For those of you who might be unaware, there is yet another cockeyed scheme being concocted in Washington by our illustrious leaders in Congress than has the potential to literally wreck the economy of this country. It’s a little bill that is being called the Senate’s most influential global warming bill to yet come along and it is being strongly supported by most of those on the left, big surprise there, along with some ignorant and willing accomplices on the right. These are individuals who are more than willing to sacrifice the strength of our economy at the alter of the discredited theory of global warming and all the faulty science used to justify the bogus policies that go along with it. And from what I hear it takes center stage next week in the Senate. Known as the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Bill, or I guess more officially, as America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, this monstrosity claims to combat non-existent man made global warming.

Now in reality, it’s not going to do anything for global warming because, as any rational thinking human being knows, there is nothing man can do to either cause or to stop climate change. What this legislation WILL do is to have an adverse effect on the life of every single person in this country by allowing the government even deeper into our pockets. How can that be you ask? Well, by costing each and every one of us in the good old U. S. of A. more in higher energy bills, lost productivity and in lost jobs, that’s how!

People here in Florida, which is where I’m at, may be wondering how climate change legislation before Congress will end up effecting their income, their jobs and their cost of energy. The one thing this legislation guarantees is to place in peril the whole of the American economy of which Florida is a part. And all for a change in global temperature that is perhaps even smaller than the .07 of a degree Celsius drop that many scientists expected from total worldwide compliance with the Kyoto accords. Does this make any sense to anybody?

              TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT TO FLORIDA

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. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." . . .

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations. . . ."

_________________________ O ___________________________

"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

"I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said former Senator Tom Daschle, a top Obama advisor. "Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. ... 'Without precondition' simply means we wouldn't put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That's really what they're saying, what Barack is saying."

"He said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be," Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser said on CNN. "It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time -- not necessarily Ahmadinejad."

In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition and during his first year in office.

"I would," Obama said.

Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions should be set.

"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."

From the London Times:

David Miliband, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, has raised questions over Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years. ...

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.

Miliband also noted:

They also discussed trade — with Mr. Obama advisers saying that they still intended to renegotiate deals such as Nafta — and how much European support there would be for a US military surge in Afghanistan.

Peter Mandelson, European trade commissioner, has said the protectionist stances taken by the US presidential candidate risks taking the world trading system back by decades.

I would be willing to initiate such talks with leaders of countries adversarial to the United States. There would be a lot of preparation. The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list. […]

One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about. It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

There needs to be a shift in foreign politics and return to traditional foreign politics that were supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and -- if need be -- strong sanctions. It must not stand." 

Senator Joe Lieberman:

"There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet. Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot. If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies."

 

Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.  

Obama’s consistent message: The government knows best. It’s all about the government playing an ever increasing role in the lives of every single America. If that doesn’t scare you, it should. Obama’s Socialist Manifesto:

• Increased domestic spending on entitlement programs to get as many people as possible totally dependent on the government.
• Higher taxes, MUCH HIGHER!
• Socialized medicine, just another way of getting government even further into our lives.
• Appointment of more Liberal Activist Judges that will bypass the will of the people to assist in the establishment of an ever increasingly Leftist society.
• The elimination of personal property rights. Only the government will be allowed to own land.
• A policy of open diplomacy and appeasement toward leftist and terrorist governments like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and others.
• More environmental extremism, still another avenue to acquire more control over the lives of everyday Americans
• No new oil refineries, or domestic oil exploration driving gas prices higher to justify government involvement. That would come later under government ownership and at a much higher price.
• Bogus alternative fuel legislation that does nothing but increase the government’s take on each gallon of gas
• No new Nuclear Power Plants allowed, again creating government opportunities to take control of energy output.
• Everything else that’s either Anti-God or Anti-American

You see, Obama would have us join him on a journey that he says will end with America being in a much better place. Unfortunately, that little journey will end up with us much deeper into a dark era of even bigger government, higher taxes, and less security where our personal freedoms are slowly whittled away until they are only a figment of our collective imagination. Personal freedoms will become something one has to earn from "The Government". There will be no such thing as God given rights. It’s all based on behavior modification. You do what the government says, or you’ll lose something or quite possibly not receive something. It is Socialism in its purest form, and it’s scary. I have a feeling that if he does get elected he would very much like this country to become the United Socialist States of America (USSA).

