I'm sure most of you have seen this, the Sarah Palin mannequin hanging from a house in California. Not only is Sarah Palin being lynched, but John McCain is surrounded by flames at the top of the chimney, as if he's emerging.

The question is, are people taking this election a little too far? Or is this election important enough, when we have a man trying to change the very principles this country was founded on...

My take on this Halloween display is - why do it?

News reporters that interviewed the two men (I'm assuming couple) who live at the house, they claim the display is harmless, fun, and portray it as art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smPHCPFvwwY

So, if I took a mannequin, dressed like Obama and hung it from my house (for Halloween) - I STRONGLY BELIEVE the police would be at my house, the words 'hate crime' and 'racist' would surface, and it would be frowned upon. The two even admit that Obama would be innapropriate to hang, so why is Palin fair game? Why is John McCain okay to appear in flames? Someone shed some light, because I don't get it.

courtesy CBS

Courtesy CBS

At last, the politically incorrect teen has returned.

For starters, I love my title - courtesy of Rush Limbaugh.

Ever since Palin handed the presidency to McCain, liberals are scrambling, but really are running around in circles trying to dig up some good dirt…and good points.  

Not only did Obama manage to make a stupid remark way-back-when, in regards to small town voters about, ‘clinging to their guns and religion’, but he also managed to make a foolish remark against Palin and refer to Bush/McCain plans as an ‘old fish wrapped in newspaper.’ Yes, it really isn’t that big of a deal, but considering there has been cheap shots at Palin ever since she emerged– US Weekly, for example, we’ll eat it up until the next story.  I’m sure we’ve all seen the cover with Palin and her son, along with the “Babies, Lies, and Scandal”, in nice bold letters too. But if you open that same magazine, you’ll find on three pages, a spread of Michelle Obama’s stellar fashion sense and cheesy phrases.

Obama used to lead McCain in white-women votes by 8 points, he is now behind by 12 points, so maybe Michelle Obama’s fashion perks can attract those voters back, who knows at this point.

Obama is a truly one of a kind. What he said about Palin, may not have been that big of a deal, but he knows people will take it far enough to make it a big deal…I think it was a lack of judgment. Not surprising, he tends to do that a lot when there isn’t a speech written for him.

And Joe Biden even has questioned Obama’s judgment. He said it himself, that Clinton would have been a better choice than him.

This is the Palin Effect – indulge yourself, enjoy it.

Just a reminder, Thursday is 9/11 and this will be another year gone by without another terror attack on the U.S. – so I would like to thank Bush, even though everyone else thinks he’s a moron.) Be sure to thank your local policemen, firemen, EMT’s, armed forces personnel, etc.. True heroes.

The House GOP’s 8/1 revolt set a fantastic example of good politics on offense. House Republicans should be holding public events every day in Washington to call attention to Pelosi’s anti-drilling block and her refusal to vote on the issue. Every House Republican should be clocking in…starting now!

To me, the best moment on Friday had to be when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-California) pretended to be a Democrat, standing on the other side of the chamber, naming all of the GOP bills that the Democrats killed. He then shouted, “I am a Democrat! And here is my energy plan!” while holding a sign of a VW Bug with a sail attached to it. Underneath the words read: Democrat Energy Plan - Drive Small Cars And Wait For The Wind!

 If I'm not mistaken, I believe there is a VW Bug for sale kiddy-corner of Jessica’s Café – so, my fellow lefties, if you’re interested…there you go, all you need is a sail and little wind!

[Not to mention, that afternoon, Barack Obama followed John McCain and flip-flopped on offshore drilling. This came after he played the race card on three separate occasions this past week. What can I say, he’s on a roll.]

Upon Senator Barack Obama’s grand return to the United States, one of his numerous senior advisers had this to say,

“If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it’s in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it’s in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures…I can’t rule out, I won’t rule out, private security contractors.” He then added, “I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law.”

Basically, he restated what was previously announced February of 2007.

