We Have AUDIO!

There has been some issues with the podcasts. It has been fixed (I hope) so I will be adding the ENTIRE ELECTION COVERAGE to the podcasts later this week! I am cutting the MP3 into segments and listing the contributors in the segments, so you will have to give me a day or two to label.

What is there to fear?

In the wake of the elections, what is my biggest fear? I wonder if this is Jimmy Carters 2nd term. We have lived through this before, and it did not kill us... too much. I can see more spending and more deficits over the next four years. We have two years that we have to tolerate until we can fix the mess we are in. But a lot of damage can be done in two years.

You have already seen my fear of the "fairness" doctrine, and you know about Hoover's... err... Obama's tax plan, what else could go wrong? How about partial birth abortions? What about late term abortions? Both are disgusting procedures that DO constitute murder in my eyes. How about Obama's "share the wealth" comments? What does that mean? Obama has not fully explained what he meant by this, but considering his voting record (the little that he has), and his ideas and comments, I am thinking socialism.

I know the picture I created has a communist flag, but then again, we have never seen communism in the world. We have seen extreme socialism (such as "communist" Russia and China) and therefore the flag fits. I fear that Obama, in conjunction with the Democrat Congress, will move us one step (or more) closer to socialism. If I have to give my hard earned money to the government so they can "redistribute income" to those who DON'T work, what would you call it? Socialism.

What else do I fear? Click the links on the right hand side that say "black panthers" and you will see. Intimidation, fraud, and cheating are the tactics used by the far left for years. Add to those videos the actions of Acorn, and the "don't be selfish" message from Obama, and you start to see the how close we are to socialism.

Barack wants big government, income redistribution, government run healthcare, and government control over the media (IE: fairness doctrine). He can't do it alone, but he doesn't have to; we have given him a Democrat Congress. (Talk about a free pass!) I know of another country, one previous and one current, that is very similar to the one Barack wants to create; China and the U.S.S.R.

I am quitting my job. Thank you for sharing your paycheck with me, comrade!

YES! I hear you!

I am getting your letters, and I know how you feel. I can not respond to everyone. Please do not email me with "did you get my email." The answer is YES! But there are WAY too many. Please give me some time. I am flooded, but I am reading. I am sorry if I am going so slow. I awoke to over 150 emails; some long, some short, all very good. I can not respond to everyone, but I will try to address everyone's concerns.

First, the fairness doctrine. Yes this is a real thing. It was enacted in 1949 to "ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair." (The Museum of Broadcast Communications

There is a part two to this. The net is also susceptible to "fairness" via content policies. Just ask the FCC commissioner. He said, "the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned." -commissioner Robert McDowell

What next? How about another economic depression like in 1932? Look at Obama's tax plan, then look at this plan from Hoover (that failed miserably). Don't be fooled by the wording, this is what BOTH plan call for. Tax the top tier more, give money to everyone else. Yes, I am part of "everyone else," but I can see though the fluff. Simply put, the higher taxes to the top tier will cause a rise in prices to the lower tiers. There will be no relief from this policy, only an increase to cost of living. Mark my words, Obama will fail because this is Hoover's failed plan.

Keep the emails rolling, I will try to address every issue you raise. FYI, no I do not feel safe in my own home. Even Obama's VP agrees with me; within 6 months we will face crisis.

More to come check back later today!

Quick note from Scott: the podcasts are working correctly again, so we now have the entire Jennifer Horn interview up in its entirety (not cut down to 30 seconds). Sorry for the technical difficulties.

Ready... Set... GO!

It is 8am EST, and the races have begun. Make sure you get out to vote today. This morning I have been writing, so check for updates on the site. Today I dedicate to the races, and tonight I am going to be on the air. Listen tonight from 7-midnight to 1590 WSMN Nashua's source for news and talk, or online (Click the WSMN logo on the right). Call in and talk with us on the air at WSMN at (603) 883-9900.

New Hampshire and the Election Cycle

No, I am not going to bore you to death talking about the literal meaning of this post's title. This is a treat for you. Want to know what was going through my head today while I was in studio? Did you miss the show and our wonderful guests? Well how about a quick recap of the topics, a few free shout outs for my special guests, and I will also post links up to their websites. (Remember that we keep recordings of our shows in the "podcasts" link. GO LISTEN! You'll be sorry if you don't!)

