Barack Obama seems like a nice fellow, but he's not ready to be president. He looks like a decent basketball player, considering his age. I like basketball; I like the idea of a black president; I'd like to be voting for Colin Powell this November, he's ready to be president. Barack Obama is ready to start formulating his first piece of legislation for consideration by a more senior democratic committee chair. He is not ready to be a committee chair and certainly not president.

The chances are that Barack will make a fine president. Good looking, well spoken, and an excellent public speaker. He's easy to like. I see no sign of that arrogant smirk that the current commander in chief can't or won't suppress. The truth is, with a veteran team, he will do fine. Unless we have a really serious problem.

Government is too important to be left to the politicians and we don't. Federal Civil Servants do the day to day, month to month, year to year work of running this country. They are good at their jobs, cautious with policy and yes, even the taxpayers dollar. If the government was a 747, we certainly wouldn't let the president into the cockpit. Until of course, the 747 loses two engines and part of a wing. Then the president gets too earn his wings; and therein lays the problem with Barack Obama.

Lets do a quick review of the world situation: The Russians are bound and determined to reverse the trend of former Soviet satellites moving into the western sphere of influence. They are willing to use military force. This winter, Georgia will come up for NATO membership again. Russia controls the pipelines that pump 60+% of Europe's energy needs for this winter. The significant pipeline they don't control runs through the Georgian town of Gori. You've probably seen it in the news lately. I have trouble sorting out who did what to whom in the Caucasas lately, seems like Georgian hands aren't clean. I AM sure that a pipeline runs through Gori and Russian tourists driving T-72 tanks have taken up residence nearby. Rumor has it local rail and highway bridges (also energy conduits) have met mysterious fates. It's going to be a problem right around inauguration time.

Iran is processing uranium as fast as their 3-10000 centrifuges can spin. They are developing nuclear weapons, period. If anyone reading this thinks otherwise, there is probably a policy position for you in the Obama administration. I understand he intends to sway the mullahs back to the infidel way of thinking with his winning personality. Meanwhile, Israel sits on 150+ nuclear weapons and delivery systems to use them. They will not allow Iran to have even one nuke. Does anyone doubt Israel's resolve? It's going to be a problem for the next administration and no civil servant will be on the controls for that one.

Al Qaeda has annexed the tribal areas of Pakistan. That mountainous warren of caves, forests and small villages chock full of young, disenfranchised Muslim youth. They are gaining strength rapidly and are emboldened by the recent election of a Pakistani government that is unlikely to do anything about the tribal areas. Did I mention that Pakistan is a nuclear power? Rule out significant air-strikes or a Cambodian type adventure to reduce pressure on the fledgling Afghan government. It's a problem right now and it's not getting better before January.

Iraq seems to be coming around. General Petraeus, in my estimation, is the smartest man in any room(by the way, better qualified to fly the 747 of state than Mr. Obama). I've worked for General Petraeus, I like Barack Obama better, seems like a nicer fellow. Nice won't cut it when convincing the Israeli's not to nuke Iran. Particularly when they think their national existence is at stake. Good public speaking skills won't help with Mr. Putin, his English is poor at any rate and he doesn't play basketball. Mr. Obama's Arabic sounding name won't help him a bit with the Mullahs. A smart young Quds force Major will read his bio to the revolutionary council and they will have his measure.

To say it's a dangerous world out there is not only a cliché, it flat does not express the facts adequately. The next 8 years will be fraught with peril and that is just considering the challenges we know about. We need a 747 instructor pilot as president, not a junior aviator who has yet to solo. Barack does seem like a nice fellow though.

