Even though it won't be available for about a month, maybe a little longer, my first book, "Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unahamed: one man's musings during perilous times in America's history" got its first review.

It can be seen at my book's website: http://www.51756.authorworld.com/, which is exciting. But, to save my fellow Opinionators the trouble, it is right here for your viewing pleasure...enjoy!

God Bless,
Mike

E.D. Kain, Blogger Net News
Review date: 03/19/2008

Book Review: Mr. Right Opinion: Unplugged and Unashamed by Michael A. Minton
Posted on March 19th, 2008
by E.D. Kain in Book Reviews, Kentucky News, Society and Culture, US Politics
Read 33 times.

Michael A. Minton’s sprawling anthology, Mr. Right Opinion: Unplugged and Unashamed, touches on just about every topic important to the Conservative Movement from Family Values and Immigration issues, to the plight of Israel in the face of continual terrorism.

Mr. Minton has collected 137 articles from his blog, Mr. Right Opinion, and is publishing them in the anthology Unplugged and Unashamed from Author House (a self-publishing outfit based out of Indiana).

I found Minton’s insights into the Israeli/Palestine conflict to be dead-on. His support of the Zionist movement is a reminder to all Americans that Republicans are consistently stronger supporters of the Zionist cause than Democrats. Islamism is given the hard-look it deserves, and Minton pulls no punches in his critique of the extremists who are leading that religion down the dark path of violence and radicalism.

Domestic affairs are the primary focus of Minton’s essays, however. The failures of welfare to fix the problem of poverty is discussed at great length, shedding much needed light on that tax quagmire.

While not everything in Unplugged and Unashamed is endorsed by this reviewer, Minton undoubtedly brings into focus the major issues confronting America and especially the Conservative Movement in America today. His knowledge of the topics is quite broad, and his insights are clear, concise, and to the point.

Mr. Right Opinion is unashamedly Right Wing, and unabashedly outspoken in its denouncement of the Left, its failed social policies, and the future course of America.



To read more of Mr. Kain, visit: http://neoconstant.com/

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!”

This is just beyond the pale for me. Apparently, on April 25, 2008, gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered persons, and their supporters, will be holding a National Day of Silence. According to what I have read on the subject, students across the country will be silent for the day. They will be handing out cards that say they are being silent to represent the silence that people who choose these alternate lifestyles are forced into by the big, bad heterosexuals.

Now, were this as it started out, occurring on college campuses across the country, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It would be a lot of people over the age of consent using their freedom of expression to voice (so to speak) what they see as a problem--fine. But that is not the case. They are coming after our kids. And I do have a problem with that.

The movement has spread to high schools, and apparently it is being sanctioned by the school officials. What’s more, the official manual at www.dayofsilence.org says that GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), the official sponsors of this “day of not complaining about how they are treated," also officially sponsors the event for Kindergarten through eighth grade as well! It is unbelievable that they are indoctrinating kids as young as four to five years old into this type of lifestyle choice.

But, I guess that should really not come as a surprise either. Just a few weeks ago, in an article I titled “Who Wants to Homosexualize a Seven Year Old,” I told you about a book that was available to Elementary school kids called “King and King,” or something similar. It is about a prince who, instead of marrying the princess, marries her brother. I suppose that was the end of that family’s line of succession.

But, I digress. At the end of this “Day of Silence,” the students hold “Breaking the Silence” rallies where, according to the aforementioned website, they demand “change” (seems to be a buzzword this year) in the way people with alternate lifestyle choices are treated.

According to the organizing manual, the event should, at least optimally, be sponsored by a student club like the GSA (Gay Straight Alliance), or the student council. Students are encouraged to hand out a letter to all administrators and teachers informing them of their intentions, and asking for support and understanding. The site then goes on to tell kids how to organize the events for the day.

Look, I have said many times before that I have no interest in what you do in your bedroom if you are an adult. I believe homosexuality is immoral, and I believe it is an abomination before God. But, if you are an adult, you have the right to choose to do what you want with your life (and afterlife, for that matter). However, I don’t want it pushed in my face in the public arena. Your choices are just that…YOURS. Don’t try to force them on me.

