THE TWO HARRYS

What a choice! All along I truly believed that McCain would pick Mitt Romney because it would be the most logical choice to carry his parties dissenters along for the ride. Of course my logic was along as one might put it conservative conventionality politic. Although one of the reasons I have always liked McCain is for his Maverick handle and style.

I am a Vet of the war in which America unleashed some of its most unconventional fighters to counter an enemy whom by experience, terrain, and years of fighting knew already by the time America got involved how to fight unconventionally. With great success. Most of our troops had to spend years learning how.

Our Jet Jocky's (airforce pilots) during that period were also considered to be somewhat of the best unconventional fighter pilots there were. Again by the nature of the beast. Mountainous terrain, experienced Mig fighter pilots, the ability of massive enemy troop movements literally unseen from the skys without specialized
vision equipment and then still undetectable. Globs and globs of anti-aircraft fire sights just waiting to bring down an American pilot and their plane with high powered Soviet missiles. Our pilots had to zig and zag more than ever before.

Well John McCain was one of those Jocky's and he again has proven the worth of his salt.He has zigged and zagged all the conventional influencs and reasoning and he has picked a dark horse, long shot running, that couldn't be more of a crowd pleaser.

My first reaction was one of great surprise and anxiety. My second reaction was one of pensive analysis as to whether I thought that it was a good choice.

On June 4th of this year I wrote an article in which I said that after seeing Sarah Palin in an T.V. in a short interview the thought had crossed my mine that she would be a surprisingly good possibility as a candidate. Although at the time my thinking was that it would be a wonderful counter punch to Hillary Clinton as she tetered on political failure in her run, and to basically ruin Hillary's chance at being named the first women to succeed to such a high level of government, V.P. into the mud.

Sarah Palin's first impression on me was one of a freshly new and embracing personality. Bubbly and outgoing with a solid sense of straight shooting and logic. At the time her conversation with the reporter was about strongly suggesting and questioning why Washington government had not and should be coming on up to Alaska and tapping into its resources. I can remember her saying "after all that is why they (Washington) originally acquired Alaska, for its resources." This struck me as outrageously honest. Because that is why we did acquire Alaska and until the environmental idealists stuck their noses into our 49th states business an in turn caused the Eskimo's to remain in poverty, we have had every intention to do just that. We need to be utilizing Alaska for its resources. At the same time though we need to be strengthening our early warning defenses up there by much more military presence. (See my article dated 4 June 08 )

There is no doubt whatsoever that McCain had to have spent many hours mulling over his potential V.P. choices. In the end his choice was well thought out and in keeping with the true Maverick style and chance taker that McCain is. Mind you he may be a chance taker but do not think for a moment that he hasn't already calculated the risks of his choice.

What we do know though it that McCain's choice is in keeping with his thinking on his own. And I would venture to say not influenced very much by his advisers. McCain has taken a risk by picking Sarah Palin that shows true individualism, and leadership. He is willing to crawl out on a limb and not worry about the wind knocking him off.

Sarah Palin now is the quintessential woman to any mature and self confident male.She offers so much more than just her eye pleasing looks and demeanor. Her husband in not not only the envy of a little town in Alaska, but the envy of every big town and city male in red blooded America. They have been married 20 years to the day and are the core of working class U.S.A.. John McCain there are not enough words in this writers vocabulary to pay compliment to you and your decision making process.

You have pulled the rabbit out of the hat and at the same time stolen all the thunder of from "Blapollo". It is my belief that standing before the American Republican supporters and the rest of interested observers is the true direction of our beloved country. We are now headed on a route that will reflect the real America and its way of present day thinking. Between the two Republican candidates I see everything that this country is really about, no bull, no bluff, no blaming. Not since Harry S Truman has America been blessed with someone as straight shooting than as right now. The only difference is that instead of one Harry heading for the White Housethere are now two Harry's , and one of them is in a dress. What a class act you have commited John S. McCain. Kudo's and Cheers from now until election day.

Celebrities Embarrass Obama

Thursday, August 28, 2008
By L. Brent Bozell III


Barack Obama's campaign has been seriously frightened by John McCain celebrity-mocking ads. Those celebrities were virtually nowhere to be found for most of the Denver convention. While the Obama machine may control the inside of the convention, outside these celebrities are clearly out of control – again.

That overbaked tart Madonna kicked off her latest concert tour with a fairly typical attempt to put her Kung Fu grip on media attention by signaling her preferences in the presidential race. In her first concert in London – the same city where the Dixie Chicks professed their shame for being geographically associated with Bush – Madonna performed a song titled “Give It 2 Me” with a video screen flashing images behind her.

First came John McCain's picture – alongside images of Adolf Hitler, Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe, environmental ruin, and starving children. (She also included Mike Huckabee in that odd hall of shame.) Then came the Obama segment, and the Democrat was surrounded by images of Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, John Lennon, and Al Gore.

Gossip columnist Liz Smith proclaimed: "I hate to be a cynic, but it smacks of ‘How do I get my tour opening night in the news during the Democratic Convention?’” She suggested that friends scoffed in disagreement, arguing that given Madonna's demonstrated lack of political acumen, it's quite possible she had no idea the Democratic convention was happening in Denver.

So what was the political message in the song accompanying those visuals? It featured hackneyed Madonna lyrics: "If it's against the law, arrest me. If you can handle it, undress me." By now, as she turns 50, the lyrics are beginning to sound desperate.

Five years ago, Madonna laid an egg at the start of the Iraq war with her video "American Life," in which she pulled the pin on a grenade and threw it at a George W. Bush look-alike. The look-alike picked up the grenade – and lit his cigar with it.


Madonna desperately tried to distance herself from the overt symbolism of presidential assassination, suggesting instead that she had meant to suggest that President Bush had the potential to take something violent and destructive and turn it into something more constructive. Blah, blah. The controversy didn’t help. The song tanked.

McCain's campaign quickly threw Madonna's shtick at Obama: "It clearly shows that when it comes to supporting Barack Obama, his fellow worldwide celebrities refused to consider any smear or attack off limits."


That forced the Obama camp to condemn Madonna, sort of: "These comparisons are outrageous and offensive and have no place in the political process. We hope that John McCain will offer a similar condemnation as his allies increasingly practice sleazy swift boat politics."

This is becoming a pattern for the poor, celebrity-loaded Obama campaign. Just a few weeks ago, the rapper calling himself Ludacris lauded Obama and slashed Bush and McCain in a YouTube video entitled “Obama’s Here.” In the lyrics, Ludacris called himself Obama's favorite rapper, noting the candidate said (to Rolling Stone magazine) that he listens to Ludacris on his iPod.

First, Ludacris offended all the Hillary-adoring feminists. “Better yet put me in office, make me your vice president, Hillary hated on you, so that b---- is irrelevant.”


Then came the Republican-bashing: "Paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified, McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralyzed.” McCain deserves a wheelchair, and Bush is a moron: “Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped, ball up all of his speeches and just throw 'em like candy wrap.”

It says something about our screwed-up culture that the president of the United States, a man with an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, is mocked as a special-needs student by a guy with no college degree who misspells his album titles (“Word of Mouf”) to look hip.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton expressed great shock and outrage: “As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism and degrading images that he doesn't want his daughters or any children exposed to ... it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear.”

Really? When he spoke to Rolling Stone, Obama lauded Ludacris as one of several “great talents and great businessmen” and hailed “the genius of the art form.”

He said he was “troubled sometimes by the misogyny and materialism” in rap lyrics and added, "It would be nice if I could have my daughters listen to their music without me worrying they were getting bad images of themselves.” He didn’t even claim his little girls didn’t listen to it.

That hardly has the degrading and misogynistic rappers shaking in their boots.







Viewer Comments

ANOTHER BORROWED COMMENTARY

Indeed, just recently, several Democrats were imploring Obama to get specific about what kind of "hope and change" he's talking about. These Democrats just don't get it. Obama thrives on obfuscation and nebulousness. If he gets specific, someone - or a lot of someones - might not like his ideas. His job is to remain sufficiently obscure until he is elected. And then, like any good disciple of radical Saul Alinsky, he will emerge and show his true colors as a far left liberal who wishes to implement an agenda he never talked about during the campaign.

BORROWED FROM AMERICAN THINKER:

LETS SEE IF HE CONTINUES THIS IN TONIGHTS SPEECH, I BELIEVE HE WILL. IT IS NOW 6:46 PST.8/28/08

UPDATE ON PREDICTIONS

So far I have been correct in predicting that Hillary has set her sights on 2012. Her concession to Barack Obama gave no mention of his having the qualifications for being the Commander and Chief. She has laid the groundwork not to leave any sound bites that could be used against her in her next run for the Presidential office beginning (if Obama wins) in 2010. If Obama looses she will most definitely run against John McCain and his not yet nominated V.P. Mitt Romney, beginning immediately.

So far I have been correct in naming Joe Biden as Obama's running mate. A better nail in Obama's coffin could not be placed. The nomination of Joe Biden made things at the Democratic convention even that much harder to swallow, for them. If any of you have been watching the minutes tick by you have seen one of the most shallow, disillusioned response lacking, even the most minutest of sincerity self confident emotional responses you know what I mean.

So far I have been correct about the price of gas going down before November although I am still anticipating it reaching a low of about $3.00 a gallon before tha actual election and holding that price through the winter.

So far I have been right about Obama facing a breaking scandal after the convention and before the election which will I believe drive the last nail home in his defeat.
What I have been wrong about is it would be tied to his wife Michelle

And now for whats next. Mitt Romney will be nominated for V.P. just like I said.Friday at 11:00 the GOP unlike the Dem's won't play any footsie games of indecisiveness.

