Each had a determination to ensure that the world see exactly what they want to project. Both seem to have the media swooning over them at their respective times.. but instead of me saying anything.. just watch them both and see for yourselves

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Opening-Ceremony-Theater-Berlin-1936?urn=oly,99210

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=150123&comments=1

First off I would like to apologize to all 3 of you who read this for the time I took off. I was just a little bit busy at work and stuff and just havent had time.

That being said, as I have looked around lately at the political conundrum The Handbook sees before us I simply have one question.
Why is it when a candidate is lying or changing a position on something or cant choose a position why are they just allowed to slide along with it. Is there a study somewhere that says excessive politican speak results in Global warming? If so then we here at the Handbook have not seen it. After all everything else in I do appearantly results in Global warming so it would only seem that would as well. 

Sometimes I just wonder when will someone run that doesnt even look at polls and just says whats on their mind and in their heart.

I just wanted to let everyone know that the handbook is still here. I realize all 4 of you were worried sick and apologies are forthcoming. I had to make a roadtrip and been busy since I've been back but soon, the tasty nuggets of information and zany wit will return.


CJD

As you may know the SCOTUS has officially announced that they will review the case against DC's handgun ban. If any of them have read the constitution and the 2nd amendment in particular there is no way this law does not get struck down. It was illegal when it was passed in 1976 and it is illegal now.  My only real question is why it took so long for this fight to make it this far.

Hopefully we finally have a SCOTUS that has the proper intelligence and guts to finally publicly state what everyone already knows. The 2nd amendment specifically states that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

This law also removes a persons ability to move a gun from room to room in their own privately owned house and requires that any firearm ownd has to either be disassembled or have a protective lock on the trigger. So when a person in DC is robbed appearantly they throw the gun at the criminal. This I'm sure is exactly what that particular criminal is hoping for. After all I'm quite certain that the person that is currently illegally entering your home doesn't have his trigger locked or his gun disassembled.

So if as DC says the phrase "right of the people" doesnt pertain to individuals exactly who are the people? The French?

1st. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Under that pretext i guess we no longer have the right to individually assemble and protest. So long green peace and code pink. ( Actually we might want to look into that one) j/k


2nd. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 

    Well we all know what happens here. None of us are allowed to own guns anymore and the first of our rights is gone. 
    " We have come to a place with full gun registration, our streets will be safer our police more effective and the world will follow in our lead" Adolf Hitler - Now he understood the need for a disarmed public.

4th. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

    Get rid of this one and I guess we no longer need that pesky warrant thing to get in the way of a good prosecution.


9th. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    I realize its not the same exact phrase but it conveys the same thought. Each individual cannot be stripped of one right based on the fact of another.

10th. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

    Again same as 9 but this one just goes to show how little power the Fed government was intended to have.


Thats all for this time. check in later same bat time same bat channel
CJD

I guess I should tell everyone a little bit about me. I didnt do that with my first couple and I would like people to know where I come from. I am 25 fiercely conservative, notice I didnt say Republican, I am actually a registered Independant and will stay that way untill the Rep party finds its collective minds again. I am married with one beautiful daughter and have been in the Navy for almost 8 years. I am completely for free markets and states rights and against the Gov being basically in any part of my life.

That being said what I am about to propose may go against everything I believe.

I personally see elections as nothing more than who can read the polling data better. People in this state want to hear this, people would like to see you dress this way or wear this tie, and I dont like it at all.

So what I am proposing might be impossible and might be wrong but i would love to hear feedback on it. I would love to see intrest polling go away. Not the voter polling. I understand the need to see who is in the lead and so forth. I just am tired of someone only getting on stage and saying things because the most recent poll told them people are interested in that.

Lincoln didnt have intrest polling and yet he managed to figure out what the people wanted to hear. Same with Washington and plenty of others. So if we remove the ability to have intrest pollings wouldnt that force the politicans to actually say what they believe in and find out later if thats what they should have said.

I know it puts the Gov in another place it probably shouldnt be, but I would like to see just one pol come out and tell me what they really think. Not what Zogby told them I would like to hear.

As always eat much and be merry.

CJD

Right now there are at least 4000 people running for the POTUS position, or at least thats how it seems. The problem is as I see it none of them seem to have everything conservatives are looking for or don't seem to have the ability to actually win it all.

Gulianni seems to be a democrat lite while mayor, Romney seems to be full democrat whil Gov, Thompson seems like he isn't that intrested(you would think an actor could at least fake it), Huckabee seems to be truly conservative untill you realize he almost wants a nanny state as far as health is concerned, and lets be honest we've had enough Governors from Arkansas to last a while. Ron Paul just seems a little bit off of his meds. 
( Not saying he takes meds just saying he might want to investigate the possibility) Hunter seems well; I'm not sure, and thats the biggest problem neither does anyone else.

I'm sure I've missed a couple dozen but who can keep track anymore. All I want is someone who will actually care and have convictions that don't change depending on the current office he is seeking.

Oil and Gas prices are ridiclious. Someone answer me why we have allowed ourselves to pay 90+ a barrell to get oil from one of the least secure areas of the world when we easily have enough here to satisfy our needs. No I'm not saying get out of the global market and be an isolationist, just saying that we should solve our own prices first.

Next why are we so scared of the Green people that we refuse to build new refinaries so that we can spread them out around the country and not be beholden to weather catastrophies.
This would produce more gas into the supply system and lower the prices we have to pay. And to appease the green people we can put more of an effort to find alternatives to fossil fuels and not go bankrupt in the process.

Education needs to be fixed. Removing the teachers unions and allowing people to pick the school their children go to is a quick way to do it. Right now we spend right around 10,000 per student. For the record I am not a proponet of vouchers. Reason is that some quack lawyer will convince some quack judge that gov funds aren't allowed to go to a school that teaches religion and then Religious schools are out of luck. Instead I say that we make it an opt in or out program. You select the school that your child will go to. If that school is a public school then that school gets the funds for your child. If that is a private school then no public school receives funds for your child and all of your tuition is tax deductible at the end of the year. Since 10,000 was going to be spent by the Gov anyway on your student no extra money is needed and no one can claim it will cost the government money.

I believe that I might have gotten off of topic but I believe them to be one and the same. This is just a small sampling of what I believe that conservatives are looking for in a Pres.

Now if someone would just find that person and convince him to run we could all be happy.

Happy Thanksgiving to all

CJD.

So the House passed their SCHIP expansion tues and the Senate passed it today. Unfortunately it looks like the Senate version actually passed with enough votes to override the coming Veto. Thankfully according to Fox News the House is still approximately 2 dozen votes short.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298283,00.html


However the House version appears to be worse than the Senate version according to Nationalcenter.org
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA560.html Link here

Here's a quick run down for those in a hurry.

Current funding is 5 bil/year proposed is 12bil/year
current funding would be 25Bil in 5 years 50Bil in 10
proposed is 47.4Bil in 5 and 159.9Bil in 10.. That's a pretty big expansion if you ask me.
No caps on spending just have the states sign up as many children as possible then that becomes the actual working budget. So the 160 Bil will likely go up.

I don't know about you people but I don't believe that a family of four that makes $83,000 a year does not need for the government to insure their children. Let's be honest anyone that makes 83,000 a year already has insurance either through work or if they don't have insurance its by choice.

So really all this will do is convince that family to drop their current private insurance and use the government thus costing the program more, and moving us all one step closer to the socialized medicine that the democrats in D.C. want for us.

That's all I have for today folks.