I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.

I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.

I grow up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country’s foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country’s economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.

Mine was a people’s campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.

I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.

Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.

ADOLPH HITLER
(text from an anonymous email)

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

George Bush was criticized for instituting a police state by wire tapping in foreign nations and for a prison in Cuba. Obama now proclaims that he will create a brown-shirt style police force right here on American soil–but no one cares. Shall we expect the Black Panthers to even change their uniforms? The video on Youtube, is it a taste of things to come?

This must be the second time in her life that Mrs. Obama can be proud of America. I guess that I cannot complain since this is really the second time that I’ve been disappointed with my country.

Prediction: There will be a plummeting of reenlistments in our military now. Moreover, enlistments will also plummet. Our soliders have fought with blood, sweat, and tears, and it appears Americans didn’t get it.

America to soldier: “Your leaving home to risk life and limb in a far away nation was worse than in vain; it was wrong.”

America to soldier: “Seeing your buddies and friends maimed and killed while fighting Al Queda in Iraq (no less than bin Laden himself admitted to this)–that too, was a useless endeavor.”

America to soldier: “All of the loss of life and treasure was based upon a lie.”

America to soldier: “Don’t not expect raises or cost of living increases for your military service or sacrifice, there are low income pre-schools which must be built as a result of mothers working and absent fathers.” (think “Great Society” here)

America to soldier: “If you are ever called to war, remember to stay alive until the American media tires of the battle, you will be called home thereafter.”

America to soldier: “We shall impose our social views on your military life. If you do not like hot-bunking with admitted homosexuals, that is entirely your problem–you are expected to sacrifice for our agenda.”

Here’s a message to America: Our soldiers have heretofore been the best in the world because our soldiers have felt that there is something to fight for back at home. Whether you agree with it or not, this election will result in an America that few soldiers will risk their life for. At the same time, our enemies are not fortifying their arms and armies simply because a US President won’t sit down and talk with them. America, you have poo-pooed the thought that evil actually exists in the world. For most of you, this viewpoint arises from your innate antipathy of religion. But I assure you, you will discover true evil over the next four to eight years. And it won’t be found in folks like me. I just hope that it will not be too late.

Americans, despite 9/11 you were given a great economy in which to thrive, until 2007 (coincidentally, just after the 2006 elections). Despite the media complaints, you have been protected from a terrorist attack by a man repeatedly maligned by the opposition party–all for power. Mark my words–all for power.

Will all of the community organizers now admit that America is no longer a racist nation? Will they now say that affirmative action is unnecessary? Hardly, once evil gets its foothold, it is very difficult to remove.

Prediction: A catastrophe is coming. I do not know what it will be, but I assure you that the test Joe Biden referred to is not going to be avoided–and it will be a true catastrophe.

Alas! Our poor Constitution! The document which has made us both rich and free as a nation: it is now subjected to a President who has declared it both worthless and an enemy to his plans. (yet, somehow, he is supposed to pledge to support and defend it). Our very Constitution now hangs in the balance.

My God grant us the ability to see the light before socialism gets its grip on America and shreds our Constitution.

To the Republican Party. Remove those who are closet Democrats yet call themselves moderate Republicans. They are one in the same. Their big tent idea can never create a tent large enough to defeat the left. You Republicans have said that Reaganism is dead. Yes, it’s dead, but only because it has not been taught. Instead of converting your enemies, you decided to become more like them and nominate a candidate who is left-of-center. The beltway media that John McCain has carefully hand fed, never thought twice about biting. But Reaganism can never truly die, because at its heart is freedom and no party, government, tyranny, or other, can long suppress America’s desire for freedom. Republicans must now teach the principles of conservatism. Teach and teach some more, and continue teaching. Stop reaching out to scorpions. Instead convert them to your side by teaching them. It will not be easy. You will pay a price too. But you shall be rewarded.

To our Founding Fathers: I am sorry. I am so very sorry. Really, there is little that you yourselves could have done to prevent this, for a free nation must be subjected to the choice of its people to return to enslavement. I know what you must be thinking, but your decision to continue slavery with a nation rather than eliminate slavery without one, has caused you to be labeled bigoted and extreme, and worse, irrelevant. Heads is now tails and tails is now heads. With you I pray to our God that some righteous men will step forward to save your work and, perhaps, just perhaps, return us to the principles of government that you gave us.