By: Robert Kiser

"While she was addressing the crowd, Sarah Palin spent a lot of time criticizing Barack Obama’s campaign speeches for not having enough specifics. … Obama was reportedly angry about the claim, but didn’t say exactly why." --Conan O'Brien

"You know, Sarah Palin, John McCain selected her to be the vice presidential running mate on the Republican ticket, and she's also the governor of Alaska, and outdoors, like the outdoors, likes assault rifles, has a collection of rifles, likes to shoot assault rifles. I'll say this for her daughter's boyfriend: the kid's got guts." --David Letterman

"What a week this has been. If you watched last night, I guess you know, Barack Obama got beat up by a girl." --Jay Leno

"And…Bill Clinton said that when 'Hillary attacks Obama it’s wrong, but when Sarah does it, it’s somehow hot.'" --Jay Leno

"Lindsay Lohan weighed in on the Sarah Palin controversy today -- finally -- on her blog. She has a blog, and on it she urged the governor to 'focus on delivering some words and policy with stronger impact like Joe Biden.' Well, thank you drug-addicted teenage star of 'Herbie: Fully Loaded.'" --Jimmy Kimmel

"Joe Lieberman, who ran in 2000 as a Democrat with Al Gore, remember he was the vice presidential nominee, spoke last night at the Republican Convention. A Democrat at the Republican Convention. That's like Bill Clinton speaking at a sexual abstinence rally." --Jay Leno

"Oh, and all those Internet photos of Sarah Palin in a bikini holding a gun. But they are all photoshopped. Like those photos of Bill and Hillary dancing, all fake." --Jay Leno

In my opinion, while some politicians do go into politics to be of service to their country, most politicians go into politics in order to gain power. This holds especially true for politicians who run for President. It doesn't matter how much money have. They are seeking the power of the Presidency. The power to, in some ways, control or affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The office of the Presidency of the United States has been called by many, the office of the most powerful person in the world.

Senator Barack Obama is currently seeking that office. Over the past several months, he has promised the American people (more so the the lower income and poor people in America) "economic justice". He is promising to be America's Robin Hood.That sounds altrustic and great doesn't it? Unfortunately, his version of "economic justice" means socialism to the extreme degree. Senator Obama's plan is to punish individuals who have worked hard and are financially successful by redistributing their wealth in the form of government "freebies". Of course, most normal thinking Americans' realize that nothing in life is free. But, you say, free health care and free college sound great? Of course it does, if you are not footing the bill, but since this isn't the land of fable we will be. The American people will be paying for all of these grand new programs by being assessed significantly increased taxes. Our federal government will expand to unforeseen levels and America will be turned into a socialisic fiefdom where everyone will owe their contiued welfare to the leaders of America. The losers in the end will be all of us, the poor, the middle class and the rich.

Senator Obama plays the fear tactics in poor communities. This has turned into a very vindictive strategy supposedly aimed at the upper and wealthy class. Like many other high ranking flag carriers, he argues that, if not elected, poor communities will get poorer while the rich keep getting richer. In reality, Senator Obama will not only be "soaking the rich" he will be hurting the very communities he claims to care about. The truth is, Barack Obama is the same old politician trying to woo lower middle class and poor voters into thinking America will give them everything they want. He is even calling for free money in the form of tax credits towards fathers who choose to stay at home and raise their kids instead of leaving their families in order to go to work. Ultimately, many communities across America will feel beholden to more government "giveaways". Under Senator Obama's taxes will increase in virtually every income bracket, all the while, welfare will grow to new heights. Senator Obama will not rescue the poor; he will only make them more dependent on a nanny state.

Wait a minute, you say, Obama has promised that his tax plans will only take from the rich who can afford higher taxes. I am not rich so who care if the rich are taxed or over taxed. Well, that is not exactly true. In example, he wants to increase the capital gains tax and bring back and increase taxes on dividends. So what you say, the rich are the ones that receive dividends and capital gains. Not so fast I say. What about the millions of lower and middle income workers that are counting on their pension and retirement plans in order to make ends meet when they can no longer work? Pension and retirement plans make money by investing. The more they earn the more they pay in dividend and capital gains taxes and the less they will have to pay you retirement income. Well, you say, what about his plan to increase earned income taxes on the rich. I say, come on now, the rich have lawyers, financial planners and accountants to assist them in avoiding those taxes so very few of them actually pay earned income taxes. Still the money for all of Obama's entitlement plans will have to come from somewhere and that somewhere will have to be the rest of us.

