The Democrat party’s debate last night at Howard University, a historically Black University, was an unparalleled display of demagoguery and pandering for votes. It is astonishing that no one in the media has challenged the content that was absent from the debate.

Travis Smiley, a liberal talk radio host and author, was the moderator. The questions reflected the issues presented in Smiley’s book, “The Covenant with Black America. The book outlines 10 crucial issues African Americans face. The debate only focused on issues facing the black community.

Travis Smiley and the candidates are equally culpable for debasing the black community. To have a presidential debate with that narrow of a scope concerning race, insinuates that the black community is either not cognizant of, or does not care about, the myriad issues facing this country.

Here are some of the from the candidates:

Clinton said: “Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country.” Concerning the SCOTUS ruling earlier yesterday concerning using race for schools: she said the decision “turned the clock back” on history. This is a blatant lie. Clinton is a lawyer. She is informed. She knew this case involved two white grade school children that lived within a mile of two schools but were bused 10 miles away because of their race. This is what Brown v. Board of Education eliminated: race being a determining factor of where you can go to school. Her audience did not know the details of the case and she played the faux race card. The ruling today only reaffirmed Brown.

John Edwards said, “This issue of poverty in America is the cause of my life. John Edwards is telling his predominantly black audience that the black community and poverty are one in the same. They can’t make it without him or the government giving them a hand.

Biden stated that he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He also stated this concerning the Supreme Court, “They have turned the court upside down.” Same answer as Clinton‘s.

Obama offered himself as a powerful example of a beneficiary of Brown. “If it hadn’t been for them, I would not be standing here today,” the Illinois senator said. This is another blatant lie. Obama was educated in Djakarta, Indonesia then he moved back to Hawaii and attended the esteemed Punahou Academy. Hardly the beneficiary of Brown v. Board of Education.

Other topics of discussion were: AIDS, criminal justice, taxes, outsourcing jobs, and the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. All these talking points came to the same conclusion that it is all because racism still exists.

What was not discussed were the two most divisive and paramount issues currently confronting the United States: The war in Iraq and the immigration bill that was defeated in the Senate earlier in the day. Instead of debating these issues, the debate revolved around race.

How is this insulting and debasing? The topics were oriented towards the racial makeup of Howard, not the issues a presidential candidate should be addressing. None of the issues previously queried at other debates were discussed. The candidates, even though they did not choose the isolating questions, could have answered in a much broader spectrum encompassing the populace as a whole within a country. The current field of Democrat candidates have spent so much time pandering to small slices of the population they cannot put the pieces together as a united nation.

The Democrats and the moderator assumed the only thing that mattered to the predominantly black audience were not just the issues, but how they related to the black community and to place the blame on the current presidential administration. The questions and issues were fair and worthy of discussion, but not as a stand alone subject line. This was an educated audience and they should have been treated with the dignity that affords.

There are three ways to conquer a country. Two are tried and true with history on their side. One is evolving into what could be the most effective and permanent method.

Number one: Use military might. Think of Alexander the Great and the Greek Empire, The Roman Empire or Napoleon and the French. Very effective initially but very weak track record for permanence.

Number two: Coups. Think Castro in Cuba or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Just as effective as number one but with varying degrees of long term success.

Number three: Legally flood your country with millions upon millions of immigrants who will beget your ideology. No military, no weapons, no violence–it’s that simple. It’s not as expeditious as the first two, but let the multitudes breed a couple of generations of socialist and by the time they reach voting age it will be enduring. Once this nefarious scheme is legalized then activated then there will be nothing tangible left to fight. A conquering without a shot fired from either side.

Carl Marx wrote the instruction manual for socialism. George Bush seems determined to be the one to consummate it.

Barack Obama gave a speech in San Antonio this past Sunday saying he wants Guantanamo Bay closed. He also stated that he wants to restore habeas corpus. Obama is a Harvard law school graduate, he knows what habeas corpus is and when it applies, but do the crowds he is pandering to understand the complexity concerning habeas corpus, enemy combatants and SCOTUS’ rulings on it? I doubt it.

