SamSaid!

Taxation is at the heart of the BamBam/McCain campaigns. It comes down to individual freedom versus share the wealth. More precisely it comes down to robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Dems are clever word-smiths in addressing their plan of action. They prefer, “fairness”, “equity”, “care for your fellow man”,etc, etc. There is only one term that makes them gag  –  redistribution of income. They detest even mentioning that phrase and you will rarely hear any of them even saying the word, re-distribution — even though that is exactly what they mean.  They excoriate the “rich” and routinely condemn those who are successful. Is taking money from one group and giving to another group fairness or is a form of theft with government support. It isn’t enough that we have progressive taxation and that 40% of citizens pay ZERO income tax. The tax structure is progressive only to those who pay any taxes at all, and the heaviest burden falls on the upper income levels. And that is bad??

No, the Democrats find no fault with progressive taxation. That just gives them a target for further confiscation of income to distribute as they see fit. But you will never hear them call it what it is. In talking to the so called middle class, just ask them if they think it is fair to take money  you earned and give it to someone who didn’t earn it and then call it “fair”. Why work when you can get it for free?

Redistribution of income. See how often BamBam uses that term to justify his eco policies.  Be sure to get a comfortable chair.

Sarah Pilan entered the major  leagues of politics with a big splash at the Republican National Convention, and has been in the public spotlight ever since, not only on the campaign trail  but on TV as well. Although relatively inexperienced, she is bright, spirited, knowledgeable, and refreshing. The Democrats at first didn’t know what to do about her but then quickly reverted to style by launching  a media attack upon her  –  personally.  It was broadside from bloggers, websites, left wing journalists and the captive TV networks –  CBS,NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and a wide range of magazines. MISSION:  Destroy Sarah.  Keep BamBam out of the line of fire, but plant the stories and destroy Sarah.

For the Dems, she presents  a damaging image and a potentially large obstacle on the road to socialism.  Solution  –  destroy Sarah  quickly.

It may not be that easy because her presence rang a bell with millions of viewers/citizens/voters. Maybe she won’t offer enough to carry John McCain to victory, but she won’t disappear anytime soon. If she decides to remain in politics, she will be a prominent figure for years to come.

The Dems did themselves proud at their Convention in St.Louis — good enough to make their Hollywood producers joyful. It was not as good as the Beijing Olympics, but that was a tough act to follow. The main fare at any convention is speeches, and here is my take on the prominent ones, remembering that this is the occasion when all of the pitchmen play one-upmanship

HILLARY — Best speech she has ever given. Content, style, delivery — good job. Gotta give her credit Her message to the delegates, “I will support Obama, but you picked the wrong candidate.”

Bill — He hasn’t lost his touch and was totally comfortable, except that being #2 is not his idea of having fun. He relished every minute of being center stage.

Joe Biden — Obama didn’t do him any favors by putting him after Bill on the Agenda. He becomes that familiar fellow, “Ole whatzzizname”. But he was well scripted.

The Repubs went as expected in St. Paul untill the bombshell went off. Early on, The VP selection of the Gov of Alaska was a big question mark — at least until she had a chance to speak

SARA — She hit a home run and changed the whole outlook on the election

JOHN MCKAIN — Certainly one of his better efforts. Not a spellbinder, but a clear message well delivered. Give him a two-base hit, maybe a triple.

The Dems don’t know what to do about Sara, but the bad mouthing has begun. That’s risky business for the Dems, and Obama knows that.

What do we do about our dependence on foreign oil? Right now, we import about 70 % of the oil we use in the USA — and most of that comes from the middle east. There are really only 2 choices available to us — either import less or produce more domestically. Since we have the capacity and the ability to produce more ourselves, that by itself would reduce the amount needed via imports. I don’t think it takes a mathematical genius to conclude that producing more of our own oil will solve several problems — or at least go a long way toward solution. Common sense tells me that is the way to go. But in Washington and among our left wing elites, common sense isn’t all that common. Even if alternative energy sources are developed in the next 10 years, we will still need huge amounts of oil until we catch up with new technologies.

