The Pyrrhic Presidential Campaign

By David Hinz

In 279 BC the army of King Pyrrhus of Epirus faced the Roman army led by Consul Publius Cecius Mus at the battle of Asculum. The battle raged the entire day, and then well into the night. By the light of the following morning, King Pyrrhus surveyed the battlefield to find most of his elite troops dead, as well as most of his most trusted friends and commanders. In all, more than 15,000 men lay dead upon the field of battle.

One of his advisers, seeing the Roman army vanquished hailed Pyrrhus for his great victory over the Romans. Pyrrhus replied, "Another such victory as this, and we shall be undone."

A Pyrrhic Victory has come to mean a victory gained at devastating cost to the victor.

The Democrat Primary

Eventually, some time later this summer, the Democrat Party will crown a Presidential candidate for their party's nominee for President of the United States. Polls suggest that it will be a Pyrrhic Victory. A process that was deliberately set up to be a coronation of Hillary Clinton, has deteriorated into hopeless quagmire in which neither Clinton nor Obama can win the nomination through the primary process.

For a party that has made a mantra over the past seven years of "Selected, Not Elected" in it's vilification of President George W Bush, it is positively delicious that their 2008 candidate will have to be selected by the so-called "Superdelegates." The only possible outcome that could be sweeter still, would be if that selection was made during a brokered convention, in a smoke(-free) backroom.

Polls taken of Democrat partisans paint a pyrrhic picture for the eventual winner. A significant number of the supporters of both Clinton and Obama threaten to withhold their votes if the other candidate should win the nomination. The Democrat Party is a fragile coalition of disparate special interest groups (feminists, blacks, gays, felons and dead white cats, to name a few), and this primary, pitting faction against faction, threatens to fracture the party.

But voters seem to care about the name-calling and the tackles. In a recent Gallup poll, almost 30 percent of Clinton supporters say they'd go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over Obama if Clinton loses the nomination; 19 percent of Obama supporters say the same.

Another poll of white American voters reveals that eight-percent of the electorate admit that they would have a difficult time voting for a black man -- merely because of his skin color.

Obama would be the first black president, and the survey detected some evidence of racial discomfort in voters' minds. It found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.

Meanwhile, the partisan Mainstream Media openly shills for one or the other candidate, while wringing their hands about how this might help the (formerly "Maverick") and now evil Republican candidate, John McCain.

The Republican Primary

Ironically, it was the Republican primary, with its plethora of highly qualified candidates that was projected to go the distance, with no clear winner emerging until a brokered convention. Political junkies, like myself, were admittedly eager for just such an outcome. But, unlike the Democrat primary, where the majority of the candidates were mere window dressing, the Republican candidates split the conservative vote sufficiently to allow John McCain to emerge unscathed fairly early.

And so, a Republican Party that was supposed to be in disarray according to all the pundits, has been able to pretty much coalesce behind the presumptive nominee, while gleefully munching buttered popcorn and jeering the Democrats from the sidelines.

But, like the Democrats, a John McCain win in November will be a Pyrrhic Victory at best. The next President will inherit an economy in collapse. Rising energy and food prices threaten to derail the train of commerce. Congress, and the Bush Administration have both pushed for Ethanol production, and done absolutely nothing to increase oil exploration, production or refining. The one-two punch of rising fuel costs and food costs are hitting the American public as never before.

Solutions that could save the nation; making the Bush tax cuts permanent, increased drilling for oil, nuclear power plants; will all be opposed by the Democrat controlled Congress. ANWR will continue to be off limits, while our dependence on foreign governments, many of whom are hostile to the United States, will only grow.

In addition, each and every candidate has offered fealty to the hoax of Man Made Global Warming. Any attempt to impose Cap-and-Trade, or tax American business in the name of MMGW will devastate our economy.

In comments to the effect that the US needs to look "beyond" the Kyoto accords, McCain could be talking about changing those anti-American protocols to include the emerging Indian and Chinese economies. If McCain is, in fact, suggesting that the US will consider stricter restrictions of emissions only if China and India are similarly restrained, his outlook on MMGW could be to our nation's advantage.

Regardless of which candidate eventually places their hand on the bible, taking the oath of office of President of the United States in January, 2009, the economy in free-fall will be blamed on that President. A Pyrrhic Victory indeed.

Sending A Message To The Candidate -- Part Deux

ATTEMPTING TO CREATE A MOVEMENT

By David Hinz

On Friday, I penned a piece entitled "Bitter? Da**** Right I'm Bitter -- Sending A Message To John McCain." I posted it at The HinzSight Report, The Minority Report and at RedState. In it I recommended that we send a message to Sen John McCain that the base is not happy.

The vehicle I suggested for that message was the inversion of John McCain bumper stickers and yard signs. As a former Navy flier it is a certainty that John McCain is familiar with the meaning of a Naval Ensign or the American flag presented upside down. It is a signal of distress. From that post:

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

A signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property! I cannot think of a better description of the situation we face in this election. The issues facing this nation, and the next occupant of the Oval Office, are among the most important we have ever faced.

Radical Islamic terrorism, energy independence, Socialized National Healthcare, Carbon Credits to offset Global Warming fears and massive tax increases all threaten to change the American way of life. The answers proposed by both Obama and Clinton will destroy our freedoms. We cannot contemplate what damage a Democrat President, along with a Democrat controlled Congress can inflict on this nation.

In my original post, I used a John McCain bumper sticker, and presented it upside down, suggesting that others do the same. The point I was attempting to make was the fact that the nation, the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement are all in dire distress and extreme danger. That original bumper sticker, however, included a small American flag on the corner, and even though the quote above explains the circumstances by which it is appropriate to display the flag in such manner, some people believed it to be disrespectful.

With that thought in mind, to prevent any appearance of disrespect, I would suggest McCain stickers such as this:



The point needs to be made to the good Senator that the base is concerned. The base has just suffered through eight years on a roller coaster. The Compassionate Conservative now sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office gave us two excellent jurists in Roberts and Alito. He also gave us Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind (except those who needed vouchers to get out of their failing schools.)

President Bush stood tall against Radical Islamic extremists and the Greater War on Terror, then folded like a house of cards, signing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that provided neither energy nor security to our nation.

This President pushed through Congress, a tax cut for every American who pays federal taxes, helping to bring back an economy assaulted by the attack on 9-11. He then presided over the most massive increase in government spending in history, vetoing not a single earmark bloated spending bill.

He took office with a Republican majority in both houses (I know all about Jeffords) and will leave office having, with the aid of an out-of-control leadership, turned both chambers over to Democrat control.

The current President tried to push through illegal immigration legislation, with Sen McCain acting as his right-hand man in the process, that would have granted amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens.

And therein lies the problem that conservatives face with their nominee. He gives every appearance of President Bush's weaknesses, without his redeeming values. He has relished his "Maverick" status, often reaching across the aisle to Democrats, without offering that same hand in friendship to conservative members of his own party.

It is time to try to get the good Senator's attention.

Another four to eight years of a President who has no concern whatsoever for Conservatives or for his Party, and there will BE no Conservative Movement or Republican Party. Four more years of neglect from the leader of the party in the White House, will end any hope Conservatives might have of retaking Congress for the next 20 years.

