Monday, April 16, 2012

Raising Children Is A Career

Let's all face reality, staying at home and raising children is a full time job. It takes 20-25 years years to raise a family from birth through college and on to financial stabilty. Ensuring kids are able to participate in various activities, the stay at home mom must juggle the calendar and balance the books. It is the moms of the world that make sure there is a next generation. It is through being at home with the children that family values are passed on to the next generation. Rather than have society raise our children, stay at home moms rasie their own children. Yes raising a family and forsaking a corporate career is a choice but raising a family is hard work and a career and all for no income.

The left attacked stay at home mothers because of the choices and committments they made. See the decision to have a family has far reaching implications. Children don't raise themselves. Children will pick up on most of the things in their environment, so who do we want raising our children: the streets or parents? I don't want public schools teaching my children things that I should be teaching. I want my children to share my values, my morals, and my ethics. I don't want my children to grow up thinking the government owes them something. I don't want my children growing up thinking the only beliefs that matter are the school teachers belief and values.

I for one do not hold anything against the women that want a corporate career. That is the choice they make. However, criticizing mothers that do stay at home to honor their committment to family is also important.The left knows they made a mistake in criticiizng Ann Romney as never having to work. So the left rather than admit the mistake doubled down. Many in the media are busy pushing the meme that raising children is not a career. The Daily Beast and Politico to name a few. See the liberal media knows that the Hilary Rosen attack was supposed to show how out of touch Romney was because of the wealth he earned. The problem is they attacked mothers for the choices they made.

See Tara McGuiness from "Politiico" uses numbers without background to push the meme that working outside the home is not a choice to many. The problem is her numbers only say how many women work outside of the home. She doesn't delve in to see how many actually are actually required to work to make ends meet. In my own family there was only one breadwinner while the other stayed at home. Certainly there were sacrifices that had to be made but never did anyone in my family ever go to bed hungry. My children didn't have the luxury of having every new toy that came out or all of the latest fashion. We didn't eat out or go to the movies very often but we made a living and raised a family. Now my children are grown and mostly through college of which we were able to pay out of our own pockets. We started out below the poverty line but never took handouts. As the bread winners career sproutng eventually family income rose above the poverty line to where we are now which is middle class and above the median income of the US. So it can be done, it all depends on what is more important: the material things and a career outside the home or a family and a career rasing children. Now to be sure if the left thinks raising children is not a full time career, I would suggest they go visit a day care center and come back and tell me there are no full time employees in these centers.

Friday, April 13, 2012


President Obama weighed in on the Family moms issue yesterday. Instead of taking the high road with the rest of his own campaign and denounce Hilary Rosen's ill advised attack on stay at home moms, Obama decided to double down and retort "Michelle didn't have the luxury of staying at home and raising his children". My question is what is meant by luxury?

Wasn't it luxurious to purchase a million dollar home Hyde park? How about the additional money to purchase a little extra land from Tony Rezco? How about sending his children to private school versus public schools? Are the the luxuries Obama is speaking about? I mean he certainly didn't want to give up any of his luxuries to rasie children. That of course would have been a punishment for having children. Rather than make a conscious decision to raise a family, Obama instead wanted a life of luxury. Instead of focusing on the committment to raise a family, it was Obama that decided it was a good idea to have Michelle work as well as him so they didn't have to give up anything. Anything that is witht he exception of raising his own kids.

I say that because when both parents work, someone else is raising your children. it is someone else that is providing nurturing for a greater amount of time in a child's life. Obama didn't have the luxury of making the chioce with Michelle to be a stay at home mom because he was a self centered, materialistic person that refused to give up some of his luxuries to raise a family. See there is not much a of a decision here. Many middle class families make the conscious decision to raise a family and have stay at home mom's. Certainly my family did just that in the 1990's and family income was less than $40,000 per year. I didn't have the luxury to pal around with the likes of Bill Ayers. I didn't have the luxury of dealing with the Tony Rezco's of the world. I didn't have the luxury of voting present. But what I did have was a family of my own. One raised by both parents, one of which was a stay at home mom. My family gave up on some of the materialistic luxuries to gain the luxury of family love. I wonder who is more out of touch? Ann Romney who raised 5 children or Barack Obama who paid others to raise his children while he was busy playing golf? Bottom line is Obama had plenty of time and luxuries, all at the expense of a family.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Pro Choice

The left and Democrats are the people waging war on women. Left wing politcal activist, Hilary Rosen, went on "Anderson Cooper 360" yesterday and made the claim that Ann ROmney couldn't possibly advise her husband on woman's issues because "she has never worked a day in her life". So here we have an advocate for women's issues belittling the choices woman have to make in their life. Sorry Hilary, but what you said about Ann is an attack on women that don't agree with you or make the same choices that you did.

