America Should No Longer Stand Above: Obama

The more I hear the empty bloviating rhetoric and emotional polished platitudes of Do-Nothing Senator Barrack Obama, the more I am convinced he is a worse choice for President than Hillary Clinton.

Obviously the both of them loathe what America was, stood for and has accomplished in the world. Blame America First seems to be the zeitgeist of the moment, and given what Obama, Hillary and even McCain tout as “foreign policy”, America will soon sit down to tea and chat with enemies plotting to kill us behind their smiles duping the Liberal Elites into trusting madmen.

I’m not alone in noticing the pattern that is emerging with Obama: a devout and hard-core Socialist thinks America is no better than any other third world cesspool nation on the globe, and needs to start acting like the Bananna Republic he will see us become.

As with all Socialists and Stalinists – the goal is to spread misery equally, with only themselves exempt from the mediocrity they demand the rest of us “little people” relegate ourselves to.

We Stand Above
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

The Presidency: Just days after his wife declared she had never been proud of her country until now, Barack Obama says America mustn’t act like “we stand above the rest of the world.” A disturbing pattern is emerging.

The most famous image Ronald Reagan liked to inspire Americans with was that of the “shining city upon a hill.” Far from being original, it dated from America’s very beginnings.

In the 17th century, John Winthrop, the elected governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, used the vision to describe to his fellow Pilgrims the special meaning of their new land. “We must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us,” he said.

In his farewell address, one of the three greatest presidents of the 20th century explained that what he saw “was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace.” That, Reagan said, “is how I saw it and see it still.”

Millions of immigrants have come to America believing it to be the greatest country in the world, standing above their places of origin in the opportunities available here. They and their children and grandchildren continue to believe the U.S. stands above the rest of the world.

The French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville, who famously visited America in the early 19th century, described some of the character traits that set our country apart. “In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States,” he wrote, “and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.”

But in his Austin, Texas, presidential debate last week with Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama denied that America is exceptional. Explaining why he would unconditionally meet with the ruler of an enemy country like Cuba, the Democratic front-runner said: “If we think that meeting with the president (of the United States) is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time.”

A president who doesn’t understand that America stands above the rest of the world is likely to be — especially in wartime — a president who, like Jimmy Carter, leads us into a dangerous national decline.

Presidential Candidates Reveal That America Has Been Castrated

I cannot bear to watch the insane circus of this political season any longer. After the lunacy of a primary turned completely on it’s head whereby Democrats and Independents with media efforts chose the GOP Establishment Candidate in John McCain; and a power mad-woman running who thought her crown was already secured and only required the ceremony of her annointing suddenly found herself being trounced by a do-nothing-empty-platitude-spouting former Muslim, now Christian Left Socialist.

Only one thing has become abundantly clear: the Elite powerbrokers of Washington have successfully, with media help yanked the country to the far Left, and America is stuck with a choice between Tweedledee, Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

In the words of Erik Rush, America has been officially castrated, and it certainly appears he is correct.

A Castrated Nation

By Erik Rush

If there was ever an election cycle in which the issues (at this juncture, really weighty ones) took a back seat to pomp and circumstance – or, if you prefer, hype and flatulence – this one is definitely it.

With the exception of half a handful of worthwhile individuals who were destined to be ignored by the public (for reasons of lack of profile), their party’s elite (for reasons rooted in fear and weakness), and the media (for obvious reasons), the choices have been ghastly right from the start.

An earthshaking event (like Bobby Kennedy’s assassination during the 1968 Presidential campaign) notwithstanding, one of three individuals (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain) will be inaugurated as President of the United States next January. To the majority of American voters (I’ve not yet gotten a chance to speak with all of them as yet), this may appear to be a minimally consequential prospect, but to conservatives it is of grave concern; to some, it ranges from sick-making to terrifying.

In a sense, there are some parallels between this election cycle and the one of 1992. There is a sitting Republican president with whom both Republicans and Democrats are disenchanted; despite added confusion due to the media fueling the process with hype, as a result, many Americans appear to desire some unformulated, undefined, and nebulous “change” which no one seems to be able to qualify. Like many issues that are usually top-of-mind during election cycles, as with 1992, they are taking a back seat to this “grass is greener” passion.

Foreign Policy and the War on Terror
It is difficult to argue that Democrat administrations have done anything but weaken America’s position in the global theater since the Lyndon Johnson administration. The farther left the party has moved, the more inclined it has been to indulge in weak diplomacy as it caves in to capricious “allies,” domestic anti-Americanism and the infantile globalist visions of the far left. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected, there is no doubt that this will continue. Indeed, a case could be made that Obama might well be sympathetic to some of our more fanatical enemies at home and abroad, given his voting record in the Senate and (widely unreported) personal philosophy.

This area, in my view, is one of the scant few territories held by Republican John McCain. It is generally believed by conservatives that while his administration may be as weak as a Democrat’s in general, it is unlikely that he will minimize the threat of Islamic fascists or be slow to act with military might when necessary given his experience in the military and in government.

Our Border with Mexico
We’re doomed. The Democrat party has proven that it advocates unfettered immigration from third world countries, legal or illegal, operating on the premise that these groups will eventually become Democrat voters, particularly if they can be kept in a state of perceived disenfranchisement long enough for them to buy into anti-Republican propaganda.

“SACRAMENTO, California – Mexican President Felipe Calderon acknowledged tensions between the U.S. and Mexico over illegal immigration but said Wednesday both countries have an interest in ensuring their citizens can cross the border legally and safely.

‘I know that immigration is a controversial issue today in this great nation. But I strongly believe that Mexican and Mexican-American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California,’ Calderon said in prepared remarks.

“‘Our nations will never find prosperity by closing their doors.’” – Calderon says U.S., Mexico must keep doors open, Associated Press, February 13, 2008

Mexican workers a large reason for the dynamic economy of California? How Orwellian can one get? Has it been discovered that the devastation of California’s economy was actually due to state workers pilfering office supplies?

Wearing an expensive suit and an oily smirk, Calderon, surrounded by fawning members of the California legislature – this state which has been virtually decimated economically by the ravages of illegal immigration from Mexico and the ultra-liberal tolerance thereof – had the (now commonly disregarded) audacity to notify the lawmakers, and by extension America, how we ought handle our southern border issues.

Why he wasn’t run out of town naked on a splintered rail is testimony to an absence of the proverbial key reproductive organs on America’s part.

John McCain, as well as being possibly the most liberal Republican in the Senate, has done nothing as border state senator to ameliorate the burden caused by illegal immigration in Arizona. The entire border has become like a demilitarized zone (an oxymoron used widely during the Vietnam War), and the far left press disregards same. Like Bush, McCain can likely be counted on to tolerate illegal immigration and our incremental move toward a North American Union. American business profits, Mexican elites profit, drug traffickers profit, and politicians profit. Where’s the incentive for change?

Social Issues and The Culture War
This is an area that was even of concern to Democrat lawmakers during the Reagan and Bush The Elder presidencies, but which was put on the back burner until long after the 1992 election. At the time, the effect of the media and an unrestrained entertainment industry threatened to seduce American youth into lifestyles of gratuitous rebelliousness, self-destruction, and debauchery – sort of where many reside now. In fact, if you recall, Al Gore’s wife Tipper and other prominent Democrats were at the forefront of the push for Senate hearings and warning labels for recorded media (records and CD) during the ‘Nineties.

