B. Hussein Says: 'Don't Stock Up On Guns'!

All the more reason to do so. How do you tell a Liberal Democrat president-elect is lying? His lips are moving!

B. Hussein may say one thing but his legislative actions speak a whole different truth!

The following is from the Chicago Sun Times

December 8, 2008

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter- Chicago Sun Times

As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.

Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.

Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.

Anecdotally, gun dealers around the country have reported spikes in sales. The Illinois State Rifle Association Reports gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year.

"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.

"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."

We Won - They Lost (despite help from home)!

Nineteen months after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the war "lost," and president-elect B. Hussein Obama claiming he voted against the war before he could even vote, a freely elected Iraqi Parliament signs a security pact with the United States. We won. It is the terrorists and their appeasers (most of Democrat party) who lost.

While half of the American populace (misguided as they are) sat down for Thanksgiving dinner swooning over the perceived dawn of the Utopia of Obamalot, the rational half of America witnessed the Iraqi parliament Thursday pass an agreement with the U.S. that set a date certain for American withdrawal based on conditions on the ground. Just as President Bush promised and without the blessing of B. Hussein or permission from Hillary Clinton.

The conditions on the ground are that the jihadists are a spent force that lost the war as well as the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Province after province has been returned to Iraqi control, and the young Iraqi nation appears both willing and able to defend itself.

Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. The deal could still be rejected by the Iraqi people in a referendum scheduled for July 30, a key Sunni demand to get their agreement, but by then U.S. troops will no longer be a visible presence in urban areas.

"This is a historic day for the great Iraqi people," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in a 10-minute address on national television. "We have achieved one of its most important achievements in approving the agreement on the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq and restoring the sovereignty it lost two decades ago," al-Maliki said, referring to the imposition of sanctions after Operation Desert Storm liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.

"Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely," Bush said in a statement from his retreat at Camp David, Md. "But the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament." This President Bush achieved despite the incoherent raving of the anti-war/anti-America Liberal Left and their Democrat clients.

The pact is divided into two agreements governing security, economics, culture and other areas of cooperation.

The pact comes after a report on Iraq's progress that retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, now an adjunct professor of International Affairs at the United States Military Academy at West Point, compiled for his colleagues.

The report concludes: "The United States is now clearly in the end game in Iraq to successfully achieve what should be our principle objectives: the withdrawal of the majority of U.S. ground combat forces . . . in the coming 36 months; leaving behind an operative civil state and effective Iraqi security forces; an Iraqi state which is not in open civil war among the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds; and an Iraqi nation which is not at war with its six neighboring states."

Provisional elections are scheduled for January, district elections for midyear and national elections sometime next December. Of al-Maliki, who, like President Bush, may have been "misunderestimated," McCaffrey says he "clearly has matured and gained stature as a political leader since he assumed his very dangerous and complex leadership responsibilities."

The surge of Gen. David Petraeus, now commander of CENTCOM, took that country from a chaos beyond imagination to a functioning democracy where children walk to school safely, civilians stroll past stocked businesses and old men sit at cafes talking about politics.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, thankfully kept on by President-elect B. Hussein much to the consternation of his Liberal Left enablers, presided at Petraeus' retirement ceremony in Baghdad, and told the story of the best command decision a commander in chief has made since Lincoln sacked McClellan, put Grant in charge, and pointed Sherman in the direction of Atlanta.

After Petraeus took charge, Gates noted, "Slowly, but inexorably, the tide began to turn, our enemies took a fearsome beating they will not soon forget. Fortified by our own people and renewed commitment, the soldiers of Iraq found new courage and confidence. And the people of Iraq, resilient and emboldened, rose up to take back their country."

President George W. Bush and General David Petraeus are, and will be, regarded as true American heroes, despite the dishonorable Left.

Every marching band in America should blow the dust of “When Johnny Comes marching Home” and “God Bless America” for our troops return. That is if such patriotic songs are not outlawed in the meantime.

Now, the real story of Thanksgiving

(As told by Rush Limbaugh in his book, "I Told You So")

Now, how many of you grew up and how many of your children are growing up today being taught this: The Pilgrims arrived, and it was cold, and it was inhospitable in the New World. And they were ill-equipped to fend for themselves, and they were bedraggled and they were tired and they were hungry and they were thirsty and they were incapable of getting along, and finally the Indians, who they would later massacre, the Indians befriended the Pilgrims and showed them about corn and maize and created a big feast of turkey and dressing and cranberry sauce and maybe even some cheese broccoli. They all sat down and they had Thanksgiving together, and it was the Pilgrims thanking the Indians for saving their wretched lives. And then of course after all of this mercy showed by the Indians, these Pilgrims and their descendants went out and wiped 'em out and put 'em on reservations where they became alcoholics and now they run casinos.