You can call me a conspiracy nut if you choose, but what you should be doing is asking yourself just what exactly are these Democrats up to with all their bellicose chest thumping about high gas prices. Me thinks I smell a rat, a lot of nasty Democrat rats! I just can’t help thinking there has to be more to it than meets the eye, there has to be some reason that they so willfully disregard everyone’s opinion but their own. And why invite company presidents to come before you and do nothing but call them liars? I just don’t get it.

So I started thinking and I think I came up with something. They must be up to something. The only possible reason that the Democrats would behave so strangely must be because they think they have some master plan where they think they can somehow gain control of these companies through some governmental shenanigans. You see, I figure they think if they can get prices to go high enough to where they can get enough people to buy into their oil companies are to blame for high price of gas rhetoric, they can come riding to the rescue claiming only they can solve the problem. They’ll say the only way to bring prices down is for some active government involvement in the oil industry. Can you possibly imagine the consequences if the Democrats were to ever be in the position of being able to get their greedy hands on the production and distribution of energy products in this country? You’d be paying a lot more than four bucks a gallon.

I cannot over-emphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.

We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.

To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Personally, I think what these men said made a lot of sense, while at the same time the Democrats sounded like a bunch of sophomoric imbeciles. They seemed not to hear a word these men said, hence, my conspiracy theory. How else can you explain their totally bizarre behavior? But what’s even scarier is the fact that there seems to be more than a few gullible individuals making up a significant portion of the population, who actually believe all the tripe put out by those big hearted Democrats. They’re also the ones who can be easily manipulated into becoming willing accomplices in whatever crazy scheme it is that's being cooked up by those on the left. We need to be very watchful of these self-professing defenders of the little guy. The only ones they’re really watching out for are themselves.

New oil discoveries worldwide would provide billions of barrels of oil for years to come. In the U.S. and Canada alone, these discoveries include:

Up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil in oil shale in North Dakota’s Bakken Formation

Up to 19 Billion barrels of oil in oil sands in Utah

More than 30 billion barrels of oil in Alaska's coastal plains and the Chukchi Sea

An estimated 173 billion barrels of oil from oil sands in western Canada

These days it seems that hardly a day goes by that Obama doesn’t use his rather skewed view of American history, as a basis for one of his more questionable and outlandish ideas regarding the future of our country. It would seem his understanding of history is somewhat lacking, to put it mildly. In using examples of past events, that either never happened or are taken so far out of context as to be complete fiction, to support his foreign policy proposals he appears to banking on the fact that most Americans will have the same sorry understanding of history as his. You’d think that someone who is potentially the next President would have at least some semblance of understanding regarding the history of the country that he wishes to lead. The fact that he does not appear to is somewhat troubling. You just have to ask yourself how is it that he’s gotten this far? But then the answer may be staring us right in the face. I would imagine a very large number of his supporters are products of our outstanding government school system. The certainly would explain a lot. What does not surprise me is the percentage of black voters who flock to support him. Recent history shows that, if anything, a substantial portion of the black population continues to allow themselves to be bamboozled by the propaganda of liberal Democrats. And if the liberal Democrat just happened to be black it doesn’t matter what he has to say, they’re going with the black guy no matter what.

Obamaisms, other wise known as lies and/or distortions. Or, just plain mindless statements.

One day Obama could not classify Iran as a serious threat.

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

On the next day, however, Iran is a grave threat.

"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," Obama said.

Obama said that McCain "wants to give you the failed Bush health care policies for another four years." He added that McCain would "shred" the employer-sponsored health care system and leave U.S. residents to "fend for yourself" in the free market.

