Barack Obama's flip-flops are coming so fast and furious these days that I think we should rename the Obama campaign Shock And Awe. It's shocking how easily Obama abandons a previously held position, and we should all be in awe of the fact that he gets away with it. Now, I'm just spitballing here, but wouldn't it be nice if we had some kind of group that would keep track of the issues and could question Obama on his endless contradictions before we make him the leader of the free world ? That would be very helpful and informative for the American voting public. We could call that group, say, the media.

Sadly, the majority of the mainstream media isn't much interested in speaking truth to power when it comes to St. Barack. They are more interested in swooning at his eloquence and patting themselves on the back for how wonderfully cosmopolitan and progressive they are. Truth has nothing to do with it. Who cares if Obama flip-flops on an issue or twenty ? That only demonstrates his "complexity". Yeah, that's the ticket.

But I'm probably just distracting you from the issues America really cares about.

The latest rollover by Obama is his stance on gay marriage. Previously, he opposed gay marriage, but said that individual states should have the right to form their own policies on the issue. Then California proposed an initiative to ban gay marriage, and….Obama OPPOSES it. So much for states rights. The gay marriage issue has become like so, so many others for Barack Obama. He opposes gay marriage, except for when he doesn't. In a letter to a San Francisco based lesbian/gay alliance group, Obama said he believes in:

“fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law…And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states”

Yet Obama still says he opposes gay marriage. Yup. Okay. Whatever. Hope and change. This is a historic election. It's the first time an invisible man will become president.

In addition to Obama opposing gay marriage (sorta), supporting the Second Amendment (sometimes), supporting the FISA bill (for now), supporting NAFTA (except when in Ohio or Michigan), and opposing the Fairness Doctrine (definitely, maybe), Barack made a speech yesterday voicing his support for the expansion of faith-based initiatives. With the continued softening of Obama's positions on Iraq, Iran, and his backpedaling on increasing the capital gains tax rate, it's starting to look like Obama is nothing but a "Bush third termer", if I may borrow a Democratic talking point (Sorry Dems, I couldn't resist taking that shot). When Bush started faith-based initiatives, the entire Left screamed "separation of church and state !" in unison. They were certain Bush was going to implement a theocratic thug state, reminiscent of the Taliban, but without the bourkas. That didn't happen, naturally, but what is the Left saying now about Barack the evangelical faith-baser ? They should be apoplectic, but so far the protests are far less than deafening. The Huffington Post mentioned Obama's faith-based speech (far down the page), but only said it "could cause controversy", and that Obama was doing it to "court the evangelical vote". No outrage from HuffPo, not that I really thought there would be. Somehow it's different when it's one of their own.

Barack Obama gave a speech on patriotism yesterday. I pretty much agreed with every word uttered by Mr. Obama in that speech. It's worth the read. Even though it was a self-serving and calculated speech, as are all of his (he IS a politician, after all), the principles he stated were sound, and quite patriotic. Obama said he would not question anybody's patriotism in this presidential campaign, and he will not sit idly by while anyone questions his. Clever bugger, that Obama, since it is virtually impossible for any sane person to question the patriotism of John McCain, while questions of Obama's associations with anti-american sentiment are rife (Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, William Ayers, Mrs. Obama, flag pins, and all that). Obama can't win a patriotism contest with John McCain (few could), so he's trying to take that issue off the table.

I don't question Obama's patriotism. I take him at his word, but I do question some of those past associations of his. It's a matter of judgement, not patriotism. When a guy like Obama has a history of being a leftist, I'm a little suspicious of the new centrist Obama who has appeared just in time to win the general election and become the president (with a Democratic majority Congress led by liberals Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). Obama's tack appears much more strategy than principle. That I do not admire (not that McCain can't be accused of the same tacking into favorable political winds on some issues).

Obama also said it isn't unpatriotic to dissent when you disagree with your government. That is also unquestionably true. Sometimes, dissent is required. I have dissented with some aspects of my government for most of my adult life.

