Obama Thugs Attack Bloggers, Google

Major Bulletin: The Obama Campaign is engaged in a major effort to shut down bloggers who are opposed to the election of Barack H. Obama. What's happening is that Obama-bots are overwhelming Google with claims that legitimate blogs are "spam sites" or "mutual admiration societies." Many people who have blogged on "Blogger" for many months or years have had their sites "frozen" and have been forced to move to other services, such as WordPress.

The attack from Obama has been aimed at conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike. A special effort has been made to target Hillary Clinton Supporters who are members of the many "NoBama" groups.

Basically, Google has done nothing to deal with the situation, much to its discredit. Later today, I'll have up a plan of action for you and others to take to overcome this blatant attack on free speech by the Barack Obama Campaign. Please read Larry's piece and forward it to your friends and political allies. Thanks.


Obama Thugs, In League with Google, Bully Bloggers
By Larry Johnson -- June 29, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Give the Obamabots credit. They are clever at exploiting loopholes and finding ways to shut down opposition voices. Come to think of it, the Soviets were pretty good at that kind of information control and intimidation as well.

It appears that anyone who blogs with Google supported BLOGSPOT is vulnerable to being shutdown unilaterally if they are targeted by a group of bloggers who claim the site is responsible for spam. All you have to do is click on this link and start your complaint.

Just paste that blog url in there a couple of hundred times. You have the time! You know that if Blogger gets enough of these that Blogger will shut down the site until they get around to reviewing the site.

People complaining do not have to identify themselves. In fact, a small group of thugs can do a lot of damage, at least in the short run.

What would the Obama folks think if we tried to employ the same tactics on them? We could use the same link to shut all Obama blogs down. But that’s the difference between us and them. We are not afraid to debate our ideas. Shutting down discourse is not our thing. Also, we believe that every vote should be counted. Unlike the Obama folks, who disenfranchise 50% of the voters in Michigan and Florida, we say, “count them all.”

BLOGSPOT is putting itself out of business if it keeps this up. Shutting blogs down for no good reason, in fact, for false reasons, tends to piss bloggers off. Folks are starting to vote with their feet. They will go elsewhere and set up shop. A temporary inconvenience but one designed to ensure that the blogger is free to write and speak what he or she believes to be true.

Take a look at the list attack by the Obama thugs.

CONTINUED --

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/29/psst-obama-comrades-over-here/

Steve adds: I'll be talking more about this outrage on this site and on my Hillary Supporters blog (http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. Please visit. Thanks.

(Also see Hillary Supporter Debby's revelations about what happened to her Blogspot site. She's now at: http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com.

Liberal Activist Blasts Obama

A woman in California wrote the following on a Yahoo Group. It's passionate.

You know, Erin, this [complaining to Obama Campaign) is not going to stop Obama and his bots from being rude. They think it is cute or funny. I've never seen such disrespect in my life and I would expect more from a man 46 years old. I honestly believe it is part of the disrespect of the rap crowd, and remember, one of those preacher asses of Obama's is called the rapper pastor or some idiotic name like that.

Instead of teaching children in that church that putting down white people or Jews is disrespectful and will not be tolerated, they actually laugh. It's not just blacks who do this -- white kids do it too and if their parents are immature like Obama, I suppose they do it too. It's about lack of respect. If parents are not teaching their children not to be that way -- and if the parents are getting """off""" on it which Obama definitely does and his wife seems to be just as bad if not worse, then this is perpetuating this type of behavior.

I remember watching a news program one night when someone said to turn it on (only time I turn on tv news is someone tells me to and I'm usually sorry afterwards) and an older black woman was appalled by Wright and the other preacher. She said that almost worse than what they were saying, and more alarming, were the people in the background standing up and laughing and cheering.

Didn't we see that when Obama did the shoulder cooooooooooooool brush off. It is not cool. It is disrespectful and this started at the very top with Obama himself. Then we see all the idiots (and I do mean IDIOTS) in the background applauding and carrying on like juveniles.

How on earth can a true democrat vote for this type of racist, disrespectful ass?
Even Wright said that white brains and black brains are different. Do you see how this is "IN YOUR FACE" attitude. It's like saying F*** YOU white people -- our brains are different so don't you dare tell our kids to sit in their seats. Never mind, there are all colors of hyperactive kids who need to learn respect and sitting in their seats. He is giving black kids an out to act this way.

Obama has learned well from his racist preachers. God help us.

You see, they are teaching their young to be in our faces rather than learning the value of respect and kindness.

It's abusive. And yet Democrats themselves (even ones who were for Hillary) are overlooking this. I DO NOT WANT THIS MAN-CHILD IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I do not want him to be the example to my grandchildren. The anger and the chosen outlet to unleash that anger in very immature and nasty ways worries the hell out of me - and that is what that church teaches, and that is what we see from Obama and his bots.

By Shar, a liberal activist and Hillary Supporter in California

Hillary Supporters Rationalizing "Unity" Message

We hear a lot about "talking truth" to power. Well, I've been talking truth to (some) Hillary Supporters that want to rationalize Mrs. Clinton's recent "Unity" Speech strongly endorsing Barack Obama. The Hillary Supporters I'm referring are ones who don't want Obama to gain the presidency.

Few of them believe Hillary really wants Obama to win. They believe she wants to run again for the presidency in 2012 or perhaps 2016. A few of them believe (fear?) that Sen. Clinton is angling for the vice-presidential nomination.

The defense of Hillary is that she did it to preserve her political career. Some of the rationalizers say she did it as a way to reduce her huge campaign debt (in excess of $20 million). My response was that for a family with the vast wealth of the Clintons was "pocket change."

A phrase you may hear a lot is that "she did it with a gun to her head." If you "Google" the words "gun to her head," my guess is you will soon find tens of thousands of hits. Actually, the "gun" was, if anything, imaginary -- all in Hilary's head.

Betty Jean Kling, perhaps the staunchest Hillary Backer during the primaries, doesn't agree with any of the rationalizations. She wrote a passionate letter comparing Hillary's "Unity" message with the actions of Rosa Parks, who refused to go to "the back of the bus." I agree completely with Betty Jean's sharp criticism of Sen. Clinton.

You can read Betty Jean's excellent e-mail on the following: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.

Here's what I wrote today on one of the Hillary sites (ClintonDemsAgainstObama on Yahoo):

Betty Jean, as a teacher of modern English literature, I used to quote the poet T. S. Eliot who said, "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." I thought I knew what he meant, but now I'm certain I do. It is NOT a justification to say, "Well, she did it for her career!"

Let me be very blunt, please: When our favorite Senator from Arizona became a co-sponsor of Kennedy-McCain on comprehensive immigration reform, he alienated powerful forces in his Party. He risked his career and almost ruined it. He has done the same thing many times -- and years ago he made choices that risked his life and sanity. That is what a leader does. He (or she) leads. When someone puts a gun to their heads, they resist. They don't fold like a two-dollar tent.

My mother, now long-deceased once told me, "Steve, your standards are much too high." Maybe they are, but I hope not. She was trying to prepare me for life in a world where most people -- but not all --are thoroughly self-serving (but will not admit as much).

