The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'

In my best Arte Johnson voice, "Very interesting."

These Are the ‘Least’ & ‘Most’ Business-Friendly States in the U.S. by Becket Adams at The Blaze

Obama authorizes himself to declare martial law by Jeffrey T. Kuhner at The Washington Times

The Missing Amendment in the Bill of Rights by Joel Wellum at The Foundry

While walking down the street one day a “corrupt” Senator (that may be redundant) was tragically hit by a car and died.

He arrives at the entrance to Heaven and is met by St. Peter.

“Welcome to Heaven,” says St. Peter.  “Before you come in, it seems there is a problem.  We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not quite sure of what to do with you.”

“No problem, just let me in,” says the Senator.

“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up.  What we’ll do is have you spend one day in Heaven and one in Hell.  Then, you can choose where to spend eternity.”

“Really?  I’ve already made up my mind, though.  I want to be in Heaven,” says the Senator.

“I am sorry, but we do have our rules.  First, you’ll visit Heaven.”

So, the Senator joins a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, passing the time playing the harp and singing.  They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

St. Peter then escorts him to an elevator and they go down, down, down to Hell.  The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course.  In the distance is a clubhouse where all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him are standing.  Everyone is very happy to see him.  They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne.  Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes.  They are all having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go.  Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

“Well, then, you’ve spent a day in Heaven and another in Hell.  Now, choose your eternity.”

The Senator reflects for a minute, then he answers, “Well, I would have never said it before, but although Heaven was delightful, I think I would be better off in Hell.”

So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes back down, down, down to Hell.  This time the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls to the ground.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders to welcome him.

“I don’t understand,” stammers the Senator.  “When I was here earlier, there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and we danced and had a great time.  Now, there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and all my friends look miserable.  What happened?”

The devil smiles at him and says, “Earlier we were campaigning; now, you've voted.”

author unknown

This is a MUST SEE video:  If I wanted America to fail... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[originally "tweeted" by @PaulAzinger & "retweeted" by @TalkMaster (AKA Neal Boortz)]

Kelly Shackelford Comments

Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of Liberty Institute, said [President] Obama's comments were "inappropriate" in a recent interview with Citizen Link. "This is not a matter of lobbying the legislature. Presidents don't lobby the Supreme Court. The whole point of Lady Justice having the blindfold on her face is that judges aren't supposed to care about public opinion - they're supposed to interpret the law. Period." (my emphasis added)

The Hyphen

by John Wayne

The Supreme Court Lands in Oz

by Daniel Henninger

Holder’s Letter to Judges Ignores the Issue

by Cully Stimson

Atheist No More

Atheist Activist Who Threatened To Sue To Stop Texas Nativity Has Become A Christian by Billy Hallowell

President Obama's ridiculous SCOTUS comments

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." - President Barack Obama

First off, it wasn't a "strong majority."  It was a bare majority.  In fact, the law did NOT receive any bipartisan support at all.

Second, even those who did vote for it had to have additional conditions stipulated before they supported it.

Third, does President Obama not understand the function of the third, co-equal branch of government?  Or, was it a political play for the vastly uninformed electorate?

President Obama went on to say, "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

This is NOT a good example of judicial activism.

Judicial activism takes place when the court tries to make law by requiring Congress to include or remove certain aspects of the law.  Or, by using a source outside of established law...in this case outside of the Constitution (e.g.  foreign law).  Judicial activism does NOT take place when judges simply apply Constitutional standards to determine whether a new law (e.g.  "Obamacare") meets those guidelines or not.

That "unelected group of people" to whom Mr. Obama is referring happens to be duly appointed judges...nominated by Presidents (both current & previous) and confirmed by the Senate.

This President has to be voted out of office and this law has to be repealed.

Something to think about...

"A health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it...

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, but exempts themselves from it...
signed by a Prez who smokes...
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes...
to be overseen by a surgeon general who's obese...
and financed by a country that's broke.

What could possibly go wrong?" - Nichole Thalji

Best Argument AGAINST Nationalized (Socialized) Healthcare yet!

This was discovered on NewsBusters. Thank you to Noel Sheppard (see/read the article here).

"I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about, if you think about it, um, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Right? The, uh, no they are. I mean, it's the post office that's always having problems." - President Barack Obama (video)

So, tell me again, why would anyone want nationalized (socialized) federal government healthcare?

Justice should be blind, not empathetic

originally posted on DesMoinesRegister.com on July 12th, 2009

Sen. JEFF SESSIONS, R-Alabama, is ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Contact him through his Web form: www.sessions.senate.gov


On Monday, the U.S. Senate will begin confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. As the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have pledged that these hearings will be fair and respectful - but also thorough and rigorous.

If confirmed, Sotomayor will have the power to define the meaning of our Constitution for the entire nation. This is an awesome responsibility - determining the rights and freedoms for every man, woman and child in America.

This is our one chance to get it right. Supreme Court justices do not face elections or term limits. It is essentially a lifetime appointment.

That's why we must have a national discussion about the role of a judge and what kind of justice we ought to place on our nation's highest court.

We must look to what has made our legal system the envy of the world. At its heart is the Constitution. While the courts of many countries run roughshod over people's rights, American courts are tightly bound to the words of the Constitution and must defend the rights of every single American - regardless of a judge's personal or political feelings in a case.

