The Anti-War Party?

Liberal Democrats pride themselves on being fiercely anti-war and violence. They tell us disagreements should be solved by debating the issues, and diplomacy. Then why are some liberal Democrat protesters so violent?

The so called "anarchists" in St. Paul for the Republican Convention protested, which is their legal right. Their protests included rioting, breaking windows, smashing cars, and generally destroying any property they encountered. They threw sand and cement bags off bridges at buses carrying Republican delegates, making a direct hit on one of the buses. They threw rocks, bags of urine, and even sprayed some delegates with water heavily laced with chlorine; a 70 year old delegate from Connecticut doused in chlorine had to be taken to the hospital. Police arrested 300 protesters, over 100 of them on felony charges. Many of the protesters wore masks, which are against the law in many states; in my opinion it should be against law everywhere in these days of terrorism. If you are proud to be a protester why not show your face for the television cameras?

This behavior is a classic example of the difference in our parties. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, answer this question - when have you ever seen Independents, Republicans or even right wing Conservatives protest violently and destroy property? I can only conclude that these liberal morons find it difficult to protest or debate intellectually and therefore view violence and destruction as their only alternative.

During VP nominee Sarah Palin's speech, an Obama "Code Pink" female protester who had been given credentials by the media, tried to run up on the stage, but was stopped by security. Too bad this "Code Pinko" protester didn't make it onto the stage, it would have been beautiful to see the "Barracuda" close the deal in front of 38 million people.

There's blood in the water

During the last few days the liberal media have trashed Sarah Palin and her family. But if you saw her speech this evening, the "Barracuda" has smelled blood in the water and attacked. She bloodied Barack Obama with words that were real and sincere and took the Vice Presidential nomination with nothing but a signal to the left - "Let's get it on 'old boys'".

Maybe I am biased, but her speech was a knockout punch that has put the liberals on their heels.

Isn't it interesting that this election has become a battle between Obama and the "Barracuda". John McCain will speak tomorrow night, but he has no worries, the ticket already has a leader.

The War Horse and The Barracuda

I have seen some interesting presidential tickets in my lifetime but John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, rookie Governor of Alaska, was a surprise to just about everyone. The left wing media immediately attacked the selection and has been vicious during the few days since the announcement; even attacking her family. But from what little I have seen so far, they may be attacking the wrong lady.

Sarah Palin has been a fighter for a long time and two years ago pulled off an election in Alaska that was unheard of in US political history - as a mayor from a small town, she beat the incumbent Republican governor in a primary election and then went on to win the election at age 42. She has since reformed the government in Alaska, which was rife with corruption and "old boy" political favoring.

During her high school years Governor Palin was an aggressive soccer player and starting point guard on her high school basketball team. Her aggressive play earned her the nickname "Sarah Barracuda". Now the "Barracuda" will be facing the most biased national media we have ever seen and she will have to be tough. They are in a panic over the prospect of the first woman Vice President in history being a Conservative Republican. Palin is the antithesis of everything the liberal media stands for - she is pro family, pro life, pro gun, pro oil drilling, pro business, and did I mention as a former beauty queen, she is "hot". She is also anti-large government, anti-pork barrel spending, and anti- Global Warming (which should be interesting since the "War Horse" is pro- GW).

So after the Republican Convention finishes this week the race to the finish line will begin. We will learn more about the "Barracuda" during the convention and her future debate with Senator Joe Biden should be interesting. Her only problem in the debate may be getting airtime since Biden is the most arrogant of the "old boys" in Washington, and a blowhard that will simply not stop talking. As someone once said "Ask Biden what time it is, and he tells you how to build a clock".

It should be an interesting few months.

The Circle of Life

OK, I'm melancholy this evening, reminiscing about a time long ago raising kids - Christmas, Halloween, Easter egg hunts, school plays, family outings, sporting events, and all that time spent together. And then those kids grew up - off to college, working, developing their own relationships. And we parents rejoiced. As the Norwegians say, "Happiness is when the kids grow up and leave, and the dog dies".

