Contrary to what Obama and a vast majority of Democrats may think, creating more and/or expanding the current size of an increasingly costly government bureaucracy will do absolutely nothing to protect the freedoms enjoyed by so many in this country. Much to the disgust of Liberals, the cost of protecting our freedom must instead be paid in the form of a strong, well equipped and well manned military. Sadly, the cost of that freedom is often paid for in the form of the lives of our brave fighting men and women. Sad as it may sound it is necessary, and it has been that way since the very beginning of this great country. These men and women who value freedom so much that they are willing to make that ultimate sacrifice to preserve that freedom for future generations of Americans are of a very rare breed indeed. This sense of patriotism felt by many, but especially by those serving in uniform seem to be something that just totally confounds liberal Democrats because it is something that to completely foreign to them. They have no point of reference, because to them the mere thought of fighting and possibly dying for one’s country is simply ridiculous.

You see, liberal Democrats just don’t think of, or even define freedom the same way that most all other rational thinking Americans do. They see freedom not as something that has been bestowed on man by God, but instead as something that should be bestowed on man by government, and to be doled out as government sees fit. And for the most part they continue to have a very low opinion of those who willingly fight to defend our freedom. Those very same people who fight for the freedoms enjoyed by people they don’t even know. Soldiers go off to war to defend this great country and our very way of life, not for the glory and especially not because the money is good. But because they’re needed. They fight and die for their country providing for our security, something for which we shall be forever in their debt. And it’s a debt that we will never be able to repay. But they don’t seem to care about that. And it’s not only the freedom of Americans that they bravely defend but the desire of freedom by people all over the world. Because were it not for the light of freedom that emanates from this country that sends out a beacon of freedom to all points of the globe, what would freedom loving people have to strive for. As a nation we must remain able to demonstrate what a nation of free people can accomplish.

Democrats seem to be mystified by these patriotic Americans’ love of their country. It’s because Democrats see America so differently than do the rest of us. To them America is nothing more than an evil plague upon the world, responsible for all that is wrong with the world, no matter where. They say that every single thing that is wrong in the world today, or will go wrong tomorrow, can be laid directly on America’s doorstep. You know, being a Democrat must be a pretty depressing thing. I cannot imagine being that angry all the time, or feeling guilty because I feel blessed to live in this great country. It’s really quite sad.

Sounding much more like a man running for the leader of Europe than for the President of the United States, he stated that there is a definite need for America to become more like Europe, and that Europeans are correct in their belief that the world would be a much safer place if that were to happen. He even went to far as to promise them that under a President Obama, a course toward the Europeanization of America would be a top priority of his administration.

He told them that they were right to consider Global Warming the preeminent threat that we face globally. "As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya" and "This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands."

He went on to tell them, that under an Obama presidency, the United States will never act independently of the Europeans, or uniliaterally without them. "That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone." Especially not the Iranian nuclear threat: "My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Adding that the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons supercedes the single minded goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons…It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons."

And the drivel continued as he proclaimed to the masses that trade policy under an Obama administration won’t be for free trade, but only for trade conditioned upon union and environmental demands. Trade that will facilitate the liberal ideal of wealth redistribution rather than the much frowned upon free market. "Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet."

He went so far as to say, and this part makes me a bit queasy, that the European Union is the model of the future and that we have transcended the era in which America should be asserting itself on the world stage. "…we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent."

Groveling to the point of being sickening, he added that America should emulate the Germans on carbon reduction ("Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere.")

And finally, and quite honestly worst of all, this man who would be President of these United States apologized for America’s wrong doing, promised to stop the use of torture and asked for Germany’s (and Europe’s) help in extending European policy here to America. "Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?" and "Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world." This should be called the audacity of stupidity and ignorance! Thus the prophet has spoken, and all "MUST" hear him and do as "HE" commands them.

America is not Europe. Americans are not Europeans. And hopefully by the grace of the true messiah, we never will be. There is nothing about Europe that is much worth emulating. Nothing! Europeans, as a people, are nothing more than weak kneed, lazy, self-indulgent cowards suffering from an acute case of international jealously. Europe has made itself irrelevant regarding important world matters. But they only have themselves to blame. They’ve basically castrated themselves. They’ve lost their backbone, except for the French whom it could be argued were all born without one, to face down the true evils of the world. All they can do now is bad mouth America, who was their savior only a short 60 years ago. Some gratitude! They should be striving to emulate us not the other way around!

I think it is fair to say that what the election this November may boil down to is a very critical referendum regarding the future of this country. You see, it will decide whether the citizens of this country wish to maintain their liberties and freedoms enjoyed by all in this country for over 230 years or if they would rather the country move closer to a more socialist style of government. Do we as Americans really want the government to be allowed to encroach even father into our everyday lives? With Obama getting standing ovations in the socialist capitals of Europe, it’s clear from his speeches the direction in which he would like to move this country. The question is, is it the same direction that most American’s would also like the country to move.

