Man, is this the strangest election cycle you’ve ever seen, or what? First, on the Democrat side, we start off with what I felt was sure to be a shoe-in with Sen. Clinton. I just knew that with all the money, name-recognition (which is something money just can’t buy), and with all the influential people the Clinton’s knew, that the road to the White House would be a cake walk for Hillary.

In all sincerity, who would have thought that at this point in the game, there would even be a contender still standing? Much less one that could “KO” Sen. Clinton at any moment.

And what about Barack Hussein Obama? This guy spends a little time at the U.S. Senate, and before the paint on his “This space reserved for Sen. Obama” sign in the parking lot is even dry, he’s running for president. The nerve of this man!

I would have never guessed in a million years that this guy would be running for president, and I certainly would have NEVER seen him winning it. And no, for all you liberal talking heads out there, I don’t say that because I’m a conservative redneck. I say that because it’s true. Here is a man who is brand new to the national political scene, has no national record on which to stand, and he’s flipping winning. It’s just incredible!

And on the other side of the aisle, things are equally as strange. We had a strong field in the Republican party this year. The only problem is, you can’t elect them all, and there hasn’t been a single candidate that could unite the party enough to really rally the troops behind him.

For this Christian Conservative, I would have liked to have seen Fred Thompson in the Oval Office. Sadly, though, it seemed like everybody except for Fred Thompson wanted Fred Thompson to be the president.

So, looking down the list, yes, Rudy Giuliani appeared he would be tough on national security…but that was it. He reminded me of John Kerry running against Bush where whenever things got tough, he would always come back to “but I fought in Vietnam.” Except Giuliani always came back to, “I was the mayor on 9/11/01.

So I went on down the list, and I finally found one that I was reasonably happy with: Mitt Romney. Here was my hope. I knew he had some changes of positions in the past, but I felt he was sincere, and I knew he was confident in what he was doing.

He had both the government background and the business savvy to make things happen. I felt that, regardless of the rumors of his church, he had the moral fiber to lead our nation. What’s more, I knew he had the strength of his convictions. Yes, he was THE man.

Gov. Huckabee was one that I never really gave a lot of serious consideration. I was, at best, skeptical of his social conservatism. And I was convinced that he was not a fiscal conservative.

So, I immediately set to work on getting Gov. Romney a new address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I started writing all kinds of articles praising his good works and dedication to the preservation of the United States Constitution. My writings on Romney, and on most of the 2008 presidential field, can be read in my new book, “Mr. Right Opinion- Unplugged and Unashamed” which should be available within the next week at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/. I hope you’ll check it out.

Anyway, I, and a whole slew of other folks, are hard at work trying to get Romney nominated when…BAMN! In his most Reagan-esque way to date, The Governor from Mass. Drops out of the race for “the good of the party.” I was disappointed by his decision, but I could respect it.

This news kind of knocked me back on my heels, as I’m sure it did many Republicans. It took me a while to figure out what to do next. I was not very impressed when the “Governator” Arnold gave John McCain his endorsement. Quite frankly, I don’t see Arnold as a Conservative. However, I knew if the Republicans didn’t do something, and do it pretty fast, we were going to be in trouble (ala today’s Democrat party). So I decided it was time to “rally round the flag” and support the man who would undoubtedly be our nominee: John McCain.

Since then, I have tried to point out positives about the Arizona Senator. You can go back to previous posts I have written about McCain, and you’ll see that I’ve said that even if you have to hold your nose to do it, if you are a republican, pull that lever for McCain.

But, John, you are NOT helping me here. Going to speak before a conference of La Raza, the pro-Aztlan and pro-illegal immigration group is not exactly a way to shore up your base.

And what about this little speech on global warming. Have you picked up a Science magazine lately? We are in the middle of a five-year cool down. Senator, I have honestly been telling people to hold their nose and vote for you because it would be better than a vote for Hillary or Obama, and it would.

But, sir, it is now reaching the point where we are not merely looking over a few disagreements. We are fast-reaching a point where, for me to tell my fellow conservatives to vote for you, even if they are holding their nose, crossing their fingers, standing on their heads and doing a jig, is for me to tell my fellow conservatives to vote against their own consciences. And I simply cannot do that.

PLEASE Sen. McCain, give us the kind of leadership we need so we can get behind you. If that’s not possible, then it looks like the Republicans are just going to have to miss out on a golden opportunity to keep the White House, even at a time when anti-Republican sentiment is so high that the cake walk that almost never happened may happen after all.

(An aside: when I refer to and quote the United States Constitution in this artcle, unless otherwise noted, the information and quotes come from www.usconstitution.net)

In his trip to America, Pope Benedict XVI has said many profound things. However, this single sentence jumped out at me, and now I cannot get it out of my head. The latest Pontiff was quoting his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. And the entire quote from CNSNews.com’s story, “Pope Hails America’s Founding Principles“, by Terence P. Jeffrey, went: “Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II," he (Pope Benedict XVI) said. "In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in Eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows time and again that 'in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation,'

and a democracy without values can lose its very soul.

