The Redeemer Commeth

Why is this Obama guy even being considered for the Presidency?
He has no experience, no credentials, no constituency.
How did he become the nominee for the Democrat Party?
Why has he enjoyed all this support, this ‘mania’, even though he a complete unknown?

Is he really smart?
I don't think he is, but what do others believe?
Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review for a year.
You're supposed to be very smart, very intelligent, to hold that post.
This is a comment from Atlas Shrugs, on Obama's qualifications:
We will begin with the first and most obvious sign of intelligence - grades.
Obama doesn't have them.
Oh, he's given the aura of possessing them - but when one looks closely at that aura, it disappears like smoke before your eyes. For instance, not once has anyone, ever, at any time, produced those grades. In no publication, either Obama's or anyone else's, has any cite been made of that average - was it a 4.0? (Straight A's?) Was it even higher - 4.3? (A+) (And today's high school seniors are graduating with 5.0.) Okay, how about a 3.9 or 3.8?

No. The answer is none. Never. At no time have Obama's grades ever been cited. And that is damning. Because as any person who's ever graduated from elementary, high school or college will tell you, their grade point average is so close to their identity as to be the identity itself. Therefore - for that 'identity' to be invisible as is the case with Obama, is quite revealing. In plain words, if someone doesn't mention a high grade point average, it's for only one reason - there isn't a high grade point average.

Is he really savvy?
Well, with so little experience, I don't see how he could be.
This is what the LA Times said about him this June:
Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

Is he politically connected?
Has anybody heard of this guy before last year?
Was he on anybody's radar at all? No.
He was merely an anti-Clinton pill that the Democrats could swallow.
From The National Review:
The Democrats have gone all the way. They have nominated arguably the most left-wing major party presidential nominee ever, certainly the most left-wing since George McGovern.

Obama’s victory is a repudiation not just of the Clintons personally, but of Clintonism.

Bill Clinton won the presidency based on the Democratic Leadership Council model of a new kind of Democratic politics that pivoted toward the center. Obama not only has had no Sister Souljah moment, he initially embraced his Sister Souljah (in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, introduced to the American public in videotaped rants). He has made no creative policy departure on par with Bill Clinton’s advocacy of welfare reform in 1992 — in fact, has made no creative policy departure at all.

He is the old wine of McGovernite liberalism poured into the alluring wineskin of “hope” and “unity.”

So what gives?
How is this guy even on the ticket in the first place?

Lets look at some of the reasons:
A) Mrs. Bill Clinton suffered from the worst kind of voter angst – Disgust!
They didn’t want 4 more tawdry years of stained dresses and late night pizza deliveries. Obama motored right past her even though he was driving a old junk car with 3 flat tires.

B) Obama's silver tongued double speak is the perfect delivery mechanism for the Marxist message of the Left. And, since the Left has been on a ‘Hate Bush’ kick for the last 7 years, they want nothing more to do with anything related to Mr. Bush or the Republicans. This is the root for the candidate’s reference, that voting for McCain is just asking for a 3rd Bush term. They think he's the right guy at the right time.

C) The media has been desperate for a ‘darling’ they could fawn over. Their efforts became focused when they realized Mrs. Bill Clinton was toast. Obama became their guy - almost overnight! They have covered every speech, every sound bite, every time the candidate kissed a baby. They have been very careful to not discredit him about anything, even though he has given them good reason. Even ‘The Three Stooges’ of network TV tagged along on his trip to Europe and the Middle East!
The MainStream Media LOVES this guy!

D) The Left is showing it’s true motivation - guilt.
Their Great Society has failed.
The Civil Rights movement has failed.
Affirmative Action has failed.
But they continue to spew that tired old line, that they are the ‘party of the people’. Their guilt is mountainous.
They have preached racial equality for so long, hoped for 'the dream' to come true for so long, waited for this moment for so long... and now it is within their grasp.
The first black president!
They will do all they can to elect Obama.
They will stop at nothing to put a black man in the White House.
They desperately need to offer up a 'token dreamer' to validate the effort of all those failed years.

They know this may be their only chance at redemption!
- Their only opportunity to prove at last that 'the dream' can be realized by anyone.
- That equal rights have come to America at last!

Just remember, these equal rights are just for men - black and white.
Everybody else has to have their own redeemer!

The Arrogant One...

This Obama guy sure thinks a lot of himself.
It's been mentioned that he already has a 'transition team' in place for when he takes the White House.
How presumptuous of him!

Just who does this guy think he is???

It's like he expects to be the president so why wouldn't he go ahead and plan for it? Right? Sounds logical. Makes prefect sense.
Except for one thing... He hasn't been elected yet!

His recent trip to Israel makes the point.

Here is a guy running for the President of the United States, on a trip to Europe and the Middle East, under the pretense of a Congressional junket, and making a political stopover in Jerusalem to insert a prayer message in the wailing wall, while his supporters display his campaign banner for all to see!
How rude! How insensitive! How arrogant!

Obama Plasters Political Banner!

We can only hope that the rest of the world will forgive The United States for being so arrogant, so imprudent, so brash.

This man is truly an 'obamination'. He offends me, he offends my friends and he offends everything American.

Obama's Summer Vacation

The Democrat's Presidential candidate has decided to visit several countries this summer in the hope of generating some 'foreign policy' buzz. We all know that he has absolutely NO experience in anything that would make him qualified to be President of the United States, but this trip is his attempt to bolster his puny 'statesmanship' credentials.

He even took the entire entourage of news gathering bafoons including the 3 Stooges of network TV, Gibson, Couric, and Williams. I'm sure we'll get fair and balanced coverage from those clowns... NOT!

As a matter fact, NBC has hailed the junkett as Obama's 'Tour of Duty' as if he were actually serving in our armed forces!

