Biden is on Fire !! (Scarlet Fever?)

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)

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)

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]

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

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

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

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

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 !!

“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

"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