I just watched one of the most frightening videos I have seen yet on You-Tube. I watched children singing hymns to Obama, the Leader. Parents sat dumb in admiration of the miracle of this music. To me, it was terrifying.

It made me think of the children in China who worshipped Chairman Mao and learned scripture from his little red book of sayings. It reminded me that Obama has already said that we have a lot to learn from China. If we are not careful, if we don’t stand up and vote in droves for constitutional government, then this is our future. Hymns to Obama. State banks holding all the money which is doled out to us and then ripped away in taxes to feed the socialist programs that are shared among us.

And don’t forget lines. A long line in front of the only store in town to receive toilet paper from the government distribution center. Five year plans which will lead to ever more equal distribution of the poverty in which all of us will live. Cooperative farms that won’t grow anything, because who cares. Cooperative factories that will produce nothing or junk, and it won’t much matter which.

I can’t tell you how horrifying it was to see that little choir of children in blue t-shirts with the word “Hope” on the front. I love children, and I hope in God. I don’t like to see children exploited for political purposes, and I know that Obama is not God. I’m not so sure the people in that room know it. I saw a lot of indication that Obama is truly regarded by those people as a Messiah, just as Chairman Mao was regarded by the Red Chinese. Ask the people on Taiwan, however, how they felt about him.

Do we want China here? Do we want the Soviet Union? Do we even want Scandinavia, a socialist paradise which is just discovering that people who don’t work produce nothing to support the economy that is supposed to give them everything? If we believe in a government that operates the way our Constitution is written, we had better speak up. We had better get busy and vote for McCain. He may not be a perfect president, but he is not a socialist. We have two choices, and one of them is a complete socialist. Obama is committed to socialist principles. Read his own issue statements, and you can verify it for yourself. So, if you don’t want a socialist country, you need to vote for McCain.

I believe that McCain will be a great president. I believe that Sarah Palin will be an exceptionally good vice president. I believe we will be really glad if we elect them. I guarantee we will rue the day if we elect Obama president, and if we do that, it might be the last election in which we ever have a choice. The Democrats have predicted Armageddon, and they may be right. If you want to win the battle of Armageddon, you need to vote for McCain.

As I read the daily announcements of bank disasters, mortgage crises, foreclosures and plunging house prices, I also read political diatribes which attribute the problem to the president and a failed fiscal policy. Hogwash!

Neither the president nor any presidential policy is responsible for this problem. The problem is due to lack of character in all participants in transactions related to the purchase of houses. A lot of people demonstrated greed, poor judgment, and lack of integrity, and the result is a really big mess. The president is not responsible for such behavior.

Some people look at the mess, and they conclude that we need more regulation. Others look at the mess, and they conclude that the government should take over the whole industry. A variety of opinions cover the gamut of options. Opinions vary, but most of the opinions say in one way or another that the government is the cause and the government is the solution. How can that be?

The sad truth is that a lot of people on both sides of lending transactions engaged in speculation, fueled by greed, managed without integrity. Now the smoke has cleared, the mirrors have shattered, and the truth is out. People should not borrow more than they can pay for, and wise lenders should not let that happen.

But there is more. Lenders were only temporarily inconvenienced by a reduction in cash. They sold the loans to others. By the time the loans had been resold and repackaged and redefined several times over, the borrower was indebted to someone he had never met, the owner of the loan was completely ignorant of the original transaction, and everyone along the path had scarfed up some profit. Everybody, including the borrower, made a considered bet that house values would increase forever.

Enter the equity loan. Borrower with a mortgage now has equity in his house. He wants a finer car or better furniture or a vacation in France. Not satisfied with lending money on questionable properties to high-risk borrowers, the lending industry filled the airwaves with invitations to borrow up to 125% of the equity in a house to spend on anything whatsoever. This strategy, too, was a bet that house values would only increase, never decrease. Borrower and lender alike made this risky bet.

And it wasn’t enough that twenty-somethings with student loans and new jobs on glowing career paths were engaged in these bets. The Congress, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that there could be no denying loans to risky borrowers buying risky property. Congress bought a lot of votes by declaring that “red-lining” was over. Lenders were obligated to help risky borrowers buy risky properties; it was the American dream, and Congress was here to make it happen. Our caretakers socked it to the American people again. And the fake businesses created by Congress to preside over this largesse, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, socked it to us as well.

There has been a lot of criticism of greedy capitalism run amok during the past several days. Both Obama and McCain have spoken out to say what they think the government in a new administration should do about the situation. I see it differently. It seems to me that there has been entirely too much government involvement already. The government created a mechanism that guaranteed that bad loans would be covered. Then the government created a rule that guaranteed that bad loans would be made. Now, the government is trying to guarantee that the guarantors do not fail.

Get the government out of this business. Our government has no business trying to administer and guarantee the mortgage and finance industries. It has no business guaranteeing that when a citizen stupidly borrows more money than he can pay back in order to live in a house he cannot afford, he gets off, the lender gets off, and I pay. This is wrong, on a cosmic scale.

What we need is some very old-fashioned backbone, someone who will deny credit when it ought to be denied. We need lenders who will actually determine with skill that a borrower is a good risk for a loan, and we need for the government to get out of the way when the lender says NO. We need borrowers who will exercise common sense and purchase houses they can actually afford, and borrowers with the character to keep their commitments to pay, even when it is hard. We need for the government not to steal from honest people who have no debt and pay all their bills on time in order to prop up people who let greed and ego sucker them into house purchases, or loan purchases, or repackaged mortgage instruments of questionable value.

