Courtesy of the Patriot Post.

Can I get an amen here ? Don't we also call the following person a "thief" ?:

“A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” —Frank Dane

Democrats finally admit that tax cuts work (welcome to the light, Dems):

“We’re so used to Democrats pushing tax hikes as the answer to all of America’s problems that we were taken aback to find the following words buried in Pelosi’s release on the stimulus deal: ‘Economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth.’ Gee, that sort of sounds familiar. It’s almost, though not quite, like what the much-reviled supply-side economists have been saying for, oh, 30 years or so. Pelosi, and other Democrats now suddenly touting tax cuts, may be on to something. We might demur on the notion that all tax cuts must be ‘broad’ to be effective. Evidence really lies more strongly with giving tax cuts to those who would start new businesses or expand old ones. But it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat admit the obvious—that tax cuts work. It’s no secret that high tax rates act as a deadweight on the economy by creating absolute losses from which no one gains. Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, estimates that a $1 tax hike costs the economy 76 cents in output. That explains why the economy jumps each time there’s a tax cut.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Lots of bipartisan guilt to go around here:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken

I find the following comment very "stimulating":

“Washington, D.C. is a place where delusions go to thrive. That explains why Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist.” —Steve Chapman

Constitution ? You mean that g-d piece of paper ?

“Every candidate who repeats the misleading nonsense that ‘47 million in America have no health care,’ ought to be challenged with hard truth. The number is grossly inflated by including millions who are here illegally and millions of others who have the means to pay for health care insurance but refuse to adjust their budget and lifestyle. And don’t expect any media type to question where in the Constitution Congress derives any authority to dispense health care.” —Janet LaRue

Same as it ever was:

“Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What’s their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives.” —Walter Williams

Economic dunce cap wearer:

“How do we stimulate the economy to prevent or shorten a recession? One way would be to repeal the Bush tax cuts two years early, in 2009.” —Len Burman, director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, writing in The New York Times

They sure ain't conservatives, honey:

“Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama are not raging liberals.” —former CNN anchor Catherine Crier

This one's for you, Reverend, and your delusion that Chris Matthews is somehow a Republican shil:

“He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman, and they’re cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great-looking, and they’re cool and they’re young, and they’re—everything seems to be great… [I]f you’re in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit. Moving.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Der-da-der-der-durp:

“I don’t pay much attention to polls.” —Hillary Clinton, who in the next breath claimed that polls also show her ahead in “most of the Super Tuesday states.”

If only he would heed his own advice:

“I think it’s time for [Bill Clinton] to just be quiet. I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.” —professional race hustler Al Sharpton

Be careful what you ask for:

“Everyone seems to be campaigning as the candidate of change, but what does that mean exactly? Wouldn’t a depression be a change? How about basing our economy on Communism instead of Capitalism?” —John Hawkins

Lib vs Lib (and really funny):

“It’s down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it’s getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. Edwards is still running, but at this point they don’t even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he’s going to take on the big corporations.” —Dave Barry

Rudy Giuliani is out of the running. He seems happy to be out of the running. Makes me wonder if that strategy of his to not compete in the early primary states was intentional. Could he be headed for the back end of a (shudder) McCain/Giuliani ticket ? Rudy didn't seem interested enough in becoming president. He might have been slightly more interested than Fred Thompson, who ran his campaign as if he was on Valium, but not interested enough.

Mike Huckabee is also virtually out of the running, but it looks like he is going to hang in the race until Super Tuesday, if for no other reason than to stick it to Mitt Romney, since he splits off some of Romney's conservative vote.

This leaves John McCain as the frontrunner with the momentum in the GOP, and the likely nominee.

Which leaves me with one question:

HOW THE !*&$$%@! DID THIS HAPPEN ???

John McCain didn't support the Bush tax cuts, which pulled us out of a recession. Now, he says he wants to make them permanent. Gee, I wonder what could have prompted this reversal ?

