Sunday, August 31, 2008

EXPERIENCE vs. experience

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is an outstanding choice for the Republican VP Nominee: my prediction is that she'll be President in four years. She is a spectacular candidate and she just clinched the election for McCain.

Of course, the know-nothing Democrats slammed her "lack of experience" and claimed that the issue of "experience" is now off the table. Allow me to squash their lunacy:

1. By simply suggesting that the "experience" issue is off the table, the Dems are admitting that Osama (I mean Obama) is not qualified. By proposing that experience is no longer vital, then they obviously know that Obama has no experience. They would not want it off the table if it was a positive factor for him.

2. Sarah Palin is not running for President, but Vice President, whereas Obama is running for President. Obama's lack of experience is far more relevant than her alleged lack of experience by virtue of the position each is running for. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

3. Even if you did compare Obama's and Palin's experience, she has far more than he does, anyway. One month of being Governor is far more relevant than one year of being a Senator. Governors make executive decisions each day. Senators make no executive decisions each day. They campaign, rather than lead, and they focus on a few specific issues rather than a broad spectrum of issues for that particular state.

4. In fact, Palin is so far more experienced compared to Obama, that Palin herself is far more qualified to be President than Obama.

5. Dems ripped her lack of foreign policy experience; yes, she does not have any foreign policy experience, but neither does Obama. And no, his speeches in Europe or elsewhere are not relevant. Those were foreign campaign speeches, not foreign policy speeches. He has claimed that his living in Indonesia and his undergraduate degree in international relations qualify him for foreign policy matters! Are you kidding me? That is not worthy of foreign policy experience.

6. I suggest that Sarah Palin has the right kind of experience by virtue of her conservative approach and values, her corruption-bashing experience, and her overall "balls," to confront every lunatic dictator far more than Obama does, again by virtue of her dealing with other matters in Alaska, which is far more than Obama can say.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Mercedes Marxists

The Democrats are all about the working man; sympathizing with their plight, and wallowing in the common sorrows of the "little man." Right? Meanwhile, the mean, old rich Republicans care nothing for the "working class" and therefore the Dems have to watch out for their interests. Yet at the Dem Convention, the "VIP" Democrats (that's a contradiction in terms, by the way) are being treated to the most lavish parties, with the greatest of culinary delights. They are renting out the luxury suites in the Pepsi Center and having gala events. The best chefs in the city are catering all sorts of fancy dinners, cocktail hours, etc. So much for their sympathizing with the little guys. Hypocrisy with a capital "H."

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama, the Annointed One's spouse (Mrs. Messiah), speaks last night at the Convention and promptly invokes Communist rhetoric. She quotes Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" in her speech, describing the "world as it is" and the "world as it should be." (Chapter 2 of the book.) If people aren't starting to get the idea that Obama is a closet fascist, Marxist, Communist, then I don't know what it is going to take. Try this: Obama worked under Jerry Kellman in Chicago's south side doing his "community activism." Kellman was a protege of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky and Kellman believed in radical socialism, redistribution of wealth, cradle-to-grave government control, and so on. When is it going to hit people in the head that we are thisclose to electing a Marxist/Communist to the presidency? I can't possibly believe that the U.S. is where it is at with the most liberal senator in Congress, and a running mate who is the third-most liberal senator in Congress.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Random updates

So Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden to be his running mate; Biden was the most critical of Obama during the early stages of the campaign, saying that he did not have anywhere near enough experience to be president. Now suddenly he does?

Columnist Ann Coulter made a brilliant observation about Obama, who recently declared that we should not define marriage with a Constitutional amendment since historically marriage has never been defined in the Constitution. That's interesting, she said, because the Constitution never defined slavery or involuntary servitude either until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 banning slavery. By Obama's logic, she concluded, we should never have passed the 13th amendment because historically slavery had never been defined in the Constitution either. Obama is quite the scholar, isn't he!

A few weeks ago, Obama was asked by a 7-year-old girl in Elkhart, IN, why he is running for President. Instead of an upbeat, positive image, especially to a young girl, he said that America is not what it once was, and that he did not want this kind of America for his kids. What on Earth is he saying? How could he be so ungrateful for all the opportunity that has been given to him and the wealth that he has earned, and for the great opportunities for his kids? That could be the most despicable response he has ever made -- and there are lots to choose from.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Obama's "Plan" for Energy

Obama has decided that the best thing to do is to tax the so-called "windfall profits" of "Big Oil." That's a really brilliant idea. What about during the '80s, when oil & gas companies were losing their shirts, and laid off thousands of people, and lost billions of dollars? What about a "windfall subsidy" for them then? Obama wants to give $1,000 from the oil companies to every American. His opinion is "How dare those mean old oil companies charge so much for gas, when most Americans are trying to get to the movies to watch Hollywood films."

Who does Obama think gets hurt when you tax the profits, windfall or not, from oil companies? The CEOs? Nope. Many, if not most of the oil companies' employees own stock in their own companies, and most people own oil stocks in their mutual funds or stock portfolios. These same employees, roughly half of whom are Democratic, get paid bonuses from those profits. And then where's the money to reinvest in better ways to extract oil and gas, and to develop alternative energies? If the liberals care so much about this, why don't they turn their car keys in and use a bicycle to get everywhere?

Speaking of windfall profits, why not tax the Hollywood entertainers for their windfall profits? The new movie The Dark Knight is likely going to earn up to $500 million in domestic ticket sales, and the profits on that movie should be considered windfall, and rebated to the consumers from the producer's pocketbook. How dare they charge $10 per ticket, and expect Americans to be able to afford going to the movies anymore. I want $2 back for every ticket I bought this year so that I can pay for my bill for movie tickets, plus I want $1 back for the popcorn and drinks that I bought, that also created windfall profits for the move theater chains. How dare they charge $8 for popcorn, when hard-working Americans can't afford to put food on their table, or have to choose between medicine or their house payment.

If Obama had any common sense (he doesn't) he'd really think this through. Instead, he's just mouthing off things that sound good in the liberal media, and numskull dopes in the country who buy all this phony-baloney talk lock, stock and barrel.