Hilary says "But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children." Is that really true? Most young women? I would say that is simply not true. Working or not working while raising children is a choice most of the time. I would think the exception may be single mothers. Other than in the case of single mothers the rest is all about choices.

See people make the choice of career versus raising children. I have no issues with those choices. Some will choose to stay at home and raise their own children rather than have institutional day care upbringings. To the left the only choices that are really allowed are the ones they made. Women should choose careers over family. Women should chose to abort babies rather than raise a family. Really what she is saying is sure we need women to have a choice but all we really want is for women to make the same choices she obviously did.

Let me tell you, my family made a conscious decision to have a stay at home mom. Together we decided it would be far better to raise our own chldren rather than have some else spend more time with them than we did as there parents. We made sacrifices and couldn't purchase all of the materialistic toys we wanted but we certainly put food on the table and had some left over for a few of the toys we wanted. Our children are better for it. They are more prepared to deal with idiots like Ms. Rosen who claim to be advocates for women than turn around and belittle them. Does Hilary really think it is not a full time job to raise children? Then why does it cost so damn much for child care centers?Does Hilary believe that just because women don't work outside the home, then they couldn't possibly know what economic issues women are facing? I would venture a gues that stay at home mom's understnd the economic issues far better than a career driven political activist. See the stay at home mother's have far less income than they would if they worked. Stay at home moms have to balance the books with less money and still work hard raising the children.

I am pro choice. The left isn't. See the difference between the left and the right is this: The left claims they want the freedom of choice but only see one side of the story. The right is about freedom and understands that a choice implies at least two different alternatives. This so called war on women is the left's war agianst them and not the right's. Rosen is a self centered elitist. She believes in choice as long as it is the same choice she would make. The left is about their own rights, the right is concerned with everyone's rights. The right believes in individual freedom, the left only believes in the freedom of government to impose its will on the people.

Monday, April 9, 2012

The Obama Administration Never Takes Responsibility

The Obama administration never takes responsibility for anything. Sure they like to take credit for everything that is good news but never responsibility for anything bad that happens. Last week a scathing Inspector General report came out oncerning a wasteful spending conference held by the General Service Agency. This waste cost tax payer over $800,000. This was a 28% increase from two years earlier. The conference was held in Las Vegas, even after Obama himself told businesses that they shouldn't be in Vegas for any conferences because of the negative perceptions of the city. Now instead of coming out and taking responsibility the administration blames the whole fiasco on Bush.

The administration said the cost of the GSA conference went up dramatically under Bush. Additionally the adminsitration claims "at least they have taken bold, swift, and forceful action". The problem is they didn't take bold, swift, and forceful action. The administration knew about this since 2010 and now it is almost two years later before we the people hear about it. Does that sound swift to you? As far as being bold and forceful, well people did get fired but not until after the scathing report by the IG. Two years after the fact, the administration takes action in a face saving effort not because of the feeling of obligation to the tax payers. This is the same adminsitration that can't find budget cuts and must rely upon huge tax increases and small reductions in planned growth in oder to get our deficit spending to under a trillion dollars a year. This is the same administration that won't accept responsibility for operation fast and furious. This is the same administration that is blaming republicans for the poor performing economy. Everywhere one turns it is someone else's fault.

