C_Fox's Blog

More and more it is becoming apparent that how we vote for a candidate is changing.

Obama just took Mississippi where it seems most people voted according to his race.  He won 90% of the votes and the vast majority came from black voters.  What does that say?  Were they voting on Obama's platform or the fact he's dark-skinned?

Is it more important to the black community to have a person of color in the WH than a person that can do a good job?

I'm not saying he could or couldn't do any better than Hillary or McCain, but this has shown how much this race is connected to race and religion.  We already threw out our Governor from the race because of his religion!

Why can't people see that we could end up with a leader that is not qualified when we allow predjudices and descrimination to alter our judgment?  These kind of voters would be the first to complain if things got worse than they already are.

It has beome more like the gameshow "Who Do You Trust?" rather than who can do the job.  Blacks only trust blacks; Catholics and Protestants only trust those of their own religion.

Are blacks interpreting Obama's platform of "Change" to mean something other than what others take it to mean?  If the vote in Mississippi is any indication, the answer seems to be 'yes'.

As for me, I would have no trouble voting for a black person, or someone with a religion different from what I am familiar with (as long as it wasn't radical) as long as he met my personal criteria as to what makes a good President.  Race and religion is not on the top of my list, but it is looking like this race has put these things on top for many people in this Country.   Where is the logic in that?

I think Romney and Huckabee were very good candidates, yet they got run over by two candidates that stood for something more that seems to be priorities in people's minds.  Maybe they weren't ruthless enough.  Maybe they weren't arrogant enough.  Maybe they weren't slick orators.  Maybe they were too honest?

I'm disappointed that it has come to this.

Give me your feedback; am I right or wrong?

Gaza's militant Hamas has been continually launching rockets into Israeli border regions, and it appears it is to disrupt any kind of peace between Palistine and Israel.  There have been efforts by the U.S. to bring the two to the table and try to negotiate some kind of agreements, but Hamas' two top officials, Ahmad Youssef, and Mushir al-Masri continually block the efforts by continuing the attacks on Israel in spite of Palestine's President Abbas requesting a cease-fire in order to have the peace talks take place.  Abbas, it is clear, has very little control over Hamas and has just about none in Gaza.

Things came to a halt when Israel recently decided to take strong military action against the constant barrage of rockets.  The response to this by Hamas is to blame Israel.  Many Gazan citizens have been killed as a result of Israeli forces targeting Hama's strongholds...which are in the middle of populated areas.  Inotherwords, Hamas uses its people as shields.  This tactic is useful when non-militant people die and they can make Israel look like monsters...but, we aren't suppose to talk about all the people they've killed with their rocket fire.

Now, the U.S. has gone to Egyptian officials requesting they pressure Hamas to cease fire and allow the talks to continue.

The response?  Hamas won't co-operated unless they have half control of the borders between Egypt and Palestine, which they haven't had for a long time.  Right now, the border is closed and Gaza is hurting because of it.  Officials in Israel believe this is because Hamas uses that border to bring in their miltary supplies and if they have control, there will be no end to the attacks on Israel.

Now, here's the sad part; in order to get the Saudis to help in the peace process, we had to pay them!  What the...?  Aren't they suppose to be our allies?  What a farce!  Is there any Country that will stand behind us without being bribed?  All we ever do is dole out billions of dollars to these snakes-in-the-grass and we get absolutely nowhere...except maybe poorer.

On top of everything, we've spent trillions in Iraq, not to mention lives, in order to bring some kind of peace and democracy to them, and now they're in bed with Iran?  In spite of everything Iran is doing...which is supplying terrorists with weapons...Iraq is still trading with them!  President Amajahdeen (sp?) has pulled a quicky by going to Iraq to try to solidify their "brotherhood", as he called it. Hah!  I think its time to re-think what the heck we are doing!

In addition, we've had to warn American's living/working in Beirut, Lebanon today because U.S. officials fear there is a plot by rebel militants to attack the U.S. Embassy there, and any American citizens.

And the list goes on.....  

So, my question is, do we really have any allies?  And, why aren't these countries paying us for the protection we give them?!

This was sent to me recently and with the election for a new President coming soon, I think it's worth repeating for all of us to consider when choosing who we want as our new Leader.  If you disagree with these Senators, you might want to ask why they voted as they did on this subject.

