Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been over ruled again by the same body she wishes to become a part of.

The SC was critical of her lower court ruling in the “reverse discrimination” case brought by 19 white and one hispanic fireman.

Race has been a factor in discussion’s involving Sotomayor, as has been her comment that a “wise, Latina woman” would make a better judge than a white man.

Let’s hope this woman doesn’t even make it to the July 13 hearings.  She should excuse herself now.  If for nothing else, embarrassment.

Could you imagine this woman on the bench?  “Hello fellow justices.  Thanks for turning over so many of my decisions.”

I’m glad the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination is discrimination, no matter who it’s against.

If meth was legal then I would not have to sleep and the police would not have to waste their time writing tickets for me sleeping.  I say legalize meth and all other hard durgs, just like the pot stores.  I am so tired of getting tickets for sleeping.

And while the two in blue were writing the ticket one was telling me how his partner was also a vet from the war in Iraq and that he watched the majority of his military company die before his eyes.  I am 51 year old and  these guys are about 25 or less and while the one was telling me this great story his hero buddy could do nothing but look at the ground with a smile on his face.  Of course he was telling a fat one, it was very obvious.

Men and Women of the military forces, I just want you to know that the Los Angles Pacific Division think it's all so funny that you are over there in harms way and dieing. 

House Democrats defeated a measure that would have created a bipartisan panel to look into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA misled her with regard to waterboarding.

While I'm not surprised the dems shot the bill down, I am dismayed.  What causes me concern is if the CIA lied, then what else have they lied to our leaders about.  What other untruths have been told to exact a particular response from former leaders?

In a speech today, Dick Cheney said, "In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists."  He also said the Speaker and other lawmakers were briefed on "numerous occasions" on the techniques.

The House Democrats didn't themselves any favors by voting this bill down.  Let's get to the truth.

President Obama has once again attacked the Bush administration.  This time over Gitmo.

I'm not going to weigh in now on the closing of Gitmo, but isn't it time the Obama administration moves on?  He continually talks about the future, yet he can't get in front of the past.

Instead of worrying about the prior administration, it's starting to look like Obama needs to look at his own.  They're getting restless in that house.

The Last Will And Testament of: 

Barack H. Obama

To my beloved wife, Michelle, and my two greatest loves Malia and Sasha

Babies, your mother, is the strongest woman I've ever known and one of the reasons I fell deeply in love with her. Lean on her often and you will find the support necessary, and you will also give her support in this time of transition. 

As I write this, I don't know the cause of my death, just that it happened before any of us expected. This is not my first will, just my last. I've written several since becoming a father, each one different than the previous. My will has never changed, just my ability to explain life and the world as it is. As a parent it is a great joy raising children, a learning experience for both parent and child. One of the most difficult and fulfilling.

Malia, I was there when you were born, the doctors cleaned you off and handed you to your Mother, you were so beautiful I wept uncontrollably, my emotions were so strong and, conflicting. Unbelievable love and a fear I've never known. You were no longer in the safety of your mother's womb. I used to rub lotion on mom's belly and and tell you about how much we both loved you. It was easy to talk to you then, I didn't have to hold back anything, don't take this wrong but it was like talking to your dog, great listeners, unborn babies and dogs. Knowing you were smart, I told you everything. When I first held you, I told you, how much you were loved and then  for reasons I don't understand I gave you Einstein's E=mc2.  

Sasha, I am so glad you came along when you did, God's timing is perfect. Your mother and I were working so hard and long to make the world a better place for your sister and you, It was easy to get discouraged, the changes were so small and took so long. When you were born we both realized we were aiming to low. You were a spark to re-ignite the fire, so bright your mother and I knew  could get the family where we are today. 

Teaching you both was a never ending love. It was also the hardest thing to do. Parents want so much to be good teachers, it is almost like being God with his fingers in the clay. Molding a child is a great responsibility. You start at the base and work up to the head. With out a good foundation the head will fall, such is teaching. We want to tell you everything to protect you. Always remember KIP (Knowledge is Power). 

I also feel the need to apologize to both of you, for leaving the world such a mess. Me and your mother did what we needed to. I know you don't blame me. Don't you two ever worry about the massive death tolls from riots, food shortages, power and water rationing, increasing pollution, global warming, lack of response to emergencies, wars, or any other thing you hear on the news, being the daughters of a president, not to mention the first African-America president means, the two of you will always be safe and not want for anything material. You'll hear all sorts of stories and opinions about what your dad said or didn't  say, did or didn't do, who he was or wasn't. Listen to your mother. 

For Michelle only

To my inspiration, I read and forgot this long before we met. Within moments of meeting you, it all came flooding back and I began trembling on the inside so hard I was sure you were going to notice. I would not be the man I am today without you. I went into a state of desperation, always scared I'd hear you say "I do" at some wedding where I wasn't the groom. When you said "yes" to me I came closer to fainting than you realize.  You've been everything to me and I hope I didn't let you down.  

The Wife

by Washington Irving

(1783-1859)

The treasures of the deep are not so precious As are the concealed comforts of a man Lock'd up in woman's love. I scent the air Of blessings, when I came but near the house, What a delicious breath marriage sends forth-- The violet bed's no sweeter!

MIDDLETON.

I HAVE often had occasion to remark the fortitude with which women sustain the most overwhelming reverses of fortune. Those disasters which break down the spirit of a man, and prostrate him in the dust, seem to call forth all the energies of the softer sex, and give such intrepidity and elevation to their character, that at times it approaches to sublimity. Nothing can be more touching, than to behold a soft and tender female, who had been all weakness and dependence, and alive to every trivial roughness, while threading the prosperous paths of life, suddenly rising in mental force to be the comforter and support of her husband under misfortune, and abiding with unshrinking firmness the bitterest blasts of adversity.

As the vine, which has long twined its graceful foliage about the oak, and been and been lifted by it into sunshine, will, when the hardy plant is rifted by the thunderbolt, cling round it with its caressing tendrils, and bind up its shattered boughs, so is it beautifully ordered by Providence, that woman, who is the mere dependent and ornament of man in his happier hours, should be his stay and solace when smitten with sudden calamity; winding herself into the rugged recesses of his nature, tenderly supporting the drooping head, and binding up the broken heart.

