As I have many times before, I again received this e-mail forward: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." The quote is usually attributed to Alexander Frazer Tytler (or Tyler by some sources), but Loren Collins in an article "The Truth About Tytler" says the author is really unknown. (See: http://www.lorencolliins.net/tytler.html) Regardless of who the author really is, I have always found the quote a source of endless fascination.

 

America was founded as a Republic, not a democracy. I doubt many students today know we are a Republic, or many teachers for that matter, even though our Pledge of Allegiance contains the line "and to the Republic for which it stands." Many do not know the difference between a democracy and a Republic. Many do not know our history, especially the history of our founding and our religious base. Today, citizens do tend to vote for candidates who promise them the most benefits from the treasury. Just examine America, especially since the 1930s, and the current state in which we find ourselves--bailouts, victimization, immorality, corruption, earmarks, entitlements, and ever increasing deficits. Do democracies always collapse over loose fiscal policy, and if so, are they always followed by dictatorships? Throughout history, great nations have risen and fallen, but have they always progressed through the stages in the quote? If so, in what stage do we now find ourselves--selfishness, complacency, apathy, or dependence? I have no definitive answers and will not venture an opinion; however, I believe as a country's moral foundation deteriorates, the country declines. That seems to be the case in America today.

 

As I look at contemporary America, I am appalled that the America I knew growing up no longer exists. What kind of country are we leaving to our children and grandchildren? In short, we are leaving an immoral cesspool, chaos, and shambles. Today, what do we see? Over 48 million babies, by the best estimates, have been killed (guess the euphemisim is that they were "a choice") since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. This is America's Holocaust, yet there has been little outrage. What might these little ones have become if allowed to grow to adulthood? America is criticized for anything and everything and blamed for all the world's evils, even by its own citizens, but there is no outrage. Our flag is burned and disrespected, but there is no outrage. "Enlightened" citizens, trial lawyers, and judges call it "free speech." Homosexual and lesbian activists protest in the streets and at churches and temples regarding the California voter's second decision that marriage is between a man and a woman. Individual Mormons, Catholics, evangelical Protestants and other religious people, not their church organizations, supported Prop 8. Gay (what an oxymoron) activists are protesting against and damaging churches, many Mormon churches/temples. So far, there have been no reported attacks on Black churches whose members also supported Prop 8. Why? Would that be considered racist? Where are citizens and the news media? There is no outrage? Religion and traditional morals and values have been undermined and taken out of schools, public life and public view, and citizens wonder why we have bad behavior from students, individual and corporate greed, dishonesty and immoral behavior from business leaders, employees, and politicians. Where is the outrage? Christianity is mocked, ridiculed, and disrespected while other religions (non-Christian, of course) are given respect/support, but there is no outrage. Alternative lifestyles are thrown at us from every direction, even at students in early elementary schools, yet there is no outrage. Those who violate laws are given a slap on the wrist rather than just punishment, and there is no outrage. Leftist, activist judges make law from the judicial bench (even that which has been defeated by the voters), yet there is no outrage. Bad business management is rewarded financial bailouts using taxpayers' hard-earned money, and there is little outrage. Government cannot seem to operate anything as inexpensively or effectively as private enterprise, yet politicians encourage government intervention in all sorts of business operations, and there is little outrage. Our military members and Iraqi war veterans are hauled into civilian and military courts for supposed crimes on the battlefield, yet there is little outrage. Border patrol members are sent to prison for shooting a drug smuggler, yet there is little outrage. Leftists can utter dreadful, hateful things about their opponents and that is acceptable, but when the opposition mentions leftists, it becomes hate speech. There is little outrage. And the insanity seems to continue endlessly.

 

Abraham Lincoln's words, delivered before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois on January 27, 1838, apply today: "At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall be fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide."

 

I am convinced that if Americans who love political and religious freedom, morality, and common sense are to see this country "live through time," then we must wake from our deep sleep. We not only need a new religious revival in America, we also need to use the power of the voting booth, some civil disobedience, and take back our country from those who for years have plundered it and left it in chaos and shambles. Our children and our grandchildren deserve at least that much from us! The countdown has begun, the clock is ticking, evening is advancing, and darker night is near!

What election grieving this conservative did has past. Now we face the coming political battles. While I can celebrate the historic nature of the outcome and the racial barrier to the highest office in our land toppling, as should all Americans, I would have preferred that the president-elect hold and espouse conservative values and policies. The voters have spoken and selected a nebulous "change you can believe in" and the most enigmatic presidential candidate in our history. So much about him was hidden, deliberately I think. Candidate Obama has been all over the map on many issues. Where does the man really stand and what might he do as president? Based on my reading about his past, statements in his two books, his primary and post-primary positions, and his campaign statements, I think the man's instincts are from the far-left of the political spectrum, socialist in fact. And that is likely to be his governing mode, rather than a more pragmatic centrist approach. Surprised I would like to be, but that is more than I can hope at this time.

