Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Chicago politics have quickly seeped into Washington politics. The prize of Obama's senate seat (one of the most underutilized offices in history), is up for grabs and the inner city mob bosses and politicians are jockeying to see which one of their favorite insider will get the reward. How much is the seat worth? $500K, $1M !! Is this the representative government that the colonists were hoping for when they sacrificed life and wealth for independence. They never envisioned THIS democratic party - trust me on this.
At the center of the controversy is IL governor - democrat - Rod 'the Rod' Blagojevich. Very close to the center, we have the candidate (#5) that was not willing to pay more than $500K for the position - Jesse Jackson Jr. - son of thug race merchant Jesse Jackson. And slightly out of the center, but working the action through his inside guys, the greatest president elect in history - Barack Obama.
It is hard to know precisely what went down, the democrats in congress and their allies in the media are making sure this becomes a one perp story....The Rod. But it takes two to tango. Barack wanted his guy in and so did Jesse Sr. The Rod's biggest offense, by Chicago ethics, was getting too greedy.
I wish I knew more. Will we ever know more? Probably not, but if we do, it will be after eight years of democratic presidential and congressional maneuvering and media silence to hide the truth.
Here is my suggestion. A Presidential pardon for The Rod by ...George W. Bush - in exchange for a beautiful song.
What does this all mean?? Here we go again !!!!!! Maybe the Clinton's are no more depraved the the party they belong to.
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Every time I hear the words "President Elect Obama," my brain inpulses send an electrical shock to my spinal cord. By Jan. 20th, I will have generated enough electricity to start a 1943 Oldsmobile.
It does not help to see Obama on the cover of Time, in the image of FDR. The media has gone from elect obama mode to protect obama mode, even before he has taken the oath of office. As Ann Coulter so sarcastically put it, "Indeed, historians have just named Barack Obama the best president elect ever."
What are the chances that we will have any real investigative work and analysis during his presidency? Nil.
It will take the work of AM talk radio, the internet and word-of-mouth to highlight to God-fearing Americans the dangerous agenda of Barack Obama. Subtle things, like judicial appointments, procedural changes to block out pro-life and pro-family efforts, will never see the light of day. We saw, day-to-day, in real-time, the crazy leftist ideas of the Clinton's during his first two years. The democrats and the media have learned their lesson.
We need to do two things:
1. Stay Informed of the Issues
2. Do NOT support the left wing media.
On point 2., there are plenty of alternatives out there, including Investors Business Daily and the Wall Street Journal. The latter has expanded beyond just business coverage, to compete head on with the New York Times. I subscribe to both. They are great pro-American papers.
One proof point for the left wing coverage of the election and now the run-up to the inauguration is the fact that we never found out, through a year and a half of election coverage, that Barack Obama smoked. At least Time got that piece right.
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Two items caught my eye this morning that signal where we are heading under an Obama Administration and I'm not even going to mention the fact that his campaign had surreptitious contacts with Hamas prior to his election. To these two things could be added several more but I will limit myself to what I read this morning.
Conscience Protection for Medical Professionals
The International Herald Tribune reported here about a newly issued rule by the Bush Administration concerning federal money and reproductive services. The article stated:
The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."
This rule is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.
Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations."
This would seem to be a reasonable protection for those religious organizations and individuals who perform valuable services but who may object to some things that pass for "health" in today's society...namely, performing abortions.
Barack Obama had a predictable reaction. He said that the "proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives." Obama aides stated that Obama would try to rescind the rule once he is in office.
Why is it that increasing abortions seems to be the Democrats' major goal despite all their protestations to the contrary? To read further on Obama's intentions regarding abortion, see the blog entry "Freedom of Choice Act" below.
Push for Radical Climate Change Measures
On a second note, in an action reminiscent of closing the barn door after the horses have bolted, Obama promises a big push for climate change legislation just as it is increasingly evident that global warming is not happening.
In a video address to Republicrat Arnold Schwarzenegger's climate change summit, Obama makes clear that he has fully imbibed the left's religious belief that humans are destroying the planet by man-made global warming and that drastic actions are required without delay.
According to Obama:
"Few challenges facing America -- and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security."
It is hard to know where to begin with this. First of all, the science is not "beyond dispute" nor are the "facts" clear. The chorus of voices opposing the notion of man-made global warming is rising, especially in the arena of science. Politicians, a sure cause of global warming, have not caught on yet.
Despite Obama's apocalyptic language, his facts are wrong. The hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1930s, not the 1990s as the global warming cadre wish us to believe. Storms are not getting stronger and the increase in hurricane activity a few years ago was due to a natural cycle, as any hurricane expert can tell you.
There is a word for people who use dire language to stir up the public against imaginary evils that require actions that only they can provide. They are called demagogues. With the media acting as the thralls of Obama, it is clear that his mendacious statements will be never be called into question. This is especially true when the media, the supposed watchdogs of government, agree with his solutions, facts be damned.
America is entering into one of its most dangerous times in history. Never has so much power been granted to so many people who have so little sense of what it really means to be an American. Never has the media been so corrupt as to allow such gross deception to be foisted upon the American public with little or no accountability. Sadly, most of it is because the media themselves believe the lies.
May God shield us from our "saviors."
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Friday, November 14, 2008
Anyway, as the Democrats are about to take the reins of power and implement economically disastrous remedies for global warming, prominent scientists are now saying that global warming is not the problem that we should be concerned with but rather the onset of a new ice age.
