"Now we see the violence inherent in the system...Help, help! I'm being REPRESSED!"

The quote above was the height of hilarity 30 years ago but unfortunately for we Americans, it has become the dismal reality of the thugocracy that rules our nation today. Dissent is no longer tolerated. Turning in your neighbors to the government thought police is encouraged. And speaking out at town hall meetings with our elected representatives is now met with violence from SEIU and ACORN thugs.

I wrote nearly 4 months ago about DHS compiling an enemies list and issuing a report besmirching our returning war veterans as potential domestic terrorists. Now, it has been revealed that you can email to the White House and tell them that your neighbor opposes Obamacare. If you voice your opposition to Obamacare at a townhall, you will be manhandled by either a union goon from SEIU or an ACORN member. This fellow at the left is one of the goons that attacked a dissenter in St. Louis and despite the video capturing the crime, he claims that the dissenter attacked him! "If you are going to lie to the people, tell them a big lie..."

I live in a district that has a representative that is not in favor of Obamacare so it is nearly a waste of time to attend a townhall with him because he already agrees with me. I have not been able to determine if Senator Webb has a townhall scheduled because his website is silent on the matter. Senator Warner has opted to eschew the face-to-face townhall in favor of polling, virtual townhalls via telephone, and etcetera. At least when I send in my dissenting opinion, I won't be attacked by a SEIU goon or an ACORN operative. But I welcome the confrontation.

You see, although I'm not a confrontational type of person, I'm not one to back down from a fight - especially when I know I'm right! I welcome the goons to attempt to even so much as put their hands on me because as soon as they touch me, they will die! Anyone that puts their hands on me without my implicit permission obviously means to do me harm and I will not stand idly and allow them to do so. It is my right to defend myself and their hostile actions make it necessary to defend myself. I have seen enough evidence that if I resist, they will apply more force. If I begin to defend myself, they will likely use enough to force to injure me or perhaps even kill me. Obama didn't send a bunch of little grandmas to do his bidding. He sent hulking linebackers to strike terror into dissenters. And I am not cowed by their presence.

You could say that these people who have already been roughed up by the Obamacare goons are the first victims of Obamacare. They won't be the last if the measure gets passed in any form. Obama says that it is necessary to save the American economy. That's bullshit! His Obamacare would be a greater drag on the economy than the current system. But he can't waste a good crisis...

If Obama is willing to use third party enforcers to push his health care agenda, what else can we expect when he's pushing the other radical parts of his agenda? We already know that the Card Check bill will encodify exactly this type of behavior on the part of the unions and Obama favors Card Check. And yet the sheeple elected him! Now, he's pushing a healthcare plan that will leave some elderly with only painkillers to soothe their ailments because the cost-benefit analysis will say that it isn't worth the expense of surgery to fix their ailments. That's not a fabrication or a stretch. That came right out of the mouth of Barack Hussein Obama in an interview.

What needs to come out in these townhalls is this: the 47 million uninsured Americans is a fabrication. First, illegal aliens are included in the 47 million. They don't belong here in the first place. Instead of spending money to insure them, use the money to get them the hell out of our country. They are here ILLEGALLY! Don't reward bad behavior. So, away with 10 million right there.

Second, don't include those that have the option to get health care coverage through their employer but choose not to. These people are unwilling to pay the small stipend each paycheck to get coverage that is available so they can spend it on big screen TV's, bigger houses, nicer cars, etcetera. Why should I have to pay for this idiot's healthcare coverage? Who's being greedy here? He keeps his money and gets me to pay for his coverage? Granted, that's genius if you pull it off but it ain't right. Gone are now another 17 million from this fraudulent number.

So here we are at 20 million uninsured. But some of that 20 million are already receiving government health care benefits. Oops. There went another 10 million "uninsured." So, truthfully, there are around 10 million uninsured Americans out there. In other words, less than 3 1/2 percent of the population.

So, in essence, this "crisis" is not a crisis at all. 3 1/2 percent does not a crisis make. Wake up and pay attention! Your freedoms are being taken away along with your hard earned wages to address a crisis that doesn't exist. And if you're aware of it, wake up your neighbor or the nearest sheeple you know. Before it's too late.

Ammunition and Fear

If you don't know by now, I am a firearms owner. I am a die-hard defender of the 2nd Amendment. I am also a member of several pro-2nd Amendment groups, including the NRA. As a gun owner, I speak to other gun owners gun dealers regularly and have noticed a growing rumor mill that is running overtime.

Have you tried to purchase ammunition lately? Aside from the price being greatly increased over the same time last year, the scarcity is what bothers me most, particularly the calibers that are most popular and mostly military. The military calibers have been a little hit or miss for some time because of the two on-going wars but this is different.

Everyone I know that shoots has the same story. They can't find more than a box of twenty rounds anywhere. When a box of twenty 7.62 rounds costs around $30 a box and you are attempting to replenish your stocks after a day at the range, you're going to go broke financing your purchase. If you can find any.

While it is true that Obama is driving this fear of increased gun control and can be seen as the best gun salesman of all time because of increased sales of guns and gun related accoutrements, it still does not explain why ammunition is becoming so hard to find. (Note: While the rest of the economy is tanking, the firearms industry is booming and all of these unemployed factory workers should be lining up to work 2nd and 3rd shift so the manufacturers can keep up with demand!)

So why is ammo seemingly running out? I was in Mississippi recently and, per my custom, I visited a local sporting goods store to look at ammo. Same story. The shelves were bare of military cartridges and some of the more popular handgun and rifles calibers. I spoke to the guy behind the counter and he said he's heard all kinds of fearful rumors from his customers. He also pointed out that the bad economy and fear have caused many people to steal the ammo off of the shelves and they have since relocated the military and popular cartridges behind the counter. That being said, the shelf behind the counter was also largely devoid of the desired calibers.

One of the rumors he had customers tell him was that the Obama Administration was paying ammunition makers to not make ammunition. Another was that the administration was forcing the manufacturers to make a primer that only lasts 90 days, thereby preventing people from stockpiling ammunition. There were others but these really struck me.

Despite the fact that I know the administration does have designs on our 2nd Amendment rights, I do believe that they are not in a financial position to offer compensation to ammunition manufacturers to idle their plants. That would be all over the media right now because that would be a victory for the anti-gun lobby and some of these idle workers would be out there talking about why they aren't working right now. I don't give this rumor any credence, especially since the ammunition manufacturers would have cried foul as soon as the administration approached them with it.

The second rumor, defies all logic. Even if it were possible to make a primer that only lasted 90 days, what company would take on the potential liability of providing a product that might fail if used to save a life on day 91? And don't forget the consequences of those primers ending up in military rounds. Imagine soldiers in a firefight with cartridges that have expired primers. No, this rumor is patently false.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the NRA has made no efforts to investigate the source of these rumors and attempt to dispel them. The supply of ammunition had been sketchy since the onset of the Global War on Terror and really became scarce starting in the fall leading up to the election. Fear is driving the demand up to the point that the manufacturers cannot keep up. The military cartridges are scarcer because the military uses them and the Defense Logistics Agency has denied the sale of surplus spent brass, so the reloading manufacturers have been affected as well in producing commercial military cartridges.

That's not to say that the fears are not unfounded because we are faced with the most anti-gun administration in American history and an administration that owes its existence to the virulently anti-gun George Soros. But we gun owners need to look deeper than the stupid rumors being floated around and need groups like the NRA to use its resources to get to the bottom of these allegations.

By the way, does anyone know where I can score five hundred to a thousand rounds of 7.62 x 51 168-grain for a decent price? I have cash. I don't want my purchase to get me on any government lists...

Tax Day Tea Parties

Well, here we are, the day after nationwide anti-tax Tea Parties and the left doesn't get it. In fact, those of us who attended or are in favor of wholesale tax reform have been marginalized in the media as everything from uneducated rednecks to domestic terrorists to racists. There's no end to the namecalling from the liberals when it comes to us "mean-spirited" conservatives.

I expected as much from the media. I watched coverage on the "other" news outlets that typically avoid (CNN, MSNBC, et al) because I correctly surmised that they would ridicule and belittle the scope of the events. The constant "tea-bagging" jokes, a reference to a homoerotic sex act, was present on every network except Foxnews. I couldn't help but notice that Anderson Cooper had a knowing smirk on his face, as if he were relishing his last tea-bagging session.

