In America you can always pack up and leave. http://ping.fm/0hnVI

Georgia Super Speeder Law

Beginning January First the Georgia Super Speeder Law goes into effect. If you exceed 85 miles an hour on any road, under any driving conditions, you will be fined an extra $200 on top of the usual speeding fine. The same add-on fine applies to driving in excess of 75 miles per hour on any two-lane highway. There are also additional fines of either $200 or $300 to have your license reinstated if it has been suspended for various reasons.

This law is being imposed, we are told, because traffic accidents burden our trauma care centers. The law will keep many people from dangerously speeding, and those who continue to break the law will then pay these new fines which will be used to pay for trauma care.

There are no scientific studies that show that speeding of this kind is a major cause of traffic accidents in Georgia. There are no studies that show the impact of reducing such behavior on the cost of trauma care.

In Germany people drive on freeways everyday at speeds of up to 120 miles an hour and they consistently have a much lower accident and fatality rate than we have in America. Indeed, in America there are millions of people who exceed the speed limits in a safe, albeit illegal, manner. It is a myth, plain and simple, that speed - by itself - is dangerous.

People who speed in congested traffic conditions while weaving in and out of lanes, or in bad weather conditions, or in construction zones, or through school zones are driving dangerously. That is why we have increased fines for reckless driving, and special zone violations.

It is unlikely that punishing 'super speeders' is going to make Georgia's roadways safer. Nor will it reduce the amount of people in trauma centers due to traffic accidents.

It will, however, increase the number of people in traffic court. These fines will be contested, and people will be demanding their day in court if nothing else in hopes the judge will allow them to plead to a lesser offense. The burden on the local courts comes with a cost to the taxpayers, both in money and in time spent in line.

Oh, and let's not forget the cost to public safety. When a traffic ticket is contested the issuing officer must take a morning off and spend it testifying in court. This is time that could be spent on the street being a visible deterrent to real crime - or is overtime being billed to the taxpayer.

So, if a reasonably thinking person can deduce that this new law will not make things safer, and may increase the costs to our local governments, why would the State Government impose it?

The answer is simple. It is a hidden tax increase.

You see the Georgia State Constitution does not allow the legislature to impose fines and use the money for any pet projects - such as trauma care. The estimated $30 million dollars a year this law will generate will be simply dumped into the general fund. Maybe they'll spend it on trauma care, maybe they'll spend it on salary increases for legislators, maybe they'll spend it on education, who knows; all we can do is wait and see.

Maybe you don't drive over 75 miles per hour and think this law doesn't affect you. But keep in mind that this is not a conservative way of running the government. We should be outraged. Such laws further the 'nanny state' mentality that is destroying our personal liberties and making Americans into weaklings who look to government to solve all of their day to day problems and to provide for their day to day needs. This is a law that gives politicians a way to spend even more money, without officially raising taxes, instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing something to reduce the size of government and lower taxes.

And this came straight from the Governor's office, folks. Sonny Perdue is behind this, and the Republican controlled legislature passed it. Why even bother electing Republicans if they are going to behave like liberals?

Do We Change Course Now?

Let’s face it, this country has problems. We have poverty, slavery, oppression, discrimination, addictions, inequality, violence, thievery, dishonesty, promiscuity, and unhappiness. It is not necessary to travel to a third-world country to see the worst of mankind – we have issues right here at home. I believe we live in the greatest nation in the world, but we are far from perfect.

Our founding fathers fought tyranny and established freedom and liberty as the foundation of our society. However, that system, while it has served us well in many ways, is imperfect as well. It has failed to prevent a number of ailments that plague our culture and thus we find ourselves at a crossroads of sorts. Do the ills of society justify a deviation from our original boundaries established to protect ourselves from oppression? It seems, after all the rhetoric of previous decades, we have actually arrived at a decision point: do we still believe in the vision of the founding fathers or do we need to make drastic changes?

Over the past several decades we have divorced ourselves, somewhat, from a strict interpretation of the Constitution thus apparently giving us the option to transition to a more socialist state. Indeed, we have elected a President who campaigned on the promise to bring change to our nation. However misinformed the populace may have been, President Obama’s socialist ideology was not a secret. He is doing exactly what we elected him to do.

The ills that plague us need to be addressed. Neither liberals nor conservatives desire to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the people. If we stand at a fork in the road, which path do we choose? (For we have certainly limited ourselves to only two choices haven’t we?)

I think it comes down to our understanding of the depravity of mankind.

Generally, liberals see and admit the depravity of mankind: the common man cannot be relied upon to be generous, law-abiding, or equitable. It is with well-intentioned desire to achieve fairness and alleviate suffering that liberals turn to the government as the answer. If mankind cannot be trusted, then some empowered governing body must intervene to ensure the safety and equality of society as a whole. Thus, everyone pays their fair share and everyone is given equal treatment.

Conservatives also see and admit the depravity of mankind: those with power will tend toward tyranny and oppression seeking to improve their own situation and serve their own causes. To avoid anarchy and chaos, some form of government is necessary, but it must be limited in scope and power. Individual people will see the value in ensuring the safety and equality of society as a whole.

Liberals, at some point, are forced to ignore the very same depravity of mankind they use to justify the need for an empowered government. It must be believed that the right leaders exist, who will act selflessly and only for the good of all people, or it must be believed that the majority of voters will act selflessly and only for the good of all people.

Conservatives also must blind themselves a bit. If government cannot be trusted with the power to act to resolve the problems facing society, then it must be believed that the people will be moved to address injustice and inequality though personal ambition, generosity, and charity.

Here’s the truth: neither path will take this nation to a place where we no longer have poverty, slavery, oppression, discrimination, addictions, inequality, violence, thievery, dishonesty, promiscuity, and unhappiness. There are plenty of socialistic nations we can look at and see that each and every one of them has these same problems. The fact that the problems exist today, is proof that the founding father’s system of limited government doesn’t work any better. We live in a fallen world, people are depraved, the ills of society will continue no matter what goofy scheme mankind employs. Man is simply not equipped to undo the effects of sin in the world – this is why we need a Savior.

It’s right to want things to change, because things are not right with the world. But no system of government is the answer. Our need for government comes from the fact that with sin in the world, we cannot be relied upon to do the right thing. But this is a problem we cannot solve on our own, because no matter which system of government we choose, it will be made up of people who cannot be relied upon to do the right thing.

Of course we are only talking about the issue of societal ills. Which path do we take? In my opinion we ought to reject the change being offered by our current President and Congress. While a capitalist government is no more effective at alleviating the suffering of the people than a socialist one, it leaves the people themselves open to address those issues individually. The citizen of a capitalist society may frown at government’s inability to help the suffering and then reach into his pocket and do something about it. The citizen of a socialist nation frowns at government’s corruption and inefficiency in addressing suffering and finding his pocket empty can do nothing about it.

Going Green Requires Sacrifice

I read today that burning one gallon of gas produces ten times the amount of carbon dioxide as one person produces in an entire day.  

This means that a person existing for 10 days = using 1 gallon of gas.

The Hummer H3 has a 23 gallon gas tank and gets 18 miles per gallon.  Thus, the H3 gets 414 miles per tank.  Assuming you drive 15,000 miles per year (41 miles a day) you will go through a tank of gas in 10 days.  

1 person existing for 10 days = using 1 gallon of gas.

1 H3 driven for 10 days = using 23 gallons of gas.

Therefore, 23 people existing for 10 days = driving an H3 for 10 days.

At 15000 miles per year, your H3 will probably only last 13 years or so.  Generally people live longer than 10 days; indeed most adults will live at least another 13 years or so.  

