Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Friday, August 29, 2008

What a Week!

Wow! Could we have asked for a week filled with more excitement?
I couldn't decide which TV channel to turn to... What should I watch?
The Olympics?
The news about the Democrat candidate choosing a VP?
The news about the DNC Convention?
The rumblings about the Clinton - Obama feud?
The Military Channel and the rerun of 'Battlefields'?
FSC and Man U?

For me the best news, the most rewarding news, was the news about the Republican candidate choosing a VP...

I think Sarah Palin is an excellent choice!
John McCain could not have done America any prouder than to pick the Governor from Alaska. This gal is all woman. Everybit of her. From her mittens with the trigger finger exposed right down to her Goretex snow boots. And, she's easy on the eyes too!
My kind of woman!

I don't know if Palin will provide enough enthusiasm for the Republican base to get up off their dead asses and vote for McCain this fall, but if she can't, well, nobody could have saved us!

I think she is a very good foil to that idiot Biden. I don't think she'll have any trouble leaving him twisting in the wind. And I think she may very well energize the Hillary Women that still feel slighted. Even some of the women that were planning on staying home may be encouraged to the ticket with Palin on board.

Change We Can Believe In... Yeah, that's right bub. Change!

Thursday, August 21, 2008

George W. Bush - My President

On one of the Internet message boards I visit, I was asked what I thought about President Bush.

Then on another board, there was a thread going titled, 'The George Bush Fan Club Thread', so I decided I would respond on both boards...
Here's the content of what I posted:


In the late 90s I was up to here with the Clintons.
I was looking for an alternative to the stained dresses and the liar mentality that lived in the White House, but who?

Republicans didn’t have much going for them back then.
Newt Gingrich was the obvious choice, but he didn’t seem to want the job. He left politics before the 2000 election.

So who was the guy to take on the presumptive nominee from the left, Algore?

When George Bush’s name began to surface I was more than a little surprised.

He was the Governor of Texas and had been an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team so he knew his way around the boardroom and big time politics.

But what was this ‘compassionate conservatism’ he was talking about?

I sure didn’t know very much about him but I was for anybody that could disassemble the Clinton Machine and defeat their boy Algore. We didn’t need any more of the Clinton cronyism!

I jumped on the Bush bandwagon early!
Conservative or not!

Then came the September Attacks. America was devastated.
Everyone I talked with had the same question on their lips.
“What’s The President going to do?”

It didn’t take long to realize what the answer was.
He invaded Afghanistan and went on a massive terrorist hunt.

It surprised me that he reached out to Kennedy for joint ownership of the education bill. I was very skeptical of any relationship with Kennedy.
He has a history of putting himself first.
Later, that relationship came back to bite Mr. Bush in the Butt!

Then we began hearing strange comments about the President.
Things like he was dense, and that he didn’t know how to speak in public.

He began to take more and more personal criticism from the late night talk shows and the Saturday Night Live crew.

It was getting pretty ugly and I wondered why The President didn’t’ defend himself? Didn’t strike back? Or at least publicly laugh at the criticism and sluff it off?

But he never did defend himself.

He said that those kinds of criticisms were beneath the office and didn’t deserve any comment. I tend to agree with him, but the comments were getting out of hand.

The left and the Democrats have hurled every insult, every derogatory remark, every rotten tomato they had in their bag of dirty tricks at Mr. Bush.

They have tried to turn the country against him… all because they still believe he stole the 2000 election and lied about WMDs.

But, through all this...

President Bush has been a ROCK!
He has let none of this nonsense affect his performance...
but I’m sure it’s taken it’s toll on his self esteem.


But he’s a fighter. He’s a strong soul.
He has kept the country together even as the left has tried to tear it apart.

His values have kept him strong.
His faith has kept him strong.


His wife has kept him strong.
His commitment to America has kept him strong.

Sure, I might have done things a little differently, but, after all, I wasn’t dodging rotten tomatoes.

Thank you for your service, Mr. President!
Thank you very, very, much.

Oh... And one more thing.

For all you liberal Democrats out there that have been whining and crying for seven years about having 'your' election stolen...

and all of you misguided leftys that have been saying President Bush should be impeached and is the worst President ever...

and those of you mindless idiots that believe all those terrible nasty things said by the lefty Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, and the MainStream Media...

This is for you!

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Was Saddleback a Blooper?

What the heck was going on at Saddleback?

I've been reading that Obama has accused McCain of cheating...
They say he somehow knew what the questions were going to be beforehand.

And McCain firing back that Obama couldn't answer the tough questions about abortion, saying that 'It was above his pay grade"!

Who Cares?!

And what the heck were the two Presidential candidates doing by having a quasi debate at a church? Who does this guy Rick Warren think he is that he can stage an event like this without proposing a winner and a loser?

Everybody says their guy won! So what was the point?
Who DID win? And, were there any losers - anywhere?

My money is on nobody... and US!

Nobody won because the event wasn't a contest, it was merely one man's(Warrens) attempt to inject himself into the presidential race. But why did he do this? Was it ego? Was it money? Was it really necessary?

The American people lost because we were exposed to a rather farcical portrayal of the election process. It was more like Dr. Phil interviewing Oprah, then Martha Stewart. What's up with that?

I don't think the event was necessary, but I do think something like this was a valuable lesson for us all.

It was unusual to say the least, but this has been a very unusual election season. First we had the right reverend Wright and his anti-American, black liberation theology on the front page of every newspaper and every TV for weeks. Then we had McCain denouncing Rev Haggee and any other preacher he could see from his limo.

We heard talk of Obama having a Muslim childhood - and that's still not resolved completely - and then that goofy priest, then the bomber Bill Ayers, then Michelle Obama dissing America.

We heard McCain say that he wanted to run a clean campaign and disavowed everyone who said BHO was a black man and from Chicago.

So somebody had to bring both of these fools down to earth. This is the first election I can remember in which religion was such a central issue. I guess it made sense for a well known pastor like Warren to try to mediate a truce or cease fire or at least a common understanding.

Did it work? I don't think so.

I think all it did was to give McCain a false sense of completion, a false sense of reason, a false sense of who BHO really is.

I think it emboldened BHO. It gave him credibility and confidence. It really didn't matter if he won or lost, he got to talk to a preacher who had compassion for him and made him look good and respectable. Unlike the image rev Wright gave us.

All in all, I think it was a bad idea. The founding fathers would not have approved of holding a presidential debate in a church - unless that was the only building available.

