Election 2008: Over Just Yet?

The votes are in and it looks like Obama has won. But the electors have still not yet finished their deliberations. If something were to arise...

Remember my blog about Obama's questionable citizenship? Well it's actually becoming an issue. Philip J. Berg's case against Obama was dismissed because the court said he did not have adequate standing. Now Alan Keyes has filed a lawsuit in California questioning Obama's eligibility to be president. Other cases have been raised in Ohio, Connecticut,Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii, and there were reports of other cases being developed in Utah, Wyoming,Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, California and Virginia. Why is this not national news? Like it or not, our media has a very strong left-wing bias. To be honest, I'm having a tough time understanding how an issue like this has gone on for so long. All Obama has to due is produce the paperwork. It should be available to the public anyway, and it would be a sure way to win at least eight law suits. Unless he isn't a citizen.

Moving foward.

The election is over. Barack is done talking. Its time for him to be tested. I pray he passes. We, as American citizens, have elected for significant change. I hope Barack can take us in the right direction. Change can be for better or worse. Let's make sure its for better.

McCain's Concession Speech

They say the best way to discover the character of somebody is to watch how they take a loss. Issues aside, I thought McCain demonstrated a phenomenal character. I truly believe McCain to be first and foremost a servant to his country. He has been in service of this country for some fifty years and I believe he has continually viewed it as his duty and a priviledge. There can be no denying that his heart is in the right place and that he always wanted what was best for America.

McCain, you've served this nation with dignity and honor your entire life. Give yourself a break. Enjoy your family and your time with them. God knows you've earned it more than anyone.

Polls: reliable?

I had been thinking: how reliable are the polls we see on tv, etc? While he is ahead, Obama's numbers consistently remain within the 46%-49% range. He may have more than McCain, but that doesn't mean he has a majority. There is a lot of undecided voters out there who have the capability to sway the election significantly. I believe that the election will result in either a close win for McCain or a landslide for Obama. I hope its the former.

McCain coming here?

I just heard that McCain is coming to GJ on Tuesday. FMHS is the only school in session that particular day. Sorry teachers, but I probably won't be there. Who would've thought that both Palin and McCain would be stopping in little ole' GJ during this election season? I'm down with it.

America's Tax System in Relative Terms: Beer

This does a good job accurately portraying the American tax system. Honestly, I don't think it's necessary to tax the rich even more. They pay just enough. More, they may leave America and not pay at all. Less, we wouldn't have as much money. I think things ar okay. Tell me what you think of this portrayal of the system, and try to find any kinks or problems with it.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill
for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our
taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the
bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one
day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good
customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer
by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink
for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How
could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and
the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the
bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a
dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10
back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the
nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, Lorraine, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
-taken from an e-mail from a friend

Polls, etc.

Obama is doing fantastic in the polls. McCain is catching up, but its doubtful he will overtake him. These next couple of years will be interesting with a Democratic Executive and Legislative. Nothing ever good comes when a single party controls both the Presidency and Congress, be they Democrat or Republican. Expect to see alot of bills passed within the first two years as Obama begins his administration of change. Whether that change will be for the best or worst, nobody knows. I hope we won't have to learn the hard way.

Wow.

Obama is going to win the election. As much as I hate to say it, I honestly think that is the reality of the situation. Obama is dominating in the polls, McCain isn't. And honestly, Bush hasn't been doing so hot the last four years, and that public discontent is going to rebound into Barack's waiting arms. I can't say I'm happy. But look on the bright side, right? Maybe we'll have a really cool civil war/anarchical apocalypse and everything will be like The Day After Tomorrow. Excuse me while I go buy ammo for my guns and cling to them bitterly.

Say what you will, but Palin can speak!

I got the chance to watch Sarah Palin give her speech yesterday at Suplizio Field and I must admit that it was a damn good speech. The crowd was totally into it, people were cheering, and it was fun. She has life to her, and to be honest, you have to admire the woman. What she's doing is a pretty impressive feat. I commend her and found myself agreeing with much of what she said.

The Last Debate

Even though Barack Obama has performed equal if not better in previous debates, I believe that McCain finally did what he had to do. McCain was significantly more aggressive in his debating and called out Obama on numerous issues. It was nice to see John McCain stop being so nice and show a little more "fire in the belly."

Obama's Citizenship: Legitimate?

