Grand Old Patriots

Bourgeois Catholics

2009-05-17T11:18:00.008-04:00

From the Associated Press:
"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama ventures to America's foremost Roman Catholic university, where the country's deep divisions over abortion and stem-cell research have moved to the forefront in a time of war and recession."

Aside from the controversy which he has stirred, Rev. John Jenkins, the President of Notre Dame University, is thrilled to be receiving the first black president to the Notre Dame campus today. And, why not? According to the honorary degree that will bestowed upon President Obama today, he has done wonders to heal the rifts of racism, open dialogue with opposing camps and heal the nation...

The term 'social justice' that permeates the Catholic elite today is actually the source of all of this controversy. It could not have been contrived any better by Madison Avenue joining forces with Mario Cuomo and Ted Kennedy to come up with a single term that gives Catholics good conscience to vote for politicians that legislate and appoint judges that undermine our most treasured doctrines.

Firstly, Social justice presupposes, and without debate, that the ideas and the programs of the left do a better job of serving the underclass than, say, capitalism, freedom and responsibility. Never mind that since the beginning of 'social justice' movement of the left we have destroyed the very values that made this country an honor to God (family, decency, patriotism, hard-work, responsibility). But, we can debate economic policy later...

Social justice allows Catholics to vote for the candidate who supports abortion, supports testing on aborted human embryo's, supports human cloning, euthanasia, supports gay marriage and carries the water for hollywood and the entire pornography industry. That's social justice!! Put all those cherished issues on one side of the scale and put social justice on the other...and somehow social justice weighs out favorably.

On the night of the inevitable election of Barack Obama, many of us could not sleep. We knew from his rhetoric and his party's platform what his plans were for America. The pro-lifers, the hard-nosed Catholics knew that this would not be a good four years to be Catholic. Apparently, according to Fr. Jenkins, we are Bourgeois and narrowly focused. We can't see the big picture.

Thank you Fr. Jenkins for giving President Obama a prominent Catholic platform to help make his case that social justice is more important than LIFE. We can show the world that progressive tax policies are more important than MARRIAGE.

In the words of an ND friend of mine..."my idea of war (with Obama's policies) is apparently different than the Catholic Church's idea of war!"

I pray that something good comes of out this. We can rest in comfort that the Patron Saint of the United States is Our Lady herself. We cannot ask for better than that.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

JACK KEMP "TRUE BELIEVER"

2009-05-10T20:02:00.008-04:00

As I was turning off the television last weekend, having just watched the Boston Celtics defeat the Chicago Bulls, I heard that Jack Kemp had died. I was surprised by the news, I had not heard about his cancer. But I was mostly surprised because I had always remembered Jack Kemp as a picture of health and a source of energy. His energy helped to invigorate the Republican Party in the 1980's and 90's.

I wondered how this football player - and a very good football player - had come to believe what he did. He was one of the few that, just prior to Reagan emerging as the leader of the conservative movement, that went against the forces of liberalism and enthusiastically supported an agenda of low taxes and growth. (And we know, in the time of Pelosi and Obama, how hard it is to go against the tide). He could have easily jumped on the bandwagon and won a house seat as a Democrat in the strongly Democratic New York district where he won and served as a conservative Republican.

My question for Mr. Kemp..."how did you know?" He knew what conservatives take for granted today. How did he arrive at his beliefs? Did he read the great authors; Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman? Did he listen to the speeches of Goldwater and Reagan? Did he study economics or the policies of the great depression? I didn't learn the answer during the brief bio's on the networks this week.

I did learn that he was an important person in the modern conservative movement, perhaps second only to Reagan. He believed that low taxes, entrepreneurship and smaller government were the keys to prosperity. He was a capitalist. He was pro-life. He was a man of integrity. Jack Kemp was cool.

His words from 1993, as Clinton was trying to do what Obama 'is' doing today, are more relevant than ever.

April 27, 1993
JACK KEMP
All Republicans, indeed all Americans, should commend Sen. Bob Dole and Senate Republicans for blocking President Clinton's so-called stimulus package, a pork-barrel spending plan that deserved defeat regardless of the economy's health or the size of the deficit.

Republicans now have an opportunity to defeat the Clinton tax increases and to go to the American people with a superior agenda for real jobs, real economic growth and renewed American leadership in the global economy.

The first order of business must be debunking the Democrats' notion that higher taxes will lead to a more prosperous America.

These words should be shouted from the tallest housetop, even as Pelosi, Reid and Obama take the country one hundred and eighty degrees in the other direction.

Peggy Noonan identified the source of his strength. His happiness. Leave it to Peggy to nail it !! The link is below.

Jack Kemp - Rest in Peace !!

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Orson Wells eat your heart out !!

2009-04-28T11:03:00.002-04:00

Seventeen skyscrapers were evacuated after this blunder yesterday including the ten-story where a co-worker of mine’s wife is employed. Terror must have led to relief which later led to anger which then led to the realization that maybe this Obama’s test scores in school are more indicative of his intelligence than his silver tongue. Oh well. If our great country weren’t in play…it might be hilarious.

Here is how the Kansas City Star reported on it:
“Besides costing businesses millions of dollars in lost productivity, the flyover exposed President Obama's staff to deserved ridicule for approving the mission.
For example, callers flooded the lines of conservative talk-shows in Kansas City on Monday. Some claimed this incident showed how disconnected from reality President Obama already has become about Americans' concerns over terrorism.
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was among the top local officials angered because he was not told about the training exercise and photo-op. (Ut was a chance to take new pictures of the president's plane as it flew by the Statue of Liberty.)
The White House later Monday issued an apology. Obama reportedly was angered by the incident.”

The first 100 days extravaganza is in panting mode for the media…as they prepare to celebrate their new president and their accomplishments in getting him elected. Matt Drudge calls it the ‘Best President Ever Campaign.’

Those not celebrating are those concerned about the economic vitality and security of our nation.

In the meantime, at least let’s criticize the guy for burning a thousand gallons of fossil fuel – after his criticism of the automakers flying to Washington. Oh Al Gore, where are you when we need you?

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Being a Republican is HARD WORK !!

2009-04-16T08:06:00.006-04:00

No one ever said it would be easy.

What is easy, is to get discouraged.

We know academically that we have faced obstacles before and we know that we got through them because our predecessors did not give up and did not get discouraged. Many risked and sacrificed and many gave the ultimate sacrifice.

It is hard to be a Republican and hard to be a conservative. And the opposite is true…it is easy to take the path of least resistance. The late great Fulton Sheen used to say, “even a dead body can float downstream.” Rick Warren gave up the fight. His predecessor Billy Graham (both great men) chose to not engage in the fight. The Pope is one of the few in the international stage that is taking the blows (for abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning).

We have been handed the challenge of our generation. It is fighting back a popular president and his popular uprising. It is sticking up for LIFE, when the world seems to have thrown in the towel. It is fighting to maintain the laws, structure and the tenets that have made America the country that it is. It is defending the family.

We know we will be successful, although we can’t see that direct path just yet. But God doesn’t reward us for being successful, as a nun friend always reminds me, He rewards us for being faithful. God will take care of the success.

I spent last night at a tea party rally. It was much as I expected, a working class, polite, patriotic crowd. About 4000+ people of all ages. Republicans, Independents, Libertarians. I sensed some discouragement, but I sensed considerable energy. We are not focused yet. Our message is all over the board…from stimulus, to affirming our Christian heritage, to health care, to socialism, to fighting terror, to tax and spend liberalism and to immigration…it is hard to nail down exactly what we need to do.

In the end, it is politics that triumphs in a Republic. As long as Nancy Pelosi is writing legislation that will affect the next two generations, grass roots will end up solving nothing. We need to elect moral leaders that share our founding fathers vision of America (and the vision shared by every president since before LBJ and including Ronald Reagan, George(s) Bush).

I find it hard to believe that any of the 4000 in that stadium last night did not vote this past November, but statistically a good number - 10-20% - did not. We need to do better.

We need to motivate and recruit. We need to register new voters that share our principles and we need to 'GET OUT THE VOTE IN 2010.' All the letters, the talk, the tea parties will be of no use if we cannot win back the Congress.

It is also important that we nail down our arguments. We need to know EXACTLY why we are opposed to abortion or stem cell research or immigration amnesty or high taxes. We need to win over the next generation to an understanding of the risks to America that the current course and speed is imposing.

In the end, we know we will be successful. And we will soon see how that path evolves. It may not be easy or pleasant or fun…but it is hard work and it must be done. Keep the FAITH !!!

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Give Nuance a Chance !!

2009-04-09T15:31:00.004-04:00

In a saner world – a world where the good guys are the good guys and the bad guys are the enemies – Europe and the United States would be eradicating these third world pirates from the world’s oceans. These are the days when even the most ardent supporter of Obama is wishing that Ronald Reagan or George Bush could be president for, say, forty-eight hours. Don’t expect anything more than lip service and harsh words for the pirates. The only thing that would merit a response from Mr. Obama is if he was absolutely sure that soft action (a la Jimmy Carter) would kill him in the opinion polls. Bill Clinton was famous for putting on a tough show when the numbers were against his principles (the aspirin factory in Iraq). He was also famous for cutting and running as he did in Mogadishu (hmmm, that’s in Somalia too).

John Kerry, in his failed attempt to win the presidency, used to actually criticize President Bush’s foreign policy as lacking in nuance. That’s correct. I still wonder precisely what he meant. I guess it means, a little diplomacy, a little bluffing and very little gunpowder. The problem is that nuance with terrorists and pirates is like nuance with children – it doesn’t work. Say what you mean and do what you say is the only thing that works. Ask Ronald Reagan. Ask John Kennedy. Ask Harry Truman.

We live with Americans – hopefully just a loud minority- that truly believe that we can cajole the world into peace by talking softly, handing out iPods and apologizing for America. We can even say we are no longer a Christian nation anymore…c’mon, “PLEASE LIKE US, WE”LL SELL OUT ON ANYTHING.”

In actuality, Muslims do not hate us because we are Christian. They never attack the Vatican. They never blow up Baptist churches. They blow up France and Spain all of the time. They hate us because they believe us to have no values. Whether it is our movies, our greed or our dress code – this is what they oppose. Too bad for them! But, don’t apologize for founding a country on Christ and Judeo-Christian values, especially during Holy Week.

Nothing causes a president to lose popularity faster than ‘nuance’ in foreign policy. Let’s hope that this is the beginning of the end for the soft-spined Obama. Let’s just hope that no one else gets hurt.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Dividing the Country while Destroying the Economy

2009-03-25T20:00:00.004-04:00

Not many years ago in America, when a son asked his father the reason why a classmate or a neighbor had a bigger house or a nicer car, the answer was along the lines of, “he went to college, he worked hard to get where he is and he works hard every day to earn the money.” Today, in President Obama’s America , the answer is more about the wealthy being immoral and greedy; and Mr. Obama uses those words every day to describe the wealthy or the companies where they work.

The president of the United States should not fan the flames of class envy and class warfare, while showing no basic understanding of capitalism and economics. The actions of our current government leaders have been disturbing to those of us that understand what turned America from a collection of agrarian colonies to the economic superpower that we are today.

Over the past fifty years, we have come a long way from the founding fathers' vision of America . Even among the founders, the early advocates of a strong central government would be deeply disturbed by the level of invasiveness and control exhibited by the federal government today and dismayed by the level of federal taxation and debt. None of this, however, would disturb them as much as the rhetoric of class warfare and the shameless promotion of class envy by this president and the other democratic leaders.

The majority of the millionaires in America today did not inherit their fortunes, they earned them. They earned them legally and through education, personal risk and hard work. We need to encourage the next generation of Americans to follow in their footsteps and resist the temptation to use the tax code to punish their success or to garnish additional revenues to temporarily boost the standard of living for the rest of us.

Every dollar taken from the investment class diminishes our ability to create new companies and grow jobs. In the long term, this dollar will produce far more for America in the hands of those that know how to invest it, than it will by the temporary redistribution that is underway. While the new administration learns about basic economics through on-the-job training, I would hope that they can refrain from dividing this country with their rhetoric and personal attacks.

Submitted by D.B.Jackson

The Transformation of Arnold

2009-03-20T07:48:00.012-04:00

It seems so long ago but few can forget Arnold Schwarzenegger's introduction into American politics. He was campaigning for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 Presidential race and uttered this memorable line:

"They call me the terminator, but when it comes to America's future, Michael Dukakis is the real Terminator...of the American dream."

Well, it seems, things change. The one-time chum of Presidents Bush is now, in 2009, singing the praises of one President Barack Obama.

In a recent article in Politico, Carol E. Lee writes of the Obama-Schwarzenegger hugfest:

“When have you ever seen a president be that out there?”

That was a mesmerized Arnold Schwarzenegger after Obama’s town hall meeting.

“I’ve never seen that,” Schwarzenegger said to a couple reporters as he and his wife, Maria Shriver, tried to make an exit. “Usually people are so guarded. The aides are always so guarded. They’re so afraid that you will blow it or that you will make news that’s unintended and all those things.”

Schwarzenegger continued to gush about Obama.

“But I think he’s so smart,” he said. “He’s so clear with his thinking and he’s so well informed and has been dealing with policy in all this and is also very philosophic it’s almost like. I think he’s just like – I think it’s beautiful.”

Asked how he feels about supporting a stimulus package most members of his party did not, he said. “You know me. I don’t look at things as a Republican. If it’s good for California, it’s good for me.”

There has been a transformation in Arnold Schwarzenegger from Republican hopeful to Democrat fellow-traveler. This was not an overnight change. As governor of California, Schwarzenegger has seemingly determined that political survival depends upon personal transformation into a left-leaning "governator." The final stroke is his embracing of Barack Obama, a man even more radical than the Michael Dukakis that Arnold once saw as the Terminator.

If you do not think that California's 40-plus billion dollar deficit has something to do with it, you are not paying attention. Arnold sees federal largess as the short-term solution to California's problems that should be solved by common sense governing. Obama comes to California with cash in his pocket and Schwarzenegger wants some of it.

Even has Barack Obama's policies continue to drive the U.S. economy further into the tank with his excessive spending and taxation, some things never change. Money can still buy political friendship.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

No Room for Life

2009-03-13T08:39:00.012-04:00

The practice lives in infamy in Scripture and other ancient texts. It is child sacrifice, the killing of children to appease a deity for the purpose of obtaining some temporary benefit.

In Scripture, God called it an "abomination" (Jer. 32:35) and assigned the death penalty for anyone who practiced it (Lev. 20:1-5). Greek and Roman writers attested to the practice, describing its utter cruelty. To destroy one's own children is considered by most thinking people to be the lowest form of depravity.

It is alive and well in twenty-first century America.

This past week, President Barack Obama did what liberals have been wanting all along. He countermanded a Bush-era executive order that barred federal money for stem cell research using frozen embryos.

He did it with great fanfare, reminiscent of Bill Clinton's celebration of partial-birth abortion. He did it to great acclaim. Ted Kennedy said, "Today, an extraordinary medical breakthrough was achieved with the stroke of a pen."

Candidate Barack Obama, like all liberals, castigated the Bush administration for placing "ideology over science" primarily because of this issue and that of global warming. George W. Bush, after agonizing deliberation, could not bring himself to sanction the destruction of human embryos for the sake of medical research just as he would not sacrifice American economic prosperity for the pseudo-science of climate change. To most conscientious people, Bush's actions demonstrated political courage in the face of tremendous pressure, from both the media and politics.