John McCain supported shamnesty for immigrants entering the country illegally. He supported Social Security benefits for those same people. His partner in crime on that bill was none other than Ted Kennedy, who, not coincidentally, authored the last 'fix' of illegal immigration in 1986, that did nothing about illegal immigration except increase it.

John McCain suppressed freedom of speech with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill.

John McCain was one of the Gang Of 14 who sided against his own party in breaking up the Democrats filibustering of judicial nominess, which denied the nominees an up or down vote. This was after the Democrats held the process hostage for months.

John McCain partnered with Joe Lieberman on an expensive Climate Change Bill, a bill that would raise consumer energy prices and government spending.

John McCain was the sole Republican in the Keating Five.

Is this the best the GOP can do ? Are you Republican primary voters paying attention to what you are voting for ? I'm trying to take all this in and figure it out….let's see….

Hey, I know. I'll do what the Democrats do when an election doesn't go their way……..

VOTER FRAUD ! VOTER FRAUD ! (Hey, the primary was in Florida too !). VOTER FRAUD !

Farewell Ronnie. I'm very sad to see you go, replaced by these posers. No wonder the Conservative Coalition is falling apart. There aren't enough conservatives in it. They've been replaced by Liberal Lite (tastes like crap and is less fulfilling).

"Reagan footsoldier" my big fat behind.

It's my opinion that about 25% of the electorate is hardcore conservative, about 15% is hardcore liberal, and the other 60% floats around in the middle, sometimes floating a little left and other times floating a little right. That 60% is floating to the left at this time. We really could have a return to complete liberal control of all branches of government very soon, just like in the Carter years (aka, the worst economy in my lifetime). Good luck, america. You're gonna need it. Taking a hard left turn into enormous increases in taxation and government spending at this precise time in our history, with an already huge debt and tons of future unfunded liabilities coming our way, will end with a resounding crash. And we are standing there like a deer in the headlights watching it come, doing nothing, seemingly not even willing to acknowledge it.

——————————————————————————————-

On the Democratic side, Hillary won nothing in Florida with 50% of the vote and zero delegates, and John Edwards finally realized he wasn't in the presidential race anymore. The Breck Girl dropped out, and rumor has it, he may throw his support to one of the other candidates (Obama) in return for an Attorney General nomination ? Could you see Edwards as AG ? He could sue all the big corporations in the country for being, well, big corporations. That is reason enough for the son-of-a-mill-worker angry class warrior. I'm sure that would do wonders for our economy.

I have to ask you a favor.

Following last night's State Of The Union speech, I found myself wondering what Barack Obama's opinion of the speech would be. I couldn't have cared less what Hillary or John Edwards thought, or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid for that matter, because I knew all they would do is criticize, criticize, criticize, and use the speech as an opportunity for partisan gain, but I was wondering what the man who allegedly transcends political barriers thought. Obama is an intriguing fellow, even to a true blue (or red) fiscal conservative like myself.

And lo and behold, the first words I heard from Barack Obama about the State Of The Union speech were complimentary toward Mr. Bush. Knock me over with a feather. I haven't heard a Democrat say anything favorable toward Bush for so long, at first I thought I heard Obama wrong. I've become so used to listening to liberals whose entire political belief system seems to consist of contradicting everything Bush says or does, that I was certain I must have heard Obama wrong.

But there he was, starting off by praising Bush for his work on AIDS, praising Bush for expanding veterans benefits, admitting that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq, calling for Democrats to be as fiscally responsible as any conservative would be. This IS rather new. Not everything Obama said was a big pat on the back for Bush, of course. Obama called Bush's economic plans nothing but warmed over cut and paste policies from the past, and he said the US must end it's occupation of Iraq for political reconciliation to occur in that country.

