Barack Hussein's MoveOn Baby Alex

The Left-Wingnuts at MoveOn.org, another shining example of stalwart Barack Hussein Obama supporters, have a new Iraq ad which is highly touted, by none other than . . . themselves, as their most effective ever. Then again, for the group that brought us the “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad last September, that might not be saying much.

Not content with having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.

Their new and improved slimeomercial is presented in a 30-second TV spot, “Not Alex,” produced in conjunction with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:

“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”

Take that, John McCain - you evil warmonger!

Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms. Not that MoveOn has ever been inconvenienced by pesky little facts.

And it might be a picking of nits (but when dealing with nit-wits, one must) to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, “Maybe 100” — explaining, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. ...”

In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we’ve had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.

But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won’t be drafted, and his mommy can’t enlist him. He can decide when he’s an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.

All of this is to be expected in political advertising. But why, after first seeing this ad to so many find it so ... creepy?

A post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, found at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com., might go a long way toward explaining this creepy feeling:

Here’s what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:

“Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere.”

Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, the stark reality is we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And we’re not entering any such world and soaring rhetoric and vacuous ideas will not create one.

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won’t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But that’s not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.

These are types of people who will be in control in a Barrack Hussein Obama administration! Scary, isn’t it?

Drill American Oil On American Soil

(Illustration by ShelTOONS@aol.com)

U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40 percent from its levels of 25 years ago. With gas at $4+ a gallon and a barrel of oil hovering between $130 and $140, we import two-thirds of our oil from the likes of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. As a result, we send hundreds of billions of our dollars (that is real money, even for tax & spend liberals) to these pillars of stability who, of course, have nothing but the well-being of the United States at heart

And yet we hobble ourselves by prohibiting even the exploring of huge domestic reserves of petroleum and natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are conservative estimates of 75 billion barrels of oil that have been declared off-limits. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (the oil we get from Canada and Mexico are a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years! That is nearly a quarter-century of energy independence!

This situation is ridiculous and it continues to be caused by the environmental-whackos who control the economic idiots (liberal-leftist Democrats) - the inmates currently in control of the asylum known as the U.S. Congress.

Even an old curmudgeon like John McCain can see the need for change in the face of reality. (Change! Now where have I heard that before?) Lifting the federal ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling that was imposed in 1982 is a change for John McCain, albeit only half as much as needed. But circumstances have changed. Since the moratorium was instituted, we have had two wars in the Middle East, and during lulls between wars, garrisoned thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE to preserve the peace and keep untold riches out of the hands of the most malevolent of our enemies.

Technology has changed as well. We are now able to drill with far more precision and environmental care than a quarter-century ago and cause much less harm than is perpetrated in the halls of Congress whenever they are in session. With thousands of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in oil spills.

McCain's policy on offshore drilling is a welcome change from past positions, however, his unwillingness to include ANWR makes absolutely no political sense. If you are going to take the hit for flip-flopping and for offending environmentalists, why go halfway? With 67 percent of the American public (you know, the ones that are paying $4+ for gasoline) are in favor of drilling in ANWR, off-shore, in their back yards . . . what is the problem here?

Right on cue, Barack Hussein Obama , as expected, reflexively attacked McCain. "His decision to completely change his position" to one that would please the oil industry is "the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades." One can only marvel at Obama's audacity in characterizing McCain's proposal to change our policy as "old politics," while the candidate of "change" adheres rigidly to the no-drilling status quo. (I guess Barack Hussein Obama's "...decision to completely change his position" on accepting public financing (thus leveling the playing field) for his campaign as he promised, really does not count.)

Why is the United States the only country in the world who denies their own citizens the resources of their own country? This is the question that needs to be asked of every Congress-critter!

Marines 7 - Murtha 0

This is the news you will not hear and will not read, unless page 30 something behind the yard-sale ads:

Lt Col. Jeffery Chessani, accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqis, had charges dropped Tuesday in the alleged Haditha massacre. The charges were dismissed without prejudice.

That is US Marines - 7 / Anti-war liberal leftists - ZERO (just in case anyone is keeping score)!