NBC News Refers to Obama's Trip as 'Tour of Duty'
By D. S. Hube...
It's bad enough that Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East is getting an insane amount of MSM coverage (the three big network news anchors? Whoa!); now, NBC News believes it apt to compare Obama's sojourn to ... an actual military tour of duty. Yes indeed. Check out (the link) at right how anchor Lester Holt introduces last evening's Nightly News.

HOLT: "Tour of Duty" as Obama visits the war zone: The fight over where to send combat troops next.

I never served in the military and I find it quite grating that a major news organization would refer to a presidential candidate's foreign trip to a combat zone -- a candidate who never served, incidentally -- as a "tour of duty." Does anyone else recall former President Bill Clinton's claims that he was on 'activfe duty' as Commander-in-Chief, and therefore immune from any prosecution during the Paula Jones matter? After protests by some veterans' groups, Clinton withdrew his claim (although it's unclear if it was due to these protests or because it was a lousy legal argument).

I wonder if NBC will similarly withdraw its specious headline.

When he visited Iraq he met with Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Almost immediately the candidate stated that al-Maliki had agreed with his assessment of the war and his plan for troop withdrawal. Obama wants a definite troop withdrawal by 2010 and al-Maliki is supposed to have agreed with him.
But, it ain't necessarily so...

The Washington Post printed an editorial about the visit to Iraq...
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of (Obama's) visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Well there ya go. The candidate will twist the truth to match his position on nearly any issue. This guy is really dangerous!

Then he planned a stopover in Germany and had wanted to give a speach in front of The Bradengurg Gate, but that proposal has angered some German politicians...

Prospect of Obama at Brandenburg Gate Divides German Politicians
BERLIN — With the pillars of the Brandenburg Gate looming in the background, tens of thousands of adoring Berliners turn out to greet Senator (Obama) with wild cheering. It may have seemed like the perfect campaign stop on the candidate’s highly anticipated European tour, an ideal way to burnish his foreign policy credentials.

Instead, the plan — widely dissected in the German news media but never confirmed by the Obama campaign — has exposed fissures in the German government, with the conservative chancellor, Angela Merkel, strongly criticizing the proposal and the Social-Democratic vice chancellor and foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, speaking out in favor of it. The ensuing uproar here has underscored the hazards for Mr. Obama in taking his presidential campaign overseas.

Mrs. Merkel has made clear she disapproves of having this potent symbol of German division and reunification pulled into the American election fight. “To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans,” said a spokesman, Thomas Steg, at a news conference Wednesday.

ABC has reported that Obama's stop in Germany...
There may be no greater opportunity for Obama to show (and need to show) he loves his country than when the throngs greet him in Berlin Thursday.
(That's partly because his fellow Americans can watch a million Germans march every night on the History Channel -- and we all know how that film ends.)
And as Obama soaks up the love, he needs his country to love him back.

For as well as it's been going, we don't know how this visit ends -- how an anti-war, anti-administration candidate can deliver a foreign-policy address abroad and not seem anti-American; how hundreds of thousands of Europeans can cheer a presidential candidate and not scare swing-state voters; how the Obama shtick plays with a foreign backdrop; how a candidate who is just plain different fills the JFK-Reagan slot in Berlin.

How is this going to play out?
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Mainstream Media will portray this visit as a great coup for Obama. They'll say he has established himself as a great statesman and that the citizens of the world have embraced him. He is now ready to assume the mantle of President Of The United States!
But most of us know that this guy is an empty suit, a nobody, a con-man, a charlatan.

My Goodness!
Watching this 'Obamamania' fiasco is like watching a mob of lemmings running for the sea.
It's a facinating sight but you know they are all headed for disaster.

In the end, I wonder why the lemmings, and we Americans, continue to gather for this plunge into darkness?

Mainstream Media... Biased or Not?

Several months ago, a friend and I were discussing the frustration we felt about getting decent news coverage of what was going on in Iraq. He remarked that he had seen nothing about 'the surge' or it's effectiveness. I agreed and said I felt the news we did get was so biased toward the left that it was unreliable at best.

We both sort of shrugged and said, "what can we do?" I didn't have an answer then, and I'm not sure I have one now. But that conversation got me thinking more about the news bias we seem to be experiencing. What the heck was going on with the mainstream media?

I had been hearing the conservative radio folks like Rush Limbaugh describe the mainstream media as the 'drive-by media'. The more I heard the phrase, the more the MSM was living up to their billing as 'drive-bys'.

It seamed that nearly every event was covered with a perceived degree of importance relating to your politics.

If you were conservative, your story got honorable mention on page 8.
If you were liberal(or progressive as they like to be called nowadays), your story was front page news and they would even send a stringer to get some video 'B roll' for a lead story on the late news.

Yes, I did see a bias. And so did a lot of other people. But every time I would mention this phenomena I was summarily dismissed as seeing conspiracies where there weren't any.
I was even told that I must be wearing a 'tin hat'.

For those of you in Rio Linda, wearing a tin hat is the preferred method of blocking the governments attempts to read your mind or to influence your thought process with their secret 'mind wave'.

The tin hat theory has been around a long time. If you're accused of wearing one it means you're a little wacky. That you duck for cover when you see the dreaded 'black helicopters'. That you know the car with the blacked out windows parked down the street is full of very secret CIA types.

Well, we suddenly have a concrete reference to this media bias, and it's not a theory any longer. But of course, we knew it was always true from the beginning. The way the press described The President in very unflattering terms... the way the press eagerly began to root for Obama even before he defeated Mrs. Bill Clinton... the way the press simply ignored events that didn't suit their politics! It was fairly obvious.

So now... the New Your Times has refused to print an editorial from the Republican candidate, John McCain.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

... Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

The NYTimes wants McCain to rewrite his editorial to more closely mirror Obama's position???
Is that bias enough for you???

