Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.

Draw your own conclusions from my premise  - like it or not, it is reality from the meat and potatoes of America, from the heartland and the hollers, the working class towns and wheat fields - the core of the American electorate will not elect an Obama president, and surely not elect a Hussein Obama president.  Hell, the electorate only put a Catholic in office because of his father buying the election for him in the back rooms of Chicago.  

This isn't bigotry or prejudice, but you can call it that if you wish.  Calling it such does not change the fact that an Obama can be a Senator, but will never appeal to the national electorate and become president.  Oh, by the way - the one Muslim in the United States Congress?  His name is Ellison.

OK- driving from NYC to Hilton Head - 3am on I95 - some loony from the left ranting about doomsday, survivalist (must be lost in Montana or NC - usually from the right though, no??)
So here is the solution to all of our problems - IN the CONTEXT of his ridiculous outlook - http://www.stevequayle.com - of you don't check out this nut's website you won't understand where this post is coming from:

Steve - I was driving from NYC to Hilton Head last night only intending to get in about 8 of the 14 hours. Then I found your comments on Coast2Coastam with Ian Punnett.  All I can say is thanks to you and Ian for keeping me amused, awake and yelling at my radio from about 2am to 430am - got me all the way to our house and in bed by 530!!

For the record - I am on the right. And I have the solutions to all of your problems and concerns, solutions that will head off the inevitable Armageddon that you fear is coming.  Seven easy steps - in the context of a world meltdown and mayhem and destruction all around the globe:

 You seem to discount that if what you posit comes to pass that government will do nothing.  But to digress a moment: Katrina demonstrated exactly what the problem is with government.  Government is not and should not be a crutch for those incapable of securing their own liberty and safety. The only people that truly were hurt by Katrina were those that were dependant on government for their safety and well being.  That is not government's role in my view - of course government failed those people. It was not until that operation was militarized to some degree that government actually began to work. And that is one thing government is really good at  - military readiness and execution (Iraq notwithstanding - that is failure of policy and civilian implementation, not the military)

1 -Government will and should act in the following way - align all nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers around both coasts and tie them into the power grid of the US - not sure what the math is but each one of those is can power a small city - how many do we have - 12 carriers, 50 subs?  62 Nuclear power plants.

2 - Speaking of Nuclear, the president should then declare a state of emergency and mandate the immediate construction of 20 nuclear power plants strategically placed throughout the country for maximum energy benefit - the environmentalists be damned - hey, you doomsday scenario is partly the fault of these people of these people in the first place.

3 - The president should then mandate the immediate construction of 20 refineries through out strategically important places in the US - the environmentalists be damned once again.  Emergency powers, our survival at risk, per your scenario.

4 - The president would immediately restrict all interstate travel to only trucks carrying food and produce and freeze prices on same for several years while we begin to send the end of our dependence on foreign oil (a mere 30 percent anyway)

5 - By fiat and mandate and emergency powers immediately end this ethanol nonsense and start mandating corn production for food - period, stroke of a pen - the environmentalist and global warming nuts be damned once again - see the pattern?? See the problem??

6 - By executive order and mandate drill in Anwar and off the coasts of Florida and California and anywhere damn else that the oil is on our shores - the environmentalists be damned - oh, there's that pattern again.

7 - Withdraw from the world stage and take care of our own shores - draconian times will call for draconian measures, but the above solutions will only stabilize our own country domestically and the construction of 20 power plant and 20 refineries - the environmentalists be damned - will employ Millions of Americans. Not to mention the surely hundreds of thousands of jobs drilling in Anwar and off the coasts will provide.

And then government can get back to what government should do - provide for the national defense and provide for a system of courts to adjudicate infractions on personal liberty - period.

All this while the middle east self destructs, and good riddance, because with the new power plants and refineries - event the beginning of their mere construction, will send a signal to the middle east that we are not your customer anymore - let China choke on the splinters and try to provide for the 1.4 billion masses without our support and purchase of their goods - and the debt? Sorry, can't help you - worldwide crisis, national crisis and all that.  

Thanks again for getting me on my way to Hilton Head.  It was a thoroughly engaging piece of radio.

