Or, would he prefer to remain in the Democrat majority of the Senate come January 20? Or maybe he’s even sending out feelers for a Cabinet post in an Obama Administration… It is getting hard to tell. In fact one could possibly argue that he doesn’t really want it. After all, how many opportunities has McCain had to call into question Obama’s stealth past, his socialist and terrorist connections, his complete and very obvious lack of any academic work that might offer even a minute view into that the man is really thinking and how he views the world – and he has passed nearly all of them by until last week. Indeed, even going on the attack for Senator McCain seem to mean letting you running mate do the dirty work. It is not an abnormal thing to have the candidate at the top of the ticket try to remain above the fray and appear more “statesman-like” while their running mate goes for the jugular. 

Here’s where I have a problem with McCain’s alleged strategy: he’s not going for the jugular and I don’t think he will. Worse, I believe it’s not that he wouldn’t, it’s that he believes he shouldn’t. Senator McCain, a career navy man who has more than served his fair share of time in combat and the living hell of North Vietnamese POW camp, no doubt understands very well the essence of combat. Whether the combat is military or political the goal of combat is victory, and one achieves victory in only one of two ways: one forces the enemy to surrender, or one destroys and terminates the enemy. 

Given the stakes in this election and the fact that they have just been raised immeasurably higher by the recent government actions to nationalize massive segments of the private economy, which McCain himself supports, one would think the Senator would be fighting as hard as he can to destroy and terminate the enemy rather than simply try to force him to capitulate and surrender, and this most especially so given the fact that Obama is undoubtedly the most dangerous man ever to position himself for a takeover of the US Government. I say takeover, rather than “seek election” because in seeking election one does not employ miscreants to engage in vote fraud on a massive scale, nor does one celebrate little children being forced to sing propaganda songs about “hope and change,” nor does one remain conspicuously silent on the subject of youths dressed in fatigues performing paramilitary drills in public schools while shouting out Obama’s plans for “change.”

The thing I am finding truly disturbing is that right now he appears to be fighting for neither capitulation nor destruction of the enemy. In fact, just within the last couple of days Senator McCain has actively defended Obama. His admonished his own supporters for demanding he hit Obama harder over his connection to terrorist William Ayers, and then called Senator Barack Obama an inherently good and decent man who loves and believes in America.

Senator, I beg to differ wit your assessment of Mr. Obama, and here’s why:

1. Inherently good and decent men do not enable infanticide;

2. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when their supporters threaten to bring criminal charges against anyone who speaks ill of The One;

3. Inherently good and decent men do not remain silent when children are being exploited for political purposes;

4. Inherently good and decent men to not go out of their way to hide their past;

 5. Inherently good and decent men to not remain silent when children are indoctrinated into politically extremist views by those who are entrusted with their care and education’

6. Inherently good and decent men would not have spent 20 years in a racist, anti-American “church” listening to their pastor incite hate in the name of Christ;

7. Inherently good and decent men would admit to their past associations with extremist groups like ACORN, would admit to the roles they served, and denounce attempts to win an election by fraud;

8. Inherently good and decent men do no associate with admitted and unrepentant terrorists;

9. Inherently good and decent men would denounce their endorsements by Marxist and socialist groups, as well as foreign terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah;

10. Inherently good and decent men would not actively try to subvert the foreign policy of the sitting President (however misguided he may be…);

11. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert the Constitution at every opportunity;

