It's a sad day for America

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier: 'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.' 'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.' From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to lose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years' 'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning The 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100K residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Sen. Obama, Stand and Deliver!

Frank Salvato
The recent ruling by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick dismissing the lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s citizenship, brought by former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Democrat county chair Phillip Berg, presents the genesis of a Constitutional Crisis. While Barack Obama’s refusal to satisfy the citizens’ request to validate his citizenship illustrates his unbridled arrogance and that of his campaign and supporters, it also exposes the fact that politics, at the hands of political opportunists and ideologues, has usurped the legitimate execution of the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.

Make no mistake. I do not support Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency. I find his political ideology to embrace a one-world ideology borrowing heavily from the Marxist-Leninist dogma. But, if in fact he is a legal and naturally born citizen of the United States of America, if he thoroughly satisfies the requirements as set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, then I will defend his right to be placed on ballots across our nation. My concern is not partisan, it is constitutional.

Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads:

"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

In what may come as a surprise to many, the Federal Election Commission does not have authority to verify whether or not a presidential candidate has satisfied the constitutional requirements set forth for candidacy.

The FEC’s mission statement reads:

“In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.”

So, a singular question becomes self-evident; what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States?

In Marquis v. Reed, one of the eight lawsuits filed in an attempt to verify that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, Steven Marquis takes a different tract than Berg. Marquis challenges the Washington State Secretary of State, Samuel Reed, to verify Obama’s eligibility.

In this lawsuit Marquis establishes:

“As we do not have a federal ballot per se, Washington State, through the office of the Washington State, Secretary of State creates its own ballot and supervises the same, electing electors to represent our choice for the Office of President...and presents a state question within this Court’s jurisdiction.”

Still, while establishing that the States, rather than the federal government, have jurisdiction over their individual election processes, it still doesn’t quest for the answer to the self-evident question of what entity requires proof be filed of a candidate’s satisfaction of the constitutional requirements needed to become President of the United States? Instead, it adds to the immediacy of the question and brings to the forefront a more refined question; is there an entity that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements?

Examining the State of Illinois’ State Board of Elections Amended 2008 Candidate’s Guide, issued in May of 2008, it appears that the Illinois State Board of Elections doesn’t verify a candidate’s eligibility beyond requiring:

1) A Statement of Candidacy – This form (I use the FEC form as it encompasses everything in the Illinois form) requires each candidate to provide his name, address, party affiliation, office sought, the state and district of the contest, a designation of a principle campaign committee, the designation of other authorized committees and a declaration of intent to expend personal funds. Lastly, it requires a potential candidate to “attest” that he or she is “qualified for the office specified.” At no place in the official guide or paperwork is a birth certificate or other form of verification of natural born citizenship required.

2) A Loyalty Oath – Ironically, this is optional.

3) Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests – This is not required for Federal Office or political party offices.

4) Completed Nominating Petitions – These petitions must be correctly filed out, notarized and contain a sufficient number of original signatures as set forth by the election commission.

Being familiar with the election process in Illinois, I then examined my country board of election’s requirements. Their requirements deferred to the requirements of the State of Illinois.

Again, the question remains, is there an entity – whether on a federal, state, county or municipal level – that verifies a candidate’s satisfaction of the requirements set forth by the US Constitution for holding the office of President of the United States?

In Judge Surrick’s ruling, he declared that Mr. Berg “lacked standing” to bring the lawsuit to the court. He stated that the harm cited by Berg was “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.” This ruling is a slap in the face to every citizen of the United States.

The U.S. Constitution begins with:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It does not begin with “We the Government...” or “We the Judiciary...” and for good reason. The United States government is empowered and created by We the People; the citizens. The U.S. Constitution belongs to the people not to the government. In fact, the Constitution was created to limit government’s ability to employ tyrannical governance. It is squarely within the citizen’s purview to protect and defend the US Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. This notion is called civic responsibility and it is our duty as citizens to pro-actively defend our Charters of Freedom. It is for this reason, among but a few more, that the Constitution is written in the First Person.

Barack Obama could defuse this situation by presenting his original vaulted birth certificate, thus satisfying his obligation to the American people to provide proof he meets the requirements for holding the office of President of the United States as set forth in Article II, Section 1. But I doubt he will. He has the luxury of having partisan judicial activists – tyrants – acting on his behalf, usurping the authority of the Constitution.

But the larger more serious Constitutional Crisis remains: it would appear we have no system in place for verifying a candidate’s eligibility for holding the office of President of the United States – or any other federal or state office for that matter. We have no system, but for relying on a partisan and politically hijacked Congress, for making sure that those running for elected office satisfy the requirements as set forth by those who loved our country enough to die for its creation.

This cannot stand.

Sen. Obama, stand and deliver! Answer the demand of the American people; those you say you so want to serve. Do the honorable thing and present your citizenship to the citizenry. Should you dare to be so arrogant as to dismiss the American people by usurping the Spirit of the U.S. Constitution, you will be solely responsible for the societal divide created by your inaction. You, Sen. Obama, will be solely responsible for bringing this Constitutional Crisis to bear.

We stand on the brink of a Second Great Civil War. Let’s see just how much Sen. Obama really loves our country.

Are You A Values Voter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwLY_HRt-AM&feature=related

The Rise of The United Socialist States of America

Please view this and refer everyone you know to this site to view.

http://www.usawakeup.org/USSA.htm

Where is Obama's Birth Certificate and Why Doesn't He Produce It?

