Team Sarah and the wink ad.

Team Obama, when they aren't throwing reporters who fail the Party Loyalty Test, put out an Ad on Sarah Palin revolving around the wink. ABC's News Blog has the story, and I'd avoided it until now, for a simple reason. It was a stupid ad, and it was at the very least, showed once again the poor judgement of Team Obama. With so many other fine examples of the lies, and otherwise bad judgement of Team Obama, I let this one slide on by.

It's not that I think the ad isn't perhaps somewhat sexist. It's that I have only so many hours in a day, and many responsibilities, like most of you, and I just can't say everything I would want to most days. So I pick the stories that grab my attention the most, and let other often more worthy of comment stories slide on by. 

The ABC link above has quotes, one from a President of the NOW chapter in Los Angeles. about how horribly sexist Obama has been towards the women campaigning against him. Yeah, we know. He was sexist to Hillary, and remains sexist. That's probably part of the reason I didn't mention this before. It's sort of like reporting that a Drunk is still drinking. Or the running joke from the first year of Saturday Night Live, General Francisco Franco is still dead. 

So I let that story slide by, but thankfully, Team Sarah did not. Team Sarah, well, they managed to put something together. They tie in Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Khalidi. Well done Team Sarah. Kudo's to you. 

Nice one Team Sarah, keep up the good work. 

Get off my plane Judas

The Obama Campaign is outraged that three newspapers endorsed John McCain. To demonstrate their outrage, and the current Democratic behavior akin to the Soviet Politburo, Obama tossed the reporters from those papers off his campaign airplane. Seriously, he actually did that. 

Journalists from three major newspapers that endorsed John McCain have been booted from Barack Obama's campaign plane for the final leg of the presidential race.

The Washington Times reported Friday that it was notified of the Obama campaign's decision Thursday evening -- even though the paper has covered Obama from the start.

Executive Editor John Solomon told FOXNews.com that the Obama campaign said it didn't have enough seats on the plane, but "I don't think the explanation makes sense to us."

"We've been traveling since 2007 with him. ... We're a relevant newspaper -- every day we break news," Solomon said. "And to suddenly be kicked off the plane for people who haven't covered it as aggressively or thoroughly as we are ... it sort of feels unfair."

He said the newspaper protested but was turned down again by the campaign.

"I can only hope that the candidate who describes himself as wanting to unite the nation doesn't have some sort of litmus test for who he decides gets to cover the campaign," Solomon said, noting that the Obama campaign's decision came just two days after the paper endorsed McCain.

This is not the actions of someone who's ever endured criticism. This is the behavior of a spoiled rotten petulant brat. The Washington Times, the NY Post, and the Dallas Morning news all have much larger circulations than the replacement reporters. So the only explanation is that the petulant spoiled brat Obama didn't like it when those papers didn't endorse him.

I'm almost enjoying the idea of Obama as a President around this. Imagine the tantrum he would throw when the world doesn't just fall into line like he promises it will. Imagine his screaming tirades and massive staff firing when his approval ratings drop during the inevitable Depression that will follow his proposed economic plan. 

Can you imagine the outrage from the Left if McCain did something like this? Can you imagine the screams of McCarthyism? The left would be stuttering in impotent range.  

I think the rage in the streets in a year should Obama be elected and unable to deliver on a third of his promises, since many of his supporters are the same kind of petulant spoiled brats. I think it's going to be funny when the people finally realize that the Government isn't going to pay for their gasoline, and isn't going to pay for their house, and can't pay for them all to get into a mansion. That's the really hilarious thing to me. If Obama is elected, the people who think that they will be brought up to the level of the Rich, will be astounded when the Rich are instead brought down to the lowest level, as is normal in Socialist Countries. 

This action, throwing the reporters off the plane, is a perfect example of the Democrats loyalty litmus test. If you dare disagree with them, you will be punished. If you dare to speak ill of the party line, then you will be destroyed. The Democrats are even closer to the Stalin era of the Socialists than I had thought. Should be interesting to see how the Patriotic Americans respond to the demands for more power and loyalty from the Democrats. 

UPDATE: Hot Air is running the story and it's generating a lot of outrage from the Conservatives. Michelle Malkin also has a nice piece up. 

If you don’t make me glow, you gotta go.

Freedom of Speech part two, Democrats in action

By now, everyone is aware of the story of Joe the Plumber. He asked a question of the Saintly B. Hussein Obama, and was promptly targeted for destruction by the lefties in power. 

That's a wonderful example of what happens when you question a Liberal, you're destroyed by the left for daring to question their talking points, or worse, correctly categorizing them as socialist.

However, it's now getting worse. How much worse can it get you may ask, and I'm willing to tell you, until the Feds show up at my door. The FCC is now investigating Military Experts who have spoken on TV, and not used the Democratic Party platform of the War in Iraq is lost. In other words, the Military Experts spoke the truth, and now they're being investigated by a Federal Agency.  

A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington.

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The FCC investigation raises the question of whether a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House next year will investigate -- and perhaps criminalize -- all sorts of actions taken by the Bush administration. Obama is leading in all presidential polls, while Democrats are set to greatly increase their hold on the House and Senate.

Imagine the audacity that the Democrats are already showing us, and imagine what will happen over the next four years. 

The basis of the investigation? Simple. The retired military people got their old contacts in the Pentagon to provide them with information, briefings in other words. Then they went on the TV and told the information to the people. Not secret information. No plans, or operations that were going to be happening. Things that had already happened, and the import they may have for the future. Like the surge was going to work, and here's why. Then the surge worked, and here's what we're going to do now. 

Broad and wide reaching explanations, without details on upcoming operations. Generalized information, probably also available to the Press, if they cared to report on the truth about the Military instead of hyping all the negatives. 

The other complaint? Simple as well. The analysts may also be employed by Defense Contractors, advisors to them on weapons system design ideas to make the systems more friendly to troops. This is usually early pre-production, really when the systems are in the planning stages. However, this lifetime of experience is valuable to the contractors, because obviously, you want to hear what the soldiers who use the bloody thing are liable to think about it. 

The complaint is that the analysts may have promoted these designs that they had input on, and the company manufactured, thus giving the company, and the country, a public relations coup. 

Yeah, that's what's wrong here. The people who designed a weapon system, built the system, are not supposed to cheer when it's used to kill terrorists, and save American Soldiers lives.

