Below, I continue to analyze a series of collected statements from Senator Obama:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

BARACK OBAMA, speech at 2004 Democratic Convention

All of this is just a direct attack on President Bush and the Iraq War. Most of his implications have been disproven, but he continues to say these things largely without challenge. The intelligence information that took us to war with Iraq was virtually identical to that collected by the intelligence services of all our allies. It might have been incorrect, but numerous public investigations have shown that it was not fudged or shaded as Obama implies. I think it’s interesting that he would add, “…and earn the respect of the world” to his list of things our military should be doing. Our military’s mission is to win America’s wars, period, not to earn anyone’s respect except in the sense that other nations fear us. In this world, it is better to be feared than loved.

People are whupped. I'm whupped. My wife is whupped. Unless it's your job to be curious, who really has the time to sit and ask questions and explore issues?

BARACK OBAMA, The New Yorker, May 31, 2004

Liberal activists.

I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator.

BARACK OBAMA, Time Magazine, Jun. 26, 2005

That’s good because he wasn’t.

If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress.

BARACK OBAMA, Bloomington Pantagraph, Feb. 25, 2005

The key is choosing the right path. Going down a path that leads over a cliff is not making progress. Recognizing you’re on the wrong path and reversing direction is making progress.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

BARACK OBAMA, The New Yorker, May 31, 2004

Define “dumb.”

There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.

BARACK OBAMA, Of Thee I Speak: A Collection of Patriotic Quotes

If only he and the other Democrats actually believed this. The Democrats are the party of group identity politics and block voting.

Race is still a powerful force in this country. Any African American candidate, or any Latino candidate, or Asian candidate or woman candidate confronts a higher threshold in establishing himself to the voters ... Are some voters not going to vote for me because I'm African American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn't vote for me because of my politics.

BARACK OBAMA, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11, 2006

How convenient. So, anyone who opposes Obama on the basis of his politics is really a crypto-racist. It’s very interesting how Liberals know the motives of other people just by the color of their skin or the party they belong to or the church they attend. While there are certainly voters who would not vote for Obama because of his race, there are others – possibly many others – who will vote for him just because of his race. And, I believe those are the same voters who probably would vote for him because of his politics. So, who’s to say who is a racist and who isn’t. As I said before, the Democrats are the party of group identity politics and block voting.

Our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don't take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror with one hand tied behind our back.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Feb. 28, 2006

This is precisely why we must not allow the other oil producing countries of the Middle East to fall under the sway of Osama bin Laden, Iran and their ilk. This is also why we should be developing our domestic oil and gas resources. For the foreseeable future, there are no practical power alternatives to oil. So while Obama and the other Democrats claim that we need to end our addiction to Middle Eastern oil, they have blocked every attempt to increase our own oil supply, to build refineries, to build more coal-fired power plants, to build more hydroelectric dams, and of course, to build more nuclear power plants. These were the practical cures for our addiction, but radical environmentalists within the Democrat Party have slowed or stopped them all. That leaves us with the impractical cures – wind, solar, ethanol, etc. that cannot support our lifestyle at its current level much less see it grow.

We worship an awesome God in the blue states and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

BARACK OBAMA, Larry King Live, Oct. 19, 2006

Huh?

No one is pro-abortion.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Oct. 5, 2004

Except for Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the Democrat Party - to include Barack Obama.

If condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths [from AIDS], they should be made more widely available. I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree. I do not accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence. Nor am I willing to stand by and allow those who are entirely innocent -- wives who, because of the culture they live in, often have no power to refuse sex with their husbands, or children who are born with the infection as a consequence of their parent's behavior -- suffer when condoms or other measures would have kept them from harm.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Dec. 1, 2006

It would be more correct to say “condoms and potentially microbicides might prevent millions of deaths [from AIDS].” What we know with certainty is that abstinence prevents the spread of STDs every time it’s used. I agree that people should not get a death sentence for making a bad choice. But that doesn’t mean that we should behave as though it’s not a choice (thinking only of people in our country and leaving aside those people in other countries where choice is limited for women). Liberals say you can’t stop people – teens mostly – from having sex. They believe you can stop them from smoking, drinking, and hating each other, but it’s impossible to stop them from having sex. Hmmm. It is my personal belief that certain people want teen pregnancy to create a market for the abortion industry (but that’s another issue).

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes -- to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned." I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Dec. 1, 2006

The reason AIDS tests our ability to walk in someone else’s shoes is because there is such an implied moral component to it. We have similar feelings about all STDs really. Though I have sympathy for those afflicted with AIDS – it is definitely not a pleasant way to die – my moral compass says that they brought it on themselves or inflicted it on someone else through their sin. We all deserve death for our sins and I cannot judge their motives as I’m not able to see into anyone’s heart. But, while Jesus told us not to judge lest we be so judged, he did not mean not to judge the morality of actions. If we can’t judge the morality of actions, then we’re sunk as a society. Unfortunately, that’s where modern Liberalism is taking us – to a world in which no one can pass judgment on the actions of others, no matter how harmful to society or themselves. We will all be called to account for our personal actions one day, but the nations will also be called to account for what they allowed in their midst.

We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth - so that we would use science to cure disease, and heal the sick, and save lives.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Dec. 1, 2006

If President Bush made this same statement, the media would go crazy. Since this statement is out of context, I’m unsure what he was really driving at. Somehow, though, I feel sure that his view of doing God’s work would involve lots of government agencies and higher taxes, increased regulation, etc.

I think the problem of money in politics is bipartisan. I think that all of us who are involved in the political process have to be concerned about the enormous sums of money that have to be raised in order to run campaigns, how that money’s raised, and at least the appearance of impropriety and the potential access that’s given to those who are contributing. That’s a general problem with our politics. The specific problem of inviting lobbyists in who have bundled huge sums of money to write legislation, having the oil and gas company companies come in to write energy legislation, having drug companies come in and write the Medicare prescription drug bill-which we now see is not working for our seniors-those are very particular problems of this administration and this Congress. And I think Jack Abramoff and the K Street Project, that whole thing is a very particular Republican sin.

BARACK OBAMA, Meet the Press, Jan. 22, 2006

Money and politics have always been intertwined. Unless we go exclusively to taxpayer-funded campaigns, candidates will always have to raise massive amounts of money to run for office. In today’s world, TV is the best way to campaign as most people get their news and entertainment from that medium. TV costs a lot of money and probably accounts for the bulk of campaign spending followed by travel. This is normal. If there is public disclosure of where the money is coming from and proper policing of contributors, what is the problem with money in politics?