I was once congratulating a friend, who had around him a blooming family, knit together in the strongest affection. "I can wish you no better lot," said he, with enthusiasm, "than to have a wife and children. If you are prosperous, there they are to share your prosperity; if otherwise, there they are to comfort you." And, indeed, I have observed that a married man falling into misfortune, is more apt to retrieve his situation in the world than a single one; partly, because he is more stimulated to exertion by the necessities of the helpless and beloved beings who depend upon him for subsistence, but chiefly because his spirits are soothed and relieved by domestic endearments, and his self-respect kept alive by finding, that, though all abroad is darkness and humiliation, yet there is still a little world of love at home, of which he is the monarch. Whereas, a single man is apt to run to waste and self-neglect; to fancy himself lonely and abandoned, and his heart to fall to ruin, like some deserted mansion, for want of an inhabitant.

These observations call to mind a little domestic story, of which I was once a witness. My intimate friend, Leslie, had married a beautiful and accomplished girl, who had been brought up in the midst of fashionable life. She had, it is true, no fortune, but that of my friend was ample; and he delighted in the anticipation of indulging her in every elegant pursuit, and administering to those delicate tastes and fancies that spread a kind of witchery about the sex.--"Her life," said he, "shall be like a fairy tale."

The very difference in their characters produced a harmonious combination; he was of a romantic, and somewhat serious cast; she was all life and gladness. I have often noticed the mute rapture with which he would gaze upon her in company, of which her sprightly powers made her the delight: and how, in the midst of applause, her eye would still turn to him, as if there alone she sought favor and acceptance. When leaning on his arm, her slender form contrasted finely with his tall, manly person. The fond, confiding air with which she looked up to him seemed to call forth a flush of triumphant pride and cherishing tenderness, as if he doated on his lovely burden from its very helplessness. Never did a couple set forward on the flowery path of early and well-suited marriage with a fairer prospect of felicity.

It was the misfortune of my friend, however, to have embarked his property in large speculations; and he had not been married many months, when, by a succession of sudden disasters, it was swept from him, and he found himself reduced to almost penury. For a time he kept his situation to himself, and went about with a haggard countenance, and a breaking heart. His life was but a protracted agony; and what rendered it more insupportable was the necessity of keeping up a smile in the presence of his wife; for he could not bring himself to overwhelm her with the news. She saw, however, with the quick eyes of affection, that all was not well with him. She marked his altered looks and stifled sighs, and was not to be deceived by his sickly and vapid attempts at cheerfulness. She tasked all her sprightly powers and tender blandishments to win him back to happiness; but she only drove the arrow deeper into his soul. The more he saw cause to love her, the more torturing was the thought that he was soon to make her wretched. A little while, thought he, and the smile will vanish from that cheek--the song will die away from those lips--the lustre of those eyes will be quenched with sorrow and the happy heart which now beats lightly in that bosom, will be weighed down, like mine, by the cares and miseries of the world.

At length he came to me one day, and related his whole situation in a tone of the deepest despair. When I had heard him through, I inquired: "Does your wife know all this?"--At the question he burst into an agony of tears. "For God's sake!" cried he, "if you have any pity on me don't mention my wife; it is the thought of her that drives me almost to madness!"

"And why not?" said I. "She must know it sooner or later: you cannot keep it long from her, and the intelligence may break upon her in a more startling manner than if imparted by yourself; for the accents of those we love soften the harshest tidings. Besides, you are depriving yourself of the comforts of her sympathy; and not merely that, but also endangering the only bond that can keep hearts together--an unreserved community of thought and feeling. She will soon perceive that something is secretly preying upon your mind; and true love will not brook reserve; it feels undervalued and outraged, when even the sorrows of those it loves are concealed from it."

"Oh, but my friend! to think what a blow I am to give to all her future prospects,--how I am to strike her very soul to the earth, by telling her that her husband is a beggar! that she is to forego all the elegancies of life--all the pleasures of society--to shrink with me into indigence and obscurity! To tell her that I have dragged her down from the sphere in which she might have continued to move in constant brightness--the light of every eye--the admiration of every heart!--How can she bear poverty? She has been brought up in all the refinements of opulence. How can she bear neglect? She has been the idol of society. Oh, it will break her heart--it will break her heart!"

I saw his grief was eloquent, and I let it have its flow; for sorrow relieves itself by words. When his paroxysm had subsided, and he had relapsed into moody silence, I resumed the subject gently, and urged him to break his situation at once to his wife. He shook his head mournfully, but positively.

"But how are you to keep it from her? It is necessary she should know it, that you may take the steps proper to the alteration of your circumstances. You must change your style of living--nay," observing a pang to pass across his countenance, "don't let that afflict you. I am sure you have never placed your happiness in outward show--you have yet friends, warm friends, who will not think the worse of you for being less splendidly lodged: and surely it does not require a palace to be happy with Mary--"

"I could be happy with her," cried he, convulsively, "in a hovel!--I could go down with her into poverty and the dust!--I could--I could--God bless her!--God bless her!" cried he, bursting into a transport of grief and tenderness.

"And believe me, my friend," said I, stepping up, and grasping him warmly by the hand, "believe me, she can be the same with you. Ay, more; it will be a source of pride and triumph to her--it will call forth all the latent energies and fervent sympathies of her nature; for she will rejoice to prove that she loves you for yourself. There is in every true woman's heart a spark of heavenly fire, which lies dormant in the broad daylight of prosperity; but which kindles up, and beams, and blazes in the dark hour of adversity. No man knows what the wife of his bosom is--no man knows what a ministering angel she is--until he has gone with her through the fiery trials of this world."

There was something in the earnestness of my manner, and the figurative style of my language, that caught the excited imagination of Leslie. I knew the auditor I had to deal with; and following up the impression I had made, I finished by persuading him to go home and unburden his sad heart to his wife.

I must confess, notwithstanding all I had said, I felt some little solicitude for the result. Who can calculate on the fortitude of one whose life has been a round of pleasures? Her gay spirits might revolt at the dark, downward path of low humility suddenly pointed out before her, and might cling to the sunny regions in which they had hitherto revelled. Besides, ruin in fashionable life is accompanied by so many galling mortifications, to which, in other ranks, it is a stranger. In short, I could not meet Leslie, the next morning, without trepidation. He had made the disclosure.