"The question really needs to be posed. Is this type of coverage fair?", said Eric Cantor, a Republican congressman. "This is nothing but a political stunt."

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said: "My prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defence issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman.

"McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media's narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him."

McCain's piece wasn't anything controversial... It simply didn't meet the philosophical and political standards of the NY Times. Well, excuuuuse me! What a bunch of crap! Those idiots deserve all the mean, nasty, vile contempt we can bestow on them!

McCain said... In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Oh... the Times didn't like that at all!
McCain was dissing their boy! How dare he!

The Times has come out with some lame-ass excuse for their editorial policy, but it really doesn't matter.
They aren't real journalists any longer... they're just a bunch of liberal hacks jumping on the Hate Bush/Hate Republicans bandwagon.
Fine... so they support Obama. They deserve each other.

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

This is going to be a real disaster for conservatives. The 'Drive-Bys' are all behind Obama and McCain doesn't seem to have an answer for combating the bias.

What's next? I wonder if McCain can win against such overwhelming odds? He's going to need something very powerful to convince voters he is the right choice. We all know that Obama has absolutely no experience, is not trustworthy and hates America.

Obama would be a very risky choice.
McCain can be a healthy check on the excesses of a Democratic Congress, but he doesn't seem to really want the office.

Can McCain win the hearts and minds of Americans?
Can McCain defeat both Obama and the bias from the mainstream media? They have already annointed, consecrated, coronated, ordained and beatified their candidate.
How do you defeat the 'chosen one'?

Not Sophistocated Enough?

I surely believed that the magazine cover with the obamination and his wife would cause more of a stir, but it seems to be going away...

When the cover of The New Yorker first appeared it seemed that everyone in the democrat camp felt dissed. They were all calling for the removal of the issue and an apology from the publisher.



Even the candidate himself called the cover a 'scare tactic', since it portrayed him in Muslim attire and his wife totin' a gun.
The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts (Obama) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

But, others, like Andrea Mitchell, said that, "dumb Americans might not get the 'sophisticated' cartoon".

Scott Whitlock reported that... journalist Andrea Mitchell and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart discussed whether Americans are not "sophisticated" enough to understand the attempted satire in the cartoon featured on the cover of the current New Yorker magazine. According to Mitchell, "...The only question there is whether [the cover] is too sophisticated to actually be perceived the way it is intended."

You see The New Yorker has long been the bastion of elitist thought and snooty behavior. I once subscribed to the magazine but was constantly appalled at the way the average American was 'talked down to' and regarded as a cretin.

As far as I know the magazine hasn't changed it's editorial style, so I suppose it can be assumed that they still see us regular folks as 'those people'... the servants, the hired help, those low lifes.

Whitlock goes on...
The Post's Capehart suggested that the uneducated voters in Middle America might not comprehend the high minded satire: "...The folks at the New Yorker are very smart, very learned, learned people, but once you get outside of the confines of Manhattan and the Upper West Side, you sort of begin to wonder if anyone-- if there was a conversation around the table about how will this be viewed by people who won't necessarily get the joke."

Mitchell, it needs to be pointed out, has a history with snobbery. This is the same woman who in June was forced to apologize for bashing rural Virginia as "real redneck."

During Monday's "MSNBC News Live," she also asserted that "critics" say the cartoon cover "depicts almost every false stereotype that Republicans have been launching against Barack Obama, plays into all the fears that are being generated on the web."

Of course, one might point out to Capehart and Mitchell that much of Middle America might not read the New Yorker. And that it's the members of the liberal media who seems to be most bothered by the "satire."

So, I guess the cover controversy will surely go away, now that it's common knowledge that neither of the Obamas got the joke.

After all, how could the liberal, elitist magazine continue with their defense of the cover, when it became apparent the candidate and his wife couldn't grasp the intended satire???

And you can bet the liberal mainstream media has recieved their marching orders to 'lay off' the New Yorker story. The candidate shouldn't be made to look stupid!

I guess the candidate is not as sophisticated as he would have us believe?
Maybe he is just a poor black man from the ghetto after all?
Maybe he is black enough? Eh... Jesse? Eh... Rev Al?

I don't think so... He's just as dumb, or dumber than everyone else.
He surely doesn't have the experience nor the 'savvy' to be President!

It's the elitist east coast liberals that believe that they are the enlightened ones. That they alone hold the keys to the vault of knowledge and power in America.

They were hoping for a miracle in Obama, that he was one of them.
That they would have a kindred spirit in the White House.
It's been sooooo long! Not since Jack Kennedy have they enjoyed a rich east coast liberal over their martinis and manhattans!
They were so hopeful!

Instead they're saddled with another 'hick'... and they sure don't like what has happened!
Just another un-sophisticated yokel hoping for a miracle of his own.
Shades of Jimmy Carter!

Scare Tactic???

Heh, heh, heh. The Obama campaign is really pissed!
Aw shucks... ain't that just too darn bad?!?

The New Yorker Magazine has published an article about the Obamas and has a characterization of them on the front cover.


The obamination and his campaign is upset that it portrays he and his wife in an unfavorable light. Poor baby...

"The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

What about all the cartoonish, boorish, unflattering images of President Bush? The media has had a field day portraying The President as a childish imp, with big ears, and very unflattering language in the 'bubble'. The President hasn't said a single word in all these years.

But the Obama campaign wants an appology right now! Right NOW!

I think the image is pretty funny.
It has the candidate in Muslim garb, his wife Michelle in camo with a rifle slung over her shoulder and they're giving each other the 'fist'. In the backround is their fireplace with the American flag burning and a picture of OBL above the mantel. Pretty funny stuff if you ask me.

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Looks like it's done fairly well.
At least it's a cartoon.

But, not this one...


This picture is real!