This is a long read, but well worth your time.
Joan Swirsky

Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as “proof” of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn’t good enough to qualify my elderly mother –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home. Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office. That took two minutes. Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number. That took two minutes.When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name.Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother's birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother's "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes.WHERE IS OBAMA'S?To this date, Barack Obama has refused - or been unable - to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is eligible to run for office. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land.You would think that Obama would have volunteered the "proof" of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don't know if Obama is an American!While Obama's camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was. While this glaring omission in Obama's eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people - clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate's attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality - took action.
SLEUTH #1The first sleuth was lawyer Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and an undisguised Hillary fan. Last August, Berg - a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and one-time candidate for both governor and senator - filed a lawsuit in Federal Court (Berg v. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083) seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction against Obama, alleging that the first-term Illinois senator did not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg's suit was based on Obama's failure to answer satisfactorily the question of where he was born. Was it in Hawaii, Kenya, or Indonesia? Was his legal name Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro (his stepfather's surname), Barry Obama, Barack Dunham (his maternal grandparents' surname), or Barry Dunham?Among the other questions Berg raised were the authenticity of the name Obama used on his Illinois Bar Application and his possible allegiance to other countries. Details of the case, including direct quotations, are found on Berg's website: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ . "Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Senator Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg said. "He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate and the lies he's told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he...supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen...His very acts prove he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?...If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament...from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship through an oath of allegiance at age eighteen [18] as prescribed by Constitutional laws."The net result of Berg's efforts was that, on September 9, both Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a joint motion for a Protective Order to Stay Discovery pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss his lawsuit. In other words, to make Berg's lawsuit go away!Berg said he was "outraged, as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President." The joint motion, Berg asserted, was a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President. He said it is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Simply stated, Obama "is unable to produce a certified copy of his Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist."An e-mail friend of mine, a lawyer, stated: "What has boggled my mind about this case is that Berg simply waited for a court order to compel the production of the birth certificate, when he could just as easily have served a subpoena on the Hawaii County Clerk or County Recorder - or whoever is the custodian of records in Hawaii - to produce the original birth certificate for examination by an expert forensic-document examiner to produce certified copies to the Court, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which would have shifted the burden to Obama to quash the subpoena - and if he filed a motion to quash the subpoena to produce his own birth certificate, that would sure as hell tell us that he has a lot to hide.
"SLEUTH #2Also in August, longtime Obama nemesis Andy Martin - a Chicago journalist, lawyer, author of the bestseller, "Obama: The Man Behind The Mask," and executive editor or http://www.contrariancommentary.com/ - filed a suit in the Court of the First Circuit State of Hawaii (08-1-2147-10) against the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, and the director of the Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Martin's suit alleged that the defendants had refused to provide a copy of the requested, certified copy of the birth certificate of Senator Obama "attested to by the State and not a `certificate' which is posted on a website and which has been debunked as possibly having been altered.""It is axiomatic," Martin's suit said, "that the birth certificate of a presidential candidate is a document of crucial public concern and significance."Failing both his petition and an initial "emergency motion," Martin filed his second emergency motion this month (-1-2147-10 BIA) "for an Order to Show Cause (`OSC') directing the defendants...on or before October 22, 2008...at a hearing before this Court why the relief requested by the Plaintiff should not be granted...This lawsuit does not involve complicated or disputed facts.""Why is Barack Obama obstructing access to his birth records?" Martin asks. "Along with his obstructing access to college records and other essential information about his past? I want to see a certified copy issued by the State of Hawaii, not one issued by the State of Obama... Interestingly, we think we also know now why he has virtually imprisoned his white grandmother and refuses to allow her to appear in public?"Numerous conservative journalists, talking heads and bloggers have addressed Obama's fitness to be president, questioning his: * Reed-thin résumé.* Stunning lack of concrete legislative accomplishments (both in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate). * Long-time close relationships and associations with Marxists and anti-American militants like Frank Marshall, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Phleger, Khalid Rashidi, et al. * Failure to provide transcripts of his years at Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. * Failure to provide any more than a one-page "report" from his medical doctor about his health status. * Rationale for flip-flopping on every major issue - economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, et al - during this campaign. The sleuthing continues. According to Berg, Martin, and a number of other sources, Obama was really born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombassa, Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4, 1961, a birth that was documented by a certificate with an embossed seal that displays the name of the hospital, as well as witness signatures. In addition, if these reports are accurate, his grandmother in Kenya, as well as his brother and sister, claim they were present during Obama's birth in Kenya. GRAMMY DEAREST Now - belatedly - that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud - Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign. He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham - the woman who raised him but strangely didn't attend his nomination - that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow. Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to "clear up" the sticky case of his missing birth certificate? I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with "the goods." A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things - like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al - that they would never do under less "pressured" circumstances. If the magic document doesn't appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility. According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify - by looking at "original or certified verifiable official documents" - that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day. Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama's eligibility and background would "preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest" that would arise if information about Obama's ineligibility came to light after the election. EXPLOSIVE PRESS RELEASE This week, on October 21, 2008, Mr. Berg released the result of his investigation. In a startling press release, he has announced that "Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama."In his release, Berg explained that "by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions...the DNC `ADMITTED' that Obama is "NOT QUALIFIED" to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed "ADMITTED." Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.
According to Berg, Obama - by default - admitted to every charge the lawyer made, among them:1. I was born in Kenya. 2. I am a Kenya "natural born" citizen. 3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii. 4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me. 5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
The list includes 56 admissions.
The DNC's admissions, which number 27, include that:1. They nominated Barack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. 2. They have not vetted Barack Hussein Obama. 3. They did not have a background check performed on Barack Hussein Obama. 4. They did not verify Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States. 5. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. For the entire list, go to: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ WHAT HAPPENS NOW?Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg's website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin's wardrobe.It's possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama's birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time. It's also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama's lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still has not produced proof of his eligibility to run for office.Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it. This article also appeared on Right Side News.