I have digressed. The point is that either the left really doesn't get it at all or they fear this movement so much that they made a concerted effort to marginalize it. I believe that fear motivated them more than anything because the media response was too over the top, too prepared, and, above all, too predictable. There was not a single network, broadcast or cable, that covered the Tea Parties like Foxnews did. Foxnews was the lone outlet that actually gave full coverage of the Tea Parties. What other event of this magnitude can you remember the media ignoring or belittling? The same media that provided wall-to-wall coverage of the Million Man March that didn't feature anywhere near a million men? The same media that covered the Million Mom March that didn't feature anywhere near a million moms? Non-stop coverage of Cindy Sheehan? Coverage of illegal Mexican immigrant marches?

The Tea Party movement is not unlike the original Boston Tea Party protesting taxation without representation. This time, we are protesting taxation for the purpose of confiscation. The Obama Administration is chock full of tax cheats but they are going to take money from the producers and give it to the leeches that elected them. Sounds like a reason to protest, don't you think?

I was glad to see Neal Boortz prominently featured, along with the FairTax, on Foxnews. The FairTax is the best revenue generating policy currently out there and does not punish the producers for producing. It doesn't punish anyone and doesn't confiscate wealth and redistribute it. You only pay the tax on services and retail goods. It allows a great deal of fiscal decision making on the part of our citizens in that you can avoid paying the tax or at least lessen the amount of tax by defering big purchases, buying used items (since these items have already been taxed when new), and shopping for better prices (which would lessen the tax paid.) Now, the consumer decides what he can afford to pay and when he'll pay it. The wealthy pay the same rate as the destitute, so the tax is fair in that way as well. The biggest advantage is that the FairTax cannot be used by the government to punish "the winners of life's lottery" and reward the "losers."

Of course, the left, being proponents of socialist, big government, want no part of any tax reform unless they are still in the driver's seat for determining who pays and who gets paid. The FairTax would neuter the left by taking away their time-honored vote-buying scheme. In fact, most tax reform proposals would cut Democrats off at the knees and is the major reason why they ridicule any effort to reform. And it won't happen on this watch.

2010 offers the next glimmer of hope. If conservatives (note that I did not say Republicans) can take back Congress in 2010, perhaps the Tea Party movement will get its day. Something has to happen because we cannot sustain our nation the way we have been conducting government business. The Tea Party participants know this and demand real change. Not the 'change" brand that Obama has espoused but real change. Tax reform is a grand place to start making change happen because it will raise all Americans up.

My wife has to listen to me rant endlessly and she asked me to what country I wanted move since this one is so awful. I said, "Texas." She replied, "I said country, not state." And I again replied, "Texas." I saw the puzzled look and explained to her what the Texas legislature had done this week. They had decreed that they reserve their states rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, stating

“as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers” and that “all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

Governor Rick Perry went further to endorse Texas' right to secession from the union. So, I explained to the wife, when this government finally nationalizes the rest of the financial and industrial sectors, we will move to Texas because Texas will probably be the last bastion of Constitutional government and a represenative republic with a free market economy. I wish my state had the cojones to pass the same resolution but with Tim Kaine, Obama' lap dog, as our governor and the leftist invasion of Northern Virginia, that is likely to never happen, despite a bill, HR61, before the Virginia House of Delegates with a meager 12 endorsees. A guy can dream, right?

What does this have to do with the Tea Parties? Everything. You see, Texas received alot of coverage over the assertation because it has passed the resolution. Several other states, including my home state, have similar bills in their legislatures. That fact cannot be ignored for long and, when coupled with the Tea Party rallies, you begin to see a genuine revolt forming, not unlike the unrest prior to our rebellion against British rule or against Northern rule. What makes this even more unique is that it is no longer just a "Southern" thing. New Hampshire has a bill in its legislature. Arizona. Washington. I expect more states to do the same.

The Obama Administration, despite dismissing the Tea Parties, knows it has a full grown problem on its hands. Mr. Obama wanted all of the parallels to Lincoln and he has them. Obama has been the most divisive figure in American politics since Lincoln, despite his "popularity" ratings. I foresee reports and attacks against supposed "right-wing" extremist groups to come back into vogue soon as a means of scaring Tea Party participants into leaving the cause for fear of ending up on a government list. Especially with states talking about secession, Obama knows if states begin leaving the union, he and his constituency of entitlement leeches would have no more wealth to confiscate, not unlike conditions before the War of Northern Aggression. Just substitute Northern Industrialists with the entitlement leeches and the parallel is complete.

I said months ago that given the direction we are being forced by our unresponsive goverment that a revolution is calling. I advocated a non-violent one and I still do. I endorse the Tea Party tax reform movement, especially the FairTax. Furthermore, I endorse the declarations of these states that have drawn a line in the sand with the 10th Amendment and put the out-of-control federal government on notice. My friends, the revolution has started and Obama and the media know it.

Now for some change we really can believe in.

Too Many Topics, Too Little Time

Where to begin - that's all I can think of since 4 November. I can't pick up any magazine anywhere without some mention of Barack Obama. ESPN magazine, Sports Illustrated, Cigar Afficionado, Men's Health, et al have all featured stories, covers, and quotes from Barack Obama as if he is some otherworldly messiah. It's actually frightening how much the printed media and broadcast media adores this man who has done almost nothing in his life to earn this adulation. Like I've pointed out in previous posts, this mania and cult of personality channels those of the past: Lenin, Hitler, and Mao. No wonder our public educations eschew teaching actual history or more of us would be reluctant to prop up yet another megalomaniac as leader.

I wonder each day how long the devotees and acolytes of Obama will wait for the realization to sink in that he can't actually pay their mortgages or keep gasoline in the cars and I wonder what the fallout will be. Will they call him Uncle Tom because he didn't deliver on the promises that they thought their heard during the campaign? Will they turn to violence? Will it present yet another 'crisis' for the new administration to use as a cover for further steps down the path to full socialism?

Where are the true Americans today? Where is the total outrage over this unending, uncontrolled spending? It's true that the recent 'stimulus' spending bill and it's uglt twin sister omnibus spending bill won't affect most American taxpayers bottomline today but do we not care about what we have allowed to be placed on the shoulders of our children and their descendents? I was taught, by example, mind you, that as a parent, we strive to make things better and easier for our children. As the son of a son of a coal-miner, I would say that my father and his father were successful in that. But we are just blindly mortgaging the future of this country and saddling our children with the bill. Our children will likely never enjoy the lifestyles that we hoped for because Obama's policies will ensure that those that succeed will pay for those that 'need.' All in the name of 'fairness,' because it's not fair that some people work hard to succeed and others do nothing and have nothing.

True Americans would not stand for this. Our early history points why. The Jamestown Colony was nearly a failure primarily because the colony had originally been organized with community ownership of all assets. The settlers shared food, tools, products, jobs, and theoretically even the profits. In 1616, however, that experiment is terminated and all the assets are divided up among the members because the few colonists that actually worked realized that there were an awful lot of colonists who simply refused to work and still received an equal portion. The conclusion is that the first experiment in pure communism in America was a failure. Why would we think that this is the correct path now? Capitalism saved the Virginia Company and founded this nation.

This 'crisis' in our economy is not a failure of capitalism. This crisis has been brought about by socialistic policies that brought capitalism to its knees. It's no coincidence that it was the mortgage banking sector that collapsed last year. The mortgage banking sector was the one aspect of the markets that was most heavily socialized. [See link for examination of the CRA of 1977 and the subsequent Clinton-era laws that strengthen the CRA.]

This brings me to another point, another destination. Why, you might ask, did the entire mortgage sector just happen to go south right after it was apparent who the major party candidates would be in the 2008 Presidential election? It had been documented for some , at least as early as 2005, that there was a weakness, a flaw, in the mortgage sector. Could someone singlehandedly orchestrate a move to exploit this flaw or weakness?

Again, let's go in the wayback machine to September 16, 1992. The Bank of England refused to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency. Someone sold short more than $10 billion worth of pounds and forced the Bank of England to withdraw the currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and to devalue the pound sterling. For this $10 billion short sell, the investor made $1.1 billion and brought the Bank of England to its knees. The investor was George Soros.

Soros believes in a financial concept called reflexivity. Reflexivity is based on three main ideas: 1) Reflexivity is best observed under special conditions where investor bias grows and spreads throughout the investment arena. Examples of factors that may give rise to this bias include (a) equity leveraging or (b) the trend-following habits of speculators, 2) Reflexivity appears intermittently since it is most likely to be revealed under certain conditions; i.e., the equilibrium process's character is best considered in terms of probabilities, 3) Investors' observation of and participation in the capital markets may at times influence valuations AND fundamental conditions or outcomes.