A recent article, appearing in the British Daily Mail, referenced the work of two scientists whose findings were published in the prestigious science periodical Nature. These scientists are predicting a new ice age due to...get this...FALLING LEVELS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
According to the Daily Mail:
British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Britain in 6,000ft of ice. Most of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England could be covered in 3,000ft-thick ice fields. The expanses could reach 6,000ft from Aberdeen to Kent – towering above Ben Nevis, Britain’s tallest mountain.
The article continues...
And what's more, the experts blame the global change on falling - rather than climbing - levels of greenhouse gases.
Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – could actually be the key to averting the chill.
First, bureaucratic inertia, the most powerful force in this country, is with the global warming crowd. They are too close to victory now and will not be stopped by something as pedestrian as actual scientific evidence. Perish that thought.
Second, this thing was never totally about science. Science, or the misinterpretation of it, was merely the justification. The actual goal of the left was greater government control over the lives of the populace. If it can be done by legislating socialism...great. If it must be done by judicial fiat...fine. If it must be done by cajoling the public into thinking that the world is ending and that drastic actions by the government are required (along with sacrifices on the part of the populace)...fine also.
For the Dems, the band will keep playing and the Obama legions will keep goosestepping along (Sorry for the mixed metaphor. Roman legions did not goosestep).
For the rest of us, as the Dems are conquering global warming that does not exist, get a good overcoat. It is going to be a long, cold winter.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Thursday, November 13, 2008
How come we are just hearing about this now? I think we know.
One thing you can be sure of with Liberals. Whatever they say, you can assume that the opposite is true.
When they say that they care about the poor, check their tax returns.
When they say that they care about fairness in broadcasting, know that they want the exact opposite.
And when they say they want Freedom of Choice, the choice is option A or option A.
The Catholic Church is going to be forced to go to war. It's about time.
The Catholic Bishops are convening right now. They are considering the closure of every Catholic Hospital as a counter strike to the FOCA.
My question is...how come 47% of Catholics voted for the candidate who stated that his first act as President is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act? How come we didn't hear this from the pulpit? Are we afraid of taxes? Let's grow up ! They want war, let them come after our tax status.
Jesus didn't say "Teach them all that I have commanded you, unless you lose your tax exempt status" He didn't say that he would pit 'brother against brother' unless the tax rates are too high.
Catholics could select every President, Governor, Senator, Rep and Judge in this country if they had the will. Maybe Obama will wake up that will !!
Bring It !!
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Sunday, November 9, 2008
For anyone who believes that Obama will govern from the middle OR that he will tackle the economy or poverty as JOB one, you haven't paid much attention to Obama - or to Pelosi and Reid.
Obama's chief of Staff, Rahm Emanual (an aggressive, caustic liberal) has already hinted that Obama believes he has a mandate for change and that he needs to quickly reverse the policies of George Bush. His first course of action are Executive Orders on:
1) Re-opening embryonic stem cell research AND
2) Reversing the natural gas exploration authorized by President Bush.
The Poor? The Economy? More like "The Liberal !!"
For any Catholics (and we know there are 47% of you out there that voted for Obama) who thought they elected a thoughtful, moderate leader...take heed. The Church is in for the worst four years it has seen in a long, long time.
And this is just the beginning.
I spoke to a McCain supporter this weekend. He said he was optimistic about the new president and hoped that he would be successful. Yikes !! The last thing I want is a successful President Obama (see 1. and 2. above).
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
No discussion of opportunity lost.
No discussion of what might have been.
The citizens of these United States of America, the greatest country in the history of humankind, has cast its lot. For the next two years, we will look to the Democratic Party to govern according to popular demand, and hope that they follow the path wished for by the vast majority of its citizens, rather than reacting to the extremes as demanded by the few fringe radicals that speak loudly.
And ensure that they govern according to the Constitution, not just their interpretation of it.
As a law-abiding, respectful citizen, I will support our leaders until they demonstrate that they no longer are worthy of such support. As an American, I will voice my dissatisfaction if and when our leaders take us down the wrong path.
But today, rather than focusing on the character and/or policy shortcomings of elected leaders; rather than falling into traps of name calling, vitriol, and class- and party-warfare...
It is time to focus on what will be.
It is time to focus on what shall come.
It is time to focus on what we will become.
"Thoughtless words can wound like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing."
D. B. Jackson and B Bryant, let the healing begin.
2010 and 2012 will, indeed, be remarkable years.
-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
(and he'll take Federal Matching Funds and other lies)
Obama has assured us that those making under $250,000 will not see a tax increase. That was before he changed it to $200,000. Biden said $150,000 and Bill Richardson said $125,000. The elusive 'no tax' income level keeps dropping.
It reminded me of a funny scene from the Burt Reynolds' comedy, 'The End.' Burt Reynolds decided to kill himself by swimming so far out into the ocean, he would be too tired to return. After reaching this point, he decides that he wants to live. He promises God half of his income if God will help him make it back to the beach. As he nears the beach, the amount he is promising to God keeps dwindling. As he climbs onto the beach, he looks to heaven and says, "and I won't forget about that 5% that I promised you, Lord."
As Obama gets nearer to his historic victory - overconfident, no, downright cocky...he is already backing off his pledge for the $250,000 and below tax cut. He has to. He has no way to fund his socialist agenda except by taxing basically everyone who pays taxes today. He will do what Bill Clinton did when he backed away from his middle class tax hike and say "I didn't know things were as bad as they were."
In addition to the tax revenues, federal budget and social security being available to anyone as public information, every economist that has studied his plans say that it is unachievable without an across the board tax hike. He knows, just as he knows that he never intended to take public financing.
Which brings to mind another Burt Reynolds' movie...Bandit !!