Romney on the ticket will swing Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Nevada(my home state, which Harry Reid has already declared as a Dem victory), and Minnesota. New Mexico will also vote McCain but that is already in the bag. Even Bill Richardson will be considered by McCain for a new position in gov. perhaps Secretary of the Interior.

McCain will declare the housing bail out a failure and propose more stricter regulation of the industry to benefit homeowners Wall street will yelp but they already know that it is inevitable for this to happen because the Federal Reserve wants it too, they will comply.

Rumors will fly and could be true that General Pretreaus will be appointed to McCain's inner circle as the man replacing Condelleza Rice, a good pick by the way.

And finally even tough I mentioned above (if Obama wins) my prediction is that he will lose. The only thing I have held off on predicting at this time is the he will lose big. I previously have said it will be close and Obama will challenge the results. I am still inclined to think this, but slowly I am beginning to lean toward the predilection that McCain has a chance of a landslide. I think this still depends on how much help ol Putin throws toward McCain's victory, and how much more Obama shoots himself in the foot. Even the leftist press is having to eat crow and is beginning to publish positive info about McCain. Maybe they too are worried about their access privileges in the near future.

THY BROTHERS KEEPER?

August 26, 2008
By Douglas O'Brien

As America has gotten to know Barack Obama many have noted his apparent disconnection from many fundamental elements of his own life. In describing his life experiences one analysis concluded he is "in" them, but not "of" them. In other words, he has never been immersed in life -- never thrown himself full bore into anything, but, rather, has been fulfilling steps in a larger quest.


In his stint on the faculty the University of Chicago, among the most intellectually rigorous of schools, he published not one single piece of scholarly work. As a State Senator in Springfield, he hung out with the movers and shakers, but formed no real personal alliances or friendships. He played in the most exclusive poker game in town, but never seemed to win or lose, as he rarely took risks or invested himself in the game, just as he never threw himself emotionally into his work.


We are coming to know a man whose life has been calculated, focused and driven toward goals, always moving forward and without room for error or encumbrance. His history is replete with individuals who served various purposes and who could be jettisoned as circumstances warranted. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Alice Palmer, Tony Rezko, Michael Pfleger, all to varying degrees, served the advancement of Barack Obama, and all have been denounced or denied. Even the woman who raised him served as his foil when he used his grandmother as the prototype for everyday white racism.


The European press has now introduced us to a new character in this morality play. Someone you are apparently not going to meet in the American press. The Italian edition of Vanity Fair (no right wing journal) tracked down Obama's half brother, George Obama, living in penury in the kind of third world slum that only the smallest fraction of Americans have ever experienced.


George Obama seems not a remarkable man. He is destitute in a relatively destitute country. He is simply one of the hundreds of millions of humans who wallow in abject poverty their entire lives


But this is not about George. He is not running for president. He is trying to find his next square meal. This is another instance where the circumstances of Barack Obama's life present us with a fundamental question that must be asked. What kind of man is this who wants government to care for everyone but who ignores his own flesh and blood living a life of near-complete despair?


Sen. Obama acknowledges his half-brother in his book "Dreams from My Father," describing their first meeting. He made time for a brief get together with George on his widely publicized tour of Africa leading up to his presidential run. But when his campaign was asked about the story, there was no comment whatsoever. As with many others, when the narrative about his African roots helped to establish a compelling back story to propel him to notoriety, his half-brother played a role. Now that he needs the votes of millions of Americans who do not consider his roots compelling or of particular appeal, he seems to want George to keep quite in his Nairobi shack. But if anyone on the planet seems in need of both hope and change, it is George Obama.


One thing that Democrats time and again refuse to accept is that character matters to many voters. And again, Democrats will nominate a candidate that has not clearly established the level of character that Americans want in a president. Simply put, for many Americans, the issues that animate partisans just don't matter. On a day to day basis, they don't care much about Medicaid, South Ossetia, NAFTA, or the tax rate for capital gains. Maybe they should, but they don't. What they do care about, is that the person in charge appears to them to be a fundamentally solid leader who embodies certain core values, no matter what continent those values spring from.


And there is something very disquieting about a man who has risen from humble origins and achieved enormous financial and social success, ignoring the plight of his kin. Obama cannot pretend he was unable to help his half brother. Not only had he seen him recently, he has all the resources of a United States senator at his disposal. He could have easily found George and, with a modest investment from his considerable salary, not to mention the millions he made capitalizing on his African roots, helped him escape his circumstances.


Now, perhaps he tried to do just that. And perhaps he didn't want to tell anyone about it. And perhaps George is an ingrate and didn't tell the Vanity Fair reporter that part of the story. And perhaps George has problems that we do not know of that complicate the matter. And perhaps the Obama campaign is not saying anything out of respect for George's privacy.


What appears much more likely is that George just isn't that important to his half brother and, unless he becomes an issue in the campaign, will be ignored. Oddly enough, we see a contrasting experience with his opponent. On a charity mission to Bangladesh over a decade ago, Cindy McCain came across a small child living in similar poverty with the added burden of birth defects. And while Mrs. McCain's financial resources dwarf those of the merely affluent Obama's, she was under no obligation to do anything other than smile at this child and fulfill the Senate wife's photo op. Cindy's reaction was to bring the little girl home where she and her husband adopted her. Bridget McCain is the Senator's youngest child -- one life saved out of a pure act of human charity.


And after the story of George Obama was first printed in Italy, the British press picked up on it. It was most prominently posted on Drudge, but thus far ABC, Newsweek, CNN the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune have virtually ignored the story. The Chicago Sun-Times made it its front page story, but that clearly appears to be the outlier. Finding a presidential candidate's acknowledged half brother living in a remote African slum is not an everyday story. What this is, however, is a story that clearly raises disturbing questions about Obama as a man. And it is all too apparent that many in the press want no part of those questions.


It is sad that anyone lives like George Obama. It is a particularly intractable problem that such poverty disproportionately impacts the African continent. We generally don't like to pass judgment on other families, not wishing judgment passed on our own. But beyond those factors, this issue and whether or how the Senator deals with it will tell us much about this man who wants our complete trust. As the Senator asks us to expand government to battle poverty and homelessness he declines the role of his own brother's keeper.


Just as the relationship between Rudy Giuliani and his adult children was seized upon as an example of his flawed character, this too deserves consideration by the American people. But if the media continues to march in near lock step to maintain the Obama mystique, this issue may not see the light of day.


Douglas O'Brien is a public affairs consultant in Chicago who served in the Bush Administration and as a senior Congressional aide.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/thy_brothers_keeper.html at August 26, 2008 - 08:27:21 AM EDT

OBAMA, THE EXECUTIVE, HILLARY THE FOX

In the movies when the undercover cop infiltrates into the gangster underworld if his loyalty is questioned he is usually asked to kill somebody in front of the big boss. Just before he is required to perform the dirty deed with gun in hand along comes the infamous bust! Headed by the UC'S partner it is timed to save the day and allow the UC to escape usually taking the big boss with him thus snatching him from the clucthes of the police thus proving the UC's loyalty without having to kill a stooge while gaining entrance to the inside seedy underworld and to destroy it from within.

Always but always this UC is usually given a fictitious jacket to prove he was no good from the beginning or if there is the possibility that someone might recognize him as a cop, they set him up as a "bum, who went corrupt, or rogue who betrayed his fellow cops, and turned entirely disloyal to his bosses at headquarters, thus allowing him an excuse for seeking refuge in the underworld.

A well seasoned lawyer when dealing with a tough case will always attempt to divert away from the central grievance of the plaintiff and lead the judge and jury in another direction. This is especially true when they either know or suspect that their own client may be guilty. And depending on their skill level and experience depends on whether they can pull it off or are detected.

We all know Barack Obama's legal background leaves everything to be desired:but can we say that about Bill and Hillary Clinton?

It is my sincere contention that this has all been orchestrated by Bill and Hillary Clinton, they planted the seeds in Obama's staff and fruition is about to take place.
PUMA does not stand for "Party Unity My Ass", it stands for "Patti's Under My Accord"

Below is a portion of an article written after the Kerry campaign lost to George W. Bush in 2004.Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. As Yogi Berra would say
"its deja vu all over again"


Excerpted and redacted original names, and dates all else direct from old Kerry article:REPLACE KERRY WITH OBAMA AND LET HER ROLL;
Also Wikipedia has been added to emphasize just how much to date Obama has changed direction from his original "Rock Star" appeal to desperate and willing to sell the farm to be elected.

"He has created no consistent vision
Along with flip—flopping on the issues, Obama(sic) has flip—flopped on campaign strategies. Is he signaling that his campaigners are to take the high road, and argue that he can do a better job of running the government and the war? Or is he signaling that they are to take the low road, and argue that McCain(sic) is incompetent, corrupt, a coward, or a Kitty Kellyesque monster? Is he(Obama) running on his Vietnam warrior experience,(oops he has none) or on his superior ability to mobilized support from allies, both coerced and bribed, and un—coerced and un—bribed?