12. Inherently good and decent men would not subvert their own nation’s sovereignty to a world body like the UN;

13. Inherently good and decent men speak plainly about what they believe and what they want to do;

14. Inherently good and decent men do not actively sanction the suppression of free speech;

15. Inherently good and decent men do not devalue human life to the equivalent of a “mistake”;

16. Inherently good and decent men do not engage in corrupt activity and then point fingers at others;

17. Inherently good and decent men would admit to past mistakes and ask forgiveness;

18. Inherently good and decent men do not play the “race-card”;

19. Inherently decent men do not incite race-riots through their surrogates;

20. Inherently good and decent men would speak the truth.

There is nothing good and decent about Barack Obama. He is a monster who enabled infanticide simply so he could continue to rake in campaign money and support from Planned Parenthood. He was an “academic” yet never published any professional work, only is self-crafted and spun autobiography. He has denied associations anyone with an internet connection can validate that he had, he refuses to answer questions on almost every facet of his life’s story, and he received not merely a free pass but the adulation and love of the smitten masses who have been waiting for “the One.” History shows time and again when a man come out of nowhere and ascends to high office without vetting and proper examination, the consequences can be most severe. And now with the perfect storm brewing economically, socio-politically, and culturally, we have in Obama the most extreme and dangerous ideological zealot every to seek the Presidency, and a man who has employed masterfully the teaching of his master, Saul Alinsky – deceit on a massive scale, because one cannot divulge who they really are lest they be rejected. Hence the necessity of pretending to be like everyone else; to lie, cheat and steal, to employ thuggish threats and corruption, and to deny everything with a smile while playing the “race-card.” 

The fact is that we no more about Sarah Palin’s 17 year of daughter’s pregnancy and Sarah’s newborn son Trigg than we do about Obama. But John McCain believes he is a good and decent man. The man who as President would utterly destroy what is left of capitalism and liberty in this country is a “good and decent man?” 

While I had been a “fence-sitter” or a “nose-holder,” in less than lukewarm support of this ticket, with this statement coming from a man who portents to be a conservative and a maverick, I can stand it no longer, because with such a statement McCain has as much as openly admitted that he will not rock the boat in Washington, he will not cross the line that counts, he will not be a real maverick when it comes to truly standing up for what is right. And most disappointingly of all, in admonishing his supporters he makes it clear that he will not go for the jugular and fight to terminate Obama’s chances at the White House with the arsenal he has available to him. He will not use all the weaponry at his disposal to bring this combat to a victorious conclusion for the American people. He will not put his country first – for fear of offending fence-sitting Democrats and perhaps losing their support. At this point, in my own opinion, the only reason McCain can call himself a maverick is because he has fought conservatives every inch of the way. 

Like many others out there, I can take a lot and compromise to a point. My line in the sand has been crossed. And, I am now more than ever convinced that if this republic is to survive as a free society, it will be because the third parties run the Democrats and Republicans out of town and make the Constitution the law of the land once again. Anything less will be un-survivable after an Obama Presidency. Continued capitulation to Obama’s Chicago socialist propaganda machine is merely a policy of appeasement that will only serve to undermine the cause of the right. I am now convinced that McCain does not have it in him to fight Obama to the death, so to speak. We all know the MSM is in the bad for Obama, and that Obama is a vey intelligent man with a massive underground extremist organization determined to hand him the Presidency licitly or illicitly – by any means necessary. 

And now we know that the GOP leadership will roll over and cut the best deal it can with these traitorous thugs while leaving the rest of us with false hope. I will not be fooled. I know the GOP cannot be trusted any more than the Democrats. If the future of this republic is in any way to resemble the glories of her past days, the only viable way to set this course is through independent candidates, third parties and merciless phone and email assaults on Capitol Hill. I, for one and for what it is worth, will be throwing myself into third party activism and campaigning. If I had money I’d be throwing that too. It is far better to begin and end the revolution with the ballot rather than with the shedding of blood which should be avoided at all costs, although I am not at all convinced that the government, especially under Obama, would be able resist the temptation to fire the first shot. May God help us in our righteous cause of Liberty.

Ever biased and unceasingly hypocritical, mainstream media outlets with a leftist bent never fail to disappoint. It is a truly sad commentary on an otherwise noble profession that so many networks, publications and individual journalists have so easily shelved the objectivity they repeatedly purport to maintain for bitter and non-too-subtle partisan attacks all designed to smear a political rising star and obliterate her character. Consider just a sampling of the headlines about Governor Palin released since she was announced as John McCain’s running mate last Friday:

From CBS News Campaign 08 Horserace: Palin’s Daughter Pregnant.

From Reuters: Palin rebuts rumors, says daughter pregnant. 

Of course both articles had to mention that the pregnancy announcement was “to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.” 

