Newmax reported this morning something that is not getting a lot of attention. Hillary is slowly changing her position on Iraq so as to not draw a lot of attention. Not that the LYING MEDIA would hold her accountable anyway!

Which brings me to this point. She has taken all sides of every issue so that nobody knows what she really thinks (without taking a poll first) or that she will follow through on a position if it becomes unpopular.

Right or wrong, President Bush does not have that problem. But with Clinton, it seems we are being led by sheep who want to follow the public's opinion.

In other words, remember those people in high school who had an opinion, then asked you what you thought? As you stated the opposite point of view, they then began explaning how they agreed with you and slowly changed their position? "That's really what I meant..." This is what we get with Hillary, not conviction.

What scares me is that she will probably be our next president... unless Republicans get it together and get a candidate to make some waves!

Mick O.

GOPUSA recently did an article on why the end of earmarks may be a pipe dream. Here's the logic. Politicians and their constiuents LOVE them because the congress person can come back from Washington with the money to build a new bridge, seniors center, etc. Do you realize what that means?

Taxes get collected from the states to go to the federal government where it can then be sent back to the states to pay for these earmarks... Do I have to say it again? Taxes get collected from the states to go to the federal government where it can then be sent back to the states to pay for these earmarks.

Does anyone see the fallacy in this? The fact that the money originates with the states means they'd probably have more money to begin with if it never went to Washington in the first place! Why does it have to be collected at the state level then bundled up and sent back by way of a politician in the form of an earmark anyway? Bueller? Bueller? 

SO THEY CAN GET RE-ELECTED! I've always said, the business of government is not to solve the people's problems, but to get re-elected! Look at Ted Kennedy. How many years has he been in the Senate? How do you think that happens? Name recognition?

So to believe that earmarks are going to go away is naive. It's one of the few ways a politician has to get noticed that he's "doing a good job". Why? Because people don't understand the economics of it AND the media will never tell them.

Mick O.

I am joking, of course, but I am anticipating how the lying media ad their pals, the Democrats, are going to try and find some fault with how Bush handled the situation. You know it's coming.

Even Saddam Hussein didn't do EVERYTHING wrong. Well, maybe he did. But had Kerry been President, how would Katrina have turned out any differently? But according to Democrats and the media, everything that Bush has done is wrong. I submit, if he had a (D) behind his name, they would applaud his big government and big spending initiatives with zeal.

So how long will it take for the news stories to appear criticizing Bush for something to do with the Minnesota tragedy? We'll see.

It's kind of my theory on the news... They broadcast some story, and I just wait for the tag line... and Democrats are investigating the administration to find out what they knew and when they knew it. Everything is Bush's fault... the great economy, the low unemployment numbers, the voluntary disarming of Libya, low taxes. What a bad guy.

So my suggestion to Al Qaeda is this; start taking credit for eveything that explodes or falls down in the US. Why not? If everything can be Bush's fault why can't Al Qaeda be behind all these bad events? They are both equally as silly notions.

Sample headline: "Further investigation of hurricane Katrina shows Bush not at fault, but damage caused by terror cells in the US." I'm rambling now, so I'll close. There will be more on this topic once I am proved right. Come on, media, you LIARS, don't let me down!

Mick O. 

When will voters realize that Olympia Snow is NOT a conservative. She and Diane Feinstein are porposing to put our nation's oil companies in line. Yeah, that will work. Here's here response to me:
==============================

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about price controls in energy markets. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand that you disagree with legislation regarding price controls on gasoline. However, last year was the most profitable year ever for American oil companies, and ExxonMobil had the single most profitable year of any company in our nation's history. In 2006, the five largest oil companies posted a combined profit of $119.6 billion.

I believe Congress should protect consumers from any market distortions that may cause unusually high prices and excessive energy company profits. That is why Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and I introduced the "Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act of 2007" (S. 577) that would increase transparency and accountability in the energy markets. This would ensure that the Federal government can determine if speculation, manipulation, or hoarding is occurring in the oil, gas and electricity markets.

