Democrats are very fond of quoting the Constitution, and in so doing they assume not many of us ordinary citizens have taken the time to read it so we’ll blindly go along with whatever their constitutional interpretation is and be happy.  But when you get right down to it, they really have very little understanding of what the document actually says. I would like to challenge anyone who happens to read this to find a copy of our founding document and READ it. You may be interested to find out how the Democrats and their allies like the ALCU have twisted the original meaning and injected their own meaning into the words of our Founding Fathers.

Just read it, or better yet, read it to your kids. Refresh the old memory banks from your high school days when the true meaning of the words may have actually been taught. Back when we were taught what a great country it was we live in. Unlike today, when our kids are taught that all the worlds ills are America’s fault or how the Constitution has come to guarantee such things as abortion or how the meaning of separation of church and state, which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, has been portrayed as something intended by Founding Fathers but is in fact just the opposite. Or how it allows for gay marriage while at the same time it does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. READ IT, it’s not hard.

When you listen to Obama and you hear the amount of money he intends to spend you’ve got to be asking yourself, where the heck is it all going to come from? I mean the incomprehensible spending program that makes up his "economic" plan really is something to behold. His idea for strengthening our somewhat fragile economy is to take money from people that would ordinarily be spending it on things to keep the economy going just so he can spend it on an ever-increasing array of wasteful social programs. Does this really make’s sense to anyone? Especially to any of you who seem to be so enamored with this guy. All this money is going to have to come from somewhere, and I’m getting more than a little tired of being considered the Democrat’s personal piggy bank. Just how is the economy supposed to grow when Obama and his cronies are taking from us what little disposable income we have left after buying gas and groceries?

Let’s review just a couple of thing he plans on doing to give everybody and idea of what I’m talking about. Candidate Obama has proposed a 10 year, $60 Billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank," which is a really fancy name for something that is nothing more than an expensive scheme to fund more of the dubious pork barrel projects that can’t quite pass the B.S. test in our pork addicted Congress. And of course, as typical with any Democrat spending scheme, this $60 Billion is just a down payment and will be used to leverage "almost half a Trillion of additional infrastructure spending." Now, I’m sure even you ardent Obama supporters can guess where most, if not all, of that money is going to be coming from. And I guess that doesn’t bother the Obama folks, but it sure does bother me! But Obama says not to worry though because the whole scheme will "generate nearly two million new jobs." Next the ever fiscally responsible Obama has also proposed a ten-year, $150 Billion program to "establish a green energy sector that will create up to five million new jobs." Then, on top of these things, his universal healthcare plan, which he continues to assert will reduce the average family’s insurance premium by %2500 per year, is projected to cost between $50-65 Billion per year. Of course that supposed $2500 a year savings will either end up going to pay for groceries, gas or worse be taken from us by the government in the form of higher taxes.

Another thing our Democrat candidate can be found strongly supporting are these monstrosities called "refundable tax credits." This is a polite description for some little jewels, bribes really, that are nothing more than taxpayer-financed cash payments to people who pay NO INCOME TAXES. Obama promises a $4,000 refundable tax credit to finance college tuition for students who spend 100 hours performing community service. Sorry, but I already see the possible corruption here before this things even gets off the ground. Additionally, there will be a refundable 10 percent-interest tax credit for married couples who take the $10,900 standard deduction because their itemized deductions (including mortgage interest) fall below that level. Couples will also receive a refundable $1000 tax credit to offset payroll taxes even if their refundable earned-income tax credit (EITC) has already eliminated their payroll tax burden. Taxpayers, that’s you and me folks, will also finance a $500 refundable tax credit to augment a $1,000 savings account deposit made by families earning up to $75,000.

Does anybody see a trend developing here? But wait, there’s more! The benevolent Mr. Obama wants to do even more. He promises to "triple the EITC benefit for minimum wage workers." Here’s how it’ll go: A married couple with two children working full-time and earning minimum wage ($5.85 per hour, $24,336 per year) their refundable EITC would rise from $3,225 to $9,675. They already qualify for refundable child tax credits totaling about $1,850. Now Obama would raise their refundable child-care tax credit to $3,000. Remember now, his refundable $1,000 tax credit to partly offset their $1,500 Social Security taxes, which had already been more than off set by their nearly $10,000 refundable EITC. If they put that $1,000 in the bank, they would get another refundable tax credit of $500.

