What is patriotism today?

According to USA Today back in July:  'six in 10 of those surveyed in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say sporting an American flag pin indicates that a person is patriotic...Barack Obama stopped regularly wearing a flag pin last fall. He said it had become a substitute for "real patriotism"...[Obama] began to wear one more often again this spring...Republican John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, says he occasionally wears the red-white-and-blue on his lapel —de rigueur for many politicians since the 9/11 attacks — because "I'm proud of the American flag."'

So, how can we feel and express patriotism?

In that same poll, it was determined that 80% of those polled felt that supporting US foreign policy was patriotic.  60% also thought that disagreeing with US policy is patriotic.

I think most of us can agree with the latter figures.  But speaking for many, I think that disagreeing with US foreign policy is one thing, actively trying to thwart it is another.  And those who cater to the adversary by speech or action are not expressing patriotism.  They are expressing anti-american obstructionism, pure and simple.

Is it patriotic to threaten to move to a foreign country if a particular politician loses a race?   And then reneging on the promise?  Personally, those Hollywood 'stars' who threaten this would probably be well gone.

Is it patriotic to countenance groups of youths singing your praises and marching around before an election?  Why do some politicians insist on using juveniles who can't even vote or---according to the criminal courts---form a rational opinion?  Are we going back to the 1930s?

Is it patriotic to break the law and wear partisan political symbols and shirts to school where the students cannot form a proper opinion and vote?  Is it patriotism?  Or is it anti-American to flout and break laws designed to protect the youth?

Again, according to USA Today:  'In the poll, taken June 15-19, serving in the U.S. military and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance were seen by a majority of Americans as saying "a great deal" about a person's patriotism.'

There are many politicians who won't profess faith in the military or recite the pledge of allegiance.  In the next 'townhall debate', perhaps someone should ask both Presidential contenders to recite the pledge of allegiance.  I would expect John McCain to say it fervently.  If Barack Obama doesn't try to 'snake oil' his way out of it, he'd probably have to stumble through it.

And since the Liberals have been successfully deleting references to God in the schools of our Country, how do you teach anything historical to our children?  If you leave out religion, you have no history to discuss.  Abe Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson would be rolling over in their graves every time a modern Liberal speaks.

So, it's refreshing to find a public school, non-partisan musical performance that thwarts these anti-religious efforts and sings easily and thrillingly.  Please follow the link below to discover a thrilling and patriotic rendition of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Battle Hymn of the Republic

If you think I'm rather harsh with the Democrats/Liberals, you're right I am.  But I'm only telling the truth that the main stream media skips over.  The media spends most of it's time bashing John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush and the Republicans, fairly or unfairly makes no difference to them.  They'll jump at anything that promotes Barack Obama or the Democrats and debases the Republicans of any stripe.

Never mind the teachers, I'm waiting for the press corps to show up on camera in their blue t-shirts.
***
According to USA Today:  'British Bank Barclays would buy Lehman for $15 a share [it's market price was near $20]'  On it's face that sounds like a good investment.

At the same time, the BBC was reporting that  'Bradford and Bingley has become the second British bank, after Northern Rock, to be rescued by the government - this time in partnership with the Spanish bank Santander.'  And today I read that the British public is lining up to deposit money in Northern Rock since it's been taken over by the government and all the deposits are guaranteed.

Does anyone besides me wonder why Barclays is investing in America instead of it's own Country?  Maybe we don't need this huge bailout Congress is foisting on us.
***
An editorial in USA Today is another hit job, but some of it should be disturbing to the writers if they were thinking clearly---which they are not.

'The reality is, as governor of Alaska for fewer than two years, and as a small-town mayor before that, Palin has had little exposure to the extraordinarily complex issues a president faces. Even with her quick-study skills, she couldn't possibly come up to speed in such a brief period on the array of economic, foreign policy and national security challenges facing the next administration.'

How does that stack up in the minds of the Liberal writers with Barack Obama, a man who was---a failure according to his own words---a community organizer with Acorn [an organization he helped lead into the future---but later is in serious trouble in fourteen states for voter fraud among other things]; a state senator where he could only bring himself to vote present [read: couldn't make a decision] over 130 times; has only spent a couple of years in the US Senate where he has been continually running for President [some people may vote for him in disgust just to get it over with].  He was in Washington at his job only about 143 days.

He's always running for something [think back to the 'present' votes; he doesn't want to commit to anything that can be used against him in the next election], but he never stays where he is long enough to accomplish substantive things or learn anything from the experience to help his growth.  Obama claims he has executive experience from running his campaign.  Imagaine that!  Oh!  Shades of George Orwell.
***
Another story from USA Today:  'Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., raised eyebrows at a press conference Wednesday when he said a member of his party caucus had talked about a major insurance company being on the verge of bankruptcy. At the time, Reid referred to the company as 'one with a name that everyone knows.''

The next day, Reid backtracked on his scare tactic:  'Today, however, Reid's office sought to clarify the comment. His spokesman, Jim Manley, said Reid 'is not personally aware' of any particular company being in trouble and has 'no special knowledge' on the topic. Reid, the spokesman said, meant to refer in general terms about the financial sector and 'regrets any confusion his comments may have caused.''

So what else is new, Senator?
***

Does anyone see disturbing parallels in this so-called 'Age of Obama'?  [Oh sorry, I know that's the name of the book to be published on election day by the moderator of the Vice Presidential debate.] We can best formulate our answers after reading George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' and '1984.'  I guarantee you'll see what I mean with respect to Barack Obama.  Get the books and read them.  They may be the most important books in this election cycle.

