I did not say Obama is not black but this black fellow the Coach talked to did. Maybe blacks ought to seriously think about what he said. Many people in the world have brown skin tone but would you call them Black?

Dave Daubenmire — Conveniently Black

“I ain’t gonna say he is a Muslim like some others, but he sure isn’t a real Christian. I am a Christian and that is why I sat down to talk to you. Somebody has to tell the truth, Coach, somebody with some courage. Obama is a big-government socialist dressed up in a Willy Wonka suit. He will destroy what is left of America.”

“I love this country. I fought in Iraq for her….saw lots of men die. And I’ll tell you this; they didn’t die so that a woman could kill her baby or so that a man could marry a man. And I quaran-dam-tee you they didn’t fight and die to see this country handed over to the communists.”

“Barack Obama is not black, Coach. He is a white big-government liberal with a chocolate veneer. If he gets elected we’ll all be slaves. Please tell folks, Coach. Somebody has to do something. I know you are not afraid to speak the truth. Lots of folks are counting on you.”

He got up, shook my hand and walked out to his brown truck.

“Hmm.” Kevin grunted at me. “I hope you’re not thinking of taking that one on?”

“Not me,” I winked. “I could never get away with saying those things.”

Well Chuck Norris, I usually agree with you and I see the problem but your solution is not at all logical and it would not bring good government. We already have two separate branches in the legislator branch of government to deal with the representation problem. What you are proposing would effectively do away with the role of the House of Representatives. The Senate has two representatives from each state because that government body is meant to give equal representation to each state in the Union. However the House of Representatives is supposed to represent the population of the nation. The point of this is not to have a bunch of low population states dictating law to high population states at the national level. If you reduced the House to one member from each state as you suggest you would just have a second Senate. So the states would be doubly represented but the people of this nation would not have equal representation at the nation level.

If we were to do what you suggest we might as well become 50 independent nations or go under a unified treaty like what the EU is proposing and let unelected bureaucrats be appointed by the Senate to dictate federal governance over all the states (of course if we did that we would soon be under tyranny)

The problem is not the number of representatives in the House of Representatives the 9 percent approval rate reflects that these people are not representing the people or more likely that the nation is so divided that they can accomplish nothing.

We need to start electing representatives to the House that represent the common people. That means the make up of the House should not all be professional politicians and lawyers. That would take care of part of the problem but like I said, much of the reason the House and Senate can do nothing is because the people in this nation are deeply divided. That problem cannot be resolved in a Republican without a majority vision or compromise.

One thing we can do is to have major election reform. Incumbents have a huge fund raising advantage and media coverage advantage. Money should not be a factor in national elections but it is now the major factor. If it were not, the make up of the House would change overnight.

Mad as h— and not going to take it anymore!

I don’t only think there are too many cooks in Congress’ kitchen nowadays, but the numbers are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, if California represents a larger liberal voice with its 53 representatives, what chance or how fair is it for smaller more conservative states who have between one and five representatives and votes in the House? The U.S. doesn’t need a new reapportionment act to raise the number of representatives, but a return to the Constitution to reduce the number of representatives in pursuit of creating more equitable regions or districts. Personally, I believe, just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimal by constitutional requirements). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can’t it work for all the rest of the states? Here’s a movie we all can star in: “Honey, I shrunk the Congress!”

Nothing like Liberal unity to bring everyone together. They even recognize the fascist ways of their own party.

Backlash: 2 million angry Democrats reject Obama?

More than two million angry Democrats are rejecting Sen. Barack Obama as the likely Democratic nominee for the presidency this year, according to a new protest organization.

“I hate to use this word but it’s fascist, and that’s the approach they’re taking to silence any Hillary Clinton supporters,” Will Bower, co-founder of PUMA/Just Say No Deal, an exploding coalition of voters who say they have raised $10 million in just days to pay down Clinton’s campaign debt.

“Barack Obama wants to give his acceptance speech in a stadium because he intends to minimize any pro-Hillary supporter dissent. It’s not because he wants to include more people. He knows that if they pull any shenanigans at convention, the Hillary delegates will walk out, and they don’t want that to be seen or heard. They’re bringing as many Obama supporters as they can to fill that stadium. It’s fascism,” he said.

Now more than two million, based on donation and other records, are determined to protest the nominating process and push for an open convention in Denver this August.

“The seeds of discontent for the birth of the PUMA/Just Say No Deal movement were planted during Barack’s poor performances at the debates, the media assault on Clinton after Iowa, Obama’s arrogance on the campaign trail, and the DNC’s selective application of its own rules,” Bower explained.

Bower said Hillary supporters were so incensed with the DNC’s action they wrote about it at their blogsites. The issue went viral, spreading rapidly across the Internet. One irate blogger came up with the acronym PUMA after blogging “Party Unity, My A**.” The abbreviation eventually evolved into the puma cat logo used at multiple sites.

It took only days for PUMA and dozens of other grassroots organizations and political activists to discover one another and convene a conference call. They agreed to band together and call the movement Just Say No Deal.

