The links below is an audio/video clip of Barack Obama's 2001 radio interview concerning "change" of economics through the courts. This is a fundamentally flawed logic on many respects. As a business owner and capitalist, he view goes against everything that the core American system stands for.

Anyone who votes for Obama has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our country's economic and political system should function. Listen closely to the audio. Enough of the Obama-mania. It's time to look at the real issues he presents to voters - and they are overwhelmingly bad.

Even more interesting is to read through the blog comments from WBEZ's original post. Some of these comments are just stupid. There is no other way to describe them.

1) Even though all the legal and academic talk flew over my head, I was impressed with Obama’s intellect and eloquence more than ever.
----------
I would say one’s ability to adapt tone and language to a particular audience reflects an acute understanding of that audience.
----------
Oh, to have an intelligent and thoughtful president for a change! Think of the great people he will place in his government and the advances we can make as a nation based on the good of all rather than the profit of a few!

If you don't vote during this election - and help make sure that your neighbors and friends vote - then shame on you.

References:

Barack Obama wearing his professorial hat
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372

Barack Obama’s Radio Days
Full List of Audio from WBEZ
http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Well this article caught me totally by surprise - I had no idea that so many ganja farmers were using public lands.

In 2007, rangers found more than 20,000 plants in Yosemite National Park and 43,000 plants in Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park, where 159 grow sites have been discovered over the past 10 years.

How in the world do they get these marijuana farms going on National Park Service land without being seen? I can understand how it's difficult to find private pot stashes on non-public lands, but in Yosemite National Park?

High Sierra Trail Crew...plans to ...carry out miles of drip irrigation pipe, tons of human garbage, volatile propane canisters, and bags and bottles of herbicides and pesticides.

I suppose I need to go and remind my neighbors to be careful of what they are smoking. They probably are killing more brain cells than they expected.

The illegal cultivation sites bore the characteristics of a Mexican drug trafficking enterprise, including a sophisticated watering system, use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The growing operation resulted in considerable natural resource destruction.

What can we do as Conservatives? Write your Congressman/woman and let them know that you don't want your tax dollars wasted helping the ganja farmers. This is simply crazy and needs to hit the mainstream media.

References:

Mexican marijuana cartels sully US forests, parks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_re_us/pot_environment

Yosemite National Park
Marijuana Gardens Raided in Yosemite National Park
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parknews/marijuana2007.htm

This is hilarious.
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

One of the biggest arguments that liberals use against increasing oil production domestically is that it will "take 10 years to have any impact." Oh really? Well let's take a quick look at some facts.

Elm Coulee Oil Field, which produces oil from the Bakken Formation, was discovered in 2000. By 2007 the field had become one of the 20 largest oil fields in the United States. That's within 7 years!

So what - do the liberals like to round up? They often cite the study by the EIA that says it would take 10 years before oil production would start in ANWR. Yeah - sure it would.

Liberals also like to state that drilling in places such as the Bakken Formation or ANWR would not have an immediate result on the pump. Let's assume that they are correct (which they are not). Ok, we just assumed it. I would much rather start something now and realize it later, than not start anything at all.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Four, renew -- invest in renewable energy resources, which will bring a faster return than drilling offshore, which will take 10 years and produce 2 cents' reduction in 10 years off the price at the pump.

Here is the real deal: Increasing oil production domestically now will have a positive short-term impact on our economy plus a long-term impact on our oil independence. It's a no-brainer.


References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Coulee_Oil_Field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

Did Nancy Pelosi cave on offshore oil drilling?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/08/offshore-drilli.html

I just ran across this picture I took about a year ago in Quitman, TX, on Hwy 154. I was driving back from Sulphur Springs, TX, after working on a client's network. As I drove by I glanced over and nearly had a wreck!

Whose briliant idea was it to come up with a "Meth Watch" program? Even more brilliant - those same people think putting a sign up is going to deter meth addicts?

After a little googling, it turns out that there is an official website for the program - all helped by Federal funding. Of course!

Interestingly enough the "Combat Meth Act" was part of the Patriot Act signed into law in 2005. This is the law that made it much more difficult to purchase cold remedies containing pseudoephedrine. You have to buy them behind the counter now and that is subject to limited quantities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not for people using meth. Years ago I worked in McAlester, OK, and at least 60% of our employees abused meth among other things. No, I'm not exaggerating one bit. There were many times I had to bail out employees so we could keep production going. An employee that I dated for a few months (Jennifer) would drive me around and show me the houses where they were "cooking" - then we'd go out for dinner and a few drinks. She would walk right up to to many of the wealthy and powerful in the town and they would buy her drinks or dinner. These were many of the same people that I knew from business - pretty sad actually.