[Hope!  Change! Obama our Saviour!]

With his political scenario, the rules of life will change, the populace will work hard, and Mr Obama will tell us what to do and how to do it.  Obama has already been telling interviewers that he wants to take money from the 'rich' earning $250 G a year and give it to the poor.  But, according to him, that's not socialism, that's just a nice thing the 'rich' person will want to do.  [Yes, I heard him say this!]

[Pay high taxes as a factor of patriotism!]

When he's campaigning, the kool-aid crowd chants and serenades him as he speaks---notably in generalities, just enough to get the crowd active.  He has the 'Obama Youth' as exemplified by his rush to have Ohio students registering and voting on the same day.  Hmmm.  Wasn't there someone else with a 'Youth' movement? 

Now, Obama has children singing his campaign slogans.  Check out You Tube if you want.  These are further examples of his messianic position.  And frankly, it's getting scary.  Are we electing a President or anointing a Saint?  Once again, does an empty suit flap in the wind?

[Something vague we can believe in?]

But why all this hysteria?  Obama has never done anything worth noting.  He has no experience.  He has too many and too deep connections with vocal radicals, law breakers and socialists [To put it mildly.]  All he does is fantasize about a mythical hope and change.

[Trust me!  I know all the answers!]

His photos and campaign posters [with picture] are almost enshrined in many homes as the families living there gather together and sing hymns to him every evening.  They know no other candidate, and they pray before his arrogant pose for the Sainthood ceremony.  He is mythical hope personified---and never mind the fact that he wants to run the most powerful Country the World has ever seen---and when he preaches [that's what he does] he wants to sound like your Big Brother and righter of all wrongs.

He has no practical or theoretical experience for this position, but he wants it anyway.  Based on his personal history, he'll immediately start looking for another office.  Will he appoint himself to the Supreme Court?

This is truly the start of a Big Brother.  Will our country be awash with huge photos of Obama as the communist countries are with their leaders?  Will our new taxes be akin to confiscation so that he can dole the funds out to the 'poor' people, whether or not they exist in fact as he envisions them, and whether or not they want the government Obama meddling in their lives?  Will we all be required to tune in and listen to him when he's pontificating on the television---on pain of friendly caning?

Cameras on every street corner?  [Oh, right.  That's already being done in Liberal London.]  Everybody marrying everybody else?  Nationalization [so they don't fail and hurt the little guy] of everything from autoplants to the local bar?

[Take from the rich and give to the poor:  Robin O!  Robin O!  Ridin' through the glen...]

'Everybody is equal---except that some people are more equal than others.'

Don't follow a leader who is actually working for you, follow one with the biggest pack at his beck and call.  We are lost in a bad novel!  Unfortunately, we're going to have public riots no matter who wins the Presidency.

Read Orwell's books, and then think about Obama again.  It's scary.

He's Barack Obama, and I doubt he'd approve of this message.

Common sense dictates that some of the more important keys to American energy independence are:  more oil exploration and drilling; more natural gas exploration and drilling; more nuclear plants; more wind farms and solar panels---but not more bio fuels because diversion of corn and other plant life to the fuel market increases food prices more than is reasonable. 

T Boone Pickens---with the concurrence of Aubrey K McClendon---both bigwigs in the Oil and Natural Gas industries---has created a plan for our energy independence.  I checked it out on both their websites.  Steven Milloy of Junk Science.com has covered the subject of Picken's Plan in detail on Townhall about the Iran claims and several other misrepresentations.  I'll take a different tack here.

Pickens states that Compressed Natural Gas [CNG] is the answer to our skyrocketing fuel prices.  While it may be part of a solution, it's certainly not the only answer.  There are far more compelling choices noted above.

In the words of Pickens: 

    "Converting just 10% of America’s vehicles to CNG will lower U.S. oil                 consumption enough to save nearly 50 billion dollars each year. That’s $50             billion less spent on foreign oil.  Let Washington put those billions to work as             incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.

    This can be accomplished in less than 10 years if you have the right leadership.”

Pickens goes on to give us the mathematical reasoning behind his plan.

    "According to the Energy Information Agency [EIA], the amount of 'Finished             Motor Gasoline' used in 2007 was 9,286 thousand barrels per day.

    9,286 thousand barrels/day = 9.286 million barrels/day. This is roughly 10             million barrels/day and 10% of this would be one million barrels/day. (The             9,286 number also appears on the EIA's 'Petroleum Basic Statistics' page.)

    1 million barrels/day x $130/barrel* x 365 days/year =
    $47.57 billion ("nearly $50 billion")
    *$130/barrel as of July 2008."

On the McClendon site is offered:

    "America uses a lot of oil. Every day, 85 million barrels of oil are produced             around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

    That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's             population.

    Can't we just produce more oil?

    World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an                 unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three         years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just             isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

    The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone."

And:
   
    "Cheaper:  Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In     places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon...

    "Incentives For Consumers To Drive CNG Vehicles:  "A modest federal             incentive is now in place for American consumers to buy CNG-fueled vehicles,         and some states and cities add to that amount. It applies to the purchase of the         Honda Civic GX, the only CNG vehicle currently made in the U.S.

    But additional incentives are needed to help consumers convert their current             vehicles from gasoline to CNG.