 

With Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, I fear they will be emboldened to immediately implement their socialist schemes, even without having a mandate for that. There will be no effort at the bipartisanship Democrats love to talk about when Republicans are in charge. There will be billions more spent on alternative energy programs, continued suppression of domestic energy development (oil, oil shale, coal, natural gas, nuclear and the job growth accompanying such development), while oil imports will increase, and energy independence will remain elusive. I would expect the repeal of The Defense of Marriage Act, even though voters on November 4, as past majorities have done, clearly supported traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I would expect passage of The Freedom of Choice Act that will eliminate all restrictions nationally on abortions and federal funding for them. I would expect passage of The Global Poverty Act that will increase our foreign aid by over 800 billion, funneling it through that ever-efficient United Nations. I would expect higher taxes on individuals, capital gains, businesses, inheritance, and on anything or anyone conceivably taxable. William Graham Summer said, "The state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. The latter is the Forgotten Man." I expect our wealth to be squeezed from us (not just those earning in excess of the various figures mentioned by Democrats, but all of us) and spread (translate: squandered) among those who pay no income taxes. Democrats love those welfare schemes. The Marxist philosoply will prevail, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Of course, the powers that be always decide the ability and the need. The perfect recipe to impoverish an entire nation, except the ruling elite of course! There will be an increase in welfare and entitlement programs and that mentality. Pandering in this area is a legal vote-buying scheme. There will be an effort to socialize medical care. Welcome to expensive, yet third-rate health care! I expect our intelligence gathering, national defense, military, and national security programs will be gutted. Someone needs to whisper in President Obama's ear Winston Churchill's wise words, "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who might do us harm." President Obama, who has signaled he wants serious missile, nuclear, and weapons cuts while some in his party have proposed a 25 percent cut in military spending, would likely turn a deaf ear to Churchill's wisdom though. I expect to see our country cave to rogue nations without challenge and Israel abandoned. I expect secret ballots eliminated to unionize workplaces. I expect to see far-left activist judges appointed and far-left proposals that fail to pass legislative muster will be legislated from judges' benches, further undermining our Constitution, our country's economy, our social and cultural fabric, and our national security. I expect hate speech legislation to pass, similar to that in Canada, Australia, and Europe, designed to silence individual and organized religious expression, especially Christian. I expect talk radio conservative voices speaking out in opposition to Democrat policies will be silenced. We will see more thug-like activities from organizations such as ACORN. And on and on this "happy times are here again" nonsense will go! Fasten your seat belts; this is likely to be a very bumpy ride! However, one of candidate Obama's proposals could turn out to be more frightening than the others, yet I definitely am not implying his other proposals are any less frightening. That is his proposal for a Civilian National Security Force.

 

The Civilian National Security Force was proposed in a July 2, 2008, Colorado Springs speech calling America to national service. Some may take comfort in their belief that he was talking about expanding a range of domestic and international agencies such as AmeriCorps, the Foreign Service, the Peace Corps, if they like; however, I would disagree. It strikes me as a sinister proposal. It came about 17 minutes into his speech in two lines not in the prepared speech transcript. He said, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military." I think the more reasonable interpretation of his words is some sort of organized paramilitary organization; otherwise, it seems to me, he would have worded the proposal differently. I do hope I am wrong but doubt it. The vast majority of American citizens will oppose socializing our country. In face of opposition, there would have to be some enforcement group; this may be it. The Civilian National Security Force proposal reminds me of Hitler's Brown Shirts or Strom Troopers, Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Circles. Beware charismatic figures bearing "gifts." As Edmund Burke said, "All that is needed for evil to succeed is that decent human beings do nothing."

 

Reverend Martin Niemoeller was a German Lutheran pastor during the Hitler era. He is best known for his powerful statement about the failure of Germans to speak out against the evil of Hitler and the Nazis, "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." How will Americans behave faced with the dangers of authoritarianism?

 

Today, America seems much like the European countries of the late 1930s which John Murphy, a character in the novel Munich Signature, spoke about when he said, "Wrong has become right, and the world is turned upside down!" Will today's Americans meet the coming dangers as the World War II "Greatest Generation" met those of that era, or will they "bag it"? The majority of conservatives among us will press forward, but will enough of our fellow citizens join us to prevent America, the last and best hope for mankind, sinking into third-world status and darkness? The battles are coming.

When we go to a garage sale and purchase those little surprise bags, we enjoy the gamble. When we vote in a presidential election, we shouldn't "buy" a surprise package or gamble. If the polls are correct, America seems on the verge of electing, Barack Obama, a man with an onion skin paper resume (143 days in the Senate before his presidential campaign began), extreme-left voting record, few accomplishments, dubious and unsavory associations, empty rhetoric, but who has charisma and glibness. Charisma and glibness are not going to meet the challenges facing our country. The "change" in Obama's surprise bag will be nothing like the "change you can believe in" many of his supporters "hope" it will be. As the old saying goes, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." I am amazed at the number of people willing to buy "a pig in a poke" (without lipstick of course).