The next part of this statement is completely bogus. Oil and gas company lobbyists were not brought in to write the energy bill proposed by the Bush Administration. Who better to advise about a subject than the people who work in it? Conversely, when Hillary Clinton headed the secret health care task force, she did not consult a single industry expert. So, a bunch of Liberal ideologues wrote the health care plan with no expert advice. None of them were knowledgeable about the inner workings of the industry and they just wrote their plan based on their preconceived notions (i.e., doctors are all rich, drug companies are evil, profit is evil, health care is a right, small companies can easily afford to insure workers but don’t because of the owners’ greed, etc.. You know, all the anti-capitalist, socialist garbage). They actually refused advice and input from the health care industry. The whole plan fell apart when exposed to substantive scrutiny.

The single biggest threat that we face is a nuclear weapon or some weapon of mass destruction. What that means is that we have to be extraordinarily aggressive and vigilant in controlling nuclear proliferation. We have a nuclear proliferation treaty and strategy that has failed. I think it failed in Iran. It also failed in North Korea. That has to be rewritten and renegotiated. And I think that we have to rapidly accelerate the manner in which we are locking down nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. You know, the Lugar-Nunn bill has shown itself to work. Unfortunately, right now it's on a thirteen-year timetable, in which the United States puts in resources to make sure that those resources are secured. I think we can rapidly advance it to the point where we get it down to four years.

BARACK OBAMA, debate, Oct. 12, 2004

Though most of this is correct, Obama implies that the Bush Administration has dropped the ball on Iran and North Korea. Neither implication is true. North Korea’s nuke program began and flourished in secret under the Clinton’s agreement with them. To expect Bush to fix a situation that had already progressed beyond simple negotiation is unrealistic. In the case of Iran, the problem is complicated by the fact that Iran is one of the largest oil producers in the world. Additionally, Iran’s position in the Muslim world makes an overt attack difficult since it would undoubtedly be condemned by most Muslims. If the policy on Iran has failed it is precisely because Bush has bowed to the Liberals’ desire to engage in negotiations involving our irresolute European allies. As a result, the Iranians believe the West is weak and that they can do as they please. The farther down that road they go, the more likely we are to come to a place where military action is our only option to stop them.

It's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Jun. 16, 2006

Thanks for the clarification of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Barack.

Our goal is to have a country that's not divided by race. And my impression, as I travel around the country, is that that's the kind of country that most people want, as well, and that we all have prejudice, we all have certain suspicions or stereotypes about people who are different from us, whether it's religious or racial or ethnic, but what I think I found in the American people, I think there's a core decency there, where if they take the time, if they get the time to know individuals, then they want to judge those individuals by their character.

BARACK OBAMA, Larry King Live, Oct. 19, 2006

This is obvious from the way Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP work so hard to foster harmony among the races - the way they encourage tolerance, understanding and good feelings among peoples of all colors. Not! Must be some other Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and NAACP. I think most of the people in the United States want our country united without concern for race, color, or ethnicity, but it’s obvious that the self-proclaimed “leadership” of the Black community and their Democrat allies are making too much money, getting too many votes, getting too much power to ever actively pursue MLK’s dream. If all was love and light between the races, there’d be no need for them.

I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in "either/or" thinking: the notion that we can only have big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace "socialized medicine."

BARACK OBAMA, The Audacity of Hope

This is a funny statement given that it is the Democrats who “exaggerate [e.g., Global Warming Crisis, War of Poverty, Energy Crisis, Health Care Crisis, etc.] or demonize [e.g., racist, sexist, homophobic, stupid, narrow-minded, mean-spirited, etc.] and who often oversimplify or overstate” their case. They are the ones who dumb down the political debate, appealing to emotions rather than facts. When he says, “For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy…, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country,” he really means he’d like Conservatives to compromise their core beliefs because the open-minded, progressive Democrats don’t ever do that – political correctness notwithstanding. And, speaking of “the sheer predictability of our current political debate,” it is the Democrats who are forever going back to the same list of failed policies to “fix” America’s ailments – price controls, higher taxes, socialized medicine, increased regulation, government hand-outs, ad infinitum.

We've got a tax code that is encouraging flight of jobs and outsourcing. And that's why we've specifically recommended ... that Congress change our tax code so that we stop giving tax breaks to companies that are moving to Mexico and China and other places, and start putting those tax breaks into companies that are investing here in the United States.

BARACK OBAMA, debate, Oct. 12, 2004

Job flight and outsourcing are caused almost entirely by labor costs, not the tax code. Labor costs are all driven up by unions, minimum wage laws, income taxes, corporate regulations, health care costs and environmental regulations all of which are increased, promoted or invented by Liberals. We have jobs moving from Japan and Europe to the US and from the Northeast and Midwest to the Southeast for exactly the same reasons – because it’s cheaper to do business where there are few unionized employees, lower or no minimum wage laws, lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc. These facts cannot be argued except by those who have an agenda. It never ceases to amaze me how the Liberals try to blame the problems they cause on Republicans and conservatives.

Most people who meet my wife quickly conclude that she is remarkable. They are right about this. She is smart, funny and thoroughly charming. Often, after hearing her speak at some function or working with her on a project, people will approach me and say something to the effect of, you know, I think the world of you, Barack, but your wife, wow!

BARACK OBAMA, The Audacity of Hope

Based on what I’ve heard from her, I would describe her as angry and un-American. Michelle Obama raised conservative hackles while campaigning in Wisconsin when she declared, "What we have learned over the past year is that hope is making a comeback. And let me tell you something – for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment." New Yorker Magazine quoted her as saying America was "just downright mean" during a campaign speech in South Carolina. She described the country as “divided.” She declared that life was not good and the people are "guided by fear" and cynicism. "We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day," she told churchgoers. "Folks are just jammed up, and it's gotten worse over my lifetime." She complained that college is too expensive, schools are not doing their job, health care is out of reach and pensions are disappearing. "Let me tell you, don't get sick in America!" she said.

This is a pretty poor view of the country. And, she thinks she should be First Lady? Why would she want to be? If she thinks America is a rotten place, why would she think her husband can even get elected?

I do think that there is a big difference between family farms and agri-business, and one of the distressing things that I think has occurred is with consolidation of farm lands. You've seen large agri-businesses benefit from enormous profits from existing farm programs, and I think we should be focusing most of those programs on those family farmers.

BARACK OBAMA, debate, Oct. 12, 2004

Perhaps, we should reinstitute buggy whip manufacturing subsidies as well. In the modern world, the family farm is largely anachronistic. If a farmer cannot compete in the free market, he should cease to be a farmer. Corporate farming is far more cost effective and efficient than family farming. If you’d like less, more-expensive food grown by family farmers, good for you. Give me a “Wal-Mart” farm any day with more, less-expensive food. As for agri-business making big profits from government farm subsidies, I guess a farmer is a farmer is a farmer to the government, as it should be. Technically speaking, a family farm is just as much a business as Con-Agra. Why does the size of the business make a difference? The large agri-business naturally makes more profit just from efficiencies of scale.