Now, the REAL story of Thanksgiving:

"On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible," and this is what's not taught. This is what's left out. "The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure.

"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well." They were collectivists! Now, "Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

"He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. ... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson," every kid gets. "If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future." Here's what he wrote: "'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'" That was thought injustice. "Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?" 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been." Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.


"The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"

Now, aside from this program, have you heard this before? Is this "being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this?"

Have a happy Thanksgiving, folks. You deserve it. Do what you can to be happy, and especially do what you can to be thankful, because in this country you have more reasons than you've ever stopped to consider.

A Portent of Things to Come

David Limbaugh (brother of Rush) has observed that the most disturbing aspects about the Democrats' sweeping Nov. 4 victory are their intolerance for dissent and their willingness to censor and otherwise suppress their opponents. For examples:

1. Ohio state employee Vanessa Niekamp said she was ordered to run a child-support check on Joe the plumber, the man who asked Barack Obama a reasonable question (one never asked by the professional media) about redistributing taxpayer income. Niekamp doesn't remember ever having checked into anyone else without having a legitimate reason to do so, such as discovering that someone recently came into money.

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

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

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

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

6. Democrats fully intend to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, an oxymoronically named regulation aimed at shutting down conservative talk radio, which Sen. Chuck Schumer

This arrogant attitude can largely be traced to the top-down indoctrination in our schools, cultural institutions, and media that liberalism is morally superior because it is tolerant, diverse, intellectual, and enlightened. (Pardon me while I barf!)

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

Folks, this is what happens when millions of uniformed ‘sheeple’ follow blindly a movement of ‘juss words, juss speeches’ without asking questions. The ‘professional media’ is anything but and can no longer be trusted. We have to ask the questions they will not. We have to hold those to task who would act with impunity. We must always be vigilant!

The Tennessee Conservative

Semper Vigilans

Georgia Congressman Foresees Obama Gestapo

Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) in an Associated Press interview this past week warned of a potential Obama dictatorship. Drawing on historical precedent and Obama’s own words, he fears Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun’s source for his suspicions is a July speech (‘juss words, juss speeches) in which the then Democrat presidential wanna-be called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military. I guess the military’s new role in the ObamaNation will revert to a Clinton style “meals on wheels” role.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama’s comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he believes, like many Americans clinging to their guns and freedom, the new Temporary Tenant of the White House will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms (juss words, juss speechs) and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential.”

If Broun’s prediction did not have some not-insignificant potential, it would be kind of funny. I, for one, am not laughing.

Lock and load, folks, . . . lock and load!

Semper Vigilans (always vigilant)!

Obama's First International Test

Joe Biden said the new Temporary Tenant of the White House would have his inexperience tested within his first six months. The Russians waited all of two hours before vowing to target our missile defense sites in Poland. Let the testing begin.

In his first state of the nation address, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev announced that Moscow would deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad situated between our NATO allies Poland and Lithuania.
Their purpose is to target our missile interceptors that are scheduled to be based there to defend against Iranian missiles. "The Iskander missile system will be deployed in Kaliningrad to neutralize, when necessary, the missile shield," Medvedev said.

Medvedev also announced the cancellation of plans to dissolve three ICBM regiments. "We earlier planned to take three missile regiments within the missile division stationed in Kozelsk off combat duty and discontinue the division itself by 2010," he said. "I have decided to refrain from these plans."

Current U.S. plans are to station 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a missile-tracking radar site in the Czech Republic by 2011-2013. That time frame could be met if construction started tomorrow and the project was fully funded. But it has met resistance from a Democratic Congress and a president-elect that has opposed "unproven" missile defense. The Russians know this.

Also looming on the horizon is a plot to return Vladimir Putin to power as president in 2009. As reported by the newspaper Vedomosti, Medvedev on Wednesday proposed increasing the presidential term to six years from four as part of the plan. Could Putin be sensing an opportunistic moment of U.S. weakness? Hmmmm?

A resurgent Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, is quite willing to test what it, and 57 million Americans, considers an inexperienced U.S. leader. In June of 1961, a young and ambitious President Kennedy met with Nikita Khruschev in Vienna to discuss Cold War issues, particularly the situation in Berlin.