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
I will briefly interrupt my WWOD series to pass on a similar article by Pat Buchanan titled, "Obama's 1st 100 Days."
Obama's 1st 100 days
Patrick J. Buchanan
Undeniably, a powerful tide is running for the Democratic Party, with one week left to Election Day.
Bush's approval rating is 27 percent, just above Richard Nixon's Watergate nadir and almost down to Carter-Truman lows. After each of those presidents reached their floors – in 1952, 1974, 1980 – the opposition party captured the White House.
Moreover, 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong course, and since mid-September, when McCain was still slightly ahead, the Dow has lost 4,000 points – $5 trillion to $6 trillion in value.
Leading now by 8 points in an average of national polls, Barack Obama has other advantages.
Not a single blue state is regarded as imperiled or even a toss-up, while Obama leads in six crucial red states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri and Colorado. Should McCain lose one of the six, he would have to win Pennsylvania to compensate for the lost electoral votes. But the latest Pennsylvania polls show Barack with a double-digit lead.
Lately moving into the toss-up category are Nevada, North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. All voted twice for George W. Bush.
Not only is Obama ahead in the state and national polls, he has more money, is running far more ads, has a superior organization on the ground, attracts larger crowds, and has greater enthusiasm and more media in camp. And new voter registrations heavily favor the Democrats.
Though Congress is regarded by Americans with a disdain bordering on disgust – five of six Americans think it has done a poor job – Democratic majorities are certain to grow. Indeed, with Democrats favored by 10 points over Republicans, Nancy Pelosi's majority could grow by 25 seats, and Harry Reid could find himself with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators.
Democrats already have 49, plus two independents: Socialist Bernie Sanders and Independent Joe Lieberman. Their challengers are now ahead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, with a chance of picking up Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky and Mississippi.
We may be looking at a reverse of 1980, when Reagan won a 10-point victory over Jimmy Carter, and Republicans took the Senate and, working with Boll Weevil Democrats, effective control of the House.
With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the "Evil Empire," Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America's epochal victory in the Cold War.
What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?
Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:
* Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.
* Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.
* Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.
* Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.
* Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."
* Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.
* The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.
* A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.
* Affirmative action – hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached – will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.
* Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.
* A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.
* The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.
Welcome to Obamaland!
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Barack Obama is the Democrats' most radical candidate ever on the issue of abortion, which is saying quite a lot. (You don't get to be the most liberal Senator by doing nothing).
In a July 17, 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama affirmed his extremist views on abortion. Central to that is the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This legislation, initially set forward by liberal Democrats in 1989, would codify Roe v. Wade as a federal statute and remove any restrictions upon abortion that states have enacted.
According to an article in The Catholic Key, FOCA would automatically overturn:
-State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
-Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement
-Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions
-Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
-Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions
-Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions
-Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
-Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion
In its original form, former Illinois Senator Carol Mosely Braun rejected FOCA because it provided conscience protection for health care professionals and did not require states to fund abortions.
Returning to Obama, he has promised to make FOCA a centerpiece of his administration. Before Planned Parenthood, he said:
"[T]he first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do...."
Obama had more to say:
"So, you know where I stand. But this is more than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We're at a crossroads right now in America -- and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it's also about playing offense. It's not just about defending what is, it's about creating what might be in this country. And that's what we've got to work together on."
These are eloquent words and they could be inspiring if uttered for a righteous cause. The truly sad thing is that Obama said these words to the world's foremost destroyer of unborn life and he gave them with conviction and the intention to remove all restrictions on Planned Parenthood's murderous...and profitable...activity.
He closed his speech in a manner so to leave no doubt as to his identification with the goals and purposes of Planned Parenthood:
"On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."
The systematic extermination of millions of unborn children through abortion is one of the blackest marks on the history of this great nation. That this terrible crime is committed for profit makes it even more heinous.
May God protect us from the murder lobbies such as Planned Parenthood. May God shield us from politicians such as Barack Obama who facilitate those who would take innocent life and profit from it.
If Obama and the Democrats have their way, unrestricted abortion will be the law of the land. Parental notification laws will evaporate. The infanticide of partial birth abortion will have federal sanction. States will have no legislative recourse but will be forced to fund abortions to those who cannot afford them. The future is bleak in the case of a Democrat victory...especially for the unborn.
If the issues of life cannot motivate a person to vote against this man, I'm not sure what will.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Biden’s on Fire !!
First – he ranks on Joe the Plumber during one of his rare rallies, “How many plumbers do you know that make two hundred and fifty grand?” Poor Joe the Plumber, had the audacity to question the Marxist ways of BHO – and BHO gave him a frank reply, “we want to spread your success around.” Obama came to Joe’s house and stood on his front lawn and answered the question. Joe is not a contrivance of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. He is a voter that Obama solicited randomly. And now Joe the Plumber has replaced Sarah Palin as public enemy #1 among the left.
Maybe Mr. Biden can visit Katie’s Coffee Shop where he claimed, during the V.P. Debate, is the place that he catches up with the common man. Unfortunately for Mr. Biden, Katie’s has been closed for twenty years.
Now Biden says something completely out of control. It makes you wonder if that brain hemorrhage is healed or if he is having a stroke. No one is quite sure what to make of it – and it is certainly unclear how rambling Joe thought it would help his presidential candidate.
Here is Joe B’s statement.
“Mark my words," Biden told donors at a Seattle fund-raiser Sunday night.
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.
"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.
"And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."
It is not going to be apparent that we’re right???
This reads like a prophecy of some kind. The man is a walking time bomb. A scary dude that will be the backup quarterback to the most inexperienced presidential candidate of all time (not to mention an anti-American Marxist).