Whenever I write a letter to a family who has lost a loved one in Iraq, or read an email from a constituent who has dropped out of college because her student aid has been cut, I'm reminded that the actions of those in power have enormous consequences--a price that they themselves almost never have to pay.

BARACK OBAMA, The Audacity of Hope

If I’m not mistaken, Senator John McCain had a 5-and-half-year vacation at the Hanoi Hilton as a consequence of his service to his country. I’ve also heard that his son, Jack, is serving in Iraq. So, he has a connection to the consequences of sending our military into harm’s way far in excess of anything Obama can claim. And when has the government cut anybody’s student aid? We add more and more money for education every year. That’s the main reason why college costs as much as it does.

I think the American people, at their core, are a decent people. I think that we still have prejudice in our midst but I think that the vast majority of Americans are willing to judge people on the basis of, you know, their ideas and their character. And in the case of the presidency, I think what is most important is whether the American people think that you understand their hopes and dreams and struggles and whether they think that you can actually help them achieve those hopes and dreams.

BARACK OBAMA, CNN interview, Nov. 20, 2006

How magnanimous of Obama to admit that Americans are decent people (all evidence to the contrary apparently). Actually, the American people are most concerned with whether a presidential candidate will be able to keep the nation safe, keep the government out of their way, and not destroy the economy. Do those three things and leave my hopes and dreams to me. If you keep me free, I will be able to take care of myself. In the name of helping Americans achieve their hopes and dreams, Obama will destroy the economy – the golden goose that gives us all hope to achieve our dreams – with increased taxes, increased regulation, Global Warming efforts, and socialized medicine.

As for prejudice – we will always have that. We can change people’s behavior, but not their nature.

Hope -- Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, 2004 DNC Convention

Hope is not God’s greatest gift to us! The Bible says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” not “For God so loved the world that He gave hope, that whosoever hoped should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Hope is nothing. “A belief in things not seen,” is the definition of Faith, not hope. “A belief that there are better days ahead,” depending on circumstances, could be delusion. We don’t need hope in Barack Obama, we need faith in God.

We have to acknowledge the progress we made, but understand that we still have a long way to go. That things are better, but still not good enough.

BARACK OBAMA, Larry King Live, Oct. 19, 2006

I have no context for this statement. If Obama was referring to civil rights, then he is espousing the typical Liberal point of view. There will never be enough progress. The current civil rights movement no longer seeks equality, they seek domination. They are currently working to undo all the gains made in this country. Their apparent feeling is that if they stick the White majority’s nose in the racism muck often enough, they can actually create the racial division they keep claiming exists. The result will be more money, power and influence for them.

When I ran for the U.S. Senate the assumption was that anyone's name that was close to "Osama" doesn't stand a chance. So if somebody thought that tacking on "Hussein" in there would be a killer, then I think they underestimate the American people and the seriousness of the problems we face.

BARACK OBAMA, Newsweek, January 1, 2007

Barack Obama would not be a Senator today if a Liberal Democrat judge in Illinois had not unsealed Jack and Jeri Ryan’s divorce papers. Ryan was on his way to a victory when the judge allowed the Illinois Dems to get a hold of the contents of those files. Obama seems to have let his election go to his head. His last phrase, “they underestimate the American people and the seriousness of the problems we face,” indicates the high esteem he feels the American people must have for him as the apparent solution to the serious problems we face.

Most people who serve in Washington have been trained either as lawyers or as political operatives--professions that tend to place a premium on winning arguments rather than solving problems.

BARACK OBAMA, The Audacity of Hope

Obama and his wife included. They are both lawyers and political operatives. How is that a change from, say, Bill and Hillary Clinton? Oh, that’s right, Barack and his wife are Black. And, that - quite literally - would be the only difference between the two administrations.

Here are some possible Obama campaign slogans:

    * Barack Obama: Hoping for a Future of Change!
    * Barack Obama: Changing the Future of Hope!
    * Barack Obama: The Future of Hopeful Change!

Or, maybe just stick them all together:

    * Barack Obama: Hoping to Change the Future of Hoping for a Future of Hopeful Change


Huh?

Does anybody have any idea what Barack Obama is talking about? Never has so little been said in so many words. This man has an incredible talent for saying nothing better than just about anyone. Below, I have collected a series of statements from Senator Obama and offer my own analysis of his positions and intentions when detectable.

This notion that's peddled by the religious right - that they are oppressed is not true. Sometimes it's a cynical ploy to move their agenda ahead. The classic example being that somehow secularists are trying to eliminate Christmas, which strikes me as some kind of manufactured controversy.



Secularists are not trying to eliminate Christmas. They seek to eliminate Christ from it. His name is hateful to them. They would never want to eliminate Christmas, just celebrate it as Commerce Day or the Winter Solstice. There’s too much money wrapped up in it to end it. Just get that outdated, hick religious aspect out of there. Christians are not oppressed, but they are being marginalized. Those who actively practice or express their faith are openly ridiculed in popular culture. Christians are portrayed in almost all Hollywood films as unsophisticated, nutty, bigoted, intolerant, or downright stupid. No one in their right mind can deny this. Openly Christian politicians are required to justify their faith and to deny that their actions have been or will be shaped by that faith. Just ask former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

What Washington needs is adult supervision.



Absolutely true. But to imagine Barack Obama as that adult supervision would be delusional.

In an interconnected world, the defeat of international terrorism – and most importantly, the prevention of these terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction -- will require the cooperation of many nations. We must always reserve the right to strike unilaterally at terrorists wherever they may exist. But we should know that our success in doing so is enhanced by engaging our allies so that we receive the crucial diplomatic, military, intelligence, and financial support that can lighten our load and add legitimacy to our actions. This means talking to our friends and, at times, even our enemies.



All of what he says here is essentially true. However, when you’re talking to your enemies you need to never forget that they are your enemies and as such, they are seeking your defeat and in some cases annihilation. His implication is that the Bush administration did not do this prior to the Iraq War.

All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.



Man-made natural disaster is an oxymoron. His entire first sentence is false. There was just an international meeting of over 200 leading scientists in New York, all of whom say man-made Global Warming – or climate change, if you prefer – is not occurring. So, how can the debate be over? It’s over because not a single mainstream media news organization even mentioned this meeting.

There are a whole lot of religious people in America, including the majority of Democrats. When we abandon the field of religious discourse—when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome—others will fill the vacuum. And those who do are likely to be those with the most insular views of faith, or who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.



Most religions believe other faiths are wrong. Not every religion teaches that it is their adherents’ duty to do something about it. And, those religions that admonish their practitioners to take action to correct their fellow man’s spiritual error differ on what they ask them to do. So, being a good Christian means telling people they are lost and going to Hell if they don’t repent and accept Christ. That is the first obligation of every Christian to their fellow man whether they wish to hear it or not. What if being a good Christian means protesting the murder of thousands of unborn children every year? When Liberal Democrats speak of Christ, they only see him as a man that taught that we should love our neighbor and judge not. Christ, the Savior of the World, who died for our sins is never mentioned. Liberals believe in neither sin nor ramifications.