But there is a difference between dissent and undermining your country. There is a difference between dissent and propaganda. There is a difference between dissent and lies. There is a difference between dissent and hate. I wish Obama had drawn some of those distrinctions in his speech, but he did not. As Obama was speaking about how dissent was patriotic, I was thinking of Moveon.org's "General Betray-us" ad, of Hillary Clinton saying it took "the willing suspension of disbelief" to believe Petraeus' testimony about the success of the Surge in Iraq. The "dissenters" had no problem calling Petraeus a liar for their own political gain. I was thinking about how the New York Times has divulged multiple classified U.S. intelligence programs during wartime (they did it again the other day by revealing classified details of the hunt for Bin laden). I was thinking about Seymour Hersch recently revealing classified information about alleged covert cross-border intelligence operations into Iran. I was even thinking about how the left-wing dissenters called American soldiers "baby killers" back during the Vietnam War. Thank goodness the hatemongers dissenters learned not to do that anymore……Except a few of them haven't learned. John Murtha (D-Pa), a former marine himself, accused the Haditha marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" in Iraq before any of them had even been tried, and now 7 of the 8 of Haditha soldiers have been acquitted. I haven't heard any apologies from the Distinguished Gentlemen from Pennsylvania. Dick Durbin compared Guantanomo Bay to Pol Pot and the Nazis.

That stuff isn't really dissent. That stuff is political propaganda designed to undermine the American government during wartime, with the reason being the acquisition of political power. There is nothing patriotic about any of that.

Lastly, I was thinking about outright political horse manure, like the kind general Wesley Clark was slinging about John McCain the other day, in what has to be one of the most tone-deaf displays of political nonsense to date. Clark actually tried to call McCain inexperienced, when McCain is the most experienced candidate to run for president from either party this year. Apparently, irony and hypocrisy don't register with Wes Clark, because the candidate Clark is backing, Barack Obama, is the most inexperienced person ever to get this close to the presidency. Clark actually called McCain "untested and untried", said about McCain that "he hasn’t held executive responsibility" (as opposed to all Obama's executive experience - NONE). Clark even said that McCain's "large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall". Uh, general Clark, John McCain's plane was SHOT DOWN IN VIETNAM. That's about as "wartime" as you can get. Duh, general. Btw, exactly what military service and experience does Barack Obama have ? That would also be NONE. See just how dumb Wesley Clark is here.

To his credit, Obama disavowed Clark's remarks, and I assume Clark has blown his shot at the vice presidency.

Now that Barack Obama has captured the Democratic nomination, it appears his campaign has moved into Presidential Calculation Phase 2.0, Operation Win The General Election. Obama has taken more non-left wing positions in the last few weeks than he's taken in his entire previous political career. He angered liberals by reversing his stance on public campaign financing. He reversed his position against the FISA bill and supported it. He reversed his position on NAFTA, said his previous smoke on the issue was "overheated campaign rhetoric", and now supports it. He came out in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that abolished the death penalty for child rapists, and now, he has even come out in opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. Is that the gnashing of liberal teeth I hear ?

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," [Obama's] press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday. "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Holy Pelosi, Batman ! Is this a Democrat supporting democracy ? A Democrat supporting free speech ? Wow. They haven't done much of that lately. Of course, Obama's spokesman did say that stuff about network neutrality, public broadcasting, and minority ownership, so Obama doesn't support freedom THAT much, but it's still a giant step forward from the pro-Stalinist Pelosi position of reimposing the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle all those right-wing radio talk show hosts. You go, Barack ! Yes we can, er, I mean, good job.

Now try to remember the last time you heard a liberal come out in favor of the death penalty for ANY crime (other than the crime of being a Republican, that is). Yet, Obama favors the death penalty for child rapists, a stance that breaks with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, who thought the death penalty for child rape was excessive and therefore unconstitutional. This was another of those 5-4 decisions, with the conservative wing of the Court voting that the death penalty was not unconstitutional for child rape. This is one of the times when I think the liberals got it right, because I believe the death penalty is only an appropriate and proportional punishment for the crime of murder. Obama has even veered to the right of me on this issue. Who woulda thunk it ? Oddly enough, Obama previously took a position against expanding the death penalty for gangbangers who DO murder people. I'd attempt to explain the contradiction to you, but I didn't attend Harvard, so it's beyond my capability. It's too nuanced for the likes of me.