Quote of the Day

“You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.”

Melanie Phillips
Spectator UK

NoBama Nation video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e43_1224086229&p=1

Liberal Rage, two forms, one party; Democrat!

Here's a video of a pro McCain march in Manhattan, as well as an article about the vandalism of our local GOP headquarters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
Vandals strike York County GOP headquarters
By Matt Garfield, The Herald Online
Vandals spray-painted the words “Republican means slavery” on the door of the York County GOP campaign headquarters overnight Friday.
Party volunteers called police after discovering the message when they arrived at the office on Rock Hill’s Oakland Avenue. The vandals also stole about 45 candidate signs from the front yard and spray-painted over a banner that carried a picture of Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Their messages included lettering and symbols sometimes used by gangs.
The culprits could face charges on petty larceny and damage to property, said Rock Hill police Sgt. Roderick Stinson. No one appears to have entered the office.
Whether it was teenagers playing a prank or adults looking to make a political statement, the nature of the message reflected racially charged hostilities that have flared around the country in recent days.

Questions of Character, NoBama's Radical Pals

By Charles Krauthammer
Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque, and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama’s associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist. This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama’s associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once. Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism? No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the “old politics” — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition. Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond. Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright’s pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse. Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

Watch the ad NoBama's tring to get banned

His goon squad is threatening TV networks and stations. Watch it before it's pulled
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=158353

Biden Tells 14 Lies During Debate

Amanda CarpenterFriday, October 03, 2008
Senator Joe Biden lied at least 14 times during the vice presidential debate according to those counting at John McCain’s presidential headquarters.
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman from GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign said in a statement, “"Joe Biden graduated from his trademark verbal gaffe to outright lie in tonight’s debate.”
McCain’s blogger-in-chief Michael Goldfarb chronicled the 14 lies HERE.
On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition “goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”
Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.
“I would,” he replied.
Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?” he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."
Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not voting.”
The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”
The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization of McCain’s healthcare plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700 billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.

Bailout, Wisdom of Charlie Daniels

If you read this column very often you know that I rarely suggest you go to other websites to check the voracity of what I'm writing about, but the issue of this bailout having such a catastrophic effect on the future of America, I think we should know what brought it on and who let it happen.Nancy Pelosi has been busy pointing her finger at the Republicans and President Bush in particular for the financial crisis we are in, but let's take a closer look.In the link below are some clips of a Congressional hearing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004. I think you might find it informative.What Caused our Financial CrisisAs we all know the House failed to pass the massive bailout that President Bush and oddly enough the Democrats are pushing for. But we also know that they'll bring it back up soon enough.Seven hundred billion dollars of American taxpayer's hard earned money to reward ineptitude, sloth and greed. That is absolutely ridiculous! Some of these rascals should be looking for someone to bail them out of jail instead of out of this horrible financial conundrum they and our government have gotten us into.The Wall Street bunch have been running ahead of the wind for years now, just barely escaping the clutches of bankruptcy and now the dominos are starting to fall, and of course the government is having it's normal reaction, throw our money at it.And folks this is just the beginning of the mess, Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and even seven hundred billion dollars ($700,000,000,000) is not going to put him back together again.Have you wondered why the finger pointing between the Democrats and Republicans has not started in earnest? You'd think by now they'd be hanging the President in effigy by now, but the dirty little truth is that to varying degrees, members of both parties stood by and watched this - now I should say caused this to happen. You'll have to decide which party is the real culprit, and deserves the lion's share of the blame.Bill Clinton, along with the help of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others practically forced lending institutions to make loans to people who had no hope of paying them back, but as long as good ol' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac kept on buying the bad paper let the good times roll, get rich and get out, all with the tacit blessings of a do-nothing House and Senate.This for you cherry pickers, President Bush has been warning about this mess for a long time, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 17 times this year alone. SourceNow Barney Frank is one of the people in charge of putting a Band-Aid on the heart attack he helped to cause. Seems I heard about a case like that one time, something to do with foxes and hen houses, or inmates and asylums.Folks, I know you must get tired of me always harping on term limits but this latest disaster, and it is a disaster of monumental proportions, is a solid gold example of what happens when people stay in power too long.Barney Frank has been in the House of Representatives forever and Chris Dodd, his counterpart in the Senate, must have been born on the Senate floor.And if you don't think there's a political connection between Wall Street and Congress, you're sorely mistaken. Check out the campaign donation lists of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the major players on Wall Street. Many in Congress have fed at this slush fund of a slop bucket and I think the results speak for themselves.Folks, have you ever stopped to think how much the lobbyists in Washington are costing you and your family? It's the lobbyists who wine and dine the Congressmen and Senators you send to Washington to represent you and it's the lobbyists who represent the very people whose greed and ineptitude this seven hundred billion goes to benefit.And another thing, by buying up these worthless mortgages, that means the government is going into competition with private business, and mark my words there will be monolithic corruption and political partisanship when it comes time to divest itself of these worthless pieces of paper, and in the mean time the people of this country will be paying interest on seven hundred billion dollars or more.You could take seven hundred billion dollars and give every person on the planet one hundred dollars or everybody in the United States twenty-three hundred a piece.I am disgusted with the politicians in Washington who have led us to this mess.Bring them home. Bring them all home.What do you think?Pray for our troopsGod Bless AmericaCharlie DanielsSeptember 29, 2008

NoBama Wants NRA Ads Banned

The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.
The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.
Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.
They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.
The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.
You can see the "Hunter" ad — Go Here Now.
Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."
This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"
"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."
The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.
The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."
And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.
NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.
The NRA has set up a Web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.