Khruschev came away unimpressed, convinced our new leader could be had. Kennedy came away greatly diminished. By August 1961, the Berlin Wall was being built, and by the following spring the Soviet leader was making plans for installing offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Kennedy, to whom the new Temporary Tenant of the White House has been compared, quickly learned that "aggressive personal diplomacy" and a willingness to meet without preconditions with the world's tyrants were not enough. After appearing naive and weak in Vienna, the world stood on the brink of nuclear war for two weeks in October 1962 as JFK was forced to respond with a naval blockade of Cuba. History does have an annoying habit of repeating itself!

A more experienced Ronald Reagan left quite a different impression when he met with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986. Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 and refused to negotiate it away. He opposed the nuclear freeze and put Pershing missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet SS-20 threat. He put America's security in the hands of American technology, not the good will of its enemies.

It has not been lost on the Russians that Obama's initial response to Moscow's invasion of the Republic of Georgia was to advise Georgia to show restraint in responding to its invaders. As we speak, a Russian naval task force led by the nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great is on its way to America's backyard the Caribbean.

The testing of the new Temporary Tenant of the White House has only just begun.

Conservatism Dead? Not So Fast!

Conservatives are disappointed with the results of Tuesday’s election and rightfully so. It was a disaster! However, we must respect the American people’s decision, misguided as it may be, and work with the new president and Congress when it is in the best interest of the nation. We have been subjected to the gloating and crowing of Democrats and liberal pundits that the election results mark the end of conservatism and they read in the entrails a sign that Republicans should grant Democrats a free legislative ride. However, fifty-seven million Americans do not see it that way and neither should the remaining Congressional Republicans and conservatives across the country.

We are entering a very critical period that will shape the future of our economy and our country and we have a responsibility to rebuild the conservative movement by fighting for the principles of freedom, opportunity, security and individual liberty – and if the Republican Party wants to come along, so much the better. One major reason for the election debacle is that Republicans ceased being the party of conservative principles; they became Democrat-Lite. Given the choice between a copy and an original – well, you get my drift.

America is still a center-right country. This election was neither a referendum in favor of the Left’s radical approach to key issues nor a mandate for big government. The new Temporary Tenant of the White House campaigned by masking liberal policies with smooth words of moderate tenor to make his agenda more palatable to gullible voters. Soon he will seek to advance these policies through a Congress bought and paid for by liberal special interests such as unions, trial lawyers, and radical enviro-wackos. When he does he will have a fight on his hands, only if the Republicans grow a pair and return to the conservative the principles on which the Party was founded.

The new Temporary Tenant of the White House was elected promising “change” (the definition of which is still unknown), but “change” should not be confused with a license to raise taxes, drive up wasteful government spending, weaken our security or give more power to Washington, Big Labor Thugs and bottom-crawling scum-sucking trial lawyers. Americans did not vote for higher taxes to fund a redistribution of wealth; drastic cuts in funding for troops and national defense; the end of secret ballots for workers participating in union elections; more costly obstacles to American energy production; and the imposition of government-run health care on employers and working families.

Conservatives have a responsibility to offer a better way. We must reaffirm the American public’s faith in our movement; one of reform rooted in freedom and security. This will not happen overnight. We must make the case one issue at a time while offering solutions.

The Republican Party must return to conservative principles and earn back the trust of the American people and thus render them deserving the honor and responsibility of being returned to the majority.

GMWinslow

The Tennessee Conservative

Your Retirement Accounts At Risk From Dems

If you think your retirement accounts (401Ks, pensions, IRAs) look bad now, just wait until the New Socialist Democrat Party gets hold of them!

Democrats in the U.S. House of Reprobates have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate worker's personal retirement accounts and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security System. This is the same system that is at risk of bankruptcy due to the systematic looting (management) of our funds by 'pork' hungry congressional criminals (of both parties) for years.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

These hearings were triggered by the financial crisis of the past two months; a crisis in which the socialist leaning Democrats see opportunity to further erode individual freedom and make the populace more and more dependent on Government (them) for their every need. Already they have succeeded in creating multiple generations that have never worked and now have designs on your your retirement money to guarantee that this non-working class never has to!

The proposed Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants. Now folks, I am no 'rocket surgeon', but just how do you think you are to retire on $600 per year. Don't spend it in one place!

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.” (Where have I heard that before?)

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted (confiscated) from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Folks, it has started already. The Democrats and their socialist idealists have been emboldened by the election results. They see this as an opportunity to increase their power over your lives and they will try to take it.

