US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy

by Dr. Mercola - August 28th, 2007 - YouTube.com

There is little doubt that this is one of the most critical times in our nation's history. America is under attack from global socialism. The attack is more insidious than the clearly insidious attack by Soviet funded communists of the late 40s and early 50s. Many people have simply become indifferent to the threat of tyranny implied by socialism. They want what they want and they don't believe the costs will be loss of freedom.

The eight trillion dollar cost of Medicare will destroy our nation. However there are a huge number of Americans who think adding another trillion dollars a year under Barack Obama's escalation in government give-away programs is no big deal. We must start to educate America about the consequences.

Click on the title above to listen to one of the most sobering assessments you will hear about the size of the problem.

Wright’s New Neighborhood Only 1.92% Black

by Steve Gilbert - March 29th, 2008 - sweetness-light.com

It sure sounds awfully middle-class (or worse).

In fact, it would appear to be an outright rejection of Trinity’s famed "Black Value System"

This is one of two postings this day that show the hypocrisy of this hate America bigot and his black liberation theology.

The other article is "Obama’s Former Pastor Getting $1.6M Home in Retirement" by Jeff Goldblatt.

With both Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama being among the wealthiest American's, their hate America agenda is even more contemptible. How can either be so well rewarded and there not be even a small amount of appreciation for the nation that makes this success possible?

Instead they espouse a religious and racist agenda that rejects the nation that makes their success possible. Where else could they become so rich by reviling the nation that makes their wealth possible, especially since they are not creating anything of wealth themselves. They are both simply pandering to the resentment and greed of those who reject America's opportunity.

When Your Only Tool is Coercion, Every Problem Looks Like Too Much Freedom

by John Hood - March 28th, 2008 - Carolina Journal Online

The unfortunate implication is that these proposals are not really about global warming but are, instead, an exercise that could be called appropriately “lifestyle imperialism.” Like laws against homosexuality or gambling, they are, in fact, an attempt to legislate morality.

Given the principles behind the founding of the United States, policymakers need to view individual freedom as a moral imperative. They should first realize that it is not the fundamental role of the state to solve all conceivable problems but to protect liberty.

Right now America is at a critical point in its history. It is clear that there is a political imperative by many to take away whatever liberty is needed to be taken to accomplish goals that are questionable at best.

How much freedom will be left when the socialist agenda of the current Democrat Party is reached?

Greg Dority Was Impressive In His Channel 14 Interview

Click here to listen to the interview of Greg Dority, a Republican Candidate for Lt. Governor of North Carolina.

Great Song About Hillary

This is funny. Click on the title above or here.

The Masterpiece Of A Disaster

by Wesley Pruden - March 21, 2008 - Washington Post

"A speech we have all been waiting for for a generation." The punditocracy, having overdosed on nuance, seared by supple and sore from all those wrenched guts, is fresh out of exclamation points, now on back order in newsrooms everywhere.

A day after that, reality intrudes. Pundits only observe. Pollsters take the first true measure of events, and yesterday the first polls taken since the speech reveal that the remarks that Obamaniacs call the greatest speech since Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address look like a disaster.

Barack Obama should have been what America was looking for when they were hoping for Colin Powell to run for President a few years back. A black man of great intelligence, articulate, educated and endowed with the "fire" to run that Colin did not have. There is in all parts of our political landscape a desire to get past race. Barack Obama could have been that man if he had understood our nation and what makes us great. I don't think he does. As smart as he is he has blind spots about our nation that have led him astray.

Three things now stand in the way of him becoming the national healer he proclaims he wants to be. The first two have been obvious for a while, but only mattered to those of us who hate government tyranny.

First, Barack Obama is a socialist and does not understand anything about how an economy works. He thinks that the amazing wealth of America is just luck. He wants to tax "the rich" to pay for fixing all of the shortcomings he sees. He sees a poor person and does not see someone who has made bad choices. He sees someone who has been robbed of his just rewards. Barack Obama is going to take from the rich and give to the poor and this time it is not going to destroy the nation's economy in the process. However though Obama makes 10 times the average American's earnings, he feels poor and wants to take from the average man a portion of his earnings to give to what he sees as poor.

Second, Barack Obama is a pacifist and does not believe that a strong military is needed to protect our freedoms. Since he sees only the shortcomings of our nation, he thinks every other nation's dislike for us is our fault. He is convinced if we just retreat into pacifism and offer them money they will leave us alone. He wants to shut down our military and use the savings to buy love from the world. He is convinced that being weak will not invite our enemies to attack. He insults those our nation has asked to die for our country and wants to bring our troops home, not as victors, but as losers.

However it is the final misunderstanding that is imploding his campaign. Barack Obama believes that black racism is justified. He feels white America will not be offended when told that his message of unity is about white America agreeing that blacks have been wronged. He sees the guilt of liberal white America and assumes that all whites feel the same guilt. He fails to appreciate that much of white America does not see affirmative action as a permanent fixture of government. Most whites who are denied opportunity today for what some other white did 50 years ago, or in some cases 500 hundred years ago, resent it.

America is about equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Equality of opportunity does not permit blacks to refuse to get an education and then blame whites for that failure. It does not even allow poor whites to blame "the rich" for their problems as Obama does.

Barack Obama's speech had two diametrically opposed reactions. Admiration from those who shared some portion of his love for socialism, pacifism and belief that blacks deserve the right to blame whites for past transgressions. Rejection from those who believe in free enterprise, national defense and a return to equality under the law without regard to race.

Right now race is as important as it ever was since we have simply replaced special rights for whites with special rights for blacks. Whites took it as their just deserts when government favored them. Blacks take it as their just deserts now when affirmative action gives them preference. The American ideal is equal treatment . . . which we have never reached for sad reasons. It is best for the future if we reach that ideal.

The pathological hatred of Pastor Wright will not sell to someone who has themselves never acted against blacks. Arguing that someone who has never harmed blacks should feel sympathy to black feelings of entitlement due to the past sins of others is a non starter.

As a result, Barack Obama is plunging down in the polls. I think in his heart Obama knew this was a problem, which is why he has tried to hide the racial hatred that drives Pastor Wright and his many followers. I don't think he yet understands that America is never going to be a socialist or pacifist country either.

