Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made the following statement today after the U.S. Senate passed a provision by a 97-1 bipartisan vote to suspend filling the 97-percent-full Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This move will add 77,000 barrels of additional oil to the market daily:

“Democrats today led the charge against one of the root causes of skyrocketing oil and gas prices. Instead of hiding barrels of oil in the nearly full Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we want to put them on the market to increase supply and lower prices. It is a good first step, but with oil and gas prices continuing to break record highs every day, much more needs to be done. Republicans must abandon their shortsighted strategy of ‘drill, drill, drill’ and join us to pass the rest of the Democratic energy bill that puts consumers first, forces Big Oil to pay its fair share and invests in renewable energy.”

This schizophrenic statement by Harry Reid both acknowledges the laws of supply/demand and ignores them. First Reid congratulates himself and Democrats for adding oil to the market to "increase supply and lower prices" (while ignoring the fact that Republicans unanimously agreed), but then he turns around and excoriates Republicans for what he call their "shortsighted strategy of drill, drill, drill".

I'm not sure where Harry Reid thinks the world oil supply comes from, but I'm almost certain that it comes from that "strategy of drill, drill, drill". Perhaps Reid thinks it comes from the Oil Fairy, I can't be sure, but whatever he's thinking, he's out to lunch.

And now for the rest of the story.

Also today, Republican Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) put forth another provision for a vote, one that would have opened up a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling and expanded offshore oil drilling as well. ANWR alone is estimated to produce 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day (for Democrats reading this, 1,000,000 barrels per day is a LOT MORE than the 77,000 that Harry Reid was patting himself on the back for). The Democrats in the Senate shot the McConnell/Domenici proposal down in flames. The vote was 56-42 against, with 41 of the 42 agreeing to the proposal being Republicans. Democrats were almost unanimously opposed, including Harry Reid and that new kind of politician, the post-partisan uniter (LOL), Barack Obama.

Is there any logical reason for Democrats to think adding 77,000 barrels of oil daily to our supply is great and will lower gas prices, but adding millions of barrels daily is no good ?……..Anyone ?…….Anyone ?……Bueller ?

Harry Reid and friends are flat out insane, and they are no friend at all to the american consumer.

Or maybe they aren't insane, but they are putting partisan politics light years ahead of the american people. That is the more likely scenario, because that is how Harry Reid operates every single day of his miserable lying life.

One of the Democrats (I think it was Dorgan) said today on the Senate floor that getting oil from ANWR was 10 years away even if it was approved, so it wasn't really any help. I kept waiting for a bolt of lightning to come down and strike the man dead on the spot for having the nerve to make that statement, since the Democrats have been shooting down ANWR drilling since about 1988 (if memory serves). We could be getting that million barrels of oil per day (actually much more) RIGHT NOW if not for the obstruction of the Dems. That would be a million barrels of oil we didn't have to import from Iran or Venezuela every day. That would be a lot of money that would be staying right here in the USA instead of going to support regimes who hate us.

Democrats, friends to the little guy (retch). Maybe they mean the little guy who runs Iran, Ahmadinejad.

And just for the record, the USA consumes over 20 million barrels of oil per day, with about 12 million of that imported. Harry Reid and his Dem buddies are trying to tell you that another 77,000 barrels is going to drop the gas price. Are any of you naive enough to believe that ? Harry sure thinks you are.

Why do we keep letting these clowns get away with this stuff ? The Dems in Congress today made a show of doing something rather than ACTUALLY doing something about oil, and then they patted themselves on the back for lying to the american public about the whole thing. THAT is politics as usual. I'd like to tell you what I was feeling when I saw Barack Obama on the Senate floor smiling and shaking hands with his friends right after he voted with the Dems to shoot down expanded domestic oil production, but I have a no-profanity rule on this blog, so I'll just stop now.

We are in deep you-kinow-what.

We all remember when Barack Obama said he would meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate, without precondition. Obama said it during a YouTube debate, and has repeated his promise to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends many times. It has even become part of his stump speech. Hillary Clinton used it as an example of Obama's inexperience and naivete on foreign policy. Nevertheless, Barack stuck to his guns, saying that his view represented a break from the politics of the past, was the hope and change that americans want, and probably a few other airy Obamanian catchphrases as well.

Until now.