These are just a couple of examples of the shear lunacy that lies in store for us should this guy manage to get elected. And they represent just the tip of the iceberg. The amounts of money being talked about are simply mind-boggling. With food and gas prices, at least at this point, predicted to go even higher where are the ever-decreasing number of people who actually pay taxes supposed to come up with the money? Or, is that really his plan? To get us all totally dependent on the government so it can intrude even farther into our lives than it already does?

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s claim of supporting the 2^nd Amendment is somewhat dubious at best. One again it is not safe to accept at face value what he says todays as he panders for votes. The only way to find out where his heart truly lies is to take a good close look at his record. So much remains unknown about this man yet so many people are willing to trust the future of the country to him. I’m afraid we could be headed for some very perilous times, if more of us don’t wake up and go in search of the truth.

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns." John Lott:

"[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation." (Ryan Keith "Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics," The Associated Press, 1/17/07)

"Adding even further skepticism to Obama's claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute -- an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

"In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." (Liam Ford, "Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns," Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama's Response: "Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

The warning bells should be going off loud and clear in the heads of all rational thinking Americans. His plans for revamping the healthcare system on top of his backward looking for ideas for fighting terrorism should give us all pause and make us think about what we are about to do come November.

Besides my concerns over how Obama would approach the war on terror, an issue of primary concern to me is the way he wants approach "fixing" healthcare in this country. As far as I’m concerned, I want the government as far away as possible from having anything to do with my healthcare. Can you possibly imagine handing over to the government absolute control of the single most important aspect of your life? You’ve got to be certifiably nuts! The idea of socialized medicine has failed to work anywhere and everywhere it has been tried. Supporters of the idea love to tout Canada and Great Britain as stellar examples of its success. However, upon a little closer examination, no pun intended, you find many Canadians and Britons who would strongly disagree with that line of thinking. Examples of the flaws of such a system should scare any supporter of socialized medicine back to more of a rational point of view. In Great Britain there have been cases where people died waiting for an ambulance. Medications and standard methods of treatment that are covered by insurance companies in the U.S. are called experimental in Canada. At a time when Canada’s population is aging and needs more not less medical care, cost crunching bureaucrats have reduced the size of medical school classes, shuttered hospitals, capped physician’s fees all resulting in "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS" of patients having to wait for needed treatment, many of whom died as a direct result of the delays. Or, consider a recent British controversy over a cancer patient, who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it cancelled, 48 TIMES! More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. Are we really ready to allow ourselves to be subjected to such an unworkable system for something as important as our health?

Our current system here in the U.S. may have its drawbacks, but before we decide to adopt any other system, especially a socialized system, lots of thinking and research needs to be done. Because if we measure a healthcare system by how well it serves its sick people, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bare this out. For Leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the U.S. and 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81 percent in the U.S., yet only 62 percent in France and down to 44 percent in England. Diagnosed with any of these terrible diseases under whose medical system would you want to be?

Look, history is full of failed experiments in government control of the distribution of goods and services. The results speak for themselves; wherever free trade and economic rights are stifled, shortages abound. We can even find examples of that in the U.S.: Nixon’s attempts at price and wage controls as well as today’s healthcare "crisis" caused not by the private practice of medicine, but because of the governments growing influence in this sector. Government involvement drives costs up and availability down. Gee, sounds like a good idea to me. How about you? How does Obama’s idea sound when compared to the countries that have already tried it of continue to try to make it work sacrificing innocent lives along the way just to save a few bucks?

Here’s just a little more food for thought for all of those who still think that socialized medicine is the way to go. It seems there was this guy named Claude Castonguay who is regarded as the father of socialized medicine in Canada. In the 1960s he chaired a Quebec commission whose recommendation for a government run health care system for that province was adopted. After which, the idea spread rapidly throughout the rest of the country. However, and pay attention here, now after forty years of experience dealing with the nightmare he created, the good Mr. Castonguay has had a change of heart. Or at least changed his mind. Four decades later, as chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec healthcare this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

Says the enlightened Mr. Castonguay today, "We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it." But now he prescribes a radical overhaul. He goes on to say, "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Whoa, what a concept! When the first countries adopted socialized medicine it was a mistake. For the U.S. to do it now in the face of disastrous experiences wherever it’s been tried is at best shear stupidity and at worst a crime.