To God: I will do my part to teach the truth to those who are hard of hearing. You already know that when truth strikes home it hurts and thus, too often, people reject it. But You are in charge. You must be in charge or all is lost. If our nation is to be punished for its sins, I pray that it not be so through wars and pestilences. Please send us wise men, raised for the purpose, who can turn this people back to the way of freedom. Amen.

Bipartisanship? Again, your philosophy of quiet disdain for your detractors: nothing short of masterful. Why break silence and stoop to their level, right? I especially want to commend you on your uncanny ability to look into the eye of various individuals and see the unnoticed goodness in their souls. Vladmir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Alberto Gonzales, Colin Powell, and Scott McClellan–-it’s amazing how your perceptiveness allowed you to see in these men what others couldn’t. On the other hand, it is sad that your fellow Republicans cried foul so loudly at the appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I’m sure that she would have followed their proud tradition.

Ted Kennedy’s drafting of an education bill was another real coup for your first term, Mr. President. Who knows more about educating America’s youth than Chappaquiddick Ted? By the way, my daughter wants to know if Heather really had two mommies?

Your critics wailed over your firing of seven attorneys general, but you kept your peace, and did not deign to explain to them that you had a right to fire them for any purpose whatsoever. No, you allowed them to explode this into a real Watergate-style sideshow and thus demonstrated to the world what your detractors really were. (psssst! Who were your critics shown to be, Mr. President? I apparently I cannot figure that one out on my own. My guess was “majority party”).

While I might be criticized for this, I cannot but feel that you should also receive credit for the “change” that is coming to Washington. After all, your policies, while somewhat egalitarian in nature, didn’t go quite far enough to be called true socialism, and you, Mr. President, have caused that final block to be put into place. Having turned over in their graves, we are all able to see the smiling faces of the Founding Fathers.

Well, as you turn to your golden sunset years, I hope that you will recall all that you’ve done for us and how your guiding hand on our politics will be felt for generations to come. Conservatism never really won since Reagan anyways, unless you count 1994.

So long Mr. President.

Aside from the fact that government has an virtually unbroken track record of failure in every area in which it’s involved, these so-called conservative pundits cannot understand that the attempt to show what government can do will result in government showing how much it can control. The phrase itself reminds me of the old Soviet Union. Everyone inside and out knew that things were not going smoothly in the USSR. From long bread lines to lousy medical care, the Soviet people were living in a third world nation. It just appeared that propaganda papers like Pravda were propping up the government and if there were any rational discussion of how government functioned, there would be a second revolution. Along came Gorbachev, and there was an open discussion (glasnost) about government and that was followed by, you guessed it: a revolution.

Today, the ceaseless droning of an agenda-driven media (you just can’t overcome the 95%+ Democrat voting record) has, much like Pravda in days of old, blinded Americans to the realities of life under an all-controlling government. There is no real open discussion about the candidates’ positions. Moreover, to attack a particular candidate whose best friends espouse their hatred for America (by both words and high explosives) one is labeled as racist or bigoted by the media.

A case in point. We now know that Barack Obama has proclaimed the need to “redistribute the weath” in this country (he reiterated this as recent as 48 hours ago), but when challenged the candidate and his media allies all call the complaints about such socialism “a diversion” and “code words for rascism.”

No, what is a diversion is Obama’s diverting this nation from the core principles of our precious Constitution, a document which has given liberty to millions, yet is considered by him as “fundamentally flawed.” The flaw? It does nothing to promote socialism!

In response, the Republican party puts forth a candidate which likewise eshews the principles of Reagan and seeks a government take over of most of a national industry. He is not alone, from Trent Lott to Lindsey Graham, to Olympia Snow, to William Weld . . . you get the idea. Even Newt Gingrich himself declared that the Reagan era was “over,” and then he too spewed out that customary code langage for a coming socialism: “we need to find new solutions.” But why? Didn’t the old solution of conservatism work pretty damned good? Didn’t you like the 80s? Or have we forgotten them?

With the troubles of Senator McCain, it is my hope that those who declare Reaganism dead will be, for a season, silenced. Sanity will return to the Republican party, and 2 + 2 will equal 4, as it should. There is no theory of government which trumps individual liberty and freedom from government encroachment. Republicans everywhere should recognize this and return to it.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776.