The communities around Quitman, TX, are just as bad though. I also worked around Alba, TX, and there were a lot of rural houses used as meth labs around the Lake Fork area.

I just find it hilarious that we have to have "meth watch" signs posted.

Some things never change...Recently, the Shreveport Times reported on resistance to ATV (4-wheeler) legislation that would have required stricter regulations. Here is the problem with that logic. It won't work.

Twenty years ago, the Consumer Product Safety Commission responded to safety concerns by negotiating a consent decree with ATV manufacturers.

The decree required manufacturers to, among other things, halt production of three-wheelers and offer safety training to new ATV owners who purchase vehicles through authorized dealerships.

Additionally, ATV manufacturers are required to recommend adult-sized ATVs only for those ages 16 and older and label all ATVs with warnings, instructing purchasers that children should not ride adult-size ATVs.

Most of the injuries reported in the news deal with riding irresponsibly - speeding, too large an ATV for the rider's skills, etc. Look, I've been riding ATV's since I was 9 years old. I started out riding mini-bikes and 3-wheelers, which are now banned. In my entire life with thousands and thousands of hours of riding for recreation, I am yet to turn one over.

Smith is familiar with the negative impact of ATV use among teens. Her son, B.J., suffered a disabling accident three years ago when he swerved to avoid a dog while riding an adult-sized ATV at about 60 mph.

Now 18, B.J.'s brain injury left him unable to complete high school and reduced his vision to 40 percent.

Smith is a member of Concerned Families for ATV Safety, which advocates complete ATV abstinence for those under 16.

Let's read that again - he was 16 years riding an adult-sized ATV at 60 mph and swerved to avoid a dog. There is no legislation that would have prevented that. He would have been riding too fast for conditions anyway, been on an ATV beyond his skill level, still swerved to miss the dog, and still have medical issues.

I'm sorry for the mother and her son, but you can't legislate irresponsible riding away.




Louisianians resistant to ATV legislation
By Keli Jacobi • kcjacobi@thenewsstar.com • October 6, 2008 6:44 am
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081006/NEWS01/81006008/1060/NEWS01

Here are the unofficial results of the October 4, 2008, Congressional election primaries for the Republicans and Democrats.

Republican Party
John Fleming: 14,500 votes, 35.14%
"Chris" Gorman: 14,070 votes, 34.1%
"Jeff" Thompson: 12,693 votes, 30.76%

Democratic Party
Willie Banks: 17,620 votes, 22.961%
Paul J. Carmouche: 36,930 votes, 48.12%
Artis "Doc" Cash: 6,065 votes, 7.9%
John Milkovich: 16,135 votes, 21.02%

Looks like both parties will have runoffs on the Nov. 4 ballot with the general election on Dec. 6th along with 2 independents.

If you want state-wide results, here is a link to the Louisiana Secretary of State Election Results query:

http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcinq&rqsdta=start

Simply select what results you want to view, choose the correct election date, and get the results. That is one of the greatest benefit of the Internet - near instant communications!

Well, it looks like the Bush Administration did warn - and attempted to do something - about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle. Here is the real deal about these entities in 1 paragraph.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the two largest mortgage lenders in the industry. The problem is that they primarily back loans to lower-income families. In short, they allow people to borrow beyond their means.

In 2003, the Bush Administration sought to overhaul the regulation of the housing finance industry which was shot down by ranking Democrats. In 2005, legislation in the House to overhaul the 2 quasi-agencies was so toothless that it was opposed by the White House and pulled by the legislation's backer, Mike Oxley.

In case you were wondering, John McCain also supported more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

At every turn, the liberals who gained the most from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac opposed regulations. Now, they want to try and play the blame game and want us to pick up the tab? I'm not really fond of my tax dollars subsidizing the loans for poor people to afford housing that is beyond their means. I'm also not in favor of paying again to bail them out, while certain legislators and executives pocket a sweet deal.

Republicans For - Democrats Against


Who does Clinton Blame?


References:

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

House Approves Overhaul at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 27, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/business/27fannie.html

Where Was Sen. Dodd?
Playing the Blame Game On Fannie and Freddie
By Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner
Friday, September 12, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
*McCain co-sponsored a reform bill by Sen. Charles Hagel R-NE
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Credit Canard
Claim: E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae.
Status: True.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp

There is a lot of mud-slinging going on about the recent Wall-Street and Congressional crisis. Now, I am NOT a financial expert nor a political expert. However, facts are facts, and that is what matters. Now, here are the facts.

