First Amendment

I am so tired of hearing how the first amendment says that cross can not be displayed, how prayer isn't allowed, or how religious groups can't use school facilities. In case you are a modern liberal and haven't actually read the First Amendment it says the following about religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I think that the key point is "Or Prohibit the Free Exercise thereof". To me that would mean that I can exercise my religion and that the government doesn't have the right to tell me that I can't. So if they say I can't pray somewhere, I think that would go against the 1st Amendment not vice versa.

But as usual liberals, activist judges and atheist groups don't actually let the facts get in the way!

Yet another book!

I am going to say that Bush is not my favorite President but I also do not believe that he is the worst. Now that said, on with my thought.

It amazes me how many "former" aides to the President have seized on the current hate Bush market to make some money. Everyone that has ever worked in the Bush White House is either on a speaking circuit or selling a book about how they knew better.

Now, the former Press Secretary is writing a book in which he blames push for the Scooter Libby issue.

Former Aide Blames Bush for Leak Deceit

I am not sure if any of this information that all of the former aides is releasing is true or not. I would really question motives when each one of them is set to make a pretty decent amount of money for selling the books or giving the speeches.

Also, what ever happened to the stateman's honor and dignity where former aides and politicians showed each other respect? It has become a complete free for all. Unfortunately, I don't see it getting better any time soon.

Sarkozy stays in the fight

Normally, I am not all that interested in politics in France or much of Europe (yeah I'm the typical uninformed American). That said this fight that Sarkozy is fighting is very interesting to me.

I am an unabashed capitalist. I believe that the free markets for the most part are better than government at almost everything. So to me it is an education on Socialism's effects to look at France. Now, Sarkozy is attempting to fight many of the problems with Socialism with the cure - Capitalism. It appears that the Socialists are going to attempt to fight back.

I was just reading an article on the BBC website that is discussing the current state of affairs and it seems like the first real battle is going to be hard fought.

I really hope that Sarkozy is successful but I think that he is in for a long fight and will probably get a few bruises.

France's Current Issues

It looks like Nicolas Sarkozy may really be in for a battle in France. He is attempting to bring back some market sanity into a very socialized country. Of course, reform is not going to be easy and some people are going to find it extremely difficult because they are going to be expected to change.

The country currently has regulations that completely protect employees from losing their jobs. They have craddle to grave protections on pretty much everything. They also have serious economic problems. I think that most economists would say that deregulation would drastically help their economic problems. With all of the regulations, the companies can't be competitive which is causing a lot of their issues.

I believe that many of the battles Sarkozy is facing are some of the same battles that the Iron Lady - Margaret Thatcher faced in the UK in the 1980's. Many of her reforms were aren't all that popular at the time but history shows that it has been good for the country in the longer term.

Will history reflect as kindly on Sarkozy or will he just get derailed and get thrown out? It will be interesting to see Socialism fight Capitalism.

They admitted it!!

I was amazed when I recently read an article about the U.N. announcing that they have drastically overestimated the number of AIDS cases in the world. They cut the number by 40%!!!

Anyway that's not what amazed me. What did amaze me was two statements that were made in the article with very little emphasis.

1. "Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS."

2. "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein

Both statements amazed me because they are so true. The U.N. has really only been concerned about fundraising not about actually solving the problem. This is the very nature of government.

There are so many "crisises" in the world that follow this same approach. First, the "scientists" yell that the sky is falling. They ask for funding to research the problem. They ask for funding to find the solution. When the funding and interest dwindle, they either yell that it is much worse than orignally thought or they find something else to yell about (i.e. get money for) .

Global Warming, AIDS crisis, world hunger, endangered species, avian flu, SARS, etc. Not that any of these items don't have a seed of truth but everyone is blown out of proportion in order to gain funding without doing the necessary research.

To best understand the issue... Follow the money!

So many experts

Why is it that every one who leaves the White House immediately has to go on a speaking circuit and disagree with the current policies?

I was just reading Colin Powell's statements about not attacking Iran. He said that Iran is a long way from a nuclear weapon and that the U.S. doesn't have the support to attack Iran.