The Fleecing of the American Taxpayer

On the Financial Crisis: The Fleecing of the American Taxpayer
Mike Huckabee
Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be affected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and pay which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.
It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D.C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America? I thought that people like me are like people at the UN without a headset and that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”

The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.

Will there be far-reaching consequences of not some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government – which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many, if not most, of us have already been hit by lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.

What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain? If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?

Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.

Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the crap table. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer gets the crap.

If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:

Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.
Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and just say that all that they earn above the poverty level goes back to the government and they can live like the people they put or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail – that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money – just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries – just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies. But those found guilty of malfeasance could earn all they could, but just would be able to keep enough to put them just above the poverty level.
Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big fat campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of fixing the blame – fix the problem!

This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.

He's One of Them, She's One of US

Monday, September 15, 2008
By Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders: What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain? What is there either in this woman's record or resume to elicit such feline ferocity?
What did we know of her when she was introduced?
That she was a mother of five who had brought into this world a baby boy with Down syndrome, thus living her Christian beliefs. That she was a small-town conservative who had risen from mayor of Wasilla (population 9,700) to be governor of a state twice the size of Texas.
That she was a reformer who had dethroned an old boys' network by dumping a sitting Republican governor. That she had taken on Big Oil, taxed the companies and returned the money in $1,200 checks to every citizen of Alaska. And that she had cut a deal with Canada to build a pipeline to bring natural gas to her fellow Americans.
And, oh, yes. She was "Sarah Barracuda" – a fierce high school athlete, a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, a Feminist for Life and lifetime member of the NRA. Introduced by McCain, she praised Hillary Clinton and pledged to finish her work by smashing through the glass ceiling in which Hillary had made 18 million cracks.
(Column continues below)
What, in any or all of this, is there to justify the feral attacks within minutes of her introduction? What had she done to cause this outburst? Answer: absolutely nothing.
No. Sarah Palin is not resented for what she has done, but for who she is: a Christian conservative who believes unborn children are gifts of God, even those with birth defects, and have a God-given right to life.
Normally, the press is reluctant to rummage into the private lives of public servants, unless their conduct affects their duties or they preach virtues they hypocritically do not practice.
Yet, no sooner was Palin introduced than the media went berserk over the news that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. As one in three births in America is out-of-wedlock and Hollywood celebrates this lifestyle, why did the New York Times and the Washington Post splash this "news" on Page 1 above the fold?
How does Bristol Palin's pregnancy disqualify Sarah Palin to be vice president? Why is it even relevant?
They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.
So out of bounds was the media that Obama, in an act of decency, declared Palin's family off limits and reminded the media that he was himself born to a teenage single mom.
If one would wish to see the famous liberal double standard on naked display, consider.
Palin's daughter was fair game for a media that refused to look into reports that John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president, was conducting an illicit affair with a woman said to be carrying his child and cheating on his faithful wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. That was not a legitimate story, but Bristol Palin's pregnancy is?
Why did the selection of Sarah Palin cause a suspension of all standards and a near riot among a media that have been so in the tank for Barack even "Saturday Night Live" has satirized the infatuation?
Because she is one of us – and he is one of them.
Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia, Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State. Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.
Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope. Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America – until Barack started winning.
Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.
Sarah is a rebel. Obama has been a go-along, get-along cog in the Daley Machine. She is Middle America. Barack, behind closed doors in San Francisco, mocked Middle Americans as folks left behind by the global economy who cling bitterly to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.
Barack has zero foreign policy experience. Palin runs a state that is home to anti-missile, missile and air defense bases facing the Far East, commands the Alaska National Guard and has a soldier-son heading for Iraq.
Barack, says the National Journal, has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, besting Socialist Bernie Sanders. Palin's stances read as though they were lifted from Reagan's 1980 "no pale pastels" platform. And this is what this media firestorm is all about.