With the US Embassy in Iraq coming to be the largest in world history, a certain little problem arose with that comment. Obama said he would maintain the embassy and keep its diplomats along with US personnel in full swing; but, our troops are unable to protect these individuals. That’s where private military contracting companies come in handy. The three main forces are DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and my personal favorite – Blackwater. As you know, these companies are not held accountable under current US law.

Obama previously proposed an increase in funding to the diplomatic security division, which would seemingly make way for a protective force made up entirely of US government personnel. The process of building such a force will likely take years to bring in agents, train, and deploy them. If elected, Obama may have no choice but to continue contracting arrangements with firms such as the world’s largest company, Blackwater.

To me, making diplomatic security a military operation would pose a serious challenge. Not only would US Military convoys be traveling inside Iraq, virtually crossing into deadly areas on a regular basis, but there simply isn’t enough military personnel to take on the job.

One adviser indicated that unarmed contractors would continue to operate at significant levels. “These contractors are not ONLY providing private security functions like Blackwater… They’re rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they’re doing logistics, they’re driving trucks.”

It’s a shame that no one brought up the notorious slaughter of four Blackwater contractors on March 31, 2004. The men were conducting delivery for food caterers (blood thirsty contractors, I know!). Their convoy was ambushed, their bodies beaten, burnt, dragged through the streets of Fallujah, and then their dismembered remains hung from a bridge crossing the Euphrates River.

In this case, the men were lightly armed transferring aid through a potentially deadly area. The last thing you want to do during a war, is leave individuals walking, driving, flying, etc. around unarmed, or lightly armed for that matter.

But, this whole Obama situation seems to be a little bit of a paradox!! It was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 presenting a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. I recall, Obama’s staff saying “we’ll fight like hell to get it passed!” By the time the next president is in office, this bill will likely not be passed in time. If it does, and President Bush signs it, questions will remain open for answering about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively.

The senior adviser acknowledged that Senator Obama could indeed find himself in a situation, as president, if he continues using forces he has labeled ‘unaccountable.’

I'm wondering if he used any private military contractors on his trip -- and I'm not doubting it at this point.

Quite frankly, I’d like to hear more about the new Batman movie and its reviews for making box office history, versus Obama’s overseas trip and how wonderful he’s being played-up to be. To say the least, I’ve had my fill of Barack Obama.

Armed with 300 foreign policy advisors, 10,000 press secretaries, and three top news anchors: Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson – Obama is ready for the camera! All he needs to do now is remember what his advisors told him during hair and makeup.

After being on the ground in Afghanistan for no more than two days, Obama came up with a brilliant plan…to put more troops in Afghanistan! Well, France has plans to send out 1,000 troops, Germany plans to send 1,000, the UK plans to send troops making it past 8,000, and Bush announced he’ll be sending more by the end of this month – thanks Obama for finally getting on board! Not to mention, McCain has now brought up the possibility of a surge in Afghanistan…and Obama had the nerve to call McCain a copycat!

Meanwhile, during Obama’s visit to Afghanistan, for some reason there was no mention about the air-raiding and bombing of villages as previously put forth. But, that’s okay, the media oversaw that and there won’t be any mention of it.

With his plan already set in stone for a 16 month timetable, we’ll see what’s to come during the current visit to Iraq.

Tuesday or Wednesday, Obama is expected to arrive in Israel, where I am excited to hear about his responses to questions concerning Iran - what his plans are, as president, for disarming Iran of missiles and possible nuclear weapons, if it’s not already done so by November.

It’s frustrating to see that the media will stop at nothing to get Obama elected. There’s a big difference between policy and politics! So, if the media isn't willing to come out and say it...I will: Obama is nothing more than a moron, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Last week, Senator Obama had reportedly lashed out once again concerning the war in Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down."

Last year, when the war was in full swing, Obama proposed a timetable to withdraw all U.S. troops within the next 16 months. Last week, with the war being at its lowest bloodshed level since the beginning, Obama insisted the same plan. Earlier this month, Obama even hinted he will consider revising his Iraq strategy after visiting the country.