It’s a fact that over 50 percent of the people in those very same crowds so enthusiastically cheering Obama in Europe are totally reliant on their governments for everything they get in life. It’s also a fact that the countries of Europe suffer from double digit unemployment, staggering crime rates due in large part to arcane gun laws and they have incredibly high income tax rates and exorbitant gasoline prices. GEE, sounds like the way to go to me!! But this is the very same direction that Obama wants to take this country. So this November we will see if it is also the direction a majority of voters wish to go as well. If you think we’re headed in the wrong direction now, what are you going to think if Obama wins?

America was the first democratic society ever created by free men as a free and independent nation. Just stop and think for a minute about all that this nation has accomplished in just over 200 years. Europeans like to lay claim to thousands of years of history, but comparatively speaking, what have they really got to show for all those years. Other than the Holocaust, centuries of slavery and servitude as well as numerous dictatorships, not much. Without the United States most of the world would still be living in darkness. Yet, Europe is the place that Obama wants us to emulate. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. Obama is dangerous and he does not have our best interests at heart. He wishes to take us down that same well-worn path traveled by all those that have supported the many failed European attempts at a governing system, Socialism, that just does not work.

Some words of warning from Abraham Lincoln

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

consequence 1. a result; effect 2. importance – take the consequences to accepts the results of one’s actions

So says Webster’s New World Dictionary

I bring this subject up for a very important reason. While, politically, there is nothing on which I can agree on with the Democrats, there is one thing I do agree with them on regarding this election. It’s when they say that this election will be the most consequential in most of our lifetimes. Now, I have said more than once, here, that I am far from thrilled with the fact that John McCain is my party’s presidential candidate. But having said that, by not voting for him, what exactly am I, or any of the rest of us going to be accomplishing. We must keep in mind what is at stake in this election and what the "consequences" of an Obama victory will most likely result in. Let’s say for the sake of argument, that all of us who are not crazy about McCain simply say the heck with it, I’m staying home this year. Ok, now let’s take a close look at what the "consequences" of that little tantrum are likely to be. First off, it would be a given that the Democrats would increase their numbers in both the House and the Senate, quite possibly to the point where they would have a filibuster proof majority. Add to that, Obama sitting in the White House with the distinct possibility of being able to appoint 2 or maybe even 3 Supreme Court justices.  After the dust has settle there'll we be having been willing accomplices in the assisting, as well as contributing to a complete Democrat take over of our government. Because all of a sudden in one swift stroke the Democrats will have effectively gained control of all three branches of our government. Are we really ready to accept that scenario? And will we be able to live with ourselves after having assisted them in their endeavor?

I cannot speak for anyone but myself but that scenario literally scares me to death. The whole concept of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers had the foresight to establish will simply be shoved to the side leaving the Democrats totally unimpeded and able to inflict untold and unimaginable damage onto this country. Take the time, just for a second, to go over in your mind every hair brained, costly, ridiculous scheme and/or concoction you’ve ever heard come out of the mouth of a Democrat, then picture it as a reality. Then see if you can figure out, with no way to stop them, just how long it will take the Democrats to implement and put into action each and every idea.

You think gas is expensive now? You had better hold onto your wallets! Because with the Democrats in complete control there will be no chance of any new drilling, any new refineries, any new nuclear plants, only the same old elitist rhetoric about alternative renewable wonder fuels, windfall profits taxes, suing OPEC, and any number of other stupid ideas that do nothing to produce one more drop of oil and nothing to lower the price of gas one cent. Some plan!

The democrats are determined to destroy, or to at least severely damage, this country through their agenda of the thoroughly discredited socialist form of government regarding the economy, national security, immigration and even our healthcare. They are driven to lower our standard of living as well as our standing in the world. They feel that the very idea of protecting the sovereignty of this country is something that should be relegated to the past and they wish us to move us ever closer to a world government complete with world taxes all to be dominated by a obviously dysfunctional United Nations that is totally hostile to the interests of the United States. As well, they are just as determined to shove down our throats the most destructive revamping of the best healthcare system in the world. And for what, to tighten their grip over our lives.

But without a doubt what is the most dangerous potential outcome of a complete Democrat takeover, is the suicidal scenario that would be their plan for the national security of this country. With the full implementation of the Obama Doctrine consisting of a complete retreat in the war on terror along with the advancement of the failed policies of appeasement, pacifism and ignorance all followed up by numerous empty, meaningless threats of retaliation, the future looks none too bright. Democrats have a vested interest in our losing in Iraq, a worsening economy, and even rising food and gas prices. They do their best to convince Americans that we’re back in 1929. The worse they can make things sound the more people they can get to vote for them, and oddly enough a lot times it seems to work.