Obama has these 3 problems. If he wins the Presidency this nation will be at war with itself over all 3 issues. Since we are also at war with global socialism, illegal aliens and radical Islam, I believe the results will be catostrophic. However unless something changes, Obama will not be President and our nation will have missed a great opportunity to reach the goal of equal treatment under the law for all. We need a black President who is not a racist so we can put race behind us.

Obama And His Audience

They heard a great speech — and what was the problem with Rev. Wright’s sermons, anyway?

by Byron York - March 18th, 2008 - National Review Online

The small auditorium here at the National Constitution Center, where Barack Obama delivered what his aides called a “major address on race, politics, and unifying our country,” was filled mostly with guests invited by the Obama campaign. So it was not surprising that after the speech, Obama’s guests, streaming out of the room into the cavernous atrium of the Center, thought he delivered a great speech. What might be surprising, though, is that a number of them saw nothing particularly wrong with the “controversial” remarks by Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that set this whole process in motion.

“It was amazing,” Gregory Davis, a financial adviser and Obama supporter from Philadelphia, told me. “I think he addressed the issue, and if that does not address the issue, I don’t know what else can be said about it. That was just awesome oratory.”

A friend told me last night that he thought Obama's speech was a great speech. He actually used the words "the best speech I have ever heard". He suggested that I listen to it and judge for myself.

I have listened to it and all I can say is I am stunned. I see the land that I love being torn apart with rhetoric that is polished and lofty, while simultaneously advocating tolerance of the most hate filled racist insults and distorted logic possible. My reaction is totally opposite to my friend. What allows this man Obama to mesmerize people of intelligence into accepting his excuses for pacifism and socialism?

Pacifism did not protect Poland or France from Hitler. It will not protect America from radical Islam.

Socialism has always been tyrannical and evil . . . and over time it always failed the nations that have tried it by destroying their economy. How can anyone of intelligence think that this time it will be different because they are "more sincere" in their hopes for it to succeed?

Barack Obama is a socialist.

Barack Obama is a pacifist.

Obama has carefully and artfully NOT rejected Wright's "black liberation theology." Here is what "black liberation theology" believes according to the man Jeremiah Wright credits with perfecting it. James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary says:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

My friend said it was "the greatest speech" he ever heard. I heard a different speech. I heard a speech by a man who accepts that he can lie to advance black causes, including socialism and pacifism. I will not accept socialism and pacifism no matter what excuse is used by people who see me as their enemy and wish to destroy me. Obama may try to gull people into accepting his speech as uniting people. I see it as a declaration of race and class warfare.

Barack Obama seems to think he and his wife and his pastor (extremely rich himself) can condemn whites for the fact that in America he and his wife are only able to earn $480 thousand a year. How is a black family able to make it on only $480 thousand a year in America? Does that sound reasonable?

I am supposed to feel guilty about his treatment in this nation where he has made it beyond most people's dreams?

Another article this morning makes the point that Obama did not answer anything in his speech; Obama Merely Changes The Subject. It makes the point a different way. Obama has spent 20 years attending a church preaching hate. Obama never rejects that. Rhetoric is his weapon and diversion is his tactic.

He is smooth. However I don't buy it.

A Little Extra Effort - The Last County BBQ - In The Primary Anyway

Today I anticipated it was going to be an exciting day, and it was. It started early as I got up in Colerain to do some computer work that I had to send out before I left home. It had been a late night as I had attended the Fred Smith BBQ in Dare County in the Outer Banks Monday. I then drove home around midnight. The Fred Smith team was still packing up when I left Dare County, so I am sure they got in to Ahoskie where they were going to stay quite late as well.

I had an early meeting in Ahoskie for a computer client. Then I headed up to the Tar Heel BBQ Restaurant in Gates County, one of the the last three BBQs in the Fred Smith 100 County BBQ Tour. As I was crossing the magnificent Chowan River I grabbed my camera and took a picture (below). It was a beautiful sight.




A few miles down the road I came to the site of the days first BBQ. It was easy to spot as the Fred Smith bus was parked right beside the road at the entrance to the parking lot. This whole effort has been a monumental effort. The fist BBQ was last year on August 2, 2007. This day the final 3 BBQs would complete the effort. This is not the way most candidates run for Governor. Fred Smith is an amazing man. Fred put in the incredible effort necessary to visit every single county in North Carolina and hold a BBQ so that anyone who wanted could meet him and ask him as many questions as they wanted to. Fred did this because he says running for governor OUGHT to be a conversation with the people. More than 15,000 people have come out to the BBQs to meet Fred.





The sign in front of the door (below) was about the campaign to stop the Navy from locating an OLF, or Outlying Landing Field, in the Sand Banks area behind the Tar Heel BBQ Restaurant where the event was being held.





As I went in the door I ran into Fred's Democrat shadow, a young man named Paul (shown below). Paul never eats Fred's BBQ (being the competition that would not be fair) so he was in the regular restaurant next door, waiting for the event to start. I am always amused that Democrats spend so much effort trying to find something they can attack Republicans with. The purpose of Paul's effort to tape everything Fred says is hope that Fred might say something the Democrats could use out of context to attack him with.





Fred's team for the BBQs, Joe Humphries and Deidre Jersey were already hard at work registering the attendees for the BBQ. They do a great job.




Deidre had promised that BBQ would be served at all the events, and though most people ordered breakfast this day, Diedre made sure they had the opportunity to eat BBQ. She is shown below offering it to everyone who wants it. Another one of the great team that has put on all these BBQs for Fred is Ira Jersey, Diedre's husband (shown on the lower right below). Ira does all the video and audio set up.





This morning Fred started the meeting off with a slightly different format, as he took the opportunity to let Gates County people explain the issues associated with the OLF, and ask questions, separate from the normal session.




After everyone had eaten, Fred stands at the back of the room waiting for the event to start.




John Hill, Gates County Republican Party Chairman, and Bryan Buck, local businessman, introduced the various speakers for the invocation, pledge of allegiance and national anthem. Bryan is shown here (above on left) next to Fred as the event is about to start.




The start of the event is always the introductory video that ends with the Lee Greenwood campaign song, "From good to great."