Our guests (click a name to go to their website):

Paul LaFlamme

Sandra Ziehm

Jacqueline Casey

Part one (click here to listen to the podcasts)

Today we had Paul LaFlamme in the studio during part one of Temperature Gauge Live (sorry about the picture Paul, it was the best one on the web). We talked about his debate in Hollis, spending in New Hampshire, alternative energy (sort of, we got side tracked), over regulation (what we got side tracked to), and the economy. Over all, Paul came across as an intelligent conservative who is looking out for you and me.

Towards the end of the segment, Sandra Ziehm called in to talk with us. I tried to get Paul and Sandra to work off each other for a couple minutes, like a round table of sorts, and it worked out fairly well.

Segment two, we said goodbye to Paul and talked with Sandra one on... two (?) Sandra talked about the record of her opponent, taxes, spending, and some of the ridiculous legislation that has been presented under the Democrats. I have to say, this woman makes a lot of sense. Sandra is an intelligent, well informed, solid conservative.

I was inept in my duty to reign in the filibustering today, so I decided to turn segment three over to Jacqueline Casey. I posed a few soft questions to her and started to feel guilty. Jacqueline spoke about second amendment issues such as gun free zones and crime rates, stated she was a "Ron Paul" Republican (or rather she is a Libertarian), and eluded that her favorite word when it came to taxes and spending was "no!" We also talked about proposed taxes by the Democrats and spending issues. Just so I could milk my point about gun free zones, I played devils advocate with her. You must listen if you want to know what I asked!

If you’re going to listen to one of the shows, this might be the one. (I am still partial to the one with Jennifer Horn –website-, listen to Part 2) The part with Sandra (2) has a conversation between a Lanna and Sandra. This is one of the best parts, listening to Sandra talking to one of our great listeners.

I want to thank all three candidates for taking the time to come talk with us on Temperature Gauge Live. Also, thank you to those who are listening, reading, and continue to support us at Temperature Gauge and Temperature Gauge Live. If you want to leave a question, comment, or just want to voice your opinion, I will pass on any “appropriate” comments to the candidates. Remember to visit their websites!

Paul LaFlamme

Sandra Ziehm

Jacqueline Casey

Just the Facts, Scam... ahh, Ma'ma

Now THAT’S what I call a debate. The candidates actually debated! If you missed this one, you missed the best one. Obama came off as cool, calm, and collected… almost. He was sent reeling a few times by the questions and comments from McCain.

Obama might have looked good on the surface, but by watching and listening to Obama’s responses, you could tell he was having a hard time fielding McCain’s assaults. Obama stammered and stuttered his way though a few different factual inaccuracies, and in some cases, out and out lies.

One of the worst inaccuracies was when Obama said people at McCain rallies are yelling “kill him” towards Obama. This is not true for two reasons. First, Obama made it sound like people were calling for Obama’s death. Not ONE person called for Obama’s death, and this fact is backed up by the investigations of the Secret Service.
Supposedly, when Bill Ayers name was mentioned, someone yelled “kill him,” in reference to Bill Ayers. This is an important distinction to make, and Obama tried to blur the truth. Obama lied by telling only half of the truth.
Here is an example; It’s like if I said, “I hate when I run over frogs in the rain” and someone twists my words and tells you I said “I hate frogs and run them over” then qualifies it as a racist statement toward people of French descent. Obviously the words in the second quote were said, but not in the way they are written.

So why is this important? If you haven’t figured it out yet, Obama is a liar through and through. He gives you half the truth, and even the truth he gives you is twisted around. Obama may have looked smooth, but McCain dominated in substance. Rather than recap the debate, let me point out other Obama half-truths

Let’s start with one of my favorite subjects, oil. Obama said the oil companies have 68 million acres leased that they are not drilling. He was correct about the leased land, and that’s about it.
Fact:
Exploratory drilling is being done on quite a bit of the 68 million acres. Though they are not producing oil yet (key word is yet), they are using the land. The only area that can be listed as land used is those that are actually producing oil. Thus, the areas that are being drilled for exploration are not counted until they produce oil. Oh, and by the way, it takes about 10 years for an exploratory hole to produce oil. Thank you for the half-truth Barack O-Liar.


