Seeing how thrilled so many of my fellow Americans are that a black man -- even a half-black man -- is going to be on the presidential ballot in November I can’t help wishing I were one of them. It’s as if there’s a great big party taking place and I’m stuck outside with my nose pressed against a window. But, frankly, I don’t know what the hoop-de-do is all about.

I mean, it’s always nice to be reminded that America is the place where anyone is free to achieve his dreams, although perhaps not quite yet her dreams. But when it comes to being president of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the best and the most powerful nation on earth, I don’t think we should be getting quite this excited. To me, Barack Obama seems like nothing more than the end result of affirmative action run amok.

His fans insist that it’s unfair to question his qualifications or judge him by his associations. That makes sense because if I were a fan of his, I sure wouldn’t want anyone scratching beneath the surface of a pleasant smile and a soothing voice. And, believe me, if he were auditioning for a job as a TV announcer, I’d hire him.

The Obamans insist that mentioning any of the man’s disreputable friends and religious mentors is a no-no that smacks of McCarthyism. This is an odd complaint because, one, McCarthy was right when he pointed out that the folks who associated with other people at Communist cell meetings were in fact Communists, and, two, every child is told that he’s going to be judged by the company he keeps. So, let’s face facts -- John Dillinger ran with a nicer crowd than this guy.

The first screwball we found out about was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the gutter mouth whose swinish sermons Obama lapped up for a thousand Sundays. Then there was Bill Ayers, the mad bomber who should have wound up sharing a cell with Ted Kaczynski, but instead was apparently offered the option of becoming a professor. And let us not forget Tony Rezko, who was recently found guilty by a Chicago jury of just about everything except kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. It’s still up in the air whether he’ll be offered the same deal as Bill Ayers, but there’s no getting around the fact that “Professor Rezko” has a nice ring to it.

It probably isn’t cricket to include Michelle Obama in this dirty laundry list of Barack’s associates, and yet it’s hard to simply overlook the fact that he chose to marry this nasty, bitter, openly racist ingrate.

Finally, when it appeared that we couldn’t sink any lower in the barrel, out popped Obama’s longtime friend and religious mentor, Father Michael Pfleger. The first time I became aware of this fellow was when I heard segments on the radio of the speech he delivered at Trinity United. When, later that day, I saw him on TV, I was shocked to see that he was white. Although he seems to have forgotten much of his religious training while serving at Faith Community of St. Sabina, on the South Side of Chicago, he has certainly mastered the black patois. He actually sounded blacker than either Rev. Wright or Louis Farrakhan, but he obviously thinks along the same unsavory lines.

Later in the week, Father Pfleger apologized for his performance, saying, “I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama’s life message, and I’m deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them.”

Apology not accepted. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of being played by the Obama crowd. Michelle didn’t mean she’d never been proud of America, Barack didn’t mean Iran was a small country we had no reason to fear, and Father Pfleger didn’t mean a word of his racist screed. Right…and a bear doesn’t make do-do in the woods.

Pfleger, by the way, not too long ago urged a crowd of blacks to drag a gun shop owner, John Riggio, into the street “like a rat” and “snuff him,” along with any Illinois state legislators who voted against gun control legislation. When accused of trying to incite murder, Father Pfleger, who prides himself on his street creds, claimed he had no idea that “snuff” is a synonym for murder. So far as I know, nobody bothered asking him, that being the case, exactly what it was he was exhorting the mob to do. Drag Mr. Ruggio out of his place of business and make him sneeze until he agreed to close up shop?

Frankly, I can’t fathom how it is Pfleger still has a job. But, perhaps after what it’s gone through in the past decade, the Church is so grateful that he’s not a pedophile costing them millions of dollars in lawsuits, this creep could walk down State Street at high noon wearing nothing but his turn-around collar and playing a harmonica and still be in line for a red hat.

Some of Obama’s other questionable associates are the thousands of blacks who flock to Trinity United every Sunday, eager to soak up their weekly dose of racist swill, laughing and applauding and shouting their heart-felt “amens;” thousands of nicely dressed black Americans who don’t have to pretend they disagree with a single ugly word of it because, unlike Barack Obama, they don’t happen to be running for president.