What an insightful statement. What a prophetic use of language which should be a warning to us all. Not just the Chinese, who systematically suppress individual freedoms, not just the Taliban who suppress, or at least did, and are still trying to, an entire population under the guise of religion, an not just to the Castro brothers, who continue a brutal dictatorship under the guise of an equality for all system known as Communism.

No, this message must not be lost on the ears of Americans as being some very profound words that a lot of OTHER nations could really use. Folks, we could use them here at home, too. Maybe here more than anywhere as, we see the morality and teachings of our forefathers slowly, but steadily, slip away.

The United States of America was founded on certain basic Judeo-Christian ideologies which, in recent decades, have been totally turned on their head. One by one, we systematically pluck out truth from our society and replace it with lies, all in the name of progressive (i.e. liberal) ideals. One by one, we are undermining the very footers upon which this nation was built.

Was every forefather at those conventions perfect? Of course not. Did they sin, just as we do today? Naturally. They drank to excess, they murdered, both the enemy and each other, I’m quite sure many of them stole to feed their families, and some of them even committed what Barack Hussein Obama termed “America’s original sin”-- slavery.

However, that does not mean that the writings which laid down the very principles upon which this country was built were anything less than Divinely-inspired. But we, as a nation, have lost sight of that divine inspiration.

For instance, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it addresses the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. The Founding Fathers wrote: “Becoming a citizen

 

A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character. (http://www.usconstitution.net).

Nowhere in that original document did I see anything about being able to sneak across the border long enough to be given amnesty! We have lost track of the truth!

Another lack of truth when studying the Constitution is that the President does not have the power to “react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.” While this is a broad statement, it does, in fact, give the president the authorization to most-definitely strike Afghanistan, who, outside of your Michael Moore types, is known to be behind the tragic events of 9/11/01. Thus, the constitution absolutely gave President Bush the right to attack Afghanistan in his capacity to “react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.”

This, obviously, brings us to the question of Iraq. Did the president have the right to, along with a “coalition of the willing,” attack Iraq and bring down it’s regime?” Please allow me to enter Exhibit ’A’ if you will: S.J. Res. 23:Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill) found at: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html.

The act says, verbatim:

“Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: (emphasis added) Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate. “

Once again, we have to look at the truth. Now obviously, you and I will never have access to the intelligence reports, at least the non-redacted ones, to know exactly what they said about Iraq’s involvement in plans to attack America, although there is plenty of taped evidence suggesting that they had plans to do just that.

Regardless, the TRUTH, as the Pope pointed out, “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” And the TRUTH, as hard as it is for some liberal…oops…progressives…to believe, is that Congress unanimously said that, “Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: (emphasis added) Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

Having read Congress’s words, there is little doubt thay they gave President Bush the “`Authorization for Use of Military Force,” in SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, and in SECTION 2. “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.”

Yet we have lost sight of this truth, and as a result, and as the Holy Father said, 'in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.' And indeed, in losing what the truth on Iraq was, we are indeed losing our very foundation.

Just look how divided we are as a nation. We have the religious right-wing coming out that McCain isn’t’ conservative enough, we have moderate Republicans saying that he’s too conservative for their liking. And then there are the ‘Progressives’ or, as I still like to call them, Liberals.

They are just salivating to see which Democrat will screw up next so they can try to move in for the kill. It is a sad situation.

And the majority of this bickering could stop if we just take a lesson from the Pope and see that without truth, freedom loses its foundation. Think about it.

Don’t forget Mr. Right Opinion’s upcoming book “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed.” It will soon be available through authorHOUSE at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/.

 

 

 

 

Yesterday afternoon, I was listening to the Kevin McCullough show on BlogNet Radio, and we were all discussing the controversy surrounding Barack Obama, and his racist, anti-American pastor, the wrong-reverend Wright.

As we discussed the issue, Kevin was elightened with a wonderful idea...kill 'em with love. Here is what his Townhall blog says:

Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 12:44 AM

"God Bless America!"

On the broadcast today a SPECIAL Easter Weekend idea hit some of my listeners and I at the same time. This weekend - thousands of born again, Evangelical and Catholic, Black and White - CHRISTIANS will be observing the celebration of Jesus Christ's miracle of Resurrection over sin and death. In this nation - we have greater religious liberty and freedom than any other nation on earth.

So our goal for the "GOD BLESS AMERICA" campaign - THIS WEEKEND - is to remind Dr. Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ about God's blessings that He HAS poured out on us.

We are asking YOU to take part in this with thousands of like-minded Christians from across the nation...

Dial Trinity at 773.962.5650 - all weekend long - and tell them that you're praying "for God to bless America." Repeat it three times, thank them for their time and then let them go. Three times Dr. Wright called down God's damnation on America in the soundbyte that has been played over and over.

Imagine thousands of messages of blessing - coming from mostly WHITE people to let Dr. Wright know that we are asking God to bless us, and Trinity UCC by extension.

The weight of this ounce of goodness would be heavier than ten tons of guilt. My listeners took to the idea immediately. But we need radio shows, blogs, columnists and everyday people to pass it on to their friends.