Now is the time to send this administration a message; we are tired of your failures, tired of your poor leadership, and tired of a poor economy. We don't want your tax increases unless spending is truly cut. Don't just cut growth of the budget expenditures, we want cuts. For a change, let's spend less money next year than we did this year. It can be done, inflation has not grown much in the down economy, yet our budget has increased almost 30%. Cut spending and make government leaner and more efficient, then ask for tax increases if we are still runinning deficits. I'll give that the economy was in the tank when Obama took office. The problem isn't that the economy was in the tank in 2008, the problem is that it is still in the tank in 2012. I'll even give the adminsitration some credit and say some of the 2009 deficit is Bush's issue. However, the budget never decreased back to where we were at in 2009 and won't be ever again. This is a shame that the President can't see that his policies have failed America and we will never grow our selves out of trillion dollar deficits, nor will wwe be able to tax our way out of the deficits. We need bold action not a passing of the blame. In the case of this conference by GSa it is Obam's fault, it happened 2 years after Bush left office. Take responsibility and explain to the American people why exactly a tax increase is so necessary when tax dollars are readily being wasted.

Fanning The Flames Of Hatred

I am saddened by the fact that the left in America and the National News media are fanning the flames of racism and hatred. I can't believe the pathetic pawns in the media would go so far as the write, print, or say racist based remarks just to improve the odds of the Preident Obama's re-election campaign. However, that is the only reason I can see for the media to push the racism meme.

What NBC did was wrong. There is no excuse for a network to edit an audio in such a way that makes George Zimmerman out to be a racist but that is what they di. tehre is no excuse and the lame bull about the edits not being intentional but rather editing to ensure it fit the time segment is a load no one should ever believe. I don't care that NBC fired the pawn that made the inappropriate edits, the network should publicly apologize and conduct a serious investigative report on the ills caused by a network media center when they push for a story to be true without facts. The NBC editing is similar to what Dan Rather did in the 2004 election. Dan Rather made up the facts to push his meme that Bush was AWOL during the Vietnam war. Dan Rather never really apologized for the forged documents and never really corrected the story because as he said "it doesn't matter if the document is forged or not because the gist of the story is true." This is the same thing NBC is doing in the Zimmerman case "It doesn't matter if our edits made Zimerman appear to be racist as long as they believe the gist of the theory is true." This is behavior that needs to be stopped and should be punished. George Zimmerman needs to sue NBC for defamation of Character. This intentional NBC edit that has Zimmerman saying “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”, when in reality the conversation with the 911 dispatcher went like this "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Then the dispatcher asked, “O.K., and this guy — is he white, black or Hispanic?” Only then did Mr. Zimmerman say, “He looks black.”, see the difference? In the edited version, NBC is playing up the racism theme, in reality there is no racism on the tapes. Of course the non racist theme would not have played so well on television and in the would not help the President's re-election campaign claim that the only reason he is unpopular is because of race.

Now we have CNN using profanity and raicist terms on television during a report. Sure they announced the language may be inappropriate and they did apologize for the language used. Here is a qoute by Susan Candiotti:

Candiotti used the “n” word while reading aloud what one of the suspects in the shooting, 19-year-old Jacob England, wrote recently on his Facebook page.

“Now, this, according to relatives, has troubled him ever since and CNN has also discovered what police have,” Candiotti said. “There was a Facebook posting made just the other day, written by the suspect in this case, that police are examining.”

“And it reads like this: ‘Today is two years that my dad has been gone, shot by’ — and please excuse the language, it’s very sensitive — ‘Shot by a fucking nigger. It’s hard not to go off between that and [England's fiancĂ©e] Sheran.’”

Read more:

Now there is no reason to read this on the air. The sole purpose is to fan hatred. Yes there are folks that are prejuidice, yes there still is racism in America. However, the racism cuts both ways.

Last summer during the "flash mobs", the media didn't raise the ricist aspects, eventhough the perpretators of the "flash mob" violence were black and the victims white. The pathetic pawns in the media don't play the race card when a group of blacks kill white British tourists in Florida. The media doesn't play up the racism or hate crime when black teenagers hurl racial slurs at a taxi driver in Philadelphia that the blacks attacked. Nope hate crimes must have more than just the use of racial slurs towards the victims, the racial slurs must be hurled earlier with statements such as seeking out certain races.

