Third Party Candidates

I hear all the time that people want change, more choices, and better candidates. The talk of third parties comes up often as a solution. But is a new major third party or more third party candidates good for Democracy or a path towards the Destruction of basic American fundamentals? As Americans we believe in Democracy, the notion of "Majority Rule, Minority Rights", right? See:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm

I started thinking about third parties as I was reading about the Libertarian Party (LP) see their official website at:

http://www.lp.org/

I believe in most of their platform: individual rights, less government, personal freedom but is the inclusion of third parties beneficial to our society? Can it help with our troubled system of government?

According to a Pew Research Center poll released in 2006, 53% of respondents wanted a third political party in addition to Republicans and Democrats. See:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=275

But what if a major third party was created and it was no longer majority rule. Because of the third party, a candidate could be elected with only 33.4% of the votes. If another major party was created then the percentage would fall even more. Is this what we want, only a fraction of the population electing the leader of the free world?

There is another drawback: with the inclusion of more major political parties it would increase the likelihood of radical and fringe groups gaining power. The American Communist Party, an Islamic-fundalmentist group, or a domestic terrorist group such as ELF could hold power in America. Remember with 10 major political parties, only 11% could send a President to The White House. With all the problems that face the two-party system of government, at least a majority of the country (either Electoral College or population) elects our leader.

Be careful what you wish for!

Spitzer Lied about Troopergate

Albany, New York's District Attorney David Soares released his second investigative report dealing with then-Governor Elliot Spitzer's releasing of the travel records of New York State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. See:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=676411

Soares reports that Spitzer had ordered the Majority Leader's travel records released in an attempt to disgrace Senator Joe Bruno. In fact, a grand jury was summoned before Elliot Spitzer resigned on March 17, 2008. Also, according to the Times Union, Spitzer used a divide-and-conquer approach to try to shift the majority in the New York State Senate. See:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=676714

He tried to recruit Republican Senators for his cabinet in by doing so, shrinking the Republican majority. His plan would have worked but most of the Senators said no (except Senator Balboni, who became a homeland security chief, and his seat went the other way in a special election).

This is the level of political dirty tricks that Spitzer had been up to. I hope Governor David Paterson isn't engage in these tactics

McCain/Romney?

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been campaigning for John McCain, despite a bitter relationship during the primaries. See:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080327/D8VM2AI00.html

The Public Sphere Debate wrote earlier in the month that it would be a McCain/Romney ticket. See:

http://thepublicspheredebate.blogspot.com/2008/03/greatest-presidential-campaign-ever.html

I believe that this would be the strongest ticket when taken into consideration popularity, economic background, ticket balance, and LOTS OF MONEY!!! The primary race is a large gamble but it is another thing to be guaranteed on the ballot going in. I'm sure that Romney would contribute millions to the campaign. VP for Romney would also set him up for a 2012 or 2016 Presidential campaign.

We need to unite the party and Mitt Romney gives us the best chance.

Should David Paterson Resign?

According to WNYT, an NBC affiliate in Albany, New York, see:

http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S391472.shtml?cat=300

reports that Governor David Paterson has stopped answering personal questions dealing with his past. This whole David Paterson situation has got me thinking: is this a political blunder on his part or a great public relations move? I mean, was this good advice from his aides? Should Paterson have been so open with the public, especially after only minutes from Elliot Spitzer resigning? Was getting this all out in the beginning and trying to move passed it, the best for New York? We shall see how much this interferes with the budget process and future business of the state.

Paterson stated that he wanted to come clean about his past so that he could not have been blackmailed during his Governorship. For this reason I believe it was a good move. The main issue that I had with Spitzer was that he left open the possibility of black mail. Having a double life enables thugs a chance of using blackmail against you (especially high-powered individuals). To air out all of Paterson's dirty laundry was a smart move. Good advice from his aides. BUT, him doing so also gave journalists, reporters, and the like a reason to dig deeper on Paterson. It was found out that he spent tax payer money on hotel rooms while in Albany (as he owns a home in Guilderland, about 20 minutes from Albany and has a full-time driver). Patterson should be careful of what else the media finds. It won't take long before the scale tips and the people are fed up.