Maybe it was the way the terrorist group Hamas turned Jimmy Carter into a "useful idiot" and used his meeting to legitimize themselves and propagandize the Israel/Palestine issue, or maybe it was the fact that Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president of the USA, leading to some back and forth contention between Obama and John McCain. Whatever it was, the Obama camp sensed a shift in the political winds, and is now backing away from the idea of negotiating with our enemies, to the point that they are even saying Obama didn't say what we all so clearly heard him say before. The liberal's best friend, the New York Times, is rushing to aid the Obama campaign in changing history. Here's an excerpt from the relevant Times article:

…But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president

Note how the Times says the McCain side has "lost" "important nuances" (love that phraseology), even as the Times is TELLING A BLATANT FALSEHOOD REGARDING WHAT OBAMA SAID ABOUT IRAN. Classic, typical, and hilarious.

Susan E. Rice, an Obama foreign policy advisor, further added this, according to the same Times article:

“for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

The problem with the statements of Dr. Rice and the New York Times, as I said, is that they they are patently false. They are attempting a little mid-campaign spin, because they have been caught with their pants down. Obama DID say he would personally meet with Iran, without preconditions, and he not only said it in front of the whole nation during the YouTube debate, he also SAID IT IN A NEW YORK TIMES INTERVIEW, which the Times has conveniently forgotten. Here's a little from THAT interview, from november 2007 (the misty "beforetimes" which have been erased from the Times memory banks):

Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president…Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees…“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” [Obama] said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change…"

Oops. Blatant lie exposed. When first we practice to deceive….

Here's another interesting part of that 2007 Times interview:

Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.

Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against McCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ? Why, yes, I believe it would. Lie times two.

They say Barack Obama represents a new kind of politics, but to me, this sounds exactly like the old kind. Just a bunch of politically expedient BS. No character, no truth, just spin, spin, spin.

We might as well elect this guy.

But first, a joke:

"President Bush blasted Congress for not allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats said it wouldn’t do any good, because it wouldn’t produce oil for 10 years. You know, the same thing they said 10 years ago." - Jay Leno

That joke is funny until you really think about the ramifications of all these years of inaction on ANWR and other domestic oil and energy production that has been blocked by the Democrats. Thanks for nothing, Dems. Hope you're happy now. What's that you always say about helping the little guy ? We don't need your kind of help.
====

Barack Obama's criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices displays a serious lack of knowledge of how our system of government works. Obama would turn the judicial branch into a legislative branch who would judge cases according to "social and economic justice", as opposed to the rule of law. The following exchange between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Rudy Giuliani captures the essence of it:

KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."

[Giuliani starts laughing]

KELLY: Why the laughter?

GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.

And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?

KELLY: Yes. Remember Mr. Mayor, during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the Democratic senators asked him, "Will you stand up for the little guy?" And he said, "Only if the little guy deserves to win under the law."

GIULIANI: Of course. It's not about - this isn't about little guy, big guy, small guy or a large guy, it's about the law. It's about what's fair, what's just, what is the law say. A judge is the interpreter of the law in the American legal system, not someone who creates it.

KELLY: Let me ask you.

GIULIANI: If you end up — if you end up making a judge of somebody who creates the law, then you've made a judge into a legislator, and you really have totally distorted our separation of powers.

The President Of The United States must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Obama has clearly stated here that he would not do so, and instead would seek to overturn the rule of law by appointing Justices who would judge cases based upon the social and economic status of the participants rather than the application of the law. This would undermine our entire Justice system, and subvert the power of the Legislative branch as well.

I know Obama supporters are more interested in those words 'hope' and 'change' than anything else, but this position of Barack Obama's should disqualify him from being the President. This is government 101, and Obama either doesn't understand it or intentionally wants to destroy it. Either way, it's entirely unacceptable.

YES WE CAN [say 'NO' to this fool]. This story should be ALL OVER the media airwaves, because it affects every american and our entire system of government. This is an issue that people SHOULD care about. We can't afford to let the Left hijack our system of justice in this way. On an importance scale from 1 to 10, this is a 10. We can't let Obama lead this undermining 'change'. Some change is bad, and this change would be very bad indeed.