So what it all comes down to is this.  Are we ready to face the "consequences" of an Obama and Democrat sweep come November? Personally, I am not! For the simple reason that John McCain on his worst day in office would be infinitely better as President than Obama would be on his best. John McCain is the only thing that stands between patriotic, rational thinking Americans, and the totally destructive agenda of today’s Democrat Party.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them"                 Thomas Jefferson

Listening to all the rhetoric coming from today’s liberal Democrats, these words could not have been more prophetic. It would seem that we, as a nation, have strayed somewhat from the fundamental ideals laid out for us by the founders of our great republic. We seem to have forgotten that, with regard to government, it is extremely important to maintain a healthy balance in what it is we seek from government and what we can produce through our own initiative. It is of the utmost importance that "We the people" strive to keep government as our servant and not allow it to become our master. Because those of us who come to rely exclusively on government for their personal welfare, essentially end up as slaves to that same government. For the very simple reason that when you sell your soul to the government it’s pretty much like selling it to the Devil, and the outcome is the same. You’ve just allowed the government to take away your freedoms as well as your ability to make your own decisions independently, inevitably ending up with you in bondage from and performing servitude to whom it is you get all your government goodies.

That’s why I simply do not understand the eagerness with which reasonably intelligent people continue to accept at face value the rhetoric from today’s liberal Democrat’s and their presidential candidate, Barack Obama. We cannot permit ourselves to be convinced that it is our best interest to allow governmental control over our daily lives by limiting our individual freedoms. The government, despite what the elitists may think or say, does not know what is best for us common folk. These very same elitists continually demonstrate such arrogance, while professing to have our best interests at heart. The stark reality here is that they are nothing but frauds, power hungry, control seeking, frauds doing their level best to increase their power and control over us. The analogy that I think of that best fits this scenario is one where the used car salesman does his best to convince you that the car he is trying to sell you is THE car for you. Then, when you buy it, it blows up as soon as you’ve driven it off the lot. Those in government care about one thing and one thing only, tightening their grip on the lives of everyday Americans. A prime example would be demonstrated by the fact of them trying so hard to get control of your healthcare. Just why do you think they are trying so hard to do just that? Because they care about the little guy or that they wish to make it all more equitable? GET A GRIP!! There is one reason and one reason only, and that is to rob you of one of your ability to make one of the most important decisions in your life. They wish to be able to dictate to you how you go about getting medical treatment for you and your family members. Imagine the power and control that gives them. They would be able to tell you what sort of treatment you can have and what kind you cannot have.

These liberals will stop at nothing until they can convince at least a majority of the voting public in this country that our best chance as citizens for a happy and successful life will come through an increased government involvement in our lives.

Another tactic being used more and more by those on the left is this nonsense based on the screwy premise of man-made Global Warming. It is nothing more than just another excuse they’ll use to gain a toe hold so they can worm their way farther into our live in another attempt to gain some manner of control over another aspect of our lives. We must all be aware, very aware of the tactics they will try to employ.

The warning signs are everywhere and are becoming even more obvious everyday. And yet, more and more people either choose to ignore them or they are content with the proposition of allowing the government further access into the lives and reducing their individual rights. Mark my words there is going to come a day, if we are not diligently keeping watch, when we will have happily relinquished our independence to the government and allowed it so far into our everyday existence that we will wonder what happened. But by then we will have lost all hope of retrieving the independence we so freely gave up. We will have lost that which the Founding Father had risked so much to provide us with. But it won’t be only our freedoms that we have traded away, but that of our children and our children’s children as well.

We watch these same clowns every night telling us what we think is the truth about what is going on in our nation and the world, but it’s not. Everything that comes out of their mouths has all gone through a thorough sifting out process, which removes any relevant facts that would be contrary to any position taken by the Democrats and more importantly, Obama. We’re being fed nothing but pabulum consisting of nothing that might cause us to doubt what it is we’re being told. Quite honestly it’s really nothing more than an attempt to keep us all brainwashed. And if you watch any of the Obama rallies, it appears to be working. Nothing derogatory is ever presented about this guy, like when he thought there were 57 states, or any number of his other screw- ups. You put this guy in front a teleprompter and he comes across as the eloquent candidate they consistently try to portray him as. But when he’s flying solo he’s not so good. In fact, if John McCain had said some of the stupid things that Obama has said, these same nightly news clowns wouldn’t let it die for a month, if even then. And of course you’ll notice that there is nothing ever said about Obama’s lack of experience, skill or ability and in every interview you’ve ever seen with him the questions are so softball it’ll make you want to puke. Unless, of course, they have already succeeded in convincing you that you must vote for Obama for the sake of your children. Yeah, only if you want your children to have less that you do. That would be less freedom, less money and an overall lower standard of living. If that’s what you want for your kids, then by all means, vote for Obama.

Obama, presumed by many to be our next President, says if elected, his first official act will be to pull all of our troops from Iraq and bring them home. I have to wonder, has he really thought that through. Or, is he simply behaving as just another card-carrying, enthusiastic advocate of a malignant ideology that favors only a doctrine of appeasement? And is this doctrine clouding his judgement putting the rest of us at risk? I just don’t think he has fully taken into account the potential consequences that would be the direct result of a rapid pullout of our troops from Iraq. The ramifications of such a dangerously naïve plan would be catastrophic and last far longer than an Obama presidency. For him to think that America can unilaterally withdraw and escape the consequences that such a retreat would bring to us here at home shows the stark reality that Obama is clearly not ready for the big stage. If he is so foolish as to think that if we simply flee from those we are fighting, they will gladly leave us alone he is even more dangerous to us than are the terrorists we’re fighting. This enemy has both the desire and the ability to strike at America and they are encouraged by their successes, when achieved, seeing them as a reward from God. We cannot run from them and expect them not to chase us to where we live. Neither can we allow the return to a September 10 mentality nor can we afford to waste time for the on-the-job training required of someone so hopelessly inept as Obama.