A picture of Palin holding her son on the cover of US Weekly with a storyline: “Babies, Lies and Scandal,” along with other biased and other tabloid-style phrases to entice and further promote negative opinions of Palin before even reading the article. “Under attack… Under investigation for firing of sister’s ex-husband… New surprises.” Contrast the Palin cover with the enthusiastic endorsement of Obama in the June 19 issue. The Obama cover featured the cover story headlines, “Michelle Obama: Why Barack Loves Her.” Coupled with: “She shops at Target, Loved Sex and the City, and never misses the girls’ recitals. The untold romance between the down-to-earth mom and the man who calls her ‘my rock.’” It should be no surprise, then to find out that the publisher Jann Wenner is an open, enthusiastic and vocal supporter of Barak Obama. He has also donated a lot of money to various Progressive Democrat causes to the tune of $130,308 since 1993. Wenner also publishes Rolling Stone, whose March cover proclaimed, “Barak Obama, a New Hope.” These are Wenner’s own words on Obama.

MSM journalists have decried Palin since Friday because they never interviewed her – remember nothing is newsworthy unless they say it is. Remember when New York Times columnist David Carr was quoted saying this after it was grudgingly decided in the newsrooms of America that a political sex scandal involving a former (ahem, Liberal) Presidential candidate and Senator who cheated on his terminally ill wife was actually news? 

To refresh your memory here is the text of what Carr said in an interview with CNN on August 10: "I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is. I think that's still true -- it's news when 'we' say it is. It's just who 'we' is has changed." He added, “It's also a little scary for big outfits to step up on a story like this. Sex may sell, but it can really hurt your relationship with readers.” Gee, these big outfits weren’t too nervous to break the story that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. 

Hmmm. Let me see if I get this straight: Dirtbag politician with $400 haircuts who campaigned on how the poor are getting screwed by people with $400 haircuts gets caught cheating on his cancer stricken terminally ill wife and denies it, then gets caught again by National Enquirer reporters and photographers. Just in case you were wondering, according to the MSM, this is NOT news. But, a 17 year old girl who gets pregnant, whose Mom happens to be the newly announced Republican candidate for Vice President – now THAT’S NEWS! Remember, the mainstream media sat on the Edwards scandal for over eight months before grudgingly going with it, and even then only because their hand was forced - they had to run with it, otherwise you can bet there would still be a cover-up. Is this an arrogant double standard, hypocrisy, or simply "fact-checking" and "careful" reporting? I think we all get the idea, Mr. Carr.

“Troopergate” is yet another example of shameful biased reporting –not because of the issue itself, but because of the fact that it is being reported as a scandal. The McCain camp knew this from the vetting process and didn’t seem to care. The fact is it is not a scandal. Here’s a nice piece from the AP. Gee, you don’t think there’s any bias there, now do you? Another piece from CBS News actually mentions the fact that Trooper Mike Wooten, who should have been fired, tasered his 11 year old stepson and, among other things, has continually violated department policies and possibly laws since 2000. He was being divorced from Palin’s sister at the time. Alaska's former commissioner of public safety, Walt Monegan did not take appropriate actions against a rouge law enforcement officer and Palin fired him. An article in the Anchorage Daily News reports this: “Before she was governor, Palin pushed for a trooper investigation of Wooten over a number of matters, including using a Taser on his stepson, illegally shooting a moose, and accusations of driving drunk. At one point, Palin and her husband hired a private investigator.

Troopers did investigate, and Wooten was suspended for 10 days, later reduced to five. That took care of it, Monegan said. But the Palin administration and Todd Palin wouldn't let go, he said.”

Worthy of note, the last lines in the ADN piece is this: “The personnel investigation began in April 2005, long before Palin became governor and months before her October 2005 announcement that she was running. The investigation into Wooten wrapped up in March 2006, before she was elected. Troopers found four instances in which Wooten violated policy, broke the law, or both.” Should a law enforcement officer who has been found to have violated both policy and law NOT be fired and prosecuted?

What do we notice even about these articles that actually report such important facts? They are usually buried – at the bottom. Why? How many readers actually have the time to read a full article? Not many. Typically, the better and more objective journalist will pack the first paragraph or two with most of the pertinent information and tell the basic story. Then the story is fully elaborated upon throughout the remainder of the article. That way the reader can breeze through many articles and get caught up on events quickly. Even the biased media want you to get as much information as possible; they just make sure you get it the way they want to present it sot hey can shape your opinion before you have finished reading.

Consider how the biased mainstream media attack Governor Palin’s commitment as a mother, suggesting that if she chooses to be a good mother to her children the country will be neglected and if she throws herself into her work as Vice-President, her children will suffer. Consider how they attack all conservatives, suggesting that we have reversed ourselves on some fictitious previously held position that all women should stay at home and raise their children. 