There’s a noticeable difference between both McCain and Obama’s plan: McCain has suggested that his timetable for the return of our troops, would be in early 2013. Obama’s timeline would end during the summer of 2010, about a year and half earlier than dates proposed recently by the members of the Iraqi government. Both McCain and Iraqis said the withdrawal of U.S. troops would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from troops - as they have begun to do so already.

Obama on the other hand, allows no such connection to be made, he more or less will force Iraqis to take responsibility of a currently unstable country.

During Obama’s first proposed plan, he argued that troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He insisted that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence. Well, he was wrong. Now, he describes the situation as “an achievable goal that we leave Iraq to a government taking responsibility for its future… a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.”

Obama recently stated that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government, as well as “make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy.”  Now, I could be wrong, but don’t you think it would make more sense telling America your “strategy and intentions” after traveling to Iraq…after meeting with Iraqi leadership and General Petraeus?

I can almost guarantee you that American commanders will tell Obama that from a logical standpoint, 16 months will be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Iraqis will likely say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will literally be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. Now, If Obama truly intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

AND, to throw in a little bit more, Obama called the McCain surge "a complete failure" only after it had just begun. He also said that the surge would take a reverse effect of tamping down al-Qaeda…wrong again So, the Obama campaign pulled all information linked to his negative standpoints on the surge from his website and replaced it with kinder, more supportive words.

Say what you will, but I'M sorry to say folks, the inconsistency of Obama shows he simply isn’t fit for president. 

Recently, seventeen students of Gloucester High School, in Massachusetts, have become pregnant. Now, whether or not this sudden jump of teen pregnancies was a pact between the students or a crazy coincidence, you can't help but think - why are these CHILDREN pregnant?

There's several different theories as to why the girls decided to let the bun start baking.

The first one I heard, was the girls had either troubles with their boyfriends, family, or friends and wanted to feel unconditional love from someone. In their minds, a baby that knows its mother, was the answer - I can guarantee, those girls won't be feeling any unconditional love once that baby starts screaming at 3am.

The second possible reason, was they wanted a child to take care of to show their responsibility as teenagers, that they can do things on their own. Having a child at that age, is certainly not responsible in anyway. Just because you're at the age your reproductive organs are ready for use, doesn't mean you will be with the result.

The third reason, was blaming the government for poor sexual education classes beyond the 9th grade schooling level.

I'm sorry, but the government is not the sole provider for sex education - that's what parents are for. I remember my mom sitting me down in 5th grade and telling me all about the birds and the bees, then again throughout middle school, and even to this day she makes sure it's stuck in my head. She always ends the conversation with, "You choose to have sex and become pregnant, you deal with it yourself - I'm warning you right now, not to be stupid." It's harsh, but she's right. The choice is yours and yours alone.

Besides the story itself, the mayor of Gloucester decided to publically accuse President George Bush for their pregnancies, due to budget cuts in their school funding for health classes and yada yada yada.

Couple questions for the mayor, if budget cuts have caused the end of health education classes in your high school, how is the town able to afford full service health care, child care services, various contraceptives, and pregnancy tests for you students?

And, if these budget cuts have been ongoing for the last seven years, how come the pregnancy rate boomed 400% over the last year, only in your school? Prior to this current situation, your school had pregnancy rates near the average for your state.

With an onsite daycare center for parent-students, available contraceptives, and a school that is open to, "If you get pregnant, we'll help raise your child." Sounds like there's a flaw within the school system itself.

Should high schools be giving out contraceptives to students? Is it sending the message that it’s okay to have sex, as long as it’s safe? Clearly, some kids are going to have sex regardless to what you say, but for the kids who have thought about it, but haven’t engaged in it, should abstinence be the major focus in sex education classes? Should classes be taught more than one time throughout high school? Tell me what you think...

My apologies for keeping a poorly updated blog in the last few weeks. As you know the school year is coming to an end, resulting with wrapping up one last unit before…exams. Soon enough it’ll be back up and running on a more consistent basis.