We, the people of the United Stated, do not need a caretaker government. We need a government, in a nation where government is of, by and for the people, with character to do the right thing, not the thing that buys votes.

When I was a little girl, I believed that a preacher had a special pipeline to God. After all, after we put our offerings in the collection plate at church, who else was going to hand those offerings personally to God? I was a little put out when I learned later that actual people, human beings, counted the offering, put it in the bank, and wrote checks just like the ones Mother wrote at the grocery store.

However, I never lost the sense that an ordained minister must be something special. I still feel that way. I know that my pastor is human. I know he is fallible. I know that he is a sinner just as I am. Nevertheless I think he is special, called by God for work that many people could not do, and compelled by God to be a spokesman for heavenly truth. I listen to my pastor intently, because I expect him to enlighten me about God’s truth in ways I have not discovered by myself. My experience with most pastors confirms my expectations. I grow as a Christian by listening to my pastor and applying his messages in my life. I find confirmation in the Bible of the truths my pastor teaches, and I understand the Bible better because of my pastor’s messages.

My personal life is different, because of what I learn from my pastors. I listen to pastors and use what I learn to help me make decisions. When I am challenged on a moral or ethical question, the process of making a decision includes consideration of many things I learned by listening to my pastor. When I am embroiled in family issues and career challenges, my approach to the solutions is informed by things I learned from sermons. Even when I think about who should be president, I consider issues my pastor has brought up in sermons. I truly believe that a pastor has a calling to speak out on many issues and help us understand the relevant biblical teachings.

I do not believe that my pastor ought to endorse a candidate for president.

First, I do not believe that any pastor has received a message from God that one candidate or another is God’s choice. I am certain that every pastor has his own idea about that, but I don’t believe that God is dispensing a message for pastors to give on that subject. If he were, then every pastor would get the same message. That isn’t happening.

Second, I believe that pastors have personal political agendas just like me. I believe that they desire government to have particular qualities, just like any other citizen, and among the set of all pastors, there are many, many agendas.

Above all, I believe that every candidate is flawed. I have yet to see the candidate with no skeletons in the closet. Every candidate, like all other human beings, has made unwise choices. Every candidate has made really bad decisions. Every candidate has spoken and misspoken and tripped over his tongue and tripped over his desire not to offend and wallowed in an attempt not to say exactly the truth. Every candidate is a sinful person who wants to be president for some ignoble reasons along with the noble sense of calling to serve the people. My pastor will not be able to select a candidate that anyone will believe is perfect in God's eyes.

Therefore, I don’t want my pastor endorsing any candidate. I will sit quiet while my pastor says that he believes our nation should do more for the poor, even though I believe that my church helps the poor in more powerful ways than the government does. I will sit quiet while my pastor says that he believes all wars are evil, no matter how noble it might be to attack on behalf of enslaved people. I will sit quiet while my pastor berates an economic system that does not penalize the people in high places who make the decisions which cause ordinary people to lose their jobs. These issues are fair game, and the pastor’s insights as a man of God are valuable to me. However, my pastor, beloved as he is, cannot possibly know the right man for me to vote for. I don’t expect him to know, and I refuse to believe that he knows. I will not sit still in my church and listen while my pastor endorses any political candidate.

It isn’t about church and state, either. It is about the calling of the pastor. Even the apostle Paul did not try to tell people who ought to be in charge politically. He told people to pray for the Roman emperor, and so far, none of our candidates could possibly be as heartless and disconnected from the needs of the people as any Roman emperor. I believe that my pastor has the obligation to teach me God’s truth and help me make personal decisions with character, integrity and wisdom from God. I do not believe that he knows who ought to be president with any greater authority than I do. I don’t ask him who to marry or what job to apply for or which bank to use. I absolutely will not ask him who I should vote for in the presidential election.

After the applause died down in Minneapolis, the press and the Obama campaign picked their jaws up off the floor, and the first words out of their mouths were “middle class.” They complained that this phrase did not occur even once in Sarah Palin's speech.

They were right. Sarah Palin spoke to the Republican convention and millions viewing by television for more than twenty minutes and she never used the words “middle class.” In fact, she did not mention any class whatsoever. You would think that she believes we are all equal. If you listen to Sarah Palin speak, you will conclude quickly that she does not know what the “classes” of our society are. If Rick Warren asks her who is rich, she might not know the definition of that class.

The media and the Obama campaign are baffled by the absence of these words. Obama promises a “middle class” tax cut. He promises to help the “middle class” and the “poorest in our society” because he has definitions. I don’t know where they are written down, but I know that somewhere in a Democrat repository of secret documents there is a set of definitions of class that is as rigid as a Hindu caste system. In Obama’s world, class is critical to success. Without a variety of classes to battle for government largesse, Obama’s political agenda falls apart.

I have been baffled by the constant Democrat references to class. When I was growing up I vividly remember our teachers telling us that America was the country where there were no classes. Everybody was born equal. Everybody could accomplish anything he had the courage to work for. My friends and I were told day after day that we could do anything. We were poor, but I only figured this out after I grew up and looked back. When I was growing up, my parents, my teachers and my local government somehow failed to tell us that we were part of the “poor class.”