On to Obama's reversal on the FISA bill. From the Washington Post:

The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups, but Obama told reporters at a news conference this afternoon that he was satisfied with changes made to the original bill, including a provision that gives a secret court, rather than the White House, the final say on spying procedures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also switched sides on the legislation, for the same reasons as Obama.

"It is a close call for me," Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the "exclusivity" provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, "met my basic concerns." He said the bill's target should not be the phone companies' culpability, but "can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"

Most of the time, a decision that angers liberals groups is just fine with me, and this time is no different. Obama has the right concerns here. Oversight of the government's spying activities is the key. We don't want to handcuff ourselves in the fight against terrorism, but we do want to make sure the government doesn't exceed or abuse it's authority. I agree with Obama again (is this a sign of the apocalypse ???). Yes we ca…..never mind. I don't want to get carried away.

Now, if only somebody would teach Obama basic economics and convince him to stop trying to undermine the Iraq war when we're on the verge of victory………..

That would be change I could believe in.

And as long as Obama is making a right hand turn to sell himself to the general public, my estimation of him would increase greatly if he just admitted he was dead wrong about the Iraq surge.

But I won't be holding my breath. So far, the Obama spinmeisters have decided to flat out lie about that:

January 14, 2007: "We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." - Barack Obama

July 20, 2007: "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked." - Barack Obama

May 30, 2008: "[Barack Obama] never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference." - David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager.

Sigh.

Finally, in the ultimate bow to mainstreaming, check out Obama's family values television ad. It's truly precious, complete with the flag pin and everything (and listen to the background music. If any of you are South Park fans, it's reminiscent of Mr. Tweek's Coffee Shop music, lol).

Didn't the old Obama say flag pins were phony expressions of patriotism ? America, meet the new and improved Barack Obama, Version 2.0.

It's time again for more quotable quotes from our leaders and intellectuals.

Supply sider - “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now… Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” - John F. Kennedy.

Can you say 'Democrats' ? - "We are the only nation in the world with access to known oil deposits on our own land or off our shores that essentially refuses to tap those resources. The main stumbling block is a lack of political consensus" - Linda Chavez.

Money talks, you-know-what walks - "I support a robust system of public financing of elections" - Barack Obama, speaking as he announced he was opting out of public campaign financing.

Apt description - "[Pinning down Obama's policies] is like trying to nail Jello to a wall" - Republican Senator Lindsay Graham.

A flip-flop you can believe in (offer subject to immediate expiration without further notice) - "the [offshore drilling] moratoria should be lifted” - John McCain, reversing his earlier position.

Don't tell us, tell them - "No government can help the destinies of people who insist in putting sectional and class consciousness ahead of general weal" - Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Who knew this guy was so prescient ?- "Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future" - Adolph Hitler.

Only 2 in 5 voters can name the three branches of the federal government - "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think" - Adolph Hitler.

And who is the leading voice of YOUR politics ? - "The country is not as polarized as our politics would suggest" - Barack Obama

Are we sure this guy was the father of the Democratic party ? - "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government" - Thomas Jefferson

Here's why he's the Republican nominee for president, and you're not - "We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies" - John McCain

But he almost lost the working man's vote with this - "I will veto every single beer, um, bill with earmarks" - John McCain

And now for the classics. Yes, they made him head of the DNC - "I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called" - Howard Dean

Classics part II, don't question his patriotism - "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong" - Howard Dean

Classics part III, God only knows - "Now that we're on dog pee, we can have an interesting conversation about that. I do not recommend drinking urine…but if you drink water straight from the river, you have a greater chance of getting an infection than you do if you drink urine" - Howard Dean

The entire liberal media is telling you the FISA bill passed by the House Of Representatives on friday is the end of civil rights, the death of our Constitution, an example of Democrats caving to the lawless Bush administration, etc, etc. They try to drum this stuff into your head constantly, in the hope that you will forget what happened on 9/11, in the hope that you will forget WHY the Bush administration took the national security actions they took following that tragic attack, the worst ever on our homeland. They don't want you to ponder the REAL reasons for Bush's spying, because then it might look like Bush was only attempting to keep America safe from further attack, which is, after all, the job of the President. No, the liberal media wants you to believe Bush just woke up one day and illogically decided it was time to be a dictator and trample on the citizenry, for no reason really, just because Bush is an evil lawless tyrant and that's what evil lawless tyrants do. The liberal media wants you to know evil has a name, and that name is Bush. Also, the liberal media wants you to know that Bush=McCain=Republicans, just so there won't be any mistake. This IS an election year, after all.