Paterson has a good chance of coming away from this but that can change at any time. I don't believe that Governor David Paterson should resign yet. If a scandal is discovered, he must step down as fast as he admitted to affiars and drugs. New York has important work to do. The state is a mess and needs to clean up.

What do you think?

Bruno's Revenge

More information has come to light regarding the battle between Elliot Spitzer and Joe Bruno, a battle in which Bruno won. See The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/nyregion/24report.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Bruno&st=nyt&oref=slogin

also see the New York Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242008/news/regionalnews/eliot_deep_in_dirty_tricks__report_says_103249.htm

Apparently, Spitzer had ordered and had full knowledge of the smear campaign against Joseph Bruno. Spitzer was "spitting mad" and wanted the travel details of Bruno released. Team Spitzer used the Albany newspaper The Times Union to release the story. This attack got Bruno mad. Bruno, arguably the most powerful man in New York, got his revenge eight days ago as Spitzer resigned as Governor. I have been linking Bruno to Spitzer since the day that the news broke about Spitzer and a prostitution ring. Roger Stone, a long time Bruno consultant, allegedly was the one who tipped off the FBI to Spitzer's prostitution habits.

If new Governor David Paterson resigns due to his affairs/drugs/more-to-come, then acting-Lt. Governor and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno would assume the role of "acting governor" and still be able to keep his Senate Majority Leader title. As Fred Dicker reports, Bruno would be "functioning in both roles and literally able to cast votes in the Senate chamber on the third floor of the Capitol and then go down to the Executive Chamber on the second to administer the state. That would allow him to nominate individuals for high public office, including judgeships, and then vote on their confirmation by the Senate", see:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242008/news/columnists/surprise_findings_on_a_successor_103277.htm

This would make Bruno a "Super (acting) Governor" with "Super Powers". But there would be an upside to this as the budget deadline looms. Instead of having the "three men in a room" scenario (Governor David Paterson, Speaker Sheldon Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno), there would be only two (acting Governor and Senate Majority Leader Bruno and Speaker Silver). Maybe the process would be more efficient.

What is going to happen? No one knows yet. It seems as with every new day, more comes out about Governor Paterson. How much more can come out before it starts to interfere with his duties as Governor and the budget negotiation?

Did Elliot Spitzer get outed by Joe Bruno?

In my post of march 11, 2008 I stated that New York State Majority Leader Joseph Bruno probably helped in the taking down of Elliot Spitzer. New information has come to light on some of the early details in the chain-of-events that ultimately lead to the downfall of Spitzer. In an article by the Miami Herald, see:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/465701.html


It states that Roger Stone, a former top political consultant and friend of Joe Bruno, tipped FBI off to an Elliot Spitzer sex romp that allegedly occurred in Florida. As it turns out also, Stone played a pivotal role in the 2000 Election recount/no count in Florida. If in fact Roger Stone was the one that informed the FBI about Spitzer, there is no doubt in my mind that Bruno had his hand in this.

The New York Times had an article regarding Stone also, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23stone.html

In this article, Stone resigned from his position as a consultant for the New York State Republicans after an allegation that Stone left a threatening message with Spitzer's father about bad loans in Elliot Spitzer's 1994 Attorney General election. According to the article, Stone had been known for dirty tactics.


Can we conect-the-dots from Bruno to Stone? If Stone had damaging information about Spitzer, do you think that he would share this with Bruno, especially after Spitzer came after Bruno first? I do. It is only natural. But is this proof that Bruno had a role in the Spitzer resignation? Not yet, but I'm sure there will be more to come. Again, I'm not condemning Bruno for what he did. I'm a Bruno supporter. Spitzer drew first blood with the most powerful man in New York State and Bruno did what he had to do.