A current example of reflexivity in modern financial markets is that of the debt and equity of housing markets. Pushed by the government, lenders made more money available to people, particularly those that would not typically qualify, in the 90's to buy houses. That meant more people bought houses with this larger amount of money, thus inflating the prices of these houses. The balance sheets of the lenders showed that they had made more loans and that their equity backing the loans, i.e., the value of the houses, had gone up. This effect was because more money was chasing the same amount of housing. The cycle became endless because the more they lent, the better their balance looked. Prices increased rapidly, and, thanks to the CRA etal, lending standards were relaxed. The salient issue regarding reflexivity is that it explains why markets gyrate over time, and do not just stick to equilibrium. They tend to overshoot or undershoot. In this case, the market was grossly overshooting and Soros saw an opportunity to profit on two fronts.

Soros' Quantum Fund netted nearly 28% in the last quarter of 2008 when everything else was taking it in the shorts. Soros is a huge Democratic Party supporter and has for all intents and purposes gained complete control of the party. He knew that taking down the mortgage sector would not only increase his wealth but would certify that his candidate for President would win in November. He now has his puppet in the Oval Office and will use it to further his one world vision.

How did we get here? Well, ignorance for one. The average American is more interested in sports, American Idol, and Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. What news we get, we typically get from scanning the local liberal-biased newspaper or tuning into the evening news before Idol comes on. Couple that with the Hollywood celebs spewing their beliefs on the small screen and you begin to see that Americans real and continuing education comes from dubious sources. History, not the revisionist drivel that is issued today, but real history, is not taught in public schools. This of course is the product of the central government dictating education policy to the states. Standardization also means that everyone gets the same indoctrination.

Second, we care too much what other countries think of us. By 1989, we were the lone superpower in the world. By 2001, thanks to endless appeasement schemes and outright selling of technological secrets to our enemies, we were relegated to a quasi-superpower alongside China, Russia, Korea, and India. The momentum that we had coming out of the 1980's and the fall of the Soviet Union was squandered by the Clinton Administration and its foreign policy. The belief was that we had to appease other countries so that they would like us. The policy was that those terrorists out there that had attacked us should be treated as criminals instead of combatants and be handled like a criminal investigation instead of an act of war. All of which brought about the loss of our stature in the world and set up the events of 9/11/01. We should have met an attack with an overwhelming response immediately afterward. There would have been no question as to America's resolve or strength. Eventually, the cowards would back off or die off, whichever came first.

Third, allowing our financial and political systems to be influenced by foreign nationals is absurd. This began in the 1990's under Clinton with the endless contributions coming from Red China through Charlie Trie and others. Remember Al Gore's visit to the Buddhist Temple? That was all part of it. Just look at how rich Bill and Hilary are today as a result of contributions and donations to the Clinton Fouindation. Most of the money comes from foreign donations and now Hilary of Secretary of State. These people are buying influence in our government right under our noses and nothing has been done. Soros has likely manipulated the markets last year and cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their jobs and homes and sealed our fate for generations. Foreign nationals should be completely barred from being able to participate or influence our government.

Last, Republicans, for the most part, have lost their way. The Republican Party has become the Democrat-Lite Party, too many centrists, moderates, or even outright liberals to provide any kind of foil to the Democrats. Conservatism is still strong in this country and putting up centrist/moderate Republicans for national office is doomed to failure. Bush 41 took a more moderate stance in 1992 and lost to Bill Clinton's moderate, middle-of-the road stance. Why? Because anybody can move to the middle and if both candidates move to the middle, what kind of contest does the election become? A popularity contest. Same thing happened in 1996 with Bob Dole - Dole was a moderate and lost to Clinton's moderate stance. Conservatives want a candidate that means what he says and says what he means, not one that thinks that the only way to win is to try to win over the other side. You will never get elected as a Republican by trying to swing Democrats to your side. Furthermore, that 20% of the population that is always undecided is not going to go your way if you move to the middle with your opponent because these undecided, 'American Idol'-voters are going to vote for the candidate that is younger, better looking, more appealing, more exciting, blah, blah, blah.

You stand to win on your principles if you don't shed them to move to the middle. You hold your ground on the right and defend your beliefs. How do you defend the middle ground if you don't believe in the middle ground? Everything on the conservative side is totally defensible so why in the world would you abandon it? This past election, McCain, who historically has been a centrist, attempted to garner the support of conservatives. It was a valiant effort on his part as I voted for him (mostly because of what Obama represented than what McCain did.) But he fell short after his rousing address at the Republican convention largely because he didn't mean it. It became more and more apparent as the election drew nearer that McCain could not expound on his new-found Conservatism because he wasn't a Conservative. Even a true Conservative like Sarah Palin being on the ticket wasn't enough to save his election. It may have been for the better anyway because it has hopefully served as a rallying call to real Conservatives to come to the rescue.

Did you know that one of the firearms industry organizations selected Barack Obama as the top firearms salesman of the year? It's true. Firearms sales, out of fear of new draconian gun control efforts, have skyrocketed to the point that firearms as an investment far outstrip anything that Wall Street has to offer. Guns that I acquired a few short months ago are fetching twice the value I paid for them. Considering that bad economic times typically lead to increases in the crimes of theft, burglary, and robbing, criminals may find that crime doesn't pay as more Americans are armed to defend against crime. Another side-effect of what I call the 'Obama-factor' is that the increased firearms sales has largely been in the sales of handguns and semi-auto rifles and shotguns. This also is out of fear of a renewed and more restrictive "Assault Weapons" ban. With the uptick in the semi-auto weapons market, the liberal gun-grabber argument that semi-auto weapons are only found on foreign battlefields and are not in common possession of average citizens is quickly becoming null and void. Black rifles are flying off the shelves faster than manufacturers can build them. But don't get too excited yet.

Obama said during the election, very emphatically, that he was not for your guns. Now, knowing his propensity for Clintonesque parsing, you could take that to mean that he is not in favor of your guns and he will take them away but he did also state that he respected the Second Amendment. I'm not naiive enough to think that Obama suddenly had an epiphany and all his past anti-gun efforts were not evidence of his true beliefs. I believe that Obama and his administration will make our firearms worthless by making it difficult or even impossible to purchase or possess ammunition. Let's face it - a pencil without lead is just a stick. You can't write with it. This becomes a defacto gun ban. And I apparently am not alone in this belief. Tried to buy ammo or reloading supplies lately? Hard to come by, aren't they? Fortunately, it's hard to come by because the manufacturers and distributers can't keep up with demand - which is a good thing I guess with so many people losing their jobs. At least one job sector seems secure. Of course, the law of supply and demand will dictate that the prices will go up. Let's hope the fear eventually dies down or our own efforts will impose a defacto gun ban of its own - ammo and reloading components will be outpriced for most people and Obama won't have to do anything.

I know the demand eventually level off. But I believe that simply stocking up for darker days is the easy way out. Vigilance on the political front is the only deterence against further infringements on our gun rights. I want these rights not just for us but for our next generation and after.

Of course, like most gun owners, I am waiting to see what the administration response will be to yesterday's shootings in Alabama. I'm willing to wager that the guy responsible for the shooting was either supposed to be on psychotropic medications or under a doctor's care. One report described the perpetrator this way: "People who had known McClendon since childhood described him as a quiet loner." We'll see what comes out as more information becomes available but I am worried that this will be labelled a 'crisis' by the 'experts' of 'crisis-management' in the Obama administration.

On to Der Sprecher Nancy Pelosi. Sprecher Pelosi is so power-drunk, so corrupt that she should be removed and charged with crimes immediately. Judicial Watch recently completed an investigation into alleged abuses of congressional power with regard to use of military aircraft by Sprecher Pelosi. Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, obtained documents from the Department of Defense (DOD) detailing Sprecher Pelosi's multiple requests for military air travel. The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), include internal DOD email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's last minute cancellations and changes.

In other words, the same person who had decried the abuses and expenses incurred in the Iraq War was one of the reasons the costs were incurred. Judicial Watch has posted all of the pertinent documents on it website.

By the way, speaking of corruption, why is it that Joe Biden tells us that it is patriotic to pay your taxes but he and Barack Obama can't seem to find any appointees for their cabinet who aren't tax cheats? And why are they allowed to say they're sorry, pay the taxes, and still get confirmed for their appointments? Last time I saw a tax cheat, the IRS came in under the cover of night, raided the house military-style, took the alleged tax-cheat out of his home at gunpoint and in silver bracelets, destroying his personal property and dignity in one fell swoop. How come they didn't do that to Daschle, Geithner, et al? You don't think there's a double standard do you?

Oh, and, by the way, while we're talking about corruption, did you hear that Obama's Office of the Chief Technology has been raided by the FBI for apparently taking bribes? More on that as details come forward.

More on corruption - More than 100 House members secured earmarks in a major spending bill for clients of a single lobbying firm — The PMA Group — known for its close ties to John P. Murtha , the congressman in charge of Pentagon appropriations.

