On May 24, 2009, Colin Powell circulated through the Sunday talk shows to plead his case that he is a Republican. But he left one conspicuous question unanswered. Why?

Why is Colin Powell so adamant about convincing the American people, and Republicans, that he is indeed a Republican?

While making the network rounds, Powell stated that the Republican Party must “broaden itself to stay relevant.” He is a proponent of the big tent argument espoused by the left-leaning faction within the Republican Party. Considering that Powell is an Obama supporter, the big tent that he is prescribing for the Republican Party is comprised of the following: a markedly weakened national security position, a ten trillion dollar deficit, the unprecedented seizure of private industry, the coercive intimation forcing banks to accept TARP money, the infantile personal and public exchanges with conservative radio personalities, a cabinet impregnated with tax evaders and lobbyist, blindly signing an unread and unexplored $787 billion stimulus package, and the proposed nationalization of the U.S. health care that will mirror the dilapidated health care system of Europe and Canada, thus stripping the current benefactors of the most enviable health care system in the world and leaving the equivalent of socialized misery in its wake.

Is this the big tent concept Powell believes is the salvation of the Republican Party? Apparently so, as he supports these second-rate principles that, in every conceivable way, violate the foundational laws of the country.

Powell responded to remarks made by Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh saying that Powell had left the Republican Party when he cast his vote for Obama: “Rush will not get his wish and Mr. Cheney was misinformed, I am still a Republican.”  But again, Powell failed to explain why he wants to be a Republican, since his ideology is antithetical to the Republican Party’s, and he has, since joining the ranks of civilians, performed as a Democrat.

Powell has obviously been a chronic sufferer of an ideological dichotomy since being appointed as National Security Adviser by Ronald Reagan (1987-1989); elevated to Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989); then elevated to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993), again by President Reagan; then elevated to Secretary of State by George Bush (2001-2005). His career ascension and national relevance were made possible and created by the Republican presidents he served.

Perhaps John Locke best summarized the current cartel of Republicans, and Powell, whose rhetoric is antipodal to their actions, and are unable to publicly reconcile the two with their rhetoric without offending the intellect: “I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”

The big tent concept is not the answer to the Republican’s political malaise–it is the problem.  Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, et al, who label themselves moderates, are, more often than not, indistinguishable from Democrats.  John McCain erected a big tent this past election, and successfully compelled enough independent and Republican voters to abandon the Republican Party and hand Obama the election. These left leaning Republicans believe that the big tent is the antidote that will cure the Republican Party’s conservatism, and thus resurrect its relevance. But relevance to whom?  Is Colin Powell becoming a “useful idiot” in the vein of Megan McCain–the politically irrelevant and vacuous headed daughter of John McCain– by the left-leaning media to continue the push for the Republican Party to move left?

The gulf between conservatism and the current ideology of the Democratic Party is not bridgeable with a Republican big tent. The gulf between the two parties has advanced daily since Obama took office, and will expand as long as there is a Democratic majority that is, currently and heavy handedly, meting large doses of fascism as a means of governing, and a Republican minority that believes in a Republic form of government faithful to the Constitution this country was founded upon. The Republican Party is not in need of the likes of Colin Powell, and proved it with the sound thrashing that John McCain received, with the aid of defectors, in the election.

The problem with the Republican Party is not its ideology, as Powell and others would have you believe, but rather how the party has failed to adhere to its values, present those values in an inclusive manner to potential party members, and present an exemplary leader–thus rendering the party leaderless. McCain proved during the presidential election, that shifting the Republican ideology, wandering around aimlessly within the political spectrum, is not what the American people seek. They seek leadership, and McCain and the Republican Party have better demonstrated their lack of that attribute. This manifested itself this week when Obama went head-to-head against Dick Cheney regarding his changing of the Bush/Cheney national security policies; Obama was handily bested by substance over style. Cheney’s favorable ratings have risen significantly since reasserting himself on the national stage regarding national security, and for substantive reasons.

