Mrs. Clinton A Winner?

I am watching with bemused satisfaction the Democratic Primary debacle.

The Democrats have always been a party of losers (look at Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, Walter Mondale, the list is truly endless) who were generally nice people. I think John Kerry may not be in the nice guy category, but he is close.

The Clinton's are the one Democratic anomaly to nice. They are power hungry, and do not care who they step on to get to their heights of power. The Clinton's and Richard Nixon would be good cellmates as they debated who was the better person to be in control of the Government, they would argue and rant so much their time would go by fast.

I'm always nervous of people who can lie directly to your face, and really want their lie to be true. I honestly believe that when Mr. and Mrs. Clinton lie they truly believe they are doing good.

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have this belief that they are truly the ONLY ones qualified to be in control of the Government. It looks like they would love to be the King and Queen. I have never, in my life, seen two more power hungry people than these two. You have to go back to the Roman times to see this type of Political ambition.

When they were in the White House it was the most corrupt administration since Nixon's. Even Mr. Nixon never stooped to what these people did, he was power hungry and very elitist, but truly only wanted to know what others were talking about so he could appear to be an all-knowing twisted Father figure to the whole Government.

The Clinton's used their time in the White House to party until dawn, amass a personal fortune they previously said they didn't have, steal Government gifts, trash the Presidents Airplane and offices at the White House, and generally make the Untied States a laughingstock of the World's stage.

Remember guys, before 9/11, the World thought we had gone soft and didn't care about attacks on our own. Bin Laden's crowd thought Americans were more concerned about their big houses, and comfortable lifestyle, than National security. With Clinton he was right, because the Clinton's had no idea what National Security was.

They were two power hungry people, who did well in Universities and thought they knew what the Country needed because of their reading about what may work in a social sense. In a military sense they were totally inadequate in understanding and instincts.

Then, to top it off they chose people as advisors who were on the fringes of the Military, so it went without saying that they couldn't get a voice in the Pentagon until they appointed their own left-leaning Generals who would listen to their dictates.

Without Mr. Bush in the White House, someone who is strong on National Defense, we would have been attacked at least four or five more times in the last eight years, the last attack was the World Trade Center trajedy.

After this trajedy, he determined to take on these Terrorists, even though he knew it would be wildly unpopular after a couple of years. He shouldn't have to go out as a bad President, he has kept the Country safe and devoid of the label as soft. Now people label him as a bully, or war monger, but history will show that he was meeting the threat he was faced with. Radical Islamist's only have rhetoric to persuade people of their agenda.

They have used this strength in rhetoric to persuade weak minded people that America is a bully. I would remind everyone that Mr. Bush is only responding to attacks on the Nation he represents. His lasting legacy is, he has seen this fight through. There have been terrorist plots uncovered and stopped, but no more attacks since the first one. His resolve has made him one of the best Presidents of all time, even though people call him the worst right now. History will prove the naysayers of today wrong.

If Mr. Clinton was in the White House when the Towers were bombed what do you think he would have done?

There is some history to go by. On Mr. Clinton's watch we were attacked five times by Terrorists that I can recall. These being the Cole, the two attacks in Africa, and the first World Trade Center bombing. What was done when these Terrorists attacked with ferocity against us? What was done when Osama Bin Laden was in sites of the American Military and could have been taken out? What was done when Afghanistan was taken captive by the Taliban?

All of the answers to these are a resounding condemnation of Clintonian politics. 'Ol Bubba would look at the polls and see if it was Politically expedient to take care of these problems. He found the public was unaware of the problems and chose to keep everyone in the dark about the problems which were arising in the world.

When Mrs. Clinton says that only she has the experience necessary to get the job done in the White House. I would like to remind her that the decisions do not come from poll taking, they come from Intelligence, personal principles, and a desire to do whats right for the country. If she was elected, the Country would immediately be vulnerable again to Terrorists and their threats.

To prove the Clintons lack of action, here are some of the quotes from a White Paper the President and Congress had in it's possession in 1998. They knew what was happening, but failed to act time and time again.