    An additional federal incentive is available on the purchase of a home refueling         appliance. It’s basically a compressor unit that is installed to draw on the             natural gas pipeline in your home."


Now, let's consider this plan for a moment.  My data and calculations just don't jive with those of Pickens in many places.  Firstly, he claims how clean and efficient a CNG fueled vehicle would be.  We should build or convert enough vehicles to equal 10% of the cars on the road.  Fine and dandy, but he doesn't tell you that a CNG vehicle costs about 40% more than a standard car of the same make.  Expect conversions of  on-the-road cars to be pricey as well.  Since supply and demand will regulate the CNG prices, they'll end up to where the gas prices are now.  There's no economic reason for making the change to CNG.  You'll never get your money back.

And the price of CNG?  CNG per gallon [actually shouldn't this be cubic feet?] costs range from [one station at 70 cents] from about $2 to over $4 in California alone.  The rest of the Country [impossible to find CNG in the middle states] ranges from about $2.50 to $3.90 per gallon.  I saw prices less than $2 in the Tulsa area, but still above $1.  And we can't all go to Oklahoma to fill up, can we?  But the prices on Pickens' price maps don't have an explanation.  Are they for gallons or cubic feet?  And what can a car see as miles per gallon [cubic foot.]

Pickens' Plan conveniently leaves out any discussion of miles per gallon in converted vehicles.  According to recent data, a CNG fueled car has only half the range of a gasoline vehicle.  Of course, Pickens doesn't say that either.

Besides, if 10% of the vehicles around are CNG fueled, do you think the per gallon price will stay the same? 

I'd look for these two gentlemen leading the charge towards higher prices as 'fair' in light of the cleanliness.  And, they also want you to buy a government-subsidized appliance to tap into your home natural gas supply to fuel your car.  Do you really want to play around with your home gas supply?  And---wait a minute!  What he's really getting at is to increase not only automobiles but the number of homes that use natural gas as well.  There it is.  This whole plan is a clever ruse to increase his income through increased natural gas sales.  And I bet he'll be selling those tapping appliances as well.

But back to the ideas.  Pickens' idea that oil production peaked in 2005 is seriously flawed.  For one thing, the Eastern potentates have partially closed the valves to keep the prices high.  They need to open them up again.  And, coincidentally, the powers-that-be seem to be delaying delivery of oil to keep the prices high. 

If we can get the Democrats in Congress to let us drill offshore [where the oil is and not 50 miles away] and in that tiny portion of the landscape called ANWR, World oil production will be substantially increased, mostly in the US.  And we can wave goodbye as the Middle East oil money begins to dry up and the Emirs have to reduce the number of wives and sizes of their palaces.  Now those would be great reasons for rejoicing here in the US.  Maybe the Saudis will have to delay importing sand for their palace moats.

The Pickens Plan features are based on incorrect calculations because they have faulty assumptions.  According to Elmhurst College:  "Although all fractions of petroleum find uses, the greatest demand is for gasoline. One barrel of crude petroleum contains only 25-35% gasoline. Transportation demands require that over 50% of the crude oil be converted into gasoline. To meet this demand some petroleum fractions must be converted to gasoline. This may be done by "cracking" - breaking down large molecules of heavy heating oil; "reforming" - changing molecular structures of low quality gasoline molecules; or "polymerization" - forming longer molecules from smaller ones."

Thus Picken's use of the current per barrel oil price is wrong.  It should only be half as much.  Thus with the corrected calculation below includes exact figures instead of gratuitous 'roundings.'

    928,600 barrels/day x $106.89/barrel* x 50% x 365 days/year =
    $18.1 billion
    *$106.89/barrel as of Sep 26, 2008.

Quite a difference isn't it?

But, while we might save $18.1 billion in gas costs, how much does he expect us to pay for CNG?  There won't be any savings no matter how he presents it.

For argument's sake, the Pickens' savings figure presented is not $50 billion but only $18.1 billion.  But why does Pickens think that money we supposedly save is going to be used by the government?  Pickens says:  'Let Washington put those billions to work as incentives to build and buy CNG vehicles like the rest of the world enjoys.'  So, who pays for our CNG fuel?

Is he proposing a tax equal to his proposed pitiful savings?  Where else would the money come from?

No, I think the Pickens Plan is a dud, and we should stay away from it.  Thank you Mr Pickens and Mr McLendon, but please be honest in your advertising and stay away from environmental issues that you can only solve with flawed data and conclusions and self serving expectations.

Is anyone surprised at the current contentiousness about the proposed federal bailout?  And is anyone surprised that some of the people trying to solve it are the same ones who screwed things up in the first place?  It's no news that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Presidents Carter and Clinton and their cronies are largely responsible for the failures.  Frank and Dodd, right up to the blowup, kept claiming everything was fine [as they accepted large donations from F & F], and they led the efforts to rebuke Republican attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie.  And all of them, going back to 1977 [Biden was in office; McCain hadn't run yet], have been pushing and prodding the F & F twins to put pressure on banks and other financial institutions to provide mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.  They made these loans to illegal immigrants!  They made large loans to people who had no income except food stamps and welfare!  They lent 100% or more of the value of the home in some cases!  And when those homes couldn't be sold quickly at a profit, the owners defaulted.  Surprise!

During the Clinton years we had the same thing.  In 2005, John McCain and the other Republicans tried to create oversite and reform for F &  F, but were stopped by Democrat/Clinton pressure and votes.  And that was only one of the many tries from the Republicans, though they weren't as noisy or insistent as they should have been.

