I once again made the mistake of reading an article in New York Times. The article was entitled “Environmental Cost of Shipping Groceries Around the World.” I expected an overview of the growing cost of shipping food to and from distant places. But what I got was an elitist’s plea for higher food prices all over the world. In case you hadn’t noticed, according to the Wall Street Journal the cost of food is rising 4.5% each year. Some food prices are rising even faster. Cereal prices are rising by more than 8% a year. Both flour and rice are up more than 13%. Milk, cheese, bananas peanut butter are all up more than 10%. The price of eggs is up 30% in the past year. Ground beef prices are up 4.8% and chicken by 5.4%.  The article I read even suggested that these rising prices may accelerate in the near future.

            Now back to the New York Times article. The premise of this article was that even though the price of food is skyrocketing world wide, and even though the developing world is finally starting to get a steady supply of food from around the world, the real problem here is that feeding hungry people is POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE. That’s right. What we need is to raise the taxes on fuel that is used to ship food around the world. That way the price of food will raise and… and what? People will buy less food? They will have less variety and availability of nutritious food? What about the developing nations where much of the world’s food is processed? The companies that are employing thousands of impoverished workers in developing countries will be either forced out of business or forced to move closer to the markets that are the most profitable. That will force the unemployment rates of developing countries higher and push those countries back into the third world. That sounds like a fantastic idea.

            This is a perfect example of the elitism that characterizes much of what I read in the New York Times. The author of this article is so caught up in the new McCarthyism that is global warming that he didn’t even stop to think that maybe its more important to feed developing nations than to reduce something that may or may not cause the average temperature of the earth to rise a couple of degrees over the next few decades! Global warming may or may not be occurring. If it is occurring we know that 50% of carbon emissions come from natural causes. That means that damaging the food supply of humanity may or may not affect 50% of some thing that may or may not be occurring! When did the world lose all sense of logic, right and wrong, or compassion?

The NYT article says that “ending these breaks could help ensure that producers and consumers pay the environmental cost of increasingly well-traveled food.” Raising food prices will obviously hurt the global economy. And lets not forget that right now the US is in the middle of an economic crisis the likes of which may not have been seen since WWII.

So let’s keep fuel that is used to transport food tax-free. Let’s keep people in developing nations fed and employed. For once, lets just let a little common sense slip into our economic policies.

As you all know, the 2008 summer Olympics are coming up now that it is 2008. I’m sure you have all heard that China has been under a lot of pressure from several imperialist western countries to cut down on its slaughtering of its own citizens. Groups like Amnesty International have reported minor violations such as the “continued use of detention without trial as part of Beijing’s ‘clean up’ operations of the city ahead of the 2008 Games, despite the fact that substantial reform or abolition of methods of arbitrary detention including ‘Re-education through Labour’ has been on China’s reform agenda for many years.” As well as other minute details like “The application of the death penalty in China — the world’s top executioner — remains shrouded in secrecy,”. Now I’m sure you are as tired as I am of these fear-mongering whiners attempting to tarnish the image of a peaceful, quiet, non-threatening nation. I have tried to give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt when it came to forced abortion, forced labor camps, execution of journalists, execution of human-rights activists, censorship of the Internet, the slaughter of peaceful monks, wide spread torture, as well as the awful things they did to Jack Bauer. But this time they have gone TOO FAR!!

Over the past few weeks those communist dogs have began to round up poor, defenseless, fuzzy little kittens and have created “Kitty Death Camps” for those pitiful creatures. According to some reports the cats are forced into small cages and then transported to mysterious death camps for cats. I am sick and tired of seeing fuzzy wuzzy little creatures tortured to death! Its time we did something. Thats why I am in favor of formally petitioning congress to declare war on China. Our invasion will be swift and targeted. We must liberate these four-legged victims and restore them to their rightful places as disease-ridden scavengers on the streets of Beijing. Justice must not hold back her hand any longer. The time for action is now!

(I know that some of you will want to liberate those in forced-labor death camps for people, or stop forced abortions, but the United States cannot police the world. We can only help one species at a time, and unfortunatly humans will just have to get to the back of the line.)

The Sarcasm Ends Here _____________________________________________________

This is an important crossroads for the international community. If we turn a blind eye to the atrocities that have become common in China, and focus instead on which country wins the gold in table tennis, we will have missed a chance to wield influence over a powerful and secretive regime that enslaves billions. Thanks to our apathy our children will inherit a China that not only slaughters at will, but a China that has received the tacit approval of the rest of the world while they do it. The next generation will have to deal with an aggressive, arrogant regime in China because when we had a chance to do something about it, we were all watching the Olympics on TV.