This, after he and seven fellow US Marines were tried and convicted in the press and on the floor of Congress by Rep. John Murtha - (DEMOCRAT - Pennsylvania) and the rest of his anti-war, knuckle-dragging partners in slime. There's a permanent stain left by the slanderous propaganda of Rep. Murtha -- the stab in the Marines' backs heard 'round the world: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Those who perpetrated the smear campaign against the US Marines two years ago should hang their heads in shame.

They won't, of course. They have no shame! Being a liberal-leftist means you can spew any form of lie you wish with impunity from the court of public opinion. This because public opinion is tightly controlled by the liberal-media. Proof? Ok, where are the same Armageddon-sized font headlines about the dismissals and acquittals in the New York times that were used repeatedly when the story first broke? (Although, I admit, it is hard to read the NY Times at the bottom of a bird cage.)

You will never hear an, "I'm sorry" from this sorry bunch who whipped into a frenzy the "cold-blooded Marines" narrative which was aired with constant glee. It means never having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed), Lt. Andrew Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum (charges dismissed), Capt. Lucas McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz (charges dismissed), Sgt. Frank Wuterich (awaiting trial) and their families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive character assassination they all faced at the hands of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press.

The families of the Haditha Marines have called for Congress to censure Murtha, who cuts and runs, sputtering and spitting, to the nearest elevator when questioned about the Haditha dismissals. He and the Haditha smear merchants have skated while the men and their families suffered global whippings on the airwaves and eternal demonization in print.

This is how they honor our servicemen and women. Doesn't that just give you a big ol' Warm-'n-Fuzzy?

A Case of Judicial Imperialism

Last week's Supreme Court 5 to 4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush is judicial imperialism of the highest order.

Boumediene should finally put to rest the popular Liberal-Left notion that evil right-wing conservatives dominate the Supreme Court. The Academic Elite used to grouse about the Rehnquist Court's "activism" for striking down minor federal laws on issues such as whether states are immune from damage lawsuits, or if Congress could ban handguns in school.

The first casualty of this ruling was precedent. Now, I am not a lawyer (I'm an honest man), but I understand the writ of habeas corpus as this: Americans (and aliens on our territory) can challenge the legality of their detentions before a federal judge. Until Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U.S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.

In World War II, no civilian court even considered reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a triple-play of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. The Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court's word (obviously a case of misplaced trust) when Guantanamo Bay was evaluated as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists in the months after the 9/11 attacks.

The Boumediene gang of 5 (Justice Anthony Kennedy -- joined by the liberal bloc of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) claims judicial supremacy for the striking down of a wartime statute, agreed upon by the president and large majorities of Congress, while hostilities are ongoing, no less.

They also ignored the Constitution's structure, which grants all war decisions to the president and Congress. In 2004 and 2006, the Court tried to extend its reach to al Qaeda terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. It was overruled twice by Congress, which has the power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress established its own procedures for the appeal of detentions.

Incredibly, these five Justices have now defied the considered judgment of the president and Congress for a third time, all to grant captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court.

Judicial deference, respect for the executive and legislative branches, and pure common sense weren't concerns here either. The Court refused to wait and see how Congress's 2006 procedures (Military Tribunals) for the review of enemy combatant cases work. Congress gave Guantanamo Bay prisoners more rights than any prisoners of war, in any war, ever. The justices violated the classic rule of self-restraint by deciding an issue not yet before them.

Judicial micro-meddling will now intrude into the conduct of war. Federal courts will jury-rig a process whose every rule second-guesses our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. A judge's view on how much "proof" is needed to find that a "suspect" is a terrorist will become the standard applied on the battlefield. Soldiers will have to gather "evidence," which will have to be safeguarded until a court hearing, take statements from "witnesses," and probably provide some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture. The US Military will have more lawyers than warriors!

No doubt ambulance-chasing lawyers will swarm, like vermin, to provide representation for new prisoners. John Edwards will now have something to do.

