Another Liberal Double Standard

Here in Washington state, we are gearing up for a rematch of the historic 2004 gubernatorial election. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, ran against Republican Dino Rossi. Rossi won the election by a scant 261 votes. An automatic recount kicked in, and again Rossi won, but by a smaller margin of only 42 votes. After a second recount was ordered, Rossi lost by a mere 130 votes. Seems they kept finding previously uncounted ballots in ultra-liberal King County, nearly all of which went for Gregoire.

The election was proclaimed as fraudulent by the Republicans due to the registration of felons, who are not permitted to vote, and dead people, who are unable to vote as far as I know. No one challenged, and Gregoire's faux victory stood.

Does this sound eerily familiar, perhaps prophetic in some sense? ACORN and other Democrat groups have been registering ineligible voters for quite some time, and only recently have the Republicans caught on. Conservative talk radio has lambasted Senator Barack Obama's campaign, but it is another case of preaching to the choir.

Today, a King County Superior Court judge ruled that challenger Rossi must make a deposition before the date of the election. He will swear out a statement that he has not taken campaign funds illegally. Clearly the left is positioning itself well: If Rossi wins, they will undoubtedly proceed with a full-scale investigation of every contribution he has received over the past several months, hoping to disqualify him and award the spoils of victory to -- you guessed it -- the Democrat incumbent.

Regarding the Courts and Obama, it still has not been established that Mr. Obama is eligible to hold the office of the presidency due to questions surrounding his place of birth. Obama has sealed his college records and his birth certificate in Hawaii until after the election. And last week's oddly timed visit to his ailing grandmother only fueled speculation.

At least two suits have been filed against Obama which would force him to produce a verifiable birth certificate. One such case was filed in King County, the other in Pennsylvania. Yet he still has not been forthcoming with his records. Mr. Obama, that you are unwilling or unable to produce a verifiable birth certificate is cause for suspicion. That you have sealed your college transcripts is also cause for concern. Perhaps an application for financial aid would list your birthplace as somewhere outside of the United States, and for obvious reasons, you do not wish this information to become public.

By contrast, the mainstream media have been all over Governor Sarah Palin and her family, casting aspersions against her husband, even making statements about Palin's religion and the money she spends on clothing.

As of today, both suits against Obama have been dismissed, yet Rossi must make his deposition as ordered. I find this deplorable and clearly biased, possibly orchestrated by some higher power (George Soros, perhaps?) who desperately seeks to install Obama in the White House.

If Barack Obama is elected president and later found to have been born outside of the US and its territories (at last check, Kenya was not a US territory), we will face an unprecedented constitutional crisis. If he is subsequently removed from office, will any and all legislation signed into law by him be ruled invalid?

Yes, we do live in interesting times.

Liberal Judge Comes Through Again!

You knew something like this would happen. But are you surprised?

Former Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Philip Berg, had filed a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Senator Barack Obama to hold the office of the presidency. Berg claims to have proof that Obama is not a US-born citizen, which would disqualify Obama and nullify the Democratic ticket, presumably handing the election over to Senator John McCain. The Hon. R. Barclay Surrick, a Philadelphia Federal Judge appointed by Bill Clinton, has ruled in favor of Obama's interests by dismissing the case. Judge Surrick applied Article III of the Constitution by ruling that Berg had no standing -- that is to say, he would not be an injured party -- should Obama be elected illegally.

If "we the people" have no standing to support the Constitution, who does? It is open to interpretation whether Berg will successfully demonstrate that he would be an injured party should Obama win on November 4. Berg is planning to file an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (although on his website, Berg has indicated that he is immediately filing an appeal with the Supreme Court).

It is noteworthy that Philip Berg is a lifetime Democrat.

If all such cases are ultimately dismissed for lack of standing, it will be up to a Democratic Congress to decide the matter of eligibility of a Democratic president, a fact which does not bode well for McCain or, more importantly, our judicial system.

Constitution be damned, we may have an illegal president after all.

Washington, we have a problem.

"... In conclusion, I am hereby announcing an economic stimulus package which will be funded by a five-hundred percent increase in tax on all ammunition sales, effective immediately."

A smattering of polite applause crept through President Obama's first public assembly at the White House since taking office.

"Effective July 1 of this year, I am ordering that all private gun stores be closed, all civilian weapons sales be halted, and all privately owned handguns and rifles be remanded to the Federal Government."

What had been light applause grew to wild cheering.

"The stimulus incentive will unfold as private citizens turn in their firearms to their local police stations and sheriff's offices, for which they will receive a food or gasoline voucher in the amount of three hundred dollars per firearm returned. All outstanding firearms will be deemed illegal, and any person not in compliance with the Firearms Forfeiture Act of 2009 will be guilty of a felony. We will clean up the streets and get this economy moving once again." The president flashed his hundred-watt smile. "Thank you all, and have a good night."

Thunderous applause roared through the anteroom to the White House as every attendee stood and shouted their hearty approval. And so it was that President Barack Obama, on this twenty-second day of January, 2009, had done what no president in the history of the United States had ever managed to do: He single-handedly tore the Second Amendment out of the United States Constitution, and he did it with admiring eyes adoring his every movement.

The President receded into the Oval Office and was quickly intercepted by his number two man, Joe Biden. "Mr. President? You've got an urgent phone call holding for you."

"Not now, Joe. I've got that speech I promised to give to CAIR in twenty minutes," Obama said, walking briskly past the Vice President.