The web address is here White Papers on Osama

The decision about whether to use American forces could not be authorized at the Justice Department: it could only be decided at the presidential level. Within the internal governmental debate, some argued that spilling American blood to arrest Bin Laden would have been a Pyrrhic victory if, at the end of the legal process, Bin Laden would eventually walk in the event of an acquittal. Others argued that a commando style arrest operation should be aggressively pursued. And others argued against any action at all.

That decision was up to the President and his foreign policy advisors. According to knowledgeable sources, the President opted to pursue a two-track policy: preparations for a commando extrication team would be authorized territorial insertion into Afghanistan, while at the same time, the Administration would try to get the Taliban to cooperate in forcing the surrender of Bin Laden to the United States. In mid-April of this year, Bill Richardson, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, was dispatched to Afghanistan and Pakistan to negotiate with the Taliban for the handing over of Bin Laden. Discussions with key Taliban officials in the United Nations and with other visiting Taliban officials had proved to be encouraging. Some factions in the Taliban wanted to elicit American goodwill to end its international isolation and prosecute American investment and technology. At the same time that Richardson went to Afghanistan and Pakistan, American military and counter terrorist teams were secretly sent to Peshawar, in the event that the commando operation were launched or a hand-over of Bin Laden were facilitated by the Taliban.

In Pakistan and Afghanistan, rumors of the U.S. counter terrorist force abounded throughout the press and media. Obviously exaggerated, reports of "one-thousand men commando teams" sent in to arrest Bin Laden appeared in Pakistani papers. In several interviews, Bin Laden himself declared that he was the target of American commando teams, but scoffed at the notion that he would ever be captured.

In the end, Ambassador Richardson failed in persuading the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. Although he showed them some of the evidence revealing Bin Laden's direct hand in international terrorism, the Taliban would not play ball. Bin Laden would remain a protected "guest" of the Taliban, although they said that he would not be allowed to carry out activities against the interests of the Taliban. As for the possibility of a direct commando-style operation, strategies deemed the operational difficulties and risks too high and the possibility of a surprise operation too low for any chance of success.

The U.S. Prosecutors, the FBI, and the U.S. National Security apparatus would have to return to the proverbial drawing board in devising new ways to arrest Bin Laden. As the grand jury continued efforts to build a stronger case against Bin Laden, his devastation was visited upon the United States by the two simultaneous bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania where more than 200 people were killed. On August 20, the United States struck bask, launching cruise missiles at Bin Laden's camps in Khost, Afghanistan and the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plants in Khartoum, Sudan."

"It had been more than five years since Bin Laden had come under government security immediately following the World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993. Bin Laden's name came up as one of the associates of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and as the financial backer of the Martyr Azzam Hostel in Peshawar where Ramzi Yousef had stayed. Bin Laden's name, along with names of more than 118 others (plus the Sudanese mission to the United States), was included on a list, distributed by federal prosecutors, of potential unindicted co-conspirators.

On one level, the efforts to unravel Bin Laden's empire struck an erie parallel with the efforts of the prosecutors in 1993 to unravel the jihad terrorist organization secretly operated by Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman. Then, as now, prosecutors painstakingly revisited and reexamined existing documents and materials in their possession in the belated realization that they possessed some of the answers to their questions but were unable to see how the pieces had fit together. In 1993, immediately following the World Trade Center bombing, federal prosecutors and FBI agents reexamined raw materials, documents, and data they had collected since the assassination of right-wing Rabbi Meir Kahane by El Sayyid Nosair in November 1990 and the murder (still unsolved) of the fundamentalist head of the Al Kifah office in Brooklyn, Mustapha Shalabi, in February 1991. Although it was too late to prevent the bombing, the boxes of material seized from Nosair's apartment following his arrest in 1990 contained the very seeds of the World Trade Center explosion. In 1993, the same materials seized in 1990 were found to be a road map to the jihad conspiracy in the United States of the previous three years.

So while Mr. Bin Laden was holed up in Afghanistan plotting, training, and recruiting people to kill Americans. Mr. Clinton listened to his advisors and the misinformed public will, and basically did nothing.

This is a view of what Americas new foreign Policy will look like under the Democrats.

