Federal Dependency

This subject is hard to write about, but I will give it my best shot. On one hand, the Federal Government deserves a gold medal for the efforts to remove the population from the path of hurricane Gustav. But on the other hand, the government is providing justification for a mindset of governmental dependence.

Before you read these next words, I want you to understand that the heroic effort to salvage every life in the path of that storm has become a necessary function of the central federal government. What is lamentable however, is the creation of expectancy by our citizens for the central government to solve all problems. The problem today is a hurricane, but then there is the health care issue, social security, and other issues that impact our daily lives so that we are becoming more and more dependent on the government to solve.

These issues threaten to erase the self-reliant character from our social makeup. By allowing the government to absorb more and more of our daily responsibility, we begin to lose that ability to solve problems. The old saying is true, "Necessity is the mother of invention." Removing the necessity of worry about our next meal for instance, takes away that incentive for providing for ourselves.

There should be an acceptance of the fact that a segment of our population does not put forth the effort necessary for self-sufficiency. Our society will always have a number of these individuals, but the government should not be in the business of propagating them. That is what these central government programs do. When there is a program to 'feed the needy', the biggest beneficiaries of such programs are the sponsors of them. It is a feel good exercise for the proponents of such programs and the continuation of such programs guarantee the destruction of one of the greatest motivators known to man, hunger!

I was privileged to have a firsthand look at the results of such social tinkering. I was a part of a navy team that delivered staple goods to different missions in Africa. The program, known as the People-to-People project delivered sacks of flour, books, toys, and other necessities to the drought stricken natives of French Somali land (Known today as Somalia). There, groups of well-meaning and heroic missionaries opened missions in the dry back country in an effort to help these destitute people. No one with a heart could criticize that effort. My statement is about the consequences of the actions by these missionaries.

Reality is sometimes harsh. But the condensed version goes like this. Whenever they established a mission, over time, the poverty-stricken and hungry natives built a village around that mission. The missionaries fed and gave rudimentary health care to the natives. The indigenous native population became totally dependent on the missions for sustenance. Compounding the problem, the native population, now with some security, expanded. The children born in the mission enclaves were not taught self-sustenance. The natives had no need to teach farming and other skills for self-sustenance to their children. The first generation, hungry and destitute benefited from the generosity of the missions and their providers. But they lost the desire to return to being their own providers. The second and subsequent generations would perish outside of the mission setting.

The question posed in this narrative is, "Where is the morality of destroying a person's inner motivation?"

We can and should help those in need but we need to constantly be on guard to realize that help cannot become dependency. What should be the government's role in helping people through a hurricane? New Orleans is a very special case because of the dependent nature of its residents. The liberals, like those missionaries in Africa, have suppressed those people's instincts for being self-reliant, and dependency is so ingrained into them that they would surely perish if the government did not step in and save them. After the weather service distributes the information about the danger posed by an approaching hurricane, you would think a person would react to it by figuring out how to get out of harm's way. At least that is how a normal person reacts to approaching danger.

The average New Orleans resident is so dependent on others, that the skill for self-reliance is lost. A large portion of the citizenry of New Orleans and those of so many cities controlled by liberals surrender their independence for a pittance. In return for their vote, they receive minimum housing, food stamps, and various other welfare programs that make life just marginally survivable. For surrendering their independence for a few paltry baubles, those citizens lose the most valuable ability one can possess, that drive and determination to rise above the tests of life.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Obama Says Yes

More than 85 thousand believers crowded into INVESCO Field to be a part of history. Political affiliations aside, Barack Obama's nomination was historical. Obama gave his speech before the largest audience for a political convention ever. The spectacle was nothing short of breathtaking, topped off with a large fireworks display.

The speech itself was not substantive but promised something for everybody as is the custom for Democratic Rhetoric. It was however, an open demonstration of just how far left Obama is. It was clear that he adamantly believes that the Government is the solution to every perceived problem imaginable. It was also clear that he aimed his rhetoric at the vast minority of citizens in this country. He failed to recognize that the majority of the American citizens are doing well, and that only a very small percentage of Americans are actually having a rough time of it.
He was quick to point out the problems in Michigan, but what he failed to mention was that the liberal policies of taxation and greedy unions were actually responsible for the problems with the American automakers. He failed to mention that the foreign automakers in America were free of the burden of Unions and enjoyed major tax break incentives from those American locations. No, no, no, admitting the truth about how Liberalism has all but killed the prospects for those good jobs that he references would not be helpful to the young leftist seeking the Presidency. His policies, as outlined in his speech would amount to another giant leap to the left and further erode the America ideal that is responsible for America's greatness.

It all sounds so very good to propose helping the different groups by plugging corporate tax loop holes, but this idea is straight from the left. Nor did he define these loopholes. But according to Democrats, all corporations have deviously devised strategies for not paying taxes. By his removing incentives for a corporation to stay in the United States, more companies will locate elsewhere. Those that do stay and receive a tax break for not leaving will still make less as he actually proposes to mandate the wages that they pay. His proposal is a lose-lose proposition for America. His proposals sound reasonable to the people who can only see the top of the water without any regard for its depth, but in reality, he puts a gun to the head of corporate America. They have the choice of gaining a tax break and then losing the money saved with the tax break by having the government set the wages or, they can move to a place that is friendlier to business.

He also proposes to hire an army of teachers and building new schools and other goodies. Under his administration, the Government would take over most of our institutions. Remember the old saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." The Liberal way is to make a mess of things and then blame the problems on whatever scapegoat that is handy. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are prime examples of mismanaged programs that have bankrupted us, but these programs were all well intentioned.

He said nothing about corralling the lawyers who under the pretense of helping the abused have forced defensive actions from businesses and doctors. Malpractice insurance and huge monetary awards severely cripple the price of healthcare. Personally, I do not believe that our doctors are malevolent and intentionally mess up. They deserve the benefit of doubt and not forced into ruination by a lawsuit. The real beneficiaries in those lawsuits are the lawyers with their take of 40%, and they suffer nothing. Lawyers are directly responsible for the high cost of insurance. The insurance companies have to prepare for the multi-million dollar lawsuits that are so common. Still, Obama was mute about lawsuit abuse. Could it be that he is silent about lawsuit abuse because lawyers are one of his largest contributing blocks?