The correct response to the five justice majority that ruled it was unconstitutional to apply the death penalty to a child rapist. We need one more guy like this on the court. Just another reason to vote for McCain!

From the dissent authored by Justice Alito:

"The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified "a national consensus" that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its "independent judgment," that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with "‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’" Ante, at 8, 15, 16 (citation omitted). Because neither of these justifications is sound, I respectfully dissent."

And, the dissent concludes:

"In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable "objective indicia" of a "national consensus" in support of the Court’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality of the state law before us would not "extend" or "expand" the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general."

Now as we all should know by now, nowhere in the Constitution is there any reference to the supposed "wall of separation between church and state" so loudly proclaimed by this wonderful, civic minded organization. What it does say is that the government shall not establish an official religion. It very simply states that there is a freedom of religion and that we are all free to practice our religion without fear or repression, within reason of course, in any way we want. This Liberal organization continues to use non-existent verbage in its attempt to continue its quest to silence any and all forms of religious celebration, except maybe Islam, in this country through nothing more than pure intimidation. I would very much like to thank Ms. Jeon for her concern for my welfare. However, my advice to her would be to get a life.

It is the War on Terror and fighting terrorists wherever and whenever we find them, that to me is the singular most important issue in this election. It is important to me because there is so much riding on how the conflict ends. To stand up before the country and make promises about reforming healthcare, "fixing the economy" or even the reducing of gas prices without first addressing the terror issue makes absolutely no sense. It is the main issue that Democrats continually come down on the wrong side of. In fact, more often that not, it seems they even seem to be cheering the terrorists on. It is absolutely imperative that we meet the terror threat head on or be prepared to live with the consequences. Which would mean living in a much more restrictive society as well as under constant fear.

I fail to understand why it is that the Democrats continue to lie about and attempt to hide, today, positions most of them held back when Clinton was president. They were all onboard when Clinton was talking regime change in Iraq, and by force if necessary. And alone if necessary. What happened? Why the change? Actually the answer is really quite simple. They knew that Clinton really had no intention of doing anything meaningful. Clinton was all talk and no action, all show and no go. Unless of course we’re talking about chubby interns.

If Americans collectively do not grow a pair, and soon, we’re going to find ourselves in the very precarious position of trying to maintain the lifestyle that we have all become accustomed to and having to alter our every day lives out of fear of becoming the next victim of some crazed nut wearing a bomb belt. Democrats love to paint this country as the Lex Luther or Dr. Moriarty of the world when actually we’re more like the Superman. They try to convince everyday Americans that we are the root of all that’s evil in the world and all we have to do is to figure out why people hate us. The answer to that is pretty simple as well. They hate us because we are the most prosperous, the hardest working and the freest people in the world and they’re jealous. What claim to fame do any of these countries where these terrorists originate from have besides oil. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nodda. And the Democrats feel guilty about it. So they must try to do everything possible to make us less free and a lot less prosperous. And with Obama in the White House they just might succeed.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask any one of the millions of Obama-zombies out there how it is that Obama’s promise of positive "change" can possibly occur when the change being promised is nothing more than a return to the same failed policies attempted by other outstanding Presidents by the name of Clinton and Carter. I mean, if a plan or policy has been proven that it simply will not work, what can possibly be achieved by repeating it? I do not understand the infatuation people have with a man that is nothing but a complete and utter fraud. Is it that people are simply blinded by the pretty speeches and that they don’t take the time or expend the required amount of energy to look for the substance or look into the background of this man to see what it is he truly believes in? He is nothing more than a perpetrator of one of the grandest hoaxes of all time. It is amazing to me the number of people who have willingly allowed themselves to be taken in.

Some further incoherent thought from a potential President:

"First of all, I think there is an executive order out on Osama bin Laden’s head," Obama said at a news conference. "And if I’m president, and we have the opportunity to capture him, we may not be able to capture him alive."

Now this sudden foreign policy expert wouldn’t discuss the details regarding the approach he would use to bring bin Laden to justice if he were apprehended, I guess we’re just supposed to assume he’s just plain smarter than those folks who are currently looking for bin Laden. RIGHT! Anyway, Obama did refer to the Nuremberg trials for the prosecution of Nazi leaders as inspiration because the victories acted to advance universal principles and set a tone for the creation of an "international order". Which is something that’s very important to Liberals such as Obama.

