have seized 60% ownership of General Motors.

And as a result of Obama bailing out GM with taxes confiscated from American workers (and our descendents), countless Americans have sworn off ever again buying GM products. Not only this, but the Obama administration bought the support of unions by committing themselves to empowering unions even to the point of making labor votes on whether to unionize public so that unions can threaten, and do, violence against any worker (and his family) who dares vote against unionization.

So, there clearly is no moral or constitutional limit to what the Obama administration will do in order to get their way. Why on earth would anyone think them above using the power of government to gin up a crisis at Toyota and its non-union plants in Texas and Tennessee, the number one car seller in America, in order to turn auto buyers back to GM and GM’s unionized shops in Michigan? Just this week, Toyota’s Tundra has been added to the recall list, thus lowering demand and production at Toyota’s Tundra plants in San Antonio and South Carolina.

On top of this, GM (run by administration appointed executives) has just decided to close their plant in right to work Tennessee and to move the jobs and production to a unionized GM plant in Michigan.

Is the administration behind the plethora of recalls at Toyota? I do not know. If they are, it has been very effective as GM is back on top as the number one auto seller in America, having bumped Toyota out of that position. So, shouldn’t the government controlled mainstream media at least be curious enough about the possibility that the administration has targeted Toyota for them to be asking some questions in this regard?

Don Crawford, 2/17/10

Evidence For God In The Location of Earth Within the Universe and The Milky Way Galaxy

2009-06-24T17:29:00Z

I am thankful for God’s placing our earth exactly at the best place in the universe, galaxy, and solar system for intelligent life such as humanity to survive, thrive, and to be able to see and understand the universe. For instance, if our earth and solar system were closer to the middle of the Milky Way galaxy (or any galaxy), lethal radiation from the black hole at the center of the galaxy, collisions with supernova remnants and gigantic stars--and the molecular clouds that would result, and the disturbance of the orbits of any planets in the vicinity that would result from the massive gravity of all of these phenomenon would make any advanced life impossible.

After neary 50 years of SETI research and the more recent Project Phoenix that has researched every star within 200 light years of earth that either has solar-like qualities or that includes known planets, none of them—not one—is able to support advanced life. Rather, contrary to the predictions of Carl Sagan, Enrico Fermi, and many other scientists, what has been discovered is more and more factors that seemingly make our planet’s position in our solar system, galaxy, super cluster, and universe completely unique in their ability to allow and provide for the existence of advanced life. . . more later.

These Stimulus Packages Are Destined To Fail Even Without The Pork

2009-02-10T19:34:00Z

The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Franz (boy, is that name predictive of his financial judgment) Geithner) is speaking in a press conference right now as I write this about the need for a trillion dollar "stimulus package, a package that the Senate will vote to pass in less than an hour even though it is still having pork barrel projects added to it, making it clear the Senate has not even read the thing and NO ONE including our Senators even knows half of what it contains, such as the fact that it sets up a government office that has to approve medical procedures before your doctor or a hospital can provide them to you.

And this is occurring just three months after our government decided to spend a trillion dollars on the Wall Street bail-out that was passed three months ago to "solve the financial crisis". Of course, that first bail out was to restore the economy, which has dropped precipitously by 40%, along with 3 million jobs being lost, since that obligation to American taxpayers was passed!

So, now we are told that this new trillion dollar boondoggle is absolutely necessary—immediately! And Geithner is telling us that another trillion dollars AFTER this one will be needed to bail out banks. And then there’s the bail out of auto makers. And there will be many more to come. The estimate right now, and the number is growing every day, of everything that is being planned "to save America’s economy" is a total of 9.6 trillion dollars. That is enough to pay off 80% of ALL THE HOME MORTGAGES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD!

The Power Force in Politics Today Is Not "Do It For The Children." Rather, it is "For Our Wants, Do It To Our Children and Their Children!"

Do you remember the hysteria a few years ago when the national debt reached 500 billion. Now we are talking about a national debt of 12 trillion dollars, eleven trillion of which will have been incurred by the Democrat controlled congress over a ninth month period that began three months ago.

There are many things that are troubling about this so called "Stimulus Package.

In this and entries to follow, I want to discuss five of those things that are particularly troubling about what is presently taking place in Washington:

(1) This contradicts all the economic reality evidenced in history,
(2) This destines our children and grandchildren to impoverishment and to a world in which America cannot provide security for either them or other free peoples in the world,
(3) This contradicts the laws not only of economics, but also the laws of nature, and it therefore is destined to failure, as any persistent behavior that is opposed to nature will ultimately have nature smack it down or smite it,
(4) This is the annihilation of worker’s rights, establishing that the government has all the rights and the workers exist and receive the rewards of their labor at the whim of the government, and
(5) This is the height of arrogance that this administration and congress can make an economic theory that has led to economic catastrophe and/or a totalitarian government every time it has been attempted. Their explanation for this is either that THEY are a lot smarter than all the other generations of political leaders who have attempted this approach to increasing prosperity or that all the prior attempts failed because they did not spend enough money that would indebt future generations.

So, first is the fact that those advocating that this boondoggle will help the economy either are deprived of a decent high school level education in economics or they are lying through their teeth. Either way, the reality of the total $ 9+ trillion that is the cost of all this pork barrel bribery of voters, bailouts of failed businesses, temporary make-work jobs, and socialist wish list programs that have been and are being passed by the previous and present Democrat controlled congress will not help the economy or jobs. Rather, it removes more than 9 trillion dollars from the productive free market and transfers it to the wasteful government sector which produces no wealth.

All the evidence of history shows that increased spending and taxing by government depresses an economy and jobs rather than helping. And all the evidence of history demonstrates that decreasing taxes and government control of the economy stimulates economic growth and jobs. This occurred in the 1920’s when, under the guidance of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, the Harding and Coolidge administered reduced the top tax rate of 73% three times until it was down to 25 %. Consequently, the economy grew by 59% from 1921 to 1929 with an annual growth rate of over 6%; tax revenues received by the government went up from $719 million in 1921 to $1,160 million in 1928; and the percentage of the tax burden paid by the rich rose from 44.2% to 78.4%.

These same three things—(1) increased economic health and prosperity, (2) real increase in tax revenues received by the government, and (3) the share of the federal budget carried by the wealthy--happen every time taxes and the size and control of government are reduced.

It happened during President Kennedy tax reductions in the first half of the ‘60’s bringing the optimum tax rate down from a high of 91% to 75%.

It happened in the 80’s when President Reagan reduced the optimum tax rate from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1988. This initiated 28 years of continuous growth in the American economy, the taxes received by government almost doubled, and the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy increased dramatically.

It happened in Ireland when they learned from America, and reduced their optimum tax rates by 12.5% in the 1990’s. The boom that resulted led to Ireland becoming known as the roaring tiger of Europe.

Also, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Eastern European nations that reduced their taxes very significantly saw the same result. Slovakia adopted a flat tax of 19% and the economic boom there is perhaps the greatest of all examples of all examples. As soon as Slovakia reduced their tax burden on the people, Slovakia became the Hong Kong of Europe in the first five years of the 21^{st century.

The same three results occurred in the first half of the 1990’s when New Zealand, which had a plummeting economy after decades of liberal economic policy, reduced taxes to an optimum 15% tax rate and reduced the size of government by 66%. The economic boom that resulted was in full effect within two years after the decrease in taxes and size of government went into effect.

This constant pattern occurs because wealth and money are mobile. Look at the states with the most government intervention in the free market and the highest taxes, California being the foremost example. It is about to fail economically and people, jobs, businesses, and capitol are fleeing the state. Like our major cities with socialist agendas and ever increasing taxes, California is becoming a state of less skilled people and an ever decreasing tax base.

Just think about it. If a man can run a company that produces a thousand widgets in CA for one million dollars, and he can produce the same 1,000 widgets in Alabama for $750 thousand dollars, where do you think he is going to build his factory? And if he can produce the same number and quality of widgets in Ireland or Slovakia for $500 thousand dollars, in which nation do you believe he will build his next plant? And why would you criticize this man for this. If you can buy a dress for $100 at XYZ clothiers, and you can buy the identical dress at Wal-Mart for $65, where do you shop? It seems clear by the explosion of Wal-Marts that occurred twenty years ago reveals the choice of most people, as does the more recent phenomenal growth of Home Depot and Lowe’s home improvement centers.