But I assume most of you can see through the liberal media's shallow attempts at deception. Most people have the capacity for rational thought. This post is for you. I'll attempt to tell you what the new FISA update is really about.

In spite of the overblown protestations of the liberal media, many Democrats, most terrorist appeasers, and all outright Al Qaeda members, the new FISA bill is not the death of civil rights. There will be oversight of domestic spying with this new bill. It establishes a measure of balance between monitoring suspected terrorists and privacy concerns. It also attempts to establish limits on the president's executive powers. It spells out areas of domestic and international spying that needed to be spelled out.

The biggest sticking point to passage of the bill had been the provision to shield the telecommunications companies from lawsuits following the telcoms post-9/11 cooperation with the government in tracking terrorists. 40 such lawsuits were in the wings. None of the 40 persons or groups that wanted to sue the telecoms had any idea if their phones were monitored or if their rights were infringed. They just wanted to sue on principle. Democrats were hesitant to bargain away those lawsuits. The new FISA bill will shield the telcoms from lawsuits if the telcoms receive certification from the attorney general that the president ordered them to perform wiretaps to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. I like this provision, because it puts the responsibility for wiretaps on the government where it belongs. It is very troublesome to put the responsibility for making decisions about terrorism on private corporations who are torn between helping their country and treading into questionable legal territory that could cost them millions or billions of dollars.

I have some personal experience in this area. Following 9/11, I was a computer programmer/analyst for a bank. The government requested anti-terrorist type information from the bank, which I was tasked with providing them. Some of the requests involved the tracking of certain financial transactions and some involved other information, such as the reporting of all account signers who didn't have Social Security numbers. If any of you think this is improper action by the government, I can also tell you that the government has been tracking your financial information for decades. If you think your banking transactions are private, think again. They aren't. Nowadays, there are even sophisticated methodologies to track any type of unusual financial activity, and even methodolgies to predict financial activity, but that is a discussion for another time.

The point is that I certainly wouldn't have wanted to face a lawsuit for attempting to help my government track terrorist activity a few months after 9/11. The new FISA bill addresses that problem.

Some other provisions in the new FISA bill, according to the linked article, are:

- It requires the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

- The government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it.

- It would allow the government to tap a foreigner's overseas calls without FISA court approval.

- Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

- Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.

- Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.

- Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

- Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

- Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.

Is the new FISA bill perfect ? No.

Did the old FISA and spying procedures need to be updated to reflect the modern technological world and the new type of threat the terrorists present ? Absolutely.

Here's another story the majority of the mainstream media will conveniently forget to report.

In the latest example of the Democrats ongoing effort to destroy America, the Democrats have voted down a proposal to allow offshore oil drilling. The measure, offered by Representative John Peterson (R-PA), was voted down 9-6 by a House subcommittee, strictly along party lines, with ALL the Democrats voting against Americans and ALL the Republicans voting for Americans. If adopted, the measure would have opened up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles offshore for drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimated that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban, which has been in effect since 1981. Link

Yeah, who needs 86 billion barrels of domestically produced oil ? It's not like there's a problem with the price of gasoline (over $4 per gallon and rising daily). It's not like there's a problem with the foreign sources of our imported oil (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria). The Democrats seem to think they can wish this problem away by improving CAFE standards and increasing wind and solar power. In short, the Democrats are idiots, and not just run of the mill idiots either. The Democrats are DANGEROUS idiots who are risking our economy and national security. Just listen to the flimsy braindead excuses the Dems give for not drilling offshore or in ANWR:

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI).

No, Mr. Obey, we're kidding ourselves if we think worldwide oil demand is going to do anything but RISE in the future. Drilling is what we MUST do for the shorter term to get ourselves off of our dependence of foreign oil, especially when the sources of that oil include unfriendly and unstable regimes led by nuts like Hugo Chavez or Wahabbists like the Saudis. We have to be crazy to put our economic future and national security in the hands of people like those, but that is exactly what the Democrats have done by prohibiting most domestic oil production for the last 27 years.