Call Trinity at 773.962.5650...

Or fill up their e-mail inbox at: info@TUCC.org!

Today was a big day for the big man from Illinois who has been the center of speculation and scrutiny since inflammatory remarks on race and ‘evil American domestic and foreign policy’ made by his mentor and spiritual advisor, the wrong right-Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public fodder. And he blew it…big time.

When your pastor says such things after 9/11/01 as “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” or, “not God bless America, God Damn America,” you have to go a lot further than simply disagreeing with those words, no matter how strongly. Especially when you are running for president of the very country that your preacher is calling on God to damn. It just wasn’t nearly enough.

Barack Hussein Obama is certainly a great orator, and while I have heard some pundits say that he said exactly what needed to be said, I have heard others say that he gave a great speech, but on the wrong topic. I personally feel that neither is true.

The speech was mediocre. I would by no means put him on the level of MLK, or even “second to only MLK,” as I heard one pundit say. This was a speech of rhetoric. It was a speech that went so far out of its way to please everyone, that it really wasn’t enough to please anyone.

Obama did start out strong, reciting the U.S. Constitution, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union." How can you go wrong there?

He then went on to say, “The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate….” And he was right on the money with that.

And then he said, “Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice….” And again, he was right. The answer to the slave issue was/is in the Constitution.

But then things changed. Barack said that his campaign’s mission was to continue the march for a more just, caring, equal, and free America. Does he not realize that he is running for the highest office in America? Indeed, in the free world? I like the way Rush Limbaugh put it on his radio show today. He said something to the effect that Obama is not an agent of that change, but a product of it. I have to concur.

A little later, Sen. Obama said something that confounded me. Said he: “I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.” He sounds as though he is bitter about this dual legacy. I am not really sure what good this does him in trying to solve, if you will, the problems with race and racism in America. What message was he trying to get across here? Or was this another attempt to appeal to blacks and whites? If so, I say it was far off target. For if he was trying to appeal to blacks by saying his wife had slave blood in her, that alone may have done it. However, the slave owners statement, in my estimation, would not appeal to black voters.

And if he somehow thought he could appeal to white voters by saying the blood of slave owners passed through his wife’s veins, well, today’s white folk are pretty anti-slavery; at least the greatest majority of us.

The Democrat front-runner then talked about the unconventionality of his run for president. He said America is more than the sum of its parts. That out of many, we are made one. That’s a nice thought, and quite honestly, I believe it. I think we have come far in the quest for equality among the races. However, I am not convinced Barack himself believes it.

Throughout the speech there were instances where I found myself waiting for him to say “So in your face, cracker!” Like this next part, “Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.” Just add an “in your face cracker” there, and the racial overtone becomes much more obvious.

And while we’re on this point, why, oh why, if blacks in America truly want to put aside racial differences, and not forget the past, but rather build a better future on the past, why do they insist on calling themselves “African-Americans?” I don’t call myself, nor do my white friends call themselves, Euro-Americans. We are simply Americans. Putting any kind of adjective before American simply worsens any division that already exists.

The would-be presidential nominee then goes on to address the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue…well, sort of. He does say that he has “already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.”

However, he also said that he could not disown Rev. Wright any more than he could disown the “African-American” community. Now, in my mind’s eye (or ear), this is telling me that Barack feels that the black community in this country still holds the incendiary remarks of Obama’s pastor to be truths. That this is the U S of KKK A, that the American government did start AIDS as a tool of genocide, that the aftermath of Katrina was a carefully orchestrated plan by “the man” to rid New Orleans, and indeed the Gulf coast, of black people. Anybody else get that uneasy feeling that this is what Obama is saying?

He also said that he couldn’t disown the disgraceful pastor any more than he could disown his own white grandmother (I told you: a little something for everybody). He then said that he had heard this particular grandmother express fear of black men as they passed her on the street.

He also described her as a woman who “on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” That’s odd, he hasn’t cringed at Rev. Wright’s remarks even once, at least not that he has mentioned.

A little bit later, B. Hussein Obama say’s that, “We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.” But then, what does the man do? You guessed it. Next came a history lesson of how racism in America’s history has unfairly treated blacks, and left many of them, such as Rev. Wright, bitter.

First, of course, he mentions slavery. This is a topic worthy of discussion, and it is certainly a permanent blight on the legacy of this country. He then mentions Jim Crow laws, Brown v. Board of Education, legalized discrimination, “where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white….”

Shhheww! I’m glad we didn’t need to “recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.” That could have been seen as being bitter about a past with which most of us had nothing to do. I’m sure glad he didn’t recite that history!

The great orator then goes on to explain that there is a similar anger in white segments of the community. That programs that favored blacks over whites, such as affirmative action, denied white people jobs and college admissions because the school or employer had to meet a quota, regardless of the applicant’s capabilities (or lack thereof). Obama said, basically, that situations such as these led to animus in the white community, and he was right about that.

