Thursday, July 31, 2008

Nevada, Pennsylvania McCain Volunteers


"Barack Obama did bring us together -- but not in the way he wanted."

Dear Blogger or Web Hoster or other onliner committed to just saying "NoBama": Things are really heating up in the united effort to make sure the next President of the U.S. is NOT named Barack H. Obama. In the most recent Gallup Poll pitting BHO against John McCain, the latter came out ahead by four points among likely voters.

Right now in several states there's an urgent need for people who will volunteer to communicat with their fellow voters (including by e-mail and phone). Two states that are winnable with a sustained effort are Nevada (close) and Pennsylvania (the race has tightened significantly). The people now on the ground in those states (and others) truly need your help.

If you prefer to register at another site, I strong recommend I work closely with that group, which is a superb one.

(Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia? Their turns are coming soon.)

I hope you will reprint this message on your blog (if you have one) or otherwise communicate it to your poliitcal allies, especially those in NV and PA. People in Nevada who want to help beat Obama should contact Angelo, one of the founders of nobamanetwork and nobama mission at:

People west of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania who want to assist in defeating Obama should contact me (Steve Maloney) at: In fact, anyone in PA who contacts me will be put in touch with people working in the General Election against the Great Pretender.

Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd disseminate this request as widely as possible -- on your blogs, Yahoo Groups, and through e-mails. It's critical that we start now -- and not wait for Labor Day. If you're a blogger who'd like to join NoBama Mission bloggers (see the widget on the right), please send me an e-mail with your first name, your blog URL, and your state.

Also to your right you'll see a widge for Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio. It airs every Saturday at 5 p.m., and I'll be co-hosting through August (and perhaps longer). Anyone interested in NoBama activities will like what they hear

Obama: Fussy, Self-Absorbed, Wrong

"Recovering former Obama Supporters?"

McCain's Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/Barack Obama commercial is drawing heat from the MSM and reaction from the Obama Camp. That's because, contrary to what you may have heard, it's brilliant. McCain commercials have been getting much better,and they're the kind that will be talked about for years (and get lots of free airing on the clueless MSM). As in the Hillary Campaign, the MSM's response is, "How dare that person criticize Sen. Obama?" [Scroll down to see "A Site to Behold," about recovering former Obama Supporters]

[The campaign has just released a new TV ad and we wanted you to be the first to watch it. Please take a minute to view the ad, "Celeb" by following this link. ]

The Obama Campaign is reacting to the McCain commercials (including the one blaming Obama and others like him for high gas prices). Of course, a good campaign wants its opponent to be in a reactive mode, because that means he's "off message." Of course, Obama's message has its own problems. Basically, it says, "I will save you," and it adds, "The government is your FRIEND." Sorry, Barack, because with "friends like that . . ," well, you know the rest.

The energy commercial and the "celebrity" commercial both have issues at their core. The "issue" is that Sen. Obama does not want to produce more domestic energy of any kind -- and that he wants to raise your electricity bills by adding taxes. That's not a winning approach in today's America.

Also, today on FOX's a.m. show, Nicole Wallace of the McCain Campaign said of BHO, "Nobody likes a fussy man [Obama]." You will hear a lot more (I hope) about the "fussy man."

Nicole is a tremendous asset and a joy to watch as she plays the media like an accomplished harpist.Gallup Poll (likely voters shows McCain ahead nationally ) and Quinnipiac {CT] polls of PA and other Battleground Sates are showing very good news for John McCain.

The commercials and campaign statements portraying Obama as a celebrity/windbag and as a fuss-budget and self-absorbed man" are working.

approaching 1 million visitors . . .1431 memebers . . . site up for less than 3 weeks . . ."No More Kool-Aid . . . This is not the Obama we know"

"Dr. Martin Luther King said -'I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' We believe Obama is NOT a person with good moral judgment. He lacks the character and integrity to be the president of the greatest nation on the planet."

"We are backing away from Senator Obama because he changed from the positions he ran on during the primary election. It is time to say ENOUGH. Say no to the kool-aid."

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

McCain Victory: Volunteer Army Needed

You'll notice that the big blogroll link to NoBama Mission Bloggers on your right is growing rapidly. There was speculation tonight (Wednesday) on FOX whether McCain (and the gneeral NoBama Movement) would have much of a presence on line. The answer to the surprise of many is: yes.

And that presence begins with people like you. Sometime on Thursday (probably before noon), my associate Kathy and I will have up a new blogroll that will allow you to sign up for NoBamaMission Bloggers Group, one that now includes approximately 115 blogs and is growing rapidly every day. Our hope is to have 300-plus blogs by Labor Day -- and 400 by October.

But to reach that, we need the participation of every blogger.You can sign up now by sending me your name (first name only if you wish), your blog's name, the URL (the one that begins either http:// or www.), and your e-mail address and state. In return, you'll get the javascript to copy and paste into your blog, as well as some very valuable information about how to increase traffic on your blog or web site. Provide the information to:

To defeat Obama will require an army of volunteers. You can be a valued member of that army.What if you don't have a blog? Since you're online, you're already an online communicator, and there are many things you can do to ensure that the next President of the U.S. is NOT named Barack H. Obama. More to follow on Thursday.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

"McCain, not Hussein," Obama Dangerous

I received the following note from a young friend today. He has decided to support Obama, and he says the following:

"Steve, Having been a good blogging friend with you for the last year, I wanted to tell you something before it goes up on my blog within the week. I've decided to support Barack Obama this election. It was not an easy decision and one I do not enjoy making. I really feel that McCain has lost what made McCain great fighting the far left and the far right in equal measure. But I still respect him and all of his supporters including you alot. I'm still calling myself a Republican but the party I joined has gotten off track and I'm hoping Obama will take this nation in a place where I know Republicans will not. I've haven't always been a conventional Republican in my politics but I will continue my political journey and hope to count you as a friend now and in the future."