Thanks Guys, the Media's Attacks on Palin Backfire

by William Kristol 09/15/2008
The editors of THE WEEKLY STANDARD believe in giving credit where credit is due. The presidential race looks a whole lot better today than it did two weeks ago. For this, thanks are owed to two men--Barack Obama and John McCain--and to that herd of independent minds, the liberal media.
First: Thank you, Barack Obama. He lacked the confidence or the strength to ask Hillary Clinton, recipient of some 18 million votes, to join him on the ticket. Such a ticket, uniting and exciting the Democratic party, would have been hard to beat in this Democratic year. Having ruled out Clinton, Obama then lacked the nerve to double down on the theme of change, by selecting, say, Virginia governor Tim Kaine or Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. A change versus experience election wouldn't have been a bad bet for Obama. Instead, he settled on an unimpressive vice presidential pick, a long-time, long-winded overrated senator from a safe state, who gave him no lift at all in the polls, and offers no prospect of doing so.
Second: Thank you, John McCain. He showed guts with his pick of Sarah Palin. He also demonstrated a shrewd strategic sense. He knew that running on experience would carry him only so far--most likely to a respectable defeat. He understood the implications of Obama's passing over Hillary--not that Clinton voters would vote for McCain-Palin (though if even a few do so, it could make a difference), but that his pick of Palin when compared with Obama's shying away from Hillary would show McCain as a bolder and more confident leader. And he had the sense that Palin's anti-establishment conservatism, pro-family feminism, and tough-minded reformism would add something important to his campaign.
Third: A special thank you to our friends in the liberal media establishment. Who knew they would come through so spectacularly? The ludicrous media feeding frenzy about the Palin family hyped interest in her speech, enabling her to win a huge audience for her smashing success Wednesday night at the convention. Indeed, it even renewed interest in McCain, who seems to have gotten still more viewers for his less smashing--but well-received--presentation the following evening.
The astounding (even to me, after all these years!) smugness and mean-spiritedness of so many in the media engendered not just interest in but sympathy for Palin. It allowed Palin to speak not just to conservatives but to the many Americans who are repulsed by the media's prurient interest in and adolescent snickering about her family. It allowed the McCain-Palin ticket to become the populist standard-bearer against an Obama-Media ticket that has disdain for Middle America.
By the end of the week, after Palin's tour de force in St. Paul, the liberal media were so befuddled that they were reduced to complaining that conservatives aren't being narrow-minded enough. Thus, Hanna Rosin--who has covered religion and politics for the Washington Post, and has also written for the New Yorker, the New Republic, and the New York Times--lamented in a piece for Slate: "So cavalier are conservatives about Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life that they make the rest of us look stuffy and slow-witted by comparison." I suppose it was ungenerous of conservatives, in our broad-mindedness and tolerance of human frailty, to have let Ms. Rosin down, just when she was counting on us to bring out the tar and feathers. But she gives us too much credit when she suggests we make the liberal media look stuffy and slow-witted. They do that all by themselves.
For instance, what in the world can she be thinking when she refers to "Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life"? The only "domestic irregularities" (to use Ms. Rosin's loaded term) she cites are "two difficult pregnancies--Palin's with a Down syndrome baby and now her unmarried teenage daughter's." The second of these is a situation that the young woman and her family seem to be dealing with appropriately by their own lights. "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family," the Palins said. But what is "irregular" about bringing to term a Down syndrome child? Is Rosin suggesting--without having the courage to say so--that Mrs. Palin should have aborted the baby? Is it upsetting to her to have a prominent woman choose not to do so?
Some may think we should also thank Sarah Palin for coming through, under pressure, with flying colors. But we're looking forward to expressing those thanks personally, at the vice presidential residence here in Washington.

NoBama on the 2nd Ammendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo&feature=related

Dear Mr. NoBama, you are wrong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

Sarah Palin Speaking ar Her Church

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1766638341

Praise God for raising up a Godly Woman as a leader of Alaska and the USA.

The Tears of Clowns, a bummed MSNBC

By Stephen Spruiell
St. Paul — If you watched MSNBC on mute Wednesday night after Sarah Palin’s speech, it looked like the top story was that a hurricane swept through the North Pole and killed Santa Claus, so crestfallen were the network’s stars. It was the same with the sound up. Keith Olbermann’s first words after the applause in the Xcel Center finally died down were, “That appears to be the end of it.” He sounded relieved. The same man who literally couldn’t find anything wrong with Barack Obama’s speech in Denver last week — calling it “spellbinding,” “fully realized” and “tough” — found that the best he could say of Palin’s speech was, “People who like this sort of thing will find this… the sort of thing they like.” Chris Matthews, who gets thrills up his leg when Obama speaks, sounded shell-shocked. “Well, I have to say that I was completely surprised by what I saw,” he said, without an ounce of enthusiasm. “She is a torpedo aimed directly at the ship of Barack and Michelle Obama. That’s what she is. She’s an alternative to them. This is not an alternative to Hillary. This is a cultural alternative to Obama and his proposed First Lady. This is a very direct cultural shot.”After he’d had a moment to compose himself, Olbermann tried to come up with a better reaction. Of the speech, he said there was some “condescension in there towards Obama.” Condescension is an interesting word. Here’s a woman who was belittled for being a small-town mayor by a guy who described small-town people as clinging to their guns and religion because they’re bitter. And yet, when she hits him back, she’s the condescending one.It wasn’t just MSNBC’s anchors who were struggling to respond. On the floor of the convention center, a visibly depressed Andrea Mitchell interviewed a beaming Rudy Giuliani about Palin’s speech. Some context: Last week, reporting from among the Democratic delegates at Invesco Field, Mitchell relayed the reaction of the delegates to some of Obama’s best lines, literally shouting, “Whooee! Whooee!” into the camera. But there would be no sharing in the Republican delegates’ joy over Palin’s speech for Mitchell. Instead, after her interview with Rudy was over (sample question: “And you don’t think she’s vulnerable on the size and scale of her executive experience and the brevity of her political experience?”), she stared dead-eyed into the camera and said, “The war has begun.”Some might say the war actually began when the media decided to aggressively pursue every smear against Palin the left-wing blogosphere could think up. First, they questioned the maternity of Palin’s son, Trig, after a left-wing blog accused Palin of faking the pregnancy to cover for her daughter, Bristol. This forced the campaign to make a very private matter — Bristol’s real pregnancy — public. (Bristol’s pregnancy predates Trig’s birth by two months, proving she’s not his mother.)The latest smear is an attempt to paint Palin as an anti-Semite. Two weeks ago, the executive director of a group called Jews for Jesus spoke at Palin’s church. Her pastor says she was in church that day. The guest speaker made some controversial comments and insinuated that the conflict in the Middle East is attributable to God’s “judgment of unbelief.” So, just to be clear: This was a guest speaker, not a man that Palin sought out, befriended, and received spiritual guidance from for over 20 years. Nevertheless, the newest addition to MSNBC’s prime-time line-up, Air America radio host Rachel Maddow, was quick to imbue this story with grave portent Wednesday night after Palin’s speech. “Was she sitting in the pew in her church in Wasilla two weeks ago when a speaker said that the Israelis deserves terrorist attacks because Jews are unbelievers in Christ?” Maddow said. “I mean, there are tough questions she’s going to have to answer.”Maybe so. Maybe someday, the media’s campaign to bury Sarah Palin will yield something more substantial than the smears and innuendo we’ve seen so far. Maybe somewhere, a left-wing blogger is closely inspecting a JPEG of young Willow Palin and gleefully discovering the baby bump that will sink McCain’s campaign. But there is no joy in MSNBC-ville — mighty Sarah has struck back.

