I just got done watching the debate, and i know that you all are waiting with bated breath for my intriguing, insightful, and dead on accurate analysis of it…so here goes…

btw, that first paragraph was written tongue in cheek. you public school folks might have to look that up. just kidding, i was public schooled.

Seriously, I watched the debate and i think that we finally are getting to see some differences. I knew they existed all along, but they have finally been clearly articulated. Here are just a few of the key points that were spoken tonight, that I think are very important. You won’t find this stuff on your local news…they think Obama can really walk on water, and Joe Biden can get people walking out of wheel chairs…

1. McCain is not Bush, and will not govern like Bush. It is amazing to me that McCain’s “association” with Bush is fair game in Obama’s mind, but Obama’s “associations” with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Acorn are not important at all. Let’s see: Bush: president of the US, most powerful man in the world. Ayers: unrepentant terrorist, wishes he could do more bombings. Wright: Racist “pastor”, immoral political extremist. ACORN: deeply involved in illegal voter fraud, heavy democratic ties, direct contributions by the obama campaign. Even if Obama was right about the whole McCain=Bush thing, I think i’ll take that over the obama connections. if you think that it is unfair to connect obama to these nut cases, it is just as wrong to connect mccain to bush–the evidence is just as strong. if you take the mccain/bush connection away, obama has nothing to run on. so, it is not surprising that the media is bound and determined to play up the mccain/bush connections, and do all they can to shoot down the obama connections. i’m glad i’m not a friend of obama…there’s not much room left under the bus that he keeps tossing his friends under!

2. Health care. neither candidate has a particularly good plan for revamping health care, but obama’s plan is just like everything else he spoke about tonight: “I’m gonna fix this problem by taking more of your money, and spending it on health care!” Ok, that’s not a quote, but it certainly is the idea. McCain’s plan, at least the part i read and think i understand, is much better, because it will bring more choices to the market of health care. you can get coverage wherever you want to get it, and will not be forced to accept your employer’s health care offering. I wish he would drop the whole, “we’re going to tax your benefits” line, as it is a turn off to anyone who is a real conservative. Just a question to those who think the government taking over health care is a good thing (which is what obama will do): what program has the government ever taken over and succeeded with? Just recently, they took over the congressional cafeteria, and failed miserably (bad food, higher costs, running in the red). Yeah, that’s the type of people i want making my health care choices.

3. More More More government control. Obama says that Joe the plumber will not have to pay any penalty for not providing his employees with the national health care plan that he is going to insist on. what he didn’t say was that it is the government, and solely the government that dictates whether a business is a “small business” or a “medium sized business” or a “large business”. So, what that means is that Joe can buy his plumber business, and then hope to not make more than $250,000 just so mr. obama doesn’t take a higher percentage of his money. but, if he does, and decides to expand, he can start to hire a few folks into his business. now, joe in his first year might just be one of those “small businesses”, so he doesn’t have to provide the health insurance required of those greedy big business companies, like the evil oil moguls. But, what if joe accidentally crosses the line, and doesn’t realize that Big Brother now thinks he is a “big business”. Now he gets hit with a fine! Come on obama, be honest with us! that coy smile is i’m sure cute to the ladies, but it doesn’t answer the question!

4. Spend, spend, spend. This has already been mentioned, but since it was a key part of Obama’s stand in the debate, it warrants being mentioned again. His solution to the educational woes in this country are that we should spend more money on it. The very question posed to him stated that we spend more on education than any nation on earth, and yet our results fall way behind most of the other countries. A rational person would thus conclude that spending more money is not the solution! however, that was obama’s only solution. Remember, folks, it is the democrats that are in the pocket of the teachers’ unions (that is not a slam on any one that may be a teacher, or in a teacher’s union that may be reading this post), so it isn’t going to do any good to throw in more money. McCain actually has a much better plan when it comes to education. Vouchers that give parents a choice is a smart way to go, and will cause schools to improve in order to compete. wow, there’s that whole free market thing again!