Well I am glad that someone is noticing the insanity of it all. If politicians actually try to cut CO2 by 50 percent there will be a world revolution. It is easy to make promises about forty years down the line because none of these people will be alive. Why would you believe a politician about what their country will do in forty years when their politicians do not even meet commitments of today. Seems everything the G 8 does is just for show including the photos. The Brits will be the first to revolt because thanks to government stupidity they will run short of electricity in just a few years unless they go into national decline which is more than likely.

Our leaders are in carbon-cloud cuckoo land - Telegraph

For a perfect example of what is meant by “gesture politics” - an empty pledge given solely for effect, which the politician has no hope of honouring - one could not do better than this week’s commitment by the G8 leaders on how they want us to fight climate change.

Sitting on their cloud-wreathed Japanese mountain top, they solemnly agreed that, to halt global warming, their countries would aim by 2050 to halve their emissions of carbon dioxide.

If the G8’s leaders genuinely wanted to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent over the next 40 years, this would mean taking steps they haven’t even begun to contemplate. It would require such a drastic cut in our energy use and standard of living that their peoples would have risen up in mass revolt long before the target was reached.

Forget the nonsense about a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050. Our Government has already committed Britain to go even further, by imposing a statutory cut of 60 per cent through its Climate Change Bill.

But long before that, unless those who rule us come down out of cloud cuckoo land very fast, our lights will go out, our computers will shut down, our economy will judder to a halt and we shall face a national catastrophe. We may well be meeting that 60 per cent target sooner than we think - but not for reasons that reflect well on our politicians, of any party.

Dr. Cuddy gives us a good overview how the power elite (PE) have been picking the U.S. choice for president for the last hundred years. The same thing is going on in most of the developed world. It will be no different this time. What is different is that their global world governance agenda is now getting close and they are using climate change fears as a tool to rapidly accelerate that agenda.

Dr. Dennis Cuddy — Think you have a choice?

Regarding the 2008 presidential election, I have in recent articles already explained how Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are both acceptable to the PE and are surrounded by CFR advisors. The point is that in election after election, the people think they have a choice but they really don’t.

This controversy about Obama’s birth is all pretty dumb and it is a red herring. The constitution of the U.S. says the President has to be a natural-born U.S. citizen. If I went to Canada just to get back in this country I would have to produce a valid birth certificate. The government should have done a background check on everyone in the Senate for their security clearance and if he was not born in the U.S. that would be known and he would not be in the race. If it turns out that they did not do their job we have a much bigger problems than Obama’s place of birth we need a dysfunctional unsecured government. I suggest you waste your time on the real issues. If you want to be taken as a serious news source post credible articles.

Obama birth certificate: Real or phony baloney?

Questions over a birth certificate for Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama – the document that could prove his constitutional qualifications to run for the presidency – have been revived by a report from Israel Insider.

Do not be deceived here is the heart of Obama’s Faith-Based Initiatives. It allows no expression of faith at all and will control those in it. Obama wants to use Federal tax payer money to help secularize and control faith-based groups. These proposals actually show that Obama is a radical socialist who wants government control over religion contrary to the U.S. Constitution that says, “congress should pass no law that prohibits its free exercise“.

This is also a deception to deceive naive people on the religious right. Be aware that Obama is not for faith in God changing society he really is proposing government controlled religion that is practicing socialism. This is not faith-based Initiatives.

Faithless, Faith-Based Initiatives « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com

a spokesman for the Obama campaign underlined the unique qualities of Obama’s plan as it compares to the policies of the current White House Office for Faith Based Community Initiatives, which McCain supports.

1) In an Obama administration, the federal government would supervise the hiring process of faith-based groups to make sure they do not give preference to employees who share the faith of the organization.

2) In an Obama administration, the federal government would only give money to “secular programs” of faith-based groups.

In his own words, Senator Obama explains and justifies his reforms in this way:

“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

As a former professor of constitutional law, Senator Obama surely knows the Constitution says only two things about the federal government’s relation to religion: 1) it should not establish one religion over another 2) congress should pass no law that prohibits its free exercise.

But in the ubiquitous spirit of that phantom Constitutional wall of separation of church and state, Senator Obama promises his administration will discriminate against all faiths, as a way to respect the faith of all. In fact, his plan would whitewash faith-based groups of faith. Imagine what would happen to an after-school program run by an Orthodox Jewish temple that cannot give preference to hiring Orthodox Jewish teachers. The program would cease to exist. Or imagine an Evangelical ministry that helps prisoners reintegrate into society forced to “secularize” its programs in order to receive financial aid.

I think the statistics on Obama in this article will give you an idea of just how radical Obama is and how far his views differ from the vast majority of American people. With that in mind why is Obama leading in the polls? Blind stupidity? Brainwashing? What?

American Thinker: Obama: Radical in Liberal Clothing

Yet even with his recent attempts at moderation he retains positions on several significant issues indistinguishable from those of Dennis Kucinich. Most of those positions are opposed not only by overwhelming majorities of all Americans, but in several cases, majorities of Democrats as well.