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Holly Binns, Environment Florida spokeswoman.

Ms. Binns, we aren't going to be off of oil in 7-10 years, so all you are doing is providing the reason for us to get started on domestic oil production RIGHT AWAY, not to mention that you have also unwittingly exposed the catastrophic results of the Democratic ban on domestic oil production for all this time. If not for the Democrats ban, we'd be far better off now.

"There are 68 million acres right now that is available for exploration right now that the oil companies have — an area the size of Illinois and Georgia. We ought to be focusing on doing that", Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).

This is a doozy of an excuse. The oil companies DO have some 3-5 year leases on land, but that DOESN'T MEAN THERE IS ANY OIL UNDER THAT LAND, a fact that Blumenauer leaves out. It doesn't do much good to drill for oil on land that doesn't contain any oil. We KNOW there is oil offshore and in ANWR, so that's where we should be drilling.

Blumenauer is also one of many Democrats who have blamed the oil commodity speculators for driving up the cost of oil. While this is true, Dems like Blumenauer leave out the fact that oil supply and demand is very tight, and worldwide demand is increasing, which leads to the increased price among speculators. The speculation doesn't operate in a vacuum. If the U.S. began producing it's own energy supply, that would drive down the speculated price in the commodity market.

Dems also love to blame Exxon for making big profits, even though Exxon's profit margin (7.5% on the dollar) is less than the industrial average (8.4% on the dollar), even though the government makes more money from a gallon of gas than Exxon does, even though the government doesn't do anything to get the gas to the pump. Exxon DOES.

Why should we be propping up unfriendly regimes by sending our oil money to them, when we have the ability to produce what we need right here at home ? There is NO valid reason. I'm not saying oil should replace renewable energy. Domestic oil should work in concert with renewable energy sources to meet our needs, so we can stop funding worldwide extremists, and so we can secure our own economy. Democrats are standing firmly in the way, and they must be stopped. If we took full advantage of our domestic oil reserves, we could stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria completely for decades, and probably forever if we do an adequate job with renewable sources to reduce demand. This is vitally important to our country. I can't think of an issue that is more important, because our entire economy is dependent on the price and availability of energy. We should be storming Washington D.C. to stop the Democrats on this issue, but it seems most of us are unaware or misled. When I went down to talk to the blue collar working men at the local pub, most of them actually thought Bush was the one setting the high gas prices, when Bush has little to do with it. Ignorance is NOT bliss. Ignorance is dangerous, and the Democrats thrive on it.

Recent comments by Barack Obama indicate the view that many liberals have had for years - that we needed to drive up the prices of energy in order to force demand down. The NY Times has promoted that view for quite some time. Here's what Obama said about the high gasoline prices during a recent CNBC interview:

"I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing…if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now".

Did you get that, people ? Obama doesn't mind the high gas prices, just the abrupt way they rose. That's because the DEMOCRATS WANT GAS PRICES TO BE HIGH. The price of a gallon of gas has risen about $1.50 since they took over Congress in january 2007. That's less than a year and a half. Obama and the Dems WANT the price to be high, so they can get their energy policies forced through. They don't care who suffers in the meantime, and the "meantime" in this instance could last for a couple decades. It's downright evil, and completely unnecessary. It completely nullifies the Democrat's claim to be "for the little guy". They aren't for the little guy at all. They are royally screwing the little guy with their energy policies, and have been for years. We shouldn't have to turn America into a third world country in order to switch to renewable energy sources, but the Democrats policy seems to be exactly that.

Btw, Obama's middle class tax cut of $1,000 isn't going to come anywhere close to offsetting the gasoline price hike, and you poor people, well…apply for welfare, I guess. I'm sure there will be some scraps for you at Obama's big government table. Good luck. You'll need it.

Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles

The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others

Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).

As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).

A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).

Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.