But, this event rises to a whole new level. Now you are talking about my kids, and I get very protective when that happens. Kids, even in high school, are very vulnerable to influences by their peers. Naturally, the GLBT community knows this, and that is why they target kids. But I believe homosexuality is wrong, and I am bringing my kids up to believe it is wrong also. At the same time, I teach them, both through my actions and my words, not to discriminate against or bully others just because they have a different belief system.

Let me be clear on this: I do not discriminate or bully homosexuals. Nor do I raise my children to act that way. However, just as I don’t force my beliefs on your kids, I don’t want you forcing your beliefs on mine! And I just might get a little redneck if you try to. I am from Kentucky, after all, and we’ve been known to have a redneck or two in these parts.

But in all seriousness, homosexuality is a choice. If you choose that, as an adult, more power to you. But at such a young age, kids just don’t have the reasoning capacity, nor the life-experience, to make that decision. Stick with the college campuses if you want to try to target younger people, but leave the school kids alone.

Now I would like to share with you an email I received. It is from the American Family Association, and it reads as follows:

Because of the action of concerned parents, hundreds of schools have removed their school as a listed participant in the pro-homosexual "Day of Silence." You can join the fight for your children too!

On, Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing "Day of Silence (DOS)." DOS is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools.

When AFA alerted parents of this public school classroom disruption by homosexual student activists, many took action immediately! If you haven't gotten involved, it's critical that you do so today!

A simple phone call or letter to school administrators, telling them your child will not attend school the day it observes DOS, may be enough to cause some participating schools to change their plans. Sample letter here.

Please listen to a 60-second radio ad warning parents about Day of Silence, then forward this email to your local Christian or conservative radio station. Ask them to broadcast it as a Public Service Announcement (PSA)! MP3 file or WAV file

Click here for Frequently Asked Questions about the Day of Silence.

In the past week alone, over 200 schools have announced they are dropping plans to participate. Please, get involved for the sake or your children, and all children, today!

Take Action!
What should parents do? Check with your local school principal to see if your child's school will be participating in DOS. If the school is participating, notify other parents about DOS and ask them to join in keeping their children out of school on that day.
Here is a partial list of schools which are expected to participate in DOS: (the website is: http://www.missionamerica.com/homosexual.php?articlenum=70). If your school is listed, call your local school and ascertain whether they officially or passively allow students to observe "Day of Silence." If your school is listed, please double-check with your local school to see if the school is actually sponsoring DOS. Sometimes the "participation" turns out to be a handful of kids who are saying they have a homosexual club and are observing this protest day, but without school endorsement. We sincerely hope your school, if listed, is not actually an official sponsor. If it is not, we will take them off the list, if a school official asks us to do so. Please e-mail your correction to webmaster@missionamerica.com.

Some tips:
Be sure of the date that DOS is planned for your school. (The national date is April 25, but some schools observe DOS on a different date.)
Inform the school of your intention to keep your child home on that date and explain why. Click here for a sample letter.
Explain to your children why you're taking a stand: Homosexual behavior is not an innate identity; it is a sinful, unnatural and destructive behavior. No school should advance a physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive sexual lifestyle to students.
Schools do not have to tolerate students remaining silent in class. Schools can adopt policies that require parental consent for students to attend any club, including those premised on sexual orientation or gender identity. Click here for more information from Attorney Mat Staver with Liberty Counsel who provides free information to parents, students, and schools regarding their rights associated with noncompliance on the Day of Silence.

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.

Now, I know that the title seems to state the obvious. But, before you accuse me of being a dirty old man, I am not talking about anatomy here. I am talking about NERVE. It is rather unbelievable to think that the wives of these politicians don’t have enough self-esteem to refuse to stand next to their cheating, no-good husbands after they have been caught fooling around.