Then your children get married, start having their own children, and the circle of life brings them back to their relationship with their parents. And as time goes by a wonderful thing happens; grandchildren come along.

Being a grandparent is the best of both worlds; you relive all those good things you experienced with kids, but not much of the bad. No real responsibilities - just spoil them and send them back to their parents. In our case we have been fortunate and developed more than just a grandparents/grand kids relationship. We have had years of one-on-one with them , without parents, and we became more than grandparents, we became friends - scavenger hunts, trips together, dinners together; just spending time together, grand kids and us.

We are still close to them but cannot seem to get them together anymore. That's not a bad thing; the inevitable happens - the circle continues and grandchildren grow up - they go off to college, start working, and develop their own relationships. They used to visit every few months, now maybe every year or two. Of course we see them more often that that with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and visits to their homes, but it's not the same as having all of them together with just us for a week or two.

So here we sit, waiting for possibly more grandchildren, or even great-grandchildren, but hey kids - time is running out!

He "Walks on Water"

Some talk show hosts jokingly call Barack Obama the "messiah". He is charismatic, and when he has a teleprompter, an impressive public speaker. Unfortunately when he has to speak off the cuff, you have to wonder how this guy ever became a candidate for the most important job in the world. It is painful to watch him stutter and stammer through an unrehearsed press conference.

The American people are starving for a leader. It is pitiful that Barack Obama and John McCain are the best we could come up with. Obama is not a leader but his "handlers" are making him look like one. They are running a brilliant campaign choreographed to the last detail along with the help of the main stream media (who even threw Hillary "under the bus" in favor of this charismatic politician). His handlers carefully manage his appearances making sure he does not get into a situation where he has to answer tough questions.

His African American heritage will also get Obama more than 90% of the black vote, which in a country whose electorate is split down the middle, could make the difference in an election. What is interesting is that if you look at his ancestry he is only 25% Black, 25% Arab, and 50% Caucasian. But like all good politicians he plays the cards that will get him the most votes.

McCain has the experience and certainly has demonstrated much more leadership than Obama, but he is old; not just old chronologically, but he also represents "old Washington". He has almost abandoned his Conservative base, and with the voters 10% approval rating of Washington politicians along with their frustration with the Iraq war, he has many hurdles to climb to become the next President.

And now along comes charasmatic Obama with his "hope" and "change" campaign. Many people have embraced him for the "change" reason only, because if their dissatisfaction with Washington and the war. He has done little of any significance in his career, yet could be looking at the "perfect storm" for an unqualified politician, and be elected the leader of the free world... remarkable.

Obama may be crowned in January and the Democrats will most likely be in control of the House and Senate. If so, the next four years will be an adventure for the American public - more programs, more regulations, more taxes, and more government spending of money we do not have. But on the other hand, if you need an "entitlement" you will be in luck. As Michele Obama has said "The fortunate in this country need the realize they will have to share with the less fortunate".

Even though we seem to be heading down the "socialist" road, I am an eternal optimist and believe the American electorate will see through the smoke and media hype and somehow we will find the right path.

Why big Government?

This campaign season is one of the more depressing I have been through in my 45+ years of voting. The economy is not going well and what do our Congressional and Presidential candidates offer - more "free" programs. This is what politicians do in an election year, but sooner or later the American people are going to get smart and start asking "where is all this money coming from?" I'll tell you where - it's on the backs of our children and grandchildren.

As a businessman and senior executive for many years, my companies went through many up and down cycles. When we were faced with a slow economy and a slowdown in business, we had to make changes. These changes usually meant cutting expenses and sometimes even laying off employees. In every case we were able to keep our company solvent, and this fiscal discipline almost always resulted in a more efficient company.

Our government has always been just the opposite. When economies slow, the political response is to give out money in the form of a "stimulus", bail out failing companies, bail out individuals who bought homes they could not afford - and all this with money we do not have - just increase the national debt and kick the problem down the road for our children and grandchildren to solve.