More on the rise of Chicago-style corrupt politics in the Nation's Capital -

Rep. Jim Durkin: "Did you talk to any members of the governor's [Blagojevich's] staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names -- John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyman? Did you talk to anybody . . . associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor's arrest?" Burris lawyer Timothy Wright: "Give us a moment." (Wright and Burris confer.) Burris: "I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes." Durkin: "I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor's staff prior to the governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the governor?" Burris: "I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up -- it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08 that, you know, you're close to the governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat."

Roland Burris attempted to skirt the issue at hand regarding his contact with Blago and his minions but Rep. Jill Tracy pinned him down.

Tracy: "You said that you had visited friends perhaps in September of '08 or July of '08 concerning a desire to perhaps be appointed as a senator if our president-elect was elected. And could you give me the names of those friends?" Burris: "I don't think I said in July. I said they were friends that I contacted after the election, but I was talking to people, I mean I don't know who you want as my friends that I consider as persons. For example, when I handled a press conference to express my interest in the seat, was the press conference -- I did hold a press conference, and some of my friends were there, for instance." Tracy was temporarily sidetracked, then came back to the point. Tracy: "But I think I earlier heard you today testify that in September '08 or perhaps as early as July '08, you had visited with some friends about your desire to seek the seat." Burris: "No, I think I testified that that's when I began to express an interest in it. As I saw that --" Tracy: "And I just was wondering who those friends were." Burris: "One of them was my law partner." Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the committee chairman: "Is that when you talked about your interest with Lon Monk? I think that --" Tracy: "Was it Lon Monk, was that the extent of it was Lon Monk? Burris: "That came up in our conversation when we were talking about, you know, if he has some excess clients in the lobbying business, you know, as we try to see whether or not he had conflicts somewhere with some type of a client because of his previous relationship with government. That's what we were talking about then. "And it just came up, and in fact I said, 'Now, Lon, I don't know what's going to happen, but I think I'm qualified to be appointed to the Senate seat.' And Lon said, 'Well, Roland, I think you are, too.' And that was the extent of it." Tracy: "So you don't recall that there was anybody else besides Lon Monk that you expressed an interest to at that point?" Burris: "No, I can't recall. Because people were coming to me saying, Roland, you should pursue that appointment, you're qualified, and this was --" Tracy: "Is there anybody that comes to mind in that light that you can --"

Burris answered Rich Barber, a friend from New Jersey. Sen. Burris, you have been caught. See ya - wouldn't want to be ya!

Like I said, there's too much material to discuss and not enough time but I will attempt to start diligently posting again. Sorry if this post got unwieldy but I had alot to get off my chest!

500 million Americans Unemployed Every Month?

This is unbelievable! I may be out of work already and not know it!



Surprisingly, we may all be out of work already because based on Nancy Pelosi's liberal math, we may have to find another 200 million Americans to kick off the job! You see, the population of the United States is 300 million. But I'm only counting 50 of the 57 states that Obama said he's been to, so I might be undercounting. We don't have enough Americans to lose their jobs this month, Nancy!

Or, Nancy is counting all the dead people that voted for Obama in the last election. They lost their jobs on November 5th, the day after the election...

Cult Worship

It is amazing to me the parallels between the times we live in and the times that my parents lived, particularly my mother's family. We find ourselves today in the midst of a great economic and social upheaval, on the brink of making a political decision that will either sustain our constitutional republic or destroy it forever more. I realize that the repackaged and rewritten history that is taught in government-supported public schools is part of the reason that most Americans don't recognize the parallels that are plain for me to see.

The economy is in shambles. The country is weary of wars. The country has an unpopular government. A candidate emphasizes that people are frustrated and desperate. The candidate offers change and unity despite his being a polarizing figure in politics. The candidate has written autobiographies about his struggles to the top.

For the MTV generation, your perspective tells you that the person that I am talking about is Obama. But I'm not.

My mother and grandmother would tell you that I'm talking about Adolf Hitler. You see, they lived through this already. The illegimate son that came from modest means to rise to Germany's highest office, Chancellor. They've seen the movie before and they know what comes next.

Germany is the 1920's & 30's was in economical ruin. The Weimar government was unable to fix the economy which was in a large part due to the draconian edicts of the Treaty of Versailles following WWI. Many different factions sought to gain majority in German politics but one movement managed to win out by 1932.

Clever slogans, staged protests, carefully crafted messages, belligerent, "in-your-face" tactics against local government and businesses, and well-organized public rallies were the vehicles used to rise to power. The combination created a cult of personality around Adolf Hitler. Hitler could simply promise to bring change from what had already been done and the people would follow him anywhere.

He wrote "Mein Kampf," his autobiography about his struggles in his rise to national prominence and detailed his perspective of the world, how he intended to rise to power, and his blueprint for accomplishing it.

Hitler was elected Chancellor. He even managed to get the old German aristocrats to back him. Shortly after being elected by the people, Hitler remade the German government in his own image. Hitler espoused that you must tell a big lie because the people will never believe the little lie but the big lie is so unbelievable that it must be true. He also espoused that if you repeat the lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

Fast forward to 2008. We now have a candidate for President that is an illegitimate son that comes from modest means, wrote two autobiographies about his struggles, and preaches about change.

His campaign features clever slogans, cleverly crafted messages, and well-organized public rallies. His early political life as a community organizer led staged protests and belligerent "in-your-face" tactics to force government and businesses to provide preferential treatment to his core constituency. He promises change from everything that has been done before but never clearly defines what is meant by that. He claims in one TV ad that he is pro-2nd Amendment but his meager voting record (when he actually bothered to take a stand) is completely anti-2nd Amendment. He promises a tax cut to 95% of all Americans that make less than $250,000 a year but only 55% of those people pay taxes now. He promises tax credits to these people but in reality it amounts to a euphemism for welfare to people that don't pay any taxes now.

This same candidate blames the economy on the failed policies of the current administration. He wants to punish the wealthy because he claims that they have caused this and are hording the wealth from the people. Candidate Hitler blamed the Weimar government for accepting the Treaty of Versailles and continuing policies that allowed Jews to get rich on the backs of the German people. Does anyone else see the parallels?

Candidate Hitler had his own organization of low-life criminals that bullied German citizens into voting for Hitler through fear and intimidation, stuffing ballot boxes to ensure Hitler's victory. Anyone decrying the tactics were shouted down by the organization and ridiculed until their protestations were no longer heard.

Our modern candidate has his own organization working to ensure his victory. It's called ACORN and their tactics aren't much removed from those of Hitler's Brown Shirts. ACORN consists of ex-convicts and low-lifes intimidating citizens to illegally register vote multiple times and will no doubt be out in force on election day to enforce their views on the citizenry.

So, since we know how the movie ends for Hitler and the Third Reich in Germany, what can we expect to happen here after November 4? If the modern candidate wins and his party at least keeps their current majority in the legislature, we can expect change.

Change is good, right? That's what we're voting for, is change? We will get change. Expect the government to change. Expect that this newly-elected President and his cohorts in Congress to radically change the structure of our government. Expect them to silence their critics just as Hitler did to his critics. Expect them to suspend the representative republic as we know it just as Hitler did. Expect them to nationalize industry and finance, just as Hitler did. Expect them to socialize every aspect of our lives, just like Hitler did. Expect every citizen to have to show their outward allegiance to the new President, just as Hitler did. Expect this new government and the new President to take the wealth from those that earn it and give it to those that helped him rise to power, just as Hitler did.

I'm sure that the sheeple out there that have fallen for Obama's cult of personality will laugh at these comparisons and say that it can't happen here. That's what my mother's and grandmother's contemporaries in Weimar Germany thought as well. And so did the 6 million Jews that died after that - many of whom helped get Hitler elected by thinking he was just a harmless loudmouth - gave up their wealth and their lives for change they could believe in.



I'm hoping that the polls are completely wrong. I know that the Obama apparatchik is full swing and that liberal mainstream media, the elitists (not surprisingly, the Hollywood and New York Jews didn't learn anything from the Jews in Germany), and the liberal constituency is promoting the election as over but there is still time to stop the repeat of history.

You owe it to yourself, your family, and future generations to avert this disaster. Tell everyone that will listen why they should not vote for Obama's change. Send this blog post to everyone you know to keep them from making the biggest mistake this country would ever make.

If Obama is elected and we follow the path of change he promotes, who will come to our rescue the way Allied Forces did for Europe? Our last chance for survival is November 4th. Don't elect Obama.