Here we go…time to vote, time to donate, time to pray.
Hang in there John and Sarah !!!
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Saturday, October 18, 2008
If Obama is swept into office, it is likely that he will be joined by a large Democrat majority in both houses of Congress and maybe even a super majority in the Senate (60-plus senators). This would be a filibuster-proof majority and ensure that the Democrats can pass whatever they want.
What would be the result of this sea-change in American poliltics? Far worse than many people know. Obama and the Democrats have actually been quite up-front with their agenda for anyone who wants to investigate it.
Due to length (and ample documentation) I will deal with what an Obama administration would do in a series of posts covering a variety of issues. Today we will begin with how Obama would deal with the gay rights issue.
Gay Rights: There will be massive changes. Obama has clearly stated his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that shields states from having to recognize gay marriages conducted in other states. In a letter released to the gay community, Obama wrote:
I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.
With the repeal of DOMA, liberal judges will inevitably apply the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution, intended for contract law, to the social arena thus legalizing gay marriage all across the nation. Liberals have always used the courts to impose agendas that the populace would never vote for. This would make gay marriage the law of the land.
Along with the nationalization of gay marriage will come equality in adoption, which Obama also supports. By federal laws that will be passed by an Obama congress, states will have no option but to allow homosexual couples to adopt children. In addition to affecting the next generation of children, these changes will normalize homosexual marriage and have us working in PTA with gay parents and their adopted children (adopted because God is not as open-minded as liberals and does not allow homosexuals to reproduce).
Obama wants to change the military policy of "don't ask, don't tell," thus completing the social experimenting in our military that began in the Clinton administration. If the Clinton administration is any proof, Obama could extend the social experimentation with the military into the area of transgender and cross-dressing. As a veteran and retired naval reservist, this is a discouraging thought.
Obama wants to enable the foreign homosexual partners of American gays to become citizens. He wrote in the letter mentioned above:
I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.
There will be sweeping legislation that will penalize any employer for failure to fully support the LGBTG (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) agenda. Obama wrote:
In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
These changes will radicalize the workplace and force insurance companies to fund bizarre and unnatural procedures such as sex-change operations. Employers will be forced to accommodate transgenders in their desire to cross-dress and use restrooms not associated with their natural gender. This could perhaps develop to where employers must create separate "transgender" facilities.
Hate crimes laws will place anyone who criticizes the gay agenda on shaky ground. If unimpeded, it will result in the prosecution of pastors who preach on biblical passages that condemn homosexuality as sinful. There are examples here and here.
For those who think that this post is alarmist and hate-mongering, I would ask you to review past legislation such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 which created OSHA. Both laws, signed by Richard Nixon, may have seemed relatively harmless when passed but both have been expanded by the courts to disastrous proportions.
Is there any question that the courts will not do the same with pro-gay legislation?
In my next post, I will deal with what Obama and the Democrats desire to do with abortion laws.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Friday, October 17, 2008
We reject the recent and ongoing derogations of his character in the media and blogosphere, and by politicians, and stand beside Ayers, an advocate for education devoted to human enlightenment and liberation.
It seems oxymoronic to me to speak of the "character" of a unrepentant bomber of this own nation but I guess this just reaffirms to us that academia is where the old hippies of the sixties fled. I shutter to think that such people are training our next generation.
Bevan's final sentence says all you need to know:
The ivory tower of academia is one of the only places in America where a radical Marxist who's never expressed any regret for bombing his own country (indeed, he expressed just the opposite as little as 7 years ago) is revered as being "devoted to human enlightenment and liberation."
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Sunday, October 12, 2008
John McCain is an American patriot and war hero. His commitment to America is beyond question, far more than I can say for his opponent. However, his past policies and recent positions raise a lot of questions and support the thesis of Farah's book. This is not even to mention McCain's virtual endorsement of Obama as "a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."
Clearly, we need John McCain to be President at this time in America. Not because we need John McCain but because the alternative is clearly unacceptable. We do not need a neo-Marxist who has consorted with terrorists and has questionable loyalties to the America we love. We do not need a man who desires to nationalize health care and increase government spending while raising taxes during an economic downturn...a sure recipe for worsening economic times.
I could go into so much more but I will leave it to Farah. His article is worth the read.
More McCain Pain
Since I wrote my book "None of the Above," I have been predicting with some degree of certainty that John McCain would win the presidential election.
There were several reasons I was so sure about this forecast:
* It was inconceivable to me that the American people had reached such an advanced degree of moral and intellectual decay that they would affirmatively choose Barack Obama, a candidate who has absolutely no experience qualifying him for the office;
* It was inconceivable to me that the American people were depraved enough to elect someone who holds such a thinly veiled radical socialist worldview;
* It was inconceivable to me that the American people would hand the most powerful leadership position in the world to a man of no achievement and suspect ties;
* It was inconceivable to me that the American people were so bereft of discernment that they would elect a demagogue who fundamentally doesn't like America very much;
* And, it was inconceivable to me that someone as experienced as McCain could possibly offer the kind of lackluster campaign that would permit Obama to win.
After the second presidential debate this week, I must revise my predictions.
McCain is now zero for two in the debate department.
Let's face it. He stunk.
He needed to make up some ground and he lost, instead.
He made Obama look good by comparison – and that is not easy.
He is floundering worse than even I could have imagined – and I abhor McCain!
The man is clueless. He has no vision. He has no ideas. He has no style – no pizzazz, no message, no theme. And, on top of all that, he refuses to take apart Obama!
It's amazing to me.
