The Courts are at it Again

Philip Berg, a citizen, lawyer, and a life-long Democrat by the way, has questioned, by way of lawsuit, the constitutional eligibility of Obama to be president. The constitution says 3 things must be archived to be POTUS:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Berg has questioned weather or not he is eligible under the first requirement. This is a valid argument considering that Obama has never released his birth certificate, so there is no way to prove if he is a natural born citizen or not. But sadly the judge in this case, Judge Surrick, has dismissed the case because, he said, Berg had no standing, or doesn't have the right to question weather Obama has met the constitutional requirements.

This makes absolutely no sense. If Berg doesn't who does? Who can question a candidate? I assure you the constitutional requirements were not written just to look at and say, "Oh well, there is no one to enforce them so...". They were made to be enforced. And if not by a U.S. citizen then by who?

This case is on its way to the Supreme Court for appeal, and I pray for once that the Court actually reads, interprets, and enforces the constitution for once. Unlike what it has done the past with abortion and others.
Godspeed to Philip Berg.

Taxes Shmaxes

Joe the Plumber has proved a wonderful point about Obama's tax plan. It doesn't make sense. Joe wants a new store, new employees, more revenue, to buy and sell more products and services. But in steps an Obama presidency and he receives higher taxes. So he can't get his business moving, and when many of these cases add up the economy slows down more than it already has. Joe has made his way up in the world and now he is going to get knocked down because, according to Obama, we need to spread the wealth around. The scary thing is that this is one of Marx's ideas.
Obama is going to increase spending so in turn he needs to increase revenue. One of his proposals: increase of corporate taxes. Wonderful right? Those big, mean corporations deserved to be taxed more. Wrong. The corporations will either one, pass the increased tax right into the price of their products. Causing higher prices on EVERYTHING that you buy, ultimately hurting the middle class. Or they can cut production costs by reducing amount of employees or closing plants, once again hurting the middle class. So is Obama really for the middle class? Obama said he will end tax breaks for companies that send job oversees. Great right? But who are some companies with jobs oversees that should be done here in America? The Big 3: GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler. (It is sad but true) So Obama is going to end tax breaks for these already struggling companies, that are already cutting jobs in massive amounts. Once again hurting the middle class. American companies are being crushed under high some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, 35%. Why would any company want to do businesses here when they can go somewhere else with higher taxes?
But if we lower corporate taxes then we have raise other taxes(income, capital gains, death etc...). No. We have to cut spending. The government is getting bigger all the time, taking on more programs, adding more regulators, throwing more money around and adding to the already humongous bureaucracy.
Cutting taxes+curbing spending= a better economy and smaller government.

Watch This Video Now

Election Buzz

I haven't posted for a long time. Summer got busy, but now life is starting to settle into what will hopefully be a non-busy fall. But a lot has happened this summer(or since I last posted):

• Gas prices peaked and then fell. Some parts of our outer coasts have been opened to drilling.
• Obama held a steady lead in polls all summer, some back and forth blah blah boring. Obama picks Biden and the McCain picks Sarah Palin.....'Who?' was my first reaction. She seems strong, has had some mishaps(but so has Biden), but most importantly has energized the Republican base who weren't so sure about McCain.
• ECONOMIC CRISIS, THE SKY IS FALLING, PULL YOUR MONEY OUT. That is basically what has gone on the the past few weeks. Today the bailout failed, I'm not an economist, nor am I psychic, so I have no idea what is in the future for our economy. Credit will dry up? Banks will fail? I do know that the economy will bounce back, we have always have a resilient economy full of hard workers, stong families, and strong companies, it will come back, I don't know when, but I think it will.
  

__________________________________________________________________
Recently I have wanted to puke every time I watch the news. I can not stand it. I usually have a one way conversation with the news. I feel like I need a big megaphone to yell everything that is pent up inside me to America. Every time I read some incriminating things, or watch some incriminating videos, that could tip the scales in McCain's favor, and I haven't seen it on the mainstream media I want to scream. These people that run the media corporations are so bent on having Obama win they will do anything, spin anything anyway, and they never smear Obama.
I believe that because McCain has stayed in the hunt this long that the media has realized their plan is not working. Their plan to spin and smear McCain so bad that they can win the election for Obama. Americans are not stupid, they are aware of the spin and the bias. In a recent poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports 50% of respondents believed that the media is trying to helped Obama win. Just 11% believe that they are helping McCain. But yet they continue to step up their attacks. In the end I hope that people will revolt against the media and say, "I don't care what they say, I am going to stand up for: less government, lower taxes, supporting a winning war, supporting life, supporting capitalism, and free trade, etc."

Have you heard these?

• Obama wanted to use a rape victim in one of his ads. Sick.
• Democrats are the ones who do not want more regulation.

Just to name 2. There are more. Got any? Comment.

So get ready...Its election season. Put on the Seattle its gonna be a roller coaster, and put on your goggles mud is gonna fly. 35 DAYS TO GO!

Naive 2

Naive: Webster describes it as deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment. In this case this perfectly describes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Today is the second in a series I have started entitled Naive. This post is about all three candidates views on the carbon tax bill(Warner-Lieberman).
________________________________________________________
Maybe you have noticed on the side of my blog, my advertisement for Drill Here Dill Now Pay Less campaign. They support the real solution for the skyrocketing gas prices. As a part of a middle call American family(well upper class to Barack, that is good topic for another Naive) I know the rising gas prices hurt. And I know that this carbon tax bill will not help on bit.

As you can see by this chart this bill will have drastic effects on the price of gas.

Just a note on this the prices are from May 20th, and as of now the prices are still on the rise and there is no end in sight. Also it does in take into account inflation, increaded demand, or what the awful countries of Argentina and Iran could do to the prices by stopping o their supply of oil to us. So the effects could be much worse.