Fundamentally, why does he want to be President? The fact that there is no one—sentence answer to this basic question leaves his vast army of paid and volunteer staff rudderless.
Main article: Political positions of Barack Obama
Obama has taken positions on many national, political, economic and social issues, either through public comments or his senatorial voting record.(http://www.votesmart.org/voting-category.php?can-id=9490) Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized withdrawing American troops from Iraq, increasing energy independence (that includes New Energy For America plan [31]), decreasing the influence of lobbyists, and promoting universal health care as top national priorities.
Wikipedia:;On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing since the system was created after the Watergate scandal. Obama explained his decision to opt out of the public financing system, saying, "public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." Critics of the decision claimed that the decision contradicted earlier statements that he would attempt to reach agreement with McCain to obtain public financing, and asserted that Obama's campaign was receiving as much support from unregulated 527 groups as McCain's.FLIPFLOP ANYONE


He has avoided hard personnel decisions
Patti Solis Doyle (sic)was hired to replace, Obama's original campaign manager,(but he was talked out of it.(my words) in June(sic), 2008. So far, so good. His campaign was going nowhere, and Doyle (sic) got the job done, or at least avoided torpedoing the campaign while Clinton self—destructed. But since he became the favorite to win the nomination, Obama has not backed—up Solis with the requisite support and authority to bring consistency and order to the ever—expanding universe of individuals acting in his behalf.
Ms Solis-Doyle (sic) is now all but universally acknowledged to be effectively fired. Except that she hasn't been fired.(She has been placed in charge of Vice Presidential affairs)(my words). Perhaps because she has two x chromosomes, and Obama fears criticism from the feminist camp. So, she is among the walking dead. And as any horror movie fan can tell you, the walking dead are capable of creating lots of trouble, especially as the midnight hour (November 2nd) nears.

He has not established clear lines of authority and communications
Pattie Solis Doyle was once chief of staff for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton(sic). Robert Shrum, who has emerged as another major figure in the campaign, is likewise an old Boston brain—truster. But a phalanx of Clintonistas has also joined the campaign, many of them in vaguely—described and reportedly unpaid roles. Who's in charge here? Nobody knows. Even worse, this situation is leading to an even more serious problem:

He has allowed factionalism to emerge and solidify
Mike McCurry, Paul Begala, James Carville, and others now reportedly occupy desks at one end of campaign headquarters in Washington, DC, while the Kennedy cohort occupies desks at he other end of the layout. This is a disaster in the making. It is one thing for an executive to hear a variety of viewpoints and have advisors of different assumptions and inclinations. That can enhance decision—making. But to have factions of old associates, physically isolated from one another and therefore free to plot among themselves, exercising undefined authority is a prescription for chaos.

He has displayed obvious, potentially fatal naivete
In allowing devoted followers of Bill and Hillary(edited) Clinton to occupy important space in his campaign, he has created the appearance of a nave simpleton. There has been ample public speculation that Hillary Clinton plans a run (again) for the Democratic nomination in 2012, a prospect which would be obviated by a successful Obama(sic)—for—President campaign. There is thus sufficient cause to at least question the motivations of people he has allowed to staff his organization.

A President is called—upon to navigate the difficult waters of international diplomacy. Duplicity and treachery are the expected and normal mode of statecraft. Installing allies with dual loyalties into roles critical to success is a fundamental error, usually made only by beginners. In time of war, such obvious indifference to the risks of betrayal could be fatal.
Baracks Comments About Joe Biden at there first appearence;Obama on Biden: 'He gets it'(And Barack Doesn't???)...After all, Biden is anything but a change agent,having been in office longer than half of all americans have been alive. Longer than McCain.

On the same day he(Biden) announced his second bid for the presidency, Biden found himself explaining why he had described Obama as "clean". And there's the 2007 ABC interview in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that Obama was not ready to serve as president.

The American people are necessarily coming to the inevitable conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is unqualified to run an organization as complex as the federal government in a time of national peril.

Thomas Lifson, the editor and publisher of The American Thinker, formerly taught at Harvard Business School, from which he received an MBA degree, awarded "with high distinction"

OBAMA THE PLAYER FOR ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND

Weekend Edition
August 23 / 4, 2008

The Senator from Ethanol-land
Obama and Big Corn
By NICOLE COLSON

The recent news that ExxonMobil's second-quarter profits rang up at $11.7 billion--the largest quarterly profit of any company in history--rightly enraged millions of working people in the U.S. and abroad who are feeling the sting of high gas prices.

Democratic contender Barack Obama, among others, has been critical of such mega-profits. As a recent Obama campaign ad warns, "Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets." In response, Obama promises to stand up for workers' rights by instituting a windfall profits tax on oil companies if he becomes president.

But there's another industry that is currently reaping record profits that Obama most likely won't criticize: agribusiness companies that are currently raking in millions on the push towards ethanol and other biofuels.

In the U.S., corn-derived ethanol has been promoted as an "environmentally friendly" alternative to traditional fossil fuels. Thanks in part to massive government subsidies, millions of acres of land has been diverted from crops like soybeans to corn, and dozens of ethanol distilleries have popped up around the country, particularly in the Midwest.

Ethanol is not the savior it's made out to be, however. Some scientific studies--including one by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen--show that ethanol derived from corn is potentially more polluting than fossil fuels. In addition, the diversion of cropland and corn to ethanol has helped drive up the prices of staple foods like tortillas, meat, milk and eggs in the U.S. and around the world.

But while the world's poor are feeling the pinch, agribusiness is making record profits off the biofuel push. Companies like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill and ConAgra--whose environmental records were notoriously shoddy to begin with--have seen not only more money in their pockets as a result of biofuels, but an opportunity to remake their images as problem-solving "green" companies poised to head off future environmental catastrophe through corporate solutions.

In April, ADM announced that its quarterly profits had risen 42 percent, largely thanks to biofuels. Unsurprisingly, ADM CEO Pat Woertz told investors, "Biofuels are a real solution to a real problem. To retreat from biofuels is wrong." Wrong from the standpoint of profits, perhaps.

But as environmentalist Tom Philpott noted last year in an article on the environmental Web site Grist [1], ADM's real record has little to do with solving the "real problems" of the world's poor.

As Philpott pointed out, ADM--whose slogan is "Resourceful by Nature"--is "resourceful" at manipulating markets in order to turn a profit, even if it means misery for millions. According to Philpott:

Archer Daniels Midland, the leading U.S. ethanol maker and the world's biggest grain buyer, owns a 27 percent stake in Gruma, Mexico's dominant tortilla maker. ADM also owns a 40 percent share in a joint venture with Gruma to mill and refine wheat--meaning that when Mexican consumers are forced by high tortilla prices to switch to white bread, Gruma and ADM still win.

A family of four [in Mexico] eating a traditional diet consumes a kilogram--2.2 pounds--of tortillas per day. A year ago, a kilo of tortillas in some areas of Mexico cost about 63 cents. By January [2007], the prices in the same places had soared to between $1.36 to $1.81 per kilo--a big chunk of the nation's $4.60 per day minimum wage. In short, low-income people found themselves priced out of the tortilla market, and forced into less-nutritious alternatives like white bread and ramen noodles.

As Philpott documents, even before the current spike in corn prices, Gruma/ADM changed its production process to produce lower-quality and less-nutritious tortillas, and raised its prices (even when corn prices were falling). The Mexican government was eventually forced by protests to step in to investigate charges of price gouging by Gruma/ADM and its rival, U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill.

Philpott continues:

So what does this mean for Americans? It means that our largest agribusiness company...has leveraged massive government support into a surging market in corn-based ethanol that serves few real environmental or social interests--and now it's manipulating the conditions caused by the ethanol boom to squeeze profits out of Mexico...

Yet rather than investigate ADM's habitual use of political influence to manipulate markets, the Bush administration continues to openly act as an ally. Bush recently upped the ante on government support for ethanol. And the USDA trumpets its collaboration with ADM on making federal farm policy, recently awarding CEO Patricia Woertz a spot on its prominent annual Agricultural Outlook Forum panel where she'll share the floor with USDA director Mike Johanns, along with Cargill's CEO and even the president of the American Petroleum Institute.

* * *

BUT IT'S not only the Bush administration who has championed biofuels and companies like ADM. Barack Obama has made sure to put biofuels at the front and center of his economic proposals, and has a history of backing laws favorable to agribusiness.

As the Washington Post noted:

Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol--he justified his vote for the Bush Administration's 2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois, the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama's support for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New York).

In just this election cycle alone, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the agribusiness industry has given $2.7 million to Democrats--with more than $1 million going to Obama's campaign.

The New York Times noted that Obama has appeared several times on the campaign trail with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who currently sits on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, "he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy."

According to Obama economic policy director Jason Furman, Obama's commitment to biofuels is based primarily on "what's best for the country." But asked about his support for ethanol while on the campaign trail in April, Obama was more candid: "Look," he said. "I've been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois...is a major corn producer." In other words, supporting the ethanol industry is just simple political logic. Unsurprisingly, ADM, the nation's largest ethanol producer, is also based in Illinois.

Obama has given especially strong support to E85, a fuel comprised of 85 percent ethanol. As journalist Ken Silverstein noted in a 2006 article in Harpers [2], where he detailed Obama's support for ethanol at July 2006 speech for the group Campus Progress, E85 is "a product whose profits accrue to a small group of corporate corn growers led by Illinois-headquartered Archer Daniels Midland."

Silverstein went on to note that, in his speech,

Obama had essentially marshaled his 20 minutes of undeniably moving oratory to plump for the classic pork-barrel cause of every Midwestern politician...It is not, of course, family farmers who primarily benefit from the [ethanol subsidies] program but rather the agribusiness giants such as Illinois-based Aventine Renewable Energy and Archer Daniels Midland (for which ethanol accounts for just 5 percent of its sales but an estimated 23 percent of its profits).

During his first year in office, Silverstein noted, Obama traveled on ADM's private jets at least twice, and introduced a number of measures that benefited the agribusiness industry--such as the "Obama Amendment" that offered oil companies a 50 percent tax credit for building gas stations that offer E85 fuel. Obama also voted for the Bush administration's 2005 energy bill and opposed a proposal to lower tariffs on cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil and other countries.