Obama, An Empty Suit

Friends,
Senator McCain, on the Saddleback Forum, referenced Jack Wheeler, as one of the 3 most important people with which he would council. Here's more on Jack Wheeler! Also attached is a brief history of this remarkable man, of which most of us have never heard.
Something to read....extremely interesting!! Jack Wheeler was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informed. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well known mountain climber and adventurer.

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave trade owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
Pass this on to every thinking American you know .


"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
G. K. Chesterton

Keep The Change, We Can't Afford IT

Since “Change” is the theme of NoBama’s campaign, I’ve been giving some thought to what change seems to mean to him. Frankly friends, I say, “Barak, keep the change, we can’t afford it!”

Barak NoBama started life named Barak, but later changed to Barry. When asked he said: “Actually, my name’s Barack Obama,” and explained that “Barry” was just a way of helping him “smooth the way into society,” He later changed back to Barak.

Seems he’s changed a lot of things in his life including his faith. Raised Muslim, changed to Christianity? (We’ll see)

Below are a list of changes (flip flops). It was not difficult to find these examples. I’m sure you can contribute more:


CHANGE #1: Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground

CHANGE #2: Despite Pledging To Accept Public Financing, Barack Obama Has Reversed His Position And Opted Out Of The System

CHANGE #3: Barack Obama Is Backtracking On His Support For Unilaterally Renegotiating NAFTA

CHANGE #4: Barack Obama Is Considering Reducing Corporate Taxes Despite Having Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America

CHANGE #5: Barack Obama Has Changed Positions On The D.C. Handgun Ban

CHANGE #6: Barack Obama Has Shifted From Opposing Welfare Reform To Celebrating Welfare Reform In A Television Ad

CHANGE #7: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Criticizes The Administration's Energy Policy Despite Having Voted For The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill

CHANGE #8: Barack Obama Has Shifted Positions On Nuclear Power

CHANGE #9: Obama Adviser Said Obama Was Not Opposed To An Individual Health Care Mandate Despite His Opposition During The Primary

CHANGE #10: During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, But Now Backs A Compromise Bill

CHANGE #11: Barack Obama Disagreed With The Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Convicted Child Rapist Although In The Past He Opposed The Death Penalty

CHANGE #12: Barack Obama Has Backtracked From His Earlier Commitment To Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition"

CHANGE #13: After Saying Jerusalem Should Be "Undivided," Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked

CHANGE #14: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Has Backed Away From His Earlier Support For Normalized Relations With Cuba And Ending The Embargo

CHANGE #15: Barack Obama Is Against The California Ballot Measure Banning Gay Marriage Despite His Assertion That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman

CHANGE #16: Barack Obama Says That "Mental Distress" Should Not Be Reason For A Late Term Abortion Which Contradicts His Past Extreme Pro-Abortion Views

CHANGE #17: Barack Obama Said He Would Debate "Anywhere, Anytime" But Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings

Change #18: Barack Obama decides to tap the strategic oil reserve. Obama last month said he did not think the country should use the strategic oil reserves "at this point."

Change #19: Obama now says he's "open" to oil drilling.

Change #20: Obama flip flops in the same sentence in response to a seven year old girl's question about why he wants to be president. Obama wants to turn back the clock and more forward; Back to the Future?

Change #21: Obama doesn't know correct stance on Georgia.

Change #22: Obama insists he voted for protecting infants who survive abortion, but he actually voted against just such a law. When he insisted that he only voted against it because it would water down abortion, he lied because the law included such a provision.

Change #23: Obama said, at the Saddleback forum that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, but would vote against a federal amendment saying so because it would prohibit people from visiting their lovers in hospitals. California has a proposition that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and doesn't restrict civil unions. He won't support it.

Change #24:Obama was friends with domestic terrorist William Ayers and then "denounced" him.

Change #25: Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

Change #26: The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

Change #27: Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

Change #28: Decriminalization of Marijuana: While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana

Change #29: Running for President or Vice President of the United States: On the January 22nd edition of “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange: Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’” Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed. ” Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?” Obama: “I will not.”

