Tuesday, July 29, 2008

OBAMA'S GLOBAL POVERTY TAX PLAN

Here's an article from WORLD NET DAILY about Obama's Global Poverty Act that would cost us big.  It's already secretly (until now) gone through a Senate panel.  Here's the article:

ELECTION 2008
Obama bill: $845 billion
more for global poverty

Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel
that would cost 0.7% of gross national product

Posted: February 14, 2008
3:53 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Barak Obam

Sen. Barack Obama, perhapsgiving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."

One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."

Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."

The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."

It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.

__________________________________________________________________

And this is just one component of Obama's massive tax increases.  Don't be fooled by his "tax only the rich" rhetoric.  Remember the tax increase Clinton handed us?  It was only supposed to "tax the rich".  Well, as you may remember, we all found out we were rich.  We didn't know it before.  Below is a video clip on this same subject from CNN.  By the way, this bill hasn't just gone away - according to GOVERNMENT TRACK, this bill is now scheduled for debate.

Monday, July 28, 2008

WRAP-UP ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM

Here is the last part of my series on the Republican Party Platform.  I know these party platforms are pretty dry material, but I think it's important for everyone to make an informed vote this fall.  One can't make an informed vote if he/she is not familiar with the party platforms.  I've gotten several nice comments about this series of posts, and I appreciate it.  Thank you all for taking the time to read.  I will continue with the series on another party.  I haven't chosen which one yet, but I think I'll stay with the same format and source, ON THE ISSUES.  Even though it's still long, the platforms are summed up in as concise a form as possible, and the voting analysis is excellent along with the graph.  It's the easiest to understand I've found.  I'll be making posts on other issues and events as they come up, so as to not only to get information out there, but so this will hopefully not be quite so boring.

VoteMatch Responses
(Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background)
Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Strongly Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(-5 points on Social scale)
Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Human Life Amendment to the Constitution: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Ethical research yes; embryo cells no; cloning no: Opposes topic 1
Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action: Opposes topic 1
Reduce child welfare caseloads & encourage adoption: Neutral on topic 1
Bush will nominate conservative judges only: Neutral on topic 1
Strongly Opposes topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Affirmative Access, without preferences or set-asides: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Women exempt from combat; “candid analysis” of military gays: Opposes topic 2
Achievement is basis for access to college: Opposes topic 2
Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(-5 points on Social scale)
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Support the advancement of women in the military: Favors topic 3
States should not recognize gay marriage from other states: Strongly Opposes topic 3
States should not recognize gay marriage from other states: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Strong support for traditional definition of marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Let Boy Scouts exercise free speech (ok to ban gays): Opposes topic 3
Affirm traditional military culture&rebuild morale (no gays): Strongly Opposes topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(-5 points on Social scale)
Support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school: Strongly Favors topic 4
Stop activist judges from banning Pledge & Ten Commandments: Favors topic 4
Strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer: Strongly Favors topic 4
Support abstinence and fatherhood: Favors topic 4
Strongly Favors topic 8:
Death Penalty
(-5 points on Social scale)
Support the death penalty: Strongly Favors topic 8
Death penalty is an effective deterrent: Strongly Favors topic 8
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(-5 points on Social scale)
Best way to deter crime is to enforce existing laws: Strongly Favors topic 9
More victims rights and harsher penalties for certain crimes: Strongly Favors topic 9
Strongly Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Open more public land to hunting: Favors topic 10
No frivolous gun lawsuits, no gun licensing: Strongly Favors topic 10
Will protect right to bear arms: Strongly Favors topic 10
Strongly Opposes topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Government-run universal health care leads to inefficiencies: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Give individuals tools to manage their own health needs: Opposes topic 5
Allow customization of insurance, support health centers: Opposes topic 5
Lawyers should not hold physicians hostage: Opposes topic 5
Strongly Favors topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Workers will have choice to invest their payroll taxes: Strongly Favors topic 6
Favors topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Promote school choice and home-schooling: Favors topic 7
Limit role of federal government in education: Favors topic 7
Opposes topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(+2 points on Economic scale)
No Kyoto, no mandatory carbon emissions controls: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Provide tax incentives for energy production: Opposes topic 18
Encourage market-based solutions to environmental problems: Opposes topic 18
Recognize that people depend on land for livelihood: Neutral on topic 18
Strongly Favors topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(-5 points on Social scale)
Jail time and school drug testing deters drug use: Strongly Favors topic 19
Clinton surrendered Drug War; cry out for drug-free schools: Strongly Favors topic 19
Aggressively pursue drug kingpins; include death penalty: Strongly Favors topic 19
Strongly Favors topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Faith-based welfare grants equal with secular groups: Strongly Favors topic 20
Faith-based charities should help end child poverty: Strongly Favors topic 20
Strongly Opposes topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Cut taxes to stimulate economy and help families: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Tax cuts & low interest rates lead to home ownership: Opposes topic 11
Repeal death tax & give tax break to care for elderly: Opposes topic 11
Encourage technology with funds for R & D, tax reform: Opposes topic 11
Tax reform will enable more poor to own a home: Opposes topic 11
Opposes topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(-3 points on Social scale)
Only legal immigrants, through tightly controlled borders: Opposes topic 12
Amnesty encourages illegal immigration: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Reform & toughen immigration system to emphasize family: Opposes topic 12
Focus immigration on needed skills: Neutral on topic 12
Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Look to Latin American countries as key partners: Favors topic 13
U.S. should position itself to dominate trade: Favors topic 13
Promote free trade with America setting the standards: Favors topic 13
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the armed forces
(-5 points on Social scale)
Provided Arm Forces better pay, treatment, and training: Strongly Favors topic 15
Restore health of defense industry; peace thru strength: Strongly Favors topic 15
No opinion on topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(0 points on Economic scale)
(No votes on which to base response)
No opinion on topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(0 points on Social scale)
(No votes on which to base response)
Favors topic 17:
US out of Iraq
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strengthen ties to Asia and promote democracy there: Favors topic 17
Help Africa with private sector and charitable investment: Favors topic 17
Reform U.N. to end abuse, unfairness, and abortion funding: Opposes topic 17
Promote peace, reduce threat of war, protect Israel: Favors topic 17