I don't think Washington would have approved, nor Jefferson, nor any of the others. It was way too touchy feely. Not Governmental, not Presidential at all.

Did we Americans approve? Frankly, I don't believe anybody really thought about it. It was just another TV event about the election. Some watched, most didn't.

Did Americans concern themselves with the implications of a minister refereeing a debate in a church?
I dare say... not one bit.

But maybe after all is said and done it will sink into the American consciousness that this election IS about religion.

Not about which religion, but about religious values - religious values that will be decided by the high court, the Supreme Court.
It's a choice between a Pro-Life guy like McCain... Or a Pro-Choice guy who thinks making decisions about abortion is 'above his pay grade'?

I know who I want to be choosing judges, and his name is John McCain.

EDIT: Here's what Bill Kristol had to say about the event

Monday, August 18, 2008

Vincent Hancock Claims Olympic Gold Medal in Men’s Skeet


The U.S. Shooting Team added to its medal count at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing today when 19-year-old Vincent Hancock (Eatonton, Ga.) captured the gold medal in Men’s Skeet.

U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) member Hancock, a world champion and world record holder in Men’s Skeet was in first place going into the final after hitting 121 out of a possible 125 targets in the qualification round, which is a new Olympic record.

Hancock shot 24 targets in the final to finish tied with Norway’s Tore Brovold, who shot a perfect 25, at 145 targets. Both shooters hit their first pair in the first shoot-off and in the second shoot-off, Brovold missed one of his targets, while Hancock hit both to claim the gold medal.

“I’ve always dreamed of getting gold and now I’ve got it,” said Hancock. “I like to deal with pressure and now its paid off. This is such an amazing feeling and I wouldn’t trade a minute of it.”

Brovold took the silver and Anthony Terras of France claimed the bronze in a shoot-off with Antonis Nikolaidis of Cyprus.

Sean McLelland (Mission, Texas) finished the qualification round tied for sixth place at 118 targets with six other shooters, but missed a target on his first pair in the shoot-off, failing to qualify for the six-person final. McLelland ended the competition in 11th place overall.

U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Keith Sanderson (San Antonio, Texas), a member of the World Class Athlete Program (WCAP) stationed at Ft. Carson, Colo., placed fifth in the Men's 25m Rapid Fire Pistol event.

Sanderson had a stellar qualifying round, scoring an Olympic record of 583 points and lead the field by two points entering the final round, which was the first time he has ever held the lead going into a final. Sanderson’s disappointing score of 193.6 in the final dropped him out of medal contention and he finished in fifth place overall with 776.6.

“I am happy with how I shot today in the regular match, but I shot horrible in the final and I am pretty disappointed,” said Sanderson. “I had a lot of fun in the qualification round though. I don’t always get to say I truly had fun in a match, but I can honestly say I had fun today. I wish it could’ve turned out different, but the whole Olympic experience has been great, especially being here to represent my country.”

The gold medal went to Oleksandr Petriv of the Ukraine, who shot an Olympic finals record of 780.2, including a 200.2 in the final round. Germany's Ralf Schumann took the silver with a 779.5, while Christian Reitz of Germany won the bronze medal with a 779.3.

The Men’s 50m 3 Position Rifle event will conclude the shooting competition at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing on Sunday with Matt Emmons (Browns Mills, N.J.), who just won the silver medal in men’s prone this past Friday, competing in his second event in Beijing.

Along with Emmons, USAMU member and two-time Olympian Jason Parker (Omaha, Neb.) will also be competing in his second event of the Games and will be vying for his first Olympic medal.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Bush Still Raking In Cash For Republicans

This must come as a shock to all Democrats and many RINOs that have been swayed by the MSM attacks on The President, but, "(President) Bush has personally raised more than $968 million for the Republican Party, GOP candidates and his own re-election campaign and inauguration during his two terms in office. And he's not finished."

The President is still as popular as ever with those of us on the Right that knew he was doing the 'right thing'... Standing tall and protecting America!

There was never anything wrong with George Bush's presidency. There was never and impropriety, any scandel, anything untoward at all.

The left simply attacked the man because they percieved that he had stolen the 2000 election and left their guy, Algore out in the cold. Even after the Supreme Court settled the issue, the liberals continued to condemn the court's ruling as being unprecedented and Bush slanted!

Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees.

The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy.

Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.”

Wednesday, Dec. 13—In another decision, Florida Supreme Court decides not to hear an appeal from Gore asking that absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties be thrown out.
In televised speeches, Gore concedes, and Bush accepts the presidency.

Monday, Dec. 18—Electoral college representatives meet in state capitals and cast votes to select president.

Wednesday, Jan. 5—Congress meets to tally electoral college results.

Saturday, Jan. 20—George W. Bush sworn in as 43rd president of the United States.

So there it is. Sour Grapes!
The real reason the democrats hate President Bush.
And he beat them again in 2004!
They don't seem to get it. They lost! They got beat! They're losers!

But that didn't stop them from unleashing the most viscious, most vile, most un-American attack strategy they could imagine. Every newspaper, every TV network, every liberal internet source, carried the same mantra ... Bush Stole The Election!

Then came the war, and the left had a whole set of new issues to blame on the President. Bush Lied! Bush Is Arrogant! Bush Is A Idiot! Bush is stealing our civil liberties!

President Bush has been blamed for everything from making the rest of the world hate the US, to outing Valerie Plame, to creating hurricanes! You've heard them all I'm sure...

Frankly, it hasn't stopped in nearly 8 years! As I have previously noted in an earlier post, the Art of Bush Bashing is high culture!

But none of that nonsense has swayed those of us that admire the man and reapect him for holding the nation together during one of it's darkest hours. For taking on global terrorism at no matter the cost to his reputation. For standing tall for his principles and always putting the safety and security of Americans first.

Even now the left can't accept that the President still carries power and influence within the party. They quip with brilliant observations like this one from Josh Israel... "Until somebody else emerges as the party leader, the former guy is going to be a big draw."

The 'former guy', HA!
What a disgrace the Democrats have been revealed to be.
They are truely sore losers, constant whiners and vibrant liars.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

American Kim Rhode Wins Silver in Skeet


Through torrential rains, women's skeet competitors battled in Beijing today, with American Kim Rhode claiming the silver medal in an exciting shoot-off. Italy's Chiara Cainero took the gold, while Germany's Christine Brinker won bronze.