Fred gave his usual heartfelt talk. This day he was going to give it 3 times, as the last 3 BBQs were all in one day. After he had signed books for as long as people wanted to stick around, we headed out for a meeting with local pastors. Fred also had a meeting with some local business people after that. We left Gates County headed to Captain Bob's Restaurant in Perquimans County (Town of Hertford) pressed for time as usual.




Captain Bob's was not prepared for the size of the crowd that showed up. We had so much overflow we actually took up a room next door were people could not see Fred and could only hear. It was a huge crowd. Bobby Jones, Chairman of the Perquimans County Republican Party was master of ceremonies.




Fred once again gave his speech on why he was running and what he wanted to do as Governor.




Paul, our Democrat shadow was there in Perquimans County too.




Next stop was Pasquotank County High School for the last BBQ in the 100 County BBQ Tour. On the way, Fred did an interview, met with some business people, attended a meet and greet fundraiser at Albemarle Plantation, and rolled in to the Pasquotank County Reception late in the day.




First order of business was to meet the Mayor of Elizabeth City, Steve Atkinson, who came out to greet Fred.




Bill Blevins, Chairman of the Pasquotank County Republican Party (shown above) was master of ceremonies for the final event.





Frank Weeks (shown above) gave the invocation.




Alexis and Ashton Tice (shown above, Alexis on right) led the Pledge of Allegiance.




Randy Rowsey led the crowd in singing the Nation Anthem.




It was a huge crowd, over 100 people in attendance.




Diedre Jersey, had a surprise for Fred. They had a cake made up celebrating the completion of this huge effort to have a BBQ in all 100 counties in North Carolina. Though I can't be sure that no one has ever done this before, no one I can find has ever heard of it being done. Certainly it is not the norm. Many of the Counties Fred visited have rarely had a Gubernatorial candidate visit, much less spend time to allow local people to meet them, shake hands, and ask as many questions as they wanted to ask.




As usual the food was great. Typical fare is BBQ, fried chicken, slaw, pork and beans, potato salad, rolls, tea and desert. Tonight we had an extra desert, the cake to celebrate the completion of this huge effort.




Fred signed copies of his autobiography for all who wanted them, and shook everyone's hand. As usual Fred simply never stopped working all day long.




As the final event was about to start, Fred took his place at the back of the room waiting for the introduction.




This night, Holly Koerber, Vice Chair of the Pasquotank County Republican Party, a long time friend, introduced Fred.




Fred gave the BBQ version of his speech for Governor one last time. I wonder what it felt like for Fred to be finishing up this phase of the campaign?




I wonder how Paul, our Democrat shadow felt too? He was around for a great number of the events and everyone had come to know him pretty well.




He seemed quite sincere when he was one of the first people to come up and shake Fred's hand after the event. It seemed appropriate as Fred is one of the most genuine people I have ever met.




As I was walking out the door, I got a group picture of some friends; Doris Blevins, Diedre Jersey, Holly Koerber, Owen Etheridge and Harvey West.

Next phase of the campaign here in Eastern North Carolina starts March 31st with the Washington, NC Lee Greenwood Rally for Fred Smith. That is going to be huge. Lee really puts on a show. See you there.

Obama's War

by Peter Wehner - April Issue - Commentary Magazine

In May 2007, Obama did something he had never done previously: he voted in the Senate against funding for combat operations, claiming as a reason the fact that the bill included no timeline for troop withdrawal. As the campaign season intensified, his position hardened still more. In September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops “immediately.” “Not in six months or one year—now.”

By then, though, a fairly substantial drop in violence was already discernible in Iraq. Without exactly denying this fact, Obama insisted that it had nothing to do with the surge, a point he repeated incessantly during the early months of 2008. In a presidential debate in January, for example, he claimed the reduction in violence was due not to increased American military action but to the attention paid by Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists to the results of America’s midterm elections in November 2006, when control of Congress passed to the Democrats:

"Much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?—the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now."

This was an astonishing statement on several counts. For one thing, the “Anbar Awakening”—in which Sunni tribes formerly allied with al Qaeda in Iraq turned on the foreign terrorists who had been making their lives a repressive hell—preceded the midterm election by several months. It had no connection with American electoral cycles and every connection with the brutality of al Qaeda (as internal al-Qaeda communications frankly conceded). For another thing, the prospect of a precipitous American retreat, far from helping along the chances of a negotiated political settlement between warring Iraqi factions, would almost certainly have created the opposite effect, reinvigorating the murderous hopes of the terrorist forces lately on the run and thereby undoing the Awakening altogether. Nor, incidentally, have those forces ever troubled themselves to discriminate between Sunni and Shiite in their frenzied determination to seize control. Finally, the sheikhs of Anbar have themselves testified to the crucially fortifying effect of the U.S. offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq, and there is no reason to doubt their word.

Obama’s corkscrew logic would take an even more bizarre twist in February of this year when Tim Russert of NBC News asked him if, as President, he would reserve the right to go back into Iraq with sizable forces if the American withdrawal he advocated should end by introducing even greater mayhem. Previously Obama had asserted categorically that, on his watch, no permanent American bases would be left in Iraq and that the few American troops remaining there would have only a very limited mission: to protect our embassy and our diplomatic corps and to engage in counterterrorism. But in his answer to Russert he now broadened his options:

"As commander-in-chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

To wonted illogic this added both ignorance and disingenuousness. By his statement Obama may have intended to project a certain tough-mindedness in dealing with new threats, but as Senator John McCain pointed out in a devastating riposte, al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That is why its forces there are called “al Qaeda in Iraq” (or, to use the terrorist organization’s own nomenclature, “al Qaeda in Meso-potamia”). What is more, if Obama had had his way in 2007, our troops would have been out of Iraq by March of this year, leaving it naked to its enemies. If we were to withdraw them in the early months of an Obama presidency, al Qaeda in Iraq could be counted on not only to form “a base” but to take over large swaths of the country. Having overseen such a withdrawal, and having thereby unraveled all the gains of the surge, Obama would face the prospect of ordering them to return under far more treacherous conditions of his own making.