Another favorite subject of mine is education. Barack tried to claim that he doubled the number of charter schools of charter schools in Illinois. Talk about stretching your resume! First, you happened to put your name on a bill, so you didn’t do a damn thing other than sign. Second, you AND your fellow politicians double the charter schools in Chicago. That is one city out of the entire state. Sorry bud, be honest.
Fact:
You supported legislation that doubled the amount of charter schools in the city of Chicago, you did not personally double charter schools in Illinois (you fraud!).

Again, Obama tried to claim he breaks ranks with the democrats (he claimed bill S.5 as an example.) How often does Obama reach across the aisle?
Fact:
18 to 26 among democrats voting on this, and Obama happened to vote along side about 40% of the Democrats? How is this even CLOSE to breaking ranks? About 97% of the time, he voted the party line. Enough said.


Let’s skim the “Joe the Plumber” issue. Joe said he was going to buy a company that is projected to make $250 to $280 thousand a year. He wanted to know if his taxes would go up. Let’s stipulate that Joe’s company make $250K. The answer under Obama’s plan is yes.
Fact:
You will receive a tax increase if you make $200k gross or more annually ($250K if you are married filing joint). Let’s talk about the increase of 3%. If you made $199,999 this year, and you make $200,000 next year, your taxes will be $6,000 more for 2009. That extra dollar you make next year is going to cost you $6K. Sound equitable to you?


Speaking of taxes, the Tax Policy Center claims that the national debt would substantially increase with either candidate’s current policy. Even with Obama’s proposed spending cuts, he could increase our debt by $281 billion for the year 2013. That’s not over the next five years that is just one years deficit increase for calendar year of 2013 (re-election year). McCain is not innocent here either, he needs to do some major spending cuts too, but I trust McCain to cut spending, not the “tax and spend” record of Obama.

I also love how Obama walks around the truth by avoiding key facts. So “small businesses” who do not supply healthcare coverage would not be fined. This is great, don’t you agree? Now define small business. Mr. Obama? Oh, that’s one fact that you conveniently ignore. Is small business a company with 2 employees, or 10, 20 may be? Do you take into account how profitable the company is? Or does profit only matter when you decided how much the company must pay in taxes? (33% not high enough for you? what about 70-80%, like France?)

Obama also claims that his health care plan will cut family’s premiums by $2,500 annually. At least Obama has strong optimism! Maybe you should try a lower number, Mr. Obama. Let say $1,600 at best. He claims he can save $120 billion a year, but that is an inflated figure. He MIGHT save $77 billion (64% of what he is claiming)

At this point, I think you get the idea. Like I said before, there were some good parts to this debate. My two favorite moments happened to be John McCain moments. The first was a slip of the tongue when John was talking about the government. He called Senator Obama, “Senator Government”. Personally, I think it was a fitting name, but John corrected himself. It was an obvious slip up as evidenced buy John’s reaction to his own words.

The second great moment was when John said,
“Yes. Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.”
And John is correct. He is not President Bush, and he will not be President Bush. John McCain has his own ideas, his own cabinet appointments, and will not govern the way George Bush has. It is important that John distinguished this fact, and that he called Obama out on this.

I think John did fairly well. The only complaint I have about McCain’s performance was that he did not press Obama when he had him pinned. John had Obama on the ropes, and let him go. McCain did a good job pointing out inaccuracies in Obama’s statements and platform, but did not dig deep enough or push hard enough. It left a lot more work for the fact checkers and analyst, like me. But like I said, it was a good debate. I would call this a slight McCain win.

So here we are, with less than 3 weeks until the election. It is up to you. Do you want to pay more taxes, screw up the economy more and increase the chances of being killed in your own home by a terrorist? If so, vote Obama, or just stay home this election cycle.

Want to be safe in your home, not afraid of a terrorist attack? How about fixing the economy? Want to reduce the national debt without raising your taxes? Vote John McCain.

And where is your name, Senator Obama?

