Mike Huckabee Gets a Phone Call From God

With all the negative news going on out there right now, I thought I would take the lighter route today and share a video I found on YouTube of a 2004 fundraiser for the Republican Governor's Association. Check it out:



This is why I love this guy. His humor, values, and straightforwardness are exactly what this country needs. Some people are afraid that his religious beliefs are going to take over the country, but that hasn't happened before with any other Christian president, and it won't happen with this one either. Mike has the experience necessary to take our country in the direction it needs to go, the most executive experience of any candidate, Democrat or Republican.

Today marks a big day in the Huckabee campaign. They have set a goal to raise more money online in the month of November than they have in the entire year. This morning we were over $350,000 short, and the most ever raised in one day just over $220,000. Donations tend to surge as it gets later in the day, but so far we are only $150,000 from our goal.

Mike has the experience necessary to take our country in the direction it needs to go, the most executive experience of any candidate, Democrat or Republican. If you are interested in donating, or just interested in more information on Mike and what he stands for, visit www.mikehuckabee.com. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.

Belgium Update

I'm sure everyone has been on the edge of their seats waiting to hear the news on Belgium. In an earlier post I discussed how Belgium has been without a government for months and how over 60% of the country would not be surprised if Belgium ceased to exist all-together. It has been well over 5 months (170+ days) since the elections and the government has still failed to exist. There have been multiple negotiation rounds, even consultations with the King. Now, all hopes are pinned on the prime minister-designate Yves Leterme of the Flemish Christian-Democrats to create a well-working government; although at this point most would probably settle for any government at all.

Under his direction parties on both sides of the language border have succeeded in concluding several partial agreements on justice and immigration. However according to the European Observer, much of the southern region of Belgium does not think Leterme is up to the task at hand. This is due to the fact that three vital issues still need to be resolved. The first is the issue of the electoral district of Brussels and its surrounding Flemish municipalities. Flemish parties are pushing for a split of the district without compensation to the French-speaking minority living in the surrounding area. This would result in the inability of the minority to vote for politicians from the largely francophone Brussels (aka the move is strongly opposed by French speakers). The second issue is the devolution of powers. While the Flemish are pushing for more power for the regions, the francophone speaking parties fear that this is a move to gradually break up the country. The third a final major issue is that it is unlikely that there is enough money to implement the political party agreements, which would make the renegotiation of these deals necessary.

The issue of the government desperately needs to be resolved in order to save this small country. Currently the outgoing government is prohibited from making important decisions and may only address current affairs. Also, Belgium may not be able to sign the latest EU treaty in December if no government has been set up by then. For more clarification on the political parties, see my earlier post.

Bill Clinton 'Opposed Iraq' From the Start, Or Did He?

Bill Clinton, on the campaign trail in Iowa for his wife Hillary, told a crowd that he opposed the Iraq war from the start. "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning," he said, "I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers."

The issue? Well, he kind of said the opposite at the beginning of the war. In May of 2003, Clinton was quoted as saying, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," and later that year he told reporters that he supported President Bush's handling of the war.


Again in June of 2004 in an interview with Time Magazine, he said, "So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing."

Sounds to me like he supported it from the start, and now that it is unpopular, he has flip-flopped. But the bigger question is why he would take a position opposite of his wife, the one who he is campaigning for. Hillary was and still is proud of her support of the Iraq war in the beginning stages. She has since changed her opinion, but she is proud of the fact that she supported it when the best intelligence we had told us that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction.

Here is a piece of advice to all presidential candidates: Figure out what you stand for, stand for it from the start, and let your supporters know it from the beginning. We all know what flip-flopping can get you (John Kerry), so it really isn't that good of a strategy. Be firm in your beliefs, and be proud of them. A true candidate would rather not be elected because they held strong to their values, rather than be elected on someone else's platform. The American people are searching for a candidate who will be honest with them, and that is the only way anyone is going to have a successful term in the White House beginning in 2008.

Fred Thompson Lashes Out At Fox News

In a recent interview on Fox News, Fred Thompson got a little defensive with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. Some people are comparing this to Bill Clinton's temper tantrum on Fox News last year. Take a look:



I really don't see anything wrong with what Thompson did here. I do somewhat agree with what the analysts said about him, but I think that he did a good job in defending himself against them. I mean, what was he supposed to do, just sit back and say, 'Well, if that's what you think then so be it.'? No. He offered clear facts without raising his voice, and reminded Wallace that he still is running second in most national polls, so not everyone agrees with what those analysts are saying.

However, if Thompson thinks Fox News is biased against him, he is going to have a real problem reaching the White House in 2008, because Fox is by far the most conservative mainstream news network in the country. People across the nation, especially Republicans, listen to Fox News and value the opinions of most of its commentators, and any remarks made could greatly influence the election.

I am by no means a Fred Thompson fan (I do like him more than most other candidates in the race), but I think that he needs to have MORE moments like this to show the American people 1) that he isn't going to fall asleep midsentence as he seems to be during the debates, and 2) that he truly is passionate about becoming the next President of the United States. Since he did get into the race so late, he needs to let the American people get to know who he is and what he is about. It seems to me like he has virtually disappeared from the news since his announcement in September that he was going to run, and that is showing in his slow decline in national poll numbers. If he wants to be considered a serious candidate, he should start being a little more controversial and getting himself back in the national spotlight.