I'm no Democrat, but Obama is the fresh voice in that party. There is an opportunity there, even though I'm going to be dead set against most of Obama's economic policies. So, I'm asking all you Democratic primary voters to do me a favor (since you all like me so much), and kick those nasty Clintons to the curb for once and for all. I think you Dems are finally starting to see the same things in the Clintons that the rest of us saw 10-15 years ago. They are nothing but power-seeking slime merchants. They are liars. I'm glad y'all are finally starting to catch up. I cannot stomach 4-8 more years of Billary in my face. If Billary is the nominee, I don't think the Democrats will win the presidency, regardless of what the polls say right now. The Republicans are going to hit you with such an assault against Clintonista sins if you pick them that you won't believe it. We are going to rehash a lot of the Clinton ugliness of the 90's, and I'd really like to NOT go there again. I didn't care for it the first time. I sure don't want to relive it. Bubba denigrated the presidency then, and he's still denigrating it with his embarassing outbursts on the campaign trail now. Let it be over.

Select Barack Obama as your nominee. I'll still most likely vote against him, but at least I'd regain an iota of respect for the Democratic party. And Dems, if you select Obama as your nominee, you might actually WIN THE ELECTION ! He's not a stiff like Al Gore. He's not a traitor like John Kerry. He's not a scumbag like Bill Clinton. For once, you'd actually have a candidate that wouldn't need to have his record hidden, spun, rinsed, and recycled by the liberal media to have even a shred of credibility. Gosh, Dems, you could actually try the truth for a change in a national election ! Okay, maybe I've overstated things here. I know a liberal can't actually tell the truth in an election, or he'd never get more than 20% of the vote, but at least you'd have a candidate who could appear to be telling the truth, and who maybe might even believe what he's saying to boot. Give it a shot, Dems. For me.

Oh, and calm your fears about the race issue. America doesn't really care. Only you morons do, along with the stupid media, who will sensationalize anything for a buck. Identity politics is part and parcel of the liberal mindset. The rest of us moved past that stuff long ago. We hope y'all will catch up with us on that as well. Why is it you call yourselves 'progressives' again ? Doesn't seem to fit.

——————————————————————————————-

Correction - In a former post, I actually defended the Clintons against what I thought were unfounded accusations of the Clintons playing the race card. The problem with my analysis was, THE CLINTONS KEPT RIGHT ON PLAYING THE RACE CARD. Oops, my bad. Thanks to all of you who disagreed with me on that issue (and it was almost all of you). You were right. I underestimated the Clintons underhandedness. What was I thinking ?

For over four years, the Democrats have told us we can't win in Iraq, that the war is lost, that the surge was useless, that Iraqis weren't capable of democracy, that the war was immoral, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. You know the drill.

Fortunately, neither the Bush administration, our troops, nor the Iraqis listened.

I hope Hillary has suspended her disbelief by now, because the surge was a great success. Al Qaeda has been driven out of most of Iraq, and now has it's lone stronghold in the north.

And they are about to get their butts stomped there too.

Not by the americans, but BY IRAQI SECURITY FORCES. It's been a long time coming, but I'm sure glad the time is here.

Here's the story from Reuters in Baghdad:

Iraqi security forces have begun a "decisive" final offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq to push the Sunni Islamist militants out of their last major stronghold in the north, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Friday.

[U.S. military commanders] describe Mosul, capital of Nineveh province, as al Qaeda's last major urban stronghold in Iraq.

"We have set up an operations room in Nineveh to complete the final battle with al Qaeda along with guerrillas and members of the previous regime," Maliki said, referring to other Sunni militants the Shi'ite-led government says remain loyal to former leader Saddam Hussein.

"Today our forces started moving to Mosul. What we are planning in Nineveh will be decisive," he said during a ceremony for victims of violence in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala in southern Iraq, broadcast on state television.

"Now we have a real army. The days when the militants could do anything in front of our armed forces are gone," Maliki said.

Now you know why the economy has become the number one issue in the presidential election. It's because we are winning in Iraq. The Iraqi forces are taking control of their own country. Al Qaeda, who was responsible for the vast majority of the bombings and chaos, will be beaten. Sometime soon, the Democrats may actually become right about one thing regarding Iraq - the troops might get to start coming home, because their job will be over, as Iraqis take control of their own country, as was planned all along.

Sorry, Defeatocrats, looks like Iraq will be a success after all. Better luck next time. No, strike that. The next time, I hope you join the side of the righteous, instead of acting as useful idiot tools for the enemy.