There is a quantifiable political recalibration since the implementation of Obama’s policies, which has left many, including Democrats, quite startled. For the first time in 15 years, the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life;  49% of Americans disagree with Obama’s closing Guantanamo Bay, while only 39% agree with him; California’s tax increase initiative was soundly defeated last week by voters; states are asserting their 10th Amendment rights; California voters rejected gay marriage; Iran is taunting the U.S. with their unfettered nuclear development; North Korea tested a nuclear bomb, and has test fired a flurry of missiles since; Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic Party after becoming unelectable as a Republican; and Nancy Pelosi demonstrated, by calling the CIA liars without substantiation, how devoid of character the Democratic leadership is with her comically bizarre behavior.

With the incipient trend embracing traditional conservative principles, Americans, including disenfranchised minority groups, will vote for a traditional Republican Party–executive and legislative–if presented with a compelling leader that will honor the party’s principles, implement the principles, and adhere to the principles.

No, Mr. Powell, the Republican Party does not need you, nor your disregard for Republican principles. Your set of values are being rejected by the people and the states; and the Republican tent may not be as big as the Democrat tent, but what it lacks in size, it can, if its principles are followed, it makes up in character.

After the official suspension of the stimulus package, DeMint confidently presented a surprise guest speaker to bolster and validate this new information, and assist with the implementation of his overhauled spending package. As the surprise speaker emerged from the shadows, the chamber erupted with audible interjections of gasps of varying severity. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner approached the podium in an unprecedented move of parliamentary malfeasance, but was accepted with murmured indignation. Geitner beseeched the Democrats of the Senate to stop their murmuring and let him plead his case. Geitner pleaded with the Democrats of the Senate to please pay their taxes, all of them, plus interest. He said he would wave all penalties if compliance happened within a fortnight. The booing and jeering from the left side of the chamber was deafening. Once the sergeant at arms had restored order, Geitner implored the Democrats to listen to what DeMint had to say, as it could very well salvage America’s economy.

DeMint took the podium and promptly started his presentation with the use of Power Point. He quelled the cacophony by projecting on the screen a potential revenue windfall dollar amount that would rival most civilized countries’ GNP. The digits that danced on the screen bordered the fantastical because of their colossal profundity. DeMint introduced to the Senate the team responsible for the aggregation of numbers: Dr. Kyle Russell, Director of Domestic Economic Policy at the Tenzing Institute of Economics, David January, professor emeritus of the Harvard School of Statistics, Dean Jarse, head of the Internal Revenue Service’s Tax Fraud, Statistics, and Probability of Fraud department. With mathematical certainty, using highly specific and sophisticated algorithms, probability formulas and theory, and some recently discovered venerable probability formulas of Pascal, the brain trust came to the following conclusions:

The stimulus plan, as it stands, is $884 billion of taxpayer money. According to sophisticated formulas, if the tax records of Obama and his entire cabinet and staff were to be audited, and the estimated taxes owed paid, that would net the government between $2.4-$2.6 billion; if the entire congressional Democrats were subjected to the same regimen, it would net between $275-$300 billion; if all former Democrat congressional members as far back as the IRS’s statute of limitations reach, were subjected to the same regimen, that would net between $325-$342 billion; if every state’s Democrat congressional members, present and former, within the statute of limitation, were subjected to the same regimen, that would net between $475-$500 billion. The total net that the government could potentially gain could be upwards of $1.1 trillion, an astounding $300 billion more than the proposed taxpayer plan that Obama has inveigled the hapless legislators with.

When asked how he came up with the idea of auditing all Democrats, Jim Demit said, “After a closer examination of the tax filings of Charlie Rangel, Nancy Killefer, Timothy Geitner, and Tom Daschle, it became apparent that they had constructed their own IRS form, the 1040DEM (see below); and also overhearing Tom Daschle and Charlie Rangel asking Sen. John Cornyn to again remind them why Americans get stressed on April 15th. The Democrats have been perpetuating this fraudulent form since early in the Clinton administration. When the information was converted from the 1040DEM to the 1040 that the rest of us have been using, Rangel’s, Killefer’s, Geitner’s, and Daschle’s back taxes were .01 of the GNP. And that got me to thinking….”

.

Barack Obama and the media’s obsession with comparing him to Lincoln has breached the boundaries of healthy and wishful comparisons and has evolved into a cultish display of disturbing rhetoric of pathological mania and obsession with an intellectually dishonest rendition of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama.

