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.

This is a short one, just a few quotes to show you how the other half thinks (or more accurately, DOESN'T think). Here are the winners for the week.

Winner of the Can't See The Forest For The Trees Award:

“Joblessness is growing. Millions of homes are sliding into foreclosure. The financial system continues to choke on the toxic leftovers of the mortgage crisis. The downward spiral of the economy is challenging a notion that has underpinned American economic policy for a quarter-century—the idea that prosperity springs from markets left free of government interference. The modern-day godfather of that credo was Milton Friedman…” —New York Times economics reporter Peter Goodman, forgetting that free markets are what created U.S. wealth to begin with.
—
Winner of the No Sh*t Sherlock Cup:

“The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria, the problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet these people… So I told [Hamas] don’t wait for reciprocation, just do it unilaterally. This will bring a lot of credit to you around the world for doing a humane thing. They turned me down.” —Jimmy Carter, apparently unaware that the mission of Hamas is to destroy the state of Israel.
—
Winner of the Pinko Pinhead Plaque:

“[J]ust when we were close to a national news media providing a general consensus on what the truth is, along comes the Internets [sic] that allows its users a choice on the kind of news it watches and the YouTube. My God, we’ve got to stop them.” —actor Tim Robbins. Don't quit your day job, comrade Tim.
—
Winner of the Feel The Left Wing Lunatic Love Trophy:

"The Clinton campaign describes Hillary’s voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash." — liberal radio host Randi Rhodes, talking about her fellow Democrats following the Pennsylvania primary. Maybe Barack Obama can speak to Mz. Rhodes about her bitterness, which is causing her antipathy towards those who aren't like her (the sane).
—
Winner of the Just Lose, Baby Button:

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it. Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election." — New York Times editor, irritated that Hillary Clinton is still trying to become president instead of rolling over and dying to clear the way for Saint Barack of Obama's Hope And Change Traveling Vaudeville Show.
—
And finally, I'd like to nominate Keith Olbermann for Dazed And Confused Man Of The Year, for absolutely every word he's spoken on that hack MessNBC pile of propaganda he calls a television show.

Thank you. That's all, folks.

I feel like the world has turned upside down, because I find myself rooting for Hillary Clinton to capture the Democratic nomination, even though I'm certain she will be a more difficult candidate for John McCain to beat in november. Then again, I'm not that thrilled with McCain either. If you had told me a year ago that I'd be rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination, I'd have asked you what you were smoking. How times have changed.

Hillary Clinton won a 10 point victory over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania on tuesday, adding to her impressive list of big state victories. Those states now include California, Texas, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and if they hadn't been disenfranchised, Florida and Michigan. She cut over 200,000 votes from Obama's popular vote lead, and if Florida and Michigan had counted, she'd be leading in the popular vote, and neck and neck in delegates. The picture would be drastically different. If the Dems ran their primaries the way this country votes in the general election, using the electoral college, Hillary would already have the nomination wrapped up. The contest would be over. In the general election, a candidate who won all those aforementioned states would be the president, end of story. That's a virtual certainty.

But this is the Democrats, so Barack Obama still has a huge lead. Go figure. Nobody can screw up an election like the Dems. If ever there was a year that favored Democrats in the general election, this is it. Yet they still may nominate Barack and blow it.

As Democratic consultant Doug Schoen put it, "If I told you somebody was winning California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan and Florida and was not winning the nomination, you'd say something was wrong…And something arguably is not right."

The feeling that something is not right is usually the way I feel about the Democrats these days, especially since they moved so much further to the left. Unfortunately, I have pretty much the same feeling about the Republicans, and for the same reason. Real conservatives are a real minority.

The feeling that something is not right comes from a candidate like Barack Obama, who has no business experience, no management experience, no economic experience, no health care experience, no military experience, and no foreign policy experience. He spent 5 minutes in Congress and then he was running for president. He based his campaign on saying hope and change a lot. Whoopee. He based his campaign on being against Bush policies, but ALL the Democrats do that. Obama based his campaign on his judgement of being against the Iraq war, unlike the candidates he was running against. However, Obama didn't have to vote on that war like the others did. Obama bases his campaign on judgement, then acts offended when his judgement is called into question by his 20-year association with the incendiary Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Are the Dems actually going to nominate this guy just because he's a good public speaker ? You've got to be kidding me. I remember when I was in college, the best speaker in my Speech class was this hyper little guy who was a cokehead. He was really good. Very persuasive. He could, as they used to say, sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo. I wouldn't want him to be the president either.

