Now that the two candidates have almost been decided, one issue has been brought to the front. That is criticism of Barack Hussein Obama can only be done by black people. If a white, brown or Asian person criticizes Obama, they are called racist. To me, that is a racist comment. I can criticize anyone because of what they believe. If I criticize that person because of their race or gender, then I am guilty of being a racist or some other form of bigot. But, a person’s beliefs are non-racial. If I believe that all people should drive Chevrolet Trucks. That is not racial. Someone can criticize that belief without criticizing me as a person of whatever color I am.

Yesterday, I heard Rush attack this idea in a funny way. He had his call screener, Bo Snerdley, come on as the official black to criticize Barack Obama. When I heard it I almost drove off the road, it was so funny. He made the point that you do not have to be black to criticize another black by having a black person criticize a black person. It was perfect.

The issue at hand was the claim in the Democrat debate by Barack Obama about a rifle platoon. He claimed that an Army Captain contacted him and told him that the platoon was supposed to have 39 soldiers. The Captain said 15 of those soldiers were sent to Iraq. The remaining 24 members of the rifle platoon were sent to Afghanistan. While in Afghanistan, they had Humvee’s that did not work and that they had to get arms and ammunition from dead Taliban fighters because they did not have enough of their own.

On Friday, the Army reported that a platoon can have between 15 and 40 soldiers. A platoon is commanded by a Lieutenant. The Army has no reports of any units having Humvee’s that did not work or were deficient in any way. The Army also has no reports of any unit having any trouble obtaining ammunition for their guns.

Senator Obama’s office clarified the statement on Friday. The Captain was a Lieutenant when he commanded the rifle platoon. They captured and used Taliban equipment because it was available, not because they were not fully supplied with their own ammunition.

Note that Obama’s office did not report on the Humvee situation. The Army said there were no problems with the Humvee’s. Until we know more about this unit and their “problems”, we cannot know if the Humvee situation is correct. Senator Warner’s office has contacted Senator Obama to find out more information. That is where this information should have gone. It should have not gone to Senator Obama. It should have gone up the military chain of command and/or the Senate Armed Forces Committee. When Senator Obama’s staff found out about this information, they should have reported it at once to where it should have gone not sat on it. Now, we have people believing that the military has units in the field that are under equipped for the job they are being asked to do. That can not be allowed to stand. I am sure that Senator Obama’s staff thought that they had a gotcha moment and could use this against the Bush Administration. It is coming back to make Senator Obama look bad.

You have to be careful when you play gotcha. If you are not careful, you can look worse by playing gotcha than the person you are playing gotcha on. Liberals love to play gotcha. Liberals continually get hit back with their gotcha moments. They never seem to be able to learn.

This morning, I read an article in the Arizona Republic by a person who is supposed to be a scientist involved with climate. In the article, he states that the climate has gone up one degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Rather than using it as the lack of a warning sign that it is, he said it is a warning sign. He then went on to say that the climate will warm up another 4-5 degrees in the next 50 years. He did not say next 50 years, he said by the middle of the 21^st century. In my mind that is the same thing.

After building his case that we have no evidence of global warming, it means we will have dramatic global warming. To me, that makes no sense. If we have no evidence of global warming, why is the global warming problem going to be terrible? It would make scientific sense to say that we have no scientific evidence to prove global warming is a fact. Because we have no evidence of what is happening, we do not know what will happen in the future. It could be as bad as this. Or it may be something like this. That would be the scientifically valid thing to do. He only took the bad case scenario.

He then said that man was causing this dramatic increase in global warming. There is no evidence to prove that. Even he did not provide any evidence to prove it or even hint that it was true. He only said that the temperature was going up, therefore it must be because of the workings of man. That is a statement that would be difficult to defend. That would be like saying that because the sun came up today; it was because man did something. That would be stupid. Any scientist would blow holes through my example because we have proven that the sun comes up without the benefit of anything that man does. We have not proven whether the climate goes up or down with regard to anything that man does. For this scientist to say that it does is irresponsible.

The problem is that when you drink the global warming kool-aid, you have to make statements that are irresponsible. If you keep your statements to things that are scientific, you cannot prove global warming or make dire predictions. The whole purpose of talking about global warming is to make dire predictions. These dire predictions are always about 50 years in the future. They are far enough in the future that your predictions will be forgotten and you will not be around to be responsible for them.

But, the real purpose of the dire predictions and their solutions is to control the way people live. That has been the goal of the communists since Karl Marx. There has never been a way to completely control the way people live until now. We still cannot completely control the way people live, but we are coming close with the use of computers. Some time in the next few years (5-15) we will have the technology in place to effectively control every aspect of your life except for your biology. Then, the communists will have everything they want except for control of the US government.

They are trying to gain control of the US government with this election. The US communist party is effectively endorsing Barack Obama for President. They are effectively killing Mrs. Clinton, just like Lenin killed Trotsky. Mrs. Clinton has been a loyal supporter of the communist party for these many years. The communist party has no further use for Mrs. Clinton. They found someone who is even more like their ideology. She was trying to be too much of a centrist for their taste. Barack Obama is not trying to be anything except for a hard core leftist.