Folks, the time for a wakeup call has got to be now. Government run health care, along with a free ride in every aspect of life has never worked in any country. Can Americans who are struggling afford to pay considerably higher taxes so Obama can distribute free health care to all (Some people say the government should force businesses to pay for free health care for all. I don't think you will like that idea since businesses have to get that money from somewhere like by raising prices or cutting down or out your next raise. Do you want to pay for someone else's health care, like that guy who lives down the street who sits on his front porch all day and night drinking beer and hasn't held a steady job in years.), free college for everyone including that kid that parties everyday instead of studying and then drops out in his fifth year without learning anything or obtaining a degree, universal national service, free job training for criminals, wage insurance, free child care and universal pre-school, massive increases in subsidized public housing, and a Global Poverty Act that will send trillions to "poverty" stricken countries. The sad thing about all of this is; this is just for starters.

In my opinion if Senator Obama is elected President and pushes through his plans one of two things will happen. 1. Eventually almost everyone will get to the point that the only way to survive financially will be to crawl on our hands and knees to King Obama and his Lords and Ladies the Congress for whatever handouts they want to grant us or 2. The rich will find newer and better ways to avoid paying taxes or they will move their money out of the United States, thereby shifting the tax burden to the upper middle and middle classes which will then cause individuals who work hard for long hours attempting to build their financial futures to quit working those long hard hours since the extra money will go to taxes anyway, which will drop their incomes down to the lower middled class or to the poor class and which will cause the tax burden to shift to the hard working poor who will decide that it is easier to just quit trying and join those on the government dole which will then leave the government without anyone to tax which will then mean the end of the United States.

By: Robert Rueled

These are troubled times we live in. The independent free nation of Georgia has been violated by a larger, stronger nation that is run by a man with dreams of empire. Mr. Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB officer, has instigated a national push to rebuild the power and glory of the old Soviet Union. The idea is to take advantage of the weaker states around Russia first. Then, if the tide of world opinion doesn't sweep the Russians back, they will advance upon other hapless victims in their quest, once again, for world superpower status.

The Russians took their first baby steps with the attacks on the Chechnians under the guise of retaliation against the "rebels". Although some response was necessary, in my view, the response was way too harsh for the alleged crimes against Russia. I beleive that this was a test to see the response of world opinion. Once it was clear that there would be no great outcry, the Russians decided to plan and proceed with their next step. Georgia was the obvious choice and the ultimate test to determine if their plans of domination would be halted or even slowed by the free world. So far, it appears as if there is no great opposition to their plans.If the russians get away with abusing a free country like Georgia, there is no stopping them when they move to the next logical choice. That would the Ukraine.

After taking these steps, the rest of the countries in the area would be taken, one at a time, with nothing but useless words hurled at the Russians. I think it has been proven to everyone's satisfaction that words bounce off the Russians like rubber chickens off their t-72 tanks. If I were a citizen of Latvia or Lithuania, I would be planning an emigration to America. They're on the list.

Where is the line drawn? Why does the free world allow this potential future threat to happen? It must be said here that it will be far easier to stop the Russians in the free nation of Georgia than in the plains of Europe. This is just my opinion, but I know that others feel the same way. The world doesn't need another war, cold, nuclear, brush fire or otherwise. Let someone stand up and say No!

By: Jim Hall

Note: The following article was written by a woman who calls herself an equal oppertunity basher. She wrote this article the day after the opening of the Democratic Convention so had nothing to say about the Republican Convention.


I've been following the presidential campaigns as well as our state campaigns for the U.S. Congress and I am sad to say that the faces change but the rhetoric stays the same. I was once married to a U.S. Congressman so I have a bit of experience in this "campaign stuff."

Last week McCain said he didn't know how many houses he owned and this week Obama didn't know what town he was in. Both have made major gaffs that give the other side ammunition for derogatory comments and negative campaign ads. Each is bashing the other, each is reaching for anything that helps them win. They're tired, they're overbooked and they're human. While they say a lot of words, neither candidate offers any hard specifics about what they'll do once in office. Each offers a lot of generalities. Actually, they can't do much more than that because, thank God, they are not a one man show once they get elected. They have a Legislative and Judicial branch they have to work with and getting that many "important" people to work together is like herding cats. The also have to cut through all the lobbyists and that is an even bigger challenge.