In usual liberal fashion he wants to close Guantanamo Bay, but never addressed how. What would he do with the 180 some odd captives held there? Charge them to satisfy habeas corpus? Charge them with what? Not charge them and send them where? Try them in Federal criminal court? Try them in a military tribunal? Send them back so they can continue their fight against the U.S.? No mention of a plan, just close it.

This issue was addressed by SCOTUS in 1942. Here is part of the ruling:

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the execution of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

This decision states:

“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Earlier this month a Federal appeals court ruled that the President cannot declare citizens in the United States as “enemy combatants” and have the military hold them indefinitely. The case was al-Marri v. Wright in the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. This is a chronic problem with the Bush administration. They assume they have he power to classify anyone however they wish.

The court ruling made two distinctions: lawful combatant and unlawful combatant. A lawful combatant has the classification of “prisoner of war” and all rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. The unlawful combatant gets the military tribunal. The Bush administration has abused it’s discretion in distinguishing between the two.

What is Barack Obama’s plan for discerning between the two classes of combatants at Guantanamo Bay? What if by definition there truly are unlawful enemy combatants there? Or on the battle field? If you capture someone you have to do something with them. Read them their Miranda rights and send them all back to the U.S. for trial? Supply them with court appointed attorneys? Send them where and do what with them?

What’s your plan Obama?

This just affirms the amoral abyss that infects the current Democratic field campaigning for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President. It is getting harder and harder to distinguish these people from great founders and ensuing leaders that built this country and made it what it is. Bravo to the Edwards for trying to carry on that tradition.

Elizabeth Edwards Supports Gay Marriage

By PAUL ELIAS

The Associated Press
Sunday, June 24, 2007; 7:00 PM

SAN FRANCISCO — Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, kicked off San Francisco’s annual gay pride parade Sunday by splitting with her husband over support for legalized gay marriage.

“I don’t know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me,” Mrs. Edwards said at a news conference before the parade started. “I’m completely comfortable with gay marriage.”

San Francisco’s gay pride parade is a campy civil rights celebration, sprinkled with drag queens, leather chaps and a healthy dose of nudity _ but very few, if any, mainstream, national politicians. Even San Francisco resident Sen. Dianne Feinstein, when she served as mayor here from 1978 to 1988, never rode in the annual parade that started in 1970.

“This is definitely a step in the right direction in the evolution of the civil rights fight,” Leno said. “But it’s not like she’s out there riding with me in the parade.”

The liberals are crying and whining about conservative dominance on the airways. They are absolutely incapable of conceptualizing how a business operates or how a free market works. Mixing socialism and capitalism would be akin to the feet of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. As with all liberal shortcomings, if they can’t compete, they go crying to the government.

Here is an excellent example of why liberal and socialist fiscal ideology has never worked.

The Center for American Progress (a liberal think tank) earlier this week released a report titled “The Structural Imbalance Of Political Talk Radio.” The report summarized that 91 percent of talk weekday talk radio is conservative, with 9 percent being liberal. The groups conclusion is stricter media ownership limits and public-interest requirements. It also stated that the “current landscape does not serve all Americans.”

This report and others like it are directly related to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. There has been on Capital Hill about reinstating it. Congress has tried twice to congressionally mandate it, but Reagan vetoed it and so did George H.W. Bush. Now the Democrats are swarming all over this report an argument for the government to get in involved and make it all fair.

Here is where the left’s moronic mindset shines:

“There is little free speech or free choice in a market system that pushes out one-sided information 90 percent of the time on the radio,” said John Halpin, a senior fellow at the center. “Radio stations are licensed to operate in the public interest. Promoting one point of view over all others does not meet any reasonable public-interest standard.”