Republican Party is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Click here for
explanation of political philosophy.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHO YOU VOTE FOR, BUT WHAT, CONTINUED . . .

Today, I am continuing my series on party platforms.  Here's more of the Republican Party's platform:

REPUBLICAN PARTY ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

  • Stop activist judges from banning Pledge & Ten Commandments. (Sep 2004)
  • Reduce inefficient government, reward results. (Aug 2000)
  • Reform politics to encourage participation. (Aug 2000)
  • Federal government should not interfere with states’ rights. (Aug 2000)

REPUBLICAN PARTY ON GUN CONTROL

  • Open more public land to hunting. (Sep 2004)
  • No frivolous gun lawsuits, no gun licensing. (Sep 2004)
  • Will protect right to bear arms. (Aug 2000)

REPUBLICAN PARTY ON HEALTHCARE

  • ABC for AIDS: Abstinence, Be faithful, Change behavior. (Sep 2004)
  • Ethical research yes; embryo cells no; cloning no. (Sep 2004)
  • No assisted suicide. (Sep 2004)
  • Government-run universal health care leads to inefficiencies. (Sep 2004) (Government run ANYTHING leads to inefficiencies)
  • A reformed Medicare will give seniors choice, flexibility. (Aug 2000)
  • Give individuals tools to manage their own health needs. (Aug 2000)
  • Allow customization of insurance, support health centers. (Aug 2000)
  • Lawyers should not hold physicians hostage. (Aug 2000)

REPUBLICAN PARTY ON HOMELAND SECURITY

  • Bush has kept the charge to protect our country. (Sep 2004)
  • Bush has implemented biodefense measures. (Sep 2004)
  • Keep our homeland safe by taking action on multiple fronts. (Sep 2004)
  • Break down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement. (Sep 2004)
  • Bush and Congress have been careful to protect liberties. (Sep 2004)
  • Keep our homeland safe by taking action on multiple fronts. (Sep 2004)
  • Establish minimum safety requirements at chemical plants. (Sep 2004)
  • Greatly increase the federal bioterrorism budget. (Sep 2004)
  • Recapitalize and enlarge the Coast Guard's fleet. (Sep 2004)
  • Support to create a National Intelligence Director position. (Sep 2004)
  • Establish a National Counterterrorism Center. (Sep 2004)
  • Provided Arm Forces better pay, treatment, and training. (Sep 2004)
  • Cover all basic housing costs for average service members. (Sep 2004)
  • Increased funding for VA health care. (Sep 2004)
  • Equip our nation to fight 21st Century adversaries. (Sep 2004)
  • Provide $10 billion to defend from ballistic missiles. (Sep 2004)
  • Affirm traditional military culture&rebuild morale (no gays). (Aug 2000)
  • U.S. needs comprehensive missile defense system. (Aug 2000)
  • Eliminate as many nuclear weapons as possible. (Aug 2000)
  • Restore health of defense industry; peace thru strength. (Aug 2000)

REPUBLICAN PARTY ON IMMIGRATION

  • Use biometric data to better track foreign travelers. (Sep 2004) (Basically using fingerprints to identify foreign travelers - there's more to it than this, just a real basic definition).
  • Only legal immigrants, through tightly controlled borders. (Sep 2004)
  • Amnesty encourages illegal immigration. (Sep 2004)
  • Reform & toughen immigration system to emphasize family. (Aug 2000)
  • Focus immigration on needed skills. (Aug 2000)

REPULBICAN PARTY ON JOBS

  • Recognize that people depend on land for livelihood. (Aug 2000)
  • Small business deserves better treatment from government. (Aug 2000)

REPUBLICAN PARTY ON PRINCIPLES AND VALUES

  • We saw the spirit of courage and optimism on 9/11. (Sep 2004)
  • Bush will nominate conservative judges only. (Aug 2000)
  • <FONTSIZE=4>A distinctly American internationalism for the 21st century. (Aug 2000)

REPUBLICAN PARTY ON SOCIAL SECURITY

  • Workers will have choice to invest their payroll taxes. (Aug 2000) (I have a better idea: let's put Social Security funds BACK into a trust fund, and stop using it to pay for everything else BUT Social Security).
  • REPUBLICAN PARTY ON TAX REFORM

    • Cut taxes to stimulate economy and help families. (Aug 2000)
    • Tax cuts & low interest rates lead to home ownership. (Aug 2000)
    • Repeal death tax & give tax break to care for elderly. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON TECHNOLOGY

    • Support do-not-call and do-not-email lists. (Sep 2004)
    • Encourage technology with funds for R & D, tax reform. (Aug 2000)
    • School, libraries should ban porn from their computers. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON WAR AND PEACE