The media is pushing racist trhemes hard. The edia is using yellow journalism to promote their chosen candidate plain and simple. Fan the racial hatred and blacks will be more motivated to again show up to the polls for a failed President. The media knows Obama can't win on his record so they are fanning the flames of hatred. The media needs to be held accountable. Freedom of the press does not mean freedom to lie to promote your own self interest. In the case of NBC, they knew what they were doing. They knew they were taken the conversation out of context to push racism. AP went as far as to call Zimmerman a "white hispanic" and not just report "hispanic". Even though the Zimmerman appears to nothing more than a neighborhood watch guy confronting an unknown resident that appeared suspicious, the media and along with alll of the other left wing race baiters decided to push racism. In the case of Candiotti, her use of racial slurs and profanity added nothing to the story accept to push the racial hatred. Her qoutes were nothing more than hyping hate crimes in a way to push their theory that the only people that are racists are white and that any attack on the failed President of their choice is seen as a racist attack. The media is looking for credibility in their attack on conservatives. Fanning the flames of racial hatred to push the media agenda needs to be investigated and the race baiters punished for the misrepresentations.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

The Constitution is Not Antiquated

The left is all up in arms as is the President and his fellow liberty stealing Democrats over the prospects of the Obamacare law. By no means is the fate of this monstrosity of a law yet sealed. In oral arugments last week, the questions by the Supreme Court Justices seemed to indicate that there were serious problems with the individual mandate. The left at first attempted to claim that if the law was struck down then that would bolster the President's re-election prospects. That meme lasted about a day before everyone on the left realized that a massive over reach by the Democrats would not be taken so kindly. Sure the left may be energized but the independents would feel justified in their opposition to the law and know they were right that this law was a massive intrusion on individual lives by the government. So what did the left turn to? Well Obama attempted to intimidate the justices by claiming if this obomination of a law was overturned that it would be unprecedented. Obama's remarks stirred such a controversy that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals requested an explanation from the Justice Department on whether or not this administration believes the Courts have the right to strike down laws. Now we get Ronald Dworkin from the New York Review of books, calling the constitution antiquated and using strawmen to bolster his claims on why the law should be upheld. Dworkin falls right in line with the left and even goes so far as to call the conservatives on the bench Ultra conservatives while the liberal justices are not Ultra liberals they are simply liberals. At any rate let's take apart Dworkin's arguments.

First of all the language of the consitution is not antiquated. The COnstitution has not been changed in decades because of it's sheer eloquent prose and matter of thought that was placed into the document. The document has only been amended 27 times and the first ten amendments were added immediately to assure passage through the original States. The document is powerful, and just because the ever changing liberal utopia is not in line with the freedoms the document provides does not make the language antiquated. We all know that the constitution is a living document that protects its citizens from an overbearing government. The freedoms we all enjoy are at risk of being lost if this law is upheld. For if there is no limit to what the federal government can do and force it's citizens to do in the name of commerce, then there is no limit to government whatsoever and the constitution will become nothing more than history and will in fact become antiquated.

See we have to limit government. The 10th Amendment itself provides that any power not expressly providd the federal government belongs to the States. The 10th Amendment is the States rights amendment. So even the so called antiquated document assures us that the Federal government only has a certain amount of responsibility the rest belong on the States and from there to the local government. In our constitution all governmental power is derived by the people, not the liberal elite, no tthe political elitists, and not the media. There has to be limits on government or our democracy is sunk and there will be no such thing as freedom.

Dworkin goes on to state "many legal scholars predicted a 7-2 decision". Which scholars? Was it a cross section of legal scholars? Or was it just the scholars that believe government knows best? This is a strawman argument. No faces, no names, and no qoutes. Just numbers that are favorable to Dworkin's argument. How abouth these numbers: 65 percent of American's believe the law to be unconstitutional? How about the majorities (52% according to Rasmussen) that were against passage in the first place and still are opposed tot he law? What about the "many scholars" who predicted the law would be struck down? What about the majority of States that have sued the Federal Government in order to have this law heard by the Supreme Court in the first place?

I know, these 26 states are run by Repulican Governors right? That's Dworkin's argument, like just because one is a Republican the thoughts on the matter don't count. All that matters is liberals think this is a good idea, not what the citizens believe. This is an elitist argument. An argument that says government knows what is in the best interest of the American people. Take away individual freedoms and the government will tell the sheep what rights they do have.

