The Barack Obama web site features a quote at the top of his page on Defense that states his vision of "A 21st Century Military for America":

“Our country's greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. When we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.” [Emphasis added]

— Barack Obama, Chicago Foreign Affairs Council, April 23, 2007

But just 1 month after making that statement, what did Barack Obama do to "ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission"?

May 25, 2007 9:07 AM
...
Last night 80 Senators voted for a bill that will fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without a timetable for US troop withdrawal.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who voted against going to war in the first place, voted YEA. "I cannot vote to stop funding our troops who are in harm's way," he said. "It is not the proper way that we can bring this was to an end. It is not the proper way that we can put pressure on Iraqi leaders."
Clinton and Obama felt differently, though the decision was apparently not easy. Neither would discuss the vote before it was cast. Both were among the last dozen or so to vote; Obama slipped in quietly onto the Senate floor at close to 8:45 p.m., said hi to some colleagues, approached the desk, quietly said "No," and left.

Only seconds later, Clinton did the same. [Emphasis added]

It's a bit difficult to pay for resources and equipment to accomplish your mission if there is no finding, isn't it?

Change you can believe in.

Either way conditions have become complex for the political and cultural right. The White House---the seat of the conservative movement's waning power---its last remaining center of influence having lost both houses of congress in 2006---has become a Bush family fuherbunker. The shocked and awed cabinet secretaries and political appointees of this broken administration are everywhere retreating on, or reversing themselves on, every principle they once held.

[...] "An exhausted Dubya is now doing everything he once said he would not," writes Gordon G. Chang for Commentary Magazine's Contentious Blog blog burst titled Is the Bush Administration Crumbling?

The President, for example, is rewarding North Korea prior to surrender of its nuclear weapons. On Wednesday, the administration agreed to talk with Iran even though the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium and undoubtedly maintaining a covert bomb program. And on the same day, it was revealed that the Bush White House is undermining democratic Taiwan to please communist China by refusing to sell the former defensive weapons. Next month, the President will be joining the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to honor Chinese autocrats at the opening ceremony of an event recently described as the “Totalitarian Olympics.”

Mr. Bush probably won’t have to sit next to Sudan’s Omar Bashir–seating is said to be alphabetical for attending heads of state–only because the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Monday asked for an arrest warrant for the genocidal ruler.

The American leader who believes so much in freedom and democracy has done more than any autocrat to support the strengthening coalition of authoritarian states. Getting little in return, Bush is yielding on almost every request from Beijing and most of them from Moscow. In doing so, he is abandoning American allies and undermining critical American goals. By reversing course on major initiatives, he is eroding American credibility. Now, it seems every foreign policy of the Bush administration is, well, Kerryesque [...]

Also:

[...] "last week the Bush administration abruptly refined that position--as Barack Obama might put it," writes Stephen F. Hayes in a www.weeklystandard.com article titled 'Stunningly Shameful'; The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran

Without any indication that Iran was suspending its uranium enrichment program, the State Department announced that Burns would be heading to Switzerland for direct meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiators.

So what changed? Very little [...]

[...] It has been a dispiriting few weeks. Several conservative political appointees have said that they are embarrassed to be working in the Bush administration. One called the new policies "preemptive capitulation." Another suggested that whatever credit the Bush administration deserved for keeping Americans safe in the seven years after 9/11 would be offset by the blame the administration will have earned for emboldening America's enemies with its reflexive weakness. And a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice said: "This is stunningly shameful."

But, our diplomats were not finished. In his appearance on Capitol Hill, Burns was asked about reports that the United States is considering opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran. He declined to talk about internal State Department deliberations but reported that such a move--one that would bring the United States one step closer to the "more normal relationship" Condoleezza Rice promised back in January without any indication that Iran intends to stop or even slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons--is under active consideration.

The Iranians have certainly been paying attention to this kinder, gentler Bush administration and its sudden embrace of the thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another school of diplomacy.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei understands that aggressive rhetoric is effective. "The positions of the Islamic Republic and the red lines of the Iranian nation are very clear and if the parties of negotiation negotiate within this framework, the authorities will engage in dialogue. But the condition is that no one threatens the Iranian nation," he said last week, according to a translation published on NationalReviewOnline. "The Iranian nation will cut the hand which is raised against the dear Islamic Republic. .  .  . There are those who say that the American president would do something in his final months of presidency. .  .  . [T]he Iranian nation will punish him, even if he is out of office and no longer has any official responsibility" [...]

So, what is the sum of all this? Where do these paths lead? Is the party over?---by this we mean the GOP. Or is more than just the party over? Will anything rise up in its place? Our hopes too must rest on the person and presence of one Barack Obama. Sen. Obama must somehow provoke enough resistance to organize a coalition coherent enough to defeat him at the polls in November---however narrowly or even on a split decision like 2000. Or once in office stay true to his promises and govern from the left flanked by Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi. This alone could resuscitate the political right. One would hope.

How sad, however, that our destiny is no longer our own.

...The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand ...

N.

Well, if we don't impeach them, and we can't off them, can we at least jail them for the rest of their unnatural lives???

Israel charged six Arabs on Friday with trying to assassinate George W. during one of his visits to Jerusalem.

The men tried to contact al-Qaeda through a website. They wanted advice on how to shoot down a helicopter. Unfortunately they were amateurs and didn't realize they simply could have contacted Hamas or Hezbollah who would have been more than happy to advise them on the matter.

The Israelis managed to keep Bushwack secure.

Well, it's probably all for the best. Had they taken him out, it would have meant Darth Cheney would have taken over. And even six months of him as President would have meant the end of civilization as we know it.

Everyone is watching, so he's either going to up his foreign policy cred or make a McCain-like gaffe with no Liebermann in sight.

I highly doubt that, but I've been wrong many times.

AP video below discussing Obama's meeting with Afghan leaders.

Scoopit!

That New Yorker cover continues to provoke comment. Jon Stewart, The Daily Show takes a satirical look. He skewers the media in their own words.