Not only has Obama chosen to use the same Bible as Lincoln did for his swearing in, eating the same food at the inauguration, he also intends to arrive in Washington, just as Lincoln did in 1861, via train. Obama plans on stopping along the way to deliver speeches, as Lincoln did.

Lincoln and Obama do have a few authentic similarities that can be legitimately compared. Lincoln was a man; Obama is a man. Lincoln was a politician from Illinois; Obama is a politician from Illinois. Neither was born there. Lincoln became president from Illinois; Obama will become president from Illinois. And that is where the similarities end.

Ensuing is a truncated list of the differences between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln:

Lincoln was white. Obama is black. This is significant as Obama ran a campaign based on race, and his acolytes reinforced the point throughout the campaign.

Obama is an ideologue. Lincoln was not.

Obama was educated at the Punahou School in Hawaii- Hawaii’s elite preparatory school. He then attended Columbia University, and capped off his educational career at Harvard Law School. Lincoln, in contrast, was primarily self-educated, having spent only a few years in a one room school house–he taught himself law. Obama is a product of educational privilege while Lincoln was a product of educational fortitude.

Lincoln was a Republican. The party that freed the slaves. Obama is a Democrat. The party that resisted the freedom of slaves. The party that created the Jim Crowe laws. The party of the KKK. etc! etc! etc!

While Obama and his apologists take great pleasure in comparing Obama’s oratory skills to Lincoln’s, the comparison is vacant hyperbole. Obama is a slickly produced media creation who works to perfection if well prepared with the aid of a teleprompter, preparation, a staff of writers, a controlled environment, and void of antagonists. The scene must be orchestrated to succeed. His speeches are cinematically faultless while being void of substance. Obama resisted town hall type debates during his campaign, as he proved time and again when not working off a script, he was an abject failure when pressed for substance, resulting in a oratory breakdown. Lincoln, on the other hand, was an inferior speaker at best. Lincoln was a controlling force in small informal debates of substance. What set him apart, and propelled his political career, was the substance of his speeches, which he wrote himself. Lincoln succeeded in speeches not for the way he spoke, but what he said. Obama has succeeded by not what he says, but the delivery. Unfortunately, for Obama, the world is not a controlled sound stage.

Lincoln would have rivaled George Bush for being reviled while in office, for the very reasons that formulate the foundation of disdain that Obama and the left have for Bush.

Lincoln was a realist and had a well honed skill for the realities facing the nation. Obama has a history of demonstrated ignorance of the realities facing this nation, as he and the left apparently believe all problems can be solved through fantasy.

Lincoln compared himself to no one. Obama started comparing himself to Lincoln as a Junior State Senator from Illinois.

Lincoln’s America was a nation where “all men are created equal”. Obama’s America is a nation where he will make you an equal with someone else’s money if you choose not to take advantage of being “created equal”.

The most prominent difference between Obama and Lincoln, and most conspicuous, is the ideological difference between the two, in the measures the President of this country should or should not take to protect this nation. Lincoln’s actions mirrored Bush’s, only to a greater extreme. With Congress not in session, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland. He had previously suspended civil law in places he thought it would be detrimental to the North. When the criticism of the suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland grew, he fought back by suspending habeas corpus throughout the entire nation. He had his critics arrested. Lincoln threatened that anyone who used “disloyal practices” would be subjected to martial law. He also closed down all opposition newspapers. When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Taney, ruled against Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for him.

Ironically, while Obama and the liberals have been busy comparing him to Lincoln, they have been reduced to hand wringing and teeth gnashing by the actions of Bush after 9/11. Bush’s transgressions: not granting habeas corpus to captured enemies of this country held on foreign soil, the running of water up their noses to get vital information to protect this country, and warrantless wiretaps to try to ferret out any presentable threats to this country. The audacity, indeed!

Had Lincoln, the one whom Obama has a pathological obsession of counterfeiting, been President in the aftermath of 9/11, one could have expected much worse than water run up the noses of terrorists to gather intelligence if it meant preventing another 9/11; You could expect all the left wing media to be shut down; You could expect a gaggle of liberal nut cases arrested and denied their precious habeas corpus; You could expect much more aggressive intelligence gathering than benign warrantless wiretaps. You could expect the state of California to under martial law. What an ironically precarious corner Obama is standing in–if Lincoln had adopted Obama’s policies–you could reasonably expect the capital of this country to currently be sitting in Gettysburg.

