If you mention Fox News to a liberal and/or progressive, you can expect a vitriolic reaction without fail. And if you voice any opinion contrary to the liberal/progressive groupthink, you will be accused of being a dupe of Fox News. You don't even have to mention the network - any criticism of the Obama administration will be met with a rebuke and the suggestion that you must be brainwashed by Fox.

How ironic. The liberals/progressives are engaged in a lockstep mass propaganda without truth. One doesn't need Fox News to know that the current Congress is passing bill after 2000 page bill, each expanding the power of the Federal government at the expense of people's freedoms. One doesn't need Fox News to know that federal spending is out of control and the country is headed for fiscal disaster. And one doesn't need Fox News to know that the president says anything he thinks he can get away with and baldly lies to the American people.

If you can't see the lies, fiscal disaster and the theft of freedom, you must be blind or kidding yourself. But for those who can't see it, or are so brainwashed by the liberal media and the groupthink of their friends, Fox News is there for you. Maybe they should turn it on and unwash their brain. At least it will be a starting point.

I keep hearing people suggest that Obama is a socialist or Marxist, and progressives/liberals always respond with an attitude that suggests "that's crazy talk." They then proceed to bloviate about how that type of thinking is akin to hate speech, or it's racist, or that Marxist and socialist are buzz-words that have a lot of loaded connotations and we shouldn't apply them to the president because it just misleads people.

Well, just for the record, let's just say it straight out: Of course he's a Marxist. His father was a Marxist, his mother was a Marxist, his grandparents were Marxists, his mentor was a Marxist, the man who recommended him to Harvard was a Marxist, his former pastor is a Marxist, his new spiritual adviser is a Marxist. He has surrounded himself with Marxists and installed Marxists in high positions in his administration, people who openly praise Mao and say things like "who is going to step down so someone else can have power?" In his own words he speaks of "spreading the wealth" around, and the entire focus of his presidency has been income redistribution schemes. He has nationalized large swaths of private society, taken over banks, and is now working on complete control of the entire health care system.

So to anyone who says he's not a Marxist, I say this: what, are you blind? Seriously - there is so much evidence to this fact that to deny it you would have to blind, or stupid, or just plain lying to yourself. Wake up comrades, before it's too late.

It's looking like there is only perhaps 1 more day of real American freedom left. Enjoy it while you can.

Is our long national nightmare over? Only time will tell. But this is a good sign. No, a great sign. If a Republican can win in "the bluest of blue states," the progressive agenda of the current Democratic majority may actually be derailed.

I was surfing the web yesterday, and stumbled across a critique of a blog entry I wrote some time ago. The post was about how people generalize groups of people as "assholes," or some other derogatory and intellectually void term. Now I don't usually use such a term as "asshole" on my blog, but this post was in response to a person who generalized all Republicans as "assholes." So, the use of such a derogatory term was necessary. I made the point that we shouldn't just generalize all people who disagree with us in such disparaging terms. And I further made the point of how ironic it is that "those who claim to be against bigotry, who claim to believe in equal opportunity, and who claim to disdain any type of favoritism, speak against those whom they do not agree with in such bigoted, elitist rhetoric."

So, imagine my surprise to find this critique: "Here's a conservative asshole complaining that liberals call asshole conservatives, 'conservative assholes.'" That's it, no further examination of my post, just that statement. My first impulse is to paraphrase the words of Christopher Lloyd, written for an episode of Frasier: "What trenchant criticism... One can only wonder how many hours (he) sat in the glow of his computer screen before his trembling fingers sprang to life and pecked out this chef d'oeuvre..." But some sort of revenge is not my aim here. I wish to point out once again the irony of such a person, identified on here as "B-Dup," calling me such a word.

Perhaps it is apparent to him that I am such an "asshole." But it is striking that inherent in his comment is the fact that, if he indeed did read the blog post, that he entirely missed its meaning. What that says about him I will leave up to you to figure out. I certainly have my own ideas about his ability to parse the meaning of a clearly written idea, and they do not speak well of his intelligence.

The point I wish to make here is that in the battleground of ideas, we must not stoop to that level. Many who disagree with us have their own reasons for doing so, and if we wish to make real progress, we must address the ideas, not demonize the source. Our playbook should take a higher ground.

Of course, we see such low tactics all the time from both sides, but the liberal left has perfected the practice. It is right from the playbook of Saul Alinksy, who stated: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." In other words, don't engage on an intellectual level, but demonize the target. We see it in the persecution of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. Those who engage in these tactics are rampant, especially on the Internet, where little men (or women) with a mouse in their hand spew forth such garbage with relative impunity. Shielded from face to face contact, they criticize and disparage others. Or, they gather in like-minded groups and wax poetic about how intelligent, and even more important, morally superior they are, spouting their messages of "Hope" and "Change," while engaging in smug group think and issuing gutter-speak proclamations about how stupid are those that disagree with them. But we must not let them get away with it.

That is why I am even bothering to respond to this small-minded criticism from this person known to me only as "B-Dup." He took his valuable time to call me out as an "asshole" with a feeble attempt at building himself up while tearing another down. The fact that his critique says more about him than it does about me seems not to have entered his mind. In fact, I should appreciate the link to my site that is included in his critique, for it may undoubtedly drive some traffic to my little relatively unknown blog. An army of B-Dups may only succeed in increasing my exposure. Now that would be irony.

It's a new year, and time for the conservative resurgence. 2009 brought us a liberal president, a liberal congress, and a socialist agenda that threatens the very core of our American values. Self reliance was down played for a mantra of "where's mine?"

But 2009 also was a year that awakened many who were politically sleeping. The Tea Party movement arose, comprised of many conservative heartland Americans who previously trusted that no matter what happened, our American values would stay intact. But when faced with the first liberal president since Carter, these Americans realized that they can no longer count on minor swings of the pendulum. The massive sweep to the left has energized these Americans, and many will step out to vote in midterm elections to try to stop the socialist agenda.

That is a good thing, but we must be mindful to keep our eyes on a unified goal. There is talk of a "third party" movement, referred to as the "Tea Party." Let us not fall into a trap of splitting our conservative votes at this time. A third party of conservatives in 2010 would have the unintended effect of entrenching the very liberal Democrats by splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring continued socialism of America.

I am not against a third party movement, but I do not support such a thing in 2010. Our goal this year should be to elect as many conservatives as possible, and that means that the Republican Party is the obvious choice. If we wish to organize a third party such as the "Tea Party" or some other conservative party, I am all for it. But in the short run, we must not allow the Democrats to continue running the show. If there is a third party candidate who can achieve a victory over a liberal Democrat, fine. But if a third party candidate would ensure a loss for both the third party and a republican, we must choose the Republican.

Remember, even though many Republicans fall short of the conservative ideal, not a one voted for the Health Care abomination. Republicans will not vote for higher taxes. For the most part, they will fight this current government expansion. There may be a few exceptions (Olympia Snowe of Maine, perhaps), but overall, they will protect our American values. Let's make 2010 the year that the liberal experiment was put to rest, and maybe in 2012, we can talk of a real viable third party. For now, let's hope this is the year of the elephant.

Once again, thanks to American Digest for turning me on to this video. If you haven't read American Digest, it is one of the most thought provoking blogs out there.

Chris Matthews recently questioned whether it is "illegal to call al Qaeda" during a recent segment on his show discussing last week's Fort Hood massacre. What planet is this guy living on?

Rocco Landesman, the NEA chairman, has stated that Barack Obama is "the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar." That doesn't mean he is a good writer.

Take, for example, his puffed up tome "The Audacity of Hope." I found the book to be poorly written. On page 78, there are sentences that have no verb. There are no references for any of the points he cites. The book contains at least one outright lie, on page 188, where he directly blames the Bush tax cuts for the rising deficit even though it is widely documented that federal tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts. He frequently puts forward his opinions as if they are fact. No conservative politician could get away with writing a book with no cited references, no editor, and such poor grammar.

I posted the above paragraph on a Buzzillions review site for the book last year. One comment has been generated so far, stating that "A sentence at the top of the first Index page states: "Sources for the statistics in this book can be found at www.audacityofhope.com."" Well, I went there to look for the references and found none. Am I missing something?

That aside, Barack Obama is decidedly not a good writer. Compelling content (and that is debatable here) does not a good writer make. He's a good BS artist, who will say anything as long as it furthers his cause, but not a good writer. Good writing must include correct grammar, and it must site sources and back up arguments with references. Anyone who has written a college term paper knows that.

But the statement by Landesman does not say Obama is a good writer; it says he is a powerful writer. I suppose when you have the full force and weight of the most powerful office in the world behind you, that statement could be true. But let's not confuse that with good writing.

Dear Ms. Greene,

I just heard you speaking on Fox News, comparing many of the 9-12 rally attendees to lemmings, and stating other misconceptions that you have. How dare you make such statements? You presume to understand these people who have the audacity to stand up to protect their rights, and then belittle them in a most condescending and unflattering way.

The truth is you are the lemming, following your progressive allies lockstep in misrepresenting and belittling your opposition. You "feel sorry" for these people? Who are you to make such a judgment? You must think you're pretty special to think you are sooo much smarter than these people. That's sheer audacity on your part. He/she who presumes to be smarter than others ultimately shows themselves as the fool.

Thankfully, we know why these people are mobilizing: it is not Obama but his policies, which many feel are wrong for this country. We will not stand for it and it will ultimately put an end to your progressive movement.

- pBlakeney

Flying the flags today in remembrance and honor for those who gave their lives for our country on September 11, 2001. Let us never forget...

White House green jobs adviser and nut-job wacko radical commie racist Van Jones has resigned from his czar-ship, and few of us capitalists are sad to see him go. The sheer number of offensive statements he had made is boggling, and offers tremendous insight to his radical views. What's really stunning is the audaciousness of his complaint upon resigning; that he is the victim of a "lies and distortions." When it's your own words that get you in trouble, it's hard to call it "lies and distortion..."

Buh bye Van Jones. You won't be missed.

Barack Obama is pushing hard to change perception of his health care plan in a series of town hall meetings, answering questions from citizens, many who seem to be plants. He is especially trying to dispel the notion that his plan would cause the formation of "death panels," as some, such as Sarah palin, have surmised.

Breitbart.com reports:

"I just lost my grandmother last year. I know what it's like to watch somebody you love, who's aging, deteriorate and have to struggle with that," an impassioned Obama told a crowd as he spoke of Madelyn Payne Dunham. He took issue with "the notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so they can go around pulling the plug on grandma."

if you just do the math, it's not hard to see the outcome of his policies. More demand for services + less supply (and less incentive to become a supplier - who wants to owe hundreds of thousands dollars in student loans to become a government employee?) = rationed health care. Of course, this is a simplification of the issue, but it's still pretty basic math.

The health care debate is front and center of the news, and is stirring up people who have never been politically active in their life. Despite a concerted effort by the President and Democrats in Congress, the American people just don't seem to be buying it. And that's a good thing, as a government take-over of health care is the most Anti-American proposal the Democrats have put forth yet.

The far left is painting the health care debate as something that will "level the playing field," and are suggesting that anyone who opposes the health care bill is either selfish (because they don't want to provide health care for all), a paid shill (because the opposition is not a real grass-roots opposition, it is being organized and paid for by special interests), or is making their decision on misinformation spread by special interests who oppose the idea.

I will be blogging on this in future posts, because if I tried to frame all my arguments against this bill, and in defense of those who oppose it, would take many many pages and result in blog post longer than the health care bill itself.

I would like to bring up one thing now that no one seems to be saying as of yet. The administration cloaks the health care reform as being good for all Americans, and if it was done right, it could be. But the government should be left out of it. What happens if the government takes over health care? All the money that currently goes to private insurance companies will now be funneled through the government. Trillions of dollars. It's the ultimate tax and spend situation, so much so that the very thought of it is like pornography for progressives.

I was talking to a friend who claims not to be a liberal, and the conversation turned to the impending health care bill. Of course, I voiced my objection to the bill, and my friend expressed the sentiment that people who don't have health care coverage need some sort of option to obtain it. One of my objections was that the bill would most likely be paid for by taxing the haves and redistributing the money to the have-nots; the Obama administration is pushing this "Robin Hood" propaganda and the people are eating it up. To which my friend replied, "well it's time the rich paid their fair share."

This comment has stuck with me, and to be honest, it kind of burns me up. The liberal mindset seems to be stuck in some sort of class warfare struggle, and they have no problem with spending other people's money. The overall perception is that "rich" people built their wealth on the backs of the less affluent, and they should give more of it back. But this perception is flawed.

There is an assumption in this argument is that these "rich" people did nothing extra to earn this money; that they are recipients of undeserved wealth gained through inheritance or dumb luck. The line drawn for "rich" people is an income of $250,000 or above.

Now, many people in this income range worked damn hard to get there. A relative of mine, for example, was born poor to a coal miner in depression era Iowa. Through hard work, stoic privation and shrewd investing, she was able to lift herself out of this poverty. She struggled, at times went without, and to this day watches every penny carefully, and shops for bargains like everybody else. Her most recent yearly tax liability was $120,000. Now, she obviously does well to have that much of a tax liability, and would certainly qualify as "rich" by the liberal standards. And how did she get that way? She earned it. To insinuate that paying a tax bill of $120,000 does not meet the obligation of her "fair share" is just plain insulting. She should be rewarded for being able to contribute that much money in taxes, but no, the liberals want to take more of her hard-earned income, and insinuate that she is somehow morally inferior because she has done well for herself.

Under the current system, much of the tax money she pays goes to pay for the services of the have-nots, people who pay little or no taxes at all. She should be praised as an example of American capitalism; a system where anyone can pull up their boot-straps and rise out of poverty to become a valuable contributor to the economic well-being of our nation. How many of the people who feel the "rich" aren't paying their fair share actually contribute that much tax revenue? Few of the liberals that I know do.

Rather than castigating the "rich" for not paying their "fair share," perhaps the people who pay little or no taxes should be more concerned with "doing" their fair share.

I can't believe I didn't create this one sooner...

What has happened to the concept of appropriate discourse in this country? After 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, we were promised that once Barack Hussein Obama was elected President, the country would begin the process of "healing." No more were we to have to endure such a vulgar level of partisan bickering coming mainly from the liberal side of the aisle. Oh sure, there are conservatives who had engaged in hateful, hurtful speech, but it was the liberals who took it to a new level of distortion, demonization and pure outright hatred. The election of Obama was supposed to change that - once their anointed prince was in power, the nation could come together and put and end to the gutter speech that was so prevalent.

But it seems not to be so. The derogatory diatribes do not come so much from conservatives, who are now in the position of coveting a candidate that can hold the highest office in the land, but remains the province of the liberals, as it has been during the Bush years. When liberals were the underdogs, they viciously attacked, smeared and tried to destroy the reputation of any who did not drink the liberal kool-aid and agree with their talking points. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and it is the conservatives who are the underdogs, one might be tempted to presume the conservatives to be the vile attack dogs, spewing hate against those with whom they disagree. But it is not so.