(Hat Tip: Jake Tapper - Political Punch )

Stewart suggests that the more appropriate response from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois -- rather than being offended (or saying the cover "fueled some misconceptions about me," as he did on CNN last night) -- would be to have said "Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists! Of which Barack Obama is not. It's just a f---ing cartoon!"

Scoopit!

Scoopit!

Truly Winston Peters is Pinocchio. Today Tim Hume reports, in an article in The Sunday Star Times on how Peters continues to bluster, obfuscate and generally squirm his way around the issue of the payment by Owen Glenn to his lawyer.

The article in it's headline indicates the stance Peters is taking, blaming the media. Tim Hume commences the article with:-

AN UNBOWED and belligerent Winston Peters continued to attack the media yesterday and denied he had misled the public over an expatriate billionaire's $100,000 contribution to his legal bills.

Adam is reminded of the quip by Mandy Rice-Davies, a bit player in the Profumo affair. Rice-Davies, when giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Davis, responded to the prosecuting counsel pointing out that Lord Astor denied having an affair or having even met her, replied,

"Well, he would, wouldn't he?"

This quip has passed into general usage. (Tangentially, Adam would note that Profumo's downfall was brought about not so much because of his marital indiscretion as to his having misled the House of Commons.)

The report goes on:-

"Not one cent went to New Zealand First, not one cent went to me," he told reporters at New Zealand First's 15th anniversary convention at Auckland's Alexandra Park.

"A donation was made to a legal case, which is a massive difference to what you're trying to say."

Semantically it is possible that a case could be made that not one cent went to NZ First, though questions remain over the money trail.

Adam thinks that it might be useful to ponder the question over whether or not NZ First would have benefited, in effect, from Mr Glenn's largesse if Mr Peters litigation had been successful.

In regard to the question as to whether Peters received the money, Adam accepts that the money was paid to the lawyer and not to Peters. Thus again semantically correct. Let us not forget that Peters is a lawyer.

Where Adam takes issue is with the impression which Peters thus creates of not receiving any benefit.

To Adam's mind Peters benefited from this payment as he did not have to pay his legal bills himself. Therefore, Adam considers this is equivalent to Peters receiving the money and then paying the lawyer.

Rodney Hide on TVNZ's Agenda programme this morning raised concerns over this and whether laws had been breached.

Peters then renewed his attacks on the media:-

He angrily renewed his attack on the New Zealand Herald, which last week published emails revealing the donation. "They got all the facts wrong, and I still say they should apologise to New Zealand First and the public and do their duty and resign."

Adam does not agree that the Herald was wrong in substance. In fact with the admission by Peters the whole area of political funding has become even murkier. Adam thinks that Peters at the very least is being hypocritical given comments he has made in the past about political funding and transparency.

These disclosures raise critical questions concerning the governance process within NZ First, which need to be dispelled. Adam intends to comment on some of these at a later date.

What Adam found very disappointing were the comments attributed in the report to NZ First members at the conference:-

While many of the delegates expressed surprise at the admission the donation had been received, after such emphatic denials from Peters, his support appeared undiminished.

"He convinced me and I think he probably convinced the majority here," said Peter McCormack, a television technician who has been a party member for six years.

"Maybe when he was saying `no, no, no', in his own mind he was right, until yesterday. Mind you, I would side with Winston even if he was wrong."

George McLean, the party's 82-year-old committee chair in Helensville, said Winston was "as straight as a bullet".

Party treasurer Brent Catchpole said Peters' account of the donation was credible.

"New Zealand First had no involvement with the petition that money was for. It was a petition brought by Winston as a member of parliament."

Adam can scarcely credit such remarks being made given the available information.

Though it would appear that the following quotation, attributed to Abraham Lincoln, still applies:-

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Let us hope that at the coming general election it is the final phrase that applies in respect of Winston Peters.

Scoopit!

Netroots Nation or Nation of Sheep?

Ronnie Cummins | July 19/20, 2008

Saturday morning, July 19. Sitting here at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin, Texas with several thousand other online activists. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Party Speaker of the House, the third most powerful politician in the United States, is up on the podium, doing her best to damp down the mounting criticism of the Democratic Party's shameful collaboration in funding the war and aiding and abetting the Bush administration's shredding of the Constitution.

Before Pelosi speaks, an announcement is made from the podium that disruptions will not be tolerated--if any of us express our frustrations too passionately with Pelosi and the sell-out Democratic Party leadership we will be arrested. The first question the Netroots moderator poses to Pelosi is about impeachment. This generates considerable applause and cheers from the crowd. Pelosi, notorious for proclaiming that "impeachment is off the table," artfully dodges the question and evasively talks about censuring the Bush administration and getting tough on Karl Rove. This generates polite clapping from the front of the room, where all the tables have apparently been "reserved" for Pelosi fans. In contrast I can see groans, grimaces, and shaking of heads from many of us, the netroots rabble, sitting at the back of the hall.

I resist a strong urge to get up and leave. How long will the centrist bureaucrats of Netroots Nation and groups like MoveOn roll-over for lowest common denominator Democrats and Barack Obama? After an hour of rather boring rhetoric by Pelosi, Al Gore makes a surprise appearance on the stage, letting Nancy off the hook.

After a standing ovation, Gore reminds us that the polar icecaps are melting even faster than scientists had expected. The global climate crisis, he goes on, is about to turn into a climate catastrophe. Gore then points out that global warming is of course connected to the energy crisis, reliance on foreign oil, and the economic crisis, as well as the lack of political leadership in the country. Finally, to cheers from the crowd, Gore calls on the assembled netroots to educate the public and get behind his campaign http://www.wecansolveit.org to generate 100% of the nation's electricity from renewable sources of energy within 10 years.

Pelosi once again joins Gore on the stage and rather unconvincingly tries to present herself and the Democratic majority in the Congress as "revolutionary" on energy matters. This is too much for a number of us in the audience, and finally a man yells out at the top of his lungs, "What about the goddamn impeachment resolution?" The security guards at side of the hall look nervously around, but no one makes a move to arrest the man.