As Silverstein noted, "On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a 'player.'

"The lobbyist added: 'What's the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?'"

Nicole Colson lives in Chicago, where she works as a reporter for the Socialist Worker.

BIDEN/OBAMA TICKET BETTER

I no sooner finish publishing my article about my prediction that it will be Joe Biden as V.P. choice, and AP gets an anonymous (so as not to spoil OB wanna know be's ) special text message announcement. Well I knew I was right and the Republicans should be very happy with this choice because Joe Biden is about as good a pick as General Wesley Clark. Obama couldn't have picked a better anchor to help secure his boat to the bottom in defeat.Ha Ha Ha.A better chance might have been a Biden/Obama ticket. At least Beltway Joe does have a direction even if it seems like he's going around in circles most of the time.

OBAMA CAN'T DECIDE AND NEITHER CAN HIS CHOICES

OBAMA UNSURE OF CANDIDATE AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ASKED ARE BALKING!

The reason Barack Obama has been playing last minute footsie with announcing his decision for V.P. is he;s not sure and can't make up his mind, and his choices are not sure either.

With all of the input from his far left supporters he lacks the stones to just say I have decided to pick, Joe Biden , because I don't have a fucking foreign policy image and that;s it.

His advisors, and his wife are beating back his ears in dissent. They prefer a much more to the left V.P.
Who said it wasn't important. (oh yeah that would be newsweek, mnnbc,NBC, ABC, and of course the Communist National Network with the acronym, CNN, but that was all voiced after McCain jumped ahead in the polls.

The truth is this is the type of leadership that can be expected from Barack Obama, indicisive and confused. He I am sure has many reason;s in his head as to why this candidate or that candidate would be better for him however he reminds me of my Mexican stepson the first time I brought him into "Toys R Us" right after bringing him, his mother and our son, over the border in Mexicali California for the first time in his life, and to live permanently in the U.S.

It was a very uncomfortable moment for both him and me. First off he couldn't believe there could be so many toys in one place and second he was overwhelmed with indicisiveness.He couldn't pick just one thing. Then he went into a mode of want it all, and finally I laid down the ultimatum of one or nothing and he chose a water gun. Once outside and in the car it was envy for his younger brothers choice which I don't even remember other than it had been picked by the younger sibling just because it was eye level to his 4 year old height and within his reach.

Obama faces the same dillema. Being an only child in his household (not counting all of the estranged) brothers and sisters) he has never been good at sharing nor deciding. He found out at an early age the more he hemmed hawed around the more attention he got. Watch him in the videos these last few days. You can see the childish smirk radiating with this "I know and I'. not gonna tell ya" look about him, but the truth is he doesn;t know and can't make up his mind. He announcement that the choice has been made is genuinely disingenuious. He really doesn't know. And guess what? Somebody else is going to have to make the decision for him. Its beyond his capability to solidify his choice.

This is not a man ready to lead the world's greatest nation. The more we get into the final stretch of this horse race the more I and many others of my baby boomer age can see how just "shadow man" this guy is.

At first like everyone else I gave Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt as to his character and potential at some future date for becoming President, never now, during these times when the country needs to rebuild our Military, modernize our bases, and put a stopper on Russia and Afghanistan.

It is my guess come Saturday his announcement won't be forth coming either. I believe his choice will be made for him sometime late Saturday night or in the wee wee hours of a Sunday (hold the presses) morning. Although I am sure there are many more bloggers out there who will wait up all night Saturday and into Sunday morning until we all get word just so they can be the first to publish. Me I'm going to bed. I already know its Joe Biden. Obama really has no other choice. Someone of adult character will have to be in charge of keeping an eye and a leash on him if by some remote chance he were actually to make it to the White House.

An Article Too Good Not to Steal.

The Tragedy Continues

McCain is already in mid-August matching and sometimes besting Obama in the polls. It should not have been so.

Gas prices, the economy, Iraq, Bush Derangement Syndrome, lack of energy production, Republican scandals in Congress, out-of-control spending, the Bush dunce appointments like Scott McClellan and the Texas crowd, all this and more created a sort of perfect storm for conservatives. Meanwhile, a disenchanted electorate was mesmerized by a new Pied Piper from Chicago-town who pranced in promising deliverance, while poor, pant-suited ‘ole Hil was crying out to the hypnotized, lockstep villagers in a scratchy voice, “Wait,wait! He’s dangerous!”

So the Democrats went with the Pied Piper who is leading them over the precipice. They wanted a post-racial, landmark candidate, a sort of Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice topflight national figure, but with a hard liberal edge.

Instead they got “typical white person” and “clingers” rants, the nut Rev. Wright (whose long-awaited literary masterpiece should soon be out) and the nuttier Father Pfleger, one too many preemptive-victimization “they will play the race card on me” whines from Obama, Michelle’s “raise-the-bar”, “downright mean” and “no pride” resentments, the Clinton-Obama 19th-century Race Wars, the lop-sided ‘it’s OK for some to vote 95% along racial lines, but not for others along 60%’ sophistry, the peripheral lunatic “black house” rants by Ludacris (of Obama’s I-pod fame) or Bob Herbert (of Leaning Tower of Pisa architectural expertise), and more still. And remember, as Obama slips in the polls, given his lack of content, expect that the current tough-guy, bash’em strategy to easily descend into race once more. Apparently Obama each morning gets up and thinks, “How can I give Sean Hannety more talking points for his evening barrage?” and “Have I done enough for Rush today?”

The Democrats wanted a cigar-chomping populist who could portray the Republicans as elitists who stomped on the Joe little-guy. Once again they got a flashier version of a John Edwards-John Kerry-Al Gore preachy liberal, who whines about the price of arugula and thinks stepping off a jet in shades and polo shirts is an Esquire photo-op. The backdrop to Obama’s European rock tour, after all, was Edwards ‘two-nations’ scandal and Al Gore’s jetting between motor-running, on-the-tarmac SUV and lake yacht.

The Democrats wanted a can-do, help-the-middle class doer (sorta like Hillarysoft 4.0 in Pennsylvania), who some day might drill more cleanly than the polluting Russians and Arabs, keep the money at home, and restore US yes-we-can pride. Instead, once again they got the worldview of the Santa Barbara estate-holder/Greenwich Village Bohemian: Drilling would spoil our ocean views or is messy and icky; my gas-guzzling Volvo SUV is not as crass as those awful Hummers; my Gulfstream V sermonizing is vital, your NASCAR and jet skies are Neanderthal. The Democrats hoped “Sí, Se Puede! meant no more fears about drilling, more nuclear plants, turbines, and everything else under the sun to produce power, not Nancy Pelosi on a failed, “I’m saving the planet” book tour as Congress vacations.

The die-hard savvy Democrats (some still exist) wanted a brawler and wade-into-crowd fiery Truman. They got instead a prissy (and masterful) Teleprompted day-time soap actor, whose impromptu brand is now a string of “ahs, ums, huh? You know’s”. What they failed to note was that a Truman or Eisenhower couldn’t speak on the podium a hoot, but they were great in off-the-cuff repartee. And in the long run that is better than blow-dry platitudes. McCain can’t lecture a lick, but in the melee and tussle, he’s actually quite good. Ask Rick Warren.

If you go the Chicago route (always unwise), then at least go the Mayor Daley way, the guy who exudes the city-that-works ends justify the dead-voter means. But an Obama would choke on Daley’s cigar or even a Mayor Washington’s Big Mac. So what Democrats got instead was all the Chicago downside—the Tony Rezko shenanigans, the Trinity race-hatred, the loony left Ayers/Pfleger ranting, the shady house/yard deals—without the boilermaker, sweaty competence.

Democrats wanted a bison and got Obambi, whose new ‘take no prisoners’ rhetoric in front of the VFW sounds like the Italian army in North Africa not the Desert Rats. Just imagine had Obama written “Dreams From My Grandmother” about a working-class white woman who moved to Hawaii sacrificing her all, stressing integration, conciliation, character, and hard work (all true), rather than future career-in-mind idealization and myth-making about a polygamist, alcoholic and absentee Marxist father? Had he done the former, he would have gotten a small advance, few sales—and now bankable proof of his character, rather than money, sales—and an embarrassing revelation of his PC credentials. Harvard Law Review is as essential to wowing a tiny irrelevant Eastern elite as it is meaningless to proving to mid-America that you can easily size up a thug like Putin, see through Euro-trash nonsense, or get some energy leverage back from the mullahs and House of Saud.

The Democrats expected an in-the-tank liberal press to publish charts and graphs of how the “progressive” FDR Obama was better for the blue-collar-worker than the Tom Dewey Republican. Instead they got the last gasp of the 1960s spoiled-brat loudmouths, ranting and frothing how an Obama could at last reify their own narcissistic, guilt-ridden pretensions. The amen-stable at Newsweek, for example, would not have been hired there as copy-editors in the 1960s. If Chris Matthews thinks his tingle up the leg giddiness helps Obama, or Sen. Obama’s race speech is the new Gettysburg Address, he doesn’t know Bakersfield or Dayton. A Keith Olbermann rant is a veritable McCain campaign ad.

I like Barack Obama. He’s a good father, husband, hard-working and refreshingly pleasant sort, enormously bright and a gifted speaker. He doesn’t need the faux-Trinity Church cadences and falsetto black-preacher style to come across as sincere and well-meaning. I think he really does believe that he simply jump-started a Chicago political career using the race card on the way to becoming a liberal Illinois Senator, on the way, in turn, some day to a centrist Humphrey-like national candidacy—and that such contortions were just politics as usual and not disingenuousness or worse.