To clarify the introductory quote at the beginning, Lincoln stated this concerning the Civil War: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

Lincoln, much to the chagrin of the left and half-witted historians and educators who teach a politically correct version of history, went to war to preserve a nation, not to free the slaves. The South went to war to preserve their rights, and keeping their slaves was one of these rights.

Lincoln, believed to be great president, broke laws for the sake of saving this country. Lincoln’s actions to hold this country together run antithetical to Obama’s belief of how far a president should go to protect this nation. Lincoln governed during a dirty, unstable, and defining moment in this country’s history, and governed with equal action and agility–just as did Bush. Lincoln had much more in common with George Bush than Barack Obama, the latter with whom he shares no thread of significant commonality.

To know anything factually about Lincoln, one would know how detestable he would find Barack Obama’s ideology, and with the $150 million spend on inauguration parties encompassing the Lincoln Memorial this weekend, while the country is economically adrift and at war, it would not be too farfetched to expect a tear roll down the check of the Lincoln Memorial.

Walking the same path of a man does not make you that man’s equal in character, nor does it give you the right to compare yourself to that man by merely staring at his footprints and following them–the two men may end up at the same place, but rarely the same destination, or share the same experiences along the path.

California is a Blue State; Texas is a Red State. California is broke; Texas has an eleven billion dollar surplus. California is ultra-liberal; Texas is conservative. California abuses its citizens with asphyxiating personal income taxes. Texas’ Constitution prohibits the levying of income tax on its citizens. California spends more money than it has. Texas spends less money than it has. One of these two states is governed by moral order, and supported by a moral majority of voters founded on conservative principles, the other is an example of a state governed by abject immorality, supported by like minded voters, funded by the state coffers, and fueled by chaos. Texas has brought and maintained order to chaos, but California has allowed it’s order to decay back into chaos. Order versus chaos generally produces a very predictable winner.

This is generalizing as there are pockets of moral activism and conservatism in California, and conversely, there are pockets of immoral activism and liberalism in Texas.

California, along with other states that prescribe the citizenry to support a socialist state, is archetypal of what an Obama administration and a Democrat-led Congress will wreak on the rest of the country, regardless of the moderate cabinet picks that Obama has made thus far. The moderate cabinet picks are irrelevant to Obama’s big picture on policy, as noted by a quote from Obama on the Ohio.com website: ” But understand, I will be setting policy as president. I will be responsible for the vision that this team carries out, and I will expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made.’” Obama, and the Democrats in Congress, are economic parasites. A parasite does not benefit from a sick host, and America is in the clutches of an economic malaise. But once the infirmed condition of the commonwealth has passed, the parasites will begin leaching off the successful like vampires in the night.

California has disclosed that it has a $16 billion budget deficit. The state is posturing for a bailout from the federal government.

California has an extremely hostile business environment. California is witnessing an exodus of businesses to other states,especially its border state Nevada, and Texas, which do not have an oppressive business tax and counter productive regulations to slog through while trying to operate. California charges businesses, in addition to federal taxes, around 10% for capital gains, franchise taxes, and corporate income tax. Businesses have to suffer through despotic environmental regulations, capital extracting worker’s compensation laws, a ridiculously burdensome inventory tax, and high labor cost.

Bain & Co conducted a survey of businesses in California and concluded that ..“60% of California business leaders interviewed for the study said they have policies to restrict job growth in the state or move jobs to other locations in the United States. About 40% said their companies have an explicit policy to move jobs elsewhere in the United States, with Texas cited as the most frequent destination.”

That is the business side. California’s personal income tax is as follows:

For single and married taxpayers filing separately:

• 1 percent on the first $6,827 of taxable income
• 2 percent on taxable income between $6,828 and $16,186
• 4 percent on taxable income between $16, 187 and $25,546
• 6 percent on taxable income between $25,547 and $35,463
• 8 percent on taxable income between $35,464 and $44,818
• 9.3 percent on taxable income of $44,819 and above. A 1 percent surcharge is collected on taxable incomes of $1 million or more, making California’s highest marginal rate 10.3 percent.