Examine the extreme leftist speech by Barack Obama and decide for yourself. There are numerous transcripts of it on the internet. Think about what he is proposing and what the takeover of our institutions by the government would mean. Yes it all sounds good, but do we really want the government taking over everything? Have we lost our determination to rise out of bad circumstances? You will have to answer that and more in November.

As a footnote, the whole spectacle last night was reminiscent of an old Pentecostal Revival. You may be familiar with the routine at those gatherings. First, they get everybody in the mood with music, and then the preacher comes out and passes the plate. They are careful to put the congregation in the right frame of mind before passing the plate. The shindig last night was a lot like that.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Bill Clinton Falls on Party Sword

The much-anticipated speech at the Democratic Convention by Bill Clinton was a stem-winder. No other term accurately describes his speech in support of Barack Obama. Clinton injected some badly needed enthusiasm into the convention with soaring rhetoric that had the crowd standing and applauding. Once again, Bill demonstrated his ability to inspire crowds like no other, including Barack Obama.

What happened to the bitter Bill that the press was hyping? The snide remarks prior to the speech by Clinton had the party loyalists worried about what he might say. The answer is simple.

The Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, realize that 2008 was not going to be her year to run for the presidency. They also realized that a fractured Democratic Party was not in their interest for a future run at the Whitehouse. So in the end, Bill chose to unite the party by giving a very supportive speech of Obama. Bill Clinton was not going to be the man remembered for dividing the Democratic Party.

Ambition is a force unto itself. Furthering ones ambition has historically been responsible for some unholy alliances. Ambitious people are seldom so rooted in any cause or idea, because entrenchment is a recipe for disaster. No, ambition demands that a person be nimble and quickly adjust to the situation in order to satisfy that driving force. Such was the dilemma that Bill Clinton was in last night. He played the only card available to him if Hillary was ever going to realize her ambition of becoming the first woman president. Being remembered as a Party uniter is much preferable than to be remembered as the man who divided the Party.

What Bill Clinton did last night put Hillary on the agenda for 2112. The Clintons know that Obama will not beat McCain in the general election, so by being publicly supportive of Obama in 2008, they improve their chances for 2112. This is just one man's opinion because the bitterness the Clintons feel toward Obama is real. Only ambition could make a person sidle up to someone that they dislike. Also, do not forget the millions of dollars that Hillary owes. It is only a hunch, but do not discount that a quid-pro-quo deal may very well have been struck between Obama and the Clintons for some or all of that debt.

Tonight will be Obama's big night to give his over-hyped acceptance speech. So like a child on Christmas night anticipating Santa's arrival, I await the big event.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Uniting the Democrats

McGovern tried to install the leftist agenda into the mainstream, but failed to do so. The Clintons took a crack at it, with only marginal success. Then along comes Obama with his appeal to the younger voters and the deal is almost a fait accompli.

What is abundantly clear is that Barack Obama has given the boot to the old Democratic guard. He has managed to shrug off the Clintons and set the Democratic table for himself. How was this possible? Hillary was supposed to be the Democrats' crown jewel for this election cycle, but Hillary's over confidence and failure to properly organize for a campaign against a vigorous young African American was her undoing. One could almost feel sorry for her as she paid homage to Obama in her speech last night. It was painfully obvious that the speech she gave was not the speech she wanted to give if a pasted on smile is any indication.

Tonight will be Bill Clinton's night to gin up enthusiasm for the Democrats. But the bitter taste of defeat is in his mouth so it will be a speech much anticipated by the press and others. Will he bow before the altar of Barack Obama? He has to know that Obama does not have a prayer of beating John McCain, so any thoughts of cowering before Obama just may not be in the cards. He can always take the neutral stand, brag about his Presidency, and include only lip service to Obama, or he may bow down and kiss the ring worn by Obama. Either way, it promises to be an interesting evening.

Laughably, the subject that Bill is supposed to talk about will be about National Security and defending the Nation. National defense is definitely not the Clinton's strong suit. The word is that Bill Clinton is angry over his assigned topic and even spoke derogatorily about Obama. It has implications because if we get to see an unfettered Bill Clinton tonight, then the roll call vote with Hillary's name in nomination could mean a major split in the Democratic Party.

One of the largest unanswered questions was why in the world Obama did not just pay the debts accrued by Hillary and tell them both to just go away. By paying off those debts, he would have had some leverage to shape the convention into a song of praises about himself rather than that unholy alliance with the Clintons on primetime television for two successive nights, plus getting a roll call vote on Hillary.

The new guard is struggling against the old guard, but do not count the old guard out completely. The pending defeat of Barack Obama will swing the pendulum back in the other direction. The leftist backers of Barack will have to think up a new strategy if they ever hope to install their agenda on America. Close but no cigar for the leftists.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Democrat's Big Tent

Are you a Democrat? Many different groups, each with their own issue, vie for attention under one umbrella, 'the big tent'. Do you belong to one of these disparate groups?

Abortion: NARAL and other pro-abortion feminists groups have their issue. This group wants the mother to decide whether an infant should be born or not.

Anti-Military: Code Pink, a virulent anti-military group that opposes anything to do with the military.

Animal Rights: PETA has a strong following of pet owners who elevate animals above human concerns.

Gay and Lesbian Groups: This is just a very small sampling of the groups that support gay and lesbian issues. CAPE: California Alliance for Pride & Equality, GLAA The Gay & Lesbian Activist Alliance, Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, and many others that crowd into the 'big tent'.

Labor Unions: UAW, AFL-CIO, and Teamsters make up the majority of big contributors to the Democrats. Their generosity has earned them a seat at the table of power in the Democratic hierarchy. The Democrats will listen to their issues.

Minorities: Black and the Hispanics also take a seat at the leadership table. Without either one of these groups, the Dems cannot win an election. Some of their issues are radical, so coddling these groups without acceding to their demands takes some very artful dodging.

Anti-War Groups: The shrillest of the groups at the convention. Their numbers are legion, so the trick here is to mollify them without agreeing to an immediate pullout from Iraq.