(Even O.C. grand jury acknowledges most of problem is stays, not family pets)

Game-show icon Bob Barker used to end each episode of “The Price Is Right” with his signature statement, “Help control the pet population; have your pet spayed and neutered.” Well, Mr. Barker might get his if the Orange County Board of Supervisors and cities in Orange County follow the advice of the recent county grand jury report, which recommended the mandatory spaying and neutering of cats and dogs in the county.

It is one thing for a private citizen to advocate this action. To have the government order citizens to do this is certainly quite another. According to grand jury report, the main reason behind this suggested mandate stems from the fact that O.C. Animal Care is inundated year after year with unwanted pets, and has no other choice but to euthanize them because the shelter simply does not have either the physical or and financial means to car for them.

The grand jury reports that in fiscal year 2006-07, O.C. Animal Care took in more than 29,000 stray pets and euthanized more than 13,000 at a cost of approximately $322.478 and with the population of Orange County continuing to rise, the number of pets ultimately to be euthanized would likely rise. It’s troubling to rad the number of pets euthanized in a given year. To some, adopting a mandatory neutering law might seem like a rational idea to counter this disheartening reality. But before jumping on the Nanny State bandwagon, it is important to look at the associated costs of such a mandate.

To begin with this proposal would make it fore difficult for families to responsibly breed household pets. Individuals wanting to do so would have to make their way through red tape to obtain a license for keeping unaltered pets and in the process, pay a fee. In Los Angeles County, a county with a mandatory neutering law (which O.C. grand jury seeks to emulate), fines for first-time offenses can reach $250, and a second offense can be as steep as $1,000, with a possible stint in jail.

But perhaps the most questionable aspect of the grand jury report steams from its ambiguous statements on page 8, where the grand jury admits that “[m]most pet owners are loving, attentive guardians of their pets… and are conscious of their pet’s breeding habits.” On the same page, report alleges “the overpopulation problem is caused primarily by stray, abandoned and unattended animals.” So, if the problem is caused “primarily by stray, abandoned and unattended animals” what good would a mandatory law imposed on the vast majority of pet owners who are “loving [and] attentive guardians of their pets,” exactly do? How would it really alter the number of pets taken in by O.C. Animal Care? If the problem mainly lies in stray pets reproducing, why punish families and their pets?

Instead of eroding freedom, private citizens and organizations need to convince pet owners that spaying and neutering their pets is the right course of action.

If you haven’t seen this, thought you might find this interesting… or at least entertaining…

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPch2k63uj4 –  From Joe American

We all knew what is happening now was coming…. 40 years ago, probably longer, and most people my age we concerned about the environment, over-population, developing alternative energy sources, world hunger and so on and so on.  The hippies became yuppies and now they find they have become the silent majority… like their parents were.  Shame on all of us.  This guy… Average Joe at least has a plan.  It sounds better than ruining the environment and perhaps we can be developing alternative sources of energy by the time our Iraqi Oil repayment plan is over?!?

President Bush may follow in the footsteps of his brother Jeb and convert to Catholicism, several European papers are reporting.

In the wake of the president’s visit to see Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, Italian newspapers, citing Vatican sources, said Bush was open to the idea of converting to Catholicism.

The Italian newspaper Il Foglio referred to such talk about Bush’s possible conversion and stated that “anything is possible, especially for someone reborn like Bush.”

Noting that Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after leaving office as Britain’s prime minister last year, the paper also stated that “if anything happens, it will happen after he finishes his period as president, not before. It is similar to Blair’s case, but with different circumstances.”

President Bush welcomed Pope Benedict XVI warmly when he visited the U.S. in April. And Vatican watchers noted that Bush met privately with the pontiff in the private gardens of the Vatican last Friday — an unprecedented place for the Pope to meet a head of state. Typically, the Vatican gardens are used by the Pope for private reflection.

A Vatican spokesman said the Pope used the unusual locale to reciprocate for the “warmth” Bush showed when the two met in Washington.

Though the Catholic Church has criticized the U.S. war in Iraq, Bush has been an ardent supporter of pro-life issues; he has staunchly opposed stem-cell research; and he opposes gay marriage — all issues important for Rome.