    • Terrorists seek weapons of mass destruction to kill us. (Sep 2004)
    • Shrink the space in which the terrorists can operate. (Sep 2004)
    • Total and complete destruction of terrorism is needed. (Sep 2004)
    • Afghanistan is liberated and the American people are safer. (Sep 2004)
    • Saddam had capability to reconstitute his weapons programs. (Sep 2004)
    • Promote peace, reduce threat of war, protect Israel. (Aug 2000) (Then we should stop pressuring Israel to give up covenanted land, and recognize the fact that the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization are the SAME terrorist organization that don't truly want to establish a Palestinian state, but to destroy Israel completely.  This is where the U.S. needs to grow a backbone).
    • Contribute in Balkans, but let NATO run it. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON WELFARE AND POVERTY

    • Move more welfare recipients offthewelfare rolls. (Sep 2004)
    • Faith-based welfare grants equal with secular groups. (Sep 2004)
    • Tax reform will enable more poor to own a home. (Aug 2000)
    • Faith-based charities should help end child poverty. (Aug 2000)

    This concludes the Republican Party platform.  I'll be posting other party platforms in upcoming entries.  I will also post the Republican Party voting analysis and a graph just as I did for the Democratic Party so you can see exactly where the party's beliefs are.

    Friday, July 25, 2008

    OBAMA THINKS YOUR CHILDREN SHOULD LEARN SPANISH

    Yes, you read that right.  Obama thinks your children should learn Spanish.  This, of course, is to accomodate Spanish-speaking immigrants who don't want to learn English, regardless of whether or not they are legal.  Instead of insisting that they learn English, we are to learn THEIR language in OUR country.  This is a short video, so those of you on dial-up should be able to load it.  It's only a little over a minute in length.

    Just for the record - I think Americans going abroad to live should learn the language of the country they are in, instead of expecting that country to accomodate.  I've already practiced what I preach on this one.  I went to Germany during my Senior year of high school.  I learned enough of the German language before going to get around.  I never insisted that the German people speak English.  I was in THEIR country, and out of respect for them, I learned some of THEIR language.  That's the way it should be here in America.

    Good bye for now, or should I say Adios???

    Sunday, July 20, 2008

    IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHO YOU VOTE FOR, BUT WHAT . . .

    I'm continuing my series today and now I'm going to highlight the Republican Party platform.  For those of you that may be new to my journal, I'm putting this out in the open so that hopefully voters can make an informed vote this fall.  This Presidential election is one of the most critical if not THE most critical I've seen in my lifetime.  You may ask why the party platform, and what it has to do with your candidate of choice.  The answer is very simple.  Each candidate MUST commit to their particular political party and what IT stands for in order to receive its endorsement and campaign funds.  What you hear the candidates saying during their election runs sometimes lines up with the party platform and sometimes doesn't.  When it doesn't, don't count on it happening if that candidate is elected.  They MUST follow the party platform, and once elected, that will be what they will be committed to accomplishing.  To see what a particular candidate REALLY stands for, check out their party's platform and that will be it.

    If you haven't done so, I would urge you to see my other posts with the same title to review the Democratic Party's platform.  I apologize for it being so scattered throughout my journal, but the platform was too lengthy for one entry, and most people would have become frustrated with it if I had thrown it out there all at once.  I also do posts on other items in between that I think are of current interest.

    For this series, I am again using ON THE ISSUES.  Their postings are concise and easy to read.  They also have an excellent analysis of the voting records of the particular party or officeholder.  The analysis shows on an easy to read graph where the party or officeholder stands based on the voting record, liberal or conservative.  Again, I hope you find this informative and enlightening.

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON CRIME

    • Support the death penalty. (Sep 2004)
    • Best way to deter crime is to enforce existing laws. (Sep 2004)
    • More victims rights and harsher penalties for certain crimes. (Aug 2000)
    • Death penalty is an effective deterrent. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON DRUGS

    • Jail time and school drug testing deters drug use. (Sep 2004)
    • Clinton surrendered Drug War; cry out for drug-free schools. (Aug 2000)
    • Aggressively pursue drug kingpins; include death penalty. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON EDUCATION

    • Promote school choice and home-schooling. (Sep 2004)
    • Support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school. (Sep 2004)
    • Limit role of federal government in education. (Aug 2000)(I think the Federal government's massive role in public education is the primary reason why the U.S. is ranked #18 out of 24 industrialized nations in education - that's not far from being dead last.) 
    • Increase access to higher education with savings accounts. (Aug 2000)
    • Strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer. (Aug 2000)
    • Achievement is basis for access to college. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON ENERGY & OIL

    • No Kyoto, no mandatory carbon emissions controls. (Sep 2004)(When Bill Clinton was president, even he saw the problems with this and did not sign the Kyoto Accords.  Two main problems is that it would have seriously damaged the U.S. economy, and exempted the very countries that produce the majority of the so-called "greenhouse gases.") 
    • Provide tax incentives for energy production. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON ENVIRONMENT

    • Private property ownership key to environmental agenda. (Sep 2004)
    • Cap-and-trade market-based air pollution reductions. (Sep 2004)
    • Encourage market-based solutions to environmental problems. (Aug 2000)

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON FAMILIES & CHILDREN

    • Families are the cornerstone of our culture. (Sep 2004)
    • Support abstinence and fatherhood. (Aug 2000)
    • Reduce child welfare caseloads & encourage adoption. (Aug 2000)