Contrary to my predictions a mere three months ago, I now firmly believe that the Republican nominee will almost certainly become President in 2009. Given the past eight years, John McCain has to be the luckiest SOB to ever run for office. He has done everything in his power to alienate his base, to the point that a not too insignificant portion of that base has been reduced to soul searching as to whether they can, in good conscience vote for the man.

Possibly -- quite possibly, in fact, he can win the Presidency without that base, given the utter determination of both Democrat candidates to lose. But, then again, you can never tell about the Democrats and their, as Rush likes to call them, "willing accomplices in the Mainstream Media." Once a nomination is finally achieved, the American people can expect an unrelenting onslaught of MSM attacks toward Sen McCain, and pure pabulum directed at the Democrat.

By November, it is entirely possible that Sen McCain might just need that base to win. By then it might well be too late. Now is the time to get the good Senator's attention, with the goal in mind of wooing him back to the Conservative base. A movement like this might well gain the attention of the MSM. They would love to report dissension in the Republican ranks. They might well bring it to the good Senator's attention for us.

Either way, the message needs to be sent. Join NOW!

American Exceptionalsim

Pope's recent visit to The United States has highlighted a very telling problem in American society especially a problem that exists with our elected officials in Washington. The Pope made it very clear that he not only highly respects America but admires who we are and what we stand for as a Nation and as a people. In fact the Pope sounded more patriotic about The United States than many who claim to serve this nation as Representatives of the people.

The 2008 Presidential campaign has presented a candidate who believes that wearing a flag pin or saluting our flag is not an act of love of country but a sign that one supports the war ONLY and not respect for Old Glory and the Nation it represents, which is what it should be. This campaign has presented a prospective First Lady who has only been proud of her country once in her life and that ONLY because her husband is running for President.

This campaign has presented candidates who can only condemn America and have yet to lift her up with pride and respect through love for our country. Rather we hear only how terrible we are and how bad it is to exist in America. We have been made to feel that it is fanatical to express our love for our flag, our country and even to ask that God bless this Nation because we have the gaul to invoke the Name of God in reference to America.

Daily we hear from our National Representatives that America has created or worsens the problems that exist through out the World. We hear those in whom we as a people have placed in office talk of how America should bow to the United Nations and instead of leading the World take a second seat to European countries who have accomplished far less than we. Nations whose histories expand hundreds of centuries as compared to America's few.

No longer do we hear of the greatness of America. No longer do we hear of the exceptional freedoms that we and we alone have. No longer do those who claim to represent us tell of the beauty of our land or the liberties that we each share that are found nowhere else in the World.

One of the many aspects of Ronald Reagan that made him so popular was that in a time when we as a Nation felt that our best days were behind us and were even being told by then President Jimmy Carter that we must learn to accept that The United States was no longer great and that we as her people must accept a lesser way of life, President Reagan reminded us that not only were our best days ahead of us but that we were still not only a great Nation but the one true hope of liberty in this World.

Reagan made us proud to be Americans again and he not only expressed his personal love of this land but was proud to show that love through respect for our flag and in every opportunity he had to represent this Nation whether on the Beaches of Normandy, at the Berlin Wall, the Kremlin in Russia or right hear at home on television or any public appearance he made.

So we are now twenty years past the final year of Reagan's Presidency and love of country, expressions of patriotism and talk of the greatness of America is not only politically incorrect but actually looked down upon by many as fanatical and hokey.

What is wrong with talking and yes even bragging of America's greatness ? When one talks of the wonder of our Nation or the tremendous accomplishments that we have made and the liberties that we have, accusations of American ,"arrogance, " are made. Why is it wrong in wearing a flag pin on our clothing as a symbol of our pride in our nation ? Why is it wrong to wave the flag or sing," God Bless America, " with a tear on our cheek because we love our country and want the best for her ?

What is wrong with showing button popping pride in who we are and the freedoms that we alone have ? What is wrong with expressing our love for our country and celebrating her greatness EVERYDAY of the year and not JUST on the Fourth of July when even the politicians who condemn this Nation set aside twenty four hours to celebrate and then continue the condemnation on the fifth.

Why does it take a National tragedy to bring out our patriotism and our flag waving ? What is it wrong with walking up to one of our brave men and women in the military and thanking them for serving our country. I do this all the time and am looked upon as strange by those who over hear my expression of thanks. But the best and the bravest are grateful for my gratitude and that is what counts.

Well this American and many others who feel as I do say it is time to express the pride again of our Nation. WE ARE AN EXCEPTIONAL COUNTRY and I for one am tired of hearing how bad we are and that we are the cause of the World's trouble. When in actuality the World would crumble under its own garbage were it not for the generosity of our people the aid from our Government which come FROM our people and the willingness of our brave men and women in uniform to journey to foreign lands to defend liberty both for The United States and the people in whose country they find themselves in.

It is time to sing with great enthusiasm our National Anthem with our hand over our heart or a salute to our forehead. It is time to sing with great enthusiasm ,"God Bless America, " because He has and we as a Nation wish His greatest blessings on this land we love. It is time to say to those who represent us and who wish to be our next President, "stop condemning our Nation and stand with our flag and our people for once!"

If that pride and love of Country is arrogant then I am PROUD to be an arrogant flag waving American who knows that THIS IS the greatest Nation that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. This IS the leader of the World and were we not the World and the countries that make up this planet would be in a far worse position than they claim to be now BECAUSE America has provided a better opportunity as well as the means to better their lot in life.

We have extended the branch of liberty and freedom to countries who otherwise would never know what it is like to be free. We are the hope of liberty for this World. The light of liberty that shines in New York Harbor in the hand of that lovely Lady who looks out upon the World still begins in America. We are as President Reagan said, "the shining city on the hill." We are the United States of America, an exceptional and great Nation.

If that is arrogant then GOOD. I will BE arrogant in my love for this land and my flag waving and my daily celebration of our liberties and proud of who we are and what we have accomplished and dare anyone to try and tell me otherwise. It is those who condemn this Nation who should be condemned! It is those who refuse to see how truly exceptional that we are that are incorrect!

"God Bless America, land that I love. Stand beside her and guide her thru the night with a light from above! From the Mountains to the Prairies to the Oceans white with foam. God Bless America my home sweet home. God Bless America my home sweet home! "


Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Consevative Truth

Bitter? Da**** Right I'm Bitter -- Sending A Message To John McCain

by David Hinz

The Problem:


Famously, Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is a very bad form of government. Unfortunately all the others are so much worse." And so it is for Conservatives with the 2008 Presidential election. John McCain is a very bad choice for President, but all the others are so very much worse.

Each and every time that the good Senator from Arizona begins to re-earn the trust he has lost from the Conservative base, he does or says something to once again alienate that base. The two most recent demonstrations of this, of course, is his denunciation of the North Carolina Republican Party for running ads tying Barack Obama and the Rev Wright to two North Carolina Democrat Governor candidates; and his pandering in Louisiana in which he blamed the Bush Administration for the failures of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath while failing to mention the monumental failures of the local and state units of government (both of which, by the way, were totally Democrat.)

But, as mind-numbingly angry as this makes Conservatives, the alternatives, either a President Obama or President Clinton, are so much worse. Senator McCain appears unconcerned with the Republican base in his pursuit of independents and moderate Democrats, knowing full well that the base has no place else to go. It is time to send the good senator a message; a message that he cannot miss, and that will proclaim loud and clear our dissatisfaction with the candidate.