PA Politics: Vote-Buying, Racism

In Pennsylvania Democratic politics, vote-buying and racism are "time-honored" traditions. In the 2006 gubernatorial race, Democrat Ed Rendell sent out $740,000 in so-called "walking around money," mainly to Black districts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (source: The Almanac of American Politics, p. 1378, 2008 edition). Was this money used to buy votes? I'm "shocked, shocked" to hear that you think so. In his campaign (against Republican Lynn Swann)., Rendell ran commercials against his African-American opponent. Some of the TV ads were in black-and-white and slow motion. They made Swann, an NFL-Hall-of-Fame football player and national sports reporter, look like a numbers runner in Harlem in the 1940s. For those of you who don't pay a lot of attention to Pennsylvania politics, this is probably the first time you're hearing these stories. It's par for the course in our state -- and so are the payoffs by the Obama Campaign for "services rendered" by Congressmen Patrick Murphy and Jason Altmire. In PA Democratic politics, money talks . . . a blue-state streak.

Exactly how much "walking around money" does Barack Obama intend to pour into Philadelphia, Pittsburgh (and don't forget Harrisburg and Lancaster!)? Since Obama has gone back on his word to accept public financing, he will have perhaps a half-billion dollars (!!!) to play around with. That should make the vote-buyers and street corner "consultants" in urban Pennsylvania very happy. On the question of "how much?" perhaps one of our intrepid PA journalists might ask him? But that may be asking too much.

The rest of this column, about two Pennsylvania representatives who sold out to Barack Obama, Jason Altmire and Patrick Murphy, is on my Pennsylvania blog. I hope you'll visit.

Street-Fighting for Hillary Supporters

Tell the truth: have you hugged a Hillary Supporter today?

I never thought I'd spend so much of my adult life trying to woo Hillary Supporters to vote for John McCain. Why do I do it? Because I've done the math. There are 18-plus million Hillary Supporters out there (actually more if you count potential voters in caucus states). If John McCain can get 5 million of those votes -- something that seems achievable -- then, early on Nov. 5, he will be President-elect.

The Hillary Supporters for McCain are just that important. That's not saying some of them can't be irritating and even exasperating.

Clinton Supporters for McCain who are not irritating/exasperating include the organization at http://www.clintons4mccain.com/. This group has 1700 members, is growing rapidly, and attracts roughly 10,000 visitors daily to its site.

Right now Clintons for McCain is engaged in a major fund-raising effort for John McCain. It's asking Hillary Supporters to add 44 cents to their donations (e.g., 44 cents, $5.44, or $100.44) to signify that it comes from Hillary Supporters. I'm going to contribute at McCainNow.com, but don't be surprised if I add 44 cents.

Perhaps an even more important site is http://www.hsfjm.com/. The acronym stands for Hillary Supporters for John McCain. It's been up only since May 31. How many visitors does its site meter show? "Only" 3.3 million (to-die-for numbers for this blogger). It also says it has 35,000-plus signed in members.

Oh, and hsfjm has a McCain PAC. When you visit the site -- and please do -- you'll see a "green rain" (i.e., money) button. If this site is as good as its numbers indicate, it could raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Senator McCain. Note, other Hillary-for-McCain groups are working to organize 527 groups that would independently support McCain.)

On the Yahoo Groups, the ClintonDemsAgainstObama is fascinating. I'd guess about half the people there are fairly solid for McCain. A few of them support Ralph Nader. Another segment insists it will stay home on election day, even though they strongly dislike Obama.

To my criticism of that stand, Abbey (one of the moderators and a strong McCain supporter) said: "Look, Steve, these people really are Democrats, and McCain was not their first choice . . . or even their second choice. So, voting for a Republican is difficult for them." Point well made, Abbey.

Some of the people counseling others to stay home -- and just restrict their anti-Obama feelings to steam-blowing -- may not have honorable. Frankly, some of them appear to be Obama-bots who are helping spread the campaign's message of demoralization to Hillary Supporters. (They're not hard to spot.)

Here's what one stay-at-home-Sue (actually, Hope) said on the Against Obama site:
"Many people will not vote for McCain. Get used to it."

Here's how "MentistheMagnificent," a frequent poster, replied:
"Then, [Hope], you will be one of the people who will help elect NObama, and that is simply the way it is. Who will you vote for, Hope? If you are here because you don't want NObama as president, you MUST consider voting for McCain to keep him [Obama] out. As the past has already taught us more than once Nader doesn't have a shot in hell. Any vote cast for Nader is a wasted vote. This time is it way WAY too important to cast a vote simply to waste it."

Hope is not alone on the ClintonDemsAgainst Obama group-- and thankfully, neither is Mentis. But a day's worth of time spent looking at the various posts -- and they are getting several thousand every week! -- can be emotionally draining. I spend a lot of my time trying to pick out the Obama-bots, and it's not hard to do so. Occasionally, I'd like to contribute a mild criticism of Hillary, which would get me kicked out of the group.

I believe it's important that I spend time at these sites. A lot of the "work" is hand-holding for people who almost never (or just plain "never") vote for Republicans. Some of the people there -- including Abbey and Mentis -- are politically sophisticated and sharp debaters.

However, other participants are "yaller dog" Democrats (would vote for a "yellow dog" before a Republican). A few of them believe a miracle will occur in Denver, and Hillary will get the nomination. As I suggested earlier, some seem poised to spend the next four months complaining loudly -- and then playing golf from dawn-to-dusk on Election Day.

But the Hillary Supporters -- exasperating or otherwise -- are critical to John McCain's chances. I hope McCain Supporters will back up the many (hundreds?) of sites where people are figuring out what they'll do on Election Day. I know exactly what I'd like them to do!

Have you hugged a Hillary Supporter today?

Bulletin: McCain Leading Nationwide

McCain and Obama are neck and neck, but some polls haven't figured that out.

Two mornings ago you probably heard that the Los Angeles Times poll showed Barack Obama with a national lead over John McCain of 49% to 37%. Time to panic?

Perhaps -- until you heard Carl Cameron of FOX (one newsman who has a brain) say that the Gallup (Daily) Tracking Poll shows McCain and Obama in a (drum-roll) "statistical dead heat," with both men polling 45%. Gallup, despite a few bumps in its long road, is in fact "the gold standard" of polls.

The LA Times survey is more a political statement than a scientific poll. When it comes to the Times, liberals seem always to "poll" very well. There's only one California survey with a record for accuracy: the Field Poll.

But as the Times has disovered, releasing a cockamamie poll is a good way to sell papers.Should you instead depend on a newsman like the esteemed Chris Wallace? Today, Wallace was speaking about Pennsylvania, where I live, and he said, "Hillary Clinton won it by 20-30%.

Oh really? Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9.2%. Chris Wallace was off by roughtly 11-21 percentage points. Isn't political coverage supposed to be his strong suit? He may have been confusing PA with WV, where Mrs. Clinton won by 41%. (I guess WV must have a 5,000 truckoads of "bitter" people.)