Step back a moment.  We must recognize that our economy is based on capitalism, and such a system, by definition---just like morality and the World---requires both successes and failures, good and evil, wealth and bankruptcy.  Now, I'm not saying that this current huge failure---which everyone but the main stream media seems to know how was created---should continue without some government aid.  I'm just not sure how much aid should be proffered [if any] or how it should be considered.

The 'nanny state' concerns me very much.

Currently, I don't trust Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Clinton, Obama et al to propose or structure relief in this crisis.  They haven't solved anything of importance yet.  So, I have no problem with the Republican efforts to change the bail out.

And if you think this is bad, wait until the eleventh hour when Social Security is about to collapse, and the Democrats cry 'woe is us!' when they've been the ones who have fought tooth and nail to keep saner minds from doing anything to fix it.  It was the Democrat Congress that started  taking the social security payments into the general fund providing the Social Security Administration with 'paper' to cover it.  And the Congress has never, and doesn't appear to ever want, to pay the funds back.

The quick fixes of tax increases, later retirement ages, and other band aids won't work in the long run.  Republican suggestions including partial privatization [just a tad folks, just a tad] keep being rejected.  [Listen, nobody's going to be investing his paltry sums in risky home mortgages.  Get a life!]

Maybe now, the Democrats will sit down to serious discussions concerning Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Maybe.  But I doubt it.  There's still too much posturing and blaming the other side around us now.  So, we who are still here to see the actual demise of the Social Security system can thank the Democrat Congresses from over the years for another debacle.

Besides, Congress likes to wait until the last minute when their children are about to collapse before suggesting socialism to save it.

And I'd like to remind you, my friends, of all the debacles---especially in the economy [via socialism] defense [via weakness], war on terror [via weakness], and foreign policy [via wishy-washy words without force]---you'll be seeing if Obama wins the White House.

It's a shame how the Democrats want to punish Joe Lieberman for speaking at the Republican convention.  It's a shame that the party of 'tolerance' can't accept the free choice and speech of a US Senator.  It's a shame that the Democrats want to 'punish' a Senator who is no longer a Democrat.  But, as usual, the Democrats are shameless and self-serving.  They are the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Clintons.

What's next for the Democrats?  Oh, I know.  They're trying to punish the Governor of Alaska for wanting to protect infant life; for exercise her second amendment rights in owning and using a gun; for wanting to protect and raise her family in private with her husband; for having much more executive and decision making experience than their ideal, Barack Obama---say, that makes her better qualified than the entire Democrat ticket, doesn't it?

It seems the only people Senator Obama doesn't want to punish are his daughters if they ever make the 'sex' mistake that befalls so many teens.  He doesn't want them 'punished' with a live baby.  What a sad way to talk about the miracle of birth.

And the Democrat vultures have descended on Alaska to dig [or manufacture] dirt about Sarah Palin.  And in the same spirit, the 'independent' investigator of the 'non-event' 'troopergate' has ceded subpoena power to the Democrats.  Even though the fired official in question says that he was never asked to fire anybody, nor was he pressured to do anything, the waste of time goes on.  And as usual, the Democrats don't want any facts to get in the way of their march to personal destruction.

Well, that's okay, because Sarah Palin is on the Republican ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate.  And she doesn't really care that the Democrats want to punish her for being pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-family, a woman not a Liberal.

And you know what?  The Democrats will never succeed.  Sarah Palin is now on the national scene, she's a strong executive and will make an excellent Vice President.  The Democrats can look to nothing but failure and continued irrelevance in the future.

American Voters!  Don't let yourselves and your neighbors down by falling prey to the snake oil salesman of the Democrat Party!

Well, of course the left has gone ballistic over the selection of Sarah Palin.  She stands for everything they want to destroy: life, 2nd ammendment, glass ceiling, etc. etc. and so forth [sorry King!]

Sarah Palin is pro-life in all cases and willing to raise a 'special needs' baby instead of aborting it; the left [the mainstream media is to be included within the term 'left'] is pro-abortion, or murdering the unborn baby---or partially born baby---if the woman [or the leftist pundits] want it.  Talk about playing God.

Sarah Palin is pro-second ammendment, and a lifelong member of the NRA.  She owns guns and uses them in hunting to keep meat on the table.  The left wants guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but have no answer for the criminals---or those on the left who surrepticiously own them.  They don't care that homeowners and others can't defend themselves.  They also, logically, are attacking the US military, probably in part because they have guns and use them.  'Can't we all live together?

Sarah Palin has been an effective and laudable Governor of Alaska for the past two years [while Obama was in the midst of his multi-year run for the Presidency] with many listable accomplishments [I'm not going to repeat them here; they're available on the net to anyone who wants to read them again]; the left questions her abilities and experience to 'be a heart beat away from the Presidency' while never questioning Obama's complete lack of experience and proven ability to be a Governor, let alone President.

Obama, himself, has said that he was a poor 'community organizer' [and the meaning of that 'job' is yet to be understood], yet the left chooses that mundane [but locally important?] job to be good experience to be a President of the US.

Sarah Palin's family is off limits, and the radical media and bloggers need their butts tanned for the smears, innuendos, lies, and irrational contempt.

The list goes on, but it should be noted that it's quite obvious to any thinking person that Sarah Palin is more qualifed in temperament and experience to be President than Obama or Biden is.