So, what does all of this mean?  If you simply drive over 23 hippies on your way home from your first fill up, you can drive your H3 for the rest of its life and be completely carbon neutral.

in loco parentis

My 12 year old daughter wants a handgun for Christmas. She had the opportunity to shoot rifles at summer camp and found out she's a good shot. I own a gun and look forward to making this an activity we do together. When the time comes for her to leave home, I'll feel a lot better about her safety and wellbeing knowing she knows how to take care of herself.

However some people, when they ask her what she wants for Christmas, feel they need to intervene on my behalf to explain to Madeline that she is not allowed to have a gun. It's a bit infuriating actually. Last week one woman went so far as to tell my daughter it was illegal for minors to own a gun. Maddy pointed out that the Second Amendment says differently and she was told that the Constitution does not apply to children.

Of course I don't expect a government school educated Obama supporter to know much about the Constitution, but if you want to shut down your brain and simply buy the anti-gun media hype, that's your prerogative, but please don't pass on your lazy opinions to my daughter.

The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the Constitution offers its protections to every citizen regardless of age, race, or gender. Children exercise their legal standing via their parents, but they still have the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to be free from illegal search and seizure, the right to practice their religion, and there is no exception for their right to keep and bear arms. It certainly is NOT illegal for minors to own guns; just ask any 12 year old Tennessee boy with a hunting dog.

Statistically, assuming she doesn't join a gang, it is more likely my daughter will die in a car accident or a swimming pool than by being accidentally shot. This is why I have taught her to wear a seat belt and how to swim. Guns are no different; she will learn how to properly care for it, store it, and use it so that – like millions of children since the inception of our nation – she will be a safe and responsible gun owner.

Feel free to raise your children to be afraid, dependent on government, and willing to trade liberty for a false sense of security. I'm going to raise mine to enjoy her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

EB

Georgia Court of Appeals Race

Georgia Voters, On December 2, when you go to vote for Saxby Chambliss, you will also be asked to elect a judge to the Georgia Court of Appeals. This is a run off election between Sara Doyle and Mike Sheffield.

First, in the spirit of full disclosure, let me advise that Mr. Sheffield is a member at my church, Perimeter Church in Duluth, Georgia. However, I have never met Mr. Sheffield (not unusual in a church Perimeter's size) and have no personal knowledge about him.

EXPERIENCE

Mr. Sheffield has been an attorney more than twice as long as Ms. Doyle; 34 years compared to 15 years. Furthermore, Ms. Doyle has spent the last 14 years specializing in the representation of private schools in the civil courts. Mr. Sheffield is presently a criminal defense attorney, although for the first 9 years of his career he was a criminal prosecutor for Dekalb County. In short, Mr. Sheffield has vast experience with all types of criminal law, from both sides. Ms. Doyle has a limited, but no doubt expert, understanding of education law from the perspective of the institution's best interest. Additionally, Mr. Sheffield has filed over 60 cases with the Georgia Court of Appeals so he knows the Court's demands. He has tried over 300 jury trials at the Superior Court, from which the Court of Appeals gets its cases. Clearly, Mr. Sheffield is the more experienced candidate.

However, I have no doubt that both candidates understand the law sufficiently so that they would be able to handle the technical aspects of a judge's position. Frankly, I don't think experience is the major concern in a race like this.

JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY

More important than experience, in my opinion, is a judge's philosophy. Is a judge supposed to issue decisions to further a political cause or simply interpret the laws as written? What if the judge disagrees with the law personally but knows the law is constitutionally valid? What if a law is poorly worded so that a judge could 'technically' adhere to it while not interpreting it as the law was intended? What if another country interprets laws differently than the U.S.? I expect a judge to overturn unconstitutional laws and uphold constitutional laws according to the intentions of the legislature. I expect a judge to ignore cases and laws from other countries that are not a part of our common law. In recent years liberal judges have been ignoring the Constitution, deliberately misinterpreting laws, citing international cases as common law, and otherwise attempting to create, by precedent, liberal laws that would never be able to be passed in the legislature. Now more than ever, with a Democrat controlled Congress and White House and perhaps Supreme Court, we need to be picking our local judges with great care.

Mike Sheffield has clearly stated that he will be a conservative constitutionalist; he will not try to further any political agenda but interpret the law as written. Sara Doyle said that because she is not yet a judge, she doesn't have a judicial philosophy. I guess she wants us to just vote for her and 'wait and see' what kind of judge she will be.

SPECIAL INTERESTS

Voters want to know what the candidates' positions are on various issues. However, some people say that judicial candidates should not let their personal views be known or people will assume those views will affect their decision making.

Let's stop and think about this for a moment. Does anyone really believe that by keeping one's opinion a secret it removes their bias? Of course not. Does anyone really believe that by keeping one's opinion a secret it makes it possible for them to ignore their bias when trying a case? Of course not. Everyone has their own opinions, even judges. Everyone's own opinion affects their decision making, even judges. Pretending the bias doesn't exist only serves to keep the voters in the dark about who they are electing. I personally want to elect judges who think like I do; that the law should be strictly interpreted; that the Constitution should be upheld.

Sara Doyle refused to answer a questionnaire for Georgia Right To Life stating that it is not proper for judges to discuss issues that might come before them in court. (i.e. abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, etc…) Mike Sheffield reported he was pro-life, pro-death penalty; but that he would strictly interpret the law.

But Sara Doyle did not refuse to answer a questionnaire from Georgia Equality, a pro-homosexual special interest group. So what does this tell us? That Sara Doyle is not opposed to letting her views be known after all; they just have to be approved of by liberals.

I think the message is clear. Sheffield is committed to openness and strictly interpreting the law. Doyle is committed to secrecy and keeping the left happy. Let me say, I don't know Sara Doyle. As is typical of judicial races, the information available to me is thin. I am only able to glean from what is available and make the best decision I can.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Judges for the Supreme Court of both the State and Country are often pulled from the Court of Appeals. Substitutes for the Superior Court are pulled from the Court of Appeals as well. The political make-up and judicial philosophy of these candidates is very relevant in the long term.

I hope you will join me in voting for Mike Sheffield.

Why December 2nd Is Important

If you live in Georgia please take out your calendar and clear your schedule on December 2, 2008 so you will be able to vote. This is of crucial importance.

Our system of checks and balances, what our forefathers intended to keep government from becoming too powerful, is not functioning.

Half of our nation is conservative in ideology, and presently the liberals are in power. The liberally-biased Press isn't going to keep government accountable for not representing conservative interests. (If President Obama signs the "Fairness Doctrine" it will diminish the only real conservative voice in the media – talk radio.) Our two-party system ensures that the party in the majority has nearly complete control. With a liberal president the power of veto means nothing to conservatives. And at some point in the near future President Obama will be able to appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court stacking the deck in favor of liberals. For example, if the "Fairness Doctrine" is challenged as unconstitutional – as it should be – what difference does it make to a bench full of judges willing to set aside the Constitution?

Indeed, there is only one sliver of a check and balance left to ensure that conservatives are not completely unrepresented in our government; the filibuster.

In the Senate when the party in the minority strongly opposes a bill they can filibuster; refusing to allow debate to end so that no final vote can be made. A filibuster can only be broken if a supermajority of Senators (60) agree. Presently the Democrats hold 58 seats, (56 plus the two independent seats that usually vote with the Democrats), and there are two more to be decided.

In Minnesota; Al Franken, the maddeningly liberal SNL comedian turned politician, is following in Al Gore's footsteps demanding recounts. It is possible he will deliver a 59^th seat to the Democrats.

And then there is Georgia. Saxby Chambliss, FairTax supporter and conservative Senator, is being challenged by Jim Martin. Saxby only got 49.9% of the vote on Election Day, (a Libertarian candidate on the ballot leached enough votes to keep him from a 50%+1 win), and so we have a run-off election.

If conservatives are to have any voice at all – Saxby has to win.

So please, go vote. Don't allow the liberals to have a filibuster proof Senate and deny representation to half of Americans.