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

Im sure Mr. Page is talking about those of us that may think Obama was raised as a Muslim, went to Muslim schools as a child and can offer no documantation that he has converted to Christianity...
- and has a bunch of anti-American buddies.
We're the ones that are the 'crazy' and 'ignorant'. Umm-humm.

Curious to see how the obamination plays this one...

Happy Birthday America!

Ahh yes. The 4th of July!
Fireworks, good food, family fun and racin' at Daytona!

Independance Day.
The day the United States declared itself to be a free nation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

- We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
- We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,

and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved;

and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,

and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Residents Angered by Group's Distribution of Korans

I found this article today...

Some Houston residents are upset after Korans were left on the doorsteps of hundreds of homes in their neighborhood as part of a campaign to educate people about Islam.

Residents of Braes Timbers in southwest Houston began finding the holy books two weeks ago, MyFOXHouston.com reported. The Korans came with a note saying they had been left by the Book of Signs Foundation, which claims to have distributed 30,000 free copies of the texts to residents throughout the city.

"If we went into a Muslim country and left a Bible, we would be in prison and then decapitated a few years later," Sue Ann Pieri, a resident who chose not to destroy the book, as other neighbors did, told MyFOXHouston.com.

The foundation, which left the books on doormats or hanging from doorknobs, said in a note accompanying the Koran that "rather than judging Islam and Muslims by the actions of a few, we want our fellow citizens to judge us by the book that influences and guides the lives of over 1 billion Muslims."

Tarick Hussein, the president of Houston's Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the station he believes the Book of Signs Foundation wants to educate non-Muslims about the religion.

He told MyFOXHouston.com: "This is a very peaceful way of conveying a message."

Yeah, but we really don't want to learn anymore about the 'religion of peace'. We've already had a belly full!

The Supremes Got One Right!

I was up early today and had a restless night. I was wondering about the pending decision at the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The High Court had been considering the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290, for nearly 4 months and today was the day they were supposed to hand down their decision.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The Court voted 5 to 4 to affirm the 2nd Amendment!

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

But there were some interesting dissenting opinions.

From Brietbart... http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91HS2EO0&show_article=1
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

This is really good news, but it's just the beginning. Now the lawsuits will be coming out of the woodword with a challenge to nearly every gun law. The work ahead will be some real heavy lifting. I just hope we're up to it!

Did You Say Fear, Mr Obama?

This Obama guy sure thinks a lot of himself.
Now he’s saying that the right, I guess he means us Conservatives?, or maybe he means Republicans?, or does he mean everybody to the right of his position?(which includes most of the free world), will use race to scare up votes for John McCain. He said, his GOP rival has already used ‘fear mongering’ when it comes to foreign policy.

He said, “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.” They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he has a funny name. And, did I mention he’s black, and has a ‘feisty’ wife?”

I really don’t think it’s going to take any prodding at all from the GOP, or anyone else for that matter, to provide an element of fear and mistrust about this guy. He does a pretty good job all on his own!

He’s the guy that has spent 20 years in a ‘church’ that espouses hate and anti-white and anti-American sentiment. He’s the guy that chums around with the likes of Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers. He’s the guy that hooks up with the convicted felon, crooked real estate developer, Tony Rezko. He’s the guy that said he wants to sit down with the likes of the Iranian mouthpiece and the Venezuelan dictator and the N. Korean dictator without any ‘pre-conditions’. He’s the guy that has promised to disarm America. He’s the guy who’s wife has said that she is finally ‘proud of America’.

Nobody said those things about him or his wife... The Obama’s said and did all those things themselves! Does he really believe we’re that stupid???
This guy must be living in an alternative universe!

Why wouldn’t Americans fear a guy like him? He hasn’t been very forthcoming about his past. We know very little about him.
So what are we to think?

There are still questions about this ‘preacher’, Wright.
Mr. Obama, you mean to tell me that you sat in the pew for 20 years and you never heard this fella spout this vitriol and hate against the white man? Against America?
Do you really expect me to believe that?

Then there is the recent ‘guest performance’ in his ‘church’, by a Catholic priest that seems to be cut from the same cloth as Wright. Again, spewing hate and anti-white, anti-Clinton rhetoric from the pulpit.
Mr. Obama, you’re telling me that you have never heard anything like that in your church... ever? In 20 years?

And, there are questions about his background. Was he ever a Muslim? He has a Muslim name, Barack Hussein Obama, and his father is a Muslim and the religion is passed down from father to son – so what is the truth?

Evidence seems to point to his attending Muslim schools and attending the mosques as a child. His half-brother says he used to recite the Koran very well. He was raised in a part of the world that was predominately Muslim.

So which is it Hussein? Are you a Muslim? Have you ever been a Muslim? Why can’t you put this question to rest?

And these acquaintances he hangs with. Ayers, an unabashed ‘bomber’ that says he should have done more to bring America to her knees. And this Rezko guy, a true Chicago gangster real estate developer. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are several ‘bodies buried’ somewhere on one of his many properties! Who in their right mind would want a President that hangs with those kinds of ‘fringe elements’?

Sure I’m afraid of this guy. I think he’s dangerous and naive.
He’s the kind of reckless individual that would hug and embrace Chavez and Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong IL. They’re all Marxists, why not?!
He fits right in with those maniac America Haters!

And he wants to disarm America!
He wants to cut investments in ‘unproven missile defense systems’. Does he have any idea how missile systems get ‘proven’?

He wants to slow the development of any combat systems for the future. He wants to set up a ‘defense review board’ to ensure we don’t spend money on defense! He wants to negotiate with Russia to get them to dismantle their nukes and to take our nukes off line.

He wants a world without nuclear weapons… well, don’t we all? It just ain’t gonna happen anytime soon! And your plans will only leave the US completely undefended and vulnerable. Nobody wants that.
Why wouldn’t we be afraid?