Powell: Iran far from nuclear weapon

While I respect Mr. Powell's opinion, doesn't it seem convienent that after a few years of being out of office now he has the answers? The media believed he didn't know anything when the Iraq conflict came up. Now after he hasn't had access to current intelligence, we are going to publish how much he knows.

Or could it be that he is being published because he has an opposing view? Or could it be he has an opposing view because they will publish it? Running for VP?

I think it is definitely open to speculation.

2nd Ammendment

In the current political environment and with the Supreme Court considering discussing the 2nd ammendment case I think that many people need to really consider what our founding fathers were thinking. I found this article about the 2nd Ammendment and I really think that it outlines the real meaning of the Second Ammendment and the genius of what the founding fathers created.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

Politics of Personal Destruction

I am hoping that a time comes that the politics of personal destruction at least calms down. I can understand Republicans attacking Democrats but attacking people in your own party isn't going to help win the Presidency in my opinion.

Apparently ads are being run attacking Romney's religion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1107/AntiRomney_antiMormon_calls_being_made_in_Iowa.html

Pretty pathetic turn of events in the primaries. Unfortunately not surprising.

The Making of Queen Hillary 2: Thanks Wolf

From Drudge:

"CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer did an 'outstanding' job in Vegas, a senior adviser to the Hillary campaign said early Friday. 'He was outstanding, and did not gang up like Russert did in Philadelphia. He avoided the personal attacks, remained professional and ran the best debate so far. Voters were the big winners last night.'

A rival campaign insider charges: 'Wolf turned into a lamb. No follow-up question on Clinton's huge flip on drivers licenses?'"

Isn't it nice that Wolf was so willing to help out Queen Hillary's campaign?

Why I dislike Liberals and Liberalism

I am absolutely disgusted by this article. A troop of Boy Scouts in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, specifically Cambridge, wanted to send care packages to the troops. The city decided they wouldn't allow it because it was "political"

Cambridge Officials Put a Stop to Boy Scout Drive to Aid Troops in Iraq

Have all liberals lost their minds?

Do they wonder why people call them UNPATRIOTIC? Because they ARE UNPATRIOTIC!!!!!!

Ron Paul

I will start off by saying that I like about 60%-70% of what Ron Paul stands for. The other 30-40% would keep me from voting for him. Ron Paul is definitely more Libertarian than he is a Republican. As I stated in an earlier post about Libertarians, I like many of their concepts in principle. He definitely believes in the Libertarian ideals of small government and very little interference in our lives.

My main point of this article is that I really don't believe that he will win the nomination for the Republican party. That being said, don't the Republicans have to open their eyes a little bit when someone with Ron Paul's values has generated the kind of money he has and the buzz that he has created? Isn't it time for the Republicans to realize that most of their base doesn't want larger government every time they turn around?

As long as the Republicans continue to move to the Left I believe that more and more of the base is going to become disgruntled and question the party. I think that if Guiliani wins the primaries it going to cause some serious issues in the Republican party because for many I think it will be the just another indicator of the parties shift to the Left and the loss of it's values.

I hope that the party starts to realize that Ron Paul is gaining support because of his stances on smaller government and less intrusion not on the other 30%.

Hindsight is 20/20

It must be nice to be a Democrat in the U.S. Congress right now. You voted for authorization for the Iraq conflict a few years ago. You did because you were concerned based on the intelligence you were provided. Even Bill Clinton saw Saddam as a serious threat. So the president sends troops into harms way and we find out that the intelligence was either flawed or Saddam utilized the time we rattled our sabre to move the weapons.

Now, here is the beautiful part for the Democrats, you get to completely forget that you voted for the action based on the same information the president saw. You get to say that Bush made a poor decision to go into Iraq (again forgetting that you actually agreed). You tell him to unbreak the vase that got knocked off the counter and say he's sorry.

Unfortunately, over here in reality we realize that you can't unbreak the vase. You need to either repair the vase or build a new vase. That will take some time.