Global warming is nothing but a front for the communist party to take control of the governments of the world. The more governments buy into the global warming hoax, the more the communists can take power. Global warming is a hoax. There is no evidence to show that it is occurring or caused by man. Every time they say that it is caused by greenhouse gasses, they conveniently forget that nature produces 95%+ of the greenhouse gasses. How can our small percent be that percent that is causing global warming? There is no way. We could eliminate all of the man caused greenhouse gasses and the world would not even notice that they were missing.

The more that the global warming hoax fools try to play it like the science is decided in their favor, another article appears that debunks their argument. There is a member of the California Assembly that is trying to get global warming taught as part of the science curriculum. He believes that the science has been decided in his favor, so everyone should be taught what he believes.

Lo, and behold, an article appears almost the same day that this Assemblyman makes his pitch. The article reports that the Arctic ice has completely returned to its normal levels. In fact, it is slightly larger than normal right now. The Antarctic ice is larger than normal for this time of year, also. It just shows that those that believe the hoax that global warming is true are the ones full of hot air. Global warming may be occurring, but man is not the cause of any global warming that is occurring.

Man accounts for such a small percentage of the greenhouse gasses that if man were the cause, it could only be because we went beyond some magic maximum. Right now, people are all concerned with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is produced by every living thing. Plants use the carbon dioxide they produce to make oxygen. They also use the carbon dioxide everything else produces to produce oxygen. Right now the carbon dioxide level is at about 0.353% of the air being carbon dioxide. During the age of the mammals, the carbon dioxide level approached 6%. Plants are programmed to maximize their carbon dioxide use at about 4-4.5%. After that, their ability to use any additional carbon dioxide is extremely low. We are nowhere near where the plants ability to take the carbon dioxide out of the air. Why are we in such a panic over the carbon dioxide level being at this low level?

If global warming was about the science, there would be scientific articles about how global warming is occurring. We only get articles about what global warming will do. The articles on what global warming will do are all based on computer models. The computer models are based on the ideas of scientists that believe that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man. It is no great shock that the computer models show that global warming is a major problem and will cause all sorts of problems. If you used a computer model put together by someone who did not believe that global warming is caused by man, that computer model would not show that there was any problem at all. Computer models will show what the computer programmer will want it to show. They are not proof that global warming is occurring or that it is a problem.

The temperature of the earth has gone up one degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. That is less than one degree Centigrade. Most computer models and scientific findings use Centigrade as the basis for their measurements. So, the temperature has gone up less than one degree Centigrade in the last 100 years. That is not a problem. That does not tell us that there is a major problem on the horizon. It tells us that things are just fine. If we project the past into the future, like most scientists do, we would see no problems for at least 2-300 years. We know the temperature would not go continually up for 2-300 years. So, that is not realistic.

Yesterday in Wisconsin and Hawaii, Barack Obama took his ninth and tenth straight victories. He has Mrs. Bill Clinton on the ropes. Because of the way they allocate delegates in the Democrat party, she still gets almost as much as he does. But, she is now is such a hole that she needs to get 57% of the vote in all the remaining states to erase the hole she is now in.

What are Mrs. Clinton’s options? She could resign and lose gracefully. This is probably not an option. She has worked her whole life for this one run. To have the door slammed shut would be devastating. She could not resign gracefully and come back for another run. This is it for her.

Option two is that she remain in the race for delegates until the convention and hope that the Super Delegates choose her over Barack Obama. This is an option, but she would not hope that they choose her. She would do everything in her power to make sure that the Super Delegates choose her.  This is possible and even highly probable.

Option three is that she make a deal with Barack Obama to be his running mate. She would do so only to advance her interests. If I were Barack Obama, I would not take this option. There would be too many opportunities for her to eliminate the President and assume power. Even if she did not conspire to kill the President, she may undermine the President to get him impeached to get her elevated to the Presidency. For Barack Obama there are too many negatives for him to select this option. He would want someone on the ticket that would support him and his Presidency. Mrs. Clinton would never support anyone for President, except for her.

Option four is that she play country hard ball with Barack Obama and get the Michigan and Florida delegations seated. That would be possible because the Democrat party leaders are mostly members of the Clinton administration. This scenario could possibly split the Democrat party. It is even possible that Barack Obama might leave the party and take his football and go home. That would leave the Democrat party split and wounded. Right now, I believe that this is the option that she has chosen. If this one does not work, she will try another, then another until all options are used up. She will not give up until the votes are counted at the convention and Barack Obama is chosen the nominee. Until that time she will work tirelessly to stop that from happening. She has lots of powerful friends in the Democrat party that owe her big time. There are also a lot that would love to stick it to her big time.

