Saturday, November 01, 2008

Frank Gaffney on Obama and Biden

I claimed it for you - 

now claim it for me. God has more than a thousand Ways to provide for us, that we know nothing about. Here is your financial blessing!

Its a simple prayer, you got 30 Seconds?

Dont sleep on this...Someone recently read this for the first time and Received exactly enough for a $0 balance on all credit cards.

If you need a financial blessing, continue reading this e-mail.

Heavenly Father, most Gracious and Loving God,

I pray to you that you Abundantly bless my family and me. I know that you recognize, that a family is more than just a mother, father, sister, brother, husband and Wife, but all who believe and trust in You.

GOD, I send up a prayer request for financial blessing for not only the Person who sent this to me, but for me and all that I have forwarded this message on to. And that the power of joined prayer by those who Believe and trust in you is more powerful than anything!

I thank you in Advance for your blessings. God, deliver the person reading this right Now from debt and debt burdens.

Release your Godly wisdom that I may be a good steward over all that you Have given me GOD, for I know how wonderful and mighty you are and how if we just obey you and walk in your word and have the faith of a Mustard seed that you will pour out blessings. I thank you now Lord for The recent blessings I have received and for the blessings yet to come, Because I know you are not done with me yet.

In Jesus name Amen


I received this in email and decided to share it with you and my other reader. If you should want to share this with others, you're more than welcome to send a link, cut and past, however you choose to share it. 

I believe in the power of prayer. Yes, this is an Internet prayer, but it's still a prayer and I mean it, as I do all prayers, from the heart. I wish abundance for my readers and their families. If this prayer brings abundance to someone, I'll rejoice in that blessing.

If all this prayer does is to make someone think about the blessings that God and prayer can bring, then perhaps I'll have earned a very small credit in the Book of Life. 

Funny thing about prayer. I believe that all prayers are answered, and that they are answered in the way that is best for us. It's just that the "best way" may not be what we are asking for. That's the hard part, accepting that the prayer is answered in the way that is best for us. Sometimes it's hard to understand why prayers aren't answered the way we want. And it's even harder to try to understand how what we want might not be best for us. We're human beings and think we know best. But God really does know, because He knows so much more than we do. 

Another funny thing. I don't believe that you have to send a formal prayer to God (or whatever Higher Power you believe in) to send a prayer. Not long ago, I was having trouble with my van. I kept saying, "Just let me get home". In my belief, that was a prayer, asking for help to get me safely home. I got home, so it was answered, and in the way that I wanted, and apparently the way that was best for me. 

I have some other situations right now that I've been praying on, sometimes formally, and sometimes just thinking about it and asking that the situation be resolved. One isn't really a "situation", just something at work that I think would be a good idea. 

Everything I'm praying about right now is really out of my hands. I've done all I can do until someone else takes an action. By those actions, I know how my prayers were answered and what course of action I'll need to take at that point.

Don't you hate waiting on other people? Well, it's part of the prayer process, so I'll continue praying. If you'd like to mention me in your prayers, I'd certainly appreciate it :DD
Breaking from

Zogby Shocker: McCain Leads Obama In Latest Poll

Dick Morris tells Newsmax that Friday night's polling for Zogby of 1000 likely voters shows a huge shift for John McCain. Zogby's poll, conducted on Friday night only, has McCain at 48% and Obama at 47%.

Zogby's overall poll has Obama with a lead — but that's based on a three-day average that includes Wednesday and Thursday polling data.

"There is a seismic shift for McCain; it could turn into an earthquake this weekend," Dick Morris told Newsmax.

"I think a large of the credit goes to for it's courageous use of the Rev. Wright ad and the many tens of thousands who have donated almost $9 million before election day," Dick Morris added.

Never mind what others do; do better than yourself,
beat your own record from day to day, and you are a success.

If you want to know how rich you really are,
find out what would be left of you tomorrow
if you should lose every dollar you own tonight.

My absentee ballot went in weeks ago.

Because I'll be working on Election Day, I chose to vote by absentee ballot instead of rushing to my polling precinct and then possibly standing in line for ages. I took advantage of the fact that Florida offers the oppotunity to vote early via absentee ballot.

I voted, I did my duty as an American citizen, and by doing so, I earned the right to complain. And you know that, no matter who wins, the taxpayer will lose.

The only excuse I can think of for not voting is that you were in a coma. The military voted. Even astronauts voted. If you didn't vote, you don't have the right to voice an opinion. The only right you have is to keep your pie hole shut.