So, while I still think somehow Obama will figure out a way to lose this election – even while outspending McCain three to one – color me slightly more unsure.
In the debate, McCain's "Hail Mary" pass was a proposal to spend $300 billion of the bailout buying out the individual mortgages of Americans who are nearing foreclosure and in danger of losing their homes.
While I suppose it is preferable to see as much of this bailout boondoggle help poor people rather than rich people, the obvious effects of such a plan will be devastating on the housing market.
There's a long-established economic principle that has apparently escaped McCain's attention: You get more of what you subsidize. If you subsidize sloth, you get sloth. If you subsidize teenage pregnancy, you get teenage pregnancy. If you subsidize divorce, you get divorce.
In this case, we will be subsidizing foreclosure. Guess what we will get?
Americans will quickly realize going into foreclosure is not the worst thing that could happen to them. In fact, it might be the best thing! It will make them eligible for a brand-new government program that will reduce their principal and their monthly payments and keep them in their house.
You think lots of Americans are facing foreclosure now? Just wait until this program kicks in.
If I ever had a doubt I made the right decision with my "None of the Above" campaign, that doubt would be long gone.
John McCain is a disaster as a candidate. And he would be a bigger disaster as president. But don't worry, he doesn't have a clue as to how to win it. But then, again, where does that leave us?
To paraphrase the ancient Chinese curse: For the next four years, we're going to be living in interesting times.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Can McCain Still Win?
By Patrick Buchanan
Two weeks after the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., John McCain and Sarah Palin were striding forward toward victory.
They had erased the eight-point lead Barack Obama had opened up in Denver and watched as one blue state after another moved into the toss-up category.
That is ancient history now.
Since mid-September, the stock market has cratered, losing half of the $8 trillion that has vanished since October 2007. All five of America's great investment banks -- Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill-Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have either ceased to be independent or ceased to be.
The nation's largest savings and loan, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG, have gone belly up, with the federal bailout of the latter costing $100 billion and counting. Perhaps $3 trillion of the $8 trillion in stock value that is gone disappeared after passage of the $700 billion federal bailout of Wall Street.
No bottom is in sight to the worst market crash since 1929. Recession is now certain. George W. Bush has fallen to 26 percent approval, a level unseen since Richard Nixon was driven from office in the Watergate summer of '74. Four in five think the nation is on the wrong course.
Yet, Obama has only a six-point lead in an averaging of national polls. While he has moved ahead in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, one senses America is not so much rallying to him as running away from a Republican brand that is now on the same shelf with Chinese baby formula.
Obama still has not closed the sale. He has overtaken McCain not because of any brilliant campaign he has conducted but because of the dreadful news pouring out of Wall Street. McCain and Palin are being dragged down by Dow Jones, not Barack Obama.
As of today, the country is not so much voting for Barack and the Democrats as it is preparing to vote against the Republicans.
Consider: The Congress, whose Democratic ranks the nation is getting ready to enlarge -- the Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- has an approval rating half that of Bush.
Indeed, looking back on the Year of Barack, 2008, it is clear he has never closed the sale, either with the people or his own party.
After he came off the blocks with a startling triumph in Iowa and ran up a dozen straight primary and caucus victories in February, arrived the spring when Hillary, though Obama's media auxiliary was ordering her to get out, defeated him in Texas, crushed him in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and humiliated him in West Virginia and Kentucky.
Each time the voters take a long second look at Barack, their positive first impressions seem to dissipate. Barack is a weak closer.
Herein lies McCain's hope. The country wants change, but it has not concluded it wants Obama. But if John McCain cannot raise grave doubts about his agenda, his associates, his record, his character, his fitness to be president, Obama is going to win by default.
Obama has succeeded in the debates by playing defense. By his cool demeanor and persona, he has diminished apprehensions about an Obama presidency. There is no evidence of surging enthusiasm.
The Obama media are well aware of Obama's Achilles' heel, his great vulnerability, the doubts about him that still exist in the public mind. That is why they are near hysterical about Palin's ripping of Obama for "palling around" with "domestic terrorists" like William Ayres, the 1960s and 1970s Weatherman radical who conspired to bomb the Capitol and Pentagon and was quoted the morning of 9-11 as saying he wished he had set off more bombs.
The mainstream media call this irrelevant, as it was so long ago.
Yet, can one imagine how the media would have reacted had they learned that a GOP presidential nominee was introduced to politics and worked in harness with a KKK bomber of black churches in the 1960s, who was quoted the morning of Oklahoma City as saying he wished he had planted more bombs?
As McCain is an establishment man on illegal aliens, NAFTA and Wall Street bailouts, uneasy with social issues like affirmative action and abortion, he lacks the full panoply of weapons that successful Republicans like Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bush II used to win two terms. He seems to confine himself to the limited arsenal Gerald Ford, Bush 1 and Bob Dole employed when they went down to defeat.
This election is not over. Yet, even if McCain gets a bit of luck, a dead cat bounce on Wall Street, he must persuade the nation Obama is an unacceptable occupant of the White House if he is to win.
Palin appears ready to take the heat to make that case. But McCain seems ambivalent to the point of being bipolar on whether he wants to take responsibility for peeling the hide off Barack Obama.
Perhaps it comes down to what McCain really thinks about an Obama presidency, and how he wants to be remembered by history.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Monday, October 6, 2008
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Sunday, September 14, 2008
I can't imagine anyone doing more for women than Sarah Palin. In many ways she eschews everything that the woman's movement has represented for forty years, but yet her life represents everything that the movement should want to be. A working class woman rises from PTA mom to governor of Alaska to potentially Vice President of the United States.