Boycott the Olympics

Earlier this week, a possible boycott of the 2008 summer games opening ceremonies had been discussed due to the current situation in Tibet. See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080320/ap_on_re_as/china_tibet

The citizens of Tibet are using this time to draw attention to their cause in the lead up to the summer games. Public relations is all about timing. The Olympics will bring thousands of reporters to China and Tibet is hoping for a little attention. But is boycotting the opening ceremonies the right move? I believe it is. First off, why in the world would the Olympics be awarded to China? Of all the beautiful countries in the world, all the historic cities, the committee picked Beijing, China.

There are so many other cities and countries that could benefit from the Olympics being held there. All the hotels, restaurants, everything. The Olympics bring in revenue, a large sum of revenue. All this revenue will be soon going to China. The irony is that, in turn, China will be using this on their increasing military budget.

Think how much a developing nation could benefit from the games. Giving the distinction of hosting the Olympics to China equates to Iran receiving the honor or North Korea or Cuba. China has been known to jail for political opposition, engage in Human Rights violations, and censor the media. This is not an open society and should not have been allowed to host the games.

The Olympics are the biggest stage in the World. China will use this opportunity to use the Olympics as a giant public relations event. They will try to show how great they are while rounding up reformers and hiding the bad. I urge more countries to come together and boycott the opening ceremonies. This non-violent protest will show China that their harsh rule will not be tolerated by nations around the world.

The Most Expensive Sex in New York

Yesterday Elliot Spitzer resigned as Governor of New York State effective on Monday, March 17. I feel for his family, friends, and supporters but not for him. The State voted overwhelmingly for then Attorney General to become Governor. This could show us (again) that the candidate for an office is not the better candidate because he collects the most money, has the better qualifications, or have the memorable political ads. In hindsight, I hope that the people of New York would now agree that John Faso was the better candidate. Also, I don't believe that Spitzer thought that he would be caught. He was so arrogant as Attorney General and he called himself a "f***ing steamroller".

But there are bigger issues at-hand such as mob ties, possibility of blackmail, and integrity of prosecutions. It has been long learned that many prostitution rings are run by the Mafia. If they found out what Spitzer was doing, they could have blackmailed him for money, influence, or anything else. Spitzer put the whole State at risk for his actions. Lastly, If he "went after", as Attorney General, a prostitution ring that was a rival of the business he used frequently, that would breech many moral, legal, and ethical standards of the Office he held.

Does this taint all prosecutions of his office? There are thousands of former defendants and their attorneys waiting to see what happens and what comes out. I am sure that there will be many appeals brought into an already clogged system. How many millions of dollars will all this cost including time of all court challenges and changing all letterhead, envelopes, stationary, etc. When it is all said and done, this will be the most expensive sex in the history of New York State.

Is Today the Day that Spitzer Resigns?

Media outlets are reporting that Elliot Spitzer will resign effective on Monday, March 17th. We need to move on and have Lt. Governor David Paterson sworn in to ensure a smooth transition. The time delay is reportedly given to Patterson to prepare for the move. David Paterson will be the first African-American Governor in New York. He has a tough job ahead in Albany because it is a mess. I wish Governor Paterson the best and hope all Republicans work with the new Governor and work together as the Budget is due in roughly three weeks.

"Client 9": The Case for Impeachment of Governor Elliot Spitzer

Is this "business as Usual" in Albany or what? Elliot Spitzer came into office in Albany promising change but is leaving in scandal. Spitzer, having prosecuted these kind of cases, must be the dumbest man in Albany. To read the court documents, visit:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0310082spitzer1.html

When I first heard the news on March 10th, the very first thought that came into my mind was that Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno had something to do with this. If you recall, Spitzer and Bruno battled it out when Spitzer used New York State Troopers to investigate Bruno's travels. Bruno is arguably the most powerful man in New York State so who knows. Check out this link to a news story by WCBSTV.com from July 2007 (it is short):

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/joseph.bruno.andrew.2.245997.html

It will shed a little more light on the political climate in Albany. But Spitzer was cleared from "Trooper-gate" see:

http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51047

Bruno had to want Blood. I am a Bruno supporter as he has accomplished a lot for Upstate New York. It seems to me that someone did find the skeleton in the closet.
Lastly, New York State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco today called for Elliot Spitzer to resign within 24-48 hours or face impeachment proceedings.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080312/D8VBJ3R00.html

I am calling for all Assembly members to support these proceedings. We, the people of New York, can not tolerate this misconduct from this man. Spitzer had been so unforgiving of people that he prosecuted, he needs to pay the price.