WTF Just Happened?

I woke up this morning and recognized that I am in shock. My mind has realized that I have suffered a tremendous trauma, albeit mental and emotional, and has put me into this calm, surreal kind of daze similar to being in twilight sleep. At first I didn't want to get out of bed; there didn't seem to be much of a point. So I lay in my bed and thought for awhile, and prayed a little bit, and thought some more. Suddenly a disturbing thought crossed my mind – you haven't felt this way since September 12, 2001. Could that be true? Was the thought of an Obama presidency the equivalent of a political 9/11 in my mind?

Maybe I am a racist. I considered this thought for a moment or two and then dismissed it. Racism is the belief that some races of humans are genetically inferior to others. In all honesty, after searching the depths of my soul on that one, I don't believe such things. Maybe I am prejudiced. Prejudice is just that – pre-judging people based upon their race. I won't deny that I have my prejudices; we all do. However, when I look deep into myself I see that these prejudices are based upon cultural differences, not skin color. And my prejudices are never against someone's value – for example I wonder when I meet a black person if they are a Democrat or if they distrust me based on my color, but I never assume they are stupid or dangerous. No, I have examined myself and can say with certainty that I am not bothered in the slightest that our next president is black.

And slowly realization dawned on me, like a fog being lifted. Obama's election is the culmination of the Liberal Agenda – it is proof of the vast left-wing conspiracy – it is the eve of my worst fears being recognized.

The Liberals have been keeping minorities down for decades. How have they done this? They have repeatedly told minorities that no-one cares about them; they have insinuated racism and discrimination where it didn't exist; they have instituted welfare programs that do nothing to address the underlying needs of minorities; they have denied the existence of success by hard work replacing it with a myth that anyone with wealth lied, cheated, and stole to get it. Why would they do this? Because when minorities believe they are dependent on the government to solve the problems of discrimination and poverty they will support the party that offers government as a solution – the Democrats.

The Liberals have been poisoning the minds of our youth for decades. How have they done this? They have instituted government-run schools and insisted that they be devoid of conservative values; they have filled our high schools and colleges with liberal-minded professors who promote Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Atheism, and Globalism regardless of what subject they are teaching; they have effectively convinced the American people that a college education is the ultimate goal for ALL students; they have stripped the educational system of parental or church involvement. Why would they do this? Because when people do not learn to think for themselves and do not learn to have a healthy, respectful, fear of government they will follow the leaders who simply tell them what is best for them – the Democrats.

Finally, the Liberals have been manipulating the media for decades. How have they done this? They have created the myth of 'journalistic integrity' – the erroneous idea that a journalist can set aside all bias and simply report the facts and any journalist who admits bias lacks integrity; they have filled our newspapers, magazines, and newscasts with liberal-minded, liberally-educated journalists and editors; they report the news with a tremendous liberal bias while portraying it as trustworthily unbiased; they have filled the airwaves with entertainment shows written by liberal-minded, liberally-educated writers, performed by liberal-minded actors; they have ostracized journalists, actors, writers, editors, and directors who have displayed or admitted to holding conservative values; they have denied all of this and in fact have alleged that the media has been manipulated by a vast, right-wing conspiracy. Why would they do this? Because the liberally-educated masses have been trained not to think for themselves and are looking for a way to be spoon-fed their beliefs – most people get their political views from watching entertainment television and the media happily plays along promoting one political party – the Democrats.

And it has taken decades but this time it all came together; a perfect storm of minorities, liberally-educated youth, and television zombies all heading for the polls to elect the most liberal man in the Senate to the highest position of power on the Earth. Conservatives have been trying to get people to notice what is happening; to see the danger of entitlement programs, government schools, and television programming – but everyone just rolls their eyes and goes back to their lives. And although I am aware of the fact that we, as a nation, now stand on the edge with one leg extended over a very dark abyss, I'm not sure that America at large is aware of what just happened. We are going into the abyss; I just don't know how far we are going to fall and if we will be able to reach up and grab a ledge and hope to climb back out someday.

On September 12, 2001 I had many of the same feelings. People had been warning us of the threat of terrorism for years and we didn't heed those warnings, we just rolled our eyes and went back to our lives. We paid a dear price on 9/11 and I remember being in shock – wondering what happens next and how bad it will get. Back then I took solace that President George W. Bush was at the helm and America came together and did the right thing.

But on January 20, 2009 – Bush will no longer be at the helm. America is more divided than ever. And our new leader, President Elect Barack Obama, provides no solace.

EB

A Walk through the Magical Land of My Sample Ballot…

Let's go for a walk, shall we? Hand in hand, let's peruse the political landscape of my district and see who we encounter along the way.

President

This is a no-brainer. Obama will raise taxes. Obama will use those taxes to give free money to people who haven't earned it. He will give government control of our healthcare. He will surrender in the war on terror. He will cater to the unions, environmentalists, and pro-abortionists. If he also has a Democratically controlled Congress, he will do damage to our country that will be next to impossible to undo. I'm voting for John McCain.

Senate

The Democrats think they have a shot at gaining a super-majority in the Senate. This means they can do whatever they want and Republicans won't have enough votes to stop them. They are so desperate that they have been running ads lying about Saxby Chambliss and the Fair Tax. It is crucial that I get out and vote for Saxby Chambliss.

Public Service Commissioner

The Public Service Commission (PSC) regulates utilities. They will decide very soon whether or not to pursue nuclear power plants for Georgia. There are two seats open on the commission.

The first seat is between H. Doug Everett (Republican) and John H. Monds (Libertarian). Everett seems happy with the way things are right now. Monds would like to deregulate and let the free market have more control rather than government. Both favor nuclear power plants. I'm voting for Monds.

The other seat has a candidate from all three parties. Therefore, it is necessary to ignore the Libertarian so that the Democrat doesn't win by default. The Democrat thinks we should use biomass energy instead of nuclear despite the high amount of carbon pollution. The Republican, Lauren McDonald (a man), favors nuclear power as part of a diverse spectrum of energy. I'm voting for McDonald.

House Representative

It is important that the Democrats do not get a stronger hold on the House this election. Our current representative, John Linder, is also very important as he is the author of the Fair Tax. I'm voting for John Linder.

State Senator

Rene Unterman is running unopposed.

State Representative

Michael Coan is running unopposed.

District Attorney of Gwinnett County

Danny Porter is running unopposed.

Judge of the Probate Court

Walter Clarke is running unopposed.

Clerk of Superior Court

The Clerk of Superior Court is the official records keeper for the Superior Court. Tom Lawler, a Republican, is being opposed by Abby Alaoui, a Democrat. Ms. Alaoui's website includes a buttload of grammatical errors and misspelled words. If she can't even manage a simple website how can she be trusted with the Superior Court records? I'm voting for Tom Lawler.

Sheriff

Butch Conway is running unopposed.

Tax Commissioner

Katherine Sherrington is running opposed.

Chief Magistrate

George Hutchinson is running opposed.

County Commission Chairman

The County Commission is the legislative branch of our county government; they pass laws and levy taxes at a county level. Let's look at our contenders:

Charles Bannister (Republican): Is presently the Chairman. He is examining the county government to find places to cut spending so taxes won't be raised. He has authorized the Sheriff to deport illegal immigrant criminals. He eliminated illegal immigrants from getting County contracts and hopes to deny them business licenses in the future. His highest priority is continuing to reduce traffic and increase jobs.

Vincent Passariello (Democrat): He says he will avoid raising taxes by charging fees to developers to offset the government's cost to provide services to new developments. (BTW – fees are passed on to the consumer – so we end up paying them – these are called 'hidden taxes') On the illegal immigration front he suggests we simply have the Federal government reimburse us for our costs to jail them; (of course the Federal government get's its money from us through taxes, so this is not really saving us anything.) His highest priority will be slowing down development in Gwinnett so we have enough water.