Courthouses across our country feature the image of a woman with a blindfold weighing the scales of justice. She wears the blindfold so that she can judge her cases without bias or favoritism of any kind. This ideal is emblazoned on the Supreme Court building with the words "Equal Justice Under Law." Blind, equal justice is the foundation of our remarkable legal system and the bulwark of our shared freedoms.

But Obama and Sotomayor have expressed a very different view of judging. This view says that justice should not be blind, that it should not be based only on the law and the Constitution, but that it should take a judge's own personal and political feelings into account.

Obama says that when "constitutional text will not be directly on point," the critical ingredient for judges is the "depth and breadth of one's empathy," as well as "their broader vision of what America should be." But when a judge shows empathy toward one party in a courtroom, do they not show prejudice against the other?

Sotomayor has stated her belief that impartiality may not be possible in "all or even most cases," that "personal experiences affect the facts judges choose to see," and that judges "must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt ... continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

But if you or I step into a courtroom, shouldn't we be able to do so with confidence that we will get a fair day in court no matter our background, experience, or politics - and no matter the background, experience, or politics of the judge?

We should keep this in mind as we consider Sotomayor's one-paragraph ruling in the recent New Haven firefighter case. Eighteen firefighters studied for months to pass the city's promotion exam. They did. But the city junked the results because officials didn't feel the outcome met the appropriate racial quota. Sotomayor sided with the city and even denied the firefighters a trial.

The Supreme Court rejected Sotomayor's ruling and determined that the city's action to abandon the legitimate promotion process violated the legal rights of the firefighters - who had played by the rules.

For years, Sotomayor was a leader at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while it fought aggressively to pursue racial quotas for city hiring - just like in New Haven. Is Sotomayor's ruling against the firefighters an example of her failure to set aside her biases and rule impartially?

Contrast the philosophy Obama and Sotomayor have advocated with the plain words of the judicial oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Every day that Americans enjoy the extraordinary blessings of freedom, they do so in part because of the words and principles in that oath. Empathy-based rulings, no matter how well-intentioned, do not help society, but imperil the legal system that has been so essential to our liberties and so fundamental to our way of life.

"Jolting" the Economy

(originally posted by Thomas Sowell on Townhall.com)

Barack Obama says that we have to "jolt" the economy. That certainly makes sense, if you take the media's account of the economy seriously-- but should the media be taken seriously?

Amid all the political and media hysteria, national output has declined by less than one-half of one percent. In fact, it may not have declined even that much-- or at all-- when the statistics are revised later, as they very often are.

We are not talking about the Great Depression, when output dropped by one-third and unemployment soared to 25 percent.

What we are talking about is a golden political opportunity for politicians to use the current financial crisis to fundamentally change an economy that has been successful for more than two centuries, so that politicians can henceforth micro-manage all sorts of businesses and play Robin Hood, taking from those who are not likely to vote for them and transferring part of their earnings to those who will vote for them.

For that, the politicians need lots of hype, and that is being generously supplied by the media.

Whatever the merits of trying to shore up some financial institutions, in order to prevent a major disruption of the credit flows that keep the whole economy going, what has in fact been done has been to create a huge pot of money-- hundreds of billions of dollars-- that politicians can use to give out goodies hither and yon, to whomever they please for whatever reason they please.

No doubt we could all use a few billion dollars every now and then. But the question of who actually gets it will be strictly in the hands of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It is one of the few parts of the legacy of the Bush administration that the Democrats are not likely to criticize.

Much as we may deplore partisanship in Washington, bipartisan disasters are often twice as bad as partisan disasters-- and this is a bipartisan disaster in the making.

Too many people who argue that there is a beneficial role for the government to play in the economy glide swiftly from that to the conclusion that the government will in fact confine itself to playing such a role.

In the light of history, this is a faith which passeth all understanding. Even in the case of the Great Depression of the 1930s, increasing numbers of economists and historians who have looked back at that era have concluded that, on net balance, government intervention prolonged the Great Depression.

Many of those who have, over the years, praised the fact that this was the first time that the federal government took responsibility for trying to get the country out of a depression do not ask what seems like the logical follow-up question: Did this depression therefore end faster than other depressions where the government stood by and did nothing?

The Great Depression of the 1930s was in fact the longest-lasting of all our depressions.

Government policy in the 1930s was another bipartisan disaster. Despite a myth that Herbert Hoover was a "do nothing" president, he was the first President of the United States to step in to try to put the economy back on track.

With the passing years, it has increasingly been recognized that what FDR did was largely a further extension of what Hoover had done. Where Hoover made things worse, FDR made them much worse.

Herbert Hoover did what Barack Obama is proposing to do. Hoover raised taxes on high-income people and put restrictions on international trade, in order to try to save American jobs. It didn't work then and it is not likely to work now.

Perhaps the most disastrous of all the counterproductive policies of the federal government was the National Industrial Recovery Act under FDR, which set out to do exactly what the politicians today want to do-- micro-manage businesses.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court declared that Act unconstitutional, sparing the country an even bigger disaster.

Today, it is unlikely that the courts will let anything as old-fashioned as the Constitution stand in the way of "change." In short, the economy today has some serious problems but things are not desperate, though they can be made desperate by politicians.

