gadgetlady

I don't like Erica Jong either. I just thought it was a very interesting comment, and may be true.

It is truly sad. The economic disaster that will follow an Obama presidency is going to hit the poor and marginal middle-class like a ton of bricks. Folks like Obama, who made I think $4,700,000.00 last year will be fine.

From Erica Jong Tells Italians Obama Loss 'Will Spark the Second American Civil War. Blood Will Run in the Streets' | The New York Observer Erica Jong says, "If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me."

For those of you who think you could never make $250k/year and therefore Obama's proposed definition of "rich" (and therefore deserving of being punished with higher taxes) is perfectly fine with you, watch this -- in Obama's and Biden's own words: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3zHBXg18nc]YouTube - Slippery Slope[/ame]

Excellent "letter", Terri. As a small business owner, we are already looking for ways to cut back should Obama be elected -- unfortunately, in addition to us, this will also hit our employees and our customers. There's no way to avoid it; when our expenses increase (and taxes are one of our expenses), something else has to be marginalized. Salaries and benefits go down and retail prices go up. Anyone who thinks increasing the taxes will lead to anything good is delusional.

You're missing the point entirely. They identified themselves as "pro-choice" but disagreed with abortion after the baby's heart starts beating (not knowing that the heart is beating before the mother knows she's pregnant). That has nothing to do with "experiencing real life". Beyond that, many of those teenagers "experience real life" when they find themselves pregnant -- and aren't provided with the information they should have to make such a crucial decision.

Thanks for clarifying. Are you then saying that no one has tried to "impede, hinder, or prevent" Obama from becoming president until now?

I believe it was a study looking at whether the youth is turning the tide on life issues. Women seeking abortions are often very scared and emotional. Add to that the fact that some of them are the high schoolers you so disparagingly speak about above, and you expect them to do their due diligence? Informed consent is a given in every surgery except abortion, because the abortion lobby is so powerful and fights it tooth-and-nail.

Obama is still green.

Agreed, on both points. JFK is rolling over in his grave, but the Founding Fathers have been rolling for so long they've bored their way to China.

What, pray tell, is the promise of this country?

Back to the topic of abortion, here's why I believe education and informed consent are so very important. Many people just don't understand basic human biology. This is from a pro-life author, so I know some of the verbiage will be unacceptable to some of you. What's most interesting is the polling data cited (in other words, don't throw out the baby with the bath water). From Gingi Edmonds Pro-Life Opinion You see, the majority of youth who conform to the pro-choice ideology of their pro-abortion professors, have no idea what being 'pro-choice' entails. And that's all the better for groups like NARAL. I mean, if their agenda rested on facts and logic they wouldn't have to resort to bullying to increase their ranks. Let's take a look at just how informed this 'pro-choice' army is: A recent Zogby international poll asked students who label themselves as pro-choice, 'Should abortion be permitted after the fetus has a heartbeat?' And 61% responded with a firm 'No'. Considering the fact that fetal heartbeat occurs 18-21 days after conception - usually before the mother even knows that she is pregnant- and that literally every surgical abortion ends a beating heart, then this would mean that 61% of self-proclaimed 'pro-choicers' are actually, in fact, pro-life! And that's the bad news for pro-abortion recruiters. Someone might tell their army the biological facts behind fetal development! I'm not joking people, knowledge and elementary school biology is the Achilles Heel of the abortion rights movement. A national poll by Hamilton College found that the majority of high school seniors take a pro-life position on abortion, saying it's morally wrong, and would support legislative proposals that would limit abortions and help women find alternatives. The poll also found that the majority of pro-choice high school seniors do not believe abortions should be allowed for sociological reasons, such as when women are too poor to afford another child, or unable to have a baby at the time, or just want to fit into that dress in time for prom. And here's the kicker. Studies from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, find approximately 95 percent of all abortions are done for such sociological reasons. Again we find our self-proclaimed pro-choicers adopting a stance for life in relation to the procedure of surgical abortion.