Compared to Texas’ personal income tax rate of:

• 0 percent on the first $6,827 of taxable income
• 0 percent on taxable income between $6,828 and $16,186
• 0 percent on taxable income between $16, 187 and $25,546
• 0 percent on taxable income between $25,547 and $35,463
• 0 percent on taxable income between $35,464 and $44,818
• 0 percent on taxable income of $44,819 and above. A 0 percent surcharge is collected on taxable incomes of $1 million or more, making Texas’ highest marginal rate 0 percent.

As with most states with budget deficits, and the federal government’s deficit follows suit, California does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. The liberals’ chaotic thought process leads them to conclude they have a revenue problem and must raise taxes. The more ordered mind of conservatives’ leads them to conclude they have a spending problem, and need to cut costs. From a column by Brenda Higgins of nbsdfw.com –Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is also faced with the fact that he’s going to have to do something he’s vowed not to: Raise taxes. Branch (Rep. Dan Branch of Dallas (R) ) said that won’t be a problem here. “Our state (Texas) taxes its residents less than any large state and the legislature has been careful to reduce spending to within population growth and inflation rates.” What is California’s plan to address the budget deficit? It is to further drive the tax base out of the state. Liberals just don’t get it. If California comes to the federal government for a hand out, they should be treated just as the auto industry should be treated–present a structurally sound remedy to change the situation before any money is doled out, and raising taxes is not a structurally sound remedy.

California, along with other ultra-liberal states, cannot sustain their socialistic schemes, as there is a terminal velocity to the amount of revenue a state can bring in and spend, and keep the scales balanced.

Texas has done a pretty good job of keeping the parasites at bay–California, not so much.

]]> http://www.jimbyrd.com/what-does-california-have-in-common-with-texas/feed 5 http://www.jimbyrd.com/the-nth-reason-the-media-is-irrelevant http://www.jimbyrd.com/the-nth-reason-the-media-is-irrelevant#comments Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:15:32 +0000 jimbyrd http://www.jimbyrd.com/?p=1094 Going green. Saving energy. Businesses, corporations, individuals, all going green. No industry has exemplified the saving of energy quite like the media. The New York Times columnist, Gail Collins, Good Morning America’s host, Kate Snow, and the Detroit Free Press’ Rochelle Riley are classic examples of how a publication can still produce content, sans relevance, with close to zero energy expended in their journalistic endeavors. These three human journalistic power plants have demonstrated that they can operate on almost zero cranial energy to produce their compositions. These three media outlets have also discovered that if you employ journalists with very small cerebral engines, minuscule power is used to power them, and they are still able to produce product of equal merit. This is in stark contrast to the amount of energy used to operate cerebral engines such as a Christopher Hitchens, George Will, or God knows how much power it took to operate William F. Buckley’s engine. Great minds, but too much energy used. Go green!

Let us peruse, with baited intellect, the type of content that was produced by these three icons of journalistic greenness this past week with the use of 1/1000th of a brain’s capacity.

Gail Collins, the perennial dolt of the New York Times and the dimmest bulb in their warehouse, is calling for an usurping of the Constitution, and the systematic dismantling of governmental protocol concerning the transition from one presidential administration to another. She is appealing for an ad hoc puppet regime with Obama at the helm; Kate Snow, from the Fort Knox of erudition, the Good Morning America show, is calling for a coup d’état before Obama is sworn in by having him, effectively, take over the government–post haste; and Rochelle Riley, Detroit’s genius in a bottle, is calling for the impeachment of Bush with less than two months before his leaving office.

Gail Collins stated in her column in the Times:

Putting Barack Obama in charge immediately isn’t impossible. Dick Cheney, obviously, would have to quit as well as Bush. In fact, just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate, but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until Jan. 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama could begin governing.

As a bonus, the Pelosi presidency would put a woman in the White House this year after all. On the downside, a few right-wing talk-show hosts might succumb to apoplexy. That would, of course, be terrible, but I’m afraid we might have to take the risk in the name of a greater good.

Kate Snow, while interviewing Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, asked what might qualify as one of the dumbest questions ever asked:

You write a lot in your columns about a power vacuum in these last couple of months of the Bush administration. How concerned are you about that? Do you think President-elect Obama should be doing something now, urgently, as far as forcing policy change?

