Media Bias? Duh!

Is there a media bias? Of course there is.

How would one go about proving that? See answer below:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

The American people are being betrayed by "the Fourth Estate." It is time for The People to take back their country from the liberal media.

Again, that's why I'm running for President. The American People deserve better. The American People deserve respect and integrity.

Aloha.

Disrespect - Updated

Update at bottom.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrespect

Disrespect

Main Entry:
1dis·re·spect :
\ˌdis-ri-ˈspekt\
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1614

1 : to have disrespect for 2 : to show or express disrespect or contempt for : insult, dis

The below story is from this link: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/obama-cancels-visit-to-us-troops-in-germany/

Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the Illinois senator opted not to visit U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany because it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported earlier that Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, and the Ramstein Air Base.

The report came as Obama prepared to speak to thousands at a high-profile address in Berlin.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement saying Obama originally wanted to visit troops at Landstuhl to “express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice,” and noted that he already visited troops in Iraq while he was part of an official congressional delegation.

But he said the second leg of Obama’s trip was different.

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” Gibbs said.

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

He has time to make speeches to the world and "shoot hoops", but he doesn't have time to stop by and say "thank you" to men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend him (and everyone else in the nation). Disrespect.

Here's another take, from someone who was at an air base in Iraq when Sen. Obama visited: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/07/more-witness-em.html. Again, disrespect.

UPDATE: New story released by ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5449455&page=1. Now it is the military's fault he didn't visit? Complete disrespect.

Aloha.

New Video

This is why I think my Presidential campaign for 2012 has a real chance:

http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/if47MpmmhEth8v7m

People are fed up with all professional politicians.

Aloha.

Iran - again

Example of economic/information warfare through proxy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380324,00.html

Example of information warfare:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

Saddam did the same thing. Neither country has/had the military to back it up.

As I believe I have blogged before, thank goodness Israel will take their nuke potential out soon. Then the shooting war starts. However, the shooting part should be over quickly.

Aloha.

Presidential Movement

First, let me state, this is not accurate/real.

Second, this is so cool. Check this out:





Finally, thanks to Topher for the info.

Aloha.

Presidential Issue - Budget

Just like any other organization or person, the United States of America collects and spends money. The United States budget is prepared by the Office of Management and Budget and submitted to Congress. Congress then makes changes to the budget. If you would like more detail on the process, please follow the below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

When the government takes in more than it spends, we call that a "balanced budget". When the government spends more than it takes in, we call that "operating at a deficit". Not too complex.

To be fiscally responsible, the government should have a balanced budget. Just like a family, the government can borrow money. However, also just like a family, the government has to pay interest on the money borrowed. So, the government wants to avoid debt. However, the United States government is currently (according to my best numbers) approximately $9 trillion ($9,000,000,000,000) in debt. Wow. A lot of zeros. In 2003, $318,000,000,000 was spent on interest payments alone. Still, a lot of zeros.

On top of the explicit debt, there are other financial problems that need to be dealt with. The ones that concern me most are Medicare and Social Security. Some have described Social Security as a "pyramid scheme". I believe that description is close. Here's how it works: The government collects money from workers. It then promises to return money to those workers when they reach the age of retirement. Sounds simple. If it is so simple, why do we keep hearing debate about "when Social Security will run out of money"? Why are the best current estimates that Social Security will run out of money in 2041? Unfortunately, Medicare will also run out of money in 2019. This can be chalked up to the fact that the government takes the money it gets from you and sticks it in the general fund. Then, it pays out benefits from the general fund. So, they talk about "having money" when they are taking in more money than they are paying out. However, there is no saved money. The money you paid in was used to pay out to others that were then collecting Social Security, or to prop up the general fund. So, the money you put in is gone.

So, we have an even larger problem than the current deficit would indicate, because in the relatively near future (11 - 33 years) we have other obligations that will add to the federal debt.