"Sir, Governor Palin is on line five, and she's steamed."

"Governor Palin? How did -- Okay, send the call into my office. Give me a minute."

President Obama sat at his desk and straightened his tie as VP Biden and Secretary of State Colin Powell let themselves in through the ornate front door. He tossed a wadded up piece of paper into a trash can a few feet from the desk, then punched a flashing button and spoke into the speakerphone.

"Governor Palin, what a pleasure it is to --"

"Save it, Mr. President. I caught wind of your little end-run around the Constitution, your so-called Firearms Forfeiture Act. Now you hear me and hear me good. The State of Alaska will secede from the Union before July 1 unless you drop your plan immediately."

"Governor Palin, with all due respect, I've got the Congress and S --"

"Barry, forget it. I've got four other governors lined up behind me. They'll be lighting your phone lines any minute. We in Alaska are intent on keeping the Second Amendment, as originally drafted, and we will not relinquish our guns. Period, end of story. You can't force your big-city politics down the throats of us rural people."

"I'm sorry you feel that way, Governor, but the act has been signed into law and will become effective in its final phase on July 1. It's a dead issue as far as I'm concerned." The President was digging his heels in for what he knew would be a long battle with a formidable foe, and he had no intention of backing down.

"Fine. I will be announcing the details of your scheme on statewide television at nine p.m. my time. We will disassemble and reroute the pipeline and will keep the revenue for ourselves. Then we'll begin drilling on the entire north slope. I will announce emergency legislation to call all Alaskans serving in the US military home. Alaska will be free from federal tyranny. We will follow the Constitution to the letter," Governor Palin said with added emphasis on her last three words.

"Governor Palin, you're way out of line. You can't threaten me like that."

"Oh I have, Barry. And I intend to keep my word."

"I'll send federal authorities into Alaska to enforce the law," Obama insisted.

"Then I'll oppose your federal cops with my state and local police forces. And if I have to, I'll arm every man, woman, and child to keep Alaska free."

"Do you really want me to send in the National Guard, Sarah?"

"Send anyone you want, Barry, if you want this to get ugly. Just remember the military bases here in Alaska before you get too crazy."

Closing his eyes, the President squeezed the bridge of his nose between two fingers. For a moment, he was speechless. Then some words came to him. "Sarah, you lost the race in November. It was a huge victory for us, and the people have spoken. This is what they've wanted for a long time. It's really the best thing --"

"Cut the crap, Barry," Palin objected. "I suggest you get a copy of the Constitution and read it. Pay particular attention to the Second Amendment."

"I know how it reads, Sarah. You don't need to remind me," he scolded her.

"Then abide by it!" she demanded.

"Sarah, look. I have a meeting in fifteen minutes, and I don't want to be late." But the phone was dead. Governor Palin had hung up.

President Obama stared at the silent phone for a moment before leaning back in his chair. "Wow," he said. "She's scorching hot. How did she find out so fast?"

"Beats me," Biden offered. "What was that about other governors?"

"Your guess is as good as mine," Obama said.

Three quick raps at the door, then it swung open slowly. One of the President's personal secretaries stood in the doorway and motioned to her ear. "Mr. President? You've got an urgent call on line nine."

Obama and Biden locked eyes. "Let me guess, Melodie. The governor of Oklahoma, right?"

"No sir. Montana. It's Governor Schweitzer," she said, then closed the door and was gone.

"Good Lord," Powell said. "She wasn't bluffing."

The President took a deep breath and punched the button for line nine. "Hello, Governor. So good of you to call."

"We're on board with Alaska, Mr. President. I'm sorry sir, but our state constitution forbids meddling by the Federal Government when it comes to our gun rights. You and I have been through this before. I guess you thought I was blowing smoke at you. Sir." Schweitzer was ticked, but he remained cordial.

"Brian, I just got off the phone with Governor Palin, and we saw eye to eye on several key points. I'm sure we'll --"

"Who are you kidding? I heard the whole phone call. She put you in your place, and I'm going along with her. Sorry, Mr. President, but you brought this on yourself."

"Governor Schweitzer, if you're planning on joining her little secession party, I'm telling you bluntly, right now. Forget it."

"No, Mr. President, you forget it. Together our five states comprise a land mass the size of France and Germany combined. You can't win. We have civilians who will enlist to fight you if you let it get to that point."

"Five states? What are you talking --" A little light went on above the President's head. "Talk to me, Brian. Who else is with you?"

"They'll be calling you, Mr. President." Governor Schweitzer clicked off the line.

President Obama and Governor Schweitzer had been through this before, the governor was right. But Obama had thought it was just cocktail napkin stuff, not to be taken seriously. He knew that Montana and Alaska had enormous natural resources and huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons riding on the most sophisticated missiles in the world, weapons he hoped would never be used. But now they were in danger of falling into the hands of a foreign country -- one which had yet to be defined. This could not be happening. Not on the third day of his presidency.

Obama folded his hands together and looked pleadingly at Biden and Powell for suggestions.

"We could pull the National Guard from the west coast states and Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, and go in there and smash both of them," Powell said with a twinkle in his eye. Clearly the general thought in military terms; his game plan had defaulted to an armed confrontation.

Biden added, "I can get a hold of the major news outlets and we can spin it like they've lost their minds. Gun-toting right-wing nuts, that sort of thing. Make it sound like a coup. We'll have the west coast governors on our side, and I'm sure --"

"Forget Wyoming, that's Cheney country. Maybe Colorado," Obama snapped back at them.

