Where Does Obama Stand on Slave Reparations?

President-elect Obama hasn't made his stance on slave reparations clear yet, as he hasn't made his position clear on a great many issues.

According to NewsMax, Obama was opposed to slave reparations before he ran for Congress; after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he stated that he was opposed to "...just signing over checks to African-Americans," which is a lot different than opposing the concept outright as he was before.

Where does he stand now?

I am opposed to court-ordered reparations, as the statute of limitations has LONG expired for slavery, which ended in 1865. Doing it in 1868 would have been better than in 2008, as it would have helped the direct victims of slavery. It's too late now.

And if American taxpayers will be called upon to pay reparations, does that mean that the decendents of Union soldiers who died during the Civil War to free the slaves will be made to pay as well? Is that fair?

I have other objections that I'm not going to get into now, but I think that Obama coming in on the side of the slave reparations crowd will fire up the kind of people who have already been arrested for plotting an assassination attempt.

And I agree with the Libertarian Party, in the assessment that a serious attempt to hand out checks to slave decendents for wrongs committed by a part of the population, long dead, will actually increase racism, rather than bury it. I think there's quite enough to be getting on with, without adding this complication.

Proposal 8 Succeeded in California Because Judges Didn't Listen to the Electorate in the First Place

If opponents of California's Proposal 8, which bans gay marriage, want to blame someone for the passage of the measure, they should start by blaming the judges who forced the issue in the face of strong opposition from California's voters. Instead, the left is blaming Christians for running a better campaign than they did.

Prop 8 succeeded because gay marriage was imposed by the judges on the voters of California, when they had already objected to it. The judges overstepped their authority, and there was a wave of resentment that went along with it. The U.S. Constitution makes it clear that marriage regulations are a reserved power for the states to decide. Activist judges like to assume this power for themselves.

Voters had already approved Proposal 22 in 2000 with 61% of the vote, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Five years later, the courts overturned Prop 22. Legal challenges tied up the issue until May of this year, when the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages, to take effect in mid-June. Almost immediately, a new ballot proposal started gaining strength in the shape of Prop 8.

The feelings of the voters haven't changed that much. And they threw the issue back into the faces of the activist judges, who will almost certainly overturn it again, in another display of judicial activism. This debate will never go away.

Every state in the union has to decide this issue for themselves, and some definitely have, with varying degrees of judicial intervention. I continue to oppose any federal involvement in what is, under the Constitution, a state matter. Federal judges need to let the state supreme courts have the final say in matters related to state powers.

Senator Talks Up Fairness Doctrine Again: Assault on First Amendment Set to Begin

Senator Shumer is talking about the Fairness Doctrine again, setting the stage for the Democrats to begin their legalized assault on the First Amendment.

He was on Fox News on Tuesday and did a word play on Fox's own motto: fair and balanced. He said that the Fairness Doctrine would bring fairness and balance to the AM dial, balancing conservative shows with liberal ones.

Let's be frank.

Liberal talk shows are money-losing propositions for radio stations, while the conservative ones rake in the cash, and have tremendous staying power. Why should the radio stations be forced into such a money-losing proposition by carrying liberal talk-radio on an equal footing with the conservative ones?

Conservatives are afraid that since liberal shows are money-losers, that they would cut back on conservative shows as well in order to avoid the flak and fines that the FCC would be required to impose, as well as limit the damage to their bottom lines that liberal programming would bring.

Senator Schumer also said that those who opposed the Fairness Doctrine also wanted to limit the amount of pornography on the air. His argument makes no sense from a literal standpoint. Pornography isn't seen on radio.

And he's made no argument for more of a conservative viewpoint on TV news stations, such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, or NBC, or more liberal viewpoints on Fox News. Senator Shumer and his friends have targeted radio exclusively. That fact alone makes the Fairness Doctrine unfair.

Conservatives Should Declare Independence from the GOP: They'd Do Better With Their Own Party

I think the time has come for the conservatives to break with the GOP. They're Democratic-Republicans anyways!

The Republicans lost because they tried to out-Democrat the Democrats. And then they became the Democrats, spending money that isn't theirs, and not agreeing with anyone (including themselves) on anything. And they tried to push the conservatives out of the way in the process.

Being a conservative is about taking a stand, and living by it, not changing a stand when the wind of public opinion starts to blow in a different direction. All one has to do is look at the global warming hubris and how McCain embraced it to win over Democratic supporters.