People are critical of the Republican Administrations that supposedly made Bin Laden into what he is, or financed him. What they fail to see is, those administrations were fighting against the threat of the day. If those same people were fighting this threat then they would overcome it.

The Clinton Democratic machine only thinks about it's own survival, this is it's biggest downfall to National security. Thankfully the democrats have spent too much time in the Clinton's shadows and want to be out now. I congratulate the Democrats on not electing another small minded, power hungry Clinton.

Why is Ted Kennedy's Illness So important?

I am frustrated again with the news media. There are over 50,000 lives lost in the Chinese Earthquake, and another 30,000 or more lost in Burma, as well as millions of people displaced in both area's.

Yet, our wonderful news outlets, are spending money and time reporting about a Senator who has been indicted more times than most, has consistently did whatever it took to make his policies into law, and is your basic rich kid who became a politician because he couldn't do anything else.

Mr. Kennedy is an alcoholic, sexual predator, and overall sleaze bag. After the trial of his nephew, he has tried to clean up his act by pushing through with helping President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation, by settling down his party ways, and becoming an AA member. (in my opinion he needs a legacy and had to work with a powerful President to secure that legacy).

My memory of his 'work' was when he was questioning a future Supreme Court Justice. It was Justice Clarence Thomas. He was clearly inebriated and not sufficiently prepared, as he asked prepared questions, but still lost his place in the middle of them.

I went back and reread the questions and answers, the lines indicate when he was fumbling for words. Here is one example of what I mean. The first line was his reiteration of what Senator Biden (the chairmen of the committee), gave as rules.

SEN. KENNEDY:
Thank you very much. We'll follow a ten-minute rule for the questions.

Some people argue that, despite Judge Thomas's record of hostility on civil rights, that we should trust that if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court, he'll be sensitive on -- on civil rights. Given both his -- the -- his past record, statements, positions, actions, statements before the committee, what's -- what kind of weight should we give that kind of advice or guidance? Mr. Days?

It was during this question and answer period of Justice Thomas when I became a Republican.

It wasn't only Ted Kennedy that was inebriated, Senator Metzenbaum also had way too much of something. Both of these supposed honorable men had no idea what to ask but kept returning to the Roe v Wade decision to make sure everyone knew they were pro choice. It wasn't about Clarence Thomas, but Abortion, which is something that shouldn't have been stressed over and over.

Senator Kennedy is, I understand, a respected public figure in some quarters. But I think most people only see a man who runs on the coattails of his last name. Without it, I doubt he would have been a Senator, let alone someone who got around the clock coverage because he is taken to the hospital.

My only wish with the coverage, is they would stress things which are important, like China and Burma, and report only the basics of what isn't.

Like this story of Ted Kennedy. I was sickened by the people each News channel paraded out as friends of Mr. Kennedy. These 'friends' would say how wonderful he was, or how impassioned he was, for this cause of that cause. I wanted to scream to these five minute fame people that he is still alive.

The reporters were even worse as they would try to use their best dramatic voice when describing his airlift to the hospital. It struck me as interesting that these people would spend so much time talking about a man who is sick, rather than two countries which are in complete upheavals.

That's all I have to rant about today. Hopefully some people share my frustrations.

I was watching news coverage on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBC, BBC, and CNBC and only found them to make passing references to the Myanmar tragedy, and now the terrible Earthquake in China.

I understand that both countries will not allow most news stories to be broadcast from their shores, but these two stories are still the ones that need to be covered. There has been very few tragedies like what is happening in Myanmar, and the Earthquake in China is something which only happens once in a decade.

The Major News outlets insist that their viewers want to watch silliness, like the pandering to the Presidential candidates each supposed journalist do when interviewing them, or we are forced to watch the musing of people like Terry McCauliffe for the left, and Karl Rove for the right.

The saddest part is most of these people only talk about how their candidates stack up against the competition, or how their ideology is better than the other, we get very little substance from these types of people.

I am a fan of news all day, I watch the news channels more than any other channel. The slant and overall one sidedness however, is beginning to wear on me.

As I see it our news is always shone through the slant of the news agency, we very rarely get an unbiased collection of news stories.