All three shooters were tied at 93 targets after the finals and went into a shoot-off as the downpour intensified, the Associated Press reports. Cainero hit her first two targets to take the gold, as Rhode and Brinker both missed one. Rhode and Brinker continued into another shoot-off, with Rhode claiming the silver.

Rhode, 28, of El Monte, Calif., is now a four-time Olympic medalist. She won the gold in women's double trap in 1996 and 2004 as well as the bronze in 2000.

Rhode switched to skeet full-time after the women's double trap event was taken out of Olympic competition in 2004. "After double trap was eliminated in 2004, it was a bittersweet win for me," said Rhode. "On one hand I won the gold, but on the other hand I knew the challenge I faced in completely switching to skeet. I couldn't be happier with winning a medal today. Gold, silver or bronze, I don't think it matters. I am just so glad to be back at the Olympics and representing my country."

The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday featured a story and online video profiling Rhode.

In other shooting news, Jamie Beyerle, 24, of Lebanon, Pa., just missed out on a medal in the women's three-position rifle event. Beyerle finished in fifth place with an overall score of 686.9. Sandra Fong, 18, of New York, N.Y., also competing in women's three-position and the youngest member of the 2008 U.S. Olympic shooting team, finished in 21st place with a score of 577.

For complete coverage of the shooting events in Beijing, visit USAShooting.com and NBCOlympics.com.

Great going Kim!
And Congratulations to Jamie Beyerle... You'll get them next time Jamie!
And to Sandra Fong also. At 18 she has a very bright future ahead!

Well done ladies!

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Eller Takes Double Trap Gold, Sets Olympic Record


The United States' Glenn Eller won the gold medal in double trap Tuesday, setting two Olympic records and claiming the second medal so far for the U.S. shooting team at the Beijing Olympics.

Eller began his day strong, setting a new Olympic record in qualifying for the final with a 145, and continuing his dominance through the final with a total score of 190, also a new Olympic record.

Eller, 26, of Katy, Texas, is a three-time Olympian. This is his first Olympic medal. A member of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, he finished 12th at the Sydney Games and 17th in Athens.

The previous Olympic record of 144 was set by Ahmed Almaktoum of the United Arab Emirates at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. Almaktoum and Russell Mark of Australia (Atlanta 1996) were the previous final score record holders with 189.

After missing his first pair in the final, Eller ended up shooting 45 targets and finished with a total score of 190 targets, setting another Olympic record and taking home the gold.

“I was so happy after I won, but I didn’t know whether to cry, smile or jump up and down,” said Eller. “After my performances in the last two Olympics, I really wanted to come here and bring home a medal for the U.S. This is definitely one of the greatest moments of my life so far.”

Eller’s USAMU teammate Jeff Holguin (Yorba Linda, Calif.), who was competing for the U.S. on his first Olympic team, went into the final in third place with a score of 140, shot 42 targets in the final and ended in fourth place with an overall score of 182.

“I got off to a bad start and couldn’t really figure out what I was doing wrong,” Holguin said of his performance. “I came here to win; my goal wasn’t just to make the team. I am disappointed, but hats off to Glenn who is not only my teammate, but a good friend.”

D’ Aniello took the silver with 187 targets, while the bronze medal was won by Hu Binyuan of China with 184 targets.


For someone who has only been shooting her event competitively for a little over two years, 21-year-old Corey Cogdell looked like one of the most experienced trap shooters in the world on Monday in Beijing.

Cogdell, of Eagle River, Alaska, claimed the United States' first Olympic medal in shooting, winning bronze in women's international trap. "I wasn't even supposed to get on the Olympic team. My goal was to be on the 2012 Olympic team, so to win a medal at the Olympics at this point in my career is really a dream come true," said Cogdell, a former standout in NSSF's popular
Scholastic Clay Target Program (SCTP).

Cogdell entered the final round just one target off the lead. In the 25-target final, she struggled early but finished strong, forcing a shoot-out with three other shooters for bronze. After each of the other shooters missed their targets, Cogdell came through in the clutch to claim her spot on the medal stand.
Full Story

Best of luck to all our Shooting Olympians!

We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For...

This is Fred J. Eckert's column from Human Events. I thought it was so spot on that it needed to be shared by as many people as possible. I reprint it here without permission but with full adknowledgement.
It's priceless!

What Some of Us Are Waiting For Is An Explanation

“We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

So says Barack Obama. Over and over and over. He said it in every primary election night speech. He said it in Berlin. He probably says it in his sleep.

It is the sort of line that sends a thrill up the leg of Chris Matthews, and it always seems to enthrall and energize the vast Obama cheerleading squad in the mainstream media.

Well, Barack, some of us are getting tired of waiting. Some of us would like to hear your answer to this question without having to wait any longer:

What is that dopey line supposed to mean?

You have never explained what you mean by it.

And no one in the media has ever bothered to ask you.

I’m asking.

And while I’m at it, here’s something else I must be too thick to figure out on my own: If we are the ones we have been waiting for, who has kept us waiting? Wouldn’t we be the ones who have kept ourselves waiting? Why would we do that?

Since Obama won’t volunteer the answers to these sorts of questions, and the media won’t ask him what they consider to be such tough ones, it occurs to me that the nicest thing I could do for Democrats and their media allies this week -- besides hosting a surprise baby shower for John Edwards -- would be to show them where Obama got that phrase that he loves so much and they cheer so loudly. Knowing his source might be interesting and educational for all of us.

Go on the web, enter www.google.com or www.yahoo.com, then search for “We are the ones we have been looking for.”

Up on your computer screen it pops -- it’s a book title. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and others carry it. Easy to find. Takes a few seconds of work, but even Democrats and mainstream media reporters can do it.

This simple exercise doesn’t tell us what the phrase means -- Obama will have to explain one day if the media could only be made sufficiently embarrassed to ask.

But by doing it, we discover from where their candidate “borrowed” it.

And this raises another interesting question the media has been negligent -- perhaps deliberately so -- in asking Barack Obama:

You were nice enough to credit your “like family” friend and mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as being the source for the title of your book, The Audacity of Hope. So why have you never credited the author of a collection of essays titled We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For as being the source for this rallying call of yours?

Let me take a wild guess: It’s because she is another Reverand Wright type, anti-American Left wing extremist nutcase embarrassment.

As loony as Wright? As wrong as Wright? You got it!