"What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism," Obama said.

Can you believe this drivel? The only effect on me is the disbelief that he would even have the gall to make this next statement.  Here is a guy with absolutely ZERO credibility on anything even remotely having to do with foreign policy trying to convince me that if only I trust him, everything will be ok. He likes to throw around references to history but he is usually so far of the mark as to appear ignorant of the facts. His view of historical accuracy is just another indicator of just how far to the left this guy really is.

"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States," Obama said in the opening remarks that in part referred to Iraq war. My friends, we ain’t seen disastrous yet. But we will if this elitist gets himself elected.

I guess just because he surrounds himself with 17 American flags and plants himself in front of a sign that says, "Judgement to Lead" he figures we’ll all sit back, relax and say, "Boy, I sure do feel better now!" I guess he hopes we won’t notice the supposed national security experts who have formerly serviced in Congress and the Clinton administration that he has chosen to surround himself with. It’s this same band of intellectual morons who will be advising his campaign and brings some rather dubious and questionable foreign policy experience to a very naïve and simplistic presidential candidate who has served a mere three years in Congress. Think about, these clowns being able to influence someone with no practical experience. Am I the only one who sees this as rather a dangerous combination? You know, sometimes I think he just opens his mouth and stuff falls out. He quite simply has no clue about what it takes to truly keep this country and it’s entire population safe. I am much more comfortable with the Bush-McCain approach than I could ever be with any appeasement-oriented approach of Obama’s

"Osama bin Laden and his top leadership, the people who murdered 3,000 Americans, have a safe haven in Northeast Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audio tapes to the outside world," Obama said. "That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

Tucker Bounds, a McCain spokesman responded by saying the Obama offers nothing but weak leadership and a partisan approach to terrorism. He also noted that Obama opposed the decision to send additional troops to Iraq and has not visited the country in more than two years.

"Barack Obama wants to continue down the path of ideologically driven blindness to the conditions on the ground," Bounds said.

Obama’s 13 member foreign policy advisory group includes three who advised Hillary Clinton and also served in President Clinton’s cabinet; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, a retread from the Carter years, and former Defense Secretary William Perry. These clowns are nothing more than the Three Stooges of foreign policy. When asked if she brought any advice from Clinton who, throughout the campaign had questioned Obama’s experience to be Commander-in-Chief she said, " Their positions are so similar on restoring America’s leadership," she said as she walked out of the door without stopping to say anything else.

Others that Obama has chose to surround himself in his "working group" include Sam Nunn of Georgia, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, David Boren of Oklahoma and Tim Roemer of Indiana, all former DEMOCRAT lawmakers. Also included were several Clinton administration officials.

Look, I have no problem with someone who wants to advocate change, as long as it is positive change. But turning the clock back almost thirty years and rehashing the failed policies of the past, to me, isn’t looking forward.

Recently Obama stated that his approach to combating terrorism would be a little more attuned to legal issues than the Bush administration's:

"It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States. But we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

"This is a remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism. In point of fact, while the government managed to prosecute many people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution. Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system’s capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him — he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended)."

Obama, quite simply, doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. All one has to do is to look back at how we responded to terrorist attacks on Americans and American assets during the Clinton administration culminating in the 9/11 attacks to see that Clinton was a miserable failure at protecting us. The futility of the law enforcement approach in combating terrorism should obvious to even the most casual of obeservers. But Obama's comments fall short on additional factual grounds as well, bringing into question even more his total lack of understanding about what at stake here.

"I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday."

In Boumediene, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions Congress had adopted at the Supreme Court's urging. Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants' "day in court" occurred before the kind of tribunal the Supreme Court found constitutionally inadequate in Boumediene.

In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:

(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.

(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.

(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.

(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.

(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.

The charter provision on the appeal rights of the Nuremberg defendants was even shorter and sweeter. There were no appeal rights. Article 26 provided: "The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review."