If it's a robot that's being used to disarm IED's manufactured in Iran, thus saving the Private's life, why wouldn't the company mention that? Oh, that's right, the Democrats will get angry, and investigate them to show they may have technically violated an asinine law from 1934. 

I told you all, the four years of an Obama Presidency would be entertaining. I also predicted that they would over-reach rather quickly. Obama's not even elected yet, much less sworn in, and the Democrats are running Socialism right out of the text book from the old Soviet Union on the American People full speed ahead. 

Abuse of Government Power, using threats and intimidation to silence critics. Well perhaps we should change the title if Obama's elected. Instead of President, we could call him Premier. 

Remember, everyone is a Tovarich. That's Russian for Comrade. 

Freedom of Speech.

Everyone knows that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States covers Freedom of Speech. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, as an aside, I thought it would be fun to highlight other examples where freedom of expression is guaranteed to the individual. 

The Soviet Union guaranteed freedom of expression. On paper, in practice, not so much. 

Article 50 [Expression]

(1) In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

(2) Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets, and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organizations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

So what you might ask, and it's a good question. The difference is simple. Americans actually practice our rights, while the Soviets saw their rights on paper, but never were able to actually exercise them. 

I got to thinking about this when I saw an article stating that Australia is implementing mandatory internet censorship. 

AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pronography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia. 

So if the subject is controversial, it's going to be filtered right out of existence for the people of Australia? Freedom means that friends, free to do, read, or speak things that are unpopular, or even controversial. So where does this freedom end? Your freedoms end, where mine begin. As long as I'm not hurting you, or anyone else, it's my speech and it's guaranteed as long as we the people say it is. 

Now, Child Pornography, obviously, in that, the child is hurt, and thus it's wrong. However, do you need to join China in filtering the information your people get? Is a nationwide internet filter the answer? Let's say someone writes an article that is critical of the Australian Liberals, and that article tells people how to vote the bums out of office. Obviously, to an Australian Liberal, that would be Controversial wouldn't it? So would that article be filtered? 

Probably not right away, but eventually, you can bet your ass it will be. Governments never stop taking freedoms. In the United States, we take freedoms every year, a little at a time. We say, it's necessary for the public good. The words haven't changed on our Constitution, but the reality is the words don't mean what they used to. 

Free Speech zones, usually in a cage, far from those whom you're trying to get your message to, is the norm now. Somehow, this is part of the Homeland security. I'm not sure what a bunch of lunatic college kids have to do with Terrorism, which is what Homeland Security is supposed to be concerned with. The terrorists didn't protest us on 9-11. They attacked us while we sat like sheep planning on everyone liking us. Don't fight back, just wait for the experts to sort this all out. 

So what if Australia filters it's internet, I don't live there, and it's not my problem right? Wrong. Citizens of the world have the internet, and with it they are exposed to thoughts and ideals that otherwise they might not be exposed to. Just take a moment, and imagine what some beaurocrat might find controversial. Censorship is something you don't do, because if you justify it with one topic, it becomes easy to justify it on many more topics.

I've never heard of any topic that was so awful, that it couldn't be discussed. The Liberals have heard of many topics, and you know, they probably like this internet filter. They probably are all happy they can finally shut down the nasty Rush Limbaugh types from the net. 

Our own Government is going to limit speech, should Obama be elected. It's called the Fairness Doctrine, and it's anything but fair. Anything that limits free speech, isn't fair in my understanding of the word, but hey, I'm just a Conservative who thinks that the few little rights we surrender today, will lead to the Chinese society in the US tomorrow. 

One last thought, I wonder if President Obama will be meeting with the Australian Government officials asking for lists of Political Prisoners, like Bush did with China. That's what happens when someone uses free speech in China, and Australia is working on doing the same thing. I wonder, how long it will be before Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid meet with President Obama on locking up people who abuse the public trust by speaking freely? 

BEIJING AND SAN FRANCISCO – In prisons across China, inmates languish for committing "political crime" - anything from starting an illegal newspaper, trade union, or unofficial religious church, or speaking a democracy slogan in public.

China is not a liberal state with tolerant laws, as its leaders agree. President Bush, showing solidarity with Christians who are sometimes arrested here, Sunday visited an official Protestant church in Beijing on the last leg of an Asia trip that has stressed what Mr. Bush called the "universal" value of freedom of expression. 

Regarding my vote for McCain

A comment to my original post, highlighted the argument put forth by Michael Medved regarding an Obama win being good for conservatives. 

My opinion is that we need a true Conservative Revolution, like we had under Ronald Reagan. We need to stop pretending to care about certain issues, and stop bemoaning the status quo, and actually do something about it. 

Too many Republicans get to congress and are sucked into the life of the powerful, and wish to be popular there. They forget that they're conservatives, and they become Democrat lite. This is what happened to McCain, if he ever really was a Conservative. 

Many Conservatives believe we need to overhaul the tax system in general. It's become so large and contradictory that no one, not even the IRS can possibly know everything about it. 

According to the US Government Printing Office, it's 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress--available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845. 

No one can possibly know what is in those twenty volumes of books. Think about this, the Tax Code is larger than an Encyclopedia, for those of us old enough to remember when that was in books, instead of online. It's huge. It's specifically set up and designed to screw the middle class and the poor. I know, you doubt my assertion.

OK, then let's consider this for a moment. When some rich guy gets audited, what happens? The rich guy if he shows up in person, has a squad of lawyers, and another squad of accountants, probably former IRS employees, who argue each point of law with the auditors. They know the system well enough to know how to defend the rich guy. 

When a middle class, or poor person gets audited what happens? They show up with shoe box full of receipts praying they don't get screwed too hard. 

The IRS is even willing to show up at the Rich Guy's house, or law office, and happily discuss the issue, knowing that he's facing the wall of legal talent, he won't be able to fudge something. The middle class guy shows up at the IRS office, and again, just prays that he's not getting screwed too badly. 

So the Tax Code argument is valid from Mr. Medved, but it's not really all that valid. The Conservatives refused to Govern as Conservatives when they had the power. They refused to act like winners, and we didn't get real change to the tax code. We could have had a flat tax, which is you deduct the poverty line amount, and pay a flat rate on everything else, say, 17%. But we don't do that, because then the special people would be paying about what they are now, and the poor folks would be paying little, if any, like they are now. However, accountants around the nation would be unemployed wouldn't they? I guess that would be bad, sort of.