It's really as simple as that.

Better to be a strong man with a weak point,
than to be a weak man without a strong point.
A diamond with a flaw is more
valuable that a brick without a flaw.

Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama
They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel.
By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2008

CHICAGO — It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.

"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.

"That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said."

Aides say that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a "stalwart" supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy.

Obama also calls for the U.S. to talk to such declared enemies as Iran, Syria and Cuba. But he argues that the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is an exception, calling it a terrorist group that should renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before dialogue begins. That viewpoint, which also matches current U.S. policy, clashes with that of many Palestinian advocates who urge the United States and Israel to treat Hamas as a partner in negotiations.

"Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.

Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."

Looking for clues

But because Obama is relatively new on the national political scene, and new to foreign policy questions such as the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides have been looking closely for clues to what role he would play in that dispute.

And both sides, on certain issues, have interpreted Obama's remarks as supporting their point of view.

Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence.

Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama's explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate's empathy for their plight.

Obama's willingness to befriend Palestinian Americans and to hear their views also impressed, and even excited, a community that says it does not often have the ear of the political establishment.

Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid."

The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms.

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

Obama, through his aide Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah's account could not be independently verified.

"In no way did he take a position privately that he hasn't taken publicly and consistently," Axelrod said of Obama. "He always had expressed solicitude for the Palestinian people, who have been ill-served and have suffered greatly from the refusal of their leaders to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist."

In Chicago, one of Obama's friends was Khalidi, a highly visible figure in the Arab American community.

In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In the early 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi now occupies a prestigious professorship of Arab studies at Columbia.

He is seen as a moderate in Palestinian circles, having decried suicide bombings against civilians as a "war crime" and criticized the conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders. Still, many of Khalidi's opinions are troubling to pro-Israel activists, such as his defense of Palestinians' right to resist Israeli occupation and his critique of U.S. policy as biased toward Israel.

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors.

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel -- a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.

"He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi said. "I feel a kindred spirit from that."

Ties with Israel

Even as he won support in Chicago's Palestinian community, Obama tried to forge ties with advocates for Israel.

In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama's position paper "suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues."

In 2002, as a rash of suicide bombings struck Israel, Obama sought out a Jewish colleague in the state Senate and asked whether he could sign onto a measure calling on Palestinian leaders to denounce violence. "He came to me and said, 'I want to have my name next to yours,' " said his former state Senate colleague Ira Silverstein, an observant Jew.

As a presidential candidate, Obama has won support from such prominent Chicago Jewish leaders as Penny Pritzker, a member of the family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain, and who is now his campaign finance chair, and from Lee Rosenberg, a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas.

One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama's outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright.

"In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that's what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League.
Shame, Cubed
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.
By Bill Whittle

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American — or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Barack Obama, in 2001:

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

"You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”


There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to many voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of what makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.


Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work for which they employ standing armies of so-called professionals. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.


This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.

What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?

Friday, October 31, 2008

Watching The Watchdogs
By David Limbaugh
October 31, 2008

The mainstream media, who forgot Felix Frankfurter's admonition that "freedom of the press is not an end in itself but a means to the end of a free society," long ago abdicated their role as government watchdog and now require a watchdog themselves. Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama's shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations.

Consider some items the MSM would have explored if they were guardians of liberty instead of the Obama campaign.

-- When Democrats insist every vote must count, do they also mean multiple votes from individuals and votes from dead and nonexistent people? If not, why aren't the MSM demanding answers about Obama's incestuous relationship with the criminal enterprise ACORN, whose serial crimes could alter the outcome of this election?

-- How can the MSM allow ACORN's dissemblers to deflect the charge that they are seeking illegal votes with "these are registrations, not ballots," as if there is any purpose in procuring illegal registrations apart from maximizing illegal votes?

-- The MSM preach that money in politics necessarily corrupts, so why do they ignore Obama's broken promise to accept public financing, his record-breaking campaign receipts, and the large number of untraceable contributions?

-- Why do they dwell on VP candidate Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy experience but ignore presidential candidate Obama's thinner experience?

-- As champions of the "little guy" and privacy rights, why are they not outraged that the Obama campaign targeted, slandered and investigated Joe the Plumber by illegally using government computers merely for asking Obama one of the many questions they should have asked him?