Last night I watched the opening of the Democrat Convention and felt like I was at a pep rally. Little of substance was said. Michele Obama gave the keynote address and I found myself feeling a bit distressed. She wore a beautiful designer dress, was coiffed and impeccable in her appearance and tried to convince the conventioneers that she was "middle class" just like them. (Actually, she has her own dress designer, Maria Pinto, whom she has used "for a long time." I don't know many middle class women who have their own dress designer, do you?) She gave a speech that was full of words but short on both feeling and substance. I wasn't convinced. She kept trying to persuade the "congregation" that she and her candidate-husband are middle class - just like them. She painfully recited all the problems encountered by herself and Barack in their early years growing up in middle class neighborhoods. She failed to mention that she graduated from both Princeton and Harvard. I felt she "protesteth too much." I came away from it wanting to know who the "real" Michele Obama is.

The children were beautiful.

The commentators afterward lined up on both sides, of course. Some seemed to think the speech was on target, wonderful, portraying a true picture of a middle class family that is headed for the White House. Others saw them portrayed as Bevear-Cleaver-family-wanna-be types in an effort to get votes. There was little middle ground with the news media.

On a state level it's much worse. We have a number of candidates in the race for a congressional seat in my district in Arizona. All talk about "clean campaigns" and the mud is flying faster than I've ever seen political mud fly. I get 3 or 4 pre-recorded phone messages a day from these candidates, each bashing the others and asking for my vote - and my money. It will be a matter of picking the "lesser of the evils" on election day. That is very sad.

Where are the statesmen? Who has a passion for this country strong enough to put all the personal aggrandizement aside? Don't tell me what you think I want to hear. Don't read the polls in the morning paper and stand for the " issues of the day." What are your stands on the issues? What do you want to accomplish? That's what I want to know - consistently and unembellished.

Senators McCain and Obama, don't think I'll vote for you just because you're a war hero or a black man, a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative or because you're the "media darling." I'm not voting for your wife or your children or for you because you have a nice personality. I'm not turned off because you make a mistake or misspeak when you're rushed or tired. I will vote for you based on your record and your stand on the issues. I will place my vote where I see integrity and openness. Please, please let us know what your positions really are and what you truly want to accomplish as President of the United States of America.

Readers, don't get mad at me because you think I bashed your favorite candidate. I'm an equal opportunity basher. I love America. I want the best leader we can elect as President because we are in trouble as a nation. We need a statesman. Will the real statesman please stand up?

Let's see some honesty, here. Let's see some leadership. Let's see some truth.

Can we shift gears and make it Politics NOT as usual?

By: Irene Conlan
Irene Conlan has a masters degree in nursing, a doctoral degree in metaphysics, is a certified hypnotherapist and an ordained minister. She practices holistic hypnotherapy and officiates at weddings in Scottsdale, Az and the Phoenix metropolitan area. Irene can be found at http://www.theselfimprovementblog.com

The political password of Obama is the need for "change, America is heading in the wrong direction", the question is, which direction should America take to solve its economic and military problems? Perhaps a look at rather recent history since World War II can provide evidence as to the right way to go?

At the end of World War II, socialism, under the guidance of Communist Soviet Union, was spreading rapidly throughout the world. America countered by supporting and making alliances with governments that wanted to remain free of communism. Both America and the USSR developed nuclear missiles as an impediment to military action by the other side. The "cold war" took on a more heated and scary reality.

The Soviets beat America into space with "Sputnik", and later with the first man in space. President Kennedy responded with the first man on the Moon project. The only trouble was he needed an enormous amount of money to do this. So he reduced taxes, which spurred America 's free enterprise economy, more people working and paying taxes helped finance this huge space program.

Later, when President Reagan, labeled the "cowboy" from Hollywood was elected president, the cold war was still a major problem for America. What to do? He lowered taxes. The free enterprise economy once again provided large gobs of money.

Margaret Thatcher in the UK was also faced with a dire economic situation when she took office. Things turned around when she sold off the government run socialist businesses to private enterprise, their free enterprise economy took off and the UK prospered.

