Actually it is taken from a Paul Krugman opinion piece in the N.Y. Times.

It describes almost all of what is going on in Washington, now that the liberals have regained their power. It should scare the hell out of every normal American, but I’m afraid normal is losing out to hysteria today.

Speaker Pelosi actually said that she is only trying to “save the world”.

Krugman, in complete concert with such a monumentally arrogant statement, demands action and finds no problem in dismissing anyone who asks for even a debate on the issue as not only wrong; but immoral as well.

Does he understand the extent of the pain felt by middle and lower class Americans caused by the ever escalating gasoline prices? The nation runs on affordable oil, whether Krugman or Pelosi like it or not. There are no alternatives for the foreseeable future. Saying it isn’t so, does not make it so.  Is it moral to cause these families to do without, so they can get their car to work daily simply because the left wants to “save the world”?

 It is amazing how all liberals parrot each other. If you listen to one, you’ve heard them all.

That’s it. Sorry.  I give up. I just gave myself a headache. I gotta stop reading the Times.

There is a story today stating that the I.O.C. (International Olympic Committee) has just refused recognition of five of the seven athletes from Iraq because of something about Iraq’s political corruption or some other such nonsense. I mean really, if the I.O.C. routinely refused nation’s athletes based on ANY kind of corruption; ninety per cent of the world would be disqualified.

The Olympics were never supposed to be about politics; it’s always been about the athletes.  It should be about nothing else. I mean if they excused Nazi Germany to the point of giving them the games in the thirties… if they turned their backs on the gulags and oppression rampant in the Soviet Union and their satellites in the fifties and sixties and gave them the games… if they now ignore the atrocities having been done and now being done in this years host-China…

How in hell can they deny seven brave souls a chance to just show up and wave their flag? Some of these athletes may just be survivors of Uday Hussein’s reign of terror as Iraq’s previous Olympic head. If not, then they are at least familiar with their nation’s tragic history.

The IOC defends itself with this travesty by claiming Iraq refused a meeting in Switzerland with someone more legitimate than the present head of the Iraqi Olympic movement. They also claim that they have previously bestowed special considerations upon Iraq in the past few Olympics. So the IOC points their hypocritical finger at the Iraqi government.

 I think Iraq’s freedom worries some of the world’s despots. Most of them spare no expense to promote their own nation, yet seem to worry that this “freedom thing” may swallow their despotism as well. We would all be a more blessed world, if that were so.

I say, let ‘em play.  If not then this will make the already corrupt and disturbingly commercial Olympic movement seem very petty and as political as the nation they accuse of such.

Regardless, although I used to look forward to the every four year event, I now shake my head at what the IOC has become. To hell with it all, I ain’t watching.

 When they root out their own corruption; then they may have the moral authority to ban the seven brave souls who simply want to go to China and be part of the world again.

It’s gotten beyond being just a theory. It’s gone way past the point where any plausible deniability can be claimed. And it has reached the stage to where there is really no discernable difference between the two entities. There is no pretense anymore. It is official.

Of course, I am referring to the Democrat party and the main stream media.

There was a time when it was virtually impossible to tell the political persuasion of a reporter. Now, I have great difficulty finding any article that even hints at impartiality. With all due credit to Bernie Goldberg…”A fish is not aware that it lives in water.” So too, a liberal is blissfully unaware that he is writing the liberal slant or arguing the left’s points.

Can anyone imagine the uproar if the top three television network anchors jumped on the campaign plane with John McCain and spoke adoringly of the candidate? The din would be deafining.

 Is there a sane individual out there who would not expect a thunderous caterwauling from the entire left if this were to happen?

Yet this is happening for Mr. Obama. It is shameless. It is absurd. It is an overt attempt by supposedly impartial news-people to create the aura of statesmanship and gravitas for a candidate who is nothing more than a half-black inexperienced lawyer whose claim to fame includes: Chicago political hack, member of a racist church, friendship with admitted terrorists and husband to a bitter, race baiting wife.

 Oh, he does speaks well with the aid of a teleprompter.   

It is a campaign ad, pure and simple. My disgust with the MSM grows daily. At least now the world can see their bias. Maybe they just don't care  or maybe...

“”Obama calls for “new direction” in international relations.  AP

This is one of today’s headlines. No one is sure what the hell it means. I must assume that not even Obama knows the true meaning of this statement, because he has yet to tell us. It sure does sound good, however.