Had to listen/overhear one of our neighbors - the mom of one of my son's good friends (spends the night at our house, had his dad in for a beer during the rangers game) - bloviate as to glowing recommendation of obama to another neighbor at the lacrosse game today.  How proud she was that her daughter was going to obtain a paid position with the campaign [due to their donations to the dem party, they hosted a party last year with James Taylor to raise $$ for the local dem running for congress - he won - the former orleans singer]

All this while  I was reading "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah goldberg - get a copy, a really well researched book though over the top on the religion angle sometime.

Anyway, then to Obama's quote for the debate:

"And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools."

Fairness my big fat white (dang - townhall doesn't allow a#$ - how psycho conservative of them) - the top 1% of income earners earn 17% of the income yet pay 36% percent of the taxes!!! What the hell is fair about that?
So hold onto your trading days and sell before the dems get in.

The good thing - and the irony is deep - that there is this theory that as the race pimps in the country get more and more entangled into the Obama camp that the white electorate will feel the heat - such that even a smattering of criticism of all and any thing Obama - policy both foreign and domestic, as to any issue - will be met with cries of racism from his posse and the white backlash come November as to that inevitability for 4 or 8 years in very unpallatable to the white electorate - but won't be fleshed out till after the privacy of the voting booth is over.

Kind of what happened in Vermont when all these white liberals said they would vote for a black candidate, then he got trounced - even thought the exit polls had him way ahead - white people cant admit to that kind of bias you know (I think it was vermont - one of the early states anyway)

Good news it that the Rep machine hasn't even begun to mobilize against these two socialists.  Despite McCain's shortcomings and the inherent stupidity of the american electorate, the right and moderate will mobilize agianst the exposed dem socialist policies and ultimately carry the day.  Then we will see "Impeach McCain" bumper stickers in a few months.

And I so enjoyed following my neighbor home as the my son's game was away and I wasn't sure of the way to the interstate, following her as I glared at her Obama 08 sticker next to her peace sign and her Impeach Bush bumper sticker on the trunk of her Audi A6.

These liberals are so clueless.

Our military has once again been hamstrung by rules of engagement, influenced by the left with a lack of will to win on the part of the American people, and lost the public relations advantage long ago, out maneuvered in world public opinion by guys hiding in caves.  It will take a cut-and-run strategy, another moderate Muslim country invaded or taken over by the Islamo-fascists, and another serious attack on our soil before we are able to muster the balls to carry things through against this enemy again.  After the democrats take the presidency and we leave Iraq we will focus for awhile in Afghanistan so the Democratic president can show the world that we aren’t total pussies.  Then in a few years the long arm of Islamo-fascism will reach to Africa and pour fuel on the flames already smoldering there. We are surely there already advising, I am sure, and doing more than advising.  

History has not been the guide of this administration. I am no Bush apologist and truly not much of a supporter.  He squandered good will after 9/11 and leveraged his steadfast determination to not be struck again on his watch into a mishmash of mistaken policy moves that negatively influenced how this war on terrorism should have been waged.  Bush’s legacy, as to the war on terror, will be one of misguided though well-intentioned policies that gave short shrift to the military professionals.  And much of these misguided intentions have their roots in his father’s administration.  While the current President has failed on several conservative levels – growth of government and the spending that has created, caving on SCHIP, aloofness during Katrina that infected so much of the Republican cause, the list does go on. But on the war Bush has become a victim of history.  

And history is a guide.  If only Patton had been allowed to march onto Moscow, if only Johnson had heeded the lessons from the French in Indochina, if only Bush the first had continued beyond the phony mandate of the UN to liberate Kuwait and confronted Sadaam in then, when he was at his weakest, with the Arab world actually in support of our efforts to defend one Arab country against the transgressions of another, if only Clinton had pursued Bin Laden before 9/11 when he had actionable intelligence after Kobar and the first WTC bombing that this was a bad, bad man.

Only a fool believes that Bush the current has had any real hand in driving the dollar down, creating the sub-prime crisis (a direct result of the Community Reinvestment Act and the amendments made in 1995), and driving up oil prices.  However, this same fool believes that Bill Clinton was responsible for the economic boom of the late 90s and also believes that Al Gore invented the internet.

The Democrat party will marshal its forces to create and enforce even greater income redistribution plans to placate their huddled masses.  And all we mainstream conservatives can do is keep our heads down, keep excelling in the job we occupy at the moment, keep saving like hell and prepare for the inevitable bomb-shell that rocks one of our cities and the world markets.