 

I was born to "greatest generation" parents around the time Hitler began his march to conquer Europe. They, like other Americans of that generation, sacrificed and endured hardships to defeat Italy, Japan, and Germany. Today, I look at my country and my fellow citizens and find both hardly recognizable. We have a society and culture in chaos. We are victims. We are entitled. Everyone else is to blame. We look to government to save us. God and Christianity are taboo. The unborn have no rights. We have an economic crisis because of wild government spending, government pressuring lending institutions to allow citizens to buy homes they could not afford, and citizens personally overusing credit. We have an energy problem and high gasoline prices because other countries, especially developing ones such as China and India, are also using more fuel, yet environmental wackos have prevented and over regulated our own energy production of oil, natural gas, coal, oil shale, and nuclear for years in favor of alternative sources no nearer being available than they were years ago. Congresssional roadblocks to our domestic energy production mean we currently have no bridge to cover the span of years before we have alternative energy sources fully developed and online. Having suffered numerous terrorist attacks since the 1980s, we are now at war with Islamic terrorists. These people want to kills us and our way of life. That should be easily understood by anyone who is not brain dead. Unlike the "greatest generation," so many citizens today want a three-day victory over the terrorists without death and destruction. During World War II, we had more deaths in one day than we have had in the entire Iraq War and the greatest generation remained stalwart. Our terrorist enemies are willing to die for their cause; we had better be as willing to make sacrifices ourselves or face defeat! And defeat will not be pretty! It is not an accident we have suffered no attack in seven years. To think these terrorists no longer want to attack us is simply absurd. The evidence is clear; they do and have made numerous attempts! That truth is available. Most people seem too lazy to find it, or maybe they are smoking something, drinking something, injecting something, or talking with the guy/gal who does.  So many seem willing, come November, to trade their safety and freedom, and that of their children and grandchildren, for empty promises. So many seem willing to see their country become socialist, a system that has failed throughout history.

 

An Obama-Biden administration, with a Democrat controlled Congress, will indeed bring changes. You want to spread your wealth around (not the other guy's wealth but your own)? Obama and Biden will spread it for you! You want higher taxes? Your pockets will be cleanly picked! You want increases in government spending? You will get them! You want even more wasteful spending? You will get it! You want more inefficient federal government programs? You will get them! You want higher deficits? You will get them! You want to pay for socialized medicine or heavily subsidized health insurance? You will get it along with far worse medical care! You want the Freedom of Choice Act? You will get it! You want the Global Poverty Act? You will get it! You want universal federally funded preschool for all children starting at age three? You will get it! You want the capital gains tax increased? You will get it! You want the inheritance tax increased? You will get it! You want to pay higher prices for the increases in business taxes? You will have that pleasure! You want criminal prosecutions of those who dare speak out about the Democrat candidate's record and policies? You will get them! You want negotiations without preconditions with the leaders of rogue nations? You will get them! You want to elect someone for whom leaders in Iran and Hamas have announced support? You will get him! You want to elect someone who obfuscates his far-left ideology? You will get him! You want someone who says he will cut our missile defense, new weapons systems, reduce/eliminate our nuclear arsenal and whose party leaders want to cut 25 percent from the defense budget in spite of the threats we currently face and those we will face in the future? You will get him! You want someone who supports elimination of the secret ballot process to unionize workplaces? You will get him! You want someone that will appoint left-wing activist judges who will legislate from the bench. You will get him! You want nationwide legalized same-sex marriage? You will get it! While it is difficult to fool all of the people all of the time, it is obviously quite easy to fool some of the people some of the time.

 

I recently received two e-mails in response to forwards I had sent. In one case, the responder called me a "right wing rep." What I had sent this person was humor that could and should have been enjoyed by anyone regardless of political affiliation, but obviously not by an Obama supporter. The left can only see humor in some slam against conservatives. In the other case, the responder told me that I was "too intelligent" to be sending out something from such a source, even though the information in the forward was clearly available for anyone who sought it from any number of highly reputable sources. I strongly suspect that what I was being told was that I was "not very intelligent at all," otherwise I could not possibly believe anything derogatory about THE ONE. Obama believers have made up their minds and not only don't want to be confused by hearing facts, but they also resent being given the facts. The Messiah is returning someday, but He is definitely not running for president on November 4. Rest assured of that.

 

Evening is here; darkness is near, and with it, not "hope" or "change you can believe in," but despair and disaster. Some lyrics from a My Fair Lady musical number are quite apt, "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggins, just you wait! You'll be sorry, but your tears'll be too late! Down you'll go 'enry 'iggins! Just you wait!"

 

 

The truth is that Nero did not fiddle as Rome burned; however, Rome did burn. Nero contentedly munched on his grapes as he watched the city burn.

 

The sinking of the Titanic always intrigued me. How could some carry on as if nothing were happening? How could some believe the ship was unsinkable? Once panic began, how could men jump into the lifeboats before the women and children? How could some just accept their end without a fight? And through it all, the band played on!

 

The little red hen found some grain. The cow, pig, and donkey refused to help her plant it. She did it herself. At harvest time, they refused to help her harvest it, so she did it herself. They again refused to help her get it to the miller for grinding, thus she did it herself. When she had the flour, she asked them to help her make dough; they refused. Again she did it herself. They refused when she asked them to help her make the dough into bread. She did it herself. But when she asked them if any would help her eat the bread, they were all eager. The little red hen wisely told them that since they would not help her plant the seed, cut the wheat, go to the mill, make dough, or bake the bread that they would not help her eat the bread. She and her chicks ate it themselves. Had the little red hen lived in America she would have been forced to share.