My vote is going to Bannister.

County Commissioner

Shirley Lasseter and Michael Beaudreau are running unopposed.

Supreme Court Justice

Robert Benham and Harry Hines are running unopposed.

Appeals Court Judge

In Georgia, the Appeals Court does not hear cases that have any question of Constitutionality; those cases go to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Therefore, the Appeals Court is the last bit of hope for someone who is appealing a lower court's decision. It is the Appeals Court's job to ensure that the lower courts properly interpreted the law and afforded all parties due process.

There are three open seats in the Appeals Court this election:

Gary Andrews and Charles Mikell are both running unopposed for the first two seats.

The third seat is contested by seven candidates. Some would argue that knowing the judge's political stance is irrelevant as judges simply apply the law as written and their own personal opinions do not matter. I disagree. In recent years we have seen that liberals do not believe a judge should simply apply the law as written, but should interject their own beliefs and opinions, thus changing the 'common law'. Conservative judges understand that the law is sacred; if the law is wrong the legislature should fix it – judges should not interfere unless the law is unconstitutional. So, in my opinion the more we know about judges the better.

Of the seven candidates, three are conservatives: Christopher McFadden, Perry McGuire, and Mike Sheffield. Two are definitely liberals: Sara Doyle and Michael Meyer von Bremen. Bruce Edenfield and Tamela Adkins are not really giving enough information to know what they are about. In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that Mike Sheffield goes to my church.

I'm voting for Mike Sheffield.

Superior Court of Gwinnett Judge

Ronnie Batchelor, Michael Clark, Melodie Conner, Warren Davis, and Dawson Jackson are running unopposed.

There is one contested seat on the Superior Court. Karen Byers is running against Richard Winegarden, alleging that he is verbally abusive in court and neglects his family law cases. Judge Winegarden claims he is 'taking the high road' and only point out that Byers has no judicial experience and is running a 'slash and burn smear campaign'. There is little to no press on this race. I checked with the Georgia Bar Association and found that Winegarden is licensed in good standing with no public disciplinary history. Surely if he was as bad as Byers' claims there would be a complaint or two? As the District Attorney has endorsed him, I'm voting for Winegarden.

Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor

The Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission regulates the use and protection of soil and water resources. Three guys are running, and none of them have any information online. Charles Warbington, answered a questionnaire for the AJC and the other two declined. I'm voting for the guy who cared enough to tell someone who he is. I'm voting for Warbington.

State Court Judge

Randy Rich, Carla Brown, John Doran, and Robert Mock are running unopposed.

SPLOST- Special Election

Our current SPLOST (the extra 1 cent of sales tax in Gwinnett County) is due to expire in March of 2009. This will extend it for five years. The money is used for road improvements and things like that. I like the idea of SPLOST because it is minimal and doesn't really impact my budget, but it also gets the millions of people who shop in our county to help us pay for the roads and services that they use. I'm voting yes.

Amendment 1

Amendment 1 is a forest conservation act. It is very simple – if you own forested land that is at least 200 acres, and if you agree to keep that land forested for 15 years, then you get a break in your property taxes on that land. Consider this: you are a landowner and buy hundreds of acres of forested land for your own use. Years later suburban sprawl catches up with you and suddenly your land is worth a ton of money because developers want it. The county can then tax you on the present value of that land, even though it generates no income to you. You are then practically forced to sell the land, or develop it, into something that generates enough revenue to pay the taxes. Amendment 1 simply makes it legal for the government to give you a tax break if you decide to just leave it as forest. (We already do this for land areas of over 2000 acres.) It protects forest land, it gives land owners a break; I like the idea. What I don't like is the provision that would require the State to reimburse the County for the lost property tax income. The taxpayer is still footing the bill; which means now everyone in the state gets to help Joe Landowner pay his property taxes on forested land we are not even allowed to use because it is private property. I have to vote no on this amendment.

Amendment 2

Amendment 2 is a tax reallocation act. It is fairly simple – taxpayer money that is designated to go toward education will be diverted to development projects instead. THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE! Here is the catch; education funds come from property taxes. Development of land usually results in higher property taxes and therefore more funds for schools. For years the schools have been voluntarily diverting their funds to development and then reaping the rewards of such investments in the long term. The problem is that last year the Supreme Court pointed out that doing so violated the Constitution which says that tax dollars for schools are to be spent IN THE SCHOOLS. Amendment 2 is an attempt to fix that constitutional problem. I think this is a bad idea. The problems with our schools are not caused by a lack of funding, but by a mismanagement of the funding they already receive and a philosophical misunderstanding of how people should be educated. I think the school boards have enough to think about without having to become financial investment experts as well. If the legislature wants to invest in development projects and then give that return on investment to the schools, then do it, but leave the school boards out of it. Why would we want to amend our constitution to make things more complicated? I'm voting no.

Amendment 3

Amendment 3 is a bit complicated. It reminds me of the "mello roos" we saw a lot of in California. Basically this amendment would allow land developers to issue bonds to get enough money to pay for the infrastructure of new development (water pipes, electricity, roads, etc…) so they would not have to burden the county or city. The bonds would be paid back by the people or businesses who eventually move in through a monthly fee paid to the developers. The local government (county or town) will be able to say no if they don't want a developer coming to their area. Proponents of the amendment point out that this would encourage building in the 'forgotten' parts of the state where connecting to existing infrastructure is difficult. Opponents say that the ability to tax people should not be given to developers. The truth is the only people really opposing this amendment are environmentalists who oppose development no matter what. The problem will be that the new development will be more expensive because of the fees; but if the developers think that they can find customers willing to pay, then what is the harm? We all pay for the infrastructure beneath our homes and businesses through taxes and fees anyway. The only difference here is that the developer is responsible for paying for it up-front and recouping the costs after-the-fact. I see no reason to oppose the amendment. I'm voting yes.

Well that concludes our walk. Please go to your county's website and download your sample ballot before you go to vote. If there is something on there you want my opinion on, let me know!

EB

HANDY BREAKDOWN

PRESIDENT – McCain

US SENATE – Saxby Chambliss

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER – John Monds and Lauren McDonald

US REPRESENTATIVE – John Linder

STATE SENATOR – Rene Unterman

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – Michael Coan

DISTRICT ATTORNEY – Danny Porter

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT – Tom Lawler

SHERIFF – Butch Conway

TAX COMMISIONER – Katherine Sherrington

CHIEF MAGISTRATE – George Hutchinson

COUNTY COMMISSION CHAIRMAN – Charles Bannister

COUNTY COMMISSIONER – Shirley Lasseter

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE – Robert Benham, Harris Hines

COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE - Gary Andrews, Charles Mikell, Mike Sheffield

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE – Ronnie Batchelor, Michael Clark, Melodie Conner, Warren Davis, Dawson Jackson, Richard Winegarden

STATE COURT JUDGE – Carla Brown, John Doran, Robert Mock, Randy Rich

SOIL AND WATER ELECTION – Charles Warbington

AMENDMENT 1 – No

AMENDMENT2 – No

AMENDMENT3 – Yes

SPECIAL ELECTION - Yes

Polling Data

The last few days I've heard nothing but the press reporting that Obama is doing well in the polls. People keep saying that McCain has an uphill battle to overcome Obama's lead. One lesson we have learned from the past few elections is that polls mean very little. Once again, this is because the mainstream media is distorting the truth in order to promote the liberal candidates.

Let me show you what I mean. Newsweek's October 11^th poll showed Obama in the lead by 11 points; 52% to McCain's 41%. If you assume that a well respected publication like Newsweek would poll a sample of potential voters that is representative of the American electorate, then you would believe that things look pretty bleak for conservatives. In our last Presidential election the data shows that 37% of the voters were Democrats, 37% were Republicans, and 26% were Independents. Newsweek decided to 'represent' the electorate with a polling sample comprised of 40% Democrats, 27% Republicans, and 30% Independents. So apparently we can't assume Newsweek knows how to do a poll. Perhaps the good folks at Newsweek don't understand that a skewed sample produces skewed results?