Obama's vulnerability in the big states needed to win the general election should be a red flag to all Democrats. Even though Obama would take New York and California in the general election, he has a huge problem with big swing state blue collar voters who decide elections. If Obama is nominated, those voters are likely to go to McCain. Obama's big delegate lead over Hillary is largely due to his victories in the smaller caucus states. The bad news for Obama supporters is, those states are mostly Republican states, and McCain is likely to win them in the general election. The states Obama is winning against Hillary are many of the same states that put George Bush in the White House twice.

I've been hearing a lot of discussion about evolution and God lately. Much of it has been coming from atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, the smirking moron Bill Maher). Some, like Maher, apparently feel the need to speak up and ridicule the Pope, who is in america preaching the Christian ethic of love and brotherhood (the pervert !). Since the vast majority of atheists seem to be liberal politically, for whatever reason, I find their motives curious. I mean, would liberals ridicule Martin Luther King's civil rights message today simply because King held a steadfast belief in God ? I don't think they would. I don't think they did in the 60's either. Yet these same people gleefully and maliciously trash the world's pre-eminent Catholic figurehead. Maher said the Pope "used to be a Nazi" (false) and called the Catholic church "a child-abusing religious cult" (false). There are about a billion Catholics in the world. They aren't child-abusers, but the smirking moron Maher doesn't mind offending every one of them. Worst of all, when Maher is called out for his hatemongering, he pretends he was just joking, which he wasn't. Coward. Maher has also slipped under the covers with some pretty strange bedfellows here, like the anti-Catholic televangelist John Hagee, who has called the Catholic church "a false cult system" and "the great whore" (I don't even understand that reference. Does it have to do with the Virgin Mary ?). There are crazies on the political right too. Hagee endorsed John McCain, an endorsement McCain now wishes he had renounced rather than welcomed.

I don't understand strident atheism. How can one be so forceful about a belief in nothing ? Albert Einstein once said atheism wasn't a belief system, it was the abscence of a belief system. While I perfectly understand agnosticism, which says "I doubt, I don't know", atheism attempts to close the book on God. An earthling is wholly incapable of closing that book. It's beyond our capability. Seeing as how we are an infinitesimal speck in the grand scheme of the universe, the enormous presumptuousness of the individual atheist makes me want to burst out in laughter. All it takes for me to discard atheism is to walk outside and observe the grandeur of nature. The awesomeness of creation alone gets my mind to wondering about a higher power. I have always thought it rather logical that creation implies a creator. What I find absolutely illogical is the idea that all this happened by some random collision of atoms, some cosmic accident. That notion brings to mind the odds of putting a chimpanzee in front of a typewriter and hoping he randomly types the collected works of Shakespeare. I wouldn't bet on it. Even on the remote chance that this is all the result of random atom collisions, where did the atoms come from ? If the universe was created by a Big Bang (a reasonable theory), what caused the Bang ? And furthermore, how did the Bang result in LIFE ?

Aha ! The atheist will then explain Charles Darwin's Theory Of Evolution (another reasonable theory) to the backward God-squadders who are still living in caves and rubbing sticks together to make fire. Darwin's theory tells us how life evolved from single-celled creatures all the way up to human beings over millions of years here on earth. The problem is, Darwin's theory doesn't tell us how life began. It doesn't even try to. Even Darwin admitted he couldn't answer that one, and neither can the eminent atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the book 'The God Delusion'. When Dawkins is asked how life began, as Ben Stein asked him in Stein's movie 'Expelled" (I haven't seen the movie, but I've read reviews), Dawkins says he doesn't know, and then he starts talking about extraterrestrials seeding life here on earth. Of course, Dawkins has no evidence of this, but even if we were to make that leap of faith with him, it would only beg the question, who created the extraterrestrials ? And on and on it goes. There is another problem with using evolution as the explanation for how life began on earth. The fossil record itself doesn't really support the notion. Rather than the slow, steady transmutation from one species into another over the course of millions of years that you'd expect to see in a purely evolutionary world, the fossil record instead appears to show the sudden arrival of all kinds of different complex species at roughly the same time. This is known as the Cambrian explosion.