After unconvincingly claiming that she is trying to be "bi-partisan" today, and dodging a question about whether or not she will get behind Gore's campaign for 100% renewable electricity by 2018, Pelosi rather anti-climatically reminds us that nothing will change unless we "get out there and elect Obama and a Democratic majority in November..."

Whether or not you decide to vote for Democrat Barack Obama, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, or Independent Ralph Nader in November, please go to http://www.GrassrootsNetroots.org and join a growing radical populist army who believe we need an alternative to MoveOn and Democratic Party centrists. The doomsday clock is ticking. Let's fight like hell to make sure that 2008 is not the year where we tried to change drivers, but still went over the cliff.

It's a Dull Race by Recent Standards

Alexander Cockburn | July 19/20, 2008

Barack Obama’s team worries that a politically significant slice of the American people think he’s not really a devout Christian as he claims, but a closet Muslim plotting to haul the green crescent up the White House flagpole. But what else have the American people got to chew on in this lull before the big party conventions a month and a half away, with the Olympics looming up? Now that Hillary Clinton is out of the race the campaign has gone flat. You can measure the tedium by the fatuous articles claiming that Obama, a mainstream corporate Democrat if ever I saw one, has somehow betrayed the heritage of Robespierre or at least the British Fabians and “lunged to the right”.

This time in the presidential race four years ago, the press was stuffed with rich fare about John Kerry’s love affairs and the ample millions of his tiresome Portuguese wife Teresa, formerly married to the Heinz ketchup fortune. Eight years ago there was an equally nutritious menu featuring George Bush’s taste for cocaine, his drunk driving rap and his de facto desertion from the National Guard. There were even, in an earlier time, orgies with Mexican hookers alleged in the “Bush suite” in the downtown Hilton in Midland, TX, while Laura smoked and read back home.

For those eager to detect conspiracy in high places (c. 98 per cent of all adult Americans) there was the membership of Bush Sr and Jr and also Kerry in Yales’ Skull and Bones club, where novices endured abominable rites, excitingly related on various Christian sites. Sample: “After this the initiate is brought before a picture of Judas Iscariot, whose name the group screams three times, and then he is led to the heart of the rite: the initiate is pushed to his knees before a human skull filled with blood placed at the foot of a human skeleton called Madame Pompadour. The crowd implores him to 'Drink it! Drink it! Drink it!’ and he does. Then he is hurried to a man dressed as the Pope. But not before the D whips him in the face with his tail.”

And before that there was Clinton time, ripe with scandal for eight delightful years.

By such high standards, the Obama-McCain face-off is dull stuff thus far. The nastiest financial scandal in John McCain’s life –- his efforts to protect Arizona banker Charles Keating – exploded 18 long years ago. His caddish behavior to the first Mrs McCain when he dumped her for the younger and very rich beer heiress Cindy Hensley was given a though workout in the Los Angeles Times last week. The Times reported that Nancy Reagan has never forgiven McCain for his foul conduct, hence her tepid endorsement of McCain. But since many Americans are divorced and stand accused by the betrayed partner as utter swine, McCain’s not going to face too much trouble on this one.

Stories swirl around McCain’s famously terrible temper and whether this has led to physical abuse of Cindy, prompting her to seek solace from gentler hands. But nothing credible by way of hard detail has surfaced this far. Her majestic credit card debt – as much as half a million owed to American Express –excites only envy.

John McCain’s conduct as a POW in North Vietnam has prompted fairly detailed accusations, many of them on this site that he collaborated with his captors and gave them significant details of US Navy flights plans. But these have not yet displayed any traction that might have dented his “war hero” status. Efforts by the New York Times some months ago to link him to an attractive young lobbyist == Vicki Iseman -- also failed to stick.

Obama weathered efforts to tie him to the Chicago real estate tycoon Tony Rezko, now convicted by a federal jury in Chicago on counts of fraud. Sillier attempts to turn Obama into a fan of the Weather Underground – a violent Sixties antiwar group - have failed, at least thus far. His married life with Michele seems beyond reproach. His career in the Illinois legislature and then the U.S. senate have not produced charges of direct corruption, though he has been a dutiful serf to large corporate interests, as has every member of the US congress with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

So, bleary Americans – well aware that neither candidate will do anything to improve their material condition -- have nothing much else to brood upon beyond the fact that Obama is half black, has “Hussain” as a middle name, spent formative years in his childhood in places like Indonesia surrounded by Muslims and is married to an attractive black woman who said earlier this year that she’d been ashamed of America till her husband ran for the presidency.

The New Yorker is creating a stir by running its cover of Obama in ethnic dress bumping fists with Michele sporting an Afro and a gun, with Osama bin Laden’s portrait on the wall behind him and an American flag burning in the grate. Obama says it doesn’t bother him, though it’s a slur on Muslims. Liberals whine that it fans the flames of prejudice. The editor of the New Yorker, David Remnick, claims to be stunned and upset that satire has been confused with reality. This is the magazine that has never apologized for running a very influential though entirely fake story by Jeffrey Goldberg before the Iraq war claiming seriously that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were bumping fists, while the American flag burned in the grate. Either Remnick is being disingenuous or he’s really stupid. Anyone familiar with editing material for the internet knows that satire is always taken as literal truth.

The latest New York Times-CBS poll shows that whites esteem Obama less than blacks and many of them don’t care for Michele. But the same poll shows that Obama leads McCain among Hispanic voters by 62 to 23 percent and that he’s leading McCain overall by 6 points.

The best thing, almost the only thing, that the Republicans have going for them is the race card, always a useful ace in the American political deck. Thus far, because McCain is playing a very weak game, it has not brought them significant advantage.

Get Out of the Way

Anthony Gregory | July 18, 2008

I wish to address the politicians, bureaucrats and ideologues who see this recession as an excuse for much more intervention into the economy. We are hearing calls for greater Federal Reserve powers, price controls, a radical reconstruction of domestic financial markets and the energy sector – essentially a second New Deal. We are predictably hearing that the last several years have discredited the free market – since Bush’s government, the largest by far in world history, is supposedly not big enough.