Well did Thomas Jefferson write that the powers which government possesses must come from only one of two sources: the consent of the governed; or from the sword. To understand the remainder of this diary entry, you must keep this in mind: our government’s powers are given to it from the citizens themselves.

In 1968, Former Secretary Of Agriculture, Ezra T. Benson, gave a speech wherein he outlined the proper role of government. In his talk, Secretary Benson said: “The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place.” He concluded by stating: “This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.” But what does this mean? I can best illustrate it by an example:

Suppose three individuals were hopelessly marooned on a large Pacific island. Soon afterwards, they began planting seeds and tilling the ground for their inevitable long stay. In sum, they become island farmers. Over the course of time, disputes arose, and the first farmer accused the second farmer of stealing his seeds and wrecking his thatch hut. The second farmer likewise accused the first of running through his fields and ruining his harvest. Soon these individuals realized that they could not stay awake at all hours of the night watching over their crops and homes, so they appointed the third farmer to act as a sort of watchdog. Each promised to pay the third farmer a portion of their harvest if he would–in lieu of farming–keep an eye on their respective plots and property. At this precise moment government is born.

The two farmers acknowledge each other’s respective right of self-defense, and the defense of their property, and through the third farmer they have delegated this right. Logically then it follows that they could not possibly delegate to the third farmer a power which they themselves could not rightfully do alone. It is this concept which underlies our Declaration of Independence–government gets its power solely from the consent of the governed and one cannot consent to give it a power that he does not possess himself.

Therefore, in addressing what powers our federal government may exercise, and understanding that its powers come from the governed, we must ask ourselves: “Absent government, could I demand this of my neighbor?” If I have no right to break down the door of my neighbor’s house in order to take his property to pay for my health care, then how am I able to delegate such authority to my government? The answer is simple: I cannot.

Not only our Declaration of Independence, but also our Constitution recognize this principle. With this in mind, consider the myriad of government programs now in effect and while looking at them ask: “Could I demand that my neighbor pay for such a thing in the absence of government?” If not, then government cannot demand it either.

Both political parties have lost this concept. One or both must return to it or a collapse is inevitable. I am confident that a few good people will come forward and espouse the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and thus serve to check the growth and power of a government without restraint.

Good Riddance

Said better than I could have said it myself.

When President Bush ran for office in 2000, he asserted that he was a “compassionate conservative” out of the “Reagan mold.” Dan Quayle had the correct response to Bush’s tribble: “We don’t use the phrase ‘compassionate conservative’ because it implies that conservatism isn’t compassionate.” Once elected to office, however, did Bush run as an heir to the Reagan legacy? Let’s see. Ask yourself: Would Reagan have sponsored the largest increase in medicare entitlements in 30 years–450 billion? Would Reagan have invited Ted Kennedy to the White House to draft $68 billion in education reform legislation? Oh yes, would Reagan have nominated a sycophantic Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court! With the sole exception of Reagan’s tax cuts and perhaps the war on terror, Bush, across-the-board, has governed as a “moderate.” In other words, Bush went left to appease his critics. (The “leftward lurch” is a malady which afflicts most Republicans as they enter the beltway)

McCain now complains that Bush is being hung around his neck like an albatross. But, understand this: McCain is so much less like Reagan that his only substantive difference with Bush was that he opposed Bush’s Reaganesque tax cuts! Yes, it’s true that McCain opposed Bush’s handling of the Iraq War, for which he is to be commended, but with with respect to policies and legislation wherein McCain doesn’t agree with Bush, his fews departures from Bush take him further from Reagan’s policies.

Solution? Ah, you have to read my diary for that.

A little more than a week to go before the elections and I am moved to ask: “How is that ‘McCain The Moderate Savior’ thing coming along?” I guess what I’m asking is, now that McCain’s big tent has brought in women, blacks, hispanics, extreme enviromentalists, and other minorities into the fold, I need some one to let me know how many points he’s up in the polls.

Ah, but perhaps the arch-conservative nemesis of all moderates, Sarah Palin, is hurting McCain? Well, if that’s so, then we ought to fire the unbalanced guy who put her on the ticket, because–as we all know–a real moderate thinks far too clearly to make such a poor choice. Some knee-jerk conservative did this, I assure you.

In my opinion, however, carping about Palin is what moderates do to emulate Democrats. They blindly screw everything up, then they point fingers at one particular person in order to avoid conceding that it is they who are in the dark. How inflexible and narrow-minded is that?