-- Why did they let Obama get away with falsely denying his culpability in opposing an Illinois bill that would have provided medical care to infants born despite failed abortion attempts?

-- Why do they ignore what have now become real questions about Obama's birth certificate, when he could summarily end the speculation and win the lawsuit challenges on the merits rather than on technicalities simply by producing the document?

-- Why are they completely incurious about the many gaps in Obama's past, including his years at Columbia and Harvard?

-- How dare they accept Obama's insulting claim that he was unaware of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, racist and blasphemous diatribes after attending his church for two decades and calling him his spiritual mentor?

-- Other than being sympathetic to Marxism themselves, why don't they ask Obama about his mentor Frank Marshall Davis and his admitted Marxist influence on him or that of his "openly Marxist" mother? Why was he "drawn to" Marxists? Why did he seek them out? Why don't the MSM explore the logical connection between that background, his alliances with Marxist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, and his advocacy of "spreading the wealth" today?

-- Why don't they examine his self-description as a post-racial unifier against his autobiographical accounts of personal racial bitterness and his alliances with the Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan?

-- Why do they conceal his complicity in Fannie and Freddie and his alliance with disgraced Fannie exec Franklin Raines?

-- Why don't they demand the release of the videotape of his appearance at a 2003 dinner with Palestinian supporter Rashid Khalidi?

-- Why don't they challenge his denial that he made a gross mistake in judgment in opposing the Iraq surge? It sure bothered them that George Bush couldn't admit a mistake.

-- Why don't they ask him how he would immediately withdraw from Iraq regardless of the advice of commanders on the ground and the inevitable consequences, including forfeiture of our victory and our precious lives lost in combat?

-- Why don't they ask him how he could possibly consider al-Qaida a threat if he thinks Iran is just a tiny country and not a threat?

-- Why don't they wonder how he dares to mock the Holy Bible while he claims to be a devout Christian?

-- Why do they give him a pass on his many duplicitous shifts of positions on the threshold income level for tax cuts from $300,000 to $250,000 to $200,000 to $150,000? How can they let him masquerade as a tax cutter and fiscal conservative when he has been the most liberal and tax-raising senator and his new spending easily would exceed $1 trillion? Does he support government control of our 401(k)s?

-- Why did they affect hyperventilation over Sarah Palin's supposed wardrobe extravagance, which was merely a matter of projecting her best image, yet wholly ignore Obama's obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage?

-- And if he is really his brother's keeper, as Rush has noted, why can't he take care of his poverty-ridden brother and aunt, and why don't he and Joe Biden contribute more to charity?


The Ten Cannots

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

William J. H. Boetcker, a minister, and outspoken advocate for liberty (1916)

A century later, Democrats are utterly ignorant of these principles. In fact, their platform is now built around "The ten Cans."


I read these "Cannots" and nearly dropped my teeth. If our leaders lived by this, we wouldn't have the economic problems we have today and we wouldn't be having the debate on "Is it Socialism or isn't it?" (By the way, it is)

If we, the American public, lived by these "Cannots", we wouldn't have people living paycheck to paycheck and facing foreclosure.

Of course not all of these apply to individuals, but some do.

I'll be posting more of Rev. Boetcker's quotes in the next few days. I hope you enjoy the ones I've chosen.

Smoking Audio
by Cal Thomas
Thursday, October 30, 2008

The October surprise may turn out to be a 7-year-old interview with Barack Obama in which he strongly suggests that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to his desire to redistribute the nation's wealth. How does Obama credibly take the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he thinks it impedes his socialist agenda?

Is socialism too strong a word? Consider one of its definitions from and tell me it is something other than Obama's economic philosophy: "A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor."

A complete restructuring of society is what Obama advocated in a 2001 interview on a Chicago public radio station. According to, in that interview, Obama, "reflecting on the Warren Court's successes and failures in helping to usher-in civil rights, said, "I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples." He has it backward. The Creator already endowed African-American people with these rights, which is precisely the argument powerfully made by Martin Luther King Jr. Any rights that are "vested" in people by other people may be removed by the same or future people. Endowed rights are "unalienable" and what America did was to finally recognize those rights. The distinction is crucial because it also relates to abortion and many other social issues. If a court can take away the right to life, then no endowed right is safe.

Obama continues with a comment that the "Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of the redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." Does he mean that for real "justice" to have been achieved, the Warren Court should have taken from the rich and given to the black poor? Obama never said what would happen once the redistributed money ran out. Perhaps this was not to be a one-time event, but a lifetime of "reparations" for slavery, as some other left-wing black leaders have proposed.