Time?? That is unacceptable, fix the vase now! We will stop supporting the troops by pulling their funding! No, that's not unpatriotic to pull the rug out from under the troops! How dare you say that! We support the troops just not with money and equipment.

Was the war in Iraq the right thing to do? Doesn't matter, the vase is broken now. It must be fixed. It is our responsibility because as in the little shops - You break it, you own it.

Hey Democrats, STOP trying to put our troops in more danger by removing their funding and think about how to fix the vase quickly so they can come home!

Does the UN have a backbone?

I just reading an article about Iran's nuclear centrifuge capabilities being confirmed by the IAEA. They are very obviously pushing the envelope of what should be allowed. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

Decision time for US over Iran threat

To me the real question is: Does the UN have a backbone at all? Will they finally stand up and say enough is enough or will they again condemn the behavior and say knock it off PLEASE.

So many people around the world condemn the U.S. for acting unilaterally. If the UN had any spine or any place where they would actually draw a line and not back down, the US might not have to do that. Unfortunately, again it is beginning to look like the UN will shirk it's responsibilities.

Who will again deal with the problem, pay the cost, pay the price, and make the world safer for all? The same people who have been doing it for decades... the U.S. and it's real allies (UK, Australia, etc.). France, Germany, and Russia will wring their hands and then complain about our unilateral nature.

When will the UN or the hand wringers finally show some spine??

Politically Homeless 6: New Book

Well, I really meant to continue writing the series of articles about the lack of a political party that really fits my viewpoints but then some other items came up and took up a lot of time. I do intend to keep working down this path for my own sanity.

Anyway, along the same line of thinking, I started reading Bernard Goldberg's book Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right and I really find it to be interesting. He seems to discuss some of the exact concepts that I have been thinking about.

We'll see what the rest of the book brings.

Value of a Dollar

I am very interested by macro-economics. Not quite to the point of reading many of the books that true economists read such as Friedmann and the like (maybe with some time I might). Anyway the current currency market really interests me. I just found an interesting article on ABC News. Here it is.

Why Is the Dollar Losing Value?

One thing I do find fascinating is that many people are simple minded in their analysis of the issues with the dollar. Why is the dollar so low? Because Bush is moron. Great analysis, thank you, we are all dumber for having read that.

Very interesting dynamics at work with the dollar. Good article.

LinkedIn Joins Google integration

I was just reading an article by Scott Allen on this LinkedIntelligence blog that sounds like a very cool addition to LinkedIn capabilities.

LinkedIn Joins Google OpenSocial API Initiative

Reverse Logic for Profit

It appears that the oil markets have no sense of common logic. I was just reading an article about the OPEC decision to not raise production quotas and the following statement was made:

"Badri said there was no reason for oil to reach $100, as it almost did last week, and continued to blame refinery bottlenecks, geopolitical issues and the weak U.S. dollar for oil's ascent from below $70 a barrel in mid-August."
-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/bs_nm/opec_badri_dc_1

This statement makes absolutely no sense to me. A bottleneck at the refining step is causing the price of crude oil, the product that supplies refineries, to go up. That is like saying that because the temperatures outside have been higher is the reason that natural gas prices have gone up.

From an economic perspective, it is reversed logic. It seems to me that bottlenecks in the refineries would cause there to be a larger crude oil supply because they are not processing it as quickly. This would cause supply surplus. Laws of economics say surpluses cause prices to fall not rise.

Is it possible that the all the players in the oil game have learned from politicians that if you just find something to blame people will buy it?

The Making of Queen Hillary

Madame President...

That is exactly what many people want to hear and what many campaign advisors in Hillary's campaign are trying to create (or manufacture).

I have read two stories today about Hillary's campaign officials dictating or manipulating how the questions are asked during debates. After the last debate and the beating that she took in the non-Clintonesta press I do understand.

Here is an article about rigging the questions:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html

Now it seems that Wolf Blitzer is being told to be nice and not gang up on her in Thursday's debate.

Are the Democrats really interested in Democracy? Is there something that Hillary is afraid of?