On the other hand, what if being a good Muslim means killing Christians and Jews who will not convert or submit to Muslim rule?

If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.



Our problem is that our government – particularly when run by Liberal Democrats – wants to do a lot more than just protect us and promote our common welfare. The government wants to run our whole lives. It wants to tell us what to drive, eat and drink; what to wear; where to live; who to marry; what kind of light bulbs to use; how much water our toilets can flush with, etc.

Americans ... still believe in an America where anything's possible -- they just don't think their leaders do.



But “anything” is not possible in America or anywhere else. Only some things are possible. All else is delusion. Every “solution” causes new problems. So in fact there are very limited possibilities that will produce positive results. To believe you can “solve” poverty, sickness, evil, ignorance, etc. in the real world is to believe you can eradicate human nature – it requires God-like knowledge and ability. Since the Liberals don’t really believe in “God,” they must believe themselves to be gods.

America is a land of big dreamers and big hopes. It is this hope that has sustained us through revolution and civil war, depression and world war, a struggle for civil and social rights and the brink of nuclear crisis. And it is because our dreamers dreamed that we have emerged from each challenge more united, more prosperous, and more admired than before.



America is not a land of big dreamers and big hopes. America is a land of big ideas and big action. America made it through revolution and civil war, depression and world war, a struggle for civil and social rights and the brink of nuclear crisis because Americans took positive action – usually on their own behalf – to address those situations. Americans fought in the Revolution, the Civil War, and two World Wars. They did not sit back and dream and hope. They worked hard to make ends meet in the Depression and to lift up those who were in need. They didn’t lie around dreaming and hoping. Did MLK and the marchers in Selma and Washington only dream of and hope for civil rights? No, they worked for them. They took action. And, how did we survive being on the brink of nuclear crisis? By taking positive, aggressive action to oppose Soviet expansion. From Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis to Reagan deploying missiles to Europe, our leaders actively opposed our enemies. They did not dream and hope for a better day.

Dreams and hope are great, but they are no substitute for positive action.

We should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through military force. In the past, it has been movements for freedom from within tyrannical regimes that have led to flourishing democracies; movements that continue today. This doesn’t mean abandoning our values and ideals; wherever we can, it’s in our interest to help foster democracy through the diplomatic and economic resources at our disposal. But even as we provide such help, we should be clear that the institutions of democracy – free markets, a free press, a strong civil society – cannot be built overnight, and they cannot be built at the end of a barrel of a gun. And so we must realize that the freedoms FDR once spoke of – especially freedom from want and freedom from fear – do not just come from deposing a tyrant and handing out ballots; they are only realized once the personal and material security of a people is ensured as well.



“We should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through military force?” Really? Tell that to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Democracy was a total anathema to the Japanese at the end of WWII, and yet they are a thriving democracy today. How did that happen, if not through military force? It certainly wasn’t through an internal freedom movement. They believed their emperor was a god. They didn’t have a democratic bone in their collective body. “In the past, it has been movements for freedom from within tyrannical regimes that have led to flourishing democracies.” Oh yeah? Name one. Virtually all such movements result in bloodshed in one form or another – usually a civil war. This statement, “… we should be clear that the institutions of democracy – free markets, a free press, a strong civil society – cannot be built overnight, and they cannot be built at the end of a barrel of a gun,” is contradicted by Obama’s very next statement, “And so we must realize that the freedoms FDR once spoke of – especially freedom from want and freedom from fear – do not just come from deposing a tyrant and handing out ballots; they are only realized once the personal and material security of a people is ensured as well.” How would we ensure the personal and material security of the people? At the point of a gun perhaps? In Iraq, which is what he’s talking about here, they went from one government-run newspaper to 125 privately-owned newspapers within weeks of liberation. And, a free-market literally was created overnight as people suddenly had the ability to control their own destinies. If it had not been for al Qaeda trying to start a civil war, Iraq would already be a fully functioning civil society.

We live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principle goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained.



All this from a man who is rich, thin, young, famous, safe and presumably entertained. Empathy is best expressed as, “I feel your pain.” Sympathy is best expressed as “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” Which is most helpful? If I feel your pain, how much use am I to you in alleviating that pain? If we’re all in the same boat, it’s hard for us to be motivated or able to rescue each other from that boat. But, if I’m not suffering with you, if I want to avoid being in your boat, if I want to do for you what I’d like you to do for me if the situation were reversed, I’m more inclined to see a need to help you. We, in fact, live in a country that is incredibly giving. We help the helpless more than any other country. And, it is those that are themselves least well off that seem to give the most. Mississippi has the lowest per capita wealth in the US, but gives more to charity than Connecticut which has the highest per capita wealth in the US. Obama’s view of America is so negative, he should never be allowed to be president.

Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.



All of this statement is true. However, what Obama is hoping you won’t remember is that the “Secularists” are Liberals in his party or in the Green Party. These folks don’t complain about Democrats injecting their personal morality into the public arena because they know Liberals don’t have personal morals that conflict with big government control of the populace.

I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy as a democracy and civically [sic] start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics.



This is true too. When people stop paying attention and become lazy, they vote the Democrats into power and we get bad leaders and poor government. Liberalism is easier than Conservatism because it requires no intellectual effort.

You know, there's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit - the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through the eyes of those who are different from us - the child who's hungry, the steelworker who's been laid-off, the family who lost the entire life they built together when the storm came to town. When you think like this - when you choose to broaden your ambit of concern and empathize with the plight of others, whether they are close friends or distant strangers - it becomes harder not to act; harder not to help.



And, when you think like this and want to help, it’s much easier to let the government hand out more tax money to these people which, in turn, will increase the federal deficit.

Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. And it will leave you unfulfilled.



Perhaps, but at least it avoids poverty.

When people are judged by merit, not connections, then the best and brightest can lead the country, people will work hard, and the entire economy will grow - everyone will benefit and more resources will be available for all, not just select groups.



Sounds like a call for supply-side economics and an end to affirmative action quotas, but I’m sure that’s not what he really meant.

Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity. Americans know this. We know that government can't solve all our problems - and we don't want it to. But we also know that there are some things we can't do on our own. We know that there are some things we do better together.



I’m not sure what Obama is talking about. The trouble in this country right now is that the concepts of mutual regard and mutual responsibility have been skewed and/or completely redefined. Whereas once mutual regard would have meant respect for someone else’s person, property, accomplishments, etc. now it seems to mean nothing to the government (read Kelo decision). And Mutual Responsibility – which I would define as everyone pulling their own weight for the good of all – has now come to mean that I am responsible – via my taxes – for the welfare of my fellow citizens even if they are doing nothing to take care of themselves when they are perfectly able to do so. The major problem with many of Obama’s constituent’s is that they do not feel that they have a stake in America’s success. They seem to feel that America owes them something.