Here's my response to Christopher:

Christopher, I find your support for Obama (which I've seen coming) quite mystifying. Which of his "accomplishments" impresses you most? His proposal to invade Pakistan (an ally and a nation with nuclear weapons?) or his "option" to reinvade Iraq?), or his vague suggestion to AIPAC that he might use nuclear weapons against Iran? You are young, Christopher, and you've been "rolled" by a skillful orator.

John McCain has been a leader in campaign finance reform, educational reform, and comprehensive immigration reform, which Obama has not. He has been a leader in the attempt to reduce global warming, which Obama has not. He supports producing more domestic energy, which Obama does not.

He supported the surge, which has worked, while Obama did not support it and seems clueless about its great success.

I wrote the mission statement for Mission NoBama that said Obama is inexperienced (which he is), unqualified (he hasn't even been a U.S. Senator for one term), untrustworthy (just ask his former friends on the far left), and dangerous (as in his plans to invade Pakistan, reinvade Iraq, and do "everything . . . everything" to keep Iran from developing a nuke).

Many people this year will support Barack Obama, mainly on the basis of his eloquent, but empty, rhetoric. They will offer such support for various reasons, but given the points I've made (not opinions) they will not be able to do so in good conscience.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

PA McCain Volunteers Needed!

"That loud bang we all just heard was the beginning of the General Election."

Any residents of PA, NJ, or NY that want to offer their support to John McCain should e-mail me at: Tell me where you live, and I'll put you in touch (as quickly as possible) with campaign organizers in your area.

As for those who live in the NYC/NJ area, the critical message to get across to Hillary Supporters (and they total in the millions) is that the DNC doesn't like them or respect them. They do, however, want their votes. The woman in WI was duly elected and there is no reason for the DNC to dump her. There is at least one McCain delegate who appeared in a pro-Obama commercial. I haven't heard anybody saying he should be thrown up the bus.

The McCain Campaign intends to win New York and New Jersey . . . states that went strongly for Sen. Clinton in the primaries but are being taken for granted by Barack H. Obama.That "loud bang" we all just heard was the beginning of the General Election.I urge all Hillary Supporters in PA NOT to vote for Jason Altmire (4th CD), Patrick Murphy (8th CD), or Tim Holden (17th CD). All of them went against their constituents and stabbed Sen. Clinton in the back.

Vote instead for Melissa Hart, Tom Manion, and Toni Gilhooley, all of whom are honorable and courageous people. They need your support.As for Allyson Schwartz (13th CD), Paul Kanjorski (11th CD), and Joe Sestak (7th CD), they're all now apparently supporting Barack H. Obama. He's the same man who called Pennsylvanians "bitter" people "clinging" to guns and God. Obama has no grasp of who Pennsylvanians are -- and frankly, neither do the Congressmen I've cited.

It makes absolutely no sense to vote for people who destroyed Mrs. Clinton's chances to win the nomination. If you want to know who such people are in your state, go the following:

There are much better candidates, including Marina Kats, Lou Barletta, and Craig Williams. They deserve the backing of Hillary Supporters all others seeking to bring integrity to Pennsylvania politics.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Obama: Politics of Racial Identity

I've been writing a lot about Barack Obama's "politics of racial identity." As I explained, I've approached the stage of my life where I can live dangerously and -- I believe -- speak the truth about race.

The other day a fellow leader in the Missioon NoBama Movement talked about the psychology of Obama's appeal, where he appeals to deep longing and nostalgia in the American people. Ronald Reagan did some similar things, although not at the level of sophistication used by Obama.

This is a campaign about character and charisma. In this campaign, NONE OF THE ISSUES TRULY MATTER.

If you want to read a brilliant analysis of what's really going on, read Shelby Steele's brilliant essay on Black moral leverage and white guilt as practiced by Jesse Jackson and Shelby Steele. I reprinted it recently on my:

I hope everyone will think back to a commercial from many years ago, the one inviting tourists to "come to Jamaica." Actually, the key line was to "come BACK to Jamaica." In the deepest part of our being all of us want to go back to a kinder, gentler (imaginary) time, usually our childhoods. The people who most admire Obama are invariably the most childlike.

A guy in the liberal New Republic analyzed the commercial and why it might have been the most brilliant ad of all time. The whole "come back" leitmotif touched the common chord in American that things used to be "better." The idea exploited was that American was a fallen angel, that we would perhaps never be as good as we once were (except, of course, unless we went to Jamaica). The commercial was full of happy white people and smiling Blacks.

The surface message was to go take a vacation in Jamaica. The New Republic writer said the underlying message was this: "Come back to Jamaica . . . where Black people are still nice!" In that time, like our own, some inconvenient truths rarely got articulated. But the New Republic author broke the code. He told us truths that we in fact knew at some level, but that we pretended we didn't comprehend.