They will overreach and we must hold them accountable.

GMWinslow
The Tennessee Conservative

Festina Lente – Make Haste Slowly

The new Temporary Tenant of the White House would do well to heed this bit of ancient Roman wisdom. Festina lente (make haste slowly) was the motto of the young revolutionary Augustus who soon realized that he needed to build upon Rome’s past, rather than dismantle it.

Despite all the gushing and emoting over the Democrat victory of November 4th, it is by no means a mandate for neither radical “change” (a term that was never clearly defined) nor a ritualistic purging of everything old. There is a real world out there and the new Temporary Tenant must take that into account.

John McCain promised tax cuts for all while the new Temporary Tenant promised to raise them of some (most). But neither plan fully factored in the fact that we are now entombed under a mountain of trillions of dollars of debt. Both plans would have needed more revenue and less spending.

The new Temporary Tenant and his administration, much to their chagrin, will have to come to grips that even they, The Ones, must cede to the laws of physics: America will have to pay down debt while not raising taxes too high at a time of recession.

The promised quick and easy transition to a clean, cool solar, wind and butterflies and unicorns future will be neither quick nor easy. The sugarplum visions of millions of new electric cars will still require old-fashioned natural gas, coal and nuclear power to generate the electricity to charge them. A confluence of economic slowdown, conservation and public support for more drilling have already saved us billions via the collapse of world oil prices. And instead of promising to bankrupt the coal industry, we should thank our lucky stars that America has the world’s most plentiful supply to coal to transition us to alternate sources of energy.

A feral Wall Street and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all turned on us during both the Clinton and Bush administrations. All will need more regulation, but in moderation. As bad as our situation is, Europe faces far worse financial meltdowns that have nothing to do with American excess or George Bush. Despite the looming recession, Americans are still collectively the most affluent and free citizens in the world due to our unique free-market system; a system that creates enormous wealth and draws in more capital and talent than elsewhere on promises of commensurate individual rewards – not socialist redistribution of those rewards.

For all the campaign charges of ‘unfairness’ and attacks on the ‘evil rich’, America currently has the most progressive tax system in the world, in which the top 5 per cent of wage earners pay over 60 per cent of all federal income taxes. You really do not have to be a mathematician to see the imbalance here! The new Temporary Tenant has promised to raise taxes, and he will. However, he should, as in all things, “make haste slowly”!

GMWinslow
The Tennessee Conservative – in Exile

Fighting in Exile!

The longest democratic succession struggle in the history of the world is finally over. This has been a struggle characterized by, in large part, a suspension of common sense, a national media who have abdicated their position of trust for ideology, questionable tactics and a gullible public willing to sell their souls for a few coins of silver; but it is now over and we must go forward.

We are now faced with the reality of at least four years under siege from the most liberal and radical president and the most liberal and radical Congress in the history of the United States. One can only hope that this is not the opening statement of the last chapter in the history of these United States as it was founded and has flourished for 232 years.

I am not usually so apocalyptic; however the toxic soup of an Obama, Reid, Pelosi troika in control of the White House, Senate and House of Reprobates simmering in the bitter broth of an 'entitlement mentality' electorate emits the poisonous fumes of socialism. Add to that to the specter of our enemies, foreign and domestic, licking their chops in anticipation of the opportunity to further damage the United States under the leadership of the untested and untried.

It now strikes me that I may have really underestimated the creepiness of the whole thing!

This unholy triumphant is driven by a precept of socialist ideology that holds ‘what is theirs is theirs and what is yours is theirs!’ This is evinced by such statements as made by Virginia Representative Jim Moran (d) lamenting at a Democrat fund raiser, “…we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it, and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth. And they may be able to sustain that for a while, but it doesn't work in the long run.” This is further reinforced by the inadvertent slip of truth by Obama and his “spread the wealth” statement elicited by the now infamous Joe the Plumber.

They believe that it is a “simplistic notion” that you should feel entitled to keep what you have worked for and earned. How dare you resent having it taking from you by force (taxation) and given to someone else not of your choosing. These self-important liberals are convinced you are so stupid as to be unable to make decisions for you and your family. They see you as totally incapable of managing your own financial affairs. If only would agree to give them all your money and let them give you back only what they deem you deserve, the world would be all butterflies and unicorns. Why can’t you see that only they are endowed with the wisdom to properly take care of you, you poor wretch, even if they have to spend every thing you have.

Selfish and simplistic. This is how they think of the average American. The same average American who they will burden with more and more taxes and more and more rules and regulations. The death of a thousand cuts.