The whole thing ruins my day when I really think about it. So lets begin with another great experiment with Hillary or Barack, fine – and 80 percent of what they try to do will wind up in the courts ala Roosevelt – the great unwashed, the populist outpouring of support for the nanny state will be the bane of the achievement class for a while – we just need to weather the storm and wait for another Reagan.  Sure, my fingers are crossed.  And to think back in college I thought Reagan was a real problem. But I know now I was influenced by my circumstances and a part of the great unwashed – but I wanted to get out of that hole and join the achievement class and worked hard to get there, sacrificed, took risks, made the right decisions and now that we are there – we are the enemy.  

Barak Obama has finally become a victim of his own pandering to the left and if he becomes the Democratic nominee and eventual president we will get what we deserve.  We will re-enter a time of Wilsonian and Rooseveltian government handouts and the marginalization of the means of production in the our country.  As Thomas Sowell pointed out in a recent post: " In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard."

In so doing he immersed himself in a sub-culture of the black church that preaches the social gospel.  And now who's chickens are roosting where? 

While we were living in a Chicago suburb in 1991 we found a new church and joined in January.  We were pregnant with our first child.  Our daughter was born in May and my wife was the newest mother on Mother's Day in church and was recognized as such along with all the new mothers in the congregation.  We had been attending now for 5 months or so, not 20 years.  We didn't agree with much of the strict interpretation of the bible from the pulpit but found the environment uplifting and congregation young and enthusiastic.  On this Mother's Day, however, the preacher's sermon turned into a rant about how working mothers were having a negative impact on the family in American. He called on all the new mothers to be home with their children, to serve their husbands, and to bake the cookies that Hillary so famously disavowed (only to recant later). 

My wife and I had made the decision that I would quit my job and stay home with kids, which I did in January in anticipation of the May birth.  Needless to say, that one sermon did not sit well with us.  And it only took one sermon of objectionable rhetoric for us to make the decision, right then and there, to not attend that church again.  No public backlash, no parsing of words - when one lives by principles not driven by political expediency one should be able to see clearly and make a decisive choice when confronted with rhetoric that is counter to one's ideals.

On Monday I stopped payment on the check we had put in the collection plate that Sunday.  Barak Obama should have stopped payment on his emotional and spiritual investment years ago, but political expediency would not allow it.  While middle America may be duped in November in electing the most left leaning president since Wilson, thankfully the constitution and the American political system will work in times of trouble like it always has - and there will be trouble from an Obama presidency - by another revolution from the right and the moderates.  The forces that did not organize or stand up enough in November, the forces that are not able to prevent another "great experiment" in our representative republic, will counter the ultra-left policies that Obama may try to enact.  He will be a gifted orator occupying a public house on a temporary basis with a nanny-state mentality that will not sit well with the American people when the reality of it begins to play out in the free-market of ideas and commerce and the courts.

And when his policies fail to pass muster with the American people, the Congress and the Constitution he can then perhaps move back to Illinois, next door to the reverend, and live out his days as the first, last great experiment in populism that we cannot afford to embrace again.

Maybe stupid is the wrong word.  Perhaps they are just misguided and easily led and duped.  Does any reasonable person truly believe that government should guarantee our happiness, the value of our homes, our jobs, and our right to vote?  The constitution says we are to have the "pursuit" of happiness, not happiness on a platter. The value of our homes is a product of free market economics and market values determined by a myriad factors, none of which could possibly be influenced by a democrat from Chappaqua, NY or any other for that matter.  The job you have is not yours, you toil at the behest of your employer - it is their job that they allow you to perform: they take the risk of capital, they pay your insurance premiums, they pay taxes for when you are laid off or just stupid enough not to do the job that they own.  And right to vote? There is no right to vote in the constitution, and there truly should be some degree of responsible citizenship proven before one is able to vote on any issue or in any election.

So as we argue over mundane issues as race - to what point? - or fictional snipers in Bosnia - to what end? - or confusion between Sunni and Shia - to what purpose? - why are the issues not the economy and the free market solutions taking place before our eyes, or nuclear power and drilling off the coasts and in Anwar that could overnight do more to advance the causes of American independence than any increased burdens on the auto industry to come up with higher mileage standards.  Do you know one person who owns one car that actually gets the MPG on the sticker?