In the schools I attended as a child, there were 45-50 children in each classroom. We had no air conditioning and no fans, yet I do not remember shutting down the school even one day for heat. After all, if we left school, we were all going home to houses that did not have air conditioning, either. Among my friends, many families did not own a car. Many lived in rental houses just as we did. Many of my friends wore clothes sewed by their mothers, just as I did. I even remember that my mother made my clothes with extra large seam allowances so they would accommodate more growth before they had to be replaced. It was one of many strategies she had for making do with the income my father earned. Style? We didn’t know the definition of the word. My friends and I also did not know that we were poor. I don’t remember our parents saying that we were poor. We just thought we were people, and we believed that when we grew up, we could shoot for the stars.

We lived in a classless society.

Democrats live in a society where class distinctions are critical to their political agenda, and they cannot rally people without putting them into classes. Democrats allege to believe that the reason some people have more than others is that those with more have robbed those with less. Defining the people who belong to the class of robbers and the class of the robbed is a battle that occupies a great deal of time. Proclaiming how the government will rob the robbers and reimburse the robbed is their whole platform.

John McCain, Sarah Palin and the Republicans don’t know the definitions of the classes. This is a concept that American citizens understand. We all believe in our abilities, and we all wish government would get out of the way. The Republicans have spent their whole convention introducing us to people who accomplish big things. The Republican speakers show us what people can accomplish in this country if they dream big and work hard. They could not care less what class they belong to.

Thank you, Sarah Palin, for not mentioning the middle class. It would just confuse us. We are all proud to be American. When you expressed that same view, you demonstrated the only kind of class that matters to us.

 

We all knew that this election would be a catfight if Hillary were involved. After Hillary was eliminated from contention, it seemed as if the whole process might degenerate into an “old boy” get-together, Obama’s age notwithstanding.

McCain has changed everything by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Sarah is young, energetic, and most important, Sarah is a woman. Women all over this country perked up and paid attention when Sarah invited them to “Join us.” Predictably, the abortion advocates were appalled to discover that Sarah believes in the dignity of human life, but it is truly amazing to discover the lengths they will go to in order to make Sarah Palin look bad. I thought it was disturbing when they accused Sarah of making a bad choice to give birth to a child with down syndrome. I was shocked when they accused Sarah of not getting adequate pre-natal care, thereby causing the disability. I could not even believe that they would allege that the baby was actually her daughter’s, thereby accusing Sarah of staging an elaborate cover-up. These are the people who allege to believe that people with disabilities should be mainstreamed and respected. Where is that respect now? These are the people who hand out condoms in high schools. Where is the openness to adolescent sexuality now? These are the people who screamed on national TV that Bill Clinton’s sexual adventures in the Oval Office were nobody’s business. Where is all that concern for personal life now?

It’s all about winning and losing. Liberal Democrats see Sarah for exactly what she is: a threat to the anointed one. Sarah Palin stands for everything ordinary Americans value, and she doesn’t whine.

Sarah Palin hit the public stage on the day after the end of the most over-rated spectacle in the history of American politics. The Democrat convention was a constant parade of people in tears. They sat around multiple kitchen tables wringing their hands over the sad state of affairs in the USA. They whined that life is unfair. They cried that everybody is poor. They whimpered that some get better health care than others. They mourned that unions have a hard time bludgeoning people into membership when employees are allowed to vote by secret ballot. The convention culminated in a stereotypical speech with all the usual clichés that say that the only hope for fixing the mess that is America is socialism. It was enough to drive the whole country into a deep psychological depression. People felt hopeless and worthless.

The McCain/Palin team, in rich contrast, makes people feel strong and powerful This team reminds us that we are a strong, free people, who have traditionally faced and defeated many challenges to our freedom and prosperity. The history of the USA demonstrates that a minimally-invasive government encourages free people to engage in free enterprise and produces opportunity for motivated, hard-working people to accomplish things undreamed of in other countries. The team of McCain/Palin represents this tradition.

The Democrat candidates cannot let this happen. The claws have come out in a vain attempt to destroy Sarah Palin’s credibility. For liberal politicians to invade a family’s privacy and try to make political hay out of someone’s personal life would be comical if it weren’t so despicable. It displays the complete inadequacy of their platform to inspire and motivate people.

Democrats make their case by demeaning people and making them feel needy. John McCain and Sarah Palin will win in November by honoring people and making them feel powerful.

I had a most puzzling conversation this morning. I am a conservative who votes Republican. I was talking with a liberal who usually votes Democrat. She, however, became completely disappointed in the Democrat party after Hillary’s loss in the primaries. She was most upset about the loss of her vote in the Florida primaries. She told me in June that she would be voting for McCain.

This morning, however, she has gone back home, although she does not feel at home. McCain’s choice of a running mate has sent her scurrying back to the Democrat fold, but she is still upset. Her vote was disrespected. Hillary was disrespected. However, I learned this morning that the crowning insult is that Barack Obama is not a real fulfillment of the Martin Luther King dream. Barack is not a real black man.

What? That entire coronation scene in Denver with the temple and the parade of celebrities bearing gifts was about the celebration of the MLK dream. The timing, the words. Not a real black man?

I was made to understand that since Barack Obama’s mother was white, he is not a real black. Since his father was from Kenya, his black heritage does not stretch back through the years of segregation in the US. Barack spent more time around white people when he was growing up than he spent around black people.