Whenever a proposition polls in the 60% range, it’s considered to be in landslide territory. That doesn’t necessarily mean that someone supporting the minority viewpoint is a nut or an extremist, but at some point it may fairly be said that a person on the short end of several of these propositions is out of the mainstream. Here are just some of the issues in which Obama’s on the fringe of American opinion:*

Thank God their are still a few people in the world that can think critically. The globalist elite are betting the farm that they control enough of what people hear through their globalist socialist controlled educational systems, politicians and media to keep the people dumbed down. We see their attempts to marginalize all those who actually think for themselves and who see through their climate change tax and power grab. All indications so far is that they do have people so totally dumbed down that they will believe just about anything they are told.

The main fly in the ointment of these control freaks is that the earth is no longer warming and some scientists are starting to jump ship. The real question is will the globalist elite get their world management regulations and taxes in place before the people catch on? They will certainly try. However, I would not want to be in their place when people realized that they wrecked the global economy over a secular socialist idealist dream that had nothing to do with climate. Peoples heads might then literally roll. It wont be the first time the common people rebelled against those who believe themselves to be an elite class of enlightened aristocrats. Don’t think that given the public trust that you will not be held accountable.

Imagine there’s no warming …

Again, if the high priests of global warming could actually make an impact on the weather through their draconian plans to steal our freedom and our prosperity, their goal of lowering temperatures would be, at best, a net plus for some and a net negative for others. It would almost certainly result in less food production, for example. Consider that as we begin to see food shortages and rationing around the globe due to much less significant central planning efforts already under way.

To review and summarize, then, what we’re left with, when it comes to the global warming agenda, is a fraudulent crisis cooked up to control and enslave the world’s population under the guide of benevolent global socialism and an equally fraudulent solution to that crisis – one that would be a bad idea even if it could work, which it can’t!

Do I have this about right?

Anyone can look at Harry Reid and tell you that he is one sick old dog. Also, everything that comes out of his mouth is demented, delusional or outright lies… he is the Mad Hatter. I guess that is how you hold on to power these days in the democrat controlled Senate. Looking at the shape of the economy in Southern Nevada I think Reid is doing all he can to bring the whole country down with Nevada in order to take the heat off himself on the home front for the impending Las Vegas depression. What is ruining our nation is  elite socialist big government control freak politicians like Harry Reid.

The madness of Harry Reid

One can dismiss the ravings of a local elected official, but not the nearly identical outburst this week from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The good senator opined that “coal is making us sick, oil is making us sick – we’re ruining our country, we’re ruining the planet.”

All the labor-saving devices of the Industrial Revolution, all the wonders of its successor in innovation, the Technological Revolution, all the marvels of the last century in transportation, communication, medicine and entertainment – all made possible by the increasingly creative use of oil, coal, and natural gas. All of it swept aside as “ruining the planet.”

Sen. Reid: Your statement is a monstrous lie, and what’s worse, a reflection of a growing madness in the American political ruling class.

But first, Sen. Reid, stop the madness. If you really believe (with my county supervisor) that we must stop using all coal, natural gas and oil, then you have become the Mad Hatter of American politics. Please step aside for new leadership capable of rational thought and bipartisan problem solving.

I have been saying all along that the global warming hype is just a global governance power grab to control everything. It all fits the sustainable development plan of the U.N. It is not a conspiracy it is a real published U.N. plan called Agenda 21. They want to manage everyone and everything in the world.

I think Tom Deweese does a good job expressing what is really going on in this article. After reading this article you should know why most of your politicians have done nothing but hinder the development of our known energy resources. The oil shortages and the media’s daily global warming carbon lies have been designed for the purpose of global governance.

Going Green = $4 Per Gallon - CWN

Going green (its real name is sustainable development) has led to Orwellian regulations resulting in the destruction of American businesses and the jobs that go with them, including manufacturing and industry; the locking away of American natural resources like oil, timber and minerals, forcing expensive imports; the near abolishment of private property, the bedrock of any economy’s source of wealth; and massive invasion of the farming industry to assure it is “sustainable,” including the mandated use of corn for the making of ethanol, leading to food shortages and higher prices.

Above all, the “go green” mindset has resulted in a refusal by political leaders and Congress to even consider anything but renewable fuels as a legitimate source of energy. Last year’s Energy bill, supposed to be the guideline for energy policy for coming years, literally made no mention of any kind of energy but alternative fuels like wind power, solar and ethanol. And the American people, buried under an avalanche of environmentally-correct propaganda, have blindly accepted the go green mantra, missing its connection to their economic woes.

At a time when the nation is facing an economic meltdown because of rising gas prices, oil use is ignored in the most important energy policy in the nation. Astonishing. As prices continue to rise, Washington’s response is “there’s nothing we can do. “President Bush says, “I wish I had a magic wand.” John McCain says “prices will continue to rise.” Barack Obama says “tax the oil companies,” as Congress begins a witch hunt on them, pledging the get to the bottom of their “excess profits.” Senator Barbara Boxer says “now is the best time to raise energy prices.” The Democrats want to “sue” OPEC.”