I am also an original cosponsor of the "Petroleum Consumer Price Gouging Protection Act" (S. 1263). This anti-price gouging legislation would empower federal regulators to ensure greater market transparency and go after companies that manipulate oil and gas prices. It would also outlaw gas price gouging, and give the president the authority to declare national energy emergencies during which proven price gougers would be subject to new fines and criminal penalties.

I understand that we may disagree on this issue, but I hope you will continue to contact me on issues that are important to you. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
==============================
I contend that if Congress wants to protect us from price gouging, they should:

• 1) remove the $0.45 to $0.75 of tax on every gallon of gas they charge us at the pump. Since they do NOTHING and spend NOTHING to produce the gas, aren't these politicians price gounging???
• 2) get rid of the multiple gasoline blends being forced upon the oil companies to produce for all the different states which drives up costs of processing which is then passed on to us.
• 3) Build new refineries immediately - get rid of the red tape and once the supply side was opened up, the price would go down.
• 4) Open up drilling so we can cut our dependence on foreign oil - OPEC is driving the price up with their cartel.

I am calling tomorrow and voice this opinion. I suggest you do too before they screw up the economy with this bill and we end up with Jimmy Carter's long gas lines, rationing and a new misery index!

Mick O.

This is going to put California on a quick road to bankruptcy. We thought Gray Davis was bad, but Arnold takes the cake. With out of control spending by the idiot representatives and businesses leaving the state because of high taxes and over regulation, the next new idea is here!

FREE HEALTH CARE FOR UNINSURED CHILDREN! Do it for the children. What a load of you-know-what. It's the first step in a move to make health care available to every Californian... including, you guessed it, illegal aliens! This new organization is just the beginning! Go to www.covercaliforniaskids.org and you will see what I mean.

The radio ads are preposterous and syrupy pleas to "do it for the children" and save money by keep parents from taking their kids to the emergency rooms which costs us all money. Like the new bill won't? Who do they think is going to pay for this new program anyway? And it will cost much more than what it costs now.

If you live in California and have any sense... STOP THE MADNESS! We can't afford it. Liberals have spent money on just about every pet project they can think of; they don't need a new one! Unfortunately, I am probably going to lose on this one, but don't say I didn't warn you when the numbers come in!

Mick O.

Is it right that people would vote for Hillary just because she is a woman and, "it's about time we had a woman for President."? Do voters really want another (potentially) 8 years of the Clintons just because of her gender? She is a huge socialist hiding behind the "do it for the children" banner. If we intend to do the right thing, that's what counts. 

And would people vote for Barack just because he's black and, "it's about time we had a black President"? Think of his inexperience as a Senator and then putting him in the presidency! Why not the local clerk at the McDonald's drive through? 

Now put them together, a ticket that has been advertised as "unbeatable". Are conservative talk radio show hosts predicting them to win because they are covering their bases? Or because Republicans have not been able to stand out by presenting a candidate with leadership qualities? Or is it because George Bush has destroyed the Republican Party's credibility in the minds of voters? In what way does putting these two together make a stronger candidate than a weaker one? In math you put two negative numbers together and you get a bigger negative. But in politics, illusion is everything. As long as it LOOKS good, it must be.

True, Bush's approval ratings are low. But a Democrat led congress (both House and Senate) has approval rating LOWER than Bush's lowest! Why could that be? Could it be all the investigations they are doing rather than the work for the people? Or could it be because they haven't listen to the "mandate" from the people who wanted our troops out of Iraq? In truth, I never bought this line since Joe Lieberman won as an Independent over the Democrat challenger. Where's the mandate? But with liberals, if you say it enough, it becomes the truth... propaganda!

Now as the reports for Iraq are turning around because of the surge! Even the media was reporting success on Sunday. All of a sudden, Bush was right? How can that be? And where does that leave the Democrats who stated that all was lost? Harry Reid, can you hear me??? You're a hack and you deserve to be removed from office. That's the only surrender I want to see! I may even move to Nevada so I can actively pursue getting you ousted! But again, I digress!!!