Do not blame me for this mess, I voted for John Faso.

The Greatest Presidential Campaign Ever: Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton and The Case for John McCain

It has been a while since I have written, I apologize. Yesterday I decided that I would once again continue writing everyday based on what is happening in the world and our country. As of today, we are down to two Democratic Presidential candidates: Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. The Republicans have their Presidential nominee: Senator John McCain. I believe that the democratic race is going to get even more heated before the two would decide who would be on the top and the bottom of the ticket. The Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would be the logical conclusion to the campaign. This move would also sure up major factions in the Democratic party. The two candidates would be a money-raising machine. This will attract most of the media attention in the upcoming months. McCain can counter this by planning his important speeches, trips, and the announcemnet of his pick for Vice President strategically.

McCain has a huge advantage, he is the "Maverick". This is a great underdog story. He was down and out early in the campaign. He was not raising money and received little media attention. John McCain needs this time to organize, raise funds, and to rest. There is no doubt that the campaign took a toll on McCain but time is on his side. I am a McCain supporter. I understand that there are many Republicans that do not favor him. I admit he was not my first choice but he is what we are stuck with (so we better make the best of it). Compared to whatever the alternative would be, there are not any other choices.

If John McCain wins, it will be close as the country is so divided, we need someone who knows how to compromise. That is what he needs to stress, not run from. If Conservatives do not vote for him and waste their votes elsewhere, then McCain needs the moderates from both sides. I would argue that compromise is one of the most important aspects as a Senator. We have not elected a Senator since John F. Kennedy (1960). If McCain wins he would be facing a Democratic House and possibly a super-majority in the Senate. If he intends to get anything accomplished, he needs to compromise. This is a strength, not a weakness.

We are still living in a post-9/11 world despite not having been attacked in almost 7 years. We need a President that would make the terrorists afraid, not rejoice, when elected. John McCain has strong National Security experience and wouldn't hesitate to track, monitor, detain, or kill terrorists.

McCain lacks economic experience, so picking a VP is very important. My guess/choice would be Mitt Romney. He carries supoort, has resources, and has a strong economic background. This would also make the Conservatives happy (or atleast happier). It is a win-win. This would also set up Mitt Romney for 2012 nicely. There is no doubt that age must factor in with the McCain campiagn pertaining to the VP. He must for the better of the party for future campaigns. Romney ran a good campaign and would make a great future President, just not this time-around.

I urge anyone who has supported someone else or is on the fence about 2008 to take another look at John McCain. Our country and future generations depend on it.

A Victory in New York

Governor Spitzer now intends to drop his crusade to give illegals, drivers licenses. This is a major win for all tax-paying "legals" in New York. The people have spoken and Spitzer now has time to come up with more crazy policies instead of tackling major issues such as reform. It seems to me as it is business as usual in Albany.

The Case for Iraq

I do not believe President Bush has made an effective case for the Iraq war to the American public. If he had, I don't think that the war would be as unpopular as it is today. Some people do not see the implications of an American loss or they want America to be defeated. I will try to make my own case for the war in Iraq. President Bush had made some early errors with the war. Instead of the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) argument, he should have stuck with the 17 U.N. violations, connections to terrorism, and a brutal dictator. We knew he had WMDs because he had used them in the past but the risk of not finding any would be greater then the strength of the argument. This is what gave the anti-war activists fuel for their accusations of "lies and exaggerations" by the Bush administration. We knew he was in violation of the U.N. agreements and we could prove both the supporting of terror and a brutal dictator. Bush's use of the WMD argument to go to war not only proved incorrect but also damaged the entire war effort and public sentiment.