In Shelby Steele's great essay, he notes that John McCain is obviously a man of "character" and "principle." He then adds, "Poor guy!" Of course, the character and principle work against him in politics, where an Obama can easily become all things to all people/voters, Black and white.

Mrs. Clinton and her campaign got chopped up by the Obama buzzsaw -- and the deep psychological messages. One hopes the same doesn't happen to John McCain.

Obama's Politics of Racial Guilt

Note: The blistering attack by African-American scholar Shelby Steele on Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama is reprinted in full on my following site: It appeared originally in The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. [Jesse] Jackson was always a challenger. He confronted American institutions (especially wealthy corporations) with the shame of America's racist past and demanded redress. He could have taken up the mantle of the early Martin Luther King (he famously smeared himself with the great man's blood after King was shot), and argued for equality out of a faith in the imagination and drive of his own people. Instead -- and tragically -- he and the entire civil rights establishment pursued equality through the manipulation of white guilt.

Their faith was in the easy moral leverage over white America that the civil rights victories of the 1960s had suddenly bestowed on them. So Mr. Jackson and his generation of black leaders made keeping whites "on the hook" the most sacred article of the post-'60s black identity.

They ushered in an extortionist era of civil rights, in which they said to American institutions: Your shame must now become our advantage. To argue differently -- that black development, for example, might be a more enduring road to black equality -- took whites "off the hook" and was therefore an unpardonable heresy. For this generation, an Uncle Tom was not a black who betrayed his race; it was a black who betrayed the group's bounty of moral leverage over whites. And now comes Mr. Obama, who became the first viable black presidential candidate precisely by giving up his moral leverage over whites.

Mr. Obama's great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America's racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.

So it is not hard to see why Mr. Jackson might have experienced Mr. Obama's emergence as something of a stiletto in the heart. Mr. Obama is a white "race card" -- moral leverage that whites can use against the moral leverage black leaders have wielded against them for decades. He is the nullification of Jesse Jackson -- the anti-Jackson.

And Mr. Obama is so successful at winning gratitude from whites precisely because Mr. Jackson was so successful at inflaming and exploiting white guilt. Mr. Jackson must now see his own oblivion in the very features of Mr. Obama's face. Thus the on-camera threat of castration, followed by the little jab of his fist as if to deliver a stiletto of his own.

And then Mr. Obama took it further by going to the NAACP with a message of black responsibility -- this after his speech on the need for black fathers to take responsibility for the children they sire. "Talking down to black people," Mr. Jackson mumbled.

Normally, "black responsibility" is a forbidden phrase for a black leader -- not because blacks reject responsibility, but because even the idea of black responsibility weakens moral leverage over whites. When Mr. Obama uses this language, whites of course are thankful. Black leaders seethe.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's sacrifice of black leverage has given him a chance to actually become the president. He has captured the devotion of millions of whites in ways that black leveragers never could. And the great masses of blacks -- blacks outside today's sclerotic black leadership -- see this very clearly. Until Mr. Obama, any black with a message of black responsibility would be called a "black conservative" and thereby marginalized. After Obama's NAACP speech, blacks flooded into the hotel lobby thanking him for "reminding" them of their responsibility.

Thomas Sowell, among many others, has articulated the power of individual responsibility as an antidote to black poverty for over 40 years. Black thinkers as far back as Frederick Douglas and Booker T. Washington have done the same. Why then, all of a sudden, are blacks willing to openly embrace this truth -- and in the full knowledge that it will weaken their leverage with whites?

I think the answer is that Mr. Obama potentially offers them something far more profound than mere moral leverage. If only symbolically, he offers nothing less than an end to black inferiority. This has been an insidious spiritual torment for blacks because reality itself keeps mockingly proving the original lie. Barack Obama in the Oval Office -- a black man governing a largely white nation -- would offer blacks an undreamed-of spiritual solace far more meaningful than the petty self-importance to be gained from moral leverage.

But white Americans have also been tormented by their stigmatization as moral inferiors, as racists. An Obama presidency would give them considerable moral leverage against this stigma.

So it has to be acknowledged that, on the level of cultural and historical symbolism, an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming of course that he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.) It would be a good thing were blacks to be more open to the power of individual responsibility. And it would surely help us all if whites were less cowed by the political correctness on black issues that protects their racial innocence at the expense of the very principles that made America great. We Americans are hungry for such a cultural shift.

John McCain is simply a man of considerable character, poor guy. He is utterly bereft of cultural cachet. Against an animating message of cultural "change," he is retrogression itself. Worse, Mr. Obama's trick is to take politics off the table by moving so politically close to his opponent that only culture is left to separate them. And, unencumbered as he is by deep attachment to principle, he can be both far-left and center-right. He can steal much of Mr. McCain's territory.

Mr. Obama has already won a cultural mandate to the American presidency. And politically, he is now essentially in a contest with himself. His challenge is not Mr. McCain; it is the establishment of his own patriotism, trustworthiness and gravitas.

He has to channel a little Colin Powell, and he no doubt hopes his trip to the Middle East and Europe will reflect him back to America with something of Mr. Powell's stature. He wants even Middle America to feel comfortable as the mantle they bestow on him settles upon his shoulders.