Take a look at the signatures. Notice the names on the first page. John Sununu is at the top of column 2 and John McCain is the second name in Column 1.

Barack Obama must have just been "Present"...

Enough To Warm Your Heart

Sunday morning was a bit unusual for two reasons; First, it was unseasonably warm. The second part needs a little explaining. What I saw from my front porch, on this warm Sunday morning, I have not seen since I was a child. I saw the effects of true "Family Values."

At first glance, I saw a young teenager riding his bike with his little sister. The teenager was wearing the quintessential "Rapper-Wanna-Be" clothing, so I figured it was the typical "got stuck with my sister" situation. As they got closer, I could hear the little girl complaining, but could not make out the words. I saw the boy grab the front of the bike and pull her forward and let her glide. I thought he was frustrated with the girl, and it made me a little nervous.

When the girl came to a stop, I could hear what she was saying. She was cried to her brother because she could not move the bike on her own. "Pull me," she begged. "NO!" he replied. The little girl told him she couldn't move without him pulling, but the teenage boy told her she could do it, she just needed to try. Now my curiosity was peaked.

I started to pay close attention to what was being said by the siblings. He told her to push the pedal, but she found it too hard. He pushed her forward one more time, and told her to push the pedal as she was moving. After she stopped coasting, she begged for another push. The boy declined and said he was going ahead without her.

The girl begged then she sat on the sidewalk. The boy did not give in. He simply told her that she could do it, she just needed to try harder. The girl had dug her heels in, and was not going to budge. The teenager came back and told her to get on the bike. Once on the bike, he told the girl HOW to push the pedal. The girl tried and tried. Then after about a 30 seconds, the bike started to move. Not only did she move it, but the boy was able to coach her to keep it moving. He became her cheerleader, chanting "You can do it!" and "Good job!" The two continued down the street with the girl giggling and the teenager cheering all the way. I am not sure who was more excited, the "Wanna-be Rapper" or the cute little girl, but they both rode down the road with the broadest smiles I have seen in quite a long time.

Sometimes we judge people before they have a chance to show their true colors. I was guilty of such sins on this morning. I assumed the boy was a typical punk. Turns out he was a sweet, caring, brother. After seeing this display of kindness, I realized how cynical I have become. It never crossed my mind that this teenager could be a good kid. This was a great reality check for me, and I thought it might be for you as well.

Next time you see or meet someone, stop and think of what YOU might be thinking that will get in the way. What walls have you put up without having any facts? Did you give this person a fair shake, or did you act as I did and prejudge them? Everyone deserves a fair shake; extend a friendly hand with an open mind.

Barack-O-Nomics 101

Barack Obama has again been kind enough to show me my place. While addressing his "age appropriate sex education" ideas, (for kindergarten children?!?) he took a pop shot at conservatives. Though he wanted us to know that Americans are "... generally decent people..." he felt the need to tell us conservatives that we "...listen to the wrong talk radio..." (video Last 60 seconds contain the comments) Considering I do not agree with on.. ah.. hmm... ANYTHING that he stands for, I guess he was referring to me. If you are reading this post and listen to my show (1590 WSMN Sunday's 6-7), then he must be referring to you as well. But then again, Barack does think we are "basically decent people," sort of like Hillary is "likable enough." Well, I am proud to be generally decent even if I listen (or host) the wrong kind of talk radio. Thank you Barack Obama.

Thank you for condescending to those of us who do not want to pay more of our hard earned dollars. No I do not agree with you, and yes I would LOVE to see you FAIL. Nothing would please me more during this presidential election than seeing you lose. That doesn't make me wrong, but it does make me an opinionated individual who believes, rightfully so according to your VP candidate, you are going to cost me more money. No I do not make 250K annually; my family does not even make 100K. But if you're taxing the corporations, their revenue will be reduced. When a company's profit are decreased, the cost for their products typically go up. In other words, this cost is typically passed onto the consumer (you and I).

One more economic point, Barack wants to give tax breaks to 95% of Americans. Not tax payers, but Americans. Sounds good, but let’s look at some examples.