Dworkin goes on to say there is only on provision under serious constitutional challenge. Dworkin calls the only item the "so called mandate" However, just because he calls it "so called" doesn't change the fact that it is a mandate. Either purchase health insurance or be punished. That is a mandate. But his argument is not entirely true. The medicare protion of the law is also under constitutional scrutiny. Both of these provision imposerestrictions on States and the people. The medicare provision is really coercion. The Federal threatens to withhold a States own money if they don't comply with the federal mandate. The individual mandate penalizes people for not having health insurance, which by the way is a commercial product and not necessary to obtain or pay for medical care. That's right, what the left never addresses is that currently the young are able to skip insurance and pay out of pocket for expenses incurred. No where does it say the only way to pay for medical services is through insurance. Both of these provisions steal freedom away from either the States or the people.

Dworkin's next argument has the consitution backwards. He states "The Constitution’s architects were guided by a principle that makes the distinction irrelevant: that Congress should be assigned only those powers that could not effectively be reserved to the states." That is not the case. The Federal government is limited by the constitution. Any power not expressly provided to the Federal government is a States right. States do not gain rights because the federal government chooses to provide them rights. States have rights becasue the Federal government does not have all the power.

Dworkin believes the Solicitor General did a tremendous job defending the law. Dworkin State's that Verrilli offered several ways to distinguish health care from electric cars and broccoli. Verrilli stated that people didn't have to purchase cars and broccoli. That is true but people should have to purchase insurance than either. The premise of Verrilli's argument is that everyone will partake in health services someday so they should be forced to purchase insurance to pay for the health services. Can't the same said to be true of cars? Everyone will take part in transportation throughout their entire life. Shouldn't the government then feel compelled to order everyone to purchase a car? Health care is an industry same as transportation. Insurance is a vehicle to obtain health care the same as a care is a vehicle to provide transportation. See direct comparisons must be made. We need apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Almost everyone will live in a dwelling should the government be able to force people to start paying at birth to purchase a house?

People like Dworkin and others on the left make a big deal out of humanity in cases like this. They say things like common decency, the human element, and emotional well being. I would argue that most laws are based on the human part of things. If humanity were not part of the equation then there would be no manmade laws, there would only be natural law.

Another argument made by Dworkin is thatthis was the only way to bring down health care costs. That is not correct. This law represents the ultra liberal viewpoint of things. There were other alternatives, they were just not appealing to the liberal eltiists. Why did the Congress look at opening borders to commerce? This would have afforded individuals to shop around for insurance across state lines. This would be part of the commerce clause. Instead of forcing individuals to purchase a private product, this would have created more competition and lowered insurance rates as now individuals would have been enabled to search around the country for an insurance plan that would best cover their needs. Why didn't Congress go into tort reform? Many of the excess costs in health insurance are due to outrageous torts that increase costs on Doctor's to practice medicine which of course get passed along to the consumer. The reason the liberals didn't go after tort reform is because the trial lawyers opposed tort reform and trial lawyers are a special interest group to the liberals in government.

Finally, here is what Dworkin claims as rhetorical force.

The rhetorical force of their examples, about making people buy electric cars or broccoli, depends on a very popular but confused assumption: that it would be tyrannical for any government to force its citizens to buy what they do not want. In fact both national and state governments steadily coerce people to do just that through taxation: they make them buy police and fire protection and to pay for foreign wars whether they want these or not. There is no reason in political principle why government should not make people pay directly for these services through insurance rather than indirectly through the mechanics of taxation: direct payment would be no greater compromise of freedom. In fact Massachusetts does make people buy health insurance: that mandate is at the core of that state’s health care program, on which the national Act was partly based. Almost no one—apart from Michele Bachmann—has argued that the Massachusetts mandate is unconstitutional.

Massachusetts is different. Massachusetts is a State and States have rights. The Federal government is expressly told what they are empowered to do and everything else is retained by the States. Maybe Mr. Dworkin needs to go back to school. It is not the opponents that are confused. It is people like him that use emotion to confuse the issue.

Let me ask Mr. Dworkin on question as he uses Social Security as an example of Social products forcing everyone to participate to provide for others?

DO you understadn why there is a so Called "lockbox" filled with Treasury notes and not cash? It is because it is unconstitutional for the Government to retain cash from one year to the next. It is because taxation is supposed to pay only for one year's expenses not not be retained for rainy days. So Mr. Dworkin, it is your social programs that are bankrupting this country and people like you want to continue burdening our young so you can feel good about yourself.

