Polls Apart: Democrats Should Not Bank On Obama In November

This Congress has been under more scrutiny than any other Congress in modern history. That means that Representatives and Senators will not be able to hide their voting records behind rhetoic or spin without the general population being able to identify them as either ignorant or liars. A year ago, the Democrats didn't seem very worried about that. But they better be worried about it now. In fact, it is a wonder that many of the freshmen Dems who won seats from traditionally Republican districts are even bothering to run for re-election after the disaster they have created for themselves by following Barack Obama off of a cliff.

And even though the next Virginia Senate race isn't until 2012, Jim Webb is already beginning his campaign by sending out emails filled with lies about Tea Party supporters and insults towards the Republicans. Apparently Webb knows better than to highlight his own unpopular voting record. But people like me will be there to remind everyone of exactly what type of leftist Jim Webb is. Again, it is a wonder why he is even considering running for re-election since he cannot hide from his voting record which will clearly show how he has helped to run up a debt that our grand-children won't be able to pay and how he is in favor of more unwanted government intrusion into our lives. Warner will be gone two years behind Webb.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last tells us why:

When the president took office in January 2009, Gallup measured his overall job approval at 67 percent, with 86 percent of blacks approving. Since then, blacks have shown an increasingly favorable opinion of him. ... Using Gallup’s data, blacks push Obama’s overall number up by about 5 points; using Rasmussen’s by roughly 7 points. ... The median congressional district has a black population of only 6.41 percent. This uneven dispersal magnifies the disparity of approval between Obama’s base and the rest of the country. If relatively few congressional districts look like America, then in most congressional districts Obama’s job approval is likely to be lower—anywhere from 2 to 7 points lower—than the national average.

That will spell major difficulties for the Dems this November. They might want to seriously rethink that thunderous applause they gave when they shoved Nationalized Health Care down our throats.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Polls Apart: Why Imperiled Congressional Democrats Can Take No Solace From Obama’s Approval Ratings
Jonathan V. Last
The Weekly Standard
March 29, 2010

Jim Trautz For Congress (Virginia - 10)

Well, I am certainly going to do my part to get the RINOs out of Congress. Here in Northern Virginia, we haven't had much of a chance to do that with Frank Wolf (R-VA) because there haven't been any true Conservatives to challenge him lately ... until now.

Jim Trautz is a Conservative and I am wholly endorsing him for this November's elections.

From Jim's Platform:

Simply put, our representatives have the responsibility to be good stewards of OUR money. Of course, the Federal Government does have a need for a budget, and funds do need to be allocated, but only on those things that are necessary, legal & ethical, Constitutional, and are the will of the people. That said, I can find no constitutional basis for wealth redistribution, bailouts, TARP bills, stimulus packages, or anything of the sort, and I will aggressively oppose any such legislation as a member of Congress. I believe that no one person or group should benefit more than another. ... Leaders lead people – and true leadership requires more than just “playing it safe.” I believe that true leaders do more than simply support a cause – true leaders will be at the tip of the spear for those causes that are near and dear to the hearts of their constituents. They’ll do so without reservation or regard for their own personal gain, not because it’s a “good political move,” but because it’s the right thing to do, because they believe their cause to be just, and because the people they represent look to them for leadership. Leaders lead people – not just when the cameras are on, not just when there’s a political advantage to be gained, and not just at election time, but whenever and wherever they’re called to do so. ... All too often, our representatives forget the idea of accountability. They work for us, they’re elected by us, and they’re accountable to us. Bottom line, they answer to us. I believe that every person has the right to expect a clear and concise understanding of where their Representative stands on the issues of the day, and that he has a responsibility to report his position on those issues, regardless of party affiliation or political ideology.

Jim Trautz is also a 912 Candidate and believes the following:

• America Is Good.
  
• I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
  
• I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
  
• The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
  
• If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
  
• I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
  
• I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
  
• It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
  
• The government works for the people. The people do not answer to the government, the government answers to the people.
  

