Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead

"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

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?

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

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"

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

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)

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

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

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

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 !!!

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"

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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