The Deception is Nearly Complete

Here we are, less than 20 days from election day, and the media's lovefest with Obama still has no bounds. Obama still receives no difficult or probing questions regarding his policies, his associations, or his background.

I've asked people to explain to me how Obama came to embrace black culture and the only answer I ever get back is because he's black. The color of your skin doesn't dictate what culture you embrace. Culture is learned. With all of the early influences on Obama's life coming from the white half of his family, primarily in Hawaii, how did Obama get his "ghetto creds"? It doesn't add up. There is something there that needs further investigation but that isn't going to happen.

Obama has a long list of unsavory characters that he has associated with over his adult life. One can explain away one, maybe even two, misguided associations, but Obama has many and at some point, one has to question his integrity because of all of these associations.

The first one to come to light was Rev. Wright, the white-hating, America-hating, Jew-hating leader of Obama's church. Obama claimed he had never heard Wright say the hateful, despicable things he had spewed from the pulpit in the 20 years that Obama attended Wright's church. Really? This guy, Wright, has been advocating anti-American sentiment, kill Whitey sentiment, and anti-semitism for 20 years and conveniently, Obama, not only managed to not be present on the Sundays that Wright got videoed preaching hate, but also managed to never hear about it or discuss it with his fellow church-goers. And Obama claimed Wright was an inspiration to him and the title of Obama's second book came from a Wright sermon. But now, Wright is just some guy that I went to church with. Before, Obama stated that he could no more denounce Wright than he could his own white grandmother.

Then, there's Tony Rezko, convicted of fraud recently, Chicago developer, and long-time friend of Obama. Obama and Rezko met in 1990 when Obama was still a student at Harvard Law School. Rezko offered Obama an unsolicited job offer from Rezko but Obama turned it down.

Obama did eventually take a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represented developers that build low-income housing with government funds. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Obama spent around 32 hours on the job but apparently he and Rezko made some sort of connection.

In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects. But Rezko's connection to Obama gets even deeper.

In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of Obama's campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Rezko's mansion. Shortly after getting elected, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price, $625,000, for the adjacent vacant lot. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. But Rezko is just some guy that Obama met once.

Another hatemonger dressed as a man of the cloth is Pastor Michael Pfleger. Back in May, Pfleger, who has personally contributed to Obama's election campaign and preached at Obama's church as a guest as well as hosted Rev. Wright at his parish, advocated dragging out gun shop owners and killing them. And then, as if this wasn't enough, he then advocated killing legislators that support gun rights. You'd think that since Obama claims to be a friend to gun-owners that he would have sent back Pfleger's campaign contributions. He didn't and it wasn't just because he's not really a friend to gun-owners.

Obama's biggest elephant in the room seems to be his association with William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, the unconvicted terrorists that bombed our nation's capital in the 1970's. According to Obama, Ayers is just some guy that lives in his neighborhood. When questions have arisen regarding the relationship, Obama says that Ayers did all that old stuff back when Obama was 8 years old. (Yeah, well, then we should be more accepting of the Neo-Nazis because Hitler did all that old stuff before the Neo-Nazis were born.)

Ayers and Dohrn hosted a political 'coming out' party for Obama in the mid-1990's. Somehow, given the former Weatherman Underground members' rhetoric, I don't think they would have done this for someone that was not at least sympathetic to their cause. Ayers and Obama sat on a panel organized by Michelle Obama (another anti-America advocate). They served on the board of the Woods Foundation together for three years. The funds Obama and Ayers helped control at the Woods Foundation funneled thousands of dollars into both Rashid Khalidi's radical organization and the now-infamous Trinity United Church of Christ (Rev. Wright's and Obama's church.)

Although Ayers' criminal record is 'clean' because of the government's mishandling of the bombing case, his wife, Dohrn, was jailed for 7 months for not cooperating in a murder investigation. Dohrn often refers to America as 'the beast'. She and Ayers denounce, in their opinion, the United States' obsession with empire and our white supremacist way of life, quoting from Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong's premier.

These two terrorists have not repented from their deeds of nearly 40 years ago and openly take credit for the bombings with Ayers stating that he wished he could've done more. But he's just some guy that lives in Obama's neighborhood.

Not necessarily the last of Obama's spurious relationships but the last one that I have time to discuss is ACORN. Obviously, ACORN is not a person but an organization but still paints a picture of the type of individuals with which Obama chooses to ally himself.

As I wrote in previous postings, ACORN is primarily a get-out-the-vote organization that is being investigated by as many as 17 states for voter registration fraud. It should be noted that ACORN has since its inception in the late 1970's fought for the Community Recovery Act and for less stringent requirements for mortgages for people who would not qualify for home loans.

Obama has stated

"First of all, my relationship to ACORN is pretty straightforward. It's probably 13 years ago, when I was still practicing law, I represented ACORN and my partner in that representation was the U.S. Justice Department in having Illinois implement what was called the 'Motor Voter' law, to make sure that people could go to DMV's and driver's license facilities to get registered. It wasn't being implemented. That was my relationship and is my relationship to ACORN."

But then, it was revealed that Obama had paid over $800,000 to ACORN during the campaign and his campaign had to revise his Federal Elections Comission financial reports because they had erroneously listed what ACORN did for that $800K.

"As an elected official, I've had interactions with them... But they are not advising our campaign."

Well, on that point, I believe Sen. Obama is telling the truth. But what isn't saying is whether he is advising ACORN on their voter registration efforts. And I believe he is which makes him complicitous in committing fraud. Why do I think that? In Obama's own words

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career..."

Oh, and if you wondered if Obama had any dealings with ACORN in the ensuing 13 years that he claimed he didn't do anything for them: The Chicago ACORN received grants of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002)from The Woods Fund (The same fund that Obama and Ayers sat on? Say it ain't so!) Money talks, bullshit walks. Follow the money and you'll find the smoking gun.

Obama has tried and tried to distance himself from all of these associations and the media has by and large allowed him to do it. Only the few conservative news outlets and the internet have pushed Obama far enough into a corner to have to either denounce or deny the relationships. So far, the deception is working because not enough people are aware of these associations and have not made the connections.

We may wake up on November 5th and realize that we are living the nightmare of the radicals of 1960's & 70's running our country. They already control the legislative and for the most part, the judicial branches. Obama is their offspring, carefully nurtured and indoctrinated throughout his adult life. No wonder the liberals see him as 'The One.' No wonder the left sees him as the Messiah.

Won't someone tell the former fighter pilot that he's missing too many targets of opportunity? We need a conservative troop surge to avert this disaster.

Better Off Without Ya

With our financial future hanging in the balance, Sen. John McCain suspended his presidential campaign to attend the hearings and debates over the proposed federal bailout of the mortgage industry. He asked Sen. Barack Obama to do the same and reschedule Friday night's presidential debate on foreign policy in order to focus on the solution to the crisis.

Sen. McCain's statement:

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administrations proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday nights debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

Sounds like someone that puts his country's needs ahead of his personal ambition, don't you think? What did Barack Obama have to say about this?

It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. It's more important than ever to present ourselves to the American people.

You know, what I'm going to do is, I'm going to -- what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time.

What I think is important, though, is that we don't suddenly infuse Capitol Hill with presidential politics at a time when we're in the middle of some very delicate and difficult negotiations.

So, you know, I think the message is, if you need us, if I can be helpful, I'm prepared to be there at any point.

Judging from the fact that Sen. Obama is still sequestered at his debate camp, I would have to say that Neither Sen. Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi felt that Sen. Obama had anything substantive to add to the debate. Furthermore, Sen. Reid did tell the White House that it must serve up support from Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain if it hoped to ensure bipartisan backing for a massive economic bailout package by week's end.

Of course, Sen. Reid has since recanted his plea and, along with his fellow Democrats, have attempted to paint McCain's presence at the Capitol as political posturing. But even at that, no one on Capital Hill has thought that calling Sen. Obama back to the chambers for the negotiations and debates was necessary.

I personally don't agree with bailing out these institutions for their risk taking. I didn't sign on anywhere to assume their risk. But there is a legitimate crisis and we have elected these politicians to represent us. John McCain is there because he was hired by the people of Arizona to be their Senator. If I lived in Illinois, I'd be thinking about a recall vote right about now since I sent Barack Obama to Washington to represent me and starting 143 days into his first term has been campaigning for another job. That's not what he was elected to do. That's not anywhere in his senatorial campaign promises.

I believe McCain will still show up for the scheduled debate tomorrow night, provided that he has accomplished the job for which he gets paid. And, without the benefit of a week long cram session for the debate, McCain will still be able to crush Obama on foreign policy with both hands tied behind his back because he's forgotten more about foreign policy than Barack Obama will ever know.