Mr. Steele is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Tortured Iranian Student in America

[Note: If you have a blog or know someone who does, please scroll down to the bottom of the column, where you'll find a code that will connect you to the Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio program. I'll be on it this Saturday at 5 p.m. and every other Sat. through August. Please come and visit!]

"Your hands will never touch me again." (Ahmad Batebi)

America means the same things to me as it does to Ahmad Batebi, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. I wish there were some evidence it meant at least some of those things to Barack and Michelle Obama.

NINE years ago, Ahmad Batebi appeared on the cover of The Economist. He was a 21-year-old student, one of thousands who protested against Iran’s government that summer. He was photographed holding aloft a T-shirt bespattered with the blood of a fellow protester. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and shown our issue of July 17th 1999. “With this”, he was told, “you have signed your death warrant.”

During his interrogation he was blindfolded and beaten with cables until he passed out. His captors rubbed salt into his wounds to wake him up, so they could torture him more. They held his head in a drain full of sewage until he inhaled it. He recalls yearning for a swift death to end the pain. He was played recordings of what he was told was his mother being tortured. His captors wanted him to betray his fellow students, to implicate them in various crimes and to say on television that the blood on that T-shirt was only red paint. He says he refused.

He was sentenced to death for “creating street unrest”. But after a global outcry, the sentence was commuted to 15 years in jail. He speculates that his high profile made it hard to kill him without attracting negative publicity. For two years, he was kept in solitary confinement, in a cell that was little more than a toilet hole with a wooden board on top. He was tortured constantly. Only when he was allowed to mingle with other prisoners again did he begin to overcome his despair.

He suffered a partial stroke that left the right side of his body without feeling. He needed medical attention. The regime did not want to be blamed for him dying behind bars, he says, so he was allowed out for treatment. Three months ago, on the day of the Persian new year, he escaped into Iraq. On June 24th he arrived in America.

He spoke to The Economist on July 7th. Looking at the picture that sparked his ordeal, he says that another man in his place might be angry, but he is not. Mr Batebi is a photographer himself. He says he understands what journalism involves. Had we not published the picture, he says, another paper might have. Looking at the same picture, his lawyer, interpreter and friend Lily Mazahery says she is close to tears: in it, the young Mr Batebi’s pale arms are as yet unscarred by torture.

The protests Mr Batebi took part in nine years ago frightened Iran’s rulers. The students were angry about censorship, the persecution of intellectuals and the thugs who beat up any student overheard disparaging the regime. Mr Batebi thinks Iran could well turn solidly democratic some day. In neighbouring states, religious extremism is popular. In Iran, he says, the government is religiously extreme, but the people are not.

He is cagey about how exactly he escaped. But he says he used a cellphone camera to record virtually every step of his journey, and will soon go public with the pictures and his commentary. Meanwhile, he seems to be enjoying America. He praises the way “people have the opportunity to become who they want to be”. Shortly after he arrived, he posted a picture of himself in front of the Capitol on his Farsi-language blog, with the caption: “Your hands will never touch me again.”

1. Code for your blogs to copy and paste:' width='180' height='152' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='' quality='high' wmode='transparent' menu='false'>

This code will automomatically put the radio show on your blog with a 'radio player' and it will also automatically upload the newest shows

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Democrats Disastrous Health Care Plans

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” - Obama

"The smell of urine and sweat." (Dr. David Gratzer in The Cure)

[Note: Cristi Adkins' fine piece )scroll down) on "How You Can Stop Obamamania" got reprinted in the Canada Free Press:]

You may have heard from Democrats during the primaries what a great plan they have for universal health care. They generally compared US health care unfavorably with the national health plans in countries like Canada, Great Britain, and Germany. The last things they wanted you to know about were the deficiencies of a government-dominated health care systems.The following material is from David Gratzer's book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. I urge you to read this explosive study of Canadian and American health systems.

Gratzer is a medical doctor certified in both Canada and the US and currently works and writes in New York City. His book is a compelling read.

In it he says, "In medical school, I learned my most important lesson not in a classroom, but on the way to one. On a cold Canadian morning about a decade ago, late for a class, I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers -- waiting, moaning, begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited for up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care -- not only in Canada, but also in the United States. Though I didn't know it then, I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."

Gratzer points out that he had grown up in Canada believing its "system was better than America's, with its uneven quality and absurdly high cost."

After he entered medical school, however, his view of Canada's universal health care began to change. He says, "The more I was exposed to the system, the more familiar I became with the shortcomings of government-run health care. I trained in emergency rooms that were chronically, chaotically, dangerously overcrowded, not only in my hometown of Winnipeg, but all across Canada. I met a middle-aged man with sleep problems who was booked for an appointment with a specialist three years later; a man with pain following a simple hernia repair who was referred to a pain clinic with a two-year wait list; a woman with breast cancer who was asked to wait four more months before starting the life-saving radiation therapy. According to the government's own statistics, some 1.2 million Canadians couldn't get a family doctor."

What would I recommend to John McCain and other GOP candidates? Please read the above material verbatim to audiences who might have been attracted to the Democrats' false promise of "free health care." In this life, alas, nothing is free. Everything comes at a cost. one that, in this case, is much too high.

(More to follow on Wednesday. Your Comments are welcome)

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

How YOU Can Stop Obamamania

This column went out to a huge number of Americans. The exact number will not be revealed, but it impressed the heck out of me! A great accomplishment by my tireless friend, Cristi Adkins, one of the founders of Clintons for McCain.