 

There is a story of undetermined origin about an exchange student who, when asked by his college professor why he kept rubbing his back, told the professor that he had a bullet lodged there from fighting Communists in his native country as they tried to install a Communist government. In the middle of his story, the student asked the professor if he knew how to catch wild pigs. The professor thought that was a joke, but the young man said it was no joke. You catch wild pigs, he told the professor, by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again, and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate on the last side. When the pigs, by now used to the free corn, come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate and catch them all. Suddenly, the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn and accept their captivity. The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing socialism and keeps spreading the free corn in the form of programs while freedoms are continually lost--just a few at a time. At some point, the gate will slam shut!

 

In a Presidential address before a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974, Gerald Ford said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

 

Years ago, I read John F. Kennedy's While England Slept, the 1940 published version of his thesis written while a senior at Harvard College. In the book, JFK discussed why he thought England was so unprepared for World War II. Even if the contents of the book have little relation to what is happening in America today, the title does. Regarding what is happening to their country, Americans are not out shopping as some have speculated. They are asleep!

 

And while many in America sleep, there are those willingly working to take us over the cliff. And the band plays on!

When it became clear to me early in 2008 that Senator John McCain would be the Republican nominee for president, I knew I had a difficult November vote. For months now, I have been preparing to go to the polls in November and unenthusiastically cast a vote for John McCain. That has changed because Obama and Biden have proved by their campaign to be incapable of confronting the problems and dangers we face. To tax more, redistribute wealth, undermine traditional values, spend more, and to grow government are not solutions; they are harmful appendages of a far-left beast just waiting to consume us. 

 

Jim, a friend who lives in Indiana, sent me an interesting forward a few weeks ago, one I had seen before but forgotten, yet it relates to my vote next month. It said, "There comes a point in your life when you realize who matters, who never did, who won't anymore, and who always will. So don't worry about people from your past; there's a reason why they didn't make it to your future." Those words reminded me that in addition to God, my family and friends, that America is also important to me. I worry about my country because what happens to her relates not only to my well-being but also to that of my family and fellow citizens.  

 

I cast my first vote for president in 1960, but come November I believe we face the most important presidential vote during my lifetime. If Obama and Biden are elected our country will definitely have change, not "change we can believe in," but a far-left socialist change, a change unlike any we have ever experienced. My position on Obama-Biden has been stated in three other blogs available at this site. Senator McCain and Governor Palin are much more likely to bring the kind of change and reform to Washington, D. C. that is dreadfully needed. Both have backgrounds supporting change and/or reform. Senators Obama and Biden do not, so why should I believe they will bring anything other than a socialist change? I should not!

 

In this presidential election there are many things voters need to consider: character and judgment of the candidates, is there substance behind the candidate's words, does the candidate's background and experience have some relation to what he/she is saying to us, and the positions on life issues, same-sex marriage, taxes, earmarks, government spending, less or more federal government, reforms, job growth policies, immigration, expanding energy sources, national defense and national security. As a country, we can probably afford to make a few wrong decisions regarding some of these issues, What we cannot afford in such a dangerous world is to make the wrong decision on candidates regarding national defense and security. To get that wrong is to commit national suicide! On all the issues I have listed, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have always taken the wrong positions, positions which are dangerous for our country. While I have many differences with John McCain, he and Governor Palin come down on the correct side of most issues, especially national defense and security.

 

To his friends, Christian music artist Huntley Brown (who is black by the way) sent an E-mail stating why he cannot support Barack Obama in November and will vote for John McCain. He says, "There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him 100 percent ratings. There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas et cetera support him. There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. There is a reason he voted no on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. There is a reason he voted no on partial birth abortion. There is a reason he voted no on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue. There is a reason Obama opposed the parent notification law. Think about this, you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane. There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright's teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why?"

 

Of all the issues facing us in the November election, the issues of national defense and national security are more important than all others. If our country is not defended and/or our security is undermined, none of the other issues will matter. Senator Obama's record and statements indicate our defense and security would not be in good hands with him. On defense and security in particular, the man is not only naive, he is also dangerous! I will vote first and foremost to protect my family and country from recklessness; in doing that, I must vote for McCain.

 

I believe Thomas Sowell, another black, in an article appearing in The Dallas Morning News, June 6, 2008, best states the vote we face next month, "The biggest sponsor of terrorism--Iran--is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb. The point when it gets that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb--and they will make 9/11 look like child's play. All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand...or risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds. All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter. Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becames president next January....Senator John McCain has been criticized in my columns many times. But he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer." Failure to see the Obama risk is foolish or worse and possibly lethal.

 

To those who do not vote or decide on a third party candidate, I would say voting for a third party candidate or not voting will simply be another vote for Obama. Will you cast your vote for a man who is glib but with empty rhetoric and dangerous views, or with Senator McCain, a man who, even considering his faults, will protect this nation? It truly is a no-brainer!

Two news items in recent months have caused me to wonder about possible threats over the horizon.