1. About 50% of all tax revenue is paid by the top 5%. Maybe they can afford higher taxes, but what does their tax bracket look like? The people in the top 5% pay about 50% of their gross income. Could you afford to pay 50%? I can't, but then again, I am not making 300k. Most people, who actually pay taxes, pay 25-30% of their gross income in taxes. Quick math for you using arbitrary numbers (not actual figures):

Gross=250k 50%Taxes=125k Net=125k
Gross=150k 30%Taxes=45k Net=105k

So a person making 150k brings home 20k less than a person who makes 300k. So if I net 105k, and I want to net 20 k more per year, I need to make 100k more per year gross? That's 80% of my increase GONE in taxes.

Another way to look at this is for a person to make one third more, they have to spend 80% of their increase on taxes. I am not kidding, this is reality. Even if my example is based on incomes that could be the same tax brackets, it is a fair assessment of the way tax brackets percentages work around the tax bracket break.

2. What did I mean “actually pay taxes?” Out of the 95% that Barack wants to give tax breaks to, many are not paying taxes. No joke, they pay nothing in taxes. Either they are not working (maybe a welfare recipient), they make so little that they get a refund of 100% (or more), or after all deductions are figured in, they receive a refund that equals the taxes they pay. Want a couple of examples?

Family A - Single mom with 3 kids. Makes 20K annually, Pays 6k in taxes. Tax time comes, and she is head of household, 3 children on her taxes, Earned Income Credit, deductions for child care, Transportation write-offs, etc. Refund check = Taxes paid out. 100% refund.

Family B - Married couple who owns a business and has no kids. Tax write-offs for toilet paper, office supplies, computer supplies, automotive expenses, advertising, tax preparation costs, etc. Gross income 60k., taxes on income 18k. They receive a rebate 100% because they can write off ANYTHING so long as they can prove it is used for business purposes. They can even write off part of their rent or mortgage, if they have a designated area that they use for “business.” Yes, if a corner of one room is used for the business (accounting, storage, etc.) and nothing else, you can write off a percentage of your housing cost. (Ask an accountant if you do not believe me)

So how exactly is Barack going to lower taxes for these people? THEY ARE NOT PAYING TAXES!!!!! What are you going to lower? Do you give them free money? Where does that free money come from? Who gives you the money to pay them? Oh wait, you need to take more money from the tax payer so you can pay the tax payer more money? HUH?!?

Of course not! Don’t be silly! He is going to end tax cuts for the oil companies and businesses. A great idea!! Let's make it more expensive for the oil companies and businesses! Companies would never try to raise their prices to recoup the cost of tax increases... WRONG! Yes, the government will get more tax revenue from the companies. But when the increased cost comes down the line, WE pay for the increased cost to the companies!! Thank you Barack for costing us MORE MONEY! Please do not buy into the half-truth Barack is spreading. The part he left out you learn in economics 101; increased cost has to be recouped in product prices, or by cutting staff. (Higher unemployment sound good to anyone? How about lay-offs?)

But Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden was kind enough to show me the flaw in my logic. (video) He told me that if I was concerned with higher taxes and didn't want taxes to go up, I was not being patriotic. I just need to be more patriotic and pay more money that I don't have, or I am just not patriotic enough.

Well, I guess I don’t want to be more patriotic, just ask my thinning wallet.

Gibson's Ass Kicked BY A GIRL!

Before anyone decides to jump on me for the post name, understand how I view Charles Gibson before you start you ranting. Mr. Gibson is one of those good liberals who (supposedly) believes that women are equal. So under this presumption, Chuck decided to viciously discredit Sarah Palin. Figuring that he is a good liberal who treated Sarah with proper respect by hitting her with tough questions, he did his best to nail Sarah to the wall. He made one big mistake; he assumed Sarah would not be able to handle the Great Media God, Charlie Gibson. Can you say, "oops?"

So why does this post point out that Sarah, a "girl," kicked Chuck's ass? Like I stated before, Chuck is supposedly a good liberal. Personally, I think he walks both sides of the line. I really believe Chuck didn't think a woman would be skilled enough to stand toe to toe with him. I knew Sarah could handle this joker, but what I did not know was how badly she would kick his teeth in. Forget John McCain, where was this woman back in the primaries?!?

