I am running for President. Yep. I’m throwing my hat in. But my campaign will start in the 2023 for the 2024 elections. (My youngest child will be graduating from high school so I’ll be free to engage in such endeavors.)

Just when it was safe to think that pretty much the entire left has gone off its common sense rocker, Hillary says something sane.

I certainly hope she goes back to saying looney stuff to garner favor with the anti-American, hate filled left, so I can get back to the real world. Appreciating the comments of Hillary Clinton is just not something I’m used to. Between that and her sporadic support of the Iraq war, what’s a die hard Republican to do? 

Just something to think about. Does anyone find it timely that Iran has told Hezbollah to start a skirmish with Israel at this particular time? I don’t think they would have done that, if they didn’t have a deliverable nuclear weapon already developed and ready to go. Everyone knows the President of Iran is looney tunes. It is my opinion that they would never have started something resulting in Israel defending themselves with a vengeance and risk escalation to a regional conflict without having an Ace up their sleeve. They’re crazy, but not brain dead. They know that Israel would outright trounce any opponent in a conventional war. This, coupled with the fact that Ahmadinejad’s convinced he will usher in their 11th Iman… I mean, come on folks. All this is riddled with the obvious. Iran has nuclear capability NOW. Not later, but NOW. And they fully intend to use it, to usher in the 11th Iman.

Update: And now I read the following from the Drudge Report (this link will expire soon, as it normally does, so I’m quoting it below):

WSJ: Scholar Warns Iran’s Ahmadinejad May Have ‘Cataclysmic Events’ In Mind For August 22
Tue Aug 08 2006 10:22:35 ET

In a WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed Tuesday, Princeton’s Bernard Lewis writes: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers."

"In Islam as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time — Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to ‘the farthest mosque,’ usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Developing…

All I gotta say to this is… Holy Armageddon, Batman!

I never thought, in a million years, that there would ever be a link from this blog to the blog called "Huffington Post." But here it is, below… one of the most persuasive arguments for a point that I’ve read in a very long time. If you’re a conservative, you’ll enjoy this article. If you’re a liberal, I HOPE you’ll enjoy it. (And if you’d like to comment, please use civil language or your comments will be deleted.)

The article. 

This is by no means a prediction based on any particular information. I’m just pointing out that they love to pick memorable days to do their evil upon mankind. The date of 5/5/06 is obviously a pretty memorable date. So is 6/6/06 that’s coming up next month. Of course, since that’s the mark of the beast in Christianity, that would be fitting since their ideology and beliefs are of the devil.

Anyway, watch and wait tomorrow (the 5th.) God only knows what they have up their sleeve.

I just read one of most assinine things I’ve read in a while. Evidently, the mayor of San Francisco has decided, in his infinite wisdom that SF will not abide by any laws passed by congress if it has to do with enforcing the prevention of illegal entry into the US.

This guy is amazing. I hope it does pass so that he is arrested and charged with whatever it is that you are charged with when you don’t uphold the rule of law as an elected official. Such an ass. It’s okay to have an opinion, but to break the law in the course of your official duties is just amazing.

Here is the article. 

Here’s an idea. Why don’t we lock down the CA border? Then allow them to admit whomever they want into CA. They can just fling open their border to Mexico. It can become Mexico north. When it gets so unliveable that they start rethinking what they did, we’ll just have to tell them that our borders are tight and you can’t move to the rest of the USA. You made your bed, now lie in it… in other words.

Think about this folks… Mexico has been around for much longer than the US. They’ve had WAAAAYYYY more time to make Mexico a great place to live. A country that you wouldn’t want to leave. Why is it that they haven’t gotten it right? What makes them want to come to the US? I’ll tell you why… because our values and culture have made our society desirable to live within. So, if we allow unchecked immigration into our country, by people who make up a country that is NOT desirable to live in… WE SLOWLY BECOME A COUNTRY THAT IS UNDESIRABLE TO LIVE IN AS WELL. Think!!!! Mexico isn’t undesirable to live in because of the dirt there. The dirt is the same as here in the US. It’s not undesirable to live there because of the beaches… heck, the beaches are nice. Let’s see… what is it that makes it undesirable to live there…. hmmm… let’s think REALLLLLYYYYY hard… maybe it’s the sun… it’s too hot. Nope. It’s hot in Arizona, but Arizona is a great place to live. How about the houses there. No, you can build a really nice house in Mexico, too. Just like here in the US. Hmmmm… still thinking… hmmm…