5. Abortion. I know that all the libs are trying to steer us away from this one. but, as a conservative, this will be an issue in every election that i vote in. Obama, for all his talk about cutting down the number of abortions in america, has done absolutely nothing to that end. I know what you are thinking: Republicans don’t either. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They appoint judges that are constitutionalists (and regardless of what the media tells you, the right to an abortion just isn’t in the constitution. now, in the lib constitution, its right after “separation of church and state”.) Remember President Bush stopping a nasty piece of legislation that stopped partial birth abortion? don’t tell me he didn’t do anything! Obama, on the other hand voted against a bill that would force doctors to provide medical treatment to a baby who was born following a botched abortion. he had an excuse, but it is important to note that the bill passed shortly after he left the illinois senate for the national senate. now his bad choices are made on a much larger scale!

6. Judges. McCain made it clear that he would appoint judges that were strict constitutionalists. he pointed out that he voted for judges that were presented by dem presidents, because he thought that presidential elections had consequences. if the people voted for a dem, as long as the the person was judicially qualified, McCain voted for whomever the president chose. Obama on the other hand voted only for judges that fit his ideological qualifications. Thus, he voted against Roberts, who had to be one of the most qualified men ever presented. but, roberts didn’t think Roe V. Wade was a good decision. that’s good enough for obama, he voted “no”. He said he didn’t use a “litmus test”, but the facts show otherwise. I wish McCain had asked a follow up, asking why he voted against Roberts!

7. Ayers, Wright and ACORN. I know i already tackled this, but I want to make the point that any one of these is not necessarily the problem. I don’t think obama is a domestic terrorist. I don’t think he REALLY (ok, maybe just a little bit) wants there to be voter fraud, and I would like to believe (though it is becoming more difficult) that he is not a racist. However, having so many of these types of issues makes me question his JUDGMENT! he makes really poor choices. He made poor choices about where to start his political career (and, yes, it was with william ayers, no matter how many times he tries to deny it). He made really poor choices about where he was going to attend church, sitting and listening to the racist political spew from Wright (i wonder if he ever heard the bible used?). He made really poor choices in who to give $800,000 to when choosing a community organization to “get out the vote”. What makes us think that he is suddenly going to have good judgment? If you have the judgment of obama, i have some great property for sale, and i can give you a great price on it!

Folks, I know McCain is far from perfect, and I am still not convinced i will vote for him, or for anyone for that matter. But there is a difference between him and obama. Obama will take more from us in taxes, and will continue to spend more than we can possibly pay. McCain probably won’t be a whole lot better in the long run when it comes to spending, so that’s a toss up. But, at least there is the hope that he won’t take more from me.

If you think obama really isn’t going to raise your taxes (yes, i’m talking to all you middle class folks out there too), then you are nuts! you can’t spend more money on health care, more money on education, and more money on all the other stuff he cited tonight and not raise taxes. by the way, i believe obama must be a product of our failed education system. he keeps telling us that 95% of americans will get a tax cut. That is amazing, considering only 62% of americans actually pay taxes. must be that new math again…

feel free to comment, but at least realize before you do that humor is dispersed throughout this post.

Dear Boss,

I have enjoyed working here these past several years. You have paid me very well, given me benefits beyond belief. I have 3-4 months off per year and a pension plan that will pay my salary till the day I die and a health plan that most people can only dream about.

Despite this I plan to take the next 12-18 months to find a new position.

During this time I will show up for work when it is convenient. In addition I fully expect to draw my full salary and all the other perks associated with my current job.

Oh yeah, if my search for this new job proves fruitless, I will be back with no loss in pay or status. Before you say anything, remember that you have no choice in the matter. I can and will do this.

Sincerely, Every Senator or Congressman running for President.

——————————————————————————

Try that at your job and tell me how it works out.

i support obama…..i also understand where you’re comming from feeling worried about the whole “right to bear arms” situation…..but really, IS that the most important thing right now? yes, it’s our right as americans, and some would say that gun control policies would only lead to the government then slashing away at other rights, but i don’t believe that would happen….when politicians support gun control, it’s because they believe it’s a way to make our country a safer place….their intentions aren’t those of oppression. and as i stated before, we have much bigger problems facing this country…not voting for someone who otherwise has very good policies, just because of their stance on one issue is illogical.

