The MSM has jumped on the recent spike in violence in Iraq and the horrible milestone of 4,000 deaths of our honorable miltary servicepeople. This is noteworthy and newsworthy. Although I'm wondering why the media goes silent on Iraq when things aren't quite as bad. (Okay, I'm not actually wondering. I know the media is against the war/Republicans and will only promote or suppress something that will hurt this effort.)

 

But why cannot someone tell of some truly horrible statistics of deaths in this country. There is suspiciously no federal statistics of deaths by illegal immigrants. World Net did an artcile about this: Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens.

That's 4,380 ANNUALLY! Why isn't there more research on this subject? And why isn't there any focus on this side of illegal immigration?

 

My theory is that because the dems and the MSM want to win an election and will even have us lose a war in order for them to gain control. And the reverse is true with the deaths by illegal immigrants. This story would be a bad one for the dems that don't really want border enforcement. That would stop the flow of potential voters, since they get at least 60% of the hispanic vote. Now illegals can't vote, but their children born in this country can and will vote majority democrat. And that's not even mentioning the pandering to the huge population of Hispanic Americans. This is a truly cynical view of the dems, but one that I really believe. That why there is such a push for illegal immigrants to gain driver's licenses. If it were about safety then the dems would want the border totally sealed shut.

 

But back to the increasing number of deaths by illegal immigrants, why can't we ask the Obama and Clinton why 4,000 deaths in Iraq overs 5 years is worse than over 4,000 deaths annually by illegal immigrants. Could it be that deaths in Iraq can be used to get them into power? While the deaths by illegals would hurt them politically. And the next time Obama claims that this issue is divisive and should be treated sensitively beacuse of the spike in hate crimes against hispanics, tell him to back it up with valid statistics and not just rhetoric. I won't hold my breath waiting for the MSM to talk about this facet of illegal immigration, but at least they cannot suppress the views on the internet. Not yet anyway.

Obama went on The View on Friday and said that if Wright had not been retiring then he would have left the church. It is fun to see a politician and his evolving story in a desparate attempt to stop the bleeding. The MSM are already over the story, but it will not end here. First he never heard of those remarks. Then he has heard some offending remarks, but these were just isolated wrong statements, and he cannot disown his preacher. Now he would've disowned him and the church if Wright hadn't been retiring.

Obama: Wright is an “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with”

 

Obama:"Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said, adding, "What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor."

 

Obama:"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach ... or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church."

 

Obama: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

 

Obama: "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church."

 

I missed it when Wright has apologized for all or even any of the comments degrading white people, our government and this country.

 

So when Imus uttered a few bigoted comments he should be summarily fired. When Wright does it, heck the guy is going to retire, so let him stay up there for awhile. I like to take a person at his word, but this is really starting to strain my ability for belief. Or as Hillary would put it, "require the willing suspension of disbelief". And now I am starting to think that Obama might agree with some of the outrageuous statements.

 

Obama has been lauded as a refreshing new candidate, and in some apsects he is. But in others he is just the same candidate as all the other candidates on both sides of the aisle. If his speech, or lecture, about race would have included this:

             "Now this controvercy has come at a really bad time for me personally. I am running as a candidate to bring the country

              together on both racial and partisan terms. And this controvercy does not fit my theme so I would love to ignore it or say

              anything to get it off page one. But since the media would let it go I have to address this nuissance of a story. I cannot

              ignore the fact that I am a black man running for President of the United States. I am ahead in the polls, delegate count,

              and  the popular vote in the democratic primary. I am so close to actually winning the nomination and cannot do anything

              that would potentially derail my campaign. And I am winning ninety percent of the black vote. If I would repudiate Wright's

              character, then that would endanger my lock on the black vote and thus my chances at the nomination. Therefore I choose

              to stand by the man even though I disagree with a few remarks that have caused the controvercy."

Now that would have been brutally honest and he would have had my respect, but the real truth cannot be spoken in our dialogue. I would have gotten out of my own pew to applaud if this would have happened.

 

So if Obama wants to open a conversation on race, then please answer this: If a bigoted white joke about nappy-headed hos should cause someone to be fired, then why should a repeat offending bigoted black Preacher not face the same consequences. I guess the latest message from Obama is now that we should tolerate black bigots as long as sometime in the future they are going to retire. We all know that Imus is old, wasn't retirement in his future?

 

Just another politician that is trying to say anything to get elected. I am anxiously awaiting what he will say next on the subject.

I am trying to understand the palpable anger directed towards John McCain. I have my theories but wanted to get responses from the conservative blogoshere. I know that his positions in the last deacde have been contrary to conservative views, but why does President Bush get a pass(mostly) while McCain gets the wrath from the right.

 

President Bush has been great to lower tax rates for everyone in the country, a stalwart on the global war on terrorism, and has given us Roberts and Alito. But he also has greatly expanded the scope and money spent on the Federal dept of Education.(not a conservative position) Has established a prescription drug benefit.(not a conservative position) He tried to give us Harriet Myers as he was reluctant to fight the Dems on the appointment of a Supreme court justice. (Okay he received much grief from conservatives over the Harriet Myers attempted appointment) And he was in total support of the illegal amnesty bill that failed in Congress. (And that instigated open warfare with conservatives across the country) But he is still respected and revered out there.