"And how did she bear it?"

"Like an angel! It seemed rather to be a relief to her mind, for she threw her arms around my neck, and asked if this was all that had lately made me unhappy.--But, poor girl," added he, "she cannot realize the change we must undergo. She has no idea of poverty but in the abstract; she has only read of it in poetry, where it is allied to love. She feels as yet no privation; she suffers no loss of accustomed conveniences nor elegancies. When we come practically to experience its sordid cares, its paltry wants, its petty humiliations--then will be the real trial."

"But," said I, "now that you have got over the severest task, that of breaking it to her, the sooner you let the world into the secret the better. The disclosure may be mortifying; but then it is a single misery, and soon over: whereas you otherwise suffer it, in anticipation, every hour in the day. It is not poverty, so much as pretence, that harasses a ruined man--the struggle between a proud mind and an empty purse-the keeping up a hollow show that must soon come to an end. Have the courage to appear poor, and you disarm poverty of its sharpest sting." On this point I found Leslie perfectly prepared. He had no false pride himself, and as to his wife, she was only anxious to conform to their altered fortunes.

Some days afterwards, he called upon me in the evening. He had disposed of his dwelling-house, and taken a small cottage in the country, a few miles from town. He had been busied all day in sending out furniture. The new establishment required few articles, and those of the simplest kind. All the splendid furniture of his late residence had been sold, excepting his wife's harp. That, he said, was too closely associated with the idea of herself it belonged to the little story of their loves; for some of the sweetest moments of their courtship were those when he had leaned over that instrument, and listened to the melting tones of her voice.--I could not but smile at this instance of romantic gallantry in a doating husband.

He was now going out to the cottage, where his wife had been all day superintending its arrangement. My feelings had become strongly interested in the progress of his family story, and, as it was a fine evening, I offered to accompany him.

He was wearied with the fatigues of the day, and, as we walked out, fell into a fit of gloomy musing.

"Poor Mary!" at length broke, with a heavy sigh, from his lips.

"And what of her," asked I, "has anything happened to her?"

"What," said he, darting an impatient glance, is it nothing to be reduced to this paltry situation--to be caged in a miserable cottage--to be obliged to toil almost in the menial concerns of her wretched habitation?"

Has she then repined at the change?

"Repined! she has been nothing but sweetness and good-humor. Indeed, she seems in better spirits than I have ever known her; she has been to me all love, and tenderness, and comfort!"

"Admirable girl!" exclaimed I. "You call yourself poor, my friend; you never were so rich,--you never knew the boundless treasures of excellence you possessed in that woman."

"Oh! but, my friend, if this first meeting at the cottage were over, I think I could then be comfortable. But this is her first day of real experience; she has been introduced into a humble dwelling,--she has been employed all day in arranging its miserable equipments,--she has, for the first time, known the fatigues of domestic employment,--she has, for the first time, looked around her on a home destitute of every thing elegant--almost of every thing convenient; and may now be sitting down, exhausted and spiritless, brooding over a prospect of future poverty."

There was a degree of probability in this picture that I could not gainsay, so we walked on in silence.

After turning from the main road up a narrow lane, so thickly shaded with forest-trees as to give it a complete air of seclusion, we came in sight of the cottage. It was humble enough in its appearance for the most pastoral poet; and yet it had a pleasing rural look. A wild vine had overrun one end with a profusion of foliage; a few trees threw their branches gracefully over it; and I observed several pots of flowers tastefully disposed about the door, and on the grass-plot in front. A small wicket-gate opened upon a footpath that wound through some shrubbery to the door. Just as we approached, we heard the sound of music--Leslie grasped my arm; we paused and listened. It was Mary's voice singing, in a style of the most touching simplicity, a little air of which her husband was peculiarly fond.

I felt Leslie's hand tremble on my arm. He stepped forward, to hear more distinctly. His step made a noise on the gravel-walk. A bright beautiful face glanced out at the window, and vanished--a light footstep-was heard--and Mary came tripping forth to meet us. She was in a pretty rural dress of white; a few wild flowers were twisted in her fine hair; a fresh bloom was on her cheek; her whole countenance beamed with smiles--I had never seen her look so lovely.

"My dear George," cried she, "I am so glad you are come; I have been watching and watching for you; and running down the lane, and looking out for you. I've set out a table under a beautiful tree behind the cottage; and I've been gathering some of the most delicious strawberries, for I know you are fond of them--and we have such excellent cream--and everything is so sweet and still here-Oh!"--said she, putting her arm within his, and looking up brightly in his face, "Oh, we shall be so happy!"

Poor Leslie was overcome.--He caught her to his bosom--he folded his arms round her--he kissed her again and again--he could not speak, but the tears gushed into his eyes; and he has often assured me, that though the world has since gone prosperously with him, and his life has, indeed, been a happy one, yet never has he experienced a moment of more exquisite felicity.

I know there isn't a better woman or mother that I would want to raise our daughters. As to their continued education, I will leave it to you to explain to them, when necessary, that the two of us did not ever want to lie to or mislead them. And that in these times that we had to sell out our beliefs and morals, everything we every taught them about being a decent person honesty, generosity, respect for others, having a rich spiritual live, loyalty,standing up for what's right even when it's in the face of criticism. I'll leave it to you to know when their ready to hear that all the conspiracy theories are true. I don't know how far you should go back. Maybe just the last century will be enough. The establishment of the Federal Reserve might be a place to start. You might want to take the approach of working backwards and explain that 9-11 was an inside job and it was all done to bring about the current state of the world and that it is all a great master plan by the PTB to set up the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, and in the process of doing so it was necessary to reduce the population of the world down to a manageable level of 500 million. Tell them they are part of the elite million who will rule over the remaining peasants. Tell them to be careful not to be to kind to them as it will foster a false hope in them and it could be the beginning of an uprising, We will still need them to do our mundane tasks. Please explain to them why we are not in Heaven as we sold our souls to the corporate state and are in hell with the rest of them. WE DID IT FOR THEM, OUR CHILDREN. 