Chris Wallace also repeated the rumor (it's not much more than that) that Obama is ahead by 12% in the critical state of Pennsylvania. I wondered if the LA Times had conducted a survey here (without my knowledge).

Like all states, we have our versions of Mom n Pop polls, which are always wrong.Trust me, McCain is doing well in Pennsylvania, and he will win this state. As Mrs. Clinton demonstrated in the Primary, Obama is not well-liked here. Our state's animosity toward him mirrors his hostility to us. We're much too busy clinging to our guns and our Bibles to embrace an unarmed man who has Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger confused with Christians.

More about polls in later columns later. I love them, but I don't trust them -- except for Gallup, especially when it's in line with my wishes.

By the way, McCain being even with Obama, if Gallup is correct, means he almost certainly well ahead in electoral votes. Obama is over-performing in three large states (NY, IL, and CA), and that skews the polls.

One other fact to keep in mind: Obama has a history of showing up better in polls than he does with real ballots. For whatever reason, he does about 5% better with pollsters than with real, live voters.

There, didn't I make you feel better about things political?

Obama: The Man Without Qualities

In Obama's latest campaign ad directed toward white voters (he already has the Black vote), he says of his grandfather ("never saw combat") and grandmother ("typical white person") and mother (whose race he began to keep secret): "They taught me values straight out of the Kansas [i.e., almost all white] heartland." That was the heartland presumably where, in his words, "the farm boys stank like pigs." C'mon Barack, tell us how you really feel -- or do we have to rely on Michelle for that?

"I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] he delivered in 2002." (Senator Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primaries)

Many years ago, an author named Robert Musil wrote a book called "The Man Without Qualities." It might as well have been about Barack Obama. He has no real legislative record, so he feels called upon to invent one.

The following is from National Review Online:

"Barack Obama released his first general election ad on Friday... It’s a well made ad, but it also offers an example of the kind of brazen padding of the resume that Obama will inevitably need to engage in, and which will carry serious risks for him.

"About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama 'passed laws' that 'extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,' and in the usual manner of these political commercials we are given a little citation at the bottom.

"The citation reads 'Public Law 110-181 1/28/08.' That law is the only federal legislation cited in the ad — the other two items mentioned were from the Illinois legislature and referred to other
issues raised in the ad.

"Public Law 110-181 was the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed the Senate by 91 to 3 in January, with six Senators not voting.

"Among those six absentees was Barack Obama. So he cites a bill he didn’t even vote for."

Honeycutt: First Black Female President?

On Tuesday and Wednesday, on my Pennsylvania blog, I'll be writing more about Deborah Honeycutt and how she can achieve he impossible: defeat an incumbent Black congressman. To this point, she's doing all the right things. The strategy (i.e., winning) and the tactics she's using are ones usable by GOP candidates around the country. If they do so, a supposedly "Democratic year" could turn quickly into a Republican year.

If you like $7 a gallon gasoline, you're going to love Obama . . . also, will the congressional candidate pictured below be not only the first Black President but also the first female President? Many people think so. Note: On my Hillary Supporters for McCain site tonight (Saturday) I talk the gloves off on the Obama Campaign's playing of racial politics. Today on my Pennsylvania blog I've started what will be several columns about the woman below, Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, and how her campaign should serve as a model for GOP candidates around the nation. I believe today's PA blog column gives some fresh insights into how the "money game" really works in politics.





This is Deborah Travis Honeycutt, M.D., Republican candidate for Congress in GA's 13th district. She's one of the most exciting candidates in the country, and she's already raised $2 million-plus dollars. I'll be writing about her Saturday evening and Sunday morning on my Pennsylvania blog. Some people believe she will be both the first female President and also the first Black President. I certainly think she has a chance.



Recently, a friend -- national security expert and syndicated columnist Jack Kelly -- told me that John McCain lacked "shrewdness."



That comment bothered me so much -- at least partly because I believe Jack is right -- that I got up early Saturday to write about it. I'd also like to solicit your views on the subject. (Don't get me wrong on this; Jack Kelly and I bow to no one in our desire to help John McCain get elected.)


The lack of shrewdness criticism is scary. It's like saying a basketball player is great at running up and down the court -- but he or she can't shoot worth a lick. If "the readiness is all" in Hamlet, then shrewdness is all in politics.


Jack Kelly was talking mainly about John McCain's position on ANWR. I was wrong to oppose (mildly) drilling in ANWR. Bill Clinton was wrong to veto legislation authorizing such drilling. The Democrats have been wrong for 20-plus years to oppose drilling just about anywhere in the U.S., including ANWR.


Most to the point, John McCain has been wrong to oppose it. If we had huge amounts of oil coming in now from Alaska, we could at least dampen the upward pressure on prices.

In our world, anyone who opposes drilling in the U.S. -- onshore, offshore, or in Alaska -- has no real grasp of what we face. That is gasoline not at $4-plus per gallon, but gasoline at perhaps $6 or $7 a gallon. When it costs $150-$200 to fill up your tank, what exactly will you do?


What would gas prices at those levels do to our economy and what we call "The American Way of Life?" It would wreck them. Many people could not afford to drive back and forth to work. The price of everything that's transported -- and that indeed is all the things we eat, drink, or wear -- will skyrocket. In the dead of winter, many people will be turning down their thermostats to about 60 degrees.

Will the price of anything go down? Yes, the value of your home will decline sharply unless you live very close to public transportation. That is not good news.


The oil-producing nations will get richer, and we will get poorer. Of course, Middle Eastern nations (and Venezuela) will have a lot more money to funnel to terrorists.What's Barack Obama's solution? He has none. He likes $4 gasoline and probably will love $7 gasoline.


He believes -- rightly -- that gasoline priced like champagne will cause people to "conserve." Obama apparently has the U.S. confused with, say, Monaco, where you can take a round trip on foot border-to-border in an afternoon.

Obama, the supposed "candidate of hope," offers only hopelessness on our nation's single most pressing issue. Apparently, he sees a great day for America as the one when people have to walk from Austin to San Antonio. Audacious, yes. Smart -- not really.


Barack Obama -- and almost every other Democrat in Congress -- have offered McCain a nice slow pitch down the middle of the plate. A shrewd McCain would hit it right out of the park. He would call for a "Manhattan Project-type" effort directed at achieving energy independence within a decade. He would advocate every feasible step to hold the line on gas prices.

And perhaps most of all, he would give the green light to exploration and production in ANWR. What on our Creator's Green Earth is he hesitating for? We are approaching a national emergency.


Yet John McCain is playing Prince Hamlet when he should be emulating Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. Where is McCain's energy version of JFK's "man on the moon in 10 years" speech?


I have news for John McCain, whom I've always admired: you don't have a "choice" anymore about ANWR.


If you truly want to win the presidency, advocate immediate efforts to discover and produce the oil there. Contrast yourself with Obama,, who apparently smiles every time he goes past a gas station.


Ask what Obama and the Democrats in Congress have done to anticipate or deal with the current situation. Explain that having all of us motor about in something half the size of a VW Beetle is not a "solution."