The 17 U.N. resolutions that Saddam Hussein was in violation of can be read @ http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm

The next topic people have a real problem with and I don't know why. I have heard people say that Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism but that is simply not true. He had ties to terrorism. Maybe not strong ties with Al-Qaeda but certainly ties. The Weekly Standard had a great article on terror training camps in Iraq in the years leading up to the war @ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Saddam Hussein has also gave out millions of dollars to Palestinian families of suicide bombers. In a region in the world where there is high unemployment and poverty is normal, a $10,000 check can make all the difference and can certainly be motivation for more bombings. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein sponsored terror, see CBS News @ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

According to ABC News, over 10 million dollars had been given out and each family received $25,000 for a suicide bombing and $10,000 for a death caused by the nation of Israel. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page=1

Audio tapes from meetings with Hussein and other government and military leaders in the mid-1990s show that Hussein was intentionally hiding their efforts of WMDs from the U.N. see ABC News @ http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was one of the links that the Bush Administration used to justify the war in Iraq. There were reports that Al-Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad for his leg that was wounded in Afghanistan during the U.S. led attack on the Taliban. The first story was that his leg was amputated but later officials backtracked and stated his leg was just wounded. Al-Zarqawi had a long history of terrorism dating back to 1989 when he entered Afghanistan to help fight off the Soviets. Al-Zarqawi is a link to Iraq and terrorism. It is no coincidence that after receiving medical treatment in Baghdad before the Iraq war, he became the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq after the war started. For a history and biography of Al-Zarqawi see: http://www.answers.com/topic/abu-mussab-al-zarqawi

It goes without saying that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. He used chemical weapons on his own people, killed political enemies or anyone he wanted to get rid off or who was in subordination. He implemented rape and torture rooms and built and filled mass graves. His gassing of the Kurds in just one day killed 5,000. That is almost twice as many that died on September 11th, 2001. The difference is that the attacks on September 11th for done by a groups of terrorists while the gassing of the Kurds was done by a nation. The Washington Post had an article on the gassing of the Kurds, please see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html

This brings up the next major topic: What if we lose?
This is the worst case scenario, second only to nuclear devices being detonated inside the United States. A loss will embolden the enemy and will only strengthen themselves in bodies and money. The group was formed after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. For a more detailed history see the Council on Foreign Relations @ http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/ The terrorist group was strengthened after they drove the Soviets out. If a group of rag-tag thugs can defeat the Soviets, they believe they can defeat anyone. If they are successful in making the United States withdraw with its tail between our legs, they will do something that no one had done in the history of the World has done: defeat two major superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States.

We can not let this happen. I think that the War in Iraq is justified. Even if you do not feel that the war is justified, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who supported terror, killed his own people, and was in violation of 17 U.N. resolutions. A timetable or withdraw would be a mistake. If history teaches us anything, we most stomp them. Please do not support a timetable or withdraw from Iraq, we can not let them defeat us. Our country and way of life is on the line.

Global Warming: Fact or Figment of Alarmists' Imagination?

Turn on the news, open a newspaper, or stand at the water cooler and you will eventually hear that the world is falling apart and it is due to global warming. First off, very few people will disagree that there is global warming. That is not for debate (at least not here). The issue of debate is whether man is the sole contributor of this increase or is it occurring naturally. There are plenty of websites on both side of this argument to look for answers but which is correct? I believe in the "there are two kinds of people in this world" saying. In this case, there are two kinds of people in this world: people who believe the alarmists and people who don't! The alarmists are not a new group of people, they have been around probably since the dawn of time. Every generation has heard that oil is running out. Most often the alarmists will also give a time line such as "oil will run out in 20 years". The world has heard it since the 1800's and the fact remains no one knows when we will run out of oil. Is it possible that the oil companies themselves are doing this to drive up the price? I don't know.