Naturally, the immediate reason for this article is NY governor Eliot Spitzer. But, he is certainly not the first, and I dare say, not the last, to employ this political strategy. We all remember Hillary Clinton going on Good Morning America, 20/20, or one of those shows, and assuring America that she was not a “Tammy Wynette-Stand By Your Man” kind of woman. However, we all saw her “stand by her man” all during the Lewinsky, Flowers, Jones, etc, scandals.

Yes, it is unfathomable, at least to me, that these women continue to stand by their men during these most humiliating moments. I cannot imagine staying with my (former) wife, had this problem come up during our marriage. And I certainly can’t see her standing by me had I cheated on her. What a humiliation and a thievery of personal self-esteem and security that has to be. And ours was a private divorce.

Can you imagine what a strain such a public humiliation must be on the spouse of an elected official? It would be horrific enough to experience this in private. But to have to do it under the scrutiny of the media spotlight adds exponential stress.

But while the spouses’ behavior is incomprehensible, it defies human imagination how these “public servants” have the testicles to make them do it. I could not imagine being caught cheating on my wife, who is the mother of my children, and then actually demanding that she appear with me to try and lessen the severity of the public scrutiny of my behavior. I wouldn’t have the anatomy to ask, much less demand.

Yet there are untold numbers of politicians who have either asked or demanded that their wives do this. Spitzer is just the latest. Off the top of my head I can name many. Spitzer, Clinton, Larry Craig, former KY Democrat Gov. Paul Patton, N.J. Gov. Jim Mcgreevy, Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick, I could go on, but you get the point.

I do want to say that I feel very sorry for the families of these scum. Spitzer, for example, not only has a wife, but THREE, count them, THREE daughters. As the father of two girls myself, I can’t imagine what they would be going through mentally, not to mention all the whispers behind their backs in their social circles. Kids can be cruel to other kids, and they are blameless in this.

Politicians, and other would-be cheaters, take note. You didn’t need your wife and kids to arrange sexual liaisons with prostitutes, so don’t you dare try to hide behind them when you get busted! And that’s the Right Opinion!

As hard as it is to believe, there are people who are seriously asking if the disgraced New York governor, Eliot Spitzer, should resign his position. The argument is pretty much a throwback to the Clinton White House: “It was just sex, after all.” What a load of fertilizer.

Of course the man needs to needs to resign. Where are the morals of this country? Everything has changed since “Slick Willy” ruled the roost at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., hasn’t it? I know of a lot of liberals who, at that time, really downplayed the role of morals in our elected leaders. I said it then, and I’ll say it now, THEY ARE WRONG!

Moral leadership is desperately needed in this country. Yes, we did at least, and at last, get a moral president in George W. Bush. However, it can’t end there. We need governors, senators, congressmen, mayors, and maybe even dog catchers who have a code of morals by which they live.

I don’t remember the article, but one of the articles that will be in my new book, “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed: one man’s musings during perilous times in America’s history,” which will be available soon at authorhouse.com (shameless plug), talks about this very subject. About how drug use among teens went up after “Teflon Bill” admitted to smoking, but never inhaling, pot.

In this day and age it seems to be almost an epidemic among our “leadership.” Whether it be a senator looking for sex in a men’s restroom in an airport, a Louisiana congressman looking for a prostitute, a Louisiana congressman taking bribe money to secure a foreign country’s business, a president lying under oath about a sexual tryst which would later be revealed by, of all the things, a Clinton-stained blue dress, or the “F___ing Steamroller,” Eliot Spencer, who was going to get rid of unethical behavior in Albany, New York, the state’s capital seat.

And it most certainly is not just Democrats who have led us down this path of public corruption by way of “private behavior.” Republicans are just a guilty, at least on some levels, of the same thing. They have been caught up in sex scandals. And in fact, my own former Governor Ernie Fletcher was the target of a zealous, Democrat, Attorney General for a hiring scandal that broke during the Fletcher Administration.

After all, Fletcher, a Republican, ran on a platform of cleaning up the unethical behavior of his Democrat predecessor. It just goes to show you that greed and dirty politics is no respecter of persons. Greed is an insidious little critter that will sneak in at the very moment you let your guard down. Even the finest of us can have a lapse in judgment if we are not maintaining our spiritual life on a daily basis.