MSNBC has been showing the ineptness of the American penal institution (as if anyone cares, except their far-left core of viewers who want to see why it's bad to have laws), it would be ok to have an expose' on it, but they show these programs like they are reality T.V. over and over and over and over, ad nauseum.

Fox likes to show what is popular to American conservatives, and CNN shows what is popular with American Liberals.

BBC shows news from an U.K. academic viewpoint, which instantly makes it more unbiased, but the news is still slanted toward their socialist views. They usually only show what will present their World-view in a proper light.

The worst has to be the CBC. Each and every news report focuses on social issues they deem as important for people to be thinking about. I have seen stories about what was supposed to be Chinese economics, and they turn it into a program of how the homosexual community is finding it's voice through economic policy in China. Not how the Chinese economy is exploding, as was advertised, but an old worn out argument from the seventies, of how Homosexuals are here to stay even amongst Chinese.

Most of the serious stories CBC runs, has this underlining theme of the homosexual world-view. They would call me a homophobe and dismiss my observations, but an observation is all that it is.

All of these slants are enough to make me sick, and realize we miss out on many real stories, because they do not 'fit' into the slant or 'position' of each outlets editor. Which brings me to why I am so frustrated with these news outlets.

I was reading an English news website from China, because of the little reporting done by our own news outlets I had to look for news on the Internet.

As I read the stories on this site, I was amazed at how little I knew of China and its day to day goings on.

Here are a few of the things I thought amazing, these stories had little or no coverage from our News Outlets.

1. China sent a man up in space in 2003, and has sent space craft up since only 1999. This is astounding when you think about how long it took the Untied States and Russia to perfect their technologies.

2. China has it's own Aerospace Industry, which has just launched a Jumbo Jet Company, and will rival Boeing and Airbus soon, if China trends of catching up continue.

3. This earthquake isn't the largest, as that was in 1976 when over 200,000 people died. Everyone in China look to this one as the big one and were well prepared for this one.

4. By the year 2012, Venezuela will be sending to China 1 billion barrels of oil per day. It is now 350 million per day. that is a 400 million dollar a day addiction, and this is only Venezuela's addition to China's massive oil consumption. How much do they get from OPEC, or African Nations?

5. 1.3 percent of China's GDP is allocated for Green Technological advances. This is a considerable amount of money.

6. Automobile manufacture and sales are the biggest growth Industry in China. There have been an increase from 514,000 sedans sold in 1995 to over 2.134 million this year. This is huge growth, considering the infrastructure for items such as these.

As I looked through these stories, it was obvious to me how little Westerners know or care about anything beyond their nose.

We are going to be overtaken in technology, advances in green energy technology (because of the need arising in China, it begs for solutions to be developed), goodwill toward the World (anytime you start spending massive amounts of money in a country, you will be held in high esteem within the country you spend it in), and most of all Social standing(China started out as a rogue Nation, but when they find solutions to the Tibetan problems and the Taiwanese situation, the world will be impressed) as the regular Chinese person has always been fascinating to Western thinking people.

I know that as Western Society continues its slide into stagnation, other ideologies will supplant it with respect to social growth, industry growth, and Political systems, but I thought it would happen slowly and way past my children's children time.

Because of our desire to only look at our own minutiae, I can see one of the Chinese languages becoming a sought after commodity soon, there are over 1.3 billion Chinese people, it's only a matter of time until it becomes a necessity for business.

While we in the Western World continue to cling to an outdated system of thinking English is a business language and give into Hollywood entertainment to satiate ourselves, the other parts of the World will be ahead of us in the understanding of learning from the Chinese, and be more open to the growth (financially and otherwise) which will soon be exported from China soon.

My frustration is, we are like that lobster which can be cooked without him knowing it, as long as you allow the water to boil slowly. I would hope we could at least watch and learn from the gains that places like China and India are making in everything from social reform, to language, but instead we are slowly losing footing in the world and do not even realize it.

It's fascinating to read their news and see how they are finding solutions to generation long problems.

I find Asia is strong in these area's, because they have chosen to humble themselves and integrate into their own systems of thought the lessons of Western Society, now it's our turn to integrate the lessons they are teaching.