There is little logic in Obama's pacifist repudiation of the war against radical Islam. Note his actually lying about the timing of Anbar rejection of Al-Qaeda. The reality is Obama is a pacifist and his positions are distorted by this failed appeasement oriented philosophy. Any support for any war will be waffling and unenthusiastic because he is a pacifist. Anyone who supports Obama for President is abbrogating the belief that we have the right to wage offensive war in defense of our nation. Obama cannot be trusted as our Commander In Chief. His judgement has repeatedly proved seriously defective.

Bonfire of the Democrats

by Rich Lowry - March 14th, 2008 - National Review Online

When an unimpeachably liberal former vice-presidential candidate of the Democratic party is likened to David Duke by a liberal media hero, the political apocalypse — or at least a grievance-politics cataclysm — is upon us.

In one of his sputtering-mad “special comments” usually devoted to damning President Bush to hell, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC accused Geraldine Ferraro of employing the “vocabulary of David Duke,” and of “insidious racism that is at least two decades old.” Back in the glory days of liberaldom, this would have been like Edward R. Murrow calling Eleanor Roosevelt a fascist — in other words, utter madness.

[snip]

The Obama-Clinton contest is merely an intramural warm-up. If a trail-blazing Democrat like Ferraro can get chewed up, just wait to see what happens to Republicans in the fall. The oversensitivity, and divisiveness, has just begun.

Barack Obama is post racial? I would not bet the farm on that. There is a clear double standard being practiced, as Ferraro noted.

This is going to get ugly.

Psst! - - Ferraro Was Right

Would Obama embody post-racial hopes if he were white?

by Mickey Kaus - March 13th, 2008 - Slate

If Obama's Face Were ... : Here's Andrew Sullivan in his big, widely applauded Atlantic piece making the case for Barack Obama:

"What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it's central to an effective war strategy . . . "

[snip]

If one of the "formeost" things Obama offers voters is the "face of a brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia, etc." doesn't that mean "he would not be in this position if he were white"?

Andrew Sullivan is a famous and open Barack Obama supporter and he writes an article proclaiming that we should support Obama BECAUSE he is black and this would help America in its war with Islam.

Geraldine Ferraro takes note of the fact many supporters of Barack Obama are supporting him because he is part black and she is denounced for daring to say this. When did America become so PC that daring to say anything that any black finds offensive is worthy of condemnation? Why are Obama and his supporters so upset? Because they only want the advantage of being black spoken of as a positive?

Why then do they insist it isn't a positive? Are they afraid that someone will note that if being black is a positive, maybe just maybe all the laws giving blacks special government dictated rights are no longer needed? Is this all about having being black a political advantage and still keeping government rules to advance individual blacks over other American citizens? What happened to two things; equal protection under the law and the right to say the truth no matter what (it's called free speech)? Is it perhaps true that neither equal protection for all citizens nor free speech are still the law of the land?

America Will Not Be Defeated

by David Bellavia - March 7th, 2008 - Townhall.com

For as long as I have been associated with the military and veteran organizations I have always been proud of the company I've kept. As easy as it is to say "never quit" you learn to appreciate those near you who actually live their lives by this warrior ethos. And you are deliberately and forever changed by those near you who die by that same warrior ethos.

[snip]

As . . . ambassadors of America's Warrior Class we feel strongly that, as long as there is a debate taking place on the merits of the conflicts in which we continue to fight and bleed, we will not only participate, we will lead that debate. No one is more qualified or more deserving of that distinction than those brave souls who have continued to re-enlist, tour after tour, to defend our freedoms.

[snip]

In the name of partisan election cycle politics, television commercials and campaign talking points are now openly designed to sap the will of the American people. This is an effort to take from veterans the honorable and attainable victory our beloved friends gave their lives in exchange. Like the Islamist threat overseas, this dogma will be met head on. We cannot allow the selfish advancement of political agendas to transcend the blood sacrifices made in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bet on this . . . we will not be defeated.

When I listen to the anti-war supporters of Clinton and Obama, that is the one belief I keep coming back to. In any confict, who would you rather side with? People like the members of Vetsforreedom.org or Moveon.org? Pacifists are losers by definition.

I back Vetsforreedom.org. God bless them and the work they do.

Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring

by Danny Hakim and William Rashbaum - March 10th, 2008 - New York Times

ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation.

This is justice. This man, while Attorney General, repeatedly tried to criminalize making money. A passionate hater of free enterprise, he is a perfect example of the double standard practiced by Democrats. He is greedy and rich. Yet he considers making money obscene. He prosecuted prostitution with ferver when he could. Yet he used prostitutes regularly.

Of course he insisted that for him, prostitution was a "private matter" and you can be sure he will object to being prosecuted. After all, he is not a greedy free enterprise Republican. He is an upstanding socialist doing good works for the proletariat. That rationale is why so many Democrats wind up in jail. They think they are above the law.

What I cannot understand is why the news media ignores the most obvious criminality involved here. Spitzer cannot be selective in his prosecutions. Yet we know that he prosecuted prostitution rings while he was using another prostitution ring for personal services. The law does not permit the attorney general to prosecute one criminal while ignoring the criminality of another doing the same thing, especially when he is complicit in the crime. Yet that is exactly what Spitzer did. It is called malfeasance. Spitzer is obviously guilty. Why is the current attorney general not pursuing a prosecution of Sptizer on these grounds? It is the most egregious act he committed.

Bertie County Republican Convention - This Friday

John Stallings, Chairman of the Bertie County Republican Party, has announced this Friday, March 14th, 2008 as the date . . . and 7:00 PM the time . . for the Bertie County Republican Convention. The location will be the Heritage House Restaurant in Windsor.

The public is invited to attend, however only registered Republicans of Bertie County will be able to vote on any issues that need to be addressed.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

by Michael Reagan - March 6th, 2008 - Townhall.com

Here was Obama attacking the Clinton’s backing of the North American Free Trade Agreement and promising to junk the treaty until it was renegotiated while at the same time a top official of his campaign was telling the Canadians sotto voce that he really didn’t mean it -- it was all just campaign rhetoric.

It got even worse when Obama held a press conference and answered a mere eight questions, and when the pressure got too strong he turned his back on the media and walked away. If you want to provoke the media to get hot on your heels and dig deeper into your clouded background, that’s the way to do it.