The Message:

I propose that each and every Conservative demonstrate his or her support for Senator McCain for President by purchasing a "McCain for President," bumper sticker, or better still, two. Then we should all affix those bumper stickers upside down -- as a clear message to the senator. As a former Navy flier, Sen McCain will understand that message only too well. As explained below, displaying an ensign or the American flag upside down is a message of danger. It means, "...a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property."

Respect for flag

Respect for flag is the title given to Section 8 of the U.S. Flag Code, and it addresses this very issue. In fact, this issue is so important that it is the first article written in the Respect for Flag section. Here is the introduction and article (a) in Section 8 of the U.S. Flag Code.

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

A signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property! I cannot think of a better description of the situation we face in this election. The issues facing this nation, and the next occupant of the Oval Office, are among the most important we have ever faced.

Radical Islamic terrorism, energy independence, Socialized National Healthcare, Carbon Credits to offset Global Warming fears and massive tax increases all threaten to change the American way of life. The answers proposed by both Obama and Clinton will destroy our freedoms. We cannot contemplate what damage a Democrat President, along with a Democrat controlled Congress can inflict on this nation.

We must do all that we can do to achieve a McCain victory in November. But, we must make it clear to this candidate that we WILL be heard, that he WILL listen to the base -- or else.

IF enough Conservatives display their McCain stickers in the distress manner, eventually it will be noticed. First, one would hope, by the MSM, who would naturally draw attention to any form of protest against the senator. They would naturally perceive it as a challenge to the senator. We could explain, when asked, that we support the senator, to a point, but want to draw attention to the fact that our nation is in peril.

If enough of us take up this challenge, to send a message to the candidate, we might be able to breath new life into the conservative movement. If we can get his attention, he might see the wisdom in recognizing the importance of his conservative base.

My Talk With Chevron On Earth Day!

By Steven Foley

An interview with Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson


Today environmentalists and human rights activists celebrated Earth Day by holding a protest rally and march outside the Chevron Corporations offices in San Francisco.
according to this article Earth Day March/Rally Exposing Chevron- Earth Enemy #1:

Communities and activists call for Chevron to halt Inhumane Energy

WHAT: In downtown San Francisco, environmental justice and human rights activists are marking Earth Day by holding a march and rally targeting Chevron, a notorious polluter in the San Francisco Bay Area and around the world. The Earth Day action will highlight Chevron's unabated assault on the Earth and the health of communities and the environment near Chevron facilities around the world. The action is in response to Chevron's terrible environmental and human rights record and their false and desperate attack on Ecuadorian activists who were just awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize.

A trusted and reliable TMR source, who will remain nameless, emailed me the tip this morning saying the following:

"You might’ve heard Amazon Watch and other enviro groups are leading an "Earth Day" protest at the Chevron offices in downtown San Francisco today, casting Chevron as “Earth Enemy #1.” Of course they’ll exalt Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza, the two Ecuadorian trial lawyers and Goldman prize winners seeking $16 billion from Chevron for alleged environmental damages.

....... the environmentalist community is being shammed – and that these self-proclaimed environmentalists are not friends of the environment, but instead seeking enrichment by extortion. If Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza were honest environmental stewards, they’d recognize that Petroecuador, the state-owned oil company drilling in Ecuador for the past 16 years, is “Earth Enemy #1.” Petroecuador admits in its own records to being responsible for more than a 1,000 spills from 2002 through 2007.

Already denied by numerous court proceedings, Chevron vice president and general counsel Charles James recently highlighted Mr. Fajardo and Mr. Yanza’s bogus legal claims in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. The Wall Street Journal editorialized over the weekend wondering “…whose interests are served by a case that deflects attention from the real source of Ecuador's pollution while burnishing the country's reputation as a banana republic.”

Later, I had the chance to conduct a short interview with Chevron's spokesmen Kent Robertson:

Steven Foley: Could we get your overall view of today's protest rally in SF?

Kent Robertson: We respect people’s right to voice their opinion. We do believe, however, that an objective individual might not find very much common ground with what’s being said today. Ironically, the actions of these protestors on Earth Day is only providing cover to those who are causing real environmental damage – namely Petroecuador, the state owned oil company in Ecuador.

Steven Foley: Some groups are accusing Chevron of an "unabated assault on the Earth" which seems extremely harsh. Where is this sentiment coming from? And why do you think Chevron seems to be shouldering the blame or being the focus and not other companies?

Kent Robertson: We can’t speak to where the sentiment comes from, but we can speak to the facts: Chevron is the largest producer of geothermal energy in the world and a leading producer of renewable energy in the oil and gas industry.

Unfortunately, today’s protest will occur outside Chevron’s Energy Solutions (CES) subsidiary (http://www.chevronenergy.com/ ). This business unit provides public institutions and businesses with environmentally sound projects that increase energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. Put in perspective, CES has saved customers more than 177 million kilowatt-hours of electricity and 1.185 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

Meanwhile, Chevron has moved aggressively to reduce emissions within our own operations and improve efficiency, to the point where we are 27 % more energy efficient than in 1992.

Chevron is also investing in research, development and improved technology. Chevron has:

* Projected spending $2.5 billion 2007-09 on renewable and alternative energy and energy efficiency services
* Launched strategic research alliances with US government and academic institutions to develop second-generation biofuels (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, UC Davis, Texas A&M and Georgia Tech)
* A biofuels business unit created to advance technology and pursue commercial opportunities* Invested in and operates the largest hydrogen fueling infrastructure in the US

Steven Foley: In an article at NewsBlaze entitled: Earth Day March/Rally Exposing Chevron- Earth Enemy #1 the following comment was raised; "Chevron is engaged in human right abuses and environmental crimes" what's your reaction?

Kent Robertson: It’s a pretty broad and unsubstantiated statement. We believe that Chevron is a world class operator. Our operations help meet the energy needs of millions of people and Chevron plays a constructive and positive role in our host communities.

I’d also like to touch on the background on ne of the organizations behind today’s rally: Amazon Watch.

This organization purports to be an advocate for the Amazon and its people. However, during its 11-year existence, Amazon Watch has knowingly turned a blind eye to the real and acknowledged polluter in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Petroecuador. In the last five years alone, Petroecuador has recorded more than 1,000 spills. They are decades overdue in performing environmental clean-up, and their ongoing operations are making a bad situation worse. This is all documented fact, but oddly enough, Amazon Watch says nothing. Is it because they are funded by the attorneys pursuing the case against Chevron?

Steven Foley: Finally, could you comment on the status of the lawsuit and situation Chevron finds itself in Ecuador? My take is that Ecuador, her president, and other forces in the region are using certain groups in the region to perpetrate a fraud not only on Chevron but the international community as a whole.

Kent Robertson: You are spot on. Unfortunately what has occurred in the courtroom of Lago Agrio is that the interests of US personal injury lawyers, quasi-environmental groups, and the Government of Ecuador have converged. This has produced an environment where the mob mentality wins out over science, rule of law, and due process.

An objective evaluation of the facts shows that Texaco Petroleum behaved responsibly in Ecuador, that the Republic of Ecuador benefited handsomely, and that -- since assuming the full ownership and operation of the oil fields – Petroecuador has proven to be unable to adequately perform the task. Meanwhile, for 15 years, American personal injury lawyers have attempted to cash in on the situation to the detriment of the environment and the people of the Ecuadorian Amazon.


