Taxes on sodas, Iran, and other issues

San Francisco wants to tax sodas because, it says, they contribute significantly to obesity and other serious health problems.

I think if a city or state wants to increase revenue, that it's okay to target non-essential foods, such as sodas. However, spare us the sanctimonious lecture.

Iran is indeed a problem. In 1962, Kennedy put a blockade around Cuba to prevent Russia from installing nukes on that island, which would have put America in grave danger. Russia backed down. I do believe Iran would back down if we put her under blockade. I seriously doubt, however, that either the US or the international community has the fortitude to withstand such an action. Iran is going to stall us long enough to break our resolve.

Afghanistan. Mr. President, If you aren't in Afghanistan to win, then bring our troops home. If you don't trust the man you appointed to run this war, then appoint someone you do trust. Mr. President, make up your mind.

ACORN. My gosh, how many scandals does it take to convince the whole country that this organization is corrupt at its core. Some left-winger posted an article about someone that was laid off from ACORN because of the reduced funding caused by the exposure of these scandals. The article lamented how poor people will not be getting the help they need. This attitude is disgusting. First, it's a lie. The funding cuts have not yet been implemented and won't be until Pres. Obama signs the bill, and who knows how long that's going to be. Second, to tolerate corruption on this scale on the argument that some poor people now will not get the help they need is evil. It's evil because the money that is going into ACORN is helping only a fraction of the poor that it would help if the organization were not corrupt. So, it is a slap in the face of the poor to knowingly accept the corruption that denies them the services they need.

McCain. Glenn Beck said that McCain as President would be worse for the country. That is being turned around to Beck saying that McCain would be a worse President. That is not the same thing. Beck said McCain is not nearly as progressive as Obama, and on many issues he agrees with McCain. However, Beck points out, Obama is galvanizing -- he is SO progressive that it's a real eye-opeing shock to see what he is all about. McCain's progressiveness is much more low-key, and thus tolerable. Beck likened it to putting a frog into cold water and turning on the heat (McCain) compared to throwing a frog into boiling water (Obama).

However, I disagree with Beck. I do believe McCain has had a change of heart about the border situation, which Beck does not acknowledge. I also believe we would be winning Afhanistan and we would be standing up to Iran. And, McCain would put a stop to the pork that is snuck into the bills. So, I don't think McCain is progressive enough to harm the country.

But the most important point is, if Obama is not stopped, our country is going to suffer irreparable harm.