As the Bell Tolls

The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.

  • Teddy Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States


“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of the middle-class people.  It’s time to be patriotic..jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

  • Joe Biden (D-Delaware),  2008 VP candidate chosen by Barack Obama

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.

  • Bill Clinton, 42nd President

  • The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.

    • Bill Clinton, 42nd President


     Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    • Barack Obama, Presidential Candidate (D-Illinois)


    It’s simply not true that Saddam was providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. This incursion into Iraq has resulted in a situation in which terrorist recruits are up. It’s been acknowledged, now, by the Pentagon, that the insurgents active in Iraq are far higher. Terrorist attacks worldwide are the highest in 20 years. The notion that somehow we’re less vulnerable in the US as a consequence of spending 200 billion dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives is simply not borne out by the facts.

    • Barack Obama, 2004, Illinois Senate

    “I say to our enemies, we are coming. God may show you mercy. We will not.”

    • John McCain Presidential Candidate (R-Arizona)


    NIMBY is back!

    About 10 miles down the road from my house is a nuclear power plant.   The plant is currently under consideration to build a third tower that would provide energy  to NJ and NY and , in times of crisis, PA.  The project would provide several hundred jobs once completed and several thousand jobs while under construction.  The proposed completion date for this project is 2012.

    While Sen McCain has proposed this type of growth and supports building as many as 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, Sen Obama , in his energy plan, cites concerns over security,  storage of fuel rods and weapons of mass destruction as reasons not to pursue it aggressively.   Sen Obama’s “not in my backyard” approach to nuclear energy is counter to the history of the American nuclear energy program and the strict oversight rules that the NRC and it’s facilities must comply with on a daily basis. 

    Obviously security will always be an issue with nuclear power plants. They are inviting targets to anyone wishing to hurt us.  Prior to 9/11 these plants were more open and available to the public.  Since 9/11, nuclear plants across the country, including the Susquehanna facility in my backyard, have aggressively pursued new security measures.  Early warning systems for events are constantly checked and rechecked and security is constantly tested.  

    Storage of spent nuclear material is an extremely controversial issue.  Like Sen Obama, no one wants it in their backyard.  What many people don’t realize is that it is already stored there.  Even if you do not live near a nuclear facility, hospitals in your area may be storing radioactive material from certain procedures.  The waste from radioactive dyes is kept on site for the same reason spent fuel rods are kept on site, there is no other place to put it.  Sen Obama dismisses the Yucca Mountain site as a possibility and offers only more research as the answer to the storage question.  But will research in this area take place under a President who outlines the “not in my backyard” mentality in his energy plan? 

    Finally, the ironic part of Sen Obama’s nuclear concerns.  When the US went into Iraq, we did so based on information that said Sadaam had or could have weapons of mass destruction.  Since then President Bush has been called a liar and war monger because WMDs were never found.  In Sen Obama’s energy plan he cites nuclear material as a source of material for WMDs.  The US recently shipped something like 550 metric tons of nuclear material out of..wait for it…IRAQ.  So under Obama’s energy plan nuclear material is considered useful to terrorists but under his “get the hell out of Iraq, we never should have been there” foreign policy nuclear material is not a threat? 

    Nuclear power is only one aspect of Sen McCain’s energy plan but it is one that shows a clear difference between him and Sen Obama.  The boost economically of building new plants or towers, as in the case of the Susquehanna facility, would be enormous.   The shift away from foreign oil would be priceless.  But only Sen McCain is willing to pursue this strategy immediately.  Sen Obama wants committees to act on this issue before he does. 

     Do we really want another committee hearing on what America should be doing or do we want more energy and less dependence on foreign oil now? 

    You decide.

    Get Your Obama Tire Gauge Here!


  • John McCain Tire Gauge

  • referred by Mike Shay

  • Remember,  if all Americans inflate their tires our dependence on foreign oil will be broken. 

  • Who’s on my $20 now?

    In the past few weeks Obama has become the embodiment of the hopes of America, he has redecorated the White House with a new basketball court and less TVs,  and has taken a Presidential trip overseas.  Now he has cast himself as a new face of American money. 