For those responsible decisions that placed human life and human welfare above unthinking science, Bush was pilloried by the media, academia, the left, and some who call themselves Republicans. In his inaugural address, Barack Obama promised to "restore science to its rigthful place." By that, he seems to mean that science goes from servant to master.

In no place is this more clear than with this issue of embryonic stem cell research where human life is sacrificed in the hope of medical breakthroughs. The only difference between using embryos for medical research and the Nazi experiments upon people is stage of gestation. The morality is the same.

Chuck Colson said it well:

"If we deny the things that make us truly human, by definition we create a culture that is inhuman - a culture that, for example, embraces moral horrors like the killing of humans at the earliest stage of life on the spurious grounds that doing so might cure other people's diseases. Or cloning. Or medical experiments on humans, as the Nazis conducted."

The culture of death that this administration promotes does not end with stem cells. In one of his first acts as President, Barack Obama rescinded Bush Administration restrictions on using American money to pay for abortions in other countries, thus putting the United States on the side of the international death merchants. Also, in stressing his objection to human cloning, Obama words were "for reproductive purposes," seemingly leaving the door open for therapeutic cloning, cloning for the harvesting of body parts or the creation of stem cells.

We are truly entering a brave new world...one in which science not only trumps ideology but also morality.

It is both a testimony to modern smugness as well as an ignorance of history that we can condemn the ancients for sacrificing children to a god while we sacrifice them for our own convenience and monetary gain.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Welcome to the Obama administration where we smile and affirm our love for children even as we kill them for our own selfish benefit.

May God have mercy on such a wicked nation.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Bernie Madoff, Democrat (LINK)

2009-03-11T20:14:00.007-04:00

One of the great misconceptions about the current political landscape is that it is the political landscape from ancient history. The media helps to keep the legend alive, but much has changed between the parties.

Some gross misconceptions:

Republicans are the party of the rich.
Republicans don't care about the poor.
Republicans are not charitable.
Republicans exploit the poor.
Republicans pollute more.
Republicans are against science.
Republicans are the establishment.
Republicans are corrupt.

A co-worker once told me assuredly that he always voted Democrat because the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the poor and middle class. (Despite the combined income of he and his wife topping $175,000, he still considered himself middle class).

He was surprised to learn that the top 13 richest U.S. Senators were Democrats. The Democrat that he intended to vote for for president in a few weeks, John Kerry, was #1. He was also surprised to learn that the Republicans raised most of their money on donations of less than $50 per person. The Democrats cannot nearly make that claim. The majority of their campaign contributions come from people giving the legal maximum. Over 50%. (I had fortunately just been provided the data from a column on townhall.com).

Ann Coulter's latest column contrasts the four most famous representatives of their party for salary and charitable donations: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Joe Biden. It is enlightening (link above). I wish she had reminded her readers about the charitable donations that Al Gore made the year that he ran for president...$147 (sic).

anncoulter.org

Without the time or space to prove that the exact opposite of all of the above misconceptions are true - I will leave you with the thought that 'whatever the democrats or the media tell you is true, the truth is more likely the exact opposite.'

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

No More Talk of Obama's Centrism

2009-03-07T08:44:00.017-05:00

Election day had hardly come and gone with Barack Obama winning the Presidency than when we began to be assured by seemingly everyone that he would now "govern from the middle." It is understandable that Democrats would do this, knowing that they would need moderate support for Obama to effectively govern and establish their agenda. What was surprising was how many, supposedly, conservative voices said the same thing. The verdict was overwhelming. Obama, having won while espousing virtually every position of the radical Left and who now had a commanding majority in both houses of Congress, would now throw it all away in a grand move toward the center.

We are now less than two months into Obama's presidency and no one is talking about centrism any more. Barack Obama, true to his far-left roots, in accordance with his campaign rhetoric, and in cahoots with the Democrats' radical Congressional majority, has uncorked a liberal agenda that is unprecedented in American history. None of us who had really paid attention to Obama's speeches over the past two years was surprised at this. He is doing what he said he would do and what his party has been wanting to do for years. That some talking heads believed he would throw that aside in a mad rush to the middle casts great doubt on their abilities as analysts.

Let's have a quick review of President Obama's emerging vision for a "new" America.

Abortion: Obama's first official act as President was to reverse an executive order by George W. Bush so that international abortion providers would now receive federal funding thus putting the U. S. government into the international abortion business.
Higher Taxes: Not only will Obama let the Bush tax cuts expire, he will impose new higher taxes upon those making more than $250,000. The marginal rate will return to 39% for these people but new changes in what they can deduct will raise their taxes even more. For example, his proposal only allows those "rich" people to claim 28% of their charitable contributions as deductions on their taxes. This will have a terrible effect upon charitable institutions.
Radically increased spending: Following Hillary Clinton's dictum to "never waste a good crisis," Obama has proposed a trillion-dollar economic "stimulus" package that has a lot of social engineering but little stimulus. Thus, we incur tremendous debt to no effect. Obama's first pork-filled budget proposes a $1750 billion deficit with more red ink to follow.
A Remade Medical System: The American medical system is the envy of the world. Why else do foreigners come here to be treated. Obama wants to transform this system into European-styled socialized medicine. Without going into the long lines for treatment and the reduced coverage, the cost is prohibitive. Obama's 2010 budget contains a $634 billion "down payment" on universal health coverage. The Administration claims that this is two-thirds of their estimated $1 trillion cost of this program over 10 years. Does anyone really believe that this program will only cost $1 trillion to cover "all" Americans, both legal and illegal?
Socialism, More Socialism: The Obama Administration seemingly wants to get the government into "everybody's" business. There are bailouts for banks, bailouts for states, bailouts for cities, bailouts for the auto industry, bailouts for homeowners, etc. etc. This all amounts to the federal government having their fingers in everyone's pie. With federal money comes federally-attached strings. Uncle Obama Sam is no philanthropist. He expects government control in return for his money.

These are scary times. The economic problems would concern anyone. Add to that the Obama Administration's seeming determination to literally "break the bank" with radical tax increases and spending in the midst of a growing recession. Only fiscal sanity can lead us to the financial recovery we need.

I see no evidence of sanity of any kind in this new Administration.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Obama's Recession

2009-02-28T19:37:00.005-05:00

During the pseudo-state of the union that Obama hosted this week, I played the game that I downloaded from the American Spectator - OBINGO. It was a bingo card with 'likely phrases' that Obama would work into his speech. One of the squares was "the trillion dollar deficit that we inherited." He said it three times.

I went to High School in a time when they still taught irony. As Obama is pitching the Pelosi pork plan , which will easily triple the deficit in 2009 and 2010, he was blaming his predecessors. Unbelievable!

Obama certainly inherited a recession, as did George W. Bush. And I would agree that Obama's recession is far worse. The difference is, Obama is making every move that will prolong the recession and worse.

He is raising taxes on the very people that create jobs and innovate. He is instituting the long awaited cap and trade policy, which will unilaterally cripple U.S. manufacturing and force more jobs offshore. And this is in spite of overwhelming evidence that global warming is not happening. He is creating a trillion dollars of government spending that will plague the U.S. economy for decades.

None of his actions will have any positive impact on economic activity in 2009 or 2010.

Does he care? Does Pelosi care? No and No. This is about social engineering. They are striking while the iron is hot. They know that they will have very few opportunities like this. A world-wide recession, panic and a democratically controlled country. Heaven help us!

In the end, two to three years from now, the economy will still be languishing. He will still be blaming George Bush. Hopefully, the public will stop buying it by then.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Red Ink As Far As The Eye Can See [Link]

2009-02-26T09:08:00.012-05:00

Remember when the Democrats complained about $450 billion deficits in a wartime, post-911 budget? Try quadrupling that and you will have the deficit of the first Obama-Pelosi-Reid budget. This avalanche of red ink is just the beginning. Expect more and greater deficits in the future.

The budget that Barack Obama will submit to Congress has a projected $1.75 trillion deficit. When Obama made his grandiose promise to half the budget deficit by the end of his term, he was talking about a deficit in the $2 trillion dollar range. Even with his rosy predictions and under the best of circumstances, we will still be looking at a $800 billion to $1 trillion deficit in four years.

Obama's budget projections, like those of all Presidents, assume the best of all circumstances will occur. That never happens so that projections never pan out. A prime example of that is the money allocated for universal health care. Obama's 2010 budget sets aside $634 billion as a down payment for universal health care. This sum is alleged by Obama to be two-thirds of the 10 year price tag for a universal health care package that they say will cost $1 trillion. If any of you actually expect Obama's socialized medical coverage to cost only $1 trillion over 10 years, I have some prime swampland in Louisiana I'd like to sell you.

We are in serious trouble as a nation. When a nation casts aside fiscal sanity for the sake of ideological or political gain, we are heading down the road to third-world financial status. Certainly, Republicans, as well as Democrats, have contributed to this mess. The Presidency of George W. Bush, while commendable in many ways (and certainly patriotic), was not a time of fiscal conservatism. Because of that, Repubicans must regain their credibility to speak on fiscal matters. They can begin doing that by standing shoulder-to-shoulder in opposition to the Obama Democrat's attempt to turn American into a European socialist state.

Let's hope that someone in Washington will exercise some fiscal responsibility...and sanity.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Going Hat in Hand to the Commies

2009-02-24T08:23:00.017-05:00

In a dangerous world in which the United States is engaged in two foreign wars, the Obama Administration is sending a strong signal as to where its true focus will lie. In her first diplomatic venture as Secretary of State, Hillary was dispatched to Beijing to plead with the Chicoms to continue buying American treasury bonds, i.e., continue funding American deficit spending.

Many Americans ignore budget deficits. This is not surprising since the U.S. has balanced its budget only about 3 times over the past 60 years. We have budget deficits because the federal government spends more money than it takes in via tax revenue. Those deficits must be made up each year by either borrowing or printing money. Printing money devalues a currency and brings inflation so the federal government borrows money by selling treasury bonds to whomever will buy them.

Communist China is the biggest holder of United States debt. China currently holds $696 billion of U.S. debt in the form of treasury bonds. The Obama Administration needs for them to buy much, much more. According to the London Telegraph:

The Treasury says it needs to raise almost $500bn (£350bn) in debt in the first quarter alone. Estimates for 2009 reach as high as $2 trillion, a huge sum in a world starved of capital at a time almost all the major governments are launching fiscal rescue packages.

This need for cash has almost totally silenced any criticism on the part of the Obama Administration of China's human rights policies as pointed out here by the Times of London.

[Note: It is extremely sad that one has to turn to foreign newspapers to find any substantive criticism of the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama but I digress.]

The Telegraph also noted that Hillary Clinton's actions are completely contradictory to her statements while running for President.

Mrs Clinton's plea for Beijing to keep buying US bonds comes in sharp contrast to comments during the presidential primaries when she said Chinese ownership of US government debt had become a threat to national security.

Secretary Clinton tried to persuade the potential Chinese investors that the continued prosperity of both parties depended upon China's willingness to continue funding American debt.

"We are truly going to rise and fall together. Our economies are so intertwined, the Chinese know that to start exporting again to their biggest market the United States has to take some very drastic measures with this stimulus package, which means we have to incur more debt."

To be fair, deficit spending did not begin with Barack Obama. Republican as well as Democrat Administrations have engaged in it. However, it is unprecedented for the chief diplomat of the United States to be sent to a former enemy to beg for money in such a public, and embarrassing, manner.

Maybe this is what Barack Obama meant when he said, "Change is coming to America."

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Mileage Tax Reprieve...For Now

2009-02-23T10:41:00.016-05:00

Ray LaHood, Transportation Secretary for the Obama Adminstration raised eyebrows last week with his suggestion of a mileage tax to replace gasoline taxes. In an AP article appearing on Yahoo.com, LaHood said that gasoline taxes can no longer be counted on to fund infrastructure needs.

He said:

"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled."

The article went into further detail on how such a tax would be implemented.

The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.

What is truly interesting is the culprits named for the shortfall in gasoline tax revenue...more efficient cars and a decrease in driving. The "shortfall" is expected to increase as motorists switch to electric and alternate-fuel automobiles. Of course, the term "shortfall" must be interpreted. "Shortfall" refers to the disparity between the spending that the Obama Administration wants to do versus the funds available with which to do it.

The Administration was quick to deny that they had any plans to impose a mileage tax. Their denials ring pretty hollow when you consider the extent to which this Administration seeks to control their message. What this actually sounds like is a minor Administration official floating a trial balloon so that administration can immediately shoot down. What makes the Obama Administration's denials even more questionable is the fact that a blue ribbon national transportation commission is expected release their report next week recommending the adoption of a mileage tax. In such a case, the Obama Administration could immediately say that they oppose such a tax but must consider it because the "experts" say it is needed.

The upshot of all of this is the old canard that "no good deed goes unpunished." American motorists have responded to high gasoline prices by doing what the Left has wanted all along. They have reduced their driving and switched to more fuel-efficient vehicles. This has resulted in something that the Left loathes far more than carbon fuels...lower tax revenues.

Be warned, dear readers, this is only the beginning. Just as Larry Holmes said that Michael Spinks threw punches from places he had never seen, this adminstration will bring new tax proposals in ways never anticipated by the public.

I wonder if the American people will continue to go along with the Obama Administration's radical plans to impose European-styled socialism on the most efficient industrial society in history.

We will have to wait and see but, for my take, like Rush Limbaugh, I hope Obama fails...miserably!!!

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Now She Tells Us

2009-02-21T09:06:00.008-05:00

After years of media disparagement of George W. Bush and portrayals of him as being out of touch and inarticulate, a major news personality finally sets the record straight. In an interview with Lloyd Grove of The Daily Beast, CBS News anchor Katie Couric let slip a trade secret of the national news: "George W. Bush was not the ignoramus we made him out to be."

Couric said this to Grove:

I didn’t get a chance to interview President Bush all that often. I often went to lunches that I was invited to before the State of the Union, before they announced the "surge," and that was really interesting because I think President Bush felt a lot more relaxed and was a lot more facile with information and details and policy than I think probably the American people gave him credit for and were exposed to.

Couric's last statement..."were exposed to"...is the most telling statement. If the American people somehow drew the conclusion that George W. Bush was not intellectually up to the task (I'm not sure they did even though it was an article of faith among the American Left), it was because he was portrayed that way by the mainstream media.

I will be waiting with bated breath to see if Ms. Couric and Co. apply the same standard (or lack thereof) in reporting on President Barack Hussein Obama. Somehow, I think we will see a stark change in how the presidency is viewed.

Prove me wrong, Ms. Couric...please!

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Amateur Hour

2009-02-04T21:02:00.005-05:00

"The bottom-line is, Obama has no idea what the hell he is doing." Mark Levin

"This is Amateur Hour!!" Dick Morris

We have confirmed two things this week. Democrats love to raise our taxes, but will do almost anything to avoid paying them themselves. Over half of Obama's nominees have had serious tax problems. Tom Daschle topped the list with over $100K of back taxes.

The other obvious conclusion here is...these jackasses have no idea what they are doing.

The trouble is..change is coming and the lemmings that elected Obama and those that did not are watching the conversion of our wealthy and moral country as it is being fed to the wolves of socialism and secularism.

Abortion is being forced down our throat and so is government run industry; complete with salary caps for the investment class.

Nothing that has happened should come as a surprise to his supporters or his detractors. If it does, you have been in a coma. He is a Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright disciple and he is executing the game plan.

The good news is, the Republicans are standing up to him and the public is wary of some of the tactics and, certainly the specifics of the stimulus package.