"Okay, cross Wyoming off," Biden said.

"Who do you suppose the other three are?" asked a tentative Colin Powell.

"I think we'll be finding out by the time the President finishes with CAIR in... thirty minutes," Biden replied.

The President stared at the phone in horror, fearing who might be next in line to take a swing at him.

Chuck Baldwin and the Two-Party Charade

With a persistently leftist media stacked against them, the McCain-Palin ticket needs all the help they can get. However, there are some issues regarding McCain that don't enamor me. In some ways, he is not well-distinguished from his opponent; however, on most issues, he is at least tolerable, and their differences are noteworthy.

Ideally, voters should have more of a choice at the ballot box. We need representation by a candidate and a party which are more aligned with the values of the disenfranchised Christian heterosexual pro-life folks who love this land and its Constitution.

To wit, why do presidential and vice presidential debates consistently exclude viable third- and even fourth-party candidates? Why must we hold our noses as we cast votes for candidates who only partially represent our views? The political landscape contains too many variables to be represented by an either-or mentality.

Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin would have brought out the communist in Barack Obama and the sometimes Democrat, sometimes Republican in John McCain. Seeing three distinctly different viewpoints responding in three different ways to the same question would have been a refreshing change. It might have shaken up the status quo and opened the doors to the efficacy of a nationally recognized third political party.

I believe the Democrat machine is as afraid of that prospect as is the Republican machine. For the foreseeable future, don't count on seeing the televised debates including a Constitution Party candidate.

If they had a real chance to win, I would vote for the Constitution Party, even though there are some very good Republicans out there. Perhaps they would jump ship if and when the Constitutionalists ever stake enough of a claim to threaten seriously to win an election.

What a thought!

The Real Chameleon

This morning, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, decorated general from Gulf War I, eloquently endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Gasp.

Colin Powell has avoided adhering to a strict party affiliation, and routinely dodges the press. I still don't know if he is a Republican or a Democrat, though his actions today have said a lot.

It is widely known that Senator John McCain has worn the title of maverick during most of President Bush's eight years in the White House. During Bush's first term, the true maverick probably was Colin Powell, who disagreed openly with the president on many aspects of the war in Iraq. Whether or not this was particularly a bad thing, I cannot say, since some of the prosecution of the war did not go as smoothly as we had originally hoped. But we ridded the world of a monster in Sadaam Hussein, and we are winning in Iraq, even if the cost of victory is much higher than anyone had ever imagined, and even if the spoils of gaining a somewhat unstable ally in the Mideast are dubious at worst, unclear at best.

In his thirty-second-long endorsement of Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Mr. Powell noted the supposed lack of experience of McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin. A quick examination of the relevant experience of Obama as contrasted with that of Palin indicates that the senator has less than four years in his current office while the governor has presided over Alaska for the last two; I don't see how the experience of one can be called into question without doing likewise to the other. Yet Powell did not mention any such comparison as he gushed over the wonder and majesty of Obama's promises and eloquent manner of speech, and was too busy to remind us that he was comparing a presidential candidate (an apple) to a vice presidential candidate (an orange), surely an oversight on the part of Powell.

As a side note, if a hypothetical Vice President Palin were to rise to the presidency as a result of some disaster involving President McCain, the well-chosen staff of advisers would quickly and adeptly assist her through a very rapid transistion. McCain's untimely death, no matter when it were to occur, would not be tantamount to a decapitation of the Federal Government.

What disturbs me is that the American media complex, which is supposed to appear to be neutral (they exist with the purpose of reporting news, not interpreting it, am I correct?), is tripping over itself with glowing narratives of the awe-inspiring senator from Illinois. And the populace, which has been consistently dumbed down by inadequate public education and rampant hedonism, has little if any clue what Obama's promises really are, as they swallow his empty assurances to change America and the world hook, line, and sinker, without critically appraising any of it.

Jesus said it would be this way. He said there would be apostasy in the end times. He inspired the apostle Paul who wrote that mankind would turn aside to false christs and be led astray by false ideologies. He said many would exchange the natural function of the man with the woman, and they would burn in their lusts for each other, men committing indecent acts with men, receiving due penalty in their bodies for their error, and giving hearty approval to those who do likewise. And he also said men would become lovers of money and lovers of self rather than lovers of God. (This sounds more like the state of civilization in the year 2008 rather than a two-thousand-year-old prediction.) The way Obama's supporters swoon in his presence brings to mind the persuasive power of the Antichrist who has yet to appear on the world stage that we know of.

In a world in which AA attendance steadily increases while church attendance steadily declines, I'm not surprised that the masses could be so easily duped by a flash-in-the-pan such as B.O. I'm saddened, alarmed, frightened, and many of other adjectives that equate to a high level of angst. But I'm not surprised.

If Obama were to survive a mortal head would (as the Book of Revelation foretells will happen to the Antichrist), then I would be surprised. While I'm not implying that Obama is the Antichrist, nor do I wish such a fate to befall him, I am pointing out how the Antichrist might ascend to the world stage through slick oratory, the same magnetism and duplicity we witness in Senator Obama today.

As for Colin Powell's endorsement, there's no surprise there at all.

Tick tock, tick tock...

A year or so ago, I read that President Bush would likely solve the Iran issue before leaving office. In three months his successor will assume the presidency, and all of America's problems will fall on him.