On Bill O'Reilly's Fox show Monday night, former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro defended high taxes in New York and Obama's pledge to raise them nationally, saying, "At least they're not taking it all." It may have been an attempt at humor, but this betrays the Democratic Party's attitude. They have the right to say how much of your hard-earned money you can keep. We should be telling government how much of our money we will allow them to spend. Anyone hoping to make more money and improve their lives will have to work even harder to overcome Obama's redistribution plans.

Obama thought the Warren Court should have "broken free" from the constraints placed on the Constitution and the courts by the Founding Fathers. This is remarkable hubris. Obama said the Constitution mostly "says what the states can't do to you ... what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." That's because the Constitution is about liberty and protecting citizens from oppressive and invasive government.

This is scary stuff. That it is only now surfacing is another reminder of the poor job the mainstream media have done in vetting Obama. Barack Obama thinks the Constitution and the country it helped create should be remade in his image. He wants to be a founding father of a different America, one that would bear little resemblance to the country we have known. This is radical in the extreme and Obama, along with his many acolytes who are itching to get their hands on unchecked political power, are a danger to this nation's survival. Listen to the interview.

John McCain stands in the way of a complete liberal coup that would transform America in ways the founders and most Americans would oppose. McCain may be dull at times; he may have run an imperfect campaign; he should have spent more time exposing Obama as a radical socialist instead of worrying what the media would say if he did, but John McCain is a patriot who has proved his love, service and dedication to this country in ways that Obama cannot begin to achieve or appreciate.

Electing Barack Obama president of the United States would be a roll of loaded dice. We will live (and possibly die) to regret it. Republicans have made many mistakes and deserve the punishment they are now getting, but the one charge that cannot be laid at their doorstep is that they wanted to re-write the Constitution and weaken the country.

Obama will do that and more. Wake up, America, and stop flirting with this guy because you are flirting with potential disaster.

Forbid it, Almighty God!” —Patrick Henry

The Audacity of Deception
By Mark Alexander

If you are perplexed, even bewildered, by the number of Americans who normally make logical and rational decisions but now support Barack Obama, I refer you to a lucid explanation for this phenomenon in the opening pages of the candidate’s political autobiography, The Audacity of Hope. He writes, “I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views... I am bound to disappoint some... of them.”

Beyond the projection and deception, however, elections have consequences. Some of Obama’s supporters, the formerly logical and rational, will be first in the soup line of deceived disappointees expressing buyer’s remorse. They will awaken from the stupor of all the good feelings that attracted them to Obama and face the hard realities of the Socialist agenda they enabled.

In this, the final week of the ‘08 presidential campaign, Obama bought 30 minutes of prime time on several networks to air an infomercial in which he endeavored to pass as something other than the ideological Socialist he is. Feigning the fiscal conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Obama claimed he would review the budget, line by line, and cut waste. He even made taxing and spending, a.k.a. “the collectivist redistribution of wealth,” sound like a noble democratic gesture.

At one point he said, “Just because I want to spread the wealth around, they call me a socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!”

Cute. Of course, Barack Obama isn’t proposing to “share” his sandwich. Instead, he’s proposing to take your sandwich and share it with someone else. He’s assuming that you aren’t charitable enough to share it yourself.

Truth is, it is unlikely Obama ever shared a sandwich with anyone. With an average annual income of more than $500,000 between 2000 and 2006, Barack and Michelle only gave two percent—two percent—of their income to charity. Obama’s running mate is even more miserly. The Bidens’ income averaged $260,000 over the last 10 years, but they averaged just $650 a year in charitable giving.

So much for “spreading the wealth around.”

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain centered his soapbox message on Obama’s penchant to redistribute wealth, even uttering the word “socialist” in several interviews—and not a minute too soon.

Of course, Socialist policies are now the centerpiece of the once great Democratic Party, packaged under the aegis of “fairness and equality” or “investments in our infrastructure and people.”

Obama uses code words such as “political and economic justice” and “coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” In the last two months, however, given the crisis of confidence in our economy, Obama’s Socialist rhetoric has become bolder. Perhaps he’s heeding the counsel of his mentors’ mentor, Karl Marx, who wrote, “A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis.”