You can access more information about Jim Trautz on-line here:

Jim Trautz 2010

I hope the people of Virginia's 10th District will join me in supporting a true Conservative candidate.

Hidden Black On White Crimes, New Deal Economics And Alternative Fuel Woes

On this last day of the year 2007 A.D. (Yes, I say Anno Domini rather than the politically correct C.E.), I have three articles I would like to bring to the front. The first is a column by Dr. Walter Williams:

Whenever there is a case of white on black crime, whether real or alleged, it becomes front-page headline news. But, when it is black on white crime, well, then it is treated differently by Old Media.

Dr. Walter Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well. Oh yeah, for those of you who didn't know it, he is also a black man.

Here is what he writes about this issue over at TownHall.com:

If you're like I am, you've heard scores of media reports about the 2006 Duke University rape case, in which three white lacrosse players were falsely accused of raping a black stripper at a wild party at the home of one of the team members. These guys, convicted by the news media and Duke faculty, were later found innocent. It turned out that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was running for re-election. In seeking the black vote, he concealed DNA evidence that would have exonerated the lacrosse players. ... I don't know about you, but it was just recently that I heard about a gruesome murder in Knoxville, Tenn., that is far worse than the false charges in the Duke rape case and is at least as horrible, if not more so, than the dragging death of James Byrd. Unlike the Duke rape case and the Jasper lynching, the national news media's coverage of the interracial Knoxville murders paled in comparison. On Jan. 6, 2007, University of Tennessee student Channon Christian and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, were carjacked and kidnapped in Knoxville. Both of them were later murdered. According to a 46-count indictment, suspects Darnell Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman, all blacks, are charged with committing rape, including sodomy against Christian and Newsom, both of whom are white. After being raped, Newsom was shot several times and his body was found burned along nearby railroad tracks. Christian was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was ultimately raped, tortured and murdered. The police discovered her body inside a large trash can in the kitchen of the home where the murders took place. Before disposing of her body, the murderers poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. Trial dates have been set for next May.

Dr. Williams rightly asks where the news media is and why they aren't covering this incident as closely and completely as they did the Duke fake-rape case. He also rightly asks why the NAACP doesn't speak out about this as they spoke out against the prosecution of the Jena 6.

Why is this so important to us? Read on:

According to the 2004 FBI National Crime Victimization Survey, in most instances of interracial crimes, the victim is white and the perpetrator is black. In the case of interracial murder for 2004, where the race of victim and perpetrator is known, more than twice as many whites were murdered by a black than cases of a white murdering a black. The failure of civil rights leaders, people like Jackson and Sharpton, as well as politicians to vocally condemn black-on-white crime -- and the relative silence of the news media in reporting it -- is not simply a matter of double standards. It's dangerous, for it contributes to a pile of racial kindling awaiting a racial arsonist to set it ablaze.

The column is short but profound and can be accessed on-line here:

Hiding Black Interracial Crimes
Dr. Walter Williams
TownHall.com
December 26, 2007

---

Since 2008 is a Presidential election year, it would be a good idea to start looking at the campaign promises of the various candidates and how those promises reflect on certain relevent issues. Probably the biggest issue is that of the economy. We all know that the market is heading for a massive readjustment pretty soon, probably within the next year. The question will be: how do we respond to it?

Many Democrats have already decided that the solution is to impose New Deal style socialist policies on the United States. But is that really a good idea?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Amity Schlaes has the following:

Notwithstanding the largest peacetime appropriation in the history of the world, the New Deal recovery remained incomplete. From 1934 on--the period when the spending ramped up--monetary troubles were subsiding, and could no longer be blamed alone for the Depression. The story of the mid-1930s is the story of a heroic economy struggling to recuperate but failing to do so because lawmakers' preoccupation with public works rather got in the way of allowing productive businesses to expand and pull the rest forward. ... People became accustomed to a sort of calculus of frustration. The closer the country got to the prosperity of 1929, the more impossible reaching such prosperity seemed. The 1930s came to be known as the always recovering but never recovered decade. The Dow itself confirmed this pessimistic assessment by stubbornly remaining below 1929 levels through World War II and into the 1950s. The relevant points for today are simple. The famous "multiplier effect" of public spending may exist. U.S. cities do indeed need new highways, new buildings and new roads, maybe even from government. But these needs should be weighed against damage that comes when officials create projects and jobs for political reasons. An emergency such as a Great Depression, a Sept. 11, a Katrina, can serve as a catalyst for an infrastructure project and for job creation too. But the dire moral quality of that emergency does not guarantee that the project undertaken in its name will be more efficient than your standard earmark. In other words, candidates may want to be careful as they climb onto FDR's shoulders. The New Deal edifice may look solid, but it doesn't form a good basis for the American future.