Thanks for coming to “Politics Anonymous” If you are dissatisfied with the presidential candidates so far raise your hand… you in the back stop doing the “raise the roof” thats not cool anymore. Alright, so I realize that I’m mostly speaking for conservative republicans here, but you psycho liberals pay attention too. (FYI, no presidential candidate will be withdrawing our troops from Iraq the day he gets inaugurated… so just give it a rest already.) Anyway, lets move on. Since none of us are happy with the field of presidential candidates lets try to figure out what the heck we are going to do about it. I guess it’s time I said what we are all thinking. Which is better: to vote for the candidate who is best for America or vote for the guy who you know will cause the opposing party to implode politically?

Well lets start with the obvious. If McCain is elected president he will destroy the conservative right wing of the republican party. His position as head of the GOP will enable him to shift the American political paradigm to the left. Suddenly discussions about how to secure the border, how to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer money, and how to ensure civil liberties for our children will cease. McCain stomped all over freedom of speech when he supported campaign finance reform back in 2001. He has supported the Bush wiretapping and domestic spying. If you love the 1^st amendment, you don’t support John McCain.

So we know McCain will destroy the conservative movement within the Republican party. Lets not forget that McCain has also jumped on to the ever more crowded bandwagon that is panic over global warming. I also have evidence that doesn’t technically “exist” he if he were elected he may also attempt to pass legislation that would destroy puppies, laughter, and sunsets, but I cannont “prove” these theories so I will just move on.

If you don’t believe that Hillary will abuse the power of the presidency, regularly throw hissy fits when her bills don’t get passed, and generally make the United States look like it is going through menopause than I know of a Nigerian Prince that needs your help getting his money into our country.

This of course brings us to Obama. Charismatic, determined to negotiate, and determined to make Americans proud of their country again. He preaches in broad terms about change, a new generation, and out with the old. His ability to whip a crowd into a frenzy of support seems reminiscent of the Greek orators from days of old crossed with a Mick Jagger in concert back before he died (and yes, he died back in 1993 of old age and no one told him). I see Obama as an inexperienced, young, candidate who will doubtlessly try and fail to get most of his loony ideas past congress. Hopefully the ensuing debate over his positions on socialized medicine, high taxes, and redistribution of wealth will shed some light on the massive flaws inherent in the ideals that represent the political left.

This is how I see it. One candidate means the end of the right, one candidate means the end of the left… Is it still a hard choice?

For continued discussion of this topic please check out my podcast. If my voice sounds like a chipmunk you probably need to download the latest edition of Adobe Flash Player. You can do that here. If that doesn’t work you can simply download the show to your computer.

For the purposes of answering this question I will only be referring to Ron Paul’s domestic policy. His opinions about foreign policy are complicated, and I will save that debate for another time.

If you have been watching the recent Republican debates you have probably noticed that Ron Paul has a slightly different take on domestic policy than his fellow candidates for the Republican nomination. Of course by “slightly different” I mean the way that Rosy O’Donnell is slightly different than Condoleezza Rice. It seems that while other candidates want to rock the boat Ron Paul wants to sink the boat, give everyone life jackets, and tell them to learn to swim.

I will be the first to admit that Ron Paul does tend to give off a “Crazy Old Man” vibe. Somehow when he talks about the dollar losing its value, he ends up sounding like that angry guy who lives alone at the end of your street sounds when he yells at kids to get off his yard. This is unfortunate, because I was reading the Constitution the other day, and I found something kind of odd.

Ron Paul is actually right about a lot of what he says. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the right to regulate education, drug or alcohol use, abortion, health care, how much businesses pay their employees, “safety” in the work place (OSHA), air travel, car emissions/fuel efficiency, and the list goes on. Feel free to look, its not there. Of course, there is the “elastic clause” aka Section 8 of article 1 which says that congress has the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

If you look closely this does not actually give the federal government more power. What it says is that congress (not the courts) can make laws “which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers” (foregoing(a): especially of writing or speech; going before ) So basically the Constitution says that congress can make laws to carry out the powers that it was just given. It does NOT say that congress can have any powers it can dream up.

I would also like to point out one other vital part of our founding document. The 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is the part that is supposed keep the Federal Government from doing all the things I mentioned before.