Point out that Obama, as a multi-millionaire, really doesn't have to worry about gasoline prices. Discuss how completely out of touch he is with Middle America. (Obama loves to pretend that he and Michelle, who made $300,000 a year, are just "plain folks" checking out the aurugula selection at Whole Foods.)


John McCain, please be shrewd. Prove Jack Kelly wrong. Prove me wrong. Take the great opportunity Obama, the elitist who probably never saw an SUV he didn't abhor, has given you.
In short, blow this election wide open. Don't let it fade away while you meditate week-after-week on the merits of drilling on a tiny portion of a national wildlife reserve.


Senator McCain: Be honest, be forthright, and, above all, be shrewd.

Jack Kelly on McCain, Palin

On my Pennsylvania blog Friday night I put up a column entitled "Democrats' Gas Prices Destroying America." Frankly, it's time to take off the gloves on the gasoline crisis. Please visit.

The following important column is by my friend and fellow Western Pennsylvanian Jack Kelly, national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Toledo Blade, and other publications. He strongly endorses Gov. Sarah Palin for a place on the McCain ticket. He also strongly backs John McCain but believes the Senator lacks "shrewdness." (Jack Kelly is a former Marine, former Special Forces soldier, and a former candidate for Congress.)

JOURNAL PRESS SYNDICATE
545 West End Ave. (Suite 2C)
New York, N.Y. 10024-2713
Tel: (212) 580-8559
Email: ijbnyc@aol.com

[Note: If your local newspaper doesn't print Jack Kelly's syndicated column, please call them up today and ask them (nicely but firmly) to start doing so. If they continue not to, keep calling.]

BY JACK KELLY

Barack Obama has the lead for the time being. But three sign posts point the way to a McCain landslide in November -- in the unlikely event the Arizona senator has the wit to heed them.
What figures to be by far the most important issue this fall is the skyrocketing price of energy and its deleterious effect on the broader economy and national security.

Now that Sen. McCain has flip flopped on drilling off of our coasts, there is a substantial difference between him and Sen. Obama on the issue. Sen. McCain also supports building more nuclear power plants, which Sen. Obama opposes.

Opinion polls indicate a large majority now supports drilling for oil off our coasts and in Alaska. That majority is likely to expand and harden as gas prices rise this summer. But Sen. McCain can't fully capitalize politically on this change in public attitude unless he completes his flip flop, and consents to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Commentary editor John Podhoretz fears Sen. McCain's ego will prevent him from doing what is in his, and his country's interest:

"So McCain 2 makes a big speech about offshore drilling and the need for it. Fine. But the message is muted and confused. Why? Because McCain 1 voted against oil exploration and field development in (ANWR) and McCain 2 doesn't want to look like a flip flopper by changing his stand on the matter...In acting out of a combination of holer-than-thou piety and political pique, McCain 1 has made it all but impossible for McCain 2 to run with this issue and go on the offensive with Obama on a matter of central concern to the American people."

I fear Mr. Podhoretz is correct. But few Americans would hold flip flopping against Sen. McCain, because they've flip flopped, too. Soccer moms were happy to genuflect to environmental pieties when gasoline was $2 a gallon. But now that they have to sell their firstborn to fill up their SUVs, their attitude has changed dramatically.

If Sen. McCain were to fly to ANWR and announce his change of heart there, the attendant publicity would make it clear to Americans the sharp difference between himself and Sen. Obama on the issue most important to their pocketbooks. He supports letting Floridians and Californians decide whether there should be drilling off their coasts. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to Alaskans? A large majority favor drilling in ANWR.

The second sign post is Sen. Obama's clumsy embrace of a Sept. 10th attitude toward the war on terror. The law enforcement approach toward fighting it is precisely what led to Sept. 11, 2001.

Fortunately, national security is the one issue Sen. McCain knows something about. The danger for him here is that he'll overemphasize it. The fact that we're winning the war on terror makes most Americans less interested in it, and more focused on economic concerns. Voter anxiety about Sen. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief is a strong subsidiary issue. But this election will be won or lost at the gas pump.

The third sign post was illuminated by the flap over the receipt by the (now former) head of Barack Obama's vice presidential selection committee and two prominent U.S. senators of below market rate loans from Countrywide Finance, which Sen. Obama has charged is in large part responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. One of those senators, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is trying to push through Congress a bill that would, in effect, bail out Countrywide.

This glaring conflict of interest hasn't attracted much attention from the news media, because for most journalists, a scandal isn't really a scandal unless Republicans are involved. But it's an issue tailor made for Sen. McCain. He has often stupidly (see McCain-Feingold), but always ardently, fought pork barrel spending and corruption. Congress has its lowest approval rating in the history of polling. Replacing the Washington way with the Chicago way is not an improvement. Sen. McCain is the best person to make that case, and Americans are in a mood to hear it.

The sign posts also indicate who Sen. McCain should choose for his running mate. No Republican can better make the case for drilling than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and no governor has fought harder against corruption, especially in her own party.

So go to ANWR, Sen. McCain. Embrace Sarah Palin there. You'll have to eat some crow. But crow doesn't taste so bad when it's served on the White House china.

Email: jkelly@post-gazette.com

The Conscientious Conservative Blasts Barack

Me, Myself, and I -- very much "at home" in Beaver County, PA

A liberal reader of mine from eastern PA (I live in western PA) wrote me a long, mostly autobiographical e-mail asking why I -- living in a supposedly semi-distressed area of Beaver County -- believed generally in conservative principles. He (?) also asked me if I voted for GWB and Rick Santorum (our former Republican Senator). I replied at length, focusing mainly on why I oppose Obama and support McCain. In case you've been wondering about similar things, here's my reply:

Did I vote for GWB? Only twice. I think highly of him and his family.

Did I support Rick Santorum? I supported him when he ran the first time in 1994 against Harris Wofford, who was a man of extremely limited talents. I voted for him when he ran against Ron Klink (2000), but I always had problems with Santorum as a person.

I can support individuals of various views -- I might vote for Specter in the primary and general election -- but I do want to see in any candidate signs of real affection for our diverse and sometimes irritating fellow human beings. Over the years, I started to see less and less of that in Santorum (whom I know but not really well).

Senator Bob Casey: I don't believe he is a honest man. If he's so ardently pro-life, which I don't for a minute think he is, why did he support the most pro-abortion candidate in American history: Barack Obama? This is not an issue of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, but rather a question of basic honesty. I didn't like the Santorum-Casey choice, and I wasn't at all surprised when the electorate sent Rick on his way. My wife despises Santorum.

I believe most people can rationalize endlessly when it comes to political choices. I don't do a lot of rationalizing. For example, do you believe Rev. Wright's views really came as a surprise to Barack Obama after he spent 20 years listening to Wright's views? If your answer is "no," then of course you would have trouble voting for Obama (although you might do so).

There, I just screwed up any serenity you might have about voting for Obama. (It's what I do.)

Beaver County: I believe its future over the next generation can be very bright. There is good public transportation in the country and back-and-forth from Pittsburgh. The people here are generally wonderful. I have Black neighbors on both sides of our (modest) house -- we live right across from Ambridge H.S. Everything I need (almost) is within walking distance. It surely isn't suburban, affluent, but for our purposes it's a great place to live.