Currently Bush belongs to a Methodist church in Texas and attends an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C.

A friend of Bush, Father George William Rutler — who converted to Catholicism in 1979 — told the Catholic News Agency that Bush “is not unaware of how evangelicalism, by comparison with Catholicism, may seem more limited both theologically and historically.”

© 2008 Newsmax.

Sen Obama. From Illinois. History of corrupt politicians. Mentors like Jeremiah Wright. Backed by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Hezbollah. Hamas. Terrorist associates from the Weather Underground.  Wife claims shes never been proud of her country until her husband ran for President. Obama disrespects the National Anthem. No service to country. Nothing to show for his time in the US Senate. Connections to convicted felons. Convicted felon assisted in buying him his home.

Sen Mccain. Proudly served his country. American hero from the Vietnam War. POW. Refused to leave the POW torture camp unless all POWs were released. Retired Naval officer with 17 military awards including the Silver Star, Legion of Merit and Bronze Star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Sleep is one of the richest topics in science today: why we need it, why it can be hard to get, and how that affects everything from our athletic performance to our income. Daniel Kripke, co-director of research at the Scripps Clinic Sleep Center in La Jolla, Calif., has looked at the most important question of all. In 2002, he compared death rates among more than 1 million American adults who, as part of a study on cancer prevention, reported their average nightly amount of sleep. To many, his results were surprising, but they've since been corroborated by similar studies in Europe and East Asia. Kripke explains.

Q: How much sleep is ideal?

A: Studies show that people who sleep between 6.5 hr. and 7.5 hr. a night, as they report, live the longest. And people who sleep 8 hr. or more, or less than 6.5 hr., they don't live quite as long. There is just as much risk associated with sleeping too long as with sleeping too short. The big surprise is that long sleep seems to start at 8 hr. Sleeping 8.5 hr. might really be a little worse than sleeping 5 hr..

Morbidity [or sickness] is also "U-shaped" in the sense that both very short sleep and very long sleep are associated with many illnesses—with depression, with obesity—and therefore with heart disease—and so forth. But the [ideal amount of sleep] for different health measures isn't all in the same place. Most of the low points are at 7 or 8 hr., but there are some at 6 hr. and even at 9 hr. I think diabetes is lowest in 7-hr. sleepers [for example]. But these measures aren't as clear as the mortality data.

I think we can speculate [about why people who sleep from 6.5 to 7.5 hr. live longer], but we have to admit that we don't really understand the reasons. We don't really know yet what is cause and what is effect. So we don't know if a short sleeper can live longer by extending their sleep, and we don't know if a long sleeper can live longer by setting the alarm clock a bit earlier. We're hoping to organize tests of those questions.

One of the reasons I like to publicize these facts is that I think we can prevent a lot of insomnia and distress just by telling people that short sleep is O.K. We've all been told you ought to sleep 8 hr., but there was never any evidence. A very common problem we see at sleep clinics is people who spend too long in bed. They think they should sleep 8 or 9 hr., so they spend [that amount of time] in bed, with the result that they have trouble falling asleep and wake up a lot during the night. Oddly enough, a lot of the problem [of insomnia] is lying in bed awake, worrying about it. There have been many controlled studies in the U.S., Great Britain and other parts of Europe that show that an insomnia treatment that involves getting out of bed when you're not sleepy and restricting your time in bed actually helps people to sleep more. They get over their fear of the bed. They get over the worry, and become confident that when they go to bed, they will sleep. So spending less time in bed actually makes sleep better. It is in fact a more powerful and effective long-term treatment for insomnia than sleeping pills.

How would one sneak a left-wing radical into the Oval Office in broad daylight? Perhaps the same way that President George W. Bush got two strong conservatives on the Supreme Court: Find a candidate without a paper trail on the most controversial issues. For those of us who suspect but cannot yet prove that Barack Obama is a genuine radical leftist, his lack of much of a voting record is going to make it difficult to prove what his real values, policies and motives are to be president.

This is particularly the case because the media is so obviously going to give Obama cover not only for his current revelatory gaffes but also for embarrassing bits from his past.