In all of this rhetoric, notice how NO action that includes the drilling of oil is considered. It’s taboo. Off the table. Suffer America, because the wisdom of the day is that oil is out. Alternatives are in. Go green! This, of course, completely ignores the fact that the U.S. uses oil for 85% of its energy needs.

Such policy is driven by the Sustainable Development lobby. Led by massively wealthy and powerful special interests like the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, the National Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, to name a very few. With their dollars and lobbyists, they are forcing Congress to implement the policies outlined in the UN’s Agenda 21 soft law document. It pretends to be environmental policy, but is really a complete transformation of our society and economy to a top down control, leading toward global governance. The environment is just the excuse to convince unaware Americans to give up their liberties “to save the earth.”

What you are not being told is that the Left is opposing the development of the HUGE oil reserves in the U.S. and Canada through congressional legislation. The Federal government is now not allowed to buy oil sands oil from Canada but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Drilling on oil shale lands on Federal lands in the United States is illegal thanks to congress. Between the oil shale lands and the tar sands we have more oil reserves then the rest of the world combined and it can be developed at less than $50 a barrel. On top of that the democrats block off shore drilling and they are trying to legislate the shutting down of our coal industry. I think the worst enemy of the people of the United States is our own domestic socialist and environmental Democrat terrorists. Next time you pay the price at the gas pumps don’t forget to thank yourself in your car mirror for voting in Democrats.

Obama Gets Tough – On Canada! - CWN

one of the few bright spots in the foreign oil market has been our neighbor to the north – Canada. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that the number one foreign supplier of our imported oil is Canada, not Saudi Arabia. Canada is not only a reliable supplier of drilled oil and natural gas, but it also has incredible supplies of oil trapped in “tar sands.” At current prices, it is cost effective to “squeeze” that oil out of the tar sands and bring it to the marketplace. By every estimate, the oil in Canada’s tar sands rivals Saudi Arabia’s known reserves. Already that oil represents 47% of Canada’s total output and other countries, especially China, are trying to sign contracts to get it.

But if Barack Obama has his way, we are likely to watch that oil go everywhere but here. Last week, in a statement most of the media ignored, he called the Canadian oil “dirty,” and his top energy advisor raised serious reservations about whether the United States under a “President Obama” would even want the tar sands oil. And since Barack Obama opposes drilling for our own oil, guess what will happen to the price at the pump when we take the Canadian oil off the table?

But that’s really the Left’s dirty little secret — it doesn’t object to high gas prices. In fact, the Left see higher prices as just one more way for Big Government to control your life.

Now get this: Last year, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman snuck a provision into the 2007 energy bill that prohibits the federal government from using coal-based fuels, oil shale and tar sands, all of which the United States and Canada have in abundance, in order to combat global warming. The United States Air Force is desperately trying to get this provision repealed since it immediately recognized the potential risk to our national security of another Arab oil embargo now that Rep. Waxman and his fellow Democrats have prevented the Air Force from using Canadian oil sands. It’s hard to fly planes if you can’t get the jet fuel you need. Efforts to repeal the Waxman provision are being led by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), two outstanding conservative champions.

Cal Thomas is correct. Faith-based government programs sound good on the surface but the grants will soon start going to the organizations that are pleasing government by promoting his socialist agenda. This falls under the category of not being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Obama has no problem proposing faith-based programs because he knows it will be a way to fund the agenda of liberal buddies like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson while allowing him to deceive the evangelicals by pretending to be behind Christian programs.

When Christians Cozy Up to Government « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com

when government involves itself in such things. Faith becomes just another political football with government doling out “alms” to whoever is more favorably disposed to the administration and party in power. Organizations that have not been as supportive can be punished by having their grants rescinded. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Janet Folger has the national issues right in this article. Maybe you should take some time to watch the “Nobama Girl” on YouTube that she is raving about. The link is in the article.

Where the battle is hottest

we must get the word out about what an Obama administration would mean for our country. One of the best ways I’ve seen is the new Nobama Girl video on YouTube. Have you seen it? The “Nobama Girl” music video released last week has already been called “the best video on YouTube,” by viewers.

I agree.

The Nobama Girl, Jannique Stewart, provides an answer to the Obama Girl’s “crush,” with a call to “crush” Obama’s campaign with the truth.

“Many Americans are buying empty rhetoric of ‘change,’ without knowing the horrific policies behind that change that their vote would establish,” said Stewart in a recent press release. “This video is intended to bring the hidden things to light.”

It exposes the facts of Obama’s policies of:

* abortion on demand and infanticide
* his “respect” and support of the California Supreme Court decision to abolish marriage between one man and one woman
* amnesty
* gun control
* support for “hate crime” legislation that would criminalize Christian and pro-family views

Unlike the sleazy counterpart, the Nobama Girl video is one the whole family can watch and become informed. I give it two thumbs up. Rarely is exposing the evil positions of a candidate this much fun.

Dennis Prager makes some excellent points why conservative Christians should vote for John McCain.