I know… ding! It’s the PEOPLE!!! Now, don’t get me wrong… there are nice people everywhere, including undesirable places to live. But it’s their culture. It’s their every day standards. It’s the way they choose to live in their cities… from the planning of their cities, to their corruption…etc. But all that stems from the people. The people make a society. Not the buildings (people make the buildings), not the weather, not the food, not the location in relation to any other country… it’s the PEOPLE. So, if you extend that logic out. If the same people that make Mexico an undesirable place to live, move to the US. What happens to the US, slowly, over time?

Bingo!

It doesn’t take rocket science here, folks. We should have controlled, legal immigration, from all nations including Mexico. But ONLY if they agree to and have a desire to assimilate into our way of living. If they cannot do that, and they feel their own culture should be brought with them, then why don’t they STAY in that culture if it was such a great culture that you must cling to it when you enter into another country.

This whole topic irritates me. Liberals yell discrimination when people say the things I just got done saying. But facts are facts. It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with protecting our culture and our borders. If we want to become what Mexico is… just keep allowing the flood of illegal immigrants in and see what happens.

I recently sent an email to Baby Politico. It’s a site that sells politically charged messages designed to be worn by your baby. Their messages are liberal so I thought I’d send an email to give them some more ideas, from the Democrat/Liberal side of the aisle. You know… to be helpful.

As the title of this post states… this exchange would be funny if it weren’t so true (and sad). Now, I know this is probably a template they send to all emails that appear to be suggesting themes for their shirts, but still… it makes you think.

Here’s the email I sent to them:

I like the baby shirt politico concept. Too bad you’re pushing the wrong side of the aisle.

Here’s a few more for your customer base:

My Mommy Chose Me
I Was One of the Lucky Ones

or how about this one…

26 Million Abortions
Going for 27 Million
Vote Democrat

Cheers!
Dan Sherman

Here’s the email I got back from them:

Dear Mr. Sherman,

We get hundreds of ideas each year from the public for new slogans for
our shirts. Thank you so much for taking the time to submit your ideas.
Should we choose to use one of your ideas, we unfortunately would not
be able to provide royalties, but we will certainly let you know.

All the best,
Jennifer
babyPolitico

Incredible but true.

Is it just me, or has anyone else found it odd that terrorists love to inflict their BIG attacks on interesting dates?

There’s been speculation that during Ramadan (isn’t that a hotel?… but I digress) the crazies might try something. I say, just because of the actual dates, 10/05/05 or 10/10/05 are high on the list of dates. Especially if it’s going to be a big one. They love to have the big ones happen on memorable dates. You can’t get much more memorable than those two dates, at least in the year ‘05.

I’m just saying…

This disturbs me greatly, since one of my dearest loved ones will be in New York on the 4th, 5th and 6th.

The power of prayer is mighty!

Where does much of the anti-Americanism usually spring forth from in the Arab world?

I got this from A Daily Briefing on Iran blog, who in turn, got it from the NY Post. It’s an article by Iranian author, Amir Taheri. If you don’t have much time, read the second half of the article, in bold.

President Bush’s “image queen,” Karen Hughes, is on a tour of Arab countries, where conventional wisdom claims that anti-Americanism is second nature. Hughes, now in charge of public diplomacy at the State Department, plainly she shares that analysis — why else choose the Arab region for her maiden voyage?

But how true is that claim? Are Arabs the most anti-American people on earth?

Start with the tangibles. America is by far the largest pole of attraction for Arab foreign investment at all levels, from public-sector funds to small private savings accounts. The most conservative estimates put the value of Arab assets in the United States at over $4.5 trillion, which puts the Arab countries just behind Britain, Japan and Holland as the biggest investors in the U.S. economy.

The United States is also one of the top three trading partners of virtually all Arab states. In fact, many U.S.-made goods (cars, for example) that don’t sell anywhere else still enjoy robust markets in Arab countries.