THIS IS OF COURSE A FABRICATION FROM THE MIND OF LINECROSSER, AND I BELIEVE IT IS A APOLOGY TO MY OWN CHILDREN.

Wayne C. Spalding 

Who knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now President-elect Obama has tapped Panetta to be a tough-guy spy, the head of the CIA.

The choice is perplexing. Panetta is very smart, but has absolutely no intelligence experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."

Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed, and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.

Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Obama declined to vote on the issue.

But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man he's taking a huge gamble. If terrorists again attacked the United States, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach would also come under attack. Simply put: A successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.

So why is Obama putting himself in this position? The media have convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers, people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now the committed-left media are demanding that Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen, to appease the left-wing zealots.

It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.

As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges have to see the data after the fact, and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.

It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."

Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.

The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

Palin says no to Oprah

UPI) - Oprah Winfrey says she would have liked to have interviewed Sarah Palin after the election, but the former U.S. vice presidential candidate wasn't interested.

"I said I would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin when the election was over … I went and tried to talk to Sarah Palin and instead she talked to Greta (Van Susteren). She talked to Matt (Lauer). She talked to Larry (King). But she didn't talk to me," Winfrey told TV's "Extra" entertainment news program.

CNN said Winfrey made the remarks in response to reports she declined to invite Palin, Alaska's governor who is a Republican, on her talk show.

Winfrey, who is a vocal supporter of Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, announced this week she plans to take "The Oprah Winfrey Show" to Washington for the week of Obama's inauguration.

Sarah Palin wins HUMAN EVENTS’ prestigious “Conservative of the Year” Award for 2008 for her genius at annoying all the right people. The last woman to get liberals this hot under the collar would have been … let's see now … oh, yeah: Me!

The entire presidential election year was kind of a downer for conservatives. Once the “maverick” John McCain won the nomination, the rest of the year was like watching a slow motion car crash. Except at least a slow-motion car crash is occasionally entertaining. So it was going to be a long year.

Until Palin.

When McCain chose our beauteous Sarah as his running mate, the maverick was finally acting like a real maverick -- as opposed to the media’s definition of a “maverick” which is: “agreeing with the editorial positions of the New York Times.”

Pre-Palin it had been one race -- boring old “You kids get off my lawn!” John McCain versus the exciting, new politician Barack Obama, who threw caution to the wind and bravely ran as the Pro-Hope candidate. And then our heroic Sarah bounded out of the Alaska tundra and it became a completely different race. This left the press completely discombobulated and upset. They didn't know whether to attack Sarah for not having an abortion or go after her husband for not being a sissy.

I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one -- no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair.

But if anyone on the McCain campaign chose Palin because she would drive liberals crazy, my hat is off to him!

True, Palin made some embarrassing gaffes.

She complained that we didn’t have enough “Arabic translators” in Afghanistan -- not realizing the natives don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, but rather a variety of regional dialects, the most common of which is Pashtun.

Speaking to military veterans one time, Palin said, “Our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

She bragged about passing a law regulating the nuclear industry that it turned out never became a law at all.

Some days Palin said Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez should suffer "regional isolation" -- but then on others she’d say she supported the president’s meeting with Chavez.

She told one audience about recent tornados in Kansas that had killed 10,000 people. In fact, a dozen people were killed in the tornados.

She referred to the “57 states” that make up the U.S.

Speaking of her eldest daughter’s pregnancy, she said Bristol was being “punished” with a baby.

As you probably know -- or guessed by now -- none of these gaffes were uttered by Palin. They are all Obama gaffes. Luckily, he made them to a star-struck press that managed not to ask him a difficult question for two years.

It seemed like the media would introduce an all-new double standard each day throughout the two glorious months of Palin’s candidacy.

I don’t remember, for example, zealous inquiries into the supposedly peculiar religious practices of any candidates in past elections. No one in the press touched on Sen. Joe Lieberman’s religious beliefs when he was Gore’s running mate. (Nor, while we’re on the subject, was the media particularly interested in the beliefs of the religion that inspired the 9/11 attacks on America.)

But the press snapped right back into their anti-religious hysteria for a candidate who was a Pentecostal! The same media that couldn’t be bothered to investigate Obama’s ties to former Weathermen or Syrian Nationalist Tony Rezko was soon hot on the trail of a rumor that Palin’s church had a speaker 30 years ago who spoke in tongues!

Let me think now: Were there ever any unusual or otherwise noteworthy speeches or sermons given in churches where Obama worshipped? Hmmm … it's on the tip of my tongue.

Liberals also suddenly decided that a woman with children could not handle the stress of higher office. Until Palin reared her beautiful head, this is precisely the sort of thinking liberals would have denounced as the Neanderthal, backwards, good old boy network attitude that had created a “glass ceiling.”

Let’s consider the facts: Palin’s oldest son was about to be under the tender care of Gen. David Petraeus after being shipped off to Iraq. Her next oldest child was about to be married and probably would prefer that her parents butt out. That left three children under the age of 15, which was almost the same as Obama had.

So Palin had one more child -- and a lot more executive experience -- than the guy at the top of the Democrats’ ticket. (I suspect what liberals were really mad about was that if Palin became Vice President, she probably would have hired a nanny who was a U.S. citizen.)

Having indignantly rejected experience as a presidential qualification in the case of Obama, liberals had to raise questions about Palin’s experience gingerly. But, in short order, they threw caution to the wind and began energetically criticizing Palin for her lack of experience. I call that two … two … two standards in one!

Like most Democrats, both Obama and Biden boasted of their humble beginnings, while having fully adopted the attitudes, pomposity and style of the elites.

Meanwhile, Palin is the sort of genuine American that brings out the worst, most egregious pomposity of liberals. For weeks, Carl Bernstein was showing up on TV to announce: “We still don’t have the date of first issuance of her passport.” Members of the establishment would be astonished to learn that more Americans have guns than passports.

Liberals were angry at Palin because they thought she should look and act like Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Upper crust, prissy and stiff.

Palin had a husband in the Steelworkers Union, a sister and brother-in-law who owned a gas station, and five attractive children -- one headed for Iraq, one a Down’s syndrome baby and one the cutest little girl anyone had ever seen.