All this is very troubling. The war on terror has ushered in the greatest expansion, restructuring and renewal of the national security state, the empire and military-industrial complex since the Cold War, if not the Second World War. We have been spared any economic revolution approaching that of FDR, but our rulers wish to fix this deficiency.

At root here is a belief that laissez-faire has historically failed us, and has now failed us again. As the conventional story goes, free enterprise under Herbert Hoover brought on the stock market crash in 1929, and only the New Deal and entry into WWII brought America out of the Depression. We need once again to abandon our "free-market" economy to rein in the corporations, bring Wall Street into line, stabilize prices, prevent the closing of banks and financial institutions, and allow the central planners and bankers to do their magic to prevent another Depression.

The myths of the FDR era never die. All this despite the fact that the Federal Reserve was created sixteen years before the crash on ’29 and its credit expansion brought the crisis about in the first place; despite the signature of Roosevelt’s hand in the current crisis (Fannie Mae originated with him); despite the fact that for years we have been told the post-New Deal economy was one that would not fail us the way the "laissez-faire" 1920s did.

Indeed, we confront one of the great paradoxes of the left-liberal/neocon/establishment economic narrative: Supposedly, in enlightened modern US politics, the failed reliance on free enterprise has long been discredited, and so all the social democracy in the 20th century has finally saved us from the predations of greedy corporate America. But at the same time, corporations are allegedly more powerful and greedy than ever. They reconcile the contradiction simply by lying about Bush’s record, saying he has loosened the government’s grip on the economy. But there is virtually not a single area in which Bush has been more laissez-faire than Bill Clinton.

The center-left has no problem with such contradictions. The very same folks who five years ago demanded gas taxes to raise the price at the pump and other measures to discourage oil consumption and encourage alternative energy are today complaining that gas prices are too high and the government must do something to lower them. They do not want to just let the price go up, which would of course encourage alternatives all on its own.

Not that the gas prices are a total reflection of market forces. There are immense regulatory, tax and foreign policy costs in play here. Oil markets have been distorted by the war, which itself consumes a remarkable amount of petroleum just to be maintained.

Yet, given the interventionist world in which we find ourselves, supply and demand are still economic law. They cannot be repealed. Even, perhaps especially, assuming the very imperfect status quo, more intervention is not the answer (although as Mises pointed it, it’s the predictably most commonly proposed solution).

Going beyond oil as well as housing, a little monetary theory can explain this whole mess. What we are witnessing is the correction period of the business cycle, probably just beginning. Inflated real estate markets led to that absurd bubble, which Austrian economists have been calling a bubble for years, even as the mainstream pretended it was a permanent boom (just as they did in the 1920s). So we have the bubble’s bust. And inflation – the artificial growth of the money supply – has brought about higher prices in most sectors not currently undergoing correction. Some industries also mask the problem as they continue to outpace inflation – technological improvements have probably been all that has forestalled the very real impact of inflation, but even they will not be able to keep up forever. Ron Paul has made all this very clear in his campaign and in congressional monetary hearings, for those who were listening. (It seems as though the best economic analysis in the mainstream press is in the Onion. We’re laughing now, but how long will that last?)

Yet many people still want to blame the free market. Not the Progressive-Era Federal Reserve, not the New Deal’s legacy in real estate financing and the economic structure, not the Great Society’s entitlement state that continues to drain America’s wealth and drive health care and other prices upward at an accelerated pace, not Nixon’s destruction of the last remnants of the gold standard, not Greenspan and Bernanke’s inflation and not Bush’s economic meddling (some of which, in 2004, he proudly characterized as "the strongest corporate reforms since Franklin Roosevelt held the office that I'm honored to hold").

The interventionists blame the free market for what we are experiencing, which is no less absurd than the neocons’ attempt to blame 9/11 on insufficient intervention abroad.

But on economics, it is not just the neocons who shun the reality-based community. And so we hear from the political establishment: We need a second New Deal. Some put it just that way but most of them mean it, however they put it. How frightening.

This correction is and will be most unpleasant, but America can spring back shortly, just as it did after the sharp recession in 1920 and 1921, if only our leaders do now what they did then: virtually nothing. Get out of the way. You have long been trying to spur artificial growth by suspending the laws of economic gravity. But those laws are reasserting themselves. The worst you can possibly do is try to wage war on the recession, keep prices from rising now with controls, and – this would be especially cruel – keep prices from dropping when they eventually will. Under the Keynesian model, the worst thing you can do during recession is let prices fall, even though right now that’s what everyone claims to want.

But again, all this assumes the FDR legacy was what saved us from Depression. What nonsense. You can go by unemployment, which was only significantly reduced when FDR drafted millions into the military. Or you can go by gross domestic product and conventional metrics, in which case, as Robert Higgs points out, the period from 1945 to ’46 featured "the largest single-year drop of income in American history." But, as he says, no one talks about the Depression of 1946. That was actually the year of recovery.
In terms of the actual well-being of the American people, in terms of access to milk, sugar, clothing, automobiles, appliances and the rest, the Depression didn’t end in the 30s, or during World War II. The economy didn’t recover, in real terms, until FDR died, civilian production once again displaced military production, and much of the regulatory state he created was ratcheted back. Indeed, the Great Depression lasted a decade and a half exactly because FDR would not let the market work. For more on this, see Robert Higgs, Depression, War and Cold War.

Although now, Bush, like Herbert Hoover, is seen as a slave to laissez-faire, this is not true at all. In fact, both presidencies represent significant growths in domestic intervention. The characterization of Bush as another Hoover, with the exact wrong conclusions from the parallel, now threatens to inaugurate a whole new era of intervention. (For the causes of the ’29 crash and Hoover’s aggravating interventions in response, Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression is still the masterwork.)