He said that this anger is what sparked the “Reagan Coalition,” was the driving force behind the conservative movement in general, and also led to the catapulting of conservative talk radio, and there may be some truth to that, as well.

However, what Sen. Barack Hussein Obama fails to recognize, is that it has been the Republican party, not his, that has been the leader of reform movements to help the black community. As I mentioned in my last article, and as is stated in my upcoming book, (pardon the shameless plug), “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed,” available in late April/early May at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/, it was the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 that brought about the most sweeping welfare reforms in our nation’s history. And those led to lower welfare rolls, and the lowest black child poverty rate in American history.

The only truly profound thing that I heard from this speech is that the welfare system has kept the black community in a cycle of dependence. I only wish that he had touched on that a little more, as it is his party that has kept that cycle in full spin mode for so many years.

The welfare reforms I mentioned earlier? By 2001, the Democrats in the halls of Congress were hard at work to reverse them.

Yes, there was a little bit for everyone in this speech. But I always say, when you try to be all things to all people, you wind up being nothing to anybody.

Well, all I can really say about the latest economic news coming out of Washington is that I hope all the folks that voted in a Democrat House and Senate are happy with their new tax hikes. For they are about to see “the single largest tax increase in the nation's history” according to an article from CNSNews.com entitled “Congress Says Yes to Tax Hikes,” quoting House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

Last week the House passed a budget blueprint that will raise taxes for all taxpaying households earning over roughly $32,000.00. The House and Senate both voted against making the Bush tax cuts permanent. In my judgment, they are missing the big picture in doing this.

I realize that the economy is currently tanking. Believe me, when it costs me $50.00 fill the gas tank (and no, I don’t have an S.U.V.), I feel the pain of a near-recession. However, I also remember that it wasn’t long ago that the Dow was at a record high. Remember that? Apparently, Congress does not. At least, not the Democrats.

Look, we are in the middle of two battle-fronts in the War on Terror. Iraq and Afghanistan are costing huge amounts of money. I know this. I also know that this will not last forever, and that you can’t solve national economic problems by raising taxes. Presidents Reagan and Bush forty-three have both shown us that the economy can actually improve with lower taxes.

The “trickle-down economics” of the Reagan administration proved that lowering taxes on those who actually create jobs helps to bolster their confidence, and encourages the creation of more jobs. The more jobs we have, the more income the federal government can generate. And the more jobs we have, the fewer the people that are on welfare, unemployment, etc.

This point seems to just go right over the heads of Democrats. And if they were honest about it, Democrats would tell you that they really don’t want to create jobs. The Democrat ideology is the fewer jobs we have, the more people must depend on the federal government to meet their basic needs. And the more people must depend on government, the more secure congressional jobs are.

It is a vicious cycle that keeps people in poverty, and offers Democrats job security. Conservatives believe in allowing, and really forcing, those who are capable of being self-sufficient to do so. The liberal mantra is just the opposite. The true way to get ahead in a liberal world is to have another baby so you can collect more money off the federal dime.

I know that sounds illogical, but it’s true. As I point out in my book, “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed,” which will be coming out in late April/early May, and will be available at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/, the proof is in the pudding. Just look at an excerpt from the book, in an article entitled “Conservatives, Liberals And Welfare Reform:”

“Firstly, though, in order to see the truth on this issue, it is imperative to realize, and accept, that welfare reform is mostly the responsibility of Congress. While the president can sign or veto all legislation, it is ultimately Congress that crafts the laws which either move us forward, keep us stagnant or send us spiraling downward.”

From 1970-1995, poverty rates in this country remained high, and the welfare rolls continued to swell. And although they controlled Congress during all but three years of that period, Democrats did nothing to improve this situation by reforming the welfare system.”

In 1994, in what has been dubbed ‘The Republican Revolution,’ Republicans wrested control of both houses of Congress from the clutches of the Democrat party. This marked a new era in the annals of American legislative history.”

From 1994-1996, Democrats in Congress opposed this legislation. Eventually, however, half of congressional Democrats capitulated and the act passed. (Then) President Clinton, having already vetoed two previous versions of welfare reform and facing a reelection bid, signed the act into law.”

The results of the Republican-led reform proved that the conservative ideology was the true way to improve economic conditions for the impoverished. The reforms resulted in lower welfare rolls, higher employment for single mothers, and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers and black children in U.S. history. Yet Nancy Pelosi and her ilk want to return us to the “good old days.”

This reasoning defies all logic. Will we never learn from history? As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. And it looks as if we are in repeat mode.

The budget proposed by House Democrats last week will ‘foist a $683-billion tax hike on American families to fuel the Democrats' ‘reckless spending agenda,’ Blunt complained,” according to the CNSNews article.

While Pelosi maintains that the Democrat-proposed budget “values families and their economic future,” it is hard to believe. If they really valued families and their economic future, they wouldn’t be raising taxes on families that earn just $32,000.00 per year. Her rhetoric is absurd.