On what has to be considered the single most important issue in this election, namely the war on terror, Obama has an abysmal record and has the very strong potential to be a catastrophic failure as president. I have said it before and I will say it again, every other issue being debated in the run up to this election must be considered of secondary importance to the issue of the national security of this country. The one exception, I would have to say, would be the formulation of a comprehensive energy policy for no other reason than to lessen our dependency on foreign oil, since it has be considered as a matter of national security. Reducing our need for foreign oil robs those countries who use the money from the sale of that same oil as a source of financing those terrorist organizations who wish to do us harm. Because you have to wonder just how much of the 700 Billion dollars that leaves this country every year finds its way into the pockets of those who support these ruthless murderers. All of Obama’s cutesy new ideas for expanding an ever increasing array of wasteful social programs, in the end will do absolutely nothing to protect this country from future attacks from the crazed terrorists that are out to destroy our way of life. Try to imagine what would happen to our economy should there be another attack on the scale of 9/11. Then ask yourself how it is exactly that spending an additional TRILLION dollars on stupid new liberal entitlement programs would prevent such an attack from taking place. What the candidates ought to be discussing are ways that we can intelligently and efficiently spend more of the tax money already being collected on ways to keep this country from suffering another deadly attack. Things like sealing our borders, developing new technologies for defensive measures, both military and civilian, that can be used in preventing any type of attack against us. So the bottom line here is that we can either continue to waste an ever-increasing amount of money on expending an ever-increasing wasteful bureaucracy or we can remain focused on efforts to protect ourselves using every means at our disposal.

And another thing! The Democrats love to claim how diminished the standing of the United States has become in today’s world. I would beg to differ. The one thing the rest of the world can count on is that when George Bush says he’s going to do something, they can pretty much count on him doing it. Obviously the same cannot be said of Obama. With his position changing on a myriad of issues on almost a daily basis, how can anybody, foreign governments included, take him at his word? If governments cannot trust our president to follow through, or worse to follow through on policies that run completely counter to that of most of our allies, whose standing is going to suffer the most? When one cannot take a position on an issue or policy and stand by it all it does is show that you have no core principles nor the conviction to stand by what you say you believe in. It only betrays a severe lack of character in that you’re simply willing to go with whatever crowd has the loudest voice instead of doing what you know to be right for the long term.

Here's Obama from a 9/19/01 speech.

"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilian’s abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores."

Earlier this week that pillar of unbiased journalism, the New York Times, provided Obama with a platform from which he could rewrite a little personal history by publishing an op-ed. It was, even by Obama's standards, more than just a little dishonest and somewhat laughable. Somehow the word fiction just doesn’t seem to quite cover it. It fits much better the definition of a lie. But then, as we have seen over the entire length of this campaign, Obama’s willingness to never shy away from a little truth stretching has been constantly on display. While he admits that he opposed the surge, as well as the change in strategy and tactics that have brought us so close to victory, he somehow manages to twist his being wrong about the surge into some kind of warped vindication:

"But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those "factors" but because he thought it would fail.

He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

[E]ven those who are supporting -- but here's the thing, Larry -- even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working, I do not.

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.

Obama was literally hoping for failure and therefore bet the farm on failure by predicting that General Petraeus and the American military would in fact fail at this last attempt for victory. He was wrong, dead wrong, as was just about every other Democrat. But he professes his somewhat twisted history into vindication saying that Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Iraq war has been too expensive, and claiming that Iraq's political leaders "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." Earth to Obama, Earth to Obama, come in please!

But once more Obama completely fails to acknowledge the remarkable political progress that has resulted from the surge. Any one willing to look will see that progress has been made manifested by the fact that the country's largest Sunni bloc has rejoined the government, and the U.S. Embassy reports that 15 of the 18 benchmarks of political progress that were set by Congress are now being met. He either chooses to ignore this important fact or since it does not fit into his and the Democrats constant droning on about what a failure Iraq is, it simply doesn’t rate being mentioned.

The one obvious thing missing from his little version of revisionist history is his failure to acknowledge what would have happened had his policy prescription, a precipitate withdrawal regardless of military conditions been followed? The most likely result would have been chaos, sectarian violence, possibly genocide, a resurgent al Qaeda in control of part of Iraq, with Iran possibly in control of other areas of the country. But hey, at least we’d be out of there, right? This would have been a foreign policy disaster. His ignorance never ceases to amaze me!