Pharmaceutical industry employees and PACs contributed $339,729 to Obama, $262,870 to Clinton and $74,850 to McCain during the same period.

"I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement," he said.

"For him to come to Oregon as an environmental president, but his big strategy is to do more drilling and to have a gas tax holiday for three months, that's a phony solution," he said. Personally, I think drilling for more oil here in the good old U. S. of A. is a pretty darn good idea.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

The Illinois senator also argued that the differences between his healthcare plan and that of Clinton "pale in comparison to the differences we have with John McCain," whose proposals would only work "if you're healthy and wealthy."

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."

Obama’s idea of Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress

RICE: Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be. It may, in fact be that by the middle of next of year, Ahmadinejad is long gone.

BLITZER: Let’s be precise because when they criticize Barack Obama, not only John McCain but others, for suggesting that he would meet without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, who only last week on Israel's 60th anniversary called Israel a "stinking corpse." The question that they ask is what is Barack Obama going to talk with him about?

Sometime I just think that there is no way this guy could ever be elected President. To my way of thinking there shouldn’t be enough people who vote for him as dogcatcher, let alone President. Then I see some poll or see him in front of, I guess thousands of people, in some stadium and I just gotta scratch my head and wonder what the heck is in the water these folks must be drinking.

He has been doing his best for those 40 years in the Senate doing nothing more than to get as many of our citizens as possible hooked on the government teat. What he should have been doing was encouraging those same citizens to get off their butts, have a little self respect, take a little responsibility for themselves and become self sufficient. But that’s not the way of this "Liberal Lion". How many lives do you suppose he has ruined so he could sit in his big house, by the fireplace with a drink in his hand, and claim to be the protector of the poor and the down trodden. How many more Americans would be out there supporting themselves, and being much happier if it were not for fat, old Teddy?

When he does leave this Earth I hope it’s in the same agonizing manner that a young Mary Jo died. Drowning while Teddy was running around trying to come up with a way to save his political career. Lucky for him that the voters of Massachusetts seem to be just this side of brain dead morons.

Obama, blaming Fox News for his likely defeat in Kentucky said, "Part of it is because there have been these e-mails that have been sent out very systematically, presumably by various political opponents, although I don’t know who," he said. "And there are a lot of voters who get their news from Fox News. Fox has been pumping up rumors about my religious beliefs or my patriotism or what have you since the beginning of the campaign."

In the process he pretty much gives himself away regarding his disdain for middle America.  First it was those poor unfortunate folks in Pennsylvania clinging to their guns and Jesus. Now it's this: "What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

I doubt when he says "states in the middle" he means "white people filled states", does he? Or does he? After all, he's already written off working class white voters, he might as well write off the rest of them, except of course for all those brilliant collegiate liberals who are just so much smarter than we little people.

Let's be real here for a second, he could not have actually meant that the people in Kentucky know more about Hillary Clinton because Arkansas is nearby. After all, Kentucky borders Illinois. Arkansas is two states away. His ignorance of the country he wishes to govern becomes more obvious every day.  But then should something like this really surprise anyone coming from a guy who wants to President of 57 states?

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

"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home."

Sporting a shiny new American flag pin at an appearance in Rush Limbaugh's hometown, Sen. Barack Obama came up with some novel reasons why the U.S. may be struggling in the war in Afghanistan.

"We don't have enough capacity right now to deal with it -- and it's not just the troops," Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic. "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.

The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population. Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi. No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.

"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said. So far, so good. "But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING

"When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

"This effort to undermine Lebanon’s elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

The naiveté of this statement is staggering.