This notion really is amazing. A dyed-in-the-wool Democrat like my friend rejects Obama, because he is not black enough. And my friend isn’t even black!

Shocking as it seems, I believe that this issue may underlie a great deal of the Democrat disaffection with the Obama/Biden ticket. Whoever tells Obama what to say and what to do and what to wear is doing a great job of covering up the deep truth that Obama is not really black. He didn’t grow up in the hood. He never really experienced segregation. He is a great big fake.

Well, I think he is a fake, too, and I don’t really care if he is black or purple. I think John McCain needs to find a subtle and diplomatic way to recruit the Democrats like my friend who don’t feel that Obama really fulfills their hopes and dreams. The best way to tell the party what they think is to vote for a real white man.

Actually, this is all madness isn’t it. Why do we even care what a candidate’s race is? I want a candidate who will support small government, low taxes, free enterprise, and personal freedom. That is what really matters when I decide who I will vote for. The color of skin or the ancestral DNA are completely irrelevant to my choice.

A singular message has arisen from the families wringing their hands and weeping around kitchen tables across America. The message is this: The government owes its citizens a problem-free life, and Bush prevented it from doing that. I watched the parade of complaints, and I watched Barack Obama intently. Barack Obama’s acceptance speech is truly terrifying.

At the turn of the century, a lot of people in the Russian Empire believed Marx and Lenin when they said that if the working people of the world revolted against capitalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat (the working people) would be heaven on earth. They rose up en masse, toppled the empire, assassinated the royal family, and became dictators. Not long ago, the attempt by Russian Communists to promise every family a trouble-free life collapsed. It was not possible for everyone to receive healthcare, education, and good jobs when there was no engine of prosperity. Government produces nothing, and must tax those who are productive and profitable in order to have any money at all. Remove productivity and profit, and the whole system falls apart.

Barack Obama promised that under his administration, healthcare would be guaranteed for all. In the former Soviet Union, there were hospitals, built and financed by the government, and healthcare professionals who were dependent on the government for their wages. When the government had no money to pay for either infrastructure or wages, healthcare became a hit and miss proposition. The government could not afford to provide dialysis for all, so the most politically powerful got healthcare and everyone else took what was left.

Barack Obama promised that the government would assure a good education for every child. In the former Soviet Union, everyone was guaranteed an education, but the government used standardized tests at various points to determine the right education track for each citizen. The government did not operate by enabling citizens to achieve the careers they dreamed of. Rather, the government determined what it needed and who would provide that. A little girl might dream of being a ballerina, but if the government thought she would be more useful as a hotel maid, that was her destiny.

Barack Obama promised to create jobs and hang on to them. In the former Soviet Union, everyone was guaranteed a job. What a deal. No unemployment. Why, even old women could have jobs sweeping streets and picking up trash. What everyone was not guaranteed was a wage. Furthermore, nobody guaranteed that the money received as wages was worth anything. When the government had money, the wage was paid. When it had no money, the wage was not paid. Everyone was employed, but many had no income.

Is this what we want in the USA? Do we really want the government to guarantee healthcare, education and jobs? If the government takes over all those roles, how will the government get enough money to provide the promised education, pay the people in those guaranteed jobs, to build the guaranteed hospitals? Do we really want to start standing in line for toilet paper from the government-authorized shipment?

I listened to Barack Obama’s acceptance speech, and as I heard each promise, this is the image that came to mind. Barack Obama scares me, because I don’t think that even he realizes what he is leading us to. He really believes that he is called to save our country by making these impressive promises. He actually thinks he can craft programs that will deliver on the promises. I guarantee you that he cannot do it. Just look at the Soviet Union. That country was a complete laboratory for socialism. If you want to understand how a country works when government guarantees the citizens healthcare, education, and jobs then just look at the former Soviet Union.

The real lesson there is that the Soviet Union collapsed in seventy years. I would hate for the USA to spend seventy years experimenting with a concept that has already been proved to be doomed to fail. Be warned. Barack Obama cannot and will not deliver on his promises. All he can possibly do is bankrupt the country in a vain attempt to deliver. We dare not let Barack Obama win this election if we want a free and prosperous nation.

Do not ignore what the Democrat presidential candidate says. Pay close attention to Barack Obama --  the way you would pay close attention to a rattlesnake in the middle of your kitchen table.

The United States of America was founded by people who did not ask their government for much more than the freedom to take advantage of opportunities. If our Founders had acted the way Democrats act, we would all be singing “God Save the Queen” to this day.

Last night, I watched the Democrat convention starting about 6PM Eastern. I stayed with it past Hillary’s speech through a few comments. Today, thinking about what I saw and heard, I realize that the entire evening was a single long whine. The image of families sitting around the kitchen table wringing their hands was referenced in almost every speech. We were all made to believe that there is something wrong with a world in which people don’t all get what they want – the job they want, the pay they want, the healthcare they want, and so forth. It was demeaning to the human race and demeaning to the citizens of the United States. The image of humanity projected by the Tuesday evening session of the Democrat convention was one of tears and groveling before the god-like government who must run to the rescue of the hopeless ones.

I am appalled by that image of the citizens of this country. We are not hopeless. We are not incapable of solving problems. We can and do deal with personal and family crises every day without any assistance from the government. In fact, every time the government intrudes itself into our lives, there is a very great likelihood that the government will take something away from us rather than do good for us.