Take for example the hate speech of Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner:

"(Rush Limbaugh) hopes our country fails... I hope his kidneys fail..."

Or take for example the recent hateful comments of Janeane "I'll do anything for a job" Garafalo. When remarking on the Tax Day Tea Party protesters, she called them all racists. That's a true representation of bigotry if there ever was one, as she tarred many good people with her broad brush. When confronted by Fox News' Griff Jenkins for an apology, she picked out a few people with racist signs among the thousands of well-meaning protesters and ascribed the bigotry of a few to all who attended. Can you say irony?

These are but a few examples among the many we have seen in Obama's first 100 or so days. There was Perez Hilton spewing forth a spate vulgar statements against Miss California because the latter happened to disagree with his stance on gay marriage. There are the numerous vulgar statements issued about Sarah Palin because she has the audacity not to follow the traditional liberal feminist agenda. There are continued misogynist attacks on Michelle Malkin, once again because she does not toe to the liberal agenda.

These are but a few of so many examples of liberal hate speech that display the liberal ideological mentality - a mentality that is more akin to Nazi brown-shirts than to modern American citizens. And I see no sign that it is letting up.

We conservatives need to stay above that type of behavior. We have our own hateful commentators, but they are rightly marginalized to the corners of the Internet, where the little men with mice in their hands talk tough from the safety of their darkened computer dens. But what of the afore-mentioned Limbaugh? Surely, he is as hateful as any. I say, not so. Limbaugh, however much one might disagree with him, takes the time to make meaningful observations and puts forth coherent arguments. One might disagree with him, but if one debates on his level, it would be a thoughtful meaningful debate where hate is not evident but merely a difference in viewpoints.

These particular hateful liberals cannot debate on that level. Their tactic is to demonize the messenger rather than engage the argument. They distort and demean their detractors and never take the time to address the statements that are actually made. In some sort of Orweillian double-speak, they can call someone hateful or a racist while making much more hateful and bigoted staetments with the same breath. To them, it is not a lie, because they believe it.

And thus, the hate speech continues, unabated.

Here's my photo round-up, starting with a group of people on the way to rally, then the rally itself...

We've most likely all heard of the "Obama Fingers" product being sold in Germany... if not, here's some information on it: Tasteful Germans' Tasty Obama Snack: Frozen Chicken Fingers. In any case, Michelle Malkin has reported on her blog that this product is screaming for a Photoshop treatment, and boy is she right. I'm a bit late on this, but here's my entry:

Today is St. Patrick's Day, and Barack Obama, the resident White House party animal is celebrating with not one, but two bashes at the White House, or, as we like to think of it, the "people's house."

What's the big deal, you might say? Presidents have been known from time to time to schedule celebrations on the occasions of holidays and other notable days to further political goals as well as celebrate the occasion. But the Obamas are coming under scrutiny for the volume of lavish galas that have been held since taking over the White House in January. And, notably, all at taxpayer expense.

WorldNet Daily notes that Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, is "seeking information about the partying in the White House since the Obamas moved in," and is also trying to determine just how much taxpayer money is being used.

"Barack and Michelle Obama have been throwing taxpayer funded parties nearly every night with their 'friends' and supporters, with Michelle Obama even exhorting them not to 'break' White House property," Klayman's announcement said.

"This party atmosphere sends the wrong message to the American people. As the Obama-Clinton crowd party on, the American people are suffering greatly," Klayman said.

"It was right to criticize corporate execs for using taxpayer bailout money on bonuses and corporate junkets. In the face of this criticism, it is an outrage for Barack and Michelle Obama to party on, as Rome burns. It's like throwing a party at a funeral," he said.

Barack Obama today is reversing the ban on government funded embryonic stem cell research, by signing an executive order okaying it. I particularly have no problem with this research or the "destruction of embryos" that accompanies it - BUT, I do have a problem forcing everyone to pay for it. Many find it morally objectionable, and I don't think they should be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars. Read my previous blog post from 2006 for a more detailed argument about why I think it's wrong for the government to pick everyone's pocket for this.

Michelle Malkin is asking for Photoshops of David Brooks saying he's sorry after he said this: "Those of us who consider ourselves moderates are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was."

Here's mine...

I happened to be in a Burger King restaurant today when I overheard an interesting conversation. A large black man who looked very blue collar, wearing a Carhartt jacket and work clothes, was talking to another customer about the current state of affairs. Now, I only mention the fact that he is black because it is actually germane to the conversation we had. The gist of his conversation with the other fellow was that the current situation is taking us down the wrong path. He claimed that Obama's policies were the worst type of class warfare, and that he is trying to make everybody poor.

I called over to him and said, "you are right." He then invited me into the conversation and talked about how much money he was losing every day because of Obama. He said he was in business (he appeared to be an independent contractor), and the current policies are killing him. He then said he can't talk to his wife about this (who I can only assume is also black), because she only talks about how great it is that we have our first black president, and he shouldn't be speaking against him. He continued saying that that has nothing to do with the problem - Obama is screwing us all, and it doesn't matter whether Obama's white or black. Obama, he says, will not stop until we all are poor and have to go to the government with our hand out, and the government will dole out prosperity as it sees fit.

As we parted, he started talking to another man who entered and tried to persuade the fellow to his point of view. These people he was addressing appeared to be total strangers, and he was spreading the word: Obama is bad, and we're all in trouble if he continues.

This is a good sign. Here we have a fellow who is not rich - he is a small business owner much like Joe the Plumber. And he is pissed and is doing everything he can to impart his message to others. Let's all follow his example. Spread the word, and the Obama backlash will grow and grow.

Dick Morris' column on Obama's spreading of panic hits the nail on the head:

"Only by keeping us in a state of panic can (Obama) induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring."

I just can't believe the delusion of so many American people. Here we have a president who is transparently using the current crisis as a wedge to ram a liberal agenda down the throats of the nation, and so many people are so starry-eyed about him that they are willing to accept anything he says or does.

On Facebook we can see slavish tools that have Obamasized their Facebook picture by Photoshopping it to look like Obama's campaign poster. I have seen others whose status reads "So and so is in love with Obama." It's like an abusive relationship - the president is dismantling the engine of capitalism that is our only hope of digging out of this mess, and as we watch the stock market spiral down and the economy get worse and worse, these tools line up to praise him with fawning devotion.

The most ironic thing is that these are people who think they are so smart and Bush, as well as almost any conservative, is so dumb. Never mind that simple economics as well as history shows that tax cuts stimulate the economy and spending hurts the economy; that doesn't "feel right" to them. The Bush tax cuts were a pariah to them - it doesn't matter that they helped keep the economy chugging along for six of eight years of his presidency. Somehow, the tax cuts must be partly responsible for the mess we're in now, so repeal them!

And so we are now going to have a tax increase on the very sector of the economy that could dig us out of this mess - the people who have the economic power to employ others and grow the economy. The people who make more than $250,000 a year include more than just "idle rich" - this group includes thousands of small businesses whose taxes are about to go up, further stifling the economy.

"We cannot repeat the failed policies that got us into this mess," rails Obama. Well, of all the policies that I can pinpoint that caused the current mess, it was the liberal policies of Bill Clinton and Barney Frank that stand out. A close relative of mine was a banker for a large US bank, and he complained to me - years ago - that the policy of forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back was one day going to cause a big problem. He told me about groups like Acorn demonstrating at his very bank and trying to intimidate them into giving bad loans. And then Bill Clinton made it law, so bad loans they were forced to give.

When the Bush administration actually sounded an alarm, butt-banging Barney Frank stood up and defended the practice and the Republicans were unable to pass the proposed regulation that may very well have avoided this catastrophe.

So now we have Barack Hussein Obama excoriating a problem he "inherited" from the Bush administration. And too many American people believing him. Because these people are so blinded by ideology, and their hatred of Bush, they are willing to sell themselves out for an abusive butt-kissing relationship with the very man who drag us further into the mire.

"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

If this bill passes, the future will be changed - irrevocably steering us towards a more socialist and less self-reliant future.

Daily Kos: "If you didn't vote for Obama, your cult deprogramming starts Tuesday." Don't you mean programming? I can only surmise that you wish us McCain and/or otherwise voting individuals to be programmed into the "Yes-Man" liberal ranks of Obama supporters.. I hope you'll forgive me (not really, but that's the polite thing to say), but I defer to conservative values still...

As George W. Bush leaves office this month, many are trying to stick a fork into his historical legacy and call it done. One recent poll asked, "do you think history will judge (Bush's) presidency favorably?" 70% of respondents said no.

Of course, this was a poll conducted by an MSM news outlet, which begs a different question: how can a group of viewers, who are mostly liberal and really have very little sense of history make any kind of educated guess on this? The answer is, they can't.

Even those with a strong knowledge of history, regardless of political ideology, will have to wait and see how history judges the man and the presidency. My guess is that the rancor and hate of today's liberals will fade and more objective voices will ultimately examine the Bush years and write a much more accurate telling than is currently being suggested.

One thing is for sure: George W. Bush is an honorable man who did what he thought was right for the country, and he never compromised his principles for fleeting popularity. I believe that historians will slowly come to recognize this. But, as I said above, it's too early to tell.

What can one say about the shenanigans by Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor who was arrested this week on charges of trying to sell Obama's empty Senate seat to the highest bidder? Illinois politics as usual? Apparently so. What else is there to say?

This story, as it unfolds, is so full of ironic twists that one need not even try to come with ones own satirical observations - this one makes its own sauce. From Blago stating on Monday to go ahead and record him, then him being arrested the very next morning, to the actual content of the recordings that have been released that are so full of bleeped expletives, this series of events would be extremely funny if it wasn't so sad and reprehensible. The hubris of Blagojevich himself is both astonishing and laughable, and when you throw his "also foul-mouthed" wife into the mix, the whole series of events seem even more unbelievable.

The upshot to the whole sad story is that Illinois may end up having a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat, and that opens the possibility of the seat going Republican. On the street news interviews has shown some people stating that they voted for Obama, but after this Democratic Party debacle, they will be voting Republican. If Illinois could fill the seat with a Republican it will be a chink in the Democratic stronghold in Illinois, and would balance the ultra-liberal Dick Durbin, the senior Senator in Illinois. I know it's a slim chance, but it could happen.

Ron Howard was in the news recently, talking politics. Commenting on the release of his new "Frost/Nixon" film, Howard alleged that the crimes of Nixon pale in comparison to the crimes of Bush and Cheney. This kind of outrageous rhetoric is not surprising, but what are these "crimes?"

The left has built up this myth that the Bush presidency has committed outrageous and illegal offenses, but if that were the case, why don't they state what these "crimes" are? Nixon committed actual crimes, crimes that he was convicted of and would have served time in prison for, had Ford not pardoned him. Bush and Cheney are alleged to have committed crimes, but no one explicitly states these crimes or offers any tangible evidence that any crimes have been committed. It's an Orwellian double-speak, like the monkeys in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book: "We all say so, and so it must be true."

If anyone believes Bush or Cheney has committed a crime while serving as president and vice president, why are there no charges filed against them? The reason is that, to my knowledge, no actual crimes have been committed. Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean they have committed a crime.

Oh, of course the liberals will call out Guantanamo water-boarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. But there is no evidence that any laws have been broken by Bush or Cheney. The Iraq war has been called an "illegal" war by the left, but that's a ridiculous charge not backed up by the facts. The Abu Ghraib incident was committed by individuals who were charged for their offenses. Water-boarding as torture? Give me a break. The only thing Bush is guilty of is using any means necessary to keep our country from being attacked.

But that doesn't stop liberals like Ron Howard from making ridiculous unsubstantiated charges:

"the Nixon crimes pale by comparison, with uh, with uh, um, um, [picks up pen] you know, what we've been reading about and hearing about in the last few years. Uh, and yet, it also reminds us that abuse of power at any level cannot be accepted, and, so if there's a political point to be made, you know, I'd say it's nonpartisan, but that's the point."

So, Ron Howard, if you have evidence of any crimes, bring forth the charges before you go spouting off to your liberal base - by that I mean the main stream media. If not, get back behind your camera and stick to what you know best - making movies, not statements of political propaganda.

I've been lying low since the election, not because I'm disappointed - which I am because my candidate didn't win, but I'm not sulking or anything - no, I've been lying low simply because the longest election cycle in recent memory ended, and I was pretty tired of anything having to do with politics. So, I took a bit of a vacation from current political events. Of course, I've been following them, but not with the fervor that I was before the election, and not with the intent to blog about them. So now, I'm feeling a bit rested and refreshed and ready to get back to work.

The election itself was a disappointment, and is continuing to be one as Franken challenges Coleman in Minnesota and Georgia is having an upcoming runoff election, both of which play a big part in determining the balance of power in the national government. Barack Obama being elected president was not something I wished to see happen, but it did. I thought of several titles for my first post-election, Obama-has-won post, such as "How Could America Be So Stupid?" Or "America's Long National Nightmare Has Begun." Instead, I decided to not rain on anyone's parade, and chose to title the post "History Is Made."

I, of course, will be challenging the policies of this new president as they are made, and as they subsequently offend me, but I decided that it would more dignified to recognize the historical nature of this election, and save the criticism for later. We can be gracious in defeat, can we not?

So for the moment, I am watching and waiting to see which way the wind blows. Of course, I suspect it will blow left, but I want to see how far left. Obama does not take office until January, and as he assembles his cabinet, we will see which way this wind blows.

Good Morning Comrades...

Being for the benefit of the wonderful new direction we are taking in this, our U.S.S.A., I will immediately begin to tabulate my meager wealth so that it can be shared with all the people. I am joyful that I will not have to work so hard anymore, as hard work only results in excessive taxation, and the government will now send me the wealth of others for which to pay my bills. It is a glorious day for our country, when we all share everything and all will be equally poor...

Okay, so maybe that's a bit extreme of a view of Barack Obama winning the presidency, but there is some truth in it. But let's not kvetch about the loss of the candidate we supported without first looking at some positives.

History has been made, and America has elected its first black president. Whether you agree with the policies of this particular president-elect, it is an inspirational event and a stunning symbol for all people of color in this nation that any American, no matter what their heritage, can someday be president of the United States. This does not heal the racial divide, but it is a shattering of the final glass ceiling in racial disharmony. From the civil rights movement of the sixties to today, the ultimate progress has been made.

Another positive - the Democrats did not, so far as we can tell at this time with some races still undecided, gain enough seats to be fillibuster proof. While Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama try to enact the long-deferred liberal agenda, there will be at least one check against a complete liberal rollover.

And hey, this election cycle is finally, mercifully over. This has been the longest election cycle in my recent memory, and it is a welcome relief to turn to discussions of other things.