So, is it any wonder at the attacks from the left?  They'll continue, because no matter what Sarah Palin and John McCain do, the radical left will always berate them, smear them, and lie about them.

And oh, by the way.  A McCain election could mean the thrusting of Sarah Palin on the National stage with such force that she'll automatically be the front runner for the Presidency after McCain.  And the Democrats can't survive that.  And that may account for the panic and anger.

It seems the rats and vicious insects of the leftist Democrats and Liberals have been released to do their dirtiest now that John McCain has selected a Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.  From Daily Kos and the other Liberal blogs to the 'in-bed' media of most of the networks' anchors [notably MSNBC] sing the naysayers, dirtsayers, and general nabobs of negativism.

For a varied list of Presidential factoids, I offer the following.

'Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.' - Bill Burton, Obama Campaign spokesman. 

What he fails to note is that his candidate for the TOP post [with the actual beating heart] has much less experience, judgment, and executive ability than has the Republican woman running for the second post.

'...What has Sen. Obama ever run? What business, city, or state has he ever been in charge of? What employees and advisors has he ever had to get the most out of? What cabinet meetings has he ever orchestrated? What corporate agreements has he ever negotiated? What National Guard units has he ever been commander of?' -  Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters. 

Even I, T N McCoy, with no political history, have more general aptitude and experience than Obama---though I'm not as tall or colorful.

'Sen. Obama’s entire career – from community organizing [what exactly is that?] in urban Chicago, to failed political bids, to the Illinois legislator, to 143 days in the Senate before announcing a bid for the presidency – has been one of constant up-the-ladder maneuvering.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters. 

One might also note Obama had the 'judgment' in Illinois to serve his constituents and the State by voting 'present' 130 times, and speaking out and voting against [one of those rare times he actually voted yes or no] the 'IL Born-Alive Infant Protection Bill.'

'I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.' - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin

'Whenever Senator Obama has sought to ascertain a position of high political prestige, whether he failed or succeeded in that endeavor, he has immediately begun looking to ascertain a position of even higher political prestige.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters. 

Rather like the professional student as it were.   Senator Obama was barely in the Senate long enough to find his seat, before he announced his intention to run for the Presidency, thus leading to the longest Presidential campaign in history.  I hope Illinois is proud of it's only working Senator, Dick Durbin.

'Obama seems to like the winning, but not the job or responsibility that comes with the winning. With no cheese at the end of the maze, the young lawyer/professor from Southside seems to lose his focus.' - Nicholas Guariglia of Family Security Matters.

'...and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.' - David Brookes

'...The next president will have to finish the denuclearization of North Korea; prevent the nuclearization of Iran; organize a departure from Iraq that maintains some level of stability; defeat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; establish, nurture, and make the most of a relationship with Pakistan’s new leaders; and confront a revanchist Russia…' - Peter Skoblic, The New Republic. 

On speaking terms with most of the World's leaders, John McCain is by far the abler candidate to deal with these problems.  In contrast, Obama made a noisy trip to the Middle East and a speech in Germany, where he declined a visit with wounded US soldiers because he couldn't make a political event out of it.

'But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.' - Sarah Palin. 

This is a direct challenge to those Liberal, Obama-adoring media types who nit-pick the life of a good Governor trying to find something negative to talk about---even if they have to invent it.
 
'...voting for the 1980s nuclear freeze and against Reagan’s defense buildup; against the original Gulf War in 1991; for the Iraq trifurcation into ethnic enclaves and against the successful troop surge in the present; and against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards 'terrorists' - Nicholas Guariglia re Joe Biden. 

Just what are Joe Biden's qualifications again?  Sitting on committees and making speeches?

Senator Joe Biden recently announced to Israeli leaders that they should get used to a nuclear Iran.  Well, that's another sign that Obama-Biden aren't going to be serious about meeting and dealing with our adversaries [not to mention their betrayal of our Government's support of Israel.]  And they have the nerve to classify a more experienced Sarah Palin as a lightweight in the foreign policy arena?

'Yet according to Obama, his foreign policy experience consists of 'ties to relatives in poor villages in Kenya and the years he spent growing up in Indonesia. Now he has added a new personal detail to that résumé: a trip to Pakistan while a college student.' Perhaps his recent whirlwind trip to the Middle East and Europe, where he spoke in front of thousands of adoring Germans, can be considered another notch in his belt.' - Pam Meister, Family Security Matters. 

Don't these facts ring a bell in your heads, oh genuflecting adorers of the Obamessiah?  Does an empty suit flap in the wind?

And more recently, the Obama-Biden ticket has promised to prosecute anyone they could from the Bush administration for---well, for anything including excessive use of pencil erasers.  If, God forbid, they get into their offices, most of the time will be spent on other than the Country's business.  Obama isn't qualified to do anything anyway.  And by the way, what would Obama aspire to run for after that?  Pope?  World Emperor?

While in the Illinois legislature, Senator Obama argued against the 'IL Born-Alive Infants Protection Bill', something that would have protected the life of the baby if born alive.  I read Obama's argument on the Senate floor and found it to be rambling, incoherent at times, and bad enough for him to claim just about any sentiment from it.  His later comment that if he were in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for the federal 'Born-Alive Infant Protection Bill' is just a gratuitous statement of fancy.