Then, too, America has been the No. 1 foreign tourist destination for Arabs since the 1980s, and has remained so despite restrictions imposed on Arab visitors after 9/11. Arabs from all walks of life and of all political sensibilities also love to send their children to study in America. And when it comes to seeking medical treatment, no country competes with the United States in attracting well-heeled Arabs.

If she takes time to stroll in Arab capitals, Hughes would be struck by the ubiquitous presence of things American. It is possible to spend a holiday in most Arab capitals without moving out of the orbit of American-franchised hotels, restaurants, tourist services and banks. A stroll in modern shopping malls would reveal a population wearing American-style clothing, including baseball caps, with Motorola mobile phones pressed to ears, as New Orleans jazz plays in the background. She could sip one of those coffees the choice of which requires a PhD at a Starbucks, or indulge herself in a Hagen-Dazs of her choice.

More than 70 percent of what’s broadcast on Arab TV stations (including those regarded as “obsessively anti-American”) is U.S.-made; 80 percent of the films shown in Arab cinemas are made in Hollywood. There are more than two dozen English dailies, all using the American version of the language. Go through them, and you see that much of the content comes from U.S. agencies and syndication services.

Even Arabic-language newspapers serve as outlets for American journalism. More than half of all major articles in the two main pan-Arab daily newspapers come from The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek and Time magazines and other U.S. publications. Some American columnists have become household names in most Arab countries.

Hughes is also bound to be struck by the number of Arab decision-makers with American educational or business backgrounds and/or connections.

Only God and the U.S. immigration service would know how many Arabs hold green cards or even dual Arab-U.S. citizenship. With the possible exception of Libya, which has a weird regime, and Syria, whose leaders fear they may be targeted for “regime change,” almost all Arab regimes are well-disposed toward the United States. Sixteen of the 21 member states of the Arab League host some U.S. military presence. The FBI maintains offices in at least 12 Arab capitals.

So, where did the impression that the Arabs are seething with anti-Americanism come from? Isn’t it possible that the Arabs may be sharing the anti-American craze produced in the West , including the United States? Aren’t the Arabs, as with so many other products, importing anti-Americanism?

In Arab newspapers, the bulk of the material that could be classified as anti-Bush and/or anti-American is translated from U.S. sources. Stroll in the streets where books and video and audio tapes are on sale at the curbsides and you will see that 90 percent of the items vilifying America come from American, French and British authors.

No Arab anti-American has produced anything like the conspiracy theories that American intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Scott Ritter, Seymour Hersh and Edward Said, to name a few, have put on the markets everywhere, including the Arab world.

At any given time, one can find a horde of American activists visiting the region to urge the natives to hate America:

* Two years ago, a group of Americans appeared in Arab capitals to stop people in the bazaars to “apologize for the Crusades,” although the United States didn’t even exist when those wars were fought between Europe and the Middle East.

* Before the liberation of Iraq, scores of Americans came to Baghdad to offer themselves as “human shields” for Saddam Hussein. No Arab was so foolish.

* This month, a group of 30 American professors turned up in Tehran and Damascus to describe the United States as “a rogue state on the rampage”.

* Bianca Jagger, presented as ambassador for UNICEF and “a leading thinker,” has been in the region telling astonished audiences that the United States is the source of all evil in the world. (By the way, isn’t UNICEF supposed to be apolitical?)

* One American professor recently published an op-ed in The New York Times relating his trip to Iran, where he was “disappointed” to see that students not only did not hate George W. Bush but, horror of horrors, also craved for an American-style democracy instead of an Islamist utopia.

* The anti-Bush demonstrations that Arabs watch on TV take place in Washington, San Francisco and Seattle, not in any Arab city.

* A friend, who happens to be a minister in an Arab state, was saddened this summer when, spending holidays with his family in the United States as he had always done since student days, he had to quarrel with an old American schoolmate. The point of the dispute was that the American insisted that the United States was an “evil empire,” while the Arab believed that it could be a force for reform in the Middle East.

* Last month, an Iraqi journalist gave up his American scholarship and returned home because faculty members in the U.S. university he attended made him feel “guilty for having been liberated from Saddam Hussein.”

* A Kuwaiti friend withdrew his son from an American university to “protect him from [being] brainwashed into hating the United States.”

Many polls have been conducted to show that the Arabs are anti-American. A more interesting poll would aim at finding out how many Americans are so afflicted by self-loathing as to devote their energies to a systematic vilification of their nation.