Another interesting little tidbit about this Democrat-controlled House of supposed Representatives is that the liberal House Democrats rejected a Republican-sponsored plan to place a one year moratorium on earmarks, a.k.a. “pork-barrel spending.” Now isn’t that interesting? Democrats say that Republicans are wasting money, and they are, yet the Dems won’t agree to forego pork barrel projects for one single year.

Further complicating matters is the fact that House Democrats want this 683 BILLION-dollar tax hike, and still they offer nothing in it to address the problem of Social (in)Security and Medicare insolvency that is looming large in the not-so-distant future. Hey, Nancy, what exactly are you all solving up there?

On Friday, the Senate also voted to raise taxes on the majority of Americans, while also shooting down a moratorium on earmarks. While Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted for the moratorium, Senators Clinton (D-NY) and Obama (D-IL), both of whom are running for president, voted against the moratorium, and thus for more wasteful federal spending.

Live it up, those of you who voted this Congress into power. And “ask not for whom the bell tows, for it tows for you!”

It is time for another candidate profile. This time, we shall examine a man who has been termed by some as a little on the left (of Joseph Stalin)! Of course, I am speaking of Barack Hussein Obama. The issue at hand: abortion

I had received a special report called “Barack Obama Exposed” from Human Events, www.humanevents.com. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost that in the never-ending abyss that is “my documents” in my computer. It had some pretty startling facts in it. So, I will try to find as much as I can online to save you, my fellow Opinionators, from having to do the grunt work to find all this information yourselves; I’ll grunt for you.

The first item to which I would like to point your attention is an article titled, “Barack Obama states abortion position to NARAL,” found at The Flying Facist website. In his position, Barack Hussein Obama states: “A woman’s ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess.”

You know, I half-way agree with him here. The message would be perfect were he speaking to a group of high school girls about abstaining from sex until marriage. Were he telling them, “don’t have sex without birth control, even after marriage, unless you are ready and able to provide a child with the love and resources that it takes to bring that child up in a healthy, stable family,” that would be a great message.

Unfortunately, that is not the message that Barack Hussein Obama is trying to send. Instead, his is a message of trying to preserve abortion as a method of choosing if and when to have a baby. In other words, he is using this as another form of birth control. He is saying that if the child is inconvenient, kill it. Plain and simple.

Barack Hussein Obama further goes on to say, “I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.” He then pays a little lip service to the less “blood-thirsty” among civilization by talking a little about contraceptives and sex education. But it all leads back to the same thing: murdering babies.

The obvious best way to “reduce the number of unintended pregnancies” is to not have sex in the first place. However, I am in agreement with the majority here, and realize that this is not, in all cases, a viable possibility. Thus, the second-best way to reduce unintended pregnancies: birth control…BEFORE intercourse…not the “morning after.” In my Right Opinion, that is abortion as well.

I just love the little euphemisms that these liberals put on topics dealing with abortion. It’s not abortion, it’s “family planning.” And it’s not “the abortion pill” that the female takes AFTER becoming pregnant, it’s the “morning after pill,” the “Plan-B pill,” or my favorite, “emergency contraception.” The emergency was BEFORE you laid down with that man last night and didn’t have a condom, now it’s just reality!

From one of my favorite websites, www.ontheissues.org, we see deeper into what Barack Hussein Obama has planned for our great nation. For, in Illinois, he was a notorious supporter of abortion. Even partial-birth abortion.

This next portion is very graphic, but necessary, to try and show you just how horrific partial-birth abortion is. It is called “partial-birth” abortion for just that reason…it is partial birth. The baby has reached a phase, in the third trimester usually, where it could sustain itself, were it given the opportunity. Read this next part from www.abortioninfo.net.

“In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with thirteen years or (sic) experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion clinic. Since Nurse Shafer considered herself ‘very pro-choice,’ she didn't think this assignment would be a problem. She was wrong. This is what Nurse Shafer saw:
‘ I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.’

And there it is. There is what Barack Hussein Obama, and millions of other liberal “Americans,” want to allow to happen to our future. How despicable is that? Twice, as an Illinois senator, Obama voted to allow these types of abortions. All because the baby might have been an inconvenience to the parent(s).

Getting back to ontheissues.org:

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

M.R.O. says this is just stupid, but typical. There is a method here folks. What he doesn’t say here is that he wants abortion made available to minors, without the girl’s parents’ knowledge or consent. Now here’s the kicker. If the federal government does what Barack Hussein Obama wants and does not get involved in this issue, partial-birth abortion will be available to our children without our knowledge or consent. That is the stupid part.

Now for the typical part: If you notice, Sen. Barack Hussein Obama minimizes the issue by saying, “Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions …” Well, Mr. Obama, according to the site, abortionfacts.com, “The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a branch of Planned Parenthood, aggressively contacts hospitals and known abortionists, and the result is a more accurate and larger figure, which we use.”

They say that the Guttmacher Institute says that, in the 1990’s, there were an average of 1.55 million abortions per year. Taking Barack Hussein Obama’s stats at face value, one percent, that would mean that 15,500 VIABLE babies were murdered each year! That is almost forty-three PER DAY!