But something has gone terribly wrong with the Democratic hopes and dreams. Obama, ten points behind Hillary last autumn, ran to get experience, so that in eight years after the Clintoni’s third and fourth terms, a three-term Senator, with campaign savvy, and a long, not-too-liberal voting record, in his late fifties, would have a landmark Presidency. I don’t think that he imagined that anyone would ever really believe the teleprompted hope and change vacuity, and ‘Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain’ gears and levers. Now he is the ultimate “Being There” phantasm.

Bottom Line? Watch the Convention. Obama will, of course, still be nominated, but Hillary will play Medea, Lady Macbeth, and Joan of Arc all in one—and to the hilt.

The tortoise crawls on…
BORROWED FROM PAJAMA MEDIA WORLD NEWS, 8/20/08

THE FIRST STEP IN RECOVERY IS TO ADMIT ONES HELPLESS MESS

McCain jumps ahead in the polls threatening Obama's glory boy "the one" status even further. Obligated to report what can't be denied and boom, by afternoon news releases both Newsweek and NBC are running articles with such inuendos as; the pre convention polls are not really that important its more factual and realistic to evaluate the polls after both conventions are said and done.

NBC publishes another completely fabricated outside poll which still gives Obama a 3 point lead but makes no mention of a give or take spread, or that other polls clearly show McCain surpassing Obama. Slowly but surely the leftist press is seeing their best efforts erode right before their eyes. This is just outright "slanted and gray journalism", a blatant givaway as to the presses died in the wool colors of socialitic gray.

A fourth article comes out on the same day as McCain's victory stating its not important really who the candiates pick as their running mate. Now that Joe Biden an beltway insider with more time in the Washington circles than John McCain and Barack Obama combined appears to be his running mate.
In a later expose printed in an A.P. release states that Biden is speculated to win favor with fence sitters because of his extensive foreign relations backround which could counter McCain's clear lead in that area. Which is it folks you just can't have it both ways either the V.P. is unimportant or he is important.

McCain is going to pick Mitt Romney and I still stand by that. He is going to do so because Romney can give him the Great Lakes states, New England, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico although the latter would probably vote for McCain whether he had Romney or not.

Who says its not important who you pick? Horse pukey!

The populous not so sopisticated place importance of your running mate for such little things as; how the two names rhyme. McCain-Romney, Obama-Clinton, ... McCain-Huckabee, Obama-Evans, McCain-Pawtuckus, Obama-Keene, McCain-Ridge Obama-Macarooney. What was that last one? You get the point.
If a name ain't easy to rhyme people start to look at the candidate a little closer . Or if the candidate hasn't been in the news to mighty often lately, people feel uncomfortable having to try and pronounce a name that even has the slightest nuance of unfamiliarity.

McCain if a very traditional name in form and heritage, so it is easy to accept.
So is Romney no problem there.

Obama is not a household name just yet! And no matter how you slice the pie he needs help on his ticket with a name that will ring familiar. Even if and I say even if. the people do not know a damn thing more than the name:
You know that guy on the 6:o'clock news, last night Jerry whatsisname.

Then someone else at happy hour pipes up, oh you mean Mitt Romney! yeah that's it him. Easy to pronounce lots of Anglo-European roots.Who cares if we know him he sounds American.

Try that again using Obama amd them Obama and a running mate;
you know that guy on the six o'clock news whatsisname Richardson, yeah him. that works somewhat.

Could you see anyone saying you know that guy on the six o'clock news whatsisname, Fingolfin
or Mithfanion, or Fathrd' or even Musariff!

Even though there are really no more syllables dividing these names as those of most others in America, they are unfamiliar in the alphabetical arangement and so therefore people are unfamiliar with them,....hence uncomfortable.

Depending on just where your roots are set in this country dictates on the tolerance of your name as opposed to others of the same region.

Twaya, Tamisha, Kisha, Tyronne, Byron, Amar,Jamez, may be big in Washington, Los Angeles, and the Bronx, but if you are from South Carolina your cultural heritage and name sake will be a lot more traditional . Many folks with roots in the south who are more African American than Obama can ever hope to be have names like McCain, O'Brien, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, White, Black, Ryan, Richards, etc. Obama would have been better off if he had such a name.

Names that begin with O are although not that all uncommon, usually end or are continued with rhymics such as O'Reilly,O'Brian, O'Toole, Oppenheimer,O'Conner, Otto,Otter. As I said, more traditional through nothing more than longivity. Obama is sadly just not as common. Barack might have been better off adopting to use his mothers maiden name as many single parent family's do, but Anglicised not exotic.

In the end Obama although he is just merely another politician,a nice guy, American born, and trying to play in a big dogs game, he will go down in flames. As Nancy Polosi rave's even if he were "the one" in reality, he would fair far better off had his name been Jesus, than Barack Obama, at least he would carry the Hispanic vote.

OBAMA'S LOST BROTHER FOUND WHERE'S BARRY?

Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya
www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?+=52176
The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."

More

So, Obama wants to pass the global poverty act which would force US taxpayers to raise the living standard of the entire world.

Quote:
Obama told the Rev. Rick Warren that "we still don't abide by that basic precept of Matthew: that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.

He has a brother that is known to him living in extreme poverty on a dollar a month. Why doesn't the messiah, the one, who believes in Matthew reach out and help this brother.

If this brother survives on $1 a month think what he could do with one of Barack's dollars to add to it.

This says more about the Obamas than any other one thing in this campaign.

He won't take care of his own.

But he wants to take care of the world by putting his hand in our pockets and giving it away.

I am so disgusted.

Okay Barry it's your move

BOOK REVIEW

A Tale of How Liberals Created Neo-Conservatism
By Ben J. Wattenberg
Posted: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
384 pages
St. Martin's Press/Thomas Dunne Books (New York)
Publication Date: July 2008
Hardcover
ISBN: 978-0312382995

How did a nice, liberal Jewish boy from the Bronx come to be called a conservative?

Ben J. Wattenberg has been at the center of American ideas and events since 1966, when he became a speechwriter for and aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Recruited out of the blue, Wattenberg worked closely with press secretary Bill Moyers and immersed himself in the world of high-powered Democratic strategy making. Eventually he served as an adviser to two Democratic presidential candidates and in the 1970s helped write the Democratic National Platform.

But something funny happened on the way to the Great Society: Key players in the Democratic Party moved to the far left. Wattenberg was not happy with this situation, so he helped establish the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM) and became one of the most outspoken voices in the so-called neo-con movement.

Neo-conservatism, with its signature cause of promoting liberty around the world, is a philosophy often misunderstood, and the phrase neo-con is used frequently as an insult by those who fail to understand the concept. Wattenberg traces the emergence of the movement from its earliest roots among Cold War thinkers such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and from among the ashes of pre-radical liberalism of the early 1960s, to ideological giants Scoop Jackson and Pat Moynihan, to Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan. The author also discusses the proliferation of neo-con "think tanks," such as the American Enterprise Institute, as well as the surprising appearance of a neo-conservative platform in George W. Bush’s administration, in which a number of Wattenberg’s proteges have played key roles.

With his characteristic wit and on-target observations, the author recounts personal anecdotes featuring a rich cast of characters from Johnson to Reverend Jesse Jackson to Rudolph Giulani, as well as many others. Never lacking for opinions--he calls himself the "immoderator" of PBS’s Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg--the author is here to set the record straight, and as the New York Times has said, "Wattenberg has the annoying habit of being right." Replete with stories never told before, Fighting Words is Wattenberg's firsthand account of the remarkable transformation of American politics over the last four decades.

Advance Praise for Fighting Words

"Ben Wattenberg has always fought the good fight with purpose and eloquence. This is the fascinating story of Ben's life in politics and the important work to defend the vital center in American politics." --Senator Joe Lieberman

Ben J. Wattenberg is a senior fellow at AEI.

MICHELLE OBAMA, AN ANGRY BLACK WOMAN

Just as much as the conservative and moderately fiscal conservatives opposed Hillary Clinton for her leftist socialist thinking and her stead fast drive to implement a government run medical program like Canada, those same individuals need to be opposing the election of Barack Obama. For as much as Hillary has been accused of influencing Bill Clinton's days in the Oval office, conservatives need to prevent Michelle Obama's influence from getting a chance and becoming a reality if Barry were to be elected President.

Let no doubt be fostered that Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is not the number one influence on her husband Barack.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is "Angela Davis in Prada" and the reigning dominatrix over Barack although he still ain't gettin much.

Educated in Princeton and Harvard, an impressive feat even by today's standards with more liberalism and less chauvinism than when she went there. Still an accomplishment,but by a bit more than just her own tenacious drive. Michelle Robinson received scholarships to both institutions however not solely due to her scholastic ability, she also needed to be black. Lets take a moment and look at the Democratic Candidates significant other.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson was born in South Carolina.Her parents along with others from the south came with the great 60's wave of civil rights seekers. Michelle was raised by her blue collar father a Democrat and precinct captain in Chicago, and her mother a secretary for a large and well known catalog company. Her parents remained married throughout her life until her fathers death in 1990.

In comparison to many others of her generation, location and black heritage Michelle had a very stable home life, with good core values religion and respect for others and ones family. This is surely part of the reason she did so well academically when growing up. A brother 16 months her senor has also been successful and is presently a coach for a western university. All in all, she appears to have had what might be termed a fairly stable and normal upbringing leading one to believe she was happy in her youth.

Like many of those from generation X although she would have been too young to actually participate in the happenings, she has been influenced by remnants of the 60's/70's and their movements especially in the Chicago area.These ideas were in the public school systems where there was an abundance of minority eenrollees at the lower grades and also in higher educational levels of high school.