Conservatives will now be exiled to four years of wandering the political wilderness. This may be what we need to force a return to our core principles of liberty and freedom; secure in the belief that what we earn, we keep; that we and we alone are responsible for ourselves and families. Far from being ‘selfish’, Conservatives have always freely given to those in need. The difference being, we give out of compassion by our own volition and to whom we choose; not by some misguided sense of ‘fairness’ by the force of taxation.

As I said earlier, what is done is done and we must go forward; but we do not have to surrender unconditionally! Do not fear, my friends, but be vigilant and persevere. During this exile, the Tennessee Conservative, and millions like me, will continue the good fight, always vigilant and ready to speak out against the lurch leftward that seems to be in the offing. The ‘Fairness Police’ will not silence your humble scribe. I will wage an insurgency of common sense from my underground bunker in an undisclosed location and invite you to join with me. Do not go quietly into the night! Do not suffer in silence! Your voice must be heard. Do your duty to hold these politicians to task and make them accountable for their actions.

Fight on troops, fight on!

GMWinslow

The Tennessee Conservative

Beware of the "Change" You Are Promised

This election is the most important election in our lifetime. We face a real danger of electing an untested, uber-liberal, quasi-Senator (who has spent more time on campaigning for personal gain than earning his pay as a US Senator) and who could be a real and present danger to the security of the United States. We are in this position because the great uninformed public has been mesmerized by a very biased national press by a very fuzzy message of ‘hope’ and ‘change’. When the average supporter of candidate ‘hope’ is asked just exactly what does this ‘hope and change’ mean, there is usually stunned silence. So much for the substance of the Barack Hussein Obama campaign.

Here is just a sampling of ‘change’ you will get in the New Socialist Federation of Obamastan:

(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.

(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine -- a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators -- a Hugo Chavez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio.

(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old" -- in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life. 'Right and wrong' will not really be that important in the Obamaramic Code of Justice.

(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.

This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary. Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited -- $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending -- as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.

This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. But you can see it from here. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.

The national security choice in this election is no contest. B. Hussein is untested and sends signals to our enemies, both foreign and domestic, that an Obama administration will offer them more opportunities to harm America and American allies. McCain? Our enemies DO NOT want him as a REAL Commander-In-Chief, and that is good enough for me!

Folks, it is not too late to correct the potential mess that looms. Tuesday, November 4^th is the only “poll” that counts. Go Vote and take a friend or three! We can still pull America back from the brink!

Don't Let the Polls Affect Your Vote!

There has been an explosion of polls this presidential election year. Through yesterday, there have been 728 national polls with head-to-head match ups of McCain and B. Hussein Obama. In 2004, there were just 239 such critters. One reason may be that this campaign season has gone on longer than married life!

But, don't let the polls affect your vote. They were wrong in 2000 and again in 2004. Some polls are sponsored by reputable news organizations (I know, the term "reputable news organization" would seem to be an oxymoron today), while others are done by publicity-hungry universities and others by outright political hacks.

Right now, all the polls show that B. Hussein Obama ahead of John McCain, but the margins vary widely in part because some polls use an "expanded", to put it kindly, definition of a likely voter. However, if you look at the 'internals' of many of these polls, you would discover that there is an over-representation of respondents who identify themselves as Democrat as opposed to Republican or Independent. Even with this over-weighting, B. Hussein is only ahead, on average 3 points. With more Democrats being polled than Republicans, one would wonder why B. Hussein is not much, much further ahead. What this should tell you is that there are many Democrats that are not voting for "The One", despite the pre-coronation given Obama by the liberal press. The fact that Obama is still out beating the bushes instead of 'measuring the drapes' at the White House is because his private polls tell him that he is not the shoo-in that he would like us to believe.

The apparent manipulation of many of these polls is an overt effort to suppress the vote. Your vote!

Folks, don't let the polls affect your vote. This election is not over yet and the sweetest revenge for this interminable onslaught on our senses would be to prove all these pollsters wrong next Tuesday in the only poll that really counts.

The Real Danger of a B. Hussein Presidency

Besides being just plain creepy and empowering the radical Left and America' enemies (both domestic and foreign), a B. Hussein Obama presidency will do long lasting damage to conservatism for many, many years to come.

The following is from an article in today's Wall Street Journal by Steven Calabresi (with my own special emphasis) on the subject:

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if B. Hussein is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of B. Hussein's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.


Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice. ("Economic justice" - translated as income redistribution from those who work and earn it to those who do not and feel entitled to it.)