Mr. Gibson (to be referred to as "Glib-son" and other variations on his name from here on) entered this interview with an agenda. This was supposed to be the one interview that shot the Palin effect to hell. Instead, Sarah shot Glib-son's credibility to hell. One of the best examples was when Glib-son decided to twist Sarah's words and stated,

"You said recently in your old church, our nation leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from god... are we fighting a holy war?"

Obviously, Chuck did not do his homework. That is not what Sarah said. Let me quote Sarah:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them our on a task that is from god."

Now sometimes the written words are not enough to explain, but if you listen to both Glib-son and Palin (Click here), you will hear clearly that Sarah is saying her church should pray that our leader is sending our troops on a task that is from God. In other words, pray that god is on our side, pray for God to protect our troops. As she said, "Let us pray that we are on God's side." Sarah's response was perfectly phrased to disarm Glib-son, but he didn't concede! He actually tried again to discredit her on this topic! Glib-son states:

"But you went on and said there is a plan, and it is God's plan."

Again, Sarah backs herself up by stating that she believes that there is a plan for this world and that it is a plan for good. In other words, she does believe God has a plan, and God's plan is good. She did not claim to know God's plan. Is this not obvious? What's the problem Chuck? You think God should have a plan for evil? This one was a T.K.O.! Chuck, stay down! NO! He is getting up.... He is punch drunk and swings wildly!!!

"But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?"

Oh my God! Are you serious Chuck? If you have not seen this interview, you need to go to ABC and see this pathetic interview... um rather attempted character assassination. I think this can be considered a body check, and Glib-son should stay down on the ice. But he doesn't. He gets up and comes back for more butt kicking....

This was not Glib-son's only screw up (are you surprised? I'm not), just my favorite. Where else did Glib-son throw the facts out the window? How about my second favorite self-inflicted wound, the Bush Doctrine? Chuck asked what Sarah thinks the Bush doctrine is. She knew she was being baited, and walked very carefully around the landmine that was laid for her. She quickly asked, "In what respect, Charlie?" Chuck said the Bush Doctrine "September 2002, before the Iraq war." She stated that she felt President Bush, "attempted to... rid the world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation..." and admitted mistakes were made, but new leadership allows us to try to do things better.

For some reason, Chuck acquired foot-in-mouth disease. He stated that he felt the Bush Doctrine is that, "We have the right of anticipatory self-defense and we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us." Though Sarah handled it perfectly and put Chuck in his place, I want to focus on the Glib-son factual inaccuracy.

Charles Gibson's futile attack on Sarah using his "NEW" take on the Bush Doctrine of 2001 was based on his ability to change facts that he stated! His exact words in 2001 were a perfect compliment to Sarah's! "...He also outlined what is being called the Bush Doctrine, a promise that all terrorists organizations with global reach will be found, stopped and defeated." (Charles Gibson, 09-21-2001). So the moron was wrong about his own words in 2001. Let me bang my head against the wall as you continue reading....

You know I love Wikipedia. Not a perfect source, but a great place to find the sources to back up the facts. Wikipedia is not the place to find facts, but the cited excerpts are. "The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves..." (-Wikipedia). This is prior to the invasion of the Iraq war. The Iraq war started in March of 2003.

Now this is not Chuck's first rodeo. There really is not any excuse for his inability to ask questions that are pertinent while being accurate. His lack of accuracy is what I found most humorous, and therefore I have shown you how slanted this interview really is. The only other ploy Glib-son tried to use was asking the same question over and over to try to get a different answer. This is nothing new, and I do not begrudge him for trying. It was pointless and wasted a lot of time, but it did give Sarah the chance to reaffirm her standpoint.

The Iran and Israel questioning was a perfect example of this monotonous questioning. I have paraphrased the conversation below. You will have to listen to the interview (ABC edited interview) for the exact words.

Chuckle Head: What if Israel felt threatened and needed to take out Iranian nuclear facilities?

Sarah: We are friends of Israel and we should not second guess the measures Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Chuckles: If we wouldn't second guess (Israel), and they decided they needed to [take out Iranian nuclear facilities] because Iran was an existential threat, would we be cooperative or agreeable?