We picked a bad time to fight. It is going to be a bad year to be a Catholic and a bad year to be a Capitalist.

Can we do more than slow things down? We'll try.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

1_20_09: CHANGE !!

2009-01-21T20:54:00.006-05:00

Dana Delaney (some actress, I have never seen her in anything) was asked by a fox news reporter what the most important thing that Obama can do now that he is president. She said that he needs to "make abortion accessible to all women in all nations." Did you hear a single democrat, actress, reporter or college professor ever say that abortion was the most important thing that the president can do at any time DURING the election? I certainly did not. They were well behaved then. They talked about war, privacy, global warming...

Two things that Obama has in abundance is Charm and Self-confidence.

As we enter into his first term, the electorate appears willing to follow our new leader almost anywhere. People follow confidence, especially in troubled times - if you add an warm smile to that confidence, we'll go almost anywhere.

Policy? Ideas? Doctrine? These are now meaningless concepts as we are told that we are to 'give our new leader a chance.'

A chance to do what? I'll give him a chance. He has signaled a move to the center (a weak signal), especially regarding economic issues.

A woman asked me today, what would cause you to turn on him. Any one of the following, I replied:

1. Abortion
2. Gays in the Military
3. The retreat on the war on terror.

She disagreed with me 100% on each item. She accused me of intolerance. She almost said that she would turn on our new president if he didn't do the exact opposite of my direction. I didn't accuse of her of intolerance.

In the end, the stimulus package under BHO would have been 90% the same as the stimulus package had MCain won the election or Bush remained in office. The things that matter over the long run, the things that make America the greatest nation on earth are in jeopardy.

Tomorrow, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, hundreds of thousands of Americans will protest the 1973 ruling - an abomination of law if there ever was one. I expect that Obama will sign, as an executive order, the Freedom of Choice Act that very day...just a few thousand feet away from these silent protestors. If we say anything but 'thank you, sir, may I have another,' then we are not supporting the president.

I'll give him a chance. That is more than Bruce Springsteen and Al Franken did for the former president.

Submitted By D. B. Jackson

Had Enough?

2009-01-07T10:29:00.004-05:00

When people ask me what my problem with the Democrats is, I usually net it out to the following…

They don’t understand economics.
They don’t have a clue about defense or international relations
They don’t understand human nature
They are hostile to religion and the first amendment
They don’t recognize the second amendment
And because they have no serious scrutiny from the media, they tend to be much more corrupt.
(and that is REALLY netting it out, I could go on much longer)

To prove my last point, I would pit the last few weeks of the ‘president-elect’ period against any in history for corruption, incompetence and circus. Had enough? We still have a couple weeks to go…and then four years of the media swooning over the soon-to-be accomplishments of the country’s greatest future president. When the scandals are filling the front page of the left wing media, you know you have a serious ‘tip of the iceberg’ situation in the party. It stands to reason.

To name a few:
Democratic IL governor tries to sell and profit from the vacant Obama senate seat.
Amidst indictment, impeachment and scandal, he cynically appoints a black statesman from IL to occupy the seat
MN Canvassing board steals an election from the ‘election night’ winner Norm Coleman and hands it to an SNL comic
Bill Richardson, ex Gov. of NM pulls his name out of the nomination process for Commerce Secretary amidst some quid pro quo scandal investigation in NM. For this media favorite to withdraw without a fight, the situation must be BAD.

Had enough? We have a long way to go.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Senate Candidate #5

2008-12-10T19:45:00.004-05:00

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

Three Piercing Words

2008-11-25T08:20:00.004-05:00

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

Two Signs of Where We are Heading

2008-11-19T07:27:00.016-05:00

Barack Obama is hitting the ground running as the President-elect. In fact, one could be excused for thinking that Obama actually believes that he already is the President. There are many smiling syncophants in both the political and the media realm who are willing to assume the same.

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

Now...A New Ice Age (LINK)

2008-11-14T13:19:00.006-05:00

The Democrats are now poised to take over both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. Among the various promises that the Democrats made was the assurance that they would deal with the catastrophic global warming that some scientists and many politicians say will bring life on this planet to the brink of extinction. At least that is what the more extreme are saying. And, as we all know, the politicians love to quote the more extreme so as to generate more sympathy for their government solutions.

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.

Now, I do not for one minute think that the Democrats will allow such findings deter them from enacting radical climate measures to combat supposed global warming. This will not happen for two reasons:

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

Freedom of Choice Act (LINK)

2008-11-13T19:03:00.003-05:00

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html

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

Executive Orders !! Here we go.

2008-11-09T20:15:00.003-05:00

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

The Aftermath

2008-11-05T21:25:00.005-05:00

No discussion of failure.
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

President of the "US of KKK A"

2008-11-04T21:25:00.004-05:00

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Tax cuts for income below $250,000

2008-11-02T19:04:00.003-05:00

(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

Pat Buchanan on an Obama Presidency

2008-10-28T12:34:00.005-04:00

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

WWOD: What Would Obama Do? (Part 2)

2008-10-25T08:18:00.013-04:00

In a previous post, I started a thread to explore what Barack Obama would do if elected President. In the last post, we surveyed the radical direction that Obama would take regarding homosexual issues. Today, we turn our thoughts toward the unborn.

Abortion

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

Biden is on Fire !! (Scarlet Fever?)

2008-10-21T08:22:00.002-04:00

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

WWOD: What Would Obama Do? (Part 1)

2008-10-18T09:48:00.023-04:00

Those of us with a traditional American perspective are having to face the stark reality that an Obama presidency is certainly possible, if not virtually inevitable given the present condition of the polls. Because of this, I want to explore what an Obama presidency would actually look like.

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

Academia for Ayers (LINK)

2008-10-17T20:32:00.006-04:00

Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics informs us that 3200 American academics have signed a petition defending Bill Ayers. Below is a sentence from that petition:

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

A Sad Dose of Reality [LINK]

2008-10-12T17:29:00.012-04:00

Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily has written an article that I sadly feel the need to pass on. Farah wrote the book, "None of the Above," in protest of the candidates of both parties. Farah is a conservative but felt from the beginning that John McCain was not the conservative candidate that America needed to counter the leftism of the Democrat party. I must admit, I have more sympathy for Farah's argument now even though I thought his book was of ill timing.

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
Joseph Farah

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?

That's right.

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

Buchanan on McCain's Chance of Winning

2008-10-11T09:42:00.004-04:00

In an article this week, Pat Buchanan weighed in on McCain's chances of pulling this election out despite his fall in the polls and the bad economy. Of particular note is Buchanan's comparison of McCain's campaign tactics with that of Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and George H. W. Bush as opposed to successful Republican candidates like Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush.

Interesting reading.

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

Obama Youth

2008-10-06T09:53:00.008-04:00

This appeared on the Drudge Report. It is a junior fraternity that is pledging to Obama and seemingly deriving their purpose from him. The cult of personality around this guy is scary. If Republicans did this, the media would report it as the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Women's Lib, not Women's Liberal

2008-09-14T15:19:00.005-04:00

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

Bush's Economic Record

2008-09-06T10:52:00.006-04:00

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.

Some highlights:

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html

Game On !!

2008-09-02T10:39:00.006-04:00

“If she were president, she would be Babe-raham Lincoln" Wayne Campbell, Wayne’s World

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.

But she is a solid conservative. She has a great life story and she has a record of stirring things up. She has demostrated that she can be a gadfly and a change agent (and not an Obama change agent with his plans for more Great Society and Tax Redistribution stuff).

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.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead

2008-08-26T20:03:00.004-04:00

"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

Thud !! Fizz !! Obama picks a running mate

2008-08-23T16:15:00.004-04:00

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

Hillary: The Game Changer?

2008-08-21T11:26:00.005-04:00

Since we are probably on the eve of finding out who Barack Obama’s running mate will be, I thought I would engage in a little “what-if.” The conventional wisdom has been that, while Hillary Clinton would bring positives to Barack Obama’s campaign, especially in terms of attraction to women, her negatives would far outweigh those advantages.

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

The Empire Strikes Back

2008-08-16T10:34:00.004-04:00

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

Buchanan's "A Catholic Case Against Barack"

2008-08-14T19:03:00.006-04:00

In an article this week on the Human Events site, Pat Buchanan makes an airtight case for why no Catholic or evangelical (indeed, no humane person) should support Barack Obama. Buchanan cites Obama's A+ rating with both NARAL and Planned Parenthood as well as his work in the Illinois legislature to kill a bill to protect children who had survived an attempted abortion. Buchanan's article should be read by all thinking persons before they vote.

His most damning quote is: "How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?"

A Catholic Case Against Barack
Patrick Buchanan

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

The Return of the Soviets: Lessons in Responsiveness

2008-08-12T10:26:00.006-04:00

Most of us know what has transpired in Georgia recently.

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?

John McCain:

"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

Obama's Distorted View of Family (LINK)

2008-08-11T14:39:00.008-04:00

For those naive persons who state that they see no distinction in the candidates for President, the difference could not be more stark than when it comes to the issue of the family.

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

The Audacity of Deceit

2008-08-06T11:35:00.002-04:00

Today's topic: Budget deficits.
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

Obama's Weapon of Choice

2008-08-05T19:57:00.005-04:00

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

Let Them Eat Cake

2008-07-29T06:37:00.008-04:00

Investors Business Daily did an editorial on the 'myths of high oil prices.' The title could have been, 'the myth of the democratic talking points.' It is too bad that we have to waste time on such things - dispelling some ridiculous notions such as:

- the oil company executives are driving up prices or
- 'we can't drill our way out of this'

Nancy Pelosi's comments were predictable. The energy situation was created by Bush and the Republicans and "like with everything else, she has had to come in and pick up the pieces."

So, what is she doing to pick up the pieces? Lifting the ban on offshore drilling? Allowing drilling in the shale deposits in the U.S.? Loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants?

As one example, IBD cited a study that concluded that there could be as much as a three hundred year supply of oil in the shale deposits of the United States. I am not an economist, but that has to help pricing !!

In short, Pelosi and company are doing NOTHING !!

Nancy's strategy is consistent with her views of 'America being the problem of the world.' She is doing nothing in the hopes that cars that run on wood pellets and solar energy will replace the gas engines that are on the road today- all within the next few months. She sees little political risk to her plan, she can just blame Bush.

Who is being hurt by high oil prices? It is not Pelosi's well-heeled close friends or political benefactors. Four dollars a gallon for gas and a 40% rise in food prices (driven by burning our food supply for fuel and by high gas prices) is hurting the poor, working and middle class. These are the very people that the Democratic party is 'officially' trying to help.

When Pelosi and her well-to-do California crowd get together for cocktails, you can bet they are not talking about the poor or middle class. They have an agenda, but protecting America, allowing for inexpensive energy and pro-growth economic policies are not on the top of their list.

I am sure the conversation about what they will do when the dems are no longer hamstrung by a Republican president's veto is more along the lines of global-warming, becoming more like Europe, gay marriage, universal health-care, re-distribution of wealth and all the other liberal obsessions that have replaced real issues and have usurped the governance in this country.

When it comes to economic growth or affordable energy, her policy is more consistent with the extreme views of Al Gore than with the needs of Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Showdown !!!

2008-07-14T21:25:00.002-04:00

I hope the Republicans are finally serious about attacking the Democrats on their weakest of their weak platforms...energy. Some may argue that National Security is their weakest platform, but all indications are that the democrats will keep all of President Bush's policies to fight terrorism and conduct surveillance in place.

My answer to 'you can't drill your way out of this' is, 'you can't sound bite your way out of this.'

President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet.

1. The president has lifted the ban on offshore oil exploration. He said, the only thing standing in the way is the U.S. Congress. See the Link above.

2. At the G8 Climate change summit, President Bush's senior environmental advisor had this to say:

Jim Connaughton, senior environmental advisor to President George W. Bush, told Der Spiegel that nuclear power plants are a "litmus test for the seriousness on climate change" and that "a country that has the capability to responsibly use nuclear energy, in my view, has a responsibility to do so."
Zero Emissions !! Sounds like a litmus test to me.

It's time to 'drill' this home. Pound them on it. Every time the gas pump tops out at seventy-five bucks, it will remind the electorate who is serious about energy and who is beholden to one tenth of one percent of the population.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

"Audacity"

2008-07-09T20:40:00.006-04:00

Obama has flip flopped on the most virulent anti-Bush knee-jerk issues; all the wedge issues that he used to defeat Hillary.

The partial list:

He has backed off his pledge to use federal funds to finance his campaign.

He has said that he would not immediately withdraw from Iraq but would respect the recommendations of the 'generals on the ground.'

He supported in the senate a renewal of the liberal-despised Patriot act and the associated domestic surveillance plan. He had vowed to filibuster to end it because of the protection it awarded American telephone companies that cooperated with the federal government (sic).

He has flip flopped on gun rights, energy policy and the right of Israel to protect itself.

As Charles Krauthammer put it "all of this is expected from liberal candidates, but the audacity that Obama has displayed in labeling anyone that points these things out as cynical and engaging in negative politics is outrageous" (Paraphrased from Fox News)

It would be nice if the candidates would say what they mean and mean what they say. But...why should they? The average voter can't even name the secretary of state.

Obama is the cynic. He knows that he can smooth talk his way past McCain and he won't have any trouble getting the readers of the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post to show up in November.

When he gets there, watch out. The policies that he, Reid and Pelosi will craft will make the Great Society look like a government of rugged individualism, low taxation and individual freedom. Don't expect them to defend America and don't expect them to fight for affordable energy or fair trade. The priorities will be abortion on demand, redistribution of wealth, global warming, United Nations global priorities and lots of laws to maintain their power in the face of public outrage (e.g. Fairness in Media Act).

I hope we can stop it. I am voting for McCain, donating to his campaign, writing letters to the editor and blogging on his behalf...but I wouldn't bet my life savings on him.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Canceling the Fourth [LINK]

2008-07-02T13:57:00.008-04:00

In an article that demonstrates the idealistic divide existing in America today, Chris Satullo wrote yesterday in the Philadelphia Enquirer that we should cancel celebration of the Fourth of July this year because of our national sins. Satullo writes:

This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.

For we have sinned.

Satullo argued that we have failed to live up to the intentions of the founders and have "spit on [their] memory." While I do not dispute that statement nor the need for national repentance and atonement for our sins, the list that Satullo compiles shows that He and I view the current problems in America from totally different perspectives. He gives the following reasons:

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.

From my own perspective, I would like to add a few more categories that Satullo left out.

The America those men founded would never commit infanticide of the unborn and call it "choice."
The America those men founded would never work to grant legal sanction (i.e., marriage) to those engaged in sexual perversion (homosexuality) and call it a "constitutional right."
The America those men founded would never seize a private citizen's property and then turn it over to a real estate developer.
The America those men founded would never confiscate (tax) the fruits of a successful man's labor to subsidize those who will not work.

To echo Satullo's words, "Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion."

It is ironic that Satullo mentions that we need to spend the Fourth in atonement. Atonement is a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept that acknowledges our sins as being against a holy God whose wrath must be placated by a blood sacrifice lest we suffer for our disobedience of His laws.

In its Christian expression, that blood sacrifice was provided by God in sending His Son to die and to serve as the only savior through which He would deliver mankind. In contrast, the America that Satullo represents sees no holy God, no objective laws that must be obeyed, no divine wrath that must be assuaged, and, of course, no unique Savior that all must obey.