The best thing about Sarah Palin is that she has done it her way - and it is making the elitist feminist nuts. She is a devoted mother and wife. She embraces conservative principles. She loves her country. And she never talks about being a woman...it is about accomplishments with Candidate Palin.
Her accomplishments are all well known - and so are many of her troubles and failures. We'll hear more from the media, the pundits and the campaigns from now until election day. In the meantime, I am hoping to see and hear more from her.
It's cool again to be a conservative.
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Can we survive a third term of George W. Bush, economically? Bush's third term is what the Democrats and their communications subsidiary (the mainstream media) want us to believe a McCain presidency would be. They continue to remind us how disastrous the past two Bush terms have been.
Keith Marsden in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal compares, using facts rather than repetitive slogans, the Bush economic performance with the same periods in Europe and with the prior Clinton years. He uses data from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the U.S. Census bureau (among others) to show a positive and consistent picture.
By using a balanced approach of comparing economic growth (GDP), unemployment, wage and earnings stratification and buying power, he has some rather surprising (for some) analysis. The Bush presidency produced tremendous economic results and unprecedented wealth creation for the citizens and corporations of the United States. In fact, there is no other country that does any better and no other six year period of American history that is any more favorable.
Unemployment: Bush Average: 4.7% (Clinton average 5.2%, Europe average 8.3%)
2001-2008 Cumulative GDP growth: Bush 19% (Europe 8-14% for all major countries)
Wealth Distribution: Bush Top 20% of earners: 45.8% of income (65 out of the 67 countries in the comparison had more income in the top 20% than the U.S.)
Additional analysis on purchasing power, health care spending and other economic indicators paint the same picture.
There are many enlightening facts in this analysis and probably worth committing to memory for the next time some water cooler Democrat is harping about a Bush third term and change, change, change. It may also help to remind them that the only bad economic periods in the Bush presidency was the quarter immediately following 9/11 and the six quarters since the Democrats have controlled congress.
If McCain means a Bush Third Term including all the economic and security implications that that charge carries, I say, when can we start?
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
I heard a radio jockey call John McCain’s Vice Presidential Candidate pick a ‘babe,’ and the quote from Wayne’s World came to mind.
My first instincts on this pick were to congratulate John McCain on taking some risks and throwing a monkey wrench into this presidential election. He seems to have decided that his best chances rest on convincing Hillary supporters and other women to vote for him. It is in many ways a cynical move…but perhaps a smart one.
Not only might Sarah Palin appeal to Hillary supporters (which is bothersome that the electorate is that fickle – the difference between Palin and Clinton on policy could not be wider), but she adds some staunch conservative credentials to the ticket.
She will also be harder to campaign against than McCain-Romney. Two house-rich white boys would have played into Obama’s class warfare strategy nicely.
So, what is wrong with Palin? If I had to handpick a VP to support John McCain over the next eight years, it would not be Sarah Palin. I would actually hand-pick a Tom Delay, Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney…but none of them, apparently, bring McCain an improvement in electability.
The first few days brought some cheers by the Republicans and some classic missteps by the Democrats, including accusing her of having insufficient experience. Watch out Obama !! Don’t get the electorate focused on experience.
I hope Ms. Palin is ready for the onslaught. The personal attacks, the increased exposure on her family, her requirement to watch every word and the poise required while debating (the pompous) Mr. Biden.
In the meantime, McCain has taken a chance here, but it really means that he means business.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
"A congo line of malcontents known as the Democratic Convention" Mark Levin
Where is all the hatred? Where is the anti-Americanism? Where is the Dean Scream?
Hollywood has chipped in. It seems the Democrats have cleaned themselves up and are trying to cast themselves as regular, patriotic, God-fearing Americans. What an act !!
And the Oscar goes to:
Ted Kennedy: After years of drunken stupidness. Manslaugher. Leaving the scene of a crime. Rape accomplice and exposing himself in a restaurant, he puts on an oscar worthy performance as an aging grandfather whose only crime is caring a little too much. We'll wait for the Kopechne family to weigh in.
Nancy Pelosi: A life-long advocate of gay rights and abortion on-demand, she has been cast as a discerning Catholic who has agonized over the issue of when life begins. Most people bought it, but the Pope, the Cardinal of Denver and the Cardinal of N.Y. panned her performance.
Michelle Obama: She decided she LOVES America. After calling America a mean country and never being proud of America until a few months ago....she has decided that she was wrong and she really loves her country. I would give the edge to Michelle for playing such a stretch role.
Stand-by. The Sequel is tonight.
"I called up my friend LeRoy on the phone
I said, Buddy, I'm afraid to be alone
'Cause I got some weird ideas in my head
About things to do in Denver when you're dead" Warren Zevon
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The question is, does Biden add so much clout to the ticket that it is worth the 'shouldn't the ticket be the other way around' debate that is inevitable? Is he worth the Hillary and Hillary supporter backlash?
Each day that goes by, Obama looks less like a viable presidential candidate and more like a glib, cocky, substance-free (the other substance) first term senator. The choice of Biden was a safe and predictable choice. One wonders what the downside of the Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton options were; from Barack and Michelle's standpoint.
But, in any case, here we go.
Biden brings good experience and a solid liberal voting record - albeit not left wing reactionary like the top of the ticket. He believes in big government, high taxes, weak foreign policy and activist judges...but he is on the moderate to conservative side of the current 'woodstock attendee' democratic party.
He brings strong debating skills, a sense of humor and some charm.