    On Thursday, Obama reiterated his charge that the Bush and McCain team (?) were trying to make voters afraid of him.  In several speeches, Obama accused the Republicans of saying “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on the dollar bills.”  Then in defense of the statement, David Axelrod and others have been saying that McCain started it.  The question is HOW?

    Sen McCain has never used a racial slur against Obama.  Ted Kennedy was the one who got mixed up and called him Osama in an introduction he was making to voters.  Obama was the one who gave “The Race Speech” to let voters know he was black after the Clinton’s made several reportedly racial remarks.  The worst Sen McCain has done was to liken him to celebrity’s who happened to be white women.  It has also been widely stated, almost reverently at times,  that only in America could we be facing the choice of a Presidential candidate with the middle name of Hussein. 

    Sen Obama is again deciding to use the race card in this campaign to draw attention to himself.  In the same breath he is trying to paint a picture of a McCain Presidency as a third Bush term,  a charge Obama is using to incite the same fear he is accusing McCain of promoting.  Yet, in every attack McCain has used there has been real policy differences discussed.  Obama has only used his “Hopes and Dreams” scenario in a majority of his ads.  The accusation that McCain was the one who started this race issue is LUDACRIS (hear HIS new song?) and baseless. 

    If Sen Obama wants a real discussion of what Americans are afraid of he should look at his own policies, not his race.  On energy, Sen Obama does not support any measures that will help Americans in the long or short term.  Offshore drilling is a scheme to him, yet when the ban was lifted by President Bush two weeks ago the price of a barrel of oil and the price at the pump dropped.  Nuclear is risky for Obama yet produces clean power at a much higher rate and is safer than traditional power plants.  And incentives to find alternative power sources are nothing more than political pandering to Obama.

    On the issue of Iraq, Sen Obama wants us out of the country in as little time as possible.  He did not and still does not support the surge despite its ongoing success (10 soldiers and 510 civilians died in July, a 75% drop from the same period last year).  He disagrees with the commanders on the ground, possibly because of his extensive knowledge of the military, and would only listen to them if it fits into his plans as Commander in Chief.  Obama also wants to refocus our military might to Afghanistan, citing the surge of violence there in recent months, but also wants to meet with Iran and Syria with no preconditions to discuss options in the region. 

    On health care, Sen Obama wants to give coverage to everyone to the tune of billions a year.  Not a bad idea except that the cost would be prohibitive.  Obama says not to worry that the money being spent on Iraq would fund his initiative.  What Obama does not say is that the money being used for Iraq is already being taken out of various Government agencies who would have to continue to operate on a lower budget or cut services even more.  To fund the war each agency has to give a portion of its budget back to the government for war funding, so the $10 billion we are spending in Iraq is not the free money Obama sees. 

    On the issue of the economy, Sen Obama supports tax increases for “wealthy” Americans but has yet to define who will be defined as “wealthy”.  He supports PAYGO policies and the limiting earmarks (good) but also supports more stimulus payments with no spending cuts.  Obama also wants to tax windfall profits, again without an explanation of what a windfall profit margin is, and raise the minimum wage to what some call a living wage.  Both of these practices would raise prices across the board and further weaken the economy by hurting the small businesses that run our country.  In addition his guarantee of paid sick days for all workers will further weaken small businesses who are just starting out and can not provide such benefits. 

    Sen Obama was again partially correct when he said that the Republicans were trying to scare voters.  However his insuation that McCain and his supporters are using race to frighten voters was off the mark.  The majority of voters do not care about his race or ethnic background and Obama is the only candidate who highlights his diversity and calls it an adversity.  What voters are scared of is not who is on their money but rather who will help them earn and keep more of their money.  In that scenario, voters should be scared of calling Obama Mr. President.

    Photoshopping a President

    Obama’s planned visits to  Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe are nothing more than an attempt by his campaign to photoshop Sen Obama into the White House.  The fact that all three major networks, ABC,CBS and NBC, are sending their anchors abroad with him is all the proof anyone needs of this veiled trick by the Obama campaign. 