Author Alice Walker, a well-known far Left feminist lesbian activist, has endorsed Obama with excitement and enthusiasm nearly matching that of Chris Matthews. Obama is, she proclaims, “not perfect but humanly stunning…We look at him…and are glad to be of our species.”

Others of our species that she goes gaga over include Fidel Castro: "What's not to like about the man?” she asks. “If Fidel could dance, he'd be perfect!" Imagine if Obama could bowl.

A segment of our species Walker seems to be especially fond of is convicted cop killers. She has more than once visited in prison one of America’s best-known cop killers, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a cause celeb of the far Left. He’s “a beautiful person” and “compassionate,” she tells us, “he has a lot of light.” Besides, she has a feeling that what he was actually doing at the scene where the police officer was murdered was just “trying to help.”

The bullet extracted from the dead officer’s brain matched the five spent shells that were in the gun registered to her beautiful person/compassionate friend -- the gun he had with him at the scene, the gun he attempted to keep away from police arriving at the scene of the murder, the gun that fit into the holster he was wearing. And there was a return bullet from the police officer’s gun in his chest.

So what if a jury convicted him, so what if five eyewitnesses implicated him, so what if he subsequently screamed, “If you let me go, I’ll kill all of you cops.” So what if even the likes of Michael Moore has pronounced him guilty as charged? To the nuttiest of the Loony Left -- which includes this woman from whom Obama gets his rallying call -- this cop killer is their kind of guy.

Being such a good feminist, Ms. Walker also has a female convicted cop killer among her favorites -- former Black Panther and Black Liberation Army leader Assata Shakur, who escaped prison and was granted “political asylum” in Castro’s Cuba. Walker says she has a feeling -- there she goes again! -- that the woman didn’t mean to kill the cop (she was involved in a shootout when she killed him).

Can we possibly find anything nuttier about her? Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

Walker’s advice on how we need to deal with Osama bin Laden: 1) We need to “remind him of all the good, nonviolent things he has done,” and 2) we need to convince him to understand “the preciousness of the lives” of the people he’s killed. Of course, in the matter of preciousness of life, she is pro-abortion and has had one.

She doesn’t like religions, especially the Catholic Church. And she says the real problem in the Middle East is the Jews.

It’s all enough to make one wonder:

What if Republicans began asking Obama to explain why he turned to the likes of a loon like Alice Walker for that idiotic rallying call of his -- and why he has never given her the recognition she deserves for it. Do you suppose the mainstream media would report that?


And what if Republicans asked Obama what he thought of each of his message maker’s various wacky pronouncements? Would the mainstream media report that?


The mainstream media will probably be too busy telling us all about what they are sure to see as the next truly interesting story: Obama’s vacation in Hawaii.

Hawaii, by the way, would be the perfect place for the media to ask Alice Walker’s slogan-stealing dream candidate what he thinks of yet another one of her nutcase views: “People should know that Hawaii is a country and should be respected as such," she tells us. "Because it was forcibly annexed to the United States does not mean that it is the U.S., except by conquest.

"These are the sorts of questions we have been waiting for the media to ask Barack Obama.

And waiting.

And waiting.

And waiting.

Fred J. Eckert is a former conservative Republican Congressman from New York and twice served as a US Ambassador under President Reagan. He is currently writing a second comic political satire novel; his first, Hank Harrison for President, was hailed by Library Journal as 'one of the best political spoofs since The Mouse That Roared'.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Brett Is A Jet!

GREEN BAY, Wis. — The Brett Favre era in Green Bay is now officially over. But Favre's legendary career is not.

The month-long saga has finally come to an end, with the Packers agreeing to trade their future Hall-of-Fame quarterback to the New York Jets, FOXSports.com has learned.
The exact compensation was not immediately known, but it is believed to be a single draft pick that increases in value depending upon how the Jets perform during the 2008 season.
As a result of this, the Jets will likely release a quarterback. Signs have been pointing to Chad Pennington as the likely culprit because the team will need to free up cap room to fit Favre's Favre's contract under the salary cap.


I've been thinking for quite a while about Brett and his retirement message of last spring/winter. I wondered then if he didnt have something else on his mind about Green Bay. Why would he want to retire in Green Bay, then move back to Mississippi and farm. I know he loves farming, hunting and roaming the land, but it just didn't set right with me.

I first thought, OK retire from the Packers and go fishing and hunting. Then I thought, I don't think I would do that!

Then it struck me about the long distance commute and the severe weather difference. Then I remembered that Katrina nearly wiped out his family residences and maybe he was saddened by the loss to the point of leaving Mississippi altogether.

His wife does a lot of charity work and Mississippi isn't the hub of society. So another location, another city didn't seem that far fetched. Then when all this idiocy from the Packers happened - wanting to pay him $20Mil just to sit in his boat and do a couple of appearances each year - It just didn't seem right.

I really think he and Diana had something in their mind about getting to 'the big city' and savoring the celebrity. Maybe enjoying their salad years in the limelight wasn't such a bad thing after all. GB didn't want to do right by him, Mississippi was a mess, so why not try for the Big Apple?

I think the rumors about Tampa Bay were just that - rumors. Gruden is not Brett's kind of guy. New York was the right fit. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he buys a farm or something. Just wait until he hears about NY's and NJs gun laws! He'll flip his lid!

But New York or New Jersey is a great place to live if you have the coin - and he's got it! So it may work out for the best. Now, lets see if he can make the Jets into a contender that can do battle with The Patriots!

Thursday, August 7, 2008

The Communist Party Backs Obama!

Most of us already know that Barack Hussien Obama is a Marxist, a 'world citizen', an America hater, masquerading as a candidate for office of The President of The United States of America.

But did you know he has the backing of the Communist Party?
Umm-hmm, that's right. The Communist Party USA has posted an editorial supporting BHO and the 'struggle' to defeat the 'ultra right'.

Here's the uh, article...

Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.

The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.

One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.

Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.

So there ya go.
Subversion at is core.
We can only hope that America will open it's eyes to this threat and realize that while the USSR has mainly gone away, the Communist Party with their determination and their desire to dominate the world is still quite alive.

Stay alert America!

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Where's The Breck Girl When Ya need him?

When I read this story from Ann Coulter I darn near split a gut laughing!
She's hit it right on!
The Breck Girl and his 'love child' sex scandal have been totally wiped off the radar of the MainStream Media. Have you heard anything about this?
Has anybody?

They put it down to the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story - that's right the very same National Enquirer that we have grown to love and hate.
Here's Ann's story... Enjoy!