Newsweek reported a healthy lead for Obama. They failed to report that McCain showed a slight lead with Independent voters; the crucially important 'swing' voters that decide elections. 91% of Democrats support Obama; no surprise there. 89% of Republicans support McCain; also no surprise. But surprise, surprise – 45% of Independents support McCain compared to Obama's 43%.

So what happens if you take these percentages and apply them to an accurate sample of voters? (For the sake of an easy math example, let's assume 100 people were polled.)

As you can see, with a non-skewed sample, John McCain may very well be in the lead. Add to this the so-called "Bradley Effect" that supposedly skews polling data in favor of African-American candidates, and McCain's lead could be significant.

Just more evidence that we can't believe anything we read in the mainstream media.

EB

Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave…

We all remember when Hillary Clinton claimed to have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. It was an inspiring story until Sinbad, the comedian who had accompanied Clinton on that USO trip, pointed out it was a total lie. Obama felt this was a valid issue to discuss and said, "She … believes that … the nature of politics is that you say what people want to hear." Before one of the primary elections Obama held a conference call press conference in which he presented veterans who had actually faced sniper fire; US Major General Walter Stewart and US Navy Chief Petty Officer Michael Kotyk. Kotyk stated, "If she's gonna tell stories like that as a candidate, what will she do when she's standing in front of Congress? How can you expect your troops to follow you if you're not providing good leadership?" Stewart said Clinton had shown a lack of moral authority and referred to her as dishonorable. "This isn't about misspeaking. This is about your character." The press also jumped all over this issue, because it forwarded their blatantly biased support of Obama.

Obama, and the press, were absolutely right to point out that Hillary's willingness to lie about her experience was a serious red flag that she doesn't have the good character we should value in our leaders. So why aren't we hearing anything about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden?

During a debate Joe Biden said, "Let's start telling the truth; Number one, you take all the troops out – you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die."

However, when questioned later about when he was shot at, Biden changed his answer to, "I was near where a shot landed." When pressed, he said that some kind of projectile landed outside a building he was in and he felt the ground shake. "No one got up and ran from the room – it wasn't that kind of thing."

That statement isn't as blatantly dishonest as Clinton's. But clearly he was trying to give the impression that he knows what it is like to be under fire, when in fact he doesn't.

Now Biden says that he intends to grill Sarah Palin about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down." Earlier he told the National Guard Association, "If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."

What do these statements imply? That Joe Biden has more experience than Sarah Palin because he knows what it is like to be in a war zone. In fact, he's certain that when his chopper went down in the mountains of Afghanistan things were so tense that it was obvious that Bin Ladin was holed up in the area. This conjures up images of a helicopter under fire, being forced down by Bin Ladin and his merry men.

However, the truth is that inclement weather was the reason the chopper landed, without incident, in an open field while fighter jets patrolled overhead. Security vehicles then drove in and escorted Joe Biden and John Kerry out. John Kerry joked about the incident, "We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to. Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."

Biden apparently comes from the same camp as Hillary Clinton. It is okay to lie to the American people, to exaggerate the facts to make yourself look more experienced. I wonder why Obama has not trotted US Major General Walter Stewart and US Navy Chief Petty Officer Michael Kotyk out to give their opinions about Joe Biden. I wonder why the press isn't having a field day pointing out the similarities between Obama's campaign and Clinton's.

If Biden is going to tell stories like that, and Obama is going to sit back and let him, what will they do when they are standing in front of Congress? Will they exaggerate the facts to push through their agendas? Will they lie to make a point? This kind of behavior, and Obama's unwillingness to stand up to it, shows a lack of moral authority. It is dishonorable. This isn't about misspeaking. This is about Biden's and Obama's character.

EB

Liberty and Justices for All

The legislative branch of government is kept honest by the President's ability to veto, and by the Supreme Court's ability to toss out any law not consistent with the Constitution. The Constitution was written to protect the American People from the government. Our founding fathers knew that times were going to change and they made the Constitution amendable so that it could be added to, or modified, to address progress in our society. Giving minorities and women the right to vote occurred, not so very long ago, by an amendment to the Constitution.

In recent years, however, the liberal left has been frustrated. They believe very strongly that abortion, homosexuality, atheism, and gun control are issues that should no longer be controversial in today's modern society. But in reality these issues are very even divided, at worst, and opposed by a majority, at best. There simply isn't enough common public opinion supporting the liberal position for an amendment of the Constitution to be a possibility. So, the liberals, in order to further their agendas, have sought to bypass the Constitution by simply having judges appointed who are willing to ignore the Constitution. Anti-homosexuality laws have been thrown out by judges who cited a 'right to privacy' – something that is never mentioned in the Constitution. It is now illegal to teach creation in schools because a judge cited a 'separation of church and state' which is also not mentioned in the Constitution. Liberals believe that they know what is best for everyone, that their beliefs are the only true beliefs, and that justifies imposing their beliefs on the whole of America even though they can't get enough support to amend the Constitution.

If we allow judges to create rights, or change laws, with no consideration what-so-ever to the Constitution, we simply hand over control of our nation to these judges. Laws are supposed to be created by the legislature, by ELECTED officials acting on behalf of the people. Those laws, if appropriate, should be enforced by the judicial branch; if inappropriate should be overturned.

Many of the issues facing our nation today will be brought before the Supreme Court. Our next president is likely to have the opportunity to appoint one or two Supreme Court Justices. Do we want Justices that will make decisions based upon their own political beliefs, what they personally think the Constitution SHOULD say, or do we want Justices that will make decisions based upon what the Constitution ACTUALLY says?

John McCain says that nominations "should be based on the criteria of a proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America, and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench."

Barrack Obama said he would not have nominated Antonin Scalia (a judge with a proven record of strict interpretation), "although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance – because he and I just disagree."

So, there you have it. Obama would not appoint a judge who disagrees with his ideology even if the judge was brilliant and consistently interpreting the Constitution. John McCain, would appoint judges that strictly interpret the Constitution.

If you believe that the people of America should be able to decide for themselves, through our representative government, what our laws are – then you should vote for McCain.

If you believe that a few appointed judges should be able to determine what our laws are without any concern for the will of the people – then you should vote for Obama.

EB

 

The Party of the People

There is an apparent financial crisis facing our nation. The proposed solution was a $700 billion dollar bailout plan. In short, the government wants to take money from the taxpayers and give it to corporations that are failing.

For decades the Democrats have put forth an image that they are the party who supports the 'little man' against the evil Republicans who will always sell them out to the evil corporate interests.

Today's vote in the House should be a real eye opener. Democrats supported this bill, and it was only the 133 Republicans willing to vote 'NO' that killed it. Despite the fact that even the most liberal Democrat representatives were admitting their phones were ringing off the hook with constituents begging them to vote NO, the Democrats, overall, supported the measure. In short, the Democrats decided to side with corporations, while the Republicans sided with the American people. (There were, of course, exceptions on both sides of the aisle.)

The people spoke clearly that they did not want this bailout bill to pass. Democrats ignored them. Republicans listened to them. Which is the party of large corporate interests? Which is the party of the people?

When you go to the polls this November and cast votes for various representatives in Congress ask yourself this question, "If I care about an issue strongly enough to call my representative – is this representative a member of a party that is going to care what I have to say?"

Abortion is Complicated

Abortion is a tough issue for me. Not morally, but politically.