The Something for Nothing Crowd: Democratic rhetoric caters to the ones who expect someone else to pamper their needs. This large group is the 'Force the Rich and Big Business to Pay' crowd for all the ills of this country. They want solutions, as long as someone else pays for it.


The Regular Folks: This comprises the majority of voters within the Democratic Party. They also have their list of wants. They want Government provided Health Care, to stop 'Global Warming' with alternatives, better jobs, fewer taxes, and lower fuel bills.

Most of the groups hold positions on issues only held by a minority of Americans. The Democratic Party leaders masterfully weave the fabric of the tent hoping that each group will get that 'warm and fuzzy' feeling under it. It is no small task for any organization with such a variety of interests.

You may have noticed that I left out numerous groups in this narrative. Lawyers, the ACLU, and the Open Borders crowd are just a few of those with issues.Yes,the Democratic Convention will be a very interesting place for the next four days. If the Democrats do unify, it will be a miracle. All of the groups want their issues dealt with, so you can bet that there will be a lot of promises made, but in the end, as time will testify, not much accomplished. The fabric weavers of the big tent will give each group a handshake and a nod, but after all is said and done, do what they want to do.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Software Bloat

I am not sure where it all went wrong, but somewhere, in our big rush to produce a software product and get it to market, elegantly composed, short simple algorithms managed to fall off the wagon. The only criteria that matters came to be whether it worked or not, and not if it was efficient.

Programs that will run on multiple platforms have become the order of the day. High-level computer languages solve the multi-platform problem with their ability to be cross-compiled. Everything seems to work but the cost for running these bloated wasteful programs means you almost need a super computer to use them.

Disassembly of some of my favorite applications yielded some surprises. Outcome determination of a code sequence depends as much on what it is not as what it is. It is like trying to convey a value by describing what the value is not instead of getting quickly to the value. For instance, the software has to struggle through every possible description of an item before it can determine exactly what the item is. This convoluted way of making determinations sends the code execution cycles through the roof. This happens because of the construction of programming languages rather than a conscience effort by the programmer.

There was a time, before the advent of processors with gigabytes/second speed that programmers crafted their code carefully to write the most efficient code possible. This usually meant poring over the clock cycles per instruction to find the best speed possible to run the code. Code optimization was a craft highly prized by the different software providers. Every software producer knew the buying public sought after fast and efficient programs. A really fast cpu was only 8 - 20 megahertz in those days.

The advent of cheap fast processors changed all of that. Attention to code execution waned after processors were fast enough to process the most inefficient code fast enough to suit most people. But in these days of bandwidth crowding, those bloated code processes just take up room unnecessarily over the internet. We choke the internet with those funny cartoon and joke emails. A closer look at their underlying HTML and scripted code would astound you. Although in scripted format, your browser still has to interpret and execute in order for you to get the benefits of your email. Most emails today are of the combination HTML and scripted forms. So today's browsers have to accommodate plug-ins for the different scripting languages, i.e. Java and others.

I would be the last to tell you that those great interactive emails should be abandoned, but I will say that I am in favor of cleaning up the code bloat that has to interpret and the bloat that forms those missives.

There can be little doubt that inefficient software coding is driving the hardware industry. We continue to need faster and faster computers to run that bloated mess. Bloated software is also the reason that your computer goes obsolete about every 5 years. Just wait, 3-d is just around the corner and the hardware to accommodate it and all of its bloat will require more processing power than what is available today.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Family

Business dealings with family members seldom work out, all families have those oddball members, and no family escapes without a black sheep or two. But overriding all concerns is the fact that they all are family.

We might make genuine friends throughout our life, and if we do, then we are very fortunate. But speaking generally, the only people who really give a damn about us is our family. When crises strike, you can count on your family. Even the black sheep of a family manages to not screw up the relations with all family members and can find a port in a storm.

So when a family member manages to out fox you over an inheritance, let it go. It is a guarantee that this same person will need you or you them at some point in the future. Do not let these circumstances ruin a relationship needlessly. In times of need, you cannot afford to be at odds with your family. Always bear in mind that blood is thicker than water and as such, will coalesce whenever called upon.

Never give up on your children or those of other family members. Even the most rebellious of the youths in a family will find and mend their ways. Time has its way of teaching us humility and those rebellious young people cannot escape that reality. So when they come to terms with themselves and reach out to you, be there. You will not be sorry. Usually, reflecting on your own life as a youth is more than enough to embrace the return of a wayward youth back into the fold.

So cherish all of your family from the worst to the best. There is no substitute for the love that only family can give you.

Cheers,

-Robert-

UAW Endorses Obama

No surprises here, it is just ironic that the United Auto Workers Union would support the political party that is putting their jobs on the chopping block.

"How can I say this?" you ask. Glad you asked, the explanation has everything to do with business. All businesses have owners. A single individual owns some businesses, and others by many millions of people. The auto industry is the type owned by millions.

It is important to note here that anybody can be part owner in an Auto company, all they have to do is buy stock in that company.
Most of the shareholders of Auto companies are not rich people. They are your neighbors with 401K retirement programs. Whether their investment is small, or large, the reason they invest is because of the expectation of making money for their
retirement.

Making money is a simple matter. For the auto industry, all they have to do is build a car with appeal, and at a competitive price to attract customers. The money that is made comes from the customers that bought the automobiles. The money comes from the customers, not from the government, and not from the Unions.

Autoworker's wages, local, state, and Federal taxes received from the auto industry come from the same place, the auto buyers. But as the number of buyers dwindles down, there is not as much money as there once was.

Competition has taken its toll on our American auto manufacturers. The demands for more benefits and wages have slowly been increasing the price of manufacturing and buyers have been deserting the American made cars and buying foreign made automobiles. Do you remember the part about manufacturing a car with appeal and at a competitive price? What do you think happens when the price of that car is no longer competitive? If the auto manufacturers do not make money, what do you think the investors in those companies will do? What do you think will happen to auto stock prices?