Things look very bleak for Team Clinton right now. Things have looked bleak at other times in this race and Mrs. Clinton has pulled a rabbit out of her hat. Until the final gun sounds, you cannot count her out. She is working the back room deals big time. She is offering the Super Delegates everything, but the kitchen sink and I am not so sure about the kitchen sink. Anything she gives to the Super Delegates will not be given directly to the Super Delegates. It will be given to the campaign or such, but the Super Delegate will reap the reward just the same. Millions of dollars in the bank will mean that the Super Delegate will not have to raise as much funds. That is a big plus for Super Delegates that are in close races.

As a revision to my prediction, I think that Barack Obama will win the Democrat nomination. He will win because there are a lot of Democrats that would like to get rid of the Clintons. This is their chance. I believe that enough of them will take it to eliminate the wicked witch from the campaign.

Yesterday, I read a report in World Net Daily by Joseph Farah about Barack Obama. He wrote about the Communist Party and who the Communists like in the race for President. He stated that they did not endorse a particular candidate. They did write about Barack Obama in glowing terms. They wrote about Mrs. Bill Clinton in generalized terms. In effect, they endorsed Barack Obama for President.

A short time later, I heard a clip of Michelle Obama on the Hugh Hewitt Show. In the clip, she talks about how the government is going to change your heart and the government will give you a job. She talks so glowingly about the government and how the government will do this and that. The effect was scary. It reminded me of the old Soviet leaders and how they talked. When I put that clip with what Joseph Farah wrote in World Net Daily, the effect was chilling. Now, that was Michelle Obama, not Barack Obama. But, she would not say something that was not endorsed by Barack.  That is what makes her remarks so chilling.

The odd person in this story is Mrs. Bill Clinton. She has worked tirelessly for the Communist Party for years. She was a believer in the party back in college. She worked in all the right jobs. She married the right person to ride the coat-tails to the top rungs of power. She got herself elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world. She positioned herself to be elected to the most powerful position in the world and then this upstart comes along and steals her thunder. She must be fit to be tied that Barack Obama is getting all the praise and honor that is her due. She should be President. She has believed that since her days in college.

Mrs. Clinton has paid her dues and worked her way to the top over the years. Barack Obama has had the top handed to him. She has to be feeling pangs of envy. She is not finished yet. She has more tricks to pull out of her bag. She feels like she is owed the Presidency and she is going to get it any way she can. If that means playing some dirty tricks, then she will play some dirty tricks to win the Presidency. Barack Obama should expect to see some unexpected dirty tricks played on his campaign in the next few weeks. Mrs. Clinton is still counting on winning the battle of the Super Delegates. Right now, she has about 2/3 of the committed delegates. Some of them are going wobbly on her. She will work to shore them up and get more of the uncommitted delegates.

If Mrs. Clinton takes second in the number of elected delegates and manages to pull off the nomination, then many Democrats will cry foul. Democrats cry foul at the drop of the hat. They probably would have a good case, but will be unable to prove it. It might be enough for Obama supporters to stay home in the general election. If they stay home in the general election, then the Republican nominee would have an excellent shot at pulling this one out. Either Democrat would be terrible and much worse than John McCain. No matter how bad I think that John McCain is; Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama are a lot worse.

Since Barack Obama is talking about change, let’s examine some things that need changing in Washington. The first thing that needs changing is Social Security. Right now, we have a Ponzi scheme for a social security system. If an individual developed a scheme like that the person would be in prison so fast that the door would have a hard time hitting him in the rear.

For those who do not know, a Ponzi scheme is where someone gets people to invest and the ones that invest first get paid, the ones that invest last lose. There is no actual investment made. The first people pay him. The next group goes to pay the first group. The third group goes to pay the second group and so on. Eventually, the person running the scheme runs out of “investors” and gets caught. The first person running a scheme like that was named Ponzi. That is why it is called a Ponzi scheme.

 You may ask how the Social Security system like a Ponzi scheme is. Well, the first people got paid their social security benefits and Congress took the excess to fund their schemes. The second group funded the first group with the excess to Congress. The third group funded the second with the excess to Congress. I think you can see the pattern developing. We are now in a situation where the groups are so large, that the next group is not large enough to pay for the group before it. It is predicted that in 2017 the amount brought in to cover Social Security will equal the amount paid. In 2018, the amount brought in will be less than the amount paid. It gets worse with each year.

How do we fix Social Security to make it pay for itself? The answer is simple, privatize it. Right now, there is no investment. When you die, any benefits you may have earned are lost to your heirs. In a privatized system, when you die, the amount you invested would go to your heirs. Wealth would be created for the American people. The number of people living below poverty would be almost completely eliminated with a privatized Social Security. The reason is that they would be building up nest eggs that would enable them to live well in retirement and pass that on to their heirs. Their heirs could add their parents money to theirs making even larger investment portfolio’s for themselves.

The question is would such a scheme work. Democrats say that the plan is too risky. There is a chance that a person could choose options that would lose all or part of their investment portfolio. Is there an example of someone who has done exactly this sort of thing? Yes, there are a couple of towns in Texas that opted out of the Social Security system when it was possible to do so. The people that were working in those towns are now retiring. Most of them will be receiving more in retirement income than they had in earnings during their last year on the job. The reason is the investments paid off. There is almost no risk over a 40 year working career of any investment plan losing money. In fact almost all of the plans used by these Texas towns earned far more than the amount needed to keep up with inflation.  