Anyone who disagrees, please go read a textbook on America's system of government, asap. This is a public service announcement.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). That sounds worthwhile. We all want to reduce global poverty. This pleasant sounding bill is sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama (D-God), the "new kind of politician", The Man From Hope (no wait, that was Bubba Clinton, the sexual predator president), The Audacity Of Hopester, who transcends all who came before him. He's The Great And Powerful Oz-bama. Swoon at mere mention of his name, ye lowly mortals. Pay no attention to the man in the booth.

The Global Poverty Act would commit the US to paying 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations to meet the UN's 2000 Millenium Development goals. This amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends in foreign aid. The US gives more in aid than any other country on this planet to begin with.

If this sounds like a global tax to you, well, it does to me too, payable to one of the most corrupt organizations on earth, the United Nations (who, btw, recently had it's Human Rights Council start on a mission to find countries who are "abusing freedom of speech". I hope you heard that. The UN is looking for countries who are too free, and calling that a problem. That's what happens when the Human Rights Council is dominated by the Arab League. They start prosecuting freedom rather than human rights violators. Also, guess who the biggest human rights violator on earth is, according to the mega-corrupt UN ??? If you said "Israel", you win first prize). The UN is a complete joke, is increasingly anti-american, is anti-Israel, is becoming anti-human rights, and is anti-sanity…and Barack Obama and others want to give it a big old chunk of our money, since we have so much extra that we don't need. All you foks out there have tons of extra money laying around, don't you ? Of course you do. That's why we don't have any problems here in America. We are rich. Yahoo ! It's a non-stop party here in the USA. The streets are paved with gold.

If you ask me, we should be considering withdrawing from the UN, not surrendering our sovereignty to it through a global tax. I think the chances of the UN eradicating global poverty with our global tax dollars are slightly less than my chances of finding an armed nuclear device in my backyard this morning.

It just occurred to me that I might be, to quote Obama, "distracting us from the issues that americans truly care about" by bringing this stuff about Barack's global tax up. If so, I truly and deeply apologize, and if Obama does become president, I will report to a re-education camp immediately. Until that time, I will operate on the assumption that this is still a somewhat free country guided by a Constitution, where the notion of paying a global tax to an unfriendly group of corrupt nations not only wouldn't be considered a good idea, but would be considered treasonous. I guess that makes me old-school, out of touch with Barry O's "new kind of politics". I hope they have real orange juice at the re-education camp. It's so much better than that sugary orange drink or that Tang stuff, and I've never even tried Sunny D. Like I said, I'm old school. But I digress…

Wait a second…Could it be that the Global Poverty Act is intended to BRING poverty to the entire globe ? Now, THAT makes sense. I should have thought of that earlier. We redistribute the wealth away from the rich people (like you and I. "Rich" will be defined as "anyone with a roof over their head"), and we give it to the UN, who will then do something with it, resulting in Global Poverty. Got it. I wonder why Obama didn't explain it like that to begin with ?

The text of the Global Poverty Act purposely avoids ANY mention of the cost of the bill, instead making it sound more like a generic and compassionate commitment to reduce poverty, as follows:

"…[The legislation] requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

It's only when you get to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that you discover the 0.7% tax on US GNP. Nice trick, Mr. Obama. That trick got the House to pass the bill without discussion via a voice vote back in february 2008. It is set to come up for a Senate vote soon, and it seems nobody is raising much of an objection. It seems nobody is even mentioning it. So far, this is pure stealth legislation. I have yet to hear the issue raised in any newscast or in any debate. Tim Russert just spent an entire hour with Barack Obama on Meet The Press and didn't raise the issue. Making the US subservient to the United Nations seems like a major issue to me. I hope it is to others as well.

And incidentally (or not), the Global Poverty Act would also commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocol, which is part of the Millenium Development Goals. Funny how that works.

You can send a blast fax to president Bush and Republican congressional leaders to ask that they stop the Global Poverty Act here.

President George W. Bush says the economic stimulus checks will help you peons (formerly known as 'americans', formerly know as 'free').

And he's right, they will.

For maybe a month or so.

Then we are right back where we started, only worse off and deeper in debt. It isn't just Bush doing this type of thing either. The Democrats love the stimulus checks and are asking for yet more freebie government interventions (that aren't free) for the public, before the impact of the first round is even measured. Yes sir, it's an election year, and pandering season is open. Let's shoot everything responsible in sight.