It's time again to vote for the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Porker of the Year.

The public outcry over the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars thrown at special-interest, pork-barrel projects reached a fever pitch in 2007. But who truly stood out as the worst custodian of your hard-earned money last year? Cast your vote for CAGW’s 2007 Porker of the Year!

Chosen by CAGW staff from among the 2007 Porkers of the Month, the nominees are:

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), for "airdropping" a $3 million earmark for the First Tee golf program into the fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act conference report.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), for thwarting three amendments to the Farm Bill that would have provided modest reform.

Rep. John "Jack" Murtha (D-Pa.), for throwing a temper tantrum and threatening his colleagues over a challenge to a $23 million pet project he inserted into the Fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act and for purposefully putting up roadblocks and barriers to hinder earmark accountability and reform.

Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), for proposing a "temporary" 5-cent increase in the gas tax in the wake of the Minnesota bridge collapse to raise $25 billion within three years for a new bridge trust fund.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), for an $11 million Health Resources and Services Administration earmark for his alma mater, the University of Alabama.

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), for defending earmarks and pledging to continue his state's disproportionate harvest of federal tax dollars and for earmarking $10 million for an unnecessary county road project in Florida which was rejected by local politicians.

Cast your vote today and help CAGW decide who will receive the “dishonor” of being named 2007 Porker of the Year!

First, a little background.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978. It prescribed procedures for the collection of physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" on territory under United States control. Basically, this meant that the government had to go through the FISA court for a court order to monitor such communications.

Fast forward to September 11, 2001. We all know what happened on that day. Okay, MOST of us know what happened on that day. A few are still trying to figure it out, like the 9/11 Truthers, who can't even understand something they saw live with their own eyes. What can I say, there are slow learners in every class. Anyway, following 9/11 our president thought it would make sense to try to protect our country from further terrorist attacks, since it is precisely his job to keep our country safe. Good thinking, Mr. President. In the pursuit of this worthy goal, it appears on some occasions our president didn't require the National Security Agency (NSA) to go through the FISA courts to monitor international communications from suspected Al Qaeda members when one end of the communication was inside the USA and the other end was in a foreign country. Then, an unknown somebody inside our intelligence community leaked this tidbit to the New York Times, who plastered it all over the front page like the patriots they are, exposing what Bush calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) to all of america (and the terrorists too !). Though the exact details of the TSP are still classified, and though some members of Congress were briefed on the program, a firestorm ensued. Some people thought Bush was acting to protect the country against terrorists (good idea). Others thought he was (cue the left wing hyperbole machine) - a fascist, unitary executive, civil rights destroying, constitution shredding, super criminal running a totalitarian regime who was prying into the private lives of every american citizen at his whim and he should be impeached and thrown in prison ASAP. Not coincidentally, many of the people in this latter category are also 9/11 Truthers, if you get my drift. They think Bush brought down the World Trade Center towers too, apparently so he could justify his plan to spy on your aunt Martha, and also to invade every Middle Eastern country, so that oil would rise to it's highest price in history be stolen by america. They seem to think Bush is the Dr. Evil character in the Austin Powers movies, or that Bush is the puppet and Dick Cheney is the Dr. Evil character pulling his strings. I'm not kidding either. Just ask them. You'll be absolutely amazed at the abject stupidity of it all.

All this brings us to the year 2007, when the Protect America Act was first passed by the Democratic-led Congress, which granted the Administration a six-month extension of it's expanded FISA powers to fight terrorism. Apparently, most of the Democrats aren't really buying into the Dr. Evil theory, though they pretend they do when they talk to the mainstream media, just to keep up appearances. It's good to know the Democrats aren't really traitors, they just put on the airs for purposes of partisan gain.

It should be noted that the ACLU, who are evidently taking a little time off from their core mission of removing every reference to God from the universe (except the Muslim God, Allah, he is "protected free speech"), HATES the Protect America Act, which they have cleverly renamed the Police America Act. In case you are confused, policing america is a BAD thing to the ACLU. Go figure.