But in 1932, FDR ran on a platform of cutting government dramatically, reducing taxes, cutting the government payroll, restoring sound money, and, generally speaking, moving toward the free market which Herbert Hoover had abandoned with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and other efforts to bring relief through intervention.

In short, FDR promised that as president he would get out of the way. Obama and McCain, on the other hand, both promise continuing the current interventionist policies, or even greatly expanding them. If you want real relief as I do, let’s hope they break their campaign promises just as completely as FDR did.

The Crisis Is Upon Us

Ron Paul | July 19, 2008

I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave concern for the future of America. The course we have taken over the past century has threatened our liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these long-held concerns, I have days – growing more frequent all the time – when I'm convinced the time is now upon us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some areas of our country. The world economy and political system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed.

Though the world has long suffered from the senselessness of wars that should have been avoided, my greatest fear is that the course on which we find ourselves will bring even greater conflict and economic suffering to the innocent people of the world – unless we quickly change our ways.

America, with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self-reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event.

The problem we face is not new in history. Authoritarianism has been around a long time. For centuries, inflation and debt have been used by tyrants to hold power, promote aggression, and provide “bread and circuses” for the people. The notion that a country can afford “guns and butter” with no significant penalty existed even before the 1960s when it became a popular slogan. It was then, though, we were told the Vietnam War and the massive expansion of the welfare state were not problems. The seventies proved that assumption wrong.

Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age – a globalism we could accept.

Instead, the wealth and freedom we now enjoy are shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges in our own country that our system of war and welfare has caused us to ignore.

I'm fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and things may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at our doorstep. Time is short for making a course correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes into deep hibernation.

There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than any the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it's been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers.

Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect. Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to promote a world empire backed by the most powerful army of history. This type of globalist intervention creates problems for all citizens of the world and fails to contribute to the well-being of the world's populations. Just think how our personal liberties have been trashed here at home in the last decade.

The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stock markets plunging; unemployment rising; massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we'll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression?

There are various reasons that the world economy has been globalized and the problems we face are worldwide. We cannot understand what we're facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble.

There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.

By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.

It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors.

Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited from this very flawed system. Because the world accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas (indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our dollars and gave us goods and services were only too anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed us to export our inflation and delay the consequences we now are starting to see.

But it was never destined to last, and now we have to pay the piper. Our huge foreign debt must be paid or liquidated. Our entitlements are coming due just as the world has become more reluctant to hold dollars. The consequence of that decision is price inflation in this country – and that's what we are witnessing today. Already price inflation overseas is even higher than here at home as a consequence of foreign central banks' willingness to monetize our debt.

Printing dollars over long periods of time may not immediately push prices up – yet in time it always does. Now we're seeing catch-up for past inflating of the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It's a gross distraction to hound away at “drill, drill, drill” as a solution to the dollar crisis and high gasoline prices. It's okay to let the market increase supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal Reserve monetary shenanigans.

This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I'm convinced that agreements among central banks to “monetize” U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone – especially the U.S. Congress that doesn't care, or just flat doesn't understand. As this “gift” to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm them when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever.

This time – since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved – the Fed has been able to “paper” over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history's greatest.

The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don't have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self-reliance and the principles of liberty.

Since the correction of all this misallocation of resources is necessary and must come, one can look for some good that may come as this “Big Event” unfolds.

There are two choices that people can make. The one choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with the status quo and prop up the system with more debt, inflation and lies. That won't happen.

One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do. That's the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have already lost too many of our personal liberties. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30's might look like Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30s and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up.

But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we do the right thing. I saw “Something Big” happening in the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high school and college kids who are quite willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of a free society and reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised them by so many do-good politicians.

If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn't take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it's possible is what is urgently needed.

One of the best parts of accepting self-reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one's own life can be achieved. This doesn't happen when the government assumes the role of guardian, parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of pride. But the real problem is the government can't provide the safety and economic security that it claims. The so-called good that government claims it can deliver is always achieved at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's a failed system and the young people know it.

Restoring a free society doesn't eliminate the need to get our house in order and to pay for the extravagant spending. But the pain would not be long-lasting if we did the right things, and best of all the empire would have to end for financial reasons. Our wars would stop, the attack on civil liberties would cease, and prosperity would return. The choices are clear: it shouldn't be difficult, but the big event now unfolding gives us a great opportunity to reverse the tide and resume the truly great American Revolution started in 1776. Opportunity knocks in spite of the urgency and the dangers we face.

Let's make “Something Big Is Happening” be the discovery that freedom works and is popular and the big economic and political event we're witnessing is a blessing in disguise.

Time Editor: America Has ‘Appetite for Big Government’

Paul Detrick | July 18, 2008

Time magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel told the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on July 17 that “there’s incredible despair out there and there’s a sense that, that something needs to be done and people have kind of an appetite for big government in a way” in America.

Stengel was citing a new poll, but the interview did not discuss the fact that the poll also found 80 percent of respondents said they should be responsible for carrying their own financial burdens.

The poll was a joint effort of Time magazine and the Rockefeller Foundation, an organization Stengel characterized as “on a mission themselves to help the American worker and find out about the economy.”

He suggested an appetite for big government might help Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). “If you say that favors Barack Obama, maybe it does, I don’t know,” Stengel said.

There is an “appetite of the American electorate for the federal government to take action,” Stengel said. “There’s 85 or 88 percent of people support public works projects.”

The interview touched on several aspects of the poll, including the finding that 85 percent of respondents believe the country is on the wrong track economically. That statistic is covered in the current issue of Time.

A few questions included in the poll that were not discussed on the show may have led Stengel to his “big government” conclusion:

• “Are state and local governments helping you a great deal in achieving economic security, helping somewhat, hurting somewhat, hurting a great deal, or not having much effect one way or another?”
• “How much are each of the following a part of achieving the American dream in your mind?” Respondents were asked to rate a group of statements, including the following:
  • “Being economically secure and not having to worry about being able to afford things.”
  • “Having the time to enjoy the good things in life without having to work too many hours.”
  • “Being able to feed myself and my family.”
  • “Reducing the effects of global warming.”
• “Do you agree or disagree with this statement? ‘The social contract of the 20th century has been broken and needs to be rewritten to reflect the current realities of life today.’”