November 2008, the dark age of the Republican party begins.

Gun Control

Non-link if the above doesn’t work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq9tEi8FrAw&feature=related

And yes, I don’t mind when bad guys die.

On today’s talk show, Powell explains: “I think he is a transformational figure.” THAT’S what I’m afraid of. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all transformational too, Colin.

Another note to moderate Republicans: Hey guys, are you happy with your fellow moderate? No? You should be–this is what you moderates do. They pretend in order to achieve status, and then attack the hand that feeds them–to maintain that status. Yes, you keep telling us that Palin’s conservatism is what is sinking McCain. Really? Do you think that McCain picking another moderate would have changed Powell’s position? If you do, I’ve got a nice bridge to sell you.

Affirmative action is now at its zenith here. A unqualified candidate for president who has never run anything; who has never governed anything; and who has policies precisely on line with Karl Marx–is going to be put into our highest office solely due to his race. Doubt me? Just ask if Obama would be where he is at if he were a white man. The answer is inevitable.

The Republican party must clean house or it is lost.

Indeed, “tax the rich,” is the Democratic catch phrase of our day. After all, they reason, why is it fair for “Joe Sixpack” (not sure if he’s related to the Joe the Plumber) to earn only $40K hardworking dollars each year while Mr. Fatcat rakes in two, sometimes three million a year? Sure, the rich already pay the lion’s share of state and federal income taxes, but shouldn’t these lucky individuals be required to do even more?

Consider this: in 2005 the average American earned $32,000.00. Pretty low compared to the million-plus annual salaries of some of the rich. In fact $32,000, is just 1/32nd of million dollar per year salary! With such a disparity, taxing the rich–not just more, but much, much more–seems in line with our modern concept of fairness. But consider something else: during the same time period, the average Ethiopian worker’s annual earnings was $160.00. Yes, that’s 200 times LESS than the salary of the average American worker! Under the same logic, why is it fair that middle class Americans should have so much more than impoverished Ethiopians? Not just much more, but 200 times more! No standard of logic can say that taxing one group for the benefit of another, poorer group is fair, but under another similar scenario it suddenly becomes unfair.

International borders you say? Oh yes, Ethiopians are not Americans! They don’t even live here! But why does that fact put a hole in my argument’s logic? Are not borders invisible boundaries? Oftentimes borders are both arbitrary and illogical. Moreover, international borders are usually drawn by a small group of wealthy elitists, or at the point of a spear. Thus, it makes no sense that tax policy should change simply due to a fiction known as “borders.”

Ask yourselves, why should Ethiopians have less a right to the money of rich Americans than anyone else? And why shouldn’t an average American worker be defined as “rich” if he makes more than 200 times the salary of the Ethiopian? To say that middle class Americans are entitled to something that Ethiopians are not is discriminatory in the extreme.

Consequently, if Senator Obama and the Democrats are to be consistent, they should call for a tax on every middle class American to, you know, “spread the wealth around” a bit. Americans’ excess income can be distributed through channels to poorer countries in Africa, Asia, and elswhere in order to achieve the moral consistency that all progressives favor.

Sepuku is the act of commiting Honorable Suicide. A defeated samurai warrior would kill himself before allowing his opponent the honor of finishing him off. Also See: HaraKiri.

Urban Dictionary

Minutes from now the final debate will start. McCain, who has spent much of the past year digging a hole will now switch his shovel to “reverse” against a confident Barack Obama. But McCain’s demonstrated problem is that he refuses to put dirt on his spade (punn not intended) and, if he remains true to form, McCain will continue shoveling blanks for 90 minutes tonight.

With little or no effort Obama should finish off the Republican party’s left-leaning warrior. If any good is to come of this, horses’ rears like Bill Kristol should shut up about moderate Republicans reaching out for middle-of-the-road victories.

Despite my earnest hope, little will be changed following the debate–including the wistful yearnings of intelligent Republicans who think the primary system is nothing short of a farce.