There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress. - Mark Twain

As I was watching our distinguished Senators debate the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, which has been amended into the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill, I was wondering why it is that such a group of educated ladies and gentlemen can disagree so profoundly about such an issue. Even more curious is how the disagreement seems to follow so closely along party lines. The disagreement I'm speaking of is not about whether man-made global warming is real or not. Most of the Senators from both sides of the aisle speaking yesterday seemed to agree it is real, with the exception of a couple prehistoric bone-waving Republican heretics who dared question the SCIENCE OF THE CARBON GODS (amen). No, the disagreement I'm speaking of is the disagreement over the remedies for global warming (pardon me, the CARBON GODS inform me I am to use the term "Climate Change" from now on, not "Global Warming". The operative words are "Climate Change". That way, ANY inclement weather AT ALL can be attributed to global warming, er, climate change. My bad). Not only do our educated Senators disagree over the cap-and-trade program, they also disagree over whether the Climate Change bill is the biggest new government bureaucracy since the New Deal, which will raise everyone's energy prices drastically, destroy our economy, and accomplish very little in the way of curbing CO2 emissions (the Republican position) - or whether the Climate Bill will save us from extinction, cost nothing, and create jobs (the Democratic position). Talk about polar opposites (hey, is that a pun ?).

So, who is right ? The title of this post might provide a hint. You'll have to read the link to get all of the info, because there is too much for me to write out here.

Nobody quite knows how much the current Climate Change bill will cost (which is a reason to vote against it right there), but here are some estimates:

A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]

Most independent studies have calculated the costs to be even higher than those estimates.

The Democrats solution to everything is to create a huge new government bureaucracy, impose onerous regulations and restrictions on business and/or society, increase taxes, and increase government spending. I have come to believe it is the liberal Democratic modus operandi to interfere with capitalism and free markets as much as possible in order to later complain that capitalism and free markets don't work (all evidence to the contrary). It's their self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is intentional. They've done it with health care. They've done it with business, jobs, poverty, education, retirement. They've used it to destroy the middle class. They use their philosophy to get as many Americans as possible dependent on the government, which in turn forces those Americans to vote for Democrats to maintain the free flow from the government teat. It's a clever and insidious strategy, and the bigger our government grows, the more irresistible that strategy becomes. You aren't supposed to notice that such a strategy ends with the death of liberty. I actually heard Barbara Boxer (D-CA) say on the Senate floor yesterday that if the Climate Change Bill she's co-sponsoring drives up the cost of energy, that's okay, because then we can just increase the HEAP entitlement program to help people pay their higher energy bills. That is dastardly, folks.

Nevertheless, the cause of diminishing CO2 emissions (if you believe they must be diminished) may be one case where some measure of government interference is unavoidable, but we must exercise extreme vigilance with the system we impose. The considerations of energy, environment, and economy must all be carefully balanced. The current Congressional majority wants to do SOMETHING about climate change just so they can say they did something, but what they are proposing IS a boondoggle. It's a huge tax and regulatory bureaucratic nightmare that will send the prices of gasoline and electricity soaring at a time we can least afford it. The current bill will probably be voted down, but the issue isn't going away. Regardless of which Democrat wins the presidency in november, Obama or McCain, expect the Climate Change bill to return with a vengeance next year, because both Obama and McCain favor cap-and-trade (Bob Dole, will you please send McCain a nasty e-mail ?). We the people had better keep a close eye on Congress and get involved, or we'll soon be looking back on today as the good old days of low energy prices. I don't think anyone wants that.

Democratic nominee Barack Obama rails on and on about his most excellent and superior judgement, which apparently all stems from his pre-war opposition to the Iraq invasion. At last count, Obama has pointed this out about 322,195 times on the campaign trail, give or take 100,000 times. I'd say being anti-war is the number one reason Obama is the Democratic nominee, or maybe second after the fact that the media has been unbelievably biased in his favor. MSNBC should be on his payroll, not that anybody watches that sham of a network. The other networks, excluding FoxNews and ABC somewhat, are not far behind in their unabashed Obama worship. As proof, in 21 Democratic debates, Obama got the tougher questions exactly ONCE (from ABC). Obama performed badly in that debate, and Obama's supporters were outraged, being so accustomed to their hero receiving preferential treatment as Hillary was excoriated by the grand inquisitors. There were no more debates after that one. The Audacity Of Hopester had had enough. No mas. Obama returned to his strong suit, making scripted speeches in front of adoring audiences. HOPE, CHANGE, AND YES WE CAN ! No questions asked. It's not too hard to stand up to zero pushback.