    REPBULICAN PARTY ON FOREIGN POLICY

    • Nations that support terrorism are just as guilty. (Sep 2004)
    • A global coalition has broken al Qaeda cells. (Sep 2004)
    • The Pakistan government working with US to fight terror. (Sep 2004)
    • Saudi Arabia has joined the War on Terror. (Sep 2004)
    • Iraq is now becoming an example of reform. (Sep 2004)
    • Libya's munitions have been destroyed. (Sep 2004)
    • Iraqi government has gained broad international support. (Sep 2004)
    • Pursue a comprehensive strategy against WMD proliferation. (Sep 2004) (We need to check out Syria on this one.  That's where Saddam Hussein shipped his WMD's as soon our troops hit the border.  Captured documents that are still being translated reveal not only the existence of WMD's, but where they went.  I think President Bush has made a big mistake by not making the translated documents public).
    • Provide new strategies to help poor nations. (Sep 2004)
    • Applaud the success in mobilizing international cooperation. (Sep 2004)
    • The Broader Middle East Initiative spreads democracy. (Sep 2004)
    • Objectives of assistance and the strategies must change. (Sep 2004)
    • Look to Latin American countries as key partners. (Aug 2000)
    • Strengthen ties to Asia and promote democracy there. (Aug 2000)(Except for Red China - they are our sworn enemy and I strongly opposed Clinton's granting them Most Favored Nation status). 
    • NATO has shared responsibility for peacekeeping. (Aug 2000)
    • Help Africa with private sector and charitable investment. (Aug 2000)
    • Reform U.N. to end abuse, unfairness, and abortion funding. (Aug 2000) (I really don't know how this is expected to be done since the U.N. and all key commissions are made up mostly of our enemies).
    • Will not allow China to attack Taiwan. (Aug 2000) (I don't think any of our politicians have the guts to do this, but Red China understands only one kind of deterrent - attack Taiwan, expect a military response . . . period).

    REPUBLICAN PARTY ON FREE TRADE

    • U.S. should position itself to dominate trade. (Aug 2000)
    • Promote free trade with America setting the standards. (Aug 2000)(This is one of the key things on which I disagree with the Republican Party.  Free trade is one of the things that has gotten us into such trouble with lost manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  It's hard to find anything made in the U.S. anymore which means Americans are making the goods).

    I will be making future entries with more of the Republican Party Platform.  As before, I may make other entries as current issues arise or as I discover in my research.  Thank you all for your comments, whether you agree with me or not.  As I've said before, I welcome differing viewpoints most of which I repost and rebut.  If you have a comment for any of my earlier posts, please feel free to leave a comment.  I have my comments on alert, so I will get them no matter how far back they are.  If it's a differing opinion on an issue, I will do a rebuttal entry.  I believe open discussions such as this are vital to maintaining our First Amendment rights.  "If you don't use it, you'll lose it" certainly applies.  If we don't exercise our rights, we may lose them.

    Saturday, July 19, 2008

    MY ANSWER TO A DIFFERENT OPINION

    My last post hasn't been up long yet, but I received a comment that I wanted to address now.  The comment concerned what we all hear the liberal news media touting as the answer to our oil problem. I will respond to each part of a comment left by Ryan, THATBOYAINTRIGHT.

    "No, the drop in crude prices had nothing to do with the report about untapped oil in the US."

    That was just something to wonder about.  Since the formation of OPEC, ANYTIME they raised their prices and we responded with news of more exploration, developing new technology, or whatever, OPEC ALWAYS dropped their prices, and of course, we ALWAYS stopped the exploration, development of new technology, etc.

    "We can't drill our way out of the mess we're in."

    This is the main line that we hear just about daily on the news.  The fact is, even if we don't go after the shale oil in the West, getting our own oil offshore and ANWAR alone will buy us time.  Those are the most viable sources right now.  The reality is, that we should never have stopped.  We should never have regulated ourselves out of the oil business.  What is really going on is that the left, which includes the environmentalists, have been wanting us to pay the same for gasoline as Europeans. To achieve this, taxes on gasoline would have to be raised drastically.  (The price of gas wholesale in Europe is about the same as in the U.S., but the taxes on it throughout Europe are much higher.  Seventy per cent of the price at the pumps in France, for example, goes down the drain in tax.) This has been going on for years now and there's no "reading between the lines" necessary.  These groups have come right out and said it many times in the media.

    "There has to be a significant =increase= in the price of gas before the type of changes we need will come. . . . a shift in population toward cities . . . "

    A shift in population toward cities?  If gas went to European levels, which is about nine dollars a gallon right now, who could afford to drive even across town to work?  And what about those people who want a better environment in which to raise their families?  And shifting the population towards cities would have what effect on family farming operations?  It would shut them down.  Farmers wouldn't be able to afford to drive 50, 75, 100, or 150 miles just to get fuel for their farm equipment and supplies for their farms.  Such a shift would also completely destroy rural states economies.  When local small-town businesses shut down, and people leave rural areas, not only are local economies damaged, but the state's and nation's economy as well.  Recent statistics show that 98% of all businesses in the U.S. employ less than 100 people.  That shows what we already know - small business is the backbone and foundation of the entire business world and our nation's economy.  Force a population shift towards the big cities, and many of these businesses would close from lack of business.  This idea isn't practical any way you look at it. 

    "Like it or not, we need less travel to places of employment; smaller vehicles . . . " "Energy conservation can no longer be an option."