The stimulus checks are NOT paid for. We don't seem to pay for much of anything since GWB became president (or for the vast majority of the last 45 years either). We are the most irresponsible generation (or two) in the history of this country. We have overturned the wishes of the founding fathers, abandoned sanity, decided to give ourselves anything and everything that we want (self-absorbed punks that we are), and the consequences to future generations be damned. It's all about us. ME. ME. ME…We WANT universal health care for FREE, darn it, so we are GOING TO HAVE IT, no matter what economic destruction it wreaks on our children, no matter what it's actual effect on health care or our economy will be…No matter what. It's really all about getting SOMEBODY ELSE TO PAY FOR OUR NEEDS (those 'rich' people are the favored imaginary cash cows). It's really all about stealing someone else's money. It's really all about THEFT. We are not righteous. We are not responsible. We are not worth jack squat. WE……stink. We are criminals. We vote for the biggest criminal on the ballot. We vote for whoever promises to steal the most from our brothers and sisters. We consciously work toward the destruction of all that made this country great, and we have the nerve to call it 'fair'.

What the stimulus checks really tell you is that government has been stealing far too much of your money for far too long. End of story. We've all known that for years and years, really. You'd have to be nearly retarded not to know it. When the government steals half your money, it's really not a surprise that you are SHORT OF MONEY, is it ???? I mean, HELLO ??? When we have the second highest corporate income tax rates in the world, it's really not surprising that business tries to relocate elsewhere, is it ? HELLO ? We actually have one political party (guess who ?) in this country that TREATS THE BUSINESS SECTOR AS THE ENEMY !!! Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm almost completely certain that BUSINESS IS WHERE OUR JOBS AND OUR WEALTH COMES FROM !!! HELLO ??? Providing an environment that is unfriendly to business is about the stupidest thing we can possibly do. No wonder China makes everything, and our economy now depends on how much we spend at the mall. I'm sure this will be mentioned in the future book "The Rise And Fall Of The American Empire'.

We have a Social Security Trust Fund that is neither a Trust Fund nor provides Security. It might keep you in cat food when you get old, but it's actually nothing more than a hidden tax, PERIOD. They take all the money that is not paid out to current retirees and they immediately SPEND IT. They SPEND your so-called Trust Fund, and YOU LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT !!! If you are a brain-dead Democrat, you even TOUT THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RIPPING YOU OFF AS A GREAT FREAKING SUCCESS. How damn DUMB can you be ? You actually celebrate getting screwed. The Social Security RIP-OFF is used as an example of great progressive policy by the dumber-than-a-rock Democrats. Are you kidding me ? That's like holding Enron up as an example of how to do business. &**#$$!!@! Sure, tell me another one, like how Stalin was a great humanitarian.

Then, we have one entire political party who complains about tax cuts (any guesses which one that is ? It begins with a 'Dem' and ends with an 'ocrat'). HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A TAX CUT ???? I hate to break it to you big government types, but taxes are nothing more than a NECESSARY EVIL. The more money the govenrment takes away from us, the WORSE OFF WE ARE. Have we raised entire generations who don't understand basic economics ? Have we brainwashed entire generations to the point that they can't add and subtract ? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Every time you hear a Democrat complain about taxes being cut, slap him or throw cold water in his face to snap him out of it (if the Dem is a woman, you can't slap her, so just rip a dollar bill in half and ask her which is more, the whole dollar or just the half).

Then along came the Compassionate Conservatives (liberals with an 'R' next their names). These people belong in a special circle of hell, because they destroyed Conservatism, and along with it the Republican party. Somebody must explain to me how GWB started a huge new Medicare Drug program when our country was already $7 trillion in debt, and how the current $11 trillion in debt after 7 1/2 years of that 'Conservative' president is actually conservative, because I don't get it. And every single Democrat who agrees with that last sentence can kiss my everlovin' backside, because YOUR party is A HUNDRED TIMES WORSE !!! Your party never met any government spending it didn't like. Government spending is what got us where we are. YOUR party is the reason taxes are so high to being with. YOUR party is the one that actually DESTROYED THE MIDDLE CLASS in this country for the most part. And you keep on promoting those same destructive policies, all the while pretending that YOU are the compassionate ones. In 1960, it wasn't hard to be middle class in this country. Your taxes, regulations, spending, and politically correct stupidity have destroyed all of that, so please stop talking. You are not the solution, you are the problem. All the liberal politicians are running around wringing their hands and wondering how to bring the middle class back (like I heard Obama doing yesterday on his free hour long political ad on Meet The Press). Obama is looking for a government solution to the destruction of the middle class that was caused by the government in the first place. It was caused by liberal policy, Mr. Obama, so guess what ? The anwer is NOT more liberal policy.

