Let The Buyer Beware.

There are new facets to Mr. Obama being discovered each and every day. He is very new to the National Political scene and he is, only now, being properly vetted through public scrutiny, unlike his opponents who have been on the national political scene much longer.

It is not unlike the herd mentality of some to, impetuously, chase after every new and popular product to hit the market without doing proper research. An example of this was the much hyped car, the Yugo of the mid 1980s. A retrospective analysis by it's owners, post purchase, could be fairly characterized as brutal.

The problem was that it was brand new on the market and no one had the proper information to make a proper judgment regarding it's suitability, all they had was the hype. This "pump-and-dump" concept can also extend to politicians.

The concept of "What you see is what you get" can be readily applied to any purchasing situation, including purchases made with a vote, however, just what are we seeing? Obama is still filling in the wire-frame of his political life.

The next term of office for the President of the United States is going to be a very critical time, too critical for post sale buyers remorse.

We must all do the country a favor and know our candidate before we vote.

It's WalMart Season Again.

On April 23, 2008, a City Council meeting was held in Newport in which the main topic of discussion was WalMart. Predictably, the WalMart opponents prophesied devastation for the area if WalMart were to move in (obviously having learned NO lessons from St. Johnsbury and the devastation that occurred there because they forced WalMart across the river into New Hampshire) and the proponents who say the people need a department store. After all, there has been no department store in this area since Ames went belly-up and closed their Derby store in 2002, a bleak day for this area.

As I read the accounts of the heated debate that occurred at this meeting, I reminisced about personal experiences in “shopping local businesses” in downtown Newport. One day, I needed a pair of house slippers, for which I expected to pay around $10.00. After searching all of the local drug stores looking for this item, I stopped into a local retailer and found just what I needed. And just what was the price for this $10.00 pair of house slippers, why $38.95, so I awaited my monthly trip to WalMart to purchase them there. Then there was the time I entered a downtown business in search of a one gallon gasoline can. While I expected to pay the going price of around $8.00 for this item, “shopping locally” would have me pay $15.99. While gasping at the inflated price of this item, I saw a double shop light and stand, that sells for $29.99 at a national chain store, priced for $49.99 at this local, downtown establishment and the list goes on and on.

Keeping in mind that these local merchants, while charging Boston and New York City prices, see fit to pay only minimum wage to their employees while offering NO benefits. If this sounds like the argument against WalMart's treatment of THEIR employees, I would suggest that those living in glass houses stop throwing stones. At least, in the area of fairness, WalMart seems to have taken the moral high ground over local merchants by keeping their prices low and reasonable. This was the economic philosophy of Henry Ford who believed that it was only proper to charge no more for his cars than his employees could afford.

Under the cries of “support your local downtown merchant”, the fleecing of America continues.

Does anyone else have any horror stories to tell about their experiences of “shopping locally”?

The Conflict Within Barack Hussein Obama

At a fundraiser on Thursday, May 22, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama utilized his bully pulpit to attack two notable opponents of illegal immigration, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs.

Accusing both of xenophobia, Mr. Obama, further attributed an alleged rise in hate crimes against Hispanics to the ideology of both Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Dobbs. I think this needs to be examined and exposed for what it is, demagoguery and race baiting.

It is now no secret that Mr. Obama is an “Open Borders” candidate who wants illegals here and NOW, no matter if these immigrants are being victimized, not only by their own government, but by United States employers who hire them.

First, they are economic refugees, driven here by a government who views them, with a “good riddance” attitude, as surplus population which needs to flee over the U.S. Border. A border which has provided Mexico with a built in safety valve, venting the steam of revolution, for many decades. Secondly, they face unspeakable atrocities, when they come to the United States, by unscrupulous employers who deprive them of the most basic worker's rights that U.S. citizens take for granted. Rights such as Worker's Compensation, equality in the work place (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), FLSA and all the other State and Federal workplace rules that make working bearable. They simply do not apply to illegal aliens because employers can “turn them in” to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and claim that they didn't know about their immigration status. Then, they are victimized by a society who can continue to commit illegal acts against them due to their inability and fear to report these acts for fear of deportation.

What the open borders folks, such as Mr. Obama, want is to create a permanent underclass of cheap, disenfranchised labor and second-class citizens. While this “new-slavery” should be repugnant to Mr. Obama, it seems to come as second nature to the party who vehemently opposed Civil Rights in the 1960s and left the Republicans to fight and win the “Title VII” victory for African-Americans.

It is little wonder that the Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr..

The Religion Of Atheism.

There is a controversy brewing at the Mount Abraham Union High School in Bristol, Vermont, as students there had the temerity to display a statuette of Jesus. Even though the justification was promoted that this statue was not an exclusively religious display, but was well within school policy because its presence served as commentary on an academic issue, the students were instructed to remove it.

In the world of academia, only displays of Christianity are taboo, all other religions are acceptable, and this asks a fundamental question, "Since Atheism, which meets the standard definition of a religion, is the faith and belief that there is no GOD, would the absence of any and all religious artifacts within a school be a testimonial that the school supports Atheism as a State religion?"