So one typical liberal tactic used was to minimize the damage, give a percentage rather than the actual staggering number. But the second typical liberal tactic is to change the subject. Notice that Obama acknowledges that it happens, but then quickly says, “Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on?” What’s the problem, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, is it getting a little warm in that hot seat?

This article is becoming a book. And I already have one of those due out in the next couple of months. By the way, have I mentioned that it is called “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed: one man’s views during perilous times in America’s history?” I have? Oh, sorry to bother you again, then. But it is published by AuthorHouse, and will be available at: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/ or you can go to Authorhouse.com and search for Michael A. Minton, and order there.

Anyway, you see where Mr. Barack Hussein Obama wants to lead us. You see how little he values life. I mean, we could discuss when life begins all day long. I say at conception, others argue that it starts at various points along the pregnancy path. But I defy anyone with any amount of intellect at all to tell me that a baby that could survive if not killed is not a human life.

Well, it’s not late December, and it’s not back in ‘63, but I think it’s fair to say, “Oh What a Night.” Super Tuesday-Part Deux proved to be just that…super. The Republicans finally can say they have a nominee, and Democrats can say they have mass confusion.

Congratulations go out to Sen. John McCain for clinching the Republican nomination with a clean sweep of Tuesday’s primaries. And I guess it’s only fair to congratulate Gov. Huckabee for his hard-fought campaign. I know I called on him to drop out long ago, and I still think that would have been the thing to do. But he had every right to stay in until the end, and, driven by principle, he did just that.

On the other side, I don’t think it could get much more interesting. As I write this, Hillary has definitely won two states, and it looks like Texas will probably go her way. The spinners for Barack Hussein Obama are trying their best to downplay Hillary’s major wins by saying that the delegate count won’t shift much, and they are right about that.

However, Sen. Clinton has accomplished a much larger feat than winning a few delegates tonight. She has put the brakes on the momentum of the Obama express. Democrats are finally coming to their senses about Barack Hussein Obama and are starting to actually think about the substance, not just the flash, of their choices.

I believe it was me that said that Obama was copying a page straight out of the Democrat playbook: pie-in-the-sky promises with no way to actually achieve them. I told you, my fellow Opinionators, that his campaign was an aberration, and that it could not sustain itself. And while it is far from over, I truly think that, with seven weeks to go before the next major contest in Pennsylvania, Hillary has turned the “mojo” on Barack.

Please do not take my little push for Sen. Clinton as support; it is not. However, Barack Hussein Obama scares the devil out of me. The mere thought of someone as liberal as he, almost to the point of Communism, sitting in the Oval Offiice, literally makes me start mourning the death of America. I’m serious, he is that dangerous.

I don’t like very much at all about Hillary Rodham Clinton, but I don’t think she would destroy the country in under four years. I do think that Sen. Obama could, and most likely would.

And while I’m on the subject of support for Hillary, indulge me, please, as I do a little commentary on one of “our own.” What in the world is wrong with Ann Coulter? I think this election cycle has literally put her over the edge. Short of Hitler becoming the Republican nominee, I would NEVER behave as she is now behaving.

I saw her today on Cavuto (I think) and heard more of the same unbelievable bile that she has been spewing lately. She was again saying that she would support the Democrat candidate in the general election if Sen. McCain is the Republican candidate. As I have stated previously, and will state again, that kind of rhetoric is childish and asinine. I find myself totally dumbfounded when I hear her speak these days.

She did say that if Mitt Romney were McCain’s running mate that she would probably vote the Republican ticket, because that would give Romney a better shot in 2012. I just can’t figure her out. If she is truly fighting for the conservative cause, what purpose does this silly talk possibly serve? Does she really think that Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama would be a more conservative president than John McCain? If so, she is delusional and needs psychiatric care immediately.

Once again I would like to point out Mr. Right Opinion’s mathematical equations. One Republican who decides not to vote at all in the general election = one vote for the Democrat (i.e. one less vote for the Republican). One Republican who chooses to actually vote for the Democrat = two votes for the Democrat (i.e. one less vote for the Republican, and one more vote for the Democrat).

Think about it, Republicans. Like him or not, Sen. McCain IS the Republican nominee for president in 2008. If you sit it out this time, or even worse, actually switch sides, you are helping either Obama or Clinton get the keys to the White House. Do you honestly think that America would be better served by one of them than by McCain? The answer is obvious.

All I can say to Ann Coulter, and to anyone of like mind, is that it’s time to grow up and stop acting like children. The stakes for our great nation have probably never been higher. I know Republicans could have done better in our choice. But, it is what it is, and we, as alleged adults, must accept the reality and stand behind our candidate.

I thought I would share with my readers who might not have time to investigate all of these things what the media, and even some fellow politicians, are saying about Barack Hussein Obama.