And now we see the consequences of trying to out-Democrat the Democrats: the GOP's butt is in a sling, the result of voter dissatisfaction with Democratic-Republicans.

Will the moderates in the GOP learn?

Democrats Should Keep Their 15% Approval Rating in Mind: With Fewer Republicans Around, They're in the Hot Seat

Before they get too carried away, the Democrats need to keep their approval rating in mind. As of a CBS poll from last week, Congressional job approval stands at 15%, which is half of what President Bush's is.

And with fewer Republicans around to blame, and a Democrat preparing to move into the White House on January 20th, the Dems will be squarely in the hot seat.

It will be interesting to see if they succumb to the same pressure that the Republicans did, with one-party in control of the Congress and the White House.

If anything, the Democrats are even more vulnerable, as their party is a sewn-together coalition of competing factions. There's a few triggers that we've already seen will cause the Democratic Party to splinter; remember when Pelosi and Reid decided to knuckle under to President Bush and his war budget last year? The anti-war Democrats nearly rioted in the aisles.

We'll see how this goes.

Status of Forces Agreement With Iraq Needs to be Delayed: New Administration Doesn't Need Their Hands Bound

I think that the Iraqi and U.S. governments should put off agreeing to any Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) until after January 20th, when President Obama takes office and his intentions are made clear. There's no point in making an agreement like this if the Obama Administration will be withdrawing troops on a large scale, as he suggested during the campaign.

With the current mandate set to expire on December 31st, our troops will be required to suspend military operations in Iraq and return to their bases throughout Iraq. There is a need for U.S. troops to be able to defend themselves if their bases are attacked; I think it would be a good idea for both governments to extend the current mandate to mid-March, until the new U.S. government is in place and both governments can meet can plot out what the next 16-20 months will look like.

Why sign a SOFA with Iraq if our forces will be gone in 16-20 months?

WSJ Says Treatment of Bush Was "Disgraceful": Administration's Shredding of Constitution Was MORE Disgraceful

I'm at odds with the Wall Street Journal's op-ed piece on how President Bush was treated during the campaign of the last two years.

Frankly, I'm not concerned with what our enemies overseas are thinking. I'm much more concerned about the damage done to our Constitution in the name of national security that this Administration and this President have allowed to occur.

Indefinite detention of people? No habeas corpus? Star chamber justice? Not being allowed to confront their accusers? No trial by jury? No attorneys? No independent judicial review of the cases and sentences? Illegal evidence is allowed? A majority vote to decide guilt, and not a unanimous vote? Torture?

No, the Constitution of the United States is the SUPREME law of the land, and cannot be altered by lesser laws like the Patriot Act or the Military Commission Act of 2006. It's protections cannot be changed until the Constitution is properly amended and voted on as outlined in the Constitution itself. That has NOT happened.

It's true that the country hasn't been attacked since 9/11, but that's because it's easier for terrorists to shoot at American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than trying to infiltrate over here and risk getting caught before being able to do any damage. And our soldiers are more than happy to return the favor and fire back.

I am in complete disagreement with the Wall Street Journal on this issue. The other issues quoted in the article are trivial, compared to the damage that President Bush has done and received criticism on, and rightfully so.

Michigan's Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 are ABOMINATIONS: I Despise Both of Them

Michigan voted to become a safe haven for growing pot, in the ugliest case of drug-fiendish group-think that I have ever seen.

Who will be authorized to grow medical marijuana? My drug-fiend neighbors? The local supermarket? And what's to stop criminal elements from registering as growers and engaging in criminal enterprise as well as supplying "medical" pot?

Will it come across state borders, in violation of federal laws? And which laws will trump the other laws? Federal anti-drug laws, or state ones?

I'll be the first one to admit that I absolutely despise Proposal 1, and am very perturbed that so many voters were hoodwinked into voting 'yes' on this proposal.

As for Proposal 2, I voted against this as well on religious grounds. In addition, by the ballot's own language, it will use embryos that are unsuitable for implantation, which means that they're using defective embryos, and will require taxpayers to pay for faulty research. This is a waste of money, as well as being morally objectionable.

It also closes the door on preventing future research along similar lines, which I object to as well. I'm no fan of Prop 2, but realize that this will be harder to reverse than Prop 1, which I will continue to rail against.

What a revolting turn of events!

Obama Wins; Definitely Not a Reagan Landslide, But More Than Enough to Beat McCain

Barack Obama made history, becoming the first African-American man to become President of the United States. It wasn't quite a Reagan-style landslide, but was still more than enough to put McCain away. Congratulations to the President-elect.