Stengel has a history of offering his own interpretation of what America needs.

The editor appeared on MSNBC April 17 advocating for a government led “cap-and-trade policy” and saying the United States needed to make a “massive effort” to fight climate change. He’s also said people shouldn’t look for objective journalism.

“But this notion that journalism is objective, or must be objective is something that has always bothered me – because the notion about objectivity is in some ways a fantasy,” Stengel said. “I don’t know that there is as such a thing as objectivity.”

He later said as for journalistic ethics, “We sort of make it up as we go along and I think that is what will continue to happen.”

The Rockefeller Foundation describes itself on its Web site as a foundation that “ has sought to identify and attack at their source the underlying causes of human suffering.” The foundation also says that it focuses on areas like “ repairing weak, outmoded health systems” and “reweaving frayed social contracts.”

The July 17 broadcast appearance by Stengel was to promote the most recent issue of Time that focuses on the war in Afghanistan, where fighting has increased as the summer months began.

I guess McCain could say something like "I respect the opinion of Prime Minister al Maliki, but I believe that a 16 month redeployment is reckless and is tantamount to American defeat," but how is that different from saying "al Maliki, STFU and listen to McCain who really knows what you want"?  Really, try to come up with a reasonse which doesn't say that either al Maliki doesn't know what he's talking about, is dumb, is lying, or supports American defeat.  It's a tough job.

If the argument is what's best for the Iraqi's, and the Prime Minister of Iraq said that Obama's plan is what's best for them, how exactly can you argue that it isn't?

Hillary Clinton's revealing purchase: A website called HRC2012

Andrew Malcolm | July 19, 2008

Sometimes a website name is just a website name.

Maybe the move by a company that's worked closely with the former first lady is just what it seems: yet another step by Hillary Rodham Clinton to prepare for another run for the Senate from New York in four years. Or another run for the White House. We won't know, of course, for some time.

But that comes with the news, as reported in The Ticket early the other morning, that Clinton has urgently requested her 2008 general election supporters to approve transfer of their unusable donations for this year's presidential race over to her 2012 Senate campaign.

(And then, potentially, into a new presidential campaign fund, as she did with $10 million of her surplus 2006 Senate campaign funds).

If this year's donors don't approve that transfer soon, Clinton must return the '08 money by Aug. 28.

The respected blogger Marc Ambinder of TheAtlantic.com is reporting tonight that a company associated with Clinton's top advance team leaders, the Markham Group, purchased that domain name on June 8.

June 8th? Why does that ring a bell? Why, that's the very next day after her "I-give-up-and-heartily-support Obama" speech where her family was dressed for a funeral.

Clinton sources told Ambinder the New York senator was committed to helping elect Obama on Nov. 4, but she wanted to keep her options open for later. Imagine that in a seasoned politician.

Come 2012 Clinton would have to choose which race she'd enter. Two years ago in her first Senate reelection bid, her main website was HillaryClinton.com, which she still has. Plus HillPac.com for her political action committee and another one for her '08 campaign debt donations.

So why would she need another website with 2012 in it, unless.... Her disappointed presidential campaign supporters may take heart. But will they still help elect another Democrat this November? Or sit it out and let '12 fall to her?

We are just six weeks out from Clinton's '08 surrender to Barack Obama. And, surely, everyone knows exactly what that means: only 223 weeks left until the 2012 election.

Just shows how McCain has the same ethics as his sweetheart.  The man is not fit to be President or Commander-in-Chief. If Obama had done this to him, he'd by crying bloody murder. And for good reason.

This was reported yesterday from Reuters. And as we know, Obama did indeed travel to the Middle East this weekend:

Reuters reports that McCain shared details of Obama's trip to Iraq at a fundraiser:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.
The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

Josh Marshall points out that there's something very wrong with this:

The Reuters piece hints at it. But if Obama is going to be in Iraq this weekend, this is a major breach on McCain's part. As a knowledgeable insider notes ...
"If it is true that Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, it is a very serious mistake for McCain to have disclosed it publicly. Even for run-of-the-mill CODELs the military gives guidance like, "Please strongly discourage Congressional offices from issuing press releases prior to their trips which mention their intent to travel to the AOR and/or the dates of that travel or their scheduled meetings. Such releases are a serious compromise to OPSEC." If Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, I can not begin to imagine how much this is complicating the security planning for the trip."

It's known that Obama is leaving on his foreign trip this weekend and the Journal OpEd page this morning said that Obama could arrive in Iraq "as early as this weekend." And with a slew of reporters in tow, it's not exactly highly classified information. But there is a reason definite information about these sorts of trips aren't released in advance.

Hypothetically, maybe McCain was just guessing. But even so it would still be a serious lapse of judgment on his part.

In fact, McCain was furious when the press reported on his son serving in Iraq -- he feared the coverage would make him a target. ]]> http://fratres.wordpress.com/?p=927 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:11:01 +0000 james mary evans http://fratres.wordpress.com/?p=927 Ten years ago I preached a spiritual conference entitled "Angels and Demons." This is one of the regular sermons in our major series "Thunder and Lightning." We are this weekend making it available to our friends and supporters because we feel that the subject matter is so important. It is rare today that you will find any teaching or preaching on this subject in the Catholic Church. This is strange because it is in fact the teaching of the Catholic Church and always has been.

One cannot understand reality if one brackets out a large portion of reality--the preternatural order (angels and demons). If you try to arrive at valid conclusions concerning reality, but have left out a good part of that reality you are engaged in an exercise in futility. So many things today can only be understood in the light of this spiritual reality. Have you ever wondered why so many apparently educated and intelligent people just don't get it, especially with respect to such life and death matters as abortion?