To top it off, this guy has very, very little experience.
How did he even get this far?
How does a first term Senator from Chicago rise in national politics so fast? It makes you wonder…Who is behind this guy?

I don’t know about you folks, but when I hear something that sounds too good to be true, I know that it most likely isn’t true. There is no free lunch.

This guy is NOT the messiah.
He is not going to lead us to any ‘land of milk and honey’.

He says he's above politics, but, when all is said and done, he's just another slick Chicago politician. He will not be able to deliver on these outlandish promises of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ because those are just words and his plan will disarm America and make us weak.
America will not stand for it!

And he has no clue as to the complexity and difficulty of foreign affairs and delicate negotiations with treacherous men. He want us to trust him to get a good deal with those monsters? They’ll have him for breakfast!

And all these acquaintances of his will be hanging’ around the White House? I don’t think so.
It was bad enough when Bill Klinton was using 'our house' for sexual rendezvous, but to have this group of America haters sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom??? No way!
Not if I have anything to say about it!

You’re darn right I’m afraid of this guy!
He has the charisma, the silver tongue, and the backing from wealthy supporters to go far in this election. If we don’t stay vigilant he just might end up on Pennsylvania Ave!

We can’t let that happen!
Republicans must come together. Conservatives must come together. The right must come together and stop this Marxist Menace.
We cannot allow this great country to be led by a Marxist, period!

Whether the GOP uses fear tactics or Americans begin to feel the fear themselves, it really doesn’t matter. Americans just need to be very afraid of this guy, this Marxist, this wolf in sheep’s clothing, this imposter.
NO Obama!

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! [mo’lon la’ve]
What does that mean?

I created the image with a Spartan helmet on the left of this page as a avatar on a number of message boards and a friend asked what the Greek letters 'ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ' meant.

I thought it might be a good time to explain it here on the blog, so...

In 480 B.C. the forces of the Persian Empire under King Xerxes, numbering in the hundreds of thousands of men(some have said closer to a million!), bridged the Hellespont and were marching on Greece.

King Leonidas of Sparta pleaded with Spartan leaders to go out to meet the threat, but his plea fell on deaf ears. Leonidas and his Thespian allies marched out alone. With 300 hand-picked troops, Leonidas and his small force marched to Thermopylae on the north coast of Greece.

Thermopylae was the best of three possible defensive areas in which Xerxes' invading army had to advance. This mountain gap along the coast was about 60 feet wide, and was the best location for a blocking action. The confines between mountains and sea were so narrow that the Persian multitudes and their cavalry would be at least partially neutralized.

When Leonidas was preparing to make his stand, a Persian envoy arrived. The envoy explained to Leonidas the futility of trying to resist the advance of the huge Persian army and demanded that the Spartans surrender and lay down their weapons.

Leonidas replied, "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ", or "Come And Get Them."

"Our archers are so numerous, that the flight of their arrows darkens the sun!", said the Persian envoy.

Dienekes, a Spartan warrior, then said "So much the better, for we shall fight them in the shade!"

After sending the Thespians back to warn the other Greeks, King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans held Thermopylae for three days and, although they were ultimately annihilated, they inflicted serious damage upon the Persian army, and most importantly delayed its progress to Athens, providing sufficient time for the city's evacuation to Salamis Island.

They were finally overrun after being betrayed by a traitor who showed the enemy another pass that allowed the invaders to approach from behind the defenders.

Though a clear defeat, Thermopylae served as a moral victory and inspired the troops at the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea, where the Greeks won their freedom and arguably saved the Western World.

Two memorials remain today at Thermopylae.
Upon the modern one, called the Leonidas Monument in honor of the Spartan king who fell there, is engraved his response to Xerxes' demand that the Spartans lay down their arms:
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - 'Come and get them.'

The second monument is a plaque dedicated to those heroes at the site.
It reads: "Go tell the Spartans!"

Molon Labe has been repeated by many later generals and politicians in order to express an army's or nation's determination to not surrender without a battle.

The motto ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is on the emblem of the Greek First Army Corps, and is also the motto of United States Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT).

In our everyday world, both the original Greek phrase and its English translation are often heard from pro-gun activists as a defense of the right to keep and bear arms. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent defiance of Federal court orders by the New Orleans government to return seized weapons, the phrase has gained popularity.

For comparison, these elements happen to be present in the English phrase, "over my dead body", or the similar phrase that Charlton Heston uttered at a past NRA convention, “You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands!”

Molon Labe has been recently used in the feature film '300' , a stylized depiction of the events leading up to and including the Battle at Thermopylae.

But on a more personal note, my high school mascot was the Spartan. So, I've long held the legend of Leonidas and the 300 very close.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

What's A Liberal?

The other day a fella aksed me, "What the heck is a Liberal anyway?"

I told him that a liberal was someone that believed in letting folks do just about what ever they wanted to do. He chuckeled and said, "You mean like that guy Obama?" I replied 'Yeah, he's a liberal."

He just laughed and said, "Well, we don't need anymore people like him runnin' this country! We need some anti-liberal people in the government!"

That conversation got me to thinking about what being 'liberal' meant.

Liberalism used to refer to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value… a 19th century political idea which championed individual rights, civil liberties, and private property.

Now, liberalism means, among other things:
- The favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression – you can think or act any way you want without regard to traditional values;
- To put emphasis on “fairness” in taxation, denunciation of "tax breaks for the rich“, the re-distribution of wealth, and has a fixation on poverty, multi-cultural education, and affirmative action.