Morally I believe that abortion is horrible and should be avoided in just about every single situation. I make no exceptions for rape, incest, known deformities, or even suspected threat to the life of the mother. It is my heartfelt belief that when a woman is pregnant, regardless of whether she wants to be or not, she has been entrusted by God with the care of a person who is utterly vulnerable and utterly unable to speak for him/her self. If this woman doesn't want this responsibility it simply doesn't matter. Life is often unfair and we often have to do the right thing under very difficult circumstances. For at least 9 months, I believe, every pregnant woman is obligated to give her baby every chance at a good life. I think these situations are unfair to women. I acknowledge that many women will suffer dire consequences in their careers, families, and perhaps even physical health. Regardless of the negative consequences, I believe that every pregnancy is a blessing from God.

Politically I believe that as it is scientifically impossible to prove when the life of a baby begins that we are left with only common sense with which to make judgments. I believe that common sense tells us that once a baby is able to survive outside the womb, it is alive. Therefore, I believe that legislators should be able to reasonably declare such a person as having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness like any other person. Prior to that point, however, it is hard for me to insist that the government should have the ability to regulate abortion based upon my belief that life begins at conception. (I'm very upset that the Government is trying to regulate emissions based upon some people's belief that global warming is a problem; so why is abortion an exception to my conservative opinion that smaller government is better?)

When I really take the time to think it all the way through I find myself returning to my conservative ideals. I would like to see abortion eliminated, but not at the sacrifice of my freedom. Abortion should be fought on the cultural front, not on the legal front. The Church should be working to educate people about the dangers of abortion; physically, mentally, and spiritually. We should be finding ways to help people make better decisions BEFORE they get pregnant, and have better options AFTER an unwanted pregnancy occurs. We should be less quick to accuse people of murder and realize that most people are just trying to do the right thing, although their motives are no doubt tainted by the same selfishness, pride, and greed that accompany so many of my 'right' choices. And we should be willing to admit, at least, the possibility that we are wrong – that life may NOT begin at conception – that the Bible is NOT crystal clear on this point – and that we are in fact acting on a BELIEF.

Fortunately for me, conservatism solves this conflict rather nicely. I don't think the Government has any business regulating abortion based upon some people's beliefs. But there is a process, within our system of government, through which we can define when life begins based upon the moral consensus of the nation; by amending the Constitution. Furthermore, I believe that if we appoint Supreme Court Justices that will strictly interpret the Constitution that the cases keeping individual states from passing their own laws about abortion will be overturned. As state constitutions are amended to define life, then the battle against abortion can really be effectively fought.

So during this current election how do I know which candidate best represents me on the issue of abortion? I need to identify which candidate is most likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will strictly interpret the Constitution (rather than Judges that 'legislate from the bench' creating laws that the legislature didn't pass). In my next post I'll break down the candidates' leanings in this area.

Bully!

I want to spend a moment to discuss one of the greatest powers the President of the United States enjoys – the Bully Pulpit. This isn't a power granted to the President by the Constitution, but rather a natural effect of the position he holds. The term "bully" used to be slang for "wonderful", and was commonly used by President Theodore Roosevelt who coined the term "bully pulpit". A "pulpit", of course, is a platform on which a person gives a sermon, just like in church. Roosevelt referred to the Presidency as a "Bully Pulpit" meaning that the President is able to bring attention to any issues he wants simply by giving a speech.

Did you know that major news outlets, and even many minor ones, have reporters whose whole job is to cover the President? When the President travels by Air Force One, reporters go with him. If the President is doing something in a public setting, there are definitely reporters around to capture every word he says. If the President wants to address the nation, most news organizations pre-empt all of their regular programming and show live coverage of his speech. If the President wants to call attention to something, he has the power to get the word out to just about every American within hours.

How should this affect your decision on whom to vote for in November? Simply ask yourself this question, "What issues are the candidates speaking about with passion and conviction?" And then ask yourself this follow-up question, "Do I agree with the message they are communicating?" Odds are, they will continue to talk about those issues once they are elected, keeping those issues at the forefront of the mind of the nation, and thus encouraging Congress to take action.

EB

My First Political Cartoon

Click image to view larger.

I made this cartoon this morning using my new Wacom tablet.

Candidates – Mike Huckabee

The last viable Republican candidate is Mike Huckabee.

ISSUES

ABORTION:

[EXCELLENT] Huckabee has a great record on doing what he can in the fight for life. He favors a Constitutional Amendment that will protect human life from the time of conception. He is opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION / BORDER SECURITY:

[ADEQUATE] Not believing it would be possible to deport all the illegal aliens, Huckabee believes they should be able to become legal by registering with authorities, paying fines, learning to speak English, and paying taxes. He believes the legal process for immigration should be streamlined. He feels the state of our borders is at the level of a national emergency, and supports the border fence. Legal immigrants should have to prove they do not have a criminal background or a communicable disease.

THE WAR ON TERRORISM / IRAQ:

[EXCELLENT] Mike Huckabee believes that the war in Iraq is a crucial part of the overall war on Terrorism he states we are presently engaged in a world war. He believes that whether or not we should increase or decrease the amount of troops in Iraq should be only in response to the request of the U.S. Military commanders on the scene. He thinks we should have a Middle East summit so that Iraq's neighbors become militarily and financially committed to stabilizing the region. He thinks chemical plant and port security standards must be increased at the Federal level, but thinks the individual states should be free to enforce stricter-than-federal standards if they choose to.

TAXES:

[EXCELLENT] Huckabee would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He signed a pledge promising no new taxes. Mike Huckabee is the only viable candidate who is for the FairTax. He believes the Federal Government's deficits are not caused by under-taxing but by overspending.

ENVIRONMENTALISM / ALARMISM:

[EXCELLENT] Mike Huckabee supports the development of alternative energy sources, including nuclear power, and would have the private sector match any federal funding for this research. He believes that our dependence on foreign oil is directly connected to terrorism. He opposed the Kyoto treaty, which shows that he is aware the media hype over global warming is not a sufficient basis for economy-threatening legislation. He supports exploring domestic sources of oil such as ANWR. He claims we will achieve energy independence by the end of his second term. He has stated that his faith compels him to be a good steward of the earth.

HEALTHCARE:

[EXCELLENT] Opposed to government-run healthcare, Huckabee acknowledges that our present system needs to be completely overhauled. He feels we should adopt policies that encourage innovation in the private sector which will bring down costs and improve access. He supports making healthcare portable between jobs, and making healthcare a deductible expense for individuals.

ECONOMY:

[EXCELLENT] Huckabee supports tax rebates and reduction of federal spending, including the line-item veto. He favors the FairTax which would eliminate the IRS, and will increase the likelihood that American and foreign companies will invest in America instead of other more tax-friendly nations. He supports globalization, and believes it will result in a 'big pay raise' for all Americans by reducing the cost of goods.

EDUCATION:

[EXCELLENT] Huckabee supports home schooling, charter schools, and school choice programs. He believes the Federal Government should not be intervening in state school programs. He supports No Child Left Behind but believes each state should be able to set its own benchmarks for measuring success.

SECOND AMENDMENT:

[EXCELLENT] Mike Huckabee is very strong on protecting Americans' right to bear arms. He states that the Second Amendment is not about hunting, but about tyranny and self-defense.

DISCUSSION

Mike Huckabee gets 26 points on my scale.

Huckabee is one of the politicians that is very open about his faith. He is a Christian and has stated "My faith is my life – it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." From what I have observed in Mike Huckabee he truly does live this way. For being a committed Christian, I have to give Mike Huckabee 3 points.

Secondly, Mike Huckabee is the only viable candidate who is in favor of the FairTax. I personally believe that adopting the FairTax is the single best thing that could be done for our economy and to bring a much needed level of accountability to the Federal Government. For being the only candidate to suggest we eliminate the IRS, I give him another 3 points.

So, the final analysis leads me to give Huckabee a total of 32 points.