But back to Hillary and Barack. Hillary voted for the war, though she was tricked by Bush (though she said she had her own intelligence that she relied on). And the media will not report the inconsistencies in her remarks or hold her responsible for them. Think about it. If she is so easily duped by someone as "stupid" as Bush, how will she deal with those crafty terrorists? Had she stuck by her vote for going into Iraq, it would give her some credibility to the independents, but clearly she is pandering and calculating in EVERYTHING she does or says. People in campaigns can say anything they want and get away with it, but it is their actions that should be the proof. Look at Bill. He promised to change government if he was elected. He did... made it BIGGER! That's not what I wanted and is the reason I am no longer a Democrat!

Barack is less deceptive. In my opinion he is just naive and inexperienced. What has he ever done of consequence? Half a term in the Senate does not make him an expert on foreign affairs. He wants to TALK to the heads of countries like Syria, Iran and so on. WOW. What an idea. Nobody has ever thought of that before. Maybe because he's black they'll listen to him better than a white guy (or even a woman, who has no rights in their country!) But because he is seemingly untarnished by having been in politics for years, he seems like he has fresh ideas. But look at his votes. He is another big government liberal which would only make things worse!

No matter what, I am going to do well. I have insulated myself from the effects of any election, even going so far as to buy property in another country. I am not doing an Alec Baldwin and threatening to move away if Hillary or Barack wins (or if they run together) but I have sheltered some of my assets offshore, kind of like Ted Kennedy. The only difference is that I am not trying to pass laws that everyone else has to follow while making myself exempt!

I'VE GOT THR SOLUTION! Republicans should kill Hillary's campaign by having President Bush support her! He's got nothing to lose now and might even confuse all the libs so much that Cindy Sheehan would get in the race and win! We'd let Venezuela annex us and everything would be nirvana!

Mick O.

It's a typical summer morning in northern California; foggy and windy. Whoever thinks global warming is a bad thing, think again. Two degrees in 1000 years? Give me a break. Anyway, NewsMax reports that air pollution is linked to heart disease... WOW. Everyone in China is going to die. My friend just came back from China where he met and married his wife and says it's very polluted. So everyone in China is going to die. That's what NewsMax is implying...

Someone needs to start a "Good News" report. I'm tired of gloom and doom.

Then there are these 60's liberal throwbacks with their bumper stickers. Remember the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers? Well, I'm proud (NOT) to say that FOUR activists from here in Marin County were arrested in China last April (and eventually deported) for demonstrating to "Free Tibet". FOUR activists. Isn't that an endangered species???

My opinion on bumper stickers is... it's a liberal thing. I care more than you do. Like tattoos, if one is good, more is better. And what do they accomplish? I have yet to see a bumper sticker that solves a problem.

I've written many time about how the government is interested in doing just about anything except what the constitution provides for. The military is a good example. My sister is against the war... actually ANY war. Her life is so insulated from living an affluent life style because thug dictators are kept at bay thanks to our men and women in uniform. They know if they attack us directly (whether they think we are a paper tiger or not) there will be swift retribution. So the old hippies sit here in relative comfort and can voice their opinions on street corners knowing that nothing bad will come of it. Not like the four in China who actually went to jail for voicing their opinions!

Then you have Elizabeth Edwards boycotting tangerines because they are not grown in her state... is this a type of hunger strike? Much of their produce probably comes from out of state. And what about prepared foods that were frozen and canned in another state or another country? Again, it's symbolism over substance. And whose running for President anyway? Her or her husband?

And let's talk briefly about radical environmentalism. I am all for clean air and clean water. We've joined the GREEN movement by installing solar (which will not pay for itself for 5 years - to break even! And that's if we can get PG&E out here to let us turn it on in the first place!). Where I draw the line is that man is more powerful than mother nature... like we can destroy the planet. I'll grant you that we can make a mess of things, but over time, nature comes back if left alone which tells me there is an infinite intelligence bigger than humans. 

But if the environmentalists are right, wouldn't Africa be heaven on earth? They are primitive, almost stone age in many places on that continent. Take a look at the disease and death caused by lack of technology. Then there are the brutal dictators. No thanks, I'll stay in America, thank you!

Another thought about a higher power and infinite intelligence is proven by government. Every time they try and pass a law to fix a problem, they can not possibly anticipate every nuance that will result. So quite often they make matters worse and hurt the people they intended to help. The founding fathers knew this and tried to set up a government to anticipate problems, but even in their wisdom, they had no idea and never intended for judges to become so powerful.  