Cross posted from The Minority Report

"Don't Blame Me: I Voted For Kerry"?

I saw a curious bumper sticker yesterday that left me scratching my head in wonder. The bumper sticker, on an old beat up Chevy pickup with Michigan license plates read: "Don't Blame Me: I Voted For Kerry." I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what message, short of Bush S**** that bumper sticker was trying to convey.

In the first place, it is the state of Michigan, which began lapsing into a recession with the rest of the country at the end of 2000. While the US economy, following the shock of the bursting of the internet bubble, the attack on 9-11, and the corporate accounting scandals, began roaring back in 2002, the Michigan economy stayed in a one-state recession.

Under the management of the most liberal tax-and-spend Democrat Governor in the state's history, Gov Jennifer Granholm, Michigan has managed to avoid any rebound experienced by the US economy, and with the 2006 mid-term election, now has a House of Representatives composed of like-minded Socialists.

Michigan's woes well predated the 2004 election, and under the expert guidance of Granholm, has taxed most of the job providers out of the state. I was talking to an individual at a mid-sized trucking company the other day, and noted that although they are located in Michigan, their vehicles all carry Maine license plates. He explained that it was to their advantage to maintain a small office in Maine for the express purpose of licensing their vehicles, as they are able to save more than $300 per vehicle in license costs. Do you suppose Michigan taxes and fees are driving away businesses? Did I mention that license plate fees have nearly doubled under Granholm?

By way of improving the job and business climate in the state, a new tax structure was adopted this past year. Individual income tax rates were raised, in order to balance the state budget, and the Single Business Tax went away, to be replaced with a new "fairer" tax structure. I friend who runs a small business, informed me last week that his accountant tells him his taxes increased by 75%. He is apparently fortunate, as some small business owners have reported triple digit increases. Many of those businesses are fast becoming "former" Michigan businesses as they either leave the state or go out of business entirely. The policies of Jennifer Granholm, not George Bush or even John Kerry, are responsible for this state's decline.

And, since in 2004 John Kerry proposed little in the way of improving the US economy, short of repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, I cannot see how this guy's bumper sticker related to that subject. Kerry did promise to to it better and smarter, but with Granholm as the governor, Michigan is already paying for all the better and smarter it can afford.

The bumper sticker certainly cannot relate to the war in Iraq. In 2004 John Kerry promised to win the war, not pull out. While he was somewhat short on specifics, he did promise to wage the war "better and smarter." About a year and a half ago, President Bush apparently agreed with Kerry, changing up the staff at the top, and began waging the war "better and smarter" himself. Since that time, the "Surge" has demonstrated military success, while the Iraqi government has begun to show real progress politically.

John Kerry told us he was going to turn more and more of the military operations over the the Iraqis themselves, after we had trained them of course. President Bush always seemed to be advocating exactly the same approach, based on the timetables set by his military advisers. It is happening, and appears to be working. Thank you, John Kerry for agreeing in principle to the approach the president has pursued.

So, let me return once more to that perplexing bumper sticker. It cannot relate to the Michigan economy. Similarly, it cannot relate to the Iraq War. After much thought, there is only once conclusion that can be drawn. The driver of that vehicle must be looking for "Hope" and "Change." That driver must be looking at the old US of KKK Amerika, and must be just certain that all of us bitter Midwesterners are clinging to our guns and religion, when Hope and Change are right there in our grasp.

In fact, I feel certain that is the message that good driver was trying to make. The clue for me was the gun rack in the back of that pickup truck. I feel uplifted now, as I realize his message of Hope.

Barack Obama's Flim Flam Of America

He has mesmerized audiences with his words of, "hope and change." Women have fainted as he speaks. The media have crowned him as the Democrat nominee though the count is not complete. Liberals have embraced him as a rock star.

Yet what does anyone know about the Senator from Illinois who is running for the highest office in this land and the most powerful position in the world ? Not much ! In the last few weeks controversy about his associations have surfaced. He has shown traits that have brought into question his patriotism and love of country. His wife has made statements that question the same and excerpts from his own writings show racism. His own words while campaigning reveal an elitist character that offends a large segment of Americans.

Now even the media who have been his aid and friend are beginning to ask questions about Barack Obama and the liberal Democrat candidate does not like it. In fact after the Democrat debate which aired last Wednesday this candidate who before had been given a free pass complained about his treatment during the debate because ABC News moderators asked hard questions about his association, his racists and elitist statements and his unwillingness to show allegiance to the flag.

His complaint concerned the first 45 minutes of the debate when this questioning took place and that the , "issues, " that concern the American people were not covered during that time. Well Mr. Obama I have news for you. The American people TAKE issue with your statements, your associations and your unwillingness to show allegiance to our country and our flag.You ARE the issue and we have a right to know what a candidate who is wanting to become our President believes, thinks and feels about our country, our morals and whether or not those in whom they associate themselves with will have an adverse influence on the person we choose to lead this Nation.

We as a people expect our President to place their hand over their heart and say the pledge to our flag. We expect our President to express to the world on our behalf our love for our country and our allegiance to the same. We expect our President to look at all Americans in the same way and not look down their nose in an elitist way to any segment of our Nation because of their religious beliefs or their Second Amendment right to own a gun.

We expect our President to associate themselves with people who stand true to this Nation and when an association of twenty years would rather, "damn, " our country then , "bless, " her we take exception to that and expect answers. When we find that an associate brags about terrorist attacks on this Nation we demand answers as to why that person is still considered a friend.When we see someone wanting to lead this Country as President refuse to pledge the flag or wear a pin on his lapel that symbolizes that flag and complain about those who do we question as a people whether that person represents our values as we expect our President to do.

When a candidates wife claims that because her husband is running for President she is proud of our Country for the first time in her life we wonder why and whether we want her as our First Lady. When writings are revealed from books written by a candidate that show racists statements, even from earlier in that candidates life, we the American people want to know why!

We have a right to question the judgment of a candidate who remains in a church for twenty years and only AFTER the doctrine of that church and the preaching of that churches pastor are revealed in a Presidential campaign and then only AFTER the heat concerning the association is on that candidate claims he did not know the doctrine or remember what the preacher said.

So Senator Obama you complain that the American people are not hearing the issues covered in this campaign ? Well then start answering the questions that we take issue with. Explain to us why you associate with racists and terrorists. Explain to us why you won't pledge our flag. Explain to us why you look down on small town Americans. Then explain to us why you cannot deal except in generalities with the very issues that YOU think should be talked about and then we might listen.

We expect answers for the issues and your complaining because you are questioned by the media that has treated you with kid gloves until recently and still gives you a free pass in most cases just does not hold water. If you think that it is tough now wait until the fall and more Americans are watching the Presidential race and wanting answer both about your character and the issues you claim you stand so strong for. If you avoid those questions now you will be destroyed by them then.

Because Senator we take issue with you and we expect and demand answers to those questions and how you really stand. Mesmerizing speeches and general statements amount to nothing when we look for a President. Character, love of Country, fairness for ALL Americans and associations with people who pray God's blessing on our Nation and look at our flag with respect for what it stands for and those who have given their life defending that flag and the nation it represents, those Mr. Obama are what we look for in our President and you have not shown those qualities or qualifications!

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Will Barack Obama Betray Us If Elected?