Evil Concealed By Money

by Walter E. Williams [originally posted at Townhall.com on 11/19/2008]

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

The Senator's Choice

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in Heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you may choose where you wish to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we do have rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and they run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Satan is also present, and appears to be a really friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before the senator realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit Heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, again, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers, "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."

So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell.

When the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

Satan comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.

"I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now, there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

Satan looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...Today you voted."

Redistribution Realized

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I shook my head and laughed to myself.

Once in the restaurant my server was wearing an "Obama 08" tie. Again, I chuckled as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided NOT to tip the server, but explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful, but I wondered how long it would be before he came to expect and depend on this type of assistance.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient deserved the tip money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Imagine if your employer announced employee raises, then withheld those raises and gave the proceeds to a worthy cause instead, possibly even one involving non-workers! How would you feel about the theory of Sen. Obama's plan then?

If the government can take it away from anyone, it can take it away from everyone. Right now, Sen. Obama's line is drawn at $250,000, but how long before it's at $100,000? Or, $50,000?

OK, Let's Skip the Liberal Label

[originally posted on Townhall.com]

by David Limbaugh

There's little doubt America is a center-right nation, which is why Barack Obama denies and conceals his liberalism and packages himself as a harbinger of hope and change.

Obama's policies represent change all right: change from almost everything our Founding Fathers considered sacred and vital to the preservation of individual liberty in America.

He also offers hope: hope for those who share his shame in what America has become, what it stands for, and what makes it unique in world history. Hope that an unenlightened America can be remade by this "transformational" man in an image pleasing to George Soros, the Hollywood elite, MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos and Michael Moore.

But if labels bother you, let's look at Obama's alliances and policies and let them speak for themselves.

If you are so intoxicated with "hope" that you believe Obama wasn't aware of and not in sync with the Rev. Wright's militantly racist and anti-American views or his black liberation theology, then it's probably too much to ask for you to be objective about his links to Bill Ayers and ACORN.

Instead of restating Ayers' despicable actions and beliefs, I just want to know whether Obama believes Ayers has been rehabilitated, which he suggests when he touts him as "a professor of education." Though Obama says he was just 8 years old during Ayers' Pentagon-bombing days, he doesn't mention that he was an adult when he served on boards with Ayers, launched his state Senate campaign at his home, and gave a glowing jacket endorsement for Ayers' book. Nor does he tell you that just a few short years ago, Ayers stomped on the American flag and reaffirmed his pride in his criminal acts.

Concerning ACORN, what do you suppose the mainstream media would do to John McCain if an organization he represented, whose members he trained and who he promised would play a pivotal role in formulating his presidential policy agenda, were caught red-handed trying systematically to subvert the election process throughout America?

As for Obama's leftist policy positions and attitudes, how do you think the following would sit with most Americans?

--His enabling of infanticide by arguing and voting against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act in the Illinois Senate, which would have protected babies who survive failed abortions.

--His support of open borders and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

--His casual endorsement of Marxist redistribution of wealth.

--His plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire, resulting in a massive tax increase for tens of millions, and his tax credits to tens of millions more not paying income taxes, all while fibbing that he's going to cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

--His plans to increase spending an estimated $1.3 trillion, not to mention the obscene dollars he would send overseas with the Global Poverty Act.

--His condemnation of our liberation of Iraq from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein in furtherance of our national security interests yet promising military interventions for humanitarian reasons where we clearly have no national interests at stake.

--His opposition to the surge in Iraq and his plan to withdraw and jeopardize our imminent victory and the region's stability.

--His reckless plan to embroil us in a quagmire in Afghanistan and agitate Pakistan, our important ally in the war on terror.

--His naive commitment to negotiate with tyrants without preconditions.

--His inclination toward unilateral nuclear disarmament.

--His constant references to America's former greatness and his promises to restore our position of respectfulness in the world, betraying his full agreement that we've earned this supposed international disrespect.

--His forfeiture of American sovereignty to international bodies in obeisance to the pantheistic religion of global warming.

--His Kerryesque schizophrenia on guns and the Second Amendment.

--His derision of small-town Americans as bitter clingers.

--His thuggish approach toward those who dare to oppose him, such as Joe the Plumber, or anyone in St. Louis, whose criticism could have subjected them to criminal prosecution.

--His outright mocking of the Bible while adamantly insisting he's a strong Christian: "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount -- a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?"

Truthfully, I'm barely getting started. But can you honestly tell me Obama would have a prayer of being elected if he were honest about his agenda and allies and if the media, which share his radical views, weren't in the tank for him?

The Party of God?

[originally posted on Townhall.com]

by Frank Turek

Joe Biden recently asked why his Democrat Party isn’t seen as the “Party of God.” He then went on to answer his own question with this stunning observation: it’s because Democrats are “uncomfortable talking about God.” If they would only talk more about God, their party would be seen as the “Party of God.”

So if Bill Clinton had only talked more about monogamy, most voters would have thought he was the model husband?