It seems like the longer our friend Barack is exposed to the spotlight, the shakier his foundations become. Here is a news flash for a lot of people, and I'm surprised Democrats aren't a little more outraged: Barack Obama is having a lawsuit filed against him under the charge that he is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. The case simply requires that Obama hand over the official documents (birth certificate, etc.), thereby proving his eligibility. To date, however, Obama has been unable to do that.
Before you jump on the argument regarding the so-called "certificate" posted on Obama's website, you need to understand that there are some problems with that as well. I have read numerous articles claiming that the image posted online justifies that Obama is a Hawaiian-born citizen. However, this is an image which many, myself included, believe is only to temporary placate Obama supporters. If it was a legitimate image of the actual certificate, why not just show the document in court and be done with it? That's what John McCain did. When his citizenship was questioned, McCain immediately produced his birth certificate, medical records, etc., none of which has been done by Obama. If Obama has nothing to hide, why make so much trouble with the courts? I believe more Democrats should be demanding explanations and proof. This is a guy whom many of you took time out of your day to help; don't you think he owes it to you to at least be qualified? He certainly does. Only time will tell the result of the case.
To watch a video about this issue visit this link (and actually watch the whole thing with an open mind):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
--One more thing: please do not fall victim to selective perception and disregard these ideas simply because you do not want to hear them. Do some research and search for the truth. Try to find something wrong with everything you read. Whether you want to or not, you will begin to find blank spots and rather confounding elements. The media never tells us everything.

A funny experience...

I just had the funniest thing happen. This lady calls me and says she's working for the Obama campaign. She asks me if this is my first election to vote in, asks me if I'm excited to vote, and finally who I plan on supporting. I answer John McCain. She asks why. I tell her. I talked to this lady for five minutes straight. I discussed issues like foreign policy, national security, gun control, abortion, the issues regarding Barack's experience and past. I backed everything up. Basically, I handed it to this lady (who seemed very nice, by the way). As soon as I finished, she said, "Well it sounds like you're a very well-informed voter. Good-bye." I hung up and had myself a hearty laugh. Use those dreadful things called "facts" and they back right down. Regardless of whether or not she meant to, this lady implied that she could not sway me in favor of Obama because I was "well-informed." Just a funny story I felt like relating.

Supporting Obama is a New Thing for most Dems

I was just thinking...its interesting how so many leaders within the Democratic Party had little or no faith in Obama before he was chosen to run and now they all claim to support him. Even Biden said he did not believe Obama was well-prepared enough for the presidency, even stating "I would be honored to run with or against John McCain because I think the country would be better off." Now that Barack has been selected, it seems as though a large number people (many Democrats) who had spoken out rather vehemently against him have endorsed him. If you don't believe me, watch the words come out of their own mouths:

1. http://www.gop.com/DVO/
2. http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPIB,HPIB:2006-18,HPIB:en&q=obama's%20visit%20to%20iraq&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#q=biden%20i%20would%20be%20honored%20to%20run%20with%20or%20against%20john%20mccain&emb=0

FYI...Barack Obama is not a Christian, not a Muslim!

So I went to search for some material to prove that Barack Obama's past is being blown out of proportion by the Republicans (mountain-out-of-molehill kind of thing), and I found a great website: http://www.keepandshare.com/htm/biographies/barack_obama_biography.php
I checked out the 6 major lies about Obama. The first one corrected the myth that "Obama's a Muslim". The truth is, he isn't. The site says, "For more than 20 years Barack Obama has pledged his devotion to the Christian faith, as well as attended regular Sunday service at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago." After reading this, I checked out the church and leading pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Just type the search into youtube or visit this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ
Wow. It's this "faith" to which Obama "pledged devotion" and "attended regular Sunday service?" Great. Now I feel better. If you plan on telling me that 20 years of a candidate's life is irrelevant to their qualifications for the presidency or that I'm just trying to dig up whatever dirt I can find, you must be kidding. I am not trying to make up a history that isn't there. On the contrary, I will be infinitely relieved when someone can prove that these issues are irrelevant and unrelated. Despite my hopes, I believe Obama will win the election. Help me sleep easier at night, and prove my suspicions wrong.

More Bailout??!!

News just in: Bush and his cronies have decided that since the first bailout attempts failed, the solution is to loan more money. The Federal Reserve has just allocated another $billion-plus loan to AIG in an effort to bail it out. Are you kidding me? I told you from the start it was a bad idea; now our taxes are going to pay even more to bail out these corporations.