Then we got Bill Clinton, whom many agree fast-tracked the “modern America as the second Rome falling” phenomenon. Despite unpopular gay rights initiatives as regards the military, Bill was as libertine as they get, Captain Kirk on Viagra. This set the stage for augmented acceptance of culturally-destructive practices and emboldened gay rights activists.

McCain is a populist; that’s one of his chief problems with conservatives. He claims to be for overturning Roe v. Wade, but probably feels relatively secure that it won’t be overturned despite any efforts he may exercise. He can always say he was for overturning it, as did Bush. As far as moral issues go, the man who brought us McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy may bring us (though he’s President), a version of McCain-(Barney) Frank, some bipartisan legislation that inches us closer to a federal amendment protecting gay “marriage.”

As I have indicated before – and it appears that this will be even moreso the case no matter who is elected President in November – carefully orchestrated and massive grassroots action is the only vehicle by which Americans will be able to neutralize the designs of those in places high and low who wish to preserve the beltway status quo, allowing our slide toward global disenfranchisement, socialism and cultural putrefaction to continue.

Whether the Republican Party pulls itself together within the next few years or continues to lie in the corner mumbling incoherently and expectorating on itself like someone’s junkie brother-in-law must become immaterial. Whoever is elected president, this era of grassroots activism must be inaugurated. This imperative ought to become apparent to most American voters before 2008 is out.

My estimation is that the GOP has chosen the path of the WHIGS.

Unintended Consequences: Tolerance Turns Moderate Muslims Militant

You might recall the troublemaker in your school in days gone by. He was the fella who seemed to get away with starting fights, causing trouble, inciting mayhem and as long as he was placated and tolerated by both teachers and students – he got away with even more outlandish behavior.

Bullies and troublemakers when put into their place, and resisted – either abandon their attempts to intimidate and threaten, or change their ways. Those that have their behavior excused and apologised for, become even more radical, encouraging even average kids who would not get into trouble on their own, into trying on the mantle of the troublemaker.

Tolerance and appeasement of evil is to compromise with it, and the unintended consequences of doing so has turned moderate Muslims, into radical militants.

My friend and reknowned Author William J. Federer takes not of these consequences on the same subject discussed a few days ago here. Multiculturalism in the West is a poison that has weakend Christian Civilization, and empowered the beast of Jihadist Islam.

Moderate Muslims turning radical?

William J. Federer highlights unintended consequences of tolerance towards Islam

© 2008

By Willam J. Federer

Britain’s Daily Mail, Jan. 29, 2007, reported in the article “Multiculturalism drives young Muslims to shun British values”:

Multiculturalism has alienated an entire generation of young Muslims and made them increasingly radical, a report has found. In stark contrast with their parents, growing numbers sympathize with extreme teachings of Islam, with almost four in 10 wanting to live under Sharia law in Britain. The study identifies significant support for wearing the veil in public … and even punishment by death for Muslims who convert to another religion. Most alarmingly, 13 percent of young Muslims said they “admired” organizations such as al-Qaida which are prepared to “fight the West.”
Germany’s Spiegel, Dec. 20, 2007, reported in the article “Interior Ministry warns of radicalization of Muslims”:

A new study released by Germany’s Interior Ministry has added new fuel to the debate about integration of Muslims in Germany, with the report warning about the danger of radicalization of Muslims. According to the study … 40 percent of Muslims surveyed had a “fundamentalist orientation” … 6 percent of those surveyed were classified as having “violent tendencies,” while 14 percent of respondents had “anti-democratic” tendencies. … The report also concluded that religious beliefs are becoming increasingly important for young people.
Europe is wondering why fundamental Islam is not assimilating; history may reveal the reason.

The word “Islam” means submission to the will of Allah, and a “Muslim” is someone who has submitted. A “dhimmi” is an inferior non-Muslim coerced to submit.

Muhammad divided the world into two parts: those who have submitted and those yet to submit. He called these two parts the House of Islam and the House of War, pronounced in Arabic “dar al-Islam” and “dar al-harb.”

Within 100 years of Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632, fundamental Islamic caliphs, with cavalry armed with scimitar swords, subjugated vast areas of the world: Arabia, Persia, the Holy Land, North Africa, Spain, Southern France, Sicily, Central Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

Egypt was conquered by Muslim Gen. Amr ibn al-As. Gen. Khalid ibn al-Walid was called the “Drawn Sword of Allah” for being undefeated in nearly 100 battles.

In the next 1,000 years, Sultans subdued Indonesia, Java, Borneo, Sumatra, the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, Armenia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Wallachia, Moldova, Serbia and regions of China, Tibet, Bengal, Mongolia, India, Russia, Hungary and Poland.

In 1529 and 1683, over 100,000 Turkish Muslims attack Vienna, Austria.

Whereas “world peace” in the West means peaceful coexistence, “world peace” in Islam means the world submitting to the will of Allah.

Since there is no one theological body governing all of Islam, faithful Muslims have developed differing views.

Moderate Muslims think the remaining area of the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, maybe at the Hour of Judgment. Therefore, since it is so far off, it is acceptable to get along with non-Muslims in the present.

Fundamental violent Muslims think the rest of the world is submitting to Allah now and feel it is Islam’s “manifest destiny” to make it happen. They would just as soon fight moderate Muslims, considering them backslidden from following the example of Muhammad and the caliphs.

Moderate Muslims are hesitant to speak out against fundamental violent Muslims, as occasionally one does and they are threatened, intimidated, forced to change their names for protection, have fatwas put on them and even killed.

So there could, in a sense, be three groups of Muslims: a minority of fundamental violent ones; a majority of moderate ones who are afraid of the fundamental violent ones; and the courageous dead ones who were not afraid of the fundamental violent ones.

The West may be inadvertently fueling the problem by not understanding that fundamental Muslims interpret their “politeness” as weakness or submission.

Saudi Arabia was pressured to revise its fundamental textbooks supplied to Muslim schools around the world, including the U.S., because they contained intolerance.

The Washington Post, May 21, 2006, published excerpts of these textbooks in an article “This is a Saudi textbook (after the intolerance was removed)”:

4TH GRADE: “True belief means … that you hate the polytheists and infidels.”

5TH GRADE: “It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in Allah and His Prophet.”

8TH GRADE: “The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.”

9TH GRADE: “It is part of Allah’s wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the Hour [of Judgment].”

11TH GRADE: “Do not yield to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect.”

One may have to read that last line again:

“DO NOT YIELD to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect.”

In other words, when a Christian or Jew thinks they are being polite by letting a Muslim go first, the fundamental student is taught that they are simply acknowledging Islam’s superiority.

Thus the dilemma:

If the West naively promotes tolerance of a belief system that does not promote tolerance, it is effectively promoting intolerance.

If the West refuses to promote an intolerant belief system, it is accused of being intolerant.

Muslims still sees the West, and particularly America, as a predominately Judeo-Christian.

Newsweek Magazine (September 2005) reported America as 85 percent Christian (58 percent Protestant, 22 percent Catholic, 5 percent other Christian); 2 percent Jewish; 1 percent atheist; 0.5 percent Buddhist; 0.5 percent Hindu; 10 percent other/non-reporting; and 1 percent Muslim.

So the question is: What goes through the mind of a moderate Muslim, who thinks the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, when he sees this predominately Judeo-Christian nation going to great lengths to tolerate Islam now?