Socialist policies have never succeeded in bringing any nation to economic prosperity. It didn't happen during the New Deal and certainly didn't happen when James Earl Carter unleashed his disasterous policies on the American economy back in the late 70's. So, why are the Dems so intent on inviting that same disaster here in the Y2k's? It would only lead to higher unemployment and more economic dispair which would in turn put a larger burden on the American people.

Free markets are the way to go, not inefficient central planning.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The New Deal Jobs Myth
Amity Schlaes
OpinionJournal.com
December 31, 2007

---

And finally we have another story about alternative fuels and what they are really costing us. Eric Berger, writing for the Houston Chronicle brings us the following:

The recent passage of the mammoth energy bill could have unintended consequences for the Gulf of Mexico that have nothing to do with oil and gas platforms. Under the law, production of ethanol is set to increase five-fold to 36 billion gallons a year by 2020. Some environmentalists are worried that the shift to ethanol — viewed as a home-grown alternative to foreign oil — could enlarge the northern Gulf's "dead zone," an 8,000-square-mile area so devoid of oxygen that fish, shrimp and other sea life cannot survive. Already ethanol, by doubling corn prices since 2002, has driven corn production to its highest levels since World War II. Growing corn requires considerably more nitrogen-based fertilizer than most crops. When the fertilizer runs off fields in the Midwest, it drains into the Mississippi and eventually reaches the Gulf of Mexico. "This year's dead zone is the third highest on record, and I think we're already seeing an impact from increased ethanol use," said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who studies farm practices and hypoxia, or low-oxygen water. Scientists say the Gulf's dead zone has grown larger since its discovery more than 20 years ago. According to Nancy Rabelais, a professor with the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium who annually surveys the area, the dead zone has been about 15 percent bigger in the last five years than normal.

It is a great truism of the Universe: you cannot get something for nothing. Sometimes the something you get is not worth it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethanol Stirring Coastal Concerns
Eric Berger
Houston Chronicle
December 31, 2007

Nancy Pelosi Was Okay With Waterboarding Back In 2002 And Dems Concede Tax Increases

So, the Dems were okay with waterboarding as an interrogation technique back in 2002 but waited until 2007 to come out against it? Why? Due to the secretive cloak that the Dems use to surround their true agenda, we may never know. But Fox News has this:

Four top members of Congress, including now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002 and offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to a news article out Sunday. On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding, two U.S. officials told The Washington Post. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," one official is quoted saying. ... "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," Porter Goss, a former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefings, told The Post. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Perhaps a member of Old Media will go back and ask Pelosi about her reaction during these briefings and then ask to reconcile that reaction to the fact that only one member of the Congressional delegation raised any objection at all: Democrat Jane Harman.

But then, that would require integrity on the part of the Dems and on Old Media.

Not likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Report: Top Members Of Congress Were OK With Waterboarding In 2002
FoxNews.com
December 9, 2007

---

And the Dems are quickly knuckling under as it has become apparent that the American people do not want higher taxes nor more government spending.

From the Associated Press:

Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues. The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues. Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.

And the Dems also think we are stupid enough to buy their criticism. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but many have taxed themselves into poverty. Thus, no tax plan that includes higher taxes can ever be called "prudent." Too bad the Dem leadership just doesn't seem capable of grasping that.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Cry Uncle On Taxes, Spending
Charles Babington
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 7, 2007