 

The first item (Chelsea Schilling, WorldNetDaily.com, September 8, 2008) comes from Roseville, California (Placer County) where a couple applied for a marriage license. Following the California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state, marriage licenses (at least as reported in this article) no longer required the name of the bride and groom but required the names of Party A and Party B. In the case cited in the news article, the applying couple had written "Bride" and "Groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife. Their Placer County marriage license application was denied. It came back to the couple stating the license "does not comply with California registration laws." Californians can live with this sort nonsense if they wish or pass the constitutional amendment stating marriage is between a man and a woman on their ballot in November. Of course, they have already had an overwelming state-wide vote stating marriage is between a man and a woman, but the state Supreme Court in its usual legislative-mode "wisdom" overturned that vote with its same-sex marriage ruling. The consequences of same-sex marriage on society are certainly not good. All one has to do is look at European countries where it's been adopted--far fewer traditional marriages, more out-of-wedlock children, more single parent families, more children growing up without fathers, et cetera. I object to the same-sex marriage movement's attempts to force me to accept and/or approve it as the equivalent of traditional marriage. It most certainly is not! Those wanting to live in that type of relationship can have their rights protected short of marriage. Something unstated must be going on with this strong push for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a disaster train, and the only way the majority can protect themselves is with an amendment to the United States Constitution stating marriage is between a man and a woman. Personally, I would not be opposed by another section being added to such an amendment protecting medical, property, inheritance, benefit, et cetera rights in same-sex relationships.

 

The second item that I find potentially threatening in the future comes from The Sunday Times (United Kingdom) , September 14, 2008, that stated, "Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain coud not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

 

According to the shadow (the out-of-power Conservative Party) home secretary, Dominic Grieve, "It is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law. I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such actions unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."

 

Were I to permanently move to another country, I certainly would not expect to impose my home country's language, laws, courts, culture, et cetera on my new country.  Wonder why these people moved to Great Britain in the first place?

 

I would have a few concerns regarding these Islamic courts or tribunals or whatever one wishes to call them: Are other religious groups going to be allowed to have their own courts? Are women's rights going to be protected? Who will serve on these courts? Are women going to be forced into marriages they do not desire? Are these courts really going to be optional? Will Muslim citizens be pressured to use these new courts? Will it be clearly explained to those using these courts that regular British law and courts might have give them more rights?

 

I am realistic enough regarding the average American politician's "wisdom" (yea, it is an oxymoron) and our current "political correctness" fad to understand that we in this country are simply not immune to this kind of European nonsense. We will probably wake in the near future to hear such proposals on this side of the pond.

 

 

I wrote the next paragraph for a blog over a week ago, but then put it aside:

 

Josh Howard of the Dallas Mavericks was shown in a recent YouTube video at a charity flag football game. As the national anthem played, he approached the camera and said, "'The Star Spangled Banner' is going on right now. I don't even celebrate that (deleted expletive). I'm Black." Mark Cuban, Mavericks' owner and losing "Dancing With the Stars" contestant last season, posted some of the nasty E-mails he received on his blog regarding Howard but later took them down. I do not  really care how Cuban feels about the E-mails sent him because they were well deserved, but if he thinks for one minute that Josh Howard's conduct is in any way excusable, he is mistaken. I do not care whether Howard is Black, red, green, white, or yellow; his behavior is inexcusable! Howard's behavior is similar to that of the singer at a Denver, Colorado city function a few months ago who accepted an invitation to sing the national anthem but instead sang the "Black national anthem," whatever that is supposed to be. This singer's conduct was also inexcusable. These two dispicable behavior-challenged characters need to have the public refuse to attend any event where they perform.

 

Today (September 30, 2008), The Dallas Morning News sports section carried a follow-up article regarding Josh Howard. I assume the heat has now reached the boiling point on Howard and the Dallas Mavericks, and that explains his attempt at excusing the inexcusable. In the article, Howard is quoted as saying regarding his videotaped disparagement of our national anthem, "I know that's not me. I love this country. If it wasn't for this country, I wouldn't be out here playing basketball. For me to have that opportunity is the greatest. That's not me. That's not Josh Howard. That was an idiot."

 

Finally, you got something right, Mr. Howard. In your own words, "That was an idiot." And that was you. That was Josh Howard. I do not believe you "love this country," the country which gave you your opportunity. I do not believe your lousy attempt at "I'm sorry." It is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at damage control and spin for the brain-dead.

 

I am sick of those who have risen to the top in sports, the media, in politics, and the entertainment industry, even those with talent, taking every opportunity they can dream up to criticize their own country, the country that has made their careers possible. One can certainly disagree with American policies, but to blame America for all the ills that surround us is a clear indication of the character and judgment defects of these dispicable people.

 

I refuse to pay to hear or watch such individuals. That is the only way they might curtail their disgusting verbal habits which polute the air I breathe.

 

 

Part 3 of Voting for Obama-Biden? No Way!

 

Recently WGN-AM in Chicago had Stanley Kurtz and David Freddosa on separate radio shows to discuss Obama's relationship with William Ayers and Freddosa's best-selling book on Obama. Obama's campaign used massive call-in campaigns to tie up phone lines so others would not call in with questions. (Sources: Greg Benson, National Review Online, 9-16-08; JohnMcCormick and Steven Schmadeke, ChicagoTribune.com, 9-16-08; Ben Smith, Politico, 8-25-08) Were they afraid of what listeners might hear? The Obama campaign also asked the Department of Justice to criminallly investigate the group behind ads discussing Obama's relationship with Ayers. (Same sources) There must be something the campaign wants to remain hidden. Does this mean a President Obama might ask the Department of Justice to investigate political opponents? I think that is quite likely.