Most of us are sensitive to environmental concerns, but not to the extent of ostrich like “greens” who seem oblivious to some certainties that are plain to see. There is no way to get immediate relief from $4 gasoline. But we can put in motion the measures to get us to long term remedy. Drilling more of our own oil is an intermediate solution that is completely in our hands. We can, and should, pursue wind power, bio fuels, etc, but forseeably the primary energy sources will still be fossil fuels and nuclear power. Right now, the alternative energy push is closer to a pipe dream than a reality. They may be worth a lot of research, but don’t ho;d your breath. Personally, I am not comfortable living at the mercy of the oil kingdoms of the middle east, and the sooner we can achieve a high degree of energy independence, the better off we all will be. Drilling is not the full answer, but it is a big step forward.

Alas, it all comes down to common sense — a commodity that seems to be increasingly uncommon.

I was amused last week to listen and read about news that Michelle Obama has been assigned to a different role in the Obama campaign.  She will no longer address policy matters and will be involved as a back-up player. While announcing the change, the Obama handlers stressed her great talents and the critically important role she will continue to play as the campaign heads for the White House. But it occurred to me that there was more to the change than that.  –  i.e., if she is so talented and valuable, why make the change to a secondary role?

Just ask yourself a couple of questions. If she is such an asset to the campaign, why wouldn’t she be out in front with all vocal guns blazing?? On the other hand, if her tendency to get foot-in- mouth disease is looked upon as a negative, wouldn’t she be better located on the back burner?

Easy choice  –  she is now on the back burner.  The Obama handlers made a good decision. To many folks she comes across as a black lady with a chip on her shoulder

Prominent historians and sociologists have observed that it takes 40-50 years for major technological change to take full effect in the USA.  It was true for Steam engines, railroads, the commercial aircraft industry, Radio, TV, electronics, antibiotics, computers etc etc. Major change just doesn’t take place overnight. Right now, we live in an oil driven economy and the elites huff and puff about about ending our dependence on oil  –  particularly foreign oil.  In their anti-oil campaign, they simply ignore harsh practicality  — all in the name of the environment and global warming. Under the best of circumstances, it would take decades to replace oil with alternate energy sources. No matter, they say, we MUST end the dependence on oil  –  now.

The leftist drum beat continues  –  no drilling for oil, no processing oil shale, no nuclear power. Just rely on windmills, solar panels, water power etc etc. and let hundreds of thousands of cars run out of gas. What do they think hundreds of thousands of people will do without gasoline until this pie in the sky millenium arrives?  What is the game plan for the intervening 30-40 years?  How does our economy function? Details, details, they say. We have to see the big picture.

The tragic fact is that many of these nutcases really believe this baloney and they are willing to place their global warming hokum over the priority of the security of the country. And it is equally tragic that we have 500 elected people in Washington who don’t have the gumption to stand up and be counted. Gumption, gutless or ignorant. Take your pick.

If Mr Obama wants “change”, all he has to do is read the newspapers or watch TV. There is lots of change going on  –  all around him. Doing something about it is a different story.

The Dow Jones average is bouncing back a forth between 12,000 and 13,000, sometimes leaping or dipping by 350 points is a day. It’s enough to keep investors in their sneakers carrying pole vault poles.

Unemployment has risen to 5.5 %.  Not good. Gasoline averages $4 per gallon at the pump  –  $4.50 on the West coast. Big surge of support and demand for public transportation.

The price of crude oil is nearing $140 with $150 in sight.

The Republicans point to successes in Iraqi and the Dems ignore anything they can’t bad-mouth.

On energy or war supporting programs,the Dems are dragging their feet.  “Fiddling while Rome burns??” Some things change, some don’t.

Ethanol doesn’t seem to have helped much in the battle for energy independence. In fact, it seems to have hurt. Has anyone admitted that they made a mistake? A very costly mistake?