If we are stupid enough to place the responsibility of keeping this country safe from further attacks into the hands of someone so woefully inept as well as being someone who seems to be on the side of the terrorists themselves we will have no one to blame but ourselves. If Obama is elected, it is very possible we could be on the verge of entering a very dark time lead by someone who cannot possibly be trusted to make the kind of decisions that will be needed in time of possible crisis.  Indecisiveness and an inability to act are not qualities we should be looking for in our next President.  We don't have the luxury of allowing time for his on the job training. 

I read an interesting AP article in my local newspaper recently. It was titled "Black Conservatives Torn". And it was about how some very prominent Black individuals were saying that even though they disagree with Obama on the substantive issues, it will be difficult for them not to vote for him. I might add, over that couple of days I’ve heard two of these individuals explain their positions on the Sean Hannity Show, and to be honest, when they were asked point blank about voting for Obama both of them seemed to dance around the question.

Here we have a man, in Barack Obama, who has the destructive potential to do an incalculable amount of damage to this country on so many different levels. He undoubtedly will attempt to take this country so far to the left that will become totally unrecognizable compared to what it is today. Yet these very high profile men seem to be very willing to vote for him for no other reason than because he is black, placing the fate of the entire country into the hands of a man completely unqualified for the task at hand. I would like to ask them, are they Americans first or are they simply black men living in America? The ramifications of an Obama presidency would be both catastrophic and long lasting, and the fact that anybody could even be considering voting for this man for no other reason that because of his race simply boggles my mind.

One of these men said, "I don’t necessarily like his policies; I don’t like much what he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrust me to really seriously think about it. I can honestly say I have no idea who I’m going to pull the lever for in November. And to me, that’s incredible." Yeah, it’s incredible to me too!

Another of these fine men said, "I am wondering if this is the time where we get over the hump, where an Obama victory will finally, at long last, move us beyond some of the old conversations about race. That possibly, just possibly, this great country can finally be forgiven for its original sin, and find some absolution. We have to not judge him based on his race, but on his desirability as a political candidate. And based on that, I have a lot of disagreements with him on a lot of issues".

I don’t know about anybody else, but I don’t even consider voting for someone with whom I disagree on the major issues that are of concern to me. However, there was on notable black individual who, while he said he was proud of Obama as a black man, also said, "come November I will do everything in my power to defeat him. I think people who try to put this sort of messianic mantle on Barack's nomination are a little misguided".

If members of the black community see leading black conservatives out there expressing a willingness to vote for Obama, what are they to think? Obviously Obama is going to receive the lion’s share of the black vote in any event, and primarily for no other reason than because of his race. But I do think these recognizable black men are performing a great disservice not only to their country, but also to that same black community. A community, more often than not, that turns to the likes of a Sharpton or Jackson for supposed leadership. One must be intellectually honest or risk the loss of credibility. People, no matter what their race need to be able to trust you and trust what you say is true.

What follows is a very interesting timeline that shows in stark contrast American responses to terrorist acts when there is a Republican in the White House compared to when there is a Democrat residing there:

September 1978: The Islamic Revolution begins in the Iranian city of Qom.

December 1978: President Jimmy Carter states America will not get directly involved to support the Shah of Iran, an American ally.

January 16, 1979: The Shah leaves, never to return. The new revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeni denounces America as the "Great Satan".

November 4, 1979: Iranian "students" take sixty-six hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, holding most of them for 444 days.

November 1980: Ronald Reagan elected president.

January 20, 1981: Reagan inaugurated, hostages released.

October 23, 1983: Iran’s newly formed terrorist organization Hezbollah kills 230 U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

April 5, 1986: Libyan terrorists bomb a Berlin disco, killing one U.S. soldier and injuring fifty.

November 1988: George H.W. Bush is elected.

August 1, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait

November 1992: Bill Clinton elected president and a darkness falls over the country.

February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists bomb the World Trade Center.

October 3, 1993: Islamic terrorists shoot down a U.S. helicopter over Mogadishu, Somalia, killing eighteen U.S. soldiers.

June 25, 1996: Iranian-backed terrorists bomb the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and injuring 372 other people.

August 7, 1998: Al-Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 31, 1998: Clinton signs "Iraq Liberation Act" calling for regime change by force.

December 1998: Clinton fires four hundred cruise missiles into Iraq during "Operation Desert Fox"

October 12, 2000: Al-Qaeda terrorists bomb the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing seventeen U.S. sailors.