 

McCain seams to get the blunt end of the anger out there. Yes, I realize McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold, and taxes for the rich have not made him a favorite of the right. But to sit out this election or gulp "vote for Hillary". That is total lunacy. I love reading and listening to Ann Coulter, but to argue that she is more conservative than McCain is utter nonsense. So I cannot understand why conservatives are willing to lose this election in order to get a better candidate 4 years from now. The next president might have 2-3 more appointments on SCOTUS and that will affect the country for the next 20-30 years. Let alone the Dems obvious attempt to nationalize our healthcare system. Can we really let the country drift further along towards socialism while waiting for the next coming of Reagan?

 

I am a center-right Rupublican. I am not a squishy Republican as I haven't voted for a Dem since Clinton 92. Please forgive me as I was  young, foolishly idealistic, and too easily swayed by the "this country needs change" pushed by the major media. But after 1 - 2 years of Clinton's malfeasance and the media's slanted journalism, I have awakened and started to think through the positions best suited for our great country. I have sympathetic ear to the downtrodden in our society, but feel the states are better equipped and should take care of our problems. Accessible government is much more valuable than anything the federal govenrment could ever do. So a federalist is the best way to describe my views. And the Republican party is no way close to my views, but they are much better than the Dems central government power grab. I could not think of wasting my vote for the libertarians, while the country elects Dem after Dem. So I have learned to compromise by supporting the closest electable thing. Which gets me back to McCain.

 

Why cannot McCain get all the support from the conservatives out there? My theory is that it is not just his positions, but his attitude. It is one thing to take contrary positions, but another to keep on poking a stick in the eye of the conservatives. Much more style instigation than policy indignation.

 

Do you think when or if the true conservative candidate next comes along that the country will be easier pull in the other direction? Remember that Reagan was going to abolish the dept of Education and that didn't happen. Just imagine what programs a Democratic President will start or enlarge in the next four years. And he/she will have a Democratically controlled congress also. Hillary has said that the country cannot afford all her ideas. And Obama is more liberal than her. Can we afford to wait four years for the next Gipper? Or should we hold our nose and just vote for McCain?

Okay, we all know the media is in the tank for Obama. They do have a right to an opinion, but seriously can someone talk to Chris Matthews about his love affair with Obama. I know NBC has gone over as an orginization to advocacy journalism, but Matthews has to be the worst offender of a commentator openly rooting for a candidate.

 

He openly admits to getting thrills up his leg when Obama speaks. And yesterday said he gets emotional when he hears him speak. I mean there has to be some 12 step program out there for his condition. And could someone please give him back his panties, as he has thrown them up on the stage to his rock star candidate.

To hear Obama and all the chattering classes out there you'd think that racism is abundant and keeping people of color from living their dreams. Is there racism out there? Sure, whites, blacks, and hispanics from the receiving end to the inflicting side also. But what everyone is overstating is the actual endemic force of being prejudiced. It is my belief that all or most of us are prejudiced. The difference is that racist people act upon on the prejudices.

 

I would not go out of my way to inflict pain or bar advancement from any minority unless that person did something that was untoward to me or had it coming to them. Much the same as any white person that had it coming to them. Isn't that a color blind approach? Everyone talks about the following anecdote as an example of racism: I saw four black men walking down a darkened street and I crossed to avoid them. Now imagine if those four black men were wearing suits, would you cross then. I think most of us wouldn't And now imagine four young white men looking haggard and mean, would you cross then? I say yes. Isn't that a color blind approach?

 

I think we are going in the wrong direction. I truly want to believe in the color blind society. I want to judge people on the "content of their characters." We will never get beyond our prejudices to this color blind society we say we want to attain, if we attribute everything that is wrong with our lives to someone of another color that is holding us back. We have to get beyond this or we will forver be marred with the us versus them mentality. Or we'll have to wait 200 years when we all become ethnic mutts. Maybe that is our only hope.

 

We have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are no guarantees. You just have to live, love, laugh, be a good person and make sure your children go further in life than yourself. It doesn't matter what color you are. Just take advantage of whatever opportunities are in front of you and do the best you can. The only thing that is holding us back is ourselves.

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude." 

 

Now I'm sure that Don Imus is someone's uncle and he says crazy things from time to time, but he was forced out of his job for just a few off color remarks. Now Reverend Wright says horrible things about white people and the country which we both live. And only when the controvercy was threatening to derail his campaign that Wright was removed from the Obama Campaign. His first intinct was to defuse the stiuation and keep his hate mongoring Preacher in his job. But back last year when he wasn't winning enough of the "black" vote, Obama jumped all over Imus and wanted him fired.

 

Obama is not the post-partisan, post-racial candidate he claims to be, he is just the same old calculating politician that tries to position himself for the position that he is running. He is much the same as Hillary, just in the guise of the person we all are waiting for to bring us together.

I was watching Russert this weekend and he was talking about the Dems' debate. And one segment was rather telling without even an utterance of a word. I missed it during the debate but it was so obvious during the replay.