The Mobility of Money and Business From Nation To Nation Is Not A New Phenomenon in History!

From the time of the Roman Empire through the thirteenth century, Great Britain was the backwater of Europe culturally, in life-expectancy, educationally, technologically, and economically. However, in the 15th and 16th centuries this began to turn around. By the beginning of the 18th century, the technological revolution was transforming Britain so that it was exporting more produced goods than raw materials to the rest of the world.

This growth continued during the 18th century until Britain became the economic powerhouse of the world, becoming the world’s greatest exporter of major industrial products such as steam engines, trains, presses, ships, etc. to other nations across the earth. Then in two centuries Britain became the richest most powerful nation on earth. One of, if not the most important factor was London’s economic policy was so stable that merchants from all over the world trusted that their investments and money were safe there. So merchants from around the world began pouring money and investments into the British economy.

If you would like to read further on this phenomenon of the growth of British economic power, Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution at Stamford University documents it in his book, Conquest and Cultures, Chapter 2, "The British". In that chapter, Dr. Sowell describes many factors that contributed to this rapid economic growth, not the least of which was low taxes and stable economic policy that made the wealthy all over the world trust that they could safely build businesses and invest money in British banks without risk of the British government seizing their properties, or suddenly changing its monetary policies.}

But this all began to change in the latter part of the 18th century because of welfare programs through which the British starting taking more and more funds from wage earners and redistributing the wealth to non-workers. Benjamin Franklin while living in London as a representative of the Pennsylvania colony to the King of England (1764-75) wrote about the ever increasing welfare system that was developing in Britain. He believed at that time that it was already undermining incentive in British workers and weakening its economic strength so that America’s work ethic would ultimately lead to America surpassing Britain. This projection took a while to come to fruition, but in time it did occur.

That is precisely what has happened in America. For her first 143 years, America had a very stable economic policy and very limited taxes. Although she has continued to grow in prosperity and strength, circa 1933-36, the low taxes, free market, and stable economic policy that were the basis of her growth began to be undermined. So, now payday for using taxes and give-aways as the way to buy power from voters has come due as the ever increasing control by a bloated government and tax rates are driving investors, businesses, people, and prosperity to less expensive places in the world to do business. And the bailouts, stimulus packages, and plethora of new government programs will never stop it. They are the cause.

After showing the world how to prosper, we right now are living through the demolition of American greatness, prosperity, and economic health—and America’s security as well because security requires wealth (just ask the Soviet Union about this).

This Betrays Economic Principles Told To Elementary Aged Kids.

I remember as a primary school child hearing the story of the king who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. And at the time, I thought, "Why, that is so stupid that no one would ever be that dumb." Well, I was wrong. It is astoundingly stupid, but it is precisely what America is doing right now. And if we don’t stop it, America as a great nation will end, and with it our freedom and the freedom of many innocents in the world will be lost for generations to come, if not forever.

RE Abuse: The Five Supremes, the MSM, and the Left's Rampant Unreality, Absolutism, and Naiveté

2008-07-18T05:02:00Z

Remember on 9/11/01 the time period between the plane crashing into the 2^{nd tower and all passenger flights in the U.S. having been accounted for-- including the identifying of United flight 93’s crash site? It was during that terrifying interim that President Bush gave the Air Force permission to shoot down any unaccounted for aircraft that was approaching Washington, D.C., without responding to warnings.}

If United flight 93’s passengers had not fought back that day and the flight had reached Washington, and our Air Force had shot it down, would the President be guilty of crimes against humanity for killng the 40 innocent passengers? If not, why not?

Especially in light of the mainstream media and the radical left’s constant denials that moral absolutes exist, it has been astounding for me to watch their absolutist moral judgments of America, the President, and our military related to alleged abuse of and denial of habeas corpus for captured terrorist combatants. It seems that absolutism is verboten except when it comes to the U.S. military and the security of the free world.

This is not only sheer intellectual and moral absurdity, but furthermore is the suicidal ranting of autovorous, self-masticating, Western elites living in a psychological Utopian Oz totally unrelated to the real world. Such a Never-Never Land fantasy (or delusion?) has nothing to do with morality, for morality essentially has to do with ethical dilemmas that face real people in real life struggles in the real world.

What Are The Moral Realities Of The Real World?

First, in the real world, choices must be made between good and evil. For the sake of the secularists out there, let’s define "good" simply as "doing things that respect and preserve innocent persons’ rights to life, liberty, or property"; and let’s define "evil" simply as "doing things that rob innocent persons’ of those rights."

Second, in the real world, the use of physical force is amoral—the use of force is inherently neither moral nor immoral. Rather, the morality of force depends on whether it is used to do good or to do evil. To use force to respect or preserve innocent persons' rights is not only morally permissible, but in circumstances in which force is the only way to preserve innocent persons’ rights, force may be a moral necessity. On the other hand, to use force to do evil, to eviscerate an innocent person’s rights, is evil.

Third, in the real world, because of the perversity of evil and evil-doers, reality is that there are times when there is no good option available for good people. At times, the evil done by evil persons can limit the options available to good persons to only those that cause the loss of the rights to life, liberty, or property of some person(s).

One example is that of Nazi officers in WW II who were separating people to be loaded either into cars for concentration camps or cars for the ovens; and they would make a Jewish, Polish, or other unfavored woman choose from among her children one who would live while the others would die. If a woman refused to make the choice, all the children would be killed before her eyes.

So, the mother with indescribable horror of soul, picked her child that she thought had the best chance of surviving the camps as the one who should live. She did so with wretched horror, knowing that the moral choice--when there was no good choice available--was to make the least evil choice available was to allow at least one of her children to have life rather than having all of them killed.

Another example is our soldiers in wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere who are confronted with a child on whom terrorists have strapped a bomb and then have made the child approach the soldiers’ position where the terrorists will explode the bomb, killing the child, the troops, and any innocent civilians near the troops. So, do our soldiers shoot the child before she gets to their position?

A decent soldier (or a non-combatant facing this situation) has no good choice. All he has are horrific alternatives all of which lead to some innocent(s) dying. So, in the real world, as unimaginable and soul-wrenching as it is to all of us who are protected from such choices by our soldiers, the soldier must make a moral decision that the least evil thing be done—either that the innocent child must die or that the child plus a number of other innocents die (by his bullet, but not by his hand—it is the barbarian who created this evil situation specifically to use the decency of our soldiers as a psychological weapon against them.

The problem is most of us in our society cannot fathom this kind of evil, but it is a reality in the real world. There are real people who are so evil that they use the decency of good people as a weapon to defeat them, to defeat us. When they do so, all we as decent people can do is to choose the lesser evil. To refuse to choose is to make a choice.

This is why police exist and have weapons. This is why we have the second ammendment. This is why our Declaration of Independence was written. It is why we we have an armed military, fight wars, and have nuclear weapons. All these things acknowledge the reality that at times we can only choose the least evil alternative from among a number of evil options.

With this reality in mind, let’s return to our original questions about United Flight 93 on 9/11.

Imagine for a moment two alternative scenarios about that day.

Scenario 1 -- What if a Special Forces or CIA officer had been on that flight and had been ordered by the President to kill the perpetrators and rescue the passengers? Would the President or the agent be tried for war crimes? If not, why not?

Scenario 2 -- What if a government agent had learned of the plot ahead of time, captured one of the perpetrators and learned of the plan, but the captive has refused to give the flight numbers? Would it be a war crime for the agent to abuse the captive or for the President to approve the agent doing so?

For clarity concerning these questions, let’s use these three definitions of terms:

(1) harassment is engaging in acts (the sole purpose of which is to obtain information that would enable good people to stop a current or imminent attack against innocent civilians or combatants who are defending innocent civilians) that may cause the victim emotional or physical discomfort, but which cause the victim neither severe pain nor any physical injuries.

(2) Abuse is engaging in activities (the sole purpose of which is to obtain information that would enable good people to stop a current or imminent attack against innocent civilians or combatants who are defending innocent civilians), which activities result in the victim receiving only temporary pain (the painful activity ends at least as soon as the immediate threat has concluded AND the pain does not endure beyond 15 minutes after the cessation of the activity) and/or only superficial injuries.