Gorbachev, the Soviet leader was amazed on how well the free enterprise system was out-performing his socialist system. When Ronald Reagan boldly announced that he was fed up with the Soviet "evil empire", and threatened to launch the "Star Wars" program, this shocked Gorbachev, for he'd come to realize that the Soviet socialized economy could not compete with the free enterprise economy.

So miracle of miracles, at the insistence of Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev tore down the Berlin Wall, and started the process of democratizing Russia, which brought an end to the cold war.

However, what didn't happen was stopping the insidious penetration of the superiority of a socialist controlled economy over free enterprise in the minds of America 's left wing leaders in government, the media, the schools, and even the courts.

More recently, President George W. Bush inherited an economy headed into a recession. He got the message on reducing taxes, but was confronted by the left-wingers in congress, so he compromised by agreeing to a time limit on reduced taxes. The economy picked up and remained strong until the sub-prime lending fiasco, which was the fault of irresponsible lenders and borrowers, not of President Bush!

At this time, America is faced with choosing a new president, Obama vs. McCain. Both are calling for a change.

So which type of change is best for America?

On the one hand, Obama believes it's best to let the tax reduction act of President Bush expire. He believes that industry will continue to produce plenty of taxable income.

But what have we learned from recent history? It will do just the opposite.

With much higher taxes, it'll be harder for free enterprise businesses, small and large, to develop new and better ways of producing marketable products and services. Unemployment will increase, reducing the availability of taxable income to government.

Raising taxes will also hinder the development of internal sources of energy. America 's dependence on foreign oil has led to excessively high gasoline prices. America must move aggressively to eliminate this problem and that will require strong financial support.

With Obama's tax increase, everybody loses, especially the unemployed worker and the poor (less money available from private and government charitable programs).

McCain on the other hand promises to fight for an extension of the tax reduction act and stop pork barrel spending, which recent history proves works wonders for the economy. And a strong economy is what's really needed to help the poor and the underprivileged.

Wake up America; Vote for those who favor a free market economy as opposed to those who prefer more restrictions and higher taxes. McCain may be far from perfect, but at least he's experienced enough to learn these important lessons from history. Even the Chinese communist government has figured out that a free enterprise system works far better than a socialized economy. Even under their less then desirable communistic rule, their economy is booming and providing their government with massive amounts of money. Somehow Obama has not yet learned these important lessons from history, namely the value of low taxes and a free enterprise system.

By: Russ Cellocrat

Well, it must be political season again and even though President Bush is not running for re-election, he seems to be the brunt of the anger from the Democrat Side of the political spectrum. Now, the democrat bloggers are calling Presidential Candidate John McCain; "McSame" as in the same as the Bush Administration or 4-more years of the same in this case if elected. Let me give you some back ground on this issue and my opinion on the subject.

Not long ago, one of the Obama Bloggers, there are some 500 of them now, stated that all the economic challenges we face in the United States are President Bush's fault. Are they really? No, but it made for a nice blog post to light a fire under the average democrat voter. Perhaps the blogger needs to read Robert Shapiro's book; Futurecast.

The relevance is that Robert Shapiro, states several times in the book that it really does not matter who is President, because the demographic shifts and our economic basis with 70 million baby boomers are retiring at the same time dictates a lot of what is going on economically. Since, Robert Shapiro is a Clinton man and yet, his honest assessment, lets the Bush Administration off the hook for trade deficit issues, economic business cycles and warns of future problems with only 1.9 people working for every retiree, as well as blames both sides of the isle for the nation's debt and spending; it appears that such arguments for bush bashers are not viable. Thus, we must take them with a grain of salt.

Further, it should be noted that changing course by raising taxes and slowing down our economy is not the answer, which is exactly what will happen if Obama is elected in my humble opinion. Therefore, yes, we need to stop the spend thrift ways, but let's not blame the Bush Administration and buy into the negative media hype tearing down his personal character and legacy, while distorting the reality merely to seek "change" for change sake.