So it's not all direness. And many comparisons have been made between Barack Obama and John Kennedy, so let's hope at least one comparison rings true. And that would be the fact that even though John Kennedy was elected with the collaboration of underworld mob ties, he turned away from them and actually turned on them once he became president. He made the decision to put the sanctity of the office before his former "friends." Barack Obama was also propelled to power with the collaboration of many dubious nefarious people, so let's hope that he, like Kennedy, puts the country's needs before the agenda of his former "friends" as well. Of course, that course of action didn't work out too well for Kennedy, so let's hope that Obama does not suffer a similar fate. Let's just hope he does put the country first, and actually presides as a centrist with the good of the country as his first priority.

I'm not counting on it, but one can hope.

In less than 24 hours it will be election day, and most of us will be going to the voting booth and casting our ballots. From the way I see it, we have two major choices to make among the many decisions in local and state offices.

Barack Obama is a candidate who is persuasive and eloquent but uses his oratory to say very little. He has little experience of any kind, let alone the type of experience needed for the highest office in the land. In truth, he was groomed for the position of the presidency by nefarious people with dubious purposes. His goal is redistribution of wealth, and his candidacy is fueled by class warfare. Many have stated that if Obama was elected, the country may fall into an economic Depression, because he would raise taxes in an economic downturn. He believes that taxes are a way to punish the rich as well as a way to earn revenue, and does not understand that the very businesses, both small and large, that will be hurt by his economic warfare are the ones that create the jobs that ordinary Americans need. He has no foreign policy experience, and will drastically weaken our international footing by cutting defense spending and withdrawing troops from sensitive, unstable areas of the world where our interests are at stake. The media have done no real vetting of any of these issues as they all want him to win, so no critical assessment of this candidate is exposed to the American people by the mainstream media. In short, he is a candidate who is the least qualified, who has been given a pass by the media, and who has such questionable associations that he himself would not even pass a routine security check.

John McCain, on the other hand, is war hero who shown his love for his country in words and deeds. He has tremendous experience from serving in the Senate for many years, where is well-known for bipartisan efforts as well as bucking his own party when he felt it was right to do so. While he was involved in the Keating 5 Savings and Loan scandal in the eighties, he was forthright about all activities; he came before the American people and explained his every action, and was exonerated of any wrong-doing. That type of candor is something he possesses and Barack Obama does not. He has a good economic plan that does not involve the socialist redistribution and higher taxes that his opponent proposes. He is a candidate who believes Americans should be self-reliant rather than dependent, which, I believe, is the quintessential American way. He is a foreign policy expert, as was shown in the recent crisis in Georgia when he correctly assessed the situation almost immediately, while his opponent was jumping from position to position. He believes in a strong military and will not cut defense spending. John McCain is a man whose allegiance to this country have been tested, whose experience has been vetted, and is the clear choice for any thinking American.

Vote John McCain.

Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial appears to have been a flop. Reviews panning the promotional feature are in, and it appears that Obama came off as a gloomy, dour fear-caster rather than an optimistic would-be president.

Anthony Sullivan, one of the biggest names in infomercial production, had this to say: "I don't see enough smiling. Doom and gloom totally... I feel depressed right now... I was about to throw myself through a window because it was depressing."

Breitbart.com states that he "skips over budget realities." In an article on their website, they separate the spin from the fact.

Of course, many Democrats give the infomercial rave reviews, but they are going to vote for Obama anyway. The real test for success is how many undecideds were moved to vote for Obama? Judging by the reviews I have seen, it does not seem likely that such a presentation would help much in that area.

Michell Malkin has the blow-by-blow.

In 2001, Barack Obama called it a tragedy that "redistribution of wealth" was not pursued by the Supreme Court. Hear it in his own words...

We all know who Joe the plumber is, but does Barack Obama really know Joe? Now that the Obama campaign is suddenly on the defensive thanks to Joe's question, Obama has decided to show his elitist side and has began ridiculing the notion of a plumber actually earning $250,000.00 per year. At a campaign stop today, Obama sneered and said "how many plumbers do you know making a quarter million dollars per year?" and basically ridiculed the idea. What an insulting thing for Obama to say.

This just shows how clueless this guy really is. He has no idea how the real world works, and he has no idea the disastrous effect his economic policies are going to have on very real people. Barack Obama has based his economic policy on a class warfare ideology learned from books and in universities, not from the real world. And when cornered on the issue, he has now turned to Joe the plumber and ridicules the idea that Joe might actually make that much.

Way to insult the messenger, Obama.

Last night's debate was better than the last, with both McCain and Obama, swinging a little harder and connecting with more blows. Of course, once again, both sides are claiming victory. I, as a McCain supporter, actually thought Obama may have won this one, but for the unexpected shadow of the newest political celebrity on the scene: Joe the Plumber.

Joe's question to Obama about taxes has scored a knockout punch against Obama that McCain has been needing, and may well have changed the dialogue of the election. So, here's to Joe! Victory is his...

Barack Obama has accidentally let slip his socialist viewpoint of economics. When speaking to a plumber who was concerned about being punished through higher taxes for having a successful business, he said he wants to "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes. He might as well have just come out and said that his economic plan is nothing more than pure redistribution of wealth, which is commonly associated with another form of government called "communism."

The audacity of Obama is apparent. He obviously does not see the wealth of a successful person or business as something that has been earned; conversely, he obviously does not believe that someone who is poor may be so not because of outside social forces, but because of their own laziness or unwillingness to work for a better life or more income.

I understand that many people may be poor because of outside social pressure or a lack of opportunity. But as someone who has grown up poor, and has lived in many poor neighborhoods, I have seen an abundance of poor people who just aren't willing to take the steps to move themselves out of that position. I'm not blaming all poor prople for being poor, mind you - I just don't like it when successful people are blamed for being not poor.

There is this myth that all low-income people are victims of an evil system that keeps them trapped in their income level. Therefore, we must increase the minimum wage, we must raise taxes on the haves to give to the have-nots, and we must give tax returns to those who pay no taxes. But I've worked a minimum wage job many times in my life, starting when the minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour, and within six months I was always given a raise. Within a year, my income level at the same company or store was further raised beyond minimum wage because of hard work, responsibility and punctuality, and I was also able to earn promotions and bonuses. These were not given to me - I earned them.

On the other hand, those that were stuck at their minimum wage positions remained there because they were lazy or worked just hard enough not to get fired. Then they complained that life is unfair as they tried to coast through it doing as little work as possible. Are these the people that Barrack Obama is going to spread some of the wealth to?

Don't get me wrong, there are many hard-working low income people in America, and they would like an opportunity to be able to earn more money. But I bet if you ask them, they want to earn it, not have it given to them. They should pay low taxes, but they shouldn't be given a hand-out from those who earn more. The conservative plan supported by McCain is a pro-growth plan, one that will keep taxes low for everybody, including both those who want to work to earn more income and raise themselves to a middle or high-income position, and those who are business owners and entrepreneurs who make more money and can provide the jobs and opportunity to those people who want to work. The Obama plan is an income redistribution plan that wants to punish success and take money directly from those who are successful and give it to those who are not. No matter how you look at it, Obama has a Robin Hood agenda that directly contrary to the American spirit of self-determination and self-reliance.

"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

Sound familiar? That passage is from the prologue of Saul Alinsky's book Rules For Radicals. Saul Alinsky has been cited as an influence on our current candidate for change, Barack Obama, and darned if the approach Obama is taking doesn't exactly reflect Alinsky's method. The current economic crisis couldn't have come at a better time for Obama, and he is sure to be hoping to ride the current wave of frustration right into the White House.

But the current economic situation is somewhat of a fortuitous coincidence for Obama; he has been beating the frustration drum through his whole campaign, and now he has real frustration to use instead of the made-up outrage he was previously peddling. Even when the economy wasn't tanking he was speaking about how bad it was, trying to foster the frustration that is now becoming very real. And the "Hate Bush" crowd has beaten an endless drum for years, trying to make us dissatisfied with a president who has kept us safe from terrorist attack since 9-11, and kept the economy relatively prosperous for most of his presidency.

Of course, we know it wasn't just the Bush Administration's policies that have led to the current crisis. It was the Democrats and people like Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank who worked to maintain the perception that there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddy, and who have been forcing banks to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back. It was community organizing groups like Acorn that have been intimidating bankers and trying to embarrass them or harass them into making bad loans. It was the Bush administration that tried to warn the people five years ago and were stopped by Democrats in Congress. You know it. I know. John McCain knows it. Even Saturday Night Live knows it.

So now that the Democrats have wrecked the economy with their socialist policies, they are planning to use this to sweep in a candidate that has been groomed for the position and will institute the greatest social revolution this country has ever seen. The American people are lining up to be flim-flammed by a highly organized campaign that uses the current misfortune to take advantage of us and seize power. If Barack Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress in both houses, we are heading down the road to less self-reliance, and more government control over every aspect of our lives. The "change" that Obama speaks of is a socialist revolution, the very type of revolution that Saul Alinksy spoke of.

Vote John McCain.

At about 6:35 tonight I made a comment to a friend that I think the market thinks Obama is going to win, and that's why people are pulling their money. Shortly afterword, Bill O'Reilly suggested the same thing on his program. On Michelle Malkin's website, a commenter called mdt suggested the same:

Could it not be that the stock market meltdown drop of 30%+ in last 2 weeks is the market realizing that Obama is really winning along with an all democratic congress - with all that means for a complete socialist makeover of the US, the last standing capitalist nation?

Wake Up America. Vote McCain.

Conservatives are lambasting McCain for not calling out Barack Obama in the last debate over his association with William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Acorn, and the numerous other nefarious ties Obama has. Michelle Malkin has stated "McCain has always had much more of a stomach for taking on his own base than he has had for taking on the radical Left." On the other side, the liberals think McCain is being a wimp, with the Daily Kos stating "he's afraid to confront Obama directly."

I believe both are wrong, and as this election plays out, I think McCain will confront Obama directly, and he will do it at just the right moment. If he were to lay all his cards out now, Obama would have plenty of time to counter the argument, and any gains McCain might incur could disappear if he tips his hand too early.

Think back to how the McCain camp handled Sarah Palin's debate appearance. Going into the debate, no one was prepared for the pitbull attack she engaged in, and many think she won the debate by managing expectations before the debate. If you think that was an accident, I've got some acorns to sell you. And now, the chance for Biden to counter her face to face is gone.

The same goes for McCain. Why on earth would he engage Obama on these issues in the second debate when Obama would be able to forge a counter-attack in the third? Remember, McCain is a soldier and is familiar with the art of war. He knows when the right time to push your forces is, and he is not going to give Obama a chance to counter-attack. By waiting until it is closer to election day, he stands a good chance to have Obama reeling on the defense as voters go to the polls. By not waiting and attacking him in the second debate, Obama would have had 4 weeks and an opportunity in the third debate to counter the argument and persuade voters that McCain was wrong.

Remember the battle of Bunker Hill, and its most famous quote: "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes."

Don't fire yet, John.

Last night's debate was not the knockout punch from McCain that conservatives were hoping for. Liberals/Democrats think Obama won, conservatives/Republicans think McCain won.

I thought McCain made some good points against Obama. There were a couple of times where it looked like Obama was against the ropes, and I did not see McCain ever backed into a corner or on the defense. It actually reminded me of the boxing match in 1986 when Sugar Ray Leonard beat Marvin Hagler. To anyone watching, it seemed that Hagler had Leonard against the ropes several times, and throughout the match controlled the ring and had Leonard backing up and looking for an escape. But it was ruled Leonard won the match, to the amazement of those who thought Hagler won hands down.

So, in the end, the debate changed little for either side. McCain needed to land a knockout and he did not. Those of us rooting for McCain are disappointed that there was no mention of the dubious past history of Obama, but there was little opportunity to bring it up. Here's hoping that McCain keeps pressing the association and judgment issue on the campaign trail. I would like to see Obama actually answer the accusations made against him instead of deflecting them.

Barack Obama's effort to keep the argument focused on the economy is just another example of the Democrats using a crisis to keep the focus off of the damning arguments of Barack Obama's associations with William Ayers and Reverend Wright, as well as others like Rahid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, and Acorn. Of course, the economy is an important issue, but it is not the only one. We should not vote purely on this issue, as Obama would like us to, to the exclusion of all else.

There once was a man named T.E. Lawrence, who was known as Lawrence of Arabia. In World War 1, he fought in the Middle East during the Arab revolt of 1916-1918. One particular battle of note was the battle for the town of Aqaba. Aqaba was a seaport, with an expansive desert on the other side. To protect from invasion, the residents of Aqaba pointed their defensive forces towards the sea, as they believed that was the only place an invasion force would come from. Surely, no one could cross the expansive desert on the other side. Lawrence of Arabia and his forces did just that - they crossed the desert, and when they attacked Aqaba, all of Aqaba's defenses were pointed in the wrong direction.

Like Lawrence of Arabia, Obama wants to keep you focused on the Aqaba of the economy, while all these nefarious ties slip by unnoticed on the other side.

John McCain wasn't kidding when he said he was taking the gloves off, and it's about time. There are so many dubious associations and facts about Obama that are fair game and ripe for the plucking, one almost doesn't know where to begin. Associations include (left to right in accompanying image): Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rahid Khalidi, domestic terrorist William Ayers, convicted felon Tony Rezko, and the Anti-American racist Reverend Wright, as well as (not pictured) terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, Hatem El-Hady, a former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, and others. In addition he has ties with Acorn, the lobbying group which has been accused but not convicted of voter fraud, and has taken several thousands of dollars of illegal campaign contributions that he has had to return, as well as being one of the leading recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. We could go on, but you get the point.

The Obama campaign has tried to intimidate McCain by threatening to call attention to McCain as one of the "Keating 5," the group of senators who aided and abbetted the Savings and Loan scandal in the 1980s. McCain was one of the five, but was not convicted of any wrong-doing. The official ethics committee report stated that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate." John McCain himslef has stated frankly, "the appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."

Contrast that frank and earnest evaluation of his own behavior with that of Barack Obama's. Throughout the Keating 5 scandal, John McCain was open about his involvement and was honest about his role, and tried to cover up nothing. When Obama is questioned about any of his questionable associations, he deflects responsibility, calls it a non-issue and tells us the American people are not concerned about such "distractions."

These are not "distractions." To put it bluntly, Barack Obama has too many nefarious connections for me to be comfortable with him as President of the United States. Obama can try to counter Ayers with Keating. When that is done, McCain still has dozens of other questionable issues in relation to Obama to bring up. It is time for Mccain to put these questions to the American people, and today in New Mexico he has begun to do so:

Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there's always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults. Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch? Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can't change the system with someone who's never fought the system.

"Never let them know your true strengths." We've all heard that before, and my theory is that that is exactly how Sarah Palin went into the VP debate this week. Before that debate, she was considered an underdog and was expected to perform poorly. Joe Biden was worried about looking too tough on her, and was advised to focus on the top of the ticket and not appear "mean." The consensus was that she was in over her head, and had little chance of performing well.