In a nutshell, Palin was everything Democrats are always pretending to be, but never are.

She didn’t have to conjure up implausible images of herself duck hunting as Hillary Clinton did. Nor was Palin the typical Democratic elected female official who went straight from college into politics, like Nita Lowey.

Despite their phony championing of “women’s issues” (i.e. abortion) there was not one Democrat woman who could win a head-to-head contest with Palin. Especially not if we got to see their faces. Democrats may have a fleet of women politicians, but they don’t have a deep bench of attractive ones. You don’t even think of most Democratic woman as women: Rosa Delauro, Nita Lowey, Patty Murray, Janet Napolitano -- and the list goes on. Oh, sure, there are the odd female Democrat sex kittens -- your Janet Renos, your Donna Shalalas -- but they're the exception to the rule.

After Palin gave her barnburner of a speech at the Republican National Convention, a friend of mine in a liberal industry told me his friends were aggressively confronting him demanding to know if Palin was raised by a secret cult of Christians that taught children nothing but Creationism and public speaking.

Oh, how I wish he had said “yes.” Imagine the aneurisms! I think what liberals were trying to say was: Gosh, she’s an exceptionally attractive mother of five!

The Obama campaign was so alarmed by Palin’s speech, it loudly dismissed the speech saying she didn’t write it. At least that’s what a press release written by an Obama campaign staffer said.

Indeed, the first words out of every Palin critic's mouth were: "Good speech, but she didn't write it." So I guess all liberals were reading the same talking points written for them by the Obama campaign. At least Palin pays her speechwriters. Neil Kinnock is still waiting for his check.

Speaking of Joe Biden, he said that Palin’s speech had a lot of style but little substance. Inasmuch as Biden was Obama's running mate, I think that meant he liked it!

A newspaper in Boston responded to Palin’s speech by interviewing hairdressers who criticized Sarah's hairstyle. (Where were these people after Joe Biden's speech?)

Trendy dinner party opinion soon demanded that all liberals take up the cry that Palin must let the press have a whack at her. Almost immediately after she was introduced to the nation, the cry went up: “When are we going to be allowed to ask Palin questions?”

Palin’s refusal to meet with the press for one week after being chosen as McCain’s running mate was evidently more maddening than Obama's refusal to appear on Fox News for almost the entirety of his campaign.

Everyone acted as if Obama’s feat of running for President for two years constituted a complete and thorough vetting.

It might have been, except that the entire media had apparently agreed: “OK, none of us will ask Obama about Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.”

Hillary was hissed by the audience for mentioning Rezko at a Democratic debate and George Stephanopoulos nearly lost his career for asking Obama one William Ayers question at another.

Osama bin Laden was more upset about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than liberals were -- especially after "Jeremiah Wright videos" passed "al Qaeda videos" for most total viewings on Youtube. (He was kicking himself for not coming up with that “God Damn America” line first!)

Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.

Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country.

But unless Palin is going to be the perpetual running mate of “moderate” Republicans who need conservative bona fides, she will need to become wiser and better read. Even Reagan didn’t run for President in his 40s. (True Obama is in his 40s, but we are not Democrats.)

Perhaps Palin’s year is 2012, but I would recommend that she take a little more time to become older and wiser. She ought to spend the next decade being a good governor, tending to her children so none of them turn out like Ron Reagan Jr., and reading everything Phyllis Schlafly, Thomas Sowell, Ronald Reagan and “Publius” have ever written. (She also might keep in mind that HUMAN EVENTS was Ronald Reagan’s favorite newspaper!)

In time, HUMAN EVENTS’ 2008 Conservative of the Year will be ready to be our President and someday can sweep into office and dismantle all the heinous government programs Obama and the Democrats are about to foist on the nation. Who knows? She might even be able to run as the candidate of "hope" and "change."

Postponing reality

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Some of us were raised to believe that reality is inescapable. But that just shows how far behind the times we are. Today, reality is optional. At the very least, it can be postponed.

Kids in school are not learning? Not a problem. Just promote them on to the next grade anyway. Call it "compassion," so as not to hurt their "self-esteem."

Can't meet college admissions standards after they graduate from high school? Denounce those standards as just arbitrary barriers to favor the privileged, and demand that exceptions be made.

Can't do math or science after they are in college? Denounce those courses for their rigidity and insensitivity, and create softer courses that the students can pass to get their degrees.

Once they are out in the real world, people with diplomas and degrees— but with no real education— can hit a wall. But by then the day of reckoning has been postponed for 15 or more years. Of course, the reckoning itself can last the rest of their lives.

The current bailout extravaganza is applying the postponement of reality democratically— to the rich as well as the poor, to the irresponsible as well as to the responsible, to the inefficient as well as to the efficient. It is a triumph of the non-judgmental philosophy that we have heard so much about in high-toned circles.

We are told that the collapse of the Big Three automakers in Detroit would have repercussions across the country, causing mass layoffs among firms that supply the automobile makers with parts, and shutting down automobile dealerships from coast to coast.

A renowned economist of the past, J.A. Schumpeter, used to refer to progress under capitalism as "creative destruction"— the replacement of businesses that have outlived their usefulness with businesses that carry technological and organizational creativity forward, raising standards of living in the process.

Indeed, this is very much like what happened a hundred years ago, when that new technological wonder, the automobile, wreaked havoc on all the forms of transportation built up around horses.

For thousands of years, horses had been the way to go, whether in buggies or royal coaches, whether pulling trolleys in the cities or plows on the farms. People had bet their futures on something with a track record of reliable success going back many centuries.

Were all these people to be left high and dry? What about all the other people who supplied the things used with horses— oats, saddles, horse shoes and buggies? Wouldn't they all go falling like dominoes when horses were replaced by cars?

Unfortunately for all the good people who had in good faith gone into all the various lines of work revolving around horses, there was no compassionate government to step in with a bailout or a stimulus package.

They had to face reality, right then and right there, without even a postponement.

Who would have thought that those who displaced them would find themselves in a similar situation a hundred years later?

Actually the automobile industry is not nearly in as bad a situation now as the horse-based industries were then. There is no replacement for the automobile anywhere on the horizon. Nor has the public decided to do without cars indefinitely.