Members of my family, including two daughters, are like the many people who voted in the Primary, and thus opted for Sen. Clinton. I voted for John McCain in the Republican Primary.

The folks here in small-town Beaver County are not the "bitter" people that Obama described as clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia. (Yes, those are the people whose votes he now covets.) Obama knows nothing about the people in Beaver County or the many similar counties in PA, OH, IN. His foreign policy adviser (Samantha Power), the one who called Hillary a "monster," also called the people of Ohio (I mean almost all of them) "obsessed." I don't know exactly what she meant, but I think it was a forerunner of the bitter comments.

Generally, I'd call the "race relations" here in this county very good. They are a whole lot better than what exists in Obama's Chicago area, which MLK described as the worst he ever saw.

Philosophically, my problem with liberalism is that it preaches collective responsibility while denying the existence of individual responsibility. It's a view that makes no sense. How are we to take care of others if we can't take care of ourselves?

People who absolutely can't take care of themselves should receive help from those who can provide it. My wife has been disabled since 1991, but she does a great job of taking care of herself -- with some assistance from me and a daughter and some from Social Security/Medicare.

Many years ago I had a girlfriend in my single days. She told my mother (an artist and writer), "Oh, Mrs. Maloney, Steve and I will always take care of you." My mother said, "C, I think I'd prefer to take care of myself." The girlfriend was something of a legendary Democratic political figure in the Pittsburgh area. We eventually parted ways.

I haven't answered all your questions, but I've tried to be as candid as I can. Of course, I've also been challenging your beliefs, which is the way I conduct my life. As I suggested earlier, several of the members of my immediate family voted either for Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Obama (in various primaries). The children are a very diverse group, and that's fine with me.

I spend a whole lot of my time "campaigning" (mostly online) for Senator McCain and others in whom I believe.

I very much fear an Obama presidency because of his weakness and self-absorption (he's already written TWO autobiographies). I read a while back that 20% of Democrats are rooting for the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq. I believe much of Obama's financial support comes from that group -- Moveon.org and Daily Kos types.

I am going to be writing this week about some of the comments in my "Black Conservatives" group. A big issue there is whether Obama's policies would help or hurt the Black community. I may send you one or two of the pieces I'll be using.

Sometimes policies designed to "help" people end up hurting them unintentionally. For example, the welfare policies of the Great Society ended up providing economic incentives for families to splt up. Thus, we now have twice as many single-mother Black families (percentage basis) as we did a generation ago. Obama alluded to this in his Father's Day speech but didn't seem to grasp exactly what had happened.

As bright as he appears sometimes, Obama is generally clueless about his own country.

As for me: To paraphrase Albert Camus' description of Sisyphus, "one must imagine Steve happy." I hope you and yours also are.

On my Hillary Supporters for McCain site, I wrote (Thurs.-Friiday column) about the many strengths of Hillary Clinton -- and contrasted them with the many weaknesses of Barack Obama. The battle for the Hillary Supporters is the highest stake game in contemporary politics.

Congressional Dems: Human Wrecking Balls

How San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi and friends wrecked America . . .

Malia Nash (Sanity102), a native Hawaian and American patriot, sent me the material in the following paragraphs. If GOP candidates run on these points alone -- all of them factual matters -- they will rout their opponents. Being in Congress is about providing leadership, and the Democrats have provided none -- period. Every Republican candidate -- challengers and incumbents -- should be running on the following points.

Just two years ago, remember the election in 2006? Two years ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; and,
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

However, since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet to historically low levels;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 20% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (mainly stock and mutual fund losses);5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars; and,6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we sure got it!

Remember, it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him, and Pelosi, Reid, and their cronies have stripped America's cupboard bare.

Note: The above material (with some distinctive additions) is appearing on all my blogs today, because it's very important. I'll add some more comments today about Dems' role in skyrocketing gas prices. Thanks for visiting.

Democrats Caused High Gas Prices

Issue #1 in the coming election is going to be the skyrocketing gasoline prices. It will not be Iraq, nor will it be health care or the overall economy. So . . .

How can individuals like Steve Sauerberg, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois (opposing Sen. Dick Durbin) pull off a totally unexpected victory? He needs to get across the point that re-electing people who are the causes of the nation's problems is a form of political insanity (i.e., doing the same thing repeatedly and hoping somehow for a different result).

A key point GOP challengers for federal offices must make is this: Only 22% of the American people approve of the performance of Congress, but many people are quick to defend their local person. In fact, Dick Durbin -- and many others like him -- ARE the Congress. Durbin has been part of it since 1982, and anything that's wrong with it is frankly his fault. He's not somehow divorced from its failures. They're HIS failures.

Democrats like Durbin have sought to blame the oil companies. In fact, it's not necessary to love those companies to recognize that they are in fact the ones that produce all the oil and gasoline. The producers are not the cause of the pain we all feel at the pump. The cause of the problem is a Congress that seeks to deflect blame -- and that has voted repeatedly with environmental extremists. Over the years, Durbin and his allies have done everything in their power to ensure a rapid rise in gas prices. Voting against production -- and against creating new refineries -- is now exacting a terrible cost on the American people.

During Dick Durbin's tenure in Congress (since 1982), gasoline prices have more than tripled! (See http://moveondickdurbin.org). What did Durbin do to prevent the gas price catastrophe? Nothing. What did he do to warn the American people? Nothing.

So, what can we expect from a future Congress full of Durbins? Would you believe gasoline at $6-$7 a gallon (or more)? What is Durbin's plan to prevent such an economy-destroying development? He has none. In fact, his approach is to ensure the U.S. produces LESS oil -- presumably so we can become more dependent on the Hugo Chavezes of the world.

The people of Illinois will re-elect someone like Durbin at their peril. He is presiding over the destruction of the American way-of-life, and he shouldn't be rewarded for that.

Who Exactly is Steve Sauerberg?

In response to my suggestions (below) for Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Steve Sauerberg, Mary on his campaign notified me that she's established a new site: http://moveondickdurbin.org. Here's my response to her:

Mary, God bless. I don't really mean to be the world's biggest Know-It-All but there some practical things that never seem to happen. Your MoveOn Dick Durbin is a wonderful idea. Hammer away at him every day. He's a wimp. I hope Steve keeps asking him why gas prices went through the roof. They want to blame George Bush for everything, but what exactly is Durbin doing in Congress? What are any of them doing? If we send him back, what's our reward: $8 a gallon gas? Falling home prices? Rising food prices? Raising our taxes? It may not be possible for Steve to confront Durbin face-to-face on these issues -- he will remain in hiding. But MoveOnDickDurbin.org is a good place to beat him up. I believe it's important to hit these people hard. They have been AWFUL, the worst legislators in the history of the country, a bunch of people committed to preserving their jobs rather than protecting the country. Their response to all this is to raise millions of dollars from special interests that are themselves the cause of most of our nation's problems. If you want you can, reprint this -- or anything you see from me.