For National Security reasons alone this incompetent presidential wanna be needs to be sent packing. I don’t think even Hillary is as dangerous as Obama could turn out to be. He recently went so far as to say that because his middle name is Hussein, those supporting the terrorists would be able to trust him and be more willing to talk instead of bomb. (I thought we weren’t supposed to mention his middle name.) Does the word "MORON" mean anything to you? Can you possibly imagine how incredibly dangerous this man could be as President, especially when backed up by a Congress packed to the rafters with his fellow pacifists and appeasers? If Obama is in fact elected, you’d better be ready to run for cover. I’m actually thinking about covering my in ground swimming pool with steel reinforced concrete and turning it into a bomb shelter.

You can think want you want about McCain, and trust me I’m not an enthusiastic member of his fan club either, but at least by the end of what would be his first four years as President I’m very confident we wouldn’t be mourning the needless death of millions of our fellow countrymen resulting from some massive terrorist attack. I just don’t think that with a President McCain terrorists would be permitted to once again attack our homeland. I just don't feel the same way about a possible Obama presidency. I think just the opposite scenario is more likely to take place and would be a direct result of both his leadership inexperience as well as his blatant ignorance of foreign policy. And lets be honest here, being pacifists is what Democrats do. They’re always just a little too quick to turn on their own country. This guy goes way beyond being dangerous, and his presidency could quite possibly result in events that this country may very well never recover from. His is a future that is something I am simply not willing to curse my children with. I don’t want to end up being in the position of mourning the death of my loved ones and finding myself saying if only I had voted for McCain.

Senator McCain,

Let me first start by saying, Senator, that you were not my first choice, or even second choice for that matter, to be my Republican nominee for President. For obvious reasons. By participating in such things as that Gang of 14 nonsense, and voting against the Bush tax cuts while using the same lame excuse as the Democrats and your lame attempt at amnesty for illegal immigrants, you left me somewhat disappointed, and angry. I felt there were far better choices, actual Conservative choices that have more consistently, than yourself, been on the conservative side of the issues. Having said that, the voters have spoken and now I have a decision to make. I am well aware of how much you take pride in being called a "Maverick", but I would feel much better if you took at least some pride in being called a Conservative, since we already have a liberal running for President. You see, personally I am a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative, and while there are issues where we are in total agreement, we seem to be separated by a chasm on some of the issues most important to me. On key issues we are of a very significant difference of opinion.  I am also a proud veteran of 24 years in the U.S. Navy.

Your rhetoric on such nonsensical issues as the chicken little hysteria regarding global warming and your views on a "comprehensive" immigration plan reflects a real lack of regard for the truly important issues facing this country, and quite frankly, sound like they should be coming for your liberal opponent. Issues such as free trade, ensuring the Law of the Sea Treaty is "not" ratified, promoting a serious border security and immigration policy, tax reform, expanding oil exploration here at home, dumping Kyoto, pushing the missile defense system, and finally either reforming the U.N. or withdrawing from it all together, these are the issues that should be at the forefront of a Conservative agenda. Not sucking up to and pushing the agenda items of our liberal media. It’s not the liberal media whose votes you need, or for that matter will receive.

At some point your going to have to decide what’s more important to you, as well as what’s best for the country you claim to love, being a Maverick or being the next President. Trust me when I say, time is running out! You can get serious about taking the right stand on the right issues or you can go down in history as just another presidential wanna be who got beat by one of the most incompetent, inexperienced candidates in history. Now that would be embarrassing. But, I guess you’d still be a maverick.

There are so many positive, conservative ideas that can so easily be promoted that would perpetuate a positive attitude and would ensure the future of this great country remains bright. Inspirational ideas that create opportunities that can guarantee even more Americans get to achieve the American dream. Ideas that are in stark contrast with the big government, tax and spend, welfare state expanding agenda being advocated by Obama. I cannot help but believe you are squandering a golden opportunity, while risking the future of all Americans by trying to be more like your opponent instead of highlighting what should be differences with him by advocating tried and true conservative principles. You’re only going to have one shot at this, you’d better make it count. You’re supposed to be the guy that would be able prevent the Democrats from severely damaging our country. Instead, you’ve chosen to become more like them, I don’t get it. You might want to do yourself a favor, either lose the rhetoric or be prepared to be remembered as another Bob Dole type of presidential candidate.