What this person does not seem to understand is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.  That means that politicians are not allowed to come along and decide that they “can make our nation a safer place” by getting rid of this right.  Could the same politician decide that taking away the freedom of speech (1st amendment) could make our country safer, and therefore get rid of it?  I think not, there would be wide spread outrage over such a move.  However, much of the country is satisfied with taking away the 2nd amendment on a whim.

I am amazed that someone would ever think that BO’s policies are good other than this.  I for one, find very little (if anything) that I can agree with BO on.  His policies for the future of this country will certainly bring change, but that change will not be good.  His idea is to turn as much over to government as humanly possible, after all the government knows better what is good for you than you do.  I for one don’t need the government taking over my health care, or taking more money from my paycheck to pay for all the entitlement programs that are on the democratic agenda.  We have far too many people wanting handouts rather than a hand up in this society, and BO and his policies will only exasperate the situation.

This person obviously has only swallowed the BO and democrat kool-aid.  Never has taking away guns made a society safer.  We can take the handgun ban in Washington D.C. as one example.  Only one time since the institution of the ban has the murder rate been lower than when it was instituted.  Seems to me that makes the plan a failure, as it was put in place to help cut the murder rate in the city.  And yet, proponents of the ban insist that it remain.  So, there is a whole city whose citizens cannot purchase a handgun to protect themselves–the whole point of the 2nd amendment!

Liberals will so easily allow the government to take away my rights, but they want to make sure that those detainees in Guantanamo Bay have their rights.   What seems to be the problem here?  I am a US citizen, and as such I have a right to keep and bear arms…I don’t think BO has the right to decide for me whether that is safe or not.  I will most definitely vote against candidates that campaign on taking away constitutional rights.  If you vote for them, then you had better start practicing keeping your mouth shut…your right to free speech just might be next!

Let’s take Obama for example. He bragged about how he was a Christian, and a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Then the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright came to light. Turns out that Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s preacher for about 20 years, is incredibly racist. Obama is out claiming that he is the one who can unite not only the Democratic Party, but the whole country. And yet, he sat at the feet of a racist preacher for 20 years, listening to him spew his black power speech. Obama, in the meantime, claims that he didn’t know that Wright (his religious mentor earlier in the campaign) held these extremist beliefs.

Wright was forced, by the media publicity, to resign his post at the church. In steps a young new preacher, who Obama speaks highly of. In fact, he stated that he was only staying there because he liked the new, energetic preacher. The question then becomes, is he any better than Wright? And the answer is obviously a resounding, “No!” In his “Easter” sermon, almost immediately following Wright’s resignation, Otis Moss III preached a sermon entitled, “How to Handle a Public Lynching.” In the “sermon” (and I use that term very lightly) Moss compared the attacks on Wright to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That shows that either he has no real concept of the sacrifice of Christ, or else that he has no respect for it, or real religion in general.

As if all of this was not enough, just recently another religious mentor and friend of Barak Obama preached a “sermon” at Trinity United Church of Christ in which he ridiculed Hillary Clinton by name. Michael Pfleger, Roman Catholic priest, blasted Clinton as being racist, and thinking herself entitled to have the Democratic nomination. Here is a quote, as taken from Fox News:

“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.’” he said.

“And then out of nowhere came, hey, I’m Barack Obama. And she said, ‘Oh ****, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show.’” Those remarks were mockingly performed in a falsetto, and drew a standing ovation.

This is a man that is known as an activist in the Chicago area. Being an activist is not necessarily a bad thing, but this man has fraternized with others that are obviously divisive, rather than uniting. Consider this from CBS News:

Pfleger, known locally as a community activist and organizer, was arrested in June 2007 with the Rev. Jesse Jackson during a protest outside of a south suburban Chicago gun shop. The criminal trespass charges were later dropped.

He also has hosted Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, at St. Sabina and has called him “a gift from God to a sick, sick world.”

There is something wrong with a man who calls Louis Farrakhan, a “gift from God”! How can we ever believe that this type of man could be a good influence on Obama?

It seems like Obama has now had his 3 strikes. He can continue to act as if he is oblivious to the beliefs and teachings of all of these men, but it is just not believable. Obama has associated with these men for years, and has most certainly accepted the “Christianity” that they are proclaiming. Again, I use that word very loosely, as the doctrine they teach has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a message of divisiveness, and hatred. That is exactly the kind of presidency that we will get out of Obama!