As long as the media and the rest of us play in his sandbox, and on his terms, Barack Obama loves the playing field. As soon as the game moves out of his sandbox, it seems to unnerve him.

No two actions could have done more to expose the superficiality of this man's campaign. A question I have asked repeatedly (with little effect) is how egotistical is a man who seeks the Presidency with so little experience? How likely is it that someone that egotistical is what he appears?

His autobiography makes it clear his mother hated America and some of that attitude permeates Obama's views of our nation. His wife's comments give strong credence that belief is correct. The church he attends suggests he is not as post-racial as he claims. His failure to ever once take action on a tough bi-partisan effort mocks his claims to being a unifier, unless he means he wants to unify everyone behind his positions. What kind of unifier is that?

Barack Obama uses great rhetoric. However his socialist agenda would be a disaster for our nation. Does anyone remember Jimmy Carter? Carter was the last dedicated socialist who made it to the Presidency.

The New Rule On Campus: Free Speech For Israel-bashers — But Censorship For Pro-lifers

by Jonathan Kay - March 6th, 2008 - National Post (Canada)

Of course, censorious activists and lawmakers never actually concede they are engaged in "censorship." Invariably, they try to argue that the speech they are targeting is so offensive as to not even constitute legitimate expression. Consider, for instance, what has been going on at York University . . . in other words, the millions of pro-life Canadians who would presume to voice their objection to abortion do not have "valid" viewpoints.

I find it sad that our Republican candidate for President helped to validate the duplicitous attitude of these extremists by passage of McCain-Feingold. When you start down the path to censorship you can always find some rational reason why you are not violating our Constitution. However you are. Why McCain would align himself with these advocates of censorship is still a concern.

Rush For Biofuels Threatens Starvation On A Global Scale

by Lewis Smith and Francis Elliott - March 7th, 2008 - The London Times

The rush towards biofuels is theatening world food production and the lives of billions of people, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser said yesterday.

Professor John Beddington put himself at odds with ministers who have committed Britain to large increases in the use of biofuels over the coming decades.

This is another example of the total lack of conscience by the eco-terrorists who are promoting the global warming hysteria. Far more people will die from the consequences of eco-terrorists taking over our government agencies to foster the global warming agenda than would ever die from the consequences of warming.

Let me remind everyone, we still have not reached temperature levels from the reanaissance which was a great time in man's history . . . due to the tremendous advantages for food production of a warmer climate. We are taking all these extreme measures to stop using inexpensive energy on the premise that it contributes to global warming. However the reality is that the bio-fuels are totally counter productive. They significantly increase greenhouse gases as indicated in the article here. If greenhouse gases were really the concern of the eco-terrorists they would be acting now to stop implementation of these stupid laws.

These laws and the effort for bio-fuels drive up food prices, something that no one thought through before these extreme and costly measures were passed.

It is time for some sanity in this process. We need to promote energy production to bring down the price. That should include new drilling and refining capacity right here in America. It should also include a major push for low cost nuclear plants. However the socialist extremists who are touting these stupid laws don't care about starvation or rational energy policy. They care about political power. That is why they simply denounce anyone who dares to disagree with them. They oppose drilling for oil even though there is no difference between the greenhouse gases put out by petroleum and the greenhouse gases put out by bio-fuel.

We are allowing duplicity to control our law making process.

Ruling Seen As A Threat To Many Home-Schooling Families

by Seema Mehta and Mitchell Landsberg - March 6th, 2008 - Los Angeles Times

Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California's home schooling families.

Advocates for the families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Enforcement until then appears unlikely, but if the ruling stands, home-schooling supporters say California will have the most regressive law in the nation.

The brain-washing advocates of America's education establishment are determined that no one will be allowed to avoid their brain-washing clinics (America's public schools). Educators deny that parents should have any significant say in how and what their children are taught. Teachers today are told repeatedly in "education" colleges that their job is to re-educate childen into a political ideology. Our schools have become politicized. The question for the courts is whether this polticized education system will be tolerated, or whether those parents who want a say in what their children learn shall be freed from its pernicious consequences.

Obama Speaks!

by Larry Elder - March 6th, 2008 - Townhall.com

We must have hope. Hope is what we must have. If you have no hope, then you are without it more than you would be if, indeed, you had hope. Without hope, there is only hopelessness. If you have hopelessness, then those without hope will never have hope because those who have it, do, and those who don't, don't.

And that is why I intend to hope that we may have more hope, so that those without hope can get it from those who do have hope. So the hopeful must share the hope with the hopeless to reduce the hopeless while uplifting the hopeful. And I certainly hope that we can all agree that hope alone without hoping for those without hope is, in fact, a recipe for further hopelessness. Thank you.

ROTFL

This is the best article about Barack Obama yet written that parodies Obama's penchant for meaningless musing about vague ideas that sound good. For those of you who did not catch Michael Steele's earlier parody of Obama and "hope". Steele said, "For years, I sat in audiences and listened as politicians tried to win over voters, especially minority voters, by talking about hope. 'Hope is on the way', 'keep hope alive', 'hope you have a nice day!'"

Larry Elder has written a classic that is truly funny. "Hope" you enjoy it! Click on the title above for the whole article. It is great.

And Now It Gets Interesting (Again)

by Joan Vennochi - March 6th, 2008 - The Boston Globe

Obama and his campaign initially denied a Canadian television report that a top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian government officials in Chicago and told them Obama's call for reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely campaign rhetoric.

But the media pressed Obama on the issue after the Associated Press obtained a Canadian government memo that detailed the meeting between Goolsbee and Canadian officials.

The key issue here is that Obama lied. Blatantly and openly lied. He always says things with such conviction and sincerity and on this he was convincing and sincere, but he LIED. From now on anything he says must be treated with the reality of this lie. No matter how convincing, no matter how sincere, we know that he cannot be trusted.

What I don't understand is how any politician who embraces socialism can be treated with credibility. Socialism has failed repeatedly. Since the 1930s the logical assessment of Frederick Hayek that socialism is inherently evil has been known to all. It has always been proven true. So when someone sincerely and convincingly proposes a socialist solution, how can they be treated with anything but disdain?