The best that Karen Hughes could do is to help make available to the Arabs the other side of the American debate; to show that not all Americans share Chomsky’s belief that the United States planned to kill 6 million Afghans solely to build a pipeline from Central Asia. Her aim should be to help Arabs understand America in all its contradictions, not necessarily to adore it.

There are many issues on which the Arabs disagree with the United States. But most Arabs don’t see that as a sign of anti-Arabism on the part of America. Hughes should not regard it as a sign of anti-Americanism on the part of Arabs.

Please, please, please, if I hear one more global warming comment regarding hurricanes Rita and Katrina, I swear, my head will burst and spin around and spew bile and say mean things about your mother. I’m so sick and tired of this drivel. Yes, the earth is getting warmer. So, the *uck what? It was REALLY warm millions of years ago, without the help of us evil humans. And it’ll probably get REALLY cold again, too. When are the liberals going to realize that we are A PART OF THE ECOSYSTEM!!! Yes, we have to be smart within reason, and not “piss in our yard” but let’s not go over the deep end (Kyoto) about it all.

Regarding the hurricanes, I’ve got one image for you, courtesy of the USA Today.

Now, please, fhut the suck up already, Ms. Streisand.

Geesh!

Interesting political test over at okcupid.com. Here is where I landed. Pretty accurate I think. I wouldn’t have classified myself as a social liberal, but anyway, here it is:

You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (88% permissive) You are best described as a: Capitalist Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

I read DailyKos along with a few other liberal blogs to try to understand the “other side.” I typically come away more confused about the other side after reading the left leaning blogs because of their innate distrust and hatred for anything that puts America in a good light. They leave no room for “benefit of the doubt” or anything. (I’m generalizing, but in general, it’s true.)

I’ve NEVER agreed with any post that I’ve ever read on DailyKos. Never. Not once.

Until today.

Here is the post that I agree with Markos on.

It totally disgusts me as well. Military service should be something ALL walks of life in the US should seriously consider as a duty. It should not be looked upon as a crutch for the economically challenged. I know for me, it was a calling. Something that I was very proud of.

Case in point. Dr. Laura’s son, Deryk. Here is a young man from an extremely well to do family. He had every opportunity in the world to do whatever he wanted with his life. He chose military service straight out of high school. Not only military service, but special forces training in the US Army. You know… those guys that get killed alot during conflict.

Now that I think about this… the liberal blogosphere is very keen on deriding conservatives for their “not wanting to send their own sons and daughters into war” but yet when there are high profile cases such as Dr. Laura’s son, they are absolutely silent on the issue.

The prevailing thought on this decision is that cable operators can maintain their monopoly into people’s houses. However, I look at it differently.

By not forcing the owners of cable lines (the big guys like Comcast… etc) to open their lines into people’s homes allowing smaller competitors to use their infrastructure, this has forced smaller outfits to innovate.

How else can they get into people’s homes?

Wireless of course. With the advent of WiMax, these smaller guys now have a HUGE incentive to use methods such as WiMax to enter into people’s homes, bypassing the big guys altogether.

If I were a big guy, I’d be clamoring to get the little guys to use my network into customer’s homes and at least get a small piece of the pie for each connection. It’s better than getting nothing when they use other technologies to get to my customer. As a big fish, you don’t want to give your smaller, more nimble competitors incentives to invest in a technology that bypasses your infrastructure.

In the long run, by ruling the way they did on this issue, the Supreme Court has given a huge boost to future wireless technologies. At least in this case, I’m happy about their ruling.

Now, as for their property seizure (Kelo) ruling, I’ve got one thing to say regarding that piece of crap ruling…

Article II of the Amendments to the US Constitution.

Warning! Fairly hardcore statement follows… but it’s from the heart of a true conservative.

You’ll get my property after you’ve received a hailstorm of bullets from my gun and even then you’ll have to pry it from my dead fingers afterwords.

Communist bastards!

I denounce and deride the newspaper industry so much on my blog, I like to make sure people in the newspaper industry get credit when they say stuff that makes sense.