Have you ever seen a political leader step forward and say: "This will be a tough economy for a year or two so we need to reduce government expenses, and that may also require a reduction in the government work force" The answer is NO, because we have no strong political leaders anymore.

When revenues are down the response by government is to raise taxes. There is never any discussion about reducing expenses. This in my opinion is one of the fundamental problems in this country now . Our national debt is trillions of dollars (I won't give the exact amount because it will probably increase several billion while I write this blog). And as this debt continues to skyrocket, all our politicians talk about are new expanded government programs.

Just think about how this country would be reshaped if we had a national referendum vote on important issues...a direct vote by the American people:

- Should we reduce government expenses or raise taxes?
- With an approval rating of less than 10% should we put a 'two term' limit on Representatives and Senators, like we do with the President?

We know how the people would vote, that is why you will never see a national referendum and why things will probably never change in Washington until our economy collapses as a result of our own national debt. And guess who will be responsible for that debt...not our politicians.

"Green" Madness

I am as much of an environmentalist as anyone. We live on 20 acres in a pristine area of Central California - we recycle everything, we provide water for the local wild animals and even feed them leftover vegetables and bread, we quietly pick up even the smallest pieces of trash along our local roads, and even grow our own grapes to make wine (not "green" wine - just red and white). But I don't think of myself as being "green"...really, what does that mean other than sounding cool?

Much has been published about the Democrats planning to have the "greenest" convention in history in Denver this fall. You can go to the Internet and view the complete protocol describing everything they are doing:

- expanded bike lanes for the delegates who can use the 1000 "free" bikes the city will provide for them (I can picture Barney Frank and Gerald Nadler cycling into town for dinner),
- "green" menus at the many restaurants which will serve organic and vegetarian fare on biodegradable dinnerware,
- reusable water bottles so those nasty plastic water bottles will not have to be used by the delegates, and the city will provide "refilling" stations so delegates can fill their bottle with pristine Denver municipal water.

These efforts are all based on good intentions, but in this writers opinion it reeks of political posturing. Believe it or not, the DNC has hired a "Greening" Manager to oversee all aspects of the Convention's environmental impact. They have also hired a "Carbon" consultant that will evaluate the carbon footprint of everything they do. In addition each delegate can get a personal carbon footprint evaluation if they wish. I wonder who will evaluate the carbon footprint of the delegates airplane flights to Denver, especially those like Al Gore, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and all those Democrat VIPs who will arrive on private jets? These private jets will probably spew more carbon into the atmosphere in 20 minutes than these high priced consultants will save during the entire Convention.

Here are some of their other "greening" efforts:

- each delegate will get a list of only "green certified" companies in Denver that they should do business with (who does the green certification?),

- restrictions will be placed on ordering materials from companies that might have to drive long distances to deliver products or services to the Convention, and therefore emit too many carbon emissions (good luck getting the tofu for those organic meals),

- no fried food at any DNC sponsored meals (I don't think the Southern Delegation and Black Caucus were consulted on this decision),
- all balloons used in the Conference Hall for celebrations must be biodegradable (they are even testing the proposed balloons in compost piles to ensure that the supplier is complying) - why not be a true environmentalist and forget the balloons?
- all meals served must be low fat and have food that has at least three colors - the DNC has supplied a list of colors that are acceptable (I don't understand this one),
- and finally the DNC has specified that the baseball hats and fanny packs for the delegates must be made from organic cotton, and made in the USA, by union employees. Unfortunately the supplier has informed them that there were no such manufacturers in the USA.


I'm sure I will hear from some of my environmentalist friends who read this blog, but frankly these "rules" are humorous, and in my opinion "green madness". I also believe the average American is getting fed up with all this "green" BS.

Although many of these green rules by the DNC are laughable, and fun to write about, if they do this for a convention I can't help but wonder how the Democrats might try to regulate our lives if they gain control of the Senate, House, and Presidency this fall.