I haven’t noticed  — has Las Vegas quoted the odds of McCain vs Obama??

The Presidential election of 1960 was a landmark event in the political history of this country. It was Kennedy vs Nixon. More important than the outcome, it was the birth of the Pitchman in days of National TV.  If ever there was a guy born for politics and TV, it was Jack Kennedy. H e was young, handsome, articulate, bright and engaging. His TV image was superb. In comparison, he was all the things that Nixon was not. Obviously, Kennedy won.

In some of the subsequent elections there was no spellbinder and the influence of TV was less decisive. Then along came Ronald Reagan who was a pitchman par excellance, and Bill Clinton who also was impressive with words (Gotta give him credit).  They both won twice. Now we have another word merchant  –  Obama.  Where there is a difference in TV imagery, the pitchman clearly has the advantage. McCain could have a clear advantage in dealing with the issues, but he will be swimming upstream against the flowery rhetoric of Obama who keeps saying the same things.  Right now, the favored son  of the mass media — written and visual  –  is Obama and that will make the pitchmanship advantage even greater unless John Q Public can see thru the rhetorical smokescreen.

Obama is a rookie and he is simply not equipped to deal with matters of substance. Maybe his “eloquence” will backfire, but on a going in basis, he will have the advantage in debates and appearances.

Do you really feel comfortable with Obama driving the train, flipping the switch , or saying “go”??  Flambouyant phrases do not equate to sound judgment. S far, I am not convinced!

In the hey day of rural America there were any number of periodicals that featured gems of wisdom from the farm folks. A memorable one (for me) was “You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” How true it is. You don’t hear this old axiom very ofter nowadays, but it is truer than ever — particularly when it comes to education.

In the last 3-4 decades we have spend ungodly amounts on education — at all levels, pre-school. elementary, secondary, College, Graduate school, etc. Hundreds of millions. And the solution posed by all of the Pro-Ed people is just to keep throwing money at the problem. But obviously, that simple solution doesn’t work, and virtually all of the data compiled affirms that conclusion. Don’t grade students, don’t encourage competition, don’t use tests, don’t enforce discipline. And what does all of that get us?? The plain fact is that kids will get educated when they want to be educated — and that falls on the shoulders of parents. No one else.

You can hire the best teachers, pay them more, build super facilities and spend more an more and more — and just keep pumping the money down what seems to be an endlessly deep hole. But we still get “graduates” who can’t read or write but can utterly disrupt the school operations. Are most of these kids inner city blacks? Yes they are — and at the risk of being branded a racist or bigot, I’m willing to stand up when the facts are on my side. Just as you can’t take a horse to water and make him drink, you can’t take black hoodlums to school and MAKE them learn. If they ever learn, it will be when they WANT to learn.

For me it is very disappointing to see and hear Bill Cosby speak to the obvious while so many black “leaders” keep spouting the old story –” Victimhood” and “White man’s problem”. Baloney, Every minority that ever came to this country fought their way upward and earned a place in this society, and they were led by leaders who didn’t just sit back and whimper and whine. That’s what is so contemptuous about Bab Bam’s preacher. Disgusting.

The secondary schools are burdened by far too many who just don’t want to learn — and many of their black leaders support them.

At election time, there are a few thoughts worthy of special attention. How are these for starters??

The easiest task for politicians is spending someone else’s money. Any quarrel here??

The ability of a government to transfer wealth to some of its citizens depends entirely on its ability to take it away from someone else.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. For doubters, see immediately preceding comment.

“Change” is like beauty — all in the eyes of the beholder. My change is good — yours is not.

All a clever lawyer needs is a Half of a fact. Not the whole fact — half is generally enough. Don’t get carried away about this Justice stuff. Get your client off — nothing is in second place.

Think about how many idiots and dumdums can cancel your vote. Still think that your vote counts?

Still sympathetic to illegals, convicts, and other — “voters”??