Let’s look at the history of Islam’s influence in the United States:

1991 – Imam Siraj Wahhaj was the first Muslim to offer prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives.

1992 – Imam Warith Deen Muhammad was the first Muslim to offer prayer in the U.S. Senate.

1993 – Abdul Rasheed Muhammad became the first Muslim U.S. Army chaplin (imam), spiritually instructing about 5,000 Muslim soldiers.

1996 – Monje Malak Abd Al-Muta”Ali ibn Noel Jr. became the First Muslim U.S. Naval chaplain (imam).

1996 – First lady Hillary Clinton hosted a White House reception for Muslims on Id al-Fitr, the end of Ramadan.

1999 – New York City Police Department appointed its first Muslim chaplain, Imam Izak-El M. Pasha.

1999 – U.S. Postal Service published its first stamp honoring a Muslim leader, Malcolm X.

2001, Aug. 1 – U.S. Postal Service issued the Islamic postage stamp, “Eid Mubarak.”

2001, Sept. 11 – Fundamental Muslim terrorist attacks.

2001, Nov. 16 – Muslim chaplain of Georgetown University prayed in the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by a dinner hosted by President Bush to honor the occasion.

2001, Nov. 19 – President Bush was the first president to invite 50 ambassadors from Islamic countries to celebrate Ramadan, where, for the first time in the White House, Muslims knelt and touched the floor with their foreheads in a formal ceremony.

2002, Dec. 5 – President Bush was the first president to take off his shoes to visit an Islamic Center.

2005, Jan. 20 – President Bush was the first president to mention the Quran in an Inaugural Address.

2007, Jan. 4 – Nancy Pelosi stood next to Keith Ellison as he swore upon a Quran to become the first Muslim U.S. congressman.

2007, April 5 – Highest member of the U.S. Congress, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, went to Syria and submitted to Islamic law by covering her head with a Muslim Hijab (veil).

2007, April 17 – President Bush was the first president to appoint a Muslim U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad.

2007, June – First Muslim prayer meeting began in the U.S. Capitol building, bowing toward Mecca.

2008, Jan. 9 – President Bush was the first president to call for fulfilling the Muslim dream of pressuring Israel to give up sole sovereignty of Jerusalem.

2008 – Barak Hussein Obama, the first presidential candidate whose middle name is that of Muhammad’s grandson, told the French magazine Paris Match, Jan. 31, 2008: “Once I’m elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world.”

So the question again is: What goes through the mind of a moderate Muslim, who thinks the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, when they see this predominately Judeo-Christian nation going to great lengths to tolerate Islam now?

Though America’s actions are done in hopes that tolerance of Islam will result in Muslims being more tolerant of non-Muslims, an unintended consequence is emerging, namely, that these actions are actually radicalizing some moderate Muslims by providing proof that the world is submitting to Allah – not in the distant future – but right now before their eyes!

They become persuaded that that their long-awaited desire of the non-Muslim world “dar al-harb” (House of War) becoming “dar al-Islam” (House of Islam) is imminent.

The excitement many Muslims feel is akin to what Christians and Jews felt in 1948.

For centuries, Old Testament verses about Israel being gathered from the nations to their homeland (i.e., Ezekiel 36:24, Isaiah 66:8) were taken figuratively or thought to occur in the distant future. When Israel suddenly became a nation again in 1948, there was great excitement in Jewish and Christian circles at the possibility these Old Testament scriptures were literally being fulfilled.

Islamic excitement can be understood in the context of honor or pride.

In a football analogy, if a team is dishonored by many seasons of poor performance, fans are humiliated, embarrassed and become passive. But if the team suddenly has a winning streak and is headed toward the playoffs, fans are filled with pride. They come out of the woodwork, put on the team’s jerseys, fill stadiums, paint their bodies, mascots are lifted high, and when the opposing team fumbles, the cheering mob roars with enthusiasm. They become radicalized.

In nature, when a fleeing antelope becomes exhausted, the pursing lion charges harder.

This is similar to a presidential candidate no one takes seriously suddenly winning a few primaries. The increased media coverage energizes supporters to work harder, thus catapulting the candidate to be a front-runner.

Islam’s rapid growth is exhilarating to fundamental Muslims. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (October 2005) reported:

Islam is already the fastest-growing religion in Europe. Driven by immigration and high birthrates, the number of Muslims on the continent has tripled in the last 30 years. Most demographers forecast a similar or even higher rate of growth in the coming decades.
Could it be the more the West exhibits hyper-tolerance, the more it turns some moderate Muslims, who believe the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, into fundamental violent Muslims, who view this tolerance as evidence the world is submitting to Allah now?

“Personal” tolerance in the West is rooted in Judeo-Christian concepts like “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek,” but Franklin D. Roosevelt warned regarding “national” tolerance in a Fireside Chat, Dec. 29, 1940:

“No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.”

Bush Administration Pursues “Reasonable” Ban on Guns

I’ve had the pleasure to meet Larry Pratt at a Restoring Our Heritage event in Evansville, and there’s no finer warrior to stand for our gun rights.

We face treason from the usual suspects, and even from among those who we might consider ‘on our side’. The Founders warned us about human nature and what happens to men when they get into positions of power. Once in power, the elite’s fear losing that power and as such – an armed populace is a threat that they will work tirelessly to eliminate. Thus the last 70 years has seen the erosion of our rights, the last secure bastion being our Second Amendment Rights that again hang in the balance of men in black robes who are unaccountable for their rulings.

Many might roll their eyes at the prospect of the Second Amendment being banned or abolished as nothing but the rantings of conspiracy theorists, but the same could have been said a decade ago over the notion of banning smoking, which has today all but become abolished and virtually criminalized. The same could have been said about private property rights – but the KELO decision by SCOTUS has relegated that right to the government. The same may hold true of the Second Amendment when the High Court rules in May on whether or not the Second Amendment applies to individuals or if the States can regulate and even abolish that Right.

Given the KELO decision of the Court – I’m pretty confident the Men In Black will again rule in favor of the government to strip us of our Constitutionally-protected Right under the Second Amendment.

Bush Administration Pursues “Reasonable” Ban on Guns

Leave it to the Bush Administration to put forward the argument that the Constitution permits “reasonable” infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

The Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement, of the United States is the lawyer for the Justice Department. On January 11, Clement dropped a bomb designed to destroy the Second Amendment.

The bomb was a friend of the court brief that is a marvelous work of Newspeak as described by George Orwell in his novel of a horrifying future where words mean the opposite of their original definitions.

On the one hand, the brief argues that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that predated the creation of the U.S. government by the people. On the other hand, it concludes that any and all guns can be controlled or banned if a federal court finds that to be a reasonable restriction or ban.

The brief asserts, with no proof whatsoever, that there is an “unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail . . ..” It is somewhat amazing that a brief in defense of the DC gun ban would say such a preposterous thing. It is the District of Columbia, with its gun ban, that usually has the highest murder rate of all U.S. jurisdictions. In high-gun-ownership jurisdictions such as neighboring Fairfax County, VA (with nearly twice the D.C. population), the murder rates are much lower. In Fairfax County it is more than 100 times less than the D.C. murder rate.

In some thirty pages of flip-flopping arguments, the Justice Department brief never once considered what the founders of the American republic might have meant by the phrase “shall not be infringed.” But the Clement brief did criticize the idea that the Second Amendment was a categorical prohibition on banning guns.