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger says McCain "is content to rely on the failed policies of President Bush," which Gettelfinger says cost millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs. Oh really? What the Democrats or Gettelfinger is not telling you is that without the trade policies of Bush that enables us to sell in places like China, our American auto industry would already be belly up. Did you know that General Motors sells more of the cars they make in China than in America? It is true. Of course, that will change if the Democrats win the upcoming election.

Obama's promise of $4 billion in low-cost financing for automakers to retool to make more fuel-efficient vehicles may sound good, but it is a non-starter and just political rhetoric. Think about it; retooling for different types of cars will only put an added tax burden on the American taxpayer, and does not address the fundamental issue of manufacturing costs. Unless we reduce the cost of producing an American made car, customers will still buy cars that have the most value. And at the present, car buyers see the foreign cars made without union interference as having the best value. His plan will no more bring back the good old days of no competition than take wings and fly.

The change that Obama talks about is change all right, but we cannot afford it.

Cheers,

-Robert-

New Political Debate Standard

It was the most amazing side-by-side comparison of two political aspirants that I ever witnessed. They each had an hour and had to answer the same questions. There were no 'gotchas'; just good questions any of us would want to ask.

If you did not get a chance to see the forum from Saddleback Church, then try to find a transcription or video of it. Barack Obama went first, he did very well, and he was relaxed for the event. However, it was apparent that his nuanced answers made him appear to be hesitant at times. To me, personally, this way of answering questions shows a weakness in the candidate. One answer in particular, Obama could not bring himself to answer. The question was on the abortion issue and Obama would not commit an answer to when life began. He gave a stumbling statement and declared that a definitive answer was above his pay-grade.

That was an incredible answer considering his support for abortion. It is remarkable that Obama could have supported abortion all this time and not have a conviction about when life begins. When life begins is the crux of the whole debate between the "Right to Choose" movement and the "Right to Life" crowd. If he did not understand the debate over abortion, why did he pick a side to support? Maybe he used the time tested 'eenie, meenie, miney, moe' method to decide which side he would support, or he just blatantly chose the side that helped him the most politically.

Obama demonstrated by his answers that he has no bedrock core. But then, I am a conservative and core principles make up who conservatives are. We look for, and cherish our leaders that demonstrate core values.

During McCain's hour, the differences between him and Obama could not have been starker. McCain was direct, knew how he stood on issues, and left no need to parse his answers. His substantive direct answers clearly demonstrated both his love for this country and what you could count on during a McCain administration. My prediction is that McCain will soon eclipse Obama in the polls and thoroughly trounce him in the upcoming election. And by the way, McCain had no hesitation about when he thought life began. His immediate answer was, "At the moment of Conception." McCain was definitely on his 'A' game during his hour. He mopped the floor with Obama.

Support McCain,

Cheers,

-Robert-

Why You Should Vote for Obama

Here are my reasons that you should vote for Barack Obama.

1) You want your taxes increased to fund more unworkable government projects.

2) You want your taxes increased to continue funding non-working government programs.

3) You want to continue to spend the National treasure enriching foreign governments for their oil.

4) You want to embolden global tyrants by appeasing them.

5) You are just lazy and looking for a handout from the hard working citizens who are paying taxes.

6) You do not want to tackle the problems facing Social Security.

7) You do not want to fix our energy source problem.

8) You want to socialize medicine.

9) You want to see a Negro elected.

10) You are a Bush hater and have swallowed the Liberal propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

If you answer yes to any of the above, then you should, by all means vote for Obama. He is your man.

There is the belief by Liberals that with the nomination of Barack Obama, because he is Black, that his election will justify the trillions of dollars we have spent on Affirmative Action, Aid for Dependent Children, Public Housing, forced Integration, EEOC, and countless other Federal programs created specifically for Blacks. They can claim that for all of that money, that their entrenched programs have produced one man who might be president. Big Whoopee!

Liberals were so thoughtful with their spending of our tax dollars that they planned on American businesses to absorb the cost of hiring by race quotas instead of merit. This, of course, won them the Black vote. They conquered the blue-collar vote with their strong support of Unions. The only real product was to drive manufacturing cost higher and force a large percentage of our manufacturing base to relocate to other countries. Between the Government's programs and the race baiter's shaking down our American businesses, the Liberals left no options for our American businesses except to close their doors, relocate, or force them to hire Lobbyists to help protect them from onerous legislation.

Liberals all had their greedy hands in the pot. Unions, with their demands for more of everything, EEOC that demanded racial quotas, teachers, whose union finally crushed our school system, and an open border system that is systematically wiping out the few good paying jobs left in this country have all conspired to drive the American business either out of business, or to relocate to a place that they can make a profit.

In conclusion, if you like what the Liberals have been doing to this country, and want to see a 'great leap' with more government dallying in our freedom, then Barack Obama is your man.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Read the Fine Print

Do you ever watch those TV Court Rooms? The Peoples Court or Judge Judy.TV courtrooms illustrate the importance of those lengthy agreement papers signed by renters, cell telephone users, and creditors. A courtroom, in most people's mind, is where a person can go before a magistrate, explain your perceived wrong, and get some justice. Alas, this is not the case anymore. Those papers you sign before you take out that lease, or use that software, or borrow that money, are full of 'gotchas'.

You know that when you do find that apartment/house that seems just right, before you can move in, out comes the Rental Agreement. These agreements are usually boilerplate with every protection imaginable written in for the property owner. Lawyers write those agreements in legal jargon that most people cannot understand. Very few of these agreements stipulate a property walk-through where both the prospective renter and the property owner go over the property and note the 'as-is' condition before the renter occupies the apartment/house. However, almost all rental agreements have a clause that is included in the rental document that stipulates that you agree that everything is in good shape when you moved in. What happens when you sign that agreement without thoroughly inspecting the property and noting the defects at the time of move-in? You become responsible for everything that is wrong with the property when you move out. More than likely, the charges are taken out of that security deposit you made when you leased the property.

You move out of the property, have fulfilled your lease agreement, and go to collect your security deposit. But instead of collecting your security deposit, the property owner presents you with a list of repairs needed before the property owner can rent the property again. Looking at the list of repairs, you realize that most of these items were there when you moved in. The reality of the situation is that you have no standing because you signed that rental agreement that stated that everything was good when you moved in. If you choose to take the landlord to Small Claims Court, you will not be successful without proof that the damages happened before you moved in, or if the items come under the heading of 'normal wear and tear', which offers some protection for long time residents.