Basically, we are in a very bad financial situation. We need to begin solving it soon, before it gets more out of control than it already is. While we can't cut enough or generate enough new revenue to change this situation overnight, we need to start turning the ship.

I don't have details on the federal budget. I don't know how long it will take to get the federal government a balanced budget. I don't know how long it will take to develop alternatives to Social Security and Medicare (whether those alternatives are alternative funding or alternative plans, I don't know). However, I do know that the longer we operate with poor financial planning (the kind that would make the average citizen eventually file bankruptcy) , the more difficult it will be to correct and the more likely we are to run into a financial crisis.

End.

Presidential Issue - Abortion

The issue of abortion has divided this nation for well over 3 decades. While one can site the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, the debate over abortion preceded this ruling.

We can argue, as the Court did, over a "right to privacy". I will not. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a specific "right to privacy" outlined. When it comes down to it, any right to privacy that one can conjure up in the Constitution would never prevent a state from enacting drug laws, abuse laws, or any other laws due to a "right to privacy." There are a number of laws that restrict what citizens can do, even in their own home. For example, I cannot purchase a machine gun and keep it in my home. The "right to privacy" argument would just as logically apply to this example as to abortion.

However, I want to discuss the key issue: Who is a person? The Supreme Court reviews various beliefs and historical laws regarding abortion. What they fail to notice is that, as the understanding of what the thing growing inside the mother is changes, the laws change. The more those making the laws believe the thing inside the mother is alive, the more forcefully the laws are written. Some laws call it a capital crime to perform an abortion. (Murder). So, the question of life and personhood is critical. Nowhere in the history is there a discussion of privacy. This make complete sense if you look at the act of abortion as one that could be murder (depending upon your definition of person).

To quote from the Roe v. Wade decision:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Translation: "No one knows, so we're not going to try to figure it out either." This thing inside the mother is, even by their arguments, POSSIBLY life. Estimates are that over 44 million abortions have happened in the United States since Roe v. Wade. Isn't it worth the effort to try to figure it out?

To see a graphical representation of the scale of abortions in this country, follow the following link: http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm

We enact laws to restrict freedom with the view to ensure safety. We restrict freedom of those we acknowledge to be people to help "protect" them from bad decisions. Our police can stop someone for not wearing a seat belt. We enact laws to protect animals, things that we acknowledge clearly are NOT people. A woman cannot legally kill a robin in the state of Michigan, but a woman can abort the thing inside of her that is possibly alive. I fail to see the logic in arguing that the government has more interest in a bird than in a possible human life.

We even have laws that speak to the "personhood" of the thing inside a woman. If a pregnant woman is murdered, and the thing inside her dies, the person charged with murdering the mother will also be charged with murdering the child. How can you murder a non-human "thing"? Answer: You can't. You can only murder a person. These laws, when analyzed, seem to offer a contradiction. When the mother wants it, it is a person. When the mother doesn't, it is a thing that can be disposed of more easily than a state bird. The actual thing inside the mother did not change one bit. The concept that the wishes of the mother somehow make the thing inside her a person is ridiculous.

So, is the "fetus" a person? We know "at this point in the development of man's knowledge" that a fetus has all of the necessary genetics to be a human being. We know that one clear differentiator between us and animals is genetic. One can clearly see genetically that the thing inside a mother will be a person, and not something else, such as a dog or rabbit. Unless someone unnaturally or something naturally terminates the pregnancy before delivery, the fetus will be born and be recognized by everyone as a person. While there may have been a question in the past on what that thing inside a mother is, that question can easily be answered today: That "thing" is a pre-born human being (person). Any other answer is a lie.

As I have said, I will not lie to you. That "thing" inside a woman is alive. It is a human being. Therefore, that "thing" is a person, entitled to any and all protection under the law. Any other philosophy exists simply to remove natural consequences for actions. At the cost of a human life, a tragically high cost to free one from responsibility.

Abortion should be as illegal as murder, as a person's life is ending against its will.

End.