President Bush has declared, rightly, that the government will abide by the decision. No American lives are yet imperiled, as the courts will have to wrestle with the cases for months, if not years. But the upshot of Boumediene is that courts will release detainees from Guantanamo Bay, or the Defense Department will do so voluntarily, in the near future.

Just as there is always the chance of a mistaken detention, there is also the probability that we will release the wrong man. As Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion notes, at least 30 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay -- with the military, not the courts, making the call -- have returned to Afghanistan and Iraq battlefields.

The justices act like we are no longer really at war. Our homeland has not suffered another 9/11 attack for seven years (see previous post), and our military and intelligence agencies have killed or captured much of al Qaeda's original leadership. What's left is on the run, due to the very terrorism policies under judicial attack.

The only real hope of returning the Supreme Court to its normal wartime role rests in the November elections. Sometimes it is difficult to tell Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain apart on issues like campaign finance or global warming. But they have real differences on Supreme Court appointments. Mr. Obama had nothing but praise for Boumediene, while Mr. McCain attacked it and promised to choose judges like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both dissenters.

Because of the advancing age of several justices (Justice Stevens is 88, and several others are above 70), the next president will be in a position to appoint a new Court that can reverse the damage done to the nation's security.

This should be considered when deciding on who you will vote for president.

George Bush: One of America's Greatest Presidents !

Much to the dismay of America's rabid Bush-Hating Liberal Leftists and their brie nibbling Liberal Socialist comrades-in-arms in Euro-stan, President George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest American presidents.

How can I possibly say this when all one hears is a constant din of Bush-hatred in the 'media?' Well, that right there is one good reason. For whatever Liberal Leftists and the Liberal Media believe, the opposite is usually much closer to the truth. Another good reason is that George W. Bush is the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terroist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now. Name me one person on September 11, 2001, or immediately thereafter, who believed there would not be another attack for seven years? . . . I'm waiting!

Keeping America safe! That is a president's most important job as outlined in the United States' Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;..." (Article II; Section II). A president cannot control the economy; has no duty to 'feel your pain'; has no obligation to make the United States the world's largest 'meals-on-wheels'. A president's primary duty is to protect the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic.

However, the mere act of taking out Saddam Hussein and his sociopathic seed, Uday and Qusay, has proven to be a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did.

It is now beyond dispute, despite the desperate whining of the leftist hyena pack, that President Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting in Iraq; not here. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That is 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for the US and, if caught, be able to appeal to the US Supreme Court! (However, the latest Supreme Court ruling has just made President Bush's job much harder!)

We are, in fact, fighting them there so we do not have to fight them at, say, Times Square in New York -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why it should be repeated as often as possible.

The Iraq war is shaping up to become a stunning success. (Name one war that has actually gone to the original plan?) The Iraqi army is 'standing up' and taking control and responsibility for some of the most troublesome areas; Muqtada (Mookie) al-Sadar has waddled off to Iran to hide from his own militia; and Sadar City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen are baffled by the constant nay-saying from their own country.

The Iraqi's have a democracy and, despite its newness, appears to be working better than the dysfunctional one in Washington, DC! Monthly casualties in Iraq are now lower than a walk through Fort Marcy Park during the Hillary Clinton Co-presidency (ie., Vince Foster). Last month (May 2008) there were 19 troop casualties. While that is still 20 too many, last year an average of five people were shot every day in Chicago (that is in the United States for those geographically challenged among you). With Iraqi civilian deaths at an all time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA (which is not surprising). Two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported:

"Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

Gee, you would think there might have been some kind of "surge" going on or something!

As Ann Coulter writes, "We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance."

From a Tennessee Conservative - Thank You President Bush . . . and Happy Father's Day!

The Non-Racial Racist Candidate

(Illustration by: ShelTOONS)
His campaign, and the fawning main stream media, has put just about any question about Barack Hussein Obama off-limits. In this campaign, one that is supposed to transcend race, almost every legitimate question concerning the background, history, family, friends and associations of Barack Hussein Obama is deflected by accusing the questioner of being 'racist.' Any question or topic he does not want to answer or address is deflected as racist by his Blitzkrieg press machine.