The fingerprints of Obama’s radical Socialist mentors are all over his “vision for America” —from his early childhood tutor, Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis, to his black radical spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright, to the benefactors who launched his political career, radical terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

These are the Leftists who fed Obama’s unmitigated narcissism and shaped his warped worldview, which he now seeks to inflict upon the entire nation. Even his campaign icon implies “Obama over America.”

Of course, when asked about his relationship with these radicals, Obama responds, “[These people] are not advisors or donors to my campaign,” at which point an adoring press corps dutifully moves on to the next question.

Despite having spent 20 years as a disciple of Wright, the man who officiated at Obama’s marriage and baptized his children, the man whom Obama describes as “a father figure,” he claims he never inhaled any of his spiritual mentor’s racial hatred—never even heard any of it.

Obama claims that Bill Ayers was “just a guy in my neighborhood,” and “I was just eight years old when he was a terrorist.” However, Obama was 34 when Ayers used his radical celebrity to launch Obama’s political career, and he was 40 when this unrepentant terrorist was featured in a New York Times article (on the morning of September 11, 2001) and quoted in the opening paragraph proclaiming, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Ayers added, “America makes me want to puke.” Obama was working on his second major “philanthropic” project with Ayers at that time.

In addition, there are Obama’s ties to the Socialist New Party, the ACORN crowd, Father Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, Raila Odinga and other haters, hard Leftists and convicted felons.

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” All committed Socialists understand this principle.

For example, when Obama asserts, “We’ll ensure that economic justice is served—that’s what this election is about... I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” that is tantamount to buying votes.

Michelle Obama echoes her husband’s redistributionist philosophy: “The truth is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

In 1916, a minister and outspoken advocate for liberty, William J. H. Boetcker, published a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots . “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.”

A century later, Democrats are utterly ignorant of these principles. In fact, Barack Obama’s campaign is built around their antithesis—“The Ten Cans.”

I was speaking with a friend recently, a man who lived most of his life under the Communist regime in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. He has spent several years and continues to incur many legal expenses in his endeavor to become a U.S. citizen, but he has since lost his enthusiasm.

“The prospect of an Obama presidency is like dèja vu for me,” he explained. “The socialist goal back home was that everyone had equal wealth. They met that goal—eventually no one had anything. Any attempt to work harder to achieve a better standard of living for your family was considered contrary to the welfare of the state, and dutifully discouraged. Socialism is a big hole, easy to fall into and hard to climb out of.”

He lamented, “The American dream is not something I want to wake up from—but too many Americans have no idea what they have, and are about to lose it. Socialism seems an appealing ideal, collective ownership, equal society, ‘sharing the wealth,’ et cetera. But it has a downside: It doesn’t work.”

Indeed it doesn’t work. It creates wards of the state—slaves, if you will.

In the 1980s, I spent enough time in Socialist countries, including the old USSR, to know that we want to avoid, at all costs, a USSA. If we could gather up all Americans who, knowingly or unknowingly, support collectivist policies like those espoused by Barack Obama and transport them to the old USSR for a week, they could see the terminus of such policies—the walking dead—and the wisest among them would rethink their support for statist concepts such as “sharing the wealth.”

It is no small irony that as the younger generations of former Communist countries around the world are moving rapidly toward liberty and free enterprise, our nation is moving rapidly toward Socialism and a tyranny of the few.

Barack Obama recently said, “I don’t find myself particularly scary or particularly risky.” It was a weak attempt at self-effacing humor, but make no mistake: Barack Hussein Obama’s Socialist policies are both scary and risky.

“Hope” and “change” may be pleasant catchall bromides, but as Benjamin Franklin wrote in Poor Richard’s Almanac, “He that lives upon Hope will die fasting.”

On change, John Adams wrote, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

To that end, in 1787, the year our Constitution was adopted, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Let’s not go there—yet.
The State of the Campaign

If your television is tuned to cable news as frequently as ours are here at campaign headquarters, you have seen the pundits say John McCain and his campaign are done. And, if you've followed this race since the beginning, this is clearly a song you've heard before. I wanted to take some time today to give you some insight on the state of the race as we see it.

An AP poll released this morning revealed a very telling fact: ONE out of every SEVEN voters is undecided. That means, if 130 million voters turn out on Tuesday, 18.5 million of them have yet to make up their mind. With that many votes on the table and the tremendous movement we've seen in this race, I believe we are in a very competitive campaign.