There cannot be two more drastic positions for how to deal with the Iraq War than the two expressed by McCain and Obama. McCain is convinced that we can actually win the war, and Obama is convinced that there isn’t anything in the world that we can do to win the war. He used to say that he, if elected, would begin pulling the troops out immediately. Of course, he was extremely naive when he was saying that, and has changed his position to say that he would start working toward getting the troops home. The bottom line is that he is ready to give up on Iraq, and pull out as soon as possible, regardless of what happens in the region when he pulls out.

McCain, on the other hand, actually believes that the military can win the war, given the proper resources. He will work more diligently to make sure that the troops have all that they need to be able to finish the objectives laid out for them.

We can argue all day about whether we should be in Iraq or not. That is a debate that has been going on since we went into Iraq in the first place. But, what we really need to realize is that we are there now…the time for that debate is over. How can we get out victoriously? It certainly is not going to be accomplished by pulling out before the work is done.

So, why won’t Barak visit Iraq, especially with McCain? Because he would see that there is progress being made, and that McCain is right about what needs to be done in Iraq. Obama has only been in Iraq one time, and that was 2 years ago, before the surge (which has been successful). What exactly might he be afraid of finding out? He might be afraid of finding out that McCain really can teach him a thing or two when it comes to military conflicts!

I have already made it clear in previous posts that I am not thrilled about McCain as a president, but I think when it comes to national security, and specifically the war in Iraq, he will do a much better job than Obama. Obama wants to sit down and talk with the dictators of the world “without preconditions”, but he will first cut the military down to an incredible low (something like when Bill Clinton was president). He wants to throw out the name of Ronald Reagan, like his policy is similar to Reagan’s, when in fact it could not be more different. Obama is not ready to deal with the issues that are looming on the horizon in the area of national security. He is far too inexperienced to be able to be successful in these areas!

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,”

Can you imagine if a republican had said such a thing? He’d be roasted alive! Think that is overstepping the reaction? Just remember Mike Huckabee’s ill conceived joke when speaking before the NRA:

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Huckabee has been blasted in the media, and in the left wing blogs for his comments. I admit that they weren’t well thought out, and not really all that funny (for the joke it was meant to be). But the point is that he was not allowed to get by with his statement by anyone. Of course, CNN tried to tie the comments to John McCain by making sure to point out that Huckabee is supporting McCain. He must agree with every word uttered by those that support him. Funny how that doesn’t apply when your preacher is a racist.

I don’t think Hillary was really calling for the assassination of Barak Obama, but maybe she is secretly hoping some nut job out there will figure out that if he is not in the race, she then has a chance to win. On the other hand, those that get on the wrong side of the Clintons do seem to have a relatively short life span. If something were to happen to Obama before the election, maybe they should investigate Hillary… Just to be clear, I wish no harm for either Obama or Hillary. I’m just taking a look at the comments made by Clinton.

I found it interesting that when Huckabee made his comments, he apologized to Obama. He meant no real disrespect, and was only trying to make a joke. Hillary, on the other hand apologized to the Kennedys I guess she didn’t want to anger the only political family in the democratic party with more clout than her own. Here’s what she had to say:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,”

Of course, this is being spun in the media (for the most part) as only being a statement about how long the campaign should go on. But the duplicity with how it has been handled is obvious. Only could a democrat get by with such a statement. Why can’t we just chalk stupid statements up to just that, no matter who makes them. This is far different than the planned statements found in speeches, and should be considered differently. However, Clinton might want to apologize to Obama, rather than the Kennedys, after all she was talking about him!

One primary is in the state of Kentucky today.  That is another state that Obama cannot possibly win.  I’m sure it is just because they are all a bunch of gun-toting, religious, racist fanatics.  That was what happened in West Virginia, or so we were told.