Besides that, in our U.S. History class we’ve been studying the Vietnam War, one of the great debacles as to whether or not the United States won or lost. To me, the timeline of events somewhat relates to what’s going on right now.

During the time, Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon were running for office, one generation against the other. Similar to an Obama and McCain situation, considering Obama would be the nominee, which we’ve been hearing quite a bit lately.

Kennedy: Wanted to end the war right away

Nixon: Wanted to slowly pull troops out, with peace and honor

Obama: Wants to pull troops out right away

McCain: Has considered fighting for 100 years if needed, but wants to slowly start pulling troops out, winning with peace and honor

Previously, Johnson had escalated the war (Bush), and then Nixon (potentially McCain) would hopefully start decreasing the number of troops, if elected – with hopes of winning the war.

With Nixon elected, he was determined to end the war, armed with his ‘secret plan’. This plan was to use Vietnamization; a term used to sum up the United States supplying Southern Vietnam with weapons that they need, as we slowly turn over the power.

If Obama were to be elected as president, what we certainly don’t want to do is what Ford did, after replacing Nixon – suddenly pulling out all of our troops, fleeing South Vietnam. That’s when countless innocent lives are lost for no excuse other than being completely unprepared.

There are many different allegations as to why Ford pulled out so quickly, going against what Nixon had planned. The most plausible explanation could be from the bad reputation the United States received after Watergate and the ongoing war, which by then seemed to have no point.

It seems as if history is repeating itself here. Hopefully, we can look back upon our past and learn from our mistakes.

Both Democratic Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised to restrict free trade agreements, blaming the amount of job losses in the United States on outsourcing.

Clinton wants to put an end to all new trade agreements and strictly enforce the current agreements, including NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement.)

Obama blames the politicians in Washington for approving trade agreements that he says are bad for the economy because they don’t protect the workers.

There are two misleading notions about these arguments:

Current job outsourcing is a result of the decreasing rate U.S. competitiveness and importance/value of the job itself, not free trade agreements. The downward rate of the U.S. competitiveness is a result of improper education. This especially comes into play with jobs concerning technology, engineering, and science.

Free trade agreements help the economy more than hurt it. This is due to increased trade opening new markets for businesses to sell their products. For example: NAFTA recently has increased trade from $297 billion to $810 billion. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that ending all trade barriers would increase the U.S. income by $500 billion.

Increasing U.S. protectionism will further slow economic growth and cause more layoffs, not less. If the U.S. regresses and closes its borders, other countries will more than likely do the same, resulting with an economic domino theory. This easily could cause layoffs among the 12 million U.S. workers who owe their jobs to exports.

While there needs to be necessary adjustments to new and changing circumstances, free trade between nations ultimately benefit all who participate. Protectionism can only lead us down a road to impoverishment and international commercial tensions.

"I would say that the U.S. side should not have moved to renew the contract before the outstanding issues with this company are finalized. I feel this decision was taken without the approval of the Iraqi government."

Last September's shooting outraged the Iraqi government and enforced the State Department to change aspects of its deal with Blackwater, including tightening up rules of engagement and putting cameras on all security convoys.

As you may know, I'm a radical supporter of Blackwater and Erik Prince's decisions - this news is music to my ears.

With people in search for that special change that’s being granted oh-so-many times by Democrats, the Republican status is at an all-time low.

Yet somehow, John McCain seems to be holding his own, perhaps being the only electable Republican in the nation. Conservatives, like myself, may not be thrilled with what McCain has to offer, but we know, what controls the legislative and judicial branches, swiftly moves in favor for us in the long run.

If McCain were to lose, he should still be able to save a couple of Senate seats and a number of House seats.

For McCain to start getting a better vibe, he needs to be able to compete against a Democratic nominee. All of the nitpicking between Obama and Clinton eventually will boost McCain.

Currently, McCain is shown that he’s closely ahead or dead even of both Obama and Clinton.