(3) torture is to engage in activities that cause prolonged pain or injuries that persist significantly beyond the conclusion of the known imminent threat OR a pattern of repeated abusive activities occurring over an extended period of time unrelated to any known, specific threat.

Based on these definitions, in Scenario 2, would it be a war crime for the agent to engage in harassment or abuse (but not torture) to gain the information required to save the lives of 40 innocent passengers? Whether or not it is a crime, should the agent do so anyway?

Scenario 3 – Suppose it is not just passengers on Flight 93 that are threatened, but a large cruise ship with hundreds of passengers controlled by terrorists and a large dirty bomb or nuclear weapon on board. The agent has learned from the captive terrorist that the ship is going to enter New York City’s harbor and then detonate the bomb. Would it be moral for our agent to harass and abuse (not torture) one or more captives in order to discover what ship will carry the terrorists into the port of our greatest city and annihilate so many innocents that it would make 9/11 seem trivial in comparison? If it is moral for the agent to do so (or even monstrously immoral to refuse to do so), should it be a crime? And if so, why would it not be a crime to shoot down a flight with 40 innocents on board as the lesser evil, but it would be a crime to torture rather than kill the evil perpetrators?

Scenario 4 – This is the same as scenario 3, with two exceptions. First, you are the agent involved. Second, your wife, children, entire extended family, and most of your friends live in the New York City area. You know that if you don’t get the necessary information in the next 24 hours, many of them will die immediately—along with 100’s of thousands of others—with several times as many dying slow, excruciatingly painful deaths.

What would you do? What is moral for you to do? If you do that, should you be a criminal under federal or international law? Should you be a hero whose action saved millions of lives and yet, for the same decision, be legally charged for horrific crimes against humanity?

If your answers concerning the morality of the decision differ from your answers about what the laws should be related to this decision, then you are in the curious position of saying that those who risk their lives to protect the rest of us and who face the psychological burden of making such horrific choices should have the additional burden placed upon them of having to choose between doing what is right and humane or doing the the thing that keeps them out of criminal trouble. I ask you, "Is it just possibly immoral for us to put those who lay down their lives in order to do good, i.e., to fight to protect the lives, liberty, and property of innocents from evil aggressors, in the position of having to make such an untenable choice?"

I believe such unrealistic condemnation of all harassment and abuse as being war crimes is not merely incredibly naive, but is delusional to the point of psychosis, is despicably evil, and most importantly, is flagrantly dangerous for free peoples when we are at war for our survival against monstrously barbarous totalitarian fascists. Rather than attacking and interrogating our soldiers and security forces, we the people need to begin interrogating our politicians, prosecutors, judges who take these positions and annulling the powers that we the people bestowed upon them for the principle purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

don – 7/17/08

CA Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D)Gives“Iran’s Desire For Peace” Credit For The Achievement Of Our Troops

2008-06-03T17:02:00Z

If you love America or care about the future security of your family or nation, and you haven’t seen the video of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s 80-minute interview last Thursday, with reporters and members of the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, you have to do so.

Since most people do not have time, or the patience, to sit through an 80-minute interview of Nancy Pelosi (unless you like watching grass grow), Media Research Center has gratefully edited out her statements made at the 62-minute mark of the interview when she credits the recent downturn in violence in Iraq--which actually indicates according to Al Qaeda’s own appraisal that they have lost in Iraq--to the efforts of Iran and their President "I’m mad and all in a wad" to negotiate peace there. She

These people who are the leaders of the Despotcratic Party simply are children who are not serious about our security and cannot be trusted with control of the U.S. military—the greatest demonstration of our love not only for our own people, but for the people of the world because the arrival of our troops on any scene IS the arrival of freedom! But the Democrats rather give credit for peace to Totalitarian terrorists than give credit to our troops who purchase freedom with their blood, sweat and tears.

To hear Nancy, the "Wicked Witch of the West’s, comments without having to hear the entire 80 minute interview, go to MRC’s humorous website, Newsbusters, click here. If you care about our troop, however, you may want to take a sedative first.

And you may want to contact CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT’s, LATimes, and Fox to find out why they have not been willing to play this clip. Why is Media Research Center (MRC.org and their Newsbusters site having to make it available. AMAZING!

HOMOSEXUALITY # 2: Obama Advocates A Dangerous Position

2008-06-03T16:57:00Z

Of course, all of the concern with Obama’s misstatements and factual errors (see my previous entry) is of great concern. But even of greater concern are the extremely radical leftist positions of Obama of which he is clear, uncompromising, unrelenting, and unapologetic, but about which the mainstream media does no reporting and asks no questions—positions that would alienate many Americans including many Democrats and many African Americans.

These controversial positions include full term abortions (the murdering a children while they are being born), the dismantling of America’s ability to defend itself from terrorist and totalitarian states who are rapidly growing super power military status to use against us, and his commitment to a radical "gay" agenda including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which will result in gay marriage as the law of the land.

If you believe I am overstating Obama’s positions, go to his web site at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf (There you can also use the link his site provides to be able to: Speak up. Tell Barack your story at: www.BarackObama.com/issues or by calling 312-496-6614 ). Obama’s position on homosexual activism is under the heading at his website, Barack Obama supports the LGBT community. LGBT, in case you don’t know, refers to the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Trans-sexual (or trans-gender) community.

The various sub-sections of Obama’s positions on homosexuality that are then discussed are: Expand Hate Crimes Statutes; Fight Workplace Discrimination and Promote Rights (under this heading, the website notes: Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity); Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples; Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage; Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell; Fight AIDS Worldwide (including the U.S. giving billions and billions of U.S. dollars to other nations to fight AIDS).

Furthermore, just on May 20, Obama on the campaign trail called for the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This came the week after the California Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage in CA, as well as a similar 2003 decision by the high court of Massachusetts, would have the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

This is because without DOMA, the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution, requires every state to recognize "the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This is why a marriage, divorce, warrant, or indictment (as a few examples) of every other state.

However, because of the growing controversy over homosexual marriages and the momentum for a constitutional amendment restricting the definition of marriage to monogamous heterosexual union, congress as a stop gap measure passed the Defense of Marriage Act which protects states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states, and President Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996.

But now the CA court’s ruling, which threw out the definition of marriage passed overwhelmingly by the people of CA as a CA proposition, and Obama’s stated desire to completely repeal DOMA, have cast the issue back to the forefront and illustrated the need for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage.

His stated desire one asks? Yes. Actually, more than one Democrat has sought to divert the issue by questioning that Obama has called for the repeal of DOMA. Cybercast News Service (www.cnsnews.com) reports:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is from one of the two states where same-sex marriage has been declared a right, told Cybercast News Service that she was not aware of Obama's call to repeal DOMA. "I have not talked to Sen. Obama about that. I have not heard anything about that," she said. "I did not vote for DOMA in the first place. I voted against it, and I don't know anything about this."

Boxer also asked Cybercast News Service to provide her staff with proof that Obama holds this position. "I would like to see it," she said. "I would be very interested in seeing it. Please provide me with the documentation."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) also told Cybercast News Service he was unaware of Obama's position on DOMA. "I haven't heard him say that," he said.

Only Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would support Obama in such a plan. "Yes, I would," she said.

Well, since they asked, the evidence is easy to find if anyone looks at all. His web site states:

"Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions".

The equating of homosexual unions is a horribly destructive plan for the welfare of individuals and for our culture as a whole—even though homosexuals should be accorded the same basic rights endowed by our Creator. Why is it a destructive plan, and why is homosexual marriage not one of the basic rights endowed to all humans precisely because all humans are created equally in the image of God? That is the subject of the next seven entries I will make on the subject of homosexuality:

3-PC Myth 1—Homosexuals Are Happy; Homosexuality Is Healthy

4 PC Myth 2--Homosexuality Is Normal

5 PC Myth 3--Homosexuality Is Genetically Based

6- PC Myth 4--Homosexuality Is Not Treatable

7- PC Myth 5—Jesus Never Spoke About Homosexuality

8- PC Myth 6--The Logical Fallacy Re "Homophobia"

9- PC Myth 7—Gay Activism Is Desirable And Needed In Our Society

Barack Hussein Obama, “A One-Man Gaff Machine”

2008-06-03T16:49:00Z

John Fund, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, wrote last Friday:

For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.