Obama says Afghanistan”…a war we have to win.” AP

So, it will be OK to lose in Iraq? There will be no consequences if we lose there?

A vitally strategic ally, on the verge of defeating its Al Qaeda insurgents, floating on an ocean of oil, and near other oceans of oil, who is just now beginning to enjoy the blessings of liberty and freedom from tyranny, will be discarded? Then you claim a landlocked hell-hole nation that has never been conquered by anyone must be defeated?  What have you been smoking lately, Mr.Obama?

Sounds like you’ve puffing on more than your Kool 100’s. And you inhale.

********************************************************************************

Obama cites weapons nonproliferation work. AP

Obama: Iraq distracting from every other threat. AP

So, thousands of deaths and woundings; billions of dollars spent, countless debates, the involvement of scores of nations, the blessing of most of the members of the U.N. are  distractions?

The freeing of over fifty million Muslims from the clutches of a lunatic dictator who upon his eventual death, would have brought about one of his (even more brutal) sons rein is nothing more than a distraction?

I choose number one.

It’s predictable but sadly a little peculiar when I read any liberal opinion piece and note where the blame is always laid for everything: at the feet of G.W. Bush.  Enough already.

Never mind that he had no hand in creating these quasi-public –private banks.

Never mind that Congress set up the absurd lending rules.

Never mind that the senior New York Senator yelled “fire” in the theatre a few weeks ago and may have exacerbated an already shaky situation. (Not a lot of talk about that at The Times? Wonder why?)

Never mind that it is the Democrat party who believes it to be in a constant campaign mode.   And as such, it seems whatever can be seen as harming America is done since it may add a few more liberals to Congress. It’s all about the acquisition of power. Who is stepped on as a result is just expendable. It’s for the common good, don’t you know.

Never mind that a Democrat once said that for every hundred point drop in the Dow, 10 seats will be added to the Democrat majority.

Never mind that politicians like Murtha and Durbin and Kennedy lie and tarnish our soldiers.

Never mind that Obama has blamed America for almost everything in his campaign and his fellow space travelers giggle with delight. Why must we be destroyed before we can be blessed with his vision?

Almost every Democrat who has ever spoken to the press over the past few years makes it a point to talk down America. After a while the common folk start to believe it.

The Democrat party is playing a very dangerous game and it is time to stop. People will be hurt as a consequence to their never ending campaign mode. But it won’t be the beautiful people of Manhattan, or Greenwich or Hollywood. It will be, as it always has been whenever politicians create and then make worse a problem; the working people will be hit the hardest.

I never had the chance to meet the man. I was never honored by his handshake or his wave. I never even had the opportunity to talk to him, much as I would have loved to. But I knew the man.

We shared a common political philosophy, conservative. But we were willing to compromise, if our opposition could convince us of their plans merits. There was never any meanness in anything he said. Nothing was ever personal. I honestly don’t think the man had an enemy. Perhaps a few detractors, maybe some critics and a few who strongly disagreed with him; but how could anyone hate the man? That would be virtually impossible.

He was intelligent enough to know that he didn’t know everything.

And he was brave enough to stare death in the eye-perhaps with a tear in his own-and not blink.

I pray that God embraces you, Tony Snow, your family and your millions of friends. You are just now gone but already missed.

I was listening to someone on the radio the other day who mentioned that Justice John Paul Stevens might retire soon, because before the next election cycle hits-the man would be 92.

That, I guess, is the new retirement age. Good God! According to the life statistics I’ve seen recently, the guy should have died 20 years ago! And he still sits in judgment on our highest court.

Liberals simply do not ever retire. They think of themselves, I guess, as irreplaceable. A few more examples….

 Teddy, go home to your family and get to know them with the days you have left.

Somehow the nation will survive your demise.

One could argue that Robert Byrd had left us years ago when he first began his babbling incoherent speeches from the Senate floor. But he stayed and stayed. Maybe there weren’t enough Robert Byrd landmarks in West Virginia yet that delayed the man’s retirement? Did I miss his obit? If so, forgive my ignorance.

Tim Johnson, another liberal, suffered a considerable stroke, yet maintains his seat. I don’t believe the poor man can speak, but his seat is preserved by his colleagues. How is he serving his people?  He can’t be replaced?

Frank Lautenberg contributes nothing and often speaks in circles, due to his advanced years, yet he keeps another liberal seat warm. Remember how old Frank regained his seat? He retired once. Does anyone remember Torricelli? Does anyone remember the scandal? Does anyone recall how the Jersey election laws were swept aside by the overtly partisan N.J. Supreme Court when it almost looked like a Republican pick-up?