I believe that this was all a calculated effort by the McCain campaign. Now that the debate is behind her, Sarah Palin will now take off the kid gloves and bring back the pitbull behind the lipstick. By her appearing in over her head before the debate, the Obama campaign was caught off guard in the debate. And now that she doesn't have to worry about another face off with Joe Biden, she can start doing what a VP candidate should be doing: attacking the top of the opposing ticket. And Obama has plenty of dirty laundry for her to focus on.

I expect her to stop talking about John McCain as much as she did before the debate, and start talking more about Barack Obama and his associations with Ayers, Wright and Pfleger, as well as Obama's own questionable actions and statements. indeed, she already has; in her interview with Carl Cameron, the first post-debate interview, she brought up Obama's comments about our soldiers "raiding villages," and "killing people." In another post-debate statement she accused him of "palling around with terrorists." By avoiding this topic of conversation before the debate, she has cleverly avoided a tough grilling by Joe Biden. Now that any opportunity for Biden to be directly tough on her is past, expect her to start baring her teeth.

Democrats, you've been Punk'd.

I saw An American Carol yesterday, on its opening day, and it did not disappoint. It was refreshing to finally see a movie that criticizes the American left the way they have been criticizing conservatives for years. The movie is a parody of the liberal left, featuring Kevin Farley as film-maker Michael Mallone, an obvious send-up of left-leaning film-maker Michael Moore.

I especially enjoyed the college classroom musical scene, where Kelsey Grammer, as General George S. Patton, proclaims "Education? You mean indoctrination!" Truer words have never been uttered. The movie attacks a number of liberal ideas, such as the fact that liberals believe that our enemies are justified in their hate of us because of our actions, that the current war in Iraq is just like Vietnam in 1968, and that we should negotiate and appease our enemies rather than confronting them with force. One particularly funny scene takes place in 1938, showing then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin signing away half of Europe to the Axis powers and proclaiming "this will achieve peace," then being forced to shine the shoes of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

The movie is not all negative attacks, though, by any means. Sincere patriotic references are shown throughout, and the heroism of soldiers past and present, fighting for freedom, are highlighted at various points in the movie. When a soldier tells Michael Mallone he can't visit with him next week because he has to ship out to the Middle East, Mallone responds "can't you get out of it?" The soldier then proclaims that he volunteered to go and it was his duty. The liberals may think that such movie scenes are mere jingoism, but it rings true to me and makes me proud of those who fight and die for all of us.

Overall, the movie is funny and entertaining throughout. I was surprised at how scathing it was regarding liberals, and was pleased to finally see something in mainstream media that treats them as they have treated conservatives for many years. The liberal reaction I have seen to the movie of course, is utter indifference, and an attempt to bury it. Many liberal papers are not bothering to review it, nor even mention it. On movie roundups I have seen on TV, many critics do not even mention the movie in their lists of movies opening this weekend. Their bias is palpable, and their hypocrisy is clearly to be seen.

So, I urge you, if you are planning to see a movie this weekend or even this week, go see An American Carol. You will not be disappointed. I will go even further and say that it is a patriotic thing to do. The liberal left are trying to silence conservatives, and are trying to bury this movie and would no doubt like to see it fail, so that only movies they agree with are made. The only freedom of speech they believe in is speech they agree with. It took courage to make this movie, courage from David Zucker, courage from the many stars who "came out of the closet" of liberal Hollywood and stepped up to make a movie that may well keep them from being able to work in Hollywood in the future. They are taking incredible risk to make a statement that more than one kind of political ideolgy can exist in Hollywood movies. Support them in that cause and go see An American Carol.

More interesting than last night's VP debate was the exchange between Barney Frank and Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly, in an even more blustery than usual fashion, called Barney Frank out and called him a coward for not admitting fault in the recent near collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

O'Reilly once again did himself no favors by confirming what liberals already think about him: that he is shouts people down, calls them names, and refuses to let them make their points. But Frank was behaving despicably, denying any responsibility for the losses of many Americans after he claimed that Fannie and Freddy were sound, and the future for the companies was favorable.

If you look at the history of connections between Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddy, you see a troubling pattern of obsfucation. In 2003, the Bush administration raised concerns that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac needed more regulation and proposed a new agency to oversee the housing finance industry. Barney Frank responded with the following:

"These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddy are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investment these days from the long term standpoint...going back, I think they will do okay going forward... from what's happened to the housing market... I do think their prospects going forward are very solid, and in fact we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

The debate is in the history books, and who exactly was the winner is being debated. All the liberals resoundingly give victory to Joe Biden, while conservatives are applauding Sarah Palin as the clear winner. Of course, it depends on how you judge the performances.

Biden was projected to trounce Palin, and many were holding their breath and waiting to see Palin fail. Instead, she exhibited a composed demeanor, and on many occasions she seemed to have Biden against the ropes. Biden exhibited a masterful command of facts and figures and showed himself to be a skillful, and somewhat typical, politician. A few times he looked clearly flustered as Palin scored with lines that echoed the populism of Ronald Reagan, such as "there you go again, Joe."

Biden probably came in higher in points, but came in lower than expected in performance. Palin scored higher in likability, and exceeded expectations and beat her point spread by a mile, making her the winner in my book.

The Senate passed the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," and now it's going to the House for a vote tomorrow. It's been a wild ride this week, and many are screaming something that must be done, but that this isn't it. I am not an economist, so I would be remiss to say that I understand all the ramifications of the bill, and I really can't offer an educated opinion on whether it is a good or bad thing to do. On one hand, it could be an enormous power grab for the government in a time of economic crisis; on the other, it could provide a necessary short-term stabilization of the credit markets untl things settle down a bit.

I do agree that it's not just a bailout for Wall Street, but actually a bail-out for all of us. It may not be the right thing to do in the long run, but in the short term, none of us are going to benefit if there are more bank failings. The "silent run" on Wachivia over the weekend and the failing of WaMu last week, are stark indicators of what the future may portend if something isn't done. In 1929 and 1930, Hoover did nothing when the economy was failing, and we all know what happened then.

It is interesting to note that only 133 pages of the 450+ page bill actually deal with the bail-out. The rest are tax incentives and renewals of previously existing provisions. There is an argument about whether these are actually ear-marks, or whether they are going to be helpful, along with the bail-out, to help boost the economy in addition to the bail-out. But when a bill starts out at 3 pages and balloons to over 400, you've got to suspect some sausage is being made.

Update - October 3 The bill has now passed the House and is on its way to President Bush, who will no doubt sign it. The Sausage McMuffin will soon be law...

H. is trying to ramp up his campaign by telling supporters to "argue with them and get in their face." Well, I've got a news flash for him: we're tired of liberals arguing and getting in our face. We've been putting up with that for years. Liberals are the loudest, angriest group out there already.

You already can't debate a liberal without them engaging in such childish tactics. Try to engage in a conversation with most of them, and instead of staying on point, they block out anything you try to say and talk over you. They won't address a valid criticism; instead they fall back on the same old talking points. If you quote a knowledgeable figure, instead of addressing the point, they try to demonize the person.

I've had liberals, when presented with a valid argument, just shout, "oh, blah, blah blah," at me. My favorite line is "but George Bush is the devil." Another classic, no matter what your point about Iraq is, "but what about the weapons of mass destruction?!"

So please, liberals, could you stop arguing with us and getting in our face? How about a nice civil debate? Oh wait - I'm sorry - you can't debate with children.

Many of us create photoshops for fun and parody, but some create photoshops for pure propaganda purposes. Photographer Jill Greenberg recently published some photoshopped photos of John McCain she took for the cover of the Atlantic Monthly, and it is no question that her images go beyond mere parody into the realm of hateful propaganda. She created photos of John McCain looking evil, one even showing him with fangs, and blood dripping from his lips, and a pointed tongue emerging, poised to lick the blood away. Truly a hateful image, and one that could be nothing but pure propaganda.

So, I thought, what's good for the gander is good for the goose! Since she's so fond of manipulating images for propaganda purposes, why not turn the tables on her and Photoshop images of her? Let's flood the Internet with Photoshops of photographer Jill Greenberg, and see how she likes the treatment she has dealt to others.

Here's mine. Send me yours and I'll link to them.

Ironically enough, it takes some digging to find an image of this photographer to work with. If you search for her, you get her photographs, not images of her. After much searching, I found a couple on these pages:
Page with Jill Greenberg Photo
Another page with Jill Greenberg Photo
If anyone finds any more, let me know.

The Accomplishments of H...

H. has been falling in the polls lately, and is under fire for the "lipstick" comment, as well as string of embarrassing associations. While McCain may be merely enjoying a typical post-convention bounce that could fade away over the next few weeks, at this time McCain is leading in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll.

Some are stating that H. could have "Palin-proofed" himself had he chosen Hillary for Vice President instead of Joe Biden. I'm not sure about that, but one thing I suspect... somewhere today, Hillary has her eyes on 2012, and is laughing at the recent downturn of events for H.

H. is under fire for one of his latest comments, the "lipstick on a pig" quip. Of course, he denies that he was referring to Sarah Palin when he said,""You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." He further added, in reference to McCain, "you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years." The audience of Democrats laughed audibly when thy heard the word "lipstick," and took it as an obvious reference to Sarah Palin's line about lipstick being the difference between a hockey mom and a pit-bull.

You would have to be naive to think that H. didn't mean that to be an obvious reference to Sarah Palin. He swaggered a bit as he said it, and you can see the look of acknowledgment and satisfaction on his face when he hears the audience chuckle. Conversely, if he didn't mean to make the reference or draw a comparison to the two comments, then he must be pretty, uh, stupid not to know how that would be taken. I don't think he's stupid (if he is, that would be a good reason not to vote for him), so he meant it.

That's the guy the Democrats have put up; an audacious, petty and crass individual whose ego is bigger than his abilities. He does reflect a large part of his base: those liberals and Democrats who are mean-spirited and resort to dirty tricks to achieve their goals. He claimed to be a new kind of politician, but he is just as vile a mud-thrower as any that have come before him. And he has less class, and less grace than most that have come before him. These remarks, the latest in a long line pf petty and vulgar statements, show him to be a man not fit for the highest office in the land.

It's official - both candidates have been formally nominated, and the campaigns are now officially underway.

McCain's speech on the final night of the RNC was pretty much along the lines of what was expected. He is no firebrand of a speaker, but he is an honest and forth-right candidate and his speech showed that. His speech also contained some specific details of his plans; the type of thing critics have been clamoring for. Of course, the details were not too specific, no more specific than anything H. offered in his speech the week before. But he did succeed in laying out the groundwork of what his presidency will be about - country first, non-partisanship, an economy bolstered by low taxes and governmental non-involvement, energy independence by looking at all the options available, and above all, the promise that Americans can be self-reliant because government will get out of their way rather than dictate bureaucratic solutions to personal problems.

The statement of self-reliance is the key to the Republicans' platform. The Democrats believe that government should manage and micro-manage all aspects of our lives. The Republicans believe the government should stay out of the way except where absolutely necessary. It is no secret that dependency on the government fosters more dependency. Mitt Romney was absolutely correct when he said "Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. It is time to stop the spread of government dependency to fight it like the poison it is!" John McCain recognizes that, and John McCain will preserve and strengthen that ideal.

Daily Kos was so quick to gloat over the Republican National Convention's low ratings for Monday and Tuesaday, but the ratings for Wednesday are in, and nearly as many people tuned in for Sarah Palin's speech as tuned in for the big speech by H. on the Democrats final night. Normally, I wouldn't consider this much of an issue, but as Markos was so quick to declare that no one wants to watch the GOP convention, it is with pleasure that we throw this latest ratings report back in his face....

The "second" night of the Republican national Convention was even better than the first, with four great speeches closing out the night. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Guliani fired up the crowd and when Sarah Palin took the stage, the audience thundered in applause. All four speakers did a good job of skewering H. and Biden, but Palin also had the job of introducing herself to the country, and she did a magnificent job.

Particularly amusing throughout the evening were the chants of "Zero" while holding up the Obama closed fingered circle.

Some standout lines from Palin's speech:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening."

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. "

"...there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

"Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things. And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things."

"Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man."

Speaking of liberals, a quick breeze of Daily Kos shows them pouting and basically ignoring the content of the speech. Instead they're gloating over how the Democratic Convention got higher ratings than the Republican Convention, at least through Tuesday night. Well, people do tend to prefer bubble gum over actual politics.

Huffington Post looks like a scandal rag, and if it looks like a duck... well, you know the rest. They are trying to do everything they can to discredit the choice of Sarah Palin. Rather than mention glowing reviews of the speech, such as in The (UK) Sun or CNN's nearly perfect report card of the speech, they offer a "fact-checking" exercise by an AP reporter who tries to discredit the speech by taking things out of context and offering the usual liberal talking points in response. I'm just curious -- do they ever give a speech by H. the same kind of scrutiny, or claim he's "exaggerating?" I don't think so.

In addition Huffington Post features what I assume they believe is an unflattering image of Palin. Of course, I think it shows her grit and determination, so I used the image at the top of my post to recall the scene from Dirty Harry, where Clint Eastwood is pointing the gun at the criminal.

The liberals are flustered. And I don't think they're feeling too lucky. They are going to try to discredit this woman, using all the gestapo propaganda tactics we've come to recognize from them. But America saw last night that this is a woman who will not back down. She can field-dress a moose, and last night, she field dressed H.

The Republican National Convention hit the ground running last night after a one day delay in major speeches and events due to Hurricane Gustav, despite many liberal's wishes for a disaster in New Orleans to disrupt the convention schedule and draw attention to the perceived inadequacies of the Republican Administration in the face of such a disaster. With all due respect to those who are still enduring the hardship of the tragedy, the unfortunate event on the Gulf Coast actually provided a benefit for the Republican Convention: the association of John McCain tp George W. Bush was able to be downplayed by having Bush deliver his abbreviated speech delivered by satellite.

The highlight of the evening, without a doubt, was the speech by Fred Thompson, who deftly skewered H. (Obama) while accuratley painting a portrait of both John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin. Without mentioning H. by name for the first ten or so minutes, Thompson told the story of McCain's biography, punctuated every few minutes with a back-handed jab at his opponent. For example, there's no missing the contrast between the oppenents when he stated "He has been to Iraq eight times since 2003. He went seeking truth, not publicity. "
The barbs became more pointed during the second half of the speech, with Thompson directly addressing the weaknesses of H. and Biden, and highlighting the advantages of McCain and Palin. The overall message of "who can you trust with the Presidency" was well-communicated, and the weaknesses of H. were well highlighted.

Joe Lieberman's speech, while not as rousing or as pointed as Thompson's, was also well-received. There were a few bemused faces in the crowd as Lieberman made a passing reference to the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency, but other than that, the speech seemed effective. At the end, Liebermann made an impassioned plea for independents, Reagan Democrats and undecideds to vote for McCain and Palin.