The opinion of the DC Court of Appeals (DCCA) overthrew the DC handgun ban (and ban-by-trigger lock of long guns) on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This categorical view of the Amendment should be sent back to the Appeals Court for another look, according to Bush’s brief. The Appeals Court should be told to look at the District’s gun ban in terms of what is “reasonable.”

Nary a thought about what the founders meant, and thus what the Second Amendment requires. The law should be “developed incrementally” according to Clement – the living Constitution assertion that has been put forth to justify legislation by judges (i.e., lawlessness).

Clement’s language is the language of tyrants throughout history. He claims for the government the right to change the meaning of the law and the Constitution on a continuing basis – on a whim. This avoids the messy business of proposing and debating constitutional amendments. It is so much tidier to have a small group of rulers emerge from behind closed doors to announce what the law is today, and what is illegal now that was legal a few minutes ago.

Clement, and most judges, have bought into an unconstitutional way of interpreting the Constitution that permits judges to consider various levels of scrutiny that are appropriate. Thus, they might decide (for reasons best known to themselves) that a higher level of scrutiny is required for interpreting a particular section of the Constitution. On the other hand, they might decide that a lesser standard of rational or reasonable scrutiny is all that is needed.

When we hear judges talk about which level of scrutiny is appropriate in a particular case, the proper translation of the legal jargon is: “How far from the meaning of the Constitution can we get away with going?”

It is worth noting that the Second Amendment was written with the level of scrutiny appropriate for interpreting it, i.e., “shall not be infringed.” That means that a discussion of the proper level of scrutiny, which is found in the Bush brief, and all other anti-gun briefs, is simply a coded discussion of the question: “What can we get away with this time?”

The Bush brief submitted by the Solicitor General was co-authored by Stephen Rubenstein, the head lawyer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Not surprisingly, the brief expresses alarm that federal gun bans, licensing requirements, registration laws, import restrictions and other unconstitutional federal laws and regulations might topple if “shall not be infringed” is the required level of scrutiny.

In the Clement-Bush brief, the phrase “shall not be infringed” is never used. That is not surprising, since the game would be over if they did. It is so hard to say gun ban or licensing requirement in the same breath with “shall not be infringed.”

D.C. v. Heller would not immediately result in such a happy situation. The case was designed to ease weak-kneed judges in a slow walk back to the Constitution. All that would happen if the decision of the DCCA were simply left standing is that DC would return to its pre-1976 law. And that law is about as bad as what one finds in New York City today. Heller does not present the judges with keeping a gun ban or erasing all the unconstitutional gun laws on the books. Of course, the Court could do that, but such an outcome would be quite surprising in view of the lowest common denominator that would be necessary for any kind of a favorable decision.

Unhappily, the Bush brief makes it more likely than not that the Second Amendment will be gutted (unconstitutionally) by the Supreme Court. No wonder Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) is seeking to get his colleagues to co-sign his letter urging Bush to pull his brief. Those wishing to so urge their Representatives can go to http://gunowners.org/a012308.htm to send an email with that request.

Obama – Pictures Speak Louder Than His Smooth Words

The Candidate for President who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegience or wear an American Flag Lapel Pin makes many wonder where his actual loyalties lie.

Well…apparently he and his campaign staffers love and admire Che Guevara – Fidel Castro’s version of Heidrich Himmler. In a FOX News expose, Obama’s Houston offices showed not one – but TWO homages to the late Cuban Terrorist and Executioner.

America is going to rue the day it decided to allow the Marxists and Stalinists of the Democrat party rulership over the nation.

Barack Guevara

How is it a front-runner for the highest office in the land can reject an American flag on his lapel but permit the display of a huge Cuban flag at one of his offices, emblazoned with a mass murderer’s mug?

Improbable as it sounds, it’s true. Barack Obama, displaying the same “anything goes” standard of patriotism he showed when he ostentatiously refused to wear a U.S. flag in his lapel, now shows he’s got a whole different idea about patriotism.
One of Obama’s volunteer offices in Houston was caught operating under a huge flag of communist Cuba with Che Guevara’s face printed on it, according to images shown on Fox News. Flak from bloggers ensued — followed, of course, by spin control.
But rather than repudiate the image, Obama would only call it “inappropriate,” apparently without insisting it be taken down. That contrasts with his dismissal of his Senate colleagues who wear lapel flags as “hypocrites.” Some hypocrites.
The display of the Castroite flag with Che’s picture on it sends a particularly disturbing message about his campaign. Apparently, Obama tends to attract the kind of people who think of mass murderers like Che and Fidel as romantic revolutionaries. Those same people see Obama as a man with a messianic message. These are the voters he’ll be indebted to should he win higher office.
Worse yet, it signals that a U.S. commander in chief tolerates supporters with loyalties to nations other than the U.S., including those loyal to enemy states that spy on and seek to harm the U.S.
It coincides uncomfortably with Obama’s call for no-strings-attached diplomatic relations with communist Cuba. He’s even offered to meet with the dictators of Cuba, sanctimoniously implying that other administrations had no good reason for not doing so.
Obama’s naive idealism is based on a false understanding of history. Cuba is a nation that aimed Soviet missiles at us in 1962 and is likely to do the same if and when Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez gets advanced weapons from Russia or Iran. That’s not all:
• Also in 1962, Cuba attempted to launch the first 9/11-style attack on New York’s subways and department stores — with the mastermind behind that none other than Che Guevara himself.
• In 1982 it tried to get the USSR to launch nukes at the U.S.
• In 1996, Cuba shot down two U.S. planes, killing six Americans whose only “crime” was trying to rescue Cuban refugees at sea. Had a political candidate in Latin America pasted up a picture of Che at election time, there’d be no doubt where he stood — ones who did just that are now running countries with names like Bolivia and Venezuela. Is that what Obama really stands for?

UPDATE: WHO WAS THE MOONBAT BEHIND HOUSTON OBAMA HQ’S CHE GUEVARA FLAG?

Who is Maria Isabel?

Surrendering To Islam In The Name of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness

The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him…The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind…The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods…You will become a thing of horror and an object of scorn and ridicule to all the nations where the LORD will drive you….The alien who lives among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. He will lend to you, but you will not lend to him. He will be the head, but you will be the tail.

All these curses will come upon you. They will pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the LORD your God and observe the commands and decrees he gave you.

Deuteronomy 28:20, 28, 43-44, 45

I cannot help but read the news of late and think of those verses in Deuteronomy when reading about the abject surrender to Islam taking place across the West, a surrender wholeheartedly given in the name of “tolerance”, “diversity”, “multiculturalism” and all things that make the West loathe it’s own flesh and culture while ceding ground to Sharia Islam’s dominance.

This is truly amazing and momentous to watch unfold with breakneck speed in comparison to the normal historical course of rot that crumbles civilizations. Instead of a century or two, Modern Western Civilization might be gone in less than a decade or two. The surrender of the West to barbarians may end up beating France’s record of surrendering to the Nazis in WWII with perhaps nary a shot fired.

Many in America slumber in oblivion to Islam’s relentless march to conquer the world for Islam and the strides it has made in Europe to turn a once vibrant culture of Christendom into the satellite states of a new Islamic Eurabia. Americans erroneously look at the spectre of Jihadist Islam as a result of President Bushs’ war in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeming to have willfully forgotten about an event six years ago that announced the Beast in our own backyards. Instead of facing up to this reality that has been growing under our noses, Americans seek solace in blaming Jihadism on American and Western “blowback” to interventionism in Muslim nations. As radical Islam asserts itself boldly, few are willing to consider the fact that as Christianity has been discarded in Europe, the vaccuum is being filled by militant Islam, and a people who no longer hold to foundational prinicples are ill-equipped to defend what is left of their culture or civilization from a beast that is hungry for global domination.