Here's why:

All the major polls have shown a tightening in the race and a significant narrowing of the numbers. In John McCain's typical pattern, he is closing strong and surprising the pundits. We believe this race is winnable, and if the trajectory continues, we will surpass the 270 Electoral votes needed on Election Night.

National Polls: Major polls last week showed John McCain trailing by double-digit margins - but by the middle of this week, we were within the margin of error on four national tracking surveys. In fact, the Gallup national tracking survey showed the race in a virtual tie 2 days this week.

State Polls:

Iowa - Our numbers in Iowa have seen a tremendous surge in the past 10 days. We took Obama's lead from the double digits to a very close race. That is why you see Barack Obama visiting the state in the final days, trying to stem his losses. It is too little, too late. Like many other Midwestern states, Iowa is moving swiftly into McCain's column.

The Southwest - It is no secret that Republican candidates in the Southwest have to focus on winning over enough Latino and Hispanic voters in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado to carry them to victory. John McCain has overcome challenges Republicans face, and has made up tremendous ground in these states with these voters. For these voters, the choice has become clear, and you have seen a big change in the numbers. John McCain is now winning enough voters to perform within the margin of error - putting these states within reach.

Colorado - Barack Obama tried to outspend our campaign in Colorado during the early weeks of October and finish off our candidate in Colorado. However, after our visit early this week, we saw a tremendous rebound in our poll position, and Colorado is back on the map.

Ohio and Pennsylvania - Everyone knows that vote rich Ohio and Pennsylvania will be key battlegrounds for this election. Between the two: 41 electoral votes and no candidate has gotten to the White House without Ohio. Senator McCain and Governor Palin have been campaigning non-stop in these key battleground states and tonight Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pumped up our campaign at a rally in Columbus. Our position in these states is strong and undecided voters continue to have a very favorable impression of our candidate.

Obama campaign faces tremendous structural challenges in the final days of this campaign

Obama has a challenge hitting 50%: Barack Obama has not reached the 50% threshold in almost any the battleground state. He consistently is performing in the 45-48% range. When we look closely at the primary votes, we see a history of a candidate whose Election Day performance is often at or behind his final polling numbers. If this is true, our surge will leave Obama with even or under 50% of the vote on Election Day.

Early Vote: The Obama campaign has promised that their early vote and absentee efforts will change the composition of the electorate. They have sold the press on a story that first time voters will turn out in droves this election cycle. Again, the facts undermine their argument. In our analysis of early voting and absentee votes to date: The composition of the electorate has not changed significantly and most folks who have voted early are high propensity voters who would have voted regardless of the high interest in this campaign.

Expanding the Field: Obama is running out of states if you follow out a traditional model. Today, he expanded his buy into North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona in an attempt to widen the playing field and find his 270 Electoral Votes. This is a very tall order and trying to expand into new states in the final hours shows he doesn't have the votes to win.

The Final Barnstorm

On Monday, we will have a 14 state rally with our candidates crisscrossing the country trying to turn out our voters and sway the final undecided voters. Governor Palin will hit Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Alaska in the final day of campaigning, while Senator McCain will travel from Tampa, Florida, to Virginia, then Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada and finish the night in Prescott, Arizona. The enthusiasm and excitement we generate on Monday will be the electricity that powers our "Get Out the Vote" efforts on Tuesday.

On the Ground

Our field organization has tremendous energy and is out-performing the Bush campaign at the same time in 2004. This week our field organization crossed a huge threshold and began reaching more than one million voters per day, and by week's end will have contacted more than 5 million voters. Our phone centers are full and our rate of voter contact is significantly out-pacing the Bush campaign in 2004. We have the resources to do the voter contact necessary to support the surge we are seeing in our polling with old fashioned grassroots outreach.

On the Airwaves

In the final days of the campaign, our television presence will be bigger and broader than the Obama campaign's presence. The full Republican effort - the RNC's Independent Expenditure and the McCain campaign will out-buy Barack Obama and the Democrats by just about 10 million dollars.

In short: the McCain campaign is surging in the final 72 hours. Our grassroots campaign is vibrant and communicating to voters in a very powerful way. Our television presence is strong. And, we have a secret ingredient - A candidate who will never quit and who will never stop fighting for you and for your families.

Email from the McCain-Palin Campaign
Manatee is McCain/Palin Country?

I was at Walmart this afternoon and on the spur of the moment carried out a very informal survey. I decided to do a drive-through of the parking lot for totally unrelated reasons.