The people among whom I live are strong and intelligent. I am not rich, and I don’t know any rich people personally. The people I know work for their money. Sometimes they lose their jobs, and do you know what they do when that happens? They either look for another one or start a business of their own. They don’t sit down to the kitchen table and wring their hands. They don’t cry on national TV because they are without work at the moment. Losing a job is not a national tragedy. I have lost jobs and found jobs throughout my life. It is a common saying among the people I know personally to observe, “I was looking for a job when I found this one.” The reality is that there are always jobs to be had, even though some are less desirable than others. The difference between us and the people the Democrats paraded on TV last night is that we don’t think any particular job is beneath us. We believe that work is honorable, and we work. That was what I didn’t hear last night. Work is honorable, no matter what work you do. It is your human responsibility to find or create work that will support your family. It is not the work of government to assure that you have the job you dream of with the paycheck you long for and the benefits that will take care of you, your family and your dog until you die.

In the world I live in, government does not exist to create jobs and assure income. In my world, government exists to protect the people from dangers that would prevent businesses from succeeding. We believe that if business thrives, from the corner grocery to the multinational oil company, people will thrive, too. Business is not the enemy of personal prosperity; it is the engine of personal prosperity.

Here is the change I hope to see during the final months of the election campaigns. I hope to see Republicans counter this sniveling, whining image of humankind with a new image, an image of free, strong people who take charge of their lives. That kind of people sailed west and marched west into unknowns and challenges and threats that make last night’s sob fest look like the pathetic pity party that it was. I hope we can change the image of US citizens from three-hanky crybabies to that of powerful, strong and free people who take on the unknown and whip it into a great country.

 

The road show in Denver is prime evidence of the real agenda of the Democrat party. It is all about appearances. Substance counts for nothing. The very idea of pretending to have a roll call vote cast from delegates’ hotels on Wednesday morning as a device to keep the public from seeing the real party issues is evidence of the complete socialist mind at work.

In an organization organized as a democracy, people have disagreements. Gather any two people together, give them a divisive issue to discuss, and you will almost certainly hear three points of view. Within an organization of millions, a delegate community of thousands, you will absolutely have differences of opinion on any subject that comes up. If the organization is a democracy, differing viewpoints will be expressed, everybody will vote at the end, and some decision will be made. The majority of votes will carry the day, and everybody will work together, even if some of the group sings “Wait till next time.”

When I watched Democrat convention on television, starting with 1960, I saw this sort of thing happen. The delegates gathered and raucously supported a lot of possible candidates for president. There were parades and demonstrations. There were speeches. Then there were votes. Sometimes there were a lot of votes. The party quivered and quaked and entered into combat with the gloves off. However, eventually they selected a candidate and moved forward. Nobody thought it was strange that there were differences. In fact, the party celebrated the fact that differences existed.

Not this year. This year, the leadership of the party intended for the convention to anoint and crown Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton’s wildly successful candidacy was supposed to be locked away in a dark corner and forgotten about. They wanted this event to put on the face of unity even if there is no unity. When Hillary rose up and her supporters began to speak, the party leadership, a spineless bunch of sycophants of fake “unity” for Obama, could not endure even the possibility that someone would bring the competitive ideas of the primary into the convention. What are they afraid of?

The leadership of the Democrat party is afraid of democracy.

If we ever needed any more evidence that the Democrat party is a bunch of socialists, this is it. Socialism assumes that some leader has all the truth on his side, that nobody in the common mass has any intelligence. Socialism gives all the power and all the morality to the state, and socialism will die if real democracy thrives. The Democrat party will not nominate the anointed leader if democracy survives in that party. The leadership has picked Obama, because they plan to run him, not because they plan for him to lead the free world. They cannot deal with even the possibility that Hillary might mount at this late date any challenge that will point up Obama’s complete failure to demonstrate leadership or qualifications to be our president.

I pray that Hillary’s supporters will make noise and demonstrate their fury and rise up and make themselves heard at this convention. I am not a Democrat, but there was a time when I respected that party as one element of a healthy political climate in this country. I never wanted Hillary to be president, and I don’t want that now. Nevertheless, I do want to see her candidacy treated with respect by the Democrats. I want the party to acknowledge that she is a real leader and a very successful candidate who lost by the slimmest of margins. You talk about being marginalized! Hillary’s very near miss in the primaries has been trivialized and marginalized and now it is being demonized by the people who ought to be very proud of a strong woman candidate.

There used to be two strong political parties in this country, each making the most of the opportunities a free people in a democracy can use to accomplish their goals. Now we have one party that has shredded the whole idea of democracy, ready to let the autocrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid steamroller the free citizens who call themselves Democrats.

You go Hillary! You, too, have been a complete socialist, and you are a metaphor for the wisdom of the sage advice, “Be careful what you wish for.” If you had been the winner, I can only imagine that this scenario would be the same. You would be the anointed, and Obama would be the trivialized. We all know that. I don’t feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for America.

At first we heard that Hillary’s name would not be put in nomination at the Festival of the Anointing in August.

Then we heard that Hillary gets to make a speech.

Then we heard that Hillary’s husband gets to make a speech.

Then we heard that Hillary will make her own video for her speech, rather than use Obama’s video team.

Now we hear that Hillary’s name will be placed in nomination, and her delegates will vote as pledged.