Obama’s inability to win in Kentucky throws up many red flags, which will obviously be completely ignored by his supporters. He is the “chosen one” and nothing that comes up can possibly be a sign of a bump in his campaign. But, the states of West Virginia and Kentucky (and Obama’s ignoring of these states and the people within them) highlight the fact that Obama is not the “unifier” that he claims to be. Obama cannot win in these two states, and he will lose a lot of votes in other moderate states. The truth is that Obama, no matter how much he tries to paint himself as “mainstream”, is ridiculously liberal, and really only appeals to the extreme left base (and those who refuse to actually try to understand his “plan for America). There are many reasons that Obama cannot win in these states, none of which include “racism.” I don’t deny there are racists in West Virginia and Kentucky, but there are also racists in every other state. That doesn’t excuse the racism, but it certainly takes excuse out of his basket. It’s amazing that we didn’t know that there were proportionately more racists in West Virginia and Kentucky until Obama ran for president! It’s just an excuse…don’t buy into it! I did find it interesting that former clan member, Robert Byrd, senior senator from West Virginia, endorsed Obama this week. Despite the obvious “mandate of the people” of West Virginia in voting for Clinton, two of the top 3 super delegates in West Virginia have cast their support to Obama. We are still waiting to see what the governor will do.

Obama recently has been coming off as a whiner as well. That will hurt him quite a bit in states like Kentucky, where people are struggling to make ends meet. They really don’t want to hear about how hard his life is, and how unfairly he is being treated. He whined about the president rebuking his proposed foreign policy. He whined because republicans used the words of his wife against him. If anyone speaks out against him or his policy, he whines. I’m just wondering…how much whining are we going to hear from him when the nations around the world refuse to bow down to him? I don’t know how this can possibly make him look better to his supporters!

Just a note to Barak Obama: If you send your wife out to campaign for you, she, and the things she says, cannot be “off limits.” Yes, Michelle will be an issue in the campaign. If she goes out on the campaign trail and says something stupid, republicans are allowed to point it out, and use it against you, as she is speaking for you! By the way, the same rule goes for the Clinton campaign. They have complained about unfair treatment of Chelsea, and the things she has said. If you send her out to campaign, she is fair game. Quit whining.

The democratic nominee may be chosen today, but I hope not. If Obama doesn’t get his 2025 delegates, he needs to hold off on declaring victory. I’d love for this to go all the way to convention. Let them keep on fighting amongst themselves!

]]> http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/can-barak-obama-get-it-done-today/feed/ 1 http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/and-now-a-few-words-from-the-man-who-would-be-your-president/ http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/and-now-a-few-words-from-the-man-who-would-be-your-president/#comments Mon, 19 May 2008 00:40:32 +0000 Aaron http://www.shootingfromtheright.com/and-now-a-few-words-from-the-man-who-would-be-your-president/ "But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission."

From Obama’s official Blueprint for Change . Now, let me get this straight. He says that all of his appointees will have to have demonstrated that they have risen to the "standard of proven excellence in the agency’s mission." My question is: why doesn’t that apply to the boss himself? I mean, Senator Obama’s dismally thin resume certainly does not demonstrate that he has risen to the "standard of proven excellence" needed to be President of the United States… you have to actually have had experience to be proven excellent.

"Obama will preserve Social Security by stopping any efforts to privatize it and working in a bipartisan way to
preserve it for future generations."

From the same source. Really Senator? Because you and the rest of the government have done such a cracker-jack job of taking care of Social Security thus far? That’s the problem with socialists like you, Senator. You automatically assume the government can do it better than the individual. So all your talk about how you’re fighting for the middle-class American is proven to be a bunch of hot air by your approach to government: "Let me do it for you, because you’re not smart enough to do it yourself!"

"Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both."

I’m sure you’ll tell us where all that money is coming from right, Senator? Oh, that’s right, you’ve already told us! You intend to lay the entire tax burden on the wealthy, right? I mean, hey, let’s forget that they employ the rest of us, and all that extra money you’re going to tax them has to come from somewhere, like a middle class American’s job (you know, that guy you claim you’re protecting?). A few more examples of "doubling" or even "quadrupling" big government program budgets:

"Obama will double funding for after-school programs…"

"Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years…"

"Obama will double science and research funding…"

"Obama will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families."