The reason I brought this issue up in the first place is because the Protect America Act is set to expire on February 1, 2008, and Congress is kicking around what to do about it. The Republicans just voted down a one month extension of the law offered by Harry Reid, because they want something more lasting. The Democrats want more information on the program so they can investigate more Republicans be more informed about the correct course of action, so Bush is releasing some classified NSA documents to Congress. Hopefully, the bipartisanship Congress displayed yesterday on the tax rebate diversion (here's a shiny new toy america ! Don't worry your pretty little head) will manifest itself once again on this surveillance issue. Communications have changed quite a bit from 1978. Back then, there weren't cell phones or the internet, for instance. Let's come up with a sensible plan that will enable us to monitor suspected terrorists without totally trashing the Constitution. It can be done. It isn't even that difficult. A key idea here is - foreign terrorist actors are NOT protected under the US Constitution. That's why spying on foreign agents and foreign lands has always been legal, without going through the courts. Terrorism is a new kind of enemy. We need new kinds of powers to effectively fight it.

What a relief. Where there was pain, there will now be only gain (so they say), as our House Of Representatives, in a rare show of bipartisanship, passed an economic stimulus package today.

It seems like all the pols are at least semi-happy over this package. Bush likes the plan because he says it is about the right size, approximately $150 billion. Republicans like the plan because it gives a tax rebate to taxpayers, $600 to single filers, up to $1200 for families. Democrats like the plan because it gives income tax rebates to people who don't even pay income taxes, in the amount of $300 (not sure how you can call that a "tax rebate". Might as well just call it what it is, a handout, a one-time entitlement program). The proposal still has to pass through the Senate, where several Democrats are promising to add to it's size, but it looks like this package will indeed be passed. Y'all can expect your checks around june or so, just in time to buy that new above ground swimming pool you've had your eye on.

Now, I'm all for taxpayers getting some of their hard earned money back, since the government has been stealing far too much of it for far too long, not to mention robbing you blind on your Social Security "Trust Fund" (wink, wink), but I have to ask whether or not this middle class targeted tax rebate is really going to stimulate the economy. I don't think so, at least not for more than one fiscal quarter of 2008. What the government wants us to do with our newly found rebate money is to go to the mall and immediately spend it like good little consumer-bots, thus pumping up some short term economic numbers, so we will avoid negative growth, aka, a recession. If you're wondering how this deals with our underlying economic problems, i.e. the subprime mortgage crisis, the falling dollar valuation, the massive federal debt, the offshoring of jobs, rising prices, or the credit card crunch, well, I don't know what to tell you. I'm wondering too. It's true that the fed just slashed the interest rate by 3/4 percent. That should help some. There is also a provision in the economic stimulus package to expand the ceiling for FHA loans, allowing more subprime loan holders to refinance. That should help a little. However, it seems to me that all the underlying economic problems are still right where they were before, maybe even a little bit worse. I didn't see $150 billion in spending cuts to offset the cost of this package, so the deficit gets bigger. The tax rebates weren't aimed at the investment class, so I don't see tons of new jobs and new revenue being created here to potentially offset the cost, or even come close to offsetting the cost. I didn't see any slashing of our highest in the world corporate tax rates to make our businesses more competitive (the Dems would NEVER allow anything this sensible). I didn't see any slashing of the capital gains double taxation rate to encourage investment (the Dems would NEVER allow anything this sensible either). I didn't see anything like that, which would REALLY encourage new businesses and new jobs to come to america, that would really make us more competitive in the global economy. I didn't see anything that would address the real reason for most of our economic problems, out of control government spending, that has every man, woman, and child in the country responsible for over $30,000 of government debt, or, counting all the future unfunded liabilities of the federal government, has each family on the hook for about $440,000 over the next few decades. Nope, nothing about all that. I didn't see anything really conducive to long term growth. I just see a shot of temporary painkiller to mask the symptoms of the illness, and very little to deal with the root causes.

So, take your shot of novacaine america, and try not to worry about what happens when the novocaine wears off, and that cavity you had becomes a full blown abscess. We'll let someone else worry about that…namely, your children.