Now that the convention is over, the media are even suggesting there is disunity about the McCain-Palin ticket, and even a GOP conspiracy due to the small number of minority delegates. A CBS News story is subtitled: “Not Much Diversity On The GOP Podium, But McCain Still Hoping To Connect With Minorities.” Still another AP slam-piece is entitled, “Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention.”

All this bias could be plausibly deniable were it not for a 2004 study conducted by the Pew Center for the Public and the Press that looked at journalists and journalistic attitudes that found “that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general.” Really? I bet no one would have guessed such a thing. One NPR piece about the study makes the observation that “the poll never asks about the political leanings of the media owners, publishers and upper management of news organizations. It is arguable that their politics are more influential than their employees in choosing the direction of a news organization.” The study was compiled through interviews with 547 broadcast and print journalists.

To be fair, the Pew study had this to report: “Journalists' own politics are also harder to analyze than people might think. The fact that journalists--especially national journalists--are more likely than in the past to describe themselves as liberal reinforces the findings of the major academic study on this question, namely that of David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, in their series of books "The American Journalist."

But what does liberal mean to journalists? We would be reluctant to infer too much here. The survey includes just four questions probing journalists' political attitudes, yet the answers to these questions suggest journalists have in mind something other than a classic big government liberalism and something more along the lines of libertarianism. More journalists said they think it is more important for people to be free to pursue their goals without government interference than it is for government to ensure that no one is in need.”

Whatever “liberal” means to journalists, one thing is abundantly clear: one need only compare headlines, or better yet, Google the names of those authors who pen an article deemed biased and see what comes up. In my experience, it is more of the same. 

Is there bias in the mainstream media?  I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. To be sure, one can easily identify certain liberal or conservative bias given the author or the outfit he or she is writing for. With organizations like The Politico, RealClearPolitics.com, Worldnet Daily, Newsmax, The American Conservative Daily, and the various entities of CNN and Fox News, you pretty much know that you are getting – and whether the slant is either right or left is obvious. It is those journalists who are supposedly objective in their reporting who write the headlines for the like of Reuters, AP and the like who are the most damaging to their profession, for while they may purport objectivity, if you were to cut them open I bet they would bleed blue – or given whom they long to see elected this November, Red. Remember, the Soviet news agency Pravda? Pravda, in Russian, means truth; perhaps the same truth reported to us by our “unbiased” mainstream media?

Michael Moore – where’s he been? –   on Keith Olbermann's show Countdown on MSNBC proclaimed that Hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans on the eve of the Republican National Convention was for him “proof that there is a God in heaven.” Moor also stooped so low – surprise, surprise – as to join in the unscrupulous rumor-mongering that Palin’s newborn son is actually her Daughter’s and that she covered it up to save face. Moore had written a piece entitled, “Show us the DNA!” posted on his website on Aug 31, but it was gone this morning. Hit this link and look at the postings. They begin today Sept 01 and then jump to Aug 29. No posts for Aug 30 or 31, Mike? Were you eating and forgot that two days went by or something? Oh, silly me – you took down your slanderous posts and baseless accusations when things got to hot! Honest Mike, the True American Patriot is at it again. I’ll bet the movie comes out this summer!

Just like Fox’s Alan Combs who, on his website posted an original slam-piece accusing Gov. Palin of not getting proper prenatal care because she was more concerned with her career, which resulted in her son’s Down syndrome. The link is here, but – surprise again – Combs took down is hit-piece too! These Looney-Lefties are a cowardly bunch, eh?

This whole “cover-up” rumor began with, surprise again! – The Daily Kos blog accusing Palin of covering up true identity of baby Trigg. This story was “uncovered” by a brave blogger named ArcXIX – a person presumably without enough intestinal fortitude to use their real name. You think it could be… Nah!

Next, Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler was caught by an astute passenger when he made a comment to the effect that: “The timing of Gustav demonstrates that God is on our side.” He later tried to apologize – they all do- that he was only making a joking reference to a remark previously made by Jerry Falwell after 9/11. He concluded his apology in typical Progressive fashion by saying, “"One doesn't anticipate that one's private conversation will be surreptitiously taped by some right-wing nutcase," said Fowler. "But that's the nature of what we're dealing with." Once again it appears to be our fault that some fruity liberal said something stupid and got caught. Sorry ‘bout that Don…

Outrageous accusations of misuse of power dubbed Troopergate by the MSM and liberal minions. A political battle that has been ongoing for many months. The trooper in question whom Palin supposedly wants fired has abused the regulations of his department and violated laws about twelve times since 2001. Fire him? How about throw him in jail?