As of right now, our armed forces are positioned favorably for military action against Iran with huge contingencies surrounding them, from the west in Iraq to the east in Afghanistan. Under the guise of troop rotation for the war in Iraq, we could conceivably float another entire fleet to within a few hundred miles of the Strait of Hormuz without raising the suspicion or ire of any potentially hostile nation. The fleet would have the capability of hitting targets using sortees and laser-guided bombs, ground-penetrating bunker buster bombs, and should the need arise, cruise missiles with a nuclear payload.

An Obama Administration would likely begin a reduction in troops deployed in Iraq shortly after January 20, whereas McCain would be apt to leave existing forces in place for a while longer. Since polls currently favor Obama by an electable margin, let's assume he will be the next Commander in Chief. (Excuse me while I get a fresh vomit bag.) This man has already indicated that he will talk with anyone -- North Korea, Iran, Al-Qaeda, and probably Mohamed Atta if he could find his ashes somewhere in Manhattan. Since I believe there are some people whose opinions matter so little that I don't ever wish to hear them, I question the value of this tactic. Iran, a nation to which Obama (or was it Biden?) suggested we give a good-will donation of several hundred million dollars (why?), detests the United States with unquenchable passion. This is a nation whose leaders have threatened Israel with annihilation, and whose president has boldly invited that we "imagine a world without the United States and Israel."

Love him, loathe him, or somewhere-in-between him, President Bush is the man to handle Iran. But the clock is ticking, and the nightmare of passing the torch to Obama so he can botch a showdown with the Iranian military is horribly reminiscent of the way Jimmy Carter "handled" Iran. (Remember Iranian troops parading American GIs' body parts on their state-run TV after US helicopter gunships crashed in the desert outside of Tehran in a quasi-attempt to rescue Americans held hostage at our embassy for 444 days? We appeared to the world to be an inept laughingstock under Carter, and I expect even less from Obama.)

I have no doubt President Ahmadinejad, the psychopath from Tehran, is busy weighing all of this with his generals. This might explain why we are witnessing increased cooperation with Russia, an alliance foretold in the Bible, a collusion that had never existed prior to a few years ago. Ahmadinejad might be raising the ante along with the cost of a US-led invasion. (Considering how many oil-thirsty countries depend on Iran's oil, the "coalition" might consist only of the US and Israel, or perhaps unilateral action by the United States.)

If I were an advising general in the Iranian armed forces, I might strike the US before Bush can make good on his promise. With Shahab-III missiles carrying Pakistani (or North Korean or Russian or Chinese or even Iranian) nuclear warheads, this might be a good time to float a cargo ship alongside one of our coastlines and detonate a nuke fifty miles over the American heartland. The resulting electromagnetic pulse would cripple us, but our demise would send economic repercussions throughout the entire planet. With zero US oil consumption, the price of a barrel of oil -- hence the wealth of the Persian state -- could dwindle to lows never before seen by OPEC. What remained of the American military machine might target Iran with an obligatory "nothing to lose" nuclear strike.

Anticipating this possibility, perhaps moderate, clear-thinking Iranian advisers could conceivably opt for a less aggressive but equally egregious approach. Bogging down the American dollar would disinvite a US military strike since any military action would tax our struggling economy further. Ahmadinejad may be secretly laughing at us since Bush may not be in any position to fulfill his promise against Iran. With this in mind, he could ratchet up the pressure on the greenback by flooding the world with counterfeit US hundred-dollar-bills (they and the North Koreans are already doing this), and readying his sleeper cells who are currently dormant on our homeland. A well-choreographed, multi-pronged domestic attack could turn our focus inward to the point of nearly complete disinterest with Iran. Simultaneous large-scale terrorist attacks in a dozen major US cities, compounded by a reeling economy, a decimated stock market, and the confusion of a change of US administration, might render America the Paper Tiger much of the world has come to regard us as.

While Al-Qaeda and Iran are not one and the same, they share a common goal by virtue of sharing common enemies, and would eagerly cooperate in a brash move against our homeland. Any number of weapons -- handguns, AK-47 assault rifles, suitcase nukes, RPGs, shoulder-fired stinger missiles -- could be brought into the US with the assistance of Columbian and Mexican gangs. Once given the go-ahead via a TV broadcast or a post on some surreptitious website, the enemy might start by tossing a few hundred pounds of cyanide into the water supply of each US city with a population greater than, say, a half-million; then unleash hundreds of machine-gun-toting sleeper agents into crowded malls and grid-locked intersections during rush hour; and top it off with a few hundred private planes crop dusting our defenseless citizens with weaponized botulinum toxin, anthrax, ebola virus, smallpox... the list is endless.

If you think this is frightening, consider that I am just a lone voice, on par with Joe the Plumber, and am privy to nothing more than a fertile imagination. If I really knew what I was talking about, we would be in a world of hurt.

And if Obama does to the Second Amendment what he has promised he would do, I wouldn't be able to protest with anything larger than a BB-gun.

The Death of Conservative America

While on my daily walk today, my mind refused to veer away from thoughts of tonight's debate as well as the upcoming election. (Some of what follows has appeared in one or more of my earlier posts.)

I've decided to throw in the towel on McCain as he has not stepped up to the plate and given conservative voters any reason to want him as president. Consequently, when I stand in the voting booth on Tuesday, November 4, and prepare to make my selection, there is, at this point, a better-than-fifty percent chance that I will punch the circle representing the Constitution Party's candidate, Chuck Baldwin. The only doubt in my mind is due to Governor Palin's presence on the (R) ticket, and that reason is probably flimsy at best (though I admire Sarah Palin immensely).