One thing that was apparent between the two conventions, the DNC and the RNC, was the focus of the message. The main theme of the Republican Convention, as emblazoned on the many placards held by the crowd, was "Country First." This was echoed by a message that was decidedly patriotic, but more than that, uniquely American. The Republican message is a call to action for Americans to continue to be self-reliant, which had always been a prominent quality of Americans and American history.

The theme of the Democrats convention seemed to be that it's okay to act like a dependent child, the government will be there to help you. H. actually said, in his big speech the final night, "it's about you." As if a congregation of spoiled, self-absorbed liberals really needed to hear that... The "me, me, me" generation was highlighted in full force, and is being placated by a message that says that it's okay, don't worry about self-reliance, we'll take care of you. No need for bootstraps to pull yourself up by, the government is here for you. That's not the American tradition... that's socialism. Not surprising, when the liberals are trying to elect, as Fred Thompson said, "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."

Some Democrats and liberals are joyously celebrating that Hurricane Gustav is going to hit New Orleans on the eve of the Republicans Convention. What more needs to be said? it is they who are the petty and mean-spirited partisans...

Michael Moore:

Former DNC Chair Don Fowler:

Pathetic.

God help all unfortunates effected by this disaster. How you can help.

If you're looking for photos of Sarah Palin in a swimsuit from the 1984 Miss Alaska competition, you've come to the right place. Can you believe she would wear something like this? Wow. And I thought today's swimsuits were revealing....

Of course, the swimsuit isn't really in the picture, if that's what she's even wearing. But if she was wearing a swimsuit in this picture, just imagine what it might look like!

Actually, you haven't come to the right place, as I have no Sarah Palin swimsuit photos. But as Michelle Malkin's site, and Ace Of Spades are reporting, the liberal bloggers are frantically searching for such photos of her in a swimsuit, as if they think something like this is going -- horrors! -- cause a scandal. The delusion...

Anyway, I thought I'd jump in on this subject, and help them waste their time looking for photos on my site. Good luck liberals... hope you find what you're looking for, and it turns out not to make any difference!

McCain runs around the side with his VP pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and surprises many. Not a bad pick, as she is conservative, has at least some executive experience (unlike anybody else on either ticket), and will almost certainly confirm the Republican vote of some Hillary supporters. Beyond that, I don't yet know enough about her to offer any educated opinion. Her name came up a few months ago, and from what I heard then, she would make a strong choice. But I'll have to do some home-work to go beyond that.

Of course, she adds fuel to Democrat criticism on the experience front, but that's like the pot calling the kettle black. Obama has no experience - he spent most of his time in the Illinois Senate running for the his U.S. Senate seat, and has spent most of his time in the U.S. Senate running for his Presidential nomination. Palin at least has demonstrable executive experience as governor, and as mayor of the town Wasilla. Now Wasilla may be a small town but she did the job and did it well, from what I've read so far.

The Daily Kos is already complaining about having this "unexperienced" woman a heartbeat away from the presidency, but from what I've read about her so far, I'd rather have her in that position than their questionably qualified, arguably unpatriotic candidate.

And she only owns one house.

First of all, I agree with the fact that Barack Obama's Democratic nomination acceptance speech was a historic speech, as the Democratic Party has nominated the first black American in our history to the office of president. Truly a momentous and historic occasion.

In the first five minutes, the speech turned disgraceful. His comments took the personal responsibilities of Americans and blamed the failure to meet them on the Bush administration. He talked of "veterans sleeping on the streets," and referred to Katrina. He talked of the proud auto workers, whose jobs in reality were actually not destroyed by the Bush administration, but the wasteful practices of the UAW, among other things. He talked of self-reliance, but proposed grand government solutions. What happened to the new kind of politician? The negativity and bitterness of his opening salvo negates that new type of politics.

When he talked of changing America, that's when I became scared. He talked of measuring progress, but ignored the fact that the only reason the Clinton years were prosperous were largely because of the Internet boom. That bubble burst at the end of Clinton's presidency, and while still under Clinton's budget, the nation plunged into recession. He does not mention the fact that recession was remarkably short-lived under President Bush, and to this day, even though we have had an economic slowdown, no such recession has recurred. The economy, despite the Democrats Chicken Little prophesies that we have endured for the last few years, and through the housing crisis, has shown remarkable resilience. Just this week, we have learned that economy grew twice as much in the last quarter as was expected. He talked of businesses creating jobs, but it is no secret that he regards business as a villain, and his tax policies will hurt businesses, small businesses in particular.

The speech then turned to his familiar platitudes of his "brother's keeper." He talked of getting specific on these issues. He talked of cutting taxes for 95% percent of working families, and ending our dependency on Middle eastern Oil. These are all subjects he has spoken of before, but he still offered no real specifics. Nothing new here. It sounded like he was reciting the Picken's plan for energy independence.

At that point, it started sounding pretty expensive. Investments, tax breaks, world class education, free health care, etc. These all sound good, but I suspect that income redistribution will be his method of paying for it. That, and a decrease in military spending, but once again that's just an educated assumption on my part. He talked of eliminating programs that no longer work, but who decides what works?

He did talk of individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, but before he could delve into any details on that, the speech turned into an attack on John McCain and the Iraq War. That's an issue where he will have no chance to best John McCain. He can bluster about being strong in foreign policy, but John McCain can dance circles around him in this. He called for withdrawing the troops, which has been his mantra.

He made a claim about a squandered American legacy due to Bush, but I believe that Bush has made our nation stronger. After all, Bush smashed Al Qaeda in Iraq (eventually, I must admit), and had a real foreign policy success in Libya. Before Bush, America was thought of as a paper tiger. I'm sure Al Qaeda probably doesn't believe that anymore. Obama talked of veterans benefits, even though his party was the party that cut the military so much under Clinton, that any shortfalls of funding were really the fault of the Democrats.

The most ironic part of the speech was his call to not question another's patriotism. It reminded me of the Simpson's episode where Homer forgot to pick up Bart from softball practice, and Homer tried to wash away the subject by saying "we can argue all day about who forgot to pick up who..." It is obvious that no one will question McCain's patriotism. It is Obama's patriotism that is in question, so for him to make the call not to question it is completely disingenuous.

The speech finally devolved into the lofty platitudes we are used to hearing from Obama. "All across America, something is stirring," he said... it's not even a mouse. It is Barack Obama and his is a cult of popularity that has little to do with anything beyond a charismatic speech.

First, it was the Ayers ad featured in my previous post, now it's an effort to silence National Review reporter Stanly Kurtz. It seems H. will stop at nothing to silence free speech when it is about him and his nefarious relationships.

Michelle Malkin has a lot of coverage of his mafia style tactics, and it is disturbing to see that for all the platitudes and talk of hope and change, H. is not only proving himself to be a typical politician, he is showing himself to be the worst kind of politician: A politician who has no problem using intimidation and strong-arm tactics to silence and shut out detractors.

The big event of the first night of the DNC convention was the speech by Michelle Obama. She spoke passionately and delivered the speech well, but unlike the teary-eyed conventioners shown on the convention floor, I wasn't so moved. Her delivery was good, but the substance of her message was the same old banal platitudes we've come to expect of the Obamas; a lot of flowery rhetoric that seemed contrived, and was designed to appeal to the nanny state liberals. She succeeded in painting a picture of a family that loves their country, but, like a paint-by-numbers oil painting, it was not original nor unexpected.

In speaking to the choir, she was successful. Her mission was to unring the bell of her previous negative comments, and to those who might be eager to sign the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, she probably succeeded. As a potential first lady, she showed that she was eloquent and had some grace, but probably would have been more graceful had she chose a dress which did not expose her bra straps. As a speaker she was confident, and in designing her message, she succeeded in choosing the right words and phrases to bolster the core of her mission, which was to try to show herself a recipent of the American dream, and that we are wrong to question her patriotism or the love of her country.

Of course, I don't buy it. It was another speech in the vein of her presumptive nominee husband, a lot of sound and fury that signify nothing. The conventioners who are already in the camp of H. were obviously moved, but the only apparent substance in the speech was nothing but empty calories. To those who already believe H. is the candidate who is going to change the world it was pure manna, but to anyone who has questions about the H. family, those questions remain.

The text message has come in, and the VP pick for H. is Delaware Senator Joe Biden. This is not much of a surprise, as we heard about the private plane to Delaware last night, and most pundits picked Biden as the VP yesterday as the text message circus progressed. I have to say, Biden is probably the toughest, most confrontational pick H. could have made; a foul-mouthed and intemperate, yet experienced and well qualified attack dog.

McCain now needs to pick Mitt Romney, not just to counter Biden's bluster with smooth, intelligent debate, but to have a vice-president who will bring great strengths to the McCain administration, not just to the presidential race.

We'll know in another week...

As I was slogging through the thousands of spam in my e-mail box, I came across an actual letter that I feel compelled, in all fairness, to respond to. Although months old, I just discovered this e-mail today, and as it is a thoughtful critique, I would like to do my best to offer a fair-minded response. Here's the letter:

Dear P. (Sense you favor use of initials),

I find it odd that you are so quick to call H. a racist, but you won't acknowledge your own families(sic) racist history of Slavery. I wonder how many of your readers would be interested in the history of your own families recent past. You are a talented writer and even though I'm a Democrat, I find your post well researched and informative. You should use your talents to be more open-minded and less bias. It is one thing to support your party, but another to build support by posting such negative (and often hateful) comments regarding your opposition. I have not read one post describing anything positive that McCain or Bush (W) stand for that would make the reader switch parties or even see your views. Your posts have more hatred and ridicule towards Obama, Syesha Mercado, R-Kelly, Rev Wright and other minorities than insight on the party issues.

There is an implication here that I am a racist, although it is not implicitly stated. I am not "quick to call" H. a racist; as the letter states, my post is "well researched and informative." I am not sure exactly to which post the letter writer is referring to, but I did a quick search of my posts from April and May (when the e-mail was sent) and could not find a statement where I called H. (Obama) a racist. I certainly have called Reverend Wright a racist, and perhaps it could be inferred by my linking of Wright to H., that I was calling H. a racist. While that may be a fair conclusion, I was primarily trying to question the judgment of H. for associating with racists such as Wright, and not just for a short time, but for twenty long years.

More importantly, I feel the letter writer did make a very important comment when he implored me to be more positive. I think he has a valid point there, and in the future, I will do my best to comment on the positive offered by the people I support, and not just knock the people I don't. I believe I have offered positive comments, but they may have been buried in the deluge of harsher criticisms. For example, I posited that the surge in Iraq is working when I stated on April 26, 2008 that the Iraq War has strengthened the U.S. international position. On March 27, 2008, I called attention to a great speech by John McCain where he deftly describes our current international position in regards to Iraq, and what he feels needs to be done. On February 19, 2008, I called attention to the recognition of Bush from Bob Geldof for providing more aid to Africa than any other American president. And more recently, on July 7, 2008, I compared and contrasted examples of what I feel are patriotic and unpatriotic actions in regards to the service afforded to our nation.

Still, these examples are few and far between, as the letter writer infers. So, in that regard, let me offer some of the positives that have resulted from the Bush administration:

• While the economy seems to be rocky right now and the price of gas was recently increasing, there is no question that our country has experienced one of the longest runs of economic growth in history. I believe this may be credited in part to the tax cute that Bush enacted early in his first term, as well as the pro-business, pro-growth policies that are implicit in lower taxes.
  
• The foreign policy of the Bush administration has yielded significant achievements in our world position. Libya has gave up its pursuit of atomic weapons and is pursuing a path to becoming a partner in the world, rather than an adversary. Pro American politicians have been elected in Britain, Germany and France. While Iraq has been a rough and sometimes tragic endeavor, a fledgling democracy is taking root there. In regards to the Iran problem, one of the reasons they are blustering on the world stage is that we now have our troops stationed in countries both East and West of them (Afghanistan and Iraq). From a strategic stand-point, we have them surrounded. That may a simplistic way to look at the issue, but it is true that we have troops on both sides, and they undoubtedly are feeling the squeeze.
  
• Al Qaeda in Iraq has been shattered. Of course, liberals will say that they weren't there until we drew them there, but one of the best strategic actions any nation can do in fighting an enemy is pick the battleground.
  
• Self reliance by the American individual is supported and strengthened by the Bush administration and Republican policies. While some may say that the American way is to offer hand-outs to the people who have less, I believe this is trumped by the American spirit of creating your destiny, not having it handed to you.
  

• John McCain favors the renewal of the tax cuts, which do not just help the rich, as some would have you believe. As a small business owner, these tax cuts have helped me tremendously. And I am not rich by any means. My income is in the low five figures, in other words, I make less than 50k a year. Much less.
  
• On foreign policy, McCain will continue the practice of regarding terrorists as engaging in acts of war, rather than criminals to be prosecuted. This is actually the number one issue facing the country today, and I believe it was the practice of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of war that enabled Al Qaeda to proceed from the first World Trade Center bombing to the second.
  
• McCain has an admirable record of service to this country, both in war and in the U.S. Senate. He has experience in foreign policy that far exceeds his opponent, and I believe a McCain presidency will benefit our country much more than his opponent.
  

The final point of the letter seems to suggest once again that I dislike minorities, and once again infers that I am racist. I believe Reverend Wright is a racist and have called him so. I do not believe my criticism of him in my numerous posts shows me to be a racist. I am not attacking him because he is black, I am attacking him because I believe he offers a dead-end for the unfortunate members of his church who are posited by him as victims, rather than as self-reliant individuals who can take positive steps to further their own futures. As for Syesha Mercado, she can't sing that well. It has nothing to do with her being black; I just can't take that screechy voice. And the other minority mentioned is R. Kelly, who was found not guilty in his recent trial. Once again, I have no problem with him because if his race. I have first-hand accounts, which of course would be considered hearsay in the eyes of the law, that he has engaged in exactly the types of acts he was accused of. Although I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. In addition, I have also learned that he treats his dogs poorly, one time leaving one locked in a hot car for hours. So I dislike and distrust him because of his actions, not his race.

I think it is unfair to suggest that I dislike minorities by cherry-picking criticisms of them and ignoring the many other people of all races that I have criticized. What about my posts about William Ayers, Allen Colmes, Jane Fonda, and the far more numerous other caucasions I have given the same treatment in my posts? By that logic, I must dis-like all races. I do not believe that minorities are off limits to criticism because of their race. And if I criticize them it is not because of their race.

In the end, I hope this answers some of the concerns this letter writer had. I appreciate his positive comments on my writing, and do thank him for taking the time to read some of my posts, and further, to communicate his response. I look forward to other readers doing the same. I do not allow comments on my site because I do not want to have curse words appear on my site, nor do I want to provide space for "hate bombs" by trolls. Nor do I want to deal with the spamming that inevitably comes with open comments. I do invite readers to send me an e-mail with their thoughts, and I will do my best to address them, as I feel I have done here.