Once upon a time there was a handsome tribe of Indians who lived near the north end of the Great Plains. As the young men of this tribe came of age, they were each required to perform some act of strength or courage to demonstrate their manhood. Upon reaching the appropriate age, one such youth determined within himself to climb to the highest peak of a distant mountain range. Saying goodbye to his family, he set off and began his journey. Upon reaching the base of the mountains early in the morning, the brave cinched his buckskin blouse tightly around his waist and began ascending. As the youth climbed higher and higher, the air became thinner and thinner and his breathing became labored. After seemingly endless hours, he had reached the point in elevation where the trees of the forest could no longer survive and still he continued climbing, proud that his goal seemed to be within reach. Soon, however, far above the tree line, the Indian boy reached to grip a large boulder but recoiled at the sight of a large and fierce-looking rattlesnake laying next to the rock.

“Please,” intoned the serpent. “I am left here helpless, where the snow falls, and if I cannot be warmed, I shall surely die.” Blinking, the boy replied, “but you are a rattlesnake!” “Yes,” the snake conceded, “But I need your mercy and, unless you help me, I shall die . . . please pick me up and carry me down. I promise not to harm you.” The Indian brave realized that by showing mercy to a rattlesnake he might somehow profit from his kindness.

Taking the snake into his arms and placing it next to his breast, the youth continued his ascent to the peak of the tallest mountain. Satisfied that he had proved his manhood, the boy descended rapidly, eager to return to his tribe and recount his daring journey. Contrary to what he experienced going up, as the boy returned to the lower altitudes, the air became warmer, and upon reaching the base of the mountains, he deemed it sufficiently warm to release his needy passenger.

Pulling the snake from his blouse, the brave said, “now, my friend, it is warm down here . . .” but as he spoke a blinding-quick flash struck him on his neck. The poisonous snake’s venomous fangs sunk deep into the youth’s veins, delivering a killing bite. Wild-eyed and staggering the boy croaked, “but you were dying! . . .you needed me! . . .I saved your life!” Slithering away, the snake barely took pains to reply: “you knew what I was when you picked me up.”

Too many times have Republicans been sent to Washington to “change the way business is conducted” there. Too many times, they have succumbed to the pressures of pleasing the beltway media. Unfortunately, it appears inevitable that Republicans in Washington will attempt to please their media and political adversaries by conceding to their demands in a quest to be “fair minded” and “pragmatic.” Too many times the media mouths fed by these uneducated Republicans turn to bite their benefactors. The wound is often fatal.

Republicans must realize what their political opponents are and what they and their allies in the media represent. But we know what they are, and it is at our peril that we trust them for friendship and fairness.

“Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy and the environment, one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We’ve yelled at each other enough. Now it’s time to listen to each other, and act.”

The following August, just before 9-11, speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House, the president said:

>
“Together with Congress, we’re proving that a new tone, a clear agenda and active leadership can bring significant progress to the nation’s capital,” Bush said. “We’re ending deadlock and drift and making our system work on behalf of the American people.”

Despite what you’ve been taught, President Bush went on to make good on his pledge. To the chagrin of conservatives, President Bush invited the lion of liberalism, Ted Kennedy, to assist in drafting an education bill. In its June 4, 2001 report, Spinsanity even accused President Bush of using his non-critical “new tone” as a tool to “suppress Democratic opposition.”

Granted, the worst terror attack ever conceived against America did much to temporarily unify the political parties and delay the inevitable. But, as always, the new tone envisioned by the President could not keep up with the flood of partisanship. It was not too long before Democrats were writing missives to each other stating that criticism of the war in Iraq would give them a great opportunity to regain power. With this, the Democrats and their 95 percent Democrat media allies used the mothers of slain soldiers to attack President Bush’s war policies. Later, emboldened by early successes in this political war against the President, they drafted the assistance of mentally defunct, but seemingly above reproach, congressmen such as John Murtha. With their own war records behind them, little could be done to challenge the sincerity of their carping, and their supposed insight into how the war was going. As support for the war withered under the assault, Democrat big-wigs such as Rahm Emmanuel challenged the party to maintain the ceaseless drum beat against the Iraq war.

November of 2006 brought big fruit to the party for its barrage against America’s war effort. Indeed, not only did the party score an effective majority in both houses, but in the House of Representatives, the Democrats took control by a comfortable margin.

Both hapless and helpless, President Bush didn’t quite “get” the criticism leveled against him. Yes, he was stubborn on the Iraq War–but he was stubborn with everyone on that subject. Yes, he used the war for modest degree of political showmanship, but nothing more than any other president had done. Wasn’t it also true that he had gone left-ward with the No Child Left Behind Act? Didn’t he also sponsor the huge medicare prescription drug benefit? Didn’t he also sign off on the Republican-killing McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act? Yes, he did all of this, hoping to show his adversaries how reasonable and “unextremist” he really was. It was in vain.