For example, back on June 2, National Review Online ran an extraordinary article by Stanley Kurtz that closely assessed a 1995 article about Obama by Hank De Zutter titled "What Makes Obama Run?" The essence of his thesis is the following:

"De Zutter's article shows us that the full story of Obama's ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we've realized up to now. On Obama's own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago's most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn't want Trinity's political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.

"So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism."

Now, given how much the media has covered both the Pfleger and Wright matters, when a respectable journal, such as National Review, runs an article by a journalist of established credibility, such as Stanley Kurtz, that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Obama's relationships with Wright and Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media would seek out Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter article quotes him as saying are, in fact, things he said. They might even ask him to explain himself. Because if the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Obama said, then most of what he has said in the past few months about the Wright affair and Trinity United Church of Christ could not continue to be viewed as believable.

A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of a recent statement Obama made:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen." Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry? Yes, it is true that Obama was saying explicitly that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries (saying) OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostats)?

Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man? Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?

 By Tony Blankley

Now that Senator Barack Obama has become the Democrats' nominee for President of the United States, to the cheers of the media at home and abroad, he has written a letter to the Secretary of Defense, in a tone as if he is already President, addressing one of his subordinates.

The letter ends: "I look forward to your swift response."

With wars going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a Secretary of Defense might have some other things to look after, before making a "swift response" to a political candidate.

Because of the widely publicized statistic that suicide rates among American troops have gone up, Senator Obama says he wants the Secretary of Defense to tell him, swiftly:

"What changes will you make to provide our soldiers in theater with real access to mental health care?"

"What training has the Pentagon provided our medical professionals in theater to recognize who might be at risk of committing suicide?"

"What assistance are you providing families here at home to recognize the risk factors for suicide, so that they may help our service members get the assistance they need?"

"What programs has the Pentagon implemented to help reduce the stigma attached to mental health concerns so that service members are more likely to seek appropriate care?"

All this sounds very plausible, as so many other things that Senator Obama says sound plausible. But, like so many of those other things, it will not stand up under scrutiny.

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

No one needs to be reminded that suicide is a serious matter, whether among soldiers or civilians. But the media have managed to create the impression that it is military service overseas which is the cause of suicides among American troops, when civilians of the same ages and other demographic characteristics are committing suicide at an even higher rate at home.

Moreover, this is not the first time that military service overseas has been portrayed in the media as the cause of problems that are worse in the civilian population at home.

The New York Times led the way in making homicides committed by returning military veterans a front page story, blaming this on "combat trauma and the stress of deployment." Yet the New York Post showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

In other words, if military veterans are not completely immune to the problems found among civilians at home, then the veterans' problems are to be blamed on military service-- at least by the mainstream media.

Does Senator Obama know how the rate of suicides or homicides among military veterans compares to the rate of suicides or homicides among their civilian counterparts? Do the facts matter to him, as compared to an opportunity to score political points?

Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Senator Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of "the first black President" paramount, even if that means a President with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?

The media have been crucial to Barack Obama's whole candidacy. His only achievements of national significance in his entire career have been media achievements and rhetorical achievements.

Perhaps his greatest achievement has been running as a candidate with an image wholly incompatible with what he has actually been doing for decades. This man who is now supposedly going to "unite" us has for years worked hand in glove, and contributed both his own money and the taxpayers' money, to people who have sought to divide us in the most crude demagogic ways.

With all his expressed concern about the war in Iraq, he has not set foot in Iraq for more than two years-- including the very years when progress has been made against the terrorists there.

You don't need to know the facts when you have cocky ignorance and the media behind you.

By Thomas Sowell

Die Katze im Sack kaufen. (German). Kupic kota w worku. (Polish). Acheter chat en poche. (French). Dar gato por liebre. (Spanish). In plain English: Don’t buy a Pig-in-a-poke. That’s what you’re doing if you support Barak Obama for President.

The idiom "pig-in-a-poke" dates from the Late Middle Ages. When meat was in scarce supply, mischievous merchants would sell a suckling pig inside a poke (bag) to an unsuspecting shopper, who upon arriving home would discover she bought a cat, not a pig.