As she grew to college age inspirations of left wing black radical ideas were put forth through the tenured socialist teachers installed within the college and university level that Michelle encountered. Yes even at Princeton where opposing opinion is supposed to be food for thought while creating a life philosophy. This was an era where it was posh to have a token radical instructor or two on the university payroll from time to time. The more left the better.

Michelle Robinson attended school in South Chicago in an area in which the minority actually was the majority in the schools and where the topic of White busing was first conceived.

Her teachers and the community were ripe with ideas of radical reform through local black leaders and from notoriously recognized mentors and agitators such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Louis Farnkeim, Huey Newton and other Black Panthers,also Jesse Jackson,William Ayers of the Weather Underground, Arthur M. Brazier, and Leon Finney founder and directors of TWO respectively.

Some of Michelle's earliest awareness was from talks around the dinner table each evening as well as of neighborhood substandard housing, slum lords, corrupt community leaders, and black gangsters who ran the neighborhoods,white hoods who ran the unions, and the standard platitudes of study, get good grades and grab your opportunity get out of here.

The 60's/70's cultural and social revolution was Michelle's most influential backdrop. Entitlement and equal rights became household words. Her generational anger had begun. She was torn between her family values and outside world influences.
When she finally made it to college she would choose a whole different identity from that which she was raised.

Early on thanks to her parents she was pushed to be an achiever and told that if she wanted to see things change she had to be at a level of success to be able to do something about it, she did just that. By aligning her success with her new identity she became both a vocal and physical activist for the black left. Even though she really did not feel at home with her new social standing, she chose to be black over American.

During her time at Princeton starting in 1981 her major was Sociology, and she minored in African American Studies, again her influences were the teachings by some of the same revolutionary reactionist's that she had heard about and experienced in her upbringing.

But what is it that makes a successful person like Michelle fuel the anger of her youthful miguided intentions and direct it at the society of her success? A white society. She received help and became successful from that same society so why the anger?

With all achievers comes a certain outlook as to what it takes to get to where they have arrived. Somehow especially with many successful blacks of that era, and definitely with the rise of the "entitlement social movement" based solely on color, with the minorities who were successful anger at society seemed to be more prevalent. The races appear to act in different mannerism's when relating to achievement and success. I am not talking about material success and do not hold materialism as a measure for success. But more so a measurement by academic achievement and social contribution.

It seems that most all of the truly successful people in recorded history reach back and try to give a helping hand to their brethren after reaching a certain level of financial independent wealth that enables them to do so, minorities are not excluded from this social gesture. Others while still climbing for that preconceived level of stability get involved actively and socially on a community level to help their fellow man.

Is this activity divided by line of color? That possibility seems real. But again this seems to be only a minority phenomenon. Without going into a whole dissertation as to why whites are more (I don't believe I using this word) liberal when it comes to helping minorities, and minorities prefer to reach out predominately to their own kind, lets just leave it as is, and say that is the way it is, and no criticism of said is needed nor solicited.

Part of the drive of all successful people is to house some anger as a driving force in order to become someone of prominence and success as opposed to becoming one from whence they came. That anger may be directed at the person who initially pushed them to become successful or the world for how cold and indifferent the actual world can really be.

Slowly as one enters the event of climbing the ladder, they are presented with painful options that must often be decided in contrast to core values in order to make it to the top. The pain of separation from childhood fantasy, security and upbringing to the adult world can create emotional anger in immature minds.

Many of these options that have to be decided upon ,their parents didn't inform them about, and this causes a twinge of anger due to unpreparedness. They are also presented with comparisons and realities that they are not familiar with, this causes another twinge of anger and immature jealousy. We all make these comparison's. "How come my parents were not as successful as Johnny's parents? And therefore I have to work twice as hard as he does t make it, because his folks know everybody and he gets a break. Well he's white that's why". There goes another twinge of anger.Flawed reasoning. Conflicts of what is reality and its perception arise.

These perceived realities are reinforced by the very people of there own skin color who while preaching hatred, fear and distrust of the other colors especially white are fleecing their constituents pockets from government subsidies ear marked for the community. This methodology however really can be found in all thieves and has no color differential as it core, but during the epoch of Michelle's upbringing it was rampant among blacks now that they had found a voice, through some somewhat savory messiah's.

Initially the well minded parent who laid down all the rules of success is the person who may get the blame,for the seemingly unending struggles presented to the child who sees the brass ring within his or her reach. The reach is very hard and long and often it is the first realization that the world is not always fair. Their parents didn't prepare them well enough for it.

Over time that successful child learns to redirect that anger either at the community surrounding them, their church, or eventually at their government.
Government anger was prominent in the black community during that time because it was where the thieving black leaders saw opportunity to make lots of money. Alienating blacks against whites over living standards, poverty, how many blacks were conscripted and dieing in Vietnam, and a whole lot more Machiavellian parry's to maintain dissension.

Community leaders were famous for blaming whitey. Rev.Jerimiah Wright still uses this ploy to push home an old message and profit, while Michelle Obama allows herself to harbor white anger feelings despite quitting the congregation. I am sure she blames the quitting on whitey and fails to see that it is one of her own who is stealing her mind and her money and not the intrepid white skinned devil.

Government is always a facet so easily blamed for all of societies short comings, and eventually race begins to get the blame as well if not before. Usually it is the race in control of the government that is perceived as the oppressor.This is because good governance is not taught at home good manners are along with subservience. Government is left up to the schools and I've already touched on who runs the schools.

Now hands down this is Michelle Robinson Obama. I would lay wager that her dating experience in both high school and college was next to none. Perceivably using studies as an excuse to refrain from too much social interaction with the opposite sex because of her family upbringing she was shy and naive with family values. The other students mostly white were more assertive, liberal, and often quite loose leaving her with a distorted perception of how whitey lived, conceivably too much license quite uncommon from her own experience up to that point.

Her feelings and emotions were not all that uncommon with the other students. But because of the way she was raised and the influences of her past her perception could only be described as how the most recent raid in Texas upon the polygamist sect played out on television during dinner hour news.

One sees how out of touch through isolation the women were when compared to any "norm" observed in everyday social interaction. It is apparent as to how much these women of the outcast LDS church had been sheltered and conditioned against the ways of the world to such extremes as to the point of being brain washed, manipulative, and just plain ignorant. There wasn't one of them who was even a healthy dysfunctional.

Although I do not believe that Michelle Robinson Obamas home life was any where near that of the LDS, her reaction to her first time away from home was similar to that of how those women react extremely immature. The women didn't actually know how to respond to questions. They displayed conversation and emotions much like those of a child who has a severe emotional introvert syndrome. When suddenly placed on the spot to own up to the truthful questioning about something they feel uneasy with it and they divert blame and responsibility onto everything with exception of themselves.

I am not saying that this is wrong it is unhealthy, it is a far cry from liberalised secular 60's style free love and uninhibited sexual activism. (Which by the way brought us a more than 50% divorce rate and record number single parent households).But it goes to show that Michelle houses some sexual inhibition, social inhibitions, and anger issues, only because she is not the norm, being that the norm is too liberal for her taste and upbringing and she was sheltered as a child. How could society let her go to Princeton and have not told her what to expect? What a shock it must have been for poor little South Chicago Michelle.She needed a new identity and she needed it fast.

Anger seems to besiege those who lack the experience of understanding through knowledge, whether that experience is worthwhile or not.

Michelle appears to have focused her anger on her government in the end, as made apparent in her famously repeated speeches referring to her pride for the first time in her life for her country. Personally I am surprised that she claims the U.S. as her country. She showed no pride when she won a minority scholarship to Princeton compliments of affirmative action. She showed no pride when she again won a government minority scholarship to Harvard Law School.

Its funny how little sound bites as they are known in the media world, can be so revealing. Equal to that of a drunk expressing himself about his true feelings when he has successfully become so inebriated he cannot control his mouth from blurping what his subconscious is thinking.

I believe that Michelle Obama was drunk with the joy of knowing that her husband was looking at a real chance of becoming the next president of the United States and that she could be bestowed the opportunity to become first lady. In her case a very influential position being as she has so much influence upon Barry. At this moment she blurped out her subconscious ever so revealing her true feelings about how many times she thinks she has been given a fair shake here in Amerika.

Michelle Obama has an agenda folks! And that agenda is equally as threatening as that of Hillary Clinton's, except that Michelle's agenda is all BLACK. She has developed this agenda since her alma mater days, and has not left its track. It is her true identity since leaving the confines of her parents home guidence and innocence. It is the true angry black woman syndrome. She is as much of a product of her own social experience in college as that of Hillary Clinton's and her experience is dangerous. She intends to retro us back to the future into the days of the back to Africa movement, but in reverse. She is all about Black, and Whites,Hispanic, and Oriental need not apply.

Michelle's is from the old school of black thinking, despite her contrieved populistism. She is all of the anger of every angry black woman ever to be raised since the era of the Great Society, Womens Liberation" and Unequal Rights called Affirmative Action.

If elected and under her tutelage Barack Obama will either have to do as Bill Clinton did, and get some under the desk in the Oral Office, or cow towe to Michelle's whims and wishes as to how to help strictly Black Folk or go without.

This being the case Michelle Robinson Obama stands in a pretty strong position to effectively influence Barack's direction more than it already is. Pointing us toward a reversal of the roles by a minority group and the present status quo of government. In so doing pointing us backward in a direction more closely relative to the 60's Kennedy-Johnson era. Once again we would be confronted with entitlement demands, mandatory appointment of unqualified workers in technically demanding positions. More lowering of the standards for entry into the higher educational systems continued lowering of standards to obtain a high school or college degree, and an overall lowering of the quality of living due to the diminishment of the true value system that this country was founded on and instead a third world value system of materialism."Less work for more junk". All in the name of opportunity for those who have been deceptively convinced that they are victims of our modern day society, and manipulated to believe it by thieves of the same color.