I'm urging everyone who visits any of my sites to join Clintons4McCain, a site of Hillary Clinton supporters who are now committed to the election of John McCain. That large -- and rapidly growing -- group needs the support of everyone opposed to the election of Barack Obama.

Above is Republican senatorial candidate (Illinois) Steve Sauerberg with his wife and daughter.

Today, I contributed $25 to the campaign of Steve Sauerberg, a medical doctor and humanitarian who's running against incumbent Dick Durbin. I hope you'll do the same today.

However, what does Sauerberg have in common with the Pennsylvania congressional candidates I usually discuss?

For one things, the Pennsylvania challengers and Sauerberg share some committed Illinois supporters, including Beverly Perlson, founder of The Band of Mothers web site. I know Bev has contributed to Tom Manion, Republican candidate in PA's 8th district (Bucks County). I'm also hoping Pennsylvanians will donate to Dr. Sauerberg's campaign. The goal is to "nationalize" campaigns -- make them 50-state efforts, with contributors from across the nation.

To that end, Sauerberg can learn some things from the PA candidates:

First, his web site -- one he probably paid top-dollar for -- has problems. It's much too hard to donate there. He needs to simplify the process. In doing so, he should take a look at Toni Gilhooley's (17th district Republican candidate) web site. At first, it struck me as somewhat home-made, but in fact it's easy to contribute there. If you look at both sites (and, hopefully, make at least a small donation to each candidate), you'll see what I mean.

(The sites for Melissa Hart and Tom Manion are also easier to use than Sauerberg's.)

Second, the Sauerberg web site currently focuses on political corruption, something that seems endemic to Illinois politics. (The previous governor -- Republican -- is in jail and the current governor seems headed in that direction.) In fact, the web site should be focusing on other things, particularly gasoline prices, which will be the most important issue in this campaign.

I wish there were a web-site picture of Sauerberg standing next to a gas pump showing the current prices. Then, I wish he would say that Sen. Dick Durbin and his colleagues are directly responsible for those prices. "If you're happy with the current gasoline situation, then send Dick Durbin back to the Senate. If not, send me."

Saurerberg needs to highlight the fact that, since the Democrats took over Congress at the beginning of 2007, gasoline prices have gone up 75%. Also under the Democrats, food prices have skyrocketed and the housing market collapsed. Other than that, the Democrats have I guess been just "fine."

Third, Sauerberg should have a short video on his web site. It should contain perhaps 125 words of comments, focusing on the candidate's need for support -- and, especially, for contributions. (I have a model of such an appeal, and it's available free-of-charge to GOP candidates.) Visitors to Sauerberg's web site -- and they should total a million-plus -- will respond to videos.

Fourth, Sauerberg's site should also have a direct outreach to supporters of Hillary Clinton. Dick Durbin is joined at the hip to the Obama candidacy. As I've been pointing out, many Hillary supporters are angry at Obama and his campaign, and they're open to appeals from honesty-in-government candidate's like Sauerberg.

Frankly, a candidate like Dr. Sauerberg can't even come close without attracting a huge number of Hillary Clinton supporters. Visit web site like Clintons4McCain and JustSayNoDeal to get a sense of the political opportunities.

Will these recommendations help not only the Sauerberg campaign but just about every Republican effort? Yes. Candidates need to use methods that will touch voters's hearts, heads, and pocketbooks.

Can Steve Sauerberg actually beat an entrenched Democrat like Dick Durbin -- especially with Illinois resident Barack Obama heading the ticket?

Let's put it this way: If Steve runs a terrific campaign and accumulates an army of supporters, he probably can be -- sooner or later -- a U.S. Senator from Illinois. If he pulls out all the stops, including the ones I've suggested, he should do well in the November election.

Democrat Superdelegates Shafting Hillary Clinton

Note to all visitors (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents): Please go now to the above web site -- http://clintons4mccain.com -- and join as a member. The group's goal? "We will vote for Sen. John McCain not out of anger, not out of spite, but because he is an honorable American who may not speak the most eloquent words, or give the greatest speeches, but when he does speak we can believe him. "

Oops, as one of the administrators at Clintons for McCain pointed out in a "comment," they don't accept contributions (which I discovered personally). I wish they eventually will accept contributions and play a major role -- perhaps as an independent 527 group -- in the coming election. I strongly recommend that everyone who feel sympathetic to the group (Hillary Supporters now backing McCain) would join and support the members.

I'm hoping many members of Clintons for McCain will support Pennsylvania candidates that include: Melissa Hart (4th district), Toni Gilhooley (17th district), Marina Kats (13th district), and Tom Manion (8th district). These individual's opponents all played significant roles in the shafting of Hillary Clinton, who won the Pennsylvania Primary by a huge majority.

Take as an example Manion's opponent Patrick Murphy, a first-term Democrat and a Superdelegate. Last August (!), Murphy became one of the first Superdelegages to endorse Barack Obama. He has remained a staunch Obama backer and did everything in his power to ensure that the Illinois Senator won the nomination.

How effectively did Murphy reflect "the will of the voters?" He certainly didn't mirror the popular sentiment in PA, which Hillary won by 9.2%.

But what about his own district, the 8th, centered in Southeastern PA" Bucks County? In the Primary, Mrs. Clinton won the vote by 70,253 to 41,791. That decisive victory apparently impressed Murphy not-at-all. In essence, his motto was "The public be damned."

What about Melissa Hart's opponent, Democratic Superdelegate Jason Altmire? Again, Hillary carried his 4th district by historic majorities. She won my own county (Beaver) by 28,205 to 12,184. She won neighboring Lawrence by 12,581 to 3,349.

Gee, Altmire must have come out enthusiastically for Hillary, right? Surely you jest. On June 5, with Hillarey ready to concede, he told the RepublicanHerald.com that he remained "undeclared" but that he "supported Obama." Say what???

Rep. Tim Holden in Toni Gilhooley's district has earned a place in weasel-doom. Hillary carried his district (Harrisburg and surrounding counties) by a significant margin, but Holden never endorsed her. He also never endorsed Obama. He now insists that the question of his vote is "moot."

He may be the first elected official in history to vote "moot."

Supporters of Hillary Clinton (or of anyone) can interpret for themselves what's going on here.

I'm supporting Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Marina Kats, and Tom Manion because they're superior candidates and superior -- as human beings -- to their Democrat opponents. I hope the people at Clintons for McCain will do the same.

There's a great deal more going wrong in the Democratic Party than merely the cynicism of people like Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Bob Casey, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi. The shafting of Sen. Clinton is reflective of a political party that's rotten to the core.

Overseas Political Contributions: Legal? Illegal?

On my blogs, I get many visitors from "overseas," paticularly Australia, Brazil, Canada, Great Britain, Mexico, New Zealand, and Portugal, and Eastern Europe. I even had one from Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. One of my loyal visitors is pro-McCain (and pro-Palin) Australian Jim Fryar. You can find his blog at: http://jimmunro.blogspot.com. I very hope you'll visit Jim's site regularly.