We now know that the system will work, if implemented. We even know how to do it; just model it after the Texas towns that opted out of Social Security. We could even tweak it a little to improve it. The only question is how to get it through Congress. If everyone knew what this option would do, every man, woman and child in the country would be for privatization. Democrats in Congress want to keep people dependent on government. One way they do that is to keep people paying into Social Security. Then, whenever a Republican says he wants to reform Social Security to save it, the Democrat will say that the evil Republican wants to take their Social Security away. The only way to do it successfully would be to implement it over a 20-30 year time frame. You would gradually reduce the amount a person paid into the Ponzi scheme Social Security and gradually increase the amount the person paid into the gold mine Social Security. Eventually, all Americans would have wealth that their parents could only dream about. Politicians would lose one of their holds over the American electorate.

This week has been extremely cold in the northern part of the US. The global warming crowd is trying to claim that the extreme cold is due to global warming. They use the term now, global climate change. Using the term global climate change means, if the temperature goes up or down, they can claim that man is the cause.  They would be wrong, but they would make the claim anyway. The way they get away with making the claim is that there is no definite proof one way or the other.

You can show that man puts out about 1% of the so-called greenhouse gasses. If man is putting out only 1% of the total greenhouse gasses, how come that 1% is the cause of the problem? How come the 99% of the greenhouse gasses put out by Mother Nature are not the culprit? The answer is obvious. There is no way that we can put controls on what Mother Nature puts out. So, putting the blame on Mother Nature would be truthful, but would not offer up a solution. Putting the blame on mankind offers a solution to the problem, regulate what mankind produces.

But, when you look closer at the science of climate, you discover a secret that those that believe in global warming do not want people to know. Greenhouse gasses have little or no impact on the temperature of the earth. The temperature of the earth has more to do with sun spot activity on the sun than it does with greenhouse gasses on earth. Also, of the greenhouse gasses, water vapor has more to do with the temperature of the earth than any of the other greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide, the current favorite of global warming nuts, has almost no impact on global temperature at all. Water vapor collects heat and releases it slowly over time. That would heat the earth if the water vapor amounts increased. The problem with water vapor is that there is no way to control water vapor. Water vapor comes from lakes, rivers and oceans.

What is a self respecting environmentalist to do? Global temperature is controlled by sun spot activity and the amount of water vapor. Sun spots are impossible to control. We can only monitor when they occur. We do not really know why they occur or when they occur. Water vapor is something we can have a minor impact on a local situation. We can produce a lot of water vapor and increase the local water vapor content in a localized area. We cannot have any impact on a global scale.

Global warming nut cases have decided to control carbon dioxide levels. It is impossible to control carbon dioxide levels for the planet. We can again change the levels locally, but globally, it is impossible. Even restricting carbon dioxide production will only have a minimal impact on the global carbon dioxide level because of the vastness of the air. All these restrictions that people want to impose on us will have little impact at most. The probable impact on the carbon dioxide level is none. The carbon dioxide level goes up and down over time. It is always changing. Since it is always changing, how can anyone determine if all the restrictions people are making are having any impact at all?

One thing people are trying to do is keep the temperature from rising any more. During the medieval warming period from 850-1150, it was a lot warmer than it is today. Vikings lived in Greenland and grew crops, wheat and vegetables. Those crops would not grow there today. It is too cold. If the temperature was so much warmer in the medieval warming period, why is it so bad to have the temperature go up? During the medieval warming period, there were fewer wars during that time period. That is not to say that there were no wars, there were, just fewer. Populations grew and knowledge increased during the medieval warming period. What is to say that we would not have a repeat of such events during the 21^st century warming period?

That the temperature of the earth is changing is not news. It is always going either up or down. Blaming the rise in temperature on mankind is wrong. Until there is proof that mankind is causing the current mild rise in temperature, I will continue to believe that it is a natural phenomenon. What will the future bring? Nobody knows the future for sure. Al Gore and his global warming nuts think that the earth will turn into a cinder. That is stupid and wrong. What is more likely is that we are following a long term pattern that was established millions of years ago and we do not understand.

Yesterday, there were primaries in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. Barack Obama won all three on the Democrat side, giving him 10 wins in a row. John McCain won all three on the Republican side, moving him that much closer to the magic number for the nomination.

That Obama won all three contests was not really a surprise. He was expected to win all three. But, it now gives him the delegate lead for the Democrat nomination. The Democrats do the delegate thing much different than the Republicans. The Republicans try to determine who the winner is, so most are winner take all. The Democrats are much more considerate of everyone’s feelings, so they are distributed according to a formula. As a result, even though Barack Obama won all three contests on the Democrat side, he did not get that many more delegates than did Mrs. Clinton. What he did get is the perception that he is the front runner. Mrs. Clinton has held that perception from the beginning. He has now taken that title away from her and taken it upon himself. If he wins the next couple of contests, he will be considered the nominee by most people.