There is one silver lining to this for conservatives - Democrats are now on record admitting that lowering taxes stimulates the economy. Don't forget this conservatives, and don't forget this america. Ever. It's the inviolable rule that reveals the fallacy of nearly all liberal policy.

Here it is, two days before the Democratic South Carolina primary, and the latest polling has Barack Obama holding an 11 point lead over Hillary Clinton. What can the Clintons do to change that and tilt things in their favor ? Hmmm. It wouldn't be to get a months old sex scandal they've been sitting on made public so close to the election that it can't be disproved, would it ? A guy named Larry Sinclair has made a YouTube video claiming he had gay oral sex and did cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999. Devastating to Obama if true, which is most likely isn't. Even if it isn't true, it's potentially devastating to Obama in South Carolina due to it's timing. This sure looks like a setup, a hit job on Obama. Sinclair even says he will take a polygraph test. I'll be real surprised if that ever happens.

This sex scandal may be breaking at the perfect time to derail Obama, but it appears that an awful lot of people have known about it for a long time, going back to last october at least. Blogger Ron Rosenbaum reports that the L.A. Times and and other DC media and insiders knew about an unspecified sex scandal on october 29, 2007. He says it was pretty common knowledge among the media, but they didn't know if they should run the story (if it was a Republican, the mainstream media would have run the story about two minutes after they got it, like they did with Republican Senator Larry Craig. The media only acquires "ethics" when a Democrat is involved. Not that there's a liberal media or anything). Columnist/reporter Robert Novak also talked about an unspecified Obama scandal that was given to him by Democratic sources from the Clinton campaign, from the same time period.

Since the mainstream media wasn't going to run the Larry Sinclair story, the internet media was used, in the form of YouTube. Sinclair is probably looking for his 15 minutes of fame, and probably a few bucks as well.

There may be those of you who think it was the Republicans who are behind this, but if it was the Republicans, wouldn't they have waited until the general election to release this bombshell ? I think the timing of this points directly to Team Clinton. Of course, I'm just speculating, and the Clintons will have deniability. They always do. If Hillary ends up blaming this on the "Republican machine" (her stock evasion), you'll know it was the Clintons behind this for sure.

I have to admit, when liberals fight amongst themselves, it cracks me up. The Hillary/Obama row during last night's South Carolina debate was no exception. Mostly, I get a kick out what passes for an insult among liberals. For example, Obama said he was helping unemployed people in Chicago when "you [Hillary] were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart". Only in liberal la-la-land would being a lawyer for a highly successful corporation like Wal-Mart be reason for an insult. Us folk out here in the real world would call that "a really good job". For most of us, if we landed a job like that, our parents would be calling all the relatives and telling them how well we were doing. Not in la-la-land. In la-la-land, working for a corporation is B-A-D, because corporations are E-V-I-L. Never mind that corporations give millions and millions of americans a J-O-B. In la-la-land, being a lawyer isn't really bad as long as you are a civil rights lawyer or a lawyer that sues doctors or businesses, like John Edwards was, but corporate lawyers are scum. It's in the la-la rule book.

Shortly after Obama's insult, Hillary returned fire, saying that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you [Obama] were practicing law and representing your contributor … in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago". That's proof of what I was saying about la-la attitudes towards lawyers. Hillary was saying Obama was the WRONG kind of lawyer, because one of his clients was a landlord (a corporation). Apparently, la-la's don't think corporations are entitled to legal respresentation. It's part of their respect for the Constitution, I guess.

I have an aside here about that "35 years of experience" that Hillary always claims to have. Wasn't she a student at Yale Law School 35 years ago ? I'm thinking that doesn't count. If I knew we were allowed to claim time being a student as politicial experience, then I have 16 years experience myself. Da King in 2012 !

Obama also claimed Bubba was telling lies about him on the campaign trail, and when Hillary objected to that because Bubba wasn't there to defend himself (as if that matters. Obama isn't there when Bubba slams him either), Obama replied, ""Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometime". Barack, you are running against the Clinton corporation. There's no difference between them, so that doesn't matter either. This is Team Clinton 2.0.