If McCain doesn't make it to Ole Miss, it will be because he was engaged in something was far more important than a presidential debate. After all, he was summoned to Washington because he is able to work with both sides of the aisle to attempt to do what is best for the country. The only reason that Barack Obama would be summoned is to be able to vote "PRESENT."

If no deal is reached tomorrow, Obama will be able to vote "Present" at Ole Miss. John McCain will have to call in absent.

And the cities will burn...

Given much thought about what would happen if Obama is not elected on November 4? Given the recent rise in the polls of the McCain-Palin ticket and the suddenly panicky reactions by Obama-Biden, the anointed one is no longer a shoe-in on Election Day.

For months now, it has been a foregone conclusion that Barack Obama was DESTINED to be President of the United States. Since the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, however, things have turned around. Even black voters are starting to voice concerns that Obama might not win. And blacks are not happy about it.

For starters, blacks are nervous and angry because of a perception that if Obama doesn't win, it will be because of his race. The Wall-Street Journal published an article last week stated that

"My audience is upset," she said in an interview. "Some people said they would be so angry it would be reminiscent of the [1960s] riots -- that is how despondent they would be."

Riots? Because the black man didn't win? Is this another strong arm tactic by the left to force whites to either stay home on November 4th or vote for Obama? "Vote or Die?", as P-Diddy would say?

I believe that there will be riots if Barack Obama loses in November for several reasons. First, the left has always cultivated an entitlement mentality in minorities, particularly blacks. In other words, through affirmative action where the less-qualified minority is guaranteed a job or a scholarship or other appointment over a more-qualified white candidate, blacks have been taught by the left from birth that they are intellectually inferior to whites and need help getting ahead in life. And the election is no different. Obama is the only black applicant for President this election, so he should get it based solely on the color of his skin. So, on 5 November, should McCain win, in the eyes of a majority of blacks, they were cheated and will burn the cities to the ground.

Second, and this is another example of the strong arm tactics being employed by the left and being orchestrated by Obama himself, is the Chicago political machine. Headquartered in Chicago, home of the corrupt Daley Family Political Machine and Obama's "community organizer" roots, is the American Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN is being investigated in several states for voter registration fraud.

So, we also see how Obama's community organizer roots are working for him in all of the key battleground states. Not surprisingly, Illinois, where ACORN started, is not a state that is investigating ACORN for voter registration fraud. So, how is this a strong arm tactic, you ask? Consider this - community organizing is nothing more than an urban Marxist revolution. Don't believe it?

Obama's training in community organizing came from the students/adherents of Saul Alinsky and his "direct action" methods. Alinsky wrote the book on American radical uprisings and Obama is his biggest student.

In the 1930s, Alinsky organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago (made famous by Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle on the allegedly horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards). He went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation while organizing the Woodlawn neighborhood, which trained organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away". The documentary, "The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy," claims that "Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America."

In his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing,

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.."

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So, perhaps some of these calls to radio programs and posts on blogs are being directed by ACORN to scare and intimidate voters to make sure Obama wins. What really puzzles me is that the mainstream media has made no mention anywhere of ACORN, despite the fact that Obama points to his community organizing days as evidence of his readiness to be President.

If Obama does win, he will have harnessed the same radical direct action used by previous adherents of the method. Perhaps you have heard of some of them?

Lenin, Hitler, Mao

Will we be scared enough to help add Obama to the list?

Liberal Hypocrisy

We all know neighbors and friends, or maybe you practice it yourself, that are tireless recyclers. You know the type of person I'm talking about - uses only recycled materials, sorts all of their recyclable items to be picked up and hopefully recycled, brings their own fabric shopping bags to go shopping. I applaud their convictions to help 'save the planet.' I recycle but I'm not as fervent as these folks.

These are the true believers in the front lines of environmentalism. The leaders of this movement, however, often do not practice what they preach. Al Gore, the godfather of environmentalism and self-proclaimed inventor of the internet, is a perfect example. Not long ago it was reported that his mansion in Tennessee uses 20 times more energy in a month than the typical home. His excuse was that he has offset his energy use and could get away with using 20% more than you and me.

Ever wonder what else he doesn't do that the rest of the true believers do? Does he recycle? He still rides from place to place in a giant SUV and a private jet - how is that good for the environment? These aren't even hybrid vehicles.

I think, upon closer scrutiny, you will find that the liberal left that espouses the environmental causes, the liberal left that wants to codify these causes into law so that you and I no longer do it as a matter of conscience but as a matter of staying out of jail, do not walk the walk. They all talk the talk but fall woefully short in the practice because that's beneath them to have to live that lifestyle.

That liberal mindset, the elitism in their ranks, isn't only relegated to to the environmental movement. You need only look as far as the recent Democratic Convention in DEnver to see what the elite of the liberal Democrats think about practicing what they preach.

The DNC Convention featured volunteers on the convention floor to direct convention-goers to the recycling receptacles. That was these volunteers sole function. After the convention adjourned, local college students had to be hired to clean up all of these recyclable items that never made it into a recycle container and estimates were that there was tons of it to be cleaned up.

I think you will find that this disregard for their espoused convictions spills over into other areas. They have spent a good deal of time claiming that they love this country and are patriotic. But in practice, I never see any evidence of that. Conviction implies that you truly believe in something when you say it and the liberals always fall short.

Case in point, following the DNC Convention, after the college students had cleaned up the refuse from the liberals, it was discovered that nearly 12,000 American flags had been discarded as trash. An enterprising campaigner for the Republicans saw this and rescued these flags for use at McCain's upcoming rally in Colorado.

So, this clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of the left. They claim to be pro-environment but they expect everyone else to actually practice it. They claim to be patriotic but they have thrown our flag out with the trash.

When you are trying to decide this election who represents your convictions best, remember that the left pays lip service to nearly everything in this election. It was Republicans that rescued the Flag from the trash and recycled them. Your choice is between hypocrisy and truth. Please choose wisely.

The McCain I Didn't Know

Last night was a revelation for me. As I watched John McCain's acceptance speech, I expected to hear the same tired format as every other politician's speech - I support this, I support that, I'm against this, I'm against that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. After the truly exciting and energizing speech by Sarah Palin the night before, my expectations for Sen. McCain's speech were not especially high.

Sen. McCain did follow some of that format last night, stating his positions on some of the key issues without getting too 'down-in-the-weeds' with details of how he intended to accomplish his solutions - nothing wrong with that since the other side followed the same format as well. The campaign trail and the debates are the arenas where that is best laid out anyway.

I knew about McCain's maverick image and his reaching across the aisle to build bipartisan support to move legislation forward in the Senate. For the most part, this has always been one of my pet-peeves with Sen. McCain and I really didn't need to be reminded of what I had always considered a flaw. But apparently, John McCain was going somewhere with it last night and I didn't know where.

Clearly, Gov. Palin is McCain's glue to bring in the conservative base that his bipartisan efforts had alienated over the years, so it was perhaps no surprise then that McCain was touting his bipartisanship in his speech to appeal to the undecided voters out there. Perhaps that is where McCain was taking us in this speech.

There had also been the reminders of McCain's close association to Ronald Reagan earlier in the convention week and his part in the Reagan Revolution. No surprise there since Reagan is still the standard by which all true conservatives should be measured but based on McCain's voting record and public statements, he's not a true conservative and no Ronald Reagan.

I was excited that he emphasized education as the 21st century's civil rights issue because I had not heard any of his positions on education and I liked what I heard last night. School choice is the only remedy for failing school systems as competition breeds excellence in all things. Democrats always fail to see the value of competition because they choose to elevate those that don't attempt to compete.

I was also excited by McCain's promise that if elected, he would appoint judges and justices that are not activists and won't legislate from the bench. Most people don't understand that the most enduring legacy of any presidency is the judicial appointments of that presidency and impacts the direction of our nation well beyond any administration. I know what kind of judicial appointments Obama will make and his would cripple our nation forever.

All week, McCain's ordeal as a POW was recounted. I knew the story but not all of the details so it was enlightening. I had always recognized McCain as a true war hero but that alone isn't enough to get my vote. Prior to his selection of Sarah Palin as veep, he didn't have my vote. If not for Sarah, I might not have even watched this convention.

What I had never heard was John McCain recount first-hand his time as a POW but last night he did. He explained how John McCain became the man he is today and explained what makes John McCain the type of politician he is. I finally get it. McCain described himself as a cocky, self-centered fighter jock until his tortuous transformation in captivity. Every account I had ever heard by others of McCain's captivity touted the fact that the North Vietnamese never broke him. But McCain admitted last night, they had. It what way they had broken McCain really doesn't matter. What matters is the transformation that followed.