Making your mark on the world is hard. If it were easy, everybody would do it. But it's not. It takes patience, it takes commitment, and it comes with plenty of failure along the way. The real test is not whether you avoid this failure, because you won't. It's whether you let it harden or shame you into inaction, or whether you learn from it; whether you choose to persevere.



It is only people who have no shame in failure who become inactive. People who will not tolerate the shame of failure will never give up.

The country is not as polarized as our politics would suggest.



No, the country is not as polarized as the mainstream media would suggest.

We need to steer clear of this poverty of ambition, where people want to drive fancy cars and wear nice clothes and live in nice apartments but don't want to work hard to accomplish these things. Everyone should try to realize their full potential.



Proverbs 21:25 says, “The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour.”

No, we need to steer clear of policies that make it possible for people “to drive fancy cars and wear nice clothes and live in nice apartments” if they won't work hard to accomplish these things. Then and only then will everyone realize their full potential.

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.



Obama seems to be unfazed by facts. Guns are illegal in Washington DC and in New York City, but the murder rate in both places is unbelievably high. Actually, there is a far lower violent crime rate in areas where guns are plentiful among the law-abiding. We have far more shootings in places where guns are not present. Gangbangers are not usually shooting into a crowd because someone disrespected them. They are usually enforcing their gang’s territory against rival gangs not because their feelings were hurt. Generally speaking, gangbangers are shooting at other gangbangers when they shoot into a crowd of people. If we dealt more effectively with gangs, there would be less of that. An interesting fact is that about 85 percent of the people murdered in the US are either criminals or closely associated with criminals (relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.) So staying away from crime and criminals would go a long way toward preventing such events. Also, far from being repaired by government programs, the hole in the young man’s heart was most-likely caused by government programs that robbed him of a stable two-parent home where he might have learned something besides hate. Government can only destroy families and people, it cannot provide spiritual fulfillment.

In a country of 300 million people, there is a certain degree of audacity required for anybody to say, "I'm the best person to lead this country."



There certainly is. Obama is certainly the least qualified of the three current candidates. He wouldn’t even be a US Senator if it weren’t for Democrat dirt-diggers, a Democrat judge and a Republican candidate’s ability to be shamed out of the race.

Democrat Fools

Part 4:  What They Plan for the Rest of Us

I’m not sure if everyone in America really understands what the Democrats have planned for us if they take over the White House in January 2009 and keep control of both houses of the Congress.  It’s going to be bad – really bad.  If they win, I believe the Democrats will:

1)      Immediately abandon much of the War on Terror opening us up to attacks on the US mainland again when the terrorists no longer have us to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.  At the same time, they will destroy the Patriot Act as a tool for use against terrorists in this country.  They will probably use the remains of the act against their domestic enemies – Conservatives, Republicans, and uncooperative Democrats (e.g., Joe Lieberman).  They will deal with terrorism only when an attack is carried out in our country.  Bill Clinton did nothing of substance about any terrorist attack on US interests abroad and dealt with the World Trade Center bombings as just another law enforcement situation.  He dealt with the Oklahoma City bombing by ignoring all possible ties to foreign terrorists – of which there were many.  A new Democrat president can be expected to do the same.  They will once again hamstring the intelligence apparatus of this country because they secretly fear it.  They will severely weaken the US military because they see it as the focus of evil in the world and they loathe it.  They will release all the detainees at Guantanamo or turn them over to the Justice Department for trials in civilian courts where the ACLU will argue that all detainees must be released at once because they were not read their rights when captured on the battlefield, were deprived of legal counsel, were held without charges, etc.  Then some hand-picked stupid Liberal judge will agree and put 300 known terrorists back on the street to attack us again.

2)      Abandon Israel in order to curry favor with terrorists and their supporters.  If we abandon a trusted ally when they need us most, how many others will leap at the opportunity to ally themselves with us in the future.  Even the Bush Administration hasn’t dealt fairly with Israel - attempting to mediate between them and their enemies rather than siding directly with our friend.  Israel, the land, belonged to the Jews long before the Muslims came along.  They were cast out by a European power in 70 AD and were return primarily by European powers in 1948.  The archeological proof of the Jews’ claim to Israel is right there in the ground.  By the way, the Palestinians are destroying every piece of archeological evidence that points to the Jews’ presence in antiquity.  They just dump the artifact straight into a rock crusher.  Since Hillary Clinton has embraced the Palestinians (quite literally), Nancy Pelosi has gone for a friendly chat with Bashar al Assad in Syria and Barak Obama plans to send negotiators to commiserate with Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians on what America can do to be friends, it seems pretty obvious how sympathetic the Democrats will be to Israel’s situation.  Turning our backs on Israel will be the death of US foreign policy.

3)      Raise taxes on “the rich.”  They, of course, define “the rich” as anyone with a job.  The effect of the planned tax increases will be a serious negative impact on the US economy.  Hillary Clinton constantly points to the 1990s as a model of how the economy should be managed.  She hopes you don’t know that the tax increases passed by the Democrat Congress in 1993 – the largest tax increase in the history of mankind – produced less new revenue than Bush’s tax cuts.  The Clinton economy was actually the last lingering remainder of the Reagan economy as it slowly bled out due to increased taxes and regulation imposed by the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations.  The Republican takeover of Congress further slowed the decline and disguised some of the negative impacts so that the economy tipped over into a recession just as Bill Clinton left office – probably exactly as planned.  The 9-11 Attacks further weakened the economy - costing the US GDP around $800 billion dollars.  Only the Bush tax cuts returned the economy to its former growth.  Currently, the government is bringing in more revenue per month than it ever has.  The government has more money than it has ever had and its budget is a larger chunk of the US Gross Domestic Product than ever before with the exception of during World War 2.  Despite what the Democrats say about “the evil rich,” it is the rich who create jobs in America, either by investing in business or by purchasing high-priced products which require workers to create.  Poor people do not start businesses.  They do not employ people.  When the Democrats raise taxes, “the rich” will stop buying high-ticket items like Plasma TVs, cars, planes and yachts and will slow their investment in new business in order to protect their money from taxes.  The result will be massive layoffs and firings of workers who are no longer needed.  New York Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel has announced that he would like to see a 4% surtax levied on everyone who makes more than $200,000 a year.  That’s a sizable chunk of the small business owners on this country.  What will that do to the economy?  Keep in mind that since this is a tax on income rather than wealth, the truly rich will be virtually unaffected by the increased taxes.  So Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. will not see higher taxes on money they already have.  The true intent of income taxes – apart from helping to foster class envy – is to prevent middle class people from accumulating wealth and moving into the upper class.  The upper class doesn’t want any more Bill Gates-es.  Any economic slowdown will shrink the tax base even further, resulting in less tax revenue to the government.  At the same time, the increased number of unemployed will require more government benefits to survive, thus requiring yet another tax increase, ad infinitum.  It never ends until the country is reduced to poverty.  Keep in mind:  No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but many – like France, Germany, and Sweden – have severely damaged their economic well-being through over taxation. 