Change #30: Single-Payer Healthcare: On January 22nd, the Hillary Clinton Campaign releases a video that proves that Obama lied about his position on “single-payer healthcare.” The video compares statements Obama made during the January 21st Democratic debate with those he made to an AFL-CIO conference in June 2003 while campaigning for the Senate

Change #31: NAFTA: On February 29th, the Obama campaign told Canadian Television (CTV) that no message was passed to the Canadian government suggesting that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated. However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser

Change #32: Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Barack Obama repudiated what he called “inflammatory and appalling remarks” made by his Chicago pastor. Obama said he had not been present during the sermons in question. Obama told MSNBC, “Had I heard them in church I would have expressed that concern directly to Rev. Wright.” Please note, he says that he would have expressed concern, not repudiate, the words. (Source: Audacity of Hypocrisy) Previously Obama had said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me

Change #33: Jerusalem: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

Change #34: Meeting with Foreign Leaders: Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions

Change #35: Palestinian Elections In 2006: Obama Says That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006. But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An "Opportunity...To Consolidate Behind A Single Government."

Change #36: The Threat of Iran: Obama's comments in Oregon: I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.... Later in Montana, Obama changed his tune:
Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust...

Change #37: North Korea: U.S. Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama has recently indicated he no longer opposes the removal of North Korea from a U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Obama in January 2005 came out against the removal of the Stalinist nation from the list until it gives an account of the kidnapping and death in the North of the Rev. Kim Dong-shik in 2000.

Change #38: PATRIOT Act: "Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is the right thing, and the Senate showed earlier this year that it can be done with the oversight of our judicial system so we do not jeopardize the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for. We should not let the PATRIOT Act expire at the end of this year, but instead extend the current law for three months so that we can come to an agreement on these critical issues in Congress." On the Issues FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it.

Change #39: Illegal Immigrants and Driver's Licenses: As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted to require illegal immigrants to get a driver's license. The change? In the November 2007 CNN debate, he was asked what his stand was on that issue and he said, "I am not proposing that's what we do."

Change #40: Gay Marriage: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

Obama Mocking and Ridiculing the Bible

No wonder this Muslim schooled individual felt at home in Rev. Wright's church. This video shows Obama's true colors.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=4FCNKwHRCQM&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i1.ytimg.com/vi/4FCNKwHRCQM/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIowtWkI7Mb-0qwQdntvzVW&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1

Obama's Backbone Deficit

August 21, 2008
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Last week raised important questions about whether Barack Obama is strong enough to be president. On the domestic political front, he showed incredible weakness in dealing with the Clintons, while on foreign and defense questions, he betrayed a lack of strength and resolve in standing up to Russia's invasion of Georgia.

This two-dimensional portrait of weakness underscores fears that Obama might, indeed, be a latter-day Jimmy Carter.

Consider first the domestic and political. Bill and Hillary Clinton have no leverage over Obama. Hillary can't win the nomination. She doesn't control any committees. If she or her supporters tried to disrupt the convention or demonstrate outside, she would pay a huge price among the party faithful. If Obama lost - after Hillary made a fuss at the convention - they would blame her for all eternity (just like Democrats blame Ted Kennedy for Carter's defeat).

But, without having any leverage or a decent hand to play, the Clintons bluffed Obama into amazing concessions. Hillary will speak on Tuesday night in prime time. Chelsea will introduce her. She will get to play a film extolling her virtues produced by Harry Bloodworth Thomason. Bill will speak on Wednesday night. Hillary's name will be placed into nomination. She will get to have nominating and seconding speeches on her behalf. And, on Thursday night, the last night of the convention, the roll call will show how narrowly Obama prevailed.

So Obama gave away Tuesday night, Wednesday night and part of Thursday night to the Clintons. It will really be their convention. A stronger candidate would've called their bluff and confined the Clintons to one night on which both Hillary and Bill spoke (he would have outshone her). He would have blocked a roll call by allowing a voice vote to nominate by acclimation. He would have stood up to the Clintons and recaptured his own convention.

If Obama can't stand up to the Clintons, after they have been defeated, how can he measure up to a resurgent Putin who has just achieved a military victory? When the Georgia invasion first began, Obama appealed for "restraint" on both sides. He treated the aggressive lion and the victimized lamb even-handedly. His performance was reminiscent of the worst of appeasement at Munich, where another dictator got away with seizing another breakaway province of another small neighboring country, leading to World War II.

After two days, Obama corrected himself, spoke of Russian aggression and condemned it. But his initial willingness to see things from the other point of view and to buy the line that Georgia provoked the invasion by occupying a part of its own country betrayed a world view characterized by undue deference to aggressors.

We know so little about Obama. His experience is so thin that it's hard to tell what kind of a president he'd be. While he nominally has been in the Senate for four years, he really only served the first two and consumed the rest of his tenure running for president and disregarding his Senate duties.

So we have no choice but to scrutinize his current transactions and statements for some clue as to who he is and what he'd do. In that context, his reaction to the first real-time foreign-policy crisis he faced as a nominee leaves his strength in doubt. So does his palsied response to the Clintons' attempt to make Denver a Clinton convention.

Is Obama an over-intellectualizing Hamlet who is incapable of decisive, strong action? With Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and Russia resurgent, there isn't much room for on-the-job learning.