I am not sure Prager is right about McCain if the governor of California supports him he can’t be as good as he thinks. Even on the Supreme Court issue McCain is not likely to appoint someone to the Supreme Court that will vote with the conservatives. Even George Bush who is much more conservative than John McCain appointed Justice Kennedy who rather than define the meaning of the Constitution just votes the way he thinks things ought to be in this country. I think McCain will pick similar justices and the Supreme Court is going to be stacked with liberal social engineers no matter if it is Obama or McCain. Also keep in mind that when you have a liberal Senate your not going to get a true conservative confirmed by the Senate.

I think one important issue is who will McCain pick for Vice President? After all McCain has a moderately high risk of dying in office at his age and with his health history.

Having said that, any Christian who votes for Obama has redefined Christianity and they need to find out if they are what they say they are.

It seems to me that Americans are about to get what they deserve and what they asked for and there is no way around that reality outside of national repentance. It is also obvious that repentance is not going to happen in this nation before any major judgment.

Why I support John McCain

Conservatives who will not vote for McCain are well-intentioned utopians. They are comparing McCain to a consistently conservative candidate. The reality, however, is that McCain is not running against a consistently conservative candidate. He is running against a consistently left-wing candidate. And America cannot afford to have its first leftist president ever. It can afford liberal presidents – such as Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter (who governed as a liberal but became a leftist after leaving the White House), or John F. Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson, or Harry Truman – i.e., all the Democrats who have been president since World War II. But the Democratic Party has moved well to the left of liberalism. And Barack Obama is at the left of that left-wing party.

Furthermore, given the strong possibility of a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a liberal Supreme Court for decades to come, given the number of Supreme Court appointments a Democratic president will be able to make, an Obama victory will move America more radically leftward than ever in its history.

That is why the argument that an Obama administration will be so destructive that Americans will reject the left and then elect a real conservative to undo the damage done in an Obama presidency is deeply flawed.

First of all, other than impeachment, there is no way to undo Supreme Court appointments, two or three of which a President Obama would likely make. And given how active most liberal judges are, it won’t matter much if the country has some conservative epiphany and then elects a Republican president and Congress. Because even if the Congress and the president will not pass liberal legislation, a liberal Supreme Court will. On almost any social issue that matters – the right to bear arms, late-term abortion, the definition of marriage, capital punishment and many others – a liberal Supreme Court will rule on these issues, and there will be nothing that a post-Obama Republican president, even with a Republican Congress, will be able to do about them.

I guess it should not surprise us that birds of a feather flock together. Just don’t confuse yourself or anyone else by calling yourself an Evangelical Christian. Christians should know what heretical bird brains these people really are, if not they will soon find out.

Brian McLaren: Emissary for Barack Obama to Evangelicals - CWN

I am not a Republican. I am a Christian, and no Republican or Democrat who wars against God’s moral law and defends gay marriage, child killing or using human embryos for experimentation will get my vote. You can take that to the bank. McLaren has no moral compass because he rejects God’s Word as his only standard. You will notice a distinct correlation between those who reject God’s Word and their support for pro-death, pro-gay marriage candidates, and every other cause that is a revolt against heaven. That’s why the emerging church leaders and followers are up to their armpits in Obama campaign materials. When God’s Word gets thrown out, it affects every aspect of our lives and ethics. Ideas have practical consequences for men and nations.

It is weak presidents that lead to miscalculations and war. Zumwalt did not even mention that JFK also got us into the war with Vietnam. With the facts of this article in mind if Obama gets elected we can expect a test of Obama’s metal by Islamic radicals in the first year of Obama’s Presidency. We really should not be putting people in the White House in troubled times that are idealistic unrealistic dummies. Inexperience will not be Obama’s only problem it is his unrealistic worldview.

Islamic Extremism for Dummies - HUMAN EVENTS

Obama’s JFK analogy conveniently omits two important points: it was Kennedy’s perceived weakness that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis; it was not his negotiation talents that extracted him from it.

It was the absence of Kennedy’s backbone in the Bay of Pigs invasion that then led to the Cuban Missiles Crisis the following year. Emboldened by Kennedy’s earlier misadventure, the Soviets secretly positioned missiles in Cuba — drastically reducing US response time in the event of a missile launch by Moscow. This led to a test of wills between Moscow and Washington that brought the two superpowers to the brink of war.

Inexperience and naivete in the White House would come back to haunt the US again seventeen years after the Bay of Pigs disaster. An American public anxious for change voted into office a US president whose later actions paved the way for Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

As civil unrest hit Iran in 1979, Jimmy Carter pressured Tehran’s pro-US Shah to abandon his country to a man Carter believed to be Islam’s Mahatma Gandhi — the Ayotollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This “Gandhi” turned out to be more like Attila the Hun. Khomeini embarked upon a purge grander than the reign of terror introduced by the French Revolution’s Robespierre almost two centuries earlier. Carter’s naivete provided Islamic extremism with a national flag and a breeding ground for exporting Islamofascism abroad and into the 21st century. America’s reward for Carter’s assistance was the seizure of the US embassy and hostages there, followed by Tehran’s designation of the US as the “Great Satan.”