This is one of the major problems of liberalism—it’s more about what you say than what you do. If you’re Joe Biden, as long as you talk about giving to the poor, you don’t actually have to do so yourself—you can give less than a tenth as much as the average American and then advocate that everyone pay higher taxes because it’s “patriotic” to do so. If you’re Al Gore, as long as you talk about “saving the environment,” you don’t actually have to do anything yourself—you can have a “carbon footprint” twenty times larger than the average American. And if you’re Barack Obama, as long as you talk about reducing the number of abortions, you don’t actually have to do anything to reduce them yourself. In fact, if Obama gets elected, he will do everything he can to increase abortions.

Since the media allows liberals to get away with this kind of hypocrisy, it’s no wonder Biden and the Democrats believe that as long as they talk about God, they don’t actually have to do anything He says. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy Jesus warned us about. He saved his sternest rebuke for the religious politicians of his day (the Pharisees) who talked a good game but whose hearts were far from God.

I don’t know the hearts of Obama, Biden or their fellow Democrats, but Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits.” And by their fruits, it’s no wonder the Democrats are not seen as the “Party of God.” The positions they advocate are diametrically opposed to the Bible, “Nature’s Law” (the basis of the Declaration of Independence), and the convictions of most religious people.

First and foremost, Obama and the Democrat party do not value life. They are not pro-choice, they are pro-infanticide. They support the horrific procedure called partial-birth abortion. That’s where a full-term baby is partially delivered from her mother, only to have scissors jammed in the back of her skull and her brains sucked out. Despite his denials, Obama even voted to refuse medical treatment to babies who are born alive from a failed abortion. And if he becomes president with a liberal congress, Obama has said that his first act will be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act.” That act will undo every modest abortion restriction in the land-- partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws will be nullified, and the Hyde Amendment will be reversed which will force taxpayers to pay for abortions!

Would Jesus advocate such positions? The right to life is the right to all other rights. If you don’t have life, you don’t have anything. Any party that will not recognize the right to all other rights will never be recognized as “the Party of God.”

Second, the Democrat party refuses to protect the foundation of civilized society—marriage between a man and a woman. While Obama officially says he’s not for same-sex marriage, he has pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which protects states from having same-sex marriage imposed on them by other states. Inexplicably, Obama believes that the Sermon on the Mount somehow mandates gay civil unions (he tells us to overlook that “obscure passage in Romans”). Furthermore, Obama wants to enact a law that may force churches to hire homosexuals.

On abortion and marriage Obama and the Democrats are clearly not the “Party of God.” Moreover, they have no moral high ground on Iraq as I’ve written in Jesus and the Case for War. And on two other key issues-- education and the poor-- Democrats want the right ends but use the wrong means.

For all their talk about “choice” on the abortion issue, Obama and the Democrats are opposed to choice when it comes to education. Why should a mother have the choice to kill her children, but not the choice of where to educate them? After all, we’re talking about the education of her children with her tax dollars. While Obama and many of his supporters in the Democrat party are rich enough to send their own kids to private schools, they want to keep the masses without a choice in failing, dangerous and politically-correct public schools—this despite the fact that vouchers actually work. Competition works everywhere it’s tried, but the Democrats don’t want to take that chance.

Finally, while Obama and the Democrats say they want to help the poor, virtually everything they do makes the plight of the poor worse. Their tax, welfare, and anti-school-choice policies don’t spread wealth, they spread misery. They also spread dependency on Democrats, which may be the ultimate reason why Obama, Biden and the Democrats will never do anything to become the “Party of God.” They’ll only talk about it and hope enough religious voters don’t notice their lack of fruit.

JOE BIDEN'S FEARS

[originally posted in the New York Times]

Last updated: 5:54 amOctober 21, 2008 Posted: 4:08 amOctober 21, 2008

Joe Biden wonders whether Barack Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief.

"Mark my words," Biden warned Sunday at a Democratic fund-raiser. "It will not be six months [after the inauguration] before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."

Then he added, "Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Now, here's where it gets scary.

Obama's "gonna need your help to use your influence within the community to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

He's going to need help?

Terrific.

What's particularly disturbing is Biden's Kennedy analogy.

For those who don't recall, it was a scant five months after JFK became president that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev took his measure.

Kennedy had just bungled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, then went off to a summit in Vienna - where Khruschev determined that the rookie chief executive could be had.

Two months later, construction began on the Berlin Wall, precipitating a crisis that nearly led to a US-Soviet shooting war in Europe.

And 14 months after that came the Cuban Missile Crisis - when nuclear Armageddon was only barely averted.

Is Biden saying that America's current enemies - sorely aware of Obama's inexperience - plan to test a President Obama with similar crises, to see what he's made of?

Sure seems like it.

But what if Obama is still on the wrong side of the learning curve when this major international crisis hits?

More important: What if he makes the wrong decision - as even Joe Biden suggests he might?

After all, Obama was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

And he was wrong in his initial response to Russia's invasion of Georgia - when he urged the victimized nation to "show restraint."

And he was wrong when he said he would gladly sit down unconditionally with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the very people his own running-mate now says are planning to "test" him.

As John McCain said yesterday, "We don't want a president who invites testing from the world . . . The next president won't have time."

Little wonder, then, that Biden later admitted that he "probably shouldn't have said all this."

But why not, Joe?

It's doubtless all true.