We have Obama’s slogan for Change. Indeed, the latest Gallup poll shows that 26% of Obama supporters stress that he would bring about change and a fresh approach. Yet, as the Wall Street Journal recently opined "The presidency has to be earned, and Americans have a right to know much more about [Obama] who is the least tested and experienced major party nominee in modern times."

Voters supporting Obama also emphasize that they do not want another Republican or a third Bush term (the latter, of course, echoes an often-heard refrain from Obama on the campaign trail) or agree with Obama’s policies. The balance of major responses are either the respondent always vote Democratic or a mere generic "Obama is the better candidate" response.

Of course, the overwhelming number of McCain supporters also don’t want a third Bush term. This is not asserting a oxymoron, but instead the very heart of what the McCain/ Republican/ Conservative battle cry should be: "Don’t replace Stupidity on the Right with Stupidity on the Left." (If you want a milder version, go with "Don’t replace Inexperience on the Right with Inexperience on the Left").

If Obama’s so-called Change means anything it is Neville Chamberlain Foreign Policy and Herbert Hoover Economics. Obama apparently wants to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yea, and Kennedy sat down with Nikita Khrushchev. In case you missed that history lesson, everyone universally regarded the June, 1961 Vienna summit as a total American diplomatic failure. JFK was only able to eclipse the Vienna failure with his famed Cuban Missile crisis response, a crisis precipitated by Khrushchev’s misreading of Kennedy from his dismal performance in Vienna. If Ahmadinejad or another Islamic crackpot determines Obama is weak, will Obama be able to succeed ala another Cuban Missile Crisis response? Do we really want to run that risk?

And then take Obama’s Hoover Economics. Raising taxes and imposing tariffs is the bottom line why America plunged into the Great Depression. We need lower taxes, coupled with lower, much lower government spending. Less is best. Any fifth grader could figure this out.

And finally, just who is Barak Obama? What has he done? What has he accomplished? What achievement will stand the test of time? In time, we measure our politicians not by what they say but what they have accomplished. The more accomplished, the better. Look at our prior presidents. The successful ones had a resume. Reagan two terms as governor of the largest state in the Union. The first Bush as VP, UN Ambassador, CIA Director, envoy to China, and Member of Congress. Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR. Even JFK had some experience behind, some exposure to the real world, first as a best-selling author, then as a PT boat captain, followed by service in both the House and Senate, including service on prestigious committees such as the McClellan committee.

Even the recently unsuccessful Presidents such as Carter and Clinton had some executive experience as governors before taking residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What does Obama have to offer. Four years at the bottom rung of seniority in the U.S. Senate which includes the failure to preside over a single hearing as a minor subcommittee chairman, a post crafted for him on a silver platter, along with a couple years as a Illinois state senator. His campaign theme might as well be "but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!"

Compare that to John McCain. Military record. Member of Congress. U.S. Senate. Bills actually passed into law. (No matter if you agree or disagree with McCain-Feingold, at least he did something). Worldwide tours meeting heads of state.

The message is simple (or least it should be). In America, we don’t buy a pig-in-the-poke. On this count alone, Barak Obama should lose.

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When Election Eay came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorist’s demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer!!

  By Thomas Sowell

To be posted VERY LOW on the refrigerator door - nose height.
Dear Dogs and Cats,

The dishes with the paw prints are yours and contain your food. The
other dishes are mine and contain my food. Please note, placing a paw
print in the middle of my plate and food does not stake a claim for it
becoming your food and dish, nor do I find that aesthetically pleasing
in the slightest.

The stairway was not designed by NASCAR and is not a racetrack.
Beating me to the bottom is not the object. Tripping me doesn't help
because I fall faster than you can run.

I cannot buy anything bigger than a king sized bed. I am very sorry
about this. Do not think I will continue sleeping on the couch to
ensure your comfort. Dogs and cats can actually curl up in a ball when
they sleep. It is not necessary to sleep perpendicular to each other
stretched out to the fullest extent possible. I also know that
sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out the other
end to maximize space is nothing but sarcasm.

For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom. If by
some miracle I beat you there and manage to get the door shut (!), it
is not necessary to claw, whine, meow, try to turn the knob or get
your paw under the edge and try to pull the door open. I must exit
through the same door I entered.

Also, I have been using the bathroom for years -- canine or feline
attendance is not required.