Why is there an imbalance? Economics 101. Buyers dictate what products sell and what products won’t, the free market principle allows business’s to adapt to this ever changing environment. We still have a free market society. Liberal talk radio does not sell. If liberal talk radio sold, they would share airtime with conservative talk radio on the same station. Sponsors will pay for listeners. Air America, came on the scene hot and heavy in 2004 as a far left talk radio program. They filed for bankruptcy in 2006. No listeners=no revenue=bankruptcy= lessons in economics 101. For the liberals to believe that the station’s owners are not carrying these liberals talk formats for what ever reason other than economic is inane and myopic.

The Center’s statistics are far from accurate because the study is so flawed it has at best dubious credibility. They have skewed the numbers to propagate their agenda. An example:

According to the methodology cited on page seven, “hosts were categorized as conservative, progressive/ liberal, or indeterminate/ neither based on self- identification, show descriptions, and listings in Talkers Magazine. Only hosts with evident and near- indisputable leanings were categorized.”

The survey is clearly biased and the Center utilized a broad poetic license in labeling what constitutes a conservative or a liberal.

If Congress applies socialist principles to the free market airwaves it would have catastrophic financial consequences. The liberals are harping for the government to force an industry to offer equal airtime to a format that is a loser.

If the fairness doctrine makes it out of Congress as a bill, a conservative President would veto it. Bush has never governed as a conservative and it would only be supposition as to his position. If it does make it into law, it would be shot down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, with the replacement of O’Connor with Alito, has moved one step closer to a bench of originalist rather than a Junior College remedial English class trying to interpret an allegorical piece of verse. One of the reasons the FCC terminated the Fairness Doctrine was that the Fairness Doctrine “might be in violation of the first amendment.”

Big oil companies spared tax hikes
Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:26:13 PMSenate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $32 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy that would have been financed mostly by new taxes on major oil companies.

Democrats came three votes short of overcoming a threatened GOP filibuster that was keeping the measure from being attached to a broader energy bill. Republican senators argued that the nearly $29 billion in additional taxes on major oil companies would have led to reduced production and higher gasoline prices.

Because of Republican opposition, Democrats needed 60 votes to allow the package to come up for a vote, but fell short, 57-36. With a number of senators not voting, Democrats could resurrect the measure later, though there was no immediate indication of that.

Here is a quote by Hilliary Clinton:” I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.”

Just so you know the score when you fill up your vehicle and complain about how the oil companies are price gouging. The gouging information you are getting is coming from liberals. All the Democrat front runners in the 2008 presidential race have at one point or another declared that they are going to take the big oil company’s excessive profits. Excessive always being a term that is very subjective.

Let’s take one company, Exxon, for example. Last year Exxon had record profits of $39 billion for the fiscal year 2006. Exxon makes on average 10 cents per gallon. The higher profits are the result of higher volume of gasoline consumed. Contrast that with what the government makes per gallon–50 cents per gallon on average. On Exxon’s sales alone the government made $195 billion dollars. Remember there are many more large oil companies, this is just one.

Now 10 cents profit per gallon of gasoline that is selling for $3 per gallon is around 3%. I doubt you would find many companies on the Fortune 500 turning just a 3% profit. Why aren’t the liberals windbags rattling their sabres about companies like Microsoft, Apple, Coca Cola, etc. that enjoy a significantly higher profit margins? Classic Demagoguery.

This is more of an inquiry that a statement. What are they going to take back?

The annual Take Back America conference was held on June 18th. Hilliary Clinton spoke about how she would take back America amid boos. Here are some highlights of her speech:

She started off by criticizing the Supreme Court in reference to the case of Lilly Leadbetter. Lilly Leadbetter sued Firestone for workplace discrimination for being paid less than her male peers. Hilliary Clinton skewed the facts of the case. The Supreme Court did not rule against Lilly Leadbetter, they ruled against the fact that she filed her case 19 years late. They ruled in favor of upholding the 180 days statute of limitations. Lilly was 6925 days late on her filing the lawsuit. I am not sure what this has to do with taking back America, but she brought it up.