He also is prone to gaffes like no other candidate. He had to leave the 1988 race after it was determined he had plagorized a speech by U.K. Socialist Neil Kinnock. He left the current race shortly after calling Obama the first clean and articulate black presidential candidate (take that Al and Jesse !!). For the party that once claimed JFK and Harry Truman as members, but since brought into the toilet by Bill Clinton, these are barely venial sins.
He'll be well coached and rehearsed...but I don't expect him to avoid a good gaffe or two with that many microphones and that many reporters following him around. I'm looking forward to it.
Personally, I am being very generous to Biden, relative to my personal feelings. I actually think that he is an arrogant and condescending SOB who thinks he is the smartest person in the room. His questioning during senatorial hearings of judges or generals are among the most vicious and sarcastic that I have ever heard. But that is just me...
Was it a good choice for Obama? Maybe. All choices had their downsides. The Clinton impact is his biggest risk. And Biden isn't bringing a state with him. Delaware is already Dem - and small. But overall, I think Obama and Biden can present an attractive ticket for the left-wing and for the mindless undecideds.
"In the words of Joe Biden 'We have nothing to fear, but fear itself'" Alf 1987
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The negatives are as follows:
Hillary is a very polarizing figure. She is loved by many but hated by many more.
Hillary has the potential to mobilize the Republican base like McCain never could. Many conservatives are ambivalent about McCain. That ambivalence was not eased by his flirtation with pro-choice candidates for Vice President. However, if you throw Hillary Clinton into the mix, Republicans will salivate at the opportunity to vote against another Clinton.
Trust. Could Barack Obama ever trust the Clintons? The short answer is no and Obama knows that. They still are concerned that the Clintons will take over the convention next week to make it about them (and incidentally, to sabotage Obama). Despite that mistrust, Obama, like many Democrats, fear the Clintons more than they hate them. That is shown by the degree to which Obama turned the convention over to them. A Vice President is in place to promote the President’s agenda. Obama could never trust the Clinton’s to put the interests of his administration over their personal interests.
These are industrial strength negatives.
However, I think it is still very possible that Obama will chose Hillary as his running mate. As long as Obama was running high in the polls and seemed to be the presumptive (key word) winner, he had no need of the Clintons. Add to that the bad blood that developed during the primaries and you have an Obama who wants nothing to do with Hillary or her husband. However, in politics, last month can be ancient history. Obama is no longer the heir-apparent to the mantle of the Presidency. His resume has been weighed in the balances by many people and found wanting.
John McCain’s attacks have struck home and shown Barack Obama for what he is, a well-spoken candidate with a lot of vague promises and virtually no experience with which to back it up. Obama's poll numbers are coming down and his negatives are rising. McCain’s attacks have forced Obama to counterattack and that is not to Obama’s favor because it undermines his only strength…the positive image he has developed. In short, the trends are running against Obama and he knows it. He needs something, or someone, to change the game. That someone could be Hillary Clinton.
Hillary would infuse new excitement into Obama’s campaign. Her presence would do much to heal the rift that still remains between her supporters and Obama's. To top it off, you would have the Clintons spitting out the tent instead of into it, thus following Sun-tzu's dictum, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
I also suspect that most Republican strategists would much rather run against Obama-Bayh or Obama-Biden than Obama-Clinton. Hillary's addition to the campaign has the potential to "flip the field" on McCain just as he is gaining traction.
I admit that this is extreme speculation...so much so that I'm not even predicting this will happen. However, I would not be surprised either.
We'll all wait and see.
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Twenty years after the cold war officially ended, the Russians have reminded us why Ronald Reagan called them the ‘Evil Empire.’ Putin has reminded us that absolute power corrupts and Obama has reminded us why Lenin called him and his ilk, ’useful idiots.’
President Bush has, as he always does in matters of foreign policy, risen to the occasion and drew a very fine line in the sand over the Russian-Georgian conflict. It is uncomfortable to hear the strong rhetoric again, after we have staked much hope on U.S. and Russian cooperation.. Perhaps we wanted it more than the facts warranted it, but, in this world of conflicts, it would have been good to end the cold war; the conflict and the rhetoric.
Is Russia back? Did it ever leave? Is this part of some longer term strategic move to assemble some key pieces of the old USSR ? We’d like to believe that this is an isolated incident and that Russia had no choice but to act the way it did. The facts do not support this.
What appears to make John McCain and George Bush different than any Democrat in matters of complex and dangerous foreign policy is their willingness to make tough decisions and see the world for what it is or what it might be…not what we want it to be. People are complex agents with motives that are unclear. The worst case scenario must always be discussed, whether it be in matters of the war against terror or the anti-social moves of our ‘allies.’ The Democrats prefer to handle in a way that would best be suited for handling a lawn clipping dispute with a neighbor. Strong language, sanctions and war are not in their arsenal.
A few years ago, I was watching Saving Private Ryan with my kids. During the movie and during the most intense fighting seen, I told my kids…see, this is what happens when Democrats get in power. Perhaps I was being a little unfair to FDR, but I would maintain that any conflict that gets to the point of a D-Day like invasion and the dropping of atom bombs has two or three years of gross mismanagement all over it. We can’t let situations get to this point. We can’t let the world misbehave. When a country breaks its treaties and acts hostilely toward its neighbors, there has to be a rapid and meaningful response…first diplomatically, then militarily.
The Europeans might shrink at the challenge…but we must recognize that our boys will have to pick up the pieces.
McCain gets it.
Submitted by D. B. Jackson
Thursday, August 14, 2008
His most damning quote is: "How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?"
A Catholic Case Against Barack
In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.
But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.
For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.
Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."
Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."