The America I see is an America that protects its citizens and their rights from government seizures and the imposition of moral perversions that are rejected by the majority of the citizens. The other America desires to protect our enemies and use the power of the courts to impose new "rights" that most Americans find offensive, if not criminal.

Chris Satullo and I view America in two totally different ways.

I like mine better.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Half-Truths and Misrememberings

2008-07-01T13:05:00.002-04:00

On a tight timeline, so have to resort to some Obama quotes today...

PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTION
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." -- September 2007

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election." -- June 2008

TOWN HALL MEETINGS
"I love the town-hall meetings, where I'm just interacting with voters, and they're asking me questions and making comments. There's an exchange there that's real. I hear their stories... that actually is what then informs my speeches and the message that I'm delivering." -- Rolling Stone, June 2008

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement... that (Obama) offered to meet McCain in five joint appearances between now and the Nov. 4 election. But only one of those was a town hall meeting. -- June 2008

DEFINING MARRIAGE
"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." -- June 2008

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage." -- May 2008

Barack Obama...no better than a "typical" politician

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Obama Surrogate Questions McCain's Military Qualifications [LINK]

2008-06-30T07:18:00.011-04:00

In a very questionable political tactic, retired general and former NATO commander Wesley Clark questioned whether John McCain's military experience qualified him to be Commander-in-Chief. Clark attacked McCain's executive experience and said that he had never commanded troops in wartime.

In response to McCain's assertion that he had commanded the largest squadron in the Navy, Clark replied that it was not enough to qualify someone for the Presidency. Clark asserted:

"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall."

In response to interviewer Bob Schieffer's reminder that McCain had been shot down over Hanoi in the Vietnam War, Clark responded:

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Schieffer then asked a logical and pertinent question; what executive experience does Barack Obama have? To this, Clark demurred and said that Obama "was running on the strength of his character and good judgment."

A couple of sure things can be noted from this interview. First of all, the obvious thing, Clark wants to be on the ticket as Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. It is no coincidence that the weaknesses he noted in McCain's resume' are things that are present on his. Clark is very ambitious and demonstrated in the 2004 campaign that he is willing to say just about anything to promote himself or attack an opponent. One clearly remembers his attack on George W. Bush only to have it revealed that he had totally supported him months earlier.

Second, Clark was speaking with the full approval of the Obama campaign. In this day of scripted campaigns, no one, especially someone with the aspirations of Wesley Clark, would make such a controversial attack without the complete acquiescence of Barack Obama.

This is an extremely questionable tactic for the Obama campaign to take. The old adage saying, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" is a good one here. Whatever McCain's executive experience might be, Obama has none. Whatever McCain's military qualifications may be, and they are considerable, Obama has none. Why would Obama attack McCain's strengths in an area where he has none himself?

I suspect that, as much as anything, this Clark interview was about Clark showing himself to be "the indispensible man" to the Obama campaign with all his military experience. That the Obama campaign would allow Clark to make these attacks demonstrates how weak they view themselves to be with regard to military matters.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

The Climate Gestapo

2008-06-27T12:16:00.000-04:00

Historically, one of the greatest benefits of living in a democracy has been the right to freely express one's opinion and to engage in open debate on issues where the facts are presented for all to see. The American Left has always prided itself on its openness to new ideas coupled with its disdain for secrecy and strong-arm tactics by those who have power.

However, when it comes to the issue of global warming, those on the Left seem to believe in this motto; "If you can't defeat your opponents, eliminate them!"

In a recent example, James R. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and longtime global warming alarmist, told Congress this week that the executives of oil companies should be tried in court for their opposition to the view that humans are causing global warming. He said:

"Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming. CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

Crimes against humanity? Keep in mind that this is an issue that is about 20 years old and for which the science is by no means settled. Many other distinguished scientists disagree with Hansen's conclusions. For these alarmists though, we do not have time to get it right...we must do something. (One could wish that the Left felt as strongly about the genocide of unborn children.)

Hansen, in the same testimony, said that coal plants should be phased out by 2025. Coal currently generates about 50% of electricity in the United States. How we would replace 50% of our electrical generation in 17 years is not something that Hansen mentioned in his testimony. It seems that the details are for the little people to work out but it would still amount to radical change in American lifestyle.

In another example, a couple of years ago, Heidi Cullen, then the host of the Weather Channel's Forecast Earth, suggested that those meteorologists who could not get on the global warming bandwagon should find themselves without work. She wrote in her blog:

"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval."

James Spann, longtime Alabama meteorologist, responded by saying that, in 30 years of forecasting, he did not know of a single weather forecaster who believed that humans were causing global warming.

That's a lot of firings.

Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General (remember him?), spoke of the need for "climate justice."

"We must have climate justice. As an international community, we must recognise that the polluter must pay and not the poor and vulnerable. We cannot allow the extra cost of adapting to climate change to be siphoned off from the ongoing poverty challenge. We should act immediately to provide them with additional funding and appropriate technical assistance."

Any way you slice that, it amounts to income redistribution, which the Left, from the old Communists to the modern environmental extremists, have consistently advocated. They do not expect that this will come voluntarily but must be imposed by legislation or better, judicial fiat.

These examples demonstrate that the Left is more than willing to make up for their inability to win the global warming argument by an exercise of raw power that will impose their will upon the American people.

This is another reason why the Presidential election of 2008 is so important. We have a stake in this. Our children have a stake. Let's get out the vote and keep the radical Left out of the White House and out of our lives.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

A Real Energy Plan

2008-06-23T09:27:00.003-04:00

Today we'll focus on energy policy, which is, and should be, a major campaign issue in 2008.

The problem that the mainstream media is focusing on today - depending on which candidate they're referring to - is either (a) gas prices are more than $4 per gallon (this typically shows up in pro-Obama articles, suggesting that the Republicans have let the economy get out of control), or (b) idiots want to drill for oil offshore so they can destroy the environment (this typically finds its way into articles about Bush or McCain).

The real problem is this, folks. More than 75% of the oil consumed by the USA is sold to us by other countries (i.e., "imported oil"). Over the past twenty years, the percentage of imported oil has grown significantly. Our economy is driven by, and dependent upon, foreign countries to supply the USA with oil. What can we do?

Let me preface the rest of this posting with this mea culpa. I, too, was blinded by the media. I was not a supporter of off-shore drilling. However, my reasons were not because I wanted to save the three-legged fishtoad (or whatever it is that we're trying to save these days), but because I want true energy independence. I want to get away from oil, and I figured that if we as US citizens felt enough pain, we'd make the right decision to invest in alternative energy sources because, after all, we're industrious and highly creative. When we come upon an emergency situation, we unite and solve, as evidenced by over 230 years of history. (Note: I'm taking 1776 as the starting point, not the adoption of the Constitution in 1787.)

But now I see the light. And the solution is so simple, I should be slapping myself upside the head like they do in the old V-8 commercials.

Here's the solution: adopt a multi-staged approach - a short-term solution working in conjunction with a longer-term plan that yields more energy independence. First, you balance the higher prices (fueled, in part, by increased demand) with increased supply of domestic-supplied oil and natural gas. This may not increase the supply of oil immediately, as it takes years to yield oil once you start the process to explore and drill, but you will signal to the market that the supply will increase in the near future. This will impact the market, and drop the price of oil. But even more important - it starts us down the path to reduce our reliance on foreign countries for the lifeblood of our economy.

Second, you immediately invest in the energy infrastructure. You need to incent the energy industry, as well as invest in upgrading the infrastructure to adopt cleaner fuel technologies. We should be building more nuclear power plants and increasing R&D credits for companies who are creating new, more efficient alternative energy sources (solar, wind, etc). This will allow us to reduce the overall amount of energy supplied by oil, and will also help the tree huggers breathe easier when they drive their SUVs up scenic mountain stretches so they can ride their bikes. And please save your drivel about adopting the solar/wind solutions today. They just aren't efficient enough yet to be adopted widely. Get some good old fasioned American ingenuity working on that, and we'll have the solution in place before you can say "Obama is the emptiest suit I've ever seen".

Third, we need to continue to provide tax credits to consumers to adopt energy efficient practices at home. Upgrading boilers, water heaters, doors, windows, and insulation in the home will reduce oil and natural gas usage. Reward this behavior with tax credits - especially if the investments are being made in companies that are manufacturing the boilers, water heaters, etc in the USA. This is a win/win for everyone: tax savings for consumers, income for home heating equipment manufacturers, reduced demand for oil, and less pollution created so that Al Gore will have more carbon credits available to use in his mansion. (And just imagine if Big Al decided to use all of his hot air for the good of mankind - heating homes - rather than contributing to his "Global Warming" campaign. But we'll get to that topic another day.)

The solution is quite simple, but getting Congress to act is proving to be the biggest obstacle of all.

Email your Congress representative: enact an energy policy that makes sense.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Obama Plays the Race Card [LINK]

2008-06-22T06:58:00.012-04:00

Barack Obama said Friday that Republicans will use his race in the president campaign to make people afraid to vote for him. He said:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. "They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

Obama is right that race has now been interjected into this campaign; he only got the culprit wrong. It is Barack Obama who has introduced race into the campaign. It is Barack Obama who is playing the "race card."

Neither the McCain campaign nor the Republican party has raised criticisms, or even innuendos, about Obama's race. If they had, the mainstream media, otherwise known as the Obama cheering section, would have published it far and wide.

This is obviously a cynical, and racist, attempt on the part of Obama and his campaign to insulate himself from the rightful criticism of his lack of experience to be the Chief Executive of the United States. Obama has no record to run upon so he must somehow invalidate that criticism of himself. He, and his campaign, knows that some media persons fear being called a racist more than anything and that will prevent them from taking him on.

It takes no courage to run such a campagn because it plays to the baser instincts of some people. In reality, it is the Obama campaign that is trying to stoke fear. He is doing it in the traditional Democrat way...scare minorities, scare old people, etc.

This kind of campaign is totally at odds with Obama's supposedly "post-racial" image. This irony is not lost on some African-Americans. Lt. Col. Allen West, candidate for Congress in Florida's 22nd district had this to say about Obama's remarks:

My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone...however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.

It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a "uniter" and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.

Well said, Colonel.

Submitted by B. Bryant

The Democrats' New Favorite Republican

2008-06-21T09:17:00.008-04:00

At one time, John McCain was the Democrats’ favorite Republican. He often differed with the Bush Administration which made him the darling of the Democrat Party and the liberal press. McCain’s nomination changed that. McCain has now become public enemy number one to them, a toady of George W. Bush and heir apparent to his third term.

Never fear though, someone will always arise to fill that inglorious spot and, this time, it is Scott McClellan. The former White House spokesman appeared Friday before the House Judiciary Committee to testify against his former employers. McClellan’s testimony basically added nothing that was not mentioned in his recent book…which, incidentally, added little of substance to the discussion except McClellan’s opinions and suspicions. However, for a Democrat Party desperate for any information to hang upon the Bush Administration, that passes for prima facie evidence. Hence, the McClellan subpoena.

I have no idea if McClellan’s assertions about the President and Vice President’s respective characters are accurate or not. Time is the great revealer of all truths and history will ultimately make that assessment. McClellan’s character, however, is much easier to discern. That he would suddenly turn upon his former employer and write a tell-all book, guaranteed to generate massive sales, during a heated election year tells me all I need to know. That he would repeat his allegations in a hostile forum chaired by those attempting to consolidate their own power at the expense of the party that McClellan had once sworn loyalty to, tells me even more.

One hallmark of character is loyalty. If McClellan truly felt that he had a story to tell about the Bush Administration and conscience dictated that he should tell it, he should have waited the few months until President Bush vacated the office before having his book published. That would have demonstrated true character. It would not, however, have promoted large book sales, which seems to have been the primary objective.

Scott McClellan had better enjoy his day in the Democrat sun because one day, when his usefulness to them is finished, they will consign him to the scrap heap.

Submitted by B. Bryant

Democrats Show Their Socialist Colors [LINK]

2008-06-19T08:14:00.007-04:00

On Wednesday, Democrat leaders showed the socialist leanings that many of us have always known they possessed. In a press conference in response to President Bush's call for lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, Democrats said that the national government should own the refineries.

This is nothing new. On May 22, in hearings with oil executives, Maxine Waters let slip that she wanted to "socialize" the oil industry. She realized that she had used a taboo word so she changed it to "take over." However, the cat was out of the bag. The video is below.

That members of a United States branch of government would openly call for the nationalization of a major industry is a clear sign that a watershed has been reached in America. In the past, such talk, the talk of communists and radical socialists, was openly spoken only in the fringe left. Now, it is the Democrat mainstream.

I fear that many Americans, children of the nanny state, might be open to such radicalism if the right salesperson comes along. It would be tragic if American democracy died over someone promising a cheaper tank of gas.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

No Headscarves Allowed [LINK]

2008-06-18T14:35:00.016-04:00

Ben Smith is reporting today in Politico that two Muslim women were barred from sitting behind the podium in Barack Obama's Monday appearance in Detroit. This action was done by Obama campaign volunteers to keep the women, with their Muslim headscarves, from being seen in photographs or on video behind the candidate. This was a great embarrassment to the Obama campaign who issued a prompt apology.

This action once again highlights the "smoke and mirrors" nature of Barack Obama's campaign. In a previous event, African Americans were removed from behind the podium to make room for white people so that the candidate would appear to have a following of a more racially diverse nature. So much for the "new kind of politics."

In both cases, the persons removed, African Americans in the first instance and Muslims in the second, were understandably angry.

"I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to," said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."

The previous incident occurred in April and was documented here by Grand Old Patriots. In that case, the campaign worker said, "Get me more white people. We need more white people."

To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.”

“I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”

Welcome to the "New Kind of Politics," 2008 version, where it is not what we say or do that counts but what we say that we mean. The new kind of politics looks very similar to the old kind practiced by Clinton & Clinton.

Sadly, these insights into Obama's campaign will likely go unnoticed by the mainstream media who are too busy waving pom-poms for him.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

Obama: The Next Step in Human Evolution? [LINK]

2008-06-14T12:26:00.033-04:00

You surely did a double-take when you saw the title of today's post. Most of you expected something satirical. The more cynical among tried to see a subtle insult to Barack Obama (with maybe racial overtones). None of that is true. This article is dead serious...or at least some people are dead serious about this topic.

I'm referring to an article by Mark Morford that appeared on June 6 in the San Francisco Chronicle. In a column entitled, "Is Obama an Enlightened Being?", Morford offers, "Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway." Morford opines that Obama is one of those rare people who come along once in an age who have the power to change the world by their mere presence. He continues:

No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

Obama is not merely a politician from Chicago, he is a luminous being. Morford does not stop with that:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

I guess by the "coweringly religious," Morford means those of us who believe in the God of the Bible who rules the universe by His just and righteous laws. Obviously, the "deeply spiritual" are those who reject such biblical claptrap for that which is truly spiritual, i.e., eastern mysticism that has no right and wrong and little frame of reference. It is cafeteria-style religion; believe what you like and it will be right for you. Excuse me for the digression, the Christian pastor in me is coming out.

So, Obama is a "lightworker" who can help us evolve. Many of us think he is out of his league just running for President. Add to that the responsibility of leading the world to the next evolutionary step. Seems heavy for me.

According to these "spiritual" persons, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were similar Lightworkers. These enlightened persons say that JFK was not assassinated for the normal reasons given.

Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.

Now, Obama. The next step. Another try. And perhaps, as Bush laid waste to the land and embarrassed the country and pummeled our national spirit into disenchanted pulp and yet ironically, in so doing has helped set the stage for an even larger and more fascinating evolutionary burp, we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.