Presidential Issues

Below is a list of issues I plan on discussing in more depth:

Abortion
Budget and Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy and Oil
Environment
Families and Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure and Technology
Jobs
Military
Principles and Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War and Peace
War on Terror
Welfare and Poverty

Please let me know if there are other issues you would like me to discuss.

Aloha.

Quote

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful." - C.S. Lewis

I would add that we question the nature of truth and are shocked to find that we have been lied to.

Aloha.

Presidential Question

Here is a question I received from a supporter:

"Okay, I've got a question for you.

How much sense does it really make to base your presidential vote on whether or not the candidate supports abortion?

It seems to me that the president doesn't have a whole lot of effect on the issue since he can't really change the laws and that the vote might be better spent on issues for which the president is directly responsible.

I know that the president can certainly affect legislation, encourage or discourage it, and veto it, but apart from nominating Supreme Court justices, there doesn't seem much that the president can do with regard to moral issues."

I do not recommend being a one issue voter. While I feel very passionately about the issue of abortion, there are many other life and death issues a President will face besides abortion. With that said, this is life and death of babies on an enormous scale. I will be the first candidate who could have been legally killed before I was ever born. Again, I feel very passionately about this issue. But, again, the President faces many life and death issues.

The official role of the President is clearly outlined in the Constitution. In the negative, the President does not propose laws and the President does not rule on the Constitutionality of those laws. The President does have command of the military, signs or vetoes bills, appoints Cabinet members, grants pardons, plays a role in treaties, and appoints judges among other duties.

The most important function of the President at this time is his/her role as leader of the United States of America. While one may look at the official list of functions outlined by the Constitution and question the importance of the position, the true importance and power of the position is in its role as this nation's leader. Leaders set vision, set the agenda and set the tone of the discussions that happen over the issues.

Our government is designed to divide powers between the branches. Very few powers are reserved for one branch exclusively. The President appoints judges, the Legislative branch confirms them. The President signs or vetoes bills, but the Legislative branch sends the bills in the first place and can override a veto.

What this means is that, to effect change in our nation, there needs to be a certain amount of agreement between the three branches of government. So, what does this mean to the voter?

Voters are farthest away from the selection of Supreme Court Justices. Voters select a President, who nominates Justices and Congress confirms the Justices.

Due to the numbers of Senators and Representatives, an individual voter selects only 2 out of 100 Senators and only 1 out of 435 Representatives. That equals about 1/2 of 1% of the Legislative branch.

However, each voter gets to cast a vote for the President of the United States (I won't go into detail on the whole elector deal).

So, in direct response to the question, the President gets to set vision and lead the nation, would have the power to sign or veto legislation if a pro-life Congress passed such legislation, and nominates Justices who could rule on the issue of abortion. In essence, this is very similar to what was stated in the question. However, the importance of these powers/responsibilities of the President are such that no other person can execute them. I typically will not vote for a candidate that is pro-abortion. That candidate has, so far, always shared many other views which I do not agree with. This has made my decision simpler.

In general, you should vote for someone who you believe will make the best decisions for the nation. That's where my candidacy gains momentum. Most politicians today are concerned about their political career, their pay, their friends. I am running for President not because I feel that I am special and deserve power. I am running for President because the role of President (and any leadership role) should be filled by someone who understands and tries to live out the concept of selfless service. The President needs to make decisions on what is best for the nation, not what is best for himself/herself, for the party, for my "rich friends" (republicans), or for "those stupid poor people" (democrats).

As I run my campaign, I will not lie to you. I will state my positions as clearly as I can, and stick to them, unless I come to believe differently. If that happens, I will explain why that has happened clearly. I won't simply go "middle of the road" with my positions so that I can waffle on them later. My goal isn't to make myself look good or woo you to vote for me. I will tell you what I believe and I expect you to vote for me because you believe I will make the best President out of the available candidates. I think the most fundamental questions you must ask of any candidate is "Do I trust him/her? Can I believe what he/she says?" Without trust, all else is meaningless.

Aloha.