Nancy Pelosi's book is tanking, and Michelle Malkin has posted a Photoshop sent by a reader with a funny parody of the book cover. Here's my take:

H. keeps making statements that suggest the Republicans are going to play the race card, but he continually is the one who is playing it himself. The typical liberal tactic of demonizing your opponent is evident in his statements. Is he saying that McCain is racist? That doesn't seem to be the case, but he is suggesting that, in general, Republicans are racist. Meanwhile, the Republicans haven't brought up his race at all, other than to respond to him bringing it up. That's a bit ironic, dontcha' think?

In addition, he claims the Republicans are going to try to make people afraid of voting for him, because "he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Well, here's some news for Barack Hussein Obama: many of us are afraid of him being the president, but not because of anything having to do with his race.

I'm afraid that if he's president he will:

• weaken our national security by cutting the budget for the military;
  
• weaken our national security by treating terrorists and their acts as criminal cases, rather than acts of war, which is what they are;
  
• weaken our national security by being a naive player on the world stage who thinks that if we could just make other countries like us, our problems will go away;
  
• weaken our national security by appeasing our enemies rather than by standing up to them;
  
• weaken our economy by raising taxes and redistributing the money to the "less fortunate," or in other words, take money from responsible people who create wealth and move it into the hands of irresponsible and/or lazy people who create no wealth or benefit to society;
  
• punish those who create jobs, via the aforementioned raising of taxes;
  
• and institute reforms that make people more dependent on the government rather than on their own self-reliance.
  

Other reasons to fear his presidency include:

• he is completely inexperienced for the job;
  
• he claims to be embarrased by his own country-men;
  
• he associates with very questionable people and/or known terrorists, such as Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, William Ayers, Hatem El-Hady, Tony Rezko, and Ludacris, just to name a few;
  
• and his complete misunderstanding of the values of Middle America.
  

And that's only a partial list. So you see, Mr. Obama, we have many reasons to fear you being president that have nothing to do with race. So perhaps you should stop playing that card and address the very real issues that we are afraid of.

Will he do it? I doubt it; the race card is easier.

Michelle Malkin has asked for designs for an Obama World Tour t-shirt, and has been publishing some of the better entries. I'm a bit late on this, but I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner...

In honor of The New York Times apparent bias towards H., including this most recent example, we decided to update their front page in a way that accurately reflects their position....

9 people convicted of adultery are going to be stoned to death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's just amazing that in the 21st century, 9 people, guilty of nothing more than innappropriate behavior, are going to be executed in a brutal 7th century punishment, thanks, of course to Muslim Sharia law, the law that keeps on killing. How is it that a country that was once one of the most progressive societies in the entire Middle East has reverted back to the stone age in their matters of civil prosecution?

I have to thank Jimmy Carter, the former president who undermined the Shah, and encouraged the rise of an Islamic theocracy. While president, Carter demanded the Shah step down and hand over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini, and undermined the Shah's position by telling the Shah's military advisers to acquiese to the Ayatollah. Of the Ayatollah himself, Carter said he was a "religious man," and believed he would better represent the values of the Iranian people.

He was right about the Ayatollah being religious, but didn't quite comprehend that the religion of the Ayatollah was a stone-age abberation called Islam. And in addition to this he fails to understand the consequences of his actions while president. The rise of the mullahs in Iran was the first "shot" in the jihad against the "great Satan," the United States of America. The connection between the events of 1979 in Iran and the 9-11 attacks is a string of events that were borne by that first failure of the United States under Jimmy Carter, which spurred Islamic fascists to ever increasing resolve in their effort to defeat and destroy us.

Jimmy Carter, how can you sleep at night?

Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, has accused the news media of a political lynching of H. The Obamas are being painted as "unpatriotic and dangerous radicals," and she even used the term "lynching." I have nothing against Mrs. Evers-Williams and am sorry for the loss of her husband 45 years ago, especially because of the circumstances of his death, but her particular viewpoint does not justify giving any person an immunity from criticism. Did it ever occur to her that H. is being painted as "unpatriotic," or as a "dangerous radical," because many people feel that he may just be one?

I have a lot of questions about H. and his carefully crafted short-list pedigree, a resume padded with dubious accomplishments and a lot of failed exposition that makes nothing clear about who he really is. Is he unpatriotic? He was a member of a church that regularly bashed America for twenty years, and is on record nodding his head in agreement when the pastor called our country the "United States of White America." Is he a dangerous radical? He has been known to associate with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, as well as people like Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department.

Questioning H. about these associations, or drawing attention to them is not a "lynching." There are honest questions and concerns about his patriotism and his radical terrorist ties. To many, though, if you ask these questions or draw attention to thse associations, it is some sort of unfair attack. Why is this? George W. Bush has been unfairly castigated from all sides, and nobody cries that he is being lynched. Why the outrage when people ask honest questions and draw probable conclusions about H.?

The key is the word "lynching," The use of this word has a racial context, and if one uses it, one knows its connotations. Now, Mrs. Evers-Williams has lived through racism in a way that we could never understand, as her husband was killed purely because of his race. This was truly a hateful act, and once again I will reiterate that I am sorry for her loss. But just because H. is black does not mean that he is immune to criticism. It is understandable that Mrs. Evers-Williams would make such a statement, but it is a statement designed to use race as a wedge. The choice of the term "lynching" was carefully chosen and used to communicate the idea that we are making these specific criticisms of H. because he is black. Conversely, it implies that if we criticize H. at all, it is because we are racists, not because we have honest questions or are uncomfortable with factual evidence surrounding the candidate.

The hyper-sensitivity to racial issues has created an environment where actual communication is subverted to questions of racial intent. Take for example, the recent kerfuffle in Dallas involving County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, Commissioner John Wiley Price, and the infamous "black hole" comment. An honest and correct scientific reference by Mayfield was blown up into a racial issue that caused Price to demand an apology, because of Price's hyper-sensitivity to bigotry. Perceived racism curtails the freedom to speak in certain situations, and it is this card that many people want to play in regards to H.

Clear-thinking people will reject these tactics and will feel free to make valid and thoughtful criticisms of either candidate regardless of their race. Of course, actual racist comments should be rejected outright and subjected to the scrutiny they deserve, but we will not be silenced from drawing attention to the questionable actions and associations of H. To many, it is perfectly valid to have questions about H.'s patriotism, and to consider his very real ties to unrepentant and dangerous radicals. And by examining these issues, we just may find that H. is unpatriotic, and is a dangerous radical as well.

When I saw the cover of the new issue of The new Yorker over the weekend, I was a little surprised. At first I wasn't sure what to think. The left is in a tizzy over this malicious "slander" of H. in the name of satire, and many on the right probably think that maybe someone is finally realizing that H. has some dangerous problems as a presidential candidate.

Thankfully, Michelle Malkin puts it all into perspective.

Let's hope the left eventually wakes up...

I hope everyone had a nice and safe Independence Day this past July 4th. On the occasion of our nation's 232nd birthday, I watched fireworks, ate barbecue, and was thankful for the opportunity afforded by my country to pursue such happiness. I'm sure many others did the same in their own patriotic way.

That's right, I said "patriotic," as in "patriotism." Why the big deal in pointing that out? It seems that patriotism has become somewhat of a hot-button issue these days, mostly in regards to the upcoming presidential election, but also because of the differences in the "support Bush/hate Bush" factions of our society.

Take the ubiquitous flag lapel pin, for example. One side wears the pin with pride, the other says that merely wearing a flag pin is not patriotism, it is more akin to jingoism; if you don't wear a flag pin, they say, it does not mean you are not patriotic. Fair enough. I don't think whether you wear a flag pin determines whether you are a patriotic American, but I don't think someone should be criticized for wearing one. And I do think advertising your support for your country and publicly honoring the flag of your country by wearing a flag pin is decidedly patriotic.

But now, a new wrinkle is being folded into the discussion. The issue of the use of the word patriotism is now being called into question, taking this argument of being patriotic one step further. As reported by see-dubya on Michelle Malkin's website, NPR journalist Daniel Schorr has now stated that patriotism has been "corrupted by misuse." He states that he has "come to suspect most assertions of patriotism, and most accusations of unpatriotism." He further states that "patriotism is not a matter of lapel pins, or flags in your front yard. And you get to define patriotism for yourself." He has asked that politicians "declare a moratorium on references to patriotism."

Of course that's just plain silly, but it does suggest that one's patriotism is a gray area that is not so easily defined. In some cases, that may be true, but in other cases, I think it's quite clear cut whether an action is patriotic or unpatriotic. Here are a few examples.

Patriotic - Joh McCain being captured by enemy forces, being held for many years as a captive, and refusing an offer to be released because he knew it would be a proganda victory for the enemy.

Unpatriotic - H. sitting in the pews of a divisive America bashing church for twenty years, and nodding his head in agreement when the pastor calls his country "the United States of White America."

Patriotic - Col. George Everett "Bud" Day offering maximum resistance when he was captured by the Viet Cong, escaping and being recaptured and giving the enemy false information while being subjected to "maximum punishment and torture" by Vietnamese guards.

Unpatriotic - Michael Moore making movies that slander his country with lies and innuendo, sending these films to other countries for personal profit, and going himself to speak and berate his homeland on foreign soil.

Patriotic - Football star Pat Tillman giving up a lucrative football career to go to Iraq and fight for his country.

Unpatriotic - Cindy Sheehan meeting with enemy dictators like Hugo Chavez and praising them while calling our president a terrorist.

These are just a few of many possible examples, but as we can see, sometimes it is pretty clear what is patriotic and what is unpatriotic. It seems that those who want to "declare a moratorium" on the word patriotism are the ones who are being called unpatriotic. So let's keep the word patriotism alive. And let's have it be something to aspire to, not something to hide from.

"These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them."

The preceding quote is a line from the classic David Mamet play, and subsequent film, Glengarry Glen Ross, a story which is pivoted around the sale of real estate. The Glengarry leads are sales leads for a new property, and to the agents who are trying to sell real estate, they are gold. The new property is valuable, and the leads are fresh; they are the names people who are interested in spending money, and would likely bear fruit and net the agents actual commissions. The problem is, the agents can't get those sales leads until they sell off worthless property to a bunch of dead sales leads.

Does this sound familiar? If you've been following the current oil crisis and the debate about offshore drilling, and drilling in Alaska, it should. The oil companies have a bunch of existing leases which are not very promising in the prospect of actually obtaining any oil. Democrats in Congress are insisting that they will not open up any new land to oil exploration and drilling until the oil companies drill on the land they already have. It doesn't matter that the actual leases the oil companies have are poor prospects, and the actuality of recovering any oil is negligible. Rather than letting them drill in areas where we know there is oil, they want to punish the oil companies by making them spend their profits in a search for fool's gold. Nobody wins.

The continental shelf and Anwar are the new leads. They're the oil-rich leads. And to the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) they are gold. And the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) don't get them.

H. has appropriated the official Presidential seal and has made a parody of it for his own use. The fact that he does not understand how offensive that is to many Americans calls into question his overall judgment once again.

What is really ironic is that his appropriation of the image shows a complete lack of respect for the office he is seeking. If one believes that the Presidency is truly a special office of ultimate sanctity, one does not make MAD magazine style parodies of the official icon of that office.

Obviously this is the work of a promotional expert who believes that perception becomes realty. By placing H. with something that looks like the Presidential seal, it plants an image of H. looking like the President. But this just shows that H. is not a new kind of politician at all. It betrays the fact that he is a packaged politician like any other. This is pure Madison Avenue, not Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm surprised they haven't come up with a jingle.

What really burns me is the way the apologists look down their noses on those who do find this offensive. To them, it is a "non-issue," and they keep telling us so. If you find this to be the issue, you should get over it and focus on the Chicken Little mantras of the liberals, such as the sinking economy or the "mess in Iraq." if you think this is important, you're wrong. This Presidential Seal thing is not an issue, you should focus on this other stuff. It's funny that they keep having to deflect attention from issue after issue by saying that it's not really important. You would think they would get the message that maybe these things are important. Actually, they know that these are important issues and the only way they can deal with them is to remind us that we're wrong.

I saw Susan Estrich on Fox News this morning, another in a line of "What's The Matter With Kansas," liberals reinforcing the view that this isn't an issue. After hearing her spew the same tired old issue redirection, I was compelled to send her an e-mail:

On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:50 AM, pBlakeney wrote:

Dear Ms. Estrich,

I heard you on Fox News this morning, and I am increasingly offended by you and other liberals calling things that may be important to us as "distractions" or "non-issues." You seem to insulting a large segment of Americans with your dismissive derision. Who are you to tell us what issues we should find important?

Issues such as the underlying core sense of patriotism of the presidential candidate is an important issue to many, and just because you don't see it that way, you need to understand that others do. The judgment as to how delicately the candidate handles his campaign in regard to the very valid patriotic feelings of millions of Americans is an issue. Of course, other issues such as the economy and international relations are important to us as well, but that doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of issues of patriotism and respect for the symbols and icons of our country.

Your attitude reflects the viewpoint and enforces the perception that liberals are elitists who look down on those who don't agree with them.

pBlakeney

It sure looks like its going to be John McCain vs. H. in the forthcoming Presidential race. Hillary is still campaigning, but H. is readying himself for the general election, and many pundits think the primary race is over. Unfortunately for H., in the battle between him and John McCain, McCain is currently the one who is controlling the debate.

Over the last week or so, H. has continually had to react to comments by McCain or his supporters, and even change his behavior on foreign policy by responding to McCain's remarks about not being in Iraq since 2006 by planning a trip there. Whether the trip was already being planned isn't known, but H. sure is doing a lot of reacting. And, as they say, if you're reacting you're losing. The winner is the one who controls the debate, and currently that's John McCain.

And while he's got H. suckerpunched, the pastors that keep on giving are also taking some shots, and while they are not directed at H., H. is the one getting hit by them. Last Sunday's rant by Chicago's Father Pfleiger is just the latest in a long run of questionable religious associations for H. Michelle Malkin has a complete list of the dangerous religious mentors that H. has cited. We've already seen that H. has a bit of a glass jaw when it comes to reacting to these associations.

The race has barely begun, and H. is already on the ropes.

* Update Below * John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, will be speaking in Wales this evening, and George Monbiot, a self-righteous peace activist, says he has plans to perform a "citizen's arrest" on him. The Dyfed-Powys Police have been in contact with Monbiot and are aware of the planned action, and supposedly are actually considering the arrest, although I can't believe they actually will. Monbiot calls himself a "journalist," and "activist," but I think he is nothing more than a left-wing publicity hound with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

It appears that Britain actually has a law that allows for one citizen to detain another without a warrant or police involvement. The law is part of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Thankfully, others believe that Monbiot's attempt to arrest John Bolton would not be legal:

Peter Florence, director of the Hay Festival, said Mr Monbiot's attempt at a citizen's arrest would be "completely unlawful".

He said: "The Hay Festival has sought the advice of both police and lawyers, and has been unequivocally assured that a citizen's arrest, or an attempt to instigate a citizen's arrest, would be completely unlawful in these circumstances.