But alas, I regress. To answer the opening question: Yes. Spitzer most-definitely owes it to the state of New York, and to those who believed in his political aspirations, for his lewd, obnoxious behavior. Anyone who is put into a position of trust should be held to a higher standard than Joe Blow walking down the street.

Just as with Clinton, this has very little to do with “just sex.” I’ve heard all the spin in the last twenty-four hours. My favorite is that it was just a “sexual mistake.” Almost like an accident, like the man tripped, fell, and before you knew it, his chocolate bar was in her peanut butter. “It’s not like he laundered money or had any financial charges.” God knows that we can justify you corrupting our morals, as long as you leave our money in tact.

Again, what have we come to as a nation when we see this as “just sex?” Is there no honor and decency in keeping your vows in this country any more? Is there no honor in raising your THREE DAUGHTERS to think that prostitution is wrong. Or is it wrong for them, but OK for daddy? Mr. Top Cop who took down a couple of those rings himself as AG. I bet he told his girls that it was wrong then!

We need to start reclaiming this country. Reclaiming the values systems that led us to greatness. Demanding that our leaders do more than talk a good talk…they should also walk the talk. From the president down to the dog catcher, we need a standard moral code of conduct. And if you can’t live by that code…don’t even bothering applying!

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.

During this never-ending primary presidential campaign season, most of the mainstream media, and bloggers, for that matter, seem to forget that there is a world outside of the United States that still spins. I know I am guilty. While compiling my new book, “Mr. Right Opinion-Unplugged and Unashamed,” I noticed that I have written very few articles in recent months that were not campaign related.

However, there is still a world out there spinning, and possibly out of control. The United Nations on Monday imposed a third round of sanctions against Iran for its failure to fully comply with U.N. demands of full disclosure and ceasing of its “peaceful” uranium enrichment program.

The obvious question to this new round of sanctions is: “Will it matter?” If history is any indication, the answer is a resounding “No!” After all, when the U.N. first imposed sanctions, Iran actually expanded its nuclear program. So, a second round of sanctions was imposed. The result? More Iranian defiance and yet another round of U.N. sanctions.

I guess one could try and be optimistic here and say that this round of sanctions targets not only military goods, but some civilian goods and services as well, potentially making them more effective. One could make the argument that we are not fighting against the French this time, as France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is being credited for actually HELPING to sway countries to vote for the sanctions.

Still, one cannot help being troubled by the U.N.’s dismal record of doing more than making idle threats. They threatened Iraq for years with “serious consequences” if it did not fully comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. They never did, and the U.N. never followed through on its threats. It took a United States president with moral clarity and a little backbone to bring those consequences to bear.

And now one has to be careful about even considering that course of action, as we have seen what results inaccurate intelligence can bring about. While I’m still not convinced that biological weapons weren’t moved out of Iraq, and I am, in fact, quite sure they were, there were still failures of intelligence in the pre-war buildup.

And that fact has not been lost on the Iranians, nor the rest of the world. A U.N. report on the matter said that Iran claimed that new documents linking the rogue state to missile and explosive experiments were false. And right now, who can say there’s not at least a possibility that the Iranians are right?

I personally have no doubt that Iran has more on its nuclear agenda than just the peaceful energy plans that it claims. They have threatened to blow Israel off the map. They have denied that the holocaust ever took place, and they are sworn enemies of democracies in general.

However, given the intelligence failures leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Western countries, and the United States in particular, have lost some measure of credibility on intelligence issues in the eyes of the international community. And, of course, the United Nations has zero credibility in anybody’s eyes that it will actually back up any threats of action.

As a matter of fact, not only is the U.N. notoriously impotent for not following through on its threats, it has actually been proven complicit in undermining its own policies. As evidence, one need look no further than the “oil for food” scandals in which senior U.N. officials were taking bribes to look the other way.

It will be interesting to watch these events unfold. Will Israel take matters into its own hands, as it did with Iraq in the eighties, and try to annihilate Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own? Will the U.N. actually follow through and force Iran to comply with the international mandates?