Many of my non-U.S. visitors want to support John McCain, and I get asked if they can make contributions to http://JohnMcCain.com. For example, I got the following comment from a French Canadian, Tym, who blogs at: http://tymachine.blogspot.com.:

Stephen:"Is it legal for Canadians and people from other countries to financially contribute to the John McCain campaign?"I see that Barack has managed to gather 3 times more money than John did. Does that do him any good to his [Obama's] tarnished image?"


The short answer to Tym's question about people from outside the U.S. contributing directly (key word) to McCain is: No. It's against U.S. law for non-U.S. citizens to donate to political campaigns (key phrase) under the control of candidates.

However, if a committee or group is outside the control of a presidential candidate, foreign national can contribute. Such donations would be similar to ones made, for example, to the American Red Cross or a U.S. church.

In my previous column, I strongly urged all people supportive of John McCain -- Republicans, Democrats, Independents, foreign nationals, and U.S. citizens -- to join one of the (many) groups of Hillary Clinton Supporters for McCain. I specifically mentioned http://clintons4mccain.com. That's a group (nearly 1300 members and growing fast) that opposes the election of Barack Obama -- and backs the election of John McCain.Why can foreign nationals send contributions to Clintons for McCain? Because it's a group not under the control of McCain's "official" campaign, donating to that group (which I urge you to do) would be no different than contributing to me (which I urge you NOT to do).

Clintons for McCain is not a group fixated on debating the pros-and-cons of Mrs. Clinton's views. In fact, it's a group where most members -- although not all -- agree with Sen. Clinton on her political positions. Instead, Clintons for McCain is dedicated to preventing the election of Barack Obama and encouraging the election of John McCain.

Thus, I urge what we call "foreign nationals" to contribute as much as they can to such groups. I'm sure a $10 contribution (which I've made) would be welcome. I bet larger contributions might be even more welcome.

CNN noted today (what took them so long?) that there's tremendous interest outside the U.S. in this country's presidential election. I hope a lot of that interest will translated into contributions to organizations supportive of McCain -- but not under the control of his campaign. Clintons for McCain would be a great place to start.

MAHHS Flocking to John McCain

What is/are "MAHHS?" Read on.

The web site -- a critically important one -- is called Clintons4McCain. I'm going to ask everyone who comes here (or to my other blogs) -- Democrat, Republican, Independent -- to go there right now, register, and participate in it. (http://clintons4mccain.com). I did.

I'm also going to ask you to contribute $10 or more. I did.

The site now has about 1250 registered members (including me). That's a lot for a web site, but it shows every sign of continuing to grow rapidly.What exactly is Clintons for McCain? It's a site for MAHHS ("Mad as Heck Hillary Supporters).

They are now committed to supporting John McCain for President. To overtures from the Democrats' presumptive nominee, they say: "NoBama!" They think Obama used race and gender improperly to win the nomination. They also believe the national media dumped endless truckloads of garbage on Sen. Clinton.

I agree with them. But even if you don't agree, go and join (and contribute a few bucks!) anyway. If you're not an American national, you can still contribute, because Clintons for McCain is an independent group not subject to FEC regulations. Heck, send them a tiny chunk of your stimulus check. (And if you're in generous mood, do the same for John McCain.)

No, it isn't a site where you should argue the fine points of the abortion issue -- or the merits and demerits of Mrs. Clinton's health care plan. It's a place to be respectful and supportive of people with the same primary goal as yours: Remember, joining this group does not mean you need to "worship at the altar of Hillary."

Will you feel welcome there? Yes, because here's their basic message: "Welcome to the official website of the Clintons for McCain movement. We're still working on it and it will always be a work in progress. We welcome contributions and suggestions, and of course volunteer help!Please create an account and participate in our forum. Unlike what we have seen with the DNC and the Democratic party of late, we welcome all and no one's disenfranchised. Join us and help stop the home-grown terrorist sleeper cell Obama and help instead elect an honorable, trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office."

Bingo, there's the link -- the common thread: the election of a "trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office.

I've asked three trustworthy and honest congressional candidates from Pennsylvania -- Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats -- to join Clintons4McCain. After they get over the initial shock, I think they will all join. I also asked them -- as I am you -- to make a small contribution to the group.

The women cited in the previous paragraph CAN win their congressional races, but they can't do it by appealing only to Republicans. (I write regularly about the Hart, Gilhooley, and Kats races on my Pennsylvania for John McCain blog.)For just about any Republican -- from John McCain on down -- to win this year will require boldness and imagination. It will also offering a hand of friendship to Democrats profoundly dissatisfied with their Party.

The people of Clintons4McCain already are receiving a stream of vitriol from Moveon.org and the Daily Kos, both pillars of the "Hate America" movement. The Clintonites want nothing to do with those unsavory groups.


As elements of the McCain Campaign, let's give them our praise and support. Join now. Contribute now. I did, and it made me feel very good.

PA's Devious, Depserate, Despicable Democrats

"The best way for a Democrat to get elected in Pennsylvania is to pretend he's pro-life and pro-gun -- and never explain why he's in a Party that's neither."

NOTE: AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE IS WHAT MAY (KEY WORD) BE IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS ABOUT BARACK OBAMA

It also helps for the elected Democrats to ignore -- as best they can -- that the state massivley favored Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Right now, Democratic politicians in this state are twisting themselves into cortortions to back Obama, a candidate whose views are totally at variance with most Pennsylvanians. It's quite a spectacle.

Some of Pennsylvania's most prominent Hillary haters -- including Bob Casey, Jr., Rep. Patrick Murphy, and Rep. Jason Altmire -- are backing Obama. So too is Cong. Tim Holden, who alternately claims to be undecided or undeclared. Actually, he's just unaware.

I write about such people today (Friday) on my Pennsylvania blog, and I urge you to visit. Pennsylvania went massively in the Primary for Hillary Clinton. So why are all those elected officials drooling over Obama? Answer: Because they obviously believe the voters in the Keystone State are a bunch of nitwits.

Why on earth should Pennsylvania politics matter to you? Because most observers believe that if John McCain wins the state, he will be President-elect. And because many Republican challengers of Democrat incumbents (including Murphy, Altmire, and Holden) conceivably could win their races.

Those challengers are outstanding human being who deserve your support. Please visit their web sites: Tom Manion, Melissa Hart, and Toni Gilhooley. If you make even a small contribution (say, $10 or $15) you will have struck a real blow for political integrity.

It's true that "freedom isn't free," but if we lose it, we have lost everything.

Cindy Reidhead of http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com has been searching Hawaii records to determine that Barack Obama was in fact born in the U.S. (Hawaii). Here's the bulletin Cindy sent out Friday afternoon. (She's located in Hobbs, NM and was a protege of Republican political genius Lee Atwater.)

"It is entirely possible I have found something rather interesting. I chucked out money to locate Barack Obama's birth certificate in Hawaii. From what I found, there is no such record. It is entirely possible that I am completely wrong, and probably am - but here is what I found. Knowing the secrecy of Hawaiian records, I probably am wrong,. But - it's a for what it is worth. it is possible . . . "
Here is the URL"

Can McCain Get Women's Votes?