Barack Obama

Sometimes Barack Obama scares me. I read the bit in the book on selective perception and so will try to avoid it as much as possible. Certain unsettling elements of Obama's past do, however, exist. Anyone denying this is also falling victim to selective perception. I have been doing a bit of research over the candidates. John McCain, other than his stint in Vietnam, seems to be pretty much your stereotypical politician. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is rather mysterious. His past has some serious gaps in it and associations with people who are definitely not the kind of people a president should be associated with. John McCain seemed pretty up front. The more I investigated Obama, the more concerned I became. Look, I'm not saying Barack is an unqualified candidate. What I'm saying is that if you plan on voting, you should do a little background checking of your own. This link is a series of videos covering the more disturbing elements of Barack's past. Yes, they are biased, but that bias only goes so far. I could not find anything similar on John McCain, and I looked. Whether or not you agree with this, the simple fact that it exists merits a deeper investigation into Barack's past, if only to prove his innocence.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=barak+obama+history&hl=en&emb=0#q=Barack%20Obama%20%26%20Friends%20Sean%20Hannity%20Special%20&hl=en&emb=0

The Debate

Neither candidate had an outstanding performance during the debate last night. Both, however, were well spoken and seemed well-informed. Watching the debate made me think about how I really don't like either candidate, although I believe John McCain to be the lesser of the two evils. I disagree with Obama on every level and just about as much with McCain. But given the choice, I would vote McCain, although my vote would be more to keep Obama out than to put McCain in.

Why the Bailout is a Bad Idea

First and foremost, I do not support bailout. It is a free market, and should be treated as such. This entire situation has its roots based in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage lending institutions started in 1938 and 1970, respectively. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Congress encouraged these lenders to engage in more subprime lending in order to ensure that everyone could afford a house. For those unfamiliar with subprime lending, it goes like this: Suppose a bank takes a loan from the government at 5% interest. That 5% is considered the prime level. Prime borrowers are people who are able to take out a loan from that bank with a 5% or higher interest rate. Subprime lending occurs when an individual, who normally would not qualify as a prime borrower(bad credit, inability to pay interest rate), takes out a loan with an interest rate below 5%.

This practice, throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, significantly increased the supply of money available in the housing market and did allow more people to own homes. The vast of majority of loans, however were adjustable rate mortgages. These loans typically started with subprime rates appealing to borrowers, but later down the road banks began to increase interest rates to cover themselves financially. This inevitably led to the increase in home foreclosures (when the bank reclaims the home of an individual who is unable to continue making payments) seen from about 2000 up to the present. These recent crashes have been building for quite some years; now just happens to be when we see a spike in home foreclosures, affecting practically every aspect of American economics, especially the stock market.

What I'm getting at is that this crisis was brought on by banks, encouraged by the government, giving out cheap loans to unqualified candidates in an effort to make a larger profit. They ran the risk and enjoyed the temporary benefits of that risk. Conversely, borrowers took out loans they couldn't repay and enjoyed the temporary benefits (better housing) of that risk. I say let the free market work. These people took a risk and now it's coming back to them. I do not believe that the government should use our taxes to bail out these individuals who knowingly took a risk. Its outrageous! This is my money and your money. I don't want it spent "saving" people whose actions finally caught up with them. What will that teach them? Remember, this whole issue started when the government stepped into the free market and began encouraging subprime lending. And now they're saying that more government involvement will solve the problem? Let's take a lesson from history and good common sense: what we need right now is for the government to step back, the media to stop scaring everyone, and an understanding that the free market will work everything out on its own.

Third Party Candidate?

Did anyone else hear about this new candidate? Check him out at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqktCdX0hs
I don't know about you, but the man certainly has my vote. I am really in agreement with his policies regarding international trade, healthcare, and immigration . He has the ability to break away the superficial elements of an issue and get down to what's important, something many of the other candidates have been unable to do.

Formal and Informal Amendment Processes

The United States Constitution is designed as a flexible document in which changes are made by either formal amendments or a series of informal processes. By granting future generations the ability to alter the Constitution in order to adapt to a changing world, the founding fathers ensured that the American system of government would be a lasting achievement.