    As Sen Obama heads overseas, on the taxpayer dime,  he will no doubt be looking for opportunities to pump up his bid for the Presidency.  There will be no lack of opportunity as he shakes hands with world leaders and our troops as the networks scurry behind.  I can see it now…Obama and an Iraqi soldier shaking hands,  Obama and a General discussing the surge, Obama hugging an Iraqi boy who has lost his father in a suicide attack, Obama and (insert world leader here) sharing a chat while strolling some historic landmark.  His entourage of other Senators (any on the short list for VP?) will be ignored so that America may see just how Presidential Obama can act (act being the key word). 

    But the theory is widely held that Nixon lost to Kennedy because his 5 o’clock shadow was visible during the televised debate.  This trip could very well be Obama’s 5 o’clock shadow.  Whatever Obama does will be scrutinized.  Perhaps not by NBC or the other networks, but by talk radio, cable news, on the internetand by voters at large.  Many will view some of his actions overseas as politically expedient or as just another politician traveling on my dime.  This will be made even more clear if Obamaengages in campaign rhetoric while traveling.  He may just turn out to be another politicain, a label he despises. 

    Another potential drawback for Obama is if he looks like he is not leading the delegation.  As the Senators head into Iraq and Afghanistan, who will be their spokesperson?  If it is not Obama, he could be perceived as lacking the will to lead.  If he does not talk about leaving Iraq while in Iraq he may lose support among the most important and largest group of Obama voters, young Americans, who may also perceive him as just another politician. 

    Also, will rallies for Obama in Germany or other nations on their itinerary really help him win an election to become the President of the United States?  Rallies will certainly show that he is popular but while on this trip he can’t engage in politics as usual without offending taxpayers at home who are funding the trip.  John McCain’s trips, while held during the campaign season, were not political rallies and he did not engage in politics while abroad.  Voters scratched their heads as to why he was in Columbia but did not hear McCain utter phrases about his opponent and his plans (veiled references that mean everything to anyone aside).  Sen Obama must walk a tight rope of Senator and candidate while traveling abroad on the taxpayer dime. 

    In the end, this trip is a taxpayer funded campaign stop, especially with the networks in tow.  Sen Obama’s is looking to add to his resume with pictures of foreign dignitaries and currently deployed military personnel.   However, even with the technological advances in media since Nixon, the fact remains that you can not photo shop a President.  Informed voters can always spot the 5 o’clock shadow and are always turned off by it.

    Kerry advises Obama: “Flip Flop on Iraq”

    Sen Obama now concedes that the war on terror may have to continue despite his promise to end the war immediately after being sworn in as President.  In statements made last week he criticized President Bush for having too many troops in Iraq and not enough in Afghanistan while also saying that he will continue to refine his policy on Iraq.  Does this sound like another Senator who ran for President 4 years ago?

    The Kerryesque flip flop of Sen Obama is just the latest change of policy for the would be nominee.  However, this one is big!  Sen Obama drew thousands of college age kids and disgruntled voters to his side by saying he would end the war in Iraq immediately by moving troops out of Iraq during his first days as President.  He is proud to say he never supported the war (despite his being a Senator in Illinois and in no position to vote on authorization when the war started but has since authorized more troops and money with his votes in the Senate) and beat Hilary in the primaries by being the non-proliferation candidate.  Now that he is the nominee, Sen Obama is taking it on the chin from the success the surge has had in Iraq and he knows that as troops are redeployed to Afghanistan to stop the insurgency there that he will look like a fool on this issue.  Hence his flip flop on the issue. 

    His defenders are sure to come to his aide, as they have in the last few days, by saying hat Sen Obama is being “misunderstood” by the media and his opponents.  They will say that, despite his words, he is still “committed” to the policies that won him the nomination.  And they will share Sen Obama’s vision of “change” and “hope” to pacify those supporters who like catchy words.  In light of recent statements made by Obama,  his supporters should actually be saying that they “misunderstood change and hope he is committed” to being a Senator, because he’s not the candidate they voted for in the primaries.