I'm more unhappy about Michigan's Prop 1 and 2 right now than I am about the race for the White House. I've been on record as not being happy with either candidate, but we have a new President, and without all the legal dramas of 2000. For that, I am grateful.

We'll see how President-elect Obama does. I'm looking forward to a lot of new source material in the next four years, especially if his Socialist views begin to take the shape of policy.

For now, he has a lot of work to do in order to straighten out the economy.

It Will Be Over Tomorrow; We Will Have a New President

As the rest of the country gets ready to vote starting in a little over eight hours from now, I still have mixed feelings on the candidates.

They are not the best that their respective parties have to offer, and we're going to be stuck with one of them for the next four years, assuming they stay healthy.

McCain has made too many compromises over his career to be called a real conservative. Obama is too young and inexperienced and is too far over to the left; he's going to be forced to move to the right in order to govern if he wins tomorrow.

I don't think that the polls are correct in their blowout predictions either.

They've gotten the last two Presidential elections wrong with their polling data, both before and during Election Day. The problem is that the media and the pollsters continually underestimate the turnout on the Republican side, while overestimating the Democratic turnout on Election Day. And they never seem to learn from their mistakes.

And when the polls do not match the election results, they start screaming about voter suppression and start looking for victims. They don't seem to understand that many people don't want to tell who they actually voted for. I'd tell a pollster that I wrote in Mickey Mouse, just to throw their numbers off. It's none of their business!

It'll be interesting to see if any coal states predicted to go to Obama flip to McCain. Very few of the networks carried the Obama/coal industry story.

I will be watching the results tomorrow night with great interest.

Newspaper Covers Up Obama Statements on Killing the Coal Industry to Keep Coal-Producing States in His Column

The October Surprise came in November, and might well change the complexion of the race for the White House.

The surprise was a statement by Barack Obama, made in January of this year, about the coal industry to the San Francisco Chronicler. Obama said, in the recording, that the companies could try to build all the coal-fired plants that they want, but they could only do it in a way that would bankrupt the coal industry if he had his way.

Really? And when was he going to tell the twenty-seven coal-producing states that little bit of information? And when was he going to explain that to the ten largest coal-producing states:Montana, Illinois, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Texas and Indiana?

And here's why the Chronicler withheld the information about their preferred candidate:




Many of the undecided/"leaning Obama" and "marginally McCain" states also have a sizable portion of their economies built around coal production, with thousands of voters depending on the coal mines for their livelihoods.

For this supposedly "huge" lead that Obama has on McCain, the race is still in the air and could go in a number of directions OTHER than the way that the media PREFERS.

I think it's going to be a lot closer than ANYONE thinks.

ATF Breaks Up Skinhead Ring That Wanted to Go After Obama; This is a Small Taste of Things to Come

The government announced today that it was charging two skinheads with plotting to kill Senator Obama and dozens of others in a blaze of hatred and gunfire. It's likely that this is the tip of the iceberg, and other plots are being planned.

The skinheads fully expected to be killed in the attempt to gun down Obama in a drive-by suicide attack. Luckily they were stopped before they could carry out this plot.

I hope that, regardless of the way the election goes, that the President stays alive and healthy for the entire term.

Fairness Doctrine is Fair in Name Only: It is Legalized Assault on First Amendment

With the Barak Obama/John McCain thing nearly over, Democrats in Congress are turning up the rhetoric to restore the Fairness Doctrine to push conservatives off the AM dial.

It's fair in name only. It will target only conservatives as they hold the lion's share of the market, and will ignore the smaller--and just as provocative--leftists and others who make just as many damning statements on their programs as Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity do.

And with the dawn of the internet, it's also unnecessary.

Liberal programs don't do well on the radio, as the Air America Radio experience showed us. But commentators like Rush Limbaugh rake in the dough because they understand marketing and advertising, which was the primary reason that Air America went under. They didn't follow a conventional business model that Limbaugh and the other successful opposition programs do.

All talk of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine should be shelved permanently.

OPEC Calls Emergency Meeting: What, They Didn't Make Enough Money When Oil Was $147 a Barrel??!

OPEC is calling an emergency meeting of the cartel next week to discuss solutions to the falling oil prices. It's dropped more than 50% (to it's ACTUAL price in my opinion) since hitting $147 a barrel earlier this year.

How many trillions did they make when oil was $147 a barrel?