 

Russert was talking about his "jump ball" approach to a foreign policy question about the new Russian President Medvedev. After he finished his question, addressed to noone, the next couple of seconds reinforced a growing consensus. There was a 2 second pause while both candidates thought about the answer and without even a sound from Hillary, Barack looked to her to answer the question. Now why would he defer to her to answer a legitimate question about the new Russian Pres?

 

It must be that he is a foreign policy lightweight and couldn't come up with an answer himself. Is that what we want as our President? Someone that is all prose and no substance. I think the Clinton campaign missed a big opportunity to hit him hard at this. Instead of complaing about getting the first question all the time, she should of made it a point that she, not Barack, can answer the tough questions. Not that she did an outstanding job, but the contrast was too much not to mention.

 

And he is becoming quite the one-trick pony, with every reason not to vote for anyone but himself because of the vote to authorize force in Iraq. Al Queda is still in Iraq...Well Al Queada wasn't in Iraq when you both authorized the war in the first place. Who do you want answering the phone...We want someone that will show the judgement that I showed in opposing this war. What about National Healthcare...We need someone that will save our money from the misguided war in Iraq. Oh come on already, do you have anything else to say. I guess not or we would see more of the deer caught in the headlights look that you showed us in the debate. Rather illuminating.

The Democratic party has a fraudulent righteousness about being the party of the people. Of course the media are duplicitous in their fall-all-over-themselves to be the first one to congradulate the Dems as being the only true party that represents the will of the people. And while we go through this primary season and hearing how the Dems' primary is the best democratic process with their vote apportionment. There has been an education in this so called democratic process.

 

Superdelegates are party insiders that can vote for whomever they want, whenever they want. Sounds fair right? They also can switch affiliation whenever and as many times that they want. Sounds like repeat voting, right. Something right out of the Richard J. Daley playbook in Chicago. Now the Dems will say that they wanted to avoid the bruising 1980 primary fight between Carter and Kennedy and let the party representatives save the party form inner turmoil and a contested primary. Now it just takes a little perspective to analize the process.

 

So far in this primary season there has been 19 million plus votes counted just for Clinton and Obama. And that result has yielded 2,272 pledged delegates between them. There has been 437 super delegates that have taken sides already in the primary fight. That means that every super delegate is worth 5 times more than a pledged delegate. Wasn't Bill Clinton complaining in Nevada about making sure that every vote counts the same? Or lets just reverse the math, that means that every pledged delegate is worth one-fifth the vote of a super delegate.

 

Even during our country's infancy and the attempt to marginalize the southern states voice, the states with slave popuation were counted as three-fifths the vote as non-slave states. And that was called racist in retrospect. What would they call this? There has been much ado about African Americans and their sensitivity to being counted as three-fifth of a white person. Someone should ask an African American how they feel now that their vote counts as one-fifth the vote of a party insider. But of course you won't hear this discussed in the major media. They are too busy lauding evrything the Dems can do for our country (or rather to our country.)

This election cycle is perfectly suited for McCain. He is not the perfect (or close to) candidate for the Repubs, but idealism will get you being governed by a socialist while pragmatism will keep the Dems from taking the country in the wrong direction.

 

I have not heard the Repubs ever talk to us in terms of money spent in the elections. John Kerry in 2004 spent $309 million trying to get the job that Dems want the most. Al Gore spent $120 million in 2000.  That is $429 million given to paid political consultants, radio/TV stations and basically people that already make a good living already. Of course the lowly volunteers got some donuts and coffee. That money was spent on 2 FAILED campaigns. Why doesn't anyone mention that the $429 mil could have just about eliminated poverty in say Los Angeles. A bright blue city in a bright blue state.  If the Dems believe in redistribution of wealth, then why don't they just raise the money from their wealthy supporters and give it straight to their constituencies. They could have given 8,580 families a total of $50,000 and called it charity. And the answer to that is that then they wouldn't have had the chance at the power of the presidency. (And the ability to keep their constituents down).

 

Every plan they have is designed to keep the people addicted to the federal government in terms of money and programs. Keep the kids in failing public schools, keep everyone in a going broke Social Security system, and now mandate eveyone to join a national healthcare plan. Our healthcare system,which expensive, is the class of the world. And why, beacuse it is run privately. Someone should parallel the healthcare system and our public schools and show the difference between them. And if people cannot afford healthcare then they should be given the phone numbers of Bill Clinton and Warren Buffet. They both belive that their taxes are too low. Although I'm sure they are taking every deduction afforded to them. Bill Clinton actually said that he resented the fact that noone asked him to sacrifice in terms of paying more taxes. Well, I'm asking him to send more money to the black hole of the federal government. Or at least he and Hillary can personally start subsidizing the millions of people that they talk about that do not have health insurance.

 

The Dems must be called on the fact that they need their people to need them. They cannot have the people actually be self-reliant. They have to blame every problem they have, real or imaginary, on the government. We have to get back to our countries motto of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. I have read the constitution and it doesn't mention anywhere that I should make the same amount of money as the CEO of a billion dollar company. Or that my kid will have the same opportunites as Barack Obama's children. Someone needs to start talking about these issues.