Who would argue with the point that even Arlen Specter, the liberal Republican, should retire.  The man must have other interests. How can any rational person actually believe that government service is more valuable than anything else? Where is that written? Maybe he could get a hobby, do some travelling, golf, spend time with his grandchildren, start up a benevolent organization, or anything. But he runs between chemo therapy sessions and  Senate sessions and we are to admire the man. It only makes me distrust the man more.  Arlen, go home.  You and your friends are indeed mortal. We will survive without your brilliance.

 These people NEVER retire. The Senate and the Courts are beginning to look like the Wednesday night bingo games at Shady Serenity Manor.( With all due respect to the seniors who may be housed there.)

Why we demand term limits on our President and airline captains, yet why we allow sick, brain challenged, incompetent and sometimes dangerous old fools to run our other affairs is beyond my comprehension.

However it does appear that conservatives are far more likely to get out of public service and re-enter the private world much more so than the liberals. Generally, conservatives have real lives, outside of the government. Liberals make government their life.

 The basic conservative principle that promotes individual responsibility, accountability and simply less arrogance than their liberal counterparts explains much of this. I guess liberals still believe that government is the answer and the people are incapable of governing themselves. The conservatives know that government is often the cause of the problem and grow weary over of the power grab, Washington games.

I predict one day in the not too distant future, a mad (liberal) scientist will discover a way for the DNA of Kennedy or Byrd or maybe even L.B.J to somehow, once again roam the halls of our Senate. Maybe in robot form or maybe a clone? When that happens, elections will be unnecessary. Instead of voting, we can all just say: “aye’. Then the metamorphosis from a two party nation into a one party state will  be complete. If we are not given a choice-It is impossible to choose.  For example: in all of New England, I believe there is but one Republican member of our Congress. One party rule is like a monopoly. Dangerous and quite often corrupt, since there is no opposition.

So, the fact that liberal politicians almost never retire and the virtual lock-step voting pattern that these people have; it may not be long before we become France.

Well, almost. It would be more like France with Spanish as the official language.

The Omamatrons who write for yahoo news don’t so much “report” what the news is; rather they write a story the way they want it to be. The facts don’t seem to deter them from turning what they present as an objective, impartial, news story and turning it into nothing more that Obama campaign ad

I was a little surprised, however at the glaring partisanship in this story, but I guess when a reporter has something crawling up his leg at the mere mention of Obama,,. The Messiah. Well I guess they can’t help themselves. And they don’t.

Let’s unpack this prime example of journalistic malpractice, shall we?

[Despite his background as a lawyer and law lecturer at the University of Chicago, Barack Obama has said little from the stump about legal issues, particularly what sort of justices he’d want on the Supreme Court…John McCain, who has no legal background and who generally has not made matters of jurisprudence one of his signature issues in the Senate, has recently been more aggressive in offering his views on the law while campaigning.]

Ok. The “journalist” in the first two sentences is obviously trying to persuade us that since McCain has no legal background and Barack does, why any fool can see that whatever Obama comes up with, with regards to Supreme Court nominees will be educated and wise. McCain’s choices’ would only be partisan because, after all, the man has no legal background.

************************************************************************************************************************

[He’s done so in part to assuage lingering concerns among conservatives stemming from his participation in the so-called “gang of 14,” a group made up of seven senators from each party who brokered a deal on judicial nominations that conservatives considered a betrayal of the prerogatives of the Senate’s then-Republican majority.]

So now this journalist becomes a psychic. He just states as fact that McCain is only pandering to the right. It’s already been established that McCain is ignorant. Now he is a panderer.  

******************************************************************************************************************

[“This is mostly about base politics,” said Thomas Goldstein, who heads the Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump Strauss and a founder of the well-read SCOTUSblog. “Conservatives have always cared more about judges—have always recognized their lifetime appointments and their power much more than Democrats and progressives.”]

I don’t really know how to respond to this, except to say this guy could not be more wrong. The conservatives care more about who is nominated? It is the left, not the right, who use the courts as a by-pass to enact virtually everything. Conservatives still kind of believe in the constitution as written, not one that is living and breathing and subject to foreign law and the whims of a “progressive” society.

That would be a Liberal interpretation!