The Battle At Westmore.

There has been a controversy raging regarding a "clothing optional" cove on the south side of Lake Willoughby. Some would like to legislate it out of existence and some enjoy the mix of its natural beauty while taking advantage of the purported benefits of nakedness.

As I understand it, the practice of nudity at the cove is very old and traditional, and one of the toughest things to rail against in any legislation or judicial review is "Past Practice". Just like Black's Beach in San Diego County in the Peoples Republic of California, the history and tradition of this practice will sustain the nudity in this section of the cove because it has, over the years and decades, become customary and usual. However, as a caveat to those who expect privacy from gawkers and photographers, DON'T. If you choose to sunbathe in-the-buff on public lands, you have very little right or expectation of privacy.

The following excerpt is taken from the Vermont Statutes: Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure Chapter 59: Lewdness And Prostitution; Section 2605. Voyeurism; "Circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her intimate areas would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area." In other words, if you are to sunbathe, in-the-buff, on public lands, expect to be photographed and gawked at with no recourse. If this offends you, stay home.

Pro-Illegal Alien Amnesty.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has just attached a rider onto an Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill, which would grant amnesty to 1.35 million illegal agricultural workers, plus their families, for a 5-year period. This, accomplished at the insistence of Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

Under the cover of a bill which serves to fund our brave men and women who are in harm's way in the Middle East, this rider demonstrates the Senate's true nature and the usefulness of the Senate's "Blood For Oil" program in hiding, otherwise, unacceptable legislation in bills which seem patriotic.

By perpetuating the war with their refusal to allow measures which would assist the United States towards energy independence, the Senate has assured the continuation of a war, into perpetuity, for purposes which can only be viewed as self-serving attempts to promote their agendas and their pork-barrel politics which are hidden in bills that have the appearance of patriotic legislation. This is done at the expense of our troops overseas. The Senate has found a way to hide, in plain sight, while placing the blame for THEIR "Blood For Oil" program on George Bush since he carries the title of Commander In Chief.

After all of the strident invectives that have been hurled at Republicans by Democrats when the Republicans controlled the Senate, now that the Democrats have control of the Senate, please explain to me how things have changed.

Blood for Oil, The Anti-Patriot Story.

First of all I would like to remind everyone that George Bush was a Governor prior to holding the office of the President of the United States. He was never a member of Congress. This is important because the Bush-Bashing, Black Helicopter crowd wishes to link him with a vast right wing conspiracy known as "Blood For Oil". However, it was the Senate who chose to drive the concept of "Blood For Oil" in their May 13th, 2008 (97-1) vote which soundly rejected the Republican Energy Plan, which promoted offshore drilling and opening up Alaska (ANWR) for oil exploration. This control over an expanded domestic oil production is crucial because, currently, we are beholding to the Middle East for our oil supplies. Everyone remembers the Middle East, this is where the "Blood" component of "Blood For Oil" comes from because, as we know, the United States is fighting a war in the region and our soldiers are dying. Clearly, any "Blood For Oil" program was perpetuated, BY THE SENATE, on Tuesday the 13th with a vote which, not only rejected domestic exploration for oil, but guaranteed continuing entanglements in the Middle East to protect our oil interests there. In so doing, the Senate now owns "Blood For Oil" and, hopefully, the Bush Bashers will make a note of this lest they selectively forget.

Instead of a far-sighted energy plan, inclusive of nuclear, wind, solar and domestic oil energy, which seeks to wean the United States off of their reliance on foreign oil, the brain trust in D.C. came up with, yet, another band-aid solution to the problem, diverting the oil, destined for the Strategic Oil Reserve, to our gas tanks. Instead of working toward self-reliance based on our own, massive, oil reserves, the Senate, NOT Bush, is working on policies which will guarantee continuing entanglements in that volatile region that we have come to know as the Middle East.

Clearly, the world's oil supplies are finite and in need of replacement through a, more sustainable, source. If we can develop a program, such as the Manhattan Project, to destroy mankind, is it not possible to muster the same national will to produce a program that will benefit mankind?

I'm still searching for the filling station where I can get a tank of hydrogen for my fuel cell car that has yet to be produced.

An upscale discussion on the politics of the Democrats.

Maybe we could write these guys in in November?

Food, Food Everywhere, But Not A Bite To Eat.

First it was the Vegans telling the rest of the world that eating animals is wrong and we should, exclusively, dine on fruits, vegetables and other non-animal delectables. Now, comes the Swiss Government telling the Vegans that they are wrong and that plants have rights too.

As reported by the Weekly Standard magazine, the Swiss Government has convened a bio-ethics panel, the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology, to interpret a recent amendment to the Swiss Constitution which states that, ". . . account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." In the resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants", the panel states that, because plants have an intrinsic worth born out of their status as a life form, "We may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

Well, the Vegans would prohibit the consumption of meat and the Swiss Government would prohibit the consumption of all vegetation. I think the solution to this dilemma is clear, have a Vegan for breakfast and a Swiss official for dinner - you can skip lunch.

For the Weekly Standard article, CLICK HERE.