The Assassins Among Us

. . . An Unspoken Fear Stalks the Presidential Hustings

by Suzanne Fields - March 6th, 2008 - Creators Syndicate

Assassination buzz spawns speculation, mostly partisan and some of it mean-spirited, about who the assassins would be.

There's the inevitable attempt to invoke race and assume that because Barack Obama is a black man, his lethal tormentors will be Southern rednecks. But the four presidential assassinations in our history were largely the work of deranged hangers-on from the margins of society, driven by personal jealousies and demons, and pathetic delusions of fame and celebrity. The public revulsion by both black and white to the subtle invocation of race in the Democratic primary campaign suggests strongly that this is not your grandfather's America.

The public image of America as a land where assasination is common is not supported by the history. Our lack of expecting assasination in earlier days allowed some of the few successes. 4 assasinated out of 43 would be of more concern if we had tried to protect the Presidents as much as kings and queens have always been protected. It took a while before we took it seriously.

There have been 10 attempts with 4 successes and every one of the successes died. That means that you really have to be deranged to make the attempt, and you have to hope it fails if you want to live.

What angers me about the current speculation is the belief among many that a serious possibility exists of some organized attempt. I have already heard comments that the huge vote for Obama would not happen in the general election because he is black and "Republicans will not vote for a black." Why then did a huge number of Republicans try to persuade Colin Powell to run for President? Condoleeza Rice could be competitive for the nomination of Republicans if she would run. As noted by Fred Thompson, having enthusiastic support does not mean she would win. Having a large support group does not alter the fact that there are lots of good candidates and winning is tough. Of course if she ran and lost, as far as many are concerned, it would mean the racists did her in. That is a handy excuse, but having an excuse does not mean it is true.

White racism is not the problem today, no matter what people think. The biggest problem is that some of the biggest racists are in the black community and they label anyone who disagrees with them as racist just for disagreeing. That accusation is then treated as true whether there is any supporting evidence or not. Until being black does not allow you to insult any opponent with a racist charge without proof, we will continue to have a huge part of the population who claims that racism is still a serious problem in America. It allows them to avoid an honest dialog about the issues.

In The Year 2016: The 30 Fastest-Growing Occupations

by Staff - March 1st, 2008 - The Boston Globe

If you're considering switching careers, or are just starting to think about where to start yours, this is the list for you: The US Bureau of Labor Statistics projections of the 30 fastest-growing careers.

It is still true today that 5 of the top 30 jobs, all in the top 10% in average income . . . are in the field of computers. That will not change in our lifetimes.

Obama: Arab-American Families Being Rounded Up?

by Lance Fairchok - March 4th, 2008 - The Ameircan Thinker

The bleak fantasy of Arab-American families interred for being Arabs and, of course, for being Muslim is very plausible to the radicals that help write [Obama's] speeches. Senator Obama holds a wretched America in his heart, a country he has no pride in nor wishes to preserve. If his vision starts from failure, where will it end? There is no truth in his words, just as there is no substance. One may speak well, but still speak lies. An Obama presidency would be a disaster.

America is under attack again by the same global socialist conspiracy that gave us Jimmy Carter. It is time for conservatives to recognize the conspiracy and prepare to defeat it. I concur with the conclusion of this article. An Obama presidency would be a disaster for our country. Actually any presidency by a socialist will be a disaster. As noted, we have the example of Jimmy Carter to guide us. The question is, will conservatives wake up soon enough or will they continue to see the McCain candidacy as a glass half empty?

An Open Letter To Barack Obama

by Jeffrey Lord - March 4th, 2008 - The American Spectator

Our common denomination, the United Church of Christ, has a suddenly serious legal and financial problem with the Internal Revenue Service. You, personally, are the cause of this problem. Candidly? I think you owe it to those of us who are your fellow congregants to help repair the damage that you have done.

Barack Obama talks a great deal about judgement. However he also keeps acknowledging that he has made boneheaded mistakes. This letter details a serious one that has left his church with a million dollar legal bill over his clear violation of IRS rules about politicking from the pulpit. It is obnoxious enough that he does it. It is even worse that he does it with such sanctimonious arrogance. As suggested in this letter, maybe "bonehead" should become his nickname.

Let Colombia Win

Editorial - March 3rd, 2008 - Investor's Business Daily

Some city in the world owes thanks to Colombia, which on Saturday blew away a terrorist seeking uranium for a nuclear bomb. Instead of thanks, we see only fury at Colombia over its incursion into Ecuador.

Hugo Chavez sends $300 million to a revolutionary movement in a neighboring country and Europe does not believe that the neighboring country has the right to retaliate. Just as the world's liberals hold America to a different standard, they are holding Columbia to a ridiculous standard. Columbia is not allowed to defend itself if the forces attacking them hide in a neighboring country. Why?

Just as liberals were outraged that America would believe we could go in to North Korea or North Vietnam, liberals are outraged that Columbia would not play by the new double standard rules. National borders are inviolate . . . unless you are speading socialism. Free democracies which embrace capitlism must never go to war. I do not believe that this double standard is accidental. I believe that liberals want free enterprise to be ended and they defend convoluted rules to assure that socialist movements utlimately win the current struggle to control the governments of the world.

It cannot be an accident that they always admire Gorbachev, Castro, al Assad, Chavez, Che Guevara and other socialist dictators or revolutionaries . . . even people like Saddam Hussein is praised by socialists.

We MUST support Columbia. Liberals will scream that we are getting involved in a war that we don't belong in, but I disagree. The war is about freedom versus socialism. That is the war of our generation. We are in it whether we want to be or not . . . if we want to remain free.

The Kremlin's Really Bad Month: March 1983

by Paul Kengor - March 3rd, 2008 - The American Thinker

"It is an Evil Empire. It's time to close it down."
- Ronald Reagan, White House, March 1983

It was 25 years ago this month, March 1983, that the Soviet Union went into hysterics, both realizing and arguably beginning the terminal phase in its deadly life cycle.

With our current political campaign in full swing the future of the democratic party is about to be decided in today's primary elections in Ohio and Texas. There is much enthusiasm in their ranks. They are picking from two candidates both of whom see America as seriously flawed and in need of "change". Deomcrats once again tout socialism as the panacea. Because of this, now is a good time to think about history and wonder about the lessons we have learned from it.