While Detroit's Big Three are laying off thousands of workers, Toyota is hiring thousands of workers right here in America, where a substantial share of all our Toyotas are manufactured.

Will this save Detroit or Michigan? No.

Detroit and Michigan have followed classic liberal policies of treating businesses as prey, rather than as assets. They have helped kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So have the unions. So have managements that have gone along to get along.

Toyota, Honda and other foreign automakers are not heading for Detroit, even though there are lots of experienced automobile workers there. They are avoiding the rust belts and the policies that have made those places rust belts.

A bailout of Detroit's Big Three would be only the latest in the postponements of reality. As for automobile dealers, they can probably sell Toyotas just as easily as they sold Chevvies. And Toyotas will require just as many tires per car, as well as other parts from automobile parts suppliers.

The most unnerving aspects about the Democrats' sweeping Nov. 4 victory are their intolerance for dissent and their willingness to censor and otherwise suppress their opponents. Consider:

We keep hearing that Sarah Palin's criticism of Obama for "palling around with terrorists" increased death threats against him, which is bogus in the extreme, but consistent with the inveterate liberal tactic of chilling conservative speech by saying it incites violence.

Ohio state employee Vanessa Niekamp said she was ordered to run a child-support check on Joe the plumber, the man who asked Barack Obama an innocuous question about redistributing taxpayer income. Niekamp doesn't remember ever having checked into anyone else without having a legitimate reason to do so, such as discovering that someone recently came into money.

Democratic prosecutors in St. Louis threatened criminal prosecution against candidate Obama's critics. In Pennsylvania, lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to TV and radio stations that aired unflattering ads documenting Obama's anti-gun record.

The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice about the American Issues Project's ad tying Obama to William Ayers. Obama supporters flooded Chicago radio station WGN with harassing calls during its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama.

On election night, Philadelphia police arrested a man who dared to wear a McCain-Palin '08 T-shirt at an Obama celebration rally. What's scarier is that the Obama crowd reportedly chanted with joy as cops arrested the man for exercising his freedom of political expression. According to the liberal worldview, arresting someone for disagreeing with you is not censorship, but implying someone is not patriotic is.

Obama has made no secret of his plan to pass "card-check" legislation, which some have described as the most radical revision of labor law since 1935. It would permit unions to eliminate secret ballots — against the wishes of 78 percent of union members — which would represent a radical blow to democratic principles.

Democrats fully intend to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, a euphemistically named regulation aimed at shutting down conservative talk radio, which Sen. Chuck Schumer has compared to pornography.

Remember that conservatives have never advocated government action to suppress or censor the liberal media monopoly, which has existed for decades and still dominates mainstream media today. Their answer was the alternative media. But what is even more frightening than the sinister schemes of liberal politicians to silence and criminalize political opposition is the apparent eagerness of rank-and-file liberals to go along with them, as witnessed by the many examples I've cited and numerous gleeful e-mails I get taunting me about the imminent re-invocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

I believe this arrogant attitude can largely be traced to the top-down indoctrination in our schools, cultural institutions, and media that liberalism is morally superior because it is tolerant, diverse, intellectual, and enlightened.

This view holds that conservative expression doesn't deserve constitutional protection because it is inherently evil. As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, "We cannot tolerate the intolerable."

This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas.

It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots.

It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise "fair elections" and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country.

It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates.

It's how they can ludicrously depict President Bush as a dictator while romanticizing brute thug tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

It's how they can falsely accuse President Bush of targeting innocent civilians in Iraq when he does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but demand our withdrawal from South Vietnam, which resulted in the massacre of millions of innocents.

It's how they can advocate the banning of DDT in the name of environmental progress but be unconcerned about the untold malaria deaths that resulted.

It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn.

It's how they can prevent the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools in the name of science but defend the many documented myths of biological evolution in public-school textbooks, also in the name of science.

If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening.

Sarah Palin: Dumb like a fox

Posted: November 13, 2008

She didn't have time to do "Meet the Press" or "This Week" or any of the other big name political shows that are considered a "must" by political insiders. So, where was Sarah Palin?

Now we know the answer to that nagging question. She wasn't breast-feeding Trig, helping the older kids with their homework, learning the latest stump speech or brushing up on issues great and small for the vice-presidential debate. She was shopping till she dropped at Sacks and Neiman Marcus with the GOP's charge cards.

She was visiting spas, getting spray tans, having her nails done and her hair coiffed.

When she wasn't having temper tantrums, she was playing the vixen, parading around in a towel to embarrass McCain staffers.

That's what unnamed sources told reporters from Newsweek, the New York Times and Fox News. They all drank this Kool-Aid and then regurgitated it for the rest of us to swallow.

Pardon me while I recover from a belly laugh!

How can anyone believe that trash?

Palin, the mother of five and the governor of our largest state, gets an unexpected phone call asking her to put her life and the life of her family on hold to become a candidate for vice president of the United States . For the last two months, she was hounded by the media. The long knives were out for her at every campaign stop. Most of her time was spent preparing her stump speeches and for the debate of her life; and some disgruntled, unnamed staffers want us to believe that Sarah Palin spent her time worrying about such drivel.

Her face was plastered on billboards. The press had her staked out. She couldn't go anywhere without the Secret Service and an entourage, so when did she conduct these clandestine shopping sprees?

If you believe that, then you are dumb enough to believe that the woman who took on corruption in her state and ousted a sitting governor from her own party didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country, or the parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

No less than Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy aide, and Steve Biegun, a former member of Bush's National Security Council, have come forward to say it isn't so. These men spent hours briefing her, but Newsweek and the New York Times have been too busy fawning over Obama to question them?

Alaska shares a border with Canada. NAFTA is important to Alaska, and Palin was actively involved with Canada on trade issues. As for the charge about Africa, her campaign spokeswoman, Meg Stapleton, told CNN's Campbell Brown that, once during a briefing session, she was responding to an issue and she misspoke and "in the middle (of her statement) she said 'country of Africa' and somebody instantly wrote it down."

Scheunemann told the Anchorage Daily News that Palin's debate performance speaks for itself.