Rochelle Riley, squawking from the one city and state that has been in a depression era type tailspin for the past ten years, which can be directly related to liberal economic policies, has called for the immediate impeachment of President Bush in her column. Perhaps she wants to see how far and how fast her city and state can still fail:

For economy’s sake, Pelosi needs to push for impeachment now

So reads the headline of her column. But she is not your garden variety dunce, as she has a back up plan if Bush is not impeached. She believes that if impeachment is started, by a Congress that will only be in session a little over a week until after the first of the year, that,

If Congress moves quickly and forces the president to focus on impeachment, then he won’t have so much time to push through last-minute regulatory changes that will continue to hurt our country and our ideals. He already has pushed deregulation that would allow employers to talk directly with employees’ doctors and allow power companies to build polluting facilities close to national parks.

Anyone worried that our congressional representatives can’t tie their shoes and chew gum at the same time, or cannot focus on the economic crisis and impeachment hearings at the same time, will find that many answers to our economic and global defense problems will come from those hearings.

The only question I have for Nancy Pelosi is this: What are we waiting for?

While searching for a pithy and quasi pontificating summary to this article, I could not best the powerful one line statement by a one, Tonya Payne. I could not have summarized the shear ignorance in the preceding news articles more profoundly than Pittsburgh City Councilwomen Tonya Payne, by using her powers of shear ignorance, after the council voted by a 6-1 margin to approve an unconstitutional gun law for the city of Pittsburgh. After being warned that the law was unconstitutional and would end up in the courts, Payne said, “Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?”

John McCain is not a traditional conservative, nor should he be taken seriously as one, he is what we, the conservative voters, were presented with. But he will be the only one of the two candidates that will preserve the principles this country was founded upon. Sadly, this is a vote for preservation rather than a vote for direction.

Sarah Palin is an unknown. She is more conservative than John McCain, and seems, according to her record, less likely to stray from conservative principles than McCain. Of the four candidates on the ticket, she is the only one with a proven, albeit short, track record of actually implementing change, rather than just using it as a political talking point. The voters who fear her ascending to the presidency cannot articulate one reasonable example of what she is capable of doing that would frighten them–unless the voter is on the left, and fears morality and principles in a Commander in Chief –then they should shake with fear.

As with Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, below you will be presented with the Ghost of Obama Past, the Ghost of Obama Present, and the Ghost of Obama Yet to Come.

ACORN and all the voter fraud and Mafioso tactics they have used to undermine our elections processes, and their part in the collapse of the financial markets.

William Ayers a domestic terrorist and Obama’s friend.

Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist with the only difference between him and Ayers being he was more successful at terrorism.

Jeremiah Wright the anti-American, hate mongering pastor who stated, among other things, “God Damn America”, that is/was Obama and his wife’s pastor for 15 years.

Tony Rezko the recently convicted felon who used millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money, given to him by Obama, to build sub-standard housing for the poor that had to be condemned after just a few years. And who also just so happened to be involved in finding Obama’s mansion at a very reduced price across the street from him, and helping Obama procure part of the lot next door that his wife just so happened to own.

Karl Marx author of the Communist Manifesto, and an like Obama was, against capitalism.

Michelle Obama and her heavily documented anti-American, not being proud of this country, deportment–and a separatist ideology in the stead of the droning mantra of “a uniter” by Obama.

Morality will be supplanted by immorality at the executive level, reinforced at the Congressional level, and quite possible a majority at the Supreme Court.

Honor will be replaced with dishonor.

Socialism and all the harm it can do to a capitalist society.

Defeatism would be the United States disposition in regard to foreign policy.

Defenseless against a nuclear missile attack from foreign powers with Obama’s cutting off of funding and dismantling of the Missile Defense Shield.

Weak Military during an ever evolving nuclear world by cutting spending to the military.

Hate being the fuel of the left in their opposition to the other side.

Far Left Radicals of any group or organization.

Exodus of Businesses leaving the U.S. due to an increasingly hostile environment.

Wall Street Financial Crisis perpetuated by the very Democrats that caused it.

Guaranteed Recession

Louis Farrakhan

Nancy Pelosi

Harry Reid

Racism

Infanticide

Divisiveness

Higher Taxes

Higher unemployment

Incessant Lying becoming the new dialog for America.

Constitution no longer relevant.