America had better wake up and quick, for that same poison that infects a dying culture in Europe – is coursing through our own veins even faster here. Our own capitulation to Mexican nationals enclaving in our own nation and the pandering made by lobbyists and politicians themselves to appease their demands are but a microcosym of Europe’s dalliance in appeasing Muslim Immigrants. The idea of demanding assimilation to the host culture is now seen as ‘racism’ and as we are experiencing, it only takes a few cowards in high places to grant a victory – whether percevied or real, to Jihadists.

No doubt by now, many of you have read the remarks by The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams state that the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable” and that the public had to “face up to the fact that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system”. A declaration of defeat could not be any louder outside of the populace waving white flags outside of every Muslim Mosque in Britain. Unfortunately, Dr. Rowan has done that on their behalf and Jihadists smell victory in conquering not only the softer appeasement nations in Europe – but England herself.

Daniel Pipes notes the dire threat in his essay with these thooughts:

the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam…exemplify changes now underway. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith describes terrorism as “anti-Islamic.”

First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term “war on terror” would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds “shared values as a means to counter terrorists.” By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some “non-offensive” phrases. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism. In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as “anti-Islamic.” And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists.

…Although widely denounced (and in danger of losing his job), Williams may be right about the Shari‘a being unavoidable, for it is already getting entrenched in the West.

It only takes one or two clueless leaders to signal our ruin by attempting to sound “reasonable” by entreating the unreasonable. This is not unlike how America surrenders it’s law and it’s courts to Illegal Mexicans. Indeed, America herself is about the task of calling for the closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility in Cuba to put Jihadists into the protection of the U.S. Legal system – with all rights and privileges betstowed upon them normally reserved for American citizens. Presidential candidates McCain, Clinton and Obama all share that view and would implement the closing of Gitmo almost immediately upon their ascendency to the Presidency. America is right behind Britian in giving Jihadists a leg up towards fulfilling Islamic prophecy in conquering us from within.

Don’t think so?

Check out this case from Texas.

Good News! Shari’a Law in London Texas!
Assalam aleikum, y’all!

The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari’a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it’s all good.

You’ve heard of the Texas Courts. Ladies and gentlemen, make way for the Texas Islamic Courts!!!

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within “Seven Days” from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.
In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari’a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari’a arbitration agreements shouldn’t be enforced by the courts, I’m not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development.

The poison of Liberal-Left ideologies critical of Christian culture has made huge overtures towards the embracement of Islamic extremism, becoming defacto apologists for Jihadists out of both fear of any more war and terrorism and also out of loathing Western culture itself. The applause and celebration of anything and everything that counters or is anethema to Christian civilization is embraced and promoted by the Secular and Religious Left in a decaying and declining English-speaking dominated West. Archbishop Rowan is a huge example of the insanity and wasting away of common sense the push for multicultural ideology wreaks on a nation and why people of sense and morality must eschew it if our civilization is to survive.

All of this boils down to the fact that a Multicultural Leftist Society is completely ignorant of how Islamists are using our emoting sensibilities against us from within.

…Islamists simply love the western concept of multiculturalism. It suits them perfectly to press on with their agenda of Islamization of western societies, by using the concepts of western democracy, freedom of expression, secularism, and respect for diverse culture, religion, language, and tradition. The Islamists cleverly use these noble ideals and good intentions to defeat the western policy makers in their own game.

We must comprehend that the Islamists have a totally different idea of multiculturalism. The foundation of Islamic Multiculturalism is solidly based on the supremacy of Islam, primacy of the Arabs, and the global Islamic Ummah. They find the western concept of multiculturalism too easy to use to their advantage.

For example, when Australia organizes ‘interfaith dialogue,’ the Islamists find in it an unparallel opportunity to espouse the ‘beauty’ of Islam. Mainly funded by the infidel tax payers, the ‘interfaith dialogue’ has become the best platform to advance Islam in the west. Thanks to those Westerners who are ignorant about Islam and are gullible useful idiots, the Islamists are laughing all the way to the mosques, knowing full well that Islam is totally safe in the hands of western politicians. The Islamists have nothing to worry about in terms of their agenda to eventually impose Islam on the infidel lands. The politicians of the infidel territories are doing the job for them (i.e., promoting Islam). These politicians even appoint the Islamists as advisors or consultative group in tackling Islamic terrorism.

…The Qur’an makes it very clear that Allah is the owner of infidel lands. This is non-negotiable. Here are a few sample verses:

Allah gradually reduces the land controlled by the unbelievers… 21.44

This means the victory of Islam by expropriating and usurping the land of unbelievers. Ibn Kathir, the eminent exegete of the Qur’an, simply confirms this. Jalalyn, another formidable Islamic scholar, accentuates ibn Kathir by saying that Allah diminishes the land of the unbelievers by granting Muhammad (read Muslims) victory through conquest. One of the earliest Islamic scholars, ibn Abbas (Muhammad’s cousin), also writes that Allah seizes the land of the unbelievers by conquering it for Muhammad.

Allah gradually reduces the land under the control of the unbelievers from its outlying borders…13:41

Ibn Kathir writes that this verse refers to Muslims gaining the upper hand over idolaters. If we though that Allah is merciful to the Christians and the Jews, we are wrong. The Qur’an treats the Jews and the Christians as idolaters.

Islamic freedom of expression means the right to call the infidels dogs and beasts.

Those who reject faith (non Muslims) are like panting dogs; preaching to them is a waste of time…7:176

Those who reject the Qur’an, wrong themselves; they are evils (their example is that of a dog—ibn Abbas)…7:177

The unbelievers are the worst beasts (or worst animals) in the eyes of Allah…8:55

On the explanation of these verses, Ibn Kathir writes that the unbelievers who do not embrace Islam and break treaties are the worst moving creatures on earth; Muslims should punish them harshly and inflict heavy casualties to them.

Muslims are the legitimate owners and rulers of all infidel lands.

When the Islamists migrate to an infidel land, they do not enter a foreign land. They are actually occupying a land which Allah has reserved for them. Any Islamist will tell that the entire earth belongs to Allah. Therefore, every Muslim has the inalienable right to move to an infidel land and occupy it for the sake of Allah.

…From Canada, to Britain, to Australia, the USA, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and in virtually every infidel land, Islamists are pursuing their agenda doggedly. What they might not achieve through Islamic terrorism, they will accomplish through political lobbying. This is far more dangerous than Islamic terrorism.

it has been said many times that Political Correctness will be the death of us all. With Sharia Islam, that is in fact, a certainty.

Bush To Secure The Southern Border………of Mexico – NOT America.

Like this was going to be a big surprise.

Like stupid imbeciles, the GOP wonders why Conservatives are planning to sit home this November and not stop their complaining about McCain and the sham of the Republican Nomination fiasco to win the Whitehouse. Bloated runaway spending, continuous compromise and the push to shove Amnesty for millions of illegal Mexican Immigrants sealing the discontent among the electorate. Conservatives do not forget the thumb in our eye and the fists in our face and the catcalls of “Racists; Nativists and vigilantes” from the Establishment leaders trying to ramrod Amnesty down our throats last Summer. As America heads into recession, and money is flying out of Washington to buy votes by giving us an advance on NEXT YEAR’S tax returns – it would seem that a “stimulus package” to Mexico to help secure the Souther border – of MEXICO would be seen as spectacular stupidity on a grand scale.