It was recently announced that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and not married.  She and her boyfriend/fiance have been planning marriage and will probably wed before the baby is born.  Bristol has the complete support of her family, and she has a great opportunity to live a happy life with her own family as it grows.  On the other hand, if she chose abortion or welfare, the left would love her to death.  Don't kid yourselves readers, the left is the death dealer of your lifetime.  It's idea of 'choice' doesn't include life, but it does include death even when the baby is almost born.  Knocking heads together is nothing compared to crushing skulls, is it?

'Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,' he [Obama] said. 'I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.' - Barack Obama 

It's so sad to hear a candidate for the highest office in the land state his belief that 'motherhood' is a punishment---and again by the way, 17 is at or past the age of consent in all the states, parents notwithstanding.  He seems to forget that without motherhood and close parental care, we'd all be---well, we wouldn't be.

Sarah Palin's husband quit his 17-year British Petroleum oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with his wife’s administration---a wise move.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's wife was promoted and given 160% pay raise by U of C hospitals within months of her husband’s election to U.S. Senate.  Furthermore, her employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion.  Just a coincidence, you say?  Can pigs fly yet?

John McCain, a Navy veteran, was shot down and spent some five and half years in a North Vietnamese prison camp under horrid conditions.  Besides basic deprivation, he suffered numerous broken bones in both arms and legs, shoulder, and ribcage.  Yet, he refused to give up any strategic military information to his captors.  He refused early release because his fellow prisoners weren't offered a similar release.  His captivity showed his character and perseverence even under torture.  He commanded a huge Naval group while on active duty, and he spent productive and active years as a US Senator---a bi-partisan maverick for most of them.

On the other hand you have Barack Obama.  [You have him, I don't want him.]  Now think deep in your hearts.  Do you think that Barack Obama could have stood up against such captivity?  Could he have kept his mouth shut under torture?  With broken bones?  Somehow, I doubt it.  And he'd find that flowery oratory doesn't cut it in the real World.

Barack Obama wants to be President 'real bad', doesn't he?  Well, since he has no experience, we should grant his basic wish and make him President of a small business in an area where he and his cronies can't exert political pressure.  If he's successful, we can consider him for jobs higher and higher on the scale [we certainly don't want to give him something that's not in his 'pay grade'] until we come to political office:  a full term as a mayor, maybe two; a state office where he actually has to work; and then maybe for Congress, where again he'll have to be there and actually get something done.  After a few terms there, he consider running for the Presidency.  He'll still be defeated, but he can logically run at that time.  If he can't hack it early on in this program, then he should promise to go away and let the adults take care of matters he doesn't understand.

Governor Sarah Palin was vetted by the McCain campaign and the people of Alaska.  But who has vetted Senator Obama?  certainly not the American people.  With the National media tripping over themselves and getting goose bumps every time they hear or come across Obama, they aren't about to report fairly and accurately to the American public.  Could Obama even receive a top-secret security clearance?  I doubt it.  His past and present relationships with convicts, communists and purveyors of hate and terror would easily prevent that.  And you on the left would give this man the highest office in the most powerful country on Earth?

And what about experience?  Obama's a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington, especially on the left.  The Senators and Representatives are: primarily lawyers, many of whom are strictly in name only; and they aren't qualified for city council, let alone National office.  They are mostly 'good-old boys' living beyond their mental means, and scaring the public with their radical and illogical stands about National policy.

Would you hire Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama, to run your business profitablly and with good will?  Once again, I doubt it.

Finally: 'In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.  And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.'  - Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

As a sidelight, this is a detailed comparison and contrast between Palin and Obama:

Palin-Obama Contrast

Well, the anointing is over for now.  The empty suit has proclaimed his divinity, and the audience of donkeys have worshipped their golden idol.  Senator Messiah Obama's speech was uplifting only to those who are true believers.  To the rest of us, he said little other than generalities and the continued mocking of John McCain.  The American flags in the hands of the delegates and others were notably missing from the festivities, and there was little chanting other than 'Obama.'  Large crowd, Greek temple, anointing---what have I missed?

When John McCain announced his Vice Presidential pick in Dayton, there were numerous chants of 'USA' and the waving of the American flag.

Despite plenty of opportunity [he's been running for the Presidency for several years now], Obama doesn't seem to understand that thinking people want specifics from him, not generalities.

But remember.  Obama has very little political experience and no executive experience.  He's never led people, penned a veto, reformed anything, or done little more than take up room in the Senate.

Joe Biden is the pure attack dog and a good old boy from the ancient Liberal group in the Senate.  And with Obama, he may be half of the most Liberal pair of Senators.  He has a constituancy of about 427,000 people, not all of whom voted for him.  He hasn't led anything in Delaware other than the Liberal pack of wolves.

Do we want Liberals?  Do we want larger government, more governmental control of our lives?  Do we want higher taxes to pay for it?  Do we want increased costs of fuel, food, and everyday items because the Liberals are searching for the perfect energy source?

Do we want a President influenced by Ted Kennedy, Rev Wright, the Clintonistas, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha?

A resounding no.

For all his faults, John McCain gives us the best alternative for the Presidency.  He'll be pro life, for stronger border protection, stronger defense and home security, and he has the military and political experience to lead us in the dangerous times ahead.  Would you rather have Obama or McCain dealing with Putin or Ahmadinejad at three am?  Sweet talk or strong, positive efforts---whether military or political.

Sarah Palin was a terrific choice for McCain's running mate.  She has executive experience, has wielded a veto pen, has defied her powerful colleagues in the search for reform, and led people successfully.  She's the governor and leader of some 670,000 Alaskans.  She is knowledgeable and positive for energy searching.  Say!  Wait a minute!  Sarah Palin is more qualified for the Presidency than Barack Obama!