So, how has Barack Obama's judgement really been ? Let's take a look.

Barack Obama says he didn't know his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was a crazed anti-american racist. Ditto for the Catholic priest Pfleger. Judgement: Lying

Obama thought former Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn were just regular old college educators. Judgement: Lying again.

Obama didn't know his benefactor and leading fundraiser, convicted kickback artist Antoin "Tony" Rezko, was a mobster. He also didn't suspect Rezko might be looking for something in return even after Rezko bought a lot next door to the house Obama wanted to buy in order to facilitate the sale for the Obamas (the seller would only sell both properties together). Barry didn't suspect this in CHICAGO, the home of shady Democratic pay-to-play politics. Judgement: Naive, and that's giving BHO the benefit of the doubt.

Obama was against the "surge" in Iraq that has transformed that conflict. He said it could never work, that there was no military solution, and still clings to that belief. Obama declared the war lost, and still speaks only of pulling the troops out. Judgement: Wrong.

Obama either wants to negotiate with Iran with no pre-conditions or he doesn't, depending on what day you ask him. Iran is also either little to no threat or a very grave threat, depending on which way the political wind is blowing at the time. Judgement: Confused

Obama thinks he can get Iran's leaders to change their ways just by talking to them. Judgement: LOL

Obama wants enormous increases in federal taxation and spending when this country already has a huge debt and over $57 trillion in unfunded federal entitlement liabilities. Judgement: Economic insanity.

Obama didn't understand when Charles Gibson of ABC pointed out to him that capital gains revenue rose after the capital gains tax rate was slashed. Obama hem-hawed and then mumbled something about "fairness", one of his stock non-specific buzzwords. Judgement: Economically uneducated.

Obama railed against NAFTA while campaigning in Ohio and said he wanted to renegotiate that trade deal, but then O's people told the Canadians not to worry, that was just campaign talk. Obama rarely mentioned NAFTA again on the campaign trail after the rust belt primaries. Judgement: Screw you, Ohio

Obama has come out in favor of a worldwide ban on fissile material. Unless I'm mistaken, this includes the USA. Question. Who is going to make Iran fulfill their end of the no nukes bargain ? Obama could be setting up a scenario where we don't have nukes, Israel doesn't have nukes, but Iran could secretly develop nukes, making the Islamo-genocide wishers the lone nuclear power.
Even without this nightmare scenario, Obama is telling our allies and the world that he wants to turn out their lights. France gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear power. What is he thinking ?
Judgement: Don't let Obama anywhere near the White House. Ever.

Here's a quote from Barack Obama that didn't get much attention. See if you can spot the errors:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon. They're supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief".

1) Platoons are lead by Lieutenants, not Captains, unless it is a special forces type of unit, which a rifle platoon isn't. 2) Platoons aren't split across different theaters. 3) Congress controls the military's purse strings, not the CINC. This is more a sign of inexperience than bad judgement on Obama's part, but it's poor judgement too, because Barack was silly enough to believe he could sell this pile of manure to his audience. Judgement: Bogus

I don't want to make too a big a deal out of the flag pin issue, because it's not a big deal, but I am talking about Obama's judgement, so I want to know….how does Obama decide that wearing a flag pin is a meaningless display of patriotism SHORTLY AFTER 9/11 ? How do you make that decision at THAT time ? Any other normal time, okay, but sometimes a display of patriotism IS in order, especially after the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the country. I just think Obama's decision is very bizarre. I don't understand his thought process. Judgement: Huh???????

Congratulations to Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) for capturing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. He deserves it, since he did get the second most votes among all the Democratic contenders, and also due to his vast governmental, economic, management, leadership, and military experience and knowledge [assuming "vast" means "imaginary"]. During last night's inspirational victory speech, Obama declared, "America, this is your moment". I don't know what that means exactly, but it sounds good, and I guess I should be happy that America's moment coincides with Barack Obama's moment. I'm nearly breathless with anticipation, knowing America will cease to be the third world, poverty ridden, mean-spirited, unfair hellhole we've all had to endure thus far in our country's history. Maybe, just maybe (dare I dream ?), we will all cease to be so bitter and divisive (assuming you buy into that false Obama construct), and we can spend our days dancing and singing in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness [assuming "unity" means "no dissent from liberal doctrine", and "fairness" means "the government decides who can keep their own money and who can't"].