The proper order is kiss me, then go smell the other dog or cat's
butt. I cannot stress this enough!

To pacify you, my dear pets, I have posted the following message on
our front door:

To All Non-Pet Owners Who Visit & Like to Complain About Our Pets:

1. They live here. You don't.

2. If you don't want their hair on your clothes, stay off the
furniture. That's why they call it 'fur'niture.

3. I like my pets a lot better than I like most people.

4. To you, it's an animal. To me, he/she is an adopted son/daughter
who is short, hairy, walks on all fours and doesn't speak clearly.

Remember: Dogs and cats are better than kids because they:

1. Eat less

2. Don't ask for money all the time

3. Are easier to train

4. Normally come when called

5. Never ask to drive the car

6. Don't hang out with drug-using friends

7. Don't smoke or drink

8. Don't have to buy the latest fashions

9. Don't want to wear your clothes

10. Don't need a gazillion dollars for college, and...

11. If they get pregnant, you can sell their children.

No on California Prop 98 and Yes on California Prop 99

~~ Mark C. Patlan is worth a look of State Congressman ~~

An untold story lies behind Hillary Clinton’s determination to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — the possible revelation of a shocking recording of rival Barack Obama’s wife Michelle.

That’s the word from longtime political analyst Roger J. Stone Jr., who writes on his The StoneZONE Web site that the recording purportedly documents Michelle Obama making racist comments in a speech.

According to Stone, Hillary aides are in a race with Republicans to get their hands on the offensive recording.

“On the heels of Michelle Obama’s quote that she ‘has never been proud of her country’ until now, the new controversy could turn the contest upside down, but it more likely” to benefit “John McCain than to boost Hillary Clinton to the nomination — if the alleged recording exists,” Stone writes.

He also asserts that Mark Penn, Clinton’s former chief campaign strategist, has told sources that the bombshell “could come this week.”

By: Newsmax Staff © 2008 Newsmax

There is an old saying... If it looks like a _______, smells like a _______, and sounds like a ______, chances are pretty good that it is a _______.  And that old adage certainly holds true here... If it looks like a racist, smells like a racist, and sounds like a racist, chances are pretty good that she's/he's a racist!!!  The question is just, how many times to we need to be hit between the eyes until we get it???

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

MICHELLE OBAMA HIT NEXT?

The Presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is likely to be roiled in coming days by revelations that Michelle Obama made racist comments in a speech for which there is allegedly an indelible record. This is why Hillary Clinton is still in the race and why her people have been in a race with Republican Opposition Researchers to get their hands on the offensive recording.

On the heels of Michelle Obama's quote that she "has never been proud of her country" until now, the new controversy could turn the contest up-side down but is more likely to redound to the benefit of John McCain than to boost Hillary Clinton to the nomination- if the alleged recording exists.

Mark Penn, who "resigned" as the Clinton Campaign strategist but is still the Clinton campaign strategist told intimates the bombshell "could come this week"

The StoneZone Web

The book "Take Your Time -- Finding Balance in a Hurried World," by Eknath Easwaran, contains the following passage:

"Most relationships begin to fall apart through disagreements, and disagreements are not settled by argumentation and logic. They are resolved -- or, more accurately, dissolved -- through patience. Without patience you start retaliating, and the other person gets more upset and retaliates too. Instead of retaliating with a curt reply, slow down and refrain from answering immediately. As soon as you can manage it, try a smile and a sympathetic word.

"So much of the richness of life is to be found in companionship that I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is to heal bonds that have weakened and to bring freshness back to relationships that have grown stale."

This is very true.

What’s more, the less you try to force things, the faster they seem to happen. The more you try to force things, the longer you usually wait for results.

You might want to ask yourself the following questions, and trust your first responses:

What am I pushing to happen right now?

With whom do I tend to be most impatient?

In recognizing my impatience, can I become more patient with this individual?

In what other areas of my life will increased patience serve me?

What action is required in my life at this time?

Photo by Olivier Douliery / Abaca

Protesters outside during the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee in Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON - Democratic Party leaders agreed Saturday seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half votes into this summer's convention with a compromise that left Barack Obama on the verge of the nomination but riled Hillary Rodham Clinton backers who threatened to fight to the August convention.

"Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," said adviser Harold Ickes.
Clinton's camp maintains she was entitled to four additional Michigan delegates.

The decision by the party's Rules Committee raised slightly the total delegates Obama needs to clinch the nomination. Clinton advisers conceded privately he will likely hit the magic number after the final primaries are held Tuesday night, but said the ruling threatened to dash any hopes of a unified party.
"Mrs. Clinton has told me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee" at the convention, said Ickes, who is a member of the Rules Committee that voted Saturday.

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama just 66 delegates away from the majority needed to secure the nomination.

"Our main goal is to get this resolved so we can focus on winning Michigan and Florida," Obama said while campaigning in South Dakota. "There were compromises. ... I'm glad the DNC worked it through and I hope we can start focusing on substance as opposed to process."

The deal was reached after committee members deliberated for nine hours, including three where they met privately and argued fiercely over their eventual deal, according to several people inside. They voted in front of a raucous hotel ballroom that frequently interrupted proceedings and reflected deep divisions within the party.

"How can you call yourselves Democrats if you don't count the vote?" one of the many hecklers in the audience yelled loudly and repeatedly before being escorted out by security. "This is not the Democratic Party!"

A senior Clinton adviser, speaking on a condition of anonymity about internal campaign decisions, said the decision could be used to help her raise campaign donations for a scaled-down campaign that might focus on a signature issue — such as health care reform — rather than a traditional fight for the nomination.
The advisers said no decisions had been made, and it was still possible that Clinton would bow out once Obama goes over the top.
Clinton and her supporters wanted the Michigan and Florida delegations fully restored, according to January primaries that she won. But those contests were not recognized by the party because they were held too early, and both candidates agreed at the time they would not count.

Sticking point
But as Clinton tried to catch up to Obama's delegate lead, she has argued that the votes of the 2.3 million people who participated in the elections must be recognized.

Obama supporters argued that they did compromise by allowing her to take the majority of delegates in two contests where he didn't campaign.
The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.

The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention, according to the deal.

The deal passed 19-8. Thirteen members of the committee had endorsed Clinton for president, so she wasn't even able to keep her supporters together.
Allan Katz, a Rules Committee member and Obama supporter, said the Obama campaign had enough votes on the committee to support the campaign's proposal to split the delegates 50-50 in Michigan. Ultimately, the campaign agreed instead to support the compromise negotiated by the Michigan Democratic Party as a way to resolve the matter.

"The ironic thing is Obama had the majority of that committee," Katz said. "The Obama campaign wants to move on and compromise. We did not muscle our way through it. It was a wise decision from a well run and wise campaign that will reverberate."

But the irate reaction from Clinton's campaign and her supporters in the sharply divided audience shows Obama will have a long way to go to bring the party together after a long and divisive primary.

‘We just blew the election!’

"We just blew the election!" a woman in the audience shouted. The crowd was divided between cheering Obama supporters and booing Clinton supporters.
"This isn't unity! Count all the votes!" another audience member yelled.

Jim Roosevelt, co-chair of the committee, tried repeatedly to gavel it to order. "You are dishonoring your candidate when you disrupt the speakers," he chided.

There are three primaries left in the contest — Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Obama should get at least 30 delegates in the remaining primaries, meaning he has to pick up no more than about 30 more superdelegates even if he loses Puerto Rico and South Dakota.

He will not clinch the nomination this weekend, barring a barrage of superdelegates Sunday.

The committee also unanimously agreed to seat the Florida delegation based on the outcome of the January primary, with 105 pledged delegates for Clinton and 67 for Obama, but with each delegate getting half a vote as a penalty.

Proponents of full seating continuously interrupted the committee members as they explained their support of the compromise, then supporters of the deal shouted back.

"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.

"You shut up!" the second woman shouted back.

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5, in The Associated Press count. NBC News shows Obama with 2,055.5 and Clinton with 1,880.

(There are differences in how news organization count delegates and how they award superdelegates. The Associated Press and NBC news conduct separate delegate counts.)

A proposal favored by Clinton that would have fully seated the Florida delegation fully in accordance with the January primary went down with 12 votes in support and 15 against.