    There are many industries that cannot be located just anywhere such as power plants and paper mills.  Sources of large amounts of water are needed and therefore location isn't a choice.  Where the resources are dictates where they locate.  And if the "shift in population" is towards the cities?  Who's going to run the plants?  All the workers will be in the cities. 

    "Smaller vehicles?"  We're overrun with small vehicles now.  Fuel mileage is double and in some cases triple what it was in the 1960's.  The Federal government passed a law in 1975 known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE).  These are government regulations intended to require an overall increase of gas mileage in cars, light trucks, vans, and SUV's.  This law has been in effect since 1975.  Back then, we had a forty percent dependence on foreign oil.  After thirty-three years of fuel economy in cars steadily rising to the highest fuel economy in vehicles we've had since before about 1958 or so, and look where we are now.  Our dependence hasn't gone down as the government promised with the CAFE standards, instead it has steadily gone up.  This is a prime example that you can't conserve your way out of a problem.  Period.  California is another good example of this.  I'm sure we all remember the problems just a few years ago with having enough power to go around.  And conservation-wise, California has the lowest energy consumption rate per capita than anywhere else due to the massive conservation practices there over the years.  Trying to conserve your way out of a situation has never worked and never will.  Production has to be increased, and over time, as our technology advances, alternative energy sources will be discovered.

    " . . . real public transportation; & tax hits for driving land yachts . . ."

    Why is it that the answer from the left's point of view for everything is ALWAYS higher taxes?????  Public transportation never pays for itself.  A high enough fare for riders can never be charged to make it self-supporting.  So what happens?  Higher taxes to pay for it.  Tax hits for driving land yachts?  I absolutely don't trust government's definition of anything.  Their definition and mine would be two different things.  Since we drive an antique car (that's not a show car, an everyday driver) and a 1994 Ford Explorer, you know I would be slammed under this idea.  SUV's have been demonized by the liberal left for some years now.  A side note, it was kind of funny, they later had to include pickup trucks in this because at first, they apparently didn't know that most SUV's were built on pickup truck frames and used pickup motors.  Even though our truck gets thirty miles per gallon at fifty-five miles per hour and twenty-three to twenty-four miles per gallon in the city consistently, I'm sure my little two-door Explorer would cause my taxes to go way up.  To reduce my taxes, I could always buy a smaller vehicle that actually gets less mileage than our truck.    Since my 1968 Ford Galaxie is larger than a mini-Cooper, you can only imagine.

    Speaking of definitions, the last time the left defined "rich" people,my income taxes went through the roof.  This, of course, was under the Clinton administration.  Bill Clinton handed out an income tax increase that was supposed to only tax the rich.  Well, guess what?  I found out that if you were earning as much as $20,000 a year, YOU WERE RICH!  I was rich and didn't even know it.  I was sure to thank Mr. Clinton for that information.  So, do you REALLY want to trust the government's definition of a "land yacht"?  I don't think so.  I think many of you would find out that your Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Ford Taurus, or Chevy Impala were "land yachts".  Tax increases always seem to get expanded over time, and taxing us more is never the answer. 

    I just had another thought on this:  what about low-income people?  That's right, many low-income people drive older model Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Buicks because they can purchase them relatively cheaply.  They're not restored or in great condition, but many low-income people cannot afford even a small car.  So who would take yet another hit on the "land yacht" tax?  The people who can least afford it, as always.

    "Alternative energy resources is a must. Now. "

    This won't happen overnight.  Under the Jimmy Carter administration, this was supposedly a huge part of his energy plan.  The government's been at this one for over thirty years.  It hasn't happened on a large scale basis.  Alternative energy technology happens over a period of many years.  Technology has to be discovered, ways of using it, and so on.  It's a slow process.  We need a better plan than the failed energy policies already in place since the 1970's.

    "If we drill more, all we do is keep the current mindset we have now. We've known that was coming since 1973 & did we develop public transportation?"

    Like it or not, the entire world economy is oil-based.  There's no getting around that until technology for some other type of energy source is developed where it will filter down to the poorer nations of the world, the world's economy will remain oil-based.  This won't happen anytime in our lifetime.  Public transportation isn't the cure-all.  Many cities did develop public transportation systems, even those that couldn't really afford to.  Again, higher taxes to pay for it, and higher taxes always hit those at the lower end of the income spectrum the hardest.

    "Did we utilize a European-style zoning? "

    I really don't know what Ryan meant here, but I frankly don't want European-style anything here.  Their taxes are through the roof there and poverty is a huge problem because of the exorbitant taxes.  We complain about the 18.4 cents per gallon the Federal government gets from each gallon of gas in the U. S., what if it were THREE-FOURTHS of the total price like it is in France and other European countries where the price is around nine dollars per gallon?  I know this doesn't have anything to do with whatever zoning Ryan is referring to, but my point is that living conditions in Europe as a whole are not that great and freedom is greatly restricted.  That's why Europeans try to immigrate TO the U.S., and Americans aren't exactly trying to immigrate there in droves.  I'm just skeptical of anything that mimics the European lifestyle because it means giving up even more of our freedom.  We give up enough of that every time Congress convenes as it is.

    "Did we all start driving smaller cars & conserving more energy?"

    The answer is yes.  There is really no such thing as a family size car anymore.  What is considered a standard size car now is actually a midsize.  At work, I used to drive a 1999 Ford Crown Victoria with a Police Interceptor high performance engine.  I checked the gas mileage from time to time, and it came out to 26 miles per gallon combined city and highway (which by the way would be hit by a “land yacht” tax I’m sure, even though it got better fuel mileage than many smaller cars).  That's much better than the 1985 Ford Police Interceptor that got ten miles per gallon.  More than double.  Technologies such as solar power and windmills have been developed.  Solar power is everywhere now.  I even see solar powered flashing roadside warning signs out in rural areas.  There are many energy saving devices in our homes such as the sleep mode on computers that is idle for a certain period of time, better insulated homes than in the past, and more efficient heating and cooling systems. 