Despite my recent posts in which I had touted a chance for a conservative revival beginning in 2012 after Obama has had four years to ruin the country, I regret to say that, after further consideration, I don't see any such prolonged revival occurring. The following list contains the reasons for my growing fear:

1. Removal of God from the American landscape, figuratively and literally, by the courts and public schools thanks to a convenient misinterpretation of the First Amendment;
   
2. The death of free speech;
3. The rise of political correctness (refer to item 2);
4. Aggressive Darwinist/atheist agenda forced on fertile young minds in public schools and those in higher education;
5. Grade-school indoctrination by the militant homosexual mafia (refer to items 1, 2, 3, and 4);
6. A continued replenishing of secular progressive lunacy from the communist-infiltrated public school system (refer to item 4);
   
7. Nancy Pelosi, undeniably a psychopath, who will assure item 2 by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. With the Democrats in total control, no one will stop her.
   

Not only are new laws threatening to silence the opposition of the socialist juggernaut, but the left maintains a vise grip on the media, speech, religious expression, and expression of any viewpoint that contradicts their agenda.

With the deck stacked so heavily against conservatism and freedom of religious expression, I see no hope that the direction of the country will change over the course of my remaining years on planet earth. For the first time in my life, I am seriously considering relocating to another country. As of yet, I have not yet decided upon my destination; but wherever it is, it will not be on the North American continent.

Forgive me for being so bleak. I really need to work on this. Perhaps I should concentrate more on poetry or fiction in the future... or spending time with my dog. God knows, there hasn't been much of a reason to be hopeful for years.

Muslim Invasion, Film at 11

They've overtaken Europe, they're overrunning Canada, and they're knocking on our door. They are Muslims, and they want your friends, they want your family, and they want you.

What are you so worked up about? Muslims are just another peaceful group of religious people who want to assimilate into our culture. After all, we're a diverse culture, are we not?

Hold up a minute there, tiger. It sounds to me as though you've been watching a little too much CNN. Let's get some things straight.

As stated in the Koran, true believers of Islam do not want peace or assimilation. They want submission to Allah. There is nothing peaceful about submitting to a god in whom you have no faith. Islam does not claim to coexist with anyone, nor do they seek to. They come as conquerors, not as peaceful coexistents (n., plural). Adherents to other religions are routinely killed, and it is mandated in Muslim cultures that apostates -- those who dare to convert from Islam to another religion, especially Christianity -- must be killed. That the apostate is often the child of a Muslim zealot is no deterrent to their execution.

The virulent strain of Islam that has overrun Europe is the same crowd of thugs who nearly burned Paris to the ground two years ago, and have recently imported Sharia Law into the UK. Canada is a few years behind Europe, and the US is closing the gap with Canada. An Obama presidency could snap us right into line much like a domino awaiting its turn to topple.

If the gathering storm clouds of Islam truly represented a religion that sought to coexist with those who did not wish to partake of same, I would welcome them. A healthy exchange of ideas is always a good thing.

Key word: healthy. Lopping the heads off of unwilling participants does not qualify as promoting good health.

The West, in particular the United States, has, until recently, encouraged a free marketplace of ideas. We have always been tolerant of other viewpoints. We have always lent a helping hand to those who did not necessarily believe as we do. Our diversity speaks for itself. However, at the core of our kindness and gentility is a religious value system that runs anti-parallel to that of Islam. Christianity brings a message of hope and salvation, while Islam brings forced conversion under the threat of death.

What about the Crusades?

What about the Crusades? The most effective way to bash God is for His enemy falsely to do something in His name. Moreover, the Crusades were a result of Europeans having been attacked by invading Muslims.

Christianity is no different than Islam. They're all terrorists.

I've heard this drivel before, too. Christians bring a message of hope, then leave it at the doorstep of the invitee. Muslims force conversion by the sword. Christians don't fly airplanes into buildings in hopes of killing innocent civilians. Muslims do.

I firmly believe billions of Saudi petrodollars are recirculating in our economy and buying our media. Anyone with half a brain can see that American media is horribly biased. I also believe the Saudis have bought their way into our Senate and Congress as well as institutions of higher learning. And now they seek Western democracy's crown jewel, the American presidency. Connect that dot to this: Yesterday Jesse Jackson claimed that an Obama presidency would spell the end of US support for Israel. Jackson is one of the most flagrant modern-day bigots to stand in front of a microphone, all the while preaching his color of hate. He has scarcely hidden his anti-semitism or anti-caucasianism. Jackson and the Saudis have two glaring things in common: Hatred of Israel and support of Obama.

Once the enemy dwells among us, it will be too late. The United States has already blurred into an aberration of what it once was. Our borders, language, and culture have nearly been erased. I don't see a glint of optimism on the horizon other than a strong belief in Almighty God.

A New McGovern

When I was quite a lot younger, my father told me of a huge imaginary pendulum, one which swings back and forth along with a society's values. He would turn over in his grave if he could see how far the pendulum has swung in this once-free country, and more alarmingly, that it seems to be gaining momentum rather than reaching a point of temporary equilibrium before beginning its return voyage back to reason and sanity.

Millions of American soldiers bled battlefields crimson red to keep tyranny off the North American continent. An Obama Administration, flying under a flag of political correctness, will do to us what Soviet tanks did to Czechoslovakia forty years ago. Our freedoms are evaporating before our eyes.

