keithw999's Blog

1. Does Not Support Isreal - I long suspected this and only now is it confirmed that Obama is hostile to Isreal. As an example, the L.A. Times is supressing a video tape where Obama is at a farewell dinner for an avowed enemy of Isreal. At this dinner the State of Isreal is lampooned, ridiculed and its very existence condemded. After the evening of "roasting" and ridicule, Obama is seen toasting the main offender and guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi, spokesman for the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat. If you are known by the company you keep, Barack Obama does not keep good company.

2. Selection of Supreme Court Justices - Obama's legal philosophy is wrong and out of step with the constitution. I have little confidence that he will appoint justices who will interpret the law, not legislate new law. The other day I heard an interview in which Obama was complaining that the contitution "limited" what government can do. Duhhhhh!!! It's supposed to! He completely misses this point.

3. Wants to Spread the Wealth - In any other forum, his idea of "wealth spreading" would be defined as theft. I'm sick and tired of being told that I'm "rich" and that I'm selfish and a bad person because I want to keep the government from taking more and more of my earnings for some "better purpose."

4. Believes Government is The Answer - Again, it comes from a flawed philosophy. Frankly, the best thing the government can do is to get out of our way and leave us alone. Government has a limited role in our lives. It's a safety net for those truly in need. It is not our saviour. I'm sorry, we're overlooking a lot if we don't question what we are being sold in this package of goods.

Over the weekend as news of Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy emerged, I was not very concerned politically.  After all, Bill Clinton had so lowered the bar when it comes to morality and managing one's personal affairs (pun not intended), this could even be turned into a plus, showcasing how Gov. Palin deals with difficult situations.

On the other hand, the allegations of using her position as Governor to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper is a troubling development.  Did McCain know about this when Governor Palin was vetted?  What information about this did he have?  Usually the vice presidential candidate doesn't add a whole lot since it's the top of the ticket we vote for.  Still, the VP should be someone that at least doesn't hurt the candidate either.  If there's any traction to these allegations they can prove to be a distraction to McCain's candidacy.

If you recall, Elliott Spitzer made a reputation of bringing down the powerful and corrupt on Wall Street.  His undoing was something as simple as his libido and unrestrained ego.  In the end, could Gov. Sarah Palin's undoing be something as simple as misplaced loyalty to her sister, and faulty judgment in executing the duties of her office?  Time will tell.

The highly-publicized search for a new head coach of the Washington Redskins got me to thinking about the perspective candidates for the job. Many of the players and coaching staff has voiced the opinion that Greg Williams, Redskins' current assistant coach or someone else “in-house” should get the nod. I hadn't been closely following the search for a new head coach until I heard on the radio the other day that the Redskins had yet to interview a minority candidate for the position. It seems, there is this “Rooney Rule” in the NFL that requires teams to include minority candidates when conducting a search for the head coach position.

Back in 2003, after firing head coach Marty Mornhinweg, the Detroit Lions immediately hired Steve Mariucci from the San Francisco 49rs as its head coach, bypassing the entire interview process. The Lions was fined $200,000 by the NFL for not first, going through the motions of appearing to interview minority candidates. What caught my attention was a scenario in which a team interviews all of the candidates it is seriously considering for the position but then interviews me, let's say, because this rule says that they have to. How exactly does that interview proceed, with the candidate and owner knowing fully well that the interview is merely a staged event to satisfy the league's well-intentioned politically-correct gesture of fairness? I'd love to sit in that room and observe this charade.

I'm not saying that this is the case with the Redskins' search. Certainly I believe that Ron Meeks of the Indianapolis Colts was given serious consideration. It's just the thought of some interviewees being “used” to fill a square when no serious consideration is ever actually given.

Over the past weekend and up to this day, much has been made about race becoming a factor in the election of possible Democrat candidates for their party's nomination for President. Barack Obama came clean with the American people several years ago in his book, where he admitted to, among other things, having used illicit drugs. This in contrast to America's “first black President” who half-heartedly admitted to smoking dope without inhaling (I'm still trying to figure that one out).

We all know (or should know) that using illicit drugs is wrong. Barack Obama can be inspirational to young people, showing that in spite of making some bad choices early on in life, one can rise above bad decisions, work hard and even become President of these United States. On the other hand, much of Mr. Johnson's fortune was made pimping thug culture and the “gangsta” lifestyle through videos our young people watch on his Black Entertainment Television. How much negative influence and damage has his “business” wrought on the black family compared to a man who admits to having been lost, but now found; blind but now sees?

Instead of fronting for “Bubba” Clinton by tearing down a successful and inspirational black role model, Mr. Johnson should be lifting up the good within our community, encouraging others to follow suit. If you're going to hold something that someone did some 30 years ago against him, then this is not the America of promise and fairness. In church when you come down to the alter to get saved, there's a presumption that you are turning your life around. Once someone has turned their life around to do good, it's the lowest of shots to resurrect what they once did for cheap political gain.

I think simply stated, Barack Obama's loss in the New Hampshire primary is symptomatic of what I thought previously occurred in American politics in the past but may still be alive and well today. Voters will tell pollsters one thing but in the privacy of the voting booth, vote another way. Unlike the Iowa caucuses where how you are voting is publicly known as you caucus for your candidate, in a primary only you and God has to know. It is there where Democrats search their souls and decide how they will vote. Simply put, not as many Democrats are as progressive as they profess and ready to nominate a black candidate as their standard bearer.

While I can't accuse the news media of not reporting factual news events, it seems that it really takes some digging to find what should be the daily headlines. Just weeks before the first electoral contest in the nation, the Iowa Caucuses, Democrat contender Senator Barak Obama has taken the lead in the latest poll over the supposedly unstoppable front-runner, Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton. There's hardly any mention or analysis of this in the mainstream press. With the millions of dollars that Mitt Romney has been spending in Iowa, suddenly second-tier candidate Mike Huckabee has moved up to second place in the polls, within striking distance. Mind you, Mike Huckabee has done this with practically no money. What's going on here?