    "Drilling more will only keep the American appetite growing."

    I disagree.  The "American appetite" is going to continue to grow.  People are going to keep on having children and immigrants from other countries are going to continue to come here.  Unless we want to put population controls in place like Red China did.  Do you REALLY want to live like that with even your freedom to have children limited and regulated by – THE GOVERNMENT???

    Drilling more will enable the normal technological evolution towards other energy sources to take place.  It would also lower prices, and insure our national security.  National security? Glad you asked!  Since we're so dependent on foreign oil, primarily from enemy nations, if we went to war with any of their allies, do you think for one second they would continue to supply us with their oil to do battle with them?  The answer there is obvious.  We MUST do whatever we need to do to become independent of these enemy oil producing nations as soon as possible.  We should have already been producing enough here to be independent today.

    "We need to bite the bullet like the rest of the world . . . "

    This goes back to the conservation idea.  While there's nothing wrong with conserving where you can, it's not going to solve the problem.  I think a thirty-three year track record of total failure has shown that.

    As always, Ryan, thank you for reading and your comments.  Differing points of view are always welcome here. 

     

     

    Friday, July 18, 2008

    WE ARE SWIMMING IN OIL, BUT THE LEFT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT . . .

    BUT TOO LATE, THE "CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG NOW!"

    I'll resume posting party platforms soon, but I ran across this while posting a comment in Ken's journal, BUCKO.  This is a clickable link, and I encourage you to visit.  It's a good read and he's started making entries called Campaign Corner in addition to his regular entries.  It's very well written and easy to understand.

    This article is dated July 14, 2008, and was in NEWSWEEK magazine.  It's entitled AMERICA'S UNTAPPED OIL: COULD THE ROCKIES OUT-PRODUCE SAUDI ARABIA?  Here's the article, written by Jim Moscou:

    Royal Dutch Shell, the international oil giant, thinks the solution to America's oil crisis may lie in the heart of Colorado. Since 1981, the company has quietly funded a multi-million dollar research project that many call a quest for energy's Holy Grail. The mission: to discover a way to safely and economically extract fuel from oil shale, a type of sedimentary rock found in Wyoming, Utah, and especially Colorado's Western Slope. The potential windfall is staggering. Studies over the years by industry and government alike estimate that there may be between 800 billion and more than one trillion barrels of oil locked up in these rocks--nearly three times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. That would be enough oil to supply America for the next 400 years. "It's coming eventually. It's just a matter of when," say Roy McClung, mayor of Parachute, Colorado, a community in the heart of oil shale country. "Should all the stuff come into place, thisarea is going to--well, I don't know if anyone is ready for that kind of growth."

    With oil bubbling over $140 a barrel, the political push is heating up. On Monday, President Bush announced that he is lifting an executive ban on offshore drilling. In June, he also championed oil shale, calling it "a highly promising resource," and asked Congress to lift a year-old national moratorium that critics say prohibits the industry from tapping oil-rich shale deposits.

    But are McClung and Bush being overly optimistic about shale? Yes, say some oil industry executives, government officials and environmentalists. They point to a 2005 RAND Corporation study that suggests a commercially viable means of extracting oil from shale may be at least 12 years off, if ever. Shell, a leader in the research effort for the past 25 years, has not sold a single barrel of fuel from shale. In fact, no one has ever commercialized oil shale in the United States. The extraction process carries with it significant environmental risks as well-a political stumbling block in a region of the country where water is an extremely precious commodity.

    For generations, oil shale has been more a source of frustration than actual energy. Early Western homesteaders unwittingly used the rocks to build their chimneys, only to find that they were fire hazards. During the 19th century, the stones were squeezed for kerosene and lamp oil. And by the mid-20th century, government and industry were eyeing shale as a source of gasoline and jet fuel. "The question has always been how to recover it and at what cost," says Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Association (NOSA), an industry-funded advocacy group that was reborn this year after being defunct for nearly two decades.

    With analysts predicting oil could hit $170 a barrel by the end of the year, the rush is on for shale oil again. But Colorado's been through booms before, only to be burned. After prices spiked in the late 1970s, big oil poured into Colorado's Western Slope, the world's biggest oil shale deposit. Flush with money and jobs, towns like Rifle and Grand Junction thrived. "People were living in tents, under bridges. There was nowhere to put all the workers," says Parachute's mayor, McClung.

    But by the early 80s, oil prices fell and extraction technology never panned out. On Sunday, May 2, 1982, the bubble burst. Exxon announced it was closing its $5 billion Colony oil-shale operation. Overnight, Colorado's entire Western Slope economy collapsed. "Police were put on riot alert," McClung recalls. "Thousand of people arrived to work on Monday and were met with armed guards and the last pay check. Buildings partly erected sat for years until they were tore down. It was awful." To this day, many Coloradoans still blame "Black Sunday" as the trigger that put the state in a near decade-long recession.