Take for instance, Robert Rivard, the editor of the Express-News in San Antonio, TX. In this article, he writes:

A decade ago, a few readers would have taken the time to pen letters of complaint in response to our recent front-page headline about the election of Pope Benedict XVI: “Rigid theologian selected.” Only a few would have been published as letters to the editor. Two months ago, more than 200 readers e-mailed me to complain, and implicit in their messages was the expectation of a response.

After using this column space to apologize for publishing such a biased headline, I answered each e-mail writer. A few readers who opposed Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy challenged my criticism of our headline writer. What would I have written, they demanded.

“German cardinal selected on fourth ballot,” I responded, adding a more contextual secondary headline stating, “Rigid theologian to some, defender of the faith to others.”

My point is that readers and Web site users now feel free to challenge decision makers here, a development many of us in the newsroom welcome, although some editors resent the second-guessing.

Get used to it, I say. Interactivity is the future. People want to be heard.

First, he actually discusses (and admits) his paper’s biased headline writing relating to the selection of the new pope. Yowza. Mark this date down on a calendar. That alone is worth noting.

But then he admits to the central point regarding blogs. Readers want immediacy and choice. Newspapers, by embracing blog delivery of news, will evolve along with the expectations of their readers. Right now, for the most part, newspapers try to not only report the news but control the prevailing opinion of their reader in doing so. That accounts for biased headlines like, “Rigid theologian selected.”

Blogs also attempt to shape public opinion, but they do so transparently and not by claiming to report the news unbiased. That’s the way it should be. The choice readers now have over the internet, in getting their news will force news reporting to be either transparent editorial commentary or unbiased news reporting. Thankfully, the days of claiming to be one but obviously being both, are coming to an end.

I’m a firm believer that we want the telling of news to reinforce our world view. That’s natural. But we don’t want it at the expense of inaccurate news, either. This is the beautiful thing about the internet and blogs. I can read news through blogs and sites that share my positive view on America but I can also read what the other side has to say (and giggle at their lunacy) about the same topic and therefore be more balanced in my opinions. But I’m no longer held captive by news outlets that are quite obviously liberal in their world view. (Which is almost the only access we had to news prior to the rise of talk radio.)

Since the majority of newspaper’s audiences (except in NY and SF and maybe LA) have conservative slanted viewpoints, they are out of touch with their audiences because reporters and editors report from their own world viewpoints. This is a major part of the reason newspaper’s circulations are declining.
—————————————-
Still some left. Check out my limited edition, “American Entrepreneur” tshirt.

Last Sunday, the NY Times had an article on their front page. It was the latest installment of the tired saga… "Mr. Rich is a Boogey Man Because He’s Getting Richer." Here’s the Democrat propoganda article. I’ve written about this in so many ways, I think I’ll let someone else much more qualified than I am to explain it. Larry Kudlow does a marvelous job over at National Review. Here’s a great quotes from his article:

Johnston singles out the top 145,000 taxpayers who comprise the top 0.1 percent of income distribution in 2002. Their average income was $3 million, two-and-a-half times the inflation-adjusted $1.2 million that the group reported in 1980. My gosh — how dare they be successful earners and investors? Over that 22-year span, this group probably included the very same people who launched tens of thousands of new companies that hired roughly 40 million net new workers that completely revolutionized the U.S. economy through unbelievable breakthroughs in the realms of information technology, communications, finance, health care, and retailing. Should we go out and shoot these 145,000 for their success? These entrepreneurs use their God-given talents within the Reaganesque free-market framework that deregulated, slashed tax rates, and provided the first strong dose of economic incentives since the 1920s. A rising economic tide over the last 20 years has lifted living standards, productivity, and employment throughout America. Everyone got richer, with a full $39 trillion in new wealth created during this period. That’s why the unemployment rate has been averaging 5 percent over the past 10 years, with non-financial productivity running about 5 percent and inflation virtually nil.

If you are at least 30 years old right now, I challenge anyone reading this to look back on their childhood memories and let me know if any of you are worse off right now than you were when you were growing up. I would venture to guess the percentage that are worse off is negligible. Please, please, please don’t let the libs snooker you into this class warfare crap.

It seems someone who takes treasonous acts, no matter how long ago they occurred, very serious. A theatre owner in Kentucky has refused to show the movie Monster-in-Law because it stars Jane Fonda. In case you didn’t know, she has been unapologetic for giving aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam War.