The crescendo against the President grew. Now, the “new tone” President was being accused of rank and blinding partisanship. But still, Bush demurred to the critique. Why answer the allegations and descend to their level, right?

It appears that Republicans have an inherent disorder which I shall refer to as “beltwayitis.” When afflicted with beltwayitis, a Republican attempts to assuage his enemies by adopting many of their policies. The usual end result of this disease is that the enemies win their political goals and the Republicans are left defeated in the dust. Sure symptoms of beltwayitis can be described as follows:

• a new-found desire to “reach out” to opponents, rather than convince them;

• an intolerance for the smallest weakness in a fellow Republican, yet the desire to “rise above” felony conduct committed by Democrats;

• the unrelenting urge to complain about one’s party in order to avoid defending conservative principles on weekend news programs;

• the repeated use of jargon phrases like “big tent,” “reaching out,” “avoiding extremism,” and “moderate voters;”

Excellent examples of persons afflicted with beltwayitis are: Trent Lott (a/k/a “go-along-to-get-along”); Lindsey Graham (see also, “gang of stupidity”); Bob Packwood (ex-Senator from Oregon–he grabbed a girl’s butt, but he didn’t use a cigar, so he’s outta there!); and sadly, John McCain (”go left young man” he was once told).

Until a cure can be found for beltwayitis, there is no hope that we, as a nation, will return to constitutional government.

As a country, we have mis-educated ourselves into believing that our wisdom is greater than that of our eighteenth century forebearers. Some have said that because the Founding Fathers didn’t eliminate slavery from the beginning, they are somehow transformed into a pack of raving lunatics and racist bigots. Others feel that people born 200 years ago, cannot possibly fathom how to govern a “modern” people. Truly, few of the writers of the Constitution would have believed that one day a supreme court justice no less would complain that the Constitution was not the law of the land and that the justices’ views of “what is right” should instead prevail.

A relevant story: Some decades ago, an Arizona minister who also had a private pilot’s license, heard a 2 a.m. knock on his door. A lady member of his congregation stood at threshold, looking both grief-stricken and humble. Inviting her in, she explained that her husband was involved in a serious auto accident in an adjoining state. During the phone call, doctors could not assure her that he would survive until the morning. “Please,” she asked the pastor. “Could you help by flying me to be beside by husband? If this is his last day on earth, I want to be by his side.”

Moved by her entreaty, the minister recalled that a cold front was slated to come through the area and that leaving the local airport in such a small craft, under those conditions, was not safe for himself and his grief-stricken church member. But compassion moved him to accept and he quickly dressed and drove her to the local airport. After a hurried take off in the stormy darkness, the small plane was jostled severely as it struggled to gain altitude. But he knew his destination well and had little fear of arriving safely. At one point in the buffeting darkness a severe shock to the plane caused him to glance over at his passenger to provide reassurance, if needed. She sat still, looking forward, dimly lit by the instruments and not exhibiting the smallest reaction to the storm swirling around them.

Looking back at his prop, the minister felt that something had gone wrong in those brief seconds that he glanced away. Scanning around, he saw a few stars peeking through the clouds, and the fog-covered ground below. All was well. But in the next few seconds, the thought kept recurring, “all is not well; check your instruments.” Despite seeing the stars above and the cloud-covered mountains surrounding the valley, below, the plane’s artificial horizon appeared to show that the plane was upside down and descending! “It cannot be!” he thought. He had seen the stars on one side and the ground on the other, and, besides, his body felt that the small plane was climbing out of the mountains, not heading downward towards them! In the momentary confusion, the thought came again, but stronger: “Trust your instruments!”

Fighting everything that his body was screaming at him, the pilot began to turn his craft upside down and as he did so: only then did he begin to realize that the stars he saw peeking through clouds were actually the lights of farm houses near the base of the mountains–shining through the low cloud cover. The turbulence had spun them upside down!

Today, we are buffeted by turbulence. We see the government of our once great nation in a state of confusion. We hear voices from every side saying “go here!” or “go there!” Friends, our only answer lies here: We must trust those who established this government and Constitution. We must trust their Constitution as the instrument of our freedom. Let us overcome the conceit of our age and realize that wisdom is an eternal commodity.