So I guess my point is this; we have it so good here may of us are able to have these lofty goals of world peace. We can even have as many bumper stickers as we want. Meanwhile, read about some of the things going on in Africa and then tell me we aren't inventing our own problems.

So much for my ramblings today.

Mick O.

On Sunday I wrote an article asking the question, "How did 60's radical hippie generation who believed in questioning authority end up being Democrats?"

Talk show host, Jerry Doyle had a "best of" show today talking about the anniversary of the Summer of Love in San Francisco and its effects on the current baby boomer generation. Essentially he came close to my observations. How did a group of people who believed in anarchy and distrust of "big brother" turn into liberal Democrats who want big government controls?

Who wants government to provide health care to all Americans? Republicans or Democrats? As I pointed out in an earlier story, the economics of this program dooms it to failure before it can even be started. If you don't believe that, then where is the money going to come from? Big fat cats like George Soros and Bill Gates? Hardly. Individuals and small business owners, once again, will be forced to try and implement some big government solution that will work a lot like food stamps... poorly.

What about seat belt laws? Even though I think it's a good idea to wear them, should I be breaking the law when I don't wear one? What about cell phones while driving? Soon that will be illegal in California. Though I see stupid people doing stupid things while talking on their cell phones while driving, but should they be breaking the law when they choose to do this? Maybe if they cause an accident, but certainly it will NOT be enfored... just like speeding or driving without insurance or other laws that can not be proven to be broken by passing police cars.

Today I heard that Porche is going to make a hybrid because some long-haired malcontents started a campaign to get them to change.
 
That's exactly my point. What makes these people the moral authorities over the rest of us? All it means to the rest of us is bigger government for us to pay for and more restrictions on freedoms. What happened to the "Revolution"? Guess it was easier to switch than fight!

Mick O.

It occurs to me that Democrats are counting on the Republicans to continue to behave has they have in the past. It's time for Republicans to "salt the fields" once they win back either the house, senate and/or the presidency.

Here's the problem. Democrats have been downright nasty. Boxer was overheard saying "elections have consequences" during one fo the debates with her Republican colleagues. Republicans, on the other hand, rarely behave this way. Just as libs can justify destroying peoples' cars or disobeying laws of which they don't approve (ends justfy the means),  they seem to be able to justify changing the way government works "for this bigger purpose". Moving the goal line is not the way to do it.

Republicans need a really nasty group of people who don't care what liberals OR the media think. If elections truly have consequences, then why all this talk about bipartisanship? It's a load of you-know-what. It's all about Democrats getting their way whether they win or lose an election... which is why they won back the congress last election. Because Republicans REFUSE to act like Republicans!

Mick O.

Is all this talk of impeachment and/or censuring of the President right just because you don't agree about the handling of the war? First of all, these idiots who are pulling this stunt (with the exception of maybe Kucinich) all voted FOR the Iraq war resolution in the first place (except in Kerry's case, before he voted against it!) It's another example of how the media LIES by omission!

In our sound bite world, people don't remember that most of the incumbent congressmen and women voted to go to war in the wake of 9/11. And the press is sure not going to remind them. In a country where more people remember what some star said in an interview than what is going on in their country is a sad commentary. I know because I used to be one of them.

So they don't like what Bush is saying or doing, so let's impeach him. I don't like what Kerry is saying or doing, let's remove him from office. I don't like what Ted Kennedy is saying or doing, let's remove him from office. I don't like what John Murtha, Arlen Spector, Barbara Boxer are doing, let's remove them from office. We can. It's called elections. Just because the president is doing what the president is SUPPOSED to do (take a civics class, you dolts in the Senate!) is not a reason for impeachment!

Democrats are taking a big chance here. Bush's approval is low, but Congress is even lower. People are tired of all the litigation and investigation against the executive branch, and I think it will show in the next election. If not, maybe our country is too far gone from the principals upon which it was founded.

Civilizations have only had about 200 years of power before collapsing. The US is doing everything it can to follow that trend with liberal ideals, big government, high taxes, social programs that don't work, political correctness and a congress out of control wasting OUR time and OUR money playing their pathetic little political games!