And it's much better to get it all out now - rather than wait until it's too late to do anything about it.

Kristol: What Biden Implied

[originally posted The Weekly Standard]

John McCain took note Monday of Joe Biden’s remarks the day before at a Seattle fundraiser (where Biden apparently didn’t realize at first there were media present). But there’s more McCain could say.

Here’s McCain, in Belton, Missouri:

Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America’s new President. We don’t want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars.

What is more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn't be apparent Senator Obama would have the right response.

Forget apparent. Senator Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world's worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint.

McCain is right that the last part of Biden’s statement is the most troubling--that when Obama is tested, it won’t be apparent that his response is correct. But what does Biden mean by this? What kind of response by Obama is Biden forecasting?

Take another look at what Biden said:

It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.... Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy....

I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.

So Biden expects a test of the kind Kennedy faced after his disastrous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June, 1961, less than five months into Kennedy’s presidency. Biden’s presumably thinking of the Soviet-backed construction of the Berlin Wall a couple of months later. Kennedy did nothing, and was criticized for his weakness back home.

So--leaving aside the merits of what Kennedy did or didn’t do in 1961--Biden is forecasting that Obama will have what seems to be a weak response to a provocation from, say, Iran or Russia, and he’s urging the liberals of Seattle and elsewhere to stand with Obama against the expected domestic criticism.

In other words, Biden is forecasting inaction by Obama in the face of testing by a dictator. I suspect he’s right in this forecast. McCain might want to clarify this point. It’s not just that Obama’s own running mate expects an international crisis early in his presidency. It’s not just that Obama has a weak foreign policy record. It’s that Biden himself expects what will appear to be a weak response from Obama to testing by a dictator.

Now Biden presumaby thinks such an apparently weak response would be in our long-term interest. But McCain needs to force that debate: “Sen. Obama, will you in fact do nothing in response to a Putin provocation against Ukraine or a final push by Ahmadinejad toward nuclear weapons? Isn’t that what your running mate has forecast? Isn’t it awfully dangerous to forecast weakness on the part of an American president?”

Posted by William Kristol on October 20, 2008 11:14 PM

Polls and Pols

[originally posted on Real Clear Politics]

October 21, 2008

By Thomas Sowell

It may seem hardly worthwhile going to the polls to vote this election year, since ACORN and the media have already decided that Barack Obama is to be the next President of the United States.

Still, it may take more than voter fraud and media spin to put Senator Obama in the White House. Most public opinion polls show Obama ahead, but not usually by decisive margins, and sometimes by a difference within the margin of error.

There has been a history of various polls over the years projecting bigger votes for the Democrats' presidential candidate in October than that candidate actually gets in November.

Some of these polls seem like they are not trying to report facts but to create an impression. One poll has been reported as using a sample consisting of 280 Republicans and 420 Democrats. No wonder Obama leads in a poll like that.

Pollsters have to protect their reputations but they can do that by playing it straight on their last poll before election day, after having created an impression earlier that a landslide for the Democratic candidate was all but a done deal.

The general media bias is more blatant than usual this year.

There was more media outcry about Sarah Palin's response to "gotcha" questions than to Joe Biden's talking about President Franklin D. Roosevelt going on television in 1929 after the stock market crash-- at a time when FDR was not yet president and there was no television to go on.

An editor at Time magazine has admitted that there has been bias but expressed a desire in the future to be more fair to both sides. Just the fact that he expresses the issue this way shows that he still doesn't understand the real problem.

The point is not to be "fair" to "both sides." The point is to be straight with the readers, who are buying the magazine to learn something about the facts of the real world, not to learn about its reporters' ideology and spin.

There is another factor at work in this year's election that makes polls and predictions more unreliable than usual. That factor is race.

Barack Obama's string of victories in early Democratic primaries against far better known white candidates shows that large segments of the American population have moved beyond race.

It is Barack Obama and his supporters who have hyped race, after his large lead in the polls began to shrink or evaporate, as more of the facts about his checkered career came out.
Almost any criticism of Obama has been equated with racism, even if there is no connection that can be seen under a microscope.

Barack Obama himself started this trend when he warned that his opponents were going to try to scare the public with various charges, including a statement, "And did I say he was black?"

McCain said no such thing. Palin said no such thing. But those who support Obama-- and this includes much of the media-- are acting as if they just know that this is the underlying message.

Congressman John Lewis has likened Senator McCain to George Wallace. Congressman John Murtha has condemned a whole section of the state of Pennsylvania as "racists" because they seem reluctant to jump on the Obama bandwagon.

Senator Harry Reid has claimed that linking Obama to deposed and disgraced Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines is racist, since they are both black-- as if the financial and political connection between the two does not exist.

Much is being made of the fact that, in past elections, some white voters who told pollsters that they are going to vote for a black candidate did not in fact do so, so that a black candidate with a lead in the polls ended up losing on election day.

This is supposed to show how much covert racism there is. It might instead show that people don't want to be considered racists by pollsters because they are leaning toward someone other than the black candidate.

In other words, the media themselves helped create the charged atmosphere in which some people give misleading answers to pollsters to avoid being stigmatized.

All in all, going into the voting booth this year is not an exercise in futility for those who don't want to be bum's rushed into voting for Obama by the media's picture of a done deal. If nothing else, genuine voters can offset some of the thousands of fictitious voters registered by ACORN.