The formal amendment process consists of two stages: proposal and ratification, each of which can be completed two ways. An amendment can be proposed by either a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of 2/3 of state legislatures. Proposal does not mean anything has been enacted as a law; it simply means that it is an issue worthy of serious consideration- its on the table. The Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA, is one such proposed amendment which passed this first stage but was never ratified. An amendment can be ratified by either 3/4 of state legislatures or at special state conventions called in 3/4 of the states. Ratification means that the amendment is now part of the U.S. Constitution; its the law of the land. Throughout the history of the U.S. Constitution, every single amendment has been proposed by a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress, and every amendment except one has been ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. The exception, the 21st Amendment, was ratified by state conventions because proponents believed it would not pass through a conservative legislature.

The informal processes of constitutional change refer to unwritten practices and procedures which, when altered by changing times or needs, may affect the nature of the constitution. The concept of judicial interpretation is one such example. Judicial interpretation means that the courts decide how to interpret the Constitution when disputes arise. The case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the concept of judicial review- the power of the courts to determine whether policy is in accordance with the Constitution. While there is no reference to judicial interpretation in the original Constitution, it has become a defining characteristic of our nation throughout the years, deciding important cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown V. Board of Education. Along the lines of judicial interpretation is a changing political scene, meaning that political traditions performed over time eventually become as good as law. Political parties were never advocated by the founders as they encouraged factions. Nonetheless, political parties, despite having never been cited in the Constitution, have become one of the most defining aspects of American political life. The Electoral College is another example. Electors almost always vote in line with the popular vote in their state. Nothing in the Constitution requires this, but it happens anyway. Lastly, a changing world- technology, international affairs, etc.- can change the mettle of the Constitution. Issues like abortion, mass media, atomic weapons, the Internet, and the emergence of the U.S. as a superpower are all things the founders never considered but which affect the Constitution even so. These practices and procedures have resulted in the establishment of an unwritten constitution- one that is as much a part of American government as the one written by the founders in Philadelphia in 1787.

Constitutional change, whether by formal or informal means, as what makes American government so unique. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest functioning constitution in the world because the founding fathers provided future Americans with the ability to change as they deem necessary. Because it is not set in stone, the Constitution has the potential to outlast time.

A slightly biased interview?

Check out these exerpts from Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. What is this guy's deal? There is no question of his political views or who he is going to vote for, and one can almosty here the disdain in his voice. Its a good example of media spin, which does go both ways, although typically this spin is more subtle than in this video.

For the record, though, I believe that Palin did a damn good job of handling these questions and justifying her beliefs without giving ground. Charlie Gibson's questions ended up backfiring. Sucker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGMn9GrJwc

The Madisonian Model as it Relates to American Government

The Madisonian model of government proposed a system which sought to prevent a faction, particulary the majority, from oppressing another faction through the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. James Madison's three goals were to limit majority control, separate powers, and establish checks and balances. By placing only one element of government, the House of Representatives, within control of the people, he ensured that the majority would not be able to take charge of the government. Separation of powers can be observed in the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. Each of the three has a distinct set of powers which allow them to check the other branches.



Madison's model is the basis for America's modern government. Today, however, majority control is not as limited. There is a larger voting pool than in the 1700s, and the ratification of the 17th Amendment now allows for the direct election of senators, increasing the direct control of the majority. Largely, however, the U.S. Constitution remains the same. It divides government into the three branches and places numerous checks and balances on each power.

The Madisonian model is highly effective at neutralizing any sort of tyrannical move by any single governmental power. At the same time, however, it can also make the passage of legislation a very slow process. Because any one branch of government holds the power to check another, diverging interests can grind political proceedings to a virtual halt. In the end, however, this model has done its job: preventing any single faction from oppressing another. Slow and steady wins the race.

The Election

Simply put, I prefer McCain over Obama. Vice-presidents ignored, Obama's three years as a junior senator and 20 years as a close friend to Reverend Wright and member of his racist, radical church tend to push me away. The man does, however, have noble ideas and what seems like a vision. How much of that is hot air will coninue to be debated, although I must admit I am doubtful. McCain has a smoother track record and no one can doubt his patriotism.

A major, overriding concept that moves me toward McCain is taxes. Obama's proposed policies will tax me and America more than McCain ever would. As I see it, increased taxes on the better-off portion of society in order to pay for an everincreasing amount of welfare or social programs for the less-successful is simply the redistribution of wealth by the government. Keep in mind that I am not some cruel Republican seeking to slam the poor and leave them out in the cold. I am a firm believer in programs seeking to lift the poor and less fortunate to a better standard of living. They are our fellow Americans and should be provided with needed care. The distinction I must make, however, is that this aide must come from the private sector, not the public. Anyone literate in world history will understand the importance of this distinction.