Liberals have been telling me conservatism is dead, because people "expect more from their government". Somehow, those people never recognize that getting "more from their government" only means that the government must take more from them, so they're not really getting anything, except maybe a bureaucracy, a middle man. Those people also never recognize that handing over ever more power to a centralized government is a really, really bad long term plan, because once the government has absolute power over you, that makes you a SLAVE, subject to the government's whim, begging for scraps from the government table. Our founding fathers knew that over 200 years ago, but liberals have forgotten the lesson. They have forgotten the founding lesson of our country. They have forgotten the founding lesson of the founder of their own Democratic party, Thomas Jefferson, but they have the audacity of dopes and call themselves the intelligentsia. I don't get it. On second thought, maybe I do get it, since the word "intelligentsia" is of Russian origin. If conservatism is dead, so is the American spirit.

It's been said the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship, because a good dictator would have absolute power to do good, which would benefit the people. The problem is, what you consider good might not be what I consider good, or even worse, the dictator could turn out to be, gasp, bad. For all you Bush haters out there, remember, when you vote to give the federal government ever more power over your lives, you are ultimately voting to give the Bush types more power too, because you can't predict who our next leaders will be.

You see, in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness, I'm being a divisive fearmonger RIGHT NOW, merely because I have a different idea about what America should be. That's why Barry And Friends want to implement things like The Fairness Doctrine to stop all those nasty conservatives from saying all those divisive anti-liberal things on talk radio. That's why Barry And Friends want to remove the secret ballot from union voting, so they can intimidate workers and impose their pro-union will. The way Barry And Friends achieve unity is by stifling dissent whenever possible.

Here's a line from Obama's victory speech:

"What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize".

This is a classic Obama statement. He's actually demonizing Republicans at the very same time he's saying he won't demonize them. Hopey McChangerson at his best. It's that false Obama construct again, where the opposition's issues are divisive, the oppositions issues are fearmongering. Only Obama's issues are the important ones.

Bull. Tell me another tall tale. Barack, even the church you attended for 20 years demonizes people. The Left is all about demonizing people. I defy anyone to turn on C-SPAN and listen to Congress for even one hour and not hear the Republican party being demonized by the Democrats. One hour. Demonization is the Democrats game plan. It's their number one tactic. The Democrats play off our fears at EVERY turn. They'll try to get you to believe insanely false ideas, like 'Republicans want to impose a theocracy', or 'tax cuts are bad'. The Democrats spend all day pitting one group against the other - poor against rich, black against white, government against business, union against non-union, blue collar against white collar, secularism against religion, women against men, even people against polar bears. They promote the constant drumbeat of class and racial warfare and division, they endlessly play group and identity politics, and then they have the audacity of dopes to think YOU won't notice. Their pretense of unity is laughable. They don't want unity. THEY WANT POWER.

If unity was really the goal, Barack Obama would be a bipartisan politician. He pretends that he is, but that's an artifice, a mirage. His record reveals exactly the opposite. He's a down-the-line liberal on every single issue. Again, I defy anyone to show me differently. Talk is cheap. Actions are what count. If unity is really the goal (not that I'm saying it should be), then John McCain is the one who has the bipartisan history, not Barack Obama. It's not even a close call.

As I'm writing this, Obama's on television in the background. He's speaking to a Jewish lobbyist group, telling them exactly what they want to hear, as he so often does (Iran's a grave threat in this speech), even when it contradicts what he said previously (Iran is a tiny country and little threat). Obama just displayed the audacity of dopes by saying his Iran policy has been "willfully mischaracterized" by his opposition, when all that REALLY happened was, his opposition reacted to the actual words coming from Obama's mouth about Iran. If there is mischaracterization, Obama mischaracterized himself.

Now I hear Obama blaming Bush for the high price of oil. Bloody hell. The Dems are the ones who've insured that we're helpless and dependent on foreign oil with their decades long braindead restrictions on domestic oil producti…..

Oops, there I go being divisive again. Gosh, I'm such a fearmonger. Sorry.

Obama is love. I love Obama.