In a lot of ways it makes sense that the founders set up our system of government this way. The smaller the area/population that is being governed, the more say each person has in the way things go down. This means that more power to the states = more power to the people. The Federal Government is a massive festering bureaucracy that wastes millions of our hard-earned dollars every year. The massive expansion of the Federal Government has given us higher taxes, a lower standard of living, and more governmental intrusion into our daily lives. The fact is that if abortion were left up to the states some states would legalize it, but most wouldn’t. Most states would outlaw marijuana, crack, LSD, meth, heroin, and other narcotics, but some wouldn’t. According to the United States Constitution the debate about these and other issues needs to be happening in your state capitol, not Washington DC.

For the record I am NOT in favor of drug use, prostitution, abortion, or the abuse of the little guy at the hands of a major corporation. In fact, I do beleive that the government should regulate all of these things. The difference is that I see that the states should be in charge. I could argue all day about why I think that this is a better idea, but at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter what you think, and it doesn’t matter what I think, what matters is what the Constitution says.

The moment congress decided to ignore the Constitution and pass laws they had no business passing it declared that the Constitution was irrelevant and impotent.So ask yourself: If the Constitution is no longer limiting the power if my government, what is?

This link will take you to a story that is presently the headline on the CNN.com politics section. I had the opportunity to attend this “invitation only meeting.” Mitt Romney had a small rally at the Hilton hotel in Greenville, SC. It was mainly for students at the infamously conservative Bob Jones University. Neither I nor anyone else in that room knew that what was said was being recorded. If you listen to the complete audio you can hear me ask Romney about the Iraq war about 3/4 of the way through the recording. This meeting was a clear attempt by Romney to capitalize on the recent endorsement he received from Bob Jones III.

Unfortunately CNN has badly misrepresented what went on at that meeting. First of all “invitation only” is hardly accurate. I wasn’t asked for an invitation at the door, and to my knowledge, neither was anyone else. This meeting was only advertised within the Bob Jones community via email as well as word of mouth, but characterizing this meeting as “closed doors” or “invitation only” would seem to describe some dark smoke-filled room where Romney strikes a deal with evangelicals for a few votes in a key primary state.

Something else that CNN failed to mention was the announcement made recently in chapel by Stephen Jones, president of Bob Jones University. Dr. Jones clearly stated that the endorsement of Mitt Romney by his father was not the position of Bob Jones University. He went on to say that he didn’t believe that it was the school’s job to endorse a candidate, and that his father was endorsing Mr. Romney as a private citizen, and not as Chancellor of the University. Presumably this means that the days of media firestorms revolving around the political stances of Bob Jones University are over. Stephen Jones also went mentioned that it was “OK” to disagree with his father’s stance. He could not have been more clear.

The problem with this headline from CNN… is that it is a headline from CNN! Nothing significant happened at this “invitation only” meeting. A room full of overdressed Bob Jones students and alumni heard a stump speech from Mitt Romney. He made his speech, answered a few questions, shook some hands, posed for some pictures, and smiled a lot. It has been done literally hundreds of times by every candidate running for their party’s presidential nomination over the past few months and this campaign stop was no different. I honestly don’t understand why CNN has this as a headline. I could make a few cynical statements about how CNN hates conservative Christianity and how they are trying to bring down a good Christian school. But I doubt that this is the case. In reality I think that someone over at CNN thought that they could create some controversy so that they could boost their ratings. It just doesn’t make sense to me, and I think that CNN should turn its attention to real news and ignore the occasional bitter Bob Jones alumni that tries to create controversy where there is none.

There are a lot of interesting things going on these days. Evangelicals endorsing Mormons, black candidates that can’t manage to be black enough, and lets not forget that the Rockies are somehow in the World Series. These are indeed strange times.

It has been interesting to see the Religious Right struggle to find a candidate to fall behind. Each candidate comes with his own set of problems. Liberal, divorced, flip-flopper, pro-choice, weak on defense, and so on. The Republican field has, for the first time in a while, had a front runner that is pro-choice (more or less). This has been a struggle for many conservatives because for most “Christians” abortion is not just political. It is also a moral issue. This has created an interesting potential problem for pro-choice, right-wing republicans. On the one hand we need a leader who is a good communicator, strong on defense, and tough on terrorism. On the other hand we also need a conservative who will cut spending, stop abortion, drill for oil regardless of wildlife, and stop taking so much money out of my paycheck.

But what is a good conservative to do if all of these qualities are not represented in the same candidate?