There is a real fight looming on the Democrat side. Barack Obama is set to win the most delegates in the state contests. Going into the convention, he is most likely going to lead in delegates determined by a state primary and caucus. Mrs. Clinton is likely to lead in the Super Delegates (the politicians) that are unelected by the people in the nominating process. These are the Democrat Governors, Senators and Representatives. They would hold the power to select the nominee. They could select someone who the primary process had not selected. That would cause a big problem. If it remains close, and it probably will, things could get real dicey at the convention.

Republicans on the other hand want to select their nominee. As a result, the primaries are set so whoever wins the primary gets all the delegates. This can lead to vote totals that are similar and widely different delegate counts. John McCain is only 2-300 delegates short of the total needed to be the nominee. Mike Huckabee is about 850 delegates short with 850 delegates to pick. He has virtually no chance to catch John McCain. There will be no disagreement on who will be the nominee of the Republican Party. There may be some disagreement on whether John McCain is the best person for the job, but he won fair and square.

Which is the better way to select a nominee? Being a Republican, I tend to think that the Republican way is best. It eliminates the discussion on who is the nominee. The person that wins the most states will be the nominee. In the Democrat process, if you have two equal candidates, you have a real mess. No-one can pull out and get a real lead because they do not win a real majority of the delegates when they win a state. They need to modify the process so winning the state means something and then the percentage means something. That would be much better than they have now. It would help eliminate the problem that they are having this year.

Obama mania is stretching shore to shore. It is about to swamp the vaunted Clinton Machine. That is saying something. But, the most interesting thing about Obama mania is that nobody really knows where he stands on the issues. He has put out position papers on some issues, but they are Democrat mainstays and all Democrats have those positions. They just argue over the color of the drapes on those issues. He promises “change”. What does he mean by change? Does he mean change back to a constitutional democracy? Or does he mean change to a socialist utopia? Or maybe he means something in between?

When Obama speaks of change, I think of change back to a constitutional democracy. A constitutional democracy is where the Congress and the President follow the Constitution of the United States as written. In that case, most of what the Federal government does would have to be transferred to the states or abandoned. That is closest to what the Libertarian Party believes. But, I also believe in a strong defense which the Libertarian Party does not. That is why I have hung my hat with the Republicans. The Republicans at least talk about having a strong defense and some of them even believe it.

My fear is that when Obama talks of change, he is talking about changing the US into a socialist utopia. That would destroy the United States and make us dependent on the next great super power to come along. The next great super power might not be as nice as the super power that is currently in first place, us.

A socialist utopia would have everyone dependent on government for everything. It would not take long and we would become a third world country. If everyone depends on the government for everything, what is the incentive to work? You would have the earnings taken away to pay for some person who is not working to live. The destruction of the US would take less than 10 years if a socialist utopia were tried in the US.

The first thing tried would be health care. Everyone would have to have government health care. Within 5 years, the health care system would be in worse shape than it is now. For a year or two it might actually seem to work as the current system would handle the increased load. As doctors left the system and were not replaced, the system would start to break down. It would first be felt in the rural areas where the current system is barely sufficient to handle the load. But, after about 5 years, shortages would develop and people would start demanding change, again. This time, it would be too late to put the market based system back in place.

With the health care system in place and seeming to work, the Democrats would then implement some other socialist trick. By the time the first two years are up, the US would not be the same US that I was born into. It would be bad enough that it might never recover in my lifetime. I would not like to live in a third world country. That is what Obama and Mrs. Clinton want to do to the US. They have to be stopped. She is worse than he is, so she must be stopped first.  Unfortunately, we have to stop them with McCain.

The economic stimulus package has passed the House and Senate. It has been signed by the President. That will mean that people that pay taxes will get $600 per person and $300 per child. That will mean my family will get $1500. That is a big sum for me. In the big scheme of things, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. But, we are remodeling our house and every penny counts at a time like that.

The stimulus plan is not really a stimulus plan. It is only a stimulus plan if you are a politician up for re-election. To really stimulate the economy, you would need to provide long-term relief, not this one time shot. This one time shot will help the economy, but not very much. Overall, the impact will be minimal at best.

The best way to stimulate the economy is to get the brakes off of it. The brakes are taxes. Taxes need to be reduced and they need to be such that a company can count on the taxes being so much. The best tax plan I have heard of is the Fair Tax. It taxes all the taxes we now pay and put it into a consumption tax.

The value of the tax has been determined to be 23% to replace the taxes that are currently being raised. This tax is embedded in the cost of the item. It is not added on at the register like the local taxes currently paid. The current taxes paid on an item will mean that a $100 item now; will be $100 after the Fair Tax is implemented. Critics of the Fair Tax will try to add the 23% tax to the cost of the item and then claim it is 30%. That is incorrect. The 23% is added before the person makes the purchase, so the price they see on the price tag is the price they pay.