Honestly folks, you cannot make this up. That none of it matches up with the historical record of JFK is not important to these enlightened ones. If you are truly adventurous (and have a strong stomach), you can follow the link and read the entire article for yourself. I find it fascinating that a serious newspaper would print such new age tripe, even in San Francisco. The same Left that is hostile to traditional Christianity obviously feels well at home talking about auras, luminous beings, and lightworkers sent to lead us to greater evolution. No cowering for them...they are truly spiritual.

I'm actually glad for Morford's article. The best thing for John McCain's campaign would be for the public to see the train of flakes, nuts, and radicals that follow in Obama's wake. It would extend the gap between him and mainstream

America

to cavernous proportions.

Given the choice between the next leap in evolution and a sane and patriotic public policy, I'll take the latter any day.

Farewell Lightworker.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

The Problematic Election (Part 2)

2008-06-13T11:30:00.017-04:00

Yesterday I looked at this problematic election from the standpoint of the Democrats. Today, I turn to the Republicans.

Problem #2: For the Republicans, a Weak Party and a Strong Candidate

Calling John McCain a “strong” candidate is, as are all things in 2008, relative. He is strong because he is the anti-Republican candidate in an anti-Republican year.

The year 2008 is a very bad year for Republicans. Some of that is the peril of being the party in power. Republicans held Congress for 12 years from 1994 to 2006. They have held the presidency for the past 8 years and 20 out of the past 28. There is a certain fatigue that comes with that, especially when times get difficult and the public is looking for someone to blame.

Add to that the fact that many Republicans got comfortable with power and forgot the fiscal responsibility that put them into power in the first place. President Bush’s low approval ratings and the unpopular war have also contributed to Republicans' problems with the electorate.

The Republican base is divided and disillusioned. The frustration that Republicans feel shows up in the paucity of donations to candidates for the fall. Normally, a Republican candidate can count on a large advantage in contributions. This year, John McCain will probably accept public financing while Barack Obama, flush with cash, will not (despite his promise to do so).

The Republican base has been frustrated by the big spending ways of Republicans in Congress. That frustration extends to President Bush because he failed to restrain it. President Bush has faithfully defended the country from attack in the post-911 world. For that, Republicans, as well as all Americans, owe him a debt of gratitude. However, President Bush did his part to divide the base. His nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court and his support for the amnesty bill caused great frustration and raised mistrust. The conservative base desperately needs someone with a clear conservative voice to unite them. Unfortunately, John McCain is not that man.

Most conservative Republicans are apathetic toward McCain, at best. His support for amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy) and campaign finance reform(?) (McCain-Feingold) are just part of his problem. He has jumped on the global warming bandwagon and supports cap-and-trade which has great potential to hurt the economy. His support for stem cell research makes many pro-lifers uneasy. McCain is far from the ideal candidate for Republicans. Still, by and large, conservative Republicans will vote for McCain because they simply have no choice. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said it well:

“What I hear from people is, 'John McCain was not my first choice, John McCain was not my second choice, John McCain was not my third choice. However, I would rather have a third-rate fireman than a first-class arsonist.' And they view Obama as a first-class arsonist."

That will be in many conservatives’ minds this fall and will compel them to vote McCain, despite their misgivings.

As weak as McCain appears to be from a Republican standpoint, those very things make him a strong candidate in an anti-Republican year, especially against Barack Obama. His “maverick” reputation helps him with an electorate that, for whatever reason, does not want to vote Republican. Also, when compared to the radical views of Obama, McCain looks like a right-winger.

To McCain’s credit, he is a true patriot and will never sell out America. He will have a credible foreign policy especially when compared to Barack Obama’s Carter-ism (“Trust but don’t verify because they might not like you if you do”).

To paraphrase Dick Morris; “In the Democrats you have a candidate that can’t win and a party that can’t lose. In the Republicans, you have a candidate that can’t lose and a party that can’t win.” Morris sees it as a toss-up but thinks that the election will not be close either way.

I agree and disagree with Morris on this problematic election. I do not believe the election will be especially close but I think the winner will be John McCain. I have a difficult time believing that the general public will turn the reins of the US government over to such an inexperienced empty-suit as Barack Obama. Despite his lofty rhetoric and having the mainstream media as his cheerleaders, Obama will have to deal with reality before the election and that is where he will fail. He will have to hang meat on the sketchy skeleton that he is constantly talking about and
the American public will not like it.

At least that is the way I see it. I certainly hope I am right.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

The Problematic Election (Part 1)

2008-06-12T11:43:00.026-04:00

The Presidential election of 2008 is unique for a number of reasons. First, in Barack Obama, we have the first ever African-American candidate nominated by a major party. In John McCain, we have the oldest person ever nominated by a major party. Hillary Clinton ran an historic campaign and became the first woman to almost win the nomination by a major party. There are a lot of firsts and a lot of history being made in this election.

However, the election of 2008 is problematic for at least two reasons that we will examine over the next two posts.

Problem #1: For the Democrats, a Strong Party and a Weak Candidate

Entering the Fall elections, the Democrat party overall is sitting in the catbird’s seat. For various reasons—low public approval ratings for Republicans, high profile scandals, an unpopular President, an unpopular war, a questionable economy, high gasoline prices—the public as a whole would rather vote Democrat this Fall. As much as I might think that much of Republican unpopularity is driven by a hostile, pro-Democrat media, the facts on the ground are undeniable…this is a Democrat year.

However, despite their potential strength, the Democrats have nominated an extremely weak candidate. Barack Obama has zero experience. He is from the extreme left of a left-wing party. His primary supporters are the radical fringe of that party. Despite all the change rhetoric and positive media attention, his constituency remains primarily African-Americans and affluent white radicals. He has made practically no headway with middle-class whites (the “Reagan Democrats”) which form the core of the Democrat Party and which the Democrats must have to win the presidency. He won the nomination by a close 15 round decision through his superior organization in the caucus states coupled with terrible strategic blunders on the part of the Clinton campaign. Practically every time Obama faced Clinton in states with large numbers of the Democratic core constituency, he lost.

Add to that the non-race to become Obama’s VP. Early speculation had Obama seeking an experienced politician that could deliver an important state. Two immediate suggestions were Ted Strickland and Ed Rendell, both popular governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania, respectively. Since both were Clinton supporters, it was thought that the selection of either would unify the party as well as deliver an important state. But, Strickland stepped out very quickly, disavowing any interest in being Obama’s running mate. This week, Ed Rendell also disclaimed interest saying that he had been “his own boss” since he was 31.

It is not hard to discern why either governor would decline the second seat on the ticket. Obama is, by no means, a shoo-in to win. Neither governor, both cagy politicians, wants to hitch their wagon to a horse that might not win and alienate the Clintons at the same time.

Obama’s choice of a VP is very important for him because of the scarcity of his experience and his limited appeal. That the obvious choices are removing themselves is trouble for his campaign.

Democrats will likely strengthen their control over Congress this Fall. Some speculate that in the Senate they could even reach the magical, filibuster-proof number of 60. A mainstream Democrat nominee for President would cruise to victory in such an environment and greatly add to Democrat control of the government. However, in 2008, nothing is easy. The Democrats nominated a very problematic candidate who could suffer a landslide loss in a Democrat year.

Tomorrow…Problem #2: For the Republicans, a Weak Party and a Strong Candidate

--Submitted by B. Bryant

It's the Economy, Stupid !!

2008-06-11T20:07:00.003-04:00

The maligned Bush administration can brag, and rightly so, about the economic growth, job creation and affordable oil prices produced for six years under a Republican Congress. Since the Democrats have gained control of both Houses of Congress, economic turmoil and oil shortages have loomed. While it is convenient for the, now empowered, Democrats to blame the president, I have seen no legislation from the Congress intent on improving the energy shortage, jobless rate or the slow economic growth.

Despite all of President Bush’s shortcomings, he has championed policies consistent with economic growth and he has had strong results. The U.S. economic growth and jobless rate under President Bush have been the best of all major industrialized nations, dwarfing the growth and job creation of the European Union and Japan.

What we can expect from a Democratic Congress and, potentially, a Democratic President next year are polices geared toward high taxes and wealth redistribution, which are certain to produce anemic growth and job creation. They will saddle the economy, already burdened with Medicare, social security and other entitlements, with an increased burden of new social programs including universal health care.

Ronald Reagan’s policies of low taxes created strong economic growth and job creation for twenty-five years. It has been proven that tax reductions in all tax brackets produce the best returns for the economy. We need to lower taxes, reduce spending and unburden the economy in order to ensure economic prosperity for us and for our children.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Hyp-O-crite, Economics Version

2008-06-09T15:05:00.005-04:00

B.O.H. has shifted his focus to the economy (albeit just to point out how much more debt he'll add to the USA coffers), while McCain continues to focus on Iraq and national security. So what are the headlines today?

The Free & Liberal Press is claiming that the focus of the presidential campaign has shifted to the economy. Funny how the press goes along in this game, isn't it?

Anyway, let's just point out some obvious hyp-O-crisies.
-- The nation's spending and revenue (Tax) budgets and policies are enacted through Congress.
-- Congress is currently controlled - in both Houses -by the Party of SuperDelegates
-- B.H.O. is blaming Republican President GW Bush for the economic woes of this country.

Huh? Let's look at the facts.
What economic atrocities have Bush and the Republicans wrought on the USA?
-- GW Bush wants to increase oil drilling in the USA, which would ultimately increase oil supply. (Economics for Dummies note: increasing demand without increasing supply will lead to an increase in price. If you increase supply, you either reduce price, or maintain price while satisfying increased demand.)
-- GW Bush wants to reduce taxes, which would provide American families with more funds to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- GW Bush called for a one-time tax rebate to try to stimulate the economy immediately.

What have the SuperDelegate representatives recommended?
-- B.H.O. wants to increase taxes on the upper-middle class incomes (as well as the upper-class incomes, which would include his wife's, I suppose), thus decreasing the amount of funds available for these families to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- B.H.O. wants to institute a tax on oil companies. (Economics for Dummies note: a tax imposed on a business will ultimately be passed on to its customers. So, by instituting an additional tax on oil companies, B.H.O. will be increasing gas prices even more.)
-- The Party of the SuperDelegates has tried to stimulate the economy by passing the... ummm... by recommending passage of... uh..er... Well, they must be thinking about doing something, right?

So, to summarize... GW Bush and the Republicans want to try to reduce oil prices, reduce taxes, and put more money back into the pockets of the citizens of this great country. B.H.O. and the Party of SuperDelegates want to increase taxes, increase oil and gas prices, and figure that inaction is the best political action this year.

Which party is imposing their economic will on the country?

(Hint: The Party of the SuperDelegates has been in control of Congress during these challenging economic times. What have they done for you?)

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

What Kind of Gone?

2008-06-08T18:30:00.009-04:00

Hillary is GONE. Barring a long shot selection (over Michelle's dead body) as BHO's running mate, Hillary will be sidelined for a few weeks. Expect two things, a lukewarm supporter of B.H.O. AND a prime time, 'bring down the house of kooks' speech at the Dem convention. Both are intended by her to position Mrs. Bill Clinton for her ultimate goal and another run at it in 2012.

Be that as it may, there are many people happy to be rid of her, and a few even happier than me. Let's see...Dick Morris, Gennifer Flowers, Billy Dale, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey. The #1 person, happy to be rid of Hillary Clinton is, posthumously, Barbara Olson.

Mrs. Olson was killed on the hijacked plane flown into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She was the wife of the former solicitor general Ted Olson. (Ted Olson also won for Bush/Cheney, the 2000 Florida Recount Case at the Supreme Court).

Barbara Olson wrote two books on the Clintons. "Hell to Pay" about Hillary Clinton and "The Final Days" about the abuse of power exhibited in the last days of the Clinton administration. The book was released after Mrs. Olson's death. It chronicles the unbelievable abuses of power and the destructive laws enacted during Bill Clinton's last months of power.

For anyone who isn't happy that Mrs. Bill Clinton was upset by B.H.O., please read this book. You may kiss Mr. Obama's feet.

In her words (from The Final Days: The Last Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House):

"My Research found Hillary involved in one form or another in virtually every White House scandal - even if just masterminding the defense and counterattacks as in the Lewinsky affair. In fact, Hillary was the consistent, stable and reliable guiding organizational hand for the entire Clinton presidency"

And...

"Many of those who studied her career, as I did, concluded that that was precisely where her ambition was planning to take her as early as the 1992 presidential campaign. The only questions were how she would use her husband's presidency to realize that goal, and how he would help her get there"

And...

"When Hillary was running for the Senate, she went to great lengths to portray herself as an active, involved partner in her husband's presidency. She claimed eight years worth of experience on the issues and ran her Senate race on the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, regaling reporters with the thorough detailed discussions she had with 'her husband.' But now, in matters of huge importance involving her husband and her brother, she claimed to know absolutely nothing at all. The first-rate scholar, veteran lawyer, graduate of Yale Law School, and eight year resident of the White House, with her own office in the West Wing, had only lately even learned about the president's constitutional power to pardon"

--------------------------

Mrs. Clinton has grown more appealing through this election cycle. Her hard edges were coached away and the contrast with the inexperienced and left-wing Obama gave her some inroads to many folks who wrote her off years ago as a "left-wing hate America" type. She is still the same Mrs. Clinton that defended the black panthers and hobnobbed with commies most of her life. The same one that masterminded the character assassinations of all of Bill's enemies. The same "I'm no Tammy Wynette" country girl that, to quote Ann Coulter, "foisted that horny hick on America on "60 Minutes' in 1992.

I hope she is gone. Like all scary movies, we expect a resurrection or two of the bad guy. Chris Cagle has a new country hit called 'What Kinda Gone." Like me, he ponders the different kinds of gone.

What Kinda Gone
Chris Cagle

"There's gone for good and there's good and gone
and there's gone with the long before it

I wish she'd been just a little more clear

well there's gone for the day and gone for the night
and gone for the rest of your dog gone life

is it whiskey night or just a couple beers

I mean what kind of gone are we talkin bout

What kinda gone are we talkin' 'bout
What kinda gone are we talkin' 'bout here"

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Hill's Out! Now What's Her Game?

2008-06-07T15:45:00.008-04:00

Hillary Clinton put her campaign on hold today and endorsed Barack Obama for President. So ended the candidacy of the "inevitable nominee."

She thanked her supporters and forced us to endure several minutes of a monologue where she spoke as if her life's mission was to help those left behind by the current President. I doubt even her strongest supporters truly believed that. Political ambition and power are what motivate the Clintons. That attribute in them is exceeded only by their narcissisim.

When she got around to speaking nicely of Obama and endorsing him, it looked like she was chewing on green persimmons. Do not be fooled by the nice words; there is still bad blood between these two, their families, and their camps. It was a bruising campaign and neither camp is ready to forgive and forget.

This leaves the question open as to what the Clintons' [the plural was on purpose] intentions are now. There is little doubt that Hillary would like to be on the ticket as Obama's VP. There is also no doubt that Obama does not want her but can he hold her off? It is a testimony to the weakness of Obama that we wonder if Hillary can force herself onto the ticket.

Many Democrats see the combo ticket as the "dream team." I'm sure Obama sees it as a dream also...a nightmare. If elected, he could never trust her and Bill and, be sure, Bill comes with the package. They would be continually scheming behind his back rather than being the team players that the VP role requires. It is hard to see such a ticket coming together after such a difficult fight.