So the tax argument is lame, since even if McCain is elected, and if we had a Massive Majority of Republicans, they wouldn't change the system. 

Mr. Medved then claims that Ronald Reagan would have been elected in 1980, even if we'd never had a Jimmy Carter. I beg to differ. In 1976, Reagan's message was pretty much the same, and the party selected President Ford for re-election, despite essentially splitting the votes with Reagan. The Republican Party wasn't ready to embrace Conservative ideals yet. 

Let's say instead of Carter, we had a Truman type of Democrat elected in 1976. Then Reagan would not have been elected in 1980, because Truman, JFK, and other Democrats were very smart, and Conservative towards fiscal policy. It was the economy that got President Carter's administration destroyed. I admire him for his actions regarding the Three Mile Island incident. Instead of staying away, for safety, he showed up to tour it first hand and understand it personally. That took courage, and I admire that. I can even to a certain extent give him credit for his foreign peace proposals being born of a sincere desire for peaceful relations. I don't admire his handling of the Shaw of Iran, but that's another story.

The point is that had it been a more Conservative Democrat, the result in 1980 probably would have been very different. Instead, we had a Liberal/Socialist Democrat who badly mismanaged the economy, refusing to consider tax cuts as a way to stimulate growth. Refusing to consider the world economy in his mishandling of Iran. 

In the end, his legacy as President, is a Disaster. It set up the Reagan Revolution, because Ronald Reagan understood how lower taxes would stimulate the economy. He understood how the desire of normal Americans to work, earn a good living, and provide a better life for their children, would drive the country forward. It's a shame his Vice President didn't understand that as clearly as he did, but that's another discussion as well.

The assertion that Reagan would have been elected no matter who was President, is obviously false on it's face. If President's are perceived as failures, then they are one term Presidents. Carter and GHW Bush are both examples from my lifetime. One was a Democrat, one was a Republican. Bush lost on his broken promise, no new taxes. Carter lost on the economy and the Hostage Crisis in Iran. Truman or Kennedy would not have had those two events dragging on as long as they were. Kennedy would have lowered taxes, to stimulate growth. Kennedy would have seen the Hostages Rescued, or would have seen to the release of the hostages through strong diplomacy, as in Cuban Missile Crisis? 

No, Reagan wasn't guaranteed the Presidency in 1980. He was the right man, at the right time. He demonstrated a clear and easily definable difference between himself and President Carter. 

Mr. Medved then claims that if Palin loses as John McCain's running mate, she has no future in Politics at the national level. He uses as his example, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman. 

Neither of these two people had the following before they were defeated Vice Presidential Nominees. They were safe choices for the ticket head. Gore and Kerry. Mostly chosen for thei hope that they could cover up or shore up the nominee's problem areas, Edwards for a solidified chance at North Carolina and the southern states. Gore already having been denounced and rejected by his own state. Liberman to give moral authority as the "Conscience of the Senate." to Kerry's pandering politics. Lieberman's moral authority put him at odds with the Democratic Party Base regarding the War in Iraq, and the wider War on Terror. So much so that the Democratic Party base, the Nutroots, ran a strong campaign to get him off the ticket as a Democrat in his run for the Senate. That's why by the way, Lieberman is an Independent now. The KosKids destroyed him in the Democratic Primary.

Nixon was a Vice President, and lost his first election. He's one of the rare examples of someone coming back after a national loss, and winning the White House. 

Palin's career doesn't hinge on this one election. She could and I believe will come back stronger in 2012 if Obama wins next week. I've already started a savings account, specifically intended to give Sarah Palin the maximum donation the day she announces her run for the White House. After all, she lost her first race for the Governor's job in Alaska. After the election, the people realized they made a mistake, and regretted not choosing her. She won the next election, which goes to show you that she's tough, and determined. 

Mr. Medved claims that after a defeat, the party moves to the Center, so the Country Club Blue Blood Republicans would be stronger than before. No sir, they wouldn't. After Gore's defeat in 2000, the Democrats went harder left. After John Kerry's defeat in 2004, they went extreme left. After Ford's defeat in 1976, the Republicans went to the Right. After GHWB's defeat in 1992, the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate by going Right, not by becoming Centrist. That's an asinine argument Mr. Medved, and I reject it out of hand. 

McCain is a Centrist, a Moderate. That's why the base of the party, people like myself, don't like him. This is why Conservatives like myself were planning on sitting the election out. After the Nomination was secured, McCain was polling so badly, that we wondered if it would be a thirty state landslide for Obama. Then he brought out Palin, and secured the Conservative support. Donations flowed, grass roots organizing got started almost overnight. The Conservatives such as myself, still don't like, or trust McCain, we like, and trust Palin. If it was McCain and Huckabee on the ticket, I wouldn't vote for them. If it was McCain and Lieberman, same result. It's Palin that has energized the base.

Before he picked her, his rallies looked like a wake. After he picked her, the crowds are energized, and huge.

You can't claim that the Democrats are more centrist now, than they were under Clinton. You can't possibly believe that. You can't pretend that the Republicans moved the the center after the defeat of Bush and Dole. It was Conservative ideals passionately described and passionately acted upon that energized the base this year Mr. Medved. 

If this election has demonstrated anything to be true, it's that the era of the Country Club Blue Blood Republican, is a fact that should remain in history, not in our futures. 

A day of contemplation.

I've spent most of the day considering. I'm planning on voting tomorrow, early voting, when I head downtown for some other errands, I'm going to go ahead and knock out my vote. Here's the problem, I still detest John McCain. (RINO) (Media) 

I've posted about John McCain so many times it would look like an auctioneer's transcription if I posted every link. Here's the search results for it, I'll highlight a few of my rants if you will, to explain my conundrum. 

McCain is not a Conservative. I've highlighted my longstanding disagreements with his policies, and I've not been silent about them. I've written his office, good old fashioned snail mail, which was scanned by some staffer, and tossed in a box probably labeled out of state nut. 

I also believe this election has become more important than I was expecting. During the primaries, I was convinced that both parties nominated their worst, and we're expected to choose one of the nuts. McCain the Conservative Hating Republican, or Obama, the empty suit who never was anything before. I donated money to Hillary, before Operation Chaos, because I thought of all the scheming lunatics in the field running, she was the best choice. 