Right?

Wrong.

The Party Establishment in DC thinks they can do whatever they please, and it is learned today that the Bush Administration has decided to pull another “secret” deal with Mexico. This time it’s disguised as a “security aid package”.

The Merida Initiative is a Bush-backed plan that has seen little involvement or knowledge of our elected representatives in Congress that seeks to dump 1.4 B-B-BILLION dollars into corrupt Meximafioso Government types to create the illusion they are fighting drug trafficking, crime, and terrorists. It appears to be nothing more than appeasement payola and graft to continue to forge ahead the desire to make North America one big giant happy Third World Continent.

Michelle Malkin brings this to our attention:

The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus/national security package…for Mexico

President Bush is pushing a massive foreign-aid package to Mexico to help them secure their southern border against the flow of illegal aliens from Central America.

“We can’t even get our own border straight, and we are going to provide Mexico with funding so they can solve their problem,” the reader fumed. “I doubt the Central Americans are staying very long in Mexico anyway. We know where they are going!”

Too outrageously outrageous to be true?

Well, I checked it out and it’s even worse than the reader described. Far worse.

The plan is called “The Merida Initiative.” Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border.

We can’t finish our own border fence, properly supply our immigration agents and border patrol with all the equipment and resources they need, or get our house in order. Yet, the Bush administration wants to fork over $1.4 billion to Mexico and Central America–with much of it going into the hands of corrupt law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly to undermine our immigration laws. The funding is tucked into the 2008 supplemental budget.
Naturally, the State Department has taken a lead role. They’ve held meetings in secret and cut out members of Congress from discussion. You’ll love the explanation for the secrecy: Mexico is “sensitive,” you see. Also, according to one expert, “Mexico is very protective of its sovereignty and very worried about any incursion of U.S. security forces or private contractors—like Blackwater—coming in to train Mexicans.” Yeah, they’re worried about incursions and sovereignty.

Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, D-Ariz., questioned whether it was wise to assist Mexico at a time when the U.S. economy appears to be headed toward a recession.
“Unless we have our house in order, putting millions into Central America and Mexico is not the solution,” she said.

But I haven’t read about any opposition from Republicans. Yoo-hoo. Anybody home?

Meantime, Mexico refuses to extradite criminal suspects who’ve fled from the U.S. down to Mexico unless our prosecutors drop death penalty charges against them.

Read the Curses of Deuteronomy 28:16-end of chapter. This all fits right on in.

While the payola and Graft appeasement goes on under the table – ABOVE the table – in our own country – Mexican Presidente Felipe Calderon has the audacity to warn us that “closing the border would be a “very, very big mistake” for the U.S. economy“.

“Probably the worst thing that happened in this country is this anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant spirit or perception in the people, and we need to change that,” he said in response to a question after giving a speech at Harvard University.

He said Mexico had made big strides in its war against drug cartels but that the United States also bears responsibility for the illegal drug trade and should do more to stop it.

Why in the living hell should WE pay to fight a “drug war” YOU profit from El Presidente??? What is this? Blackmail?

“Drugs is not only my problem. It’s not mainly a problem of Mexico. Our problem is we are the neighbor of the largest consumer of the world. And we are paying the cost for this,” he said in his speech to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Oh great – BLAME America for the problem. Sheesh, no wonder Democrats and Liberal Republicans LOVE this guy!

“I think the American government must do its part in this terrible battle,” he said.

Calderon added that the U.S. economy’s slide toward recession underscored the need for the United States, Mexico and Canada to integrate their economies into a free market in order to rebuff growing competition from Asia and Europe.

And everyone tells us that the idea of a “North American Union” is just a myth.

‘VERY, VERY BIG MISTAKE’

“The American economy is suffering. But if you take the point of view that the solution for this situation — the lack of competitiveness in the American economy — is closing the border, you are making a very, very big mistake,” he said.

Is that a threat Mr. Presidente???

“Clearly we are two complementary economies. And that phenomenon is impossible to stop,” he said.

You talking about our economy or the phenomena of your Illegal Mexican Insurgency?

Yes, we can stop it. We’re America – all that is required is the willpower and resolve to to do it – and we will see it done.

We fight two enemies on this – the Illegal Insurgents from Mexico and their lobbying political groups, AND – our own government Elites in Washington.

Rush Is Wrong While DC Panders To Joe Sixpack

John Galt sends up another excellent perspective about the current circus of economics and politics.

Rush is Wrong and our Lotto and Smokes Politicans

By John Galt

Yes, here we go again. The celebration in Washington kicks off as the national debt accelerates in just one day by 1% of our total GDP. We have provided money for smokes, lotto and malt liquor to calm the masses and keep them from being angry one day this summer as they are laid off from their jobs and the benefits run out.

Absurd. Wasteful. Foolish.

Yet in more “shocking” news today the GOP’s only “conservative” (Stop snickering, it took me over an hour to quit laughing) withdrew from the race and basically handed the Mexichurian Candidate the nomination. I never thought I would see a day where I would hope for a Huckabee win but today is the day. Yes, I know, I voted for Dr. Paul but that was out of principle. Now we are down to Dr. Paul, 3 socialists and a preacher running for the office of head of the free world. Crap, we are screwed.

Speaking of which, I can not announce this loud enough:

RUSH IS WRONG

While Mr. Limbaugh is entertaining, his shows lately are sounding somewhat empty. He will never admit it but he’s been wrong for twenty years now, begging conservatives to “work within the party to change it.” Well Mr. Limbaugh, hows that been working out so far? We have wide open borders, a “temporary” tax cut, spending out of control, undeclared wars, an underfunded and understaffed military, internationalist treaties which have reduced our sovereignty, and a hotheaded fruitcake as the GOP front runner who had the nerve to actually congratulate Presidente Calderon in Mexico for his help on the border issue. Of course this is the same el President whose military he controls routinely shoots at our border patrol while escorting drug dealers into the U.S., but hey, who’s accounting for taste.

I’m going to slightly give Rush some slack here because under Reagan and again in 1994, it DID appear that we might be able to change the GOP from the inside. It has just taken a while for the truth about how just about every career politician LOATHES the Conservative American to sink in to the minds of the hopeful. The argument about what happens to a fractured base of support has indeed borne itself out here. If the Conservatives bolted from the party any earlier, we might be at the end a President Al Gore or John Kerry Administration.

But back to Rush.

So basically speaking you’ve made a gazillion bucks but the conservatives who followed you got, uh, ummm, “screwed” by following your advice. Well, I “unscrewed” myself by quitting the GOP in 2004 after the border betrayal by the loon in charge now and to be quite honest, I don’t feel bad at all. Add in the fact that we have a snotty liberal CINO representing us in Congress, a faux conservative CINO Senator, and Arnie Lite as governator of Florida and you can see why we are somewhat disillusioned down here. But hey, at least we don’t have a Senator like McCain who is proud of working with an alcoholic philandering (alleged) manslaughter dirtbag who is a Senator from Massachusetts. Sheesh, we’re not bragging too much now as I’m sure he’ll retire down here and there’s plenty of bridges and our liquor stores are open on Sunday.