The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?

I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.

Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to report it!

A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.

Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?

The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!

Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse: "

Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."

There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!

Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter -- the former "Lisa Druck" -- $15,000 a month in "hush money." Shouldn't the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a "business expense"?

Maybe The Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards -- you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose.

Kausfiles produced this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:

From: "Pierce, Tony" Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.

Keep rockin,

Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How about something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore the means of production to the people and create a workers' paradise right here on Earth, free of the shackles of capitalism?

I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.

But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

She is sooooo good!

So What's Next For Brett?

I'm completely shocked about what's been going on with Brett Farve and his relationship with the GreenBay Packers.

What the hell were the Packers thinking? This should have been a very simple situation and the packers have turned it into a nightmare scenario for Brett, their fans and all the rest of us that follow NFL football.

After last season, Brett was tired and spent, so when he was asked about his future he said, "I really don't know. Talk to me in a few months. Right now, I'm leaning toward retiring."

That was good enough for me. The guy needed time to make an informed, thoughtful decision. But the Packers have a Professional Football Team to run. They need answers about Farves future so they can plan for next season.
Fair enough.
What's the best way to deal with this kind of situation?
Do you have any suggestions?

My thoughts were this: The packers needed answers, but Brett wasn't ready to give a definitive answer. Something has to give.

I felt the best way to get resolution was for the Packers to give Brett a deadline. Say, like May 1, 2008. Maybe something like, OK Brett, we need to have a decision by the first of May so we can move forward. You have until 1 May at Midnight to either apply for reinstatement to the club, submit a request in writing that you want to be traded, or formally indicate that you are going to officially retire.

Simple huh? Play with the Packers, request a trade, or retire.

So how did we get to this fiasco we're witnessing in the media?

Terry Bradshaw had this to say about it...
What the heck are the Packers thinking?
There has to be more to this whole Brett Favre story than we really know right now. Because how is it possible that one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game, maybe the greatest Packer ever, isn't given at least a chance to compete for his old job?

I have the feeling that Brett must have been pressured into retiring. When I retired, I was done. I couldn't throw. My body said I was done. I had no choice and never looked back, but Brett had a great year last season. I know he threw that interception against the Giants at the end of the NFC title game, but that isn't enough to say he's a declining player. I don't how you can label him a loser because they lost to the Giants and he didn't play well in the second half. As I recall, Tom Brady lost to the Giants, too.
I was at the Hall of Fame luncheon today in Canton and most of the former players I talked to thought it was insulting that the Packers are offering him some marketing deal worth $20 million not to play. How dare they do that simply to keep him from playing?
The other thing is: How can Packers coach Mike McCarthy really believe that Aaron Rodgers is better than Brett because of how Rodgers has performed in seven-on-seven drills in mini-camps? That's how he won the job — on the practice field!
What's wrong with allowing Brett to come back and at least compete for his old job? Let the fans and coaches see who is the better quarterback. And if they are so worried about letting him compete in Green Bay, then let Brett go play somewhere else even if it means Minnesota.

A lot of great quarterbacks — Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, Bert Jones and Joe Montana — finished their careers with another team. So what Brett is asking to do — to play somewhere else — is not that unusual. It didn't work out for all of those guys, but they still wanted to play and I think that's every player's right to make that decision.

I don't know how this is going to end. I still can't believe that the Packers aren't going to allow performance on the practice field, in training camp, to decide who gets the play. In the NFL, I thought the best player played.

The Packers have a real dilemma on their hands. If Brett doesn't take this money, still asks to play for the Vikings and Green Bay doesn't let him, that franchise jeopardizes its relationship with one of its greatest players.

I mean, if Brett leaves the game angry, he may stay away from Green Bay forever. The hope is that within five years, he will be going into the Hall of Fame and the Packers would want to be a big part of that. But right now, it looks like the Packers have a lot of patching up to do.

Then theres this from Jay Glazer ...
McCarthy: Favre not ready to play for Packers

The bond between Brett Farve and the Packers appears to be broken beyond repair.
Speaking publicly for the first time about his series of meetings with Favre, Green Bay head coach Mike McCarthy said the quarterback was not in the "proper mindset" to continue as a member of the team.
"We talked about everything that has happened since this whole process started," McCarthy said. "We rehashed all the different things that's gone on. We agreed and disagreed. Our whole focus was, was he a member of our football team and where was his mind at. He was not at the proper mindset to be part of our football team."

Even with the chance to win his starting job back potentially on the table, McCarthy said Favre couldn't seem to get past emotional wounds that were opened as tensions mounted in recent weeks.
"The football team's moving forward," McCarthy said. "The train has left the station, whatever analogy you want. He needs to jump on the train and let's go. Or, if we can't get past things that have happened, I have to keep the train moving."

But asked specifically if Favre had played his final game with the Packers, McCarthy tiptoed around the subject.

"There's no decision made," McCarthy said. "We talked about speaking again tonight."
Even if the decision isn't yet official, McCarthy appeared to be comfortable proceeding with Aaron Rodgers as his starting quarterback.
"Aaron Rodgers has done everything right," McCarthy said. "I understand the attention he gets for being in his position. I think that he has the tools — mentally, physically, emotionally. Who's had better training than Aaron Rodgers in being an NFL QB? I believe in Aaron because he's very talented."

After meeting for more than five hours Monday night, Favre and McCarthy met for another four hours Tuesday morning. Shortly after that meeting concluded, Favre left Lambeau Field before the Packers began their Tuesday afternoon practice.

But the discussions didn't stop there.

FOXSports.com learned that multiple Packers executives continued to meet with Favre off-site in an attempt to resolve the situation.

Favre has told the team that he wants to be traded to either Minnesota or Chicago. But according to sources, it is believed the Bears have no interest and the Vikings appear to be a long shot as well.

However, the Buccaneers and Jets have been interested in obtaining Favre since the saga began and sources from both teams have told FOXSports.com that their interest has not wavered.
The continued discussions came less than a day after a marathon session of meetings between Favre, McCarthy and GM Ted Thompson Monday night, the details of which were first reported by FOXSports.com.

During those meetings, Favre and McCarthy agreed that an open quarterback competition would be an unwanted distraction for the team, essentially agreeing that Aaron Rodgers would be the team's starting quarterback. Favre also told McCarthy and Thompson that he did not want to ruin team chemistry.