What? What? $3.9 trillion at current production rate of 27 million barrels a day? And that's for ONE day??!

So what are they yelling about now? From the Jakarta Post on September 10th: OPEC President Chakib Khelil's comments, however, indicate that most members would rather accept less-costly crude than cut back and risk renewing the market turmoil that in recent months set one price record after another.

They sure aren't complaining about the size of their bank accounts from said record prices. And if we don't trust what our own oil executives are saying about how much they spend on R&D with regards to justifying high fuel prices, we sure can't trust anything that OPEC says about oil prices either.

They can make due with $68 a barrel.

Horrific Nebraska Child-Abandonment Law Needs to be Repealed NOW: Seventeen Kids Abandoned So Far

Back on September 25th, I wrote about the new Nebraska law that allows parents to abandon kids at local hospitals up to the age of 17, and not just infants. A father had just dropped off nine kids at a Nebraska hospital, and I predicted that the floodgates were open.

A blind man could have seen this one coming; Nebraska legislators have decided to hold a hearing on the new law after parents began dropping off their teenagers in increasing numbers. And for the first time since this abomination became law, parents are starting to drive in from neighboring states to abandon their kids in Nebraska too.

Who's the IDIOT or group of IDIOTS who came up with this STUPID plan? What were they thinking was going to happen? And how many kids are going to suffer devastating mental issues from being abandoned like garbage at a dump by their parents/guardians?

Yes, there's only 17 kids who have been abandoned since this law came into effect, but it's 17 new child placement cases, which is far too many. According to Nebraska officials, none of the kids were in life-threatening situations at home. The older kids said during interviews with child welfare experts that they had frustrated parents trying to deal with the issues normally associated with raising kids, and teenagers in particular and gave up.

This law is draconian, and I hope that the Nebraska legislature reverses a terrible mistake and takes care of the kids that it is partially responsible for orphaning. And it takes steps to strengthen their family and child welfare programs so the parents have more choices than abandoning their families to the state.

Voting for #2: My Choice is Already Made

I voted absentee today and dropped it in the mail with mixed feelings on the matter.

And for the first time, I didn't vote for the headliner on the ticket; I voted for the #2 slot this time around, because I think there's a distinct possibility that the VP nominee on the ticket will be President sometime before the end of the new Administration.

Our country still has a problem with violent racism, and I think that some redneck will inevitably take a shot at Obama. We'll almost certainly see a surge in racial hate groups, especially with the economy in the shape it's in now if Obama is elected President. They'll blame him for their not being able to hold jobs; and whatever excuse that they can come up with to go after him. And we'll have a problem with domestic terrorism as well as international terrorism.

And McCain's age is something to be concerned with. We know that the person who is the President ages a lot faster than normal, due to the heavy work schedule, stress and other issues. McCain is 72 now, with a history of heart trouble. That's an issue.

I hope that both stay alive and healthy, whether they are elected in November or not.

But for my vote, I was thinking about a possible President Biden or President Palin running the country. Biden has too many liberal votes and causes to his name for my taste, and I wish Palin had a little more experience on the political side of things. But ultimately I voted for the candidate who best matched my social views.

We also know that the President will surround himself or herself with the best economic advisers that can be found, so they don't necessarily need to be an expert on the economy themselves, so long as the advisers are expert's experts on the topic.

It's a bonus if the President does have experience in the business world, but what they have to be able to do is comprehend it, and then communicate it in a way that makes sense to the public.

The same thing can be said about every aspect of the Presidency; hopefully the President will chose wise advisers.

Stock Market Continues Adjustment: $700 Billion Mistake Didn't Make a Dent

I wrote on September 28th the following: No $700 billion ever made can stop a crash of a financial system that people have lost their trust in and believe is unstable.

And today's stock market results bear that out: the Dow was down over 800 points today before the market underwent a last-minute rally, which allowed the Dow to close down 300+ points instead of the 800 points that looked likely as the clock ran out.

The problem now is that the global markets are crashing as well. A lot of Western countries do not have an FDIC to safeguard their deposits as we do, and when a government rushes in to save a bank, it has adverse effects on their own stock markets, which are also tied into Wall Street. And investors are panic selling, because they believe that the financial system is weak and unstable.

Welcome to the dark side of globalization.

Is it too late to revoke the bailout? If it isn't going to work, then they should not proceed with it at all.