We have been in a perpetual and undeclared war with Iran ever since.

Of course, the Iranians already knew, from Obama’s earlier actions, he would be a weak-kneed leader. They gained this insight last year when Obama refused to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which sought to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps — the organization of holy Islamic warriors that has left its violent footprint throughout the region — on the grounds it constituted “saber-rattling.” Color as “weak” — from Iran’s viewpoint, and ours — any US leader who refuses to officially label a terrorist group as “terrorists.”

Ignoring the fact the only times Iranian extremists reigned in their adventurism was in the face of US resolve, Obama believes he, as president, is capable of talking rationally with an Iranian leadership incapable of doing so. It is inexperience that causes one to boast he can do what three-decades of domination by theocratic extremism in Iran’s leadership and the failure of the international community in curtailing Tehran’s nuclear program tells us cannot be done

It would be a fitting way to lose a nation. The most unqualified and most Far Left President in the history of the nation would nominate the most unqualified perverse person ever nominated to the Supreme Court and be ratified by the most amoral Senate in the the history of this nation. Only then when the Far Left controls all three branches of our government will the amoral majority in this nation get the government they asked for and deserve and the moral minority will then have ample reason to reject these reprobates and start their own nation. Will it start in Oklahoma or Utah?

Clinton loses one nomination to possibly gain another? (OneNewsNow.com)

A leading legal journalist believes that if Barack Obama wins the presidency in 2008, he might appoint Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Supreme Court – much to the chagrin of at least one pro-family legal expert. (see related story)

Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for Legal Times and American Lawyer Media, penned a column for USA Today suggesting the possibility that Obama might put Clinton on the nation’s high court. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, quips that if Senator Clinton (D-New York) were to be appointed, he would have to clear his throat just to say “Justice Clinton.”

“… [T]his particular notion of Hillary Clinton being a justice on the United States Supreme Court is absolutely scary because we know, indeed, that she’s not going to follow the rule of law,” says Staver. “She’s going to be ideologically driven — and we know which way her ideology leans.”

Does anyone with a brain actually believe that Obama is qualified to be President of the U.S.? Does the average person even know what Obama believes on anything? Sure, he has a lot of support from people who cannot tell you where Canada is located. Much of America has been brainwashed and pre-programed to just go along to get along and that about sums up their formal “education”. Oh sure, they can tell you who Paris Hilton is having breakfast with. They have a form of intelligence but they are about a deep as Hilton is. Don’t believe me ask the youth some political questions.

The scary thing is that we allow these dumb fools to vote in people like themselves to govern. Without knowledge and understanding these people will destroy this nation. Our founding fathers did not set up a Democracy for good reason. They only let the educated vote because the educated had the knowledge to vote in the knowledgeable. When the dumb foolish majority got the right to vote they soon started voting in people like themselves. Thus, you should understand the present make up of the Democratic party. Without this majority generation of dumb fools there would be no Obama running for President.

The only Thomas Jefferson these people who would vote for Obama would know is the that is living on the next block.

AD: Democrats Continue to Make Fools of Themselves - JB Williams - Jun 18, 08

Allow me to begin by stating for the record that I realize how politically incorrect it is to single out a specific group of people and acknowledge their overtly foolish behaviors. But it seems we have reached a moment of insanity, when enough really should be enough!

It seems I need to give a speech to Democrats, which I have given to my children on several similar occasions. As Forest Gump learned from his Momma, “stupid is as stupid does.” People, who persist in doing stupid things, must sooner or later be referred to as “stupid!” We have reached that point with the average Democrat voter I’m afraid…

The one thing in the world Democrat politicians might be right about is the need for their voters to be saved from themselves…

As I have explained to my children, ignorance is the absence of knowledge, but stupidity is the possession of knowledge and the refusal to use it intelligently. As we are talking about obvious fundamental truths here, not nuclear physics, an absence of knowledge is not the problem.

Democrats think Obama is Qualified to be Commander-in-Chief

Yet Democrats can not name a single life achievement, or even a single life experience, which qualifies Obama to be president of the most complex and powerful nation on earth. The man thinks we have 57 states… or so.

For the record, Barack Hussein Obama is a first term U.S. Senator. Obama served only 146 days as a new senator before deciding he was qualified to be president, at which time he largely stopped his duties as senator to campaign for the Oval Office.

I understand why they are uncomfortable with having anyone point out just how foolish they are behaving, in their blind cheerleading for the most unqualified individual to ever seek the Oval Office. But at some point, don’t we really have to call it like it is.

As Thomas Jefferson so wisely pointed out, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

The case is made that we could get all the oil we need out of coal and that we have more oil potential in coal than there is in the entire oil reserves in the world. Coal is already being made into oil in South Africa for about $55 a barrel. I would think that it would take a number of years to gear up in the U.S. and government and the radical environmentalists would have to get out of the way. Yet, coal is not all we have.