"The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker."

Mr Monbiot was blocked by two heavily-built security guards at the end of the one-and-a-half hour appearance, before he could serve a "charge sheet" on him.

After being released by the guards the columnist - a fierce critic of the 2003 American-led invasion - made a dash through the rain-soaked tented village in a failed attempt to catch up with Mr Bolton.

The Surge Is Working, and not just in Iraq, reports an editorial in Investor's Business Daily.

Victory can be achieved.

American Thinker has a good article entitled Your Energy Future Under the Democrats by Larrey Anderson, but in addition to the critical look at Democrats energy plans, there was another thing that caught my eye. In a quote of a statement from the DNC website, writer Anderson had to point out that the bad grammar in the statement was not a typo on his part, but that the offending grammar exists in the source statement.

From their official website, here is the summary paragraph (including the bad grammar) of the Democrat plan to solve the energy crisis:

"We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology."

This shows a disturbing tendency I have been seeing more in more in younger people, especially those on the left. The "intelligentsia" of the liberal left seems to have given up on the discipline to precisely and correctly communicate. And their ideology is buried so deep in their psyche that nothing is just plain black or white or right or wrong. Feelings becomes fact, and actual facts are secondary to feelings. Details like conjugating a verb or communicating in complete sentences are secondary, as long as the point gets across.

What kind of slackers are our colleges graduating these days? The white collar work place is full of fresh faced young graduates who have been indoctrinated in the liberal mind-set at their respective universities. They spout high-minded ideals, and swagger with the smarm and confidence belying the intelligence their sheepskin confers upon them. Except that they can barely spell. Universities nowadays are more concerned with teaching children what to think than how to write or communicate decently. And it shows.

The irony of this is that they so deeply believe that they are the intelligentsia, and that conservatives are the clueless automatons who have been brain-washed by the Bush administration and aren't intelligent enough to vote in their own interest. But we are the ones who pay attention to details, and string facts together into intelligent arguments. And we are the ones who can conjugate a verb.

Prominent Democrats are decrying statements made by President Bush in a speech in Israel. The President, on the occasion of Israel's 60th Birthday, said the following:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

In our current age, the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a glaring example of decades of diplomacy yielding absolutely nothing, at the cost of thousands of lives and the misery of many more. And since that worked so well, the afore-mentioned prominent Democrats want that to be American policy towards rogue states like Iran and Syria?

Of course, Bush didn't name any particular sitting American Senators. They are calling themselves out by their objections. Could it be that those that are speaking up have a guilty conscience?

"Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein Obama! Barack Hussein Obama!"
-Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright

The words above were uttered by Reverend Wright to ridicule those who he believed were racist in bringing up H.'s middle name, Hussein. Most on the left believe that any utterance of H.s middle name is a racist ploy by those who wish to discredit him. That fact his name is Barack Hussein Obama is not important, and if you think it is, you must be a racist.

H. was given the full name of Barack Hussein Obama by his father, a man he barely remembers knowing, and only saw once beyond the age of 2. H. was raised by his mother, an American woman who was born in Kansas, and he lived most of his life in Jakarta, and then Hawaii. Although he had at one point in his life attended a school that was at least in part a Muslim School, the question of him actually being a Muslim is widely discredited. I can believe that he is not a Muslim, as in all reality, Barack Hussein Obama is not a Muslim name. It is an Arab name. And H. is not an African-American. He is an Arab-American.

"Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. - Kenneth Lamb

Now, there is nothing wrong with being Arab; to say so would truly make you a racist. But, there are a large number of Arabs and Arabian states that fall into the category of being enemies of the United States. An even larger number could call themselves the enemies of Israel. Of course, ascribing an association between these enemies and H. purely because of any Arabian descent would, once again, be racist or bigoted. But when you have a disturbing pattern of words and associations, that's another story...

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has reported the following:

Here's a quick run-down of some of Barack Obama's questionable and disturbing associations:

• Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. The Obamas were regular dinner guests at Khalidi's Hyde Park home for years.

• Terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, who runs the viciously anti-Israel web site Electronic Intifada.

• Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

• Reverend Jeremiah Wright. What more needs to be said?

• Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Samantha Power -- fired after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster."

• Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Robert Malley -- fired when it was revealed he has been holding talks with Hamas.

• Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. El-Hady's web page suddenly vanished from the Obama campaign site with no explanation, after being exposed by LGF and others.

• Tony Rezko -- a Chicago fixer currently in a whole lot of legal trouble.

Khalidi has been accused of having ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, based on his work for Wafa in the late 1980s. Khalidi has been accused of being "a director of the Palestinian press agency," publishing an "adulatory book" on the PLO in which he personally thanked Yasser Arafat, and acting as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi denied the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman. -- Wikipedia

As (H.) came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

One more name on the list is Hatem El-Hady, called by FrontPage Magazine, a "Terrorist fundraiser for Obama."

Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.

El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends.

(Obama) criticized Holocaust deniers. That is certainly not such a radical position (unless you live in Iran) yet then advocated more talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad-who not only denies the Holocaust but also promises a new one to come. He noted how Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon led to the rise of an enemy on its northern border. But then he seemed to be encouraging Israel to make even more such gestures. For instance, he praised past Israeli leaders for gestures of peace they have made towards the Palestinians-but refused to recognize that these previous moves have just led to more violence and death for the Israelis.

"Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart". --Barack Obama

from American Thinker

One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community.

from American Thinker

"It is a matter of Israeli policy to engage in militaristic war cry of ultra-nationalistic morale, deception, cruelty, thievery, subversion, assassination, sabotage and warfare by belligerence to achieve its objectives for supreme rule."

"Israel is not grateful for the 'tiny' parcel of land it calls a home after the enunciation of the Declaration of Independence that beget the birth of Israeli state. It calls for the mandate of "Greater Israel" in fundamental reorganization of the Middle East and Central Asia states with Israel as the "holy" supreme power in geopolitical and military-economic hegemony."

"Drunken by its belief of entitlement and arrogance - Israel now believes it has the power to exercise control of the region by subversive means even if the result will be counterproductive that may end in disastrous blowback not only for Israel but also precipitate the accelerated fall of the United States in economic and moral collapse in mismanagement of the host nation's priorities."

So, in the end, what does this have to do with H. being of Arabian descent? One cannot seriously draw the conclusion that because he is Arabian he favors pro-Arabian policies, without being called a racist or a bigot. But he is showing signs of anti-Israel viewpoints in his words, actions and associations, and he seems to certainly be sympathetic with some Arabian causes. I think it is probably more attributable to his association with the the extreme left-wing of his party, a topsy-turvy bizarro world where people like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are not bomb-wielding terrorists but are instead distinguished professors, and Israel is consistently seen as an aggressor in the Middle East and Palestinians as hapless victims who have done nothing to bring this upon themselves. Just take a look at Jimmy Carter for example, a standard bearer of the liberal left, a Palestinian apologist, and a former president who has been identified as the most like H. in Middle Eastern viewpoints.

And as the liberals sweep H. into the candidacy of the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination, it looks like they would be willing to throw Israel under the bus.

Front Page Magazine has a good series this week about H. and some of his ties to the community on Chicago's South Side.

Jacob Laksin explores Obama's ties to the South Side personalities who helped propel him to power, but whose continuing - and reciprocated - friendship with the candidate raises troubling questions about his ability to forge a new political consensus, especially on the fractious issue of race. To evaluate Obama's campaign and its grand promises, readers must first come to know the world of Chicago politics from which he emerged.

To read the Front Page Magazine Series "Obama's World," click here.

David Horowitz has been making the round promoting his new book Party of Defeat. My copy arrived a short time ago, and it is in my collection of soon-to-be-read books. If it is anything like the video below, I think it will be quite an informative read. How refreshing to listen to someone who actually can debate properly; that is, who lays out a thesis then provides points that prove the thesis in a clear linear fashion. Whenever I hear most liberals (and some conservatives) debate, there is little, if any, differentiation between what may be understood as an item of fact and an item which is merely something that people may believe but has no evidence to back it up. Nobody sums it up quite like Whoopi Goldberg, who said: "...if you want to go and get lots of facts and not go from your heart. I go from my heart."

I prefer facts, and I like it when they are strung together to form an actual compelling argument rather than an opinion based on how someone feels. That's why this video showing David Horowitz speaking about his new book is good viewing.

The equalization game continues, as H. supporters continue to dredge up "questionable" McCain associations. Alan Colmes, and The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt are pointing their fingers at two religious figures that have endorsed John McCain, televangelist John Hagee and preacher Ron Parsley. Both are outspoken, and sometimes outrageous in their sermons, but neither can be compared to Reverend Wright, nor can the association between them be compared to the association between H. and Wright.

Let's take a look at John Hagee. He has "famously attributed Hurricane Katrina to God's wrath at homosexuals," and this, H. supporters believe, somehow cancels out Wrights outrageous rant about "America's chickens have come home to roost." Well, these two are hardly equivalent. John Hagee was speaking out against behavior and so was Reverend Wright. I endorse neither statement, although Wright's actually probably has more truth to it than Hagee's. But Hagee was extorting people to follow the word of God and trying to help them be better people in God's eyes. In the bible, homosexuality is a sin, after all. We don't have to believe it, but I find no offense in him saying it. Wright on the other hand, was stirring up pure hostility and offering nothing of a constructive nature whatsoever. Hagee's statements were not vitriolic in the sense that Wright's were. In the racially tense South Side of Chicago, Wright was stirring up civil disobedience, calling the American government a "liar," and destroying in one swoop any presumption of civil authority. How many crimes may have been committed because of Wright and his divisive sermons? And then he ends by cursing the U.S.A. right from the pulpit, using language that most people would never use before small children. No, Hagee's and Wright's statements are hardly equivalent.

Another set of statements that Wright defenders and H. supporters use to equalize Hagee, Parsley and Wright, are the beliefs by both Hagee and Parsley that Islam is evil and their claims that "the Koran commands Muslims to kill Jews and Christians." Parsley goes further to state that America was founded to "destroy Islam," which is a bit of a crackpot statement, but a logical extension of his beliefs about Islam in general, which is evidenced by the Koran itself. This is somehow supposed to equal out Wright's excoriation of Jews and Israel. Once again, these statements and/or beliefs are hardly equal. Wright's beef against the Jews has no factual basis whatsoever. He merely spews the same one-sided lies that we hear from people like Louis Farrakhan, whom he has honored in his church. Hagee and Parsley, on the other hand, are correct in their claim that "the Koran commands Muslims to kill Jews and Christians." From TheReligionOfPeace.com:

The Koran contains 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers, and kill the infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

For the actual passages that explicitly state such things, visit TheReligionOfPeace.com.

These are the most glaring examples of equalization defenses put out by Wright defenders and H. supporters, and upon closer examination, they fall flat. Add to this Wright's obviously racial eugenics rants and the fact that McCain's relationship with his two "questionable preachers" is not nearly as close nor as long-lasting as H.'s relationship with Reverend Wright, and you can see why the Reverend Wright issue has far more relevance than either Hagee or Parsley and John McCain. Can you say apples and oranges?

With the explosion of the Reverend Wright controversy, liberals are falling all over themselves to try to defend H. The first defense was the "guilt by association" card. They stated that it is not fair to judge H. by the company he keeps. "Guilt by association," they would say is simply not fair.

That hasn't really worked that well, as the issue is much more than that. H. is running a campaign based partly on his incredible judgment, as supposedly evidenced by his statement "I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning," or statements by his key supporters such as Bill Richardson, "He is ready. He has great judgment..." or his own "Judgment To Lead" Video. It turns out that his judgment isn't all that good, as he has spent years in the pew of a racially divisive pastor, associated with known terrorists such as Bill Ayers and his wife, and conducted deals with suspected criminals under indictment such as Tony Rezko.

So now, instead of trying to defend H. from the charges of questionable judgment, the liberal media spinners are now going after John McCain by digging up questionable contacts he has with supposedly nefarious persons, and charging... you guessed it.... "guilt by association!" Never mind the fact that they said it was an unfair tactice when (in their view) it was applied to H., now that they find themselves against a wall, they are trying to use it to taint John McCain.

Alan Colmes has repeatedly used this tactic throughout the Reverend Wright controversy when he would state that "it's a guilt by association game and it's not going to work." Then he would use the same tactic to try to attack McCain by mentioning McCain's "questionable associations." Way to maintain credibility, Alan.

Liberal columnist Stephen Chapman has also tried the "guilt by association" tactic in his column this week when he ties McCain to G. Gordon Liddy, the conservative who was convicted in the Watergate conspiracy three decades ago. Of course, that's really apples and oranges - while Liddy is unrepentant of his crime, he served his time for the crime, Ayers didn't, and the while Chapman tries to magnify the intensity of the actual crime, Liddy is not a terrorist bent on bringing down the government and more importantly, no one was killed by Liddy. I will give up the point that the association of McCain and Liddy is questionable but the magnitude of the association is hardly equal to H.'s aforementioned associations. And H's response to his associations is also telling, as it pulls back the curtain on H. and shows him to be just another politician, something he said he was not.

This current "guilt by association" backlash is probably why McCain tried to distance himself from this sort of politics from the beginning. We now are going to have any number of liberal H. defenders, who at first claimed that such a tactic was unfair, now poring through every aspect of McCain's life trying to find a similar brush as the one H. was tainted with. So far, it looks the brush used to taint H. is more like a house painting roller that covers broad expanses of H's persona, while the brush used on McCain is the kind people use to paint details on miniatures.

Previous: Alan Colmes Misses The Subtle Nuance

The Liberal blogs, with the Daily Kos at the top of the list, are all having a fit that the Democratic candidates are appearing on Fox News. For them, the concept of freedom of speech ends when it is speech they don't agree with. It's funny how they don't even try to cover up the fact that when it comes to Fox News they act like fascists who believe Fox News has no right to exist.

The other interesting item to note about this is how quickly they turn on their own. We saw it with Hillary Clinton - when she wouldn't be strong-armed out of the race, they viciously attacked her with vile postings. It's like a bunch of spoiled children who are mad because they are not getting their way. Now that H. has appeared on Fox news, they are now calling him "weak" and his campaign spokesmen as "liars."

It's clear that Kos posters and other liberal bloggers have a clearly exaggerated sense of self-importance. They refer to themselves as his "base," but a there are a lot of people in this country. A few thousand liberal bloggers barely comes close to being able to deliver a significant majority in an election. They failed with Howard Dean in 2004, but they still haven't realized the actual limited scope of their influence. If anything, they have begun to marginalize themselves with hateful postings and profanity-laden insults. These are the types of things that will never be mainstream. The candidates are smart enough to realize this, and have intelligently looked beyond this childish, scornful, self-ascribed "base," and made steps to appeal to those of us in the real world.