Comments from our enlightened Professor:

"Symbolic racism," he explains, "means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination."

Almost 60 percent of white voters agreed with the statement that "blacks should try harder to succeed." A startling 43 percent of white college graduates nodded at this one, along with 71 percent of whites with no college education.

Fully 49 percent of white voters disagreed with the statement that "history makes it more difficult for blacks to succeed." Forty percent of white college graduates disagreed with it, along with 58 percent of whites with no college education.

He then goes on to say:

"Of course, these results don't mean that Obama won't win over white working-class voters. ... Democrats must hope that disapproval of Bush could lead working-class voters to begrudgingly approve of a black presidential candidate."

Parents with children in college beware, this is an example of the quality professors out there teaching our children. It’s gotten to the point where college is nothing more than an extended brain washing session.

He needs to decide whether or not he really wants to be President or just another loser who gets beat by an incompetent opponent. He also needs to realize that this upcoming election is about something that is much larger than himself. This election represents a distinct fork in the road regarding the future of this country. The future of the country will depend on which path is chosen and then embarked upon. The potential choices that lay ahead with their corresponding end results, could not be more stark in their differences. Obama would have us take the left path and have us enter into an era of even bigger government, higher taxes, less security while creating a society where personal freedoms are slowly but surely whittled away until they are only some faint and distant memory. We need a strong and able leader with the courage to forge ahead down the right path where government plays a smaller role in the lives of everyday Americans, taxes are lower, where personal responsibility is encouraged and where we are fighting those who are trying to kill us.

"Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don't seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees."

"For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other."

"Unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform I don’t think you can take it piecemeal," he explained Monday, answering a question about providing visas for skilled workers.

"In other words," he said, "because as soon you and I start to talk about the highly skilled workers, our agricultural interest people are going to say, ‘Look we need ag workers, too.’ And then somebody’s going say, ‘We need the DREAM Act,’ and then somebody’s going to say, ‘We’ve got to enforce our border.’"

Throughout the Republican primary battle last fall, McCain faced relentless questions about his support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, the 2007 bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to remain in the United States if they faced certain penalties. Opponents labeled it "amnesty."

Since clinching the nomination, McCain has largely avoided speaking about wide-ranging immigration reform, arguing primarily that the government needs to focus on securing the border with Mexico before taking on other measures.

On Monday, he lobbied for a broader approach that includes a temporary guest worker program and tamper-proof ID cards.

"We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States," McCain said, "and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform."

Sen. Barack Obama came in second with the backing of six economists, or 21% of the respondents. "He alone acknowledges that higher taxes will be needed to fix social security," said Dana Johnson of Comerica Bank.

"The gas price break scheme is stupid," said Mark Nielson of MacroEcon Global Advisors. "However we don’t trust Clinton. Obama is an unknown entity, but should he favor vast social programs he has championed as a young man we cannot assume he will be fiscally responsible."

John McCain has a proud record of common sense stewardship. Along with his commitment to clean air and water, and to conserving open space, he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore.

John McCain believes that America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked. Our economic prospects depend greatly upon the sustainable use of ample and unspoiled natural resources. A clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy. History shows that poverty is a poor steward.

As John McCain said, "Americans solve problems. We don't run from them." He believes that ignoring the problem reflects a "liberal live for today" attitude unworthy of our great country, and poses a serious and unacceptable threat to our environment, our economy, and U.S. national security. He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.

Supporting mass amnesty. The May 29, 2003, Tucson Citizen quoted Mr. McCain as stating that "Amnesty has to be an important part of" any immigration solution. He was part of the bipartisan coalition that tried to pass amnesty legislation in 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he voted in favor of S. 2611, legislation that would reward between 10 and 11 million illegals with amnesty if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine.