Candidates - Mitt Romney

Next up – Mitt Romney

ISSUES

ABORTION:

[ADEQUATE] Mitt Romney believes that each state should be able to decide for itself if abortion should be allowed. In the cases of incest, rape, or when a mother's life is threatened he believes abortion should be legal. Previously, he was pro-choice – so this is a new position for Mitt Romney.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION / BORDER SECURITY:

[EXCELLENT]Mitt Romney opposes the idea of 'amnesty' for illegal aliens stating that it didn't work last time. To strengthen the border he suggests we complete the border fence. If employers could easily access a national database of legal aliens so they could know for sure their employees are legal, Romney believes we could then severely punish employers who continue to hire illegal aliens. Many cities, such as Los Angeles, refuse to deal with the issue of illegal immigration and have become 'sanctuary cities' for illegal aliens – Romney would punish these cities by withholding federal assistance.

THE WAR ON TERRORISM / IRAQ:

[EXCELLENT]Having an excellent understanding of the crucial importance of Iraq in the war on Terror, Mitt Romney suggests that a withdrawal of our troops before the region is stabilized would be "setting a date for surrender." As for the War on Terrorism, Romney suggests that in regions that are highly congested by Jihadist groups, we should place "Special Partnership Forces" – these would be Army Special Forces specially trained to work with civilian government and intelligence agencies to win support of the local citizens while isolating and eliminating the terrorist elements. On the diplomacy front, he suggests we join together with other developed nations and form a "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity" which will ensure that nations threatened by Jihadist Islam have public schools, banking, rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and competitive economic policies. Romney also states we need to strengthen the relationships with our allies.

TAXES:

[ADEQUATE]Romney would make the present tax cuts permanent and offer new ones. He is for abolishing the estate tax. He actually signed a pledge stating he would not raise taxes, and suggests we should reinstate the 'supermajority requirement' that would make it impossible for Congress to raise taxes without a 60% majority. Unfortunately, Romney does not have an opinion on the FairTax because he "hasn't had time to study it".

ENVIRONMENTALISM / ALARMISM:

[ADEQUATE]Mitt Romney's website does not give any position what-so-ever in regards to the environment or the global warming hype. All of his energy policies are based upon a desire to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He suggests we should be investing in alternative energy sources including nuclear power, should drill for domestic oil in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf. He opposes caps on greenhouse gas emissions stating that there are better ways to raise fuel efficiency.

HEALTHCARE:

[EXCELLENT]He opposes government-run healthcare. Everyone can have access to healthcare if we institute tort reform, stop treating the non-insured (and non-emergent) patients at emergency rooms and instead use that money to help them get insurance, make all healthcare expenses tax deductible, and encourage the states to eliminate the insurance regulations that push up healthcare costs.

ECONOMY:

[EXCELLENT] He suggests imposing a spending limit on the Federal Government, and instituting the 'line-item veto' to give the President the authority to trim unnecessary expenditures within otherwise good laws. The Federal Government must cut down on entitlement spending, and spending on projects that only benefit individual states. Also, he believes the government should be audited at every level to eliminate waste and inefficiency.

EDUCATION:

[EXCELLENT] Mitt Romney says that each state should be able to decide for itself what to teach and how to run its schools – however he believes that education should focus more on Math and Science. Believing that competition will only help public schools improve, he supports home schooling, charter schools, and public/private partnerships. He think that No Child Left Behind was good, but it would be better if it focused on individual student progress rather than whole school progress. To encourage the best teachers to teach in the highest-need schools, Romney suggests we institute performance-based pay for teachers. He also supports a tax credit for homeschoolers.

SECOND AMMENDMENT:

[EXCELLENT] Mitt Romney supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He believes the way to make America safer is to increase the penalties for committing a crime with a gun, instead of imposing gun-control laws which are only obeyed by law-abiding people anyway.

DISCUSSION

Mitt Romney has earned a total of 24 points on my scale.

Romney has stated that he would repeal the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 because it strips many Americans of their Constitutional right to free speech. For this position I have to give him 3 points.

Of course we can't discuss Romney without first acknowledging his religion. Romney is a Mormon. I personally believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints is a cult. When one examines the Book of Mormon against the Holy Bible, it becomes evident that the Mormon Jesus is not the same person as the Jesus Christ I believe in. In other words, when Mitt Romney prays, he prays to a different god than God Almighty. If a Moslem was running for office I would have the same hang-up – these are people who have pledged an allegiance to a false god. I feel this is significant and will dock Romney 3 points.

Reality is, of course, that none of the candidates are running on a Christian platform. No-one is saying we need to put God back in charge of this nation. None of the candidates are pledging to make decisions in accordance with God's will. McCain is an Episcopalian and Clinton is a Methodist, but I have no idea if that means they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. So, if I have to choose between a committed Mormon and a non-committed Christian, I'll just go with whoever more closely shares my other values.

So the final score for Mitt Romney is 24 points on the EB-Meter.

Candidates – John McCain

First let's look at John McCain.

ISSUES

Abortion:

[ADEQUATE] He is personally opposed to abortion, however he believes that each individual state should be allowed to decided for itself whether or not to allow abortion. Where abortion is legal, he proposes it can be reduced by promoting abortion alternatives and by meeting the needs of expectant mothers.

Illegal Immigration / Border Security:

[ADEQUATE] If illegal aliens learn English, pay fines, and pay back taxes then John McCain thinks they should be given an opportunity to become legal. He thinks that border security and enforcement should be increased. Also penalties should be strengthened against employers of illegal aliens. Document fraud needs to be reduced.

The War on Terrorism / Iraq:

[EXCELLENT] John McCain is a bit of a war hero. He served this country as a naval pilot. He was captured and tortured in Vietnam, where he was kept as a prisoner of war for more than five years. He supports the war effort in Iraq and understands that the threat of terrorism will increase if we do not succeed. He opposes bringing home the troops before we achieve success. McCain has been very vocally critical of President Bush in how he has handled the war so far.

Taxes:

[POOR] John McCain has stated he is opposed to the FairTax using a reason that clearly suggests he may not actually understand how it works. As a Senator he voted against the recent tax cuts, although he claims he would make them permanent if elected President. When asked to sign a pledge that he would not raise taxes, he refused.

Environmentalism / Alarmism:

[POOR] Unfortunately, John McCain has completely bought into the alarmism surrounding the Global Warming debate. Despite the ever increasing amount of evidence that climate change is a natural phenomenon not significantly affected by human activity he continues to support imposing very costly limitations on the economy in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He does support further investment in alternative energy sources including nuclear power.

Healthcare:

[EXCELLENT] John McCain's stated position on healthcare is fantastic. He is clearly opposed to government-run healthcare. He supports insurance and tort reform, the fostering of competition, and has an excellent idea for allowing people to use any organization (church, professional association, etc…) as a basis for group coverage.

Economy:

[EXCELLENT] I tend to like McCain's ideas about the economy, apart from taxes. He supports embracing competition with other nations, rather than trying to isolate our economy from the world. This means not putting up barriers to outsourcing, investing in foreign corporations, or penalizing foreign businesses who come to this nation. This is based on the philosophy that true competition will only benefit the American economy. He supports helping those Americans who lose jobs to outsourcing or modernization with the development of new skills.

Education:

[ADEQUATE] He appears to be pro-home school. He suggests that "Public education should be defined as one in which our public support for a child's education follows that child into the school the parent chooses." However, he later seems to indicate that he really only supports school choice when the local public school is failing. He hints that one of the problems why schools don't have effective teachers is poor salaries.

Second Amendment:

[EXCELLENT] John McCain's position on the Second Amendment is completely solid. He is definitely in favor of protecting law-abiding citizens' right to bear arms.

DISCUSSION

John McCain gets a total of 20 points on my scale. I'll give him another 3 points for having military experience during a war-time election.