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." B. Hussein's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

B. Hussein Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit

The following is part of an article found in the October 24, 2008 eMagazine, Newsmax written by Kenneth R. Timmerman. This is a legitimate lawsuit and by failing to respond makes is more interesting. There are many ways to stonewall a lawsuit but not responding is not one of them. B. Hussein and his paid mouth-pieces just may have been too cute by half! It makes one wonder, doesn't it?

You can read the entire article at:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_birth_certificate/2008/10/24/143882.html?s=al&promo_code=6E2D-1

"A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers.

The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation.

The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States.

By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings.

Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship.

Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time.

“There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.”

“The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.”

The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

“It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment.

“The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.”

A Letter from Average Joe

The following is a letter from one of the millions of average "Joes" out there in 'fly-over' country, as the snooty-nosed liberals refer to us. We can only hope that he is representative of the real majority in the US and the great Silent Majority will rouse and make its presence known.

Please forward this to everyone you know. It is not too late to stop this madness!

Dear Friends:

My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign , Illinois . I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.

The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending

We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?

I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.

'Change what?', I ask.

'Well, we're going to change America ', they say.

'In what way?', I query.

'We want someone new and fresh in the White House', they exclaim..

'So, someone who's not a politician?', I say.

'Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama', they state.

'So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?'

'No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.'

And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.'

Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. 'Change, change, change.' I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.

We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, 'What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?'

CHANGE WHAT?

Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.

For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

Here's a question - 'Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.'

John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.

When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.

Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.

Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'

I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.

Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.

Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.

There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.

I want a President who's qualified to lead.

I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
Phone: 760.434.1395
E-mail: ronald.hess@alumni.purdue.edu

It Ain't Over Yet !

The country is in two unpopular (although justified) wars in the midst of the worst financial mess since the 30’s. A mess caused by the same people who now purport to fix it. The President’s poll numbers have dropped to match Harry Truman’s when he left office and John McCain has not exactly run a stellar campaign. The national media is in the bag for the Obama-crats and General Colin Powell, George Bush’s former secretary of state, has now endorsed B. Hussein Obama.

Not since the last prophet of ‘change’, that now colossal jewel of ignorance, Jimmy Carter, has voters been so eager for a shake-up.

Why then, despite the heavily weighted polls in favor of Obama, has B. (The One) Hussein not completely closed the deal?

The answer is easy. Voters still really do not know who Obama is, or what he really wants to do. After more than a year in your face, he still remains a irritating enigma.

Obama promised to be the post-racial candidate who would bring us together. But when asked in March 2004 whether he attended regularly Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama boasted, "Yep. Every week. 11 o'clock service."

The healer Obama further characterized the racist Wright as "certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for." And Obama described the even more venomous father Michael Pfleger as "a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely."

Obama can dismiss his past associations with Bill Ayers as perfunctory and now irrelevant. But why then did an Obama campaign spokesman say Obama hadn't e-mailed with or spoken by phone to Ayers since January 2005 , suggesting more than three years of communications -- in a post-9/11 climate -- after Ayers said publicly he had not done enough bombing?

Obama's campaign shrugged when legal doubts were raised about the sloppy voter registration practices of ACORN -- an organization that Obama himself has both helped and praised.

Yet Obama once was a stickler for proper voter documents. In 1996, he had all of his Democratic rivals removed from the ballot in an Illinois state primary election on the basis of sloppy voter petitions.

Many of Obama's surrogates, from congressional leaders like Rep. John Lewis to his running mate, Joe Biden, have suggested that the McCain and Palin candidacies have heightened racial tensions. (How can that claim not be made when every question asked of and criticism leveled at B. Hussein is met with the charge of coded or out-right racism?) Do such preemptory warnings mean that one cannot worry about Obama's 20-year relationship with Rev. Wright or long association with Father Pfleger?

It's also unclear exactly what Obama's message of "hope" and "change" means. The hope part turned a little weird when Obama, in prophetic fashion, proclaimed, "We are the ones we've been waiting for," and later put up Greek-temple backdrops for his speech at the Democratic convention.

There are many more questions that the Obama campaign will not allow to be asked and that the bought and paid for media refuses to ask.

Folks, this is not over. It is not time to panic but time to take action. We can still save the country despite itself. The only poll that counts is the one that is taken on Election Day in the privacy of the voting booth. We can still drag McCain across the finish line kicking and screaming despite him.

GO VOTE! … and if you were registered by ACORN … vote often!