As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him "a one-man gaffe machine."

Fund then illustrates Obama’s tendency toward misstatements, miscues, and mistakes with:

1- His incorrectly stating in New Mexico on Memorial Day weekend that his uncle helped liberate the victims of Auschwitz, when in fact it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. Earlier in 2002 he had said his grandfather knew U.S. troops who had liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka, both of which were liberated by Russian troops alone.

2- On Memorial Day, still in New Mexico, Obama appropriately said that the crowd was gathered to honor America's "fallen heroes", then going on to note that many of those fallen heroes were present with them in the audience as he spoke.

3- Earlier in May, he said that the U.S. had 57 states.

4- Barak Hussein Obama in May said in Portland, Ore., that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much cause to worry. Iran in fact has around one fourth the population of the U.S. and is engaged in a expansive military development and is extremely close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama the very next day had to backtrack, noting that for years he had "made it clear that the threat from Iran is grave."

5- Two weeks ago Obama said in Orlando that he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez and would include in their discussions Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. However, the very next day he insisted in Miami that any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Fund notes that Obama advisers "were left explaining how this circle could be squared."

6- Obama said last year in Selma, Ala., that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born.

7-. Last April he denied that the handwriting is his on a questionnaire on which, as a state senate candidate, he stated that he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now argues that--even if it was his handwriting-- this doesn't prove that this was his true position because he may not have read the full questionnaire.

8- Last July in a presidential debate, Obama pledged to meet the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba without any precondition. He said that President Bush’s refusal to do so was "ridiculous" and a "disgrace."

When Obama was overwhelmed with criticism, he dug in rather than relent, claiming, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War.

This in spite of the fact that Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the hell out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. Khrushchev described Kennedy to his Politburo as weak. This perception led to the Berlin Wall being erected just two months later. . . where it stood for 28 years!

Fund then notes:

Reporters may now give Mr. Obama's many gaffes more notice. But don't count on them correcting an implicit bias in writing about such faux pas.

Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I've talked to has come up with a solid example.

That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.

You can see Mr. Funds full article at http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121210923476431299.html

Of course, all of this concern with Obama’s misstatements and factual errors is of great concern. But even of greater concern are the extremely radical leftist positions of Obama of which he is clear, uncompromising, unrelenting, and unapologetic, but about which the mainstream media does no reporting and asks no questions—positions that would alienate many Americans including many Democrats and many African Americans.

If you believe I am overstating Obama’s positions, go to his web site at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf and take time to read what he states as his positions on all these issues.

Homosexuality # 1: What We Owe To Homosexuals!

2008-06-01T16:52:00Z

On my nightly Eagle and Child radio show last week, I did three shows about the seven modern PC myths concerning homosexuality, how they are not supported by the evidence, and the fact that Jesus did speak out very clearly against homosexual acts--contradicting the activist homosexual community’s claims that are repeated ad nauseum I believe the things we discussed concerning homosexuality are important enough that I am going to repeat what I said on my show in nine separate blogs entries I will be doing in the coming days.

First, it is important to stress that nothing I say in these nine blog entries means that those who engage in homosexual behavior are any worse (morally or psychologically) than any of the rest of us who--as a result of the fall—suffer various propensities to engage in evil behaviors including arrogance, argumentativeness, unkindness, meanness, selfishness, etc. Rather, homosexuals are creatures made in the image of God, and therefore have infinite worth and are to be treated with the same respect, kindness, and love as are all human beings. Furthermore, homosexuals certainly have the same civil rights as do the rest of us under the constitution, and any failure to respect those rights should be condemned and constrained under the law.

It not only is evil to physically abuse a homosexual because of his sexual orientation, but under the higher law of God’s love, it is evil to treat a homosexual unkindly, or even without love and compassion.

But does love preclude examining evidence, engaging in a logical analysis that evidence, discussing the moral and emotional health of a behavior or condition, and publicly weighing and debating the truth of an idea or assertion? In an age of PC, many answer yes. But I believe man is nothing if not a reasoning being. In fact, man’s greatest tools in the struggle to survive are our capacities to use logic and our parallel ability to observe the world and understand how it functions, i.e. to understand reality. We, as individuals and as communities, increase our likelihood of surviving and prospering when we align our behavior with the truths of nature; and we individually and collectively decrease our likelihood of prospering, or even surviving, if we make decisions that oppose the realities, the truths, of our world.

Not only is it NOT an attack on any person or group to engage in a vigorous debate of any truth assertion—about ANY TOPIC, but it is a threat to us as a species to decide that love means there are things we cannot discuss and debate. To set certain ideas as being immune from examination for their truthfulness is a threat because it is the battle in the marketplace of ideas that threshes out the truth, separating it from falsehoods that set us against reality. If we accept without examination ideas that contradict reality, the real universe will always ultimately rise up and smite us!

So, I love homosexuals, and I defend their rights. And I argue that homosexuality is not healthy, that it hurts those who engage in it, that it is not genetically based, that it is treatable (often easily so), and that homosexual activism is doing great harm to tens—if not hundreds—of thousands and to our society as a whole. I argue these things not in contradiction to, nor in spite of, my love for homosexuals, but rather because of my love for them including several dear friends that I have lost because of their having adopted the homosexual life style.

Thus, I will be covering these topics in my next eight blog entries on homosexuality:

2-Obama On Homosexuality

3-PC Myth 1—Homosexuals Are Happy; Homosexuality Is Healthy

4 PC Myth 2--Homosexuality Is Normal

5 PC Myth 3--Homosexuality Is Genetically Based

6- PC Myth 4--Homosexuality Is Not Treatable

7- PC Myth 5—Jesus Never Spoke About Homosexualty

8- PC Myth 6--The Logical Fallacy Re "Homophobia"

9- PC Myth 7—Gay Activism Is Desirable And Needed In Our Society

Stay tuned. And let me hear from you be making an entry or by writing me at don@eagleandchild.us or don@flipsideshow.com .

Congressmen Suffer from Manchausen's Proxy Or Are Pyromaniacs With A Savior Complex

2008-05-22T19:08:00Z

The only way to understand the U.S. Congress, and especially the liberal and moderate Democrats who control it with the few Republican liberals is that they suffer from some desperate obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) that causes them to create a crisis for American citizens in order to be able to be the heros who rush in and try to save us from the crisis. Then to save us, they create a worse crisis which will again require them to again save us in an even bigger way.

That is the only way to understand their repeated behavior with the economy, jobs, energy, national defense, NAFTA, forest fires and natural catastrophes, medical care and insurance, ad infinitum is that they have a disorder like Manchausin's where they create a problem in order to get the attention (and bribes) they desire when they rush in to save the public from the condition they created. Or maybe they have an OCD like pyromaniacs with savior complexes like the volunteer fireman who starts apartment buildings on fire in order to gain the attention they acquire for rushing in the middle of the night to announce the fire and rescue victims.

For instance:

The economy: The economy is booming, so they say that businesses are making too much money, and they increase taxes. This causes the economy to slow down, so we have federal or state budget deficits. So, to save the government, they increase taxes. Which causes business ventures and investment to dramatically slow, so money going to government decreases further and businesses begin to leave to more business-friendly economies, which puts people out of work and decreases tax revenues. So, they again increase taxes.

Jobs: Their economic and tax decisions, as just discussed, decrease domestic production and jobs, so the supply of workers decreases as the jobs available decrease. This results in lower wages. So, the pyromaniacs that started the fire rush to the rescue, installing higher minimum wages. Which causes employers to move more jobs overseas where more laborers are available at lower wages, or businesses replace workers with automated machines that now cost less than the workers. So, Congress threatens to punish corporations for such decisions, which causes the corporations to move more jobs overseas where the businesses are appreciated rather than villified.

National Defense: Liberals and leftists in congress and the media attack the U.S. as seeming too "unfriendly" and imperialistic when we use our military to defend innocents in the world from totalitarians. So, congress, to prove we are not the evil empire, withdraw our troops from protecting some innocent peoples. Thus, the totalitarians increase those who join their side with the evidence that America will not defend itself or its allies. So, attacks increase against America. So, liberals in congress announce it is because our might has made the world dislike us, and they promise to reduce our might and to talk more with the aggressors. Which weakness encourages more attacks against us, requiring the liberals to save us from our aggessive tendencies and to further disengage in the world and to disarm our military.