In what amounts to one of the dumber statements by the all seeing Obama he says that Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. That's not quite what bin Laden (Iraq is where the "Third World War is raging") or Ayman al-Zawahiri (Iraq is "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era") say about it. Al Qaeda summoned jihadists from around the Muslim world to go to Iraq to fight American troops, declaring that this effort is the central front in their war against civilization. Sounds like bin Laden knows more about what’s going on than does our next would be president. Those jihadists have been devastated by American armed forces, who have thereby scored what may, with hindsight, turn out to have been the decisive victory in the war against Muslim extremism. Finally, Afghanistan: Obama would have us believe that he urged defeat in Iraq because he was so firmly committed to victory in Afghanistan. Once again, he has a rather pretzel picture of history.

In fact, Obama has never supported our troops in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he said on August 14, 2007--less than a year ago--that our forces there are mostly committing war crimes saying, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

And, in an embarrassing gaffe exposing an obvious ignorance regarding the topic of discussion, Obama claimed on May 13, 2008, that we don't have enough "Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers" in Afghanistan because they are all being used in Iraq. Obama thereby demonstrated the arrogance and blatant disregard of the facts that has come to characterize his campaign: they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and, anyway, interpreters are drawn from local populations, not shipped around the world.

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007, thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a self proclaimed defender of Afghanistan is a complete and utter fraud.

I suppose it’s possible that at some point in our history there has been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I just can’t seem to think of one right now.

Finally in closing, time after time Obama has demonstrated that he has zero qualifications for the job that he is seeking. It has been said that he is running for a second Carter term. Comparatively speaking, there would appear to be a lot of truth in that. The potential damage that stands to brought down on this country as a direct result of an Obama presidency is incalculable. If we are to have any hope of handing over a better country to our children than the one our parents handed to us Obama must not be allowed to be successful in his endeavor.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope for man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness." This election could be as consequential as the election of 1980.

There is so much at stake and I for one will be able to look my child straight in the eyes and tell her I did the best I could. Will you be able to do the same?

Just how many times can the Democrats continue to make themselves known for exactly what they are before people finally see that what motivates them is not what is best for our country, but what is best for them? They do and say everything they can to exaggerate the condition of our economy relying on their friends in the media to take their lead and kick the rhetoric up a notch. People need to realize that we no longer have a "free press" as most of us have to believe the term. The mainstream news outlets, which is still where the majority of us get our news, has become nothing more than the Pravda, all be it on a much larger scale, of the old Soviet Union. The sole purpose of today’s media is to circulate, disseminate, advocate and perpetuate the Democrat propaganda regarding every issue from the economy, drilling for oil here at home to the war on terror. I’m sure you’ve all noticed that ever since things took a more positive turn in Iraq, there’s been less and less information about the war in the papers and on the nightly news shows. What, do you suppose the reason for that might be? I’ll give you a little hint. Because the Democrats with their policy of appeasement were wrong and that is simply not something the biased media wants to dwell on. The Democrats thrive on defeatism and pessimism. If you listen to them you would think that we are living in the Depression Era. They are literally doing their best to trash our economy at every turn. Think I’m kidding?

The Democrats know the worse off the economy gets the better off they’re chances are going to be to win elections. They feed off misery so, therefore they must create as much of it as they possibly can. What people should be doing is throwing these bums out of office, and certainly not considering electing one of them as our President. Americans are not by nature a pessimist bunch, so I just can’t understand why so many buy into the Democrat drivel about what a bunch of losers we are. Democrats love to run down their little laundry list of all the things that, as Americans, we "CAN’T" do. America is the originator of the "CAN DO" spirit. Look back throughout our history at the events that have taken place even against what should have been insurmountable odds, and we have always prevailed. There is nothing this country cannot do. But if you listen to the Democrats there is hardly anything we can do, or at least can do right. They are quite simply the most pathetic bunch I have ever seen and they represent a very serious threat to this country and it’s ability to continue to be that last best hope of Earth. There is no other country, nor has there ever been another country, like these Unites States of America. And if we are to survive then the reins of power must be wrestled away from the Democrats and kept out of their hands for the foreseeable future, or at least until they come to their senses and see the error of their ways!

As a veteran of 24 years in the Navy, to hear Obama’s claims that he considers himself qualified to be Commander-in-Chief makes me want to puke. The shear arrogance of the man never ceases to amaze me. If there is any person out there that should not be Commander-in-Chief it’s Obama. Let’s face it, Liberal Democrats just don’t make good military advocates, it’s just not in them. They hate the military and everything it stands for, and then pretend to care so much about our men and women in uniform. Today’s Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines aren’t stupid. They are the best and brightest this country has to offer. Obama cannot earn the respect of those he hopes to lead by making empty promises and pushing idiotic social experiments such as once again attempting to push the gay agenda by allowing gays to serve in the military. His rhetoric continually proves how little respect he has for those who have chosen to fight to defend their country.

"Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform," Obama said in a July 2 interview with Military Times as he contrasted his lack of service with that of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a Navy retiree and Vietnam veteran who has years of experience in Congress working on national security issues.

"I do not presume that from the day I am sworn in, every single service man or woman suddenly says, ‘This guy knows what he is doing,‘" said Obama, a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, in his most extensive interview to date on a wide range of military issues.

Obama said he hopes the military community will see him as "a guy looking out for us and not someone trying to score cheap political points."