As the democrats slowly eat themselves and put forth a socialist we-are-the-world agenda it is my contention that the republicans must get back to the smaller-government, self-reliance policies that they were once known for.  These delusional armies of the misguided, swayed by a cult of personality in Obama or the populist drivel of the entitled HRC,  will look back in  10 years and will have to wonder - what was I thinking.  Just as the ecology movement of the 70s and the acid rain terror of the 80s came and went, so to will Obamamania and Clinton hucksterism go wimpering into the dark as the sun sets on the end of the first decade of this century.

As hard as it is to tough out or be prepared for a lackluster economy and as tough as this ideological war may be (but please, compared to what?- we have become a nations of "men raised by women", with hyper-sensitivity to the smallest slight) - the leftist, socialist solutions being offered by the democrats - solutions they KNOW have no real chance of being ultimately enacted - will only drive things economically deeper (ala, Carter), or allow our enemies to rise up even stronger (ala, Kennedy) - both of which, the economy of the late 70s, and the Vietnam cluster of the 60s - were ultimately rescued by republican ideals and platforms. 

Ahh, the famous logic of Monty Python. With some indulgences, and apologies to to Eric Idle, et.al.  Is she a witch? How do you know? She's looks like one.  What do we do with witches? Burn them. Why would she burn? She's made of wood. How could you tell she's made of wood?  She might float.  What else floats?  Very small rocks, and ducks.  Therefore, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, therefore she is a witch.  Burn Her!!!!

It was Global Warming until it was just getting too darn cold in many parts of the world, and the Antarctic Ice Cap, by all scientific measure has actually gained mass the last ten years.  And doggone it if International Falls, Minnesota didn't break a record this week - for the coldest temperature recorded there, 40 degrees below zero.

So, now let's call it Climate Change. That solves that bugaboo, and heck the climate is always changing anyway. Is it not cliché in just about every burg and hamlet in the country that somebody somewhere, usually an old fart in a  barbershop, will say "Eh? Don't like the weather?? Wait 10 minutes."  Guffaws and knee-slaps all around.

Is it or is it not? Perhaps that is the way Bill Shakespeare would have put the question as to the climate and it's propensity for changing on occasion. Or perhaps "Is you is, or is you ain't?" would be how Louis Jordan and countless hep cats since would put forth the question as in - "Is you is or is you aint' a-changin'?"

The new argument of the left, to accompany the new terminology of Climate Change and those that argue the reality of it, is now relying on a twist on an old maxim. Somebody said it is better to believe in God and he not exist, than to not believe in God and he exist.  If you don't believe in God and it turns out you were right in that God doesn't exist, well, good for you. However, if you don't believe in God, and it turns out he does exist - well, sucks to be you then in a rather big way.  Eternal damnation in fiery hell and all that.

Now we are being told that it is better to believe that man (American Industrialization) is causing Climate Change and that we must do something about it because if it doesn't exist, in the end, we have just been better  stewards of good, old mother earth anyway.  The alternative is to do nothing and then in 50 years New York City is under water and plants won't grow, and we could have done something, but didn't.  

Logically, then, if Islamo-Fascism does not exist, is it better to do something just in case it does.  I think I would prefer a degree or two of warmth over 200 years as a possibility rather than a certain bullet to the brain as wished upon me (and you) by some of our Islamic friends from several, several miles away.  And until the Islamists develop a weapon that can shoot that bullet, with reasonable accuracy, from 7000 miles away then I would prefer that the bullet stay 7000 miles away and the determined shooter stay otherwise engaged, 7000 miles away, with military knocking on their front door.  That is at least until the Democrats cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan, allow the Islamist to take over Pakistan - and they then partner with Iran and Korea to  - well, dang, now that bullet is a long-range rocket with a nuclear warhead and it is only 500 miles away. 

Well, nothing says the man isn't smart, but is he politically savvy enough to read some recent tea leaves tossed into his lap by the Clinton machine?   Moreover, is he prescient enough to see the brickbats and pitfalls coming his way if he does get the nomination of the moveondemocratic party?  What has played out in some primaries recently is that exit polling has not stood up with actual results as to Obama's numbers.  Partly, it speaks to the underlying scourge of hidden bigotry (not racism, bigotry) that folks will not admit to.  Early on in the campaign the exit polls were indicating huge margins for Obama that would not pan out.  These pollsters are not stupid, the math certainly rules in all their statistics.