NAFTA: The lack of free trade is hurting us and making products cost more. So, we open the doors to 3rd world producers who have to meet none of the fiduciary, safety, environmental, or regulatory standards that our domestic producers must meet. So, they undercut the costs of our domestic producers, putting domestic producers out of business. So, we are flooded with dangerous products are products whose production in 3rd world countries does immense damage to the environment, and we put our workers out of work. So, our companies that have to survive begin to move production overseas, which Congress will save us from by creating penalties on companies that do so, driving more companies and jobs overseas, and forcing us to depend on more and more products than contaminate the environment or that are themselves dangerously contaminated.

Forest Fires and Natural Catastrophes: Congress, because it increases their tax base, allow homes and businesses to build up in areas that place inhabitants at high risk due to hurricanes that will flood these areas and close off avenues of escape (e.g., New Orleans, Texas coast south of Houston, etc.), to mud slides, flooding rivers, earth quakes, etc. So, millions move into these areas. And a catastrophe happens, placing thousands out of homes. So, Congress pays to rebuild those same areas, bringing millions back into the areas at huge cost, only to have those populations grow, and increase the numbers of inhabitants at great risk, only to have to show we care by rebuilding all over again. Or Congress and the EPA restrict home owners from cleaning out brush in fire prone areas, only to have billions in property lost and lives lost, only to rebuild again.

Medical Care and Insurance: Congress lectures companies for not providing care and insurance to high risk individuals at no extra cost, and requires companies to cover people for all kinds of risks for which they may not be at risk--a one covers all policy, rather than allowing individuals to shop for the coverage they need without having to pay for things they don't need. So, costs go up. So congress lectures companies, and forces them to care for, cover, or sell to people who are at high risk, greatly increasing costs for everyone. Then congress drags the companies in and lecture them about their outrageous costs.

Energy: Congress prevents energy companies from producing energy with oil, coal, gas, and nuclear development and refining. So, the supply decreases, and we become dependent upon nations intent on destroying us who can use our funds to build up their military and supplying of terrorists who war against us. And they impose endless regulation on domestic suppliers that cause their costs to soar, when international suppliers do not suffer those regulations and related costs. So, our costs for energy soar. And congress then brings in our energy suppliers, ridicule and blame them, and increase their costs again by increasing the taxes they have to pay. Which results in domestic companies like Amoco to go out of business, selling out to companies like BP. And then Congress and liberal candidates for President threaten to punish companies that move overseas.

The only hope we have is that there are new miracle drugs for OCD that frequently do not even require therapy and can cause people to overcome OCD's they have of which they are not even aware. I suggest that we require all water fountains in Washington, D.C., and the entire beltway areas to use a water source which has these therapeutic drugs for OCD to be injected into the water supply.

The crises from which we might be delivered could potentially save America and move our economy to even higher planes than yet achieved.

Open Season On Bears, Cougars, Wolves, Coyotes, Sharks, and Child Molestors! Since Democrats Believe in Preemptive Wars, Grab Your Ammo!

2008-05-22T14:58:00Z

Lo and behold, the Democrat Party, as well as liberal Republicans, both of whom opposed a preemptive war in Iraq--in lock step with the radical Marxists of Daily Koss, Democrat Underground, MoveOn, and other George Soros funded totalitarians (even though Iraq was not preemptive because Saddam had been attacking our fighter jets for years, and in spite of the fact that preemption is not a new theory, but was actually fostered by JFK during the Cuban missile crisis)--now advocate a preemptive war!

As noted by George Will in his column today:

A preventive war worked out so well in Iraq that Washington last week launched another. The new preventive war -- the government responding forcefully against a postulated future threat -- has been declared on behalf of polar bears, the first species whose supposed jeopardy has been ascribed to global warming.

The Interior Department, bound by the Endangered Species Act, has declared polar bears a "threatened" species because they might be endangered "in the foreseeable future," meaning 45 years. (Note: 45 years ago, the now-long-forgotten global cooling menace of 35 years ago was not yet foreseen.) The bears will be threatened if the current episode of warming, if there really is one, is, unlike all the previous episodes, irreversible, and if it intensifies, and if it continues to melt sea ice vital to the bears, and if the bears, unlike in many previous warming episodes, cannot adapt. (To see article, click here)

Well, I suggest that we need a preemptive war to protect humanity from aggression by predatory animals. After all, everyone led by Al Gore is aware of the fact that humanity is a threatened species. I mean, look at AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Why, if you believe in an era of special effects and computer generated images--along with the sky is falling hysteria that manipulates data by pre-selection of the sources and time spans of data used based upon its seeming support of a theory, you know that this wondrous Hollywood production (After all, can there be any reality east of Hollywood?) proved that the survival of life on earth is rapidly ending (how else can we explain the population explosion--a vain and frantic effort to survive the annihilation that has already begun (and according to Ted Dansen's inerrant prophecies has already concluded)?

So, what option do we have but to start a preemptive war against the bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, sharks, child molestors and illegal aliens who increasingly are killing lone hikers, bike riders, and children playing in their back yards or parks they are visiting with their families? It is simply of surviving the coming destruction of human life on earth due to the natural world rising up against us. No, we aren't yet a threatened species, and in fact we may never be--it is only a matter of what could happen based upon speculative computer models using preselected data unsupported by any objective facts. But, hey, if we are going to change national policy so that gasoline and oil is unaffordable and our national security is threatened by our giving our wealth to totalitarian states whose goal is to destroy us based on unsound theories, can't we at least do the same to protect our children from predators who are obviously out to destroy our children?

After all, this preemptive attack would be "for the children". And "It takes a village" to care for the children. Ergo, we have no choice but to announce a preemptive war, a preemptive open season, on the bears, wolves, cougars, coyotes, sharks, illegbal aliens, and child molestors! If your village at all cares about the children, grab your guns!

Both Houses of Congress: Dumb and Dumber

2008-05-21T20:50:00Z

Thomas Sowell in his classic work on economics described the naive people who fail to do "Second Stage Thinking". What this means is that decisions that are intended to change people’s behaviors inevitably cause unintentioned changes in behavior as well as the intended changes. That is because the intended changes bring about a new reality to which people make further adjustments.

For instance, raising taxes on profits may be intended to increase the amount of money received by the government. But a secondary response to higher taxes is that people abandon investment plans in businesses and industry which chances of being profitable were low in the first place. If increased taxes makes the cost greater, and therefore further decreases the chance of making a profit, the would be investors decide not to talk the risk, or to start the new business somewhere else where the taxes will be less. So, employees that would have been hired for the new business are not hired, they are not paid wages, they do not spend their wages, other businesses do not receive the revenue that their spending would have created, and the overall economy grows less than it would have with the new startups. Consequently, less taxes (rather than more) flow into the government coffers.

This lack of second stage thinking is the reason for the cost of oil and the resulting rising cost for gasoline and everything else that is transported with or made from oil products. Radical environmentalists (anti-capitalistic Marxists in green drag) have control of congress, who stops oil exploration, drilling, and refining for 30 years in order to "save the environment". That is the first stage goal.

But an unintended consequence of this behavior is that the supply is decreased, thus increasing the cost, and also that control of the oil supply is granted to 3^{rd world nations, many of whom are our enemies, placing our security at risk. And beyond these devastating consequences, the 2nd stage furthermore actually undermines the alleged first stage goal of helping the environment by granting oil production and refining to third world nations whose dictatorial leaders don’t care a wit about the environment and absolutely do not have the protections of the environment built into their collection and refining processes.}

And who created this debacle as has been predicted for years as being inevitable given our limits on drilling and production for the last 30 years? Congress . . . and the radical leftist environmentalists to whom the Democrats in Congress have sold their souls and the nation.

Tired of paying more at the pump? Want it to stop? Attack the congressmen in the House and Senate who stop oil drilling and production for their naive, myopic, first stage thinking that cannot see past the money the enviro-Marxists are stuffing into their pockets.

A Word on Barak Hussein Obama’s Name

2008-05-21T20:47:00Z

Some of you are offended that I would even spell out the "name that shall never be spoken"! It is truly amazing that political correctness has gotten to the point that saying a person’s name (not a disparaging nickname) is evidence of dirty politics to say the least, and possibly of overt racism. This is just too stupid to listen to.