The question on my mind is one of Sen. Obama's integrity and loyalty to the United States. I fear as President, he would eventually betray our trust in him and open our borders and our freedom to outsiders that would cause us harm. His steadfast refusal to deny and condemn Former President Jimmy Carters overtures to Hamas and thus by proxy, Iran have alarmed me deeply and causes me to question his resolve as an American and patriot. If nothing else, our President must first and foremost be a patriot, anything else is totally unacceptable.

As President, Sen. Obama would be Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. In that position, one of command of a vast and powerful military, could Obama "pull the trigger" on his friends in the middle east if it were required? I think not, he is far too accepting of the militant mindset of terrorist factions in that region and if our friend and ally Israel were attacked, Sen. Obama would not have the spine to take military action against those that he calls friends.

Twice in the last paragraph, I called terrorists in the middle east Sen. Obama's friends even though he has not come out and verbally stated in public that he supports Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran, nor any of the smaller splinter factions that make up these larger groups.

Perception is reality and the perception that Sen. Obama is leaving all of us with, is that these anti-American, anti-Israeli groups are his friends, because he not only fails to denounce all of their actions and motivations, he actually welcomes their praise!

"Obama's position on Hamas is very clear. Until they renounce violence, until they recognize Israel's right to exist and recognize previous agreements, we shouldn't have any contact with him," according to David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

Axelrod said this in Philadelphia, shortly after the debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton and in response to a question about Obama's stance on Hamas.

However, just a few days prior to Axelrod making this statement, he had this to say:

Barack Obama's campaign said yesterday it is "flattered" that Hamas' endorsement of the Illinois senator compared him to John F. Kennedy, though it objects to any diplomatic contact with the terrorist group.

"I like John Kennedy too," said chief Obama strategist David Axelrod. "That's about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."

Axelrod was reacting to comments earlier this week from Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, who said Hamas "hopes" Obama will win the presidential elections and "change" America's foreign policy.

With this type of rhetoric being bantered about by the Obama camp, you can begin to see my feelings of distrust for Sen. Obama as President and Commander-in-Chief. "Obama's position on Hamas is very clear?" It's not so clear after all, in fact it's anything, but clear.

John Batchelor and Arron Klein interviewed Mr. Yousef on ABC radio and asked him how he felt about the statement Obama made the day before, when he called Hamas a terrorist organization. Yousef excused Obama's criticism of Hamas, describing it as political posturing. Political posturing. Even the terrorists know he is in sympathy with them, they excuse is rhetoric for him.

He went on to say, "I understand American politics, and this is the season for elections, and everybody tries to sound like he's a friend of the Israelis ... so whatever [the] Israelis didn't like they will take from all those candidates," Yousef said.

Here again, Hamas is admitting that Obama is NOT serious about our friends in Israel and when the time comes to "pull the trigger", Obama will side with the terrorists.

Yousef said that in Hamas' view, Obama has "a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with humiliation and arrogance." (from Worldnet Daily)

Our biggest threat and potential military foe is Iran. Iran is rapidly developing nuclear capability and it has much of the world alarmed at it's aggression in this area. It constantly refused to back down to anyone on it's right to produce nuclear fuel.

Iran almost completely funds Hamas, either directly or indirectly via Syria and a vast network of charity organizations worldwide. So, does this imply that if one shows favor to Hamas, it's the same as siding with Iran? In my opinion it does. Former President Carter has met twice with the exiled leader of Hamas, once in the West Bank and once in Syria. Their focus is peace between Israel and Gaza, however one side is conspicuously absent. Israel does not and should not recognize Hamas as the government of the Palestinian people, and neither should President Carter, his own government does not recognize them as an authority in Gaza.

Barack Obama, by his silence, is approving what President Carter is doing, he has taken the endorsement by Hamas with "flattery" and he continues to tell us he'll remove the troops from Iraq as soon as he can. Withdrawing troops from Iraq is exactly what Muqtada al-Sadr has been screaming for, and on Saturday, 4/19/08 gave a final warning to the US-Iraqi coalition to stop their crack down on followers or there will be war until they are liberated.

Iran funds and supplies al-Sadr and his extremist army the is fighting to bring down the elected government of Iraq. Sen. Barack, by his admitted actions if he becomes President, all but endorses Islamist radicals like al-Sadr.

Will Barack Obama betray us if elected President of the United States? Can we trust him to do the right thing if the time comes, if he gets that infamous 3AM phone call after taking money for his election campaign from Rashid Khalidi is a Columbia University professor who previously worked for the PLO, a terrorist organization, and hosted a fund raiser for Obama's US Senate bid.

Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."

Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can’t talk with the Iranians."

That quote is from an article in The HinzSight Report.

I think he will betray us all, and he and his party won't even see it as a betrayal.

What Is A Conservative ?

What is a Conservative? The media and liberals would have everyone believe that a Conservative is a far right wing fanatic who is either a religious or a moral zealot that will condemn anything or anyone who disagrees with them or is some sort of Christian fanatic bent on forcing others to a similar belief or creed.

Now don't get me wrong this is not nor ever will be a condemnation of religion or Christian beliefs because those are beliefs that are a fundamental part of my life and they are part of my views as a Conservative. Now that the media and liberal perception of a Conservative are defined and set aside, what then is a Conservative?

First a Conservative is one who understands and accepts the original intent of what the Founders conceived in the Constitution as the fundamental principles and foundation for this Nation. The principles that this country was founded on as described in this most profound document are unchangeable and as viable today as they were when first written and ratified.

The Tenth Amendment states that all power that is not specifically defined in the Constitution belongs to the State and the people. This is a fundamental Conservative and Constitutional principle calling for limited Federal Government. The Founders never intended for this Nation to have an all powerful and all encompassing Federal bureaucracy and this principle for limited Government is both Conservative and Constitutional.

This includes taxation, government entitlements, the expanded powers of government over the people and government intrusion in the lives and business of our citizens through excessive regulation and legislation. Conservatism believes in the power belonging to the people and not the government which is the original intent of the founders and the Constitution.

A second principle of Conservatism is the understanding that a strong and viable military is necessary for the defense of this Nation and the protection of our people, our borders and our National Security. This too is a Constitutional principle that is found in the Presidential oath which states that it is the responsibility of the President, the Commander in Chief to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." A strong military is a key component to this oath and the preservation of the Constitution and the Nation who holds our Constitution as law.

While Conservatives understand and believe the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, it is also with the understanding that the Constitutional provision that government shall not establish or make any laws pertaining to the practice of religion does not mean that God is not a part of who we are as a people and a Nation. The notion that Jefferson's statement concerning, "the separation of church and state, " made in his letter written in 1804 to a New Hampshire church organization in reference to his not proclaiming a Day of Thanksgiving meaning that it is a Constitutional provision that God is excluded from all aspects of American government and public society is not only false but not what the Founders intended.

Conservatism also understands that life is precious and that all have a God given right to live. The Declaration of Independence which is the document that gave birth to who we are and all that we believe and adhere to as Americans states, “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator to certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This right that we have as Americans to, " life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, " applies to all life both born and unborn and as such that is why Conservatism holds to the principle of, "right to life."

Conservatism is not a party nor a political dogma or policy but a core of fundamental beliefs that are based in and follow the basic principles and intent of the Founders and the Constitution that they passed down to all generations of Americans. That this Government and the Nation that it governs is now and always will be a government of by and for the people. A Constitutional Republic whose representatives are fully answerable to the people not the people answerable to government through taxation and regulation or socialistic programs that force dependency on and control by an all powerful government.