A fella named Brewton said:
“Any.. claims to the moral high ground in (the present day) variety of liberalism has two problems: (1) the moral concepts used to justify liberalism’s preoccupation with ends rather than means are Christian morality, not liberal socialist doctrine; (2) in practice, without a religious, moral rudder, New Deal(and Great Society) regulatory government has turned into “pluralistic democracy,” a system based on every interest group seeking to maximize its own personal wants, motivated by pure greed, without a unifying concept of the public good in the sense of the Constitution’s preamble.

By definition, in a liberal society that eschews value judgments, there can be no principle other than raw political power upon which to make choices between competing public demands. As long as the mechanical procedures of “democracy” are observed, literally anything goes. The Federal judiciary can arbitrarily demote certain fundamental rights, such as the Bill of Rights protection of private property, to secondary status (an action that is an unacknowledged value judgment).”

I couldn’t have said it any better.

But, in today's climate, liberalism has become a dirty word.

It’s so reviled that now, even the liberals don't want to use it!
They have gone to calling themselves ‘progressives’ with the hopes of again confusing us as to the true meaning of their intent.
It won’t work.

Their insistence on being ‘fair’ identifies their true goal. They just never do get it that life isn’t ‘fair’, that nothing about living is ‘fair’ - that there will always be the “haves” and the “have-not’s”.

Liberals want us all to be alike.
Except, that is, for them and their circle of close friends.
They’re different.
They deserve all that they have earned.
They deserve all the wealth and fine homes the government has bestowed upon them.
They want us to believe that they have our best interests at heart.
They want the government to help us become better citizens.

These people are truely ill and don't know it!
Liberalism is a mental disorder!

We shouldn't look down our noses at them though. We should really try to help liberals everywhere to come to grips with their disability - Help them to get out of politics and seek the therapy they need so badly.

To liberals, progressives or what ever they are calling themselves, I say, NO THANKS!

The Supremes Screwed Up! - BAD!!!

On Thursday of this week the Supreme Court of The United States handed down a decision that will change the face of how we fight wars, forever!

In BOUMEDIENE et al. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., they have given armed terrorists the right to use the US Constitution for their defense in a court of law.

That means that the suspected terrorists, the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Naval Base, have the right of habeas corpus.

Habeas Corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action - FOR United States CITIZENS!

Do you get it?
They have given terrorists rights equivalent to the rights of US Citizens!

I am just outraged! I could spit nails! How dare those liberal bastards do this to our Armed Forces! The vote was 5 to 4, with all the liberal judges voting in favor of the terrorists. This is Liberalism at it's zenith.
The left must be dancing in the street!

Obama has hailed the decision! Obama issued a statement calling the decision "a rejection of the Bush administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo" that he said was "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."
"This is an important step," he said of the ruling, "toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy."

The Rule of Law my foot! These jokers are battlefield combatants!
They were captured during a time of WAR!
Just more empty suit - blah, blah, blah...

Today, McCain finally weighed in - a day late.
John McCain said Friday that the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

The presumptive GOP nominee said the decision, a 5-4 ruling Thursday that determined Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek release in civilian courts, would lead to a wave of frivolous challenges.

“We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases,” he said at a town hall meeting in New Jersey.
It seems that McCain has grown a set over night!

But, these Supreme Idiots don't have a clue. They have just tied the hands of all our soldiers. Now when a prisoner is taken, they will of course be given their one phone call, and of course they will use it to detonate the bomb they left on the battlefield!

Liberals just don't understand warfare.
They believe that we can sit down and talk with these monsters and negotiate some sort of peaceful agreement. HAH!
These militant Islamo-Facists want to cut our throats!
They have sworn to cut off our heads!
They will stop at nothing until we are all dead- or they are!

The Muslim mission is to spread Islam throughout the world.
They believe that Islam will dominate the entire world and they will try their best to make it happen!

The 5 Judge's argument was that all people should have rights. All people should have the protection provided under our Constitution. We should be so magnanimous that we extend our hand in friendship and compassion even unto those who would saw off our head! To hell with that!

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe that everybody does have a kind of ‘human right’, the right to exist and be treated with respect and compassion, but that kind of human right is one derived from one’s sense of God and religion and morality. And, I believe we become more aware of the human condition when we contemplate the higher power.

But as for national rights, or rights of citizens of a particular country, those rights are granted or revoked according to the laws of that particular country. Some countries treat their citizens poorly, other countries treat their citizens very well. Most free countries fall in the latter category.

For instance here in the US, in the preamble of our Constitution, it says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Those words are for US citizens, not for the citizens of England or China or India. If citizens from those countries wish to visit our country they may do so after they apply and are granted a ‘permit’ to enter our country as a visitor. If they would like to become a US Citizen, then they have to go through another process where they have to learn our language, our laws and our customs.

The 14th Amendment to our Constitution defines "citizens" this way, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”And since our form of government is a representative republic, “supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law”.
That’s US Citizens.

One cannot become a Representative unless one has been a citizen for 7 years, and cannot become a Senator unless one has been a citizen for 9 years. These rules are for US Citizens, not citizens of other countries.

Nowhere in our Constitution are rights granted to anyone other than citizens of The United States of America. No rights for any citizen of any other country whether they are honest citizens or enemy combatants.

Thursday's decision infers that our country will not defend it’s own military. That we will allow enemy combatants to come and go as they will. That we will allow people who are not American Citizens to use our Constitution to defend them selves in our own courts!
This decision is nothing short of treachery, and near treason!

The ramifications of this decision will be felt far and wide.

We have reached a place in our history that will define our future for the next 100 years - maybe longer!

The five members of the High Court, The Jihadist 5, should be ashamed of themselves for condemning our armed forces to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind their back and for corrupting the sovereignty of this great nation.

Obama... On The Issues

Well, well, well. The primary season is finally over. It certainly looks as if 'Operation Chaos' did just what Rush Limbaugh wanted it to do. Prolong the race and allow Obama to be bloodied up along the way.