Military members and their families deserve better pay and benefits, he said, and although money might be hard to find for a generous increase, he supports increasing basic pay to keep up with inflation and private-sector salaries, and he believes housing allowances need to be increased so young service members and their families can afford adequate places to live.

He also wants to spend more to improve veterans’ health care and reduce the wait for a disability claim to be processed.

"I don’t know a higher priority than making sure that the men and women who are putting themselves in harm’s way, day in and day out, are getting decent pay and decent benefits — so that when they return home as veterans, they don’t have to wait six months to get benefits that they’ve earned, that they’re not winding up homeless on the streets, that they’re being screened for post-traumatic stress disorder, that if a spouse is widowed, the benefits are sufficiently generous," he said. "These are just basic requirements of a grateful nation."

Obama said he did not want to be more specific because he did not want to make promises he might not be able to keep. "I think we can do a much better job than we’re doing right now," he said. But, he added, "I want to be honest: We are going to be in a tight budget situation. We’re not going to be able to do everything all at once."

"I have always said that as commander in chief, I would seek the advice and counsel of our generals," Obama said. But, in the end, "it is the job of commander in chief to set the strategy."

A strategic factor in the decision to keep forces in Iraq includes, for him, a question about the risk of not having enough combat-ready forces for other operations.

"If we have only one battle-ready brigade outside the Iraq rotation to respond to other risks, that’s not good strategic planning by the commander in chief," he said. "If we have a situation in Afghanistan where we are seeing more and more violence in the eastern portion of Afghanistan, at a time when we’ve actually increased the forces down there and we’ve got some of the best battle-tested operations deployed there, and we’re still seeing increases in violence, what that tells me is that we’ve got real problems."

Obama said he believes he would be a far better commander in chief than McCain.

"I believe that I have a better grasp of where we need to take the country, and how we should use the power of ... not just our military, but all of our power in order to achieve American security," Obama said. "I think I have a better sense than he does of where we need to go in the future.

"As somebody who has worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on critical issues like nuclear proliferation ... as somebody who has traveled widely and grew up traveling around the world, I think I have a clear sense of the nature of both the transnational threats and challenges but also the opportunities that are going to determine our safety and security for the foreseeable future. And that’s why I think I can be an effective commander in chief," Obama said.

"There are times during the course of this war where I felt that the military was blamed for bad planning on the civilian side, and that, I think, is unfortunate," he said.

He acknowledged, however, that sometimes it is important to hold military leaders responsible for their actions.

Obama also spoke of rocking the boat. In what seems certain to be one of his more controversial proposals for the military, Obama said he wants to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Equity and fairness are part of the reason for lifting the ban on acknowledged homosexuals serving in the military, Obama said, but there are practical reasons, too — like getting "all hands on deck" when the nation needs people in uniform. "If we can’t field enough Arab linguists, we shouldn’t be preventing an Arab linguist from serving his or her country because of what they do in private," he said, referring to the 2006 discharge of about 60 linguists for violating the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy on service by homosexuals.

"I want to make sure that we are doing it in a thoughtful and principled way. But I do believe that at a time when we are short-handed, that everybody who is willing to lay down their lives on behalf of the United States and can do so effectively, can perform critical functions, should have the opportunity to do so."

Asked how he would deal with opposition from within the Pentagon, Obama smiled and said: "Well, I’m a pretty persuasive guy." But he acknowledged that pushing such a legal change through Congress would be more challenging.

"We have to distinguish whether there are functional barriers to doing this and are people prepared for the political heat."

Another potential boat-rocking issue involves the use of private military companies to do work once performed by uniformed troops. Obama said he would seek to limit military-related work in combat zones that is turned over to private contractors.

"There is room for private contractors to work in the mess hall providing basic supplies and doing some logistical work that might have been done in-house in the past," he said. "I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements. I think it puts our troops in harm’s way."

Who is it, exactly, in America today that represents the greatest threat to our environment? If you choose to believe all the propaganda and all the world is coming to an end, "Liberal" rhetoric you would think that is in fact the evil corporations of the world all of whom that would like nothing better than to see the environment destroyed, all in the name of making a buck. Now honestly, does this really make any sense? After all, the people who run those "evil" corporations all have families too. Are we supposed to believe that they care so little for there own families that they are willing to destroy the world they would grow up in?

No it’s not the corporations that are out to destroy the world. The people trying to do that are much more devious and have much more sinister motives.

You see the group, or groups, that continually prove to be the most dangerous to the environment are made up of the very same environmental extremists who claim to be attempting to protect us from ourselves while protecting the environment for future generations. Whether it’s the needless banning of DDT or perpetuating the myth that ethanol is the miracle fuel of the future these self-proclaimed protectors of the environment have already caused more damage than can repaired in most of our lifetimes. In their effort to protect nature, they blindly prohibit measures from being completed that would actually be of benefit in reaching the goals they so loudly profess to be all about. By continuing to advocate damaging policies that expose our forests to higher risks of catastrophic forest fires, as well as turning a blind eye toward certain pollutants, for politically correct reasons, they tend to aggravate already serious problems. In the end, policies are instituted that may actually accelerate the damage done to our rivers and lakes and are actually helping to achieve the damaging end result that is supposed to be 180 degrees out from what these group claim to be hoping to achieve.