In the piece entitled “6 things Palin pick says about McCain” the first point the authors make is “1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states, such as Indiana and Montana, that the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.” Wow! I mean, that actually sounds like… a… Obama For President commercial! Shocking, isn’t it? The authors later add, “McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.” I’ll give them that view for the Dems, and perhaps for many republicans or conservatives – that is, until the Palin choice was announced.

Another article, Scholars question Palin credentials, began with these words: “John McCain was aiming to make history with his pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and historians say he succeeded. Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.” Gee, you don’t think these guys are already in the bag for Obama, now do you?

Still, yet another example of an outright biased hit-piece, Why the GOP fell so far, so fast begins, “The Grand Old Party just ain’t what it used to be. It is more unpopular, more insecure and more uncertain than at any point since the euphoric triumph of 1994, when the GOP captured both houses of Congress and made political history.”

True, the GOP has had its problems- serious problems – over the last few years. It has lost its way and, having strayed from its conservative roots and base, has found itself wallowing about in the same mediocrity and pandering for a middle ground solution on issues where there is none: abortion, Second Amendment issues, immigration, health care. To hear a majority of our so-called conservative Republicans speak about these issues you think you’re hearing Ronald Reagan. But, to see them in action, you think you’re seeing Joe Biden, or Ted Kennedy, or Russ Feingold. Conservative is conservative and liberal is wrong. Period. You can’t sustain a house this divided and win elections, and once again it will be the conservative base of the party that will come to the rescue and save it from self-destruction. And this is largely due to Sarah Palin being chosen as VP running mate on the ticket.

And that very point is what the MSM seems to not understand, or to want to understand about this choice. Conservatives may well have held their noses and voted for McCain just to vote against the lesser of two evils. I was certainly in that camp. Now that McCain has picked Palin, I see one of us, who understands clearly the high stakes involved, and who can drive home the point to anyone who may be remaining on the fence. For all their meaningless polls over the last couple of days since the announcement about men having higher approval rates for Palin than women, etc., they are ignoring the biggest factor currently at play in this race: us. Conservative Americans who believe in and love the Constitution, our republic, and our God. And our guns, and our babies. And our money. And who only need the right leader to come onto the scene at the right time to galvanize us and excite us into action. Sarah Palin is that person. 

John McCain has demonstrated by this choice that he will govern as a reformer, to move the Party, the Congress and the nation back to the Right. It is now up to us to place him in that position and to hold him accountable, which we can do because we will have an ally who shares our concerns and expectations standing right next to him. 

The Obama attack machine will learn in November that is cannot just poll and pretend we do not exist because there is far too much at stake, and we conservatives are not going away without one hell of a fight for the future of our republic.

Really. Think about it: Kerry has represented Massachusetts in the Senate since 1985. Who were all the other real-potential running mates? Kerry HAD to pick the southerner because two wacky “progressives” on the Democrat ticket just won’t win the White House. Fast-forward four years. Obama HAD to pick Biden to balance his inexperience. After all, Joe Biden has been in the Senate since 1972 – “Change” indeed! Great! So now we might get an inexperienced President with a Vice-President and chief advisor who has been in Washington since the stoned age. Sounds a bit like… nevermind. 

Seriously, though: Joe Biden was the only logical pick. You know it, I know it, any anyone who has been paying attention lately knows it; so, my question is, “Why all the hype for something that really wasn’t a mystery to begin with?” The answer: LACK OF SUBSTANCE!

Change! Change! Change! Change! Change! Yes We Can! Hail the Messiah! Now that we have the running mate, on with the MSM love-fest!   Hooray! Hooray for CHANGE! 

You know, there was a time when a political party’s convention actually meant something, and that time was not really so long ago. But alas, now our bubblegum pop-culture has usurped out political process along with everything else. The result? What used to be a noble and excited event – the choosing of a candidate to represent a party and a people to run for President of the United States – has been reduced to a rock concert where there are days and days of hype and drama building up to the main event – the Keynote Speech. At least that’s what it will be for McCain. Obama’s is more likely to be his coronation.