Only time will tell. However, one thing is clear: now is NOT the time to elect a president who will be weak on matters of national security. It is not the time for a President Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. It IS time for a President John McCain. And, in my Right Opinion, a Vice President Romney.

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--

Judges have limited scope under the Constitution

Why has the appointment of judges become such a flashpoint of controversy in the past twenty years or so? They should be people who respect the limited scope afforded Federal judges under the Constitution. They should be people who understand that the Founders' concern about the expansive tendency of power extended to judicial power as well as to executive or legislative power. They should be people who are humbled by their role in our system, not emboldened by it. Our freedom is curtailed no less by an act of arbitrary judicial power as it is by an act of an arbitrary executive, or legislative, or state power. For that reason, a judge's decisions must rest on more than his subjective conviction that he is right, or his eagerness to address a perceived social ill.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist had a profound understanding of the balance inherent in Federalism, between the states and the Federal governments, as well as between the three Federal branches--and he left us a strong legacy.
Source: Speech to The Federalist Society Nov 16, 2006

M.R.O. says: Sen. McCain is dead-on here. As a political observer and pundit here at Mr. Right Opinion, I can judge people all day long (and I do!) without having to adhere to the principles of the law and the Constitution. Federal judges are not afforded that luxury. And it is obvious that John McCain understands this.

He will appoint judges who can put their personal feelings aside, and make decisions based solely on the intent of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. He’s not going to appoint judges that will legislate from the bench, like some former Democrat presidents we’ve had. We have a branch of the federal government for legislating. I believe it’s called the Legislative Branch!

More death penalty; stricter sentencing

McCain supports the following principles regarding crime:
-Broaden use of the death penalty
-Impose stricter penalties for violent felons
-Increase spending to build more federal prisons
-Impose “truth in sentencing” for violent criminals so they serve full sentences
-Support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released.
-Support programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment.
Source: Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT Jan 13, 2000

M.R.O. says: I think, with the advent of DNA, broadening of the death penalty is a good idea, as long as the DNA is there to prove the case. If not, I think it should automatically be Life without parole.

Other than that, I agree with all his proposals. However, I think that if you fund more vocational rehabilitation and drug and alcohol rehab programs, we will see less of a need for more prison room, as recidivism rates, I am sure, will drop dramatically.

More community policing; enough hate crime laws

McCain agrees that funding should be increased for community policing programs. He says “increases should be implemented with state and local government commitments.” With regards to “hate crimes,” he says, “All but 13 states have hate crimes statutes. Federalizing all such crimes will simply obstruct justice by forcing them into clogged federal courts.”
Source: Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT Jan 13, 2000

M.R.O. says: Community policing is a wonderful idea, and it should be given the funding it needs. We saw what happened when the Minutemen patrolled the border and called BP when they spotted illegals. It worked. The same would be the case with community policing. As for hate crimes…you know where I stand on that.

Prosecute youths as adults, but separately; explore sources

McCain supports the following principles regarding juvenile crime:
-Increase penalties for crimes committed on school grounds.
-Prosecute as adults, youths accused of a felony.
-Increase funding for local Boys & Girls Clubs and other independent organizations in communities with at-risk youth.
-Provide block grants to states for implementation of programs to combat juvenile crime. -Impose harsher penalties for youths convicted of violent offenses.
-McCain points out that he “helped create the youth violence commission to develop remedies to youth violence.”
-Support the use of “boot camps” as alternative sentencing for juvenile offenders.
-Support programs that provide job training and placement services for at-risk youth. -- ---McCain says, “Juvenile offenders should be kept separate from adult offenders and receive the appropriate remedial and rehabilitation services.”

M.R.O. agrees with all these proposals.

The following are other votes the Senator has cast, without my commentary:

-Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals

-Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards

-Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits

-Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits

-Voted YES on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms

-Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals

M.R.O.’s only opinion on these votes is to say that, at least as far as these votes are concerned, Sen. McCain has come down on the conservative side, for sure.

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.