Cristi Adkins

Watching television on Mother's Day, with a growing degree of angst, I surfed the channels to see Senator Clinton's historic Grafton, WV appearance. The first female presidential candidate of my lifetime, this champion for women campaigned on the 100th anniversary of Mother's Day at the international shrine of Anna Jarvis, the founder of mother's day. Like Clinton, Jarvis committed herself to the betterment of womankind. She meant for Mother's Day to be a sacred occasion, dedicated to honoring our mothers for their sacrifices and devotion.

Yet, on that Sunday, May 11, 2008, not even a whisper of this meaningful event was heard on any of the airwaves.What was the substitution that mothers all over America were left to be honored with this Mother's Day? Bizarre episodes of “Obamamania.”

The day passed with no mention of Clinton's appearance on any broadcast that I could find. In fact, there were but a few mentions of Senator McCain's commercial with him sitting beside his 96-year-old Mother. Somehow, they weren’t “newsworthy.”

Instead, television accounts of Senator Obama's events and movements accosted this country on that blessed day like an acoustic assault. Through the tears in my eyes and soreness in my heart, I watched our chance of positive change slipping further away. I could ask but one do I help supporters of Mrs. Clinton say good bye to their hopes of a fair and balanced political season?

If you've wondered again and over again how all this Obamamania started, then you’re not alone. It is by no accident you find yourself reading this now. Never knowing what could have been should the popular consensus have conquered the ignorance of the elect, we are forced to swallow the noise. What we are left with is the Obama hype, also known as Obamamania.

Yet, there are champions among us...holding the front line steady and asking for your help now. Like Anna Jarvis, who was never too busy or too lazy to write letters in support of her cause, you too have all that is needed right now to impact this Obamamania.

In fact, a pen and paper were the greatest weapons in Anna Jarvis' arsenal in her efforts to use motherhood as a tool for healing the country during the Civil War.In 1905, through tireless letter writing to politicians, religious leaders and even retail moguls, real change came about. Anna Jarvis' simple idea of honoring mothers spawned a movement that before long swept the world.

Yes, this middle-class, blue collar woman at the turn of the century achieved an unusual accomplishment for her time; all through the persistence of her pen.Anna Jarvis' time here has passed, but her spirit lives every second Sunday in May. It is in this same spirit that she can still teach us a thing or two about change that is more than merely pretty words.The leaders of this movement, our movement, your movement ...Nobama... are asking you now to bring about a positive change.

You can nurture and grow this effort; and, all you need to do now is write – more often now with key strokes than with Anna’s pen strokes.Now, this time, in our time, 2008, we too have the power to help once more to change the course of history and ease the pain of this country. Yes, Obama is right – although not in the way he thinks about change for this country; but, yes it is time. And as Patty Loveless reminds us, ‘life is about change; nothing ever stays the same.'

As our forces continue to gather, we ask everyone to take pen to hand, tap on your laptop and network through the Tell the world, tell it here, tell it now, tell it loud.

It's time to reach out...reach out to the news media, to the Obama supporters and even to the Super Delegates and ask them, "How can we help you to Say Goodbye to Obama-mania?"Email friends, relatives and even not-so-loved ones to remind them that while change is unavoidable, Obama's kind of change is suspect, the product of an inexperienced and dangerous man.

Write to super-delegates as Ricki Lieberman suggests and point out the obvious. Send editorials to your local papers...tell America Why Obama is Untrustworthy and Dangerous!It’s time for a positive change, a healing moment and a new beginning in this next chapter of our country. It starts with saying 'Goodbye' to the politics of the parties and hello to the President for the People, all the people.

Then, while you're at it, give the people you write to all of the reasons ‘Why You Think Obama is not trustworthy – and not the man for America.’

Cristi Adkins

Monday, July 21, 2008

The Change Candidate: John McCain

Tomorrow: "The odor of sweat and urine" (the Democrats' health plan for you)

Mark your calendar! This Sunday at 5 p.m. ET, I'll be on Clintons for McCain Blog Talk Radio with hostess Cristi Adkins and Rev. Manning, a prominent Harlem preacher who's a strong opponent of the candidacy of Barack H. Obama. It should be fun.

By Steve Chapman
I know, because admirers of Barack Obama tell me, that this year's election poses a choice between a candidate who represents a fresh approach to problems and one who offers a dreary continuation of the status quo. That much I understand. What I sometimes have trouble keeping straight is which candidate is which.

On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he's allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring.

That something is to facilitate greater parental choice in education.

McCain wants to expand a Washington, D.C. program that provides federally funded scholarships so poor students can attend private schools. More than 7,000 kids, he reported, have applied for these vouchers, but only 1,900 can be accommodated.

Here's my response:The real candidate of change in this election is John McCain. Within the past month, The (London) Economist had an article about charter schools in Chicago and Harlem. The students in those schools are performing very well, equalling or exceeding the performance of white students in the public schools.

The magazine described parents in Harlem, desperate to get their children into the high-performing schools, participating in a lottery system, recognizing that their children's futures were on the line.

I believe John McCain is sincerely concerned about those children and their parents. I believe Barack Obama has sold out to special interests (educational and political) who are concerned about themselves and NOT the children.