This has been the strangest bill in quite a while; the size of it is HUGE; Wall Street didn't want it, the politicians say they didn't want it but attached $150 billion in pork to buy off their colleagues to vote for it, Wall Street put it's reaction on public display by losing hundreds of points on the days that the House and Senate voted on this bill; then they said it probably wasn't the fix that was needed. Then Wall Street lost hundreds of points more over worry that the money won't come fast enough. And the taxpayer's on the hook for the entire $850 billion package with little to no hope for a return.

The entire mess should be repealed and re-thought; throwing money away like this is UTTER stupidity!

Now the States Want Handouts Too: California and Massachusetts Put in Their Wish Lists

Well, well, well.

Now the states are lining up for handouts too, wanting the same kind of deal that Wall Street got. Two states--California and Massachusetts--want money as well.

The floodgates are now open; where will this end? And how many states will try to climb on this gravy train?

And I oppose bailing out the states. They should not be treated like banks; they need to make cuts to their budgets so they can operate within their means, just as the federal government must as well. The states need to start lowballing their expectations for monthly income so that they can budget responsibly.

All bills and debts eventually come due, and yet everybody wants the federal government to pay for everything, in the here and now. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT:

The Gross National Debt

Eventually the time will come where the federal government will have to crash it's own budget to pay what it owes to foreign banks; it's going to be really ugly when it does. This is no way to run a government.

This gravy train shouldn't leave the station or see the light of day. The states are responsible for their OWN budgets.

$700 Billion Bailout/Mistake is Actually $850 Billion With Vote Buyoffs

The $700 bailout of Wall Street's Folly will actually be $850 billion with the bribes paid out to members of Congress to change their votes from "nay" to "yay."

Here is the list of pork that was added to the bill:

• $100 million for the construction of a race track.
• $49 million to spread the taxes out from the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster over three years.
• $239 million payout to fishermen who suffered losses during the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
• $3.3 billion for a "Secure rural schools and community self-determination program."
• $3.3 billion in tax cuts for people who don't pay state taxes.
• $478 million for Hollywood.
• $148 million for wool subsidies.
• $33 million for development costs to American Samoa.
• $10 million for a fringe benefit to employers whose employees ride their bicycles to work.
• $322 million for manufacturers of efficient appliances--not for people who buy them!
• $192 million for rum duties. The pirates will be very happy about this provision.
• $2 million for production of wooden arrows for children.

The provisions listed above are the most objectionable ones (in my opinion) in the entire objectionable bill; here is the complete list as compiled by the Taxpayers for Common Sense watchdog group.

House Passes Senate Version of $700 Billion Mistake: Wall Street's Folly is Now Washington's Folly Too

The House rushed through passage of the $700 billion bailout bill, and President Bush hurriedly signed it, clearing the way for this new chapter of the fiasco to proceed.

And Wall Street didn't even bat an eye. When the Senate passed the bill, Wall Street rewarded it with a 350 point loss. When the House and the Administration did their thing today, Wall Street yawned, turned over and lost another 157 points.

Why?

Because now they don't think that this was the right thing to do. Thanks a lot, guys.

In the meantime, here is the complete list of Representatives who changed their vote:

Republican Representatives: Alexander, Barrett, Biggert, Boustany, Buchanan, Coble, Conaway, Dent, Fallin, Frelinghuysen, Gerlach, Hoesktra, Knollenberg, Kuhl, Myrick, Ramstad, Ros-Lehtinen, Schmidt, Shadegg, Shuster, Sullivan, Terry, Thornberry, Tiberi, and Wamp. One note: Welling didn't vote for the first time in his tenure.

Democratic Representatives: Abercrombie, Baca, Berkley, Braley, Carson, Cleaver, Cuellar, Cummings, Edwards (MD), Giffords, Green, Hirono, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee, Kilpatrick, Lee, Lewis (GA), Mitchell, Ortiz, Pascrell, Pastor, Rush, Schiff, Scott (GA), Solis, Sutton, Thompson(CA), Tierney, Watson, Welch (VT), Woolsey, Wu, and Yarmuth.

One important note: Jim McDermitt (D-WA) was the sole Representative to switch his 'yea' vote to 'nay' the second time around.

I don't think any of the Representatives listed above or any of their colleagues that voted 'yea' for this bill should be returned to Congress for another term by their constituents.

This is a huge and costly mistake. It should have been a $700 billion loan, not a freebie.

Time for some incumbents to be turned out of office. Specifically, 75 senators and 263 Representatives.

And we've only seen the beginning of this bailout. Now everyone will want one too.