 

Senator Obama's possible judicial appointments would be disasterous for America. He has stated regarding the criteria he will use in nominating judges, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." (Source: George Will, Newsweek, 8-5-08) Why not someone who defends the rule of law and the Constitution judges are sworn to defend? According to Obama, judges are supposed to side with whoever stirs their heart and empathy the most? Using his reasoning (bad word choice I know), there will be no judicial standards. This is a recipe for madness--rendering the Constitution meaningless and destroying the rule of law

 

The most serious problem I have with Senator Obama is that he does not seem to understand our terrorist threat. His vote against the surge in Iraq is typical of that lack of understanding. Regardless of whether the Iraq War was wise or not, withdrawal now would embolden terrorists worldwide. He cited the government's prosecution of those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as the correct way to deal with terrorism. The 9-11 Commission Report said the government must identify potential or actual terrorists and sanctuaries and use "all elements of national power" to "keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run." (Source: Ronald Kessler's Washington, Newsmax, September 2008) Should we deal with terrorists by reading them their Miranda rights? To do that is stupidity! Obama twice voted against revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the National Security Agency to continue to monitor calls by foreign terrorists without a warrant--even if all parties are overseas. (Same source) He did however change his position when it was recently passed. Where does the man really stand? He was against the Act before he was for it! Was his recent vote for it simply a political move as he neared the November election because the bill was going to pass anyway? My guess is yes! I think he is an opportunist. When he said we should meet with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions, we not only saw a niave man, but one with dangerous and potentially deadly ideas. His statement that "if Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they couldn't stand a chance" is simply bunk. Iran's forthcoming nuclear weapons will not only be a threat to the Middle East and the world, but also to us. To think one can sit down, talk, and reason with these fanatics who are out to kill us and our way of life is lunacy! How much longer do we talk with them? Must we allow history to prove once again that there are some people with whom talk and reason will not work? With an Iranian nuclear weapon pointed at us, what is Obama going to do, talk or hide his head in the sand? A nuclear weapon or weapons exploding on our soil will render our other problems meaningless. Most of us will not be here to deal with them at that point anyway. And to think that these terrorists do not want to attack us with nuclear devices is naive and foolish. If these people had had a nuclear weapon on September 11, 2001, they most certainly would have used it. And when they get one, they will use it! To think otherwise, one has to be brain dead. Based on Obama's background and statements, I would not bet on any worthwhile action from him to protect my family. I will not gamble with my life, my family's, or that of my fellow citizens by voting for him and Biden.

 

If Senators Obama and Biden are elected in November try to hide your pocketbooks as the government fleeces you with more taxes and unworkable government programs and watch this country become more insecure in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world. It will be a very bumpy, dangerous, and possibly deadly ride! Biden's 35-year history in the Senate and past record prove he is no "change" politician. Likewise with Senator Obama's tenure in the Senate and his past record. With the two of them, we will get a far-left agenda and the same nonsense that political hacks have always given us. In the past Democrats are responsible for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, but with Obama-Biden we will get a Raw Deal. I hope come November, Senators Obama and Biden are sent packing, and that Obama gets no closer to the Oval Office than he is now. That is a change I can believe in, and the one for which I will vote!

 

In speaking years ago about another November "change" election, Ronald Reagan said, "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will perserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness!"  

Part 2 of Voting for Obama-Biden? No Way!

 

Most politicians do some flip-flopping after the primaries and before a general election, but Obama seems to be an expert at it. Following the Democrat primary season, Senator Obama has flip-flopped on the following issues: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, NAFTA, Public financing of his campaign, Gun control, Gay marriage, Social security taxes, Death penalty, and Negotiating with rogue nations. Just where this man really stands on these and other issues facing this country would be anyone's guess. What does he really believe? Why should his past or current positions on issues be trusted at all? They should not be. His position slate is as basically empty as is his rhetoric.

 

Obama and Biden often spout "hot air" and/or suffer from verbal slips, gaffes, or whatever one wishes to call them more often than many politicians. Of course, the main stream media ignores this.

 

Last week, Biden said that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more with their tax proposals and that "it's time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." What? America is in a rut, but it is the wealthy Americans' patriotic duty to get us out of it? Here's "the deal" Senator Biden--that is the responsibility of all Americans! How can taking money from one group of Americans (those who provide the jobs for the rest of us) and giving it to those who pay no taxes (and provide no jobs) help America? This makes economic sense and is rational to Biden and Obama? It is sheer nonsense! During the week of September 8-13, speaking in West Palm Beach, Florida, Biden was quoted in The Washington Post as saying, "If Barack Obama grew up in my neighorhood in Scranton or Claymont or Wilmington, Delaware, he would have been the guy who had my back. If you're looking for a very sophisticated Harvard graduate who went to Columbia undergrad and was president of the Law Review, he's totally intellectual. Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet. This guy is steel." This from a senator with a "first-class" mind? Maybe he was speaking in Bidenese. Translate for me please. "Baby," he sounds to me like someone who does not have a clue. As the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out." Was the crowd listening to him enthralled? Were some of his listeners among those in November 2000 who had difficulty voting on that Florida ballot?