Judges, no matter what a litigant may think, want to be fair. One of the problems is that people lie so easily, and will say anything for their cause, so Judges have no choice but to rely on the paper work. Even though you knew that the plate glass window always had a small crack in the lower left corner, you never gave it a thought. But because you signed that rental agreement, you may have to pay for it. The lesson in all of this is before signing any documents, read the fine print. Hire an inspector if necessary for a thorough report on the property before you sign that agreement. Fine print and agreements are here to stay, so do not get caught in having to pay unwarranted claims by default because you failed to do due diligence.

Even those every day agreements like cell phones, credit, and car rentals have legal stipulations that you should find out about before signing. Weird things do happen, and before you find yourself on the wrong side of that 'fine print', you must; Read the Fine Print. Then, if you do not understand the document, don't hesitate to have it explained to you. It is your money!

Cheers

-Robert-

Police State Looming

Have you ever thought of the freedom you enjoy by living in a Christian country? Do you have any idea of the number of Christians that are trying to live their lives in a peaceful, law-abiding manner? The numbers would surprise you. If the left have their way spearheaded by the A.C.L.U., Christianity will be just a memory.

Prayers in schools abolished, display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings outlawed in most settings, and we now associate the Christmas Holidays with everything other than the Birth of Christ. The A.C.L.U. has brought legal action against a myriad of offenders. Among the offenses prosecuted are; mentioning thanks to Christ in graduation ceremonies, displaying a Manger Scene on public property, displaying the Ten Commandments, and wearing to school a T-shirt proclaiming Christ as Lord.

As Christianity declines, the numbers of police have increased. People see their homes and neighborhoods raided and pillaged by the unruly and greedy so the need for more police becomes self evident as citizens demand protection. Christians who have surrendered to the pop-culture also lose that restraint that teaches love and respect for others. Greed and selfishness replaces restraint and love based on God's teachings. The only way to maintain an orderly society will be with force. Once religion, with its strong appeal to our desire to live by God's laws is gone, a full police state is not far behind. If successful, convincing the millions into believing that the promise of God is false, will create a calamity with no boundaries. Are we sure, we want to go there? Police state, anyone.

When the police increase to the numbers required for maintaining order, it will soon become apparent that whoever controls the police will control the country. Whoever controls the police will effectively be a dictator. Liberals are all too anxious to take your guns away from you, and if they have their way, they will have total control with your permission.

Yes, abandoning Christianity will have a profound effect on our society. Are we sure, we want to go there? The Liberals calculate that you would rather 'sin' than be true to the binding force of God's laws. So far, they are right.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Nagging Conscience

The Conscience: Also known as our Moral Compass is our personal guide for living. It is what keeps the thumb off the butcher's scales whenever he weighs your meat. Whenever we do mess up, it is what will not let us forget about it. Every culture has a sense of actions that are acceptable and those that are not. Each culture has its own set of rules that reflect their culture, but there is also unanimity throughout most cultures about killing, stealing, cheating, and lying. A trustworthy citizen in any culture is a person who follows the rules of that culture. The conscience lets us know when we are violating a cultural rule.

Willing Obedience: We learn these cultural rules in childhood. The lessons are indelibly committed to our sub-conscience and become the basis for guiding us throughout our life. We normally willingly adhere to these rules because when we obey these rules, we become acceptable to the rest of our culture. Conformity to rules that govern behavior is the rock bed foundation of a society. There are also rewards for conformity. You do not spend time in jail, and you are trusted. Other rewards are peace of mind, and that satisfaction that your culture respects you. An ostracized person is a lonely person.

Rule Changes: Time and progress make it necessary to change cultural rules. Normally, one of our stages in maturing is our raucous years. This is the period between our mid-teens to our mid-twenties. Our late twenties and thirties are a mellowing period, a period when we start paying more attention to our conscience. A cohesive society will only allow those who can look retrospectively at the culture to change any rules, not our rebellious and idealistic young.

The Rules: In the United States, other than conscience, the rules come in the form of laws. All laws seek to curb basic instincts or variations of these instincts, and control the big four: lying, cheating, killing, and stealing. The laws seek retribution from those who violate the rules. Retribution may be in the form of a fine, jail, or prison.

The Incorrigibles: Incorrigibles are those who cannot live within the bounds set forth by the culture or society. The ones who cannot conform by fines and short jail terms must finally be isolated to protect society from them.

Right and Wrong: Right is complying with the rules of the culture. Wrong is activity outside those rules. Our conscience is rooted in faith, while our laws are secular. Faith enforces conscience with the belief in life after death. Living a good life gets you Heaven, living a life outside of the boundaries gets you Hell. Faith is a powerful incentive to live according to its teachings. Most of the religious rules parallel the secular rules they just differ in enforcement. Secular enforcement offers no incentive to obey the rules, but instead offers punishment for their violation. Fear of 'getting caught' may be a deterrent to some, but also provides the incentive to be smarter than the cops. Outsmarting the cops can mean big payoffs as well as bragging rights among peers.

Difference: Getting away with a crime and its potential reward is the real attraction for criminals. But not so for a person of faith, God watches all of our moves, there is no hope of getting away with anything. To help with a nagging conscience, most people try justifying their actions. But in the end, there is no justification that stops the nagging. This is the advantage that faith and conscience have in maintaining our society. Repenting can save a person from damnation (and stop the nagging). As they say, confession is good for the soul. But redemption can only occur if our conscience leads us to repent.

Reservoir of Goodness: More and more, we see shortcuts to riches taken. The moneylenders are greedy, the manufacturers are greedy, and the greed even extends to our healthcare system. No Pollyanna here, because I am aware that we have always had greedy people. It is the scope of increasing greed that I am referring to. The reservoir of goodness once held by the American People is evaporating. White-collar crime is profitable. A shady businessperson can scam millions and receive only a few years in jail. It makes for a successful effort. Those illegal exploits influence our young. Our kids no longer have a business model to admire. All they see is the opportunity to get rich. The incentives for a young person to persevere and succeed with innovation and hard work are disappearing. Bookkeeping gimmicks, cheapening product for more profit, importing cheap labor, and outsourcing to foreign countries is the hallmark of the modern American business.