In conclusion, atheists, before you go around parading your "superiority" and ridiculing those who think differently than you, just please admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's just your opinion, which is worth no more than anyone else's opinion. I'd suggest a little of that alleged liberal tolerance, love of free speech, and promotion of diversity is in order. Ditto for you believers in religion, of course. It's live and let live (as long as your religion isn't trying to crash planes into buildings or strap bombs to teenagers). Peace out. God is great.

Here's something you might not have heard about, seeing as how our left-biased media (90% of newspapers, 80% of television stations) didn't bother to report on it. It concerns the other war, in Afghanistan. As every american media consumer knows, and as every Democrat happily reports, Bush abandoned Afghanistan to go into Iraq. Thus, the Taliban is returning to power and Afghanistan is going to hell due to Dubya's wrong-headed policy. That's pretty much the way they characterize it, right ? Right.

There's a problem with that characterization, and the problem is, it isn't true. NATO released a progress report on Afghanistan earlier this month. Here is an excerpt from the executive summary of that report:

August 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of NATO’s presence in Afghanistan. Set against the devastating effect of decades of conflict, these five years have witnessed substantial progress in all spheres of Afghan life – from a reasonably stable security situation in most of the country to a massive increase in the number of health clinics and children in schools. Since 2003, NATO-ISAF has gradually extended its reach and is now responsible for security across the whole country. The number of our troops has grown steadily from the initial 5,000 in Kabul to the current 47,000 ISAF personnel in theatre. Today, large parts of the country are relatively stable with no or very few security incidents per month even if the security situation in southern Afghanistan and parts of the East remains challenging for international and Afghan security forces. There is room for cautious optimism. In 2007, the direct engagement of Afghan National Army (ANA) and ISAF routinely defeated militants. Although the overall number of security incidents across Afghanistan has increased, this corresponds to the expansion of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and NATO-ISAF operations to areas formerly considered to be extremist strongholds. In 2007, 70% of security incidents were confined to 10% of Afghanistan’s 398 Districts. These districts contain less than 6% of the Afghan population. This progress would not be possible without the increasing effectiveness of our Afghan partners. The ANA is becoming a professional, well-trained and equipped force that will be able to fully provide for its country’s security. In 2002, there was no ANA to speak of. Today, the ANA stands at around 50,000; every two weeks, the Kabul Military Training Centre graduates 1,100 more soldiers. The ANA is increasingly taking the lead in security operations and played a key role in liberating Musa Qala from Taleban extremists in December 2007. Ninety per cent of the Afghan public sees the ANA as an honest and fair institution. The evolution of the ANA and particularly the ANP are essential pillars in building an Afghanistan that is at peace with itself and its neighbours.

It's not all peaches and cream in Afghanistan, but there is substantial positive news, and Afghanistan is light years better than it was before. I wonder why Democrats and the media can't bring themselves to acknowledge that ? It wouldn't have anything to do with POLITICS, would it ?

The art of deception is alive and well. You see, the prospects for the Democrats in the fall elections are in inverse proportion to how things are going in america. If Afghanistan is going badly, that's good for Democrats. If Iraq is going badly, that's good for Democrats. If the economy is going badly, that's good for Democrats. Anything going right in america seems to be bad for Democrats. Is it any wonder then that the Democrats have painted such a negative picture of the United States ? The Dems say we're losing both wars, are sure global warming is about to destroy the planet, are predicting a second Great Depression, act as if most americans are living in tents, and pretend that border control is some kind of racist plot. They try to convince us that the rich are out to enslave the poor, that capitalism is a disease, and that free trade is our enemy. The solution, of course, is to elect Democrats to save us from this horrible fate. The solution, incredibly, is for Dems to increase taxes by a few trillion so they can make sure the country is destroyed fix all the problems. All this brings to my mind those old words that should never fail to have us shaking in our boots - "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." No thank you, government. You've done enough already.

It seems Barack Obama doesn't want to have any more debates. Imagine that. After stuttering and spinning his way through two painful hours attempting to respond to some semi-tough questions from ABC in Philadelphia, Obama has had enough. According to a CNN piece, Obama claims to be too busy campaigning to have more debates.

Right. Why have a debate, where your message can go out to 50 million people on television, when you can have a rally in a gymnasium in front of 5,000 ? Sure. Makes perfect sense. Here's an Obama quote on the matter:

"I'll be honest with you, we've now had 21," he said. "It's not as if we don't know how to do these things. I could deliver Sen. Clinton's lines; she could, I'm sure, deliver mine."