On my Pennsylvania blog Thursday afternoon, I put a posting about the last undecided Democrat Superdelegate in America -- Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Holden. Some compare Holden to Prince Hamlet, although I actually see a strong resemblance to Harpo Marx.

The material below this italicized section is from Jean Avery of Moms for McCain. A resident of Seattle, Washington, Jean is one of the most important political operatives "you've never heard about." She's an absolute VIP when it comes to understanding women voters -- and attracting them to the cause of John McCain. Her comments on "what do women want?" apply not only to the presidential election, but also to every race for the House and Senate. Thus, this is a high stakes discussion.

On my Pennsylvania blog today, I discuss how candidates in the Keystone State can pick up major support -- including financial contributions -- from voters who were committed to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Come visit! Jean Avery's comments follow:

"Last week, Howard Dean and friends gave delegates to someone who wasn't even on the ballot and took half the delegates from a candidate who was. And, by the way, she was also the first woman with a serious shot at the Presidency. Suddenly millions of American women who hung their hopes on Hillary are the Desirable Voting Bloc. (Sure, Hillary had male supporters, but because many women's motives differed, their response to her rejection may differ too.)

So, what happens now for Hillary's women? Do they ride what one disgruntled Mom called the "unity pony"? Do they stay home to 'send a message'? Or do they rise up like the poetic Scorned Women of yore, uniting as "PUMAs for McCain" (party unity my....well....you can figure it out).

Gloria Steinem and friends are confident (too confident?) that the same women screwed over by their own party will come home to roost because a lefty novelist thought he heard a nasty remark or because McCain refused to pander on an 'equal pay' lawsuit bill.

But I believe women voters are smart enough to look at what the remaining men have to offer as President, and can judge them on that basis. So what DOES McCain have to offer women?

Here are a few thoughts.

More money in your pocket(book). Despite humorous greeting cards to the contrary, most women I know are very careful with their money. We work hard for it and when we spend and save we have priorities in mind. We are more likely to drive the gas-guzzling minivan and buy the overpriced groceries. A McCain presidency maintains tax cuts which put more money into the pockets, purses, and bank accounts of the vast majority of Americans. This is not a vague promise, this is a specific, concrete commitment from both candidates - one of them will take more of your money than the other. Figure out your family's costs under Obama here.


More safety for your country. If Obama is elected, regardless of what is happening on the ground, he has to uphold his devil's bargain with the anti-war lobby and retreat from Iraq - even if maintaining a presence makes logistical and strategic sense. John McCain's positions on the war are shaped by a lifetime of personal investment - including heroic suffering, family sacrifice, and yes, logistical hands-on experience. Hillary said it best herself, when the phone rings at 3 am, I want someone answering it who has not only experience, but is unfettered by political fears and promises when making those split-second life-and-death decisions.

Hillary herself observed that McCain was much better qualified choice than Obama on national security issues. If she can see it, so should her supporters.

Education and healthcare. The only thing worse than having a seriously sick child in the middle of the night is getting an administrative run-around at the emergency room when you bring them in. Hillary made government-led 'universal healthcare' a cornerstone of her First Ladyship and her campaign. I personally dislike any system that takes money from your pocket and your paycheck FIRST and THEN you (hopefully) have a procedure they approved done by a provider they choose in a location they deem affordable and appropriate.

But for those Hillary supporters whose hearts were set on health care solutions, consider the viable, easily-implemented alternatives McCain proposes, including tax credits, drug price management, and increased portability of coverage.

Life and moral issues. Despite bellyaching to the contrary, a majority of Americans - including women - are against partial-birth abortion (sucking a baby's brains out), government funding of abortion at home and abroad, and other frightening policies espoused by Obama [like the hideous "live-birth abortion"]. If you're pro-life, McCain is your ONLY choice.

But even if you're pro-choice, you should ask yourself if this is how you want your tax dollars being spent - and if you're willing to put your country in a rookie's hands over this issue. Hillary herself knew it in her heart - John McCain will make a better President than Barack Obama.

You'll note that I have fought the (substantial) urge to rant about crazy pastors, terrorist friends, etc. - because all those distractions put together are less important than what each candidate will actually DO in office.

I believe women are smart voters, I believe we are capable of identifying good and bad judgment when we see it, and I believe we understand what is best for our families and for our country.

To all women who are politically 'homeless,' take some time to get to know John McCain. You'll like what you see.

Steve add: McCain needs to sell his proposals on pocketbook issues, family and community security, and moral issues in simple, compelling ways. He needs to distinguish between his straight-talk and Obama's endless blasts of hot air. He also need to attack Obama on the change issue, outlining how the Senator from Illinois is offering big government solutions that just don't work. Overall, he must emphasize how he advocates positive change, while Obama relies exclusively on -- in McCain's word -- "platitudes.

Hillary Supporters: NOT The Enemy

I wrote Wednesday (scroll down) about Hillary Supporters taking out revenge on Democrat "SuperDelegates" that supported Obama -- even though their districts or states voted for Hillary Clinton. When the angry Hillary backers get through with them those delegates will not feel very super.

Thursday a.m. (about 10:30 a.m.) on my Pennsylvania blog I'll attempt an answer to an overwhelming question: How exactly do Republican candidates for federal office -- including John McCain -- go about getting the votes -- and financial support -- of the Hillary backers? I can imagine Republican congressional candidates, some of them very dear to me, saying, "Hey, I don't agree with Hillary on much, so how can I can her supporters to back me?"

The first thing is to understand that Hillary Supporters aren't from another planet. As our fellow Americans, they share a lot more with us than we -- or they -- might imagine. For instance, the vast majority of Hillary backers do support our American soldiers.

In fact, Hillary's voters are a lot more likely to KNOW -- or to have in their family -- one or more American soldiers. The same is not true of Obama-philes. To them, soldiers are somebody they see on TV. Twenty percent of Democrats say they hope the U.S. loses the war in Iraq. Very few of them -- almost none, I'd guess -- voted for Hillary Clinton in the Dem Primaries.

Even though I have one wife and five daughters and various grand-daughters, I don't claim to be an expert on women. Even Dr. Freud (not a big favorite with feminists) felt called upon once to ask, "But what does a woman want?"

In coming up with an answer to that, I'm going to rely on my long-distance friend, Jean Avery, from Seattle, Washington. She's as good as it gets on understanding the hopes, fears, and thoughts of female voters. Jean blogs at http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com. She's the one who brought to my attention the avalanche of angry generated by Mrs. Clinton's loss of the nomination. I wrote about that on Tuesday on my Hillary Supporters for McCain site. I also provided the very long list of web sites for Hillary-ites who now intend to vote for McCain.

Caution: Jean, a mom herself, is also a Princeton grad (perhaps one of the few things she shares with Michelle Obama). However, she's promised me not to use too many big words. (When people found out I had been a college English teacher, they used to worry about their grammar! I think it cost me invitations to parties.)

Anyway, after I do the Pennsylvania piece, I'll steal some bits and pieces and add them to this site. As always, thanks for visiting. If you have comments, please either use the "comments" section or send them to me via e-mail at TalkTop65@aol.com.