During our last discussion on Senator McCain, we talked about his stances on civil rights…most of which I liked. Looking again to ontheissues.org, as I feel they have comprehensive summaries of where the remaining candidates stand on important issues, our first topic today is corporations.

Q: The president's economic stimulus plan would send out 116 million checks to American homes, but without permanent tax cuts that you sought. Will you vote for this compromise?

A: Yes, I will and I'm disappointed, because I think it's very important that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I voted to make them permanent twice already. If people and businesses and families in America are now planning their 2010 budget, there's a great deal of uncertainty. And if we don't make the tax cuts permanent, then they will experience what amounts to a tax increase. But I also would make sure that not only the tax cuts are made permanent, but we cut corporate income taxes. That would keep businesses here, and it would keep jobs here and create jobs here. We pay the highest corporate income tax of any nation in the world except for Japan. I'm glad to see that we're going to allow people to expense new investments in equipment, so they can write them off in a very short period of time.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

M.R.O. says: We most definitely need for those tax cuts to be permanent. The hard workers here in America deserve to keep MORE of their pay, not less. There are so many wasteful government programs that could be cut out that we could probably run another country just off those savings.

And I am glad to see the lesson of Reagan’s “trickle-down economics” was not lost on Mr. McCain. It should be obvious to anyone who’s not a liberal (or anyone with common sense), that if you save the job-providers money, they will be more likely, and more able, to provide more jobs. Way to go, John!

People worry about corporations unduly influencing elections

Most Americans understand that competitive elections in a free country require money. Since campaigns require spending funds to communicate with voters, they know we can never take money completely out of politics, nor should we. Americans have a right to support the candidates and the parties they endorse, including financially if they so choose.

But what most Americans worry about profoundly is corporations or individuals with huge checks seeking the undue influence on lawmakers that such largesse is intended to purchase. That is why John McCain has fought to enforce long-standing prohibitions on corporate and union contributions to federal political parties, for sensible donation limits, disclosure of how candidates and campaigns are funded, and the diligent enforcement of these common sense rules that promote maximum public participation in the political process and limit opportunities for corruption.
Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

M.R.O. says: Certainly, worded this way, these types of campaign limits make sense. Certainly we don’t want huge oil companies greasing, or “oiling” if you will, the hands of our top decision-makers of new fuel technologies. I think, without pointing fingers, that has gone on long enough.

I still, however, am not happy about the limits on free speech that McCain-Feingold imposed. But I do think that full-disclosure of donors over a certain amount is a good way to try and rein-in influence peddling.

Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
Amendment to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
Reference: Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment; Bill S AMDT 210 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-63 on Mar 17, 2005

M.R.O. says: I disagree with this vote. I think if a company wants to move its operations to another country for cheaper labor, etc., they should lose some of the tax advantages for operating here and employing American workers.

Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions

Amends Federal bankruptcy law to revamp guidelines governing dismissal or conversion of a Chapter 7 liquidation (complete relief in bankruptcy) to one under either Chapter 11 (Reorganization) or Chapter 13 (Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income). Voting YES would:
-Declare a debtor eligible only for Chapter 13, as anyone financially capable of paying back their creditors at a rate that still allows them to earn above their state's median income
-Place domestic support obligations such as child support and alimony amongst the first priority claim category of non-dischargeable debts on a debtor filing for bankruptcy
-Require debtors to pay for and attend credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy
-Cap home equity protection at $125,000 if the debtor purchased a house within 40 months of filing for bankruptcy.

M.R.O. has no problem with voting yes on all of this. The bankruptcy laws have, for far too long, made it too easy to live beyond one’s means, say “oops,” screw your creditors, and give you a new life.

I especially like the fact that the reform places “domestic support obligations such as child support and alimony amongst the first priority claim category of non-dischargeable debts.” We have enough deadbeat dad’s and mom’s leaving their kids high-and-dry.

Tomorrow, or maybe later today if I have time, we will see where McCain stands on crime.

Until then-

It's official: I signed a contract Monday to publish my completed book. It is tentatively called 'Mr. Right Opinion: Unplugged & Unashamed-one man's musings during perilous times in American history"

For now, it is set to be released in early August. I'll keep everybody posted with updates as the release nears.