Conservatism literally believes that, "We the People, " is not just an opening phrase or eloquent words to begin an outdated document, but a foundational principle that this nation holds true and firm and that the Constitution that holds these words are the principles and laws that this Nation was founded upon and as such follow to the letter today and in future generations. That those fundamental rights granted by our Creator of, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” are our legacy as a people and our responsibility to defend and protect both for ourselves and all future Americans.

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

Bread and Circuses

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
Bread and Circuses

Bread and Circuses. Last night, in tribute to the late Charlton Heston, TBS ran the classic Ben Hur. In that wonderful Lew Wallace classic, directed by William Wyler, Heston races Stephen Boyd in the great Circus chariot race. The term "bread and circuses" comes to us from the Roman poet Juvenal. According to Wikipedia the term has become a "metaphor for people choosing food and fun over freedom." As so often happens with Wiki, they manage to get it at least half right. Again, from Wiki:

Juvenal here makes reference to the Roman practice of providing free wheat to some poor Romans as well as costly circus games and other forms of entertainment as a means of gaining political power through popularity. The Annona (grain dole) was begun under the instigation of the populist Gracchi in 123 B.C.; it remained an object of political contention until it was taken under the control of the Roman Emperors.

More than just food and fun, Bread and Circuses has become a metaphor for the degradation of a society through the expectation of its citizenry to look to government for support and sustenance. Bread and Circuses has come to be a symbol of all that is wrong with a government that has become so big, so all encompassing, that the people come to believe that the government should provide for all of their needs, comforts and wants.

Bread and Circuses has become a term that defines the beginning of the end. It is a term that has come to identify the decadence of a people no longer able to function for themselves without the benevolence of their "elected" leaders. I put the term "elected" in quotation marks for the simple reason that, more often than not, the simple God-given right of selecting those people to lead, are more often than not, thrown away by the populace; their votes bought and sold by the politician with the best offer of largess.

Often, as in the case of Venezuela today, that vote was bought with promises never properly fulfilled. By the time the enormity of the loss was fully known, essential liberties were gone, perhaps never to be returned. Tyrannical promises of bread and circuses, now of lesser and lesser value, as the Venezuelan people fall ever deeper into despair, become less a promise than a threat.

Decades upon decades of benevolent promises of bread and circuses kept the citizens of New Orleans from saving themselves, when an act of nature that each and every one of them knew could hit at any moment, destroyed their city. A people, descended from pioneers who hewed a city out of wilderness, stood helplessly by as their homes flooded, looking for help that was always going to be late in coming.

Bread and circuses provide entertainment in the form of WWF, Pride Fighting, Cage Fighting and worse; spectator sports broadcast daily on television channels across the fruited plain, to the enjoyment of, mostly young men, 50% or more of whom have failed to graduate from high school, or acquire the basic educational skills to obtain or hold a job; impregnating young women, who obtain their sustenance with food stamps, WIC and other government programs. Their circuses are tamer, Oprah and Springer, and other mindless television personalities who assure them that their particular perversions are mainstream.

Bread and circuses for the masses take the form of American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and Surviver; celebrating mediocrity in the pursuit of fame; making heroes of the mundane; making Andy Warhol the victim of his own wit and wisdom. In a society where all are famous for their fleeting moment, none are sublime. Where greatness can be achieved by the accidental whim of a lottery drawing, no greatness exists at all.

When great achievement is denigrated; when a Condoleezza Rice or a Clarence Thomas or a Thomas Sowell is castigated for their own brilliance, because they are not "black" enough, there can be no brilliance -- no striving for excellence.

This nation stands upon a precipice. Bread and circuses -- empty promises from politicians to care for us from cradle to grave have landed us upon this cliff. Below lies ruin. The Siren Song of pleasant promises calls us ever closer to that edge. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama take turns throwing alms to make us all poor. National Health Care, free to all, paid for by the government. Social Security benefits, administered by the government, guaranteed. Free education, from preschool to college, all guaranteed through government run, union taught schools.

Nearly 2000 years ago, bread and circuses were the harbingers of the end of empire.

Bread and circuses. Give me mine, and I will promise to forget the lessons of history.

Throwing Caution To The Wind -- Taking On The Hillary Clinton Internet Machine

By it's very nature, the internet has the capacity to be both a boon and a burden. The anonymity that the medium provides can serve to mask both the Superhero and the Villain. Unfortunately, more than a few villains have been making their appearance in recent months.

We have been aware of attempts by the Hillary Clinton campaign to influence the internet and American popular opinion through organizations and websites that pretend to be unbiased, or neutral politically, but are in fact, funded entirely by left-wing, often Clinton, organizations.

A clear case in point is the so-called Media Matters for America (MMA), which scours Conservative media for anything that can be taken out of context and used as a club by the left. Back when MMA was able to get Don Imus fired, I pointed out the danger to Conservatives that this fascist organization poses.

While, truth be known, I could not care less about the career of Don Imus, there is a danger here to all of us in the Conservative community.

Sharks, you see, do not stop feeding when the chum has been consumed. Once the sharks have been whipped up into a feeding frenzy, they will eat anything in the water...and make no mistake, conservative talk radio is swimming in deep water.

While that article spoke in particular to talk radio, subsequent discussion from the left, including the re-introduction of the so-called Fairness Doctrine could be expanded to include the internet. In a piece entitled, The Rush Limbaugh Program (1988 - 2009) R.I.P. (from our March 2008 archives -- scroll down the page) I pointed out how the Fairness Doctrine has been used in the past to stifle conservative speech:

Bill Ruder, Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Kennedy administration, acknowledged that "Our massive strategy [in the early 1960s] was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

Recent demonstrations of censorship by such internet giants as Google and Yahoo might suggest that should the Fairness Doctrine see the light of day once again, the internet would be next.

The anonymity that the internet offers, is a double edged sword. Anonymous bloggers, without fear of reprisals from the institutions of government are free to express their thoughts and beliefs. By the same token, that anonymity allows unscrupulous individuals and organizations the ability to manipulate opinion.

A recent demonstration of this comes by way of a series of posts I recently made at The Minority Report and at RedState.

The first post, Did Obama Smoke Crack Cocaine in 1999, took a look at charges that have emerged from certain internet websites, from one Larry Sinclair. I reported the story, taking a skeptical view of the entire affair. At RedState, the post elicited over 100 comments, a large number of them from first-time, less than an hour posters, who overwhelmingly supported the charges, usually linking back to the original website that "broke" the story -- and a website that I had deliberately NOT used, choosing instead to search out other, more mainstream internet outlets.

That article, as I wrote it, follows in its entirety.

AND IF THAT CHARGE BY LARRY SINCLAIR IS TRUE -- HOW ABOUT THE REST OF HIS CHARGES!

Earlier today while searching through internet blogs, I was made aware of a story that Barack Obama bought, and smoked crack cocaine with Larry Sinclair in Chicago in 1999. He then, according to Sinclair, allowed Sinclair to engage in oral sex with him.

I have spent the better part of the day trying to find ANY mainstream media notice of this story, or even a well-known internet source that I would consider to be credible. I found several internet references to the story.

World Net Daily ran with the story on Feb 17, under the headline, Sleaze charge: 'I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama' The World Net Daily article links to a youTube video Sinclair has made, along with some details about a lawsuit he has filed against Obama, and the Democrat Party.