I believe Sarah Palin will energize the public along the campaign trail and hold her own against aging, Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate.

So, you have a good choice, my friends.  Do you want the desperate human beings of the Democrat party?  The candidates promising higher taxes, increased governmental control in your lives?  The ones which will insure continued high prices for energy, food, daily needs?  Is that 'Change' and 'Hope' to you?  The candidates with the idling SUVs outside the 'Green' convention?

Or do you want a candidate with proven leadership experience to effectively manage the countryP  Lower taxes?  Less governmental intrusion into your daily lives?  Better respect for the human individual?  Appointments to the Supreme Court who aren't going to legislate from the bench?  More American energy developed, more power plants on line to reduce the overall cost of energy, food, and everyday items?  Don't you want a President who will stand up against Putin and Ahmadinejad at any time of the day?

And for Vice Presidential candidate, McCain has chosen a woman with much more solid experience than Obama on the the Democrat side.  She's tough, intelligent, has executive experience, is a capable leader, is pro-life, and strongly conservative on all the issues.

These comments have by necessity been short.  I leave it to the pundits and pros to expand on all the issues and stances.  But I ask you to think of the future when you vote.

Read this quick before the decision is made.  I'll address this to John McCain on the hope that he or a member of his staff will read this and take action.

The Democrats show themselves regularly to be radical leftists in transluscent sheeps' clothing.  So, there'll be nothing new in what they are planning for the campaign.  Senator Obama's pick of Joe Biden as the Democrat Vice Presidential Candidate is the standard white man safety choice.  The pair are among the most Liberal/Socialist members of the Senate.  And it's no secret that Barack Obama is pretty much an empty suit with no administrative experience to speak of, and Joe Biden has a track record of obfuscation and foot-in-the-mouth disease.  Between the two of them, the spin-meisters and heralds of 'mis-speak' will be working overtime.  The choice also effectively cuts the Clintonistas' out of the picture.

John McCain is a good man and, by far, the better candidate for the Presidency.  But, now we anxiously await his running mate choice.  He can play it safe by picking the safe white man---Pawlenty, Romney, Crist et al---but he'd be far better off with a younger woman in the position.  The failure of the Clintons has left a political void for the women of the Country, Democrat or Republican, to see progress.

A choice of a Conservative woman for the Republican Vice Presidential spot would be an exellent way to unite the party and empower the women of the Country.  It might be just the thing to insure the election of Republicans to more offices than just the oval one.

As to whom he should choose?  Well, that's hard to predict.  Kay Bailey Hutchinson is an attractive choice, but she's too much a RINO, and we certainly don't need that.  Besides, I don't think she'll hold up to the attacks from the left.

Condoleeza Rice, to me, is a RINO, and one who would be too delicate for a national office campaign.

My choice would be Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska.  I admit I didn't know anything about her a short time ago.  But after some research I've discovered she's a no nonsense reformer, true Conservative, and able administrator.  She's a growing expert on energy, and she'd bring life to the campaign.

So, John McCain, please be careful with your choice on Friday.  The Nation is depending on you.  We can't allow Senator Messiah Obama in the Oval Office.  You just need to look at where his acceptance speech will be.  In a huge stadium before 80,000 cheering supporters, he'll be anointed in front of a curve of Greek columns.  The only things missing will be the oils---or at least I hope so.

When will it dawn on the fawning Democrats that they are now part of a cult?  And a cult which will lead our Nation downhill, perhaps low enough to keep us from ever recovering again.

We've had the opening and closing ceremonies at Beijing, and they were exciting sights, alright.  One has to admire spectacles, and the Beijing ceremonies certainly fit the bill.  They were orchestrated by a Chinese film-maker, Zhang Yimou, [with a little help from his friends at the Chinese Politburo] who had previously enjoyed critical film success with: 'To Each His Cinema' [2007], 'Curse of the Golden Flower' [2006], and 'House of Flying Daggers' [2004].

Let others extol the epic ceremonies and athletic excellence of the games, my thoughts are elsewhere.

Both the opening and closing ceremonies were thoroughly enjoyable, but they both had their human glitches.  Some---no one will admit exactly how much---of the fireworks display was faked for television audiences.  [Mostly in the West, because I doubt there are very many television sets in China.]  It was said that the fireworks display happened in real life, but the 'faking' was done for television purposes only.  But many think that, if it happened in real life, why couldn't it be shown that way?  The Chinese were more concerned with 'picture perfect' ceremonies than Monk is with his cutlery drawer.

Another downer was the lip synching of the sweet nine year old, Lin Miaoke, on stage and in the spotlight for billions to watch.  She was cute as a button, but she didn't do any singing that the audience could hear.  Her real voice singing the ode was a chandelier breaker.  Oh no, the real singer of the 'Ode to the Motherland', Yang Peiyi, wasn't considered 'cute' or 'attractive' enough to be shown during the performances, yet her pictures show her to be adorable.  [Confucius says in his 'Analects': Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.]

The ceremonies' musical director, Chen Qigang, claims that the 'child on camera should be flawless in image...'  Of course, this was quoted after the Politburo gave him it's opinion about what solo performers should look like.