Supporting in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Mr. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 774, the Dream Act, providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The legislation would have enabled illegal aliens who entered the United States before age 16 to obtain a green card and then use their newly acquired status to obtain green cards for the millions of parents who illegally brought their children with them into the United States. Mr. McCain missed a Senate vote on the issue in October. He said that he would have opposed it on the Senate floor had he been there to vote.

Voted to kill border fence. In 2006, Mr. McCain voted for an amendment to S. 2611 offered by Sen. Arlen Specter to require consultation with the Mexican government concerning the construction of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to Numbers USA, an organization that lobbies against illegal immigration, this amendment would have effectively guaranteed that the border fence was never built.

Voted against permanently barring gang members and terrorists from the United States. Last year, Mr. McCain voted against an amendment (Senate Amendment 1184) introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, that would have permanently barred gang members, terrorists, sex offenders, alien absconders, aliens convicted of domestic violence and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs from the United States. The Cornyn Amendment was rejected on a 51-46 vote.

Voted in favor of Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who commit identity fraud. In 2006. Mr. McCain joined with Mr. Kennedy in working to defeat an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, that would have barred Social Security credits for work being done prior to their receiving amnesty — in other words, while working under a false Social Security number. The Ensign Amendment, (Senate Amendment 3985) was defeated on a 50-49 vote. (Courtesy of the Washinton Times)

Either he chooses to listen to those of us who make up the core of the Conservative base, and not mock us, or he can sit here and suffer with the rest of us as we try to cope with the consequences of a catastrophic Obama presidency. The choice is his, he’s either with us or against us, and being against us he’ll lose.

"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing," Obama told Blitzer, when asked his thoughts about McCain’s comments that the terrorist organization Hamas wants Obama to be president. "Because John McCain always says ‘I am not going to run that kind of politics,’ and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his.

(FACT: Hamas leadership has come out saying it favors Obama as the next President. He can try to play it down all he wants. Ain't gonna fly!)

"I’ve said it’s a terrorist organization and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate."

"Whether it’s my judgment on Iraq and recognizing that that was going to be a strategic blunder, to my insistence that we need to talk not just to countries we like, but countries we don’t, to my assessment in terms of how we had over-invested in the Musharraf government in Pakistan and that was going to be setting us up for failure later on," Obama said. "I think I’ve consistently displayed the kind of judgment that the American people are looking for in the next president."

Mark Salter, one of McCain’s advisors replied this way:

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

And now a word from a enthusiastic backer of candidate Obama, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who on Thursday made the statement that the state of Israel is a "stinking corpse" that is destined to disappear, the French news agency AFP reported.

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as having said.

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime’s existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

Ahmadinejad further stated that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - referring to the Second Lebanon War in the summer of 2006.

[W]hat I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power and as a consequence can't protect themselves from being being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for justice. That's been its historic role. That was its role in Brown v Board of Education.

Does anything else really need to be said?

It all boils down to philosophy with Obama, a very obvious leftist philosophy that advocates a much more socialist form of government. He is someone who has a very deep-seated and abiding desire to take this country sharply to the left. Much to the detriment of the rest of us who do not exactly share his commitment to this more socialist idea for government.

What should be a no brainer, I think, is that he will easily capture the majority of the black vote in the general election. He will receive a substantial number of votes for no other reason than because he is black. So, those of us in the remaining voting population are going to be required to remain rational, and consider if the path that Obama has chosen for America is indeed the right path. We will need to ask ourselves if Obama’s ideas for "change" are actually change for the better or worse and do they make for a better place to raise our children or a worse place. I would argue, again, his ideas would make the country very much for the worse on both counts.