One of the first cars I passed had a McCain-Palin bumpersticker. I decided to forego my original reason for trollling the parking lot and looked for bumperstickers for either ticket.

The first thing I noticed while on my quest was that not many people have bumperstickers these days. I saw several for various schools (my kid is ... at [insert name of school]) and sports teams. I continued my project on the way home.

Since I was driving, and it was Friday evening rush hour, I couldn't look at every car on the road, so I may have missed some. Remember this was a very informal survey and has no scientific basis. There is some basis of fact though. I counted the number of bumperstickers that I did see and who they were for.

And here are the results (although you probably guessed it from the title of this post):

McCain/Palin: 5
Obama/Biden: 2
Nobama: 1

So there you are. Take my findings as you wish.
Thoughts on the Bailout

You know, I heard someone make a suggestion not long ago that went into my brain and skittered around, finally coming up to the surface yesterday, I guess it was.

I should tell you something about my past week. I've had some personal things come up that kept me from thinking too much about other things. My personal life is set on simmer right now. I've done what I can do for the time being, now other people have to give me input so I can proceed. That's why this suggestion, that was made sometime since the bailout was announced just finally came to the surface of my poor, overstressed brain.

The government apparently has access to some $700 Billion (that's billion - with a "b") that Hank Paulson is going to use to shore up the economy. Now, let's not even get into why the economy is about the fall apart. That's yet another question for another time.

The suggestion was, instead of giving that money to the banks (and other companies and states wanting handouts), give a million to every person in the country. Talk about a stimulus package! The government could even "loan" it to the public at a minimal interest rate, say whatever the current interest rate that the banks would pay (what? 1%?)

The people who are in trouble over mortgage foreclosures could pay off their in-danger loans, and purchase another house mortgage free. That's what I would do. Pay off my current mortgage, do the remodeling I want to do, and then either sell or rent out. With the remainder of the one mill, I could pay off all my debt, buy another condo, car, shore up my retirement funds, and invest the rest in a business or other investments that would further finance my future retirement.

If everyone did that, business would flourish, the economy would take off like a rocket!

Now, one of the first things I thought about when this finally filtered through the ooze that has been my brain lately, was the math. Now, if I am right, multiplying 350m (people) by $1m would be $350 trillion. That's something more than $700 billion. Okay, if my math is correct, that won't work.

How about this? $1m to the taxpayers? Paid out like the stimulus checks, to the people who filed an income tax check. That might be more doable. Right now, I'm not sure how many stimulus checks went out. But wait. What about those who didn't file an income tax check. Would it be fair to give a million to everyone who got a stimulus check?

If the math still won't work, how about cutting the amount down to, oh, say, a half a mil? A quarter? How about just giving it to people who are in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure? That would surely cut down the amount of the bailout. Or how about enough to bring the mortgages current?

I don't know what the answer is. That's for people who are way smarter than I am.

Let's go back to my original premise of giving $1m to everybody. Here's what some people would do:
  • Some would pay off their debts, and invest the remainder for the future.
  • Some would pay off their debts, invest some, and live it up on the rest.
  • Some would "spread the wealth" around their friends and family. Why, I'm not sure because everyone would have the same amount to spend.
  • Some would spend it recklessly on anything and everything.
I wonder what that sudden influx of money would do to the economy. Would it boost it, or artificially inflate it until the money was spent and then the economy would fall apart?

Would someone like to give their two cents on the subject?
The Argument Against Idiots: Election Recap

October 31, 2008 - 11:39 ET

How to win the argument de jour with logic and facts

The issue:

'Election Recap'

What the liberal whiners say:

'Today is not a day for partisan bickering and attacks...we are just 4 days from election day, and rather than throw around insults, maybe I could just share some inspiring stories with you?'

'Let me just share the story of 80 year old, Ampara Rico Quintero, who retired from her job as a factory worker in Chicago 18 years ago to go back to live in her home country of Mexico. Now, every four years, she comes back to the U.S. to vote in our presidential elections. This year, her trip was hard. Last Sunday, she had to take the overnight bus from San Luis de Petosi, all the way to Brownsville, Texas, to get there in time for early voting. Listen to her sweet words as she boarded the bus back to Mexico after placing her vote..."this year I voted for Barack Obama. He is going to help the Mexican people, and make immigration fair." Isn't that a heartwarming story?