Yes, Mr. Obama, we know you can deliver your lines. I practically have your script memorized myself ("It won't be easy to take those profits away from Exxon"). The thing is, when you're in those gymnasiums, YOU control the message. In the last debate, you finally had to ANSWER some hard questions, and I'm not even talking about the Rev. Wright, Bittergate, Bill Ayers stuff. I'm talking about the policy stuff. You finally got into a dialogue that involved a little pushback (not even very much pushback, just a little), one that didn't allow you and your handlers time to formulate a carefully crafted response, and you folded like a lawn chair. Now you don't want to play anymore. That might be the correct political calculation for you (since you appear to be a lightweight), but it sure doesn't exhibit any, um…..what's the word ?….oh yeah…AUDACITY.

Obama didn't much care for the questions ABC asked. I'm sure he liked the first 20 debates better, when Hillary was the one being grilled with the tough questions, and the media was falling all over itself in adoration of the Hopemeister. Here's Obama talking about that:

"Last night, we set a new record, because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking — until we started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people."

"Now, I don't blame Washington for this; that's just how Washington is. … They like stirring up controversy; they like playing 'gotcha' games. … I will say Sen. Clinton looked in her element."

Notice how Obama complained about 'gotcha' politics, and then in the next breath, made that snarky little 'gotcha' comment about Hillary by saying she looked "in her element," as if to say Hillary feels comfortable getting down and dirty………….Okay, Obama is right about that part. The Clintons ARE masters at dirty politics. I only wonder why Democrats didn't realize it until the year 2008 (hysterical blindness ?). The rest of us figured it out 15 years ago. Obama has proven himself to be no different. In spite of his protestations, he and his campaign take every cheap shot they can get away with, just like the Clintons do.

But anyway, Mister Hillary Clinton (who I believe is named William) chimed in on Obama's new 'I'm too busy to debate' stance, which I'll call The Timidity Of Hope. Here's Mr. Bill:

"[Obama staffers] were saying, 'Oh this is so negative, why are they doing this.' Well, they've been beatin' up on her for 15 months. I didn't hear her whining when he said she was untruthful in Iowa, or called her the senator from Punjab. … But you know, this is a contact sport. If you don't want to play, keep your uniform off."

Link

You know what really cracks me up about all this ? The Democrats snark back and forth, using anything and everything at their disposal to discredit the other candidate, and then they have the temerity to excuse it all by saying 'well, you know the Republicans will use this in the general election.' Hillary and Barry did it several times in the last debate. Blaming Republicans for everything is a standard tactic for them (Hillary can barely utter two sentences without doing it), but I think we have to draw the line when the Dems start blaming Republicans for the actual words coming out of the Dems own mouthes. Classic.

Here's a transcript of the April 16, 2008 ABC Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia.

I mostly want to deal with the second hour of the debate, since the first hour was about both candidates various gaffes, pratfalls, and lies, which has already been discussed in the media and on the internet. The second hour was about the issues. I would like to congratulate Hillary for basically admitting that she lied about the Bosnia sniper fire incident, although you might not have noticed unless you were paying careful attention, given the way she parsed her admission -"On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case…"

Yes, Hillary, we know. Thanks for admitting it. For his part, Obama finally admitted "there's no doubt that I can see how people were offended" by his remarks about small town midwesterners clinging to guns and religion and having antipathy to immigrants and those different from themselves. The problem is that in the next breath, Obama again characterized people's religion and stances on issues as a refuge against their disappointment in government rather than a genuine reflection of their beliefs, so he STILL doesn't get it. This is very curious for a man who professes to be carried by his faith. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"the point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them… then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion…They end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns…what is also true is that wedge issues, hot-button issues, end up taking prominence in our — in our politics. And part of the problem is that when those issues are exploited, we never get to solve the issues that people really have to get some relief on, whether it's health care or education or jobs."

Every word of this is utter nonsense. What Obama is saying here is, 'Your issues don't matter rubes, only mine matter, so let's not get distracted by your petty beliefs. Let's concentrate on mine.' Plus, I'm pretty sure it's possible for this country to focus on both the Second Amendment AND health care at the same time. It's not a one or the other scenario.