Much has been made of how Ronald Reagan took George H. W. Bush as his running mate after a tough campaign but it was not nearly as nasty as the Clinton-Obama slugfest. The Clinton team felt it was "their turn" and they have great anger at the Obama camp and the major media who were in the tank for him. It is hard to see this couple kissing and making up for the good of the Democrat party.

If Hillary does not get on the ticket, and I think that will be the case, what then will she do? It is hard to see her and Bill swallowing their pride and going on the stump for Obama. My guess is they will do the absolute minimum of support for Obama, continue to promote themselves, and hope for an Obama loss so she can run in 2012.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush came together in 1980 because they truly believed that the most important thing was for the Republicans to win. For the Clintons, the most important thing is that they win with party loyalty and what's best for the country coming in last.

--Submitted by B. Bryant

And heeeeeeeeere's Obama!

2008-06-03T11:05:00.003-04:00

In case you've been living in a foreign country, or if you swore off all news stories until the Democrats decide to take real action against the weakening dollar and hair-raising oil prices... B H Obama will claim the Superdelegate Party (formerly known as the "Democratic Party") nomination for President tonight.

Finally.

Five tidbits that you should be aware of, as we start the five month journey to the Presidential Election of 2008:

B H Obama has served a portion of one term in the US Senate, of which he has spent 2 years campaigning for the presidential nomination. Analysis: Inexperienced.
B H Obama's wife, Michelle, became proud of her country - for the first time in her life - after her husband won some primaries in 2008. Analysis: Unpatriotic.
B H Obama's "former" pastor and spiritual guide has been labelled as anti-American and prejudiced for many years. B H Obama "resigned" from his church a couple of weeks ago, after another religious leader, speaking at his "former" church, let loose another rant against whites and females. Analysis: Dangerous, and yet spineless.
B H Obama has avoided all factual-based discussions and debates. In fact, B H Obama has not participated in a debate since he was asked tough questions - for the first time - by ABC during the Pennsylvania debate in April. Which he lost. Analysis: Overly sensitive, and is weak on solution details.
B H Obama takes umbrage with the press for asking any tough questions about his positions or past. For evidence, see the March 3, 2008 press conference. (My favorite quote: "Come on guys; I answered like eight questions. We're running late." God Bless America if he wins the election and has to answer, say, nine questions about policies. He may launch missiles at the press corps.) Analysis: Overly sensitive, arrogant, and will walk if the going gets tough. Although his press conferences will provide a level of comedy we haven't seen in a long time.

Meet the nominee from the Superdelegate Party, B H Obama.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

With Friends Like This...

2008-05-29T10:51:00.002-04:00

...who needs Democrats?

Obviously, Scott McClellan (former White House press secretary) yearns for attention. In his forthcoming book, according to reports, McClellan rips into the Bush Administration for deceiving the American people, and engaging in never-ending campaigning. I only have three things to say about this before I put this topic where it belongs (in the deeply discounted bin at your local Barnes & Noble, along with It Takes a Village and The Audacity of Hope):

McClellan is trying to portray himself as the victim of the Administration's deception because it's politically expedient to do so. What's really coming through is that McClellan is a spineless jellyfish who wants to play a part in what he perceives as a Democratically-controlled government. Good luck finding a job with Pelosi and her crew.
Unfortunately, our government and representatives have been engaging in continuous campaigning for more than a decade. Have we all forgotten about the first Clinton term, when the entire 4-year period appeared to be driven by a thought process centered on "so what will get me re-elected in 1996?" (OK, most of us would like to forget about those years, but...) To take a jab at the Bush Administration for this is absurd; for the liberal press to jump all over it, especially given their roles in the evolution of 24 x 7 x 365 campaigning, is comical.
If President Bush and his staff were this God-awful for the country, why did McClellan follow Bush to Washington, and accept a promotion to Press Secretary? Why would he stay as long as he did, if he truly believed all of this drivel that he's claiming in his Al Franken-esque novel? And why would he slink away from Washington for nearly two years, without saying a word about how "wronged" he was? Oh, wait... to sell books and make more money. I get it now.

The only upside from all of this - I get to look forward to seeing the hypocrites, namely Reid and Pelosi, make total fools out of themselves.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Doomed to Repeat It (LINK)

2008-05-27T19:15:00.002-04:00

How quickly will the press get this one buried? Obama managed to tell a lie like Bill Clinton and show knowledge of world history like....well 'pick your favorite democrat'. All in one statement.

By claiming that his uncle (I am assuming the white side of his family - who he has disowned for all practical purposes) helped to liberate Auschwitz, which was liberated by the Red Army, he proved he can match Hillary lie for lie. His weakness in foreign policy just got more obvious. While most of us were studying history, Obama and the current flock of democrats were ignoring it.

He later said he 'mis-spoke.' Count me out. First, he wants to sit down with the worlds most dangerous leaders, giving them a badly needed stage and some attention - and now he shows a lack of knowledge of the best example in history of the failure of appeasement. And he wants to run my country? I don't think so.

I don't expect that many people know the subtleties of WWII and when and where what was liberated, I am not naive. The government schools have their own agenda and it is not history. But I'll say what many have said to this point...Is this guy the best we can do?? A country of 200 million eligible candidates and we have a schmuck who won't wear a flag pin, attended anti-American churches for twenty years, has two years of national experience and has a wife who hit middle age before she could find something about her country to be proud of? This is the best?

Let's hope Johnny Mack turns up the heat and buries this guy in a McGovern-like landslide.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Death by a Thousand Cuts

2008-05-21T08:55:00.011-04:00

Despite the media-engendered, Kennedy-esque aura around him...despite his support from the legions of left-wing radicals in the Democrat Party...despite the phalanx of young college kids willing to serve as his foot soldiers and the masses of African Americans who have made his candidacy their own cause, Barack Hussein Obama is damaged property. Nothing shows that more than his pathetic performance in the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries where the primary electorate was working class white folks, the people that any Democrat must have to win the presidency. Obama has failed miserably to reach this vital demographic and his failure goes beyond those two states. His performance in that demographic was similar in Ohio and Pennsylvania; once again, states the Democrats must have.

There are many reasons offered as to why Obama cannot connect to working class whites. There is the elitism factor, the Wright factor, the Michelle factor, the Hillary factor, and...for those kool-aid drinkers who see no flaws in their candidate...the racist factor. To these supporters, racism prevents these working class whites from voting Obama (as they are clinging to their guns and religion, but I digress...). However, Obama's performance in Iowa and in the early western state caucuses brings this assertion into great question.

The real answer is simple...it is all of the above in combination (except perhaps the racist part) and none of them individually. Obama has been exposed. He came into the campaign as a veritable tabula rasa, a blank slate. This coupled with a pleasing personality, lofty-sounding rhetoric, and a careful and slick but undefined message, enabled millions of people to see him as the personification of their hopes and dreams. As any good actor knows, a skillfully-handled, underdefined persona allows the viewing public to project themselves (their hopes, dreams, fears, etc.) onto the actor such that he or she is seen to be the exact person that exists in the mind of the observer. The actor cannot help but be admired because he is them. The same happened to Barack Obama. All people...rich, poor, white, black, brown...saw themselves and their hopes in Obama. He was both their everyman and their savior.

What happened? Simply, the blanks on Obama's slate began to be filled in. His twenty-year association with Jeremiah Wright, a preacher of radical leftist, anti-American, and possibly racist views, called into question the belief by some that Obama was the "post-racial" candidate. His statements in liberal San Francisco that working class persons were "clinging to their guns and religion" demonstrated elitist views that, while welcome in San Francisco, were anathama to middle class America. Michelle Obama's comments that she was proud of her country for the first time and that America in 2008 was a "downright mean country," were poorly received in most of the country where America is still seen as a land of opportunity. Lastly, Hillary Clinton's continued presence has given many in the Democrat electorate something that, while unattractive, looks much better than Obama. Obama's position is unenviable.

Will Obama lose? Probably, but nothing is certain in such an anti-Republican year. While McCain holds little attraction to the large majority of conservative Republicans, he is the perfect candidate for them in such a bad year. The question is not whether he can win or not but what will a McCain victory do for the future of the Republican party. That is an entry for another day.

As for Obama, if he loses he has no one to blame but himself. The blank slate approach was wise because an otherwise filled-out slate in his case was unelectable. Now, the real Barack is being seen and much of the public is getting buyer's remorse. The super-delegates fear to vote for him but also fear not to because of his delegate lead. Hillary has seen the weaknesses and hangs around like a circling buzzard over a wounded and dying animal. The only difference...the wounded animal has the Democrat nomination all wrapped up.

Barack Obama, we hardly knew ye and thank God for that.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

I had not considered the end

2008-05-18T20:29:00.008-04:00

For anyone that knows me better than a little, they know that Ted Kennedy has become something of a arch-enemy to me. As he lay in intensive care and takes in the remaining minutes of the Celtics victory over the Cavs, it is not the time to critique a litany of his faults, sins and bad political ideas. This probably won't be the end for Teddy. For a guy who is eighty pounds overweight, drinks and eats more than two to three normal folk and hasn't let any of that slow down his libido...he has a churchillian-like ability to outlive much healthier men. Even so, age is catching up on the liberal icon and senior senator from Massachusetts.

Around 1971 or 2, I received a letter from Senator Kennedy thanking me for my contribution to an ecology event organized by my school. It was a thrill to receive it and I kept it for many years (I am not sure what happened to it). At the time, I had no knowledge of Chappaquiddick, Abortion (Roe vs. Wade was still a couple years away), his Harvard cheating scandal (et. al.) and I had no prognosticating ability to see this loud-mouthed hypocrite attack the characters of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

When Ted finally passes on, he will be immortalized in a funeral fit for a king. He will be eulogized by Caroline Kennedy, Harry Reid, George McGovern, Sargent Shriver, Mike Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and droves of Republicans, who will commend him on the passion of his ideas and his fighting spirit.

To me, he is just the guy that made it 'okay' for Catholics to be pro-abortion. He was the horsepower for thirty years for the great society - a war on poverty that has left the poor - poorer, unwed and without values. At this point, I still maintain hope that those thousands of rosaries that Rose Kennedy said for her children will take hold and he will become a champion of freedom, life and Catholicism.

In the meantime, we wait and wonder the outcome of this setback for the seventy-six year old senator. And we wonder which Kennedy will slip into his Senate seat for the next thirty years. The people of MA will have it no other way.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost, Senator Obama

2008-05-12T12:08:00.002-04:00

It's May 12, 2008. The writing is - and has been, for months now - on the wall. Superdelegate-nominee Barack Obama and his pack of media elites are headed to a showdown with the Republican (popular vote) nominee, John McCain. The problem on the Superdelegate side is that Hillary Clinton either can't read, or steadfastly refuses to read, the writing on the wall.

For months, the Superdelegate Party built up Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee, propping her up as the "most electable" candidate out there. Then the Superdelegate Party fell out of love with Hillary, and started a dalliance with Obama that blossomed into full-fledged love and lust. (Sidebar: Poor Hillary was publicly scorned and shamed yet again. Once again, she's refused to kowtow to public demands - "leave that cheating husband of yours, for the sake of Chelsea and yourself!" turned into "drop out of the race for the sake of all Superdelegates!". At least she's consistent.)

To quote Obama's "former" pastor, the chickens have come home to roost.

Hillary's perceived support from within the establishment continues to give her hope that she can somehow swipe the election from the Superdelegate powers-that-be. She's refusing to see the facts that the establishment has turned its back on her. And yet, as establishment spent so much time building her up as "the best candidate to beat back the Republicans", she truly believes it's best that she continues on. She drank the kool-aid, fellas; you forgot to send her the serum that will break the kool-aid's hold on her!

Let's address this issue for the final time. Hillary, it's been nice knowing you, but your time is done. Your run is over. The time has come for the final throwdown. The country needs you to step down quickly, so we can all focus on what's really important here:

Populace-sanctioned candidate versus Superdelegate-sanctioned candidate.
Experience versus youth.
'Security through Strength' versus 'Peace through Appeasement'.
A candidate that stands up to questioning versus a candidate that is offended by questioning.

McCain vs Obama. Bring it on.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Michelle vs. Michelle

2008-05-07T20:33:00.004-04:00

hmmm...America's unhappiest millionaire

Obama's Bitter Half
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. She's been likened to John F. Kennedy's wife, what with her chic suits and pearls and perfectly coiffed helmet hair. But when she opens her mouth, Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner, the constantly kvetching "Saturday Night Live" character from the early 1980s.

When last our worldviews collided, back in February, the other Michelle was expounding on her lack of pride in America. I gave her myriad reasons to cheer up -- from America's role in the fall of communism to our unparalleled generosity to our nation's superior economic system, cultural resilience, entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity. But since then, Mrs. Obama has dug in her $500 Jimmy Choo heels and solidified her role in the 2008 presidential campaign as Queen of the Grievance-Mongers.

In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As National Review's Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."

In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.

On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.

Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain. Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."

Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.

Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?

In Mrs. Obama, the fear-mongering pot meets the angst-stirring kettle: "Fear," she froths, "creates this veil of impossibility and it is hanging over all of our heads."

But what Mrs. Obama lacks in pride for her country and its promise she more than makes up for with bottomless pride for her husband. Her standard campaign speeches include at least a dozen references to how "proud" she is of him. And of herself. And of everyone who has overcome The Man and pierced the "veil of impossibility" to get to the polls and vote Obama. An online MSNBC report on a joint appearance by the Obamas on the "Today" show in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle included this tellingly narcissistic passage:

[Mrs. Obama]: "'I'm so proud of how he has maintained his dignity, his cool, his honor.'

"Obama gently tried to interrupt, admitting to being embarrassed by the praise.

"'But I am proud of you,' she said.

"'I know,' he replied."

We all know. So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford.

Try smiling for once. It's cheaper.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

And the winner is... The SuperDelegates!

2008-05-06T10:58:00.002-04:00

Today is the day that Indiana and North Carolina voters go to the polls. I say...it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. The ridiculous process used by the "Democrats" (Aristocrats?) is proving to be a total farce.

If someone had asked you to devise a nominating process that would guarantee that no one wins the nomination based on the vote of its citizens, this is the process you would design. Let's face it - if the Mainstream Media outlets disagree on delegate counts more than 2 weeks after the last primary, how transparent can the system be? (Check out the "official" delegate counts from AP and NBC. Seriously. They're different.)

Citizens of Indiana and North Carolina...your vote today will not help to select a candidate for November. Rather, it merely validates the SuperDelegate process. Remember this in November, when a SuperDelegate-chosen candidate faces off against a popular vote-chosen candidate. In my country, I trust the popular vote more than any "Super"Delegate vote.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Obama's Chickens

2008-04-28T21:38:00.005-04:00

Obama's chickens have come home to roost; to paraphrase Obama's long time pastor and spiritual mentor.

Reverend Wright has been enjoying his 'fifteen minutes of fame,' at the expense, presumably, of Barack Obama. Wright's diatribes include swipes at the USA (naturally), Dick Cheney (double naturally), the Jews, the Italians and on and on and on. He is clearly the most visceral bigot on the talk show circuit today. He even claimed that blacks 'learn differently' than whites - a theory that we might expect from David Duke or Adolf Hitler. He believes the AIDs virus was started by whites to destroy the black race. Wow !!

None of this seems to have hurt Obama with his base...which is really the biggest concern here. There will always be nuts and paranoids, but their front-runner status in a major political party is a sign of the times.