If I truly believed Barack Obama had a commitment to improving education, health care, and other problem areas, I'd probably be voting for him. I have no such belief that he has freed himself from special interests committed to the status quo.So, I think Chapman is right on target.

Barack and Michelle are not warehousing their own children in schools where they're destined to fail, and they shouldn't ask other parents, black or white, to sentence their children to a life of under-performance.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

NoBama Mission Bloggers Gain Status

Recently, I received a brilliant comment on one of my blog posting (scroll down to see). It was by John Maszka, an expert on international terrrorism and Mideast politics. I asked John if he's like to join NoBama Mission Bloggers, a group I head, and to my delight, he said yes. Here's some information following about John, his blog, his recent book, and his important political theory of constructive sovereignty. I hope if you're a blogger committed to the concept of "NoBama" that you'll also join, which you can do by e-mailing me at:

John Maszka is an International Relations scholar. Look for his most recent book everywhere books are sold: Terrorism And The Bush Doctrine by John Maszka ISBN-13: 9781606100103 Pub. Date: May 2008 John Maszka is primarily interested in American foreign policy and its impact on global terrorism. You can find his blog at:

Theories: Maszka is most notable for his theory of Constructive Sovereignty [1] An emerging theory intended to address globalization's increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms their constituency will accept.

Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state's own constituency. As each state's constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms. In this way, international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy while each state's sovereignty is maintained and respected.

John's Publications Include:Countering International Terrorism [2]Democrats or Demagogues[3]Groupthink or Gross Incompetence [4]International Cooperation vs. Unilateralism [5]Political vs Military Solutions to Terrorism [6]Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine[7]US Unilateralism in the Global Order [8]Searching For The Min Laung

Below is John's comment that he left on one of my blogs:

In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan.

In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs. These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved.

During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974.

In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.Over the years of America's on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action.

On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area.

In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal. I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree.

The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us.

The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?

McCain Deserves Libertarians' Support

If you listen to Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) on the campaign trail, you hear some scary things. They portray “too many Americans’ as one step away from economic and social disaster. They see as people badly in need of major assistance – their assistance.

John McCain, imperfect as he may be, sees a very different America. It’s the same country whose liberties he was willing to give his life for in Viet Nam. We may not agree with him on every issue, but we can’t disagree that a love for liberty is at the central core of this man’s being.
Even Bill Clinton has said of McCain: “He’s given everything he has to his country – except his life.” President Clinton has never spoken truer words.

In contrast to McCain, Obama essentially portrays America as something resembling Matthew Arnold’s “Dover Beach,” where “ignorant armies clash by night.” As “Lexington" in The Economist describes Obama’s world-view, America is “a coalition of groups that define themselves as victims of social and economic forces, and . . . [where] its leaders encourage people to feel helpless and aggrieved . . .”

If Obama becomes President, we would become a society of “victims,” all of us clamoring for the government to bail us out of our misery. That would be a disaster not only for libertarians, but for all Americans.

I hope all libertarians do the right thing: voting for John McCain. Also, ask your friends and family members to do the same thing. The future of liberty in this society depends on free people standing up and supporting a man who has devoted his entire life to defending American values and liberties. John McCain is the right man for our cause.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Your Role in Defeating Obama


Satirical images of the unknown Obama contain at least a grain of truth -- and sometimes many grains . . .


"NoBamaMission is a diverse group of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents committed to ensuring that the next President of the United States is not Barack H. Obama. As a presidential candidate, Obama is too inexperienced...too unqualified...too deceptive...and, frankly, too dangerous."

"We believe he became the presumptive Democratic nominee through a campaign of dishonesty and defamation of his main primary opponent. Some NoBamaMission people already support Sen. John McCain for president, while others are poised to take that step after the Democratic Convention. We all respect the valiant primary efforts of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

"NoBamaMission is large, growing and action-oriented. If you support our general goals, you're among friends here. We invite you to join groups and participate in actvities involving informational web sites, forums, blogs, media contacts, fundraising, e-mail organizing, volunteering, and, especially, direct political action. We will soon have links up to all these activities.

"If you don't know exactly how to do something you're interested in, we'll teach you. If you're already good at an activity, we'll strive to make you better"

Please join up at NoBama Mission Today!

Obama thinks his followers are really dumb.

He's finally right about something!

Contributor: The Axis of Stevil.

We all remember the 2000 election fiasco in Florida, right? Remember the voters who were willing to stick their face in front of a TV camera and say they were confused by the ballot? At the time I wondered how these people could be stupid enough to be confused by that ballot, and then compound it by being too stupid to understand that they probably shouldn't go on national television admitting it. But the question is, was that an anomaly or is the average Democrat that devoid of common sense?

Well, far be it from me to imply that the state of intelligence on the other side of the isle is that bad off. I don't want to believe that to be the case. But what does Barack Hussein Obama think about the IQ of his base? A quick look at his website's meta tags will answer that question for us.

Let me start by explaining meta tags for those who might be unfamiliar. Meta tags are a list of keywords which are used to define the content of your website to help direct users to your site via search engines. The tags can be viewed by right clicking on a page and viewing the page source info. By viewing these keywords, you can determine the audience a site is trying to reach. For example, a site about cars would use tags such as cars, auto, automobile, sports cars, etc because that is what people searching for their content would type into the search engine. Now let's take a look at what Barack Obama thinks his supporters might type in in an attempt to locate his site. Here are his meta tags.

president, senator, illinois, chicago, barack, barck, barek, obama, 2008, 08, presidential, president, campaign, election

Barck? You have got to be kidding me. Does Obama really think his supporters are that stupid that they would think "Barack" would be spelled "Barck"? Or even Barek, for that matter? I could understand maybe Barrack or even Barock, but "Barck"? While it is common to use misspellings in ones meta keywords, typically one uses common misspellings in order to account for common typos. For example, let's look at John McCain's keywords.