Like it or not, race is going to be a major issue in this campaign, according to Princeton University professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who specializes in African-American politics.

“There’s no question that race and all the permutations that it’s going to take for Obama are going to be central issues,” she predicted.

Although Obama was raised by his mother, he identified more closely with the race of his father, who left the family when Obama was 2.

“I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,” he wrote.

Yet, even through high school, he continued to vacillate between the twin strands of his racial identity.

“I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds,” he wrote in “Dreams.” “One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time.”

Although Obama spent various portions of his youth living with his white maternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather, "...it was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” You would need to add to that list the now infamous Rev. Jeremiah Wright, 'Calypso Louis' Farrakhan and the self-admitted domestic terrorist William Ayers.

Being off-limits to the Obama enamored press, Barack Hussein Obama has demonstrated racial attributes, activities and speech that would have, early on, destroyed any white candidate and banished him from the solar system.

During college, Hussein Obama disapproved of what he called other “half-breeds” who gravitated toward whites instead of blacks. And yet after college, he once fell in love with a white woman, only to push her away when he concluded he would have to assimilate into her world, not the other way around. He later married a black woman.

Such candid racial revelations abound in “Dreams,” which was first published in 1995, when Obama was 34 and not yet in politics. By the time he ran for his Senate seat in 2004, he observed of that first memoir: “Certain passages have proven to be inconvenient politically.”

I guess this would include a description he wrote in his first memoir describing black student life at Occidental College in Los Angeles.

“There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote. “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”

He added: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

Obama said he and other blacks were careful not to second-guess their own racial identity in front of whites.

“To admit our doubt and confusion to whites, to open up our psyches to general examination by those who had caused so much of the damage in the first place, seemed ludicrous, itself an expression of self-hatred,” he wrote.

After graduating from college, Obama eventually went to Chicago to interview for a job as a community organizer. His racial attitudes came into play as he sized up the man who would become his boss.

“There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. “A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.”

Now I ask you folks out there. Name one white person who had admitted, in writing, such racist behavior and attitudes who would have made it into any position of politics in today's PC world, much less a candidate for President of the United States? Hmmmm . . . the silence is deafening!

Just Who Does Obama Really Know?

For someone who would be a presidential pretender, Barack Hussein Obama really does not seem to know people very well. What has turned into a steady stream of longtime close associates, mentors, 'old uncles', are now people he really did not know?

After he moved to Chicago in the mid-1980s to work as a community organizer, Barack Hussein Obama forged close ties with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- joining the pastor’s Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and using the topic of a Wright sermon, "the audacity of hope," as the title of his most recent best-selling book.

But more than a year ago -- long before some of Wright’s more incendiary sermons became hot-button videos on YouTube, forcing Obama to publicly renounce his pastor -- the Obama campaign had a sense that Wright's sharp tongue might spell trouble for the Illinois senator.

Hussein Obama was a member of member of Wright's Church for over 20 years. yet he never heard him utter a controversial statement? He knew him well enough to have him perform the wedding between he and his wife Michelle. He know him well enough to allow him to baptize his two daughters. He knew him well enough to think of Wright as "an old uncle." But when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (pastor, mentor, friend, "old uncle") becomes politically inconvenient, Barack Hussein Obama says that this was a Jeremiah Wright he did not know. Not only did Hussein Obama, for political expediency, throw his pastor under the bus, he threw the his whole Church under the bus with him. This after stating on national TV that he "could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown his own grandmother." Granny, when you see a bus coming ... be afraid, be very afraid!

Political powerbroker Tony Rezko, whose links to presidential contender Barack Obama dropped him into the national spotlight this year, was convicted on 16 counts of money laundering, fraud and bribery charges by a federal jury a few days ago.

Rezko -- who has contributed thousands to the campaigns of the Illinois senator and other Democrats -- was accused of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking Illinois state business.

He was convicted of 16 of 24 charges, including 12 counts of wire and mail fraud, two counts of aiding and abetting bribery and two counts of money laundering. He was acquitted of attempted extortion.