If Barak Hussein Obama finds his name insulting or belittling, then he should change his name. It’s not hard to do, and he is a lawyer and Senator. One would think he could figure it out. I worked for Family Protective Services, and I encountered children being saddled with names that were disgusting and humiliating—names for various body parts, personal human activities, products not discussed in public, and references to random objects (like "Blue Bird". "Sail Boat", "Barbie Que", etc.). I considered this to be a from of child abuse that is not recognized by the law. A child should not be persecuted with a name for which his or her parents are responsible.

However, once one is an adult, he can change his name, and then can legitimately insist that using his "given" name is insensitive and intentionally disrespectful. If Obama is embarrassed by his name being used, then he should change it. Until he does so, it is fair for others to assume he has some affection for the name, and certainly it is absurd to say that anyone using the name of a prominent public figure is somehow an intentional insult that reveals anything about the one using the name other than respect for the person who wears the name.

Ted Kennedy’s tumor, Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s, and the Loving Left

2008-05-21T20:40:00Z

I could not disagree with Ted Kennedy much more than I do—well, except unless he became Barak Hussein Obama (if the "Hussein" offends you, check out my next blog entry that I will make). I can’t think of one position of his that I do not believe is harmful to America and to the world.

Still, I pray for him, for his healing, and for comfort for his heart and body and for his family as he goes through trying ordeals and fears in the coming months. I wish him nothing but wellness of spirit and body. My disagreements or any disgust with him do not need to be expressed outside of a political battle, and certainly not when he is in a battle to survive and to overcome disablement and an agonizing treatment regimen. And, thankfully, that seems to be the approach of all the conservative and Republican politicians that have spoken out about his health crisis: to respond with decency and respect at this time of trial for Senator Kennedy.

However, contrast this with the left’s disparaging humor, cartoons, SNL skits, et. al., parodying the late President Reagan and his battle with Alzheimer’s, as well as outright attacks charging that his courageous political positions were confusion-based decisions that resulted from the loss of brain cells.

And all this from the "compassionate and loving left". Yeah. Little surprise that Barak Hussein Obama has painfully experienced the "non-racism" of the liberal left comprised primarily of liberal elitists who believe that middle America is too stupid to be allowed to govern itself.

REPUBLICANS HURTING DEMS BY VOTING FOR HILLARY?

2008-03-05T16:15:00Z

You have heard about it: the strategy of Republicans voting for Hillary in order "keep Hillary in it so we can win it!" slogan of Rush Limbaugh. All the MSM--sadly including Fox which more and more often falls into line with the rest of the MSM in adopting their talkng points--is misrepresenting Rush as advocating this. In truth, Rush just picked up the slogan from a caller in order to encapsulate the attitude of Republicans who have been calling him to advocate this viewpoint. keep the Dem candidates.

Those advocating the "'Gal' battling the 'Pal'" strategy give four main reasons:

(1) if the Dems continue to have to battle one another, then they will continue to attack and tear down one another and split their base between the pro-racists and the pro-feminists, the blacks and the Hispanics, and the young and the old.

Granted, this is fun to watch the "ist" party that constantly charges anyone who disagrees with them on anything, e.g. illegal immigration, affirmative action, national defense, educational vouchers, ad infinitum of some sort of evil "ism" turning on itself with racist and chauvinist attacks on one another. But does the fun of watching this (particularly for a talk show host) come without a cost?

(2) if the Dems have to battle one another until their convention, it keeps them from focussing on the Republican nominee in their constant politics of personal destruction for several months, and it gives the Republicans fodder from Clinton and Obama that Republicans can use in the fall campaign against either Dem nominee.

(3) such a continued battle will cause Hillary and Obama to have to dip into their huge campaign war chests to try to win more delegates, and therefore decreasing their huge advantage in fund-raising over John McCain.

(4) Hillary's unlikeable's make her far more beatable that Obama, who is immensely more likeable, pleasant, and because of his race is much more difficult to attack without having the charge rebound against the attacker as a seeming "racist".

This "Keep the 'Gal' vs. the 'Pal' Fight Going" was a huge factor in Texas yesterday.

I live in extremely "notorious" Williamson County that includes many suburbs of Austin which lies in neighboring Travis County. Just one example of Williamson County's conservative reputation: numerous policemen and sheriff's officers in Williamson County report to me stories of that frequently when they catching criminals in the small part of northwest Austin that lies within Williamson County only to have the criminals actually begin crying when they are informed their crime occurred in law and order Williamson County rather than liberal Travis County.

Also, Williamson County votes overwhelmingly Republican in contrast to the Dems huge majority in Travis County.

So, yesterday I went to my precinct polling place and for the first time in the eleven years that I have lived in Williamson County, their were a huge majority of people in line to vote Democrat. I was the one of four people in the Republican line and voting booths during the time it took me to sign in, get my ballot, vote, and talk to the precinct chair about the caucus meeting that was to occur later that evening.

The Republican precinct chair asked me when I went to their table to vote, "Aren't you going to be like all the other Republicans that are voting for Hillary--almost all our people are voting today to keep Hillary in the campaign." I have to admit, I seriously considered doing so, but for reasons I will discuss decided against doing so. After leaving the poll, I was so struck by this that I checked with a couple of other Republican precinct chairs and found them reporting the same phenomenon.

Without doing any statewide scientific polling, I believe this was a major factor in Hillary beating Obama in the popular count in Texas, which would also explain why Obama then won the Dem caucuses (sic--should be "cauci", but in an age of Dem controlled education, who can insist on these finer points of language?)--Republican voters who voted for Hillary of course could not have cared less about attending a Dem caucus.

The Problem With This Republican Strategy!

I have a number of concerns with this strategy that cause me to fear that conservative Republicans could live to regret implementing it.

First, in spite of the positives of keeping the "gal vs. the pal fight going", it also comes at a cost in terms of media coverage. Already, the media coverage of McCain has dropped to almost irrelevant, as all the exciting stories are on the Dem side--not too much excitement on the Pub side of things with things all but settled for weeks. How many stories and interviews have you seen lately that have focussed on McCain.

The only thing that has received much attention at all on the Pub side was the old gray lady's (isn't it time to send her to the glue factory?) senile attack on John McCain. Though it worked in his favor, even that story did not get his issues and ideas out there.

Second, and to me more significantly, I do not believe that Hillary is more beatable than Obama, though it is clearly true that Obama so far appears far more likeable than is Hillary. As a matter of fact, it appears to me as Obama has been presented by an adoring press that, though I differ with him on almost every issue imaginable, I would love to have him as a neighbor or a golfing buddy.

The idea that Hillary is the more beatable of the two ignores five factors.

(1) The Clintons are at their best when down, and they keep winning when conservatives think that they are down and out. Look at Bill Clinton in '92 and '96 (we thought six months ahead of time that he dead and buried). And look at Hillary's Senatorial campaign in New York. None of us thought that with her temper and irritability that she could endure the pressures of an extended campaign for a major office without self-destructing in some sort of temperamental blow-up).

(2) This is due in part to their extremely protected and favorable media coverage whenever running against Republicans, and in part to their politics of personal destruction (assisted by coercion with information garnered from FBI files of many who might speak out against this tactic) and to their ever-present election eve scandalous revelations against their opponents in which the MSM collaborates in the timing in order deny the opponent the time necessary to effectively respond.

(3) The "Obama rock star" phenomenon is only two months old. Can this pop culture fad fantasy sustain itself for eight more months? I think it is highly unlikely, given the fact that it is based until now on an adoring press who has not asked him anything of substance, much less challenged him at all on any number of misrepresentations and cover-ups of his divisiveness, partisanship, and extremism which directly contradicts his rhetoric, e.g. the fact that he is the most extreme liberal and partisan voter against "bipartisan" bills in the Senate. There is evidence in the last two weeks that the "rock star" shooting star status of Obama is already coming to earth, as evidenced by:

(4) Obama's inexperience is already cracking the veneer. He has gotten into trouble by telling Canadian diplomats that his statements in Ohio that he would get rid of NAFTA were just political rhetoric in a campaign and did not mean anything without realizing that diplomats take notes on conversations and that these notes leak out to the press. Then when questioned repeatedly by the press about this, his good-natured smile became strained around the mouth, then disappeared altogether, and then he abruptly walked out on the press without any explanation.