I'd love to be able to tell you to vote for this candidate or that candidate and we will suddenly start going down the right path, but I don't believe that. I don't like any of the three presidential candidates who are left. It comes down to picking the lesser of the three evils, as usual. Yippee. I would have told you to vote for Ron Paul had it not been for his insistence on throwing the middle east into immediate chaos with irresponsible foreign policy. Other than that, Paul could have reversed the rudder on this ship of fools. Instead, we have nothing good coming on the horizon. Just more of the same old, same old that brought us to where we are today. Too bad for us. Keep shopping, america (that was Bush's advice post 9/11, if you remember). It's increasingly becoming a house of cards, and you keep voting for more.

I haven't had much time available for posting this week, and only limited access to a computer, so thanks for bearing with me. Things should return to normal soon, assuming any of you think I'm normal in the first place.
====
The following mythical conversation between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and president George W. Bush demonstrates the politics of oil:

Pelosi: Mr. President, you simply must do something about these high gas prices.
Bush: We could drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Pelosi: Forget it.
Bush: How about expanded offshore oil drilling ?
Pelosi: No.
Bush: Build new refineries ?
Pelosi: Definitely not.
Bush: Clean coal technology ?
Pelosi: Not going to happen.
Bush: Nuclear power, then.
Pelosi: You must be joking.
Bush: Um, we could lift the federal gas tax.
Pelosi: No way.

Pelosi (later in a press conference): This administration refuses to do anything about the high price of gasoline, which is hurting hard-working american families.
====
I have to give props to Hillary Clinton for having the nerve to go toe to toe with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. I don't always agree with Hillary, but she made her case forcefully with O'Reilly. Hillary is the superior Democratic candidate by far over Barack 'The Timidity Of Hope' Obama. Here's a link to some of what Hillary said on the show. If you have a chance to watch the video, it's worth it. Hillary has some brass.
====
Unfounded conspiracy theory of the week:

The D.C. Madam committed suicide ? Really ? She knew of people in high places, and I mean 'knew' in the biblical sense. Hmmm……….
====
Random muse:

Since the Democratic primary process makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine, I wonder why it hasn't occurred to the far lefties to completely subvert the will of the people and make Dennis Kucinich the Democratic presidential nominee ? I know how much I'm looking forward to that Department Of Peace.
====
I know I said I was sick of Jeremiah Wright last time, and I am, but this was too funny to pass up, plus it will irritate Obama supporters (and all liberals, who react to Ann Coulter like Superman reacts to kryptonite). Read Coulter's comic take on the Jeremiah Wright story. (link) Here's a snippet:

In his speech to the National Press Club on Monday, for example, Wright described America as a country of "segregation, Jim Crow, lynching and the separate-but-equal fantasy." Then he ran outside to feed more quarters into the meter where his time machine was parked.

Wright described this as a country that supported the "racist regime of South Africa" and "the Contras, who were killing the peasants and the Miskito Indians in those two countries" — as opposed to the Sandinistas, who were equal-opportunity murderers with a more diverse group of victims.

He said this is a country that "cuts food stamps and spends billions fighting in an unjust war in Iraq," neglecting to add that before you can cut the food stamp program, you must have a country that has a food stamp program.

He said we are a country that sent "over 4,000 American boys and girls of every race to die over a lie." And Wright said it is a country "where I can worship God on Sunday morning wearing a black clergy robe and kill others on Sunday evening wearing a white Klan robe." (Unless, like me, you do all your Klan-related murdering on "casual Fridays.")

I'm sick of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright being all over the news. The racist old fool has already gotten far more air time than he deserves, so I'm not going to bother getting into Wright's latest rounds of silliness and nonsense with Bill "Neville" Moyers and the National Press Club. Hatemongers shouldn't get this much free publicity. Hatemongers shouldn't be treated as if they have legitimacy.