Back to the Limbaugh fallacy though. He’s begged us to work within the party which lies, degrades and ignores us. Dr. Dobson sent the message the other day, but these people continue to say “party first” instead of “THE NATION COMES FIRST” which is most telling. These idiots who think that I will ever send them anything other than “Da Nadas” are completely delusional.

So now the moderate talk radio hosts who claimed to be conservatives in a prior life are claiming “we have to support the party candidate to keep Hillary out” and other such nonsense. So let’s analyze their ignorance:

1. 1st Amendment: McCain’s horrible campaign finance reform bill was one thing, but think people. If the Democratically controlled legislature passes the “fairness doctrine” in it’s new form, don’t you think he’ll sign it to shut up his critics as he is a vindicative soul? Hillary on the other hand will just sign an executive order.

2. 2nd Amendment: GOA Ratings are as follows:

McCain: F-

BJC (Black Jimmy Carter): F

Mussolini in Drag: F-

Is there really any need for any further comment? Goodbye gun rights….(are you paying attention yet el Rushbo, Beck and others?)

3. 4th Amendment:

McCain – Anti-waterboarding of select terrorist suspects.

BJC – Ditto

Mussolini in Drag – Megaditto

4. American Sovereignty

McCain supports aspects of Kyoto and is against drilling in ANWR. He wants a 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax to pay for carbon credits so he’ll get continued invites on the Letterman show and free golf with Arnie. He also supports the L.O.S.T. (Law of the Sea Treaty) and the S.P.P. For those that think the S.P.P. is just a myth, that’s fine. But if you think he’s retracted his support of open borders in the U.S. you are on crack.

BJC – Who knows but he’s an internationalist and socialist so odds are he’s married to McCain at the hip on issues of the sovereignty of our nation and preservation of our identity.

Mussolini in Drag – Whoever bribes her the most, that’s her policy of the day.

So el Rushbo, please, educate us foolish masses. We have a bunch of lazy, imperial, impetuous, vapid, dis-loyal “Republicans”, some of who claim to be conservative, which have demonstrated in the last twenty years a consistent ability to be bought, sold or outwitted by the socialists who seek to destroy this nation. If you think for one minute they see a dime, a vote or anything from moi, you are sadly mistaken again.

It’s time for you and your talking buddies to quit submitting your audience to this nonsense and get serious about changing this nation before it’s too late. And it’s time for the Republicans to go the way of the Whigs (That is an extinct political party for those of you who are NEA impaired or live in Rio Linda). I see no difference despite the scare tactics being created in the two parties, the potential nominees nor the personalities in charge. When the true conservatives elect to support a party or create one which actually supports, gasp, the CONSTITUTION, then I’ll support your causes and start to believe what you have been saying.

In the mean time, put up or shut up gang. The choice is yours.

My contention has been that the country needs change from the Bottom on UP, not the Top on DOWN. Focusing on local races will eventually change the make-up of the House and Senate over time.

However, Rush was more right that we may want to give him credit for. In 2006, he apparently PREDICTED what would happen in 2008 if Conservatives pulled out of the party and sat home – we would get a John McCain as a Nominee for Prez.

As our own history shows us, there does come a time after much entreat and pleading that a separation is the best course – and we may well have arrived at that point as far as the GOP is concerned. Sadly, no matter what happens at this point – DECADES will pass before any true Conservative is once again in a position to lead a majority party of likeminds.

Unless something far worse than Jimmy Carter stokes the populace to come to their senses. but I’m none to hopeful with the entitlement mindset that grips a majority of the electorate.

The Once and Future President McCain

I’m not much on forecasting the future, but one thing I have learned is that a record and consistency of behavior is a good indicator of future actions.

Given the oral and written record of Presidential contender John McCain, it does not take a vivid imagination to conjur up a vsion of the future of what a Presidency under John McCain might look like.

John Bicknell gives us a good insight, based on the existing record of what we know about John McCain’s contempt for Conservatives and his surrender to Democrats on a consistent basis, to describe a once and scary future of a President McCain.

The Real Conservative Conundrum: A President McCain Working With a Democratic Congress

McCain is not someone who simply reaches across the aisle to form coalitions with the other side. He walks across the aisle, puts on the other team’s uniform and sings the other team’s fight song.

By John Bicknell, CQ Columnist

Picture a President John McCain , next January, making his first appeal to Congress. What might that message entail? Certainly, it will include something about Iraq, and the war on terror, and other elements of national security and defense that will put him at odds with the majority Democrats.

But then, the new president will turn his attention to his domestic agenda. And he likely will be facing a Congress with larger majorities of Democrats than it now has. The electoral math all but guarantees Democratic gains in the Senate. The House looks pretty good for them, too. If President McCain wants legislative victories, he will have to turn to those majorities to get them enacted.

And he will be happy to do so. That’s how McCain has always operated, and there is no reason to believe that if he becomes president, he will operate in any other manner.

Conservatives who have opposed McCain during the campaign have cited his positions on a range of issues — immigration, campaign finance, climate change, tax cuts, legal rights for detainees — where he has sided with Democrats.

But the positions McCain has taken are only part of the problem for conservatives.

As president, with a Democratic Congress, it is the other part — the stylistic part — that will prove to be a much greater problem for conservatives.

When McCain has been on the conservative side, as he has been on the vast majority of issues, he gives it full-throated support. He is not afraid of giving offense to appropriators when he sticks up for cutting spending, and he has not been shy about deriding Democrats who oppose the war in Iraq, to cite two potent examples.

But when he is with the Democrats, he is really with them. McCain is not someone who simply reaches across the aisle to form coalitions with the other side. He walks across the aisle, puts on the other team’s uniform and sings the other team’s fight song.

If he wants to accomplish things — and every president wants to accomplish things — he will have to do so on the Democrats’ terms.

That means his agenda will include those things on which he agrees with the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate:

• A cap and trade regime for climate change.

• Expansion of McCain-Feingold regulations for campaign finance.

• Expanded legal rights for enemy combatants, and probably the closing of Guantanamo.

• Comprehensive immigration overhaul, with a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.

This will not be a “reaching across the aisle.” This will be a full partnership of the president and the Congress, who just happen to be of different parties. The shrunken GOP minority in the Senate might serve as a brake, especially on immigration. But it will be only a brake, not a standing astride history yelling “stop!”

Certainly, on other issues, McCain will fight with the Democrats. On the Iraq war, on taxes, on spending, the relationship will be more typical of that between a Republican president and a Democratic Congress.

In his victory speech on Super Tuesday, McCain laid out his GOP credentials.

“I am a Republican because, like you, I want to relieve the American people of the heavy hand of a government,” he said. “I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively,” he said. “I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that government should tax us no more than necessary, spend no more than necessary,” he promised.

And, he said, “I am a Republican because I believe the judges we appoint to the federal bench must understand that enforcing our laws, not making them, is their only responsibility.”

If those are the issues on which he decides to stake his presidency, McCain could become a hero to the right. He is also likely to endure legislative failure after legislative failure or, at best, legislative gridlock.

A different path seems likely because it makes more sense both historically — presidents want positive achievements they can point to — and in terms of how McCain has behaved as a senator.

On global warming, campaign finance, legal rights for detainees and immigration, it will serve both the interests of McCain and Congress to act. Congress, as much as the new president, will want to show that it can get things done after two years of stalemate with President Bush.