Get back to work and do something for the good of the country!

Mick O.

 WOW! Now that's gutsy. A Democrat alluding to solutions used by Reagan to negotiate with Russia. Reagan?

More to the point is that when talking to the Russians, we were talking to people who had a desire to live.

But when you are talking about terrorists how do you make that comparison? These are people who are looking forward to death because their quality of life is so poor. So what will talking to them accomplish? Well, if you're in the same room with a homicide bomber, it might get you killed!

Think about it. People in the middle east, with the exception of the United Arab Emirates and Israel, are stuck in the dark ages. Women have no rights (which amazes me that feminists don't support freeing women in Iraq), there's a history of thug dictators, abuse of human rights, death chambers, torture squads, the list goes on. If you lived there, how much would you look forward to heaven?

What would change this? Maybe a democracy where people are able to live in freedom and have a chance to build their economy. They certainly have the oil to have at least ONE big export. 

Then there are the people who think Iraq should be divided among the tribes because they have different beliefs and can't live together. Nonsense. Look how many religions we have in this country and are able to live together in relative peace. At least there aren't religious wars here... yet. In fact, our biggest problem is trying to keep religions IN the public squares!

So maybe Bush is on the right track and trying to establish a beach head of freedom in the region. We'll see if the Democrats abort that too.

Mick O. 

Back in 2003 I was sitting in my mother's living room with an old high school friend watching the presidential debates. Mom had just passed away and I was back for the funeral. Guess she couldn't stand the thought that, as a staunch Democrat she would have to vote for Kerry! But let's move on.

Let's call my friend Jon... because that's his name. Anyway Jon and I argued into the night about the tax cuts and how they had affected the economy and the deficit. His position as a liberal was that George Bush's tax cuts had hurt the economy (as we were in the midst of a recession he had inherited from the Clinton administration), creating a national debt as far as the eye could see. Not a word, mind you, about the outrageous spending both liberal and conservative politicians were doing and how that affected the budget. No, no. As far as liberals are concerned government can never spend too much money as long as their intentions are good! (How much is enough though?)

What I tried to explain was that the economy (like the weather and evolution) takes a long time to move around. Like trying to steer the Titanic away from the iceberg with its little rudders, the small tax cuts would take time to turn this big ship of the economy around... which it has.

Now as the stock market continues to break record highs and with the economy booming in most areas, Democrats want to change all that with higher taxes. Why do you suppose that is? Aren't they supposed to be for the little guys? Well, they are only going to tax the rich, you might argue. Not so. Read any of Thomas Sowell's books on economics and you will see that it is not a 1-1 cause and effect.

Like raising the minimum wage, which makes politicians feel good because they think they've helped the little guy, it acutally kills the budget of small businesses who employ most of these people and cause them to fire or lay off unskilled workers whose work is not worth the cost of the new minimum wage.

You see, along with the minimum wage going up, so do deductions including state and federal taxes, medicare, disability, overtime, paid vacations and so on. And so American small business owners are very good at adapting to the crazy new laws. They have to be. The very lives of their businesses depend on it.

For example, they might only hire part time people (taking a lesson from the bigger Wal-Mart) so they don't have to pay medical benefits. They will figure out other ways to cut the cost of employees (the biggest expense a business has) at the expense of hiring new workers and creating new job opportunities.

Likewise, raising taxes on "the wealthy" has hidden effects. Because who are the wealthy in the government's eyes? I believe I heard the number $100,000 of combined income for 2 people is considered wealthy. That's only $50,000 a year each. Of that, they are already losing almost 50% to the above mentioned deductions. (Most wealth building gurus refer to working for a paycheck as 50% money... $1 for you, $1 for the government!)
Unless you have taken math in a California school, you can see that the wealthy now take home only $50,000. That's $25,000 a year EACH (less than $25 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year).

My point is that, who is the government to decide at what number is someone rich and then gives them the right to give that money to someone else whom they think deserves it through government programs? And how do those programs work? Let's look at that.