***********************************************************************************************************************

[McCain mostly soothed his base’s concerns when, flanked by admired elders of the conservative legal movement, he delivered a May 6 speech that Jeffery Toobin wrote in the New Yorker “amounted to a dog whistle for the right” that made clear that he’d nominate judges who are skeptical of the “right to privacy” that upholds the landmark abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade.]

I just took out my copy of the constitution…I just can’t seem to find that pesky “right to privacy” amendment. I did find a right to life, however. Seems like if they wanted us all to be able to harpoon our unborn children because they would have caused their mothers an inconvenience, then why wouldn’t they have just said that. How is a right to privacy in anyway germane to infanticide? No one has ever been able to explain that. Probably because what the court did and what this journalist does is come to a conclusion first and then look to find the rationales for it. I think it’s called reverse logic or, more accurately, no logic.

************************************************************************************************************************

[“McCain wants to appoint people like [Bush nominees] Roberts and Alito,” University of Chicago law professor and informal Obama advisor Cass Sunstein told Politico. “If you want a Court that would rethink Roe and defer to the president on large questions of presidential power, that’s more likely with McCain.”]

McCain has said what type of Justice he would nominate. And no Sunstein, I don’t want a justice “rethinking” anything. You may prefer someone who ‘rethinks”, but I prefer one who interprets the intent and refrains from interjecting his personal thoughts into what is essentially an umpire’s duty. They must call them as they see them based on the written law that precedes them. They can’t (but often do) form a conclusion first, and then find a rationale for their conclusions.

And further, the courts do not “defer” to the president as to what his power is or isn’t. We already have a document that details that. It’s called the Constitution. Presidents conduct war, not the courts or congress. It can be no other way. It does not matter that you don’t like this war. Your feelings have nothing to do with what is or isn’t a Presidential power. Shut up already.

*********************************************************************************************************************

[In recent weeks both candidates have commented on a series of high-profile Supreme Court decisions. McCain criticized a ruling granting detainees in Guantanamo Bay access to U.S. courts, while Obama praised it. Both candidates opposed a decision that found the death penalty to be unconstitutional in individual crimes (unlike treason or espionage) where the victim’s life was not taken. And both men praised the Supreme Court’s declaration that the Washington, D.C. handgun ban was a violation of the Second Amendment.]

It strikes me as a little ridiculous that Obama is given a pass on his past gun ownership statements. Chicago has a similar law. Will Obama ask that it be repealed? I doubt it.

 The justices that he would have nominated-the four liberals who almost always vote as a block-would deny citizens their second amendment rights. Obama’s statements on agreeing with the liberals on the court who gave citizens rights to foreign terrorists simply mirror the Democrats platform that maintains we are not at war with anyone. Terrorism can be prosecuted in the courts. This is not only ignorant, but dangerous. And if we embrace the Obama theory, in my humble opinion more people will die. If we find Osama, does Obama support killing him or serving him with a summons? Incredibly, he prefers the latter.

We tried the legal route before, and it did not work. Why would he think that now it would? Oh, that’s right, liberals only look at intent, not results.

**********************************************************************************************************************

[Even when Obama, who voted against confirming both Roberts and Alito, has taken the same positions as McCain, however, McCain has aggressively sought to underscore differences.]

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. Obama, during his campaign, can say whatever the hell he needs to, and does, but to even hint that he and McCain agree on judicial philosophy is ludicrous. Obama will say whatever he feels he needs to now, but he remains the most liberal member of the Senate. A tiger can’t change his stripes and once he is elected, he won’t. Her will nominate all Ginsbergs all the time. His history on this is irrefutable. That’s why he seems so silent on this issue. He’s busy right now shuffling toward the center.

************************************************************************************************************************

[He told the National Sheriff’s Association on July 1, that the death penalty ruling was typical of what Obama’s Supreme Court appointees would likely decide. “My opponent may not care for this particular decision, but it was exactly the kind of opinion we could expect from an Obama Court.”]

Obama and all liberals always find sympathy for the perpetrator and he does so here. I’m not going to repeat what this monster did here, but I can’t muster a shred of compassion for this guy. For the victim, yes. Obama wants what is perceived as fair. I want what justice. I somehow thought that was the point of law.

************************************************************************************************************************

[After Obama praised the handgun ban decision, McCain accused the Democrat of “one in a long … series in reversals of positions,” pointing to an earlier statement from an unnamed Obama staffer who’d told the Chicago Tribune that “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” The Obama campaign, which had not otherwise made that claim, called the earlier statement an “inartful attempt” to characterize his position.]