I hope everyone watched the speeches given by the two Democratic Presidential nominees. One was a victory speech and the other was a desperate attempt at saving face.

Barack Obama, is the democratic nominee. He has proven this by winning the most races; having the most delegates, and having the lead in the all important popular vote.

One thing this has proved is, the Democratic primary system is in need of revamping, there are way too many holes in the system. The system does not allow for who is the best candidate, but who has the best plan (or most money) in each county. It's a broken system and disenfranchises voters.

Because of the system, Hillary Clinton cannot come close to Mr Obama, unless he makes a major mistake in the next few month's. It could happen, they could set him up with some women to create a scandal, but I doubt it. He is too intelligent to get caught now, and he has way too much ambition to give in to any set up.

I need to say it, Hillary needs to GET OUT! It's over.

She says how she cares about the DNC. How she wants the best for her country. If this was the case, she would allow the Democrats to heal their wounds and get on with the general election.

Instead, she remains, railing against policies she says are different from hers, what she fails to realize is, people know that her and Obama's policies are basically the same.

They each use different words to make their points, but they are the same points, health care, get out of Iraq, get rid of Bush, raise taxes, get rid of Bush, and get rid of Bush.

Hillary is smart enough to realize her and Obama are cut from the same cloth. If she had any character at all she would have left the race long ago, and explain how amazing it would be to have the first African American President.

Instead, she does what has been done since the Clinton's have become central to Democratic politics. Never give up power, try to use any means necessary to secure the power you can. Its about getting to the position, not HOW you got there. She has a single minded purpose to become President for the power alone.

If she really believed the things she talks about, she would step aside and allow Mr. Obama to try and secure the support of the Nation against an American hero.

Instead, just like her husband did before her, she continues to 'fight' no matter the reasons why. I wish she would just GO AWAY!

I had my fill of the Clinton's when they stole from the White House, and left the plane in a shambles. To me the Clinton's are the lowest form of politician there is, this is a very low person I assure you.

Not everyone in politics do as they do. Some graciously give up, because they know it's the right thing to do, or they are just smart enough to realize it's foolish to waste any more money.

Look at the Republican primary as an example. McCain wasn't definitely going to win, it was s till a fight. Why did Mitt Romney give up, because it was the right thing to do (moneywise and integrity). It wasn't some right-wing ploy. He was being an honest businessman, who realized he would have had a hard time winning. I give him the kudo's.

Bill Richardson was another person who set aside his ambition to see that the cards were stacked against him. He could've hung on and made some difference, but he was honest and forthright with himself and his supporters.

Hillary Clinton however, wants to be President beyond common sense, party affiliation, or even good business sense. She wants the power of the Presidency and will never believe she can't have it, even when the people (insert voters here) tell her she can't have it.

It's a normal thing to see from this Clinton machine. It's ugly and wrapped in a power crazed couple, who believe they are above everything from personal integrity to voter desires.

I am having fun watching the Clinton's implode any kind of good will the American public holds for them. Bill is finally becoming known as the scoundrel he is. He is very intelligent and had a way with the ladies, but as a statesman and leader he was and is woefully inadequate. If it wasn't for two hapless candidates who ran against him, the Republicans would have been in power from the 80's until now.

We will see how it plays out, I just wish Hillary would cry, and say she lost to a better person, but she will never be able to do that. Her ego is way to big. Also, her intelligence is only centered in how she can get power.

Good Luck Mr. Obama you will need it.

Cheers
Tim,

Hello Again,

I hope everyone will have no idea what I'm talking about, but if you watched a certain President hopefuls speech last night, then you most surely will.

I am a Permanent resident of Canada, and try to not care about American Politics, but I guess it's too difficult not too given this candidates outright misdirecting of facts.

I thought quite possibly Mr. Obama was an honest (albeit liberal therefore shortsighted in my view) if not nice person who generally wanted to change Washington.

Then I heard this 'speech' last night. Now I realize he is exactly like the rest of the previous Democratic candidates, they are all paraded around as Intelligent people who just need a chance to lead. The problem with them is they only look at academic points of view, they are continually trying to reinvent the wheel, not realizing reality is different than concepts.