First of all, that $1 goes into the bureaucracy which has its own staff to administrate the program. These employees (most of them union... for a reason!) have wages, benefits, vacations and the like to take plus all the non-personnel costs of office space, computers, desks, fax machines, printers, paper, pens, paper clips and so on. HOW MUCH OF THAT $1 can be left to give to the people they are proposing to help? The sheer economics of a program like this make it a loser from day one! And it is only because the government can borrow without end that these programs even exist at all! Try and run a small business like that and it wouldn't even open!

I've gone on too long and may have lost a few of you. But I would rather take the whole $2 and give it to someone I think needs it. I have and I will continue to do so. If the government would get out of my pocket I could afford to give even more. Let's vote for people who suppor the Fair Tax!

Mick O.

I am referring to the death tax in the title. This morning I got the e-mail going around the Internet (probably for the hundredth time!) about all the taxes we pay. To quote:
======================================
      Accounts Receivable Tax
      Building Permit Tax
      CDL license Tax
      Cigarette Tax
      Corporate Income Tax
      Dog License Tax
      Federal Income Tax
      Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
      Fishing License Tax
      Food License Tax,
      Fuel permit tax
      Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
      Hunting License Tax
      Inheritance Tax
      Interest expense
      Inventory tax
      IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
      Liquor Tax
      Luxury Taxes
      Marriage License Tax
      Medicare Tax
      Property Tax
      Real Estate Tax
      Recreational Vehicle Tax

Not sure how this one falls in the topics available to us for posting on our blogs.

For a long time John Murtha has gotten on my nerves. For years he's been anonymous in congress when suddenly he becomes a media star because he opposes Bush, the war, the troops and so on.

Recently he jumped to the podium to denounce the Marines who were brought up on charges at Haditha. In my America people are supposed to be innocent of crimes like these until proven guilty. And rightly so. Last week it was shown that the evidence had been tampered with to make the soldiers look guilty so that one of the defendants had charges dropped and the rest of the case was unraveling.

WHERE'S THE APOLOGY FROM MURTHA? If he were my representative, he would get faxes from me demanding he apologize for his remarks. But he was elected in a blue state and you know what they are all about. Ends justify the means. It's not about intellectual honesty.

Then we have EARMARKS. Remember that congress was going to get them done away with because Republicans were abusing them? Culture of corruption? RIGHT! Apparently Murtha is the king of earmarks. He has teamed up with this son and steered lots of money toward him to found companies that never come to fruition. If you want the details, sign up for Rush 24/7 and listed to Friday's show. I am not sure which hour it was in, but Roger Hedgecock was filling in and explained it on the show

Mick O.

This is a letter I wrote to a friend of mine who is a regular contributor for the San Francisco Chronicle. She is sponsor of a Bay Area group called the 9-11 Neocons and a liberal turned conservative after the horrible events of September 11. It is regarding a TCM special I saw On Demand last night called "Spielberg on Spielberg" which started off good, then turned into a preachy liberal instructional video... in my opinion! Here's the letter.
===========================================
Hi,

Do you have Comcast on demand? If so, you should take a look at the TCM special, Spielberg on Spielberg. He says some amazing things that make me wonder why anyone considers him an intelligent fellow.

Actually, I don’t think it’s that he’s not intelligent, it’s that he’s incredibly optimistic and naïve. Especially when he starts talking about Palestine and Israel. After doing a movie like Schindler’s List, I would think he would have a greater understanding that there are just some people you can not talk to. He thinks so. (Can’t we all just get along?)

I tried to talk to [my wife] about the interview and make my point, but she didn’t take his remarks the same way I did. He bashed (in my opinion) the Patriot Act comparing it to the Minority Report movie and how it’s taking away our rights by a government who makes decisions on our behalf. He’s a big lib. Doesn’t he see the Democrats are doing just that with their oppressive taxes and bigger government? Yet he supports them.

It is very frustrating to see a guy with such star power pushing “historically altered” movies like Amistad in the name of entertainment (then promoting them as historically accurate) or Munich. Then he tries to use fantasy pieces like Minority Report and A-I to compare these to what’s going on in our country right now.

Sorry to go on so long. But my suggestion is this: if Spielberg is so convinced that he can talk Palestinians into peaceful coexistence with the Israelis then he should go over there and do it. My guess is he’d come back in a body bag which is probably why he hasn’t gone!

Thanks for listening.

Mick O.