Testimony at Rezko's trial in federal court brought up ties between Obama and Rezko, with a witness putting Obama at Rezko's house for a party where the guest of honor was Iraqi-British businessman Nadhmi Auchi.

Obama has said he doesn't recall ever meeting Auchi, who was convicted of fraud in France.

Amid the controversy, Obama acknowledged he had accepted contributions from Rezko and bought a strip of land from Rezko, a Chicago real-estate developer.

Obama, who has not been accused of wrongdoing in the case, has vowed to give up the contributions, and called the purchase a mistake. He has already donated to charity at least $80,000 in campaign contributions linked to Rezko.

When asked to comment on his old pal's convictions (16 of them), Hussein Obama said that this was not the Tony Resko he knew.

The list grows longer: Father Michael Phlager, radical priest and guest in Obama's church and, most recently, James Johnson.

Democratic Party stalwart James A. Johnson quit as an adviser to the Barack Obama campaign, where he was helping to screen potential running mates, as new details emerged about loans Mr. Johnson received from mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. Mr. Johnson, who led mortgage buyer Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, received more than $5 million in loans from Countrywide that were arranged outside its normal underwriting process, according to loan records and people with knowledge of the transactions. The loans were first disclosed in The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Johnson received loans from Countrywide on at least six properties between 1998 and 2007, some at lower-than-average interest rates. His debts to Countrywide as of mid-2007 exceeded $5 million, people familiar with the matter said.

Hussein Obama stated that Mr. Johnson was not an employee but only tangentially connected to the Obama Campaign even though Johnson was one of three tasked to screen possible vice presidential picks for Obama.

There is a very disturbing pattern here. Obama knows people well enough to associate with them for twenty years, perform his wedding, baptize his daughters, enter business deals with, and help make one of the most important decisions a presidential candidate will have to make; but these are not the people he really knew?

Makes you wonder about his ability, or lack thereof, to judge people. Seems to me that would be an important requirement for the job he is seeking. Wouldn't it?

Work Over Wealth?

Work Over Wealth. This is the current theme of the Barrack Hussein Obama presidential campaign. These words are designed to portray Hussein as a champion of the 'workers' against the 'evil rich.' This really is nothing more than the old and failed socialist mantra of class-warfare. Designed to incite the serfs to to rise up, pitch forks in hand, to topple the 'evil rich' Lords. Only afterwards, do the serfs realize that they have destroyed the very people and institutions that support and protect them. Ask yourself this question: When was the last time you were hired and were paid by a poor person?

Work Over Wealth. Tax the 'evil rich' into oblivion. Take their wealth (which they use to invest in creating jobs and hire and pay workers) and redistribute it to those who have not earned it. This is the only page in the Liberal Socialists (ie: Democrats) play book. It has failed every time it has been tried, but that does not stop them from trying it again. Will the recipients of this re-distributed wealth go out and start a business, create jobs and grow the economy? Hell no! Why would they put themselves in the same position as the ones whose heads just got lopped off?

Liberal Socialists, like Hussein Obama, have no idea of what it is to work at a job and create wealth (defined as having anything that belongs to you). Hussein, as with most other Liberal Socialists, has never held a 'real' job where he worked for a 'real' business. He started out as a 'community organizer' (whatever the hell that is?) and then, paying due homage to the Chicago liberal political machine with the likes of Calypso Louie Farrakan and domestic terrorist William Ayers, snouted up to the public trough of state politics. He has been living off your money ever sense. Barack Hussein has never run a business, never run an organization, never had to produce any type of work product. But he knows how you should live, what you should earn and what you should own. Unbelievable!

While I most certainly do not agree with all of John McCain's policies, the McCain-Obama contrast on economics couldn't be more stark. Hussein Obama wants to use the tax system to redistribute income and wealth, not to grow the economy. He constantly talks about rewarding work over wealth. Again, this is pure class warfare.