Mrs. Bill Klinton couldn't pull it off, but history was made anyway. We now have a black man with a muslim sounding name representing the Democrat Party in the race for the White House. How cool is that?
Well, not very, if you consider the candidates record.

I think everyone knows about the right reverened Wright and his anti-American views. We all know about Father Pfleger and his anti-Hillary rants(but I found it odd that a white priest would try to emulate a black preacher at all!). And we all know about the candidate's questionable relationship with the likes of convicted felon Rezko and the Weatherman bomber Ayers.

But how has he voted in his short time in the US Senate? How did he vote when he was an Illinois state Senator? Where does he stand on the issues?

Lets take a closer look at just a few, shall we?

He's Pro Choice and trusts women to make their own mind up about partial birth abortions.

He says it OK if a minor crosses the state line to get an abortion without their parents consent.

He supports affirmative action in colleges and government.

He says homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality and is pro-gay rights.

He says 'it's a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban', and wants to ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

He supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

He voted YES to factoring global warming into federal project planning and voted YES to ban drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

That's just a sample of his voting record, but for me, he exhibits a stance that is far, far too liberal to support.

My main concern about this man is that he insists on having one-on-one talks with the likes of Irans mouthpiece and those commies from Venuezuela and N. Korea. He believes we should run from Iraq and try to make friends with the world. He wants to curb military spending and reduce the size of the military. I really don't think he understands the war on terror at all.

Obama is just too liberal and too inexperienced for me.
Vote for this guy at your own peril!!!

The Political Circus

I really need to vent about this political season.
I have been watching and listening to the candidates from the left and the candidates from the right for over 6 months now, and I can't put it off any longer.
I have never seen such a side show!

I'm constantly reminded of my youth, when our town would be visited by a traveling circus or a carnival train, as I have witnessed the events of the last 180 days. I've seen everything from several of the traditional snake oil salesmen, to trained animals with the ability to speak, to jugglers that use all four appendages - at the same time!
What an assemblage of 'unusual' performers!

As of this date, the candidates have been narrowed down to, is it 2 or 3? - er, well, nearly. We still don't know yet.

The Republicans have decided on a candidate, although half-heartedly, but the Democrats can't seem to make up their mind.

Mr. McCain has had the lead in delegates for the Republican nomination for some time, but he just doesn't have what it takes to excite conservatives. His base seems to be the so called 'blue dog' Democrats, the Reagan Democrats, and the NeoCon's, or those 'new conservatives' that so many people look upon with a certain puzzlement.

The Senator's history of liberal legislation and his position on illegal immigration does not sit well with many Republicans.
They just don't trust him to do what's right.

And, McCain doesn't seem very interested in mending fences or achieving any support whatsoever from the conservative side of the party. He has even gone so far as to disavow and condemn conservative leaders about their views and stated positions. Real Conservatives are going to have a difficult time voting for this 'wolf in sheeps clothing'.

As for Mrs. Clinton, well, we all know about the Clintons don't we? They will say anything, do anything to get what they want.
Bill will get down on his knees and beg like a dog, if that's what it takes!

The Senator has banked on her experience as First Lady and her limited experience in the Senate to rally her troops during the primarys. For many, that 'experience' just wasn't enough to sway them. Even though she felt she had earned the position, voters looked at her with a jaundiced eye. Her years of suffering were not enough to tip the scales in her favor.

I think they remembered the years of Bill's indescretions and balked at the thought of refering to him as Mr. First Husband.

And, the perspective of four more years of the treachery, double-talk and the politically correct nuances of the Clintons have proved too much for younger Democrats. Younger voters have thrown in with the newcomer with all the fervent zeal of a highschool homecoming. Mrs. Clinton may be a force at the convention, but obtaining the nomination looks to be merely a fading dream.

And, what about this newcomer? Who is he anyway? Where is he from? What has he done? Who are his friends? Why haven't we heard of him before? What does he stand for? Is he to be trusted? Is he to be believed? Is he what he seems to be? Why does he want to be President?

I guess we only ask these questions of the newcomer because we already know all there is to know about Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton. McCain has a long history of family service to America and was a war hero in his own right. Mrs. Clinton has been investigated by nearly everyone in America, and while she has been accused of many things, she is still a free woman.

But, this newcomer...
His name is Barrak Hussien Obama. He was born in Hawaii. His father is a black man(African), his mother is a white woman(Caucasian American). The father is a Muslim. He was raised as a muslim and attended muslim schools and went to the mosque as he was told. Then he says he became a Christian.

He says he goes by the name 'Barry'. He went to Harvard and became a lawyer and moved to Chicago to 'organize' people. He got elected Senator a couple of years ago and hasn't done very much while in the Senate except to vote against the war, vote against the 'surge' and complain about the 'failed policies' of George Bush. But, we know from his voting record that he is quite liberal - maybe even the most liberal Senator in the Congress!

Oh, yeah, then he began his run for the Presidency - after being a Senator for just 2 years. Obama has extremely limited experience in the Senate and we don't know if he can even run a committee - let alone a country!

We don't know much else about him except for a few recent events. We have discovered that he has been a long time friend of Bill Ayers, the Weatherman bomber. And for 20 years, has been attending a Chicago church that espouses a kind of 'black liberation theology' that borders on insurection!

And, then there's this... We're not supposed to mention that he is black(or we'll be labeled a racist), or that he was once a Muslim(or we'll be labeled haters of the religeon of peace), or that he has spiritual mentors that preach insurection and hate(or we'll be labled America lovers)!

And this guy wants us to trust HIM???
And wants us to elect him to be our leader??? The leader of the Free World???

He's UNQUALIFIED - pure and simple!