This isn't horrific, but considering the fact that it is the first time he has been asked any real questions about ANY of the pie in the sky, nirvana, utopian language without any answers about how such a utopia can be paid for or accomplished in the face of adversaries in the world who wish to destroy us, it suggests that he will not do well in a real campaign battle in which ideas will not just be thrown out, but will be questioned and debated.

Additonally, questions are starting to be asked about his campaign financing being far from clean as the pure driven snow. his connections with communists and his friendliness to totalitarian dictatorships and fascists who wish to destroy Israel. None of this bodes well for an extended Obama campaign.

(5) Obama, unlike Hillary, doesn't lie about his leftist extremism. This makes him popular with the Dem Underground base, but the general public including many of the historic yellow-dog Dems like the labor unions are going to hear a lot of radical ideas in debates with John McCain that will greatly alarm them in ways akin to the ways they were alarmed by George McGovern in 1972. Obama is not much more radical than the Clintons, but is less pragmatic. The Clintons will lie about what they believe, and will even turn their policies on a dime, in order to retain personal political power. Obama at least seems far more ideological and committed. Which makes him far less electable.

None of this even considers the weaknesses of John McCain in his ability to win back the Republican base after years of opposing the base's overwhelming concern with alliances with Teddy Kennedy and other radical leftists in undermining the base's most cherished issues. That is a story of huge concern in its own right.

In summary, I think Hillary can win, and the skill of the Cllinton's in campaign tricks, coercion, coopting the media, and the politics of personal destruction scares me to death that she very well could beat John McCain in order to become the most disliked ignauguree in American history, leaving Republicans who voted to help to keep fighting living with unbelievable dismay and regret for having engaged in such a tactic. Me? I cast my protest vote for Duncan Hunter.

Don Crawford has updated their Blog

2008-02-05T14:57:18Z

Don Crawford has updated their Blog. Please click here to go to their blog

Don Crawford has updated their Blog

2008-02-01T17:20:26Z

Don Crawford has updated their Blog. Please click here to go to their blog

Hillary and Barack Pledge Economic Injustice To Withdrawing John Edwards!

2008-02-01T16:07:00Z

The liberals in Washington, D.C., composed primarily of the National Democrat Party and the Country Club Republicans, not on live in non-reality, but furthermore consistently push an agenda that is opposed to reality. The problem with their success in doing so is that any time an individual or a culture ignores or fights reality in their decision-making is that reality, the very principles controlling the operation of the universe, tolerate those who oppose it only so long before it rears up it's head and smites those who dared ignore or resist it.

This week John Edwards withdrew from the race for the Democrat nomination for the Presidency of the United States. In his withdrawal speech from the race, he told his supporters that before withdrawing, he obtained a pledge from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What was that pledge? That they would do two things: (1) end poverty, and (2) bring about economic justice.

The problem?

First, Reality is that these two things directly contradict one another, so it is impossible for both these things to be achieved simultaneously. Second, to pursue the end of poverty is to oppose reality.

Historically, our national goal has always been "to provide freedom and opportunity for all." We have more than any other nation is the history of men achieved that goal. Is there room for improvement? Sure. We are not perfect in this regard, and with all higher goals in human affairs, never will be even though we strive to be so. But we are immeasurably closer to the goall than any nation that would compete with us.

And the facts support this assertion. First, we do not have any economic classes. Figures both a decade ago and again this year show that our people are constantly moving within one decade between economic quintiles: the highest income earners, the upper middle income earners, the middle income earners, the lower middle income earners, and the lowest income earners.

Not only are people constantly moving up or down within a decade, but there are many people that move from the top to the bottom and many who move from the bottom to the top within one decade.

The facts also show that the vast majority of millionaires in this nation did NOT inherit their fortunes, but earned them the old fashioned hard way: through working hard for long hours, being prudent in their spending, and saving and reinvesting their earnings rather than pursuing short term gratifications.

In other words, our economic system and freedom provides the economic fluidity to have any individual's economic success determined not by birth, class, or privilege, but rather by the degree to which they work harder, smarter, longer, or at greater risk than the next guy (e.g., a girder walking welder earns more than a welder on the ground, or an investor in stocks can earn more than an investor in Certificates of Deposit).

The truth is, in a free society like ours with a free and fluid economic system, most people in poverty in this nation are there because of there own choices not to work harder, smarter, longer, or at greater risk. Of course, not all people in poverty belong to these categories (and thus the need for a safety net for those relatively few cases rather than a hammock that encourages sloth), but by far most of them do.

One of the laws of biological nature is reward and punishment. Even plant roots and one celled organisms with no brains whatsoever respond to this reality. Only liberals seem not to be cognizant of this reality: Reward a behavior and it increases. Punish a behavior and it decreases.

Reward working slothfully, foolishly, less frequently, or with no risk, and you increase those behaviors by removing their natural consequences. When you remove the natural consequences, you are in fact opposing nature. Which means you ultimately are going to be slapped in the face by reality.

We see this in the war on poverty for the past forty years now. Poverty has not decreased, those permanently on welfare roles has grown exponentially, we live with a permanent national deficit because welfare and assistance programs now make up over two thirds of the federal budget, and the social security program is:

(1) steaming toward collapse in which those who have worked harder, smarter, longer, and at greater risk are being robbed of the earnings that the government confiscated from them supposedly to insure their survival during their later years, (2) leading us to a generational conflict as the next generation of workers will be forced to surrender huge parts of their earnings in order to support the elderly who are dependent on social security, and (3) carrying our nation toward inevitable bankruptcy as a nation.

Not only this, but the war on poverty (as well as major lotteries) demonstrate again and again that poverty is the result of bad choices not to work hard, consistently, with more wisdom, and at times with more risk. The average poverty family of a mother, father, and two children receives more than $33,000 in government subsidies a year. When the subsidies are included, they in fact are not in poverty. And those benefits are skyrocketing as this growing class of non-workers is growing exponentially (reward a behavior and it increases) because of politicians who are willing to steal from workers in order to buy the votes of the slothful and irresponsible.

So, why are people destitute? Because they spend the money they receive on color TV's (multiple ones in most households) VCR's, the latest video game boxes, $200 pairs of designer tennis shoes, big cars, etc., rather than investing in education or business endeavors. Because they want it all now without doing the work that merits all the stuff.

They don't have a chance because of their race or poverty? Give me a break. There are untold thousands of immigrants to this nation from the Phillipines, Thailand, Vietnam and many other third world countries who succeed within a decade. I know scores of them in south central LA. They come here with nothing, and ten years later they are very successful economically, with thriving businesses that they began from scratch. How do they do this? By working--and living--harder, longer, and smarter. They move to LA and live in homes containing multiple households.

I know extended families with four households living in one home--the middle aged grandparents, their three adult children with their own wives and children, each "household" of mates and their children living in a bedroom, and all of them sharing common living areas. And these are not squalid houses being destroyed by overcrowding. Your go to their modest, perhaps 2,000 square foot homes on small lots, and the home is immaculate and does not fell overcrowded with "stuff" stacked everywhere. Because they live very prudently.

In these homes, everyone of working age is working hard, always staying employed. Where does all their money go? Well, the new immigrants who have joined the household don't use their wages to buy all the latest gear, electronics devices, big cars, etc. So, where do they spend their money? They don't. They save it, including what they would spend if they lived in their own home. They save it. And save it. And save it. All the while, looking for business opportunities.

And one day, they find the right deal, or they work themselves up a corporate ladder. And they go into business, or get a big promotion. Finally, they are financially secure. And they get their own home, which becomes the staging area for the same thing to happen over again with more immigrants of their extended family from their nation of origin.

In the process, they make many choices about NOT buying things, NOT spending all their time on frivolous entertainements rather than education or work opportunities, NOT marrying before they have a decent job and income, NOT having children before they are married, in all NOT HAVING THE AMERICAN DREAM BEFORE THEY HAVE EARNED IT. And, amazingly, they LOVE America, NOT for giving them economic equality or for giving them the American Dream before they have earned it, but rather for giving them the freedom and opportunity to earn these things.