John McCain, McCain, mccain for president, John S. McCain, McCain 2008, president, presidential, 2008, campaign, election, straight talk, straight talk express, politics, political, john mccain, john mccain for president, senator john mccain, sen. john mccain, cindy mccain, john mcain, john mckaine, john maccane, jon mccain, john maccaine, john mccaine, mccain 2008,, senator mccain, mccain 2000, mccain campaign, mccain hq,, explore mccain, mccain exploratory committee, mccain exploratory...

Notice a difference here? Look at the misspellings they use, "john mcain, john mckaine, john maccane, jon mccain, john maccaine," these are all different possible spellings of the same word.

You don't see some oddball, off the wall spelling like "McKnai." Why? Because McCain assumes his supporters can at the very least make a reasonable attempt at spelling his name. This seems to be much more faith than Barck... Barek... Umm, Barack Obama has in the intelligence level of his supporters. He obviously thinks they're stupid, and they are!

Chicken George and Obama

I love the Chicken George idea for Obama. He's too chicken to debate. He's too chicken to allow questions that would pin him down. He's chicken to do these things because he has no core principles. He's too chicken to let America know where he stands --on anything. He's an unknown quantity and much too inexperienced to be President.

In one of his commercials (the idiotic one on energy) he observes darkly that McCain ha sbeen in Washington "for 26 years." I guess that compares with the 26 WEEKS (134 days?) Obama has actually spent on the Senate floor. Since his commercials always contain falsehoods, they're easy targets for us -- and McCain.

On Iraq, I hope McCain says that Obama has spent no time on the ground there, so he obviously has no first-hand knowledge of what's going on there. When the surge began to work well, Obama didn't retract his earlier comments. Instead, he took the anti-surge material down from his web site. I'm not making that up.

Here's a Democrat responding to an Obama-bot:
I am a proud member of the puma group from kansas city missouri. i donated over $300 to hillary this season, voted for gore, clinton and even boring kerry. I will NEVER vote for barack obama. the charges that you keep espousing as lies are TRUE.
Obama is a racist - anyone who attends and financially supports a church that promotes black supremacy for 20 years is a racist. it's disgusting that bo and mo subjected their young innocent daughters to such hate filled vile speech. obama also had a perverted pastor jeremiah right marry him and baptize his kids. I would never vote for a white person who sat in a kkk church for 20 years, and gave ugly sermons like wright either.
I think my opinion here is pretty consistent. Don't forget to read Barack's own books where on numerous occasions he himself states utter disdain for the white blood that courses through his veins.obama sympathizes with terrorists and surrounds himself with advisors who are tied to and financially support terrorist groups - this is the truth.
All you have to do is investigate his relationship with bill ayers. obama didn't just meet ayers in the neighborhood, ayers LAUNCHED bo's political career and the two served on the board of the woods foundation for years. these two know each other very well. look at james zogby, another close obama advisor whose number one goal is to elect arabs to office. zobgy has financially supported groups like hamas. look at rashid khalidi..soros. .meeks... the list goes on.
Obama is corrupt. this is also true. investigate bo's relatinship with rezko. obama lied on national tv when he said he only knew rezko from 5 hours of work with his lawfirm. obama's close relationship with rezko goes back 20 years. at first bo pretended rezko only contributed a couple of thousand to his campaign, but then the number jumped to $16 k, $60 k, $150, $250k....gee el jefe talk about LIES! everything that comes out of bo's mouth is a lie.I could go on and on...but understand this -
I am a moderate dem from missouri. in november I will choose COUNTRY over party and happily vote john mccain because he has honor and integrity, two qualities essential in any candidate running for president. barack obama has neither. he is a disgrace to the democratic party and I will do everything I can to ensure he does not make it to the white house.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Obama's 72 Lies and Counting

Hi my friends: On Thursday I'm going to have to (key phrase) have our 21-year-old cat, Larry Bird, put down. It's the only humane thing to. Thus, my next new column will be up on Friday. Hope to see you back!