In 1972, President Richard Nixon was riding a wave of popularity the Democrat machine could not stop, so they nominated an empty suit, an unelectable buffoon by the name of George McGovern. McGovern's views were so radical, millions of Democrats switched sides, and Nixon crushed his ultra-liberal adversary into anonymity.

Remember that bozo, McGovern? He's the guy who wanted to defeat the Soviet Union by proving we were superior to them by unilaterally dumping all of our nuclear weapons. His mantra of strength through peace was about as backward as that of the current Democrat nominee, that fool from Illinois who is about to take the reins of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen with the intent of changing it.

I'm sure he will do exactly as he says.

Dad, if you're listening, it's not as bad as the media says. It's worse.

1976 Revisited

Turn the clock back thirty-two years. If you're not old enough to remember the election pitting then President Gerald Ford against Jimmy Carter, look up the details in your favorite search engine.

Beleaguered by echoes of Watergate and the resignation of President Nixon two years earlier, the Republican party could not shake the muck that had tarnished their image. Ford, who had replaced Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1973 when Agnew resigned due to charges of tax evasion and money laundering, went on to inherit the presidency ten months later when Nixon called it quits. Ford also inherited an ecomony that was in a downward arc. (Remember WIN -- "Whip Inflation Now" -- and stagflation?) Oil prices had skyrocketed due to a war in the Middle East, one which had threatened to go global when Israel readied, but thankfully did not fire, their nuclear missiles at Egypt and Syria.

What a mess.

The more I consider American politics in 1976, the more I am drawn to the similarities between that election and the one a mere twenty-two days away.

Ford was not a particularly strong presidential figure, though he served in the armed forces in World War II and certainly was a nice fellow and a likeable man. He received his party's nomination by obligation more than anything else -- incumbents nearly always do.

McCain served in Vietnam and was a prisoner of war for several arduous years, tortured by his Viet Cong captors in ways known only to him. For this reason alone, I salute him and thank him for his service. But as a presidential contender, he's so weak that he has trouble getting out of his own way.

Due in part to war and sticker shock over high oil prices, Ford inherited a crumbling economy. McCain stands to do exactly the same thing.

Though he had had nothing to do with his predecessor's woes, Ford could not shake the Watergate curse. Similarly, McCain cannot shake the negatives of President Bush's legacy, no matter how many times he insists that he is not George W. Bush.

I believe the Republicans of 2008 may have seen the current economic catastrophe in advance and, quite possibly, wanted to absolve themselves of it by throwing this year's election and nominating a candidate who cannot win (McCain). In the process, the Republicans will have handed the nation's economic disaster to an unknown (Obama) who will surely tax us into even more dire straits. And after four agonizing years of failed socialist politics, waiting in the wings will be a strong conservative, perhaps one whose name we don't yet know.

Does that sound at all like 1980? After four years of Jimmy Carter, Americans couldn't wait to elect Reagan (by a landslide of unutterable proportions) and begin a conservative revolution. The parallels of this election with that of 1976 might extend to 2012 and 1980, respectively.

For me, November 4 will be a night of popcorn and soda, and perhaps a good movie. Even if my vote were to count, I don't think it will matter. Even if my horse wins the race, I lose. But better to lose now and win in four years than to win a short-sighted victory now and retain the blame in 2012, an election which could usher in a Democrat mini-dynasty.

This is not to say that four years of a communist Obama presidency can ever be undone. We're still paying for the naivete, if not outright stupidity, of James Earl Carter. Recall how Carter turned his back on the Shah of Iran, a once staunch ally in the region, and helped create the nuclear-aspiring, bellicose Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust. He also gave away the Panama Canal, pardoned all draft dodgers, cut defense spending, and sent the national budget deficit further into the red than ever before seen.

If there's anything left of these United States in 2013, I hope it begins with a reincarnation of the Reagan Revolution.

Picking up the Pieces: A Call to Arms

Senator John McCain is behind in most, if not all, major polls. Despite pulling Sarah Palin out of a hat and the relative obscurity of the Alaskan wilderness, the old man and the diamond in the rough are taking on water and may capsize on November 4, if not before.

Even if McCain were a more inspiring fellow--dashing, debonair, eloquent of speech, several notches to the right of his maverick pseudo-conservative position--and even had he taken Obama apart in the first two debates, something a President Reagan or a Michael Savage surely would have done, the Government Media Complex is stacking the cards against John and Sarah (am I sounding paranoid here?). They protect their Illinois department store dummy by permitting him to run a campaign without having satisfactorily proven that he is indeed eligible to hold the office of the presidency by producing a verifiable birth certificate. His cohort, Senator Biden, clearly played fast and loose with "facts" in his only debate against Governor Palin, and yet the media turned a blind eye to his egregious errors, misstatements, and omissions.

I find it inexplicably odd that Mr. Obama has spoken to indifferent throngs in other lands, and that straw polls seem to indicate a worldwide desire, especially among Muslim nations(!), to see this empty suit rise to capture the American presidency. Surely after having worked a mere 143 days in the Senate, he must be battle-hardened and ready to serve, no?

Having said all this, I am on the brink of panic. My blogs lately have rung a more dire note; frankly they reflect the apprehension of their author, and my fear that we may actually be seeing a truly dangerous man illegally ascend to the highest office in the land, if not the free world.

Yet we appear powerless to stop it!