Clinton made reference to the firings of 8 U.S attorneys–the Clinton’s fired 93 U.S. attorneys.

Spying. I am assuming she is referencing Bush’s playing loose with the F.I.S.A. rules. A few months after the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton signed executive order 12949, giving the Attorney General the authority to approve physical searches without a court order along with electronic searches.

Detentions. Again without reference. I also assume she is speaking of the holding of enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detaining of enemy combatants is a precedent older than this country. It is effective and necessary during times of war.

Silencing of scientist. Again without reference. Maybe she was referring to the silencing of global warming pseudo scientist. Maybe they just could not be heard over the noise of her private jets.

Katrina. These liberal windbags think the federals government is Constitutionally mandated to help every inconceivable person, city or state out that is in need. It’s not. It was botched by F.E.M.A after Mayor Nagin had his turn at botching.

Health care. HillaryCare circa 1993, enough said.

Occupation of Iraq–she voted for it. No solution offered other than to just “get out.”

National Debt. Bush signed the Iraq spending bill last month after the Democrats bought the votes to pass it with 24 billion on pork spending. Bush has yet to veto a spending bill, but the Democrats are as culpable as the Republicans for the pork spending the past six years.

The U.S. economy is currently running on all cylinders. The stock market is at record highs, unemployment is 4.5%, inflation is in check, interest rates are low, retail sales are strong and the government is experiencing record revenues.

She cited a lot of issues, but I am confused as to what she and the other liberals are going to take back.

The jackal is at it again. As if speaking to southern black churches while using a black dialect, professing her Christian faith and belief in God weren’t enough, now Clinton is using the picture of a dead Saint to get elected. Maybe she felt she alienated or missed a few Catholic votes by proclaiming her Protestant faith and speaking at black Baptist churches.

Here is an article from Fidelis.org, a Catholic based advocacy group:

Fidelis Effort Triggers Hillary Campaign to Remove Mother Teresa Image from Campaign Ad

The national Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis announced today that they were successful in forcing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to remove a photo featuring Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta from a campaign video narrated by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

On May 14, Fidelis President Joseph Cella faxed a letter to Sister Nirmala, the Superior General of the Missionaries of Charity, recommending that she look into this matter and requesting that the Clinton campaign cease and desist in its unauthorized use of Mother’s image.

Cella commented, “Fidelis is very happy that the public campaign we waged against Hillary Clinton’s wholly inappropriate use of Blessed Mother Teresa’s image in a campaign video has succeeded. If we had not alerted the Missionaries of Charity that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was inappropriately using Mother Teresa’s image, they would have never removed it from the video.”

Apparently there are no limits to what this over zealous Svengali will do to get elected.

What’s next? Maybe she could say she was the fourth person Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego to gain the Jewish vote.

I have written previously of the irrelevance of Time magazine. Just when you think there is no more room for another nail in their coffin of irrelevance they make room for another.

Time’s reporter Joe Klein reports that George Bush is a radical conservative. Says Klein, “George W. Bush is no moderate. He has governed as a radical, and we’ll be paying the price for his thoughtless extremism for years to come.”

George Bush is a moderate liberal on his best day. To envisage Bush as a radical conservative is so inconceivable, you would be so far to the left you could only see the middle with your imagination.

Does anyone with any semblance of intelligence buy into the far lefts incessant demagoguery? The apropos answer would be: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

That’s what I’m talking about:

U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) amendment to cut funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Bill (H.R. 2638) for cities that employ a sanctuary policy passed the House with strong bipartisan support today; 234 to 189.

“The times, they are a changing,” said an exuberant Tancredo, who had introduced the same amendment several times in the past with far less support. “This should also serve as a warning sign to the White House and supporters of re-introducing an amnesty bill from the Senate. If that legislation makes it to the House, it is in serious trouble.”

The Amendment would prevent cities like Denver and San Francisco who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens from receiving first responder funds, including law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, among other programs.