I can't rephrase it any better than McCain stated it last night, so here is what he said:

A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did. I'd been mistreated before, but not as badly as others. I always liked to strut a little after I'd been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me. When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me. I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.

I finally get it. I believe we all go through a transformation in our lives that either evolves slowly over time, or, because of some traumatic event, nearly instantaneously, we gain a deeper appreciation than we ever thought possible for our country, our friends, our families, our spouses, our children.

John McCain has worked with both sides of the aisle because he is an American first and a Republican second. If the only way to get the job done for the people of this nation is to reach across the aisle and anger his own party then that's what he's going to do. McCain hasn't been a maverick for the sake of being a maverick or for self-promotion. He's done it because he believed that it was the right thing to do for his country. And I can certainly appreciate that.

I had already decided to vote Sen. McCain because of Sarah Palin but John McCain made a pitch to me last night that made me realize that Sarah isn't the only reason for me to vote for the Senator. I only wish he had done it sooner so I could have avoided months of anguish over November.

But maybe that anguish was necessary to realize what we have here. Well done, Senator and future President-elect!

Don't Give Up - We're Behind You, Sarah!

Another day and another news cycle of vicious attacks against Sarah Palin and her family. The leftist media has no moral compass nor ethics whatsoever. The same slimebags that defended Bill Clinton for having an extramarital affair with an employee are lambasting Gov. Palin for her daughter's pregnancy.

I could tell on Friday that the liberal mainstream media was scared to death at what McCain had unleashed upon Obama's ascension to the presidency. The initial response from Obama's campaign immediately attacked Gov. Palin's experience, which is fair game since that is political. But shortly thereafter, the left went pouring into tiny Wasilla looking for dirt.

Instead of real journalism and real fact-finding, these derelicts began concocting a story that Gov. Palin's 16 year old daughter was really the mother of Gov. Palin's baby born in April and that the governor claimed it was her own to hide her daughter's pregnancy. It was already posted on the internet over the holiday weekend by the Daily Kos as if it were fact.

Now, since Monday's revelation by the Palin family that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and engaged to the father of the teen's unborn child, the left has turned its attack machine on to Bristol Palin. This teenage girl didn't ask to be put in this spotlight and yet the liberal media has abused her for political gain. If there ever was a case of abuse of freedom of the press, this is it. Despite Sen. Obama's statement yesterday that the families of candidates, particularly the children, should be off-limits, the attacks continue.

Most people in Sarah Palin's shoes would probably say enough is enough and turn tail. And I wouldn't blame Gov. Palin for a moment for doing so, knowing the pain that these yellow journalists are inflicting on this family. But I want Sarah Palin and her family to know this - we conservatives back her completely. She has a record as a fighter and a fighter for what is right regardless of the odds. She didn't back down from big oil, from the Alaskan Republican Party, and she sure as hell isn't going to back down from the spineless leftist media.

I urge everyone to write to the editor of your local paper and tell them that you're mad as hell about the media's double standards and their treatment of Sarah Palin and her family and you're not going to take it anymore! Tell them you're sick of the media falling over itself defending the likes of a president caught with his pants down with a subordinate but viciously attacking a pregnant teenager. You're tired of the media making up stories to defend the actions of the Bill Clintons, the Jesse Jacksons, the Ted Kennedys, et al. What does Bristol Palin have to do with the presidential race? If Ted Kennedy murdering a girl in his car has no bearing on his being a Senator, or Bill Clinton's pecadilloes are a private matter, why is Bristol Palin's pregnancy a political issue in this campaign?

Furthermore, in case you missed it on the nightly news (because it wasn't broadcast), the DNC leaked the opposition research documents on Sarah Palin, just like they did on Michael Steele, to the media. So Gov. Palin's home phone number and social security number are out there and available to anyone wanting to steal her personal information. Where does this end? No one was ever charged or convicted when the Dems did this Steele. No one will likely be charged or convicted as a result of this illegal disclosure.

Gov. Palin, the only reason the Democrats and their tasteless minions in the media are doing this to you is that they are scared to death by you. Before you were announced as the VP on McCain's ticket, they knew that Barack Obama was going to get elected this November. That's been plain for months now. But they never counted on facing a strong, conservative woman with a track record of reform and executive experience.

They know that there are some women out there that will vote for you simply because you are a woman just like there are certain constituencies out there that will vote for Obama simply because he is black and some constituencies that will not vote for Obama simply because he is black. That's the nature of this political beast and that will never change. But young women and young moms typically vote Democratic because of the perception that Democrats are the party of women. And in this election, it just isn't so.

Whether Hillary Clinton should have been selected as Obama's running mate is moot because she wasn't and there are alot of women out there that probably still would have voted for Obama had you not showed up on the McCain ticket. The reality is that those women, who are not issue-driven voters, will vote for McCain-Palin in November. Glad to have them on board.

The most frightening thing for the Obama campaign and the leftist media is that you are much more than the former beauty queen from Alaska. You have energized the conservative base of the Republican Party in ways that Sen. McCain could never do alone. Obama was counting on not just a huge turnout from his base constituency in November - he was counting on the conservative base to stay home in November. And that base would likely not have shown up this November if not for you.

If it sounds like I'm pleading a case, I am. I'm asking you, Sarah Palin, to continue to be the bare-knuckled fighter you have been your entire career and not let the onslaught of the Left upon you and your family wear you down and make you quit. That's why the Left is attacking you so hard - because you are the game-changer - you are their worst nightmare.

Sarah, I've got your back. To steal a line from our favorite band, Van Halen, "Come baby, finish what ya started!"

Queensryche's "Revolution Calling"

Queensryche, one of my favorite bands, released a rock opera in 1988 titled "Operation Mindcrime." The title itself is Orwellian in its Newspeak-esque fusion. Here we sit 20 years later and much of the album is still applicable to our place in time today. In particular, the track entitled "Revolution Calling" is poignant at this juncture of our nation's history.

For a price I'd do about anything
Except pull the trigger
For that I'd need a pretty good cause
Then I heard of Dr. X
The man with the cure
Just watch the television
Yeah, you'll see there's something going on

Got no love for politicians
Or that crazy scene in D.C.
It's just a power mad town
But the time is ripe for changes
There's a growing feeling
That taking a chance on a new kind of vision is due

I used to trust the media
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?

Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Revolution calling you
[There's a] Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Gotta make a change
Gotta push, gotta push it on through

I'm tired of all this bullshit
They keep selling me on T.V.
About the communist plan
And all the shady preachers
Begging for my cash
Swiss bank accounts while giving their
Secretaries the slam

They're all in Penthouse now
Or Playboy magazine, million dollar stories to tell
I guess Warhol wasn't wrong
Fame fifteen minutes long
Everyone's using everybody, making the sale

I used to think
That only America's way, way was right
But now the holy dollar rules everybody's lives
Gotta make a million doesn't matter who dies

Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Revolution calling you
[There's a] Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Gotta make a change
Gotta push, gotta push it on through

I used to trust the media
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?

Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Revolution calling you
[There's a] Revolution calling
Revolution calling
Gotta make a change
Gotta push, gotta push it on through

Thought provoking and foreshadowing, isn't it? Hard to believe that this was written 20 years ago and seems to capture what we are experiencing today.

Perhaps it's time we heed the call. We can't rely on Washington anymore especially since the current presidential race is so devoid of any leaders (Obama? McCain? Give me a break!)

I'm not advocating a call to arms. I'm advocating a revolution to return us to the Constitutional Republic that we once were, where the people were sovereign and the government served at our pleasure, not the other way around, as it does today. What happened to us? How did we allow this to happen?

Like the song says above, the media paints a picture for us and we buy it. The politicians are all prostituting themselves to the highest bidder and no longer care about the average citizen, until election time, when it becomes a never-ending barrage of promises and vote-buying schemes.

We have to take it back and start over. There's a Revolution Calling...

Making the World Safe for Obama

Obama was quoted as saying

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy."

Sounds alot this:

"With that kind of vision to sustain us, we must now complete the work of ratifying this treaty, a major step in the limitation of nuclear weapons and a major step toward world peace. And then we may turn our energies not only to further progress along that path but also more urgently to our own domestic agenda in the knowledge that we have strengthened the security of a nation which we love and also strengthened peace for all the world."

That was Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago and we already know how that turned out. Thank God Ronald Reagan came along to clean up Mr. Carter's messes. The Russians never took the SALT II treaty seriously but Carter did and made sure that the US abided by the terms but never enforced the Russians' terms. It amounted to nothing more than unilateral disarmament of the US. Fast forward to the 1990's.