"The idea that she could stand up on the stage with somebody who's been in the Senate for 35 years and discuss domestic and foreign policy as effectively as she did, and yet somehow she doesn't know who is in NAFTA and doesn't know that Africa is a continent and not a country is laughable."

Anonymous attacks by disgruntled political staffers who feel slighted, or are trying to curry favor with the media, or trying to build up their current (or future) bosses are nothing new.

When staffers of George H.W. Bush began trashing Ronald Reagan soon after the Gipper left the White House, they were quickly taken to task by Chief of Staff John Sununu, and the new president immediately called Reagan to apologize.

Reagan was constantly maligned by the media. They called him a "cowboy" and a "B- movie actor," not ready for prime time. To be sure, getting up to speed on foreign policy is a daunting task for any governor, but let us not forget that Reagan proved to be a master in this arena and, in his plainspoken way, stood up to countries great and small.

While the pundits most adored by the Washington media have written Palin's political obituary, she is adored by the rank and file. Ninety-one percent of Republicans have a favorable view of her, and 64 percent say she is their choice for the party's nominee in 2012. That's four years away, but already "Palin 2012" bumper stickers are showing up on cars, and there is an army of conservatives who are anxious to enlist in her campaign.

I'm quite confused over the actions of people dancing in the streets and boasting, among other things, about having an "African American" in the white house.     

First, last I checked, it wasn't just African American's who voted for Obama.   Second, I'm pretty sure Obama's heritage is Caucasian and Kenyan.  He's just as much black as he is white.      

I find it odd that neither the local news nor the newspapers have reported on the racial tension in our schools and communities.  We need leaders to come forward and remind everyone that we are all American!  It is the diversified race that makes America what it is.      

He will be "our" President for the next four years and not the president to a specific race of Americans.  Nor, will he be the President just to the middle class, the wealthy or the poor.      

I simply cannot understand why people are more excited about electing an "African American" than they are about electing a president who will best serve the United States of America.  It will be interesting how American's view Obama's policies as he discusses them.  It is my hopes that American's will be just as excited.     

In fact, I confess, I do not know or understand all of his policies myself.  I encourage people to enlighten me. 

Do not be persuaded by those that only concern themselves with hatred because

we have had difficult days before and we can do it again “YES WE CAN.”

New York Post

Cartoon by Rich McKee

Augusta Chronicle

As we come down to the final days of the 2008 election cycle, perhaps we should make a close examation of why we choose to vote the way we do.    Our country has managed to divide itself fairly equally between two different and vastly opposing ideologies.   And as tends to be the case with extreme idealogues...the more committed they are, the more vocal and uncompromising they are.    And this is NOT a good thing.    No ideology whether liberal or conservative fits all situations all of the time.   The result is a blind committment to what may be a good idea in theory but simply doesn't work in a pragmatic way.

The idealogue will follow the party line all the way....regardless of where it leads.   The gay rights idealogue will insist that gay marriage is a right...and nothing less than legal marriage is acceptable.   He will continue to insist on his right, even turning down the compromise of "domestic partnership".    That means that when his partner lies near death in a hospital, that partner can be kept from the hospital bed by the partner's parents.   The pragmatist says, "what's in a name"?   Domestic partnership would give you the rights you deserve without incurring the anger and conflict that the term marriage will bring to the discussion.

The idealogue will insist that "gun ownership" should have NO limitations and that any law curtailing your right to a weapon is unconstitutional and must be fought!   The pragmatist asks, "what happens when a 14 year old boy walks into your daughter's middle school with an automatic weapon and an attitude?"    

The idealogue believes in "my way or the highway" while the pragmatist looks for the compromise solution.

One of the greatest complaints I hear about our government is the assertion that they don't get anything done.   But that's to be expected.    We vote our ideology.   And as a nation we are pretty evenly split down the middle between conservative and liberal.   We have reached a national road block with neither conservatives or liberals being enough of a majority to make any progress on real solutions to real problems.   And that is why I am supporting Sen. Obama for President.

Two years ago I read both of the Senator's books and was especially impressed with THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.   In it he discusses his political philosophy which is very dependent upon the belief that policy only works with a majority concensus.    He wrote of two incidents that stuck in my mind that illustrate how a President Obama would approach policy.     Both anecdotes involved "hot button" issues designed to upset both the right & the left.   But the Senator's take on the Death Penalty and Separation of Church & State was what first led me to think that a President Obama might be a good idea.

While an Illinois State Senator, Obama worked on a bill concerning the death penalty.   On a personal level, Senator Obama is against the death penalty in most cases.    A liberal group had brought up the issue of Chicago cops who would allegedly beat a confession from a suspect and then have him charged with a death penalty crime based on that coerced confession.     The liberal idealogue would insist on trying to ban the death penalty.    Obama instead stated the obvious, most Americans support to one degree or another the death penalty.  He sat down with representatives of the police and with those advocating the end of the death penalty.  He then passed legislation that limited death penalty convictions to cases where the confession is video taped.   If a confession was given without the videotape, then the man would only be sentenced to life imprisonment.   He found a solution based on the limited common ground of the two sides.   Neither was completely happy with it but both sides agreed that it worked better than the status quo.

He also addressed the issue of separation of church & state.     As he put it, you can't let the government endorse a particular religion or religious belief.   But the flip side  is that those who watch that "line in the sand" need to be aware that the world does not stop is someone mentions "God" in public.    There needs to be a balance that reflects the differing opinions of the public.   

One of Obama's favorite sayings is, "I know you want to go to the moon, but we only have enough gas to get this far".    He is pragmatic about what can and  cannot be done.   I would be willing to bet that all of the screams of outrage against his candidacy from the right will be nothing compared to the screams from the left when they realize that he listens to both sides before acting.   

I would prefer to vote for the candidate who is going to realize that America is made up of many differing opinions.   I will vote for the candidate who considers the middle ground when enacting policy.    To be honest, I think McCain has many pragmatic traits about him.  It was one of the things that attracted me to his candidacy in 2000, but he is definitely an idealogue on foreign policy.   More importantly, he is an old man and his number two is an unprepared idealogue.    And that a recipe for disaster!