Fixing Social Security

The basic principle behind social security: The average person is incapable of saving money for hard times and retirement and thus becomes a burden on society if/when such times arise, in order to eliminate such burden the money is mandatorily taken from the people through taxes and the government then saves it for them until they retire or fall on hard times. Seems like a good plan, but there are problems. The way it works now is that the people who are working pay the expenses of the people who are retiring. In the past this plan worked well, the ratio of working people to retired people was large enough so that there was no shortage of cash. As time has gone on that ratio has changed and people are now living longer leaving the system with a shortage of cash. My solution to this problem has several aspects, which not only solve this problem but also help us with our national debt. The first action I would say we should take would be to determine how much money every living person has put into social security with interest. Next we privatize accounts and put the amount determined into that account. At this point we encounter the problem of not having enough money again. To fix this problem we make a small increase on the federal income tax to correct the balance for people retiring in that year. The tax increase would decrease every year until we reached a balance point of the amount someone put into social security being the amount that they get upon retirement. (No one likes a tax increase but it is far better than having people who have paid into the system one day get nothing) Another way to lower costs and keep the system working would be to increase the age at which benefits are available every now and again as the average life expectancy increases. As with any other asset the balance of a person’s private account could be willed to someone else upon his or her death. As far as the national debt aspect goes many of the accounts will sit inactive for years accumulating money until a person retires. The government should then take that money and spend it when we go to war or have some other national need that exceeds our budget. One the account is called in upon that persons retirement the balance is restored plus the higher interest given on a government bond if it was used while it was still growing. The money to pay these people back would come from the same tax increase or budget cuts that we would use to pay back a debt to a foreign country, except now our own people get the interest payments instead of a foreign government. I thought this was a pretty good idea so give me some feedback and try to find any problems.

The Business of Government

Over the years a lot of cash has passed through the hands of the American government and some has slipped through the fingers towards worthless spending. The problem is that when you are dealing with trillions of dollars “some” is a whole bunch of money. My solution, run our government more like a business. The president or a governor is like a CEO and under him the executive branch of the country or a state should run like a business to provide several products to consumers. Products range from security and trade agreements to mail routes and roadways. The consumers of these products are the American people, and yet at the same time the American people are also the shareholders. Because all of the customers are shareholders this rules out the need to make a profit, but the need to run efficiently is still there. Going with this analogy the Supreme Court would be a board of directors and congress would simply be a small group of shareholders selected by all of the other shareholders to vote on their behalf in order to save time. Running the country in such a manner was clearly on the minds of some when our government was designed, there are departments specializing in a certain product and various divisions responsible for various aspects of the particular product. Take for instance on a small scale a state has the responsibility to provide security to its citizens and they are willing to pay a reasonable amount. That state then sets up a structure of state police, sheriffs, and local police. The idea is on a daily basis the local police handle the needs of a group of people and if the needs grow to large on a particular day (sporting events, concerts) the sheriffs are called in. If the needs grown even larger (protests, riots) then the state police are called in. In this fashion adequate security is provided efficiently with minimal cost. In regards to these aspects our government currently employs such practices. The problem arises when say for instance the local police become inefficient at providing security (to many police for to few problems) or provide poor customer service (tasering and shooting people when it is not justified). At this point the police need to be threatened with budget cuts and if there is still a problem the people should vote to allow private contractors to provide security as long as they operate within the limits of the law, effectively putting that local police force out of a job. Now apply this to larger organizations such as the Social Security Administration. The product of this “company” is economic security, that being said they need to create a product features that the consumers (citizens) want for a price that they can afford (taxes). If the product features are insufficient or the prices are to high then people should be able to opt out of paying for social security and eventually that company will go bankrupt and private companies will take its place. By putting in place such measures that make our government operate in this fashion it not only becomes more efficient but the costs become lower and people can spend their money on other things than taxes. In short out government was supposed to run like a business and we are somewhat there, now we just need to get the rest of the way.

Taking Money from Vets

Let's roleplay for a bit shall we? You joined the military after 9/11 in hopes of protecting our country, and before you know it you got sent over to Iraq. You do your duty and serve out your tour, and now you're on your way home. However, mom and dad are a little hard up on cash, and you haven't exactly recieved a college degree yourself, so you decide to sign back on to the military where you knew you could earn a decent wage doing something you know and have grown to atleast tolerate. That shiney $20,000 sign-on bonus wasn't too shabby either. Now, 5 months before your second tour was supposed to finish, you get injured and lose a leg. You get sent home early, but now you ride in a wheel chair. If that wasn't enough to ruin your day, wait a few days until you get a letter in the mail from the government asking for some of that sign-on bonus back.

That's right, the government is taking money back from injured soldiers because they are unable to finish their tours of duty. This is just disgusting. I would like to see someone defend this position. In fact, I will personally give $25 to anyone who convinces me that this is justified. My family is full of veterans, and when this subject was discussed over dinner Grandpa Yams almost lost his teeth he was so pissed off. Even being the known Conservative that he is, he practically screamed about how our administration is full of idiots. Needless to say, everyone else in the restaurant was mildy amused/horrified at his outburst.

You can read more about the story at this website. It describes a man named Jordan Fox who was blinded in his right eye and had back injuries from a bomb, and who now owes the government $3000. Disgusting. Thank you Bush Administration for finally making my choice easier on which party to vote for in the coming election. I better hear some public apologies soon.

On a lighter note, hopefully you guys had a nice Thanksgiving!