However, this election, as I said, has become more. It's now a referendum on Socialism. Is our nation going to follow the socialist principals. Are we going to allow the self determination, the greatest right given to us by God, and fought for and won with the blood of millions over the more than two hundred years of this nation, to be taken and given instead to the Government? 

I believe in smaller Government. I believe that you, the individual, are more capable than I ever will be in running your life. I believe that you, the individual, know what your family should do. I don't believe that Government has a place in any of that. Obama, and the Democrats, do. 

I detest John McCain, and I expect to find myself feeling sick when I vote, however, I can't vote for Socialism. If Obama was truly a moderate, as he's been portrayed in the media, I could vote for him. If the Democrat was a conservative, ala Zell Miller, I could and would vote for him in a minute, with no reservations. 

I'm voting for McCain for those reasons, and one other. Sarah Palin. I believe that Sarah Palin is an honest individual, with a very strong sense of right, and wrong. I may not, and need not, agree with her on every issue. I believe she will do the right thing as she views the issue, and I can live with that. I trust her judgement, demonstrated in her history as Mayor and Governor, and that which we've not seen because she hasn't faced it yet. I believe she's intelligent enough, and able to learn the foreign duties from her briefing team from the State Department. 

As an aside, can we be honest  for a moment? If you were the Vice-President, and were about to go on a trip to England. Even if you had a dozen stamps that said ENGLAND in your passport book, you would still have to sit down with the folks from the State Department and be briefed and rehersed. It's what is always done. Do any of us think Sarah Palin is too dumb to listen and understand what they are saying? Ok, the nuts on the left might think so, but they also believe that George Bush and Scooter Libby blew up the World Trade Center.

 Even if John McCain doesn't die, which seems likely, since God is unlikely to answer that many prayers so quickly, I think that Sarah Palin will be shaking up the Administration. I just don't see her sitting quietly while John McCain does whatever he wants. I can see her storming into the White House via the Treasury Tunnel and chewing some butt about the issues. I don't think she'll be too quiet if McCain starts his Democrat with an R behind his name crap again. I guess I'm saying I trust her to do the right thing. 

I still don't like John McCain, and I probably never will. He and I are just too far apart on the issues. I resent the hell out of being called a Racist because I opposed Amnesty. I resent the hell out of his abridging the First Amendment with his signature legislation. I find it laughable that he expected a grass roots effort to get him elected. Apparently, he thought the Republican Base loved him as much as the NY Times did. The Grass Roots didn't get started John, until you picked Sarah Palin. You had lost the election, right up until that point.

As much as I resent the hell out of McCain and his loving on the NY Times attitudes of the last ten years or so, I also resent the hell out of the Media. The LA Times holding a video, because it might be damaging to a candidate? Are you kidding me? Here's your chance for a Watergate folks, what are you doing? The Media has covered up for Obama, defended him, and chastised and castigated anyone who dared not genuflect before the anointed one. I resent the hell out of the suggestion that my opposition to Obama is based upon race. I resent the hell out of the obvious bias in favor of Obama, and the claim that it's all fairly reported. 

So today, when I go to town for some errands, I'm going to vote for McCain, and as I do, I'm going to pray that God has mercy on my soul. With McCain, I'm afraid I'm getting socialism, just not so much as I would with Obama. With Obama, I know I'm getting the Socialism shoved deep inside me for his term as President, which would likely be a single term.

Now, for my thoughts on American after the election, that's a post I'm still working on. Suffice to say, I don't see bad news for Conservatives out there. I see this election as a winner for Conservatives, no matter how it turns out. 

I'm voting for McCain, so President Palin doesn't have to spend the first four years of her administration cleaning up the disaster that the nation would be in should Obama be elected. 

I guess I'm not really voting for McCain today, I'm really voting for Palin, and I'm voting against the socialism that the Democrats are claiming they have a mandate for, before the election has happened.

Thoughts on the election

I've spent some time considering the future, and have decided that this election is a win-win situation for Conservatisim.

I am convinced that if Obama wins the Liberals will pull out all the stops and run with Socialism Unleashed in Congress. This will have the expected and historically demonstrated effect if massive inflation, recession, and high unemployment. The funniest thing will be watching the press try and explain how this is a great economy.

I understand how the pain of those years will be uncomfortable, but it appears that there aren't enough of us who remember the Carter years. So our Children will have to live it to understand.

Just like with Carter, a voice will come from the country, and we'll rally behind them. In 1980, this was Ronald Reagan. In 2012, this may well be Palin, or Jindal. We wouldn't have had Reagan without Carter. We may have to endure Obama to move forward.

If McCain is elected, I believe the Liberals have taught him what we conservatives couldn't. The NY Times is no friend to Republicans. After the election, you can expect the liberals to again try and tempt the Maverick. I hope he will tell them to stuff it.

If he dies in office, we get Palin, who I honestly believe will do just fine.

I believe that this election has demonstrated once again that the era of the Blue Blood Country Club Replicans is over. McCain ran as a "Moderate" Republican, trying to be acceptable to the Democrats, and the liberal elites. This worked fine, getting McCain many eloquent and lovely endorsements. When he was the last Republican standing, the press turned on him in an instant. The liberals did pretend to love him, when he was fighting Republicans.

This election clearly demonstrates that you can't accomidate a Democrat, they aren't your friends, they are just the Hate America, Blame America, lunatics that we've been telling the Maverick they are.

Liberals are a scourge, and this election clearly shows they are untrustworthy pathological liars.

We can only hope the Republican Leadership has taken note.

-- Post From My iPhone

Democrats drooling at chance for one party rule.

Bi-Partisan. The Dictionary defines it like this. Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties:  a bipartisan resolution.  

Wikipedia says this about it. In a two-party system (such as in the United States), bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement. Often, compromises are called bipartisan if they reconcile the desires of both parties from an original version of legislation or other proposal. Failure to attain bipartisan support in such a system can easily lead to gridlock, often angering each other and their constituencies.

Democrats define it like this. Agree with me, or I'll call you names and destroy you. 

Nancy Pelosi who took months to get a drilling bill onto the floor claims that the Congress would be more Bipartisan if only Democrats were there. Sure. If you define Bipartisan as one party ruling all the people forever. We've seen that in history. It was called the Soviet Union. It's still used in Cuba, and China. The one party allowed is the Communist Party. 