_____________________________________________>

TAKE A FEW MOMENTS AND READ THIS LETTER.  THESE ARE STRONG, POWERFUL AND COURAGEOUS WORDS COMING FROM A RETIRED COLONEL.
______________________________________

33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language on June 6, 2007.

On Wed. 6 June 2007 23:35:23 - 0500  Colonel Harry Riley, USA, Ret., wrote:

"Senators:

Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348......to
make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day, no less,
when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character
and principles of America, I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.   I don't much care where you come from.  What your religion is. Whether you're black, white, or some other color......male or female......Democrat, Republican or Independent.......
But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America....and Vote against English as the official language of the United States.
Your vote reflects Betrayal.  Political Surrender.  Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance.  Dishonors historical principle; Rejects Patriotism; Borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator...impeachment... Recall........Or other appropriate action is warranted or worse.
Four of you voting against English as America's Official Language are Presidential Candidates:  Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama. 
Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't, or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of 'English'  as America's Official Language, when 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.  
 
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as 'policital Hacks'...... Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States.  
 
If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally 'rock you out of your panties'......... And preferably totally out of the  United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this really isn't about America....it is about self-serving politics.....despicable at best." 
 
It has been said:
'Never Argue with an Idiot....They'll drag you down to their level!'

The following Senators voted against making English  the official language Of America:
 
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) (wants to be President)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) (wants to be President) 
Dayton(D-MN)
Dodd (D-MN) (wants to be President)
Domenici (R-NM) coward. Protecting his senate seat
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-win) - not unusual for him
Feinstein (D-ca) 
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-hi)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy - (D-ma)
Kerry (D-ma) (tried to be President)
Kohl (D-WI))
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (I-CT) Disappointment here....
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL) (Wants to be President)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader
As Lazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-M

_________________________________________
 
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged!!!" ~ Abraham Lincoln

_________________________________________

Last night in NH was an event that I'm sure most looked forward to watching, however, I think it may not have lived up to expectations.

Trying to be as objective as I possibly can, I have to say, the Republican debate was much more interesting.

I say this, because the Republican candidates gave thought-provoking answers to questions asked and delved deeper into issues than the Democratic debaters did in their discussions.  And looking at both parties, the Democrats all looked quite worn-out from campaigning these past few days.  Hilary, however, did look refreshed and better than I've seen her in a while.  All this aside, I have to say the Rebuplicans came out on top.

Obama, to me, was a disappointment; he started out well, but went down hill, having little to say most of the time.  And, although, he was given the last word of the evening, it was so ineffectual, that I can't even recall what he said. 

Edwards did a fine job and was the most animated of his group, sounding sincere and offering solid answers.

Hilary, was Hilary as usual, offering little except her resume and that she'll pull the troops out of Iraq.  Oh...and she did have to spend time defending herself from the others, unfortunately for her.

Guilani didn't do too bad, but I don't see N.H. voters choosing him as their favorite...I could be wrong.

Ron Paul, crashed and burned last night sounding uniformed, naive and somewhat of a dreamer.  He does have some good ideals, but the more he talks the worse my image of him becomes as a President.

Huckabee did well, but didn't have the floor too often. 

 Richardson, didn't get much time, but gave a good impression.  I can't say I know enough about his ideas, so can't say any more than I have about him.

Thompson, although knowlegeable and made good points, doesn't have the personality to give him the whole package.  I don't see the common man being able to relate to him. 

McCaine, a man i had hopes for, did not make a good impression last night.  He spent too much of his valuable time throwing barbs.

Romney, was able to make good arguments and didn't let anyone make accusations against him without defending himself....and there were a lot of snipes in his direction!  And, in spite of all this, he held the leadership of his panel, speaking well, and showing enthusiasm to respond to questions.

Overall, I'd say that Edwards and Romney came out on top of their respective Parties, both showing enthusiasm, offering solutions, and directing their answers to the questions asked, rather than like some others who chose to fall back on their credentials, change the subject, or just plain weren't impressive with their remarks.

Charles Gibson, (a man I like) did a good job overseeing the whole night, but made the mistake of getting too involved and presenting his own arguments.  But, I'll forgive him seeing as the temptation, at times, was probably quite strong...haha!