My friend had lymphoma (thankfully, Hodgkins), and about 1/2 way through his radiation he started to be unable to sing (he's a professional opera singer). I never did find out why the radiation would cause this.

What might be offensive about it? The only problem with it is the statements suggesting that because of Obama, all things can be mended. I don't think you can link the assassinations of past leaders and politicians to Obama's catch-phrase of hope. I also don't think you can make a correlation between the politics of JFK or MLK and Obama. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. And the breed of Democrat that JFK was doesn't even remotely compare to the breed that Obama is.

Obama was rated the #1 most liberal US Senator. The one member of the US Senate who calls himself a socialist is rated below Obama on the "liberal" scale (in terms of voting record). If it quacks like a duck . . .

Anyone here know about the early American experiment in socialism? While Thanksgiving is a month away, the lesson is timeless. Freedomwriter.com :: Special Interest - HISTORY LESSON ON THANKSGIVING HISTORY LESSON ON THANKSGIVING Matthew A. Givens Happy Thanksgiving! Thanksgiving is approaching once again, and with it come visions of children's plays with Indians and Pilgrims, complete with little Pilgrim hats made of construction paper. The story told in these plays and learned by public school students at every grade level is a simple one. The Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock late in 1620. The first winter was harsh, but the colonists worked hard and applied themselves industriously to their own survival. They had help from the local Indian tribes, who helped them learn how to survive. The result was a plentiful harvest in fall 1621, not to mention the first celebration of Thanksgiving. It's a wonderful story. There's only one problem with it: It isn't true. It contains elements of truth. For example, the first winter was harsh, and the local Indian tribes did help the colonists learn how to survive, what to plant and how to prepare the food. But the 1621 harvest was not bountiful. In fact, famine haunted the fledgling colony. When the colonists first landed, they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people to live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism. The Mayflower Compact required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of this common stock." People were required to put into the common stock everything they could, and take out only what they needed. William Bradford, governor of the colony at the time, wrote History of Plymouth Plantation. In it, he wrote that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Since "the strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak," the strong men simply refused to work, and the amount of food produced was never adequate. In fact, the colony went hungry for years as strong men refused to work hard, and theft of crops still in the ground ran rampant. Bradford wrote that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable." The harvests of 1621 and 1622 were adequate enough so that "all had their hungry bellies filled," but that did not last. Deaths from malnutrition continued into the next year. But in 1623, something changed. Bradford reported, "Instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn. What caused this change? After the poor harvest of 1622, the colony brainstormed for a way to raise more corn and obtain a better crop. The solution, like the Thanksgiving story told today, was simple. In 1623, Bradford "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit." The socialistic experiment that had failed them was abandoned and replaced with capitalism. That turned the colonists away from failure and forward into success and growth. And this move away from socialism, along with the resulting prosperity, is what we truly Celebrate today. It is easy to see why I call Thanksgiving the first Libertarian holiday. Thanksgiving, far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great. It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone. These are the American ideas we hold dear. As you sit down to your table laden with turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie, remember the true story of Thanksgiving, and what it means to all.

It's interesting that the attack could just as easily be reversed, with the opposite barbs. You believe you are just as correct in your beliefs as I believe I am.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the general public. Most people don't understand basic economics. Yes, there are some people who are socialists because they truly believe it (Obama comes to mind), but there are some who just get sucked in because it "sounds good" and they've never been exposed to the problems with it.

I agree that the first few paragraphs are unpleasant; I debated not posting them, but wanted to keep the entire article intact so decided to do it. But I did bold the important stuff so people could skim and still get the meat. Here's the most salient thing: Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution.

As the article pointed out, this has nothing to do with Bush. It has everything to do with Obama and his disregard for the American Constitution. I didn't write it. I just read it and posted it. My children are doing just fine. Thanks for your concern.

I think it's a failure of education, of a true understanding of what our Founding Fathers fought for. Many people just don't see socialism as the freedom-killing disease that it is.