The bottom line is: if this law and individual mandate is upheld, there is no limit to what the federal government is able to do. Yes, if this law is upheld, there will be a loss of freedom guaranteed in our constitution. The government would than be enabled to force us to purchase anything they deemed important to the ountry. Everyone must purchase electric cars becasue of global warming, every must purchase broccolli for their health, everyone must purchase a cell phone so they can call emergency services. This bill has to be overturned in its entirety. The Congress removed the severability clause because they knew without forcing people to purchase a commercial product there would be no way to pay for this feel good about yourself program. There were and are other ways to reduce health care costs and the cost of insurance. There are ways to entice people to purchase insurance without coercion and threat of punishment. The problem is that to liberals and people like Dworkin, there is no other way than Governmental elitist rule. This law was rammed down our throats against the will of the poeple. It was not passed by large majorities as the President has claimed it passed by a slim 219-212 margin by a single party. In fact the only bi-partisanship in this matter was opposition. The left was made aware that the people believed the law unconstitutional repeated before it passed. These arguments were laughed off by the left. That the left in America, Dworkin, and his ilk, are desparate to fulfill some self actualization inner need does not make the Constitution antiquated, it makes these people selfish and irrespponsible.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Amazing: That's Obama's Defense???

Obama's defense of his health care plan is simply amazing. Originally, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, mentioned such things as "of course it constitutional", "You have to read it to find out what's in it", "are you kidding me", and "well, that's what elections are for". Then these partisan hacks jammed the bill down our throats along partisan lines. Now Obama is begging the Supreme Court not to throw out his partisan bill because of the large majorities in which it passed, and oh by the way the Suprmemes are unelected.

Let's take apart Obama's arguments from yesterday. One this monstrosity of a bill passed by the slimmest of margins in the house. The bill passed solely by a partisan vote by only a few votes (219-212). The only thing bi-partisan was the vote against the bill. I'm sorry Mr. President but this is not a large majority. Secondly, while it is correct that the Supreme Court is not elected but that is by design. In case the President is unaware, it is the job of the Supremes to strike down unconstitutional laws. Isn't it the Supreme Court that struck down Abortion laws in ROE v Wade? Wasn't it the Supreme Court that struck down "death penalty" laws in the 1970"s? So sorry Mr. President but striking down unconstitutional laws is not unprecented. It is not judicial activism when a Justice applies the words of the constitution to laws. it is judicial activism when a Justice places words in the Consitution that are not there. For instance, ruling that burning the flag in protest is "freedom of speech". I am not sure what speech burning the flag pertains to but it has to be non verbal. The facts are this abomination of a law did not pass by large majorities of elected officials and the Supreme's have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the laws. This is not unprecendented.

What we know is that the initial vote by the Supreme's must have leaked and Obama knows he is a loser. This is not as partisan as the media will make it out to be as I foresee either a 5-4 to 6-3 decision. Even Justice Stephens seems aghast that the federal government is able to threaten State's with withholding State's own dollars to pay for medicare expansion. The bottom line is a majority disliked the law to begin with, a majority of the people still disagree with the law, a majority of the States have sued the Federal Government over the law, and even a majority of people that agree with the law itself agree that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. As Joe Biden siad " this is a big Effing deal". I am sorry Mr. President, but the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government and has a responsibility. Your Obamacare Law is still as unpopular as it was when you had Pelosi and Reid jam it down our throats, and no it did not pass with large majorities. It passed by slimmest majorities on final passage in both the House and the Senate. You had a large majority in the House andn a filibuster proof Senate and you still had to use rules gimmicks in order to pass this ill fated bill. Just remember, it was the Democrats who wanted to deem this monstrosity passed without even holding a floor vote because it was so unpopular. Also the Senate had to deem it a spending bill in order to pass on a simple majority. Additionally, while the Cornhusker kickback was removed other gimmicks to get the votes of Mary Landreui were not. If this is your defense Mr. President, then your law deserves to perish into the dust bin of history. Your only significant accomplishment should be found unconstitutional.

Monday, April 2, 2012

We Need An Energy Plan

America is in dire need of an energy plan that will reduce the price at the pump, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and expand our infrastructure to produce energy. The media right now is busy touting that the President can't reuce the price at the pump as that is out of his control. Never mind that the same media types in 2008 showed the sitting President no such deference. The Current President claims he is an "all of the above" candidate. However a look into his policies and we see a President only interested in one avenue and that is the green avenue.