For Democrats this article will invoke nothing but heartburn. It accurately reflects a history that most of them reject. Ronald Reagan ended the Soviet Union because he recognized that it was a house of cards. Evil it was, just as Reagan had pronouced it. Democrats saw America then, as they do today, as the summary of every anecdotal shortcoming anyone can come up with. They still today, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said then, "Blame America first." They do not accept that America, with Ronald Reagan's leadership, brought down the evil empire because we are a great nation.

The Democrats feared the Soviet Union and wanted to appease it. During the Jimmy Carter regime they even did their best to turn America into a socialist utopia modeled after the communists. In the process they nearly destroyed our nation with sky high interest rates, high taxes, high unemployment and a failing economy. It was called stagflation. Little has changed in the years since. Today they want to appease radical Islam.

Ronald Reagan turned this around with his boundless optimism in the strength of a free people embracing free enterprise. He also asked the American people to sacrifice and build up our military power to assure we remained free.

The question of the day is to try and figure out whether the near future is going to be similar to 1976? Are we about to once again flirt with socialism and the destruction to economic security that entails? Or could this be 1980 where we once again commit ourselves to the American dream . . . believing in our national greatness?

If Obama becomes President we will see our nation plunge into hard times as socialism is used to tax our people unmercifully and our strength, free enterprise, is abandoned. If John McCain becomes President we are more likely to see uncertainty than a great recovery like Reagan accomplished. John McCain does not have either the optimism of Reagan of the intellect of Reagan. It isn't going to be like 1980 in many ways.

So what are we going to see?

This is a good article. We need to study that time in 1983. Most people have forgotten that even Reagan's closest advisers did not see what he saw. The challenges he overcame were simply staggering but he believed we could win. Like then we are in a war that many want to pretend does not exist. Like then, many want to walk away. However 25 years ago this month, Ronald Reagan took the decisive actions that changed the world. This time we may have to get by without a great leader.

'It’s the Epigoni, Stupid’

by Mark Steyn - March 1st, 2008 - National Review Online

I’m sure even now some New York Times type is tutting that Buckley’s movement has fallen into the hands of vulgar bullies like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who lack his dash and élan. As it happens, back in 2000 some fellow in the San Francisco Chronicle made exactly that point about a lout called Steyn disfiguring Buckley’s National Review. But, in reality, Bill was, as he would say, the fons et origo of a conservatism that came out swinging — sometimes literally, as in a famous TV encounter of 1968.

“As far as I am concerned,” drawled Gore Vidal, “the only crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself.” “Now listen, you queer,” replied Buckley. “Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.” Indeed. And, if “You Nazi!”/”You queer!” isn’t exactly up there with Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward in the devastating repartee rankings, well, Vidal started it, and Bill’s epithet, unlike Gore’s, at least has the merit of being true.

Leave it to Mark Steyn to write the best article yet on William Buckely, Jr.

It is ironic that the liberals are so determined to make sure conservatives are civilized when liberals are so hostile and vicious in their criticisms of us. The only really great conservatives are willing to get in the face of their opponents and fight. Buckley taught us that, and it is important at this time when we remember this great man, we remember him as he was . . . William F. Buckely Jr. was a fighter!

McCain And The Oath

by George F. Will - March 1st, 2008 - Newsweek

A billionaire — say, George Soros, a supporter of McCain-Feingold and donor to John McCain — can spend $1 million to disseminate his enthusiasm for campaign restrictions (on others). But 100 individuals could be forbidden to exercise their First Amendment right of free association by organizing through SpeechNow to pool $10,000 apiece in order to exercise their right of free speech to refute Soros. Does McCain think that would be fair?

This article by George Will (a conservative) in Newsweek (a liberal publication) is an interesting example of the complexity of the current campaign for President.

John McCain is a great patriot. He has proved his personal courage both during his years as a POW, and his stubborn insistence on going against the conservative movement within his party. He has not failed on all aspects of the conservative philosophy though. He remains a conservative on many many issues. Almost all of those issues are issues of social conservatism, not issues of intellectual commitment to conservative ideals.

That is the problem with McCain. He seems to not have a great deal of intellectual depth. He has never been able to come to grips with his own promulgation of rules which defy our Constitutional freedoms. Freedom of speech is Will's example and it is a good one. McCain-Feingold is a violation of every basic concept of free speech. Every attempt to defend its abuses requires violating our Constitution even more.

On the other hand, we have a candidate who now seems destined to be the Democrat nominee who is equally willing to abandon what most Americans see as our freedoms. Barack Obama is a socialist. Socialism is not compatible with the idea of private property. It is a belief system that insists private property can be taken for anything the government wants. Kelo is a perfect example of the distortion of Constitutional rights that allows socialism to flourish. The Constitutional guarantee of private property as an underpinning of freedom was redefined to allow taking private property for "public good" if it merely can be made to look like it will increase tax revenues. Such a guarantee is no guarantee at all.

Barack Obama has never served his country militarily and seems in fact hostile to the idea of any military action. Freedom requires a strong military. His anti-war position is more hostile to national security than anyone since George McGovern. He is a pacifist and that is of great concern.

Conservatives on matters of principal are not supporting patriot John McCain with any great enthusiasm. Liberals are going gaga over the pacificst Barack Obama. Both are prefectly willing to abandon Constitutional freedoms which they don't see as compatible with their personal political philosophies.

Neither candidate offers anyone who believes in our nation with a feeling they will live up to the oath of office to guarantee our Constitution. How this election comes out will be fascinating. For conservatives this is going to be an election based on the lessor of two evils philosophy.

We Are At WAR!

It is complicated for a representative Republic to go to war. Our nation was founded by some of the most brilliant political philosophers that have ever gathered to form a nation. It was dominated by people who were not looking for personal gain or power, but who sincerely wanted to create a nation that guaranteed the most freedom possible for the most people. America was the result.

Those founders understood war. They fought a long bloody war to win their freedom. When it came time to create our Republic they created a process of going to war that assured we could keep our freedom.

When such a nation goes to war, the people who bear the brunt of that battle are owed a commitment that we will not cut and run if the battle is not easy. Winning requires the kind of will displayed by George Washington and the many troops who stuck with the battle to the end, forming a great nation in the process. Will. Or willpower. Either word is what this war against radical Islam will require even as it was required to create the nation we are a part of today.