I have many reasons for supporting Sen. Obama's campaign.   Some of those reasons are because I support specific policies that he has proposed.   Some of the reasons are less distinct.   An example of such is my belief that Sen. Obama would show the best stewardship of the country.   Stewardship is defined as the act of caring for another's property or interests.   It is an often neglected aspect of the job description of President.  But ultimately the concept that the President is responsible for the wise use of the resources of government is one of the most important ideas to the running of good government.

Many people believe that the government should have NO influence over their lives.   They have a "survival of the fittest" mentality which denies any need of government influence in thier lives.   Other people strongly feel that the government should solve every problem for them.   The truth lies somewhere in the middle.    We may not want to be taxed:  but without those taxes there is no revenue to run the country.    Without those revenues bad things happen...bridges fall down, military endeavors fail and economic failings can leave society at a standstill.

So we need government and we need the administration of that government to be wise and responsible.    The degree to which we need that government is and always will be an issue of contention among Americans.   There are many who believe that Sen. Obama will tax and spend us all into poverty.    And that is an issue that has been discussed on many blogs, talk shows and at every bar in the country.  The degree to which government needs to be involved is a matter for argument, the need for responsible use of those resources is not. 

Simply put, I believe that Sen. Obama will be the better steward of America's resources. You may disagree with how much to give him, but he is the one who will best administer what he is given to work with.

 I believe strongly that people fall into two categories as they grow older.   Some see the future as a fragile gift to our children and grandchildren.    Others believe (regardless of what theology they profess) that when they die....the world for all practical purposes STOPS!    I do not profess to know for sure how Sen. McCain sees the future, but I am certain that the father in Sen. Obama looks to the future legacy he leaves his children.   

It's much like the Biblical proverb:  One servant buried his master's money to make sure that it stayed safe and wasn't lost.  He was rebuked for the waste of potential.   The wise servant cared for the money as if it were his own.  He used it responsibly and produced a profit for his master.   He wanted something better for the future...not just to maintain the status quo.

Many have called Obama a socialist or suggested that in "re-distributing the wealth" he would take from the rich to give to the poor.   In many cases, this is a thinly veiled assertion that Sen. Obama will "look after his own" and give your hard earned money to those "other black people."   The labels & name calling are merely a way to form divisions among us.   A way to keep us from examining the real issue:  How do we use our resources to our best advantage?  

The truth is that Sen. Obama feels ALL Americans are hurting now.   And some are doing more than hurting.   They make just enough to pay the rent and keep the lights turned on but there is no "extra" to be cut.   Under an Obama plan, the ones who make a quarter of a million dollars or more per year will pay more money towards our national upkeep.   Why?   Because that extra payment will not result in their utilities being turned off.   I once listened to a woman ahead of me at the bank who was complaining that the economy was so bad that she couldn't afford to go to Europe for vacation and would have to settle on Mexico this year.    I hope you don't mind if I don't get all misty eyed over her loss.

We are a nation at war...on two fronts.   We are a nation that has ignored it's infra-structure to the point that it is falling down around us.   We are a nation facing a severe recession.   We must increase our revenues and we must use those revenues wisely.   Never has our nation staged a war paid for by credit and now we must pay the bill.   The manner in which that bill is payed is of extreme importance to our future.

All sides, whether they support Obama's bid for presidency or not, have commented on the way his campaign has been run.   There have been conservative Republicans who have publicly held the Obama Campaign as a shining example of executive management.    The same cannot be said of the McCain campaign.   When Obama was asked by the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, "why when you have no executive management experience, should we believe you can run America?"  And Obama replied, "Watch how I run my campaign."

So on Nov. 4th, I will look to the future and cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama.   The Senator summed it up best today in a speech:

"We can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo...In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history. That's what's at stake."

"The change we need isn't just about new programs and policies...It's about a new attitude, it's about new politics _ a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts."

Sen. John McCain's presidential bid received a new endorsement today.   Several bloggers on  a web site called al-Hesba have endorsed Sen. McCain as the best choice for an American President to promote their agenda.   Normally, the McCain campaign would be thrilled at a new endorsement....but this web site is a password protected site  sponsored by Al-Qaeda!

They feel that a President McCain  will continue to occupy American military resources in Iraq and that his "impetuous" character will lead him to make decisions that will increase the Anti-American sentiment that feeds Al Qaeda funding and recruitment.

It's very easy to make light of this "endorsement".   Many on the left are having a field day with it.  Look to see it as the "joke of the week" on any number of late night shows.  But it alludes to an extremely serious issue that many would like to ignore.  We still live in dangerous times!   One of the many pro-McCain quotes also suggests that an attack before the election could swing the vote enough to allow McCain to win.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

As a liberal, I am often accused of being blind to the dangers of the world we live in.   That is simply not correct.   Al-Qaida IS still a danger.    But it is important to consider how the next President will react in a moment of crisis.     Conventional wisdom suggests that the ex-military pilot would have a better grasp of what is necessary to combat the enemy.  Unfortunately, all we have seen from Sen. McCain are knee-jerk reactions to events as opposed to a clear, concise response to a situation.   (Look at the economic crisis.)  When you examine the irratic manner in which he has managed his own campaign, it calls into question his judgment in managing a military operation.   We should also keep in mind that our actions in Iraq have been one of the best recruitment tools Al-Qaeda has ever had. 

You see, it is not enough for a President to only understand the military aspects of a conflict.  He must be equally versed in the political ramifications of his actions.   If you blow up a building to kill a terrorist, you will probably also kill civilians.   That action may strengthen  the resolve of the people to support the terrorists you are trying to defeat.  The importance of the target may outweigh the political risk of killing civilians.  That is a matter to be judged each time by the President.   I have no doubt that McCain can blow up the building.   I am no longer sure that he has the wisdom to see the end result of his actions or the political impact they will have on the situation.   (Remember, McCain is one of those who insisted that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people.)

While it has been suggested that an Obama Presidency would be "tested" to see how he would react early in his term, it could also be suggested that the predictability of McCain's temperment is equally dangerous.    The first rule of war is to understand your adversary's strengths & weaknesses in order to exploit them.    McCain's predictability is very easily exploited.

There is danger in the world today.    An "impetuous" president will NOT help us navigate the dangerous waters of the world we find ourselves living in!   A new direction is needed!