There’s an expected bounce of a Democratic candidate gaining 10 points once the primary race is finished. With McCain lagging behind 10 points or so, it’s clear he’ll have a shot. If the bounce brings in more than 15 points the opposite will occur – the sooner the bounce happens, the more time McCain has to repossess himself.

Depending on who is the Democratic nominee, McCain will have different strategies to claim the presidency.

If Clinton ends up being the nominee, he’ll have to focus more on the Midwest and West, similar to what Bush had done in 2000 and 2004.

If Obama gets chosen, McCain’s focus will more than likely shift to the East and possibly even out into the Northeast.

If chosen, Clinton will be an easier opponent to defeat, concerning younger voters, white male independents, and the fact ‘Clinton’ is the name standing, which isn’t appealing to numerous people.

In order to excel against Obama, McCain will have to pursue a powerful economic strategy in the Rust Belt, which we all know isn’t his strength. To boost his appearance on economic terms, he could very well choose Mitt Romney as a running mate, almost for certain grabbing Michigan and New Hampshire.

Little pointed out, “Our $50 fill-ups may seem intolerably high to many of us, but consider what it’s costing him: more than $1,200 to fill his truck, which then gets about 5 miles to the gallon.”

 

“Where is this magic set of railroad tracks, leading to every grocery store and Wal-Mart in the country?” he asked. “Even if you could ship everything on the rail system we have, which would be impossible, how does it move from there?”

I'll keep you updated on this story as it unfolds.

 Website for the movement: www.americanfuelconsumersmovement.com

With Tuesday’s events being called the Second Super Tuesday, it certainly seemed to be the appropriate name for the evening’s poll counts.

"I am very, very grateful and pleased to note that tonight, my friends, we have won enough delegates to claim with confidence, humility and a great sense of responsibility, that I will be the Republican nominee for president of the United States," McCain told supporters Tuesday night.

John McCain swept all of the four nominating contests on Tuesday evening, to become the Republican Presidential Nominee. McCain won in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. With these winnings, McCain rounded up over 1,919 delegate votes, which you may be aware of, is the total count needed to close the nomination.

Huckabee dropped out of the presidential race after being aware of the current numbers and McCain’s current position.

"It's now important that we turn our attention not to what could have been or what we wanted to have been, but now what must be -- and that is a united party," Huckabee told supporters in Dallas.

As you know, I don't like McCain (neither Clinton or Obama, as well) - but I knew this situation was going to arise sooner or later.

Possible new strategy: I should support Hillary Clinton in order for her to grasp the nomination and be elected as the next Commander in Chief. Then, two years into her term, she disrupts the plans of the United States and ends up with a downward spiral. With that in mind, the American people recall Hillary Rodham Clinton, along with dismissing her vice president, therefore, having another small election. Resulting, that the people of America realize that the democratic process isn’t necessarily the correct way to go about running a nation.

The remaining candidates aren’t really a choice at this point, so I’m a little happy I don’t have to take part with voting in this election.

Instead of always taking a serious route on politics, I’ll change it up for once.

Recently, I’ve come across a new way to express your feelings on the remaining presidential candidates. CNN’s Jack Cafferty, presented a blog post to his viewers, in regards to picking theme songs for the candidates. Some of which, are very creative. (My favorite was probably the Star Wars themed selection.)

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/pick-a-campaign-theme-song/#comments

As you know, music plays a big part in almost everything. The candidate’s campaigns surely need the right music, whether it’s to…pump up the crowd, set a mood, send a message, etc. For each event, they have a new song, so this is your chance…show your creativity.

I guess I’ll throw mine in…I came up with a couple for each one.

1.) “Runnin’ Down A Dream” - Tom Petty

2.) “You Can’t Hide Your Lie’n Eyes” The Eagles

1.) "Dude Looks Like A Lady” - Aerosmith

2.) “It’s My Party And I’ll Cry If I Want To” - Lesley Gore

1.) A movement from Bach or Mozart, that way he can relate to his early years of life.