The Missing Conscience: What has happened to our nagging conscience? The problem started when we decided that we no longer wanted God in the classroom. We banned prayer from the public square and along with it, our ethics. Right and wrong are no longer distinguishable from each other. The consequences of raising a generation without a moral compass, or no definition of right and wrong are at our doorstep. And yet, we want to blame others for the avarice and greed we see today. We justified 'separation of church and state' by defining a morning prayer in school was somehow state sponsored religion. Finding our way back will be a difficult road to follow.

Food Supply at Risk: Tainted peanut butter, diseased animals slaughtered, poisoned pet food, and dirty canneries have all been in the news lately. Not all of the food problems are because of corporate greed. Firms with employees who have no interest in their job, and only wanting that paycheck causes a lot of the careless mistakes in our American businesses. These employees demonstrate the need for a foundation in right and wrong. Their careless actions mean nothing to them without the help of a caring conscience. The Government cannot hire enough inspectors to ensure the safety of our food products. We have to trust these industries or revert to raising and butchering animals at home. Trust is a large part of our society. But if we continue to raise untrustworthy kids, the future does indeed look grim.

Helpless Government: When the population no longer cares about ethics, fielding an army of police is the only response available. Where will our rights be then? Already we have to maintain police in our schools to control the violence. We are searched before we can attend a sporting event. Whatever is on your computer can become public property. Telephone calls are not private. It is laughable to hear the groups protesting the loss of their rights. Those same people do not want God in the classroom.

Preaching? No! We must recognize that faith has a prominent place in our society. I will close with this thought. Whenever I attended school, during the morning invocation everyone shut their mouth. Even the school bad ass had sense enough to recognize that there was something greater than he was. Respect for God and not religious fervor kept our traps shut as we stood in silence during the prayer. Learning respect can be a humbling experience.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Sex Quiz

1) Does it matter to you that we implicitly encourage sex between our young with sex education, passing out condoms, and furnishing birth control pills in our schools?

2) Did you ever wonder who gains with having our kids banging their brains out with each other?

3) How far have you progressed up the sexual experience ladder?

4) Do you need help to get titillated before you can perform with your partner?

5) Does your partner need 'special' titillation before he/she can perform?

6) Have you asked by what logic our post puberty kids can have all the sex with each other that they want, yet sex between one of them and an adult is toxic for the adult?

7) Do you think that society is on the right path when our pretty girls become commodities?

8) Did you know that those with the most sexually permissive rules also make up the third world and lower echelons of modern societies?

9) Did you know that in our rehab centers, sexual addiction is one of the leading reasons for admission?

10) Do you breathlessly await nude pictures of Hanna Montana to appear on the web?

11) If the answer to the above question is yes, do you really expect her to look any different from any other 15 year old?

12) Does Liberalism have any link to this quiz?

My Answers: Yours may differ.

1) It should. Children need to be children without prematurely starting them on their sexual experience ladder. By the time they reach maturity, they run the risk of being too worldly. Remember our sexual experience ladder starts out with simple curiosity, and it spirals upwards from there. Once this curiosity is piqued, it develops a life of its own.

2) Liberalism uses sex to mollify the masses. It is a method of controlling ambition and the will to succeed. Only a rare individual can lead a hyperactive sex life and rise into society's elite. Most of the energies required for success are burned chasing sex.

3) To answer this question, you need to know the parameters. Sex starts out with curiosity -I will show you mine if you show me yours type of innocence. Then we get hand holding, kissing, petting, masturbation, intercourse, oral, and so forth, all the way out to "snuff" sex. I will maintain my privacy on this one but you get the idea. It is all about what really turns you on. That will be your position on the experience ladder.

4) This question is not about cuddling and the usual preludes to intimacy. Do you need to watch others before you feel like performing? It is said that Elvis had to watch two girls making out to get him in the mood. Your thing might be shaved genitals or mechanical instruments.

5) A mirrored question to #4, only it is about your partner instead of you. If your answer to either of these two questions is yes, then you might be a candidate for being a little outside the norm in terms of experience. If you are still young, it means that sex has already become a burden and that you or your partner will not likely enjoy most sexual contacts unless special attention is paid to yours or your partner's 'special' needs.

6) Puberty used to be the age of becoming an adult sexually. As late as the early 1900's a girl who was unmarried at age 16 was considered an oddity and an old maid by the age 20. What has changed? With the advent of women's rights, and the sexual revolution, women in their 30's and 40's knew that men naturally were attracted to the young women. By putting the young girls off limits, they eliminated their most potent competition. Nobody says a word about teenage sex. In fact, it is encouraged by most liberal groups. If you are over 18, do not get caught with one of these young hotties.

7) Beauty is a commodity. Do you think for a moment that one of the networks would use an unattractive woman to face the public? If you are a pretty person and have a modicum of intelligence, you can market yourself with much more success than someone who is unattractive. Beauty sells everything from cars to doughnuts. Because we value beauty so highly, pretty people spend a fortune to keep ahead of father time. Beauty supplies, cosmetic surgery, and Botox are all signs of the times.

8) Question self-answers. The great societies of the past self-destructed because of their acquiescence into self-indulgence. Even in today's world, the evidence is overwhelming. Sexual values define the layers in today's society. The social layers of standing are not defined by race or ethnic origin, but by their acquiescence into self-indulgence and sex.

9) This is a statement more than a question. Sexual addiction is one of the leading causes of admission into the rehab centers.

10) By looking at the number of hits on the web sites that published those innocent pictures of Miley Cyrus, volume so high that some sites had to shut down, it is easy to conclude that we as a nation have a prurient interest in anybody who is famous.

11) With an offer from Playboy and others for Miley to pose nude, it looks like the nation is holding its collective breath in anticipation of seeing this young girl nude. This speaks volumes about where we are as a nation and our values. Do you think that Miley Cyrus looks any different from any other girl her age?