I will say this much...I don't think I've ever been this excited in my life. Well, without getting a little bundle of joy out of it!!

God Bless,
Mike

Yesterday we examined Senator John McCain’s stances on abortion, and the fact that he has usually supported the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. This is obviously a very hot issue for social conservatives. It is an issue that McCain needs to put to rest by the general election as part of a strategy to secure the conservative bloc.

Next we discussed budgets and fiscal conservatism. I argued that I thought Romney would be better in this area, and I still do. I think the senator would be wise to consider Romney as a running mate.

McCain pointed out that he was part of the original Reagan Revolution, and that is true. He also pointed out that he had an old veto pen that Pres. Reagan gave him, and that he couldn’t wait to use it as part of his promise to veto pork barrel bills that come across his desk. He also assured us that he was all for tax cuts and spending restraints; all good things.

And, as I mentioned yesterday, there can be no doubt that he would be more economically conservative than Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, or even Huckabee.

So that brings us up to today. The first topic on the agenda today is civil rights. Again I will be referencing statements and quotes from ontheissues.org. First up under civil rights: “don’t ask, don’t tell.” As an old military man, McCain might have an opinion on this issue. Here’s what he said at the 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007 .

“We have the best-trained, most professional, best- equipped, most efficient, most wonderful military in the history of this country, and I'm proud of every one of them. There just aren't enough of them. So I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen the issue. The policy is working. And I am convinced that that's the way we can maintain this greatest military. Let's not tamper with them.”

M.R.O. says: Now, far be it from me to be opinionated on a matter, but it would kind of kill the spirit of this blog if I wasn‘t. I say that Sen. McCain is right on the money here. First and foremost, we need to retain every single military man and woman that we possibly can right now. Wartime is not a time to even open a dialog about an issue like this.

Secondly, our military is professional. I’m sure that, just like in every other walk of life, there are homosexuals in the military. Nonetheless, they have marched across the Iraqi desert twice now and kicked Saddam’s butt: in 1992 in “Desert Storm,” and again, and this time for good, in “Iraqi Freedom.” And lest we forget, they did a helluva job in taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think the policy that’s in place is the right one.

Confederate flag on top of capitol was wrong; in front is ok

Q: Should South Carolina be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings. In 2000, you said yes. You have since called that one of your worst examples of political cowardice. That flag is still flying in front of the Statehouse. Should it come down?

A: It is not flying on top of the capitol. Yes, I was wrong when I said that I believed that it was up to the state of South Carolina. Now, after long negotiation amongst most parties, there is an agreement that that flag no longer flies on top of the capitol of the state of South Carolina.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Q: It is flying in FRONT of the capitol now.

A: Almost all parties involved in those negotiations believe that that's a reasonable solution to this issue. I support it. I still believe that it should not have flown over the capitol, and I was wrong when I said that it was a state issue. But now I think it has been settled, and I think it's time that we all moved on, on this issue -- especially the people of South Carolina.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

M.R.O. says: I know that this is a touchy subject for a lot of people; a lot more so than it should be. Now, I will grant that the Confederate flag has been bastardized into meaning a lot of things. It has been used by the KKK and various other stupid, radical, “right-wing” groups. However, the fact is that the flag was a symbol of unity for states that dearly believed in states’ rights. I think the senator is wrong here. I feel it is a state issue if and where they want to fly a Confederate flag. However, this is by far not a make-or-break issue for me in this presidential race.

Leave gay marriage to the states

Gay Marriage - Believes it's an issue best left up to the states. While in the Senate McCain voted "No" on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Hate Crimes - While in the Senate, McCain voted no on extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Job Protection - Voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

M.R.O. says: I think the senator got two out of three here…not too bad. Ordinarily, I feel that issues like gay marriage, abortion, and a host of others should be left up to the sates. However, in the case of gay marriage, we have a Constitutional issue which cannot be overlooked.