Reverend Wright has been all over the news this weekend, and he's not helping his, or H.'s cause by some of the things he has been saying. The first appearance, the interview on Bill Moyer's PBS show, was a quiet, subdued version of Reverend Wright, and many were calling it his "image rehabilitation." Well, that didn't last very long, as on Sunday and earlier today (Monday), Wright was back to his regular bombastic, racist self. If you haven't seen the clips by now, check out Michelle Malkin's posts here and here for some perspectives and video.

So, what is the upshot of all of this? First, it is apparent that Wright made hostile racist speeches in 2 out of his 3 appearances this weekend, so we might assume that hostile racist sermons can roughly follow that average (see The Reverend Wright Lottery post). That means that H. most likely heard a lot of the harmful diatribes and hate speech that he denies hearing. If Wright can't make three appearances without the majority of them being hate-filled and racist, it seems likely that that was the norm in his church, not the exception. And it seems very likely that H. was in the pews on many of these occasions.

And second, Reverend Wright has opened season on himself. After hearing his comments this weekend, I say it's fair game to expose him as a full-blown racist. He can no longer talk about "being taken out of context" -- he's given us more context than we need to attack his statements outright. He claims the attack is not on him, but it is the black church that is being attacked. No, Reverend Wright, it is you specifically that we are speaking of. You are the hateful racist that we are attacking. Thanks for making us not feel guilty about doing so.

H. has some questionable associations swirling about him these days, and if you ask me, they are all fair game for criticism and discussion. But some are making the point that to mention Reverend Wright or William Ayers in a discussion about whether H. is suitable for the presidency is "guilt by association." Alan Colmes, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," makes that very claim, and cannot understand why John McCain finds the North Carolina Reverend Wright ad to be unfair politics but will then go on to call attention to the fact that Hamas has endorsed H. Colmes sees no difference in the matters; to him, and to many liberals, they are all simply "guilt by association."

I find it ironic that liberals, those who claim to be the masters of subtle nuance and who decry conservatives as simpletons who prefer jingoistic sound-bites to artfully nuanced statements, will discard such nuance and boil all of H.'s questionable associations down to "guilt by association." Certainly on one hand you could make that claim, but then you have to ignore the context of each of these relationships to H. and how they affect his possible presidency. McCain has reasons for the different opinions he holds on the different associations and why he feels some are okay to use in his political campaign, and some are not.

Take Reverend Wright, for example. McCain has tried to distance himself from a North Carolina attack ad, showing Reverend Wright in all his racist, America hating glory. McCain has tried to get the ad pulled, but as his campaign did not produce the ad and is not responsible for it, he has had little success. Now, why on earth would McCain want the ad pulled, when it clearly works to his advantage on at least one level? I believe it is because it may be construed as a racist attack on H., as well as an unfair "guilt by association," tactic, both types of campaigning of which John McCain expresses disdain.

On the other hand, McCain has made note that a North American Hamas spokesman has stated that Hamas would prefer to see H. elected. How does calling attention to the Hamas statement differ from calling attention to the Reverend Wright controversy? "Aren't they both guilt by association?" asks Colmes, a sentiment which no doubt many liberals echo in their debates.

There is a distinction between the two issues, one that Colmes and other liberals are not seeing. I think the Reverend Wright controversy is fair game, but I can see the objection to it being exactly as stated; guilt by association. Of course, there is more to it than that, but I think that is how McCain sees it. On the other hand, the Hamas endorsement, one which H. has in no way sought and has publicly decried, is a very telling statement on the possible ramifications of an H. presidency. This is an example of how are enemies will perceive us if H. is elected president. If our enemies could choose our president they would, of course, choose a president that they perceived would be weak on national defense and one they felt could be manipulated. Hamas is our enemy, and who do they want us to elect?

This is not guilt by association, this is a valid criticism of H., and one that McCain is right to bring up and use in his campaign. If your enemy chooses a leader for you, it would be wise for you to choose a different one.

It appears a trend that some may have suspected may actually be the case. I have, for a long time, believed that the rhetoric that the Iraq war has destroyed both America's credibility and popularity was a falsehood, particularly as we see Europe beginning to awaken from its Libertarian slumber and the election of pro-American governments in many parts of the world. Those who protest do so the loudest, while those that concur quietly go about their business, a fact that is evident every day here in our country.

Michelle Malkin's website reports that the analyst Mike Green has released a thesis that affirms the fact that the Iraq war has strengthened our relationships with key allies and has improved our international strategic position. According to the article, Mike Green, the author of the thesis, is "one of the US's most brilliant strategic analysts." The original article from the Australian is here, and is definitely a must-read. Take that Bush-bashers...

Carly Smithson was cut tonight on American Idol. Now, I usually don't blog about such things, but I just have to comment on this. Syesha Mercado was also in the "bottom two," and her performance, I'm sorry, was abysmal. So many wrong notes. Syesha is not half the singer Carly is. That's not to mention far worse performances from Jason Castro or sappy forgettable performances like the one by puppy dog David Archuletta.

America Idol voters, you are tone deaf. Syesha was off key throughout. Smithson did not hit a wrong note. Why am I blogging about this? Because quality and substance no longer matters. It's all just a "popularity" contest. That's why H. is still in the Presidential race.

Speaking of Chicago, I could not believe one of the letters printed in today's Chicago Tribune. It's no secret that the extreme left likes to blame George Bush for everything they can, but there's got to be a limit. Apparently not, as letter writer R. Conrad Stein has now put the blame for Chicago's screwed up transit system on - you guessed it - George W. Bush!

Never mind the fact that the CTA is a wasteful bureaucracy with lazy over-paid workers. It's actually that evil George Bush's fault; because we invaded Iraq, the CTA is screwed up. And his proposed solution? More Federal tax dollars! Let's pump more money into an inefficient, wasteful system. And not just money from Chicago tax-payers, oh no -- let's reach our hands into the pocket of all American tax-payers to fix a regional mess that should be borne by people in Illinois.

Typical liberal tripe. Let's see, what else can we blame on Bush? If there's something in your life that is not going right, I'm pretty sure it's George Bush's fault. Car won't start? It's that damn George Bush! Broke your shoe lace? George Bush! Spilled your coffee? Bush! ad infinitum...

31 shootings and two stabbings occurred in Chicago over the weekend. Does that mean that Chicago is in a Civil War? Perhaps we should just abandon it and withdraw the police forces...

Michelle Malkin has the scoop on Tax-payer funded immigration study cards which encourage inviting more immigrants to come looking for federal jobs, among other things. Read her take here. She asked that someone make a card that states Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right. I'm only too happy to oblige.

The debate for the last several days has revolved around H.'s "Bitter" comment. Was it insulting? Did it reveal him as an elitist? Was he speaking the truth? Yes, yes, and yes, at least as he sees it. What strikes me as interesting is the people that are rushing to defend H. You've got a bunch of suburban blue state liberals saying, "why yes, I am bitter. He's right." Well, he wasn't talking about you. The New York Times has letters and opinion from East coast elites defending H. Well, he wasn't talking about you, either. I thought it interesting that one defense of H. was published in today's Chicago Tribune Voice of the people section, and the writer of the letter lives in San Francisco. Oh please...

The truth is, unless you were on the receiving end of that comment, you cannot put forward any defense of the comment. Only those that H. was speaking about can reserve the right to be directly offended. All these defenses of the comment come off just like the comment itself, as if people are saying "anybody offended by this is not smart enough to understand what he meant." That's as elitist as the original statement. I am reminded of Linda Rondstat, in regards to red state Republican voters in 2004 saying, "don't they know they are voting against their own interest?" As if a rich blue state liberal could possibly have more insight to what red state conservatives interests are than the people themselves.

What this does show us is exactly what many pundits are saying about it: that H. and the liberals/Democrats are elitists, that they believe anybody that lives in depressed blue collar communities are poor, uneducated sheep, and only the Democratic party can save them from themselves. I guess that kind of condescension is pretty offensive.

President Bush spoke today on Iraq and the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have both followed the speech with their views. I cannot help but be struck by the faltering, unsteady delivery of their positions. They stammered through their rebuttals as if they had no conviction in the same old liberal talking points they have endlessly spewed for months, if not years.

And nor should they. Rather than acknowledge any success whatsoever, they continue, in the face of enormous evidence that the surge is actually working, albeit in a fragile tenuous way, to deny and refute the obvious facts. Clinging to their empty rhetoric and grasping for words to try to spin the situation as a failure rather than the obvious success it appears to be, they show the Democrats as weak, feeble, and ineffectual.

I hate to use the word pathetic once again, but no other word describes their limp, vacuous blather quite as succinctly.

Daily Kos, the prememinent liberal blog, has many posters who like to smear and defame and act tough. If the subject is Bush, Hillary, or the Iraq war, they step up and do their best to pretend they are all the good guys who are fighting for a better world for all, then proceed to write posts condemning these things they see as unfair, unjust, or down-right evil. But when it comes to the unsafe target of Islamic fundamentalism, they have little to say. You would think a website that pretends to be some sort of safeguard for free speech and universal human rights would set its target on the biggest, heaviest gorilla of them all, but that's not the case.

For example, I did a search for the title of the Dutch film "Fitna." Fitna is the anti-Islam film by Geert Wilders and is at the forefront of any discussion of free speech that is to be had today. The result: 0 posts. I searched for a reference to "Mohammed cartoons," another hot button free speech issue. It returned 1 result, and that was actually a post attacking Bush on water-boarding.

Of course, Kos posters can write about whatever they want, but I find it funny and a bit hypocritical that they are so constantly outraged about Republicans and/or "Neo-cons" and the percieved stripping away of their Constitutional rights, yet ignore what many believe is an even bigger threat to all of our freedoms. They have said the cruelest, most vile things about their fellow Americans, but when it comes to a group of people who are the biggest violators of human rights on the planet, they ignore the discussion completely. I guess it's easy to talk tough when your target won't actually do the things you accuse it of, like depriving you of your rights or silencing you. When the target is Fundamentalist Islam, and is actually guilty of many of the accusations made against it, and might actually kill you for voicing your freedom of opinion, (see Theo Van Gogh, for example) you just shut up about it and look for easier, less challenging targets.

Pathetic.

H. has been addressing economic woes in his latest speeches. He was quoted today as saying "Unemployment is at its highest level in years." How many years is that? The answer is two. National Unemployment in March 2008 was 5.1 percent. When was the last time it was that high? Just a little over two years two years ago, in 2005. In 2004, it was even higher, at 5.5 percent. In 2003, higher still at 6.0 percent.

What's the point of this? To illustrate that H. is misleading the public. He has a tendency to do that from time to time. The statement "highest level in years," is technically true, but if you look at the actual figures year to year, it is not nearly as dire as he makes it seem. He claims to be a "new kind of politician," who won't play the "same old" word games, but that's exactly what he's doing.

Take, for example, his criticism of the John McCain "100 years in Iraq" comment. Any intelligent person knows that John McCain was making a comparison to troops we still have in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc., after wars in those countries. Yet H. has twisted the context of that statement to use to his advantage.

Of course, we conservatives are too smart for that. But the liberals are eating it up.

I have watched H. make the rounds of talk shows this week. After returning from vacation, he has gone to "soft" publicity outfits to further regain some of the poll points he lost due to the Reverend Wright controversy. It's interesting to see liberal media figures, who have unapologetically skewered President Bush with scathing innuendo and out right lies, fall all over themselves to make apologies for H. and his association with Reverend Wright. The double standard is blatantly transparent.

One notable stop was on ABC's "The View." Before H. came on stage, the ladies were actually a bit critical of H., but right before he took the stage, Barbara Walters uttered a proclamation absolving him of any responsibility for the issue:

"Barack Obama... has condemned those remarks. He has in no way supported them, advocated them, stood behind him, or praised his Reverend. There are still questions which we will ask him, about whether he should have gone further, whether he should still go further, but we cannot let it stand that these are.. any statements or any sentiments of Senator Barack. That's all I want to say."

Many people call George Bush "W." The main reason, I suppose, is to distinguish him from his father, George H. W. Bush. Some say it with derision, some say it with respect, and some just say it.

Lately, Barack Hussein Obama's middle name has been made note of. There is an argument whether it is fair to mention his middle name, as it just happens to be the same name as a recently deposed Iraqi dictator. So, those who actually use his middle name are accused of being "bigoted," for bringing up a supposed tie to someone who until recently was a fervent enemy of our country.

Of course, past Presidents of the United States have been known for their middle initial. Who can forget FDR, JFK or LBJ? Everyone knows Reagan's middle name was Wilson. And of course our current President is known simply by his middle initial, "W." So I don't think it is offensive to use or call attention to Barack Hussein Obama's middle name.

The real argument is the intent with which you are using the middle name. Is it simply being used as in the examples above, like a term of respect? Or is it purposefully being bandied about to remind people of some nefarious tie or unknown skeleton? The answer to that is for the thought police. I'll continue to use his middle name or middle initial whenever I choose, as I have the freedom to speak as I like, and you have the freedom to disagree.

So, in that spirit, I have decided to go a step further. In homage to our current president, I am going to refer to Barack Hussein Obama as, simply, "H." Perhaps others will join me.

John McCain gave a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council yesterday, and in it, he delineated a foreign policy approach that I can support. Now, McCain certainly was not my first choice for the Republican candidate for the 2008 election, but now that he is in place as the candidate, it was nice to hear him step up and describe our current foreign policy situation so deftly. Of course, conservatives are claiming that he is moving towards the "center," although, many think he is so liberal already that a move the center for him is actually a move to the right. I certainly don't agree with every aspect of his campaign platform and I can't support everything he stands or has stood for, but I can support a candidate who says this:

We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq? Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake. Whether they were there before is immaterial, al Qaeda is in Iraq now, as it is in the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Somalia, and in Indonesia.

I believe a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. These consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for it, as both Democratic candidates do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date.

Way to go, John. Entire speech here.

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

This is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill, and like many of the things he was purported to have said, it still rings true today. Even the old liberals are behaving like children. Children have a tendency to want things that are not good for them. The same certainly can be said for liberals today, as many of the things they are seeking would end up being ruinous for us all.

Take for example, the war in Iraq. They don't want to win the war in Iraq, they just want it to end, no matter what the consequences. Many liberal politiicians voted for it, and many other liberals supported the action in early 2003. But like a child who has tired of something, they just want to put it down and walk away. "It's too hard," they cry. Evidently, if something is hard, it's not worth doing. They cannot see beyond their own petty concerns and realize the value of actually finishing the job. Nor, like a child, do they understand the consequences of failure. They believe they can choose not to finish this fight, and the United States will continue on its merry way, much like a child who is oblivious to the real worldly dangers their parents insulate them from.

The value of real work means little to them. They believe everyone should be able to do what they want, and that somehow the government is supposed to provide jobs and happiness for them. They go to school and get degrees in obtuse, specialized fields of study, then blame the government when they can't get a job in said field. Few of them understand that our government is only supposed to guarantee the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. I read a letter to the e