You will remember his speech in Boston in 2004. That is, you remember he spoke, but what the hell did he say? Exactly my point. We all knew in 2004 that this guy, this Obama, would be a rising star, but who expected the Clintons to allow him to beat Hillary? My point here is this – there is no substance to either of these men – not that I am thrilled to death and jumping for joy over McCain. Like I said before, if he gets my vote it will be because he is clearly the lesser of two evils. So, in the interest of fairness, I feel it my obligation to examine what Joe Biden will bring to the Democrat ticket.

Senator Biden’s positions are really not that far off from Senator McCain’s on many issues – which scares the living hell out of me. The biggest different between the two is on the issues of abortion and the Second Amendment.

Biden is, naturally, a pro-abortion Democrat. Of course. He is also a “practicing” Catholic who claims to accept the teachings of he Church on faith. All the teachings, that is, except the one on abortion and the sanctity of life. As a Catholic myself, I take great offense to these charlatans who want to wear their Catholicism on one sleeve to court votes and their overt willingness to kill babies on the other sleeve in order to advance their career. I find this to be a substantial character issue, but I will take that one on at another time. Suffice it to say for now that proclaiming one’s love for Christ on the one hand and enabling the holocaust of abortion on demand on the other is inconsistent at the very least. In my view, which is the view of the Catholic Church, the two are irreconcilable, diametrically opposed. 

Before moving on, I just have to give two brief examples of why I believe this abortion issue to be one of character: 

 Accepts Catholic Church view that life begins at conception

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007 

Q: You have changed your position on abortion. When you came to the Senate, you believed that Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided and that you also believed the right of abortion was not secured by the Constitution. Why did you change your mind?

A: Well, I was 29 years old when I came to the US Senate, and I have learned a lot. Look, I'm a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception?

A: I am prepared to accept my church's view. I think it's a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That's why the late-term abortion ban, where there's clearly viability.

Nominees should agree on Constitutional right to privacy

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Q: As president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?

A: I strongly support Roe v. Wade. I wouldn't have a specific question but I would make sure that the people I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution. That's why I led the fight to defeat Bork, Roberts Alito, and Thomas. [Emphasis all mine]

WHAT??!! Once again, we must endure sophistry from the mouth of a politician. Only that didn’t make any sense to me. Hey, at least he didn’t outright lie like Obama no his vote to kill the “infants born alive” bill. But, I digress. 

On gun control issues well, he’s a Democrat. This guy can find a right to murder babies within the privacy clause in the Constitution, but “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” means we shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Someone else is going to have to explain that stuff to me, because I’m at a loss. These guys make my brain hurt.

It is very sad what has happened to politics in this country. It is sad that everything has become a mode of entertainment and a vehicle for ratings and advertising. I thought a lot and talked a lot about this while I was at the Florida Gun Show today. What is happening to America? We’ve been overhyped and over-indulged, and now come November – no matter who wins – we, the people, lose. We are set up for a very sore disappointment.

There are a great many issues that need to be addressed, but can we get through all the hype and rock-star stuff? Instead of McCain’s houses can we talk about SPP, or Georgia and Putin, or Iraq and the –Stans, or what the impact of socialized medicine will have on an already taxed economy? Can we talk about what Obama and Biden’s definition of change will really mean for this republic? Of course not, because there is no substance to most of their ideas, and where there is substance it is of the stuff that could potentially ruin this nation. Perhaps the Obama-Biden Administration can be summed up in these two statements: 

From 27 April 2007

“We also have to look east, because increasingly the center of gravity in this world is shifting to Asia. Japan has been an outstanding ally of ours for many years, but obviously China is rising, and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend. They’re competitors. But we have to make sure that we have enough military-to-military contact and forge enough of a relationship with them that we can stabilize the region.”

From 21 August 2008:

OBAMA: “Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now and the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, Beijing looks like a pretty good option.”

Hey, the trains ran on time in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union too. Hooray for CHANGE! Change indeed.

However, even though things could presumably go very badly for us conservatives this November, all is not yet lost. We can still take control of the future. After all, we out number them. And who knows, in the short term, maybe it will be to our advantage to have an unmitigated disaster in the White House and on Capitol Hill with Comrades Obama and Pelosi running things. How do you say, “Conservative sweep in 2010,” in Chinese?