Is it economic justice to give it all to a guy--one who never listened to endless teachers, social service workers, religious volunteers, etc., who repeatedly plead with him to work hard, to get an education, to stay away from gangs and trouble-makers, and to avoid premarital sexual alliances and pregnancies--by confiscating the earnings of some hard working guy has been stepping through open doors and living frugally in order to take advantage of the opportunities given to him?

Humanity means we don't allow the slothful and foolish to starve or freeze to death, but the food, housing, and clothing they receive should be very limited rather than elaborate so that they do suffer the natural and just punishment for their poor choices. Economic justice, which must be our goal rather than forced "economic equality"--something that requires totalitarianism and results in national poverty, vis a vis North Korea--means allowing those who work hard to keep the rewards of their labor and frugality, and it means allowing those who choose to pursue sloth and immediate gratification to keep the reward of their laziness and indiscretion: POVERTY.

AND JUST WHY ARE NON-REPUBLICANS ALLOWED TO VOTE IN REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES?

2008-01-15T16:00:00Z

This not only is stupid, it is unconscionable behavior. Why on earth would Republicans allow Democrats and "moderates" (liberals too cowardly to say they are) to decide who will be the Republican candidate with whom we try to counter the totalitarian socialism (socialism of necessity is always totalitarian because it is opposed to the law of nature and therefore can only be sustained by force over human's lives, but that is another story) of the Democrat Party? All of these open primaries, especially in the early primaries such as New Hampshire, accomplish is to allow the media to turn a liberal such as John McCain or Mike Huckabee into the alleged "front-runner", put the candidates actually preferred by those who actually love America and the values that made her great into being so called "non-starters" who allegedly "must win" in primaries that are being decided by non-Republicans.

John McCain was turned into the Republican front-runner after the 2000 Republican primary after New Hampshire because he won the primary with 17% of those who voted for him being Democrat and "moderate" cross-over voters. And in Michigan today he is tied for the lead in the polls due to the number of Democrats who will vote for him since the Michigan Democrat primary will not send any delegates to the convention; in other words the Democrat primary in Michigan this year doesn't matter at all. So, the vast number of Democrats who bother to go to the polls are voting for McCain in order to try to help nominate the most Democrat-like Republican candidate.

I believe the Republican Party should tell state Republican parties to end this absurd practice of having open primaries or the party will no longer accept that states delegates to their national convention. This manipulation of the Republican process of choosing their candidates by liberals must be brought to an end so that our candidates actually represent the party, meaning the people of the party, rather than the party elites known as the Country Club Republicans who are in it for personal power rather than for the welfare of the United States of America.

THE INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY OR DECEPTION TO SAY THAT ANY PRE-SUPER TUESDAY PRIMARY IS A "MUST WIN" FOR ANY CANDIDATE

2008-01-15T15:54:00Z

It is unbelievable, though not surprising, that the media (a) is trying to convince the American people that the Michigan Republican primary today or the primary in both parties in Nevada and South Carolina next Saturday are a "must win" for any candidate, or (b) that its too late for any candidate. This is absurd stupidity.

It is so early in the process, and the process has been so biased toward liberal voters, that the MSM wants Americans, and particularly the Republican base, to believe that these early and proportionally trivially small votes are conclusive as to who is going to be nominated.

What is so absurd about this is that:

[1] the Iowa caucuses involve a very small group of people consisting of (a) people so involved in political campaigns, or (b) people with so little to do that they are willing to spend five hours one evening at a caucus debating with everyone else who shows up in the caucus--a population that has dramatically changed in the last few decades in Iowa to be a much more liberal population;

[2] the New Hampshire primary is (a) open to crossover voting, and even allows people from other states to vote by simply saying at the poll on primary day that they plan to move to NH some time in the future, and (b) had their polling places on primary day filled with buses and cars from Massachussets and other states bringing "moderates (liberals) to vote in the New Hampshire primary, biasing the Republican primary toward John McCain and Mike Huckabee;

[3] The Michigan Republican primary today only offers a total of 30 possible delegates that are divided up both by district and at large votes that are divided up proportionally to the number of votes for each candidate, so "the winner" does not receive a great advantage in the delegate race;

[4] Reality is that (a) the number of delegates decided so far has been only 112, with estimated rusults of Romney with 30, Huckabee with 21, McCain with 10, Fred Thompson with 6, Ron Paul with 2, Hunter with 2, and Ron Paul with 2, (b) only 30 delegates to be decided today, and they will be distributed both by district and at large votes to be distributed according to the popular vote, (c) only 182 Republican delegates to be decided from tomorrow through Jan 29th's so called "must win" Florida primary, (d) thus, only 142 delegates will have been decided by the end of today, and only a total of 324 by Super Tuesday on February 5; (d) On Super Tuesday alone, 1111 delegates will be decided! (e) Then 455 votes will be decided in the 22 state primaries that follow Super Tuesday, and (5) a grand total of 1900 Republican delegates will be elected, meaning that for any one candidate to win the Republican nomination, he must garner over 950 delegates.

[5] This means that prior to Super Tuesday, February 5, the number of delegates that will have been selected is less than 29.2% of the number that will be selected on Super Tuesday alone, and is only 17% of the total number of Republican delegates to the convention. So, if the race is still close, those elections after Super Tuesday could be the "must-win" elections who will decide the party's nominee. To call anything prior to Super Tuesday a "must win" election is to engage not only in sheer stupidity; is is the height of foolhardiness or total deception. I will leave it to you to decide which is the case for our MSM and our political pundits.

It is important to remember as we consider all of this that primary elections can turn on a dime. Reagan was not the projected nominee after New Hampshire in 1980. On the Democratic side, look at what happened to Howard Dean with one speech just prior to the New Hampshire primary. Until that speech and the MSM's distorted coverage of it (based on dictates from the Democrat hierarchy?) that blew up on Dean, he was the unquestioned front runner with all the momentum in the Democratic primary campaign. That was turning on a dime. But history's events can present not just dimes, but huge bombs.

The whole campaign could be altered entirely by a major gaff by a candidate, by a major revelation about some facet of a candidate's life or personal history, by a major attack by terrorists or North Korea on a NATO or Pacific nation or one of our naval vessels, or by China attacking Taiwan or making some hostile move with the massive naval force it has built up over the last twenty years. More likely, the entire campaign could drastically turn on some previously unforseen event that focusses the attention of the electorate onto some priority issue that suddenly overrdes all their previous appraisals concerning the basis upon which they should cast their vote. The one thing we know about history, including history's impact on elections, is that history will always surprise us.

The Attack On YWAM and a Colorado Springs Church

2007-12-11T02:21:00Z

A Youth With A Mission Training (YWAM) Center was attacked Saturday night, 2 "missionaries" killed in their beds. These are young people from churches across America who volunteer, get paid nothing, and have to raise from their families, friends, and their home churches the expenses for their mission in foreign nations, primarily 3^{rd world nations.}

Then yesterday morning during worship hours, five people were shot, killing 16 and 18 year old sisters in the "Work" family as they were getting out of their van to go into the church building at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Pastor Brady Boyd interviewed on Fox. Reported that:

1. Assailant had enough ammo to kill a hundred people in this large 3,000 member church whose facility covers 30,000 square feet..

2. Amazingly, the church for years has had a plan in place for such an attack, with some 20 volunteers who are trained and armed to defend the church in such an attack.

3. They had heightened the protection yesterday after the YWAM attack. One female member, a former law enforcement officer, had attended early service, and was stationed in forum at center of the church, as security when she heard the shots in the parking lot. She rushed toward the sound of the shots, found the assailant in the hallway of the church, shot him twice, killing him.

TWO ISSUES:

1. A church with armed protection. Isn’t this against command, thou shall not kill, and Christ concerning turning your cheek and loving those who persecute you?

Personal and Social ethics.

Love and protecting the innocent from aggressors.

When a decent person kills in order to defend innocents, they aren't the ones who made the choice that someone would die today. They only made the choice of who would die once an evil person has decided to kill—the evil person or the innocent person?

2. Where is the outcry by the media that this was caused by leftist politicians like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry who constantly engage in hate speech against the "extreme religious right" and "fundamentalists" of all religions?

Church burnings have been increasing for decades. Where is the outcry from congress for an investigation of extremist leftist groups that could be fostering this?

Remember the instant reflex after Oklahoma City bombing to blame the extreme right’s speech, even though the reverse ended up being the truth?