72 Obama belittles Americans claiming we can't speak European languages; he's talking merde; mierda; Schei├če
71 Obama denied he accused President Bush of starting the War for political reasons; Russert transcript proves Obama made that false claim
70 Obama claims there has been substantial job losses from NAFTA; Independent studies show its at least" job neutral"
69 Claimed in Feb 08 he got 90% of funds from donors giving $25, $50; fed filings show he got only about a third from donors below $200
68 Obama rewrites history about what specifically he had said during his October 2002 anti-war speech
67 Obama claimed in 04 that he had never supported bringing troops out of Iraq; rare video of 03 Teamsters rally shows he's lying
66 Obama lied about the softness of the Stack Market to support his false claim the War was being used to distract the public
65 To justify his move to private funds, Obama claims that McCains campaign is" fuelled" by PACs and Lobbyists; its less than 2% of McCains money
64 Obama's "Dignity" ad claims he "worked his way" thru college and law school; campaign admits only two summer jobs
63 Obama's "Dignity" ad gives him credit for reducing Welfare rolls by 80%: he's deceptive as he was opposed to Fed Welfare Reform in '96
62 In Obama's The Country I love ad, he takes credit for passing a healthcare bill he did NOT vote for
61 Claims he first ran in Chicago as an unendorsed candidate; his '96 election questionnaire proves he had several
60 Obama claims he wants a vigorous and open debate on the issues: then goes out of his way to avoid it
59 Obama omits key details about a false rumor re video of Michelle's "whitey" rant to justify breaking his public funding promise
58 Obama tries to deceive about why he voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois Senate; Chicago paper reveals the truth
57 Trying to claim patriotism Obama says his grandad signed up the day after Pearl Harbor; army records disagree
56 Claims race and party not important to how people vote as they put America first; 93% block vote disproves
55 On June 5, Obama stated that Israel must remain undivided; June 6 on CNN he reversed his position
54 To further his own agenda, Obama grossly overstates the number of potential African-American votes in MS, GA, SC
53 Promise of $2500 reduction in Healthcare premiums needs billions in Admin cost savings by 2012: not possible
52 Obama omits to mention his 3 week trip to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan until it slips out trying to out-do Clinton
51 Obama claims McCain wants to wage a lengthy war in Iraq: Video proves Obama's lying
50 Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
49 Obama dishonestly used endorsements in ads to pump up his healthcare plan
48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story
46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"
44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he knew it was controversial since 86
36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
28 Obama claims never said he wouldn't wear US flag-pin; video shows he did
27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion
25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted
20 Claimed would not run for President, as he would not be qualified by 2008: confirmed 3 times to Tim Russert in one 2006 interview
19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth
17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied


Dolores Bernal, a heavy-duty liberal columnist wrote an article about "How Hillary Could Still Ger the Nomination." I don't for a minute believe that will happen. Ms. Bernal's problem with Obama is that he "moving toward the center" and is not a real "progressive," whereas Hillary might be. Blah, blah, blah. I wrote the following response to a NoBama Group:

[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]

I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."

McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).

The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.

Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.

I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world. He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.

Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.

Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers. So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.

I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.

With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"

Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.

In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."

The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.

Monday, July 14, 2008

President Obama & Economic Collapse

Steve; have you heard T. Boone Pickens' new TV commercials? They're running on the network national news shows. $700 BILLION of our U.S. money is transferred EVERY YEAR to foreign countries, the largest wealth transfer in history. We HAVE to develop our own energy resources, whether shale oil, coal gasification, wind power, hydrogen or some other alternative source.


Julia, iIt's interesting to see how much BETTER the Pickens ads are than either of the candidates' commercials! Pickens want to move toward natural gas -- bet he has a lot of it -- to power vehicles, and I can't disagree with him. I don't mind people getting rich if they do so in a way that benefits the country (e.g. Steve Jobs). Oil is a transitional fuel, but it's one we can't live without for the next 20-30 years (at which point I may be safely dead).

I think Obama's panicked attack commercial on McCain -- waving around the name of "Bush" (rather than "President Bush") -- shows the uncouth man has no plan. Under President Obama, the price of gas will go to perhaps $10 a gallon and our economy will be destroyed. All those "good-paying jobs" candidate Clinton and candidate Obama talked about will have disappeared. I’m sure President Obama will figure out some way to blame “George Bush!”

Nuclear energy, which Obama and most Democrats oppose, emits NO greenhouse gases, but we can't have that. The House energy bill, supported by Pelosi, doesn't even mention coal, an important transitional fuel. Conservation of energy does not mean making fuel so expensive no one can afford it, but explain that to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats beloved to a small number of people.

I have up on my blogs the image of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. I mention that Carter's "energy plan" was for us all to wear thick sweaters and two pair of socks. Do I hear three pairs of socks, Barack?

Frankly, I'm strangely serene about the strong possibility of an Obama presidency. It will be such an immediate disaster that he will be gone in four years. I hope the country will still be around. Hillary Clinton may well be his V-P, and she would go down with him. As for T. Boone Pickens, I never underestimate the man.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Michelle AK-47, Barack Turban

Barack and Michelle caught together in an unguarded, candid moment as they do their signature fist-bump . . .

The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to the diligent Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover. Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”
Obama (shrugs incredulously): “I have no response to that.”
Remember Sen. George Allen's "Macaca Moment?" It cost him his Senate Seat in VA (he lost by 9,000 votes out of millions cast). Many of the images of Obama and Michelle are harmful to his campaign, which doesn't make me the least bit unhappy. The photos (National Anthem and many others) capture people in a way our finely crafted arguments never will. the New Yorker cover is NOT good news for Barack.
Is it fair? As JFK said, "Life is unfair."
Are we engaged in the politics of fear, as the New Yorker story suggests? It was not us who advocating invading Pakistan (an ally of sorts that has nuclear weapons); it was not us eho suggested re-invading Iraq; it was not us who said we would do "everything . . . EVERYTHING" to prevent Iran from building a nuke. If Barack is really running for GWB's third term, as the WSJ said, he's off to a great start.
Rranklin Roosevelt said we should avoid "nameless, unreasoning fear." Our has a name (BHO) and it is not unreasonable.