His opening paragraph's, outline how he is identical to men like Mr. Kerry, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gore, and Mr. Carter. People full of uniting rhetoric, but not much truth as is shone by how polarizing they have all become.

"Now, here’s the good news – the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot. The name of my cousin Dick Cheney will not be on the ballot. We’ve been trying to hide that for a long time. Everybody has a black sheep in the family. The era of Scooter Libby justice, and Brownie incompetence, and Karl Rove politics will finally be over.

But the question you’re going to have to ask yourself when you caucus in January and you vote in November is, “What’s next for America?”

We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. The planet is in peril. The dream that so many generations fought for feels as if it’s slowly slipping away. We are working harder for less. We’ve never paid more for health care or for college. It’s harder to save and it’s harder to retire. And most of all we’ve lost faith that our leaders can or will do anything about it."

Let's look at this statement for a moment.

We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. The planet is in peril. The dream that so many generations fought for feels as if it’s slowly slipping away.

Very impressive verbiage for a man who wants to 'pull out' every troop from Iraq in a year, which will force the Iraqi government to fend for itself, he supposedly knows this is the only way the Iraqi government (who according to this logic, is the problem in Iraq, not the Arabs who are going there to fight democratic systems of government) will stand up for itself.

When I heard this quote I had to ask myself, why is the World in Peril?

Let me think for a moment. Is it in peril because of American Troops in Iraq? Is it in peril because of Americans who supposedly can't pay their now inflated mortgage payments? Is it in peril because of the supposed health care crisis in the USA?

I think you have to say an emphatic no to these reasons, it is in peril because of Radical Islamic Fundamentalists, Dictators who take all the money of their Countries and use it for themselves, and nuclear capable regime's selling their technology to non-nuclear countries.

I think he rightly says the World is in peril. To say, as he does over and over to the press, pulling out of Iraq will force the Iraqi's to fend for themselves, thus alleviating their dependence on American tax dollars (not defining their dependence on us to be a structured security for the help of growing a new democratic government, as he knows is true), which somehow makes the World a much better place, he forgets the reasons why the World is in peril.

Islamic fundamentalism will take over in the region if Democratic systems aren't allowed to grow. To say they will grow on their own, is to be shortsighted and obtuse to the truth staring you in the face.

Iraq is too young a country to stand on its own. He talks about how Mr. McCain is committing us to 100 years of paying for the Iraqi's. I say this is how America should be. Shouldn't we help the downtrodden. The Iraqi's who have been elected to the offices they hold now, would have been exiled, forced to follow the Dictators lines on pain of torture or death, or made to do things they never would have conceived of doing, had they been able to think for themselves.

Now they are thinking for themselves, but to say they are ready to stand alone, is to be absurd. They are in control of the country, but are they in control of all that goes along with running a country, I would submit that they can't be. I agree it's a hard job, uniting three distinct tribes, who honestly do not want to be united.

On a human scale though, what else can we do?Do we just leave when the going gets tough?

Do we let them be taken over by radical Islam, because the leadership capabilities to finish the job properly means you have to look at public opinion and realize it's driven by immediate concerns, rather than proper logic and reason.

Mr. Obama your shortsighted and ignorant of what it means to run a government, if you believe that we need to pressure a brand new government to stand alone in this time of major upheaval.

If we leave Iraq in a year we will plunge the new government in a place they will not be able to recover from. Why can't they tell us when they want us to leave. The Filipino's told us to get out when they didn't need us, lets allow the Iraqi government learn and grow to be strong, rather than look at political expediency.

The Koreans have realized our presence there is beneficial. Mr. McCain has rightly highlighted our presence there to show what can happen when two countries partner together to push back ideologies that aren't democratic.

The question Mr. Obama has to ask is what will it take to make the Government strong in Iraq. Not how can we force them to do their job, and make it into an us versus them issue.

Instead of listening to Al-Jazeera and getting policy from them, Mr. Obama should look at history and see we need to truly finish the job.

Which means that until Iraqi's are solid and secure within their own systems we need to be there.