(1) In 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed my a wide margin in both houses of Congress. This act repealed the decades-old Glass-Steagall Act, and basically allowed the lines to dim between banking, securities, and insurance companies.

Senate: 90-8-1
House: 362-57-15

(2) President Bill Clinton signed it into law on Nov. 12, 1999. In a recent interview, he stood behind signing the bill.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_40/b4102000409948.htm

Clinton: ...Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans].

(3) This problem is a bi-partisan issue. I blame both parties plus Wall-Street.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354

Now whether or not this deregulation caused the current crisis - I'm not sure. I personally think that the deregulation COMBINED with lax oversight and greedy companies are really to blame. Don't get me wrong - I'm a capitalist and conservative, but there are times when oversight are needed.

VERY IMPORTANT

IF YOU ARE DEMOCRAT....

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ADVISE EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT GO TO THE POLLS WEARING ANY OBAMA SHIRTS, PINS OR HATS, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW AND WILL BE GROUNDS TO HAVE THE POLLING OFFICIALS TO TURN YOU AWAY.

THIS IS CONSIDERED CAMPAIGNING, AND NO ONE CAN CAMPAIGN WITHIN X AMOUNT OF FEET TO THE POLLS.

THEY ARE BANKING ON US BEING EXCITED AND NOT BEING AWARE OF THIS LONG
STANDING LAW THAT YOU CAN BET WILL BE ENFORCED THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE BANKING, THAT IF ARE TURNED AWAY YOU WILL NOT GO HOME AND CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES.

PLEASE JUST DON T WEAR OBAMA GEAR OF ANY SORTS TO THE POLLS!! PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION, OH AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ALREADY AWARE THIS WAS NOT MEANT TO INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE. JUST TRYING TO COVER ALL
GROUNDS.

Pass This On!!!!

Boy I hate these types of emails...but I will bite on this one.

Exactly who is the "they" that would prevent you from voting? Since I am a Conservative (and Republican), are you referring to me?

And I will assume that in true voter fairness in preventing the so-called "voter disenfranchisement", that you would say the same for Republican voters or Libertarian voters? We should not wear shirts or signage supporting our particular candidates either right? I will remind everyone that the polling places are manned by citizens that belong to both of the major parties.

See here is the problem - while you can allude to "voter suppression" and "voter disenfranchisement" by the tone of this email, the facts support the opposite. If someone is truly suppressed from voting and can prove that fact, then 1 call to a newspaper is all it would take to blow the "dirty little secret" wide open. We live in a world of instant communications with email, blogging, text messages, etc. There is simply no way that any sort of disenfranchisement should occur.

Now there are certainly cases where people are turned away from polls due to legislation or rules. The truth is that most of this legislation is designed to prevent voter fraud - such as requiring ID's to vote. I highly support that measure and so does the US Supreme Court. Virtually all states require an ID for your first voter registration, and contrary to popular liberal rhetoric it is not an undo burden to require it going forward. Will photo ID's stop all voter fraud? Nope - but it will help in at least some cases.

So again, in the interest of a true democratic republic, I think this email should be addressed to people who support any candidate whatsoever - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or even the Socialists. Everyone should know the law - ignorance is no excuse - and these types of laws have been on the books for years in most cases.

Now here is the legal truth (at least in the state of Louisiana). You are NOT allowed to wear any garments or have signage supporting any particular candidate within 600 feet of a polling place. The actual statute is listed here:

Louisiana RS 18:1462
Acts prohibited on election day; electioneering; intimidation; exceptions; enforcement; penalties
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=81431

You are NOT asked to go home and change clothes - at least not in Bossier Parish. You are simply asked to change your shirt, or turn it inside out temporarily, and/or remove any signage. Yes, I actually called the Bossier Parish Registrar of Voters office and asked - and recorded the conversation. Pretty simple to pick up the phone and call.

[Upload MP3 File Here]

Let's take a look at another side to these laws for Louisiana. This state tends to be largely Democratic in it's congressional makeup. By the logic of this email and most liberal claims, the Louisiana Democrats (and governors) wrote the laws and passed them to disenfranchise their own voters?

See - that is the irony of most of the liberally biased claims. They just don't make sense.

The state-by-state laws are not intended to disenfranchise anyone. As a matter of fact, they are written for exactly the right reason - to eliminate any undo voter influence at the polling place. It's called "electioneering".