And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."
As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."
Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.
How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?
If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?
How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.
When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf:
"Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."
Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.
What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?
And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
--Submitted by B. Bryant
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
What many of the US citizens don't realize, partly because the majority of the country is absorbed in the Olympics (or any other entertainment that helps citizens avoid real world issues), is that we just saw a real, live test of our presidential candidates' capabilities in foreign affairs. Real. Live. Not staged, not set before a camera with scripts and props... a real-life issue, in real-time.
What did we see?
"We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability, and peace of that world," he said while campaigning in Pennsylvania. "World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today."
Warning that "the very existence of independent Georgia - and the survival of its democratically-elected government - are at stake," McCain asserted that the fate of Georgia is "both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America."
Strong response, measured yet clear: 'enough already'
B H Obama:
"The relationship between Russia and the West is long and complicated," Obama said. "There have been many turning points, for good and ill. This is another turning point. Let me be clear: We seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government, and friendship with the Russian people. We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation - but with that role comes the responsibility to act as a force for progress in this new century, not regression to the conflicts of the past. That is why the United States and the international community must speak out strongly against this aggression, and for peace and security."
Weak response, panders to Russian interests: 'pardon me, but if you could find the time to take a timeout from this agression and join us in a chorus of Kumbaya...'
Right now, Putin is laughing his a$$ off while thinking about the prospect of dealing with Obama for four years.
The real-time scoreboard has the tally at:
McCain 1, Obama 0. (I'd give him a negative 10, but we can't do negative numbers here because I like to accentuate the positive.)
-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Monday, August 11, 2008
In responding to John McCain's statement of 3 weeks ago where he said that he did not believe in gay adoption, Barack H. Obama affirmed his unequivocal support for the right of homosexual couples to adopt children. In a letter to the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, Obama wrote:
"We also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender] families because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom."
This is further seen on another of Obama's stances. Obama, who has not come out openly for gay marriage--despite congratulating the "newly married" couples in California--nevertheless is a strong proponent for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which states that homosexual "marriages" in one state do not have to be recognized by other states. Obama again wrote in the letter to the Family Equality Council:
"That's why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That's why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws."
For Barack Obama, "family" carries an extended, and unchristian meaning, despite his attempt to pass himself off as a traditional Christian. "Family," it seems, means whatever anyone wants it to mean and Obama is prepared to formulate government policies, not to mention overturn thousands of years of family practices, to accommodate even the most radical views of the homosexual community whose favor he is currying.
Obama's adoption of far-left revisionism regarding the family leaves a great opening for McCain. Americans oppose homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption by sizable margins. All McCain would have to do is make a clear statement (via political ads) of his opposition to homosexual marriage and adoption and the election would be his.
McCain needs to do this. He needs to hang Obama's leftism regarding homosexuals around his neck. Such a policy would coalesce his support among conservatives and tilt pro-family independents his way.
This should be a no-brainer. I hope McCain sees it this way instead of following those advisers who try to keep him in the middle of the road.
-- Submitted by B. Bryant
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Today's target: Those who appropriate funds.
For those of you who don't know, the President of the United States does not appropriate a budget. Rather, it's Congress that appropriates funds for the government.
In 2007, the budget deficit was $163 billion.
In 2008, the budget deficit is forecast to be $389 billion.
Political party controlling Congress: Democrats
Why this is important:
Interest payments on federal debt: $250 billion in 2008 (estimated)
Interest payments are the fourth (4th) largest spending item in the 2008 budget.
I'd normally go off on a point about how Obama has been a part of this problem, but quite honestly, he's been out campaigning for what, twelve years now? I'm not even sure he knows what an appropriations vote is.
Let's remember to point out the obvious when we report deficit and debt numbers. The President can submit a budget request, but it's the Congress that determines how much spending will be done. And Congress - run by the Democrats - doesn't get it.
-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Up until now, I was ready to declare that Obama was the first competitive presidential candidate that didn't have a single good idea. He proved me wrong last week.
While defending his position on not drilling for oil or building nuclear power plants, Obama declared that we can be foreign oil free (and free from those pesky oil wells) by merely checking our tire pressure.
This may sound easy, but staying on a solid regimen of tire checking is not without its sacrifice. He knows that asking people to bend over once a month to make sure that there is 35 p.s.i. in each tire is not going to win him any friends in the 'keep my pants clean' camp, but that is exactly what makes Obama different.
He is willing to speak frankly and honestly, even if it means ruffling a few feathers and losing a few votes. Finally a refreshing, brave voice from a man not unwilling to make the tough decisions on energy.
My one and only concern with the plan is the impact on the oil company profits. We may see mass layoffs and major asset write-offs from our largest oil companies - if we all choose to do this at once. My advice and my one modification to his plan is...let's phase it in. I recommend that we check the tire pressure on just one tire this week. We can do a second and a third and a fourth in subsequent weeks. This will allow the oil companies to adjust their output for the shrinking demand. It will hopefully save a few jobs in the oil industry.
This is what a 'change' candidate will do. This is how a 'hope' candidate can win. This is how a guy willing to face a problem head on can solve the tenacious problems facing our nation. If he solved the oil shortage so quickly and so elegantly, imagine what he will do for national security, the federal deficit, health care, economic growth - and whatever else this brave and straight-talking young man is will to tackle.
It's time for a refreshing new voice. Vote Obama !!!
(Pictured is a Brookstone tire gauge. Perhaps similar to the one that Obama himself carries with him. A little pricey for the average person, who can purchase a tire gauge at Autozone for about three bucks.)
Submitted by D. B. Jackson