Several years ago the Bird Flu was the story of the day. The following are headlines I collected from the web about the bird flu: "NPR: Bird Flu Deaths in Thailand Raise Pandemic Fears" (December 8, 2005), "Britain prepares for bird flu death toll of thousands" (August 7, 2005), and "U.N. backs off 150m flu deaths" (September 30, 2005). These head lines were meant to invoke fear in you. The alarmists were on to something. But then something happened. Actually, nothing happened. The pandemic never happened. There have been 204 deaths from the bird flu since the 1990's. If you believe the hype, 36,000 people die each year from the "normal" flu in America, see CBS news:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/health/main535605.shtml

Another example was SARS. I thought that the world was going to end in 2003 because of SARS. What happened? Again, nothing happened. There wasn't a SARS pandemic. Going back a few more years, Y2K was going to cause planes to drop from the sky, nuclear missiles to be launched, and turn your expensive laptop into a paperweight. When the clocks struck midnight, nothing happened. After three failed attempts by the alarmists (bird flu, SARS and Y2K), the new "sky is falling" is "man-made" global warming.

In the 1970's, the alarmists stated there was "global cooling", see what Newsweek and Time Magazine said:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

How can we have a "global cooling" scare in the 1970's and now thirty years later we have "global warming" scare? If a weatherperson can not accurately predict the weather in 3 days, how can a scientist predict global climate 20, 50, or 100 years out? Many against the global warming argument point to the flawed nature of the computer models being used to conduct the global warming studies. Some would argue (myself included) that the earth is too complex for a computer model. To say that a computer models is 100% accurate is to say that we know everything about the earth and how it works. That can not be true hence the models are flawed. Members of the left, have also tried to down play the number of scientists who have signed a petition (over 19,000) that rejects the mainstream view on global warming. To view the petition, click on the link below:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

What is the truth? An Inconvenient Truth? To be honest, I have not seen it. I have seen clips and read excerpts but I refuse to watch it. I do not have to watch it to know that it is filled with lies and exaggerations. You can read about 35 Inconvenient Truths about Al Gore's movie from the Science and Public Policy Institute here at the link below. The nine lies identified by the British judge are included as well.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

One possible cause of global warming is an increase in solar flare activity. According to the American Institute of Physics, if there is a link between solar activity and the temperature of the earth, the effects may over ride the human impact on the planet. See below:

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html

According to NASA, the planet Mars is also heating up. They state that the planet's temperature, in the last 30 years, rose approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit. Using photos from two Mars missions, scientists also state that the polar ice caps are melting. Click the link below to view the NASA article:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

Every year NOAA releases their Hurricane season prediction. It was predicted that there was a good chance of a above-average hurricane season. To read this years prediction, click below.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm

As the Hurricane season comes to a close, 2007 will rank as the most inactive in 30 years! To read more, click on the link below:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Here's the rundown on global warming:

1. The computer models are flawed. The earth is too complex.
2. If the weatherperson can not predict the weather in 3 days in one geographic location, how can scientists predict how the earth will be in 100 years.
3. If hurricanes are a indicator of global warming, how come we had two off years when in both 2006 and 2007 "above average" hurricane seasons were predicted.
4. Increased solar flare activity could be helping to increase the temperatures on earth.
5. Mars is also experiencing global warming. Last time I checked Mars did not have industry and automobiles to cause an increase in temperatures.

Next Stop, Iran?

Iran, North Korea, and Syria are all major problems for America but who is going to deal with them? President Bush is under attack from anti-war groups and private citizens for the war in Iraq. President Bush has not let up even under increasing pressure, especially from the left (and some on the right) to end the war. But President Bush is right. The War on Terror does run through Iraq. There is no doubt that Saddam was a sponsor of terror and a cruel man. He used biological and chemical weapons on his own people. He cut checks to families of suicide bombers. He was not innocent. Even though President Bush was correct with the liberation of Iraq, did the war in Iraq prevent us from defending ourselves against future enemies including Iran and Syria? Iran, according to reports, is fairly close in being able to use long-range missiles to hit targets increasingly further away, including American interests in Europe. The president of Iran has stated many times that Israel should be wipe off the map. What if they had the capabilities to add nuclear warheads to those missiles? Is this something we can afford to do? I do not think so. So what is the answer and how should Israel be involved in all this?