Here’s Hanoi Jane laughing it up with the very people shooting down American pilots at the time. Imagine Julia Roberts having a photo op with Al Queda fighters in Iraq, amidst a pile of explosives ready to be used as IEDs. Makes you sick, hey?

Well, Ike Boutwell, owner of the Elizabethtown Movie Palace in Elizabethtown, KY, won’t have anything to do with supporting the success of Jane Fonda.

Until she gives a heartfelt apology for what she did to the American serviceman at the time, I won’t either. I’m going one step further. I’m sending money to Ike to help offset his lost revenue and to make a statement that I feel he’s doing the right thing.

If you want to send him money, please do so. Here’s the address of the theatre:

Ike Boutwell
1231 Woodland Drive
Elizabethtown KY 42701

If you don’t stand for what’s right, the bad guys win.

[Tip to Right Nation via Michelle Malkin]

Newsweek screwed up big time.

Here’s what I just wrote to Newsweek in cancelling my subscription. I recommend all subscribers do the same thing. We need for US publications to error on the side of AMERICA if they truly believe in the prevailing good of our intentions and actions across the world. If they don’t, that’s fine… but they shouldn’t get the support of the American people. Of course, no support and they go out of business.

Yes, we have freedom of the press but we also have freedom of association. Don’t associate yourselves with such drivel.

My cancellation note to Newsweek:

Please cancel my subscription to your magazine. I don’t want to support a publication that is so bent on the failure of the US in trying to do good around the world. Even IF the Koran incident had actually happened, what is gained by reporting this one act by some idiot? What higher calling is served? Don’t you want your own country to succeed in bringing Democracy to the rest of the world? Obivously, your goal is to discredit the current administration at all costs. Well, you’re succeeding but I hope at a high cost.

Please cancel my subscrition and refund the unused balance.

I literally had to read this asinine statement three or four times:

The 9th Circuit Court has now ruled that threatening to assassinate the President of the United States is protected speech under the First Amendment.

I’m just beside myself with anger, contempt and downright disgust. How about this for free speech, 9th Court asses? Perhaps if someone were to say in some rambling letter that they were going to blow up each of your houses, while you sleep, for a ruling as absolutely slanted as the one you just made regarding threatening the President of the United States. You wouldn’t be too keen on that free speech, now would you? Especially in the aftermath of the recent judge related shootings.

Just incredible. I keep wondering if I’m going to wake up some day to all the wacko liberals in America collectively saying, “Nah… we were just kidding. All that crap we said was just a joke. Of COURSE liberating 50 million people from tyranny was the right thing to do. Come on. We’re not idiots. Oh.. and of COURSE an innocent life is more important than a woman’s decision to conduct birth control after conception. What? Come on. We’re not idiots.”

But it won’t happen, because it’s simply true… they are.

Message to sane Dems… please take back your party and insert some sanity. It’s no fun trouncing the insane at the polls. It’s nice to win, but not against a hobbled, one-armed, cross-eyed numbskull.

With China growing at breakneck speed, oil is going to become an even hotter commodity. I think it’s just a foregone conclusion that you should invest in solid companies having to do with the oil business.

But that’s not the reason for my post.

This is just guess work on my part, but with the tensions heightening between Iran and the sane nations of the world (and France), there’s going to be a steep increase in crude prices. But perhaps not for the reasons one would assume. (Futures markets… etc.)

Maybe because the US and her allies (and France) are perhaps preparing for future conflict now by stocking up on oil in our respective national reserves. Think about this. Iran has said that if they are attacked in any way, they will cut off oil supplies to the world and create massive havoc on the oil markets. If we stock up for such a crisis, we can even out the supply with our own reserves (plus the rest of the oil nations kicking up production which would be inevitable if Iran shuts off her supply) and we can commence to kicking some mullah ass without being held hostage to oil supplies. By the time our reserve is depleted to the point of affecting world oil supplies again because of Iran’s lack of supply, we’d have set-up our first McDonalds in Tehran.

If the US and certain allies were hoarding oil right now, it would reflect in prices as demand increases. I’m not sure how these numbers can be camouflaged on the world markets, but I’m sure the US/allies don’t want Iran seeing this happen.