12) Liberalism has everything to do with the condition or our society. It was the Liberal Warren Court that could not define pornography, it is the leftist judges who want to legislate from the bench to mandate same sex marriage, and it is the Liberal left who has been doing everything in their power to disenfranchise God. The Liberal left cannot bear having competition. God must go along with any opposition to their self-indulgent agenda.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Earth's Greenhouse

There is no question that the Earth enjoys the fruits of greenhouse warming. Without it, the Earth would be an ice ball. Thanks to the greenhouse effect, we enjoy a global rise in temperature of approximately 33 degrees C. This warming is attributable to all greenhouse elements in our atmosphere; water, contaminants, and CO2. Any shielding in the atmosphere such as smoke or volcanic debris lessens the amount of radiant energy we receive from the Sun and therefore the Earth's temperature falls.

This discussion will center on CO2. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas regulated by the oceans. Humans are responsible for about 3% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere, but the oceans account for the majority of its release even when compared with all of the land based biomass.

The release of CO2 from the oceans depends on the ocean temperature. The oceans release more CO2 as ocean temperatures rise and conversely, absorb CO2 in the cold oceans. The phenomenon is not in reverse as punctuated by the global alarmists. CO2 is a product of the oceans warming and not the cause of it.

A number of things regulate Ocean temperatures. The Sun is the largest source of ocean warming. Other contributors are the percolating effects that circulate the ocean water through the many fissures on the ocean floor, and subsea volcanoes. Most people do not realize that there are over 1000 active subsea volcanoes.

From the Sun, we get radiant energy. The Earth is two-thirds water. So the amount of radiant energy that reaches the oceans is critical to ocean temperature. Clouds and contaminants from volcanoes and other sources are all the Earth has to regulate how much of this radiant energy makes it to the oceans. Cloud cover is essential as clouds reflect an enormous amount of the Sun's energy back into space.

According to R. Lindzen, CO2 only accounts for about 5% of the natural 33 deg C greenhouse effect. The total rise in temperature on Earth from all CO2 is only 1.65 deg C. Since humans only account for 3% of that total, humans are responsible for .0495 deg C.

Richard S. Lindzen, Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sciences, 94, 8335-8342 (1997) 8 and (in German) Klima 2000 (Heuseler), 2, 3-8 (1998) 5/6

The global warming alarmists, for the most part are good folks who believe that the U.S. is killing the planet. They believe that our use of fossil fuels, that drive our economy, will cause great calamities unless we reduce our carbon footprint, and of course, it will cost more than a trillion dollars to pay for our largess. The scheme behind the carbon offsets is nothing more than the redistribution of wealth advocated by leftist extremist for years. The CO2 fallacy has given them the ideal tool to strip the U.S. of its prosperity.

In conclusion and for the record, I want to let it be known that we all look forward to the day that fossil fuels become unnecessary. Fossil fuels produce other contaminants that harm this world, but global warming is not one of them. For now, our way of life is dependent on fossil fuels and until we can economically swap to cleaner alternatives, it does no good to trash this country. It is not in the U.S. that our athletes have to wear mask from air-pollution. I also realize that there are higher figures for man's contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere floating around, but those higher figures are without foundation and are bandied about for pure political purposes.

These following references are for you to peruse at your convenience. They represent the source for some of the points made in this writing.

Gary Novak
Independent Scientist

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.(A measureable and Replicable figure)
But humans could not double the CO2, because they only put 3% of the CO2 in the air. If they put twice as much in, it would do whatever it does in 9.7m instead of 10m. If humans stopped putting any CO2 in the air, it would do whatever it does in 10.3m instead of 10m. In other words, nothing humans do with CO2 could be of the slightest relevance to global warming, even if oceans were not regulating it.

The Climate Catastrophe
- A Spectroscopic Artifact?

By Dr. Heinz Hug - Heinz Hug, Chemische Rundschau, 20. Febr., p. 9 (1998) and: Klima 2000 (Heuseler), 2, 23-26 (1998) 1/2 and:

http://www.wuerzburg.de/mm-physik/klima/artefact.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Billy Graham Prayer

I received this email from a friend and wanted to pass it on. I have no actual knowledge whether this is a Billy Graham prayer or if Paul Harvey recited it on the radio. However, it is an accurate description of what creeping Liberalism is doing to this country. Enjoy!

Billy Graham's prayer aired
by Paul Harvey...........................

THIS GUY SURE HAS A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY!

PAUL HARVEY'S ON- AIR PRAYER

'Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and To seek your direction and guidance.. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem. We have Abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Amen!'

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer Sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we
Again can be called 'One nation under God.'

If possible, please pass this prayer on to your friends. 'If you don't Stand for something, you will fall for everything.' Think about this: If you forward this prayer to everyone on your e-mail
List, in less than 30 days it would be heard by the world. (It's worth A try!)

One Nation Under God

Enough said!

Cheers,

-Robert-

More on Global Warming

In conversations with proponents of 'Global Warming', there is a common thread that works its way through all of their opinions on the subject. Few, if any, know anything about the 'greenhouse effect' and just relate opinions from someone they trust or are just going along with the crowd on the subject. I find that ignorance about how CO2 is supposed to be destroying the planet to be appalling. It is a subject that everyone just assumes that his or her trusted source understands the subject.

Global warming has become the darling of the left because it fits their agenda. It gives the left leverage over the engine of America's greatness. This one issue hands to the elite left, total control over the driving energy for our economy. They become the brokers of the Nation's energy supply and in the process diminish the greatness of this country.

But there is a fly in the soup. The CO2 theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a fallacious assertion that just happens to fit several political agendas. The left is not the only proponents of the CO2 global warming agenda. The right also embraces the scheme as a wedge to make the U.S. energy independent. Their aim is to stop surrendering rivers of wealth to other countries. The real losers in the process are the American people.

Energy independence alone should be motivation enough to change our infrastructure on energy. But sadly, it is not. There are too many special interest groups with their oars in the water. The farmers want to 'grow' our fuel, the environmentalists see pollution with everything that has any real chance of supplying our energy needs, and the everyday people want affordable fuel for their cars.