The President is disinterested in drilling our own resources. Rather than expand off shore drilling or opening up ANWR for more exploration, the President uses numbers to deceive the public. Obama claims wew only have 2% of the World's reserves. That is deceiving as the number only includes known reserves and not what further exploring and research could produce. There are estimates that the amount of oil we possess is as large if not larger than what Suadi Arabia possesses. Perhaps if we didn't have a Presidnet bent on destroying our oil industry we could have a policy that allowed us to be a major oil exporter and allow us to have a say in the price for oil. I can tell you that in Suadi Arabia they are not paying $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline.

The Presidnet is disinterested in the coal industry. Obama has his EPA freaks out writing regulations that are forcing plants to close and forcing companies to lay off middle income workers. Obama has no plan to offset the loss of energy producing coal plants he just wants them closed. Obama's only answer is to invest in his crony capitalists Solar companies that are going bankrupt right and left leaving the taxpayer holding the bag in Obama's failed endeavors. At least Obama could allow the coal plants to remian open and opertional until we had something developed to replace the coal fired plants. Obama may himself not be able to lower the price we pay for energy but he could stop the prices from ever increasing.

Obama is disinterested in Nuclear technology. Obama isn't out there harnessing the power that nuclear plants could produce. See it is too dangerous on the environment. Jeez what if something happened like the Tsunami in Japan? We would be in great danger if we had a meltdown. Nope we can't go nuclear but we can invest in electric cars. Of course the electric cars take a power plant that produces electricity to recharge the batteries but we won't mention that because it won't be fossil fuels directly.

The bottom line is we need a comprehensive energy plan; one that incudes an "all of the above" strategy. We don't need a President claiming an "all of the above" campaign slogan that is more like we want an all of the above strategy unless it includes drilling, nuclear, coal, or shale. When the Presidnet is out there hailing algae over our own resources we know he has no plan other than to continue wasting tax payer dollars.

A Media Jump To Judgment

Fox News and Newsbusters just exposed NBC for being the pathetic pawns we all knew they were. Rather than investigate and report on facts it seems NBC creatively edited the 911 call made by George Zimmerman to fan the flames of racism. Rather than report that Zimmerman was asked for the race of the person Zimmerman was reporting as up to no good, NBC attempts to deceive the public into believing it was Zimmerman that was out there racial profiling. It was NBC that had Zimmerman volunterring that Trayvon Martin's race was black and not that the dispatcher actually inquired about race.

Now let's be clear, it is a tragedy that Trayvon Martin was killed. However, this was not a murder as was pushed by the New Black Panther Party. We don't know yet whether or not Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter or not. There is evidence that Trayvon may have instigated the fight that led to his death. From personal experience with "kids" on the local street corner I can telll you they are rude and obstinate. The kids believe they own the streets and are not subject to common courtesy. We don't know if Trayvon confronted Zimmerman for following him or not. We do know that Zimmerman called 911 and reported suspicious behavior by a person he did not recognize as being from the neighborhood. We do know that Trayvon had a history of of being confrontational and involved in drug use. He was just suspended from his school for having a "baggy" with marijuana residue. We know something wnet horribly wrong and that a fight between Trayvon and Zimmerman ensued.

We need the media to stop fanning the flames of racism and start investigating the facts. Did Zimmerman initiate the confrontation or did Trayvon? Did Zimmerman, defend himself becasue or having his nose broken and head slammed against the ground or not? Was Trayvon the upstanding child the left wants us to belive or was he a thug as described by Zimmerman? Do we as a nation want people to be bystanders watching violence to happen or do we want neighborhood watch groups? See neighborhood watch groups are going to target individuals that look suspicious. Neighborhood watch groups are going to use racial profiling when determining if soemone appears suspicious or not; that is what they do, they look for the things that stand out and are out of the ordinary. We already know that the police and fire departments have no obligation to protect individuals when danger persists. DO we really want a nation of lawlessness? A country where we have to be so politically correct that we can't protect our neighborhood's? A country where the citizens pacifly watch violence and hope it doesn't happen to them? The media has to become so much more the the pathetic pawns of the political left.