Hussein Obama doesn't seem to understand that our nation was founded on the principle of equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome), and that private enterprise, not government, is the main economic driver. Obama intensely dislikes businesses. He would repeal all the Bush tax cuts and raise the corporate tax.

Hussein Obama talks about the need for bottom-up economic growth. But this is a false-flag. He's pure top-down when it comes to big-spending government programs.

Obama singled out the ownership society, calling it a "worn dogma." In fact he misjudges modern America, which is dominated today by 100 million investors, 25 million small-business owners, nearly 70 million homeowners, and roughly 140 million people who go to work everyday in the corporate world.

Obama opposes free trade. And though he has tried to hedge his bet on this point, it will never sell in this YouTube election.

Earlier in the campaign, he became the candidate of 1970's scarcity and limits when he asserted that "we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees Fahrenheit at all times, and then just expect that every other country is going to say okay." Why does he think we need other countries' permission to create the life style WE want? How dare he!

Ironically, it's Sen. McCain who is saying "Yes we can." We can grow. We can prosper. We can be confident about the future. He's saying that with the right economic policies, America's outlook will know no bounds.

Barack Hussein Obama is a media created 'post turtle.' What is a "post turtle?' When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that is a 'post turtle.' You know he did not get there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of idiot put him up there to begin with!

Just remember the Liberal Socialist Democrat mindset: What is their's is theirs and what is yours is theirs!

Drill Here! Drill Now!

The recent spike in oil prices has finally got everyone's attention. In the upcoming presidential campaign, there will be many issues to chew over (oil, jobs, economy, Iran, Iraq, etc.); but right now, it is all about oil.

Washington Liberal Democrats, taking their marching orders from environmental special interests, blame Big Oil for all our woes. They have done everything to demonize oil companies including the embarrassing spectacle of sanctimonious Senators hauling oil executives before a Senate Committee in what appeared to be a tribunal with the execution penalty already decided. The world witnessed these parsimonious panjandrums belittle and berate the very people who produce the product that is in such demand while refusing to allow them to explore and drill for new sources of the product to reduce the shortage. To make matters worse, Congresswoman Maxine Waters - Democrat from California (a most colossal repository of ignorance), actually threatened these oil executives with a government takeover of their companies! This from the same bunch that runs the Senate restaurant that loses almost $2 million dollars of your money per year!

These Washington professional idiots believe that oil companies are to blame for high prices, and they think that you do too. But here's an eye opener. Recent polling data from Gallup shows the percentage of voters blaming oil companies for skyrocketing gasoline process has dropped from 34 percent to 20 percent over the past year. Now for those who did not pay attention in public school math class, that means that 80% of voters do not blame Big Oil. The blame lies with Congress!

But for Congress (mostly Democrats), we have oil right here we can drill right now! Besides 10.4 billion barrels in Anwar, that barren little flyspeck in the tundra of Alaska, there is oil nobody is talking about. The Bakken fields beneath North Dakota, Montana, and Canada hold an estimated 400 billion barrels of oil. In comparison, Saudi Arabia's biggest field, Gahawar, has an estimated 55 billion barrels.

The Bureau of Land Management has 279 million acres under federal management where oil and gas could potentially be extracted. But more than half of this is totally off limits. Off-shore, where another 86 billion barrels lie in wait, is also restricted. Then there's liquefied natural gas, oil shale, and the various coal-to-liquid and sequestration technologies that are all but ignored.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we can't produce it. We're still the world's third-largest oil producer, but we could be the Saudi Arabia of oil if our companies were free to drill. Oil CEOs like Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobile and David O'reilly of Chevron keep saying this. But politicians are not heeding their message. They are listening, instead, to shining examples of ignorance and incompentence like Maxine Waters - Liberal Democrat - CA.

No We Won't !

We have the freest, strongest and most prosperous country in the history of the world. We have achieved this feat by adhering to the traditional principles of Conservatism; the first principles of our country. By staying true to these principles, we will keep it that way.