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

What’s Fair Is Fair And fair is not the “Fairness Doctrine.”

[originally posted on National Review Online]

October 20, 2008 6:00 AM

By Barbara Comstock & Lanny J. Davis

A recent Rasmussen poll reported that nearly half of Americans (47 percent) believe the government should mandate political balance on radio and TV airwaves. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also indicated that she would like to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” While the two of us can usually be found on opposite sides of many political issues, this is one issue where we have found strong agreement: We both strongly oppose reinstatement of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Historically, opposition to the Fairness Doctrine has been genuinely a bipartisan issue.

To demonstrate — guess which noted newsman had the following to say about how the Fairness Doctrine operated in practice: “I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.”

Dan Rather.

But the same could have been said by Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. All of them, like Dan Rather, have opposed the Fairness Doctrine, an outdated government regulation, abolished in the 1980s, that used to require broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues or be threatened with fines or losing their broadcast licenses. The doctrine also resulted in lawsuits such as one in 1978 when NBC aired a show on the Holocaust and was sued by a group demanding air time to argue that the Holocaust was a myth. The network had to defend itself for over three years.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly and bipartisanly passed (309-115) a one year ban on reviving the Fairness Doctrine. This fall they again renewed the ban for another year. However, the First Amendment shouldn’t have an expiration date. The ban on reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine should be permanent and that is why we both support having a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

The Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan wisely eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s after determining the rule actually discouraged broadcasters from covering controversial issues. Demonstrating the bipartisan opposition to the Fairness Doctrine existed then as now, President Reagan had an unusual ally in his effort in Governor Mario Cuomo who also opposed the Doctrine pointing out: “Of course there are limits to liberty and lines to be drawn … But curtailing First Amendment rights should be allowed only when the need is so clear and convincing as to overwhelm with reasonableness the arguments in opposition. And the case for government intrusion, for the Fairness Doctrine, is certainly less than compelling at its very best.”

The Fairness Doctrine originally was designed at a time when there were only a few media outlets. But as the Los Angeles Times editorial page highlighted last year in an excellent case against reviving the rule: “No matter what your point of view might be, you have free or inexpensive outlets available today to express it — maybe not a radio or TV station but certainly a website, a video blog, a podcast or an e-mail newsletter. At the same time, the public has unprecedented access to a diverse array of opinions. Just as the government shouldn't decide what you say on the channels you create, nor should it be able to dictate the range of opinions people hear over the air.”

Two decades ago, the Washington Post agreed: “…it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined "balance" of what ideas radio and television news programs are to include. However bad or unfair today's news may seem on occasion, do people really want government to step in as judge? Members of Congress who care about genuinely fair coverage of views should abandon the congressional effort, which is based on an outdated concept of limited airwaves.”

The goal of “fairness and balance” in the media is always going to be in the eye of the beholder but fortunately today we have a multitude of media avenues to get our voices heard. And as for the idea of hearing from “both sides” of an issue — who assumes there are just two sides? If any two or three people could disagree as to how many sides of an issue exist — as we are sure we would — can you imagine government bureaucrats deciding first, how many sides of an issue there might be and second, how much “fair and balanced” speech each and every side would be allocated?

Instead we would suggest this well-worn maxim: “The remedy for speech you don’t like is not less speech, it is more speech.” “More speech” is something that today’s 24/7 media environment provides abundantly for all sides.

That is why today the coalition opposing the Fairness Doctrine is broader than ever. Those who cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas have only themselves to blame.

Maintaining our First Amendment freedoms is an American fundamental, one upon which we should be able to reach bipartisan agreement. This will be a contentious election year; but we need more speech, not less, and not government regulated speech. Let our right to free speech remain and pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

— Barbara Comstock, a principal of Corallo Comstock, Inc., represents the National Association of Broadcasters and served as director of public affairs for the Department of Justice from 2002-2003. Lanny J. Davis, a Washington , D.C., attorney in the global law firm, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, served as President Clinton’s special counsel from 1996-98.

Here the People Rule

[originally posted in The New York Times]

By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: October 20, 2008

According to the silver-penned Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, “In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics.”

Leave aside Noonan’s negative judgment on Sarah Palin’s candidacy, a judgment I don’t share. Are we really seeing “a new vulgarization in American politics”? As opposed to the good old non-vulgar days?

Politics in a democracy are always “vulgar” — since democracy is rule by the “vulgus,” the common people, the crowd. Many conservatives have never been entirely comfortable with this rather important characteristic of democracy. Conservatives’ hearts have always beaten a little faster when they read Horace’s famous line: “Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.” “I hate the ignorant crowd and I keep them at a distance.”

But is the ignorant crowd really our problem today? Are populism and anti-intellectualism rampant in the land? Does the common man too thoroughly dominate our national life? I don’t think so.

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released its latest national survey, taken from Oct. 9 to 12. Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country and of course concerned about the economy. But, as Pew summarized, “there is little indication that the nation’s financial crisis has triggered public panic or despair.”

In fact, “There is a broad public consensus regarding the causes of the current problems with financial institutions and markets: 79 percent say people taking on too much debt has contributed a lot to the crisis, while 72 percent say the same about banks making risky loans.”