We also have oil shale reserves with more oil in them than the entire Middle-East reserves. Oil shale will be even easier and more enviornmentally friendly to get out of the ground than coal. It is much the same as drilling for oil except the necessary extra steps done below ground will still make oil profitable at $50 a barrel. So both oil production methods could produce all the oil we need for hundreds of years and give us gasoline for about $2 a gallon. I have not even talked about the oil sands of Canada that are just as huge.

So don’t let anyone tell you that we do not have the capability to get off of foreign energy dependency. That might be the party line but those who say such things are either ignorant, they are lying or they want crazy environmental restrictions. The only thing that is stopping development of all these resources is politicians. It is Congress and their government regulations.

If it were announced today that the U.S. would develop these resources on a unlimited scale oil futures and oil prices would drop like a rock half the price today is speculation. Also OPEC would panic and try to gear up production to lower prices below the price that we could develop these new resources in order to retrain their monopoly on oil. In that case, we would have to set a floor price and put a tariff on imported oil to keep it up to a price where these new resources could be developed and not undercut by Middle-East oil producers that extract their easy oil at less than $4 a barrel.

FrontPage Magazine

This in effect means that as long as the price of crude oil remains above $55 a barrel – and there is every reason to believe it will – America can enjoy fuel self-sufficiency for as long as the eye can see.

It is important to grasp the full import of this: Unlike all the other ideas and proposals for achieving oil independence, coal conversion represents no false hope or wishful thinking but an eminently feasible and realistic possibility.

No new inventions, no technological breakthroughs, no extensive infrastructure modifications, no lengthy testing, no public investment or government incentives are required to make it happen. Everything is already in place to bring it about

All that needs to be done is to remove any artificially imposed impediments that may stand in the way. Most of them are in the form of environmental rules and regulations which make energy production such a difficult and problematic enterprise in this country.

As far as the environment is concerned, coal conversion and its derivatives are cleaner than their crude oil counterparts. There is technology to capture the CO2 released during the liquefaction process and the resulting diesel and kerosene have lower sulfur content than those refined in the conventional way. As a result, during the combustion process they release fewer particulates and less nitrogen oxide then their petroleum cousins. Such, in fact, is their purity that they are often referred to as ultra-clean fuels. This should go a long way toward assuaging environmental concerns.

The rising energy prices have made it possible for America to commercially utilize its enormous coal reserves and to become fuel independent in the process. The only thing required at this point is for government not to interfere with market forces which inexorably incline toward this outcome.

The words of the European elite quoted in this article speak for themselves. They think they know what is best for the people of Europe and they will lie, deceive and not allow a popular vote because they will not take no to the federalization of Europe for an answer.

They are the aristocrats and the people are their subjects. So what has changed in Europe since the days of Roman Empire? The aristocratic rule in Europe continues even if they like to call it democracy.

American Thinker: Why Irish Voters Rejected the Lisbon Treaty

As many observers of European politics know, democracy does not come easy on a continent where European elites view themselves as an aristocracy entitled to rule over the ignorant masses. Indeed, the entire European social welfare state has been built upon the unspoken quid pro quo of “bread and circuses” (ie, the cradle-to-grave nanny state) for the general populace, in exchange for their loyal submission to the political and intellectual classes.

Thus it should come as no big surprise that the word ‘No’ does not exist in the European political lexicon. After voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution (of which the Lisbon Treaty is an almost exact replica) in 2005, European elites famously advised the miscreants to keep voting until they come up with the right answer.

So how about this time around? Will European politicians, who say they want to bring “Europe” closer to the people, accept the will of Irish voters?

What follows is a brief summary of comments made by select European leaders, both before and after the Irish referendum. It not only provides an explanation as to why Irish voters are turned off by the Lisbon Treaty, but it also sheds some light on the state of democracy in contemporary Europe.

This article tells how Al Gore used his political power to channel money to spread his global warming apocalyptic lies in order to transform society to his socialist vision of world governance through “enlightened” people like himself. Gore is one of the top con artists of our time who uses peoples fears and peoples greed for money and power. Al Gore especially likes to scare children and the gullible to create a sense of panic. His real agenda is leftist fascist eco-extremism. You probably have about one year to prick this gas bag or laws will already be set in place to eventually tax, control and regulate everyone and every product on earth.

FrontPage Magazine

“Cynical politics” may be a redundancy, but it is hard to imagine a more cynical political issue than global warming (GW). In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Al Gore called for a “wrenching transformation of society.” Leftists, with their elitist penchant for social engineering, didn’t need any convincing. The challenge for Gore was the inconvenient truth that, in a democracy, a would-be central planner needs to get the masses on his side, too. To do that, he borrowed a strategy encapsulated in H.L. Mencken’s statement, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Apocalyptic GW became Al Gore’s hobgoblin of choice.

Gore needed the scientific community to back up his assertions and the media to spread the word. Enlisting the help of the media was easy (apocalyptic fantasies are sure ratings winners), but getting enough scientists on board was trickier. When Gore started his GW campaign in the early 1990s, a contemporary Gallup poll of scientists showed that only 18 percent thought there was any evidence to support Gore’s theory. Even a survey conducted by Greenpeace found only 13 percent of climatologists willing to declare GW “probable.”