Article IV, Section I of the United States Constitution talks about, “full faith and credit.” Now, the meaning of “full faith and credit” is: n. the provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which states: ‘Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.’ Thus, a judgment in a lawsuit or a criminal conviction rendered in one state shall be recognized and enforced in any other state, so long as the original judgment was reached by due process of law. Each state has a process for obtaining an enforceable judgment based on a ‘foreign’ (out-of-state) judgment.” (From dictionary.law.com)

These next two paragraphs are from an article I wrote titled “Support the Federal Marriage Amendment." Normally, in issues such as this, I am a staunch supporter of states’ rights to make such decisions. And to be completely honest, I would prefer that this decision be left exclusively to the individual states. However, the United States Constitution makes this option impossible. Due to the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” in the Constitution, even if homosexual marriage is illegal in my beloved Kentucky, if a gay couple were to get married in a liberal state such as Massachusetts and then move here, because of Full Faith and Credit, Kentucky would have to recognize the “marriage.”

For a state which, by a vote of the people, does not allow marriage between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, to be forced to recognize such a union as legal is just wrong. It is a great irony that a federal amendment to the Constitution would actually be the very thing that would protect the rights of the 50 states, but that’s the way this would work.

However, I am with the senator on voting against special hate crimes protection for homosexuals. I believe there are plenty of laws on the books to deal with crime. And, as I have pointed out many times, a crime is a crime is a crime.

As for voting no on prohibiting job discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I am with him here, too. There are certain situations where it would just be inappropriate to hire a gay man…for day care centers, for instance. Or elementary school gym teachers. They may be fine humans, but I am personally not ready to accept a gay gym teacher hanging out in the locker room with my son. Call me a homophobe if you wish, but that’s where I am.

Q: Does posting the Ten Commandments in schools invalidate the religious expression of children who are not in the Judeo-Christian heritage?

A: We begin our proceedings every day in the US Senate with a prayer. Now, it doesn’t have the beneficial effect that some desire, but it seems to be acceptable for the Senate to do that. Virtues [like telling the truth are] exemplified in the Ten Commandments. They could be and should be taught in every school in America.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa Jan 16, 2000

M.R.O. says: Do you hear that, Christian conservatives? Sen. McCain supports posting the Ten Commandments in schools. And rightfully so. This country and its Constitution were built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Those beliefs saw us through a lot of tough times in our 200 years of existence before we started banning God from the public arena. The Ten Commandments are sound, moral principles, and our children would be better off if they were taught to practice them.

Hollywood should voluntarily self-censor sex and violence

McCain called on Hollywood to adopt voluntary standards to limit excessive violence and sexual content in entertainment media. His “Appeal to Hollywood” calls for the entertainment industry to devise a code of conduct modeled after the code the National Association of Broadcasters followed for 30 years. “Media industry leaders should voluntarily commit to reining in the toxic mix of sex and violence that has come to dominate so many media products which negatively affect our children today,” he said.
Source: Press Release: “Media Violence” Jul 21, 1999

M.R.O. says: Since it does not call for government censorship of the garbage that Hollywood creates, this is not so much a civil rights issue as a moral one. However, I agree so whole-heartedly with the senator’s stance that I wanted to include it. Ontheissues.org has it listed under civil rights, so that is why I threw it in here.

Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas

-The federal government should continue affirmative action programs only if such programs do not include quotas.
-The Federal Government should consider affirmative action programs if ordered by a court to rectify specific programs.
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998

M.R.O. says: I would have to know more specifics on his stance before I could make an intellectual commentary. However, I will say that I think affirmative action was a positive thing in its day. I think now, though, that it has accomplished its purpose, and actually has become a form of reverse-discrimination.

I in no way feel that a person should get a job based on the color of their skin, be it white, black, or polka-dot. What matters is the education and experience of the candidate. Are we not, as a nation, saying that very thing during this presidential election?

I would really have liked to cover more than just civil rights in this article. However, civil rights is a tedious subject which covers a broad range of issues. I dare not try to tackle any other political positions in this article, lest I lose your attention and your readership. Maybe I can add another article before the day is up.

Until next time, Opinionators-