It is ironic that Michelle Robinson Obama comes from a back round in some ways more culturally in tune with our past and it values than my own, but yet chooses to throw all of that out the window in the name of race bating and doesn't even realize it.
Michelle Obama is generationally more American than my own family who has now only been here three generations. It ain't me who's kept them down on the farm for so long for sure.

COMPARING BACKROUNDS

Michelle when compared to Angela Davis could almost be her clone. Again Davis' family has more American generations than me personally. Here are some of the comparisons:

BOTH WERE BORN IN JANUARY ONLY 20 YEARS AND 9 DAYS APART.
BOTH WERE RAISED BY TWO WORKING PARENTS WHO DID NOT DIVORCE
ONLY ANGELA'S MOTHER HAD A COLLEGE DEGREE. BOTH FATHERS WERE BLUE COLLAR.

BOTH GRADUATED CUM LAUDE
BOTH HAVE ROOTS TO THE DEEP SOUTH SOUTH CAROLINA AND ALABAMA
BOTH HAVE STUDIED FRENCH, THE BOURGEOISIE LANGUAGE THAT OF MARX, MARCUSE, AND STALIN WHEN TRYING TO TRANSLATE BOURGEOISIE WRITINGS AND NECESSARY TO READ SOME OF THE ORGINAL WORKS OF THE AUTHORS UNEDITED FOR THIS COUNTRY.

BOTH HAD BROTHERS HEAVILY INVESTED INTO SPORTS, MICHELLE'S BROTHER IS A BASKETBALL COACH , AND ANGELAS BROTHER WAS A FOOTBALL STAR.

BOTH ATTENDED UNIVERSITY'S BASED ON THEIR SCHOLASTIC ABILITY, SEX AND IN PARTICULAR RACE.
BOTH STUDIED RADICAL BLACK HISTORY.
BOTH STUDIED MARXISM LENINISM, AND COMMUNISM AS A MEANS FOR THE LESSOR PRIVILEGED TO RISE UP SOCIALLY.
BOTH WANT TO BITE THE HAND THAT FED THEM THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE ATTAINED.
BOTH ARE BLACK FEMINISTS, SOCIALISTS, AND ADVOCATES OF AND EMBRACE MARX'S PROLETARIAT BELIEF.
BOTH HAVE READ, BEEN INFLUENCED BY, AND HAVE IN THEIR LIBRARY BOOKS BY
CHARLES MILLS
ANTHONY BOGUES
OLADYSO FASHINA
FRANTZ FANON
JOY JAMES
BERNARD BELL
BARBARA SMITH
IRMA MC CLAURN
JAMES CONE
CORNELL WEST

ALTHOUGH ANGELA IS A PROFESSED LESBIAN, BOTH WOMEN HOLD BLACK MEN IN CONTEMPT UNLESS THEY MEET A MEASURE OF EDUCATION, FINANCIAL SECURITY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEMANDED BY BLACK WOMEN WHEN IT COMES TO MEASURING EQUALITY.
BOTH DO NOT LOOK AT ALL MEN AS EQUAL, LITERALLY.

IN ALL FAIRNESS THAT LAST SONNET COULD BE APPLIED TO PROBABLY 50% OF THE WOMEN IN THE WORLD NO MATTER WHAT COLOR

In many ways Michelle Obama is more of a threat in the White House than Barack or Angela Davis ever was or is. I see many many more parallels between her and Hillary Clinton and perhaps this is part of Hillary's real disdain for Obama. Perhaps Hillary sees a reflection in black of her very own Billy boy. Strong on charm, weak on spinal structure. For more on Michelle and Princeton see;
www.rightpundits.com/?p=1132

Another Polluted Law From Where Else But The Polluted State

California's ban on smoking outdoors has taken things too far.

I support not smoking in restaurants, or as an alternative having a smoking lounge in restaurants where smokers, could go and enjoy their after dinner cup of coffee or drink, if they are so inclined while not forcing those of us who have cherished our lungs for more then just breathing and decided not to take up such a filthy habit into having to put up with it.

Both my mother and father were smokers. My estranged sister smokes, but I do not. I blame my reasoning on the fact that I paid for my own SCUBA diving lessons at fifteen and was a certified diver long before PADI and recreational diving became a Yuppie sport, with yum yum yellow diving suits and matching fins.I loved diving and so I valued my lungs.

I wanted to be a UDT Frogman and become the second Mike Nelson,after serving my anticipated stint in the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately this Sueno never came about and I wound up becoming Green Beret instead. Oh well life is cruel.

Did I mind my folks smoking when I was young? To a degree it was annoying, but the aroma of my fathers cigars made it o.k.. My mothers cigarettes although offensive never really bothered my to awful much because she always had the courtesy of waiting for us to leave the kitchen before she lit up after completing her homemaker chores. The kitchen was her territory and it was not we children's job to dictate what the homemaker could do or not do on her own free time.

Let us jump ahead to modern day for now so as not to lose the point of this article. Do I support a ban on smoking today, yes partially. I agree that smoking should be banned in any public place that cannot offer an alternative that is viable for both sects of people, smokers and non smokers.

By viable I mean a real solution that works. At present I live in Nevada. Why am I worried about another of California's cockimame laws? Because these stupid ass laws seem to drigt east and of course smoking laws adapted from California have been placed into public law not quite 15 years yet.As expected the Casinos let out an uproar since the inception of the idea to follow California in banning smoking, and have won some reprieve. At present there is no smoking in any government building which I agree with, its the public's building.

Nevada has taken things one step further and banned smoking in public restaurants and stores as well. This I also agree with but with exception, and by the way in conformity with the law if a restaurant owner wants to adhere to it the owner may create an area at his expense where folks can smoke. However it has to be completely sealed in order to prevent any seepage of the toxic and deadly second hand smoke.( I am not really sure to what extent second hand smoke hurts folks so please take that last reference with a humorous grain of smoke. My folks did not pass on lung cancer to me and as I said they both smoked in the home).

Before we go to far I should mention that the Casinos did get their exception and smoking has not been banned in the gaming areas. Naturally in my opinion this exception has failed dramatically. If one goes into a casino to eat and not to gamble the stench of an over sized bar room, permeated with ages of yellowing smoke infested stink clinging to all of the walls can still be smelled, and leaves one with the taste of nicotine in whatever is ordered.

However here is where I part ways with the law. Unless I am mistaken the law still stands that we have a right to not go and eat in such an establishment if we choose not to do so. Although I live in the devils play ground state, I do not by choice go into casinos to gamble nor to eat. Have I done so yes on occasion when invited, (my love of a free meal still overrides my distaste for the smell of rancid nicotine sometimes). And of course this depends on the company with whom I am choosing to spend time with at that moment.

Banning smoking outside in California or anywhere except a gasolne station would be an utterly rediculous law, and any attempt to enforce such a law should be defeated.

Just as much as I am opposed to Affirmative Action as a way to bring about equal opportunity, I am opposed to outright and overall government intervention into passing laws under the auspices of protecting a certain group of people from another group of habituals.

If folks want to smoke have at it, but remember that I have the right to choose not to be around it also. So the solution should be limited to disallowing smoking, just as much as public urination in places that I may have to have intercourse with whether it is a voluntary action on my part or one that is the result of a mandatory formality.

Truthfully I wish that if the thought police were really on the ball they would outlaw the use of cell phones in all public places,commercial enterprises, and outdoors. Now that I could become a puritan over!!

He's Not a Real Leader

Re: What More Do You Need To Know?
Jennifer Rubin - 08.09.2008 - 5:03 PM
The situation in Georgia is serious. The U.S. and the West are being tested: will we defend an ally and check Russian ambitions in the Caucasus?

On the political front, Georgia may in fact be the “3 a.m. moment.” And the candidates’ reactions are telling. As Abe pointed out, McCain’s reaction was swift, specific and unequivacal: the international community won’t tolerate the invasion of a sovereign state. Obama’s best effort is to suggest “calm” and go on vacation. No words on the matter from His actual lips. Contrary to the linked article, Obama’s initial limp comment is not in keeping with the White House’s position –President Bush has definitively told Russia to cease the attack. It is instructive that Obama takes such a ho-hum attitude to the invasion of a U.S. ally. You don’t have to be a partisan to see how serious the situation is and how inadequate Obama’s response is.

So what is ahead? Just as Iran went from being a “tiny” country and no real threat in The One’s mind to a serious and grave one, I see a flip-flop coming on this issue. I’m sure the Winnie-the-Pooh fellow and the rest of the 299 are thinking hard. Unfortunately, a candidate’s — or a president’s — first reaction to an international crisis is often critical and always telling.

UPDATE: Well, as predicted, Obama tries to straighten out his position on Georgia. (But not before his campaign gets caught spouting Russian talking points. So much for “nuance.” ) Only one of the candidates has been up on the details of the crisis and specific on the required action.

THE BEST ARTICLE I HAVE FOUND ABOUT MCCAIN

McCain's Country-First Life Is a Winner
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

If Barack Obama presents a target-rich environment in his inflated balloon of media hype over one non-accomplishment after another, John McCain presents the opposite. No hype. No hot air. No blathering, bloated claims about ethereal change and meaningless hope in government to save us. None of this Hollywood stuff for McCain.


McCain is scrappy. He's a scrounger. He's downright humble. Rather than touting his formidable experience, or the fact that he has had three sons in the military, quietly serving their Country, John McCain presents a true model of decency, self-respect and laudable humility, in the same all-male bundle.