Glad to see that the code words are thinning out now, and the Democrats are becoming honest about what they want. Wouldn't you agree comrade? 

UPDATE: Had forgotten to include links to the definitions. Sorry about that, it's fixed now.

Liberal Lies: Supporting the troops

In the Ohio State Legislature. A young man is both a serving politician, and a Marine Reservist.

So as he runs for re-election, I'm sure all we're hearing from the Democrats is how much they love and support his service right?

When Josh Mandel got a call from the Marines last year asking him to return voluntarily to Iraq, he had much more to contemplate than when he first enlisted in 2000. He had just been elected to the Ohio state legislature. Family considerations were also important to him. He ultimately decided to serve a second tour in Iraq “because I didn’t join the Marine Corps to say no when my country called,” Mr. Mandel explains.

Of all the factors he weighed, Mr. Mandel says political concerns were not among them. Now he has been forced to deal with the politics of that decision. The opponent in his tough re-election fight, trial attorney Bob Belovich, is attacking Mr. Mandel’s service, arguing that he abandoned voters. Mr. Belovich’s wife, Barbara, acknowledged in an interview for this column that she has told voters that Mr. Mandel “went AWOL” (a military term for desertion) by fighting in Iraq. 

Liberals detest the troops. Liberals think the troops are stupid. 

Kerry Jokes about the Troops | Viral | SPIKE.com

They detest the troops, thinking they are bloodthirsty murdering slime. 

Back to the case of Josh Mandrel, the Democrats insist he can't be supported, because he's a jew. So in addition to the hate filled rhetoric against the troops, we have racist arguments on why Josh can't win. 

As heard in the recording, Bob Belovich then added that Mandel won in 2006 in part because of his “blue sign” and “Jewish name.” Asked recently by this columnist what he meant by the comment, Belovich stated that many people think Mandel is a Democrat, including some who think so because Mr. Mandel is Jewish. Belovich, who is Catholic, then spent five minutes discussing the implications of Mr. Mandel being Jewish. (The district’s Catholic population is three to four times bigger than its Jewish one.) 

The audio they're talking about here. 

So being a Republican is Bad, being a Marine is apparently unforgivable, but my God, a Jew? 

The Audacity of Lies

Obama's campaign should be renamed to the audacity of lies. 

After I posted the audio of Obama's 2001 radio interview in which he was debating the redistribution of wealth, not the merits, the means, Obama's spokespeople were out in force defending the audacity of lies by telling more lies. 

OK, let me get this straight. He was using Socialist Talking points straight out of the Marx, to describe Middle Class tax cuts? To quote Joe Biden, are you joking? 

This is insulting, and I'm surprised that anyone would have the guts to go up on Television and pretend that is what's happening. To take that spin seriously for even a moment, you wouldn't be a reporter in the free world, you'd be a tool of Pravda. 

Hot Air describes it best. This isn’t even spin; it’s McCaskill putting her fingers in her ears and chanting to drown out the question.

Michelle Malkin as usual, is all over this. 

Obama audio burning up the Net.

In 2001, Before he was a US Senator, before he was a media packaged chosen one, Obama was doing a Radio Interview. 

Let me say that it's utterly astounding. Now Joe the Plumber was a wake up call from the Left, however this recording is more. 

Redistribution of Wealth. Yes, he's talking about it, yes he's in favor of it. His question is how do we get the Redistribution of wealth? Should we do it by Legislation? Or perhaps via the courts? Obama's not in favor of the Courts, you just can't guarantee to get what you want. By Legislation, you can. 

I'm sickened by this.

Michelle Malkin has the story and has a great quote up. 

    In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

    Well, then. Fine .

    But this is not the America I knew…

Code Pinkos surrender in Berkley

Michelle Malkin is reporting and linking to the Everything must go sale of the Berkley Code Pinkos office.


The Code Pinkos were the group of aged hippies who got free protest permits and free parking from the very supportive Berkley City Council, and promised to run the Marines out of town. Despite all the support from the Council they have surrendered form their mission of defeating the Marines.

Good riddence to the Hate America first Pinkos.

NOTE: I am trying to link to Michelle's web but may have screwed it up. I'll fix it before too long if so. Here is a screen shot of the sale announcement. The party is probably the patriotic citizens cheering the group leaving.


-- Post From My iPhone

UPDATE: Fixed the link to Michelle Malkin's website.

Team Sarah update

Yesterday, the folks at Team Sarah Org held their million women telephone townhall. I've listened to much of it, and am impressed by the passion and organization that these amazing people have accomplished. I understand that I'm one of the few male members.





As you can see, some thirty thousand of us have joined to support Sarah Palin and her one outstanding trait. Her honest conservative idealism is very welcome in my opinion.

I wanted to commend the women who organized this, and confirm my support of their actions.

-- Post From My iPhone

Will the NY Times ask for a bailout next?

As one watches the NY Times slide further and further into disrepute, we are left to wonder what is needed to turn them around. Successful media models like Fox News which is more fair and ballanced, and also has a lot of viewers, is one that the NY Times just won't follow.

The reason is obvious. Liberals are essentially delusional. They refuse to believe that Americans aren't Socialist. Liberals won't accept that they are well outside the mainstream of thought. The deny history, pretending that the fantasy version of life is a functional reality. They just won't deal in truth and fact.

So the NY Times circulation is down, they're losing money hand over fist. The Conservative, capitalist view us to figure out what changes should or can be made to return to profitability.

The Liberal Newspaper won't do that. What they will do us eventually ask for a bailout. I'll predict that the Times will even claim that refusing to give them taxpayer money is censorship. I'll even bet that they'll use the term McCarthy in their explanations.

After the election, make sure you tell President McCain that there is to be no bailout for the Times.

--- Posted from my iPhone.

Team Obama spanks Reporter for asking tough questions

First the background. Joe Biden was doing a satellite interview with Florida TV station WFTV, and the reporter instead of being busy telling Team Obama/Biden how awesome they are, actually asked tough questions, for what may be the first time in this two year long Presidential run. 

Team Obama responded quickly, and harshly. 

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West." 

So much like the body hanging from a tree, the warning has been sent. If you ask tough questions, you won't ever get another chance to interview one of our sainted figures again.