4)      Try to levy punitive taxes on private industry – particularly the oil and pharmaceutical companies.  Mrs. Clinton has already said she would like to tax “excessive” oil company profits.  The result will be higher gas prices as the oil companies pass the tax increases to the consumer – which they must do to survive.  When the gas price goes up, the Democrats will react by slapping price controls on consumer gas prices because the oil companies are “price gouging” and because they don’t believe in the free market anyway.  Instantly, there will be gasoline shortages even though there is plenty of oil.  This is how we ended up with the gas shortages of the 70s even though there was plenty of oil.  So, all the unemployed poor and the over-taxed middle class will struggle to buy gas to get to work.  Products transported by truck – that’s virtually everything – will increase drastically in price or be unavailable as they rot on loading docks for lack of transport.  The buying power of the average consumer will plummet as inflation skyrockets.  Remember Carter’s economy?  How do you think we got there?  Using the California electricity debacle as an example of how well the Democrats can manage the energy sector, we can probably expect nationwide brown-outs and blackouts due to lack of electric power.  Meanwhile, vast sources of oil, coal and natural gas will be left in the ground due to misplaced environmental concerns even as shortages and price increases render us all destitute.  Right now, we have the highest standard of living in history.  How long will that last with the Democrats in charge?  They think the 2006 election was a mandate to carry out their policies and they will interpret a similar victory in 2008 as proof that the American people want those policies.

5)      Sign on to the Kyoto Accords or something similar to help fight man-made Global Warming despite the fact that there is no proof, and precious little evidence, that mankind has any influence on the global environment.  We should not be making public policy based on conjecture, prejudice and wishful thinking.  Their actions will severely damage our economy as part of the fool’s errand of reducing our CO₂ emissions while failing completely to address the worst CO₂ emitters - China and India.  Coupled with the tax assault on the oil companies, the resulting new environmental restrictions will virtually kill our economy possibly bringing on a world-wide depression that will make 1929 look like a minor market adjustment.  The US economy is the engine that powers the world economy.  If we falter, the world will as well.  At the very least, these self-imposed restrictions will cause the US to slip in terms of economic growth as our standard of living decreases.

6)      Attempt to nationalize Health Care.  As P. J. O’Rourke once said, “If you think Health Care is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.”  As we have seen in Europe and Canada, their much-vaunted socialized medicine produces health care shortages, inadequate care and long waits for services.  There are more MRI machines in Philadelphia than there are in all of Canada.  If you thought you had some serious illness, how long would you want to wait for that MRI?  If you hate your HMO now, you’ll just love having a government bureaucrat deciding if you get that new kidney or not.  Our health care is overly expensive because of government interference with the free market and unbridled liability lawyers like John Edwards.  (At least he won’t be president.)  When the government attempts to rein in the price of pharmaceuticals with more regulation, price controls and various mandates, they will destroy the private drug industry, resulting in drug shortages and a lot of unnecessary deaths.  The government does such a crummy job running everything else it does, why does anyone think it can run the health care industry?  Somebody once said, “Crime wouldn’t pay if the government ran it.”  The same can be said for just about anything else.  The best thing the government can do for all sectors of the economy is to get out of the way.

7)      Attempt to disarm the public.  Contrary to popular belief, the 2^nd Amendment was not intended to ensure the gun-toting rights of homeowners and hunters.  The purpose of the amendment is to prevent tyranny by our own government.  In Europe, at the time of the American Revolution, only the nobility owned firearms or even hunted.  The general population was absolutely at the mercy of the government.  The people were definitely no more than second class citizens and often less.  With the 2^nd Amendment, our Founders rendered every American a monarch in his own right.  Keep in mind that the amendment’s reference to the “militia” does not refer to the National Guard – which did not exist at the time.  So what is it talking about?  The SC Constitution – as an example – defines the militia as “all males between the ages of 18 and 48.”  So, at the very least, it could be argued that the Founders intended for everyone between 18 and 48 to own guns.  At most it could mean all adults, since the average life expectancy in the late 1700s was about 48.  Despite this, the modern Liberal wants to take away our guns to help return the average person to what they see as our proper place, i.e., second class citizens or less.  To paraphrase Ann Coulter, the Democrats envision an America that looks like the Hamptons, in which they live in the big houses and the rest of us cannot afford an SUV.  After the 1994 Congressional election gave the Republicans control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, a Democrat survivor said the lesson of the election was that the “American people expected more from their rulers.”  Their rulers?  This statement indicates just what the Democrats think of us.  The President and the Congress aren’t our rulers.  They’re our employees!  The American people are in charge here – not them.  That’s why the Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States” not “We the Rulers of the United States.”  That elitist Democrat attitude is a major indicator of what sort of tyranny they could be capable of if given a freer hand.  Right now, there are some 80 million gun owners in the US.  That’s a pretty formidable deterrent to government tyranny and the Liberals know it. 

8)      Attempt to silence their detractors once and for all.  Although the 1^st Amendment guarantees us our right to free speech, the Democrats don’t like the “irresponsible” way some of us exercise it – that is, by pointing out the flaws in their policies, as well as their moral corruption and stupidity.  Some of the Founders objected to the creation of a Bill of Rights because they feared that if they created a partial list of rights, later people might take it to mean that these were the only rights a person had under the Constitution or that our rights flowed from government rather than from God.  Modern Liberals certainly believe that our rights come from government (since most of them don’t believe in a real God), and as such, they can be redefined or even taken away “for the greater good.”  They, of course, will be defining the greater good for us lesser beings.  Any statement that disparages their agenda will be defined as hate speech or as presenting only one side of the argument.  Either definition will be used to silence the people who disagree.  Political Correctness has already crippled our ability to defend our nation.  We cannot properly debate many issues in this country because the Left immediately starts calling those who disagree with their “more enlightened” views names and dismissing their arguments as simplistic, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc.  With our ability to carry out a free and open discussion of the issues disabled, we fall prey to the demagogues who seek to sway emotions rather than engage the intellect of their audience.  Steps will be taken to rein in or possibly shut down talk radio using government agencies via the “Fairness Doctrine.”  They will seek to turn every public venue into a shouting match rather than letting ideas to be disseminated freely.