By lobbying for restrictive commercial logging practices these environmental fanatics have gotten us to the point where we have too much fuel, too many trees, in our forests. In the 1800s the average Ponderosa Pine stand would have held 20-60 tress per acre. Today that same acre holds 300-900 trees. That is basically an unsustainable number per acre, resulting in a weakening of all the trees as they compete for available water and nutrients. Weakened trees make for even better fuel making for even bigger fires. However, Liberals seem oblivious to the increased fire risk.

Another example of the hypocrisy of our ever-vigilant protectors of the environment is when they face the dilemma of contraceptive contamination, an area that is very politically sensitive to your average liberal. Now to some of you this may not sound like much, but the result of this type of water pollution, particularly from the hormones contained in these products is very damaging to fish as well as any other animal, as well as people, that use the contaminated water. You’d be correct in asking if these chemicals are in fact causing damage, why aren’t these saviors of the environment lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep them from being dumped into our rivers? Well it’s quite simple really. It’s because the source of these chemicals is not some evil corporate polluter, but something much more near and dear to heart of every liberal advocate of birth control; birth control pills, morning after pills, and abortion pills. Imagine that! They betray themselves by remaining silent on this issue along with their willingness to distort the issue when they do talk about it. They expose themselves as frauds using the environment more as a tool for advancing leftist policies than for any real concern for the environment.

I mentioned earlier the needless banning of DDT. This is worth going into some detail about because this is one of the most, is not "the" most heinous acts that can be laid directly at the feet of the environment nut jobs who will stop at nothing to rid the world of anything that they feel is dangerous. Even if there is absolutely zero factual information to back them up, they will, as in the case of DDT, simply make up their own facts. Now, you may ask why I call this little accomplishment their heinous. Because it was directly responsible for the death of countless millions of innocent lives due to diseases carried by insects. The whole premise regarding the so-called danger of DDT was complete fiction dreamed up by one of the patron saints of the environmental movement, Rachel Carson. In her book "Silent Spring" she states that DDT, in even miniscule amounts, can do considerable harm to the health of humans, which it can not. She equates herbicides with radiation, a comparison that make absolutely no sense. She flatly lies about tests results regarding the effects of DDT on birds. She even lists about 90 birds that she says were affected by DDT, but she fails to note that the Audubon Christmas Bird counts "continued to reveal more birds were counted, per observer, during the greatest DDT years, including those type of birds that Carson had declared to be declining in numbers. It seems that marshes sprayed with DDT showed an explosion in bird numbers since diseases carried by insects declined.

The needless death of so many people in Africa is an especially shameful result of the assault on DDT. In countries where there is obvious correlation between the incidence of malaria and the GDP levels, the elimination of malaria is essentially the elimination of poverty. DDT was a very important weapon against malaria because it is affordable, effective, persistent, and relatively harmless to humans. When used against the malaria carrying mosquitoes it is highly effective in controlling malaria with the end result being lifting millions out of poverty. You’d think with the left so wrapped up with the needs of the world’s poor, they would see that the effectiveness of DDT far outweighs any hazards.

What we all need to realize is that the major flaw of common ownership (government ownership) is that more often than not it has a severe lack of incentives for good management. There exists no positive incentive for good management. Since most governments, local or national, are only in power for a few years at a time there is no focus on the long-term value of property, be it forests, rivers or anything else for that matter that is viewed as a natural resource. Whereas when property is held in the hands of private citizens there is always a focus on the long term, since the property can be left has an inheritance, given as a gift or sold in a transaction. Common ownership clearly not only fails to protect the environment it is a positive danger to the environment at times even acting as a accelerating agent in its demise.

I could go on, but what’s the point. Until a majority of people wake up and see the environmental "movement" for the charade that it is we will be cursed with all the nonsense that goes along with it for the foreseeable future. But until you do, be ready for more and bigger forest fires, more expensive gas, more expensive food and on and on and on.

"I get tagged as being on the left and when I simply describe what have been my positions consistently, then suddenly people act surprised," Obama told reporters in Ohio on July 1. There haven't "been substantial shifts," Obama said.

Yesterday, Obama and his top economic adviser downplayed the significance of Obama's budget votes, which raise taxes on Americans earning $32,000 or more:

Obama: "The budget resolutions are not tax votes. They are, and everyone in Washington knows this, the budget process screwy as it is in Washington, not one that by the way I designed, and frankly I think has to be fundamentally reformed. The budget resolution is to give some parameters in terms of what in fact, what the budget is going to look like in the upcoming year, but it does not purport to actually be a tax bill and every observer who looks at this has said that this is a phony issue on the part of the McCain campaign." (Sen. Barack Obama, Media Availability, St. Louis, MO, 7/7/08)

I am particularly pleased that the budget includes an amendment I offered to ensure sufficient funds to expedite review of cases where service members may have been erroneously discharged as a result of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury.