Why does anyone think that the Coronation Convention will not shatter before the very eyes of the Anointed One?

In the old days, the conventions were very exciting, what with smoke-filled rooms and deal-making and dust-ups between rival factions. It appears to me that we are about to be treated to a convention that will bring out the best, or the worst, of politics, depending on your definition of high drama. The upcoming Democrat convention has all the ingredients for a real cat-fight, and we all know who is the cattiest one around. She whom I will not name has many hairballs yet to spit up.

The Anointed One had better know who has his behind  when the Kitty-Cat Queen marches up to the front in Denver.

In the mix of all the issues in this election, one stands out: individual liberty. Both candidates state that they will fervently support the Constitution, but one of them is making proposals that will hamper or even entirely eliminate individual liberty. The difference hinges on each candidate’s definition of the purpose of the state.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a model for a system of government designed to enable the prosperity of the nation without directing it. It provides a framework for a federal government that promotes the cooperation of the states on those functions that transcend the governance of any single state, such as national defense and interstate commerce. The Constitution names the powers the federal government has, and the Bill of Rights says that if a power is not ceded to the federal government, then it remains with the states and the citizens.

One of the hottest issues in the current campaign comes under the heading of the economy. With regard to the economy, the federal government mints the money and assures the free flow of goods and services through all the several states. The role of the federal government in the economy is to enable free enterprise. This is the way the Constitution is written.

It is interesting to note that one of the most revered thinkers in history, Moses Maimonides, said that the highest form of charity is to do the things that enable a man to earn money and stand on his own two feet. The role of performing that high level of charity is written into the Constitution. It maintains order within the republic and assures safety from outside attack. It enables the states to cooperate so that goods and services flow freely through the republic. It maintains a safe money supply. Otherwise, it leaves the citizens free to pursue their dreams and create wealth for themselves.

Barack Obama does not support this model for the country. He believes that the federal government is more important than the dignity and freedom of individuals. He has the vision that the state has more value than individual dignity. He wants to give people money and things, but he plans to acquire the means for these gifts with high taxes that rob the individual of the reward for hard work and ingenuity. If you want to check what Obama really stands for, take a look at his endorsement from the Communist Party USA. If anything should make you doubt Obama’s goals, this should be it.

John McCain stands for our Constitution. Constitutional government provides citizens with the greatest opportunity for freedom and prosperity. This is what we all want, even when handouts look good to us. We know in our heart of hearts that the economic stimulus checks we received last spring are just a forerunner of new taxes that will be required to replace that money in the national treasury.

When you vote, choose a candidate that will get out of your way and let you pursue your dreams, not one that will mandate what work you can do, what food you can eat and what doctor you can see. Vote for freedom. Vote for prosperity. Vote for the Constitution. Vote for John McCain.

We are very excited about your proposal to end the age of oil. We just don’t know how to do that. We need you to show us how this works. 

For starters, how will you travel from place to place to make your speeches? Airplanes use petroleum-derived fuel. So do trains and cars. Will you be traveling bicycle? By horse and buggy? We need to see the solution, so we can use it for getting to work.

Then, what about your clothes? You seem to be well dressed with wrinkle-resistant clothing. The last I knew, cotton, wool and linen need to be blended with some synthetic fibers in order to achieve the wrinkle-free, stain-free look you present. Tell us about your clothes.

Do you wear sunglasses? If you do, I hope they are actually glass, with metal frames. We would all feel that you had betrayed your campaign if you were wearing plastic frames and lenses. We believe in you. Don’t fail us like this.

Also, we are concerned about the sound systems you are using. They must soak up a lot of electricity. Where the electricity is generated by hydro and nuclear plants, that would be fine, but what do you do when you go somewhere that is generating electricity with coal or oil? I hope you have a large megaphone. I’ll be watching your schedule.

And then there is light. When you speak inside or at night, I see that you are using electric lights. I think your campaign should carry a good supply of olive oil lamps – although it might be tricky to get a sufficient supply without dealing with Mideast companies. I hope you will solve that problem and share it with the rest of us.

I feel so ignorant. I’m not sure how we cook without electricity or oil. I don’t know how kids will get to school. How do we replace all the plastic with wood, glass and metal? My computer is made with a lot of plastic parts, and it runs on electricity. Where I live my only source of electricity is petroleum. I need your help pronto!

O Anointed One, we know that your vision exceeds the horizons the rest of us see. Show us the way to an oil-free future. Tell us now. We yearn for the wisdom only you can speak.

 Winston Churchill knew a few things about elections. In 1945, during an election campaign, he faced opponents who espoused a socialist agenda, just as John McCain’s opponent does. Churchill said of his opponent’s plans for Britain, “Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state.” John McCain needs to speak to the American people about this same problem.

Voters in the US have been lured gradually into an acceptance of socialism. The camel of socialism first sneaked his nose into the tent of US free enterprise during the New Deal. People suffered during the Great Depression, and Franklin Roosevelt announce he had come to help. He rolled out bank holidays and WPA and Social Security. Perhaps, if Hitler had not sent his tanks rolling into Poland, the American people would have seen clearly that the New Deal was picking their pockets with the hand not occupied with flashing the smoke and mirrors of socialism before their eyes.