What did pan out was the fact that many said they would vote for Obama,  a black man - ok, half black, but he's going with his ancestoral strength - but in the ballot booth were not so inclined.  Some in those states just couldn't quite pull that trigger, while at the same time not wanting to appear "racist" in the polling world (bigoted being more the operative word).  Then came Vermont.  A state that is 95% or so white, that voted overwhelmingly for Obama.  Problem with Vermont is that it is a state that also has some city councils actually voting to arrest Dick Cheney and George Bush for war crimes or some such nonsense.  Now, if I were George Bush I would sooooo campaign for John McCain in those towns in Vermont on principal just to push the buttons of those left-wing nut jobs.  [Full Disclosure: my kids ski in Vermont and it kills me to spend any money in that state, but the skiing in Vermont the best on the east coast - oh, and the cheese - and there is syrup - but other than that Vermont could secede to Canada for all I care]

So Obama should be adept enough to see some of the political writing on the wall, nationally, and ask himself how he might overcome this silent minority that says they will vote for him but really won't.  And how he can overcome his lack of experience on any issue at all involving foreign policy that he was directly and intimately involved - and one vote on one issue does foreign policy experience and judgement make.  Where does he look for such judgement?  Where can he find an example of a politician that played this exact scenario like a proverbial fiddle to the ultimate prized in all of American politics?

Ronald Reagan!!

Yes, Barack Obama should take a page out of the Old Gipper's playbook and pay attention to history.  Recall the argument was experience.  In 1960 Richard Nixon lost by a whopping 116,000 votes nationally to John Kennedy - IF the fraud in Chicago had been challenged and Eisenhower had strongly endorsed his former vice-president as he should have history would certainly have had a stronger president in the White House in 1960, Vietnam would not have escalated as it did, and the Cold War would have ended much sooner [arguments for future consideration].  Ronald Reagan was VP of Public Relations for General Electric in 1960 and sent Nixon a handwritten note calling Kennedy a Karl Marx with a boyish haircut.  In 1966 Reagan was elected Governor of California. Fast forward to 1968.

Ronald Reagan had been Governor of California for 2 years when he entertained the idea of running for the Republican nomination in 1968 - having switched from the Democrat to Republican party during the 50s. Note that Barack Obama has held national office as Senator from Illinois for 3 years now.  Reagan knew that there were far superior candidates on the national stage than he in 1968 - Nixon, Romney, Rockefeller - and he chose to step back and wait.  He avoided being tainted by Viet Nam and other national issues of the time and emerged 12 years later (only 3 presidential election cycles later) as a force.  Obama should recognize he is in this hunt too early in his political career to make a serious challenge, and to bring to bear the experience necessary to overcome the silent bigotry that still exists in the national electorate.  Never mind that Hillary is or is not a more qualified candidate, or that if he were any further left he would be coming full circle.

And what better platform from which to gain the necessary experience than the US Senate? How about a national leadership position in a second (third??) Clinton administration?  HRC could have Obama as Secretary of State, or any of a myriad cabinet positions to prepare him for 2016 - in her mind, she will be president for 8 years.  He would not and should not take the VP role during the current election, and how could Hillary accept him there given that her entire mantra against Obama is lack of experience, and what judgement would that send by her to have him next in line for the presidency with her obvious lack of confidence on the trail today.

Ultimately my motives are of self-interest.  Republicans can't wait to run against Hillary and Bill - oh, he'll be back - and ultimately she will be an easier target for 2008.  So Barack should chill, Hillary can shrill, and John should pick a Libby Dole or Condeleeza Rice for VP and roll over the moveondemocrat party in November.   By 2012 if the Iraq situation and economy are not in good hands, then Barack will be a shoe in even more so.  And you know McCain ain't running in 2012.  And the country just can't stand the thought of another Clinton in the White House - I mean, just what is Bill going to do in the White House all by himself when his wife is away (as if she had to be away the first time).

We have heard how Barack and Hillary and John - and to a lesser degree those left on the fringe of the presidential debate today - have touted their readiness to assume the mantle of the greatest, most powerful person on the planet from "day one". No need to extol the virtues of these fine candidates beyond the modern-day popularity contest for which they are engaged. Let us even give much leeway to both sides of the aisle as to philosophical differences on a number of issues: entitlements, the role of government, health care, immigration, tax and fiscal policy, steroids in baseball.  