This is going to get deep, so top off your coffee cup and come along for a ride, or at least a thought experiment, one I trust will bring some hope to an otherwise unstoppable gathering storm on the near horizon.

Reminded of a Scripture by a dear friend of mine, namely 2 Chron 7:14 (If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land), I feel compelled not to lose sight of the fact that all things happen for God's glory, and that He is always in control. He will not forget us if we fulfill the conditions of the afore-mentioned Scripture.

Our nation is increasingly blue-minded, the ACLU is stealing the rights of religious folks while seeking to expand the rights of the depraved, various other atheist organizations have risen to power and are ripping all vestiges of God from public (even private) expression, and no one can agree on exactly who is protected from whom by the First Amendment--are churches protected from government's meddling, or is it the other way around? A cursory knowledge of the first years of our fledgling republic would answer this question, yet activist judges and communist-sympathizers on the US District and Supreme Courts consistently get it wrong. Public schools insist on revising the Founding Fathers' original intention of freedom of religion, claiming they meant things they plainly did not say. They are disparaged and somehow disqualified for having been slave owners, something that is a sad yet immutable fact. (George Washington made many concessions to his slaves and was quoted as regretting that he had ever indulged in the evil practice.)

Yesterday I looked at a color-coded map that showed how each of the fifty states are inclined to vote if the election were held today. Each of the coasts appear solidly blue, along with several (but not all) Great Lakes states. A huge swath of red paints the South along with the plains states all the way from the Rio Grande to Canada, with Colorado possibly too close to call with four weeks remaining. The projected electoral total is running about seventy in Obama's favor. Assuming he cruises to victory and erases the Second Amendment as I have warned he will, the Federal Government will have breached a century-old contract with the state of Montana which guaranteed gun rights for Montanans. The result of such a breach? The threat of secession.

I began connecting dots.

If Montana were to secede from the union to preserve the clearly stated original intention of the US Constitution, I believe Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Arizona could conceivably follow suit very quickly. These states are solidly red; Oklahoma and Arizona have recently enacted stiff penalties for the hiring and harboring of illegal immigrants; and Wyoming, one of the most deeply red states in the union, shares a sisterhood of sorts with Montana. And if these states joined, how many others in the nation's bread basket would come on board?

Rob, you've lost your mind! It could never happen, would never happen, is not feasible, and no state in its right mind would commit suicide in this manner!

Think again. As of February 2008, thirty-nine elected Montana officials had signed a proclamation endorsing the motion of secession should the DC Gun Ban Case (DC v Heller, 2008) rule in favor of the status quo, i.e., that personal gun ownership is no longer supported by the US Constitution, and that the intent of the Second Amendment applies to a militia rather than the individual. Fortunately we dodged that bullet, if you'll pardon the pun, when the DC Ban was struck down. Thank you, Justice Scalia, et al. But a bigger bullet looms on November 4, one that will come to fruition on January 20 of next year if Obama is sworn into office.

Now let's take a stroll down Thought Experiment Lane, shall we? Let's assume the secession movement gathers steam and most if not all the red states join their frustrated brothers and sisters. US Red controls most of the food production in the nation and much of the oil reserves. With a minority of the population comprising US Red, they would not need to import oil from foreign lands, shifting that problem back to what remained of the original US. All twenty or so of the states that comprise US Blue would need to import more oil to make up for what the Heartland was no longer supplying them. The disconnected coastal bluelands would also be forced to import most of their food since the San Joaquin Valley could not support the nearly two hundred million inhabitants of US Blue. The new nation of US Red would call its troops home, since they no longer represent the interests of US Blue. These soldiers would then protect the Heartland, chiefly from invasion by US Blue. US Blue, currently engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would be spread too thin to even consider turning its decimated army against US Red. And if Colorado were to come on board, US Red would get Cheyenne Mountain as an extra added bonus.

US Red would evict the ACLU and all those opposed to the original vision of our God-given Constitution. Laws prohibiting abortion on demand would become part of the new Constitution via an amendment stating such, forcing the closure of abortion clinics. All of the amendments, especially those pertaining to free speech and gun rights, would be honored unless they conflict with biblical statutes. Cockeyed decisions of the formerly acknowledged Supreme Court, now US Blue's problem, would be struck down in a free for all as the newly formed government of US Red divests itself of the errors of its predecessor gone awry. Illegal aliens would be returned home at the expense of their nation of citizenry. Nonsensical hiring quotas would be abolished, and taxes would be permanently lowered. All who wish to emigrate to a free US Red would be invited with open arms, provided they abide by the law. Likewise, those wishing to leave could freely do so.

In no way am I saying this would be an easy task; to the contrary, it would be a formidable undertaking, but it may come to this if we are to retake our nation. This country is so deeply divided that we are on the brink of something huge. Each election cycle, we see more and more strife as the schism between the blues and the reds widens.

You want to talk change, Mr. Obama? Mess with God and Montana's gun rights and watch real change hit you like you never imagined.

No one believed that the Soviet Union could fall apart, and yet it did. And it can happen here as well. With God's blessing, the result would be beyond our wildest expectations.

Triumvirate of Democrats, A Chilling Prospect

If current polls bear out, the United States will be facing at least two bleak years, and perhaps as many as four, with a Democrat-controlled House, Senate, and Presidency.

The Socialists of the far Left will pass a flurry of legislation virtually unchecked. Hate crimes legislation will certainly be rushed into law as soon as Obama is sworn in. This will further erode the right to free speech while devaluing classes of citizens commonly known as Caucasians and heterosexuals. Following quickly will be nominations of like-minded communist-sympathizers to fill vacancies of various circuit courts as well as any upcoming vacancies to the Supreme Court.