The talks were largely amicable, but the sides remain stalemated over a possible destination for the three-time MVP, with Favre very much wanting to remain within the division and the team hoping to find another option.

Did Favre not feel wanted or welcome enough by the Packers?
"That's part of the issue with him, quite frankly," McCarthy said. "And listening to him talk about that, you respect his opinion. And frankly, I told him, I said, 'I'll take responsibility because I have a voice in the building.' I never thought he truly was going to play. I thought he was emotionally driven for other reasons."

McCarthy said Favre was "very convincing" in their conversations about his desire to play Monday night and Tuesday. But McCarthy still seemed to have reservations about Favre's commitment to preparation.

Would Favre continue to stay at Lambeau late at night to study film, a major factor in his success last season?
"That was a very good question for him," McCarthy said. "He's in a tough spot right now."
McCarthy also didn't seem convinced that Favre was thinking clearly about his future.
"He has a lot going through his head, and I think he's emotional," McCarthy said. "And just talking to him, he's in a tough spot."

So, of course, are McCarthy and Thompson. Correctly or not, they might end up being seen by fans as the men who drove Favre out of Green Bay.

"That's not a good feeling, but I don't view it that way," McCarthy said. "I can only trust the truth. I've been part of a lot of conversations, and I don't feel that's the case."
Rodgers, meanwhile, stuck to his mantra of not worrying about things he can't control.
"I just know we were out at practice today, and he wasn't there, and I'm the starter," Rodgers said. "So that's where we're going right now."

Speaking to reporters after Tuesday's practice, Rodgers stood just a few feet away from a locker with a "FAVRE" nameplate above it, stocked with shoulderpads and other equipment. It hadn't been used — and now might never be.

Cornerback Charles Woodson had a hard time imagining the Packers trading such an iconic player. "Everything went kind of sour a few weeks or a month back, but you never felt like it would get to the point or to the talks of him actually being traded," Woodson said. "I felt once he stepped back in here, he would be the quarterback. Him not being here today, I guess management has a different route. So at that point, we've got to go out and do our job."

What a mess! The packers surely dropped the ball and have nearly ruined the reputation of one of the greatest quarterbacks to have ever play the game! Packer Management needs to visit the Betty Ford Center to be deprogammed from stupid.

So what's next? Alex Marvez has this to say...
The chants of "Bring Back Brett" and "We Want Favre" resonated from fans throughout Tuesday's Packers practice.

Sorry, disgruntled Cheeseheads. It's not happening. Not unless Brett Favre changes his mind — once again.

Packers coach Mike McCarthy basically shut the door on Favre's potential return during a Tuesday news conference. After meeting with Favre for more than eight hours the past two days, McCarthy said the quarterback still wanted to play football. It's just not with the team where he has forged a Hall of Fame career over the past 16 seasons because of the soap opera that has unfolded with Packers management this offseason.

That means it's highly unlikely Favre will ever wear a Packers uniform again, even though he was officially reinstated to the team Monday.
"He was not at the proper mindset to be part of our football team," McCarthy said.

So what's next in the Favre saga? Here are the most likely options and the odds of them occurring.

1. A trade to Tampa Bay
Why it could happen: The Bucs make the most sense on many levels. Tampa Bay coach Jon Gruden runs a West Coast offense that Favre should have an easy time learning, considering he played in similar systems throughout his Packers tenure. Favre and Gruden have familiarity from when the former was a Packers offensive assistant in 1993 and 1994. Tampa Bay has the salary cap space to accommodate Favre's $12 million base salary. Favre would be playing for what would become a legitimate Super Bowl contender, and even have a shot for revenge against the Packers during a Sept. 28 matchup.

Why it might not: Green Bay is reticent to trade Favre within the NFC. Favre also may balk at any trade in hopes of trying to negotiate his own free-agent deal by forcing a Packers release. Favre, though, doesn't have much leverage on that front. If he should refuse to report after being dealt, Favre's new team would have the right to try and recoup part of his signing bonus paid by the Packers. Tampa Bay did just that with quarterback Jake Plummer. He was forced to refund $3.5 million when deciding to stay retired, rather than play for the Bucs after being traded by Denver.
Odds: 2-to-1

2. A trade to the New York Jets
Why it could happen: So far, the only viable non-NFC trade option for Favre is New York. The Jets aren't considered the same caliber Super Bowl contender as Tampa Bay, especially playing in the same division as New England. But New York could make a playoff run after upgrading its personnel this offseason through trades and wild free-agent spending. New York's biggest question mark is at quarterback, where two ho-hum candidates — Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemens — are battling for the starting spot.

Why it might not: Making another huge financial investment in a player like Favre might be too much for New York to fit under its salary cap. Favre also has no history with head coach Eric Mangini or offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer. If the Jets don't feel Favre would be excited to play for them, why invite what could become a major headache?
Odds: 4-to-1.

3. Retirement
Why it could happen: Favre isn't speaking much, so it's difficult getting inside his head. But McCarthy said Favre was going through "a very stressful time for him and his family." Favre may ultimately decide that playing elsewhere just isn't worth it and retire once more.
Why it might not: McCarthy sensed that Favre wants to play in 2008. And since Favre successfully applied for NFL reinstatement while spending time preparing for a comeback, why stop now with the regular season roughly a month away?
Odds: 20-to-1

4. A trade to Minnesota
Why it could happen: Favre would green-light a deal that would reunite him with Vikings offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell, who coached him previously with the Packers. Favre would have familiarity with the opposition playing in the NFC North and get two regular season shots at the Packers.
Why it might not: Packers general manager Ted Thompson has said he wouldn't trade Favre within the division. The Vikings would have to offer considerable trade compensation for Thompson to reconsider his stance.
Odds: 50-to-1

5. The Packers release Favre
Why it could happen: If unable to receive adequate trade compensation, the Packers may decide that cutting Favre is the best option for future relations. Green Bay President Mark Murphy was so concerned about Favre's long-term relationship with the Packers that he reportedly offered a $20-million package for the quarterback to stay retired. From a business standpoint, Favre is a commodity whose merchandising value will remain strong as long as he continues to embrace the Packers, especially as his eventual Hall of Fame induction approaches. Granting Favre his wish for freedom would ensure he stays on good terms with the franchise.
Why it might not: The Packers don't want to let Favre join another team — especially a division rival like Minnesota — without receiving trade compensation.
Odds: 100-to-1

So there you have it. That's the lastest in the saga of Bret Farve's semi-retirement/renewed desire to play somewhere/and reluctance be a GreenBay $20 Million flunky.
I guess we'll see what happens soon?
All I can say is thay I hope I get to see that magnificent arm again and I hope he can keep the 'iron man' streak alive for another season. What a talent. What a really nice guy. It'd be a shame to see him go out with all this politically motivated, my ass is bigger than your ass!