9)      Complete driving Christianity out of the public square.  Since Socialism can brook no dissent, religion in general and Christianity in particular are unwelcome in the public square.  The belief in something more powerful, smarter, better than themselves is unacceptable to Liberals.  Their egos don’t allow it.  The idea that they might be responsible to some higher power is also objectionable.  But, the main problem that they have with most religion is moral absolutes.  Liberals don’t believe in them.  Moral relativism is essential to everything they do and moral absolutes stand in the way of their “ends justify the means” approach to social activism.  It’s difficult to believe that telling a lie to further the cause is OK when someone else is saying “a lie is a lie is a lie and it’s always wrong.”  They will continue to misinterpret the 1^st Amendment “Establishment Clause” and use it as a flail to drive Christians from the public square.  Like the 2^nd Amendment, the 1^st is being used for a purpose it was never intended for.  The ignorance of the American people about our own history and that of Europe has allowed the Liberals to use the so-called “Establishment Clause” as a means of thwarting the “Free Exercise Clause” for any active Christian who seeks public office or even wishes to teach school.  Even if the Liberals were correct in their interpretation of the 1^st Amendment, it seems unfathomable that the US Supreme Court would not have discovered that the US government was supposed to be atheist until 1947 when we first hear the phrase, “separation of church and state” in a court opinion. 

Well, that’s all I’ve got on this subject at the moment.  There will be more when I have time for additional pontification.

Just the other day Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and her uncle Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Senator Barak Obama for president.  Both compared him favorably to John F. Kennedy.  The fact that they, as Democrats, would endorse Obama is not unusual, but the comparison to JFK is unwarranted.  I can only believe that neither Kennedy has any idea who JFK was despite their close association with him.  Their comparison of Obama to JFK is an insult to the late president.  While Obama may have charisma, may be handsome and may be a likable individual in the vein of JFK, intellectually he is an empty suit by comparison.  There is a lot of difference between a politician and statesman.  If Obama were elected president, his term in office would likely be as disappointing as getting an empty box for a Christmas present – nice looking on the outside but lacking in substance.

Obama incessantly preaches change, but is incapable of providing any sort of substance to that change.  Change for the sake of change can be unproductive and often dangerous.  I am reminded of the story of prisoners who received bread and gravy as their meal three times a day.  After a while, they began to complain to the guard about uniformity of their daily fare.  “Can’t we have something different from bread and gravy all the time?”  The guard said he would see to it that they had something different the next day.  The prisoners anxiously awaited breakfast the next morning.  Sure enough, the guard was true to his word.  There was a change.  They each received a plate with only gravy – no bread. 

After slogging through a veritable bocage of buzzwords and hyperbole, what little domestic policy substance we can get out of Obama sounds much like what we have heard out of all the Democrat candidates – higher taxes for the producers and more spending on the non-producers.  He just couches his policy in terms of hope and change instead of investment and justice.  By the time he’s done taxing the rich to feed the poor there will be no rich no more (to paraphrase the old ‘60s song) and the US economy will have collapsed to Third World status.

On the foreign policy front, Obama’s declared intention to open dialog with the likes of the Iranian mullahs seems hopelessly naïve given what is at risk for our country and the rest of the world.  While John Kennedy was a war hero, a world traveler, and an experienced member of the Senate, Obama is a comparative babe in the woods more at home with inner city political wrangling than anything else.  And yet, he’s so narcissistic that he believes – like any liberal would – that the force of his personality, intellect, and presence will convince those who rightly fear and loathe America that they have nothing to be concerned about.  It reminds me of Edward I in the movie Braveheart trying to figure out who to send to deal with William Wallace after the sack of York.  “I can’t go myself or it might be my head in a basket.  Who can I send?  Not my gentle son.  No, the mere sight of him would only encourage an enemy to take over the whole country.”  When it comes to gaining the respect of our enemies (read “fear”), neither Mrs. Clinton – because she’s a woman (remember the Muslims think of them as property) – nor Mr. Obama – because he’s a New Age Feel-Good liberal – will give them pause.  The mere sight of either of them behind the desk in the Oval Office will encourage our enemies to take over the whole country.  Neither of them – especially Obama – understands that it is better to be feared than loved.  If they truly believe that the greatest challenge facing America today is affordable health care, then they have no appreciable grasp of reality and therefore should not be president.

The American people will, of course, decide who will be president.  They will have lots of help making that decision from the Mainstream Media (Liberals all), Hollywood (Liberals all), and various organizations – trade and teachers unions (Liberals all), American Bar Association (who contribute large amounts to Democrats), etc.  If, with all that help, Mr. Obama were to get himself elected, at his inaugural, his address might paraphrase JFK’s like this, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall raise any tax, inflict any burden on the middle class, avoid any international hardship, abandon any friend, appease any foe, in order to assure the survival of the Democrat domestic agenda.”

On Martin Luther King Day, the Reverend Peter Johnson, director of Texas operations for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference said, "We have ignored the essence of his [Dr. King’s] life and the horror of his death… We've allowed white America to escape the guilt of his assassination, and we've allowed black America to drift back into a coma."

I’m proud to tell Rev. Johnson that I feel no guilt for Dr. King’s assassination because I have no guilt in his assassination.  I was about 10 years old at the time of King’s murder and I had no part in any alleged conspiracy to kill the man.  If memory serves me correctly, there was no conspiracy, just one hate-filled man acting alone - one man who spent the rest of his life in prison.

 

I believe that Dr. King’s murder was one of the worst things to ever befall the Civil Rights Movement - and America in general - because his death left the movement in the hands of men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who – far from pursuing “The Dream” – have made a living fostering racial and class strife at the expense of the entire country.  The bulk of that expense has been borne by those Blacks who subscribe to these leaders’ notion that white America owes black America some debt they can never repay and that Whites are the real reason why Blacks have difficulty getting ahead.  Apparently, Johnson is one of those people as well.  His statement indicates that he believes all Whites are culpable in King’s death, and by extension, in the failure of Black Americans to achieve success in America. 

 

I’m not really sure what he’d like White folks to do.  I suppose he’d like them to become slaves of the Black community.  He certainly doesn’t want equality which is apparently insufficient to sooth the rage he must feel.  It seems more like he wants revenge.  At the same time, he claims that black America has slipped into a coma.  In fact, the part of black America that no longer responds to his call for racial activism is too busy being successful to be bothered.  While he dwells in the past with its unrelenting grudges and hatreds, most of the Blacks in America are moving on, and we’re all better for it.  Everything isn’t perfect, of course.  It never is.  There are still folks out there who can’t see past the color of someone’s skin.  I think Reverend Johnson is one of them.  How very Christian of the reverend. 

 

If America has failed to progress on the race issue it is because some people will not let go of the past.  When I was younger, my family went to a local church with a young, dynamic minister who preached the Word of God with fire and passion.  He could lay out the how and why of becoming a Christian better than almost any preacher I’ve ever seen.  Trouble was, he never preached on any other topic.  Admittedly, a good preacher is going tell you how to become a Christian at some point in every sermon because you never know who’s in the congregation that Sunday.  But, a minister has to help his flock grow as Christians – to move on to the next thing.  This man wasn’t very good at that.  No matter where his sermon began, within a few minutes he was pounding the Bible and delivering a scathing reproach on all who were not totally committed to serving.  If you weren’t as committed as he was, you probably weren’t a Christian in his book.  I left the service most Sundays wondering if I was a Christian at all.  Rather than helping me to grow, his style was keeping me perpetually stuck in a newborn state, unable to move on to becoming a mature Christian.