However, I have to dock him 3 points for sponsoring the Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This law not only demonstrated a total lack of understanding on what needs to be reformed about our campaign system, but was also a serious blow to many American's right to free speech.

I would also dock him 3 points based upon my observation that he has adopted the philosophy that success in politics comes from making compromises with the opposing party. I think he believes a lot of the liberal-media hype about the issues and thinks that the Republican party needs to be more liberal if they want to gain the trust of the people. In my opinion we need a candidate that will be a champion of conservative ideas, standing up to the liberals who currently run Congress. We do not need a President who will pander to what he perceives to be popular opinion.

So the final score for John McCain is 17 on the EB-Meter.

The EB-Meter

As you know I had wanted to discuss the issues in some detail before delving into the candidates. Unfortunately a medical condition had kept me from blogging for awhile and now I am going to have to move things along pretty quickly in light of the looming Primary on Tuesday. Therefore I am going to jump right into a discussion on the candidates themselves.

As any conscientious voter must, I can only use my own political ideals as a barometer for how much support to put behind a candidate. So here is the EB-Meter scale in all its glory:

POOR: [1 point] A candidate's position on an issue is opposed to my own ideals.

ADEQUATE: [2 points] A candidate's position on an issue is something I could live with, but not entirely in line with my ideals.

EXCELLENT: [3 points] A candidate's position on an issue is very much in line with my own ideals.

Your ideals may be different than mine. If so, then shame on you! Because of the time crunch I'm going to keep these brief – if you need more information to help you decide just post a question in the comments.

EB

ISSUES

Before I go into any detail about the various candidates in this presidential election, I would like to review the main issues. The issues that are most important to me this election are:

· Abortion
· Illegal Immigration / Border Security
· The War on Terrorism / Iraq
· Taxes
· Environmentalism / Alarmism
· Healthcare
· Economy
· Education

Let me know if there is an issue you care about that I haven’t listed.

EB

New Activity for 2008

I have decided to re-activate my blog for this election year. The girls and I are reviewing the issues and candidates as a part of home school anyway, so I may as well share the wealth. My intention is to keep the postings short and concise so no-one gets bored.

Please feel free to post comments even if you disagree with me. Also, if there are any issues or candidates you would like me to analyze, just ask.

EB


[DISCLAIMERS]
Just to be clear, should I gain a reader or two who doesn’t know me, I am a conservative. I am registered as a Republican because generally Republican candidates align themselves with my political bent. Undoubtedly my analysis of the issues and candidates will be greatly influenced by my bias, and I make no apologies. I will endeavor to base my opinions and interpretations on solid facts. If I knew of a liberal-biased blog that did the same, I would recommend you read it as well – but I have yet to see one.

That's Why They Call Her "Jail Bait"

Okay, here comes the rant...

A 15 year old girl cannot consent to having oral sex with anyone.

Of course, I understand, that she can willingly perform oral sex. However, CONSENT is a legal term and legally the law says that a 15 year old girl is not yet capable of adequately considering all the potential consequences of her actions and therefore cannot consent to anything. This is the same reason she cannot sign binding legal contracts.

So it pisses me off that every day I have to listen to radio pundits and newscasters report that it is a tragedy that Genarlow Wilson has been sentenced to 10 years in prison when "all he did was engage in consensual oral sex between teenagers".

When I was 17 I knew that it was a crime to have sex, oral or otherwise, with 15 year old girls. I knew that if I chose to break that law I was at risk for going to prison for statutory rape. Every teenage boy I talked to knew that being a teenager yourself was not an excuse. Believe me, when you think about sex as much as teenage boys do, you know what the laws say about it. Genarlow Wilson undoubtedly knew this as well. He took a chance - he got caught. He shouldn't be complaining about it now.

Besides, the girl was intoxicated. When I was a kid, even though I had no moral objection to pre-marital sex, I knew it was wrong to take advantage of a girl when she was drunk. To do such a thing was completely unthinkable, and the kinds of boys who did it were considered thugs. When did this societal taboo drift away from us? When did we suddenly decide it's okay to accept a consent from someone who is obviously trashed? Don't tell me 15 year old girls are mature enough to consent to sexual activity. And especially don't tell me that drunk 15 year old girls are capable of consenting. This is insanity! Am I the only one who sees how dangerous it is if this kind of thinking becomes mainstream in our culture?

And I'm sick of hearing that he doesn't deserve jail because 'everyone does it'. Just because a lot of teenagers willingly have sex, doesn't make it right. Perhaps if the adults allowed the statutory rape laws to be enforced, and stopped saying that it isn't wrong, the behavior of our children would change. Perhaps if we all stopped pretending like this is normal and okay, our children would stop acting like it is normal and okay!

And another thing! Quit saying that it was only a blowjob! What the hell? When I was a teen you had to be engaged to a girl and have been sexually active for years before you could even think about asking her for oral sex, and even then you usually were met with a slap across the face. I'm not saying oral sex is bad - especially in the confines of a marital relationship - but can't we at least admit that it is 'worse' than normal sex? It's certainly not something to be taken lightly!

Don't even start with that nonsense that in one year, when she was 16, she could have consented. Whatever! You've got to draw the line somewhere. If we start saying that 15 year olds can consent even though the law says 16, then how long will it be until we start saying 14 year olds are fair game too??? And then 13, and then 12... When will it end?

THE - GIRL - WAS - TAKEN - ADVANTAGE - OF - ! She may not have thought so then, she may not think so now, hell she may have enjoyed it. She may have done that kind of thing every week. I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, she was too young to know any better and Genarlow Wilson took advantage of the situation.

Let's also keep in mind that he video taped the event. Even if she had been a legal 16, it is a Federal crime to video tape anyone under the age of 18 performing sexual activity. This is a child pornography case.

Because he was a minor when it happened, I do agree that a 10 year sentence and a lifetime sex-offender registration is too severe of a sentence. But I don't feel sorry for one instant that this scumbag has spent two years in jail and is a felon. (Besides he turned down a plea bargain because he said he didn't do anything wrong.) If he wants to file appeals claiming that his sentence was cruel and unusual - then I have no problem. But stop couching all the arguments as if he was an innocent man in jail. If I hear one more 'leader of the black community' shouting about the 'injustice' of it all I'm going to scream!

Okay, I think I'm done now...

Mandatory Attendance Laws

This is an interesting story I read on Fox News today. A school district in Connecticut is requiring over 2000 of their students to repeat a grade based solely upon excessive unexcused absences. (Even if they passed all their subjects.) Apparently an absence can only be excused if it is based upon a doctor's note for a "critical or chronic illness". This policy was put in place last year when the school district decided that too many absences were being excused by principals.

The government apparently thinks they know better than parents what is best for their kids. The parents can't be trusted to do the right thing. (Of course this brings up a legitimate question: Is it best for a student to repeat a grade he has mastered as a punishment for excessive absences? Is that what's best for his education? Is that the best way to spend tax dollars?)

But I suspect that tax dollars are the real issue anyway... A school district gets money from the State and Federal government based upon attendance. In California we were told it was $69.00 a day per student. For the sake of example, let's say in Connecticut they get only $50.00 a day per student. If 2000 of their students miss 18 days a school year, the school district loses 1.8 million dollars - and this is just the 'unexcused' absences. This is big money.

It makes no sense, education wise, to keep a passing student back a grade for any reason. Thus, I think the real reason must be financial and/or political. If a student is failing in school due to excessive and unreasonable absences, then perhaps a government entity should investigate on a case-by-case basis. However, the government agency that stands to make millions on the outcome should not be the entity responsible for the enforcement of mandatory attendance laws.

Thomas Paine said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." When the government is this blatantly violating one of our most basic freedoms - the freedom of parents to decide what is best for their own children - why aren't people more upset?