This guy has HUGE stones! If he thinks that a candidate with very limited experience - (NONE) - and a candidate with a backround like his - (one that he hopes will go un-detected or un-noticed or overlooked, or treated as inconsequential) - will be elected President, then he's a complete fool! ... or, the voters are!

But as an after thought, I wonder...
How can a Muslim leave Islam?
Don't they have a name for that kind of person?
It's called Apostate. An unbeliever. One who must be killed.
Are we to believe that Obama is an apostate?
Or is he a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' too?

My assessment of the the quality of the performances is not good. After 6 months, or longer in some cases, the candidates still seem stilted... unsure... unsettled. None of them look 'Presidential' to me at all.

I wonder if this circus will pick up stakes and move on?
Or, are we doomed to endure the sights, sounds and smells for another 4 years!?!

Yikes!

Boy, was I ever wrong about Florida! I thought that the conservatives down there would go for Romney for sure.
But, McCain wins prety easily! Wow!

How are the conservatives going to reconcile voting for this guy?
His anti stance against the Bush tax cuts, his 'Gang of 14' reputation, and his close ties with Mrs. Bill Klinton!
I don't think so!
This guy is NOT a conservative!

Yes, he is strong on defense but I think anyone in his right mind is strong on defense. So what makes him so special? I can't see it. Maybe I'm blind, but I can't see it.

OK. He is a war hero and has a lot of sympathy because of his time in the POW camp in Vietmnam. He has a lot of credibility.
BUT, he is not a conservative, period!
I can't see myself or any other conservatives voting for this guy.

As for the dems, I surely thought Obama would fare much better than he did, I'm sure he's disappointed. That Klinton woman really surprised me. But Obama did gain in popularity and had better numbers that he had hoped for, so maybe he'll give her a run for her money after all?

And this SHOCKER! - After watching H&C on FOX after the polls closed, I was dismayed to hear Dick Morris say that his exit polling showed that the Republican Party was shifting to the left!

My God! I certainly hope he is worng!
We cannot be shifting to the left just to get elected!
If we get beat, then it should be the democrats that beat us -
NOT the Republicans beating themselves!

Morris also said that 'The Breck Girl' will likely drop out soon. Morris said that his voters are people that don't want a black man for president and don't want a woman for president.
Alan Colmes asked 'Are you saying that his voters are bigots?'

Morris replied, 'That's not what I said'. 'I said his(Edwards) voters are not ready for a black man nor a woman to hold the office of president'.

Very interesting! I think I tend to agree... I'm certainly not ready for a woman nor a black man in the White House!
Are YOU?

Who Are We Kidding?

I ask this question... Have we really thought this through?

Everyone is talking about the economy as if it has suddenly become a big problem... Well, it's not a big problem, but we do have a "big problem" with the economy!

With all this clammering for 'green autos' that will burn Ethanol, we have created a sudden surge in the price of corn. Our farmers are not prepared for this kind of price escalation and many are feeling the pinch already.

I believe the stock market is hearing their cry and is already 'circling the wagons' in anticipation of our political leaders suddenly realizing this problem and calling for an emergency fix that may include a halt to any serious development of alternative fuels. (The government may already be thinking that way for all I know) And, as most of us already know, ANY government involvement in the marketplace is bad, but this could be a disaster!

What if the price of corn tripled - or more? How would the farmers feed their stock? I can see the price of a steak going from $20 to $100 really quick! That kind of priceing will certainly cause the masses to rethink how they spend their dollars. With the price of feed for livestock going thru the roof, the price we pay at the market will follow suit almost immediately.

But the worst of it is -
Gasoline may become the single most important product on our shopping list!

What have these 'tree huggers' done to us?
My God! Have we killed the Golden Goose!

We've sacraficed our high standard of living to save the baby seals and the spotted owl and tiny green frog and the giant condor and all the whales and ... Does it ever end?
Who will we save next?

When do we start to realize we are here by the grace of God and there is nothing we can do to prevent our demise - or prolong our stay.

We're not causing global warming - the earth gets warm and the earth gets cold!

How many ice ages have we had 2? 3? How many 'little' ice ages? By my way of thinking when an ice age ends we have a warm period, right?
Sheeze! What's not to understand?
Global warming will occur with or without any of us.

It will be over when it's over. There's nothing to be done about it, so get over it!

Let's help the farmers to make a buck, and drill for oil in every place we can. Spend those valuable research dollars earmarked for Ethanol on hydrogen fuels or invent something new.

But don't kill the farm!

Who Now?

Boy am I disappointed! Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race altogether! He was my longshot favorite quite a while ago and I really expected him to gather support. But alas, it was not to be. The only true conservative in the race is now on the bench!

I feel many people are a little tired of politics and are really not paying much attention to the primaries right now. The dems seem to have a good 'get out the vote' machine and are getting respectable numbers. the republican voters seem to be patiently waiting on the sideline until a clear favorite emerges.

Who will be the republican nominee? Who will be the democrat nominee? At this particular time it looks like a two horse race between Romney and McCain for the republicans. As for the dems, well, let's just say I hope to heaven that the Klintons DO NOT return to the White House. I really don't think Obama will make the grade, but if Mrs. Bill Klinton is the nominee, we have our hands full - the Klinton Political Machine will stop at nothing(and I mean NOTHING) to regain the White House.

Today I witnessed the entire Kennedy Klan swing their total support behind Obama. WOW! That's a real boost for him. I'm sure we all thought the Kennedys and the Klintons were tight. I guess they're not THAT tight! Ms Caroline said that Obama was the only candidate that reminded her of her dad.
Pa-Leeze! JFK was a man for his times - Obama is just a guy from Chicago.

The Florida primary is tomorrow and I predict that Romney and Obama will win there. That will certainly stir the pot! With Florida's "winner-take-all" format, it may be the perfect time to derail the McCain Express and throw a wench in the Klinton Machine!
Stay tuned!