All of these issues are worth debating in a free society. All of these issues merit consideration by every citizen of this representative republic; no matter one's bank account or zip code, the power of the ballot is the great equalizer.  And we can dream the dream, from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich. Given one's drive and resolve one can dream of rising to the most powerful position on the planet - to the presidency of the United States of America.  The average age of Presidents of the United States is 54. The candidate for president in 2060 - that is 13 presidencies from now - is therefore, on average, 2 years-old today. Do you honestly think that this kid, wherever he or she may be, is being groomed or thought of by his or her parents as a presidential candidate for the 2060 election?

Anyone can become President. Those that do are shaped by their experiences and events in the world.  They must pledge in this position, as judged by a relatively ignorant electorate and a manipulative media, first and foremost,  "solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . ."  It bears emphasis that this is the first duty the presidential oath demands of its mantle holder. " . . Support and defend . . ." - it gets no simpler than that.

So the aforementioned scenario is thus. After the electoral victory the new president will receive cursory security briefings by the exiting administration's security team leading up to inauguration.  After being sworn in, after all the galas and balls and appearances and dances and familial congratulations and partisan supporting statements and bi-partisan half-hearted supporting statements and preliminary jockeying for positions and appointments - after all these magnificent happenings thrust on what was a 2 year-old some 52 years earlier, on average, born in some small, average town in America - this new President of the United States of America will sit down on day one with his new, fresh, green, bright-eyed national security team and have a sit-down, neigh a visit - no, more formally, his or her first full-blown intelligence briefing as to the threats that face this country that they not 24 hours ago swore to support and defend.  

And now let us imagine the response to that briefing based on the current viable candidate's speeches on the stump, sound bites in the so-called debates, and pandering prognostications to the aforementioned ignorant electorate.  The successful candidate will hear the most top of all top secrets, the mother of all threat assessments that Fox news and CNN could only wish to be privy, (and then proceed to tell the world - the people's right to know of course).  And no matter the assessment or the dire warnings of Islamo-Fascist threats (a neo-con fabrication), or of Korea and Iran (all countries have the right to nuclear power), or the threat of re-awakened Russia (all counties are autonomous in their economic policies), or a nut-governed former soviet republic (they are free of the soviet sphere, they are new democracies), no matter the threat posed by the puppetry of unrest in Algeria or Chad with strings being pulled from a cave in Afghanistan (all countries have the right to map their own destiny), an ever-powerful and economically threatening China (we welcome all investment in the economy of The United States, imports are good for our economy).  No matter the threats that will be disclosed to the new President of the United States from whatever " . . . Enemies, foreign and domestic . . . " - No matter the threat, there is one side of this presidential debate today that has pledged, from their souls and to the person, that he or she will withdraw from the world stage and the front line on terrorism.  There is one side of this debate that has signaled to the world that within 60 days, or 18 months, or one year that he or she will begin to ignore the oath they took not one day before. They have pledged to enact a policy completely contradictory to the very first words that they speak as President of the United States.  They have pledged, already, to ignore the oath they will take, and they have already pledged on the world stage for all to see and hear the they will NOT, THEY WILL NOT  " . . .faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter . . ." So help them God!

And on the second anniversary of their inauguration, a revitalized Islamic Afghanistan and new Islamically radical Pakistan will be on the eve of their concerted invasion of India.  Pervez Mussharraf will watch on CNN from his penthouse in Manhattan, while reviewing his notes for a lecture at Columbia. A reinvigorated Iran will strut arm in-Islamo-Fascist arm with pieces of a splintered Iraq, poised to give Israel a lesson in a 21st century holocaust, and China will be calling to redeem their investments in America because Russia and Europe are the new economies of growth in the world.  

On the other hand there is a choice in the upcoming election that could not be more diametrically opposed than the above.  And no matter one's view there can be no denying that the Presidential Oath will be taken with a decidedly more serious tenor as to " . . . protect and defend . . ." than that spoken by the other party's candidate.

At the end of the day Chelsea's speaking, $600 dollar government handouts, and audacities of hope will do nothing to stave off the threat to our way of life that Islamo-Fascism represents both at home and to our interests throughout the world. Only the resolve of a Commander-In_Chief to protect and defend will accomplish that.  However, at the end of the day, since Islamo-Fascism is a neo-con fabrication, it doesn't really matter anyway.