Forget his total lack of any kind of real leadership experience, or the fact that he’s so willing to talk seriously with our enemies. How about his pathetic economic plan which primarily consists only of raising taxes. Can anybody explain to me how reducing the disposable income of millions of Americans only so the government can expand an already out of control welfare state is going to give a boost to the economy? Because I just don’t understand the theory! Personally, when the current Bush tax cuts expire I’ll be sending another $3000 to the government and trust me I’m not rich. Combine that with whatever I’ll be paying for a gallon of gas, because of more government taxes and pure government idiocy regarding oil exploration at home, and I’ll be lucky to have any money left over. But wait, his plan to totally ruin the economy goes even further. By reviving the protectionist trade policies of the early thirty’s he can do even more damage. (If you don’t believe how well those didn’t work, check your history.)  Plus his plan for altering our healthcare system is more than a little unnerving as well.  His whole agenda is about more government involvement in the lives of everyday Americans. 

Look, the bottom line here is that Obama is no different than any other elitist left wing Democrat that has ever come down the pike. He wants to punish the evil corporations by taxing their excessive profits, but as we all should know by now, except Democrats I guess, is corporations don’t pay taxes. They simply pass them along to the consumer siphoning even more money out of whatever’s left in our bank accounts.

He cannot be allowed to win, not because of his skin color, but because he is philosophically flawed. And given some of his statements and actions I seriously question his love for his country. He is driven by nothing more than a desire for political power, and I do not trust how he would use it. There is a clear and present danger in even the possibility of a President Obama becoming a reality. America would change drastically under such a man and not at all for the better.

While the Democrat candidates continue to pummel each other into submission with the victor receiving the nomination, John McCain is out before the American people making his case for being elected the next President. With it still not having been determined which candidate he will be facing, there is no doubt that the Democrats are going to find themselves, happily, saddled with a Socialist. No matter which Democrat gets the nomination there is very little difference in the agendas of either. Both want nothing more than to high tail it out of Iraq and, oh by the way, raise taxes, socialize health care, put in place new gun restrictions, promote gay marriage as well as promote taxpayer funded abortions. I guess this is the type of change they’re thinking most Americans want. And, I guess one cold make that assumption judging by the number of voters being drawn to these two candidates.

So, if so many folks are being attracted to the Democrats, and they all want change and a new direction and all the indicators favor a Democrats sweep, why then has the lying to discredit John McCain already started? First out of the box is the Democrat attack dog, MoveOn.Org. Still out there saying how John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 Years.

Here is what MoveOn.org says McCain said:

"It's clear that the end is very much in sight."

"Well, I think John McWethy's report is very accurate. We've still got the oil fields in the north that have to be secured. Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown, I would imagine there'll be some die hards there that, but I think that we, it, it's clear that the end is, is, is very much in sight. And, and today I think Americans should be very proud of their leadership, of their technology. But most of all, of the men and women in the military. We could pause just a moment and be very, very proud. There's some great challenges ahead, setting up a new government, stopping the looting that's going on right now, and the chaos that's, that, that's bound to ensue in a place where it's been in the iron grip of an oppressive dictatorship. But they're doing a marvelous job, but they've still got a ways to go."

MoveOn.org throws in the half-quote about staying in Iraq for 100 years, out of context, leaving out McCain's caveat of "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." Even the Washington Post says that McCain is being taken out of context. That does not prevent MoveOn from putting it out there anyway. This continues to be a standard tactic of the left. If you can take few words out of context and distort what actually was stated, no harm no foul. They have always done this and they’ll continue to do this, especially when they can count on the ignorance of a certain percentage of the population who just might believe what it is they have to say. But we all need to be very vigilant to make sure the media does not start parroting the left. Senator McCain is gong to need to be diligent and forthright in the upcoming battle and not worry about offending his rivals. They sure won’t mind offending him! The stakes are too high and he is going to need to be ready to take the battle to the Democrats. He cannot afford to be on defense. Because as the old saying goes, if you’re on defense your not on offense. And he needs to stop the silliness as when he was telling North Carolina Republicans to pull a very reasonable ad. He cannot afford to alienate those that should vote for him. John McCain was not my candidate of choice, but with the alternative so dangerous, I will vote for him.

These are very dangerous times and the left will stop at nothing to take back the White House and then lay down in the face of terrorists who would gladly kill us all.