"My motivation for making this public is my desire for a presidential candidate to be honest," Sinclair told WND by telephone. "I didn't want the sex thing to come out. But I think it is important for the candidate to be honest about his drug use as late as 1999."

A pdf of an affidavit from Sinclair is available here:

One RonPaul™ Kooksite mentions the story, while railing against the US Government for not impeaching President Bush and VP Cheney. That reference takes us to a website that lets us know that the MSM is well aware of the story. The National Enquirer and no less than two Globe Articles, have run with the story.

One of the main reasons that I have been loathe to report the story, is the fact that the majority of the websites that have featured the story appear to be closely aligned to Hillary Clinton.

The World Net Daily article mentions his willingness to take a polygraph, which he subsequently took. Depending on which website you are willing to believe he either failed it, proving he was a liar, failed it proving that the test was rigged by an Obama supporter, or, according to some reports, he passed the test.

The World Net Daily article ALSO makes no mention of Sinclair having a police record, although other sites have him being guilty in the past of several felonies, including fraud.

He apparently has a website of his own although it reads a lot like someone who is, well, smoking crack.

It was the response to that original article that prompted me to begin to wonder about the so-called unbiased nature of the original website. So, I began to research other articles and posts of that site. I used Google to find other links, and post made by the founder of that website.

A clear picture began to form, not of an unbiased site, but instead, of a Hillary Clinton Psych-Ops deliberately planted website. Reading through article after article is becomes clear that the attacks on Obama are part of a deliberate campaign to undermine his candidacy and ensure that Hillary Clinton wins both the nomination of the Democrat Party and the President of the United States.

All of which has prompted me to write this: The Willing Suspension of Disbelief

It would appear that I have been duped. I have willingly, although unknowingly, gone to work for the Hillary for President Campaign. I will admit, even though it was unknowingly, I did it with some reluctance and trepidation.

Allow me to explain.

Yesterday, having been pointed toward a story about Barack Obama that suggested that he both smoked crack cocaine in 1999, and engaged in homosexual oral sex with a drug dealer, I was of course skeptical. Digging through several sites on the internet, I finally decided that there was at least enough smoke (pardon the pun) to at least look for the fire.

And so, I wrote Did Obama Smoke Crack Cocaine in 1999" and posted it both here, and over at RedState. Not surprisingly, the RedState post ignited a firestorm, with more than 100 comments, many from first-time, less than an hour posters.

I was suspicious then that the entire story might well be a Hillary Clinton Psych-Ops, a story planted to discredit Obama, without her own fingerprints on the story. Several of the first-time posters appeared to have connections to the website Savage Politics that makes the claim to be unbiased. I was not impressed, and began digging into that site.

I first, found links from that site to several left-wing, anti-Obama, pro-Hillary websites. This could be a coincidence, of course, as any time a site is critical of a particular candidate, website with a similar mindset will pick up on that theme.

Strangely enough though, I have not been able to find, on that site, any articles that are overtly critical of Hillary Clinton. And then, on another site, I found this link back to Jonathan Cifre, JD, the founder of that site, and it all became crystal clear. Under the headline, "Are Democrats Ready To Lose White House Again?" I find an article that claims that the Republican Party, and of course, the VRWC has been manipulating the MSM and the voters for the past several decades. It is all very 1984ish.

During the past few months we have been inundated with the constant Media coverage of the Democratic primary election. In the last few days in particular, the Mediums have beat us into accepting that Barack Obama is the most inspirational and motivating speaker that we have heard in a generation, comically echoing the claims of most Germans when they heard Hitler speaking at his rallies.

Okay, we have Obama as Hitler. This is not at all an uncommon theme, as yes, even right-wing pundits have noticed the oratory style and adoration that the masses have heaped upon Obama. The similarity is both frightening and uncanny.

Amongst our News Networks, it has only been the very Conservative FoxNews who has kept a mysteriously low keyed participation in this Obamathon that all Americans have been recently subjected to, giving a nebulous preoccupation to all of those who are educated enough to mistrust the Media. All the while, as history shows, collective idiocy has been proven to be contagious (look at the Bolshevic Revolution) and it’s spread has always been directly linked to the opposition’s ability to convince their enemies that they are “weak at the knees” and thus allowing them to quietly manipulate them out of an honest assessment of their chances.

Alrighty then! We are once again found to be but tiny pawns in the collective (poor choice of words?) attempts by the powers that be, to manipulate the American people. The MSM has anointed Obama, but the right-wing fanatics at Fox News has laid off the canonization because...Well, now that you mention it, why wouldn't the right-wing try to push Obama, since they are manipulating the public anyways?

The answer, in the fevered mind of the author is, everyone KNOWS that Fox News is right-wing, so by NOT supporting Obama, the right-wingers at Fox ARE supporting him. That Grogs perfectly to anyone on the far left.

Since before the John Kerry fiasco, Democrats have experienced the fierceness of the Republican/Conservative machine. They have stood idly by as they have been removed from the mainstream of American society by a group of religious dogmatists, who have claimed a choke hold on our Country’s sense of honor and decency.

Uhh, apparently that would by all of us. I had no idea I was a religious dogmatist, but apparently I am. Thanks to Jonathan Cifre, JD I know that now.

In an amazing rewrite of history, we are told that it was the Republican Party that secured the nomination for John Kerry in 2004, guaranteeing a Republican win.

As people might remember, it was Howard Dean who was the apparent front runner of the Democratic Party, long before John Kerry started winning primaries. Dean’s charisma at the time was admired and his political positions where highly appealing to the Democratic base (even after his strange screams in Iowa). Nevertheless, the Republicans understood that the best person that they could run against would be a mild mannered man who represented the Northeast “elite”, and who had also opposed the war “from the start”, since they could better expose him as “weak on security”. They knew that even if John Kerry had voted for the war when he was in the Senate, he was still ideologically connected to Vietnam and the era’s anti-war movement.

Howard Dean would have secured the nomination in 2004, if not for the Republican manipulation of the media.

After much work on all their parts, John Kerry was finally nominated, and thus the Conservative “factories” began their effective work of slowly chipping away all appearances of decency and honor that this Democratic candidate might have had. “Out of nowhere” the Swift Boat Veterans made their appearance, and effectively put into question John Kerry’s military record, something that most pundits thought would create a back-lash from their own base, but that eventually destroyed Kerry’s military qualities, which were what most people assumed was his strongest tool against George W. Bush. All of this was achieved thanks to the Republican misinformation campaign and the stupidity of the Democratic voters, who took their cues from the Media and of their own opposition. Let’s now fast forward to the present Democratic contest.

Yes, why don't we. According to Mr Cifre, Hillary Clinton represents the center, and presents the Democrat Party the best opportunity to recapture the White House. The VRWC, on the other hand, has chosen to ensure the nomination of Barack Obama. This, of course, will ensure that John McCain wins. It is all a Republican Machine trick.

Barack Obama is now his Party’s rock star, all to the peril of Hillary Clinton and the other defunct Democratic candidates. Republicans have appeared in multiple shows and have “analyzed” their chances against Hillary Clinton or against Barack Obama. They have supposedly come to the conclusion that if Hillary wins the nomination, it will energize their base into winning the General Election. But, if they were instead faced with Barack Obama, his “inspirational” skills could achieve the scary possibility that many Republicans would either vote for him or stay home “uninspired”. Taking this lead, Democratic “strategists” have now repeatedly mentioned how Obama’s qualities would be difficult to attack by Republicans since he represents a “change” in American politics and is thus leading us out of the ugly realm of partisanship and into the wonderful world of “hope” and “unity”.