I don't pretend to be a great mind that can analyze these two events (among others) but I see a couple of upsets in the making. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and state for the record that unless Mrs. Clinton is able to shore-up her sliding poll numbers, she is about to be upset in Iowa. I don't think that is the case for Mitt Romney on the Republican side (yet) but that contest bears watching. Things can change suddenly between now and January.

This news and analysis is out there and if you surf the web and read a variety of news sources, you'll see it. Somehow though, the analysis of these trends seems to have escaped the mainstream media outlets. What do you think?

Alright, I’m going to declare and say what I’ve been thinking for a while now.  The Al Gore-generated scare over “Global Warming” is a hoax.  I’ve been thinking this way for a while now but I did not have the courage of my convictions until last week when John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel came out and said what I had been thinking all along.

(http://www.halflifesource.com/news/2007/11/
08/article10005.htm).

 

The Earth simply goes through cycles.  It heats up; it cools down; it heats up; it cools down.  Period.  Nothing complicated about that.  Whether people can have any impact on that seems a bit conceited.  This is just my opinion though.  I’ve simply not been convinced by any supposed “evidence” supporting the theory of global warming.

 

The prescriptions for “solving” global warming are also very suspicious.  They’re just too political.  They require higher taxes, mass transportation initiatives, staying out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), no off-shore domestic oil drilling, acceptance of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and a lot of faith to believe that all of this is because we (mankind) have been bad stewards of the Earth.  I’m not buying it!  This is agenda-driven and I see a rat behind it all.  I’ve said my piece on the subject.  What do you think?

On March 9th, 2007 US Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Nevada Democrat state party head Tom Collins, sent a letter to Marty Ryan, executive producer of political programs for Fox News.  The purpose of this letter was to terminate the state of Nevada Democrat party's co-sponsorship of a scheduled Presidential debate with Fox News, set for August 14, 2007.  The event was ultimately doomed since the front-runners, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards made political decisions not to participate in the debate.

On September 27th Tavis Smiley is hosting the second in a series of All-American Presidential Forums on PBS, which is scheduled to air a debate between the Republican Presidential candidates.  A similar forum showcased the Democrat Presidential candidates on June 28th.  This forum is being held at Morgan State University in Baltimore.  Like the Fox News/Nevada Democrat-sponsored debate, three of the Republican front-runners appear to be taking a pass on this debate.  Those three are former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former governor Mitt Romney, and former senator Fred Thompson.  (Note: Thompson has not yet officially declined but has failed to confirm his participation as of the writing of this blog.)

It is my belief that too many of us are talking AT each other instead of talking TO each other, if we even make the attempt at all.  I don't know how much influence this blog posting will have but I believe it is a missed opportunity whenever you pass up a chance to make your case for your convictions.  I salute the Republicans that have chosen to participate in the All-American Presidential forum and I strongly encourage the others not to write-off this audience.  We need to hear from ALL of the Presidential candidates.  African-Americans do typically tend to vote Democrat, 10 to 1.  If Republicans want to change this, Republicans need to talk to us and make the case, why we should vote Republican.  If we don't get everyone's message, how can we ever make and informed choice?

Chris Rock had a famous comedy routine about the OJ Simpson case in which he outlines a few of the reasons OJ Simpson may have had for killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. He repeats throughout his routine that “I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand.” This draws roars of laughter from the audience (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjXSOws8o2o).

The case of the “Jena Six” (Jena, Louisiana) has been one that has slipped under the National radar for nearly a year. It involves circumstances surrounding an African-American student taking it upon himself to sit under a tree that had previously and historically been for “whites only” (yes this is 2007). In response the following day, three nooses were seen hanging from that tree, placed there by three white students from the school's rodeo team.

Whether or not this was an implied threat or a “hate crime” only obfuscates the issue. It was stupid. It was an indication that in 2007, ignorant attitudes continue to abound. What followed in the days after this were a series of racial incidents, culminating with the beating of a white student by six African-American students.

A closer look at the facts reveals that like Mike Nifong of Duke Lacrosse fame, this case also has an out-of-control prosecutor. District Attorney Reed Walters of Louisiana's 22nd Judicial District had personally intervened in the case to increase the charges against the six defendants, from simple aggravated assault to attempted second-degree murder. Unlike the Duke Lacrosse case, these six defendants are poor and unable to adequately defend themselves against a determined and misguided public prosecutor.

Justice demands that outside eyes take a look at this case and the ugliness of the underlying attitudes and causes for the violence in the first place. I am not defending any actions that resulted in violence by one group against another. Neither can I agree with or condone the filing of serious charges that carry with them the potential for up to 22 years in prison for what at best was a provoked “butt kicking.” I'm not saying that those six defendants should have gotten into a fight over any of this nonsense, but I understand.

NPR has some background on this case at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12
353776

Barack Obama is clearly not a foreign policy expert and has recently betrayed his naivety by suggesting that he would meet with leaders such as Fidel Castro, were he to be elected as President.  That approach would accomplish nothing but make America look weak and stupid.  Nonetheless Obama may have stumbled onto something else that I have personally suggested privately for years but I don't hear other candidates saying.  That is, he would end the trade embargo against Cuba.  He may have actually seized upon an issue that I believe would have great promise for our two nations.  More than anything else, if we were to flood the island of Cuba with Americans, US dollars, American ideas, etc, it would do more to foment a genuine revolution from within than anything an embargo could accomplish.  What do you think?  Any thoughts on this?