Quite simply what Obama calls “inartful” most people would call a lie. Obama has never before even hinted that he believed in the absolute right to own a handgun. Never.

I’m leaning towards the “lie” side myself. The man seems eminently capable of deceit, so I believe this to be a good example.  

************************************************************************************************************************

[Whatever his reasons, Obama had mostly shied away from discussions of legal matters. Judicial nominations are not part of his stump speech, and even when opportunities have arisen, he has mostly found ways not to elaborate on his support for nominating Justices who would oppose overturning Roe]

So who is talking about “Roe”? The left? I thought this journalist maintains that it is the right who are more focused on the make-up of the court? Seems like this hack has been caught in his own trap.

And he knows full well why Obama has not spoken much about the court. Their decisions have been schizophrenic this year to say the least and unpopular at best. Whatever he says will alienate someone. So I guess, if he just plays the messiah and spouts platitudes and buries his past relationships, he can run out the clock.

**********************************************************************************************************************

[Thus far, legal activists on the left have held their fire about Obama's agreement with conservatives on the Court's death penalty and gun control rulings. Nan Aron, President of the Alliance for Justice, said that she is not concerned by the fact that Obama sided with conservatives on the death penalty and gun control decisions. "I think a more accurate predictor is to look at the votes he’s cast so far,” she said. “He cast 'no' votes on Roberts and Alito, which offers a very sharp contrast with John McCain. McCain wants to appoint more justices like Alito and Roberts, while Obama wants to appoint more justices like Earl Warren.”]

Obama did not side with the conservatives on the death penalty issue! McCain and Obama may have agreed with this one special case, but McCain never has been a spokesman for the conservatives, and he is not now! Most conservatives want this monster euthanized or castrated.

Again, when thinking Obama and Judges-think ACLU and Move-on and Soros and Kos and Nan Aron.

************************************************************************************************************************

{“What the left is concerned about going into the 2008 elections,” said Goldstein, “are two things that don’t have anything to do with the Supreme Court: the War in Iraq, and people’s pockets.”]

One word: nonsense. (Another word comes to mind, but this is a family column.)

*********************************************************************************************************************

[“There is not an independent voter in America, said Goldstein, “who is going to choose a president on the basis of the Supreme Court.”]

 Wrong again. There is at least one, me. (And I’m sure millions of others, as well.)

McCain really ain’t doing much else for me, at this point. Just call me a one issue voter. It IS that important to me and it is for my disingenuous opposition too.

 I am thoroughly sick of reading about what Obama is calling for.

Every day the man calls for something else; or at least that’s what the papers say.

I think today he called for a number of things. It’s almost as though he believes anyone cares what he calls for. Journalists and political junkies are really the only two groups who actually do. They have to fill their pages up with something, I guess.

 Obama is the supreme egotist. He is the most arrogant, bitter, pandering, dishonest politician we have ever been cursed with. And I really don’t give a damn that his daddy was black or that his bitter wife is now proud

Today I see where he is calling for a more robust alliance between church and state. I guess Bush’s faith based initiatives do not go far enough for him. This is an old Clinton tactic. Take your opponents issues and make them your own, thereby negating whatever political advantage they may have had.

Obama doesn’t have to actually believe what he calls for. I honestly don’t think the man believes in anything, except his own mission. That explains his weekly speeches on subjects that have nothing to do with government.

For example, his speech on race in America was hailed as a masterpiece. Chris Matthews had something crawl up his leg. Keith Olbermann squealed with delight and may have wet his pants, and the editorial boards of every major newspaper convulsed in delirium.

 But now, can anyone out there remember even a single line from this alleged this piece of history? It’s faded away from the memory of most because there was no substance there to begin with. Everything this guy does is fleeting. That’s why he keeps doing things; to stay in our focus. He has to keep moving, because no one can hit a moving target.

Recently he gave a lecture on patriotism. That’s a little like Madonna giving a talk on modesty.

The definition of patriotism is simply the belief in the love of one’s country. Obama does not love his country because it isn’t the way he wants it. He knows what is best for all of us. We either must put our faith in him or face castigation as racist, sexist, or homophobe. He offers no other options.

Obama wants to remake our country into what his professors taught him.

I’m sorry, but I don’t want him to lead us in his real-life sociology thesis.

This guy scares the hell out of me!