'I will not allow you to ruin the serenity I feel today. Barack Obama, after Tuesday will also be fighting hard for people such as the elderly gentleman on his infomercial the other night, who is struggling now through these bad economic times, trying to hold on to his dwindling pension fund. You know what Barack said to that poor man? You EARNED that EARNED it...and I will fight for you to keep it.'

'Well, get used to it, Glenn. The fact is, Barack Obama has promised day after day to give 95% of America's working families a tax cut. It's too bad you're so selfish with your money, Mr. Fatty Fat, Fatso, Money Bags.'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments

1. No partisan insults or bickering? Uh, OK...I'll believe it when I hear it, but...

2. NO! It's eye-bleeding INSANITY! She doesn't even LIVE here...she lives in MEXICO, but comes here to VOTE?!?!?! How is that even POSSIBLE?

3. Hmm...too bad he doesn't feel that way for the MILLIONS of people who have worked hard all their lives and EARNED their success! Instead, day after day he talks about punishing THOSE people. What's the difference?

4. Selfish? When I give just under 20 PERCENT of my income to charity and Obama and Biden give practically NOTHING?!?!?! There is nothing generous OR patriotic about the government taking money from you by FORCE! And by the's still IMPOSSIBLE to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans, when 40% don't even PAY TAXES!

Not verified with Snopes or Truth or Fiction--but who cares?

21 Reasons Why Sarah Palin Should NOT be Elected Vice-President of the United States :

1) She is a Woman.

2) She does not believe in killing babies, born or unborn.

3) She is NOT endorsed by Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Geraldine Ferraro, Barbara Walters, Helen Thomas, Ellen DeGeneris, Ted Kennedy, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Barbra Streisand, David Letterman, or others who fervently believe in a Woman's Right to Choose (to kill babies).

4) She is married to a Foreigner--a species called 'Native American'--meaning her five children are half-breeds.

5) She has on more than one occasion expressed PRIDE in the United States of America .

6) Unlike decent, self-respecting Democrats everywhere, she has a 17-year-old daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock.

7) She is a member of the American Riflemen's Association / actually owns firearms / and knows how to use them.

8) She has killed a moose, among other animals--and spreads the propaganda that it is hunters, through their license fees, that keep American wildlife from becoming extinct.

9) She often does her own grocery and other household shopping.

10) She drives a car, and flies a plane.

11) She chose to give birth to a defective child, rather than allow a skilled Abortion Doctor to kill it for her.

12) She refuses to apologize for seeking the termination of an Alaskan State Trooper just because he applied a gentle taser to his 12-year-old stepson (who, of course, happened to be Gov. Palin's nephew).

13) She is inexperienced. And she refuses to admit that her duties as the chief executive in the State of Alaska are nowhere near equal to those of a public servant who was once a Community Organizer, or that of a United States Senator who has carried the awesome burden of overseeing a staff of political appointees.

14) She has a son who is in the U.S. Military, deployed to the Persian Gulf -- probably making her prejudiced against all the peaceful Muslims in that part of the world.

15) She is on Oprah Winfrey's 'Do Not Invite' list.

16) She professes to be a Christian, but has no 'Spiritual Adviser' -- even though Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who served Sen. Obama in that capacity for 20 years, is now available.

17) She isn't really a 'beauty queen,' as advertised. She was only the runner-up in the Miss Alaska Contest; and Alaska is not a very populous state, anyway.

18) The Obama-Biden ticket is favored over McCain-Palin, 80% to 20%, by our friendly allies in France .

19) Her children are not properly trained in hygiene. (Did you see her 7-year-old daughter shamelessly lick the entire palm of her hand at the Convention, then use it to slick down the hair of her little brother?)

20) She is of mixed English, German, and Irish ancestry--and you KNOW you can't trust the Limey's, Krauts, or Micks.

21) Back to No. 1: This is the one that really galls modern, liberal 'feminists.' Gov. Palin is a Woman, a female-type wife and mother, who shaves her legs, wears makeup, dresses smartly, often cooks meals for her family, doesn't give a hoot about the National Organization for Women or the all-powerful Teachers Unions--and obviously will never, ever fit in as a member of the Washington Elite.

Do we want a person like this to be the Vice President of the Unites States?

You bet we do !!!

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Twas the night before elections

Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!
I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.
When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys
They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
who had not worked a day!
He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink
He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!
" On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi"
He screamed at the pairs!
They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who would not stand up and fight!
So I leave you to think
on this one final note-