 

That’s the way I see Rev. Johnson and other leaders of the “Persecution Industry.”  America can never mature on the issue of race because we as a nation are being perpetually accused of feelings, intentions and actions which by and large are no longer present.  Where these things are present they are mostly at the individual, rather than societal, levels.  You cannot change human nature only restrain or encourage specific behaviors.  That was the purpose of all those laws our government enacted to redress the inequalities of opportunity that existed for minorities.  But, what Reverends Johnson, Jackson and Sharpton are concerned about are inequalities of outcome, But, when it comes to outcome, the onus falls squarely upon the shoulders of those who would attain success.  No one can give you success.  Someone – the government for instance – can give you the rewards and trappings of success even if you didn’t earn them, but they cannot make you succeed.  You have to do that yourself.  And, the multitude of successful Black athletes, entertainers, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and business owners provide ample evidence that Blacks can and do succeed in America.

 

As for the endless debt Reverend Johnson seems to think white America owes black America:  It has been repaid many times over.  Over 600,000 Americans died in the fight that freed his ancestors.  Additional unknown thousands before and since have sacrificed life, limb, and treasure to guarantee his right as an American to spout his vitriol without fear of reprisal.  What more does his country owe him?

Democrat Fools

Part Three:  Radical Environmentalism

To start, let's get something straight:  The sole purpose of the international environmental movement is to destroy free-market capitalism not to save the planet.  As evidence I offer the following fact:  Mikhail Gorbachev, last president of the Soviet Union and an ardent communist, founded Green Cross International, a major international environmental activist organization, when he was no longer president of the Soviet Union.  (There being no Soviet Union to be president of thanks to Ronald Reagan.)  Why would he do that?  It certainly was not that Gorbachev was all that concerned about the environment since the Soviets’ record on the environment was abysmal in the cataclysmic sense.  Well, first of all because he actually had to go out and earn a living for a change, but mostly because the environmentalists and the communists have one overarching common theme – they both hate capitalism.

Similarly, the real reason why American environmentalists object to sending in crews to clean out the underbrush and dead trees in the Californian and Northwestern forests is not because they want them left “pristine,” but because they are afraid someone might make some money doing it.  The results were on your evening news for several weeks as nearly 1 million Californians were forced from their homes by uncontrollable wildfires fueled by that same underbrush and dead trees.  In the early 90s, the environmentalist succeeded in getting logging stopped in the Northwest causing the loss of a great number of lumber industry jobs and causing the price of paper and wood products to virtually double all for the sake of some birds.  Basically, the radical environmentalists oppose any action that will improve the lifestyle of the American people (building hydroelectric dams, creating upscale neighborhoods, drilling for oil, etc.) or which will damage the cause of their Democrat enablers – such as building a fence in San Diego to keep out illegal aliens who might someday become Democrat voters.

Then there’s Global Warming.  John Coleman says that Global Warming is the “Greatest scam in History, a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.”  He also says, “There is no runaway climate change.  The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic.”  His only qualifications for discussing the global climate are that he has a PhD in meteorology and is the founder of the Weather Channel.  Meanwhile, Al Gore, whose qualifications for discussing climate change are...umm...hmmm....  Well,... Al Gore just got the Nobel Peace Prize for his Global Warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” so he must know something, right?  Actually, his film is so “accurate” that a British court recently ordered that school teachers must inform students of its multiple factual ERRORS when they force the children to watch the film.

I'm no climatologist or meteorologist, but man-made Global Warming just makes no sense to me.  Let’s be logical here.  How did the world warm up to end the last Ice Age with no evil SUVs tooling around adding to the CO₂ levels to create a greenhouse effect?  What made it warm up?  It certainly wasn’t man.  Could we make the climate warm up in the next year if we decided we wanted to?  And, if so, how would we go about doing it?  The crazy thing is that in the 1970s, when I was in college, this same bunch of "scientists" were telling us that the Earth was cooling due to a greenhouse effect caused by CO₂.  They probably hope none of us remembers that.  I remember it because I wrote a research paper on it at the time.  How could we have turned the situation around in 30 years when our power plants are much cleaner now than they were then or when a car in 2007 only produces a 1/10^th of the pollution of a car from 1977?  Heck, an 2007 SUV produces considerably less pollution than a car from 1977.  So, I'm not too sure what we've done to cause this.

And, who says that the current climate is “normal” for the Earth anyway?  Our records really don’t cover much time cosmically speaking.  I live in South Carolina, and any 5^th grader here (assuming he was paying attention that day) can tell you that the Great Sand Hills, which run through the center of the state – parallel to the coast – used to be the beach.  They’re about 100 miles inland from the current coastline.  Who’s to say that isn’t where the coastline is supposed to be?  Maybe the planet is actually supposed to be much warmer and much of the current SC coastal plain (along with my house) is supposed to be underwater.  Basically, we don’t know.  Similarly, how do we know that the warming of the planet will be a universally bad thing?  It seems that although we might lose some coastal areas and maybe even an island or two, we could get some major benefits.  A longer agricultural growing season in Northern Europe and Siberia could increase the amount of food available worldwide which couldn’t be a bad thing.  Greenland might be green again.  The population of Canada might be able to move out into more of their vast, and largely empty, country rather than almost all their people living within 100 miles of the US border.  For all we know, the Sahara Desert could turn into a tropical paradise due to Global Warming.

As we all know, the weather changes constantly.  Weather folks can’t even tell for sure if it’s going to rain tomorrow in Atlanta.  How can they tell what the weather will be like a hundred years from now on the entire planet?  Most of what they tell us is definitely going to happen, is actually pure conjecture.  Have you seen the projected path of a hurricane on TV?  That projection is called the cone of uncertainty and it covers a lot of territory.  It gets wider as you move days into the future because the projection gets “iffier” as you get further away from now (hence the uncertainty).  Keep in mind this is a short-term projection of a limited weather phenomenon, i.e., a hurricane, whose mechanics are reasonably well understood, and yet meteorologists can’t tell you exactly where it’s going to be just 2 days from now.  So how can they possibly tell you what the global climate – encompassing all possible weather phenomena in all possible combinations – will be like 100 years from now?

As it is, there is little or no evidence that mankind has a direct negative – or positive – effect on the climate and yet Liberals are declaring that the debate is over and it’s time for drastic action to save the planet.  They insist that there is scientific consensus on the issue.  But, you don’t vote on science, and science isn’t based on opinion.  Scientists develop theories based on evidence and then