The same kind of thing will happen with people’s paychecks. If they are to be paid $4000/month, they will receive $4000/month in their checks. They will not have any money taken out for Social Security or Federal Taxes. This is a real blessing for the wage earner. My kids are always amazed at how little they get after being paid.

One other benefit is that every family will receive a check each month from the Government to defray the cost of what they will have to purchase that month. If they purchase more than that amount, they will pay the Fair Tax. If they pay less than that amount, they can put that money in the bank. This is a blessing for those on low incomes. They will not be forced to really feel the impact of the Fair Tax. Only those that are wealthy will pay the Fair Tax. Because the more you buy, the more tax you pay.

It will help the economy because tax bookkeeping will go down to almost zero. That will cause companies that moved overseas to move back to the US. The US would have the lowest tax rate of any country in the world. That will cause investment in the US. All that investment will mean more jobs for Americans. As a result, the American economy will be on a boom that will last for decades. The President and Congress that were in office when the Fair Tax was adopted would be considered heroes by future generations of wealthy Americans.

What will cause the Fair Tax to have problems being adopted is the fact that once adopted the Congress can no longer play God with the tax code. Right now, the tax code changes when a special interest group wants a favor. They get the tax code written to benefit themselves and American behavior changes. That would all end when the Fair Tax is adopted because messing with the tax code would only mean changing the percentage. It would not result in changes in American behavior like the current system. The current one tries to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. Good and bad are defined by the current Congress and the special interest groups that want attention.

The Republican Party needs to get behind something like the Fair Tax. The current tax code is killing the country. Supporting something like the Fair Tax would get people to discuss taxes. Nobody likes taxes, yet they need to be discussed. The Fair Tax is radical enough to catch the attention of the American people. Right now, politicians are having a hard time avoiding the Fair Tax. They are trying to stop this push for the Fair Tax by telling stories that are not true. All of this is a good sign for the adoption of the Fair Tax. It means that Congressmen have to deal with the issue. They will be forced to do something about the Fair Tax in the next few years. Then we will see where the chips fall.

One of the arguments that people use to justify voting for John McCain is the judges he will appoint. They always say he will appoint conservative judges. The conservative judges would be better than the liberal judges that Obama or Clinton would appoint, they argue.

There is some truth to that argument. The judges appointed by John McCain would be more conservative than those appointed by Obama or Clinton. The point is that they would not necessarily be conservative judges. They would more likely be a David Souter or Justice Kennedy type of judge, one who was conservative until they get to the bench, then turn liberal.

John McCain has already said that he would not appoint another Sam Alito to the bench. Sam Alito is a conservative, strict constructionist judge. He is exactly the type of judge that should be appointed to the bench. If John McCain will not appoint the type of judge that is necessary, why should we let him appoint judges at all?

People supporting John McCain point to Ted Olson as a reason that John McCain will appoint conservative, strict constructionist judges, Ted Olson is a well respected lawyer. If Ted Olson had the final say on who was selected as a judge, I would agree with their position. Unfortunately, Ted Olson would not have the final say in which judge was selected. The hope would be that he would recommend two or three judges to John McCain that would be excellent and McCain would pick from that group. That could be how it works and if so, the supporters are right. But, if left to John McCain to select judges from a long list, he will select the most liberal on the list. The trick is to make the list short enough and with only conservative judges on the list. That would be difficult to do.

The problem with John McCain picking judges is that Republican lawmakers would feel obligated to support whoever he picked. If Obama or Clinton picked a nominee that was really bad, the Republicans would know enough (I hope) to fight against that nominee. The only problem with that thinking is that Republicans have not shown a backbone in Congress in I don’t know how long. Every now and then, they surprise me and do something right. Then they go out and do something stupid. Their track record is to do something stupid far more than doing something right. The Democrats on the other hand ALWAYS do the stupid thing when given an option. They are so consistent you can bank on it.

The issues the court needs to decide include McCain-Feingold. McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional to anyone with an education over that of first grade. Anyone who can read will understand that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. The first amendment says that, “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.” McCain would not want to appoint a judge that would find his signature law unconstitutional. That would tend to make him appoint judges that would legislate from the bench. Those are the worst kind of judges as they make up law as they go. In other words the goal posts are always moving. People need to have goal posts that are set in stone and do not move. That is why strict constructionist judges are so important and why I have doubts about John McCain.

Since one issue that I disagree with the Republican nominee on is global warming, I thought I should put in a plug for the global warming hoax. Remember that the global warming scare is just that, a scare. It is the biggest hoax ever to be played on the human race. The sad part is that this hoax is fooling a lot of people all over the world.

One thing global warming people bring up is that the Arctic ice cap is melting. It was down a lot this fall. But, this winter, the Arctic ice cap is back to where it normally is at this time. In fact, it may even be bigger than could be expected at this time of year. As a result, there is a lot of bad weather all over the planet in the northern hemisphere. China has the worst snows in over 100 years. Chicago and New York are digging out from some of the worst snows in recorded history. Remember in the US, recorded history is usually less than 200 years old. That means recorded history is not very old.