That's my take!

It is  easy to see that people in this Country are very dissatified with the state of the economy and politics in recent years, and especially right now.  It is also, evident that we have become very divided as to how to solve the problems we now face.

Coming soon in 2008 is our chance to make changes.  What do the Democrats want?  What do the Republicans want?

Well, its not that easy to answer when both the Democratic Party and the Republican party  are divided within themselves. 

I don't know of any other time in history that there has been so many politicians running for the Presidency, but I can understand it, when everyone seems unhappy in both camps.   All the candidates are either Democrats or Republicans...except for one...Libertarian, Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has shocked everyone lately by raising over 4 million dollars in one day towards the support of his campaign.  And most of that came from individuals, not corporations or large special interest groups. What does that tell you?  Its very likely that people view Ron Paul as someone who can deliver what he promises.

Here is a candidate that seems to appeal to what many liberals and conservatives want in a leader. He'll cut spending.  He's willing to bring home the troops "immediately", which sounds very appealing to liberals, and he is willing to down-size government, one of the conservatives' hopes for future government.  He wants to rid us of illegal immigrants, and that, too, appeals to most everyone on both sides...but, perhaps mostly by Conservatives. These are just some things he addresses in his campaign speeches.

People see him as an honest man who places more importance on straigtening out our problems than attaining personal ambitions of power.  They see him as having real solutions and determination in implementing them.

I feel Ron Paul is sincere when he speaks about the different issues that need to be addressed.  I'm just not sure, though if he could fulfill his promises. So, are the people being mislead again?

People are fed up with all the money that we spend.  They see it as "needless spending".  But, is it?

What people don't think about is that in order to maintain our position of a World Leader, we have to 'buy' other countries.  Sure, it seems like a waste of money when we send millions upon millions of dollars to other countries.  But, think about it; if we withdrew those donations and "loans", what do you think would happen?  Some other country would 'buy' them.  Because truth be known, those little countries really don't care who is supporting them.  They're just trying to survive.

And, what about the MiddleEast?  People want us to pull all our troops out and ignore them.  Well, the truth is, we can't...not when we are dependent on them for our oil supply.  We will always maintain a sizeable force of military over there as long as we need to bolster our oil supply.  Let's face reality.   We have a love/hate relationship with the Arab Nation; we love their oil, but we don't agree with their type of Government. In addition, we have allies in the MiddleEast and our goal is to have more.

But, again, it is not just oil, but an on-going struggle to stay on top.  You can think of it as somewhat of a chess game; the more pieces you own, the closer you are to being the winner.  It takes forethought and strategy to win.  Our fight for Democracy and Freedom is like that.  If we don’t work with other countries, if we don’t protect what we have established over the decades, we will lose ‘the game’.  It’s a power struggle and a very costly one, at that.  So, should we close the doors and ignore the rest of the World as so many of us would like to see happen?  No.  You see, because the reality is we can’t.  Not without losing what our forefathers established in this country.  Not without the guarantee that we would be over-run by another powerful nation.  We must keep in mind that the bulk of the MiddleEastern world would like nothing better than to see Democracy and Capitalism a thing of the past.  In addition to political war, we are in a religious war.  However, I won’t go into that here.  Still it is another reason for us not to ignore those other countries.

And, what about immigration?  People are angry over this, too.  Yes, its gotten out of hand, but there are wheels turning in the background.  We have let things slide for years.  But, there, again, we seem to have to overlook the problems created by Mexicans coming here.  We consider Mexico an ‘ally’.  and they’ll remain that way as long as we cater to them. ( Sometimes you give up a pawn  for a reason. I just wonder though whether it is something more valuable than a pawn…like maybe a Bishop or even the Queen?)

So, as sincere and as honest as Ron Paul seems to be.  I am not so sure he has any idea of what he will be facing once he gets into the White House…if that even happens.   In my opinion, he will not be able to do many of the things he would like.  It all sounds good, but not realistic.

You, and politicians like Ron Paul, might want to bring the troops home from the MiddleEast, but, it won’t guarantee your safety or security.  We didn’t just go into Iraq for a single reason.  It was many reasons.  And, as I’ve said before, the United States doesn’t do anything unless it benefits us in some way.  Going into Iraq was just another move on the chessboard to win the game.