From Myway.com

Wright has been Obama's pastor for more than 20 years. Wright brought Obama to Christianity, inspired the title of his book "The Audacity of Hope," officiated at his wedding and baptized his daughters. Wright also told reporters Monday that he prayed privately with the family right before Obama announced he was running for president, although he didn't appear with them publicly.

His Vote Counts More Than Mine? How Democratic of You!

2008-04-23T15:30:00.003-04:00

She's done it again!

Written off by the press, begged to drop out by the Democrats in authority, and besmirched by the Obama campaign, Hillary Clinton wins another primary election and proves...

1. Obama can outspend his opposition, but he can't win the hearts (and votes) of certain voters;
2. This election is going all the way to the convention; and...
3. The Superdelegates will make the decision as to who represents the Democratic Party in 2008.

Now I don't know about you, but this Superdelegate thing has me confused. What is a Superdelegate, and how do they vote? According to newspapers and other media sources, I've collected a few bits and pieces:

Superdelegates...aren't these generally elected officials and other political wonks, rather than the general population?
Superdelegates...who each get a vote, equal to a delegate representing a state?
Superdelegates...people who do not need to vote in a manner that represents the USA population or the constituents they were elected to represent, but rather who can vote in a manner that could maximize their personal political stature and position?

I was confused, so I looked up superdelegate on dictionary.com:
a party leader or elected public official chosen as an uncommitted delegate to a national political convention

That piqued my interest. It didn't sound very democratic to me, but maybe my public policy and government knowledge has eroded over the years. I also decided to look up a few other words:

democratic
1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.

elitism
1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
------------------------------------

Superdelegates sure don't seem to meet the definition of democratic to me. So why is our country using an elitist approach to selecting a presidential candidate from one of the two major political parties?

I guess it's the only way to ensure that the Democratic Party can select someone that the political machine wants, rather than what the country wants.

So just remember... Ted Kennedy's vote counts more than yours or mine. Heck, Ted's vote counts more than the votes of the populations of Michigan and Florida combined. (He probably drinks more too, but we'll leave that for another day.)

And we call that the Democratic Party?!?

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

"Where are all the white people at?"

2008-04-10T09:09:00.008-04:00

During the prepartion for a Barack Obama speech at Carnegie Mellon University, Michelle Obama was heard to complain that there were not enough white people sitting directly behind her husband's podium (and thus in the camera's view).

If we need someone in the White House to help this country get over race..it's not these two !!

Only the Carnegie Mellon Student newspaper, The Tartan, originally picked up the story. Drudge later linked to it.

While the crowd was indeed diverse, some students at the event questioned the practices of Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators, who handpicked the crowd sitting behind Mrs. Obama. The Tartan’s correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, “Get me more white people, we need more white people.” To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, “We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.” “I didn’t know they would say, ‘We need a white person here,’ ” said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. “I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn’t know it would be so outright.”

Note: The title of the blog entry was a quote reference from the movie Blazing Saddles - not that that makes it right :-)

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Farewell to a Grand Old Patriot

2008-04-07T08:45:00.008-04:00

Charlton Heston.

Just to say his name is to evoke memories of the epic characters he played on the big screen. Moses...Ben Hur...El Cid...Andrew Jackson...He held an entire generation enraptured with this great acting, powerful screen presence, and chiseled good looks. In the days before cable, VHS, and DVD, I lived for the frequent network showing of The Ten Commandments, where Mr. Heston's Moses was probably his most iconic and memorable role.

Today we mourn the passing of not only a great actor but a great American. Charlton Heston loved his country. He was never embarrassed to say that nor was he afraid to take stands on issues that had the potential to hurt his acting career.

He was a supporter of civil rights for African Americans before it became politically popular to do so, marching with Dr. Martin Luther King and being present for his "I have a Dream" speech.

He was a supporter of the United States military. When first talking to the recruiter about joining the Naval submarine force, I was shown a video hosted by none other than Charlton Heston. Being a fan of both the Mr. Heston and the navy, my admiration for him grew even more. When naval deployments were long, Charlton Heston personally called families of deployed personnel with holiday greetings from their loved one.

Charlton Heston offered the prayer at the commissioning ceremony of the USS Chicago (SSN-721) in September, 1986. An officer friend of mine had the pleasure of accompanying Mr. Heston to the airport to pick up his mother. He spoke of his personal kindness and how Mr. Heston make himself totally accessible to the crew.

As the nation became more politically polarized between right and left, Charlton Heston once again made his voice heard. He had never hidden his conservative politics but the contemporary political environment made his political views the most public part of his persona, much to the consternation of a Hollywood that was growing ever more radical and militantly anti-American.

Mr. Heston, always a gun owner, was elected president of the National Rifle Association in a time of decline. In his acceptance speech, he lofted high a musket and uttered the words, "From by cold dead hands," earning him the immediate disdain of those who considered themselves to be the elites in our nation. Under his leadership and public image, the NRA grew in membership and influence while the left painted this great American as a right-wing loon.

In 2002, Mr. Heston announced to the world that he had Alzheimer's disease. He made this announcement with the same gravitas and grace which he had always shown on the screen and in his public life. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2003, the highest American civilian honor. It was a richly deserved award for him and capped a lifetime of living his beliefs and loving his country.

Charlton Heston...a real American. We will miss him greatly.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Obama X

2008-04-03T17:36:00.004-04:00

The real Obama, according to his own writings in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams from My Father, is a race-obsessed, resentful young man...filled with conspiratorial thoughts.

His characterization of his white friends and his frustration with 'living with white rules' are disturbing.

While his mother was white and his father an African National, who abandoned Barack in his childhood, Obama clearly identifies with the black movement and the worst of it.

My personal belief is that systemic racism is dead in America. While there is a tiny minority of people that still harbor racist views against blacks (and vice versa), there is no longer any infrastructural or legal reasons keeping blacks from achieving all that whites, Asians and Indians achieve. Only race merchants like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (and now Barack Obama), who profit from racism keep it alive. They are helped by white liberals - plagued by white guilt.

As long as racism remains the scapegoat for black poverty and the breakdown of the black family, no progress can be made in solving poverty among blacks and others.

Study after study has shown that blacks and whites have the same statistical likelihood of success (in financial terms) as long as they are compared with like groups (not based on race). The groups are 'single parent raised,' 'high school dropout' 'high school graduate' and 'college graduate.'

America, the least racist country on earth, has removed all obstacles for all races to achieve marriage, high school and college graduation. We need to look beyond race and understand the isssues that are driving unwed births and high school dropout rates.

Let's start with the elements of LBJ's Great Society to find what incentives the 'war on poverty' has put in place to discourage marriage and employment. Social engineering has ruined the black family, not racism.

Obama has identified himself, in this 1995 book, as a person who cannot move beyond race. He will drive us to more programs and more ideas that will worsen poverty in America and will cause more black and white resentment.

In the words of Ann Coulter regarding this book "You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Father

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

A Winning Change in Strategy

2008-04-01T13:13:00.004-04:00

In an apparent attempt to win back mainstream America, while capitalizing on the support she's garnered from political radio host Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton has declared that she will disassociate herself from MoveOn.org and run on a "platform that more accurately reflects Main Street USA" than her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

"I'm tired of being a pawn for George Soros and MoveOn.org. I tried to be a good soldier, but I see that I've just become a target for snipers again. This time, the snipers are people who claimed to be my supporters just a few months ago. The Democratic Party, the press, even my cleaning lady...everyone has lost their senses and now support a person who has officially spent more time running for President than he spent as a US Senator in Washington. It's gotten so bad that I'm almost on the verge of tears."

Obama countered Clinton's claim by stating, "We've all heard claims in the past that weren't true. As far as I've been told, this attempted character assassination by Senator Clinton is simply wrong. This is a situation where a losing candidate is unable to come to grips with reality, and is blaming her situation on the fact that I'm a minority candidate that has curried favor with the media. Her position couldn't be any further from the truth. For more information, please see my web page, which is proudly sponsored by MoveOn.org and hosted for free by ABC News."

Clinton now says that she supports the suppression of terrorism in the Middle East, reduced taxes, a stricter immigration program that includes secure borders, and free trade. She has also filed for divorce from Wild Bill Clinton.

John McCain was unavailable for comment, because he was conducting business on the Senate floor.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Happy AFD

Hillary's Last Stand

2008-03-28T11:52:00.007-04:00

Rodney Dangerfield used to joke, "if you want to look thin, hang out with fat people." Hillary has started to look like a 'moderate' next to Obama and his radical circle of supporters, including MoveOn.org, Reverend Wright and Michele Obama.

Hillary knows her last play, even if the math doesn't pan out, is to convince the democratic party that this upstart radical with his anti-American history is not electable in November. She is destroying the last of the Clinton brand and running dead on against her party while continuing this quest. It will get worse. She will be behind a 'the worst of the clintons future documentary' set of tactics as she tears down the likely nominee and wounds him near fatally before he breaks out and begins his run against John McCain. And..oh the money they will spend.

In the end, this may be the only good thing the Clintons will ever do for their country. "All's well that ends well !!"

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

She Misspoke...Why Not?

2008-03-26T08:25:00.005-04:00

Much is being made of Hillary Clinton's "Bosnia-gate" incident. As most know now, Hillary claimed to have come under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as First Lady. Her words were:

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

The revelation that is coming from CBS and other mainstream media outlets is that the alleged event never happened. In reality, Hillary's "running" amounted to a calm walk from the C-17 transport where she met a group of dignitaries and listened to a Muslim girl reading a poem.

As is often the case with the Clintons, the real story is not the story being told by the media. The story is not that Hillary (or Bill) would lie to embellish their credentials, defend their conduct, or attack their opponents. The real story is that the mainstream media actually did follow-up research on her statement and exposed it for the lie that it was.

Many wonder, "Why would Hillary Clinton tell such a transparent lie in such a public forum?" My answer is...why not? Lying for political gain is the Clintons' stock-in-trade. They have continually done it because it works for them. In the past, they had little to fear because the corrupt media had no desire to expose their lies and therefore hurt them politically. Bill Clinton could speak of defending the constitution while defending himself from perjury and obstruction of justice charges and the media gives him a pass. Hillary could talk about her vast experience and no one in the media could seem to do any research...until now.

What has changed is not that the mainstream media has returned to old-fashioned journalism but rather that they now have a new darling. They are waving the Obama pom poms now. Obama is the fresh face while the Clintons are old news and represent an older, more "political" era. How else can you explain the rapidity with which the Jeremiah Wright controversy died or the fact that the media has "discovered" that the Clintons will do anything to win?

Why would Hillary lie? Why not? Under the old math, she had little to fear. Hillary's great error was in not realizing that the rules had now changed.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Democrats for Posterior Sake (er, Posterity?)

2008-03-24T15:00:00.005-04:00

Another day, another sex/political scandal for the Depraved Party.

2008 has been a banner year, if you're a tabloid writer who follows the Democrats around. First, we have former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and his $1,000 per hour playmate...followed by new NY Governor David Paterson announcing that he'd had an affair back in 1999... later amened to "multiple affairs" from 1999-2002 (and possibly beyond)...and now? Welcome to the GOP blog, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick!

Mayor Kilpatrick's purported activities included, according to The New York Times:

DETROIT — Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick was charged on Monday with misconduct in office, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and perjury, felonies that could end his political career and send him to prison for as long as 80 years.

Among the eight felony counts against him, Mr. Kilpatrick is accused of authorizing the city of Detroit to settle an $8.4 million lawsuit with several former police officers “with the corrupt motive” of preventing the release of text messages which would have revealed that he had lied under oath in the case, the charging documents say.

Announcing the charges, Kym L. Worthy, the Wayne County prosecutor, declared it a “very sad day” for the city and for all of Michigan, but said that central tenets of life — those that even 6-year-old children understand well — had been breached. “It would be much sadder still if true justice were ignored,” Ms. Worthy said.

The post-Clinton generation of Democrats...proudly protecting the rights, and economic needs, of prostitutes everywhere.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Good Riddance Client #9 !!!!

2008-03-17T19:13:00.006-04:00

When Eliot Spitzer was New York's attorney general, he was relentless in his pursuit of financial institutions who he deemed were corrupte and in violation of reporting issues. He was even more relentless in advancing his career. He never let facts get in his way and he was merciless in destroying the character of his targets, even blackmailing them that he would press charges against their company if they did not resign. Many of his victims were innocent...that never stopped Eliot.

He has his sights on the Governors Mansion and eventually the White House.

Early in his term, it was reported that he used state troopers to track dirt on his political enemies. He confessed to these charges and there was even talk of impeachment.

He survived his first scandal.

After it was revealed that he sought out prostitutes for ten years, he turned from presidential hopeful to the biggest joke in New York.

Good Riddance. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

The Clinton Horror Film

2008-03-10T11:44:00.010-04:00

Andrew Sullivan has written a witty, and perceptive, article about Bill and Hillary Clinton that appears in the British Timesonline. One might disagree with his somewhat rosy picture of Bill Clinton's presidential accomplishments but he is dead-on in dealing with the Clinton's lust for power.

He's right. Writing the Clintons' political epitaph is reminiscent of the old SNL skit, "The Death of Rasputin," where the old guy keeps coming back no matter what is done to him.

A horror film indeed!

The Clintons, a Horror Film that never ends

Andrew Sullivan

It’s alive! We thought it might be over but some of us never dared fully believe it. Last week was like one of those moments in a horror movie when the worst terror recedes, the screen goes blank and then reopens on green fields or a lover’s tender embrace. Drained but still naive audiences breathe a collective sigh of relief. The plot twists have all been resolved; the threat is gone; the quiet spreads. And then . . .

Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction – whoosh! she’s back at your throat! – has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal . . . only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.

Now all this may seem a little melodramatic. Perhaps it is. Objectively, an accomplished senator won a couple of races – one by a mere 3% – against another senator in a presidential campaign. One senator is still mathematically unbeatable. But that will never capture the emotional toll that the Clintons continue to take on some of us. I’m not kidding. I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday. There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power.

Why? I have had to write several columns in this space over the years acknowledging that the substantive legacy of the Clinton administration (with a lot of assist from Newt Gingrich) was a perfectly respectable one: welfare reform, fiscal sanity, prudent foreign policy, leaner government. But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera.

The media are marvelling at the Clintons’ several near-death political experiences in this campaign. Hasn’t it occurred to them how creepily familiar all this is? The Clintons live off psychodrama. They both love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting self-rescue. Before too long the entire story becomes about them, their ability to triumph through crisis, even though the crises are so often manufactured by themselves. That is what last week brought back for me. The 1990s – with a war on.

Remember: Bill Clinton could have easily settled the Paula Jones lawsuit years before he put the entire country through the wringer (Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment alleged to have occurred while he was governor of Arkansas).

Recall: Hillary Clinton could have killed what turned out to be the White-water nonstory at the very outset by disclosing everything she could (the scandal centred on a controversial Arkansas property deal).

Consider: the Clintons could have prepared for primaries and caucuses after February 5 – so-called Super Tuesday, when 24 states held their presidential nomination vote – as any careful candidate would. They chose not to do any of these things. Not because they are incompetent. But because they live to risk.

Politics is also their life. They know nothing else. Most halfway normal people in politics could at some point walk away. Reagan seemed happy to. Not the Clintons. In the words of the American-based British writer Christopher Hitchens, these are the kind of people who never want the meeting to end. Hillary Clinton will never concede the race so long as there is even the faintest chance that she can somehow win.