This seems sensible. Indeed, as Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia, so the market crash has resulted in remarkably little popular hysteria or scapegoating.

And considering what has happened, the vulgar public on Main Street has been surprisingly forgiving of those well-educated types on Wall Street — the ones who devised and marketed the sophisticated financial instruments that have brought the financial system to the brink of collapse.

Most of the recent mistakes of American public policy, and most of the contemporary delusions of American public life, haven’t come from an ignorant and excitable public. They’ve been produced by highly educated and sophisticated elites.

Needless to say, the public’s not always right, and public opinion’s not always responsible. But as publics go, the American public has a pretty good track record.

In the 1930s, the American people didn’t fall — unlike so many of their supposed intellectual betters — for either fascism or Communism. Since World War II, the American people have resisted the temptations of isolationism and protectionism, and have turned their backs on a history of bigotry.

Now, the Pew poll I cited earlier also showed Barack Obama holding a 50 percent to 40 percent lead over John McCain in the race for the White House. You might think this data point poses a challenge to my encomium to the good sense of the American people.

It does. But it’s hard to blame the public for preferring Obama at this stage — given the understandable desire to kick the Republicans out of the White House, and given the failure of the McCain campaign to make its case effectively. And some number of the public may change their minds in the final two weeks of the campaign, and may decide McCain-Palin offers a better kind of change — perhaps enough to give McCain-Palin a victory.

The media elites really hate that idea. Not just because so many of them prefer Obama. But because they like telling us what’s going to happen. They’re always annoyed when the people cross them up. Pundits spent all spring telling Hillary Clinton to give up in her contest against Obama — and the public kept on ignoring them and keeping her hopes alive.

Why do elites like to proclaim premature closure — not just in elections, but also in wars and in social struggles? Because it makes them the imperial arbiters, or at least the perspicacious announcers, of what history is going to bring. This puts the elite prognosticators ahead of the curve, ahead of the simple-minded people who might entertain the delusion that they still have a choice.

But as Gerald Ford said after assuming the presidency on Aug. 9, 1974, ”Here the people rule.”

One of those people is Joe Wurzelbacher, a k a Joe the Plumber. He’s the latest ordinary American to do a star turn in our vulgar democratic circus. He seems like a sensible man to me.

And to Peggy Noonan, who wrote that Joe “in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made.” At least McCain and Palin have had the good sense to embrace him. I join them in taking my stand with Joe the Plumber — in defiance of Horace the Poet.

How to Read the Constitution

[originally posted on The Wall Street Journal Online]

The following is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute last Thursday:

When John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country," we heard his words with ears that had been conditioned to receive this message and hearts that did not resist it. We heard it surrounded by fellow citizens who had known lives of sacrifice and hardships from war, the Great Depression and segregation. All around us seemed to ingest and echo his sentiment and his words. Our country and our principles were more important than our individual wants, and by discharging our responsibilities as citizens, neighbors, and students we would make our country better. It all made sense.

Today, we live in a far different environment. My generation, the self-indulgent "me" generation, has had a profound effect on much around us. Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice -- unless it is a justification for more taxation and transfers of wealth to others. Nor do we hear from leaders or politicians the message that there is something larger and more important than the government providing for all of our needs and wants -- large and small. The message today seems more like: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you.

This brings to mind the question that seems more explicit in informed discussions about political theory and implicit in shallow political speeches. What is the role of government? Or more to the point, what is the role of our government? Interestingly, this is the question that our framers answered more than 200 years ago when they declared our independence and adopted our written Constitution. They established the form of government that they trusted would be best to preserve liberty and allow a free people to prosper. And that it has done for over two centuries. Of course, there were major flaws such as the issue of slavery, which would eventually lead to a civil war and casualties of fellow citizens that dwarf those of any of the wars that our country has since been involved in.

Though we have amended the Constitution, we have not changed its structure or the core of the document itself. So what has changed? That is the question that I have asked myself and my law clerks countless times during my 17 years on the court.

As I have traveled across the country, I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says. I am not suggesting that they become Constitutional scholars -- whatever that means. I am suggesting, however, that if one feels strongly about his or her rights, it does make sense to know generally what the Constitution says about them. It is at least as easy to understand as a cell phone contract -- and vastly more important.

The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."

The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. So, the framers structured the Constitution to limit the powers of the national government. Its powers were specifically enumerated; it was divided into three co-equal branches; and the powers not given to the national government remained with the states and the people. The relationship between the two political branches (the executive and the legislative) was to be somewhat contentious providing checks and balances, while frequent elections would assure some measure of accountability. And, the often divergent interests of the states and the national government provided further protection of liberty behind the shield of federalism. The third branch, and least dangerous branch, was not similarly constrained or hobbled.

Since Marbury v. Madison the federal judiciary has assumed the role of the interpreter and, now, final arbiter of our Constitution. But, what rules must judges follow in doing so? What informs, guides and limits our interpretation of the admittedly broad provisions of the Constitution? And, more directly, what restrains us from imposing our personal views and policy preferences on our fellow citizens under the guise of Constitutional interpretation?