There is a battle that goes on in the spiritual order between the forces of God and the forces of Satan, "the adversary." This battle between cosmic good and evil, between angels and demons, has man caught in the crosshairs. Man is an active player in his own salvation. We need the help of our allies the angels. To fail to enlist their help is reckless. To fail to realize the reality of the enemy forces, the demonic legions, can be ultimately and eternally fatal.

We are at war and our battle is not against flesh and blood, as St. Paul warns us in Ephesians 6. The battle between good and evil, truth and lies, life and death involves these angelic legions-good and evil. We are soldiers in God's army, like it or not, believe it or not. We must be aware of these fundamental teachings, learn them, and live in accordance with them.

God bless you,
Fr. John Corapi

Editors Note: Here below is the link to Father Corapi's website. From personal experience of having previously attended Father's conferences during my own conversion, I can attest that for any soul in search of no nonsense answers to questions concerning divine truth, the spiritual life or Holy Mother Church, you'll find it here--and without error... He, (along with his works) is a true light on the road of faith seeking understanding. Find it here: fathercorapi.com

I promised that I'd post something on who McCain is likely to pick for his running mate, so here I am making good on that promise. Like I said in the Obama VP guide, this is not an exercise in who McCain SHOULD pick for his running mate (since I'm obviously a partisan Obama supporter, my top three choices are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Jack Abramoff, heh). This was both a bit easier and bit harder for me than Obama's was. On the one hand Obama had quite a few people I could very easily see him putting on a short list for VP and a bunch of dark-horse choices. On the other hand, the reason why I could see that is because I have a pretty good idea of what Obama is looking for (and in Obama's case, despite what so many cable organizations want to show, there isn't wide-spread disappointment with him among core Democratic groups), McCain, on the other hand, does show signs of tepid support among his own base. McCain has to worry about not alienating the many facets of the right-wing when he selects his running mate. As I said above, this is not a list of people I think McCain should choose but a list of people I believe McCain will choose:

Short-List

• Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN)
• Gov. Charlie Crist (FL)
• Fmr Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)

Dark-horse

• Fmr Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
• Gov. Mark Sanford (SC)
• Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)
• Rep. Tom Davis (VA)

One thing which stands out about this list is how small it is compared to what I put for Obama's list, and the reason for that is that I just don't see McCain having that many people he is seriously considering for the VP spot (as compared to what Obama is doing). I was actually considering Pawlenty to be the frontrunner for VP for a while, but after hearing a few very interesting tid-bits, I'm beginning to think that Romney has a pretty decent shot (in fact, originally I considered Romney a dark-horse pick, which was conceivable but not likely). I'll add one more reason that McCain and his people might have Romney as being high on the list, he's not holding an office right now, McCain isn't particularly popular with the Republican party people, by choosing Romney he doesn't risk losing any state's governor's mansion or Senate seat (or House seat, as I have listed Davis, who is retiring this year, as a dark-horse choice). I'm still thinking that McCain will choose Pawlenty or Crist, but I'm no longer going to be surprised if he choose Romney.

Obama Meets with Afghani Government Officials with Senators Hagel and Reed

Earlier today I had a nice long talk with an Obama supporter.  I know people on the internet call them BOTS. Though I never understood why until today, BOTS has to stand for Barrack Obama Tortured Souls since this one I was talking to was totally drinking kool aide!

He walks up to me and says, “I know you hate Obama and I want to know why.  I want one good, solid reason why you would not vote for him.”  I said, “Don’t flatter him as I don’t like him well enough to hate him.”  The bot replies, “Seriously, give me one reason why you would not vote for him.”  So I stopped what I was doing and said, “I don’t like the people he associates with such as Ayers, Wright, Dohrn, Soros, Farrakhan, his nasty wife Michelle and others.”  The bot replies, “You cannot judge a person by people they know.”  Then I responded, “How about the fact that all major terrorists have endorsed him.”  Bot replied, “Oh isn’t that wonderful as they know he will talk to them and bring about world peace and they just love him for this!”  I am like, “You can’t be serious.  They know the guy is a push over and they want BO in office as he does not have a clue what he is doing. This idiot will start a nuclear war with Iran the way he is going.”  “Oh No!” said this young bot, “they understand him and understand he is bringing about hope and change and a new world so this is not a good enough reason not to vote for him.” By now I am irritated and replied, “How about the fact that he flip flops and lies constantly, is out for himself and does not care who he walks on to get what he wants."  “This is not a reason” the bot said, “you need to give me one good solid reason not to vote for him.”  “Ok, then try this” I said, “he has cheated his way to the top, he covers his tracks up wherever he goes, he is not who he says he is and best of all he is totally WEAK.”   So this the bot got very angry. He then yells at me, “You are not an enlightened one!  It is impossible to talk to a Hillbilly and you are just that! You hate him because you do not see his wonder and how great he is!”  To this I responded, “I would rather be a Hillbilly than to drink Kool-Aide.  I would not vote for this loser if he was the only candidate on the planet.  I love my country and put it first. This moron is a danger to this country and will NEVER get my vote.”  The Bot glared at me threw his hands up in the air and walked off shaking his head yelling, “I can’t talk to you about this you are just too stupid to listen!” 

As I watched him walk off into oblivion I was stunned.  I have dealt with the numerous death threats on this site and the illogical reasoning of these bots but this just blew me away.  I guess the thing here is I am not enlightened enough to see the wonder of Obama which I feel is a great gift from the powers that be.  The way this man is treated he acts like he has already won this race and McCain just needs to step out of the way.  I keep asking what he knows that we don’t.  Is it that our votes are not needed and he has the election rigged the way he did with the Dem nomination process?  If Howard Dean, Brazile and Pelosi had not stepped in and the media had been in just the least bit fair to Hillary Clinton. She would be the nominee right now. But she was shafted, railroaded and cheated.  With Hillary we would have had a Democrat for President this time in the white house.  Now they have removed this chance to put their anointed one in place which if the election is not rigged, he does not stand a chance of winning. 