I can go on and on about his speech, but I need to do other things. when you listen to this man, read between the voice inflections, to see the concepts he is trying to push. They are shortsighted, lies, or just plain idiocy. Barack Obama is a dangerous man, if elected he will harm more people than he helps.

Cheers
Tim

My take on American Politics

I am thinking that American politics has to be the most frustrating thing in the world.

There are two candidates who have got to be the weakest ever in the history of the Democrat party, and all I hear is how strong they are.

I do know that November will tell if the candidate is strong or not, but c'mon, they are running against a man who is a hero, but is also old enough to be in the who's who of people that watched the first nuclear explosion in Arizona.

I am a conservative, but everyone knows that after eight years, usually people want a different party.

Thankfully for conservatives, the Dumb Democrats (I did use the unsophisticated word dumb) chose a women who can't tell the truth because she doesn't know what it is, even if it is staring her in the face (YOU LOST! GET OUT), and a man whose ambition has always dictated where and what he did in life.

Don't get me wrong, ambition is essential, but when you stay at a radical church because you surmise the people there can fulfill your aspirations (see Oprah), rather than pay attention to the radical idealism of those around you, or if you make the conscious choice to duck out on votes which will define your ideology one way or another, you may need to reign in your 'Ambition' for higher things, and allow your own self to take over and be shone for what it is. It would be refreshing if Barack Obama could be a guy who was more than someone who could 'give good speeches'.

If you aren't known for who you are, your ambition will eventually catch up to you. Remember Barack, not everyone is a weak-willed liberal who wants to 'believe'.

Most of us are cynical, negative thinking first, people who will see right through that ambition and the posturing it forces people like you to do, in order to justify it's actions.

That old phrase of speaking out of both sides of your mouth comes to mind when i hear Mr. Obama. Archaic, yes I know, but old is usually better (Right John).

When your Barack Obama, speaking out of both sides of your mouth means; telling far-left people in San Francisco one thing, then centrist Pennsylvanians something totally different about the same issue. It also means explaining to Fox News one way you think you believe, then telling CNN something entirely opposite again on the same topic, and for good measure come up with a third spin for MSNBC as well.

Bowing to the people who are in front of you to get their nods of acquiescence, may make you feel your in control, but it only shows your lack of substance.

Speaking out of both sides of your mouth also means saying things like;

"I can no more disown him, than I can my own Uncle"

Or "he is my teacher, friend, and confidant"

Then contradict yourself and say "he was never my spiritual mentor, he was only my 'Pastor'" (like people are supposed to just know by osmosis, what that means)

or

"I sat in the Church, he doesn't tell me how to think, nor did I gain much from him"


Barack Obama is a Godsend for us conservatives, it is true. I know the Liberal Media wants everyone to say something different, but I take a cue from my mom. She is a 65 year-old died in the wool Chicago Democrat (those from Illinois will understand what I mean).

She said and I quote
"I don't trust the b******d. Nope I don't trust him."

She has picked the last six Presidencies. A little background on my mom, she has no interest in politics, but being from Chicago she has instincts and a mouth which spouts out its opinions (good or bad).

I never had top ask for her prognostications they always flowed. Here they are as I recall them.

The pretty boy but lying SOB Ronny will win re-election

Bush 1, the panty-waist, will win because of his whining.

Clinton is a handsome hillbilly, he will definitely win.

Clinton is a cheatin sob, but will win because of his economy, thank God.

Duh' Bush 2 will win because of his Oil money.

She actually liked Bush the second time around (it amazed me), she said nothing derogatory, but stated simply, "he does what he says he will do."

Now this election I have very little quotes except the one previous shared. After all of the history I have seen, her hatred of Barack Obama makes me think, we as conservatives have it made.

We aren't looking at another White House filled with ex-hippie feel-good, no brain ideologues.

Nor will we have a judge like Janet Reno on the Supreme Court. It can all change in November but I will hold onto my hope until the end.

Besides it does my heart good to hear all of these Liberals bashing their own. Keep it up.

Mr. McCain can keep the seat warm for the next Republican to break the barriers of color and gender, the Miss. Condoleeza Rice.