Those who insist that because they opposed the war in "Iraq", the war is not legal or moral, are rejecting our form of government in the process. They want to re-write the discussion and pretend that the other side in the argument must be infallible or the anti-war faction get to claim anyone who opposed their position was being fraudulent. The anti-war faction keeps insisting we are at war with Iraq. We are not. That phase of the war in the battlefield of Iraq ended quickly. Since then we continue in the war that was launched by the enemy nearly a generation ago. That war is against a movement called variously, "radical Islam", "terror" or Islamo-fascism.

The pretense that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war is a lie. Not only were they there, but various other elements of the Islamo-fascist movement were there as well. They have all participated in the battles in Iraq, proving the contention that Iraq was a good place to fight the movement correct. There has always been a reality that if we did not fight them over there, we would be fighting them here. The anti-war faction denies this now, but they ridiculed Bush when he said it before we went in. We are not in a war against Al Qaeda. We are in a war against the entire movement that Al Qaeda is a part of. Focusing on Al Qaeda alone is stupid.

Frank Rich of the New York Times has articulated the anti-war line in his article McCain Channels His Inner Hillary. He continues the argument that the war in Iraq was a mistake based on the fact that most Americans have bought the line that we went to war there solely to attack Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq. That is false.

Amazingly, even some of the supporters of the war in Iraq continue to argue mistakenly that the war there is similar to earlier wars against Germany and Korea. That misunderstanding is articulated in Jonathan Last's article One Last Thing: McCain is right about Iraq.

The ongoing attempt to force this war into the nation versus nation conception typical of most wars of the past will lead to our defeat. Our volunteer military gets it. We are at war with a movement. Our future freedom requires that we fight this movement where we find it. Saddam Hussein recognized the power of the movement and actively supported the elements of this war who were fighting Israel and America, wherever he could. If we are serious about winning the war, we may well at some point have to invade Iran. It is frightening that so many, both in favor of winning the "war on terror" and opposed to it, do not understand the nature of our enemy.

If someone says we are at war with Al Qaeda, they simply do not get it. If we fight Al Qaeda alone, this multi-headed movement could destroy us. For a generation various leaders in the radical Islam movement have predicted that we do not have the will to fight. They think that because we have appeasers who advocate the "cut and run" strategy articulated by Barack Obama, we will lose. I don't agree because of a simple reality about the "cut and run" movement. Their position on the war is a position born of the lack of will Al Qaeda thinks will defeat us. However success in America goes to those who have the will to keep fighting, both militarily and politically.

Obama supporters think that they can vote for peace and the enemy will agree. They are destined to fail. An enemy who thinks it is okay to behead anyone who disagrees with them will not be impressed with a political effort such as Obama leads. If he wins the election, he is headed towards the same failure of the last idealistic socialist who became President, Jimmy Carter. At that point this nation will return again to the principles that have always made us the greatest nation on earth. There is no movement on earth that can resist the power and will of the free people of America.

The Race Minefield

Yes, it will matter in the election.

by Stephen F. Hayes - March, 1st, 2008 - The Weekly Standard

In the speech that launched his meteoric rise in national politics, the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama called for a politics of hope, denounced "those who are preparing to divide us," and offered a direct challenge. "I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America--there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America--there's the United States of America."

It was a moving speech, filled with hopeful sentiments. But two years later, Senator Barack Obama, with two years' experience in the Senate and his eye on a presidential run, taped a radio ad attacking the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), going out of his way to defend racial preference policies that by their very definition divide Americans into blacks, whites, Latinos and Asians.

The original MCRI, relying heavily on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, read: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." The language of Proposal 2, as it was identified on the ballot, was altered slightly to include the phrase "affirmative action." The effect was the same: Its passage would end the government's practice of categorizing and rewarding citizens on the basis of race.

Obama responded:
"This is Senator Barack Obama. And I'm asking you to vote no on Proposal 2. We've made great strides in our society towards fairness and opportunity for all people. But whether we like to admit it or not, there's still barriers to women and minorities reaching their full potential. Proposal 2 may sound like a reasonable way to move towards a Michigan that is blind to differences in sex and race but don't be fooled by the reassuring rhetoric. If the initiative becomes law it would wipe out programs that help women and minorities get a good education and jobs. It would hurt initiatives that help women and minorities build their own businesses. And it would eliminate efforts to help our children enter fields such as science, engineering, and mathematics. Proposal 2 closes these doors to many in Michigan and it moves us further away from a country of full opportunity. Proposal 2 is wrong for Michigan and it's wrong for America."

Race-neutral policies are "wrong for America"? A measure that echoes the 1964 Civil Rights Act is just "reassuring rhetoric"? The same campaign that paid for Obama's ad ran an ad comparing the end of racial preferences to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Barack Obama attends a church that is openly and blatantly racist, touting exclusive commitment to blacks. Obama blithely ignores the racism and insists it is not racist.

Barack Obama claims to support the Constitutional right to own a gun for self defense but argues that does not keep government from banning guns and criminalizing their owners.

Barack Obama argues that if you dare to think that race neutral laws should be the way our nation is governed you are harming our nation the way that 9/11 harmed it.

Barack Obama appears to be a racist. He hides his racism in carefully couched rhetoric. He denies he is a racist and insists that if you will not ignore his duplicity on some issues you are the one who is wrong.

The author calls this the "race minefield". If the MSM continues to insist we cannot be honest and call Obama on his positions, this election will become more blatantly racist than any election in recent history. I cannot help believing that it is not going to be good for our nation to have the first black President be a socialist like Jimmy Carter (which Obama is), who insists that if anyone opposes his economic policies they are racists. Socialism will fail as it always does and the attacks on Obama will get vicious as the economy goes down. To have a black President, the most powerful man in the world, defending special privileges for blacks on the argument that blacks cannot get fair treatment, will create the most bitter backlash this nation has experienced since the civil war.

Win or lose, Obama is going to damage race relations in this nation unless he stops his racist rhetoric. Obama wants it both ways. He wants to be perceived as not concerned with race while touting race preferential treatment. His constant duplicity will not be allowed to stand.