They Said It! CBS On Barack Obama's State Senate Record

CBS' Dean Reynolds: "From votes for abortion rights, to lessening penalties for marijuana use, to raising doubts about capital punishment, Obama is a traditional liberal."
State Sen. Bill Brady (R-IL): "I can't think of a tax increase that he didn't embrace."
(CBS' "CBS Evening News," 2/28/08)

OBAMA'S LAUNDRY LIST OF TAX HIKES WOULD HURT THE ECONOMY

Obama Is A High-Tax Candidate Whose Slew Of Tax Increases Would Hurt The Economy:

Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Higher Social Security Taxes, Higher Investment Taxes, And Higher Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system."
James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08

Obama Has Also Called For Tax Hikes On "Dirty Energy" Such As Coal And Natural Gas.
Obama: "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas."
("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08

Alan Reynolds, Senior Fellow At The Cato Institute: "In Short, Obama Is A 'Tax-And-Spend' Liberal..."
Alan Reynolds, Op-Ed, "Tax Delusions," New York Post, 2/15/08

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore: "[Obama] doesn't believe that raising tax rates is going to hurt the economy and if he becomes President ... tax rates will go up almost across the board."
The Wall Street Journal Website, www.wsj.com, Accessed 2/13/08

Ben Stein On Barack Obama's Economic Plan: "Mr. Obama could become president and derail everything because his understanding of economics is 100 percent wrong. ... I must say I'm so scared about Mr. Obama becoming president. I can hardly tell you."
CNBC's "Kudlow & Company," 2/14/08
The Las Vegas Review-Journal Calls Obama's Tax Plan "A Recipe For Economic Disaster."
Editorial, "More Class Warfare," Las Vegas Review-Journal, 9/20/07

The Washington Post: "[T]he Illinois Senator's Proposals Are Poorly Crafted, Lavishing Tax Goodies Where They're Not Needed."
Editorial, "Mr. Obama's Cookie Jar," The Washington Post, 9/25/07

U.S. News & World Report's James Pethokoukis: "[T]he Obama Plan Could Also Be Called A 'Ways In Which Government Can Collect More Taxes To Pay For New Spending' Plan..."
James Pethokoukis, "Obama Pushes For Higher Investment Taxes," U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 9/19/07

*Are you starting to notice a pattern here? And this is just ONE issue among many! And these are not conservative hawks talking. For the most part, they are part of the liberal media. But wait…there’s more:

OBAMA'S BUSINESS TAX PLAN IMPOSES A SIGNIFICANT TAX BURDEN

Obama's Tax Proposal For Businesses Favors Employers That Fulfill "The Fondest Big Labor Agenda." "Mr. Obama's proposal would designate certain companies as 'patriot employers' and favor them over other, presumably not so patriotic, businesses. ... In other words, a patriotic employer is one which fulfills the fondest Big Labor agenda, regardless of the competitive implications. The proposal ignores the marketplace reality that businesses hire a work force they can afford to pay and still make money. Coercing companies into raising wages and benefits above market rates may only lead to fewer workers getting hired in the first place."

Obama's Proposal Penalizes Most American Companies That Have Subsidiaries Abroad With "A Big Tax Increase." "Under Mr. Obama's plan, 'patriot employers' qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad. Put another way, U.S. companies would suddenly have to pay a higher tax rate than their Chinese, Japanese and European competitors."
Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08

OBAMA'S PROPOSALS WOULD HURT SMALL BUSINESS

Obama's Plans For Health Care And Social Security Would Burden Small Businesses:

Obama's Health Care Proposal Includes "A New Tax On Small Businesses That Don't Provide Health Care To Their Employees." "[Obama] is calling for the tax cuts pushed by President Bush to expire in 2010 for upper-income earners -- an effective tax hike for more than 1 million taxpayers -- and is proposing a new tax on small businesses that don't provide health care to their employees."
Rick Klein, "No Lip Service: Dems Trade Higher Taxes For Social Programs," ABCNews.com, 5/29/07

Obama's Plan To Raise Payroll Taxes To Fund Social Security Would Hurt Small Business Owners Who Create Two Of Every Three New Jobs. "Lost in Obama's calculations is that many of the people who would be affected by eliminating the earnings cap are small-business owners who employ more than half the nonfarm private-sector work force and create two of every three new jobs in this country."

"Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners. By fiscal 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion."
Editorial, "Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/25/07

FLASHBACK: In The Illinois State Senate, Obama Was Criticized For Not Being On The Side Of Small Business. Kim Clarke Maisch, Director of the Illinois Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business: "When it's a labor versus business issue, he's not going to be on the side of the small business."
Ryan Keith, "Legislative Record Puts Obama At Heart Of Philosophical Debate," The Associated Press, 9/9/04

OBAMA'S POOR TAX, SPENDING AND BUSINESS INTEREST GROUP RATINGS

Americans For Tax Reform Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 7.5 Out Of 100.
Americans For Tax Reform Website, www.atr.org, Accessed 1/29/08

Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of 100.
Citizens Against Government Waste, "CCAGW Challenges Presidential Candidates On Earmarks," Press Release, 12/27/07

The National Taxpayers Union Gave Obama A Grade Of "F" For His Fiscal Voting Record, For His Score Of 16 Out Of 100.
National Taxpayers Union Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 9/25/07

The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Gave Obama A 55 Percent Rating For His Voting Record In 2006.
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, www.uschamber.com, Accessed 9/17/07

Obama Is Among The Most Liberal U.S. Senators On Economic Issues:

"In 2006, Obama Was One Of 13 Senate Democrats With A Perfect Liberal Score On Economic Issues."
Richard E. Cohen, "Left To Right," National Journal, 3/2/07

OK, that’s enough stats for now. But, my fellow Opinionators, you see where this is going, right? Barack Hussein Obama makes Ted Kennedy look like Newt Gingrich! He is, I dare say, a socialist to the extreme, bordering on being a Communist. Is this really the direction in which we want our country to go? I think not.