Governing is Above Obama's Pay Grade

Michael ReaganWednesday, August 20, 2008
Anybody who watched Barack Obama’s sorry performance during Saturday Night’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency with Pastor Rick Warren had to come away with the question, “What is this guy doing running for president of the United States?”
The worshipping media described his comments as “nuanced,” the word they use to describe “wishy-washy.” It was full of those “on the other hand” answers to Pastor Warren’s probing questions.
Obama was anything but wishy-washy, however, when he said that knowing when human life begins was “above his pay grade.” He was just plain evasive, obviously seeking to play down his extremist view that abortion at any time, in any circumstance, is perfectly acceptable to him.
This isn’t surprising since he took the lead in the Illinois Senate in fighting a bill that would outlaw the barbarous murder of newborn infants who survive being killed in a partial-birth abortion.
During the forum, his struggle to please everybody by straddling the issues was plain for all to see. He showed he was willing to say and do what he believed everybody wanted to hear. When you try to find any real depth in his beliefs you quickly discover he is utterly shallow and soulless, a sloganeer instead of a missionary.
He’s just a politician on the make, trying to be all things to all people -- an empty suit proclaiming empty promises.
Being without real depth, his platform merely floats on a surface of promises categorized as “Hope” and “Change,” neither of which is clearly defined.
He assures us that he wants to change Washington and sweep away all that this city represents. Yet one has only to look at next week’s Democratic National Convention to understand that it’s not change, but lots more of the same.
Just look at the roster of speakers lined up and try to find a single new face. It’s the same old lineup, the same old roll call of familiar Democrat politicians who have constituted the leadership of the national Democratic Party for eons.
Change? Does inviting Jimmy Carter (arguably the worst president in our long history and a dedicated foe of Israel) constitute meaningful change?
Is John Kerry a new face, or simply a retread of a failed presidential candidate who represents his party’s recent past as well as its immediate future?
How about putting Al Gore on the speaker’s dais? Al Gore, the high priest of the phony climate-change religion who to this day can’t accept the fact that he lost to George Bush in 2000 and never stops whining about it. That’s change?
Just what changes the old Democratic order when you have Bill Clinton speaking one night and Hillary Clinton the next night?
Is Mayor Daley, Obama’s strongest backer and the boss of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, a symbol of change?
You look at this upcoming convention and you have to ask yourself, “Have I not seen this show before?”
We saw it in 2004 and 2000 and 1996 and 1992, and every other Democratic convention going back to Harry S. Truman. And by the way, if Truman were alive today he would be the one familiar face who wouldn’t be invited to speak.
Plain-spoken Harry would take one look at Obama and we’d be hearing some of his patented obscenities. Truman had no tolerance for politicians who tried to pass themselves off as messiahs, above the give and take of everyday politics.
Change? It’s simply more of the same old thing: power-hungry politicians lusting after the authority to impose the decades-old Democrat, socialist, big-brother programs on the American people. An authority the people wisely continue to deny them.
Barack Obama hasn’t demonstrated that by virtue of any past experience that he possesses the capacity to be president of the United States, a job far above his pay grade.

The Obama Tidal Wave

The Obama Tidal Wave

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.

His speeches have inspired millions, and yet most of his followers have no idea what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change', or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.

The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma. Both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions.

On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler, too, inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.

Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans riding on the Obama Tidal Wave it is just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the reality of the ride is what happens when it hits shore.


Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:

• He voted for partial birth abortion.
• He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of- state abortions.
• Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government (quotas)..
• In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
• Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
• Admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine in high school and in college.
• His religious convictions are very murky.
• He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why?
• Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations. Why?
• Opposed the Patriot Act.
• First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform.
• Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
• Supports universal health-care.
• Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
• Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
• Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
• Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform. Making illegals citizens.
• Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
• Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
• Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. (241 votes Demo, 10 votes Republican)
• Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
• Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax. Tax Increase.
• He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Tax Increase.
• Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded...which is not true.
• He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it.

Bill Brown

Experience?

I found this on a shooting forum:
Food for thought...
If I only had 143 days of experience, Would you hire me to fix your car? Would you hire me to run your company? If I only had 143 days experience would you hire me to run the country? Something America might want to think about!
Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much. From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working (??).
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that. This isn't taking into account the days he has missed. In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.
Think about IT

"Pay Grade" Unartful Dodge

‘Pay grade’ unartful dodgeSmart money shouldn’t be on Obama
By Michael Graham Wednesday, August 20, 2008

“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”
In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!”
In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.”
This is definitely not your grandfather’s Democratic Party.
Certainly not mine. My grandfather, Ray Futrell, was a lifelong FDR Democrat, the kind who would proudly rather vote for a wife-beating, syphilitic drunkard than for a Republican. In fact, he would find the previous sentence entirely redundant.
My grandfather helped push Patton’s tanks across Europe, and one reason for my grandfather’s unshakable party loyalty was his belief that Harry Truman saved his life by dropping the A-bombs on Japan.
If Truman hadn’t made the call - if he’d demurred that such a profound life-and-death decision was “above my pay grade” - my grandfather believed that he and untold thousands of Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland.
I miss my grandfather, but I’m also glad that he isn’t around to witness the tragic descent of his beloved Democratic Party.
Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing.
Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.
And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (“is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”
There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. “That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy!” is one of them. “I did not have sex with that woman” is another.
But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.”
With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.
Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can “handle the job of commander in chief.” Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.
Who can blame them? Obama wants the difficult duty of taking on Iran and North Korea, but he can’t even handle Rick Warren or the Clintons - the latter having commandeered Obama’s own convention in Denver next week and forced their way into a pro-Hillary roll call. Having been routed by the Clintonistas, Obama wants a chance to lead against al-Qaeda? Please.
Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.
Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they’ve already cast, like Obama’s extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.
That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician.
He is certainly no Harry Truman.

Obama on Clarence Thomas

Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2008
Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.
Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

A Catholic Case Against Barack

by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 08/12/2008 ET
In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown. But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously. For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan. Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary." Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure." And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death." Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste. How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this? If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath? How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate. When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous." Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide? Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right? Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail? And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?