In Election 2008, B. Hussein Obama is busy with his own road show, trying to convince us all that we need socialism in many forms. His proposals clearly demonstrate the truth of Churchill’s words. Churchill associated socialism with “worship” of government and totalitarian oppression. If Obama is elected, we will see exactly what Churchill was talking about.

Obama’s web site lists his positions and objectives for many issues. Take healthcare, for example. Obama proposes a national health care plan coupled with a watchdog agency to hover over the private insurance companies. Obama plans to assure that nobody can be rejected by an insurance company for any medical reason. He will demand record-keeping and guarantees from insurance plans and healthcare providers. The government’s tentacles will creep into every healthcare visit and transaction.

If anyone wants to know how well that will work, the first place to look is Medicare. This medical program operated, funded and guaranteed by the government has been a boondoggle from day one. Before Medicare, patients and doctors decided what medical treatment was appropriate for a diagnosis. After Medicare, the government runs that show. When a small rural hospital in Missouri wanted to provide dialysis in a location convenient for rural patients, the doctors eventually gave up trying to meet the regulations. Among the problems – Medicare will not pay for a lab test to determine if a patient has the right levels of medication in his system. According to Medicare, the test is only justified if the patient’s medication is outside the boundaries of acceptable levels. Unfortunately, the doctors were not able determine without a test the actual level of the medication in the patients’ systems. Medicare regulations like these make it very difficult for a doctor to provide good care for a patient.

In case you think that Medicare’s limitation to geriatric patients makes any difference, you could look at universal healthcare that the British have enjoyed now for many years. The British government pays for that system, and the British government makes the rules for that system, just as our government makes the silly rules for Medicare. Hence, even though Aricept has been demonstrated to slow the progress of Alzheimer’s in many patients, no British patients in the national healthcare system can use it. The cost was determined by the government administrators of the NHS to be prohibitive.

Obama calls his plan national health insurance, not national healthcare. Do not be deceived. The restrictions and regulations he is proposing would only be the first step. In fact, Medicare is still called insurance, too, but the regulations and reporting associated with it result in severe government involvement in the actual care of patients. True socialized medicine would not be far behind. I can hear now the call to end all the different programs – Medicare, Medicaid, national health insurance, private health insurance – to cut costs and eliminate waste. I can hear now the call to end the pretense that it is health insurance, and simply call it national health care. After all, the government is paying all the bills.

Concern about the cost of healthcare in general will only escalate if the government pays all the bills. After all, the most powerful impetus in the war against smoking has been the cost of medical treatment for smokers who develop lung cancer, heart disease and stroke. A loudly vocal movement has developed to make smokers into social outcasts, and the biggest reason is that treating lung cancer, heart disease and stroke is expensive. We hear constantly that huge sums of money are paid annually for the treatment of diseases of smokers. Employers and insurance companies put a lot of pressure on smokers to quit, because they do not want the cost of medical treatment for smokers.

If Obama were successful in bringing about socialized medicine in the USA, we would see a great many other campaigns just like the campaign against smokers. In fact, the government can bypass a campaign altogether and simply say, if you smoke, we refuse to pay for your medical care. Period. Is this what Americans want?

I can imagine another campaign that would become a regulation, too. New York passed a law against trans fats in restaurants. California has outlawed trans fats in the whole state. It is all about obesity, and the concern for the obese is all about the costs of health care. If the federal government runs health care, what is to keep the federal government from telling people what they can eat?

It all boils down to exactly what Churchill observed. Socialism in any form is tyranny. Socialism sounds so kind at the first. In Russia in 1917 poor people were deceived into believing that socialism would take care of them. By 1991 their eyes had opened. They had learned that the government only takes. They could not count on the government to do anything but push them around. They were still poor. They stood in line for toilet paper and soap, and the government could not even be counted on to pay them for their work. US citizens need to look with great skepticism at Obama’s suggestion that government health care will be better than free enterprise healthcare. Then they need to look with the same skepticism at all his other proposals to take care of them.

In a socialist country the government takes care of itself. People receive what the government is willing to give them, but the government gets all the good stuff. Citizens unite! Do not let Obama deceive you into giving away your freedom. Do not let him lure you into worship of government. Stand up for the Constitution, personal freedom and free enterprise. These are the forces that have made our country great and strong for more than 200 years. Do not give away your freedom for the false promises of a government caretaker.

 When I was growing up in southeast Missouri, real scoundrels were often characterized as being “lower than a snake’s belly.” That was the phrase that came to mind when I heard that Obama cancelled his visit with wounded soldiers in Germany. What made the description so apt is the reason for his cancellation.

On the website of the Drudge Report, the links to articles on this subject were quaintly displayed next to each other. The link for one article read “Obama Campaign: Pentagon Nixes Troop Visit …” Immediately below it was a link which read “Pentagon: Obama Campaign Nixes Troop Visit…”

Obama’s reason for not visiting the troops turns out to be very simple. The Pentagon told him that he, his Senatorial staff, and his secret service detail were welcome. They also told him that his campaign staff and his press entourage were not welcome. B. Hussein Obama was offered a chance to visit with the troops and honor their service, but he was forbidden to make a publicity stunt out of it. No photographs of a wayward tear on his cheek at the sight of a wounded soldier. No video of his heartfelt reminder to a paralyzed Marine that “this is our moment.” No carefully orchestrated handshakes and hugs for the public to admire. Obama could have spent two quiet, respectful hours with people who have paid the price for his freedom to berate America in front of a crowd of Germans. He could have met a number of patients and said in the hearing of no one but the patients, “Thank you for your service.” Nobody stood in the way of his opportunity to honor our troops.