Between now and November, John McCain can make all the speeches and do all the reaching out he deems necessary to assuage the concerns of the conservative base of the Republican Party. He can even turn his considerable skills at political combat against the Democrats. It might help get him elected, or it might not. If it does, come next January he still will have to begin governing in the face of wider Democratic majorities in Congress, and he still will have to choose between success and failure.

In that instance, he will choose success. And it will be an easy choice for him to make because on a whole range of issues, both substantively and stylistically, he and the Democrats will measure success in the same way.

When that happens, the conservatives in the Republican Party will really have something to be mad about.

Running With The RINO’s

One of the best sentiments I’ve read about how I feel as a Conservative with the debacle that are the Republican Candidates for President.

Since 1994, with all of the promises from those that claim the mantle of Reagan-style Conservatism, what do we have to show for it? Granted Two Justices to prevent the SCOTUS from going completely Marxist and some Tax cuts that kept the economy afloat post September 11.

The Republican Party treats true Conservatives (Defense, Economics and Social) like wives they cheat on 364 days a year, coming around begging forgiveness with flowers and chocolates when it’s time to vote. As soon as they are again forgiven and returned to their seat, they slap the wife down and leave in the morning to again whore and sleep around with liberals and Socialists, acquiring acute cases of liberalism that they bring home to the party to spread like herpes and syphallis among the faithful.

But I’m not alone in these sentiments. For all the anger by Conservatives over RINO’s, it just takes a moment to discover that in-fact, disenfranchised Conservatives are probably better served with that acronym.

I Am A RINO
By Warner Todd Huston

It’s no more for me. I will not blindly vote Republican just because I often canvass with them. I will not be a fool for the party while getting nothing in return. I am not a Republican first. I am a conservative.

That’s right, you read the title to this piece correctly. I am admitting that I am a RINO. I admit it openly, freely, with relish even.

For those unfamiliar, RINO is not only shorthand for rhinoceros, that great beast of the African plains, but it is also an acronym. It stands for, “Republican In Name Only” – RINO.

Now, I am not going to pull a fast one here and spell RINO out with other words. No, I’m happily sticking right with the words “Republican In Name Only.” So, there it is. I am a RINO.

Some of you reading this may already be feeling your stomach curdle at the very mention of the word RINO. After all, it’s really gotten some bad press. Rush Limbaugh and his brethren have really done a disservice to this fine descriptive word. Heck, even I have hurled it as an epithet when confronted with a politician who hasn’t lived up to my standards.

But, after reflecting on recent events, I realized that I myself am a RINO. At first I bristled at my own thoughts. But, after a time it appeared obvious that I am, indeed, a RINO.

I’m just going to have to accept it. Own it, as our pop psychology spewing friends on the left so earnestly say.

I am a RINO and here’s why…

I will vote Republican only when the situation is favorable to me.
I will not go with my party when I don’t like what is going on.
I will sometimes refuse to agree with my party on certain issues and will do so vocally.
If I find someone of another party that suits me, I will vote for them even if it is in lieu of voting for my party representative.
So, there you have it. The perfect definition of a RINO. That’s me. But, I am not going to lower my head in shame, no sirree. I am proud of this and am glad that I have finally come to terms with it. A little introspection never hurt anyone, ya know?

Let me explain further why I now feel ready to accept my RINOness. (Or is that RINOcity?)

Yes, I am proud that I won’t vote for a candidate who happens to claim the mantle of Republican if he does not support keeping the Guantanamo Bay terrorist holding facility open.

I am proud to oppose a Republican who thinks our troops are torturers as bad as Saddam Hussein.

I firmly stand against any Republican who is for open borders, opposes a border fence, and refuses to believe that this country faces self-destruction through cultural dilution.

Further, any Republican who works with Democrats to place moderate judges on the bench, or doesn’t want judges that are “too conservative” will not get my vote.

If the GOP candidate is for quashing free political speech, that candidate will find me ready to quash his vote totals.

If a candidate is only picked because the party “says so,” or because he is pals with the “right” people and not because of what he actually stands for, that candidate will find that no vote from me will go his way.

You see I won’t support a Republican just because he somehow was able to affix the appellation Republican to his name. I will not automatically vote for a Republican merely because he claims to be one.

I vote for candidates that happen to be right on the issues, not the ones that happen to just be a Republican. Mere Republicanism is not my way.

I support life. I support the Second Amendment. I support English as the national language. I support religious freedom. I am for school choice. I am high on defense and tough on crime. I am for smaller government, fewer regulations, less government spending and low taxes. I am for untrammeled national sovereignty and would love to see the UN cast into the ocean.

I oppose union thugs, socialist programs, unconstitutional powers, abortion for any reason, the so-called doctrine of a “living Constitution,” open borders, unearned paths to citizenship, anchor babies, high taxes, uncontrolled regulations on businesses and bans on religious expression in schools… any schools.

And, I am really against working with Democrats just to “prove” I am “reasonable” so that the liberal media establishment will love me.

Also, I will not vote for a Republican, merely to stop a Democrat from winning. The reason for that is, that such a practice leads to candidates the feel no compunction to buck the principles that the electorate wanted him to observe when he ran for office. After all, why would a candidate hold himself to such stringent standards if he won’t lose his votes anyway? Why not just do what is easier, or might benefit his wallet – or campaign coffers – more? Since there wouldn’t be any consequences
for belying his claimed principles, what stops him from doing so?

If there are any candidates running for president on the GOP ticket that once said they did not want to seem like Ronald Reagan or once supported abortion, even if only tacitly, then he won’t get my vote. If there is a candidate who freed more criminals than any other governor in the country and was very weak on illegal invaders of our country, well that man is not for me. If there happens to be a candidate, say running for president maybe, who said that Samuel Alito was “too conservative” for
him, or once supported amnesty, well he is also out for me.

I really don’t care if he claims to be a Republican or not.

I also don’t care if there are so many people just like me that the Democrat wins the White House (nor do I care which Democrat). My non-vote is NOT a vote in favor of someone else. I am a man of principle, not a man of convenience.

Certainly, our nation is built on compromise and sometimes the proverbial half a loaf is better than none. It is an undeniable truth and one that we shouldn’t try to destroy with unbending spine. But, here is the thing: compromise implies that both sides get a little something out of the deal. And, let’s face it, there isn’t much gettin’ for a conservative out of the GOP these days.

Oh, they claim to be conservative during the campaign. They say all sorts of comforting things, stand on lots of first principles and pretend that without them in office all sorts of things will go awry.

And then as soon as they take office they begin to forsake nearly every position upon which they ran. Then they start palling around with the Democrats and hobnobbing with denizens of Hollywood and skulkers in the press. And, then it’s all over. They’ve become Washington. Suddenly, being liked by the illiterati of the left becomes more important than principle.

And we, those who were foolish enough to vote for them the first time, are left wondering what happened? Yet but a few years later, we vote for that same apostate politician all over again.

After these last few primaries, I finally came to realize that I just cannot vote Republican just because. It turns out that I have realized that my loyalty lies with my conservative principles, not a political party. If there happens to be a candidate here and there that agrees with me and they happen to be a Republican… well, then that candidate will get my vote.

So, it’s no more for me. I will not blindly vote Republican just because I often canvass with them. I will not be a fool for the party while getting nothing in return. I am not a Republican first. I am a conservative.

And I am a RINO, remember?