Brilliant article at Laura Hollis : A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never. - Townhall.com (emphasis mine): Well, now we know why Barack Obama’s been so reluctant to have symbols of this country associated with his campaign. No flags on his airplane. Nix to pins on his lapel. Not inclined to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. After all, it turns out he has a problem with that other slightly more significant representation of our nation, the United States Constitution. Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it. The Drudge Report and other legitimate investigative sources like the National Review, have exposed the most damning evidence yet of Barack Obama’s utter disregard for the core principles of the United States government. In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” Bad? Sure. Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity). It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society. But it is much worse. Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “t didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead. What Obama is doing here is expressing his opinion that the Court would have better effectuated his definition of “political and economic justice” if it had been willing to ignore the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. I have written elsewhere of Obama’s potential designs on the country, and his inclinations should he obtain the power he seeks. Many of the hypotheticals I posited then were pooh-poohed by readers, who said, in essence, “He’d never do that; the Constitution prevents it.” At this point, any belief in Obama’s respect for constitutional limits is delusional. If he is so cavalier about the Constitution’s limits upon the power of the judiciary, why on earth would he respect the limits on the power of the Presidency? Or on Congress? Clamor for the reinstatement of the insidiously named “Fairness Doctrine” has already put the First Amendment in Obama’s sights. What would be sacrosanct about the Second? Or the Fourth? Or Fifth? Or Eighth? Why would Obama let any constitutional limit stand in the way of what he views as “political and economic justice”? These views are why Obama’s acquaintances, associates and allies matter. Why his Alinskyite “by any means necessary” philosophy matters. Why we should care that he funds and takes money from people who say they hate or wish to undermine America. Why we should be concerned when he took spiritual sustenance from a man who spends much of his time condemning white people. This is what drives Barack Obama. And this is why he wants the Presidency. The rest of Obama’s observations during this interview are just as asinine, and just as threatening. He says, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” This is deception. As an initial matter, few listening to him would understand the gobbledygook, “negative liberties.” But more importantly, he never explains that the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world. And that is no accident. It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is. Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. Or, to put it as Obama did, the things “government must do on your behalf.” Our Constitution, by contrast, has precisely the opposite construction. We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution. (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are “endowed by our Creator;” not by any government.) Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing. The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him – or the government he wants in place – to give us rights we don’t already have. This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans “needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.” This is no “bill of rights,” it is a bill of attainder (look it up). Those found “guilty” would be anyone wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other. And the punishment? The very things Obama and the Democrats are already pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all American’s private property. I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast majority of them) serious pause. But those voting for him seem to fall into two groups. The first group says, “Oh well, Bush has trashed the Constitution, too.” Even assuming that this were true, it is hardly a ringing endorsement for your candidate. Worse, it displays a surprising ignorance that the procedural protections Obama is determined to dismantle won’t be there to protect you against the next right-wing fascist you guys are always running in terror from. What – you think Obama will give those rights back right before (if) he leaves office? The second group consists of disgruntled so-called “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker, Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley, who hear what Obama is saying, but choose not to believe him. I’m not sure what to say to these people, except that their refusal to learn from history suggests that there may be something to those claims that there’s no such thing as evolution. Those who drafted the Constitution knew that persuasive orators who promised beneficence in exchange for liberty would come along. This is why George Washington admonished that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” And it is why Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Every President, upon taking office, takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."A President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama is dying to destroy it.

I grew up in Southern California where the weather is, IMO, almost perfect. I'm totally spoiled. Every time I go anywhere else I'm always inconvenienced by the weather (too hot, too humid, too dry, too cold, I have to pack too much, I sweat too much, I get bloody noses because it's too dry, etc.). Add to that the fact that I'm allergic to mosquito bites (I swell up like no tomorrow) and there aren't a lot of places I'd be very happy to move to. Every time we travel, we try to figure out if it's a potential alternative to Southern California (the operative factors being: weather, politics, taxation, and existence [or lack] of socialized medicine). So far no places hit the mark on the last 3 factors, and on the weather one we tend to like Gibraltar and maybe Portugal, Spain, or Italy (depending on where in those countries).

Truer words were never spoken.

Well said and WOO HOO! I agree wholeheartedly!