John Edwards tried to get his two cents in between the battling frontrunners. "Are there three people in this debate, not two?" he asked. Actually, John, there are only two. You are over. Drop out, and try to buddy up to someone for the VP slot.

Edwards continued, "We have got to understand, this is not about us personally. It is about what we are trying to do for [to] this country". The audience applauded this, even though it's inaccurate. There is no difference between Hillary and Obama as far as how they would run the country. They are cookie-cutter big government liberals. They have the same policies on virtually everything. There is no independent thought allowed in the Democratic party. If you vary the least little bit, you are out. That's why the three remaining candidates are all the same. As I said before, the differences are about style, not substance. It IS about them personally. Women are voting for Hillary. Blacks and independents are voting for Obama. Bitter mill workers are voting for Edwards. The rest of the Democratic vote is split between Obama and Hillary. Whoever insults whom the most effectively from here on out will get the Democratic nomination.

One area in which Hillary should have scored big time was when she highlighted Obama's nearly invisible voting record, but the audience actually booed her for making a valid point. Remember, this is la-la land. Logic does not apply. Hillary said "Senator Obama, it is very difficult to have a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote". Edwards teamed up with Hillary on this one, criticizing Obama by saying,
"Why would you over 100 times vote present?…What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country? It would have been safe for me politically. It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do, but I have a responsibility to take a position even when it has political consequences for me." Mr. Edwards, I think you released a cat bag full of truth with that statement. However, Hillary's senate record isn't particularly distinguished either (but at least she commits), and Hillary has never taken responsibility for her Iraq war vote. She lies her butt off about that every time. The real truth is, both of those two had an eye on the presidency from the minute they set foot in the Senate. The Senate is just a means to an end.

In reply to the dual attack from Hillary and Edwards, Obama made up an answer that sounded good, but just isn't true. "Don't question, John, the fact that on issue after issue that is important to the American people, I haven't simply followed, I have led", Obama said. Really, Barack ? Name ONE issue on which you have led. I can't think of one. Name one piece of significant legislation where you have led the way. I can't think of one of those either. However, that false statement by Obama does make THIS one true: "I have been troubled … the degree to which my record is not accurately portrayed."

I'll say.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’… I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character… And if America is to be a great nation this must become true.”

I assume most people in america know the above words by Martin Luther King. I hope they do. They should, because they were some of the most important words spoken by an american in the last half century. We could never be a truly great nation with the stain of racism on our national soul, a stain that mocked our own notion that "all men are created equal." Since MLK can say it far better than I, here are links to two of his most famous writings:

I Have A Dream

Letters From A Birmingham Jail

By breaking the bonds of segregation, Jim Crow, and institutional racism, the King-led civil rights movement freed this entire country. Racism is a mental disorder, brought about by fear and ignorance, which leads to hatred. MLK helped cleanse us of that disorder at the ultimate cost of his own life. When you look back a short 40-50 years to King's time, it is obvious that great progress has been made. Racism has not been completely eliminated, and perhaps it never can be, but by any objective measure, the changes that MLK helped bring about have led us to a far better place.

Martin Luther King's goal was to unite us all in brotherhood, not to split us up into opposing camps in some imaginary racial or class war, as some would have us do today. In King's words, "Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood."

He was a Baptist minister at heart, a hero who maybe reluctantly stepped up to accept the great challenge that was thrown upon him, but step up he did, with tremendous courage. I wonder how many of us could have risen to such a challenge, could have shouldered such a burden. He did, and that is what made him a great man. MLK was a progressive leader with conservative christian moral values. His cause transcended politics. In the Letters From A Birmingham Jail, MLK closed with "Yours In Peace And Brotherhood". That is his legacy, peace and brotherhood.

Let's always look with a suspicious eye on anyone who proposes anything other than that.

(Note - I've had very limited computer time for the last week, so I apologize for not posting much. It won't last much longer. Thanks).