Nevertheless, Gore repeatedly claimed that (literally) 98 percent of scientists agreed with him, and he exhorted reporters to ignore skeptics. Right from the outset, the GW cult (like other illiberal movements, such as communism and fascism) had to resort to the “big lie” technique to make it appear that the science of GW was settled.

Kyoto’s agenda wasn’t to save the world, but to shackle economic activity in this country through curbing energy consumption. It’s easy to understand why foreign economic competitors would want this, but why would Gore and American liberals want to do this to the American people? The answer is simple: the lust for power and importance. Remember: control energy and you control people.

Joe Farah is under attack by “People for the American Way” for saying that Obama is not a Christian. Farah gives good reasons why he is not. Not to even mention Obama’s stand on abortion and homosexuality.

Is Obama really a Christian?

In an amazing coincidence, several other pundits and columnists discovered this 4-year-old interview in the Chicago Sun-Times after I wrote about it. I know it was a coincidence because none of them cited my column for bringing this information to their attention after all these years.

But, I digress.

The interview reveals Obama, who calls himself a Christian, has no concept of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

He states, for instance, that he has no idea of what will happen to him when he dies.

He suggests his eternal destination has something to do with being a “good father” to his children and transferring values he got from his atheist mother.

He says there are many paths to heaven.

In other words, he doesn’t have a clue as to what it means to be a Christian. That, of course, is not surprising given the only church experience he has had in his life has come in that hate-filled, racist, neo-Marxist, liberation theology-based Trinity United Church of Christ. There “Christianity” is used to sell other religions altogether – anti-Americanism, black victimization, socialism.

If America goes any further Left all those things Dennis Prager listed as future realities will be eagerly celebrated by the demented, delusional and dumb subjects of the fascist state that they created. If America did not want big government, and big brother socialism she would not be voting these people into power.

What it comes down to is that the people have been brainwashed in schools, media and through their own parent’s  lifestyle to deny God and to rely on socialism administrated by big government. The people of this nation now want and expect government to take care of them from birth to death. What they have not been taught and what has not been demonstrated to them is that they will eventually have to pay the bills for the spending spree.

Now they have no problem just creating new government social programs because they think someone else is picking up the tab. Well, no they ain’t and they haven’t been for a long time. The bill is all on their credit card and soon they will not even be able to pay the interest payment on the debt that is racked up. The impending one hundred trillion dollar price tag for the American social state that they wanted will bring them to poverty in this generation.

FrontPage Magazine

The day the O.J. Simpson verdict was announced, I said to my then-teenage son, “David, please forgive me. I am handing over to you a worse America than my father handed over to me.”

Unfortunately, I still feel this way.

One might argue that these are the same laments that every previous older generation has expressed — “Ah, when I was young…” But in America, that has not been the case. In America, the older generations tended to say the opposite — “When I was a kid, things were worse.”

Can we return to the America of my youth? No. Can we return to the best values of that time? Yes. But not if both houses of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court move the country even further leftward. If that happens, many of the above noted changes will simply be accelerated: More laws restricting “offensive” speech will be enacted; litigation will increase and trial lawyers will gain more power; the American military will be less valued; trees will gradually replace the flag as our most venerated symbol; schools will teach even less as they concentrate even more on diversity, sexuality and the environment; teenage sex will be increasingly accepted; American identity will continue to be replaced by ethnic, racial, gender or “world citizen” identity; and the power of the state will expand further as the power of the individual inevitably contracts. It’s hard to believe most Americans really want that.

This is pretty good stuff. Yeah, my title contains a pun. A guy has to have some fun with this messiah of Oprah’s inner space cadets.

Jonah Goldberg

A messiah in our midst?

Before we answer that question, let me vent for a moment. In 2000 I was cruelly denied the Pulitzer
despite being the only columnist in America to ask the pressing question: Is Al Gore an alien? The evidence was there for all to see. He was born nine months after the mysterious alien sighting at Roswell, N.M. His weird syntax and verbal rhythms are otherworldly. He often refers to “earth” or “this planet” as if he’s just passing through, and he once angrily complained to the Washington Post that it had printed a picture of the earth from outer space “upside down.”

There is no “upside down” in space — unless Gore had his childhood view in mind.

At least I’m not in the wilderness this time. Lots of people have pondered the possibility that Barack is our Divine Redeemer. There are Web sites dedicated to the question “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” Google that question and you’ll get more than 35,000 hits. (Enter just the words “Messiah” and “Obama” and you’ll get nearly 10 times that.)

But there’s more concrete evidence. Since Obama declared his candidacy, there have been remarkably few biblical plagues. And lions and lambs seem open to bilateral negotiations.

Obama’s apostles are hard to dismiss. Oprah simply calls him “The One,” because “we need politicians who know how to be the truth.” (Jesus says in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth …”) Oprah goes on to say Obama will help us “evolve to a higher plane,” which would put Obama in the role of our Intelligent Designer.