Question, Senator. Why is child care a governmental responsibility? Shouldn’t that be left up to the family? Oh wait, you’ve already demonstrated that you believe you can do it better than the individual… Thanks for taking money out of my paycheck to put someone else’s kid in daycare, while I take care of my own like I’m supposed to. I appreciate that, Senator.

"As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct."

Really, Senator, you shouldn’t rely on Al Gore’s sources. Its already been demonstrated he makes stuff up, like most of the stuff listed above. Oh yeah, and you might want to read up on how the earth is entering a cooling phase, as you’re signing those bills (on paper taken from those poor trees, I wonder?) to spend $15 billion a year on "green" initiatives.

Senator Obama has painted himself for this entire campaign as a "different" kind of politician, a "unifier", one who will fight for "all" Americans.

Really? All those attacks on President Bush are "unifying"? Through the 40+ pages of his "Blueprint", he blamed nearly every problem in the nation on President Bush in specific, and Republicans in general. That’s hardly unifying, or true. Especially when you consider that most of the problems existed long before George W. Bush took office. And repeatedly having anti-capitalistic ideas and vowing to raise taxes on the wealthy is fighting for "all" Americans? Senator, is it so hard for you to understand that it is business that runs this country? Oh, wait, you believe the giant government programs you intend to implement are the way to build jobs in this country. I guess we’ll need that, since your proposed increases on the wealthy and the companies they own will force severe downsizing. I guess those "downsized" folks will need a job somewhere, and it just so happens that there will be President Obama, waiting with open arms, to once again "prove" the Democratic, socialist, theory that government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself.

Please, people. Look past the flowery speeches, the insufferable rhetoric, and the false accusations aimed at President Bush and Republicans; and dig into what Obama is telling you he really believes, and the ways he intends to get those beliefs accomplished.

Because I don’t think you really want what you’ll get with a President Obama.

But just a cursory examination of his ‘plan’ will show you a few things:

• Your taxes WILL go up. There’s simply no way around it. Like every Democrat, he claims that he will cut middle class taxes while raising wealthy folks’ taxes. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that it simply doesn’t work. But it sells to the public, which is all he’s concerned about! There’s simply no other way to pay for all his new programs that will "improve" your life, unless he takes it out of your hide (in this case, your paycheck).
• If you are a working individual, you WILL be paying for the health-care for those who aren’t willing to work. By the way, this is the same as what Hillary Clinton proposes.
• He wants to increase the unionization of American workers. Only a Democrat can’t see what unions have done to industry in this country. They want to throw a fit when companies move over-seas, but refuse to acknowledge that in many cases, the union FORCED the company to take drastic measures.
• Like all Democrats, he’s in favor of raising the minimum wage. Despite the simple economics demonstrating why this is a bad idea, it, again, sells to the public.
• Read just how many times his plan says he "will" do this or that. In reality, much of what he claims he "will" do he will never be able to accomplish! Furthermore, over and over again, his ‘plan’ calls for shelling out more money, all while never giving any idea how he’s going to pay for it (remember, he’s "not" going to raise taxes on the middle class)!
• Iran will remain a serious problem under an Obama administration. If he does what he claims in his ‘plan’, we could very well enter another Cold War, if not WW3. His plan calls for disarming our nuclear weapons, all the while "talking" to Iran about disarming theirs. Yeah, because "talk" has worked so well with them in the past, right Senator? That’s the way to do it! Tell the world we’ll never use nuclear weapons as we promise them we’ll be nice to them if they don’t use theirs! Sounds like a stellar plan! He has outlined a plan calling for drastic cuts in military budgets (Bill Clinton, anyone?), all the while claiming he’s all for making our military wholly 21st century! You can’t have it both ways, Senator. Like a true Democrat, you are adept at speaking out of both sides of your mouth!

In reality, Obama has no real plan for America. Everything he outlines in his plan is nothing more than the Democrat talking points, and is basically the same thing that Hillary Clinton is saying. He’s not for "change"… he’s for doing things EXACTLY the same as every other Democrat!