If we can overcome our fears and trust that this precious document will lead us to both prosperity and freedom, I can assure all that the results we seek will not be long in coming.

Laughingly, for months now I have heard conservative commentators sarcastically refer to Barack Obama as the “Messiah.” Then, belatedly, it struck me. Without descending into a debate about religion, here is a man, from abortion to gay marriage, stands in opposition to everything that most Christians believe. Yet little children are being taught to sing:

*Obama's gonna change it; Obama's gonna lead them.  We're gonna change the word.*

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/30/the-obama-childrens-chorus/

But it gets worse: In Kansas, and undoubtedly elsewhere, high school aged youths are being “indoctrinated”–their words, not mine–about the virtues of messiah Obama. Students of a so-called Junior Fraternity Regiment (read “brown shirts”) apparently feel compelled to credit every success they will ever achieve to: a politician who does not represent them; has not supported any legislation that directly affects them; and who has never governed them, or anyone else, in his lifetime–Barack Hussein Obama. The Obama Youth Regiment enters into a classroom room marching, and while marching these soldiers chant “alpha-omega.” In case you missed it, this is the same name that Jesus Christ himself, another messiah, used. “Alpha and Omega” is understood by all to be an appellation for God himself.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/30/the-obama-childrens-chorus/

1 John 2:18: “Little children, it is the last time[s]; and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come . . . whereby know that this is the last time[s].” (KJV). Now, I realize that Wikipedia is not a definitive source for information, but is it just coincidence that, under Wiki’s definition of antichrist, it reads: “anti-Christ means a person, office, or group recognized as fulfilling the Biblical prophecies about one who will oppose Christ and substitute himself in Christ’s place?” If Obama hasn’t done that, his followers certainly appear to have done so.

In truth, this forum is the only refuge left for people who fear an Obama Presidency. Our own corrupted government will attack us for bringing similar views to the public airwaves and newsprint. Thanks to McCain and others.

People who earnestly seek the Christianity which was at the heart of the Founders of this Country, can no longer speak without the mockery of, and assault by, the new majority, anti-religious hegemony.

For myself, I shall speak the truth and inquire of, and test, everything. I fully expect to be attacked for my viewpoints here, but for me the truth trumps all. If I am a bigot, then I will proudly wear the moniker. If I am racist–wherever that seems to come from–then so be it. What I truly am, is fearful of a President Obama, and the resultant loss of freedom for the freedom-loving. And I welcome any facts to change my view.

Before I reveal this plan, allow me a minute to explain. For fiscal year 2006, the top one percent of tax payers paid just shy of 40% of all income taxes. If you find that shocking, just consider that the bottom fifty percent of taxpayers paid less than 3% of all income taxes. Now, it seems rational that those who earn more should, in fact, pay more in taxes. However, our current progressive taxing system gives the bottom fifty percent almost zero incentive to demand less government spending. Put another way, five of every ten taxpayers may rightly feel that they can safely vote for increasing the size of government since the resultant tax burden to them will amount to less than 3% of the cost of such increase.

Like it or not, to restrain government, every tax payer must be angry about government spending and waste. Logically the only way to do that is to make all share the burden of government overspending. The solution: a national sales tax to replace the income tax. When low income and middle class Americans buy a $35.00 pair of jeans, yet have to pay an additional 30% tax to actually wear them, they will want to hold someone accountable. It is my hope that that someone will be their congressman.

Other systems may appear fair on their face, but in reality, they give half of the American population an incentive to soak the other half. What’s fair about that?

Because McCain’s nomination had dispirited so many conservatives in the Republican party, one might have questioned whether he would have even bested the Libertarian candidate come November 4th. But Palin provides the Republican base the hope that, given the choice between a communist and a socialist, Americans will choose the socialist who has a rock-ribbed conservative by his side.

The more that Palin’s history is unveiled the more she looks like fly-over country. And the more we Americans like her. Palin’s “experience” in government demonstrates that she will adhere to our Constitution and limit the role of government in our lives. This is what conservatism needs to thrive.

Disenchanted with the nomination of a closet Democrat, conservatives were given a new life with the annoucement of Palin. Yet, they remain wary of McCain and his go-along-to-get-along ways with the left.

The four words which McCain can utter to win? “I have a malignancy.”