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

A new Kind Of Politics?

At the beginning of this election season, Sen. Obama promised us that he would run a new kind of campaign, with a new kind of politics, for a new world. Sen McCain said he would not stoop to crass remarks and dirty mudslinging, and in fact has renounced several attempts to disparage the Democrat Candidate.

But, frankly I just don't see this happening. It's traditional that the candidates try to cut the knees from the other and bury him in as much mud as possible.

The American people might say that they don't want this, but remember, these are the same folks that watch those reality shows where someone is trashed and thrown off the show and the same folks that watch automobile races to watch the massive 30 car wrecks!

Here's a recent article by LIZ SIDOTI at Townhall.com
For all the talk about John McCain's hard-hitting politics, Barack Obama is hardly innocent.
Both candidates and their allies are fully engaged in creating unflattering caricatures of each other that they hope will stick in voters' minds for the next three months.

Obama and his Democratic backers argue that the Republican is negative and offers nothing new, while McCain and his Republicans claim the Democrat is presumptuous and ill-prepared.
"They're cynical," Obama recently charged of McCain and his followers, adding: "They want to distract people from talking about the real issues."

One day earlier, the Democrat issued a fundraising appeal accusing McCain of taking "the low road" and stooping to "the same old smears" by launching "a desperate new set of attacks" each day.

McCain disputed that. "This is a very respectful campaign. I don't think our campaign is negative in the slightest," he said. His comments came the same week he agreed with a top aide's charge that Obama had "played the race card" and rolled out a TV commercial that mocking Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" and asking: "Is he ready to lead?"

Brutal, certainly; effective, probably _ and that's why competitive contests typically end up in the gutter as each side works to draw contrasts with the other.

Nevermind that at the outset of the general election Obama and McCain each expressed a desire for a courteous campaign focused on issues and free of the brass-knuckle politics that have marked _ and marred _ presidential races.

These days, each skewers his opponent with regularity _ and even zeal.
The Obama campaign argues that he's drawing distinctions based on policy, while McCain has gotten personal by comparing the Illinois senator to lightweight celebrities and stoking the race issue. McCain's campaign defends its tactics, contends issues of experience, judgment and readiness are fair game, and maintains that Obama brought up race first.

This week, Obama stepped up his efforts to link McCain to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney _ and their associations with oil companies.

"McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook," Obama said Tuesday as he blasted McCain on energy _ even though he, not McCain, voted for the Bush-backed 2005 energy bill that Cheney played a major role in drafting. Obama also unveiled a TV ad suggesting that oil companies had bought off McCain. It said: "After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can't afford another."

I thought Obama was promising a "new kind of politics"?
This doesn't sould like a new kind of politics to me! It sounds like the same ol', same ol'...

Obama is merely using fancy words to trick and confuse the uneducated.
There's absolutely nothing new about his tactics.

He's been on the Bush Bashing bus from the very beginning. He's called McCain 'another Bush'. He's said that electing McCain would just bring a 3rd Bush term. This is new politics?

Certainly, there's a difference in tone and style between the two candidates.
McCain is blunt and can be snarky, particularly when he doesn't think much of his target.
The Arizona senator recently asserted that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," and belittled him for the "audacity of hopelessness" in his Iraq policies. At one point, McCain said: "Sen. Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth."

One McCain commercial took issue with Obama's canceled visit with injured troops _ the ad was widely debunked _ while another used starlets Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to poke fun at Obama's worldwide following and suggest he's little more than empty suit. Separately, a Web video chided him as "The One."

Conversely, Obama is more stealthy as he attacks rhetorically.
He typically says he respects McCain. Then, he assails the Republican with a lighthearted, commonsense _ and sometimes sarcastic _ pitch and a smile.

On Monday, Obama quoted McCain lamenting the failure by Washington politicians to fix the country's dependence on foreign oil and said: "What Sen. McCain neglected to mention was that during those 30 years, he was in Washington for 26 of them! And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

Obama then ran down a laundry list of McCain votes and added: "He's been a part of that failure." But, Obama said, after "after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices," McCain is offering what amounts to an unworkable solution both in the short term and long term.

The Democrat didn't say it explicitly but that was a suggestion of political expediency on McCain's part.

He also took McCain to task for a comment about the "psychological" relief a gas tax holiday would bring to consumers and added: "We simply cannot pretend, as Sen. McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem."

Where does it end? Well, Obama will get nasty and McCain will finally retaliate. Ultimately it will be just like every other campaign, complete with inuendo, accuasations, threats and mistruths. It will be up to us, the voters to try and sort it all out.

Again it will be our choosing the one that smells the least like a pig pen.

Monday, August 4, 2008

Is Race The Issue In This Election?

Barack Obama has made a mistake, and his campaign knows it. For days, his online supporters have been pretending that an ad comparing Obama to bubble-headed celebrities had a racial subtext (the alleged subtext being that he wants to bed them).

Obama decided that it was time to play the race card again. “Nobody thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.”

Obama has gotten away with this despicable assertion before. At a Florida fundraiser in June, he again suggested that nobody could have any rational reason for opposing him.

So: “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?” Neither the press nor the Republicans protested.

What about The Race Card?

People are saying that race is not an issue in this election.
I believe that sentiment couldn't be further from the truth.

Race is THE ISSUE in this election. How can anyone consider the Democrat Candidate without considering his race?

Lets examine what we know about the candidate.

We know right away that he is a black man because his skin color.
He is of the Negro Race.
He has absolutely no experience on the national level.
He’s only been a US Senator for a couple of years. He has no constituency.
He says he’s from Chicago, but he wasn’t raised there. He didn’t go to school there. He just moved there for a job - to 'organize people'.
He is naive about foreign policy. He wants to actually sit down with the likes of Ahmenidajad, Kim il Sung, and Chavez to discuss our relationship. These people are the heads of radical regimes! They aren’t our friends. They hate us! They have always hated us. They will continue to hate us. Talking with them face to face will change nothing and merely give them validation and an opportunity for massive propaganda.

His experience and naiveté alone would usually disqualify him from holding the highest office in the land. So why are so many people jumping on the Obama bandwagon?