Instead, I'll just ask a simple question.

If John McCain attended the Rev. David Duke's church for 20 years, and Timothy McVeigh hosted a fundraiser for McCain at McVeigh's house (assuming McVeigh hadn't already taken the down elevator to his special place in hell), would anybody vote for John McCain ?

Not a chance.

So, why are people still voting for Barack Obama ?

As Obama himself has said repeatedly, judgement counts. Indeed, judgement is paramount. Obama has displayed very poor judgement.
====
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of voter id law in Indiana by a vote of 6-3 (I can't imagine what those 3 justices in the minority were thinking). Of course voter id law is constitutional. This one wasn't even a close call for the Supremes. Republicans applauded the decision, saying it will reduce voter fraud, while Democrats said it squelches their long and storied history of voter fraud keeps the poor and elderly from voting.

In a related story, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the requirement to buy rods, reels, and bait places an undue burden on the people when it comes to fishing. Justice David Souter enthusiastically agreed, adding that the requirement for oars also places on undue burden on rowboaters. The ACLU is expected to bring lawsuits against fishing and boating manufacturers shortly. "It's an issue of social justice," added candidate Barack Obama.

Alright, maybe I made that last paragraph up, but it still sounds about right to me.
====
Speaking of the Supreme Court and "social justice," get a load of Obama's qualification list for appointing justices to the Court:

Obama opined that deciding the "truly difficult" cases requires resort to "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." In short, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

Obama has explicitly declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

As the Weekly Standard so very correctly observed, you couldn't have a broader call for lawless judicial activism than what Obama has just described there. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a dispassionate interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. Obama openly seeks to turn the Court into a political instrument of social justice. Heaven help us if this man becomes president.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

It sounds like Thomas Jefferson was against activist judges in 1823. So is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was interviewed by Lesley Stahl of CBS on 60 Minutes. Scalia also doesn't care for the phrase "living Constitution," preferring instead the concept of "originalism", which is the interpretation of the Constitution as written and intended by those who wrote it.

Scalia supplies the reasoning:

"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," [Scalia] says.

"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.

"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.

"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.

"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.

"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.

"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.

He's on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world.

For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England.

"Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, 'Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?' As though it's some weird affliction, you know, 'When did you start eating human flesh?'" Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.

They may be laughing, but in the U.S. Scalia is a polarizing figure who invites protestors and picketers. There haven't been many Supreme Court justices who become this much of a lightening rod.

"I’m surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He’s evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He’s going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in," Stahl remarks.

"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.

Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can…I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use… A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."

The most important words in the above exchange were Scalia saying, "I'm saying we should progress democratically." The Supreme Court is not the lawmaking branch of government (or at least it shouldn't be). Laws regarding abortion and gay marriage should be decided by the people, not by 9 black robes. If the people want to amend the Constitution to reflect changing values, then they can amend it (with great care), but don't use the Supreme Court as an end run around the legislative process.

This should not be a conservative vs. liberal matter (even though it seems to be). This should be a matter of understanding the role of the Court and understanding what it's limitations are supposed to be.

Naturally, during the Scalia interview, the topic of the 2000 Bush v. Gore Supreme Court ruling came up.

"You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that," [Scalia] replied. "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!"

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don’t wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

(CBS) Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts.' What are we supposed to say? 'Oh, not important enough,'" Scalia jokes.

"It ended up being a political decision" Stahl points out.

"Well you say that. I don't say that," Scalia replies.

"You don’t think it handed the election to George Bush?" Stahl asks.

"Well how does that make it a political decision?" Scalia asks.

"It decided the election," Stahl says.

"If that’s all you mean by it, yes," Scalia says.

"That’s all I mean by it," Stahl says.

"Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what," Scalia says.

Somehow, I don't think Democrats have gotten over it, but Scalia is correct, they should. There was only one decision to make, and the Court made the right one.

I don't always agree with Scalia. I think his logic on cruel and unusual punishment as pertaining to torture is, well, tortured. But I agree with Scalia more often than I do most of the other Supremes. Anyway, read the interview. At the very least you should find it interesting.

In a press release dated April 24, 2006, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said:

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

Fast forward to this week.