    Mr Obama goes to Iraq,maybe

      Going into November, Sen Obama knows that he has no chance of winning if even a small percentage of independents look closely at his foreign policy experience or ideas.  This is the man who called Iran a minor threat after all and has said publicly that he will meet personally with the most despotic leaders of the world.  He has tried to compare himself to JFK and Reagan, who he believes negotiated peace with the Soviet Union and Cuba.  This historically flawed comparison highlights Sen Obama’s lack of experience and knowledge where foreign affairs are concerned. 

    Sen McCain, on the other hand, has rightly pointed out that there is nothing “tiny” about the threat from Iran, Venezuala or Cuba.  Iran wants, and will acquire, nuclear materials and weapons if given enough time.  Venezuala controls most of the oil that comes to the US.  Cuba is still a communist country positioned a stones throw from our shores.   Sen McCain recognizes that sitting down and talking does nothing except prolong the inevitable.  

    Successful diplomacy can only come from a position of strength, and that is where Sen Obama is historically flawed.  JFK resolved the Cuban missile crisis  by sending warships to Cuba, while keeping the channels of diplomacy open.  The Soviets blinked first in the military game of chicken JFK played and thus he was in a position to make demands of the USSR.  Similarly, Reagan built a massive military and continued deploying weapons around the world despite Soviet threats.  The Soviets tried to keep up and eventually became so financially strapped that they were forced to negotiate.  It was not until the Soviets blinked again that Reagan met with Gorbachev and bargained from a position of strength.  Neither JFK nor Reagan were looking for a common interest, as Obama has suggested.  Both Presidents were looking how to force the Soviets to blink first and come to a diplomatic arrangement hat in hand. 

    When Neville Chamberlain stated that he had avoided war and declared peace in our time, he probably had no idea that Hitler was going to embark on his conquest of Europe.  However, Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement actually turned out to be the Achilles heal Hitler was looking for in Europe.  Iran,Cuba and Venezuala may be small countries but there is nothing tiny about the threat that they pose to America and her allies.  Sitting down with them will expose an Achilles heal Sen Obama is too naive to protect and too inexperienced to defend once it is shown. 

    Military Deaths

    This is a copy of an e-mail I received recently.  I have not been able to verify the numbers yet but perhaps someone can check the link.  It is true that more soldiers were deployed under Clinton than under the previous Presidents without an actual war to fight.  At the same time Clinton reduced themilitary to an unhealthy size. 

    As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

    The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the
    armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

    1980 ………. 2,392 (Carter Year)
    1981 ………. 2,380 (Reagan Year)
    1984 ………. 1,999 (Reagan Year)
    1988 ………. 1,819 (Reagan Year)
    1989 ………. 1,636 (George H W Year)
    1990 ………. 1,508 (George H W Year)
    1991 ………. 1,787 (George H W Year)
    1992 ………. 1,293 (George H W Year)
    1993 ………. 1,213 (Clinton Year)
    1994 ………. 1,075 (Clinton Year)
    1995 ………. 2,465 (Clinton Year)
    1996 ………. 2,318 (Clinton Year)

    1997 …………. 817 (Clinton Year)
    1998 ………. 2,252 (Clinton Year)
    1999 .. …….. 1,984 (Clinton Year)
    2000 …….. ..1,983 (Clinton Year)
    2001 …………. 890 (George W Year)
    2002 ………. 1,007 (George W Year)
    2003 ………. 1,410 (George W Year)
    2004 ………. 1,887 (George W Year)
    2005 …….. … 919 (George W Year)
    2006………….. 920 (George W Year)
    2007……… …899 (George W Year)

    Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths

    George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths

    If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures
    mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS
    than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency; when
    America wasn’t even involved in a war!

    And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of
    President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military
    fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media
    and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report.
    Of course we all know that they present only those ‘facts’ which support their
    agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist
    the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
    Obviously there is one shared agenda, and I believe it is clear it comes from
    the most powerful Democratic family of the decade.

    Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census, of Americans. It
    shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:
    European descent ……………………..69.12%
    Hispanic ………………………………….. 12.5%
    Black ………………………………………..12.3%
    Asian ……………………………………….. 3.7%
    Native American ………………………. ..1.0%
    Other ……………………………………….. . 2.6%

    Now… here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi
    European descent (white) ………….74.31%
    Hispanic ………………………………. 10.74%
    Black …………………………………. .. 9.67%
    Asian ……………………………………. 1.81%
    Native American ……………………… 1.09%
    Other ……………………………………. 0.33%

    The point here is that our mainstream med ia continues to spin these figures (for political
    gain). Nothing more.
    It’s all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning
    American against American for a vote. (Consider Slick Willy and his comments
    just recently made about South Carolina, Jesse Jackson, and the ‘blacks’ voting
    for the ‘black’ candidates); or Hillary’s stump speech after her Super Tuesday
    ‘victory’ stating that the current administration does not ‘listen’ to anyone
    and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes, we might even agree
    with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband’s
    administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death
    during his regime-while also forcing the military to release Osama when we
    actually had him detained.

    Maybe during the time between now and November, intelligent
    Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the
    leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the
    dividers from the uniters.

    Over the next months let’s be good listeners (yes, Hillary we are listening)
    and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our
    nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money
    spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice?
    Who spins the facts and who is genuine

    These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they
    may be confirmed by anyone at:

    Current State of the Race for 08

    While Sen Obama is defending his pastor and talking about “a typical white person”(yes he did say it) and Sen Clinton is stuck in a room laughing hysterically over her rival’s implosion, Sen McCain has been touring overseas and acting Presidential. 

    While traveling with Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman this week, Sen McCain met with Gen Petraeus during his 8th trip to Iraq since 2003 and traveled Baghdad with Iraqi and American military personnel.  Sen McCain then met with leaders in Israel, Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Britain and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.  McCain’s trip was just another nail in the foreign policy coffin the Democrats are lying in as they attempt to win the White House and retain control of Congress this year. 

    As Senators Obama and Clinton continue to make speeches regarding foreign policy affairs, Sen McCain was being proactive in foreign affairs.  The meetings he had with world leaders this week may amount to nothing, as he is not yet President.  However, only Sen McCain can reach out to these leaders before he is President because of his experience with world leaders over 20 years in Congress.  The meetings may also prove to be valuable tools as he addresses voter concerns over the war and other issues around the world. 

    Sen Obama has made 3 trips overseas since being elected.  His foreign policy experience is essentially nonexistent.  Sen Clinton, while having  relationships with world leaders and their wives, has continued to focus on poll numbers to shape her foreign policy initiatives.  Both say they want to lead the US and reshape American foreign policy if they elected President.  Both fail to show their commitment to America’s standing around the world by neglecting the realities of current events, especially in Iraq. 

    The current sate of the race for 08 has Sen Obama debating race issues.  A debate he started and is having trouble arguing.  It has Sen Clinton saying what she needs to say to win the nomination of her party, a mathematical improbability at this point.  And the race for 08 has Sen McCain practicing what he preaches both in Congress and on the campaign trail,  reaching out to other leaders to ensure the safety and continued prosperity of America.  In other words, the work of a President. 


    I was against the war before I was for it!

    Sen Obama’s pulpit was damaged yesterday in the first wave of attacks launched by Sen McCain.  The attack came fast and strong on the heels of  statements made by Sen Obama himself and if his response was any indication, he will have a long hard road to the Presidency. 

    In the debate on Tuesday night, Sen Obama reiterated that he would pull our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible once he was President.  He also said that he would redeploy them to Iraq if terrorists established a base of operations in Iraq.  In a speech later, Sen McCain responded by saying that terrorism already has a base in Iraq.  Obama, not having a sermon ready for this attack, responded with “Oh Yeah!, Well they wouldn’t be there if you hadn’t been there first!” Based on this response, I can only guess that John  Kerry has been given an advisory position on the Obama campaign. 

    The failed Democratic strategy of 2004 will not work in 2008 either.  Running against the start of the war dismisses the reality of the situation today.  Sen Obama clearly does not understand that pulling out only to redeploy later will only give the terrorists he already acknowledges are there, more time to rearm and launch even more deadly attacks. 

    Published in: on February 28, 2008 at 10:27 am  Leave a Comment  
    Tags: , , ,