Sarah: We cannot second guess what Israel has to to do to secure its nation.

Laughing boy: If Israel felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right?

Sarah: We cannot second guess the steps Israel takes to defend itself.

Strike three Chuck, you're OUT!

Jennifer Horn Runs Away With the Nomination

Just a quick update on the 2nd Congressional race...

Congratulations Jennifer Horn.

This was the first time I was actually at a campaign headquarters while the votes came in. There was no up and down, nor where there any out bursts of cheering and clapping like you typically see on television, but there was plenty of positivity and and happy faces. Why, you ask? Not once was Jennifer behind Bob Clegg. To make up for the lack of drama on the floor, we talked about the other races, November elections, and other political items on our minds.

Starting at 8:30 pm. Jennifer Horn was up 46-28 with 5% reporting, and she held the lead all evening. The closest Bob Clegg came to taking the lead was when he was trailing by 3%. This was a good thing for us who support Jennifer, but it made for a quiet evening waiting for her to arrive. Most of us knew it was over at about 9pm, but no news networks called it until 10:30.

Around 10, people were getting antsy. Many of us started pacing, shifting in our seats, and walking in and out of the building. We were not bored, nervous, or even concerned. Simply put, we were anxious. We all knew it was over and Jennifer had won, but the news networks would not call it, and Bob Clegg seemed to miss what we all knew.

When Jennifer walked into the room, the crowd exploded. She spoke about November and beyond. She outlined the direction she expected to take once she hit Washington, and spoke in detail about her major goals (I know I am going to miss some points here) such as energy independence, term limits, lowering taxes, and much more.

Granted, politicians say a lot, but with Jennifer...
Word is bond.

"The Little Green Men Took My Daughter! I Swear!"

Casey Anthony claims to have dropped her daughter, Caylee, off with a babysitter on June 9, 2008. Funny thing is, when she went to pick up her precious little girl from Zenaide (Zani), the babysitter, Caylee and Zani were nowhere to be found. The initial reaction from a responsible parent would be to call the police. Oh no, not Casey! She decides to wait a little while to see if Zani might have taken a walk… a 5 week long walk….

I really do not want to report the news here, but I would like to give some background information. Four weeks after Caylee disappeared, her grandmother asked her mom where Caylee was. The Grandmother was getting suspicious as she had not seen her granddaughter in a number of weeks. Grandma told Casey that she would go to the police if Casey did not. A week later, Casey reports her daughter is missing. If you’re doing the math, it has been five weeks since the disappearance of Caylee.

So the police end up arresting Casey, and Casey has been sitting in jail. During her stint in the joint, she has refused to see various family members at different times, stuck to her ludicrous story about some phantom babysitter that no one has meet or can find, and generally acted in a manner that screams “Pay attention to me! I don’t want you asking about Caylee, pay attention to me.” The drama queen actually said she didn’t understand why everyone was so focused on her daughter, and followed it up by asking why people were not concerned with her. Well, we are concerned with you, that is why you’re in jail.

I don’t mean to be callous, but I want the police to find the body of your daughter so they can charge you with the murder you committed. Sorry folks, but my gut feeling is this psycho killed her own daughter. Blood and hair fiber were found in her car and trunk, the officer who is in charge claimed the car smelled of decomposition…. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect these dots. My only hope is that the District Attorney’s office charges her for First Degree Murder and puts her away for life.

Now there is an alternative. Caylee could have been kidnapped and held for ransom. I doubt it for a number of reasons. First, what can the family offer a kidnapper? They do not seem to have money. Second, with the amount of attention this case has drawn, a kidnapper would probably give up by now. Third, someone should have seen Caylee by now. She has been missing for over two months. With all the media coverage, if Caylee is alive, someone should have seen her.

This is what I am getting to; how can a parent do something like this to their child. I have a hard time understanding abusive parents, never mind killer parents. I can not understand how a parent could EVER cause pain (abuse) to their own flesh and blood. How people turn out this way is a mystery to me. People like this should be put to death. Yes, I do advocate for the death penalty, and this is a case where it should be used. I don’t want to hear about her “scared childhood” or how she “needs help.” The only help Casey Anthony needs is help into the electric chair.