I do not think that President Bush will attack Iran before the upcoming election. If Bush does not do it, who will? Sen. Clinton (D-NY), if elected, will treat the War on Terror as a police action. There will be warrants, courts, and arrests. This is not the way to fight terrorists. The terrorists are listening and watching us for their next move, especially the nation of Iran.
Terrorists would like nothing more than for the American public to elect a weak liberal, who will take weak action against our enemies. This is a dangerous move. We need strength not weakness with foreign policy. If the actions of former President Bill Clinton are any indication of the views and actions of Hilliary, we are all in trouble. We need a strong leader for this new era. I am looking for a leader who will not down play the importance of each innocent American life taken by terrorist thugs. We will need a leader who will stand up and say that this will not be tolerated. I want someone to say that for every American killed by terrorists, 1000 will be killed on their side. We need to put fear in them and not the other way around. We need to go on the offense and not just with defense.

Are Illegals Just A Federal Problem?

Hello All,
Happy Halloween and Happy Birthday to my son. The first topic that will be discussed on this blog will be "illegals". To some, the term "illegals" is controversial. Some on the left have instead began referring to people who are in this country illegally as "undocumented workers". Michelle Malkin stated in her blog (March 30, 2006) that undocumented workers have plenty of documents, just not real.

New York State has began a program to verify documents using a scanner and collecting digital images of drivers license photos. The "iAuthenticate machine" created by Viisage, a Stamford, Conn., company will be able to verify drivers licenses, passports as well as other foreign documents. A database of all photos will be stored and cross-checked to make sure that duplicate photos and licenses are not issued. But what happens when illegals receive legal documents?

Governor Elliot Spitzer (D-NY) has proposed a plan that would give illegals (undocumented workers) drivers licenses. This is a scam from the left if I ever saw one. If we give "undocumented workers" documents, what do they become then? Just workers. They will no longer be illegal and they will all be voting Democrat as soon as the Democrats can change the law for that also. If Spitzer gets his way and illegals are granted drivers licenses, what are some of the ramifications? First off, I was speaking to a member of law enforcement of over 35 years and he stated how horrible of an idea this was. If illegals receive drivers licenses from the State of New York, then they can go to other states and have valid licenses as well. A valid drivers license from one state is valid in all others because of reciprocity. Another fact is that in New York State, you can not buy a handgun with a drivers license but in other states you can. With a valid drivers license you can also rent a truck less than 18,000 pounds (which were used in both the Oklahoma City bombing and the first World Trade Center bombing). Also, with a drivers license you can also buy fertilizer and dynamite in some states.

Where does the problem lie? Are illegals just a Federal problem as Presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani (R) has contended or is it a problem for all of us? I believe that it starts and ends as a Federal problem but the time in the middle it is the state and local governments that are getting the shaft. When someone crosses the border illegally or over stays their visa, that is a Federal problem. When an illegal commits a crime or uses emergency rooms without paying (I'm not saying they all do) then it is a state and local problem. How many billions of dollars are wasted? It ends as a Federal problem because they are the ones who have to deport the illegals. But what about business owners who hire illegals? Guiliani also stated that business owners who hire illegals should not be responsible. I say that it is up to the business owner to verify. There is a website in which employers can check employee immigration status. The last report I heard traffic has been slow to the site. If the employer is unsure about someone, they should not hire them. The Federal government is failing all of us everyday that we have a swiss cheese border and an immigration policy that makes America a lifeboat to the world. A lifeboat can only hold so many people before it sinks. Sometimes a little common sense is needed. What do you think?

Welcome World!

Good evening world! This is my first post on a blog. As a graduate student, I had studied Howard Dean's Blog for America but have always been nervous about actually doing it myself. Ok, not so bad so far. My vision for this blog is to have political discourse that promotes democracy. Every day I will attempt to bring the news you can use to you in a straight-forward way. In return, I expect thoughtful, intelligent, and coherent comments. This is important, our country and Democracy are both on the line. Lets have some fun and learn from each other. Stay tuned, more to come...