Bill of Rights no longer relevant.

Congress and its continued spiral into the abyss if the Democrats maintain their majority coupled with an unmitigated Socialist in the White House.

This is the package you are voting for when you vote for Obama. You can’t vote for him for one reason and not vote for the entire list. You would be choosing to support it all, and possibly other unnamed aberrations that come as the Obama package.

The Democrat party, it’s sycophants and the far left blogosphere who control the strings and the cash, have become a dirty and unsanitary aggregation. Even their money ceaselessly proves to be dirty.

If you are a black male, living in the USA, you are going to die or go to prison–John Edwards is your only liberator from this quagmire of death and incarceration.

“We start with the president of the United States saying to America, ‘we cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating – pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

What does this make the Democrat campaign contributers and candidates? If the same self serving logic is applied that the Democrats have used to call Bill O’Reilly a racist and Rush Limbaugh anti-military and General Petraeus a liar, it qualifies anyone associated with the Democrat party as a racist, a murderer and an incarcerater of Black men.

Hillary Clinton raised 29 million dollars in the third quarter. Barack Obama and John Edwards raised 19 million and 7 million respectively. So the Democrat constituents who contributed to the campaigns of Clinton and Obama, instead of Edwards, are perpetuating the death and incarceration of Black males by not contributing to Edwards– thus denying him the opportunity to bring about the salvation of the Black community.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are killing and incarcerating Black males by proxy for not conceding the nomination to Edwards immediately so St. John can get started with the salvation of doomed Black males.

Nancy Pelosi thinks the above picture, promoting the Folsom Street Fair in San Fransisco, depicting Christ and his disciples as homosexuals and perverts at the Last Supper, complete with sex toys instead of drink and food is A-OK.

Asked to respond to a San Francisco “gay”-festival’s promo mocking the Last Supper of Jesus Christ, the chief spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a dismissive quip.

“As a Catholic, the speaker is confident that Christianity has not been harmed,” said Drew Hammill, the San Francisco Democrat’s press secretary.

Not only is Pelosi a major supporter of homosexual activism and advancement, she is set to receive an award Oct. 6 from the “gay rights” group Human Rights Campaign.

Pelosi’s religious dissoluteness has no boundaries:

The fair that Pelosi supports, features the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a homosexual group describing itself as “21st century nuns for the queer” that mocks Catholicism.

The “Sisters’ planned a “Last Supper” last night in preparation for the San Francisco fair: “There is no better way to prepare your mortal flesh for the kinkiest weekend on Earth than to nourish your bones and boost your spirit with a divine feast.

Yet after throwing her abundant support behind one of the most sacrilegious and anti-Christian events imaginable, she does an about face and calls Bush and states she is, “praying for him and praying that he would change his mind and sign the bill”, which expands a federal insurance program by $35 billion over five years, far in excess of Bush’s own proposal.

What god is she praying to? After her impious attitude concerning the sacrilegious depiction of the Last Supper and support of Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence , perhaps she is praying to Baal.

There was a Democrat presidential debate in New Hampshire last week. It was moderated by Tim Russert. One of the questions he asked the front runners was whether or not they would be comfortable with the book King and King being taught to their children in a second grade curriculum. The book is a controversial book taught to second graders in Massachusetts. The book is about the same sex marriage of two princes that fall in love.

John Edwards, the savior of Black men, answered with this:

Edwards answered “yes–I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they’re faced with every single day of their lives.” Edwards said, “He doesn’t want to influence his kid’s opinions about the issue.”

Obama answered with this:

His sentiments are similar to those of Edwards, and, when asked whether he’d sat down to talk about same-sex marriage with his young daughters, he replied that his wife had.

Clinton answered it as only a Clinton could, with a non-answer and absolutely no implication of a commitment to any line of thinking:

“With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion,” Clinton said. “Obviously, it is better to try to … help your children understand the many differences that are in the world. … And that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.”

Not one candidate had an objection to teaching same sex marriage to second graders in public schools. These candidates are always mindful of the radical left-wing bloggers who control their party and it’s money. They did an exemplary job of appeasing their money makers on this subject.

MIAMI, Florida- A tiny baby girl born at just over five months has defied medical expectations by surviving, in a case that reinforces arguments against gestational abortion laws, the Daily Mail reported earlier today.