To assure the independence of federal judges, the framers provided us with life tenure and an irreducible salary -- though inflation has found a way around the latter. This independence, in turn, was to assure our neutrality and impartiality, which are at the very core of judging -- and being a judge. Yet, this independence can also insulate a judge from accountability for venturing beyond the proper role of a judge. But, what exactly is the proper role of a judge? We must understand that before we can praise or criticize a judge. In every endeavor from economics to games there is some way to measure performance.

As important as our Constitution is, there is no one accepted way of interpreting it. Indeed, for some commentators, it seems that if they like or prefer a particular policy or conduct, then it must be constitutional; while the policies that they do not prefer or like are unconstitutional. Obviously, this approach cannot be right. But, it certainly is at the center of the process of selecting judges. It goes something like this. If a judge does not think that abortion is best as a matter of policy or personal opinion, then the thought is that he or she will find it unconstitutional; while the judge who thinks it is good policy will find it constitutional. Those who think this way often seem to believe that since this is the way they themselves think, everyone must be doing the same thing. In this sense, legal realism morphs into legal cynicism. Certainly this is no way to run a railroad, not to mention interpret the Constitution. . . .

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.

Presidential Character

[Originally posted on PatriotPost.us]

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." —Samuel Adams

In his Inaugural Address on 20 January, 1961, President John F. Kennedy closed his remarks with these famous words: "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

With those words, JFK, considered by many to be the most exemplary leader of the Democrat Party in the 20th Century, asked Americans to put country first, a bedrock principle of the Party until the last few decades.

However today, the current slate of Democrats have turned Jack Kennedy's national challenge on end, essentially proclaiming, "ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country."

In 1963, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said for all to hear, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Has his dream been realized, or have Democrat leaders divided us up into constituency groups, where we are judged by all manner of ethnicity and special interests rather than the individual and national character King envisioned?

Kennedy and King had it right, but the Democrat Party has squandered their great legacy, and betrayed us, moreover enslaving many Americans as dependant wards of the state.
This is not the Democrat Party envisioned by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman, much less its founder, Thomas Jefferson, who would not recognize even the most vestigial elements of his once-noble Party. (This dramatic transition is evident in the Democrat Party Platforms from Kennedy to Obama.)

When asked why he left the Democrat Party, perhaps the most famous of former Democrats said, "I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." That was Ronald Reagan, who earned the respect and support of an enormous number of Democrats during his presidency. His observation, "the Party left me," has never been more true than today.
For several months, we have heard and observed two presidential candidates, centrist Republican John McCain and liberal Democrat Barack Obama. It should by now, be obvious to all of us who put our country first, which of these candidates possess the high qualities of a statesman, and the prerequisite moral and civic virtues for an American president.

Unfortunately, too many of my fellow Americans have difficulty distinguishing these qualities.

Every four years, at the peak of presidential election cycles, we're told by the talkingheads and the party hacks that "this election is the most important in our lifetimes." This time, however, they may be right. These are indeed perilous times.

Our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts, including an historic economic disaster, the resolution of which will require the steady hand of a statesman in possession of outstanding character — character that has been honed over his lifetime, character that is proven consistent with our nation's legacy of liberty and equality.

That reformed Democrat, Ronald Reagan, wrote, "The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the 'little' choices of years past — by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that 'it really doesn't matter.' It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away — the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity — or dishonor and shame."
For the first and final word on the necessary character traits the next president should possess, let's return to our foundation, our Founders, those who risked all to proclaim our individual rights and responsibilities as ordained by God, and outlined them in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Republic's Constitution.

Our Founders wrote at length about character, both of those who seek high office (or, rather, those that high office seeks), and those who elect them. Here are but a few excerpts in their own words.

John Adams: "Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom. ... If we suffer [the minds of young people] to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. ... We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."

Samuel Adams: "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. ... If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation. ... [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. ... No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. ... Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. ... Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson: "It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. ... If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ... The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. ... An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

George Washington: "No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. ...[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. ... The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. ...[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

At the end of the Revolution, when our Founders were endeavoring "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," Founding brothers Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and our Constitution's author, James Madison, wrote The Federalist Papers, its most authentic and comprehensive explication.
In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warned, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

Sound familiar?

In No. 10, Madison cautions, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm," and insisted in No. 57, "The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

Madison's Supreme Court nominee, Justice Joseph Story, wrote, "Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."

The Founders thus warned of the perils posed by the candidate who lacks political courage; the candidate who tells us everything we want to hear.

In November 1800, John Adams, in his fourth year as president, wrote to his wife Abigail, "I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!"

We should all pray likewise, now, today, this minute.

As Adams understood, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Almost two centuries later, Ronald Reagan reiterated, "Freedom is ... never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it's gone and gone for a long, long time."

So, what of the current generation of voters, and the two presidential candidates?

On 4 November, one of these candidates will receive a majority of electoral votes, and in January, be seated as our next president. But for sure, this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates; it is a referendum on the ability of Americans to discern between one candidate who possesses the character and integrity of a statesman, which the office of president requires, and one who does not.

At this pivotal moment in our nation's history, let's hope that a majority of us have sufficient courage and character to make that distinction, and vote on what we know rather than how we feel.

Let's put country first.

For more information on the character of the presidential candidates, link to The McCain record and The Obama record.

Please forward these insights to your family, friends and associates.