He won the nomination virtually without any platform or position on any important issue. The only thing we heard him mention was ‘hope’ and ‘change’. What the heck does that mean? Pretty vague don’t ya think?

So what is it that attracts so many people to this guy?

For one thing, the Mainstream Media has been very successful at smearing President Bush and many folks that are easily swayed, have fallen for their propaganda.

Those people want change at any price.
They really don’t care who or what, just as long as it’s change!

For another, consider white guilt.

Obama is a black man before all else. The liberal left is entrenched in their own guilt and this election, with their black candidate on the ticket, gives them a way to preach redemption for our past transgressions.

Oh yes, white guilt is still very powerful.

Remember, in the early days of our country we owned slaves. We owned black people. We bought and sold human beings that were brought to our shores by the Dutch, the Portuguese and other slave traders from the African Continent.

That was a very bad thing. Slavery is a very bad thing. To enslave humans, to buy and sell them like so much chattel is a very, very bad thing.

Most Americans are extremely sorry about that chapter in our nation’s history. Most Americans would like to try and forget that our ancestors were so cruel, so insensitive, so brutal. But that will not happen anytime soon.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make it their business, yes it is a business, to make sure we don’t forget our past.

Their ‘business’ is to keep racism alive and thriving in America.
Without a megaphone and a soap box, Jackson and Sharpton would need to look for a real job.

Sharpton and Jackson will stand on any street corner and shout with their megaphone, that America should feel guilt and shame about what they have done to the black man. That America needs to repair the damage done to the black man. America needs to pay the black man for all those years of slavery and repression. They keep shouting that the black man ‘is owed’!

Oh, those two will never let us forget!

So yes, this election is very much about race. Whether we like it or not, we’re going to have to talk about race relations, discuss racial tension, scream about racial injustice, and fight about who is owed what!

And this election is very much about guilt. Everyone applauds what the candidate has been able to accomplish with his life, but how does he qualify for the Presidency?

Because he is a black man, that's how.
Because White America can finally put to rest, those demons of bigotry and slavery. But, are those qualifications enough to raise him up?

This is just the beginning. Mark my words, race will be the central focus of this election, and it may very well disintegrate into more hatred and violence.

But, Obama is trying to diffuse the race issue by casting the first stone and trying to shrug it off with a casual flair.
As earlier... He says, “They’re trying to scare you because I’m a black man”.
He says, “I don’t look like those other guys on the dollar bill”.

Hell, he’s not even President yet and he has the audacity to put himself in the same company as some of our greatest men! That arrogance alone will be enough to anger some people. It angers me!

But that’s his way of diverting attention from the issue of race.

And that is his greatest mistake. He believes he is being proactive about playing the race card, and in reality he, himself, is injecting race into the campaign by trying to accuse the McCain camp of pointing out his color!

Obama is saying, “I’m the black guy in the contest, don’t let the other guy point it out. I’ll do it for you!”
In my opinion… big mistake!
We’ll see if this backfires or not…

As Obama tries to distance himself from the Jacksons and the Sharptons and talk about a new kind of politics, he says he doesn’t want any Washington ‘insiders’ on his staff. He wants to create a new atmosphere in Washington and stop all the divisive wrangling of the past.

He may be successful putting distance between himself and those two vultures, but he will need the Black Vote to get elected. That means he will eventually need to reach out to blacks in a way that they have not seen before.

Do black folks really trust this guy?
20% say they will vote for him solely because of his race.

OK, some will vote for him just because of his skin color, but he needs to prove that he is ‘black enough’ to represent them and their struggle.
Remember the ‘Magic Negro' comments?

I don’t think he will succeed. He sure is a smooth talker, but he doesn’t have the right stuff. He will make whites angry and will not create the trust he needs in the black community.

But he sure is audacious!
How dare he assume we have already elected him! And how dare he assume he will end up being one of the ‘great presidents of all time’!
What an ego!
This is the attitude that many old Southerners would classify as ‘uppity’!
And that’s not good.

Obama is treading on thin ice and doesn’t even know it! He really believes all those things ‘his people’ keep telling him. That he is the lord messiah. That he is the one we’ve been waiting for. That this is his time in the sun!

And don’t believe for one minute that these are all his ideas! Heck no. This guy is no 'deep thinker'. He does what he’s told to do. He says what he's told to say. He goes where he’s told to go. He’s a puppet.
And, I think a lot of people realize that.

But, he’s a black man running for the Presidency of the United States.
That in itself is quite an achievement, but Obama is determined to tell us all that he is BLACK!

So, yes, I believe that race is the single most important factor in choosing this man over any other.
And, this may be the only chance for White Liberal Guilt to be avenged.
But, is the color of his skin reason enough to elect him?

Will he be America’s first black President?

If he is, his color will ALWAYS be discussed. His race, the fact that he is a Negro, will ALWAYS be the single most important issue of his presidency.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Anthrax Anyone?

Everybody remembers the anthrax scare, right?
Right after the September 2001 Attacks, seemingly random people were receiving letters filled with the deadly stuff and all of America was wondering... Who's Next!

Well, it seems that this scientist was a little 'wacky' and was spending waaaaay too much time in the lab. He was working on a vaccine or treatment for anthrax contamination and sent out the substance to see if his creation would work!

What was going on in this guy's head?

Bruce Ivins arrived in July at a group counseling session at a psychiatric center here in his hometown with a startling announcement: Facing the prospect of murder charges, he had bought a bulletproof vest and a gun as he contemplated killing his co-workers at the nearby U.S. Army research laboratory.

"He was going to go out in a blaze of glory, and he was going to take everybody out there with him," said a social worker in a transcript of a hearing at which she sought a restraining order against Ivins after his threats.

The homicidal rant represented the final stages of psychological decline by Ivins that ended when he apparently committed suicide Tuesday as it became clear that he was a prime suspect in the anthrax attacks that further terrorized Americans in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001.
For more than three decades, Ivins had worked with some of the world's most dangerous pathogens and viruses, trying to find cures in case they might someday be used as a weapon.

Now he was being questioned about his possible role as the culprit in the worst biological attack in the United States.

To some of his longtime colleagues and neighbors, it was a startling and inexplicable turn of events for a churchgoing, family-oriented germ researcher known for his jolly disposition - the guy who did a juggling act at community events and composed satiric ballads he played on guitar or piano to departing co-workers.

Let's hope this is the end of this mess...