Tina Flournoy, who led Clinton's efforts to seat both states' delegations with full voting power, said she was disappointed by the outcome but knew the Clinton position had "no chance" of passing the committee.

"I understand the rules. ... I can tell you one thing that has driven these rules was being a party of inclusion," Flournoy said. "I wish my colleagues will vote differently."

Alice Huffman, a Clinton supporter on the committee, explained that the compromise giving delegates half votes was the next best thing to full seating.
"We will leave here more united than we came," she said.

Some audience members heckled her in response. "Lipstick on a pig!" one shouted.

This is still wrong... only half the people are really represented here... and why does Obama get delegates from a state where he chose to have his name removed from the ballot?  Yet the demorcrats have the nerve to continue their old babble about the Florida and Hanging Chads Decision.

Is there anyone else who feels like yelling, “Stop the one-sided treatment and stop the one-sided media reporting”?? 

And then today, Obama finally resigns from the Church of Bigotry And Hate Toward White People... still claiming he didn't know was going on there all these years and doesn't agree.  WOW... slow learner, oblivious, stupid or just a liar?!?  People you are being had!!  Change... just for the sake of change is not a good thing! Change has to have purpose and be based in fact and honesty!!!

NEW YORK, May 6, 2008 (AP Online delivered by Newstex) -- Early on in the new "Sex and the City" film -- and don't worry, we're not spoiling the plot here -- Carrie and longtime love Mr. Big are in bed together. A passionate interlude? Nah, they're just reading. Except they both need glasses, and there's only one pair.

Sharing reading glasses in bed? These two, who fogged up the small screen with their sexual chemistry during the TV series? Yes, and that small moment is a sweet acknowledgment that they've both aged.

As, of course, have we.

The series may be alive and well on TBS reruns. But it's been a full decade since "Sex and the City" premiered on HBO, bringing us sex columnist Carrie, her three gal pals, and their lustful urban quest for love, good sex and even better clothes.

That means these 30-somethings who spent six seasons drinking and trysting with abandon are now 40-somethings, with a couple characters even flirting with 50. And cynics are asking: Can they pull this off? How does "Sex and the City" get around the age issue?

In interviews with The Associated Press over the weekend, the cast answered that question unanimously: It doesn't. Age is not avoided here. It is embraced and even savored, like, well, a nice, cool Cosmopolitan.

"When we started cobbling together the movie, we knew there was only one road we could take," said Sarah Jessica Parker, who stars as Carrie and co-produced the film. "You cannot pretend we're 32, still running around New York drinking with liberty and looking for interesting sexual partnerships. It would have been vulgar. None of us wanted to do that."

And so the film begins not where the series left off four years ago, but in the present. Carrie, now in her early 40s, is now a contributing editor to Vogue and a best-selling author.

She's also got more money, and she's got Big, who, you may recall, flew to Paris in the series finale to rescue her from a bad relationship. Now they're in a happy place, and if you've seen the trailer, you know there are wedding plans afoot and a pretty amazing dress.

But you can tell things are going to be difficult, even sad. It's a far cry from the story producers originally planned to tell four years ago, when the project stalled, at least partly because of reported demands by Kim Cattrall, who plays Samantha, for more money and creative control.

"The movie we were going to make was totally different," said Parker, 43. "It was a romp, kind of like those Bob Hope and Bing Crosby road movies. But four years have passed, and there's just a lot more time invested in all these relationships."

That includes the ties between the women, said Cynthia Nixon, aka Miranda, the high-strung, hardworking lawyer who is at a breaking point when the movie begins.

"We were all aware, partly because of the big screen but also because we're older, that there has to be a maturity there with the way we confront problems," Nixon said. "So when Miranda and Carrie fight, they take a little distance and try and work it out."

Maturity can be seen in the clothes as well. "Were we still wearing these crazy outfits from 10 years ago, that would look wildly inappropriate," Nixon mused. But relax, fashionistas: Fabulous clothes still have their place.

"We do have fantastic clothes and shoes, that hasn't changed," noted Kristin Davis, who plays Charlotte, the Park Avenue socialite who's found domestic contentment with her