TUESDAY (4/22/08): Republican House members send a letter to Pelosi, reminding her of that Democratic "comonsense plan" to lower gas prices. The letter is signed by House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) and others in the GOP. Republicans say maybe now would be a good time to roll out that Democratic plan, seeing as how gas prices are a bit on the high side:

“Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a ‘commonsense plan’ to ‘lower gas prices,’ ” the letter said. “In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this ‘commonsense plan’ so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain.”

The letter points out that gasoline prices have risen $1.18 since the Democrats took over Congress last january. Take that, Democrats.

WEDNESDAY (4/23/08): Pelosi sends a letter back to Boehner (don't these two work in the same building ? What's with the letters ?), which points out the Dems have already fulfilled the "commonsense plan", and against the resistance of Republicans to boot. The letter names the following pieces of legislation — the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act, the Energy Price Gouging Act, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, and the market manipulation section of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. So take that, Republicans, and don't try to play politics on the gas price issue with the Democrats, or they'll play politics right back at you.

Thus, I judge…the Democrats win this little political game on points. They did implement the "commonsense plan".

Except for one minor detail — The "commonsense plan" to bring down skyrocketing gas prices won't do anything to bring down skyrocketing gas prices. It didn't really even have much to do with bringing down gas prices. It was more about raising taxes (Dem raison d'etre) on energy companies and conducting investigations of energy companies (the appearance of doing something vs. actually doing something). The "commonsense plan" also subsidized ethanol, which hasn't brought gas prices down either, but sure has jacked up our food prices. Putting our food supply into our gas tanks is starting to look like a world class bad idea.

Thus, I also judge…the "commonsense plan" was pretty lacking in common sense. It was more of a 2006 election campaign tactic than anything else.

FRIDAY (4/25/08): Barack Obama makes a speech about gas prices while standing in front of a gas pump (WHAT A TIMELY COINCIDENCE, EH ? BHO doesn't miss a trick). Obama's "solution" is to institute a windfall profits tax (Dem raison d'etre) on the oil companies (uh, won't that INCREASE the price of gas ?), give middle class america a $1,000 tax cut (to pay for the higher priced gas and pander for votes in the fall), and spend money to pursue alternative energy sources (everybody agrees on this one). The one thing Obama said that is undoubtedly true is that politicians have had decades to address this problem, and they have failed miserably. I only wish Obama truly was the post-partisan politician he pretends to be. Then, he would have acknowledged all the ways his Democratic party has prevented America from obtaining more energy independence through the years and called for an immediate end to it. Sadly, he didn't do that. Instead, he peddled the same old Dem energy talking points, all the while pretending the same old, same old was some new and exciting breakthrough in leadership on his part. Nuts.

So we have another Democratic plan to reduce gas prices that doesn't do anything to reduce gas prices, at least not for another 20 years, if ever. At this time, all the alternative means to power our automobiles are MORE expensive than gasoline. In addition, Dems are always wanting to declare war on the big bad oil companies, which won't help anything either (other than maybe the Dems #1 special interest group, the lawyers). Double nuts.

YES WE CAN (ride bicycles).

When I first heard the unrepentant 60-70's Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (Ayer's wife) were friends with Barack Obama, it wasn't the Obama connection that bothered me as much as the fact that William Ayers is now a Distinguished Professor Of Education at the University Of Illinois, Chicago, and Dohrn is one the American Bar Association’s governing elite, as well as the director of Northwestern University’s Children and Family Justice Center. Exactly how do you go from being a Marxist nihilist revolutionary bomber of the Pentagon, Capitol, and other government sites, attempt to murder american soldiers, aid and abet robbery and the murder of state troopers, praise the Manson family murderers, advocate for children to kill their parents, have a stated goal to destroy America…and then end up in charge of shaping the minds of our younger generation ??? Please tell me this is all some kind of joke. Please. I mean, what's next ? Too bad we killed Timothy McVeigh, or we could have made him the junior Senator from Oklahoma. Hell, let's free Charles Manson and have him do guest stints on the Dr. Phil show offering psychological advice. Welcome to your nightmare, 'Amerikkka' (that is how Ayers, Dohrn, and another Obama buddy, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, refer to our country. It's tres chic Leftspeak in Hyde Park, where Wright, Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn all live).