2.) “Which Side Are You On” - Dropkick Murphys

1.) “Countin’ On A Miracle”- (MY MAN)…Bruce Springsteen

2.) “Minister Of Rock And Roll” - Lenny Kravitz

1.) “Who Are You?” - The Who

2.) “Hello, Is Anybody Out There” - Pink Floyd

1.) “Here I go again” - Whitesnake

2.) “Don’t Come Around Here No More” - Tom Petty

Harmless way to poke some fun at the candidates. If you post, please keep the titles appropriate.

On Wednesday, President George W. Bush signed an economic stimulus plan, that includes tax rebates for almost all Americans. This package is also designed to offer tax breaks motivating businesses to invest.

This evening, Mike Huckabee made a campaign stop at the Country Springs Hotel, in Pewaukee. It was a public event that took place in the ballroom, starting around 7:00pm. I arrived at about 5:45pm and there was a solid 100 supporters waiting in line, anxious for the doors to open. The energy from the people tonight was most certainly uplifting for Huckabee, after receiving no delegate votes, from the last round of primaries.

[Huckabee supporters.]

Huckabee's speech tonight, touched base on a lot of issues. The first thing he said was "Nobody has a total of 1,191 delegate votes yet, therefore I will not give up, for there is no reason to! I will take McCain all the way into November and settle things the old fashioned way - I will certainly be in this until the end." He reassured people that even though the math doesn't work out and people are saying he doesn't have a chance to catch up to McCain…he's not backing down. "It's not time for our campaign to start winding down, it's time to start winding up."

Another important topic he went over tonight, that I’ve heard before from his last speeches, was, "In order for America to be free, we need to have three things. One, we need to be able to feed our families, you don't like the food you've got now, well you won't like it coming from a foreign country. Two, we need to be able to fuel ourselves. We need to use our own system for fueling and move toward energy independence, here in the United States, so we can tell those other countries that we need your fuel, as much as we need your sand. And three, we need to be able to fight for ourselves. We need to have a stronger military, so our enemies will stop and think twice about engaging upon us."

[Mike Huckabee informing everyone, he's not backing down.]

After his speech, I made my way into the press room behind the stage (I will not share details of how I got back there ha-ha) and I had the opportunity to do some amateur journalism. TV stations were setting up cameras for interviews, as I stood there by myself with my digital camera and notepad. Huckabee entered and was first greeted by myself and WISN's news anchor Terry Sater, whom I was chatting with seconds before he appeared. Sater gave Huckabee an interview and when he was finished Gov. Mike Huckabee walked over to me. And here’s what I asked him…

Governor Huckabee, you say having the world's strongest military is crucial, which I agree with myself, but where do you stand when it comes to private military contracting companies, such as Blackwater?

"I support private military contracting companies, I support Blackwater very much with what they're doing. I think that our military and Blackwater in particular, can get things done more efficiently. It depends on the contract though, as you may know, Blackwater had a few incidents where they were out of line, but I do support them...depending on the contract. I think they need more oversight on their actions.”

When you said we need a short-term stimulus package, but we need to do more, can you explain what that something more is?

“My short-term economic policies will move us toward our long-term economic goal… simply put, America's federal tax system is broken. What we have now is a system that is failing American families and businesses. Our tax system burdens low and middle-income families, robbing them of the chance for upward mobility. It wastes hundreds of billions in useless tax preparation, paperwork and confrontation. It pits industry against industry, class against class. My FairTax proposal will allow American workers to keep their entire paycheck, businesses to compete on a level playing field with their foreign competitors, and bring jobs and investment back to the U.S.”

The last question I have Governor is, you said you’d like to bring our troops home as soon as possible, while still maintaining activity overseas - can you give an estimated time of how long it will take?

"I support General Petraeus' current plan which, according to current projections, should reduce our troops to pre-surge levels by mid-July. Beyond that, I don't support a timetable. Further withdrawals will depend on favorable conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our generals. I agree with President Bush's plan of ‘return on success.’”

[Myself with Gov. Mike Huckabee, after our interview.]