And by the way, I’d like a Democrat supporter to please explain to me how the economics of a plan that calls for cutting middle class taxes while raising taxes on the wealthy is feasible? Its not.  Remember, its the wealthy who employ the rest of us, and if you tax them more heavily, they take it out on the middle class by cutting jobs. But you’ll never hear a Democrat say that (though they know its the truth) because they’re all about what the public wants to hear! Obama (nor Hillary) has any real plan to cut taxes… they’re just playing to the crowd until they get into the White House, and then they’ll either a.) raise our taxes (meaning they lied) or b.) be unable to create all the new programs they promise (also meaning they lied). So which is it, Senators? Which lie are you telling us?

Hold the phone. Not so fast. Maybe we should let her wait until after the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries. Why? Because Obama cannot possibly win those states. Even if Hillary bows out, she will still win at least those two states in a landslide.

I have been listening and reading about this with great interest today, since West Virginia is my home state. I have been amazed at the negative press that we have received in the last few days. Those in the Obama camp have already given up on this state, conceding it to Hillary. I have been reading some blogs, like First Door on the Left, which seem to suggest that because West Virginia is predominantly white, and predominantly “uneducated” (that is, only about 14% of West Virginians 25+ hold a Bachelor’s Degree) they will vote for HIllary in the primary, and then McCain in the general election. Many of the news sources have tried to make it out like West Virginia will not vote for Obama because we are just racist…we aren’t ready for a black president.

What many of these authors refuse to consider is that West Virgina used to be a “yellow dog democrat” state. That means (for the uninformed) that if the democrats put a an ol’ yellow dog on the ticket, it would get elected over a republican candidate. They couldn’t lose. In fact, the state has been run by democrats for what seems like forever! And then along came Al Gore. Gore made gun control a major part of his presidential platform. It was the death knell to the Gore campaign in West Virginia. There are some things that will not be accepted here in WV, and one is the threat of taking away (or limiting) gun rights.

Enter Barak Obama. Remember just a few weeks ago when Barak told us that only frustrated people “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Some people said that this was elitist. I’m really not concerned about whether it is elitist or not. I am more concerned about the political belief system that would inspire him to say such a thing! He relegates the issues of the 2nd Amendment, Religion and Border Control to being economically frustrated. Does that not indicate that if we are all financially content we won’t want guns or religion any more, and we won’t care about immigration? This is a reflection of his deeply held socialist beliefs. That is why he wants socialized (universal) health care. That is why he wants to raise taxes to redistribute the wealth among those who have not earned it. That is why he wants more governmental control over most aspects of our lives, including restriction of gun ownership.

I am tired of hearing that those of us who oppose Obama are really just not smart enough to understand his brilliance. Or that we are racist. Or that we are afraid he might be a Muslim. Sorry folks, none of the above! Barak Obama is being rejected in the Mountain State because he does not have the same beliefs and values of the people of the state. Just as a side note, Hillary probably doesn’t either. That is why she will lose this state to McCain as well. There is a reason that we elected a Republican president, and a Democrat Governor in the last election! West Virginians actually vote on their own values, not on what the various parties tell them to vote on. So, don’t try to make it sound like we are racist, uneducated, gun toting, church attending, bumpkins.

Lets get back to our original premise: even the liberals are trying to keep Hillary in the race now. Why? Because it would be embarrassing for Barak to lose these two races so big without her in the race. Is it less embarrassing for the candidate that everyone is presuming to be the Democrat nominee to lose by 40 points to someone IN the race? I think it reflects the fact that Obama cannot win. If he can “unite the nation” as he claims, then why can’t he even get close in these predominantly rural states? He cannot relate with the values, economy or environment of states like West Virginia and Kentucky. Obviously Hillary would be a stronger candidate in the general election for the Democrats. She has not been completely blown out in any state, and would be very close to being in the lead if she could get Florida and Michigan thrown in.

For once, I’m with the liberals. Stay in the race Hillary. Stay in through the WV and KY primaries. Stay in through May 20th. Stay in until every last Super Delegate votes. Stay in until the end. Carry it all the way to convention. I’m really enjoying seeing the Democratic Party continuing to destroy itself. We have been told just how bad a job Bush has been doing. That should make it an easy win for the Democrats. But, it just isn’t going to happen! They are going to continue fighting among themselves until even their own constituents are going to get sick of them. I’m loving it!