 

According to news reports last week, his campaign now has Senator Obama using a teleprompter at campaign events. I guess his mind and mouth have to be restrained somehow when your candidate makes statements such as these more interesting verbal slips: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." I do not care what other countries think or approve, but I suppose if one wants to be President of the World, as Obama seems to want, he would be interested. I am certain he practices what he preaches just as those Hollywood environmentalist types do. On Memorial Day he said that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II. In fact, the Russians liberated Auschwitz. His uncle was a Russian? Last May he said, "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died--an entire town destroyed." The death toll was actually 12. He did not know the exact number of deaths? What kind of research is his campaign team doing? Speaking in Oregon in May, he said, "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." Did I miss that new Rand McNally atlas? Speaking at the Bloody Sunday March anniversary in Selma, Alabama last March, he said, "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr. was born." The Selma march occurred in 1965; Obama was born in 1961. Guess when they walked across that bridge, these "folks" walked back in time or into the future or whatever? I cannot make sense of this, but maybe you can. Regarding wearing a flag pin, Obama has said, "You know, the truth is that after 9-11, I had a [flag] pin. Shortly after 9-11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest." To Senator Obama "speaking out" is patriotism and to Senator Biden it is paying taxes. Lots of us out here in "gun, religious, and bitter" fly-over America would strongly disagree. Discussing his Christianity with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week on Sunday, September 7,  Obama said, "...my Muslim faith." When he makes this kind of verbal slip, he does not help himself in shooting down all those E-mails being forwarded around the country about his religion. Speaking at a private fundraising event in San Francisco prior to Pennsylvania's April primary, Obama said of the state's small-town voters, "[They] cling to their guns and religion" and they are "bitter." That will endear you to the voters! (Sources: John Hawkins, Townhall.com; John Bolton, in The Los Angeles Times; Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com; Victor David Hanson, National Review Online; FoxNews.com; Lorie Byrd, Real Clear Politics)

 

Had McCain or Palin uttered this "stuff," we would never hear the end of it, but with the media being "in the tank" for Obama, his and Biden's verbal slips do not often make the news. These two want to lead this country? I hope that they always have a prepared statement ready to read and/or a teleprompter available, otherwise... I suppose their advisors will have everything ready for that 3 a.m. call.

 

This will be continued in Part 3 in a few days...

 

 

While I think this country would be better off to rid itself of the assumed color barrier to the presidency, I am not willing to vote for Obama-Biden simply because of Obama's race. I vote for candidates on the basis of their stand on the issues important for our country, and their stand on the issues is not in our best interests. There are so many reasons that I cannot vote for Obama-Biden or Obama-Clinton (should Hillary replace Joe in some Democrat October surprise as all those E-mails hitting my inbox speculate) that I will write this in three parts.

 

Part 1:

 

Their positions on economic and tax issues are wrong for America. Obama is the sponsor of Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act, which would commit the United States to spending 0.7 percent of our gross national product in foreign aid. This amounts to a 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. I am certain the United Nations will distribute this wisely, at least as wisely as they operated the corruption-filled Iraqi Oil for Food Program. We really need to provide even more assistance to all those countries that hate us--that will make us better liked and safer! Appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show, Obama said he would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans and raise taxes on those who earn more than $250K per year. Forty-three million taxpayers, or one-third, of all tax returns report no income tax liability. Obama says his tax plan will also eliminate income taxes for  an additional ten million taxpayers. These are not tax cuts he is proposing. They are nothing more than a Democrat transfer of wealth fraud; it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The top one percent of taxpayers currently pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. One never gets something for nothing, even from the government! Money does not grow on some government tree. If one looks closely at all of Obama's tax proposals, there may well be tax relief for many of us in one area, but tax increases in others. In the end, there is not going to be tax relief from Obama-Biden, but a net tax increase. Their proposed taxes on businesses are even more destructive to our economy. These two are proposing  huge increases in government spending and programs that cannot be supported without huge tax increases or more through-the-roof deficit spending. This country's already overburdened taxpayers, businesses, and national debt simply cannot withstand these two getting their tax-and-spend hands on the economy, especially with a Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

Obama's association with questionable individuals causes me grave concerns about his judgment and character. Among those associations are: Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his racist pastor for twenty years; Father Michael Pfleger, one of his three self-described religious mentors and a protege of Reverend Wright; William Ayers, an unrepentant 1960s domestic terrorist; Tony Rezko, recently convicted in Chicago of bribery, but who assisted Obama in buying his $1.3 million home and contributred over $160K to his campaign. Thomas Sowell has written about other associations, "Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, 'I chose my friends carefully,' Obama said in his book, Dreams of my Father. Those friends included 'Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets,' as well as the 'more politically active black students.'" I think the change Obama is so fond of talking about is a far-left extremist one. We have never before had a presidential candidate with such far-left positions.

 

Obama's listening to hate from a pulpit causes me to question what kind of man he really is. Upon leaving Reverend Wright's church, he referred to the controversies surrounding the congregation as an "unfortunate distraction." It was an "unfortunate distraction" to sit in a church for 20 years, almost half of Barack Obama's lifetime, listening to his pastor spew racial hatred and garbage? Or did it become a distraction to his presidential campaign? It is worse than a distraction; it is a stain on Senator Obama's character and judgment. It is also very telling that he sat for 20 years listening to this hatred and garbage without complaint or protest. The normal person who disagreed  would have walked out. Why didn't he, if he disagreed? However, Obama left the church only after the Reverend made a speech before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Since that speech was broadcast to the American public, Obama could no longer dodge the issue even after he had defended Wright for months and made excuses for the man's hateful and racist utterances. We need this kind of character and judgment in the White House? I think not. We have already had too many of his kind there.