But enough about that. The second hour of the debate, which I'll call, PROFILES IN DOUBLETALK !, was about the issues. Since I just mentioned the Second Amendment, listen to this torturred statement from Obama on that issue (and I apologize to Barack for bringing up this "wedge issue", but hey, it IS an actual Constitutional right, as opposed to, say, the Clinton/Obama faux 'right' to universal health care:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"

Got that, america ? Obama says you have the right to bear arms…unless the government decides you don't. Is it just me, or does such an attitude pretty much nullify the Bill of Rights ? Don't presidents have to swear to uphold the Constitution ? I'm sure I read that somewhere. I do have to agree with Obama about one thing. This country IS at a "critical juncture in it's history." It's critical that we keep Obama out of the Oval Office.

Hillary had about the same ambiguous take on the gun rights question. Both candidates claimed they had to study the issue some more. Incredible.

When it came to a very important policy question, taxation, both Democrats stumbled so badly (with Obama being the worst) that it would have been comical if not for the fact that both of these big government turkeys want to pluck our financial feathers. In classic liberal class warrior 'soak the rich' fashion, both candidates promised to only raise taxes on those making $250,000 and above (or possibly $200,000 and above in Obama's case). Charles Gibson sliced their lies to the bone in the ensuing exchange, when he pointed out that they both advocated raising the capital gains tax, which would raise taxes on 100 million stock owning americans, not just the rich. In Obama's case, he had proposed nearly doubling the capital gains tax. Gibson also had Obama hem-hawing when Gibson pointed out that history shows capital gains revenue actually rises when the rates are lower (because more money is invested - that spurs economic growth). Obama also advocates lifting the Social Security payroll cap, which is a tax increase for everyone making over $97,000 per year, not just the wealthy. Obama did a whole lot of backpedaling on issues of taxation following Gibson's astute observations. He looked like a Not Ready For Prime Time Player. A related question I'd love to hear the Dems attempt to answer is "Isn't it deeply irresponsible to be proposing the biggest tax increases in the history of the country when we are already in an economic recession ?" I also think someone should try to add up the revenue vs. expense numbers on Hillary and Barack's huge government expansion proposals. I can't see how the numbers can possibly add up. Obama keeps referring to his tax proposals as an issue of "fairness". In Obama's world, "fair" is when the wealthy pay 50% or more in taxes, and the lower half on the income scale pay nothing. I'm not sure what word describes that scenario (maybe "theft" ?), but I know "fair" is not it.

But at least Obama had a proposal for Social Security, even if it was the wrong proposal. Hillary dodged the issue. She said she wouldn't cut benefits, wouldn't raise taxes, and outrageously blamed Bush for the whole mess (Hillary blames Bush for absolutely everything, in case you haven't noticed). She basically said nothing (which pols have been doing for decades now about Social Security). Charlie Gibson should have exposed her non-answer, but instead he let it go and moved on to the next issue.

On foreign policy, Hillary said she would pull out of Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground and regardless of what her military advisors told her the consequences would be. It was pretty much an 'Iraq can go suck an egg' policy. Obama said close to the same thing. Hillary said she wanted to pump up the american presence in Afghanistan. Then, incredibly, both candidates stressed the importance of containing IRAN, not pulling any options off the table in denying Iran nuclear weapons, backing Israel, striking Iran if it attacked Israel or didn't stop it's nuclear program, and preventing Iran from aiding and abetting Hezbollah and Hamas. As glad as I was to hear them say these things about Iran (who says I never agree with Democrats ?), I was thinking, why is it critically important for the United States to stop Iran's influence everywhere EXCEPT Iraq ? That doesn't make any sense. If it's all important to stop Iran from destabilizing the Middle East (it is), then it's damn well important to stop them from doing the same in Iraq, as they HAVE BEEN DOING. There was a real mental disconnect from the candidates there. Foreign policy has to be about more than controverting everything B-U-S-H. The Dems can't be hawkish everywhere except Iraq merely because it goes against Bush. That's childish.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here for now.

Here's my two cents worth - If I was a Democrat, I might want Hillary Clinton representing my party against John McCain for one simple reason. Hillary's skeletons are already known far and wide. There aren't likely to be any new surprises with her, whereas the other shoe is just beginning to drop with Barack Obama. We are 7 months away from the election. Obama could self-destruct by then. Since both candidates have similar views, Hillary seems to be the better bet to take the White House.