The China Daily Newspaper claimed 'she [Lin Miaoke] is well on her way to becoming a star...' without commenting on the lip synching.  Say?  Doesn't that lip-synching on stage really make her a star?  Don't our western entertainers sometimes do the same thing?  Of course, in most cases, the latter actually did the singing at some other time.  I know Pavarotti lip-synched his performance at the 2006 Winter Olympics.  However, he recorded the song in the first place.  And he was seriously ill at the time and couldn't perform in the frigid outdoor weather.  He died the next year.

Remember the children's chorus?  Some of the singing was also lip-synched.  The powers that be were afraid that any off key, off tune, or erroneous singing by members of the choruses would not show perfection.  [Too bad.  Such singing would have had a natural charm.] How much more real and natural it would have been if the singers, 'warts' and all were shown singing in real time, and the choruses singing in the same way. 

It was also reported that all the 'ethnic' peoples presented in the ceremonies were actually Chinese and not the various ethnicities at all.  I wonder how prevalent the substitutions were?  I guess the true ethnic people in China aren't perfect enough for the World to see.

And the soldiers and entertainers, poor souls, had to wear diapers for their seven hour stint preparing and performing.  I suppose diapers can be necessary for long performances at times, but for seven hours?  I'd hate to have to empty all the dumpsters.

Many of the Chinese performers, especially in the closing ceremonies, were masked---some, it seemed, in football helmets with masks---and unidentifiable.  I wonder how many of these participants were free to choose such anonymity for such a long period.  And can you imagine being one of the hundreds of unidentifiable humans creating the waves and trees, clinging to high, wired stands in the semi-dark?

I'm reminded of Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis.'  Participants had to become anonymous in order to show the ability of the group as a whole.  [Hive mentality.]  Individualism in performance---like from good communist-controlled citizens---has to be restrained unless in sync [lip-synch?] with all the others and the huge choreographed whole.  The ceremonies also brought the movie 'Antz' more into focus.

But, of course, I didn't see people or groups per se.  I saw units making up the show of the hive, not even the soul because the communists don't believe in souls.  There were no individuals performing, only parts of the whole in their undulating and form-shaping choreography.

And wasn't that the purpose of the Beijing games?  To show the collective perfection of the hive mentality in the best light?  To show how the communist society can produce beauty---free will not withstanding?  To unknowingly show us how the forced 'orcness' of the communist peoples in China?  To raise itself in World opinion by denigrating many of its citizens?  [Confucius says in his 'Analects':  An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger.]

The population of Communist China is about 1.3 billion people.  They must live in 3.8 million square miles [much of it rocky and barren], compared to our 303 million citizens living in 3.7 million square miles.  And you think you live in a crowded neighborhood?  The Chinese air is polluted, and too many people are forced to live in hovels, not the beautiful neighborhoods you saw on television of Beijing or other major cities.  The Chinese government permits these factory and transportation polluters of air, land, and water to continue operating so that they can send more flawed goods to the United States for hard cash.  And we sit around and permit it.  But I wander off point.

However, my great admiration for the work of the human mind must include the millions of subjugated individuals forced to collectively put the communist ethic in the best light.  They have no choice in how they are forced to live and perform for their masters.  But, I have the freedom to view it and comment on it in the light of day.

On another note, the apparently underage gymnasts who weren't allowed to be interviewed to any extent [afraid they might tell the truth?], exemplify the 'forced labor camp' mentality.  Sure, the Politburo-led officials might have chosen other gymnasts, but the idea at the Beijing-sponsored games was to have Chinese athletes win gold medals and show China in the best light of World opinion.  [That's why their athletes are chosen at very young ages and forced into the sporting regimen for the people for a long number of years.]  And everyone knows that girls under sixteen do a better job than those older---you know, fewer injuries, lighter bodies, less individualism, more apt to toe the regimentation line, etc.

I sent an email to NBC Sports during the games.  I didn't like having to view a large picture of Chinese icon, Mao Tse-Tung, in the background of the shots of Bob Costas, and I explained it to the network.  I don't think we Americans should have had to watch that.  [Why do you think the Chinese hung it there in the first place?]  NBC ignored me.  The picture is an obnoxious reminder of past Chinese atrocities, and an American television network has no business promoting Communist symbols to the rest of us.

Now, NBC is on par with ESPN as far as sports broadcasting is concerned.  The commercial breaks during a live event were ill timed to say the least.  Follow that with network self promotion ad nauseum, and you can understand why I watched more of the Olympics online than I did on television---in fact, it was often with the television in the background with no sound [the best way to watch most television broadcasts anyway.]

And one has to squint to be sure to see anything, what with score tables at top, other sports info at the bottom, promo pop ups at the bottom interfering with the live action, sometimes at critical points.  The television screen is so cluttered, it looks like my PC with the icons and gadgets and precious little wallpaper room.  Of course, promo pop-ups never happen during commercials, do they?

Besides which, both NBC and ESPN replay every decent or questionable effort of the players constantly. [I'm sure the other networks are the same.]  So much so, in fact, that it's difficult to tell what's live action and what's Memorex.  Even as simple a play as a baseball strike or ball is played over constantly to show the viewers how the network is so very efficient, and has so many cameras covering each play from all directions.

Is it any wonder I no longer watch the baseball All Star Game or World Series on television?  I can follow it easier online.  The same applies to Basketball and Football.  I only watch other televised sports rarely.

Excuse me for now, I'm going to watch some athletic performances online for free and without inane commentary, playbacks, pop-ups, pictures of Mao or commercial interruptions.  Is this Heaven?  No it's Iowa...er..I mean it's online freedom.