Swinging the pendulum of our politic all the way to the left and beyond, with Obama's "socialist-liberal" mindset is an extremely bad move for this nation, especially right now, at this critical point. I predict a deep recession if Obama is elected, the likes of which we have not seen in many decades. Is that what the Democrats are proposing? Because, I am certainly not buying and Paris Hilton, well heck, she's looking pretty good right about now as a good alternative to Obama.

By: Lance Winslow
"Lance Winslow" - Online Blog Content Service. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net.

Barack Obama has a problem - his solution to the gasoline crisis is no solution at all. In fact, it is so transparently ridiculous that even a dull child could see through it.

"We can't drill our way out of this problem!" he exclaims repeatedly.

Well...of course we can. What would you say to your dentist if you went to him with a cavity and he told you, "We can't drill our way out of this problem"? You'd think he was an idiot, and you'd be right.

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. It takes no intelligence to understand that if something is in short supply, then you need more of it. If people are starving for lack of food, they need MORE food. That's pretty basic. At present there isn't enough crude oil on the market to supply all the demand at a reasonable price; the solution - produce more oil!

Simple. Basic.

It is a well known fact that the United States has plenty of oil that isn't being tapped. Drilling for it would relieve the shortfall and we wouldn't have to pay foreign markets for the privilege. But Obama's reply to that is: "That won't solve the problem -- it will take ten years for that oil to enter the market." Setting aside for a moment the fact that many experts are predicting a 2-5 year turnaround on proposed drilling, let's follow the "logic" of that statement:

You: "I want to go to college."

Obama: "Are you crazy? You won't graduate for FOUR YEARS! And look at how much money you'll spend in the meantime."

You: "We're thinking of having a baby."

Obama: "That's nuts! The kid won't be an adult for 18 years! And you'll have to support him until he does."

You: "I'm planting a garden."

Obama: "What for? You won't get any food out of it for three or four months!"

If Obama's position makes any sense, then there is no point in ever starting any project or enterprise. If it really is going to take ten years to get the oil out of the ground, then when would be a good time to start? Never? Apparently so, in Obama's mind. He's fond of telling us that the oil companies have leased 68 million acres of land on which they can drill, and chides them for not using it. Well, how do I know they're not using it? Maybe there's no oil under it. Prospecting takes time, and Obama wants us to wait while the geologists comb those 68 million acres for oil. In the meantime, in ANWR and the continental shelf, the oil companies know exactly where billions of barrels of oil are waiting to be harvested - but Obama says KEEP OUT.

So what is really going on here? Could it be that Obama's ideology is so far to the left that he truly thinks Big Business is evil? Is he so beholden to lunatic-fringe environmentalists that he will protect their interests at the expense of the country as a whole? We've already seen his reluctance to break allegiance with terrorist Bill Ayers and radical Rev. Wright; maybe he has other anti-American friends as well. He says he loves America - and I'm sure he does - but he has stated repeatedly that he wants to change it. Change into what, exactly? Socialist America?

Obama's solution to the oil crisis, according to his website (www.barackobama.com ), is not to drill for oil, but to force the oil companies to give their profits back to consumers in the form of rebates, to help them cover the cost of gasoline. In earlier times this philosophy was known as "robbing Peter to pay Paul". If that's such a good idea, then why not just force the oil companies to sell the stuff at $2.00 a gallon and be done with it? Why jump through all the hoops?

The answer, to me, is simple enough: Obama wants you and me to look to HIM for our salvation. He wants us to know what a great guy he is and how much he cares for us. He thinks it will make us feel good to see him stick it to those evil oil companies.

But who, exactly, owns the oil companies? George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? Most oil companies are public corporations, which means they are owned in large part by stockholders. People like you and me. Not just rich oil tycoons, but also ordinary people who invested a little money in the hopes of bettering their lives. Obama's plan will rob those investors of much of their return. And I'm supposed to feel good about that?

Sorry, Barack, I don't.

By: John Bowers
John Bowers is a novelist, published author, and computer programmer who spent 40 years as a cult slave. His escape from the cult in 1992, at age 44, caused him to rethink every belief and opinion he had ever held, resulting in a logical view of the world.