Some rules for voting.  Make sure when you vote that your vote is counted.  Do not hand it to anyone you suspect is an Obama person as they will be in many of the voting places and especially in large cities.  Be alert for and to voter fraud. Immediately call it in if you witness it.  There have already been reports of new voter registrations being found that are not valid and not just a few of them either.   Remember the biggest thing is to get out to vote. Also take everyone with you that you can think of to vote.  The only way to beat Obama is to out vote him.  It would be soooo sweet to see him lose on Election night so let’s get moving here and recruit people to vote for John McCain. Get this idiot guy voted down.  Do not trust the polls as they are slanted in Obama’s favor just like everything else in this fraud election has been.  Let’s get Hillary back on the ticket in 2012 since we know that she is counting on us. We know so because this article excerpt proves it:

Hillary Campaign Aides Buy 2012 Website

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/

It is going to take a commander like John McCain to get us out of it.

I've been a Democrat since the Reagan years in the 80's.  I wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President.  Imbeciles in the Democratic Party had something else in mind, though.  And look what they have done.  They conveniently dispensed with the candidate 18,000,000 people (to round it off) wanted.  Now it seems we have two choices left.

I'm voting for John McCain.  This wasn't his war, but he will damn well know how to get us out of it, and he will damn well know what to do for all of the people who are now Veterans of this war.  John McCain is a war hero.

He was also a prisoner of war.  He understands the military because that has been his whole life.

My whole life has been as a pacifist.  I'm not for war, any war.  Even after 9/11 I watched in horror as I saw what we were about to do.  Well, guess what?  The new President has to clean up the mess that the old President got us into.  The new President has a hell of a lot on his plate.  It's almost as if he will need eyes in the back of his head and on both sides right now.  We have a tanking economy.  We have a war.  We have people living on the streets in cities everywhere.  We have global climate change.  We have food shortages right here.

It's looking like 1930, revisited.  Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

This is a time when we need to focus on our own Nationalism.  First.

People are not investing in American infrastructure.  Money they have earned here goes "home" elsewhere in the world to help their poor families.  In the meantime, every day another Corporation finds some cheap way to lay off more American workers.  Our roads, levees, bridges, schools, all the things that we take for granted that were built post WWII are beginning to crumble.

Nobody has given thought to that.  As the global warming causes more flooding in the heartland, which it will -- as the global warming causes more Katrinas here, which it will, just like all over the world, we need to pull our focus back to ourselves.  HERE.  Because this is OUR COUNTRY.

Right now, there are veterans living in homeless shelters, or on the streets.  These are human beings.  These are Americans.  Right now soldiers overseas are committing suicide.  Could this be because they see no end, no plan, no leadership?  I don't know.  But I do know this, after having read McCain's book "Faith of my Fathers" -- he is going to put the BEST team in place to solve the mess we are in.  He knows how.

You would ask, but Valentine, you are a Democrat, how could you?

Because the problems right now call for the Biggest Leader we have ever had since the 1930's in this country.  Every time I look at the Guardian in the web and see Mt. Rushmore, I think about American Presidents past.  We need one of those big ones right now.  Hillary Clinton was that, and she had Bill Clinton behind her.  John McCain is that, as well.  He isn't a dandy heading over to Europe to pose for photo ops in front of the Brandenburg Gate, that Germany was kind enough to remind him he didn't deserve in the first place.

We need to place our focus on ourselves, and those kids who are fighting.  McCain will know what to do.  Somebody has to.  We cannot take the insanity of the last eight years, the final capper being what is being snuck through as a last act in terms of birth control.  If you weren't a feminist, I'd consider becoming one pretty soon.  Look at Hillary Clinton!  You Democratic Women I voted in in California should be ashamed of yourselves right now.  Ashamed.  You are less than zero, for what you have done to this political party.  You might have supported Hillary Clinton when you had the chance, but no.  Now look, and look at the only candidate we had who really did care about women.  Well, like the trooper she is, she's fighting for us, like she always has.

John McCain is like Hillary Clinton to me.  In fact, he is considered a Democrat in many circles, because of his ideas.  He's even friends with Hillary Clinton.  They are both Americans who have given their lives over to service for this country.  Their WHOLE LIVES.

Take a look at this comment from the wire this morning, and see how a NON-LEADER speaks:

"...The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters before leaving the United States that he was looking forward during his trip, which will also take him to Iraq, to seeing the situation on the ground.

"I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what ... their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they've been doing..."

Are you getting a sense of something missing?  Well I am.  Now that the DNC has been imbecilic enough to take Hillary away as they have, there is NO OTHER CHOICE than to vote for McCain.  NONE.  Like I said, I am an anti-war Pacifist since I was little and Vietnam was the war du jour.

We need a leader who can clean up this mess we are in.  That's John McCain, unless by some slim chance Hillary can be put back where she belongs by the DNC.

In the meantime, you can listen to McCain's speech about what he thinks is necessary overseas right now.

If a Pacifist like myself -- who the Republicans call a "moonbat" believes in McCain?

If a Green Democrat like me has left the Democratic Party, for McCain, perhaps you should listen to what a LEADER sounds like in a Fireside Chat.  He's a Roosevelt, just like Teddy Roosevelt was.  Fearless.  Strong and Heroic.  Brave, Smart, and ready to take over our broken, shattered post 9/11 country.

If for some reason the DNC doesn't put Hillary back?  I know John McCain likes her and knows how great she is.  He'll find a special place for her, and people like Colin Powell.  I just feel that, and hope it with all my heart.  I am so scared for our country right now.  We have got to turn so many things around, we need the experts to come to the fore.

Here is the link to John McCain's page, where you can hear him speak about this war.

And here is what Hillary Clinton is doing right as we speak.  She is the finest Democrat I have known in my lifetime.  THE FINEST.  She is a shining example of what FEMINISM looks like, for women.

McCain mentioned something called "Unity of Command" in his speech.  I think that is what we need at the helm in Washington right now.  Unity of commanding LEADERS.  We need to do just what McCain is saying, and that is why I keep repeating his words verbatim here:

"REFORM, PROSPERITY, PEACE"