We inherited our country from the founders based on certain eternal truths. These truths, founded upon the Sacred Scriptures and wisdom of the ages, carry with them the evidence of their value. The fact that there is such a thing as human nature has to be taken in account when governing, and most fundamentally, based on the fact that people are meant to be free, are among these eternal truths. Our founders derived from these principles a government that had its powers separated, checked and balanced because they know that power tended to corrupt and absolute power corrupted absolutely. In keeping with that they incorporated in our Constitutional system a system of Federalism to make sure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government, which were given delineated powers and no others.

From these principles we developed a market economy, with the rule of law, a system of trade with other nations, and a strong national defense. From the prosperity, freedom and strength that came from this system we became a friend, example and protector to all those around the globe who aspired to similar goals. We won wars, including the Cold War, and enhanced world stability within which other could pursue their own freedom. As a result, we enhanced our own security as Americans.

But today, many of the principles that made our country the greatest on earth are under assault from the Liberal Left and their wholly owned subsidiary, the Democrat Party, and sadly some mis-guided Republicans. However, we must ask those who would "change" our principles, "When did freedom and liberty become outdated? What part of our Constitutional framework needs to be abandoned?"

While acknowledging that the world is a constantly changing place, we must recognize there are still some unchanging truths. It is when our country has abandoned our principles that we have gotten into trouble; not when we have adhered to them.

The Democrat Party of today would abandon many of these principles and what they would not abandon, they would distort. They have their own principles:

* Highlighting and dwelling on America's imperfections.
* Isolationism
* Policies that will give the world the impression that America is weak and divided.
* Declaring defeat even when we are winning.
* Stopping or reneging on free trade agreements with other countries, thus making the world view the United States less reliable.
* Allowing the teacher's unions to indoctrinate our children in liberalism and socialism in the guise of education.
* Expanding entitlement programs and the socialist re-distribution of wealth even those these programs have proven to be failures and bankrupt.
* Changing the definition of marriage and appointing liberal judges to set our social policy.
* Foist upon the hard-working, tax-paying Americans (the few that are left) the biggest tax increase in American history.

There are two things that have been firmly established in American politics over the last several years. First, these liberal Democrat polices have been rejected time and again by the American people; and second, the American people see the need for strong, experienced leadership in dealing with matters of foreign policy and international threats in today's world. This is no time for on-the-job-training!

To lead this effort, the Democrat Party apparently have nominated a man who keeps repeating, "Yes we can." A man who is the most liberal and one of the most inexperienced members of the United States Senate, a man who has never strayed from the official Democrat doctrine.

Well, America now knows what he means by "yes we can" and our response will be, "No We Wont!"

The Clinton / Obama Shakedown

Negotiations are reported to be taking place between the Barack Hussein Obama and the Madame Clinton campaigns about the Illinois senator helping to repay some of the massive debt incurred by his rival and major pain in the posterior. One of Hillary Clinton’s donors said that the former First Lady’s (this term used very loosely and under protest) campaign was as much as $40 million in the red.

In a conference call with major donors, contributors were told by Harold Ickes, a senior Clinton adviser, that she was unlikely to pull out of the race until the issue of her massive debts was resolved. The New York senator has lent her own campaign at least $11.5 million.

One source close to a major donor said: “It’s not about the vice-presidency or any other position she might get. It’s about the money – in particular the Clinton family money.” The Barack Hussein Obama campaign might have to reach deeply into its well-stocked coffers in order to secure the full support of Clinton and HubbaBubba in the November general election. In other words, pay the blackmail! A recurring theme in how Clinton, Inc. conducts business.

This only confirms what most people already knew: the Clintons are nothing more than political prostitutes willing to sell their "services." Having determined what they are; all that remains is negotiating the price. This "shakedown", worthy of the likes of professional racial extortionist Rev.' Jesse Jackson, is so blatant that the media just can't see it (Surprise! Surprise!)

I just wonder how the thousands and thousands of Barack Hussein Obama's contributors, large and small, feel about him putting their money in Clinton's pocket?

If you can't win on principle, just buy off the competition. This is the "CHANGE" Barack Hussein wants to bring to Washington? Guess his old buddy, Tony Resko (indicted Chicago low-life), taught him well!