On September 11, 2001, the same day Islamic terrorists were crashing airliners into buildings and killing thousands of innocent U.S. citizens ('chickens coming home to roost' in Leftspeak), the New York Times ran an article about Ayers and Dohrn called "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives." As David Horowitz reports for Frontpagemag, days after 9/11:

…I opened its pages [the New York Times] to be confronted by a color photo showing a middle-aged couple holding hands and affecting a defiant look at the camera…The couple pictured were Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, former leaders of the 1960s’ Weather Underground, America’s first terrorist cult. One of their bombing targets, as it happened, was the Pentagon.

"I don’t regret setting bombs," Ayers was quoted in the opening line of the Times profile; "I feel we didn’t do enough." In 1969, Ayers and his wife convened a "War Council" in Flint Michigan, whose purpose was to launch a military front inside the United States with the purpose of helping Third World revolutionaries conquer and destroy it. Taking charge of the podium, dressed in a high-heeled boots and a leather mini-skirt – her signature uniform – Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast." Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the most famous was actress Sharon Tate) Dohrn shouted:

Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!

Embarrassed today by this memory, but unable to expunge it from the record and unwilling to repudiate her terrorist deeds, Dorhn resorts to the lie direct. "It was a joke," she told the sympathetic Times reporter, Dinitia Smith; she was actually protesting America’s crimes. "We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer." In 1980, I taped interviews with thirty members of the Weather Underground who were present at the Flint War Council, including most of its leadership. Not one of them thought Dohrn was anything but deadly serious. Outrageous nihilism was the Weatherman political style. As soon as her tribute to Manson was completed, Dohrn was followed to the Flint platform by another Weather leader who ranted, "We’re against everything that’s ‘good and decent’ in honky America. We will loot and burn and destroy. We are the incubation of your mothers’ nightmares."

Sweet, isn't it ? Near the end of the frontpagemag article, Horowitz talks a little about the 10 hours of interviews he did with Ayers:

I interviewed Ayers ten years ago, in a kindergarten classroom in uptown Manhattan where he was employed to shape the minds of inner city children [Gag]. Dressed in bib overalls with golden curls rolling below his ears, Ayers reviewed his activities as a terrorist for my tape recorder. When he was done, he broke into a broad, Jack Horner grin and summed up his experience: "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country."

As you can see, Ayers is a puke stain. Ditto for Dohrn. These two spoiled rich white leftist dipsticks never had to pay much for their crimes (Ayers got off on a technicality and Dohrn served only 7 months for contempt), and today, they are still spoiled rich white leftist dipsticks, only now they are referred to as 'activists' in polite liberal society.

When Barack Obama ran for the Illinois Senate in 1995, he held a fundraiser at the home of Ayers and Dohrn. It was Obama's coming out party, his introduction into rich white leftist dipstick Chicago society circles. Obama fit right in, being a former Saul Alinsky-inspired community organizer and civil rights lawyer. Obama and Ayers became friendly, later serving on the Woods Fund together.

Obviously, Barack Obama isn't accountable for the terrorist crimes of Ayers and Dohrn. I'd be interested to know the extent of the relationship however, because Ayers politics haven't changed, and somehow he has acquired influence in liberal educational circles (that's a story for another day). Here's Sol Stern of City Journal:

He [Ayers] still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.

Indeed, the education department at the University of Illinois is a hotbed for the radical education professoriate. As Ayers puts it in one of his course descriptions, prospective K–12 teachers need to “be aware of the social and moral universe we inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation.” Ayers’s texts on the imperative of social-justice teaching are among the most popular works in the syllabi of the nation’s ed schools and teacher-training institutes. One of Ayers’s major themes is that the American public school system is nothing but a reflection of capitalist hegemony. Thus, the mission of all progressive teachers is to take back the classrooms and turn them into laboratories of revolutionary change.

I'd like to know Obama's opinion of Ayers teaching methods. Ayers is a radical, and he seems to have found a comfortable home in the university environment. That doesn't speak well of our universities. The above Ayers quote about social justice sounds like it could have been taken from an Obama speech. I'd like to hear this brought up in a debate (assuming the Timidity Of Hope agrees to any more debates after his last debacle). It's time America gets to know exactly what Barack Obama stands for. I don't think we should wait until he's already in the Oval Office to find out.