Amillia Taylor was born at a Miami hospital one month earlier than the date considered viable for most babies, at just 21 weeks and six days gestation. She weighed less than 10 oz and was just nine ½ inches long.

Intrauterine cranial decompression and intact dilation and extraction, or as it is commonly known, partial birth abortion, is permitted up to the 24th week. Amillia Taylor was born at 21 week. She recently celebrated her 7 month birthday. Who believes it would have been acceptable to have aborted her at 21 weeks? Who has perpetuated this procedure and would have had no inclination to stop this baby from having her body pulled out of the womb, except for the head– a pair of scissors jammed into the back of her head then a suction catheter inserted into her skull and the her brains sucked out causing her skull to collapse.

The three front runners for the Democrat party believes this is acceptable.

Hillary Clinton commenting on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling to uphold the 2003 federal ban on partial-birth abortion:

This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account.

It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

John Edwards, the savior of Black men, commenting on the same Supreme Court ruling:

I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.

Barack Obama on the same Supreme Court ruling, except his wife has turned partial birth abortion into a fund raising opportunity:

I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.

I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the “alarming news” that “right-wing politicians” had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.

Michelle Obama called partial-birth abortion “a legitimate medical procedure,” and wouldn’t supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against “cynical ploys” to stop it?

And lastly, Hillary Clinton went in the shop for scheduled maintance and had the newest laughter software added. She showcased it last Sunday on the talk show circuit.
Hillary Clinton Showcasing Her New Laughter Software

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o72Cq7AgjSQ

Well, there you have it. These staunch and gallant defenders of morality have raised the bar for decency and if any of them are elected, I am sure they will lead the country down the path it deserves.

After a two week hiatus the View has returned. While the hosts were out, it is rather obvious they had surgery. At some point their brains may have been trying to regrow gray matter and they had it surgically removed. They must be required to undergo a CT scan twice a year by the network. The CT scan must have revealed some regrowth of gray matter. Now this surgery has a financial link. If they came back on the show and showed a semblance of intelligence then they would be at risk of losing their core audience. This would have catastrophic monetary consequences for them personally and for the network.

Whoopi Goldberg was the guest host. In order get her intelligence on par with the regulars, she had to sit in the green room and watch two hours of highlights of The View featuring Rosie O’Donnell. This is guaranteed to temporarily drop an IQ to around 72. On their return they decided to flex their collective intellectual might by discussing the Scooter Libby sentence commutation. They are a week late and few billion brain cells short of adding anything of any substance to the subject. It is yesterday’s news.

Here are a few highlights of their chatter on the subject:

• JOY BEHAR: Paris got more time than “Scooter” Libby. He got no time
• WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Don’t get me started about “Scooter.”
• GOLDBERG: But they’re supposed to, they’re supposed to wait.
• HASSELBECK: What about Clinton’s pardons? You don’t-
• BEHAR: It’s ancient history. We’re talking about now.

If you read the whole transcript, they debated the facts of the case and the constitutionality of the commutation. They did not get one fact correct concerning the issue. They apparently never read Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution but wanted to share their interpretation of it. Even the token conservative and former reality show star, Elizabeth Hasslelbeck, was unable to defend Bush’s decision on Scooter Libby’s sentence commutation because she does not understand the facts and is incapable of getting them straight.

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.

To hear these nitwitted windbags talk about 9/11 and the Iraqi war or any serious subject matter is akin to listening to preschoolers debate quantum physics. I apologize in advance to any preschoolers I may have offended by the comparison.

And if you want the buy one get one free deal, just read Rosie O’Donnell’s blog. Guaranteed to leave you marginally stupid, depending on how smart you were to start with, for at least 45 minutes. And if you read the comments of her supporters, you can add another 45 minutes to it. Rosie O’Donnell truly is the apostle of the ignorant.

And if you genuinely want to super size it, just read the immigration bill that is presently in the Senate that President Bush is trying to force feed the American public. It may not leave you stupid but will at the very least leave you in a state of bewilderment. It will make you wonder if rather than a dirty bomb, a stupid bomb was detonated inside the Beltway.

Bill Clinton has been called the first black President of United States. George Bush is certainly determined to become the first Mexican President of the United States.