In March 2008, Obama hailed his vote for the budget as "significant progress:"

Obama: "The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation's priorities back on track. ... We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Obama Statement On The Senate's Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget,"

According to Bloomberg:

In recent weeks, Obama said he supports gun-ownership rights, backs legislation giving immunity to telephone companies that participated in an anti-terrorism surveillance program and would consider cutting corporate taxes. On July 3, he said he would ``continue to refine my policies'' on the Iraq War.

Obama built his candidacy on the support of his party's liberal base, which favors restrictions on guns and wiretapping, raising taxes for companies, and pulling U.S. forces from Iraq. As an Illinois state legislator, he voted against a law carving out self-defense exceptions to local handgun bans; as a U.S. senator, he opposed business tax cuts and extending warrantless eavesdropping, and backed tougher gun laws. On Iraq, he has long focused on ending the war and withdrawing troops.

We need some rational thinking to kick in here, and soon. People need to realize where it is this is coming from and recognize the negative impact of the ideas he is proposing will have on this country. Everyone is going to feel the impact of the cost of his proposals. Not just the rich, but every single person in the country. Forget about the utopian nonsense, it’s going to get ugly and it going to get ugly real fast!

I think it is safe to say that the men who sat down and drafted our Constitution were some very smart men. They used their own experiences along with very sound reasoning, to create to the best of their abilities the most perfect government possible. In the drafting of our Constitution, very word had a purpose. And I think you have to agree that after over 200 years it looks like they succeeded. At least up to this point.

There are many today who love to constantly try to convince us that the Constitution is a "living" document. That what the drafters wrote 200 years ago is not applicable today. I get real tired of hearing from those people who seem to think they know so much more than those men who made our current way of life a reality. One the favorite targets today, if not "the" favorite target, is the Second Amendment. They continually point to civilized Europe and its policies against private gun ownership as the example the United States should emulate. I for one completely disagree! I get tired of being referred to as uncivilized because I believe in the constitutional right of the individual to own a gun. We keep hearing how if only we would ban guns the result would be so beneficial to our society. It’s all nonsense. If you really look closely at most if not all of those advocating strict control, they all usually have some sort of paid security people all carrying guns. DUH!

Let’s look at a few of the countries that the gun control folks tout as being better off because of their stricter guns laws. If you take the time to look closely at those same countries, which most of those wanting to ban guns rarely if ever do, you’ll see that the gun laws that the advocates want forced on us have done absolutely nothing to keep crime rates from rising. For example, since Australia passed a law in 1996 which made it a crime to use a gun defensively, (STUPID), armed robberies rose by 51 percent, unarmed robberies by 37 percent, assaults by 24 percent and kidnapping by a whopping 43 percent. While murders did fall by 3 percent, manslaughter rose by 16 percent. I just don’t seem to see any benefits here. In Canada, after stringent gun controls were enacted in 1991 and again in 1995, the citizens of Canada were definitely not made any safe. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States violent crime has plummeted." Here’s the clincher. In England, according to the BBC, handgun crime rose by 40 percent in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. It is now a fact that British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of a crime than are people here in the United States. The rate of robbery now stands at 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States and the burglary rate is nearly double that here in America.

No matter which country you look at that has limited private gun ownership the results are the same. If you take guns out of the hands of private citizens, crime rates explode! Gun control advocates continue to point to that ever so civilized, gun free Europe as the end result they wish to see here in America. But they always seem to ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe. Over the last 70 years Europe has averaged 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people. That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the United States.

These are just a few examples of the damage done and of the additional risk of life created by supposed gun control. In reality the term "gun control" is really nothing more than an oxymoron. Because you’re never going to be able to control guns, all you’ll be doing is limiting the people who have them. The law-abiding citizens will be prevented from owning a gun to protect themselves and their families, while the citizens wishing to commit a crime will have ready access to the weapon of his or her choice.

It would appear that Obama is beginning his slow drift to right attempting to portray himself as something other than the left wing Socialist that he really is. I guess he figures all them thar red necks that go to NASCAR races, are pro-life and want to see us win in Iraq won’t be smart enough to see through his little charade. This guy is obviously nothing but an elitist who thinks he is just so darn much smarter than the rest of us poor country folk. I guess he figures we’ll just be in such awe that we’ll be more than happy to believe everything he tells us. BUNK! Sorry there Obama! But the morons are all on the same side of the issues that you’re on and that you’ve advocated your whole life.

News that Barack Obama has changed his mind, and is rejecting at least some of the extremism of NARAL, Emily's List, and other radical abortion organizations are starting to creep into some mainstream news outlets.

Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to "refine my policies" about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." 

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the coming weeks may become the first Democratic presidential nominee to attend a NASCAR stock car race in 16 years, his campaign confirmed today.

"We would love to make it to a NASCAR race if the schedule permits," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki told Roll Call Thursday afternoon. "In the meantime, we plan to continue campaigning in communities across the country including small towns and rural communities where people are dissatisfied with the leadership of the last eight years and looking for a new direction for the country."