The Antarctic is usually described as shrinking by global warming fanatics. Over 90+% of Antarctica is under more snow and ice than at any time in recorded history. There is one small area that is shrinking. There are large chunks of ice falling off one ice shelf area on the coast. The rest is much colder and covered with much more ice than we have ever known.

To know the real agenda of the global warming fanatics, look at their prescription for the solution to global warming. They say that all we have to do is embrace communist dogma and global warming will be solved. Now, they do not call it communist dogma. They say that we have to sacrifice for the good of all mankind. That is the kind of thing the communists used to say to get people to adhere to the communist line. If global warming were really being caused by mankind, the best way to solve it would be to allow free enterprise and capitalism to solve the problem. Of course, that would mean freedom for people and global warming fanatics cannot have people embracing freedom. All global warming solutions involve people giving up their freedom to help “solve” global warming.

If you would look at the impact of any of the proposed solutions, you would discover that the solution would at best do nothing. At worst, the solution would aggravate the problem even more. For an example, look at the light bulb solution. The US Congress passes a law that outlawed the light bulb we have used for over 100 years saying it polluted too much. They also said we could save by going to the smaller fluorescent bulbs. It turns out that the fluorescent bulbs are much more difficult to produce, so the pollution is much higher. They also contain the element mercury and are more difficult to dispose of. So, the government said that we have to switch to new light bulbs that are going to pollute more and use more energy in order for us to pollute less and use less energy to reduce global warming. Now, if you understand that logic, you must work for the government. I fail to understand how polluting more is polluting less and using more energy is using less energy. The logic baffles me. The reason we are switching to the new light bulbs is not for global warming, it is so the government can control one more aspect of our lives.

I do not want to vote for anyone who believes in this communist inspired hoax. It will lead to more government control over my life and I want less government control over my life. The best thing the government can do for the US economy is to get out of the way. By getting out of the way, the economy will explode and everyone will be richer. That has happened in the past and will happen in the future. We need to lower taxes, or better yet, adopt the Fair Tax. That gets government out of the way. We also need to reduce the paperwork requirement that businesses and individuals have to maintain. This will also help spur the economy. I am no economist, but if you remove a drag on the economy it stands to reason that the economy will take off. Just like if you take your foot off the brakes of your car, it will go faster.

Mitt Romney suspended his campaign today at the CPAC convention. He did the honorable thing. I am not sure he did the right thing, but he did the honorable one and I hope he gets the honor that is his due. He now leaves the field to McCain and Huckabee. Huckabee should see the handwriting on the wall and also do the honorable thing. I doubt that he knows what honorable is.

One early report of his quitting the race thought that he could run against John Kerry in Mass. for Senate. I do not look for him to do that. I think he will take the route Ronald Reagan did in 1976; he will campaign for conservatives across the country. He will work to build the party from the grass roots. Then in 2012, he will be back and easily win the nomination and the election.

What doomed this campaign was the seeming late conversion to conservative principles. He was campaigning as a moderate as late as 1994. He was the Governor of the most liberal state in the country. Those are not the qualities that make conservatives think that the person is sincere when they say they are a conservative.

McCain on the other hand can point to a long record of conservative votes. That got him points as a conservative. Even though he has not been a conservative for at least 10 years, his early conservative record still gains him points. His overall record as a conservative is 82 by the conservative union. His latest few years have been in the low 60’s. The overall score is higher because of his very high record from long ago. But, he was able to tell voters he was a conservative and point to something to prove it. Unfortunately it is not true, but it is all we have to work with.

Huckabee claims to be a conservative. He is conservative when you take social issues into consideration. If you took social issues out of the equation, Huckabee is a liberal. Huckabee is for higher taxes and a bigger federal government. Both things are against what conservatives believe. But, because of his long steadfast stand on social issues, he was able to fool voters into believing he was a conservative.

It is interesting to me that the one true conservative in the race could not convince people he was a conservative. The two liberals in the race had no problem convincing voters that they were conservative, what was Romney’s problem? One of his problems was the fact that he came from Massachusetts. Anyone from Massachusetts will be looked at as at least a moderate if not a liberal until proven otherwise. Second, he had no real track record to prove that he was a conservative. He had to work with a very liberal legislature in Massachusetts and could not really push a conservative agenda. He did the best he could, but it was not enough. Third, the main stream media gave him no breaks. They believed everything that his opponents said about him and nothing that he said about himself. He now has a chance to brush up on the conservative credentials and gain the credibility that he needs.

We are now stuck with McCain as our nominee. Who he picks as his running mate will have a big impact on whether I could even vote for the ticket. There are a few Republicans he could pick that would enable me to vote for the ticket. There are lots that would not help the ticket at all. The one that would drive me away the fastest would be Mike Huckabee. McCain is bad, Huckabee is even worse than McCain. McCain has no principles. Huckabee is dishonest. There is a difference. Having no principles means you can be bought by the highest bidder. Being dishonest means you are in it only for yourself. Sometimes there is no difference, a lot of the time there is a difference. All eyes are now on McCain to see what he will do with the gift Romney gave him today.