The real solution, more supply. Basic economics that the Congress doesn't seem to get. More supply and the price goes down. Where do we get more oil. How about this rocky Mountain Shale, ANWR, or places off the coast of Florida and other places in the Gulf where it is currently ILLEGAL to drill. At least the Chinese have the idea, they are finding a solution to their oil problem DRILLING WHERE WE CANNOT. I am very outraged. What are we doing trying to tax, tax, tax, fix a global warming lie, when none of these are currently the pressing issue on American's minds.

Also with this bill is tariffs for countries if they cannot reduce their emissions. What will that cause? Higher prices for products made in toes countries. That is more trouble for the current economic woes.

Why do all 3 of the candidates support this bill? Probably, political pandering but they all need to stop being so Naive and get off their lofty pedestals and realize that this bill will make matters worse.

Time to stop this bill. Sign the petition at here and contact your Congressmen/women today. By the way if we start drilling in these places it is a 2 for 1 shot. We lower gas prices and we start to get off our addiction to foreign oil.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

Naive 1

Naive: Webster describes it as deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment. This perfectly describes Barack Obama in many ways. Today is the first in a series I am starting entitled Naive. The first post is about Mr.Obama's view on Iran.
_____________________________________________________________
Obama has said that he wants to start deplomacy and make peace with the Iranians. All I can say to that is, "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?"

Quote 1. In a November 2007 interview Obama said he wants to

“engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

Naive statement 1. He wants to engage in diplomacy with the horrible, angry, hateful nation of Iran. Diplomacy will not work with Iran. They hate us, as bad as it sounds, it is absolutely true. If Obama were to meet with Iran, nothing good would come out of it for the United States. The Iranians want nothing to do with helping us, all they want would be something for them, say like a bigger hand in Iraq(might I add that would be scary), more money for themselves, more food, more help with welfare, economic sanctions being lifted, free trade with the US and so on. All of these things would benefit Iran and not America. We would not get more oil, shut down of their nuclear program, and so on.

What is the word that I'm looking for to describe this kind of diplomacy hmm...naive...yes but not the word I'm thinking of. Oh, I know appeasement- giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Biggest example of this is before WWII. We(the allies) kept saying "Hitler it's just fine if you start taking over these countries. Hitler you are great. Go ahead, no harm done." And look what happened, WWII. I am not saying that war with Iran is imminent, but by appeasing to them it most defiantly will not make them like us any more.

Naive Statement #2. He promises not to seek “regime change”. What I get from that is that he would never support a regime change,that the regime currently in power in Iran is doing a wonderful job and that nothing has to be done about them. In actuality it is a brutal regime, where non-supporters of the government are killed, you have to practice religion. And the fact that they cannot get the real story because of censorship by the government. With all that Mr.Obama you wouldn't ever want to see a regime change. Give me a break.

Contradictory Statement #1. Iran stopped meddling in Iraq. Since when does Obama have regard for Iraq? His cut and run strategy seems to me that he could care less about what happens in Iraq so it is time to leave. But he wants Iran to stop meddling in Iraq, give me a break. Actually when he pulls out of Iraq June 20, 2009 that is Iran's invitation to go into Iraq when the US presence in Iraq is gone. Like Obama Cares

Quote 2. Just this week Obama said

"You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Naive statement 1. There are a few reasons they spend a lot less on their military then us. First they do not have as large as a military as America. We have bases, troops, NATO forces all over the globe. Iran doesn't. Does Iran stand a chance if attacking us. Most defiantly no. But they have many other weapons. The biggest terrorism. The state department says that Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Big Threat. Also they have a little but important thing at their disposal called oil. They cut it off and it is just as bad as an attack on us. We would have a badly crippled economy. Big Threat.

Time for people to stop drinking the Obama Kool Aid and open their eyes to Barack Naive Obama

California Gay Marriage: 2

I have too much to say in one comment so I started a new post. I said "make a law" in my last post but they didn't make a law, but they said that the Family Code was unconstitutional. I personally do not agree with it being unconstitutional, and neither did three justices of the court.

If it is constitutional comes down to the fact, is it the natural and unalienable right of a person to get married to who they want? That is up to the court and to the people. But ultimately the people through direct proposition, electing legislators, or electing judges. So I'll let you decide your self from this passage from the California Constitution

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

I know that for homosexuals being with their partner makes them happy, so that is an argument that cannot be won. But where does the line start? Murderers are happy when killing, robbers are happy when robbing, and so forth. The courts have continued to rule that the line starts when the rights of another individual are infringed. So is a homosexual getting married infringing my rights. I guess not. But then another problem starts. If you let homosexuals get married you have to let polygamists get married, you have to let men marry underage girls and so forth, because that makes them happy.

There is obviously a contradiction in this ruling, and the people need to rule where the line is. And I must say though as I said above it doesn't invade my personal rights, as a society as a whole it invades out rights. Homosexuals are not the base of the family, and as the family is the basis of society, society will fail without the true base of the family the only family. So there is where I think the line is, and it needs to get drawn.


Just a tidbit on the court:

Justice Baxter in his concurring dissenting opinion said,

"Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body (the court) cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute, such as Family Code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision."

So ironically, they said Prop.22 was unconstitutional but the court was unconstitutional with their ruling.

So the court has became the legislator, beacuse they have stepped outside of their boundaries by doing only something the legislator can do, restrict this provision in the Family Code.

To Ryan:
I have a problem gay marriage mostly because of my religious views, but also because as Radar said the traditional family is the basis of society. I know nothing about my religious views is admissible in court, and I know that America is not a theocracy but that is where my beliefs are from.

If you have any belief in the Bible Leviticus 18:22 says:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.