If one single event displays the ego and immaturity of B. Hussein Obama, this is it. I thought his speech to the German people showed everyone that he has no respect for the country he aspires to lead, and I thought it showed all of us his complete lack of qualifications, not to mention his unreadiness, to be our president. I thought that hanging a banner at the Western Wall in Jerusalem with his name in Hebrew letters was a completely adolescent stunt. He even allowed his prayer at the Wall to be publicized, and lo and behold, it is all about him. I thought we didn’t need any more evidence that this is not the man we should elect as our president. But then he amazed us all with yet one more messianic moment in which he demonstrated the he himself is more important than anybody, even more important than the warriors who are wounded in defense of our freedoms.

B. Hussein’s unwillingness to honor our troops without an audience demonstrates dramatically that he lacks the character, the maturity, or even the intelligence required to be President of the United States of America.

Yesterday John McCain gave credit to President Bush for the recent drop in the oil futures price. He reminded us all that as soon as the president lifted the offshore drilling moratorium, the price of crude began to drop. Today, that price is about $10 less than it was the day of the announcement. It is a small, but critical, change in the variables that affect the price everyone pays for gasoline.

Some critics of McCain’s statement have suggested that the futures price and the end of the moratorium are not actually related. They point to a drop in demand, which finally impacted the price. They could have a point. Airplanes have been parked. People have curtailed personal travel. There has been a change in demand. However, that change has been evolving over several months while prices continued to skyrocket. That change may have had a part in the reduction of crude oil prices we see today, but it is worth noting that the reduction coincided very neatly with the president’s announcement.

I join in John McCain’s question: if this small price reduction occurred when the president simply removed the moratorium on offshore drilling, what might we see if someone actually drilled a well out there?

Our famous Congress led by Queen Nancy and Prince Harry has ignored and scorned the impact of the president’s decision. Further, they have risen up and proclaimed that they will refuse to bow to Big Oil. They say they will only support research and development in alternative fuels.

This madness must stop. The only thing that will stop it is citizen outrage. We citizens must remind Congress of two facts:

First – No alternative fuel solution exists now for citizens who need to use the cars they own to get to work, to school, to vacation.

Second – We all vote in the fall for all the representatives and one-third of the Senators.

The electorate owns gasoline-powered cars and trucks. Even if there were enough hybrids and all-electric cars to go around, most people could not afford to scrap the cars they own and buy new ones. Congress is acting with typical disdain of the real needs of real people.

Congress also acts as if the American oil companies are the problem, not the solution, in the current crisis. It wants to increase taxes on those companies and demand that they drill on land that has not proved to be productive. Congress screams at those companies calling their profits obscene. Considering the fact that 70% of the oil we buy and pay for comes from sources outside America, one wonders what Congress thinks of the profits the foreign companies are making. Where exactly does Congress think anyone got the money to build a rotating skyscraper in Dubai? Why does Congress think it is better to buy our oil from foreigners and let them make whatever profit they make? Why shouldn’t we buy from our American companies drilling in American land? And by the way, who classified the profits of American oil companies as “obscene?” Profits in a corporation belong to the stockholders. Who do they think the stockholders are? Martians, perhaps? The stockholders who profit when an American oil company is successful are mostly American citizens.

Congress has tried to ignore common sense and the electorate before. The electorate has had to remind them that they are elected to serve the people, not to serve themselves. When they were ready to sell our country out to illegal immigrants, we had to crash their e-mail system and their phone system in order to set them straight. We may have to do it again. Congress in its high-handed determination to focus on alternative fuels is doing nothing that will produce more oil and bring a long-term reduction in the price of gasoline that we need now. There is no substitute today for the gasoline people need to operate the cars they own now. It is certainly wise to be discovering and developing alternatives, but people cannot simply put their current vehicles up on blocks and walk wherever they need to go.

We voters must do two things immediately.

First – We must call and write and completely pester and wear down our Representatives and Senators telling them to open up drilling offshore, drilling in ANWR and shale production. These acts will assure that we have fuel for cars, airplanes, trucks, trains, and power plants into the future. We need this fuel now, and we need it until alternative solutions mature and proliferate at a level that actually meets our needs. We should not reduce, diminish and slow down our productivity, our lives, and our dreams because someday there will be alternatives to oil.

Second – On Election Day, we must vote for the candidate who actually knows what people need. John McCain recognizes that people need oil right now. The research and development of alternatives to oil must proceed, but it is not ready to meet the needs of a productive and prosperous nation yet. We must support the candidate who will support us. We don’t need a candidate who tells us to do without and stop growing while we wait for the alternative solutions. The USA is a beacon to the whole world, a living laboratory for productivity and prosperity. Someday that beacon will run on alternative fuels, but right now it runs on oil.

We must join with John McCain and demand that Congress do what it takes to provide the oil our country needs. Offshore. ANWR. Oil shale. We need all these sources opened up for our use. There are proven reserves in all these locations that will provide for us while alternatives come of age.

Then we must get out and vote for John McCain on election day. Make sure our president and our Congress know that the American people need domestic sources of petroleum, and we need them now.

DRILL HERE! DRILL NOW! VOTE MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!