How did the reporter, Barbra West respond? Outstandingly well in my opinion. 

These are questions that are rolling about right now and questions that need to be asked. I don't think I was rude or inconsiderate to him.

So for those aspiring journalists out there, don't ask tough questions of Team Obama, unless you want high ratings, and success like Fox News. Of course, you could be like the "Newspaper of Record" and always ask good liberal questions, and always take the Liberal Socialist side on every story, like the New York Times. 

Of course, they're rating from Standard and Poors is accurate. They're Junk. 

 NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Standard & Poor's on Thursday slashed its ratings on the New York Times Co into junk territory and cited concerns about the newspaper publisher's revenue outlook, after it posted a third-quarter loss.

Moody's Investors Service also said it may follow the move, adding the publisher faces risks in refinancing its debt.

Apparently Liberals don't know how to run a business. Why would we trust them to see to the Nations economy, when they can't even figure out how to publish a Newspaper that people want to read?

Bakers Dozen fraudulent votes down, only 199,987 left in Ohio

Ohio's famous house full of Obama Supporters has decided to withdraw their Fraudulent Registration, and their votes, I'm presuming as part of a plea deal. In the mean time, I guess the Felony Criminal Activity by Team Obama won't be investigated further. Hey, they're just kids, and they thought that the world needed Obama, by any means necessary right?

A dozen staffers - including Obama Ohio spokeswoman Olivia Alair and James Cadogan, who recently joined Team Obama - signed a form letter asking the Franklin County elections board to pull their names from the rolls.

The letter - a copy of which was obtained by palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate - came a day after prosecutor Ron O'Brien publicly urged out-of-state campaign workers for both Obama and John McCain to "examine your conscience" before the elections board beings begins opening absentee ballots today.

Barney Frank promises even more Socialism.

The Election is still ten days away, and Representative Barney Frank, the individual who is most directly responsible for the Fannie Mae debacle that has so damaged our economy, has promised even more socialism, no matter the cost, to the economy, the nation, and the world. 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will "eventually" raise taxes.

Frank told the editorial board of the SouthCoast Standard-Times that he wanted to reduce defense spending by a quarter, meaning the United States would have to withdraw from Iraq sooner.

Allow me to translate. The stimulus package version one, did nothing for the economy. That stimulus package one didn't work, well, let's go with the same non effectual answer again. That we'll use it to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory regarding the war on Terror in Iraq, well, that's too bad.

Representative Frank, no matter who is elected, this package, which is used as an excuse to lose a war we've come so far in winning, demonstrates that you are not trustworthy in any way, shape, or form. You've lied to the American people far too often. 

As anyone who's read that post, and watched the damning video it has knows, you personally lied to the Nation about the situation at Fannie Mae. There is no excuse for that behavior. 

You've demonstrated that no matter what, the knee jerk response for a Liberal is always the same, more Socialism. No matter how disastrous it is for the nation, or in this case the world. 

If you had a shred of honor, or integrity, you would have resigned from Congress in shame long before now. If the Democrats had any sense of truth, or honor, they would have demanded that you resign at least from the Party. Your continued presence demonstrates what we've all known for too long. Neither you, nor the Democrats, understand what honor is. Neither you, nor the Democrats, is willing to accept responsibility for your actions. 

Team Sarah.

To show how Sarah Palin has electrified the Conservatives in the Republican Party, I'm going to link to two websites. First, Hot Air, and their cheering of Jeri Thompson (wife of Republican Candidate Fred Thompson) who shall we say slammed Colmes on Hannity and Colmes over the non issue of Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

Second, I'm going to link to the website, Team Sarah. Which has the unbelievable goal tomorrow, Saturday the 25th of October, to call a million women in battleground states, and answer questions about Sarah Palin. 

This Saturday, October 25 from 11AM - 1PM EST, Team Sarah will be calling one million women voters in battleground states and invite them to participate in a live, free tele-townhall over the phone. You will be able to ask questions and get answers from a panel of distinguished women leaders. This has never been done before! Imagine one million women voters on one phone call!

You can't miss out. If you would like to be included on the call (even if you aren't in a battleground state), sign up to be a member of Team Sarah and make sure to fill in your phone number in the profile section. We will keep your phone number private and will only use it for this.

If you are already a member, you simply need to sign in, go to "my settings," and answer the profile question.

If you have any questions, please email teamsarah08@gmail.com.

Does anyone doubt that if Obama wins this election, or perhaps I should say the Liberals manage to Vote Fraud and steal this election for Obama, that Sarah Palin will be the candidate people rally behind in 2012? 

Talk about your dream ticket. Palin Jindal in 2012. 

Religion of Peace says No Tomboys.

In this AP story, we're informed that girls who behave, work, or dress like boys are a violation of the Religion of Peace. 

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia—Malaysia's main body of Islamic clerics has issued an edict banning tomboys in the Muslim-majority country, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam, an official said Friday.

The National Fatwa Council forbade the practice of girls behaving or dressing like boys during a meeting Thursday in northern Malaysia, said Harussani Idris Zakaria, the mufti of northern Perak state, who attended the gathering.

Harussani said an increasing number of Malaysian girls behave like tomboys, and that some of them engage in homosexuality. Homosexuality is not explicitly banned in Malaysia, but it is effectively illegal under a law that prohibits sex acts "against the order of nature."

Of course, the religion of peace is not an issue with the Liberals who never have found an extremist who hates America they didn't like. President Carter told us that he preferred working with Dictators over Democracies. President Clinton fell for every lie told to him by any Dictator around the globe. 

After all, in 1994, it was Democrat President Bill Clinton who, with the help of Jimmy Carter, lifted sanctions on North Korea and handed Kim two light water nuclear reactors on a silver platter. What did we get in return? Empty promises. 

Perhaps this is a good thing, we'll have to ask the Liberals in San Francisco. If the can stop demanding that Palin die a horrible death long enough to answer a question, perhaps they can tell us how they feel about Womens Rights under Islam. 

Thoughts on the election

As we cross into single days until the election I've been considering the widely differing polls and the unusual news stories that we've been hearing. From unprecedented voter fraud, to bully tactics from the press. We have all watched this election season with a combination of frustration, amusement, and exasperation.