    Twenty-six years later, with gas at more than $4 a gallon, oil-shale prospectors think it can still work. Most eyes are on Royal Dutch Shell's "in situ" process. The company's idea is to heat oil shale underground to temperatures of about 700 degrees for three years or longer. In turn, the oil oozes out of the rock and can then be extracted. To avoid contaminating underground water, areas surrounding the heated rock are frozen to create "freeze walls", theoretically preventing the oil from migrating. "We have demonstrated that our technology works. We have produced oil and gas," says Terry O'Connor, vice president external and regulatory affairs for Shell Exploration and Production Company, Unconventional Oil.

    In all, O'Connor says, the company has produced only 1,800 barrels, and, won't commercially produce for another 10 years at least. "Our challenge now is whether we can do it on a larger, commercial basis," adding Shell has yet to prove groundwater can be protected. "If we are not able to do that, I can assure you that we will not proceed to commercialization." When will Shell decide? Says O'Connor: "We hope to have enough knowledge by 2009 or 2010."

    Still, Shell and other players, like Chevron, Exxon and a handful of oil-shale prospecting companies, want some answers now. Companies researching oil shale have been relegated to testing on privately-owned land or a few specially-leased plots on federal land. The reason? While the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Bureau of Land Management--which manages 80 percent of the oil-shale territory--to begin paving the way for commercial production, a 2007 environmentally-concerned Congress narrowly voted to put a one-year moratorium on developing commercial regulations, a restriction that expires on October 1. "We need a little more certainty the industry will be supported," says Vawter, who argues the moratorium should not be renewed. Shell's O'Connor says without any federal direction, it could have a "chilling effect" on the company's desire to continue investments.

    Environmentalists, meanwhile, are taking a cautious line. They voice concern about the impact extraction would have on water quality. Some also worry that the production of oil shale could release greenhouse gases, though the oil companies say that is not a proven side effect. But even the most vocal environmental critics seem wary of being painted as anti-development in the current climate-especially since the energy industry is so vital to the local economy. "Across the board you have people who remember the Black Sunday event," says Frank Smith, the oil shale community organizer for the Western Colorado Congress. "This issue still resonates in their minds and souls."

    Last month, Colorado's Governor Bill Ritter testified in Congress he wants to preserve the moratorium, a position supported by Wyoming's Democratic governor, Dave Freudenthal. Soon after, and just across the state border from the Royal Dutch Shell plant, Utah's Republican governor, Jon Huntsman Jr., and the state's two Republican senators, Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, called publicly for an end to the moratorium.

    The heart of Colorado's oil shale country was once a Republican stronghold, in a loyal red state. No longer. Colorado is a key 2008 swing state, and four years ago the residents of oil shale country elected John Salazar, a Democrat, to the House. "He won because he defended the Western Slope's water," says Kenneth Bickers, professor of political science and the department chair at the University of Colorado, Boulder. In fact, in 2007, Salazar, along with his brother, Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar and Democratic Rep. Mark Udall, sponsored the efforts that led to the current oil-shale moratorium. Udall is today the Democratic candidate for an open Colorado Senate seat, in a tight race with former oil executive, Bob Schaffer. It's anybody'sguess at this point whether the Bush administration's push to end the moratorium will help-or hurt-Republicans in down-ticket contests this fall.

    Back in Parachute, the townspeople are mindful of history, the mayor says, adding that he is concerned about another oil shale boom and bust cycle. "Is there a split in town? Pretty badly," says McClung, who won his mayoral seat as a registered independent in 2006. "It's amazing how small issues, like the moratorium, can become such a big focal point. But it's going to be a very hot-button issue."

    Yes, as the left likes to remind everyone, things like this are around ten years down the road.  Why?  Because Congress has stood in the way of domestic oil production for three decades now, and as you can see from the article, politicians keep on standing in the way while OPEC laughs all the way to the bank. 

    My point is this: independence from OPEC ten or twelve years from now is better than not at all.  What the majority of people don't stop to consider is that when something like this is publicized, and we say we're going for it, historically OPEC drops its prices.  If we go after the oil here, offshore, and in ANWAR, you would see OPEC dropping the price of their oil real quick.  This has happened in the past, but our mistake is that we stop going forward with tapping into our own oil, as we did in the '80's when the price of oil dropped.  This time, we need to keep on going after it even if OPEC drops the price of oil to ten cents a barrel.  The security and future of our country depends on oil independence.  We need to go full steam ahead right now, or we may find ourselves a third-rate power.  The politicians need to just step aside, and let us handle this!  It would work much better. 

    P.S. - Oil prices dropped more in a week than they ever have.  Last Friday, the price fell to $128.88/barrel, from the previous week of $147/barrel.  Wonder if the  OPEC nations got wind of our massive oil supply and that we're looking into it?

    Tuesday, July 15, 2008

    IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHO YOU VOTE FOR, BUT WHAT - CONCLUSION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM

    This concludes my series on the Democratic party platform.  Below is a graph that shows the party's political leanings and ideology based on Democratic voting records according to ON THE ISSUES.  Also included is a table of specific party stances on individual issues which is based on voting records. 