Are we truly ready for this?

Trust me, this evil three-headed beast will not stop with hate crimes. They've already taken aim at enshrining homosexual marriage into law, Constitutional assurances to abortion (making it impossible to overturn Roe v Wade), stripping away of our right to bear arms, and a resurgence of the Fairness Doctrine. They must, you see, silence their critics.

If I choose to buy a Chevy because I believe it to be a better product than some other automobile, I will have made that decision based on my faith in the superior product, and perhaps by advertising. The Fairness Doctrine will disallow freedom in the market place of ideas by shutting the mouths of those who hold a view opposing the socialist regime. It only seems logical to me that, if their ideas are superior to those of their opposition, they should welcome a free exchange of those ideas without fear of reprisal. Yet they do not. Just as Nancy Pelosi turned off the lights and microphones during a recent discussion on high gas prices, stifling the conservative voices who were about to be heard, the extreme Left also will dim the lights of their opposition in any way they can.

Sounds more and more like North Korea to me.

Our churches and synagogues need full restoral of their rights to free speech by revisiting the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act," once known as HR 235. Failure to do so will doom us to further depletion of the rights granted by our Constitution through a continued emboldening of the socialist element in our once-free land.

Where's The Beef?

Last night's presidential debate between the two principals sadly lacked the meat and potatoes many of us want to hear. Even the Right's pseudo-conservative candidate, the Maverick from Arizona, missed a golden opportunity to ratchet up the stakes.

I heard nothing about proposed hate crimes legislation, nothing about abortion, nothing about guns, nothing about immigration, nothing about the Ten Commandments, and frankly, nothing that made me proud to vote for either candidate. Even my support for McCain, weak as it is, is largely based on my confidence in the strengths of Governor Sarah Palin.

(Palin is not qualified, you say? Recall that President Reagan was an actor-turned-governor before winning the White House in a landslide repudiation of hard-core leftist ideals when he routed the Peanut Farmer and sent him packing his bags back to Georgia.)

All of the debates that I have seen this year--presidential or vice-presidential--have been moderated by liberals, people you know will be casting their votes for the Muslim from Illinois. Why is this? Since the middle-of-the-road has long since dried up in this polarized political landscape, why have none of the debates been moderated by a true conservative? Michael Savage would raise the roof with tough questions that would make everyone squirm, and for this reason, he would have been great. Bill O'Reilley, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Sam Brownback, former justice Roy Moore, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and many others--any one of these people could have posed the pointed questions we needed to have addressed. But Mr Brokaw failed us by retreating into timidity. Huge surprise there.

Had I been Senator McCain, I would have taken a moment to reflect on Obama's appearance at a Christian church in southern California in which he responded to questions about abortion. It seems he feels that answering tough questions about the beginnings of life were above his pay grade. I would have nailed him to a wall by suggesting that if this is so, then surely the office of the presidency is also above his pay grade.

More Media Inconsistencies

The American Communist Party, aka the Democrats, are at it again, trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. So far, all they have come up with is a single twenty-two-year-old DUI by Palin's husband, Todd. Woah, now there’s a reason to disqualify a Vice-Presidential candidate if I ever heard one.

Of course the Enquirer has unearthed an alleged affair of Sarah's. This is the same dead fish wrapper that reported that Hillary was pregnant with an alien space seed, that President Bush had suffered a heart attack and that Laura had left him, and how the world is destined to end in 2012 because an ancient calendar says so. When will the irrelevant ad hominem arguments stop? Must we continue to search for non-existent dirt on a candidate simply because we cannot disqualify them on the basis of their ideas? I've never understood how one's political beliefs must necessarily be specious simply because they may (or may not) have done something in the past that was not on the up-and-up. Most often the mere accusation casts enough of a shadow across a person's character so as to discredit them to some degree. And when the person is running for public office, damaging innuendoes, even blatantly false ones, can often swing an election a couple of crucial points.

Hillary assured us that she could balance raising a family with her work as a senator. However, she, along with her cohorts in the liberal media, falsely raise the issue that Sarah Palin cannot do likewise. Somehow Governor Palin is unable to care for her family while performing the acts of a Vice President. Why do you suppose Hillary and her minions would say these things?

Perhaps it is because the Left sees no inconsistencies here.

I guess you need a higher education to make sense out of what plainly is not there. And you need steadfastly to avoid those who are a part of Hillary's perceived vast right-wing conspiracy.

As for Sarah's past, bring it on. They will find nothing. What they think they have found will be insignificant at best, and George Soros's media machine will blow it out of proportion in a sinister attempt to sway the most naive of voters into the Obama camp. And this is being sanctioned by the Left who still refuse to see any problem with Obama’s failure to produce a bonafide birth certificate of the current prince of the American Socialists, the Muslim from Indonesia. Yes, that guy who espouses change, supports abortion at all stages, believes in evolution, and claims to be a Christian, that same rascal who admitted to being a Muslim in a recent televised interview.

Freudian slip? I honestly don't think so.

Let's talk Ted Kennedy for a moment. I don't need to turn to the Left's favorite ad hominem method to discredit this man. He is a Marxist, regardless of his past. But since they did it to Governor Palin, I'll do it to Teddy Boy. One might recall that the patriarch of the Democrat party had a drinking problem as well as an infidelity problem which