There can be no doubt that fossil fuels have their downside, but when put on the scales of balance, the good outweighs the bad. Science has cleaned up much of the pollution caused by fossil fuels and is making strides that will make them even better. As a nation, we have dug ourselves a deep hole when it comes to the supply of our energy needs. We can overcome this deficit in energy if we as a nation take the necessary actions.

For starters, we need to develop the energy sources available to us now. We have only tapped into 3% of the outer continental shelf. We need to explore more of it. Clean coal technology is also a big source of energy. We have enough coal to last for the foreseeable future. Then there is the nuclear option that once held such promise for the nation before the environmentalists scared the crap out of the American people with their campaign against it. That campaign received a big boost with the accident at Three Mile Island. Even in the face of objections from the environmentalists, nuclear power still has to be one of the alternatives for our future energy needs.

For the time being, fossil fuels are still our best bet for maintain our way of life. The so-called alternatives are not available in anything like the quantities we need to maintain our economy. The Democrats need to get off their duffs and approve offshore drilling.

There needs to be a non-political discussion about global warming. There is evidence that the Earth is actually cooling, just the opposite of what the proponents of global warming are contending. CO2 causing any type of global warming is political and not a scientific fact.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Pollution and Global Warming

Like most who grew up in the 50's and 60's, the images of "smog" permeated our conscience. Everyone realized that this was a man made phenomenon. Compounding these images were our daily experiences of man's pollution.

Amoco Oil demonstrated the distasteful stuff coming out of our automobiles utilizing leaded fuel by attaching a large clear balloon to the tailpipe of an automobile. The balloon quickly filled up with black nasty gases. Right beside the leaded fuel-burning car was one burning the Amoco's new lead-free gasoline and there was none of the pollution collecting in the bag attached to that car. These were an eye opening demonstrations and paved the way for the acceptance of unleaded fuel.

Lastly if you ever traveled by bus, it is hard to forget the diesel exhaust that permeated those bus stations. You could hardly get your breath around those places.

Getting the public to accept a theory that blamed the activity of humans for global warming was relatively easy. The public already had experiences with man made pollution, so it was easy to accept that burning fossil fuels was causing global warming with CO2. I also fell for the idea that man was responsible for the problem. I even wrote an article for 'Amazines.com' about the hazards of CO2. I penned another article for my sister website robfg.com.

After a lot of research that included material from a lot of the world's pre-eminent scientists and climatologist, I penned several articles on my websites about CO2, Venus, and Mars. There is only one conclusion a reasonable person can make. Global warming is not from any efforts of humankind. You can read my rewrite of the article of global warming here: robfg.com.

What I want you to understand is that smog and the effects of other pollutants were resolved by real science, not an emotional, nearly hysterical proclamation by those with ulterior motives. So look into the issue for yourself and do not allow this issue to steal your freedom. Be deliberate in your quest to find the truth.

http://www.nov55.com/index.html is a good place to start. Examination of the facts will make room for new ideas with respect to 'global warming'.

Cheers,

-Robert-

A Leap to the Left

With the presumptive nomination of Barack H. Obama, the Democrats take their largest step yet to the left. The Democratic Party has been going left ever so slightly since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The changes have been incremental up until now. The nomination of Obama is not another one of those incremental steps, but rather a large leap towards leftist socialism.

Socialism is the antithesis of individualism. Individualism allows an individual to follow his ambition while socialism puts the society on the backs of the successful. In other words, in Socialism, you can only succeed by carrying the load of those who are not motivated to succeed. So if you want to differentiate yourself from the pack in today's America, you have to run the gauntlet that the Democrats have prepared for you.

Such a gauntlet includes businesses having to hire lobbyists to protect thier interest. You must also negotiate the many laws governing a business such as EEOC who mandate certain quotas for the different ethnicities. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all laws with respect to discrimination in hiring. On its face, anti-discrimination laws seem to be a fair and equitable thing. But these laws have negative consequences that threaten our domestic businesses and send many to operate on foreign shores.

There may be a few businesses with discriminatory hiring practices, but experience has shown that most employers just want to hire the most productive people available to him. The odds are that the less dependable and least productive members of our society also make up the poorest of us. Businesses scour through the bottom dwellers in hopes of finding dependable productive employees because they generally come at a cheaper rate than the proven productive workers do.

It is all in the eye of the beholder, but the poor see everything as an obstacle and generally will not try to overcome it. The producers in our society see things differently. They look at obstacles as challenges and not as an impenetrable brick walls. Hard work and determination are generally the hallmarks of motivated individuals while sloth and retreat generally characterize the person not motivated. Race and ethnicity have nothing to do with it.

The 'feel good' laws put forth by the Democrats have, over time, eroded our nation's ability to lead and compete in today's world. The maze of regulations now present for industry adds significant cost to their operation. It is no wonder that China and India manufacture most of the goods you consume and use. General Motors is on the verge of bankruptcy because of the outrageous demands by congressional demands and Unions. Union demands for more than a good salary and working conditions along with congressional edicts combined to add significantly to the manufacturing cost of the American automobile and undermined the solvency of one of America's great industries.

Unless everybody pulls his or her weight, great and small, this nation cannot exist as it is now. Think of the America economy as being a big feeding trough. The producers (American businesses) fill the trough with a portion of their bounty and the non-producers eat at the trough. As the trough receives more feeders, the producers have to produce more to feed them. The problem with this scenario is that there is little incentive for a feeder to become a producer. As long as the trough stays full, there is no reason to try and produce. But there are unintended consequences with overloading the producers. Some of the producers become feeders because it is easier than producing, or they may start producing for a less demanding trough like the ones of China and India.

Obama's plan will expand the feed trough significantly and drive even more producers to foreign shores. Taking this country farther to the left will have the effect of making conditions worse and chip away at our freedom. The march to the left needs scrutiny by the voters. But unfortunately, the major source of the digestible information comes from very left leaning communications outlets. What is wrong with those guys? Do they really think that a heavy-handed government will be able to solve problems? History is not on their side because Socialism has never been successful. Here is hoping for a better future, go McCain!

Cheers,

-Robert-