Just think about it, you have media outlets like the Associated Press, CBS, ABCNews.com, U.S. New and World Report, Las Vegas Review-Journal, and the Washington Post coming out with these types of observations. Folks, these are hardly right-wing media outlets. If the liberal press is speaking this poorly about Barack Hussein Obama, just imagine how bad the truth must be!

I would like to thank the researchers at RNC for compiling this list of quotes.

Until next time--

Well, here we go. Will the REAL Barack Hussein Obama please rise. This is really upsetting, because I was trying to work out some details on my book when I got this news, and I just HAD to immediately drop everything and start typing. This is a disgrace and a sacrilege. I guess I can at least give the man credit for coming out with his homosexual agenda BEFORE winning the nomination.

A couple of weeks ago, as you may recall, I wrote an article called “Who Wants to Homosexualize a Seven Year Old?” Here is a quote from my article: “Who in the world could be in favor of reading a book to second graders about a prince who, instead of marrying a princess, decides to marry her BROTHER. That’s right…her BROTHER! Talk about a “fairy” tale…or should I say “fairy tail?” The book is called “King and King.”

While Barack Hussein Obama declined to comment on that, he had plenty to say yesterday in an open letter to the LGBT community. By the way, that’s lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender.

He speaks of running for president to assure the founding fathers’ promise of “equality for all” extends to “our gay brothers and sisters.” Well, I have news for him, If our “fathers” were gay, we wouldn’t be here. It is not a natural state of existence, and it is an abomination before God.

Two things bring me to this conclusion: a) the Holy Bible says it is a sin; b) if same-sex sex were natural, it would result in procreation, just like straight sex.

In his letter, Barack Hussein Obama says, “It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.”

So now we’re getting to the route cause for this “open letter.” He wants to garner the LGBT community vote. I don’t blame him for that, there do seem to be quite a few of them running around, and I certainly feel that, as Americans, they have as much of a right to vote as anyone else. Just one question, though: Does a Bisexual vote count as one or two? I’ll bet at the DNC, Obama will try to get two votes counted for every bisexual.

His letter goes on to say that, “I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending
protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.” So, basically, if there is a man who feels he is trapped in a woman’s body, Barack Hussein Obama wants him to be able to coach your little girl’s softball team, and then be able to use the same restroom as your daughter and wife. Isn’t that special!

Next, he says, “And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

I personally don’t believe in special protection for ANY group where crime is concerned. Why should a gay man getting beat up be more severe under the law than me getting beat up? As I always say, a crime is a crime. And as far as outlawing workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity…forget that!

As I mentioned, I don’t want some “genderly-confused” man teaching my little girl Phys Ed. It’s just insane, and I pray to God above the American people won’t stand for it.

So, if Barack Hussein Obama has his way, we will have male teachers running around the school halls in dresses. Talk about “real change.” Sounds like Obama wants to “really change” your son into a girl! What is this crap?

Later in this fairytale letter of his, he says he wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the act that allows an exception of the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution forcing one state to honor the laws of another. If two men get married in Mass., where that kind of thing is legal, without DOMA, Kentucky, where that kind of thing is illegal, would have to recognize the two men as a married couple. PURE INSANITY!

Also, while we are in the middle of a two-pronged war, and a protracted War on Terror, Barack Hussein Obama wants to repeal the “Don’t ask don’t tell” military policy. Someone needs to tell the man, “If it ain’t broke, don’t mess with it!”

He then goes on to talk about HIV/AIDS, a very serious subject. Apparently, he is for age-appropriate abstinence education (you could have knocked me over with a feather when I read that), but then he dropped the bomb. Free, clean needle exchanges for junkies, and condom distribution in prisons.

Next he says, “I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced.” Not the voices of those who have strong convictions otherwise, but those who “still need to be convinced.”

What an arrogant, pompous butt. I am telling you that if this guy is our next president, America will cease to exist within the next twenty years. People, this is a dangerous man. He wants to strip our boys of their manhood. By the time he is done, every male under the age of thirty will be ashamed of being a heterosexual man.

I know I am ranting now, but this just really ate my lunch. Running on a platform of letting male teachers wear dresses to elementary classes because they are women trapped in a man’s body. Give me a BREAK!

Barack Hussein Obama is trying to be all things to all people…and they’re buying it! They love this guy. Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama is actually the fore-runner to the anti-Christ? All indications are pointing that way.