I’m not a commodities expert, but this seems to be a logical move given the tensions that could arise at any moment in the Syria/Iraq/Iran shooting range.

From an investment standpoint, there’s some short term gains to be made by investing in oil firms in other countries that would benefit greatly from an increased demand due to conflict in Iran and the increase in prices as a result. Russian companies in particular. They are sightly undervalued right now because of the state/private turmoil going on there.

Anyway, just a hunch.

One of the most amazing men in American history would have been 94 today. Ronald Reagan was the single most influential and inspiring person to me in my 41 years on this plant. Bar none. I’ve missed him dearly. If it’s possible to love someone you’ve never met, it would describe my feelings for him.

I knew this would start to happen eventually. But I honestly thought it would take much longer than this. Wow.

I’ve said this before, but when major events occur like freeing a people to choose their own destiny, you really need to take a long hard look at the historical aspect of what you’re doing. What side of history are you going to support? I have to believe that spreading democracy is a good thing. I just have to… despite the sacrifices and there will be many more to come.

Our own history is packed full of sacrifice. But it has to start at some point. President Bush instinctively knew this. Someone has to turn down the road, even though they know there are dangers that lurk everywhere. This is the mark of courage. Going down the easy road for the short term acceptance is a road anyone can take because it requires nothing more than doing what we’ve always done before.

I follow all sorts of blogs. From Instapundit to DailyKos and everything in between. I like to get information from all sides so when I form a viewpoint, it can be influenced from all angles.

I can safely say that DailyKos is the single most hateful person on the internet, left or right. At least of those that have a daily blog that one can read and follow.

I actually posted comments on his blog a few times, politely pointing readers to this and that across the internet that might give his readers some perspective. I was never rude and I was actually quite cordial. Well, he couldn’t handle any type of information counter to his leftist leanings, so he banned me from posting. Wow. That was quite an eye opening experience. For all the talk of being a tolerat bunch of people, I couldn’t find a group of readers so intolerant as his.

Okay… so there’s some background for you.

I actually agreed with one of his posts, today. Although, I’d never use the "f" word in public, I do agree with his overall assessment of the initiative system. Why in the world are we asked to make decisions that our elected officials should be making? Indeed.

But I think it’s interesting to note that he is arguing against his own political side’s modus operandi. He doesn’t like the initiative system and claims that we have a "representative" type of government and so why can’t THEY make those decisions instead of asking us to make all the decisions?

This same line of thinking can be extended to international decisions… oh, like, for instance, liberating countries…etc. It’s always amazed me that some idiot (excuse me… uninformed beatnik) can go through 2 years of college and because they can paint a sign, they automatically become qualified to say whether we should be sending our military to a foreign nation.

Think about that. Pretty incredible.

Yes, indeed, Kos. We do have a representative form of government and when our leaders (WHOEVER THEY ARE!!!!!) decide to go into a foreign country with our military, we have to trust they are doing the right thing. If you don’t like it, vote another way next time around but to take up signs and protest your government’s actions is to weaken the resolve of the decisions our representative government has made and by doing so, you aid the enemy. Case in point… when we sent military to Bosnia, there were plenty of people against that move, but there wasn’t NEAR the public outrage. Why? Because the people who typically get their panties all bunched up over such things were on the same political side as the President at that time. I was in the military at the time and we were NONE to happy with our President over many issues. But we supported WHATEVER he chose to do, without reservation. As much as I disagreed with the man on a host of issues, when it came to presenting a solidarity to the world, I was behind him 100%.

So, let’s vote for those that match our underlying principles (if you have any) then LET THEM REPRESENT US AS A NATION AND LEAVE THEM ALONE UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS!

I have put a sign in my car window that says:

Pray for Bush, Kerry & America. But vote for Bush!

I guess that explains where I’m at, politically. It means I don’t hate the other guy (or his people), but I love America and I love those that are willing to sacrifice for the betterment and survival of it. Kerry could very well fit that description, but he’s demonstrated that he isn’t like that in the past and I can’t trust him to change in the future. So Bush is my man.

President Bush will be re-elected because at America’s core is a desire to vote because they love their candidate and not because they hate the other one.

It shouldn’t come down to who you hate the most, it should come down to who you love the most. If you don’t love either, don’t vote.

Voting from hate is destructive and counter-productive.