 

Senator Obama's past voting record not only gives me heartburn and sleep problems, but it also spells DANGER. Three times while in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against protecting babies who somehow survived a botched abortion. He still will not come clean about those votes. To support leaving a baby who survived an abortion to die is an abomination regardless of how one feels about abortion. It is infanticide! He was the only member of the Illinois Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers. That will reduce sexual crimes, won't it? He voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences and increase penalties for gang members and dealers of Ecstasy and other drugs. He voted "present" on a bill making it harder for abusive parents to regain custody of their children. He voted "no" on a bill allowing police officers to execute warrants and enter buildings without knocking if there was a reasonable belief a weapon would be used against them. He voted "present" on legislation requiring that minors who commit gun crimes on or near a school be prosecuted as adults. He did not vote on a bill requiring fingerprint background checks on school bus drivers. This man has a solid record as a crime fighter? In 2007, Obama pledged as president he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act that would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women (one of his biggest supporters) says that Act would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. He also favors federal legislation making it more difficult for workers to hold a secret ballot vote in unionization drives. That will no doubt lead to harassment and intimidation of workers. The man's positions are extreme and out of the mainstream! To believe they aren't requires new definitions.

 

I will continue this in Part 2 in a few days...

Shortly after the McCain announcement of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate on August 29, the attempt to destroy her began. To be expected were attacks regarding Governor Palin's experience, plus attacks from leftist feminists who wanted a woman, but only if she were a liberal from Anti-Life Land. After the Governor's impressive introduction speech in Dayton, those on the Democrat left began their vicious rumors, lies, distortions, and personal smears. Left wing bloggers sounded the drumbeat, followed by a writer for an online magazine, then The New York Times, the "ever-trusted vanguard of the free press" that prints only the "news which fits the leftist agenda," joined in. The rest of the liberal media establishment immediately followed in lockstep. It is all contemptible, but it is exactly what we have come to expect from the far left wing. What we have heard so far is not news; it is personal smears to bring down a reform female who proved with that introduction speech she might be someone to fear. The left supposedly deplores personal attacks. In reality, they never deplore personal attacks if they or their allies are the perpetrators. We might also consider that these people are simply acting as surrogates for the Obama campaign. Why did so many Democrats race to Alaska shortly after the Palin announcement? Not for a vacation. More likely to find dirt if they could or how they might invent it.

 

Well known television journalists jumped in to swim along. According to reports, Alan Colmes, resident liberal of the Hannity and Colmes show on Fox News Channel, posted a piece on his blog entitled, "Did Palin Take Proper Prenatal Care?" seemingly questioning whether Palin might be responsible for having a disabled child. After being  attacked, he took down the blog, but reportedly reposted it to prove he was not running away from it. He should have run from such nonsense as fast as his shaky liberal legs could carry him. Does he not know the cause of Down's Syndrome? CNN's John Roberts has suggested that Palin might not give adequate care and attention to a Down's Syndrome child if she became vice president. Adding further to this lunacy, CNN's Campbell Brown has questioned whether or not a good mother should have made a decision to accept the vice presidential nomination and put her daughter in the media spotlight. On and on this insanity goes. What else could be expect? For months now, we have seen the media for what it is--nothing but an extension of the Obama campaign. Even the well-hidden MSM journalistic objectivity of our past has now been exposed for what it really is--a Democrat Party mouthpiece.

 

The far left and the print and television media have essentially told us for years how enlightened they are and how much they know. Enlightened? That is highly suspect, but they do "know" a lot. However, so much of what they know falls into one of two categories: 1)so much of it is nonsense, and 2) so much of it is untrue.

 

The statement issued by Governor Palin and her husband Todd regarding all this clearly illustrates they are classy individuals, unlike their opponents: "We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire famly. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of  candidates."

 

This then has been Governor Palin's welcome to the poisonous world of national politics where the left feels free to engage in personal attacks and smears, even on children, yet howl  and scream if anyone else dares do the same. And there is no double standard?

 

For the first time in many years, a political reformer, a woman much like the rest of us in so many ways, has been selected by a known political maverick as his running mate for high national office. These panic-driven attacks are not likely to go away, especially after Governor Palin's highly praised and successful acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention this past Wednesday. Leftists must now feel seriously endangered. I predict continued garbage from them; they are seeking a political kill. Will it work? It could. Will there be a backlash against the media? Of course, but how widespead, deep, and lasting it will be only time will tell. Is Governor Palin likely to continue performing well? Based on my background reading on her, yes. She is also likely to surprise everyone positively in news interviews. Those who are forthright, can admit they do not know but will get the information, are intelligent (yes, that is possible without an Ivy League education), and yet still come across as "everyman" will impress citizens. From all reports, the Governor is a quick study. That is more than we can say about the media and your run-of-the-mill, special interest-owned politician. The "Change You Can Believe In" politician never lifted a finger to "change" the Chicago machine out of which he rose, has done little in the U.S. Senate except be absent campaigning for an even higher office, and then selected as his running mate a 35 year career politician who has generally gone along to get along. Obama and Biden are going to bring change in Washington, D. C.? Not going to happen with that twosome.

 

Palin is not a Washington, D. C. establishment insider, is a refreshing western breeze, and just might help bring the needed reforms.