McCain has been a Country-First guy yesterday, today and always.


The more I read about John McCain, the more I realize that he embodies so much of what we Americans regard as our exceptionalism of character, our grit and determination, our willingness to strip down to brass tacks to achieve a worthwhile goal, our utter disdain for royal celebrity accoutrement in our leaders. John McCain is American to the marrow of his bones, going back generations, and evidenced in every sphere of his life.


I sincerely doubt that the word, "quit," is in this guy's vocabulary.


When his political chips were down, McCain created his own surge.


In June 2007, the press were all but writing obituaries on McCain's presidential campaign. The campaign was basically broke, donors were looking elsewhere, and it was a time for reassessment.


On April 19, 2007, Harry Reid, new Senate Majority Leader, had stood upon our Capitol steps and declared for all the world, especially our enemies, that this "war is lost." Congressional Democrats were acting like banshees demanding withdrawal timetables for Iraq, and pronouncing the surge a failure before it ever had a chance to succeed.


When the chips were down, did McCain call his celebrity pals in Hollywood to ask for advice and a quick, fancy prop-up and money, money, money?


Does McCain even have any friends in Hollywood?


John McCain decided to leave the whole mess behind, and embarked on a no-fanfare trip to Iraq to spend the 4th of July with our troops. As one of the most vocal initial backers for the troop surge in Iraq, McCain continued to believe that premature withdrawal would be devastating, not only to the people of Iraq and the Middle East, but to our ability to fight the war on terror around the globe.


John McCain flew to Iraq to celebrate Independence Day in the privileged company of those he has always loved best, his fellow men and women in America's Armed Forces.


A fancy gym? No.


Shopping? No.


A bunch of Berliners to cheer him on? No, no and heck no.


I love this guy!


Iraq. July 4th 2007.


We were still losing the war. Did our armed forces cry in their blankies and protest McCain, begging to go home to their mommies?


Nope. On that day, McCain watched as 588 men and women re-enlisted to serve their Country even more. On that day in Iraq, as Hollywood's celebs and Washington's Democrats practically spat on America's chances, 161 service personnel became naturalized citizens of the United States of America. Especially poignant that day were the two empty chairs among our new citizenry. Two soldiers had been killed just before they were able to receive formal citizenship for their personal fealty and love for America.


John McCain addressed the assembled troops in the plain straight talk for which he has been known throughout his life. And when he finished, more than 2,000 men and women in uniform stood in line just to shake his hand.


When he returned to the States, he told a Chicago Tribune reporter that seeing and being with our troops in the theater of war reinvigorated him for the surge in his own campaign. Even though he shied from saying so, I would speculate that he felt from these men and women, and their families, the same inner strength that brought him through more than 5 years as a P.O.W. in Hanoi, Vietnam.


McCain's Dark Night of the Soul


Few human beings have life experiences that push them to the absolute brink of surrendering their humanity, especially an experience that lasts such a long time. Through more than a thousand sun-ups and sunsets. Through more than a thousand nights of despair and darkness, when the entire world seems to have deserted and gone on its merry way.


In 1988, I purchased a book written by Ernie Brace about his captivity in North Vietnam. Unknown to me at the time was that Mr. Brace had been the longest held civilian, by an enemy in wartime in history. He was also a one-time cellmate of John McCain, and the foreword of his book, A Code to Keep, was written by Senator McCain.


Senator McCain quoted another man, who had endured horrible captivity and inhumane conditions, Victor Frankl, a prisoner of the Nazis. In Frankl's account, Man's Search for Meaning, McCain, Brace, and so many others discovered that under such conditions, "everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."


Over the course of five years in a Hanoi prison, two of those years in solitary confinement, John McCain discovered his inner strength, his maverick spirit, and his determined will to never succumb to a loss of what makes us human. Our free will.


Every time I hear John McCain speak now, I am reminded that he has faced this horror. When I see that he walks stiffly, I know it's because his leg was broken in October 1967, and he didn't wind up in an efficient, well-equipped American medical facility. He ended up in a Hanoi prison instead. He was told that if he gave them military information they might fix his leg and his arms. Instead, the "medical treatment" the communists gave him nearly killed him. His body has never properly healed.


Every voter, in my opinion, ought to read Senator McCain's First-Person Account of his captivity, published in May 1973, now available online.


When the North Vietnamese learned they had the son of the naval admiral, who was about to be given command over our entire Forces in the Pacific, they wanted John McCain to accept early release.


When McCain's father took over as CINCPAC, the communists tried to persuade John again to accept this favoritism.


Interrogator: "Our senior wants to know your final answer."


McCain: "My final answer is the same. It's ‘No.""


Interrogator: "That is your final answer?"


McCain: "That is my final answer."


Interrogator: "Now, McCain it will be very bad for you."


Things did indeed get very bad for John McCain, even worse than having panties placed upon his head for photos.


The next day, the guards came for him, took him to another room in the Hanoi Hilton, and asked, "Why are you so disrespectful of guards?" McCain's answer seems not to have been the one for which they were hoping. He cracked in characteristic fashion, "Because the guards treat me like an animal."


When I said that, the guards, who were all in the room -- about 10 of them -- really laid into me. They bounced me from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes. For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards. My left arm was broken again and my ribs were cracked.


McCain's stiffness is a badge of courage and honor; he did not give them what they wanted. The communists wanted him to disparage his Country and to make statements laudatory of the wonderful treatment he was receiving in captivity.


Having been a college student during those days that John McCain was beaten in a Hanoi prison for my liberties, I remember the heralded press coverage given to the anti-war demonstrators wreaking havoc all over. And I remember how Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, David Dellinger and others took big photo-op trips to Hanoi, sitting in the enemy's anti-aircraft apparatuses, and smiling broadly as they embraced our enemies.


I even thought some of them were very heroic. That was before I understood the meaning of the word. John McCain has lived one of the most genuinely heroic lives imaginable. Yet Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden still disparage him for it; they love Barack Obama's idea of patriotism.


As for me, I don't particularly care for the idea of patriotism that the Democratic Party has been selling nonstop since the Sixties.


I prefer John McCain's idea of patriotism. Love of God and Country first. Before personal gain. Before personal glory. Before personal gravitas. Before politics. There are some things upon which there simply can be no compromise. For John McCain, the non-compromising item appears to be personal integrity.


McCain's Country-First life is a winner. I'm not sure we deserve him, but I sure do hope we get him for our next Commander In Chief.


Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/mccains_countryfirst_life_is_a.html at August 08, 2008 - 09:07:20 AM EDT

Free the Oil - And Other Slick Tricks

By Debra Saunders
August 7, 2008

Earlier in the presidential campaign, when John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a summer holiday on the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax, Barack Obama dismissed the tax vacation as an election-year gimmick that offered financially squeezed families "just pennies." I wrote that, unlike Clinton and McCain, Obama "stood tall in opposing the gas-tax holiday."

Now we know why. Obama must have seen the gas-tax holiday as chump change in the wondrous store of campaign gimmicks. When Obama panders, he panders big-time. Witness his proposed "emergency energy rebate" that -- on the heels of this year's $600 per taxpayer stimulus package rebate sent to taxpayers this year -- promises additional $500 checks for American workers or $1,000 per family "as soon as this fall." (Is there an income cap for how Obama defines eligible "working families"? The campaign did not get back to me on that by my deadline.)

To hear Obama, the check is practically in the mail. Obama argues that his plan is fiscally responsible because he would pay for it by levying a "reasonable" tax on oil companies' windfall profits. The candidate has pointed to Exxon Mobil's record profits -- $22.6 billion in the first half of this year -- to justify his raid on its earnings.

Less reported, Investors Business Daily editorialized, are the record taxes Exxon Mobil paid in the same period -- $61.7 billion. Also, "Exxon made a dime on a dollar in 2007. The oil and gas industry as a whole made 8.3 percent, compared with 8.9 percent of all U.S. manufacturing." So why whack Big Oil?

According to Stanford economist John Taylor, who is a McCain adviser, raising taxes on oil companies likely "will raise the price of gasoline."

If critics are right, and a windfall profits tax raises gas prices or leads to a drop in domestic oil output, which only worsens America's chronic dependence on foreign oil, then what? Another emergency energy rebate check?

In a clever effort to dress up his big-time pander as a high-minded position, Obama has suggested that McCain is "in the pocket of Big Oil." Obama points out that McCain wants to lower Exxon Mobil's tax bill -- which is true, because McCain wants to lower all the corporate tax rates to 25 percent to create jobs.

McCainiacs respond by noting that Obama voted for the 2005 omnibus energy bill -- signed by President Bush -- which gave oil companies specific tax breaks. For that very reason, McCain voted no.

Many in the press have faulted Camp McCain for being too cute in taking on Obama's energy plans. Hence the stories about McCain aides handing out tire gauges labeled "Obama Energy Plan" in response to Obama's stump statement, "We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires."

I'll take the tire gauges over Obama's $1,000 pander. Ditto Obama's huge flip-flop on the 70 million barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In July, when other Democrats were clamoring for a release of the oil, Obama had the fortitude to argue that the reserve should be saved for "a genuine emergency," like a terrorist attack. Now he says he wants to free the oil.

Slick. Mayhap, instead of tire gauges, McCain's Navy should be handing out $500 bills in Monopoly money. Or a pair of earrings.

Last month, Michelle Obama said of the $600 stimulus rebate checks: "You're getting $600 -- what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month. The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

Now, I've never spent $600 for a pair of earrings. But in the event of an emergency -- which requires the releasing of petroleum and mailing $1,000 checks to working families -- I could learn to sacrifice.

---

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.