They endure all sorts of humiliation – remember the taped Clinton deposition in the Ken Starr investigation (in which Clinton admitted to the inquiry headed by the far-right prosecutor that he had had an “improper physical relationship” with Monica Lewinsky)? Hillary’s dismissal of the Lewinsky matter as an invention of the right-wing conspiracy? – because they know no other way to live. They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.

The patterns are staggeringly unaltered. Last Thursday The Washington Post ran an article reporting on the almost comic divisions within the Clinton camp: how chaotic the planning had been, how much chief pollster Mark Penn hated all the other advisers, how even in the wake of a sudden victory most of the Clintonites were eager to score rancid points off each other.

The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.

When you look at the electoral map if the Clintons run again, you also see a reversion to the old patterns of the 1990s – the patterns that cynical political strategists such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exploiting for two decades. The country – scrambled by the post-baby-boomer pragmatism of Obama – snaps back into classic red-blue mode, with the blue areas denoting Democratic-leaning states around the edge and true red Republican states in the heartlands.

The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil.

And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

One is reminded of the words of Bob Dylan: “And here I sit so patiently / Waiting to find out what price / You have to pay to get out of / Going through all these things twice.”

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

She's Back!!!.....Now What?

2008-03-05T09:49:00.008-05:00

Despite calls from some Obama supporters for her to leave the campaign, Hillary Clinton responded by sweeping three of the four primaries yesterday, including big wins in Ohio and Texas. This came when Obama seemed to have the momentum and appeared to be cruising to the nomination. Clinton's wins broke Obama's momentum and changed the dynamic of the race for the Democrat nomination. It should get really interesting from now on.

The change in the Democrat race is more perception than reality. Obama still holds a commanding lead in pledged delegates and yesterday's results did not materially change that. The lead is so large that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Clinton to match his lead in pledged delegates with the contests that remain. This is pointed out clearly in Jonathan Alter's perceptive article in Newsweek. Even if Hillary wins all remaining contests, she will still face a deficit in pledged delegates as she enters the convention.

What has changed are the perceptions of this race. The Obama campaign is no longer seen to be a juggernaut. The Clinton campaign are no longer seen as inevitable losers. Clinton attacked Obama in his weakest area, experience, and placed dents in him. Obama faced media scrutiny (albeit small) for the first time and did not seem to handle it well. Also, his reputation as a person who is above politics took a serious hit with revelations of his dealings with an indicted speculator and a terrorist bomber from the Weather underground. His honestly came into question when it became known that a surrogate assured the Canadian government that his criticisms of NAFTA were only for political purposes.

These loses, and the revelations associated with them, have hurt Obama greatly. His great delegate lead still makes him the presumptive nominee but he has a race on his hands. The Clintons will pull out all stops in following up on the successful attacks they have waged. The media, stung by accusations that they are in the tank for Obama, will show more scrutiny. Clinton will begin making waves about the Michigan and Florida delegates even as she lobbies for support of more super-delegates. The race will continue probably until the convention and maybe into it.

All of this is good news for Republicans. This should be a Democrat year but their infighting may give us great opportunities to hold the White House and maybe even to make gains in the Congress. It is difficult for many of us to wish good political outcomes for the Clintons. We have seen too much from Bill's presidency but Hillary's good news is now our good news. Every attack that she initiates against Obama is one that Republicans will not have to initiate. The Clinton campaign's railing against media bias for Obama puts the issue into the public forum without Republicans having to raise it and thus face the possible backlash.

Hillary and Bill are doing our job for us.

"You Go Girl"

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

The NY Times Questions McCain's Eligibility

2008-03-04T08:26:00.006-05:00

The New York Times is not saying that John McCain's birth (to two U.S. citizens, one of which was U.S. Naval Officer serving his country) in the Panama Canal zone should disqualify him from the presidency. They must have brought it up as an academic exercise to challenge a two-hundred and eighteen year old bill that made infants born to U.S. Citizens outside of the country...a U.S. Citizen. Since 1790, this bill has never been debated. I guess the N.Y. Times is just saying...

Maybe the Times should run a piece that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants should not be eligible for the presidency. How about a piece that they should not be eligible for citizenship at all. After all, they enjoy just getting us thinking about stuff.

Sarcasm aside, the New York Times should be embarrassed at this unbelievably despicable, transparent and jaded journalism. It is a sign of things to come.

I am encouraged to think...is this the best they have?

Let's hope this junk gives Senator McCain the needed boost among conservatives. And it wakes John up to the fact that the Times and the Liberal Media are no friend of his...once they can't use him for Republican bashing.

If he wants a permanent and effective partnership, he needs to come back to the base.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

William F. Buckley Jr. & Blackford Oakes (RIP)

2008-02-29T07:44:00.007-05:00

Before there was Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Before Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge and Phyliss Schlafly, Bill Buckley stood alone.

In the Mid-50's, the beginning of the cold war, he went after the Soviet sympathizers in the media and the atheists in academia. He was aggressive and verbally savage.

Not only did Buckley communicate the principles that each Republican candidate today says that he best represents...Buckley defined them.

He founded National Review magazine. He started the TV Show Firing Line, where he appeared as the moderator for twenty years.

He wrote cold war thrillers, about a CIA agent Blackford Oakes, just because every other author was trashing America and the CIA.

He was an army veteran, a Patriot, and a devout Catholic. He was an intellectual with the guts and brainpower to go after and beat anyone who attacked his values, his character, his faith and his country.

He once said, sometime in the sixties, that he would rather be governed by the first hundred people in the Cambridge phone book than by the faculty at Harvard. A prophetic statement, more true today than it was when he said it.

He will never be replaced.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Decision...Obama

2008-02-28T00:05:00.003-05:00

Hillary Clinton came out fast Tuesday night. At the first bell, she threw her best punch of victimhood from the hip with the intent of turning the contest to her favor from the get-go. She landed only air and this would set the tone for the entire fight. The early rounds consisted of Clinton attempting amateurish haymakers in the hope of landing the knockout punch she sorely needed. However, in each case, Obama deftly sidestepped the punches and effectively countered with quick jabs and short rights to Clinton's most vulnerable area, her credibility.

Clinton's inability to land in the early rounds seemed to take the steam out of her. She continued to pursue Obama in the middle and later rounds but with much less intensity. Obama, after building up his early lead, was content to box the remaining rounds. Clinton continued in pursuit but was unable to land any effective punches while Obama continued his effective fight of maneuver and short counters. The bout ended with Obama hugging Clinton and congratulating her on her effort while it was obvious to all that he had won a comfortable decision.

The fight that I described would certainly have been more entertaining than the debate that occurred. Hillary Clinton knew that she needed a big win to turn back Barack Obama's momentum and give her a chance to win the nomination. However, all of her attacks seemed small and petty.

She began by complaining that she always seemed to get the first question in the debates. She attacked Obama for his flyer in Ohio that criticized her health care plan, trying to imply that Obama's campaign standards were below hers (imagine that!). To this, Obama pointed out that his campaign's mailouts were very similar to the ones that the Clinton campaign had sent out criticizing him. He then added, "you don't see me whining about it." This pretty much set the tone for the early part of the debate.

After the first break, the debate seemed to settle down with neither side doing much more than defending their respective positions. Mrs. Clinton, needing something big, came away with nothing. Instead, she may have lost votes by her early attacks which gained no traction and rather made her look like the desperate politician that she is.

One of the interesting things about this debate was watching Sen. Clinton's eyes while Obama was speaking. There seemed to be there a combination of hatred and fascination. Hatred because he was beating her when she thought she was unbeatable. Fascination because nothing that she was doing could dent his armor. Obama has proven to be the perfect opponent to beat Hillary, much like Holyfield was to Tyson. He can effectively defend against her attacks and turn her weaknesses against her. As D. B. Jackson wrote, Hillary's attempt at making herself the victim was ineffective against Obama's superior victim status.

Personally, I think the contest is over now. Clinton had been fading in both Texas and Ohio before the debate. I expect this to increase and for Obama to take both states. Certainly, Hillary will not achieve the margin of victory that she needs to stay in the race.

It is not a question of if, but when.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

What I Heard Last Night

2008-02-27T09:21:00.004-05:00

If you were a scriptwriter from SNL, back from a half-year vacation/strike, you would have heard Hillary Clinton use your comedy skit to illustrate that she has been victimized in these debates.

If you are the CEO of Exxon or a capitalist of any kind, you would have heard Barack Obama say that ExxonMobil 'will not part easily' with the eleven billions of profit that Exxon returned last quarter.

If you are a feminist or a metrosexual, you would have heard Hillary say that having a woman in the White House would represent a 'sea change' in how we are governed.

If you are a militant muslim and anti-semite, you would have heard Barack Obama, after some kicking and screaming, denounce and reject your support.

If you are unemployed in Ohio, you would have heard HRC say that she was in support of training you to install solar panels.

If you are a hard-working over-taxed middle class taxpayer, you would have heard some very large numbers of Americans that will be covered or subsidized for medical insurance by both universal coverage plans (BHO and HRC).

If you are an exporter of any kind, who happens to ship products from Ohio or Texas, you would have heard both of them say that they will rewrite or repeal NAFTA, because 'on whole,' it has hurt average Americans.

If you are a tax preparer, you would have heard how time consuming it was going to be for HRC to make a copy of her tax return and release it.

If you are John McCain, you would have heard that it was your fault that BHO is going to back away from his public-funds only commitment from just three months ago.

We all saw a very disturbing image of both HRC and BHO running hard-left and pandering to every special interest group imaginable. Images of an evil America, where 'men make the rules' and racism lurks around every dark corner.

We heard about a country where four working women can finally meet with a presidential candidate and share their problems - when in four years, all Bush and Cheney have done is pander to the elite and the rich tycoons.

A country that is losing the war in Iraq, a war that we never should have fought. And it has made America 'less safe.'

A country that is headed in the wrong direction and only BHO and HRC can save it. Saving it requires higher taxes, bigger government and an immediate retreat from Iraq.

God Save Us All !!

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

The Claws Come Out (LINK)

2008-02-24T07:54:00.011-05:00

Many thought that Hillary Clinton's softer, "coming together" closing statement at last Thursday's debate presaged that she might soon depart the campaign and allow Barack Obama an unimpeded path to the Democrat nomination. Sen. Clinton dashed such thoughts to pieces yesterday in Cincinnati when she waxed indignant at the Barack Obama campaign over a flyer that criticized her health care proposal.

Clinton accused the Obama campaign of using Republican tactics in distorting her record for political gain. "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" she said. She then threw down the gauntlet to Obama angrily telling him, "Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign."

Despite the entertainment value of her outburst, one has to be struck by the irony and hypocrisy in Clinton's rant. When it comes to the politics of distortion, innuendo, and personal destruction, the Clintons wrote the book while Obama is merely a piker. After all, it was Hillary Clinton who had assembled FBI records on Republican opponents during Bill Clinton's presidency. During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, it was Clinton surrogates who exposed Speaker-elect Bob Livingston's extra-marital affair, causing him to resign as speaker and later to leave the House. After this happened, Bill Clinton hypocritically bemoaned the "politics of personal destruction."

Hypocrisy and destruction, slash and burn, are the Clintons' stock-in-trade. They will surreptitiously work to destroy anyone in their path while publicly proclaiming the highest of ideals. Barack Obama is only the latest target. It is also significant that Clinton tossed in a shot at the Republicans, saying that Obama's flyer was something out of the play book of Karl Rove. Hillary is always more at home when she can point back to the VRC (Vast Right-wing Conspiracy). It also allows her and her fellow Democrats to continue to reside in their fantasy world where only the Republicans play hardball politics while their 7-year savaging of George W. Bush is excused as "telling the truth."

The Clintons are reminders of the ugly side of American politics. They certainly have their Republican counterparts but few practice the dark political arts with the facility of Bill and Hillary. By this Summer, they will likely have been purged as major players from the political scene and we will not mourn their departure. From a policy standpoint, Barack Obama is no better but at least he comes in a more pleasant package without all the residue of Clinton corruption.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant

Vice Chairman of GM gets it right (LINK)

2008-02-23T17:45:00.004-05:00

China is having its coldest winter in 100 years. China is a big part of the globe.

Global temperatures have risen every year since their low point in 2001.

Hundreds of scientists have proven that greenhouse gases have had no impact on global temperatures - and have attributed all of the warming over the last fifty years to the sun. Some have even hypothesized that sun spot activity may cause 'global cooling,' an environmental effect much worse on mankind than 'global warming.'

As I sit here typing, Old Man Winter will not let the Northeast out of his grip. My oil consumption for my furnace continues unimpeded. Another seventy bucks for the plow guy to clear out eight inches of snow from by 220 foot driveway.

In the meantime, the flock of zealots will demonize the dissenters of the cause. The latest heretic is Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman of General Motors.

It sounds like the believers have inundated his blog with venomous statements because of his own, and I assume, well informed decision to not believe with the bigots and the wackos.

I wonder how long the earth will have to cool - five more years, ten? - before we can move on from this ridiculous concept.

From REUTERS: General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.

Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.

In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those "spewing virtual vitriol" at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were "missing the big picture."

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Out-victimed !!

2008-02-22T15:31:00.003-05:00

Hillary failed to land the knockout blow. She even got booed by the liberal austin audience when she chided Obama for his use of MA Governor Deval Patricks words. Her prepared line, 'this is not change you can believe in but change you can Xerox,' got the liberal pro-Obama crowd to briefly boo Mrs. Clinton.

Oh, how far she has fallen !!

A woman who has made her living being a victim, has been trumped by a bigger, untouchable victim. A black man with a gift of gab. Her style of politics, personal destruction of anyone in her way, has been neutered by his superior victimhood status.

I would give more debating points to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama came across as cocky and smug...but none of it is enough to end his run. Even if she can win a few states, his 150 delegate lead is too much to overcome. It is unlikely that she can coax the superdelegates to her side and even if she could, many have pre-scolded the Clintons on this tactic.

In the end, whoever gets the most popularly voted delegates wins. The two-year Senator, long on wind and short on substance will emerge as John McCain's challenger.

Before we wince and toss 'n turn over the possibility of a Barack Obama presidency, let's enjoy watching the Clintons waddle off into the sunset - a damaged brand- beaten by an underfunded, inexperienced, silk-tongued man, with the best victim status.

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

Welcome to the Real Media World, John

2008-02-21T07:56:00.000-05:00

For several years now, John McCain has enjoyed preferential treatment by those in the liberal media establishment. He was their favorite maverick. This favor was not related directly to anything that Sen. McCain believed or did but rather because he was often in opposition to the Bush Administration which most of the media believe to be either misguided or just plain evil. From the media's standpoint, McCain gave them many opportunities to embarrass the Bush Administration by just letting him speak.

McCain obviously enjoyed this "favorite maverick" status. It was a symbiotic relationship in a way; giving McCain the attention he desired and allowing the press to attack Bush through a Republican surrogate. Many conservative commentators pointed out that the media fascination with Sen. McCain would last only so long as he remained useful to them. Seemingly, that day has arrived.

The New York Times has published a piece alleging that an improper relationship may have existed between McCain and a female lobbyist about eight years ago. All involved have denied the allegations but that is not the point I am addressing. The point is that the media fascination with John McCain is now over as many predicted. He has outlived his usefulness to them in their desire to harm the Bush administration. Now, McCain is in the direct path of many in the media achieving another objective of theirs; the election of a Democrat President. As the New York Times is airing allegations against Sen. McCain, it is simultaneously banishing stories of Michelle Obama's errant quotes to the back pages. McCain should have seen this coming.

Welcome to the real media world, John. We're glad to have you back.

-- Submitted by B. Bryant