In 1993, North Korea quits the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty amid suspicions that it is developing nuclear weapons. The Clinton Administration signs an agreement in 1994 (brokered by none other than disarmament guru, Jimmy Carter) that North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors. There are no means for physical verification of North Korea's compliance with the agreement.

Fast forward to this decade. In 2006, North Korea successfully tested its nuclear bomb. Now, we have a candidate that again wants the US to disarm unilaterally. Why would anyone want to duplicate the same failed policies of the past 30-plus years when the outcome never changes regardless of who is President? Reagan stared the Soviets down, escalated our arms programs and forced the Soviets to try to keep up. They couldn't and as a result folded. Now, with North Korea, Pakistan, and likely Iran joining the nuclear powers, we don't need to start disarming ourselves.

The sane approach is to bolster our nuclear arsenal, not dismantle it. If Iran wants the bomb, ask them where they want and we'll personally deliver it. Pyongyang wants a bomb, airlift one to them. It's the same premise that reasoning minds seem to grasp with regard to gun control. If you disarm everyone, then only the criminals, or in the case of nations, the rogue states will be armed. Do you think that the North Koreans or the Iranians value human life as much as we do? Do the criminals value their victims' lives? NO!

Once again, Obama lives in a fantasy world. He paints with broad brushes and talks about hope and change and provides little in the way of details. The only change he seems to be serious about is his specific positions on issues, depending upon what crowd he is addressing on what day. I have a feeling that the hope he speaks of is that whatever policies he ends up instituting, he hopes it works.

History is not on his side. The Woodrow Wilsons, the Neville Chamberlains, the Jimmy Carters, and the Bill Clintons in modern history have shown that the only thing that belligerent nations understand is threat of overwhelming force. The despots of today are no different than the despots of yesteryear. Sure, we face an enemy that is willing to commit suicide in order to kill as many Americans as possible but ideologically, even their leaders know that it would be Pyhrric victory to trade one-for-one in battle. There would be no left to follow their ideology.

The goal of our enemies is to play upon our civilities. We as Americans don't seem to exhibit the same resolve that our enemies do. We are insulated from the vagaries of war in our daily lives but for the news media's daily gleeful body counts. Just remember that our enemies are emboldened by these body counts as much as we are demoralized. If we remind our enemies that we will avenge every American life with hundreds of theirs, they will be the ones who are demoralized.

Which brings us back to nuclear disarmament. If we go back to the old unilateral disarmament policy, we embolden those who seek these weapons and we shall become their victims. If we take action against these nations that seek nuclear weapons, then they will fall back in line. The sooner we take action, the less likelihood of the spread of the nuclear cancer on this planet. Unfortunately, Obama and the other cast of idiots can't grasp this notion and we will eventually become victims in the dark alleys of the Earth.

Perhaps, much like the mantra of the gun-grabbers about common-sense gun control, Obama wants to make the world safe for our enemies through common-sense disarmament of us all. God help us all. While he still can.

The Empty Suit Reveals Some Himself Today - A Little

The firestorm of criticism that has rocked the Obama campaign over Reverend Wright's radical anti-American/anti-Semitic/anti-White rhetoric was addressed today by Barack Obama in Philadelphia. It contained his usual flowery prose, as he is a gifted speaker. However, rather than distance Senator Obama from Rev. Wright, I believe it showed a little crack into the mystery that is Barack Obama.

I mean, what do we actually know about Obama? Has anyone he grew up with come forward to tell tales of their youth? No childhood friends? No relatives? We do have two books written by Obama but it seems the only "contributor" to these publications is none other than Rev. Wright himself. We do know that his mother was a white atheist from Kansas and his father was a Muslim from Kenya. We also know that his father moved them to Indonesia so that Obama could attend a Islamic school. We don't know how long he was there but we know he was. We know he lived in Hawaii for time and that he ended up in Kansas again and his father returned to Kenya.

What else do we know? Obama tipped his hand somewhat today in his "mea culpa" speech. He said he was "practically raised" by his white grandmother. His grandmother and grandfather lived in Kansas. He invoked his grandmother's involvement in his life when he was discussing Rev. Wright:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

So, in essence, Obama threw his own flesh and blood under the bus to defend his relationship with the racist minister. What does this say about Mr. Obama? It tells me that the radical reverend has closer ties to Obama than his own grandmother, who is white. It tells me that perhaps Obama's grandmother didn't have as much to do with raising him as he claims or that he secretly harbors hatred towards his mother and her side of the family. I have always wondered why children of a mixed parentage, such as Obama, grow up 'black' instead of 'white.' And I don't mean that in a racist sense, I mean that in how they identify themselves. Why does Obama see himself as a black man and not a white man? After all, he states that his white grandmother helped raise him. He's not getting an education in black culture at home, so why does he identify with blacks? What I'm driving at is that this equation doesn't add up.

I know black children who were adopted by white couples and although these children are black, they know little firsthand about black culture, mainly because culture is a learned social behavior. (As pathetic as it sounds, the result bore a striking resemblance to the caricature portrayed as Carlton on the "Fresh Prince" without being as dull-witted.) So how is it that Obama, who was educated in some of the finest schools (his own words) and raised in a white household, became black? What makes Obama gravitate to the "bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America?" Wouldn't it have been an "easier" life to just be white?

The point is that I don't believe Obama. I don't think that his grandmother had that big of a hand in raising him. If she did, the first sermon that Obama would have heard by Rev. Wright would have been the last. How could a man that is half-white and raised in a white household sit through a sermon that vilifies half of his own genetics? Furthermore, how could any man throw his own grandmother under the bus to save his relationship with a radical that this same man claims not to agree with?

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Again, because Obama is a talented speaker, and because we have already endured 8 years of the most-forked tongued double-speaker to have ever sit in the White House in the person of Bill Clinton, we need to revisit the words that Obama has chosen. It is implied in the first statement above that Sen. Obama is condemning the controversial rhetoric in question but because of the sentence structure, we really don't have a time reference as to when he is referring to. Which statements by Rev. Wright that have caused controversy are you referring to? And, once we establish which statements they were, when did you unequivocally condemn them? You see, I'm sure that the Senator's syntax has meaning beyond what we heard and read.

Obama asks if he knew about the reverend's 'fierce criticism' of our foreign policy and then answers 'of course' but then only last week he denied in a speech having any knowledge of controversial or anti-American rhetoric from this same man. So, in less than a week, did the Senator suddenly become aware of this fierce criticism? Even though last week, after attending this church for 20 years and never hearing any of it, he must have heard remarks that could be considered controversial while he sat in church for the first time on the ensuing Sunday. Does that even sound plausible?

Obama stated last week that had he witnessed these anti-American displays he would have quit the church. So why hasn't he? He stated yesterday that he did strongly disagree with many of the reverend's political views but never pointed out which ones, which may be the most disturbing aspect of all of this. Obama strongly disagrees with many of the reverend's political views but not all. So which ones does Obama agree with?

Based on what we have heard from the man and what little history we know of the man I believe I can glean this: Obama was the product of a militant background. His white mother turned away from God at a time that openly being atheist was frowned upon. Furthermore, his white mother married a militant black Muslim at a time in our bigoted history that such behavior was frowned upon. His black Muslim father moved him to Indonesia to study Islam, so Obama's first exposure to any sort of theology was Islam. At some time later, he returned to the US, his father returned to Kenya and exited his life. So, in addition to having militant parents, he is now the product of a broken home, being raised by his atheist white mother and supposedly with help from his white grandmother whom he has labeled a racist in his speech yesterday. Twenty years ago, he becomes a Christian because of the preachings of a minister whose sermons include anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and blatant racism against whites. This same Christian minister has close ties to Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam.

To this day, we openly ridicule the German people for not seeing the writing on the wall with regard to Adolf Hitler. Hitler even wrote a book before his ascent to power and apparently nobody seemed to notice. The warning signs were there long before 1933 but the German people elected him Chancellor in a democratic election. Are we willing to ignore the writing on the wall with regard to Obama? His rhetoric doesn't square with his upbringing and anyone who dares point it out is immediately shouted down and called racist. Who's the real racist here? Is it me for questioning his background when so little is known? Or is it Obama given his obvious association with an outspoken racist? What is Barack Obama? What truly motivates him? And why can't we ask the tough questions without being labeled a racist?

Hopefully, this entire episode will finally, as Sen. Obama stated, open the dialog on race in this country. But rather than try to solve the entire nation's underlying racial tensions, we need to know the underlying racial beliefs of the man who is running for president. January 2009 is too late to find out that a bigot has taken the reins of our nation. We need to know what "CHANGE" would come about under a President Obama and if it is change that we all can live with. 6 million Jews, if they were alive today, could tell you that change isn't always a good thing.