    VoteMatch Responses
    (Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
    VoteMatch Question & Answer
    (Click on question for explanation and background)
    Based on these stances:
    (Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
    Strongly Favors topic 1:
    Abortion is a woman's right
    (+5 points on Social scale)
    Pursue embryonic stem cell research: Favors topic 1
    Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay: Strongly Favors topic 1
    Put science ahead of ideology in research and policymaking: Favors topic 1
    Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right: Strongly Favors topic 1
    Strongly Favors topic 2:
    Require hiring more women & minorities
    (-5 points on Economic scale)
    Racial and religious profiling is wrong: Favors topic 2
    Support affirmative action to redress discrimination: Strongly Favors topic 2
    Police should have zero tolerance of racial profiling: Neutral on topic 2
    Democrats lead fight for ERA and equal employment: Strongly Favors topic 2
    Strongly Favors topic 3:
    Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
    (+5 points on Social scale)
    Keep marriage at state level; no federal gay marriage ban: Strongly Favors topic 3
    Pass hate crime legislation including gays: Favors topic 3
    Favors topic 4:
    Teacher-led prayer in public schools
    (-3 points on Social scale)
    Character education is an important aspect of education: Favors topic 4
    Favors topic 8:
    Death Penalty
    (-3 points on Social scale)
    Tougher punishments, including the death penalty: Strongly Favors topic 8
    DNA testing & post-conviction reviews in death penalty cases: Opposes topic 8
    Opposes topic 9:
    Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
    (+2 points on Social scale)
    Fight crime with prevention, community police: Opposes topic 9
    Strongly Opposes topic 10:
    Absolute right to gun ownership
    (-5 points on Economic scale)
    Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole: Opposes topic 10
    Strengthen gun control to reduce violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
    Strongly Favors topic 5:
    More federal funding for health coverage
    (-5 points on Economic scale)
    Expand coverage and cut healthcare costs: Favors topic 5
    Every American should have affordable health insurance: Strongly Favors topic 5
    Add prescription drug benefit to Medicare: Favors topic 5
    Strongly Opposes topic 6:
    Privatize Social Security
    (-5 points on Economic scale)
    Oppose privatization and oppose raising retirement age: Strongly Opposes topic 6
    Strengthen Social Security for Baby Boomers: Opposes topic 6
    Opposes topic 7:
    Parents choose schools via vouchers
    (-3 points on Economic scale)
    Charter schools OK, vouchers not: Favors topic 7
    U.S. needs public school accountability, not vouchers: Strongly Opposes topic 7
    Strongly Favors topic 18:
    Replace coal & oil with alternatives
    (-5 points on Economic scale)
    We cannot drill our way to energy independence: Favors topic 18
    Develop renewable energy and efficient vehicles: Favors topic 18
    Invest in technology & transportation friendly to earth: Strongly Favors topic 18
    Encourage open space and rail travel: Strongly Favors topic 18
    We do not have to choose between economy and environment: Favors topic 18
    Favors topic 19:
    Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
    (-3 points on Social scale)
    Crack down on gangs and drugs: Favors topic 19
    Bring to justice those bringing drugs to America: Favors topic 19
    Drugs in prison: get clean to get out: Favors topic 19
    Dry up drug demand via more enforcement plus more treatment: Favors topic 19
    Fight drugs and economic hopelessness that fuels it: Favors topic 19
    Favors topic 20:
    Allow churches to provide welfare services
    (+2 points on Economic scale)
    Harness power of faith-based organizations PLUS govt: Favors topic 20
    Strongly Favors topic 11:
    Make taxes more progressive
    (-5 points on Economic scale)
    Cut taxes for middle class, not the wealthy: Strongly Favors topic 11
    G.O.P. creates debt, Dems create surpluses: Neutral on topic 11
    Democrats will eliminate publicly held debt by 2012: Favors topic 11
    Cut taxes for working families, not richest 1%: Strongly Favors topic 11
    Strongly Favors topic 12:
    Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
    (+5 points on Social scale)
    Path for undocumented aliens to earn citizenship: Favors topic 12
    Reform the INS; reduce immigrant backlog: Favors topic 12
    Protect immigrants from exploitation by employers: Strongly Favors topic 12
    No opinion on topic 13:
    Support & expand free trade
    (0 points on Economic scale)
    Knock down barriers to free, fair and balanced trade: Opposes topic 13
    Free trade with safeguards will benefit all: Favors topic 13
    Strongly Favors topic 15:
    Expand the armed forces
    (-5 points on Social scale)
    Add 40,000 new soldiers and keep military all-volunteer: Favors topic 15
    Equip military for new threats and missions: Strongly Favors topic 15
    Encourage military careers with better pay & benefits: Favors topic 15
    Prepare military with advanced military and technology: Strongly Favors topic 15
    Favors topic 16:
    Stricter limits on political campaign funds
    (-3 points on Economic scale)
    Support McCain-Feingold bill for campaign finance reform: Favors topic 16
    No opinion on topic 14:
    The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
    (0 points on Social scale)
    (No votes on which to base response)
    Strongly Favors topic 17:
    US out of Iraq
    (+5 points on Social scale)
    New vision for America: strong at home, respected abroad: Favors topic 17
    Internationalize Iraqi military and political presence: Favors topic 17
    Forward Engagement must guide proactive foreign policy: Strongly Favors topic 17
    Work to close gap between richest and poorest nations: Favors topic 17
    Commitment to Israel is unshakable: Strongly Favors topic 17

    Democratic Party is a Populist-Leaning Liberal

    VoteMatch

    Party's Political Philosophy

    The below is a way of thinking about the political philosophy by dividing the party's VoteMatch answers into "personal" and "economic" questions.  It is only a theory - please take it with a grain of salt!

    Personal Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.

    Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.
     

    Party's Score

    The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:
     

    Personal Score 60%
    Economic Score 18%

     

    Where the Party Fits In

    Where the party's Personal score meets the Economic score on the above grid is the party's political philosophy.  Based on the above score, the party is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

    My next series will be the Republican (GOP) Party's platform.