Super Tuesday was yesterday and it did not turn out anything like I expected it to. I expected John McCain to win big in the east, he did. I expected Mitt Romney to do well in the west, he did. I did not expect Mike Huckabee to win the South, he did. I did expect Mike Huckabee to win Arkansas and maybe another state, but not the entire South. The McCain team gave Huckabee his first win in West Virginia. Romney was in first place with about 46% of the vote. McCain’s people got with the Huckabee people to put Huckabee over the top and victory. That should have telegraphed what kind of a day it was going to be.

The polls had Romney tied or even ahead in California. He lost the state 40-26%. One other surprise was Arizona. Romney did not campaign here at all and took 39% of the vote. McCain got just under 50% of the vote in Arizona. That does not bode well for a campaign.

Right now the delegate count has McCain with a commanding lead. It is still possible for Romney to win the nomination, but he would just about have to win every state from now on. That would be almost impossible. The best that could be reasonably expected is for no candidate to get the number needed for nomination. That is a real possibility, since the delegates are split between three candidates.

Since a Republican needs to win the South to win in November, it would be logical for John McCain to put Mike Huckabee on the ticket with him. For me, that is a real problem. I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain or Mike Huckabee. I might be able to stomach one or the other with a good running mate, but both would be too much for me to handle. I would probably vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. They, at least, would be closer to my ideals of a smaller government and lower taxes. I realize that would probably give the election to the Democrats, but liberal Republicans are almost worse.

I am really torn as to what to do. I cannot vote for any Democrat. All the Democrats propose to move us to socialist positions and towards communism. The Republicans, at least, would move us in that direction slower than the Democrats. I do not think we should go in that direction at all. We need a conservative candidate that would return us to the principles of the Reagan revolution and smaller government.

The Libertarian party does believe in smaller government and lower taxes. Unfortunately, they also believe in removing all laws about drugs and to ignore Islamo-Fascism. The last two are issues that I have strong feelings about and could not support from a Libertarian candidate. Those are the reasons I did not support Ron Paul in his candidacy.

There is still a lot of time before November 2008. I have a lot of thinking to do between now and then. The candidates will have a lot to say and that will have a big influence on my decision. But, if forced to make a decision right now, I would vote Libertarian rather than John McCain.

Today is Super Tuesday. We are voting here in Arizona. Our ballot is very long because of a silly law that says that anyone that fills out an application and turns it in can be on the ballot. There are about 20 names on the Republican ballot. It is difficult to find the candidate that you want to vote for on the ballot because the serious candidates are mixed with the silly ones. They should split the candidates into two categories, one for candidates with votes in other states and one without. That would make it easier to find the candidate of your choice.

My daughter stopped by this morning, to have me take her to the polling place. Usually the polling place is nearly empty. Today there was a line. There must have been 10-15 people in front of us. By the time she got to the front, the line was about 8 people long. That does show that there is some interest in this race. My daughter was excited to place her first vote. The poll worker noticed that she was bouncing and that I was with her and did not vote. She asked if this was my daughter’s first vote. I said yes. She then said it was good to see young people take an interest in voting. My daughter voted for Ron Paul. She picked him for precisely the same reason that I did not pick him, the war.

My hope in Arizona is that John McCain does not make it to 50%. If he cannot take a majority in his home state, with really only two candidates, he is in trouble. That John McCain will win is not even in question. All the polls have him winning with a 40-23 margin. That is an easy victory, but in your home state, where you are still a sitting Senator, it is a poor showing.

Running down my family: my wife is an Independent, My oldest son and his wife will vote for Romney, my next oldest son will vote for Ron Paul, the next three are not registered and my youngest voted for Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul’s positions on many issues. The only one I disagree on is his stand on the war. He believes that if the US ignores Islamo-Fascists, they will stay where they are. I believe that if we ignore them, they will come here and start killing us in our streets. It is better to kill Islamo-Fascists in their countries, than killing them in ours. The other thing with Ron Paul is there is a kook factor that kicks in when he talks.

Nationally, things are looking good for Romney. Yesterday, McCain tried to pull another dirty trick. He got Bob Dole to write a letter to Rush Limbaugh. Then McCain’s people leaked it to the media and spun it that Bob Dole rebuked Rush and endorsed John McCain. That is not what was in the letter at all. Rush talked about it today on his show. I did not get to hear the letter read, but I heard most of Rush’s commentary. McCain is also trying to say that Romney is attacking Bob Dole’s patriotism when Romney said that Bob Dole ran a poor campaign for the Presidency. Both are poor attempts at making Romney and Rush look bad. In the end, the both make McCain look bad on the one issue that most people were giving him a pass, his integrity. McCain is acting more and more like the Clinton’s. That is not a good comparison, especially when one is coming from the Republican ranks.