With the press quick to tell us the election not yet held is already decided and essentially over, and team Obama already planning transition moves. I started to wonder, why the panic exists from team Obama. Incredibly, Obama has brought out the same old scare tactics of every election of my lifetime. You guessed it.

Republicans are going to cut Social Security. The first time I heard this was Carter v. Reagan in 1980. I've heard this tired old lie every election since, and I'm left to wonder why? Could the Obama campaign be that worried about the election? After all, we've been told that only Racists would dare vote against Obama, and the tag racist is one most people would do anything to avoid having hung on them.

What this tells me in reality is that this election is anything but decided. Despite the claims from the press, and the heavily slanted polls, the election is very close. The Liberals wouldn't risk the vote fraud if it was the landslide predicted for Obama.

I think that the liberals are trying to appear confident so as to demoralize the turn out for Republicans.

I could be very wrong, but all I know is that the Democrats are not acting like they've won, they're acting like they may yet lose. They are lying even more, and moving rapidly to destroy any perceived threat. Yes, I've heard about the attacks on Joe the plumber.

We know the press lies, so what makes us think they're telling the truth now?


-- Post From My iPhone

Obama's no tax left behind plan

No Child Left Behind was the name of the education program proposed by President Bush, and written by Senator Kennedy. Obama's plan to increase our taxes should be called No Tax Left Behind according to Deroy Murdoch. 

Posting a long litany of numbers would be confusing, and frankly, you can read the linked article and get the point easily enough. I doubt that I can explain it any better than Mr. Murdoch.  

What I will say is this, the historical example of lower taxes increasing economic growth, and increasing individual income levels is proven. Yet, Obama and the Democrats are already planning how to run the country into ruin. The failed policies of the Carter Era will seem like a cakewalk if Obama and the Democrats have their way. 

On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.

This was with only moderately socialist policies that were enacted under President Carter. Now imagine what will happen with the Socialism that Obama and the Democrats are proposing, Recession will be the least of our worries economically then.

Small Business's will suffer under the Obama Economic plan. That is not something that most Americans want to see, but according to Obama, it's what we need to do to spread the wealth around. So far, I don't see any plan on spreading wealth, but I do see a lot of misery about to be spread around. That's the secret of Socialism, everyone is equal, equally miserable. 

Obama will tax only the rich. Of course, we know that's a lie. His own supporters admit that there are more than just the rich that will suffer. The plan Obama says will help the unemployed is a planned $3,000 tax break for new hires. Anyone here want to work for $3 grand a year? 

Finally, we have the Wall Street Journal's comments on the Obama Economic Plan, which as I said above, will likely cause more suffering to the nation than President Carter's ill conceived policies. 

The election is still two weeks away, but we are already living in the world of Obamanomics. In fact, on fiscal policy we've been living in that world at least since February when the Bush Administration conceded to the Congressional priority of Keynesian fiscal "stimulus." That didn't work very well, but no matter. Spurred on by Barack Obama, Democrats in Congress are preparing Round Two, this time in the form of $150 billion to $300 billion in new spending.

So the Liberal answer of throwing money at problems never makes the problems go away, instead the problems just get worse. Obama would pay to make the problem worse, by taxing us all more. 

The sad truth is that Liberals don't live in the real world, they have no clue how money is made, and no idea what you do to earn your money. They think that power, and money, is owed to them because of the purity of their thought. The Socialist ideology may be appropriate for Government, but just not the Government of the United States. Perhaps the Liberals could go to Venezuela. I understand that Chavez has managed to Socialized a third of the Gross National Product out the window there. With a little help from Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, I bet he could have the entire nation of Venezuela sleeping over steam grates this winter. 

Obama and the Democrats to destroy your 401k.

I honestly wish I was joking. It's a given that Social Security will run out of money. It's a given that eventually the system will either collapse, or will be required to receive huge revenue boosts from the taxpayers, that means higher taxes for you and me. 

401k plans on the other hand, are created by the worker, and given tax incentives to encourage people to invest in their own retirement, and their own future. This is all normal, and sounds really good right? The idea that there is both a Government retirement, Social Security, and a private account, via the 401k plans. The problem according to the Democrats? The $80 Billion in lost tax revenue with the 401k plans. I'm not joking, the problem is that the Government isn't getting their fair share of your retirement savings.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute. 

So instead of your 401k, the Government want's to tax you more, and then put that money in a Social Security two account. 

Yeah, the Government has done so well with Social Security. 

Liberals who make up the vast majority of the Democratic Party just can't stand that they don't control part of your life, and especially hate that they don't control every single dollar of your money. Bill Clinton raised our taxes, and then admitted he raised them too much. However, what didn't he do? He didn't give us a tax cut, it was fine that we were paying too much in taxes, just so long as we didn't get a tax cut.

This my friends, is why we call Obama a Socialist. This is why we call Democrats Socialists, and this is why the label fits. 

You know, I'm not sure I can afford an Obama Presidency, I don't have time for a second job to pay all these taxes he demands. 

Now, Socialist is a code word for "Black"

That's the argument from a couple leftists who are now trying to claim that categorizing Obama as a Socialist, is racist.

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Dictionary.com has this as the entomology, or history of the word.

1827, from Fr. socialiste, in reference to the teachings of Comte de Saint-Simon, founder of Fr. socialism. Socialism is attested from 1837, apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly claims to be the originator of the word socialisme" [Klein]. The word begins to be used in Fr. in the modern sense c.1835. Socialista, with a different sense, was applied 18c. to followers and pupils of Du. jurist Grotius (1583-1645).

I had previously linked to the Wikipedia entry. 

In neither entry, is there any claim that it's racist to use the word. In fact, as I showed earlier, The term, as applied, by both Marx, and the entries mentioned above, the Dictionary, and the online encyclopedia, that Obama is a socialist. He believes in Government control, and wealth redistribution. He believes that Bigger Government is the answer.

It's not racist to paint Obama as a Socialist, it's really called Truth in Advertising. 

If Obama's the Messiah, what is Palin?

That's right, Palin is the Devil. This picture was taken in New York City according to the post at Ben Smith's Blog.

Of course, the pictures listed here on Michelle Malkin's website is a more complete example of Palin Derangement Syndrome. 

I don't understand the left's insane fascination with portraying the Liberals as the saviors in a religious sense while at the same time they portray the Conservatives as evil. 