November 2000: George W. Bush elected president

September 11, 2001: Al-Qaeda attacks the Twin Towers and the Pentagon killing nearly three thousand Americans.

Does anyone besides me see a any kind of a trend here? Looking back at the incompetent boobs Carter and Clinton, do we really want to elect another boob in the person of Barack Obama. If it had not been for the ineptitude of the Carter/Clinton dynamic duo, I think it is fairly safe to say that 9/11 may in all likelihood never have taken place. It is just one more piece of evidence that shows once again that the policies of appeasement and pacifism do not put any fear into the hearts of those who are trying to end our way of life. Force and nothing but force is what it is going to take to put these fanatics where they belong, IN THE GROUND!

Despite the poorly communicated reasons for which we find ourselves in Iraq, if we continue to buy into the Liberal Democrat rhetoric that the war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker as well as being a complete waste of lives, money and time, we run the severe risk of finding ourselves on the receiving end of another 9/11. To say that the money being spent defending ourselves could be better spent on expanding current or creating new social programs is not only simplistic, but, quite honestly, ignorant as well as naïve. The main goal of the Liberal philosophy is to add, and keep there, as many people as possible onto the government dole creating more and more people who "need" the government. You see, Democrats need to be needed. The one big down side to this little Democrat scheme is that when the government hands out all that money to people, who, one for the most part don’t deserve it, and two could use a good lecture about being responsible for there own actions, we end up short changing those who are out there fighting and dying defending our great country.

The security of the homeland, and the complexities involved with it, is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government. With Democrats there is absolutely no sense of urgency in this war on terror. It’s more about nonsensical issues like Global Warming, ensuring that we remain "unable" to drill here at home and off our coast for more oil and providing for a government enforced universal healthcare system. (Foreign countries are already drilling off our coast, but Democrats simply refuse to allow American companies to do so.) The potential huge loss of life resulting from another terrorist attack just does not rise to the level for Democrats to feel the necessity for taking any kind of real action. To the point where one has to wonder which side of this fight they are on. I suppose one could also make the same assessment regarding at least five members of the Supreme Court. Because, as we have seen recently a majority of Supreme Court justices have shown themselves to be of a like mind to the Democrat way of thinking. Have we gotten to the point where our soldiers will now be required to read captured terrorists their Miranda rights?

Obama, presumed by many to be our next President, says if elected his first official act will be to pull all of our troops out of Iraq and bring them home. I have to wonder if he’s really thought that one through. Or, is he simply acting as a participating, card carrying member of an ideology that favors the attitudes of appeasement and pacifism? And are these attitudes clouding his judgement and putting the rest of us at risk? I just don’t think he has taken into account all of the possible consequences a rapid pullout from Iraq could bring about. That scenario could have catastrophic consequences lasting far longer than an Obama presidency. For him to think that America could withdraw and escape the consequences a retreat would bring to us here at home shows a stark reality that Obama is indeed not ready for the big stage. If he is so naïve as to think that if we simply flee from those we are fighting in the Middle East, they will simply leave us alone he is even more dangerous to us than are the terrorists we are fighting. These enemies have the desire and the ability to strike at America globally and they are encouraged by their successes, when achieved, seeing them as a reward from God. These people are crazed fanatics. You cannot run from them and expect them not to chase you to where you live. The only thing they respect is all out brute force, and I just don’t think Obama is up to the task.

Mr. McCain said here Thursday morning that he had not had time to read the decision but that "it obviously concerns me," adding, "These are unlawful combatants; they’re not American citizens."

Mr. McCain said he thought "we should pay attention" to the dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., which argued that the steps established by the administration and Congress in creating review tribunals run by the military were more than sufficiently generous as a way for detainees to challenge their status.

Obama's opposite reaction, meanwhile, will definitely please the left-wing law professors and Bush-hating Democratic primary voters:

Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the decision "a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo" that he said was "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."

"This is an important step," he said of the ruling, "toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law...."

What else do we need to hear before we realize that Obama is very much on the wrong side of the terrorism issue. The safeguarding of Americans is supposed to be first and foremost in the mind of anyone who wants to be the leader of this country. This is where Obama fails most miserably and shows a complete incompetence in knowing what to do and a total disregard for the safety of his fellow Americans!