The Republicans, Cifre maintains, will hammer home the fact that Obama is a closet Muslim, thereby tuning into the American Islamophobia that has taken control of this country ever since 9-11. But then, it is Cifre himself, who runs an article on his site, entitled "The 'Hussein Dynamic'" which delves deeply into Obama's childhood, with links to websites in Indonesia, suggesting that Obama IS, in fact, a closet Muslim. He then, spams his website links onto conservative sites, with the clear intent of spreading this 'right-wing' talking point.

In addition to his own words and the school documents, there are also two highly respected and successful businessmen in Indonesia, who went to the same school with Obama, who have been quoted in local newspapers describing Obama’s faithfulness and dutifulness to Islam.

In another cleverly worded article from that site, Cifre argues that because Obama's father was Muslim, thereby making Obama a Muslim whether he likes it or not, his conversion to Christianity makes him an Apostate. SO, even if he is NOT a Muslim, Cifre argues, he will inflame passions among Muslims, if he becomes our president.

Americans have constantly pointed out the fact that having a “fundamentalist” Christian for a President has been highly negative for our image around the world. But what they don’t realize, out of their ignorance regarding Muslim culture and beliefs, is that an apostate President would be 100 times worse.

It becomes clear, upon reading the words of Jonathon Cifre, that he is a partisan, dedicated to the election of Hillary Clinton in this upcoming election. He clearly is NOT attempting to present a fair and unbiased appraisal of the election, weighing the various candidates on the basis of their merits.

Instead, Cifre, and by extension, his entire website, is dedicated to the destruction of Obama as a candidate, in the hope that Hillary Clinton will be elected. His attacks on the Republican Party demonstrate his agenda.

All of the above strategy has been developed by the Republicans for the last couple of months, with the hope that they will once again entrap Democrats into voting for the nominee that THEY hope would run against them. They have already positioned (a very Liberal) John McCain as their candidate, so that they can have a greater chance of keeping the White House, if they are lucky enough to have him positioned against an inexperienced, racially divisive, and extremely liberal Democrat.

Of course, there is more than Islamophobia at work here with the Republican party Strategy. There is, of course, also the specter of Racism. Naturally, the VRWC would tap into the racism of middle America to defeat Obama.

For good or for bad, most people in Middle America fear the concept of a Black President, who would presumably allow rampant Affirmative Action to take hold, and who would supposedly extend the Welfare State to it’s highest levels. And, to top all of this with some “sweet frosting”, the Republicans have already began the development of a crypto-Muslim strategy, in which Barack Hussein Obama is painted as a Muslim in disguise, who is here to once and for all destroy our Nation from the inside (they have sufficient evidence to at least lay the seeds of probability).

And so, you see, the only Hope for any Change in this Fascist stranglehold the Republican Party holds over the American electorate, is the nomination, and subsequent election of Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.

I see it all now, and realize that I have been duped into supporting this whole strategy. Obama must be defeated now, so that Hillary Clinton can become the savior of our nation.

After doing this research, I do begin to wonder -- how many other sites out there are Hillary plants -- designed to look like one thing, but really pushing a hidden agenda. It must really BE a VRWC.

Obama's 100 Years Lie!

Senator Obama and many of his apostles and converts on the left continue to insist that McCain said "he wants a hundred year war with Iraq" -- Not only has McCain never said that, the actual quote is so crystal clear as to intent that one must be intentionality obtuse to assume anything other than a possible "presence in the region" as per American precedent!

Btw- Both the democratic candidates consistently vote to fund the Iraqi war! So Again, Senator Obama has lied to, or at the very least, misled his followers about his intentions there as well...

Ecuador to Perpetrate a Fraud on Chevron and the International Community

Ecuadorean indigenous groups have filed one of the largest environmental class action suits in history against an oil company to the tune of $16 billion and if successful could set a dangerous president.

Ripping off the facade and digging under the surface of what at first glance looks to be nothing more than deserved retribution by indigenous groups who've suffered at the hands of Evil Big Oil one begins to see more clearly the forces behind this fraud are non other than Ecuador own state run oil company Petroecuador, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, and the powers-that-be who are working feverishly to re-identify and usher in a new socialist South America.

You see, the fact is, Chevron, through its Texaco subsidiary (which Chevron aquired in 2001) , operated an oilfield joint venture with Petroecuador as a minority partner between 1964 and 1992.

From 2002 to 2007, Petroecuador was responsible for more than 1,000 oil spills, of which 168 took place last year alone. In fact, Petroecuador (through its oil and gas exploration and production subsidiary Petroproducción) accounted for 90 percent of all oil spills in Ecuador last year, according to official government data quoted by local newspaper El Universo. The remaining 10 percent were contaminated by six different private companies. In other words, Petroecuador is clearly a major and serial contaminator.

Another underreported fact is that "Chevron paid $40 million in remediation costs in 1995, Petroecuador has not used one dime to clean up its mess." And in In 1998 "the government of Ecuador declared that the remediation was completed according to the terms and parameters agreed upon and released Texaco from any future liability."

President Correa's complicitness is illustrated in the following two part investigative report by investigative Journalist Greg Palast for the BBC -- Yeah I know but it's informative and worth viewing in it's entirety...

Much more and video below the fold...

Ecuador- Rumble in the Jungle Part 1



Ecuador- Rumble in the Jungle Part 2



The Latin Business Chronicle reports:

INCOMPLETE AND WRONG INSPECTIONS

The lawsuit was originally filed in 1993 in the United States, but was thrown out here in 2002. Then the case was refiled in Ecuador, where the process has been marred by serious flaws. Richard Cabrera, the court-appointed expert, has shown a combination of incompetence and bias against the U.S. company. Cabrera conducted field work that ignored all scientifically accepted technical procedures for site assessment, while including members and supporters of the Frente de la Defensa de la Amazonia (FDA) in his field support team, Chevron points out. The FDA was formed to represent the group suing Chevron. Chevron has repeatedly asked the court to remove Cabrera, but to no avail.

While Cabrera had been specifically asked by the court to present his report after inspecting 122 sites, he did so after only inspecting 47. Even worse, Cabrera took samples from areas that are the sole responsibility of Petroecuador, areas which Petroecuador has publicly acknowledged its obligation to remediate, and from areas already remediated by Petroecuador, Chevron points out. He has also repeatedly asked the court to stop Petroecuador from conducting remediation of the areas of the former concession that Petroecuador has publicly recognized were under its responsibility and have gone unfulfilled since 1998, according to the U.S. oil company. (See Chevron: Biased and Improper Report).

Most of the "evidence" from the group suing Chevron has been analyzed by Havoc laboratory, which has refused all attempts (seven, in all, over more than two years) by an Ecuadorian court to inspect its facilities.

Finally, the court received unwarranted pressure from President Rafael Correa, who has publicly stated his support for the lawsuit. While that clearly violates the judicial independence of Ecuador, it should come as no surprise. After all, Correa is the brains behind the absurd proposal that the international community pay Ecuador $350 million per year to not explore oil in the Ishpingo, Tambococha, Tiputini (ITT) field, which may have reserves of one