Perhaps it's part and parcel of their hate America, Blame America first mindset. 

Ann Coulter said it best. "Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole."

Dr. Rubin on the New New Deal.

Paul Rubin writes in this editorial that Obama may be worse for the economy than anything in our history. 

In 1932, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president as the nation was heading into a severe recession. The stock market had crashed in 1929, the world's economy was slowing down, and all economic indicators in the U.S. showed signs of trouble.

The new president's response was to restructure the economy with the New Deal -- an expansion of the role of government once unimaginable in America. We now know that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade. And we know that FDR got away with it (winning election four times) by blaming his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, for crashing the economy in the first place.

The economy operates on a simple premise. The more money in motion, the better the economy is doing. If Money goes to Washington, it doesn't circulate nearly as quickly as the dollars which remain in the economy. 

Yes, there are Projects which have some good benefits to mankind, and the nation. The science of NASA is one of my personal favorites. I am constantly debating a friend about that. He considers that money wasted. He believes that the money would be better spent helping people.

My response is usually along the lines of. "We've spent six trillion, that is thousand thousand million dollars on the war on Poverty, and we've got just as many people in Poverty as we used to. We have spent how many billions of dollars, and our kids are dumber now than ever before. We've spent tons of money on juvenile programs, and the kids are more dangerous, and out of control, than ever before. What more can we do throwing money at the problem. The first thing we need to do is admit the current problem is worse because of our trying to fix it, and then figure out what WILL work. Until then, I won't ever support more money to "help people." 

As I've said many times in the past. I support job training programs, and I support programs to give people a chance to earn a living. I've said before, social programs are intended to be a safety net, not a hammock. To catch you before you starve to death homeless and destitute. Not to become something you reside in.

Compassion is another Liberal Lie that I've got to find time to address soon. Compassion is not more programs that stagnate the person in the program. Compassion is helping the person so they don't need those programs ever again.

So what does Obama promise us? A huge socialist state where he promises to spread the wealth, but really will be spreading the misery. 

If Obama makes many more promises like this, I may be able to vote for McCain after all. 

Obama the Messiah to the Rescue

Liberals who normally spend all their time denouncing religion and the subject of this particular candle highlighted on the Corner, has said that we're all a bunch of bitter clingers. 

Yet, despite the fact that Joe Biden, who interestingly enough, hasn't had a press conference in over a month. As I started to say, Joe Biden said that it was plainly obvious that the inexperienced Obama would be tested by our opponents around the world. Any bets on how that test would play out?

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.

Friends, let's be honest for a moment. They insanity of putting a political figure in the place of the savior is bad enough. The implied insult is there of course, and I'll leave that for a moment. The obvious disdain that such people would have for anyone of any faith is beyond my ability to describe. 

What is faith in any deity? It means you believe you will face a time to be judged, for your actions, or lack thereof. It means you allow your decisions to be guided by that faith, and what you honestly believe the Deity of your choice would want you to do, to further the vision of the world that you believe the Deity has. It means you believe in a law, a plan higher than Man's. That is an abomination of Liberal Beliefs, where there is no law higher than mans. That's why we must destroy an monument that mentions God. We must take God out of the pledge, the schools, and the Government, so that Government can take the place of Man.

Taking this candle, let's discuss Christianity. Obama is not a savior, not of any living thing on earth. He is certainly not THE Savior. Painting him as such is a major insult. I should take a moment and point out I believe in God, not in Religion. However, I do believe in faith, and I believe in God's teachings. I just think that man tends to confuse God's teachings, with Man's desires.

I don't get to decide who does, or does not, go to Heaven and or Hell. That is not my job, and I have zero, no input on that question. I don't want any input and I don't want to be the one making that decision. One far wiser than I is going to be the decider in that situation.

Now, Obama as the Savior, if it brings anything to mind, it's the warning we're given in the Bible, since he's portrayed as Jesus Christ. That would be the false prophet we are warned to take no heed of. If Obama is not Jesus Christ, then he must be a poser, a fake, and thus, the false Prophet. 

Liberals, are you sure, I mean really sure, you want to make this a discussion about faith and salvation? 

After all, the Prophets we're warned to watch for are prophesied to tell us that by following them, we'll be safe, they will protect us from harm. Which Obama has done. Not through any plan, but merely his holy presence will bring peace and prosperity to the world. 

Perhaps the Liberals would prefer to take a step back, and reconsider this. You don't understand faith, nor do you understand the Lord. The Bible is more than a collection of scary stories and words and ideals for you to twist. The Buddhist faith is not something you're liable to understand, nor is the Hindu faith.I'm going to suggest you find a new way to package Obama Libs, because you don't really understand faith well enough to understand the insult you've done.

The other problem, which appears not to have been considered by the notoriously short sighted Liberals. What happens when Obama can't deliver his miracles? What happens when he doesn't deliver worldwide peace and prosperity? How are the citizens going to respond when Gas Prices go up? 

What happens when he can't cure their Gout?  What happens when he can't pay for half the things he wants, and the people who are expecting them are again disappointed? 

Obama, a one term utter failure, if elected President. Sarah Palin plays the part of Ronald Reagan, while Obama continues to channel the brain dead Jimmy Carter. History repeats itself, and this time we'll get it right. If Obama wins, it just sets up twenty years of conservative rule. Got to love it Libs, you can't stop making the same old mistakes. 

Senator Obama: Socialist

Senator Obama responded to the claims that he's a socialist.

Yeah, it's an opportunity. Did anyone else notice that Senator Obama seemed surprised that they would call him a socialist?

Senator, perhaps I can help you here. Socialism is one of those things we can define. From the Wikipedia site.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

This Senator, is how we can call you a socialist. When you're going to give a tax rebate, to people who don't pay taxes, that's socialism. When you're going to tax the rich at a huge rate, to "spread the wealth around" that's Socialist economic policy. 

When Government is going to control things, that's socialism. When Government is going to create huge new departments to oversee things like, national health care, that's socialism.

When the Government is going to limit dissent via the fairness doctrine, that's socialism. 

When you vote to ban firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens, that's socialist. 

Yes Senator, you're policies are Socialist, and it wasn't the media who properly labeled them that way. It was a plumber from Ohio, and the VP candidate from Alaska. 

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society where labor is the main source of wealth. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.