If I knew that in May of ‘08 there were going to be another catastrophic terrorist attack I would want Guliani in office. He has proven that he as the leadership and communication skills required to lead the nation through uncertain times.

If I knew that there were not going to be any major national emergencies in the next four years I would probably vote for… well… I guess Romney. He at least has done his best to look like a conservative. Of course the last time we all voted for a “conservative” for president we got one small tax cut towards the beginning of his presidency and nothing but more and more government spending for the next 6 years. Needless to say I think a lot of us were disillusioned. But thats another subject for another time.

I don’t beleive most evangelicals will vote for Giuliani in a presidential race. If most Evangelicals don’t vote that means Heil Hillary for the next four years.

Is it really wise for someone to stay home from the polls or to vote third party over only the issue of abortion?

No

Is abortion murder? Yes. Is it morally wrong? Yes. Is it hurting America? Yes. Is it worth handing the election to Hillary just so you can feel good about how important it is to take a stand on abortion? No

There are many questions that you have to ask yourself before you partially puncture a chad at the voting booth. But the biggest question you must ask yourself is: Is this person best for America?

If you even casually read the news you know that we live in troubling, dangerous times. The consequences of having a president who will not attack America’s enemies are just not worth it. What if after 9/11 Bush had waited around for the UN security council to defend America? What if he had just sent strongly worded letters to the Taliban? What if the Alkaida terror network had never been damaged? What if Bin Laden were a man living comfortably in Afghanistan instead of a scared rat running from cave to cave fearing for his life? The “what if” could continue, but I think you get the idea.

During the 2000 election we had no idea how vital and world-changing the next presidency would be. Thank God Florida finally got its act together and that Bush was the president when those planes hit the twin towers. Thank God he showed resolve, courage, and leadership. Thank God America pulled together and made its enemies run and hide.

National security and leadership in a time of crisis aren’t just a couple of issues to consider. They are the issues to consider. The whole reason humans have put up with government over the last few thousand years is that its the best way anyone can think of to protect each other. If we elect a president who can’t defend America we are really failing each other. I am not going to endorse a candidate just yet. The issue of national security is far to complicated to simply base our decision on the past. We also have figure out who has the best plans for the future.

America, please don’t take this decision lightly. A lot of people died so that we could get to choose who leads us for the next four years. Making this decision isn’t going to be easy. You might have to read a few newspaper articles, watch a debate for an hour, maybe even think about it a little bit. But I know we can do it. America has had made us the richest, safest, strongest people the world has ever seen. Don’t you think its about time we did a little something for our country?

I hate mornings. I’m one of those guys that emerges from bed every morning like a bear regains consciousness after being tranquilized and transported away from a populated area. Allow me to repeat myself: I hate mornings. Particularly this morning when I was forced to wake up and see this headline in the New York Times:

Military Seen as Best Able to Guide War

I was shocked, disappointed, and saddened. Clearly, the fickle American public has dropped the ball yet again. The military is the best branch of the government to run a war? America, we can do better than this. The politicians in Washington are elected by the American people, and if they aren’t the best ones to run this war, I don’t know who is.

For an example from history we need look no farther than World War II. This was the last major American war that our incompetent military commanders were allowed to run without restraint. Thankfully the politicians stepped in to handle post-war Europe, or else an aggressive communist government may have been allowed to control all of Eastern Europe! If only the politicians had stepped in sooner, and if only the anti-war voices would have yelled louder maybe Hitler would still be in power, and our society could have focused on preventing the greatest danger of that day, global cooling. Oh what a sad day it was when the United States decided to stick its nose into the business of another continent. If only we had known that Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor…

The real tragedy today is that we have a president who refuses to listen to the commanders on the ground. We must elect a president that will micromanage every aspect of this war. Since WWII we have finally been able to see exactly how well congress can micromanage a war in the United State’s stunning successes in Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam, now those were the glory days. Politicians dictated when we went in, how long we stayed, and how we fought while we were there. America, I hope we have learned the lesson of Vietnam.

Remember, if bureaucrats and politicians can’t win the war, who can?

As a blogger, I am required by law to have strong feelings on each and every issue facing America today. Luckily, I pretty much have something to say about everything from congressional subcommittees to exactly how much wood a woodchuck would chuck (two and three quarter cords, in case you were wondering). But when it comes to the upcoming presidential primaries I am, for the moment, withholding judgment.

Over the next few weeks, however, I will be deciding who I will vote for and, more importantly, why I will be voting for them. I hope that all of you will read my posts and use my thought processes to help you come to your conclusion about who would be best to pardon the turkey at thanksgiving.

So, the next logical question is, of course, what am I looking for in a candidate? In response to this question, most people respond with an issue. “I want voting rights for mollusks, and I want them now” “What about defense? We all know the Democrats want sharia law by the year 2009″

Issues are important. Abortion, defense, the right to bear arms, free speech, and of course tax cuts are all vital issues that will define our times, determine the course of human history, and provide fodder for future pop quizzes in high school history text books. But I think that there is more to a candidate than stances on issues.

Consider the man (sigh, or woman). What kind of a person are they? When things get tough, and this country needs leadership and inspiration who will stand up, take charge, and look into a camera and tell America that everything is going to be OK? I can’t predict the future any better than anyone else, but I do know that troubling, sad, and difficult times are ahead. And when the stress of, literally, the entire world is resting on the president’s shoulders we must have a man in office who will know who to listen to, who to not listen to, and who to bomb.

Of course, none of us will really get to know any of the candidates personally. But as we debate issues lets not forget that when things get tough, and tough decisions have to be made the president’s stance on torte reform isn’t really going to matter.

I Don’t Want No Civil War

There are an awful lot of things to argue about in America today. The war in Iraq, the Bush Administration, Scooter Libby, the firing of US attorneys, Halliburton, Health Care, Welfare, Crime, Gun Control, Terrorism, France, and Dick Cheyenne’s hunting license. All of these things need to be discussed. Many of the debates I mentioned will be the defining issues of my generation. Nevertheless, I would like to pause, if only for a moment, from the punditry, debate, mud slinging, and hate.

I believe that America is a unified country where and when it counts. That, ironically, is a very debatable statement, but consider this. In the 2000 election before the unifying events of September 11, the Unites States had a bit of an issue with its presidential election. Perhaps it was more than a small issue. The problem was that for weeks no one knew who the most powerful man in the world would be for the next four years. Historically, this would mean civil war. But we didn’t want no Civil War. Each candidate waited for the outcome of ballot counting. Al Gore could have claimed the presidency because he clearly had the popular vote. Good ol’ GW could have claimed power on the basis of the constitution, and the power of the Electoral College. When the dust and the chads settled, and the decision was made to declare Florida for George Bush no one got hurt. (Perhaps Al Gore’s therapist would be the exception to the rule) One of the closest elections in world history was settled with absolutely no blood shed. Historically, this is a unique situation.

So where does this historically unique unity come from? I will attempt to answer that question by listing a few statements with which most Americans would agree.

America is awesome.

America has freed the world from two of the greatest evils it has ever seen: Nazism and Communism. (We also saved the French’s ungrateful little behinds on more than one occasion.) We invented the light bulb, the car, the airplane, and the common worker’s sense of entitlement.

I want to be left alone.

Most Americans do not want the government involved directly in their lives. People want to work a job and keep the money they earn. They want to be able to go where they want, when they want, and how they want. They want to be able to buy a unnecessarily massive SUV (that gets 10 feet to the gallon) and pay an extra $10,000 for the Off Road Package, and then only use it to take their kids to school via paved roads. They want pizza, and lots of it, and they want to be able to turn on the TV without worrying about Rosie O’Donnell’s face assaulting their senses.

Terrorists are bad. (This is obviously something that has come to the forefront since the 2000 election, but it bears mentioning.)

I think this one is safe. If this were September 15^th, 2001 we would all agree that Terrorists are a scum that has infested the earth, and that they should be hunted down and killed one by one no matter how deep the hole that they crawl into. Unfortunately, this spirit has waned over the past six years. Some want to negotiate and listen to terrorists, and many more have lost the anger, indigence, and patriotism that they once had.

I think we have found some common ground. No doubt someone will argue that they don’t agree with one of the statements I made, so my argument is invalid. I doubt that there are any statements which all Americans agree with. I do not really care if you, or your crazy racist aunt disagrees with everyone else. I am simply attempting to remind everyone that most of us agree on most of the important stuff. We have a lot of problems, snafus, hitches, speed bumps, disagreements, quarrels, fights, debates, arguments and conflicts ahead of us. I am looking forward to dealing with both issues on the news and issues that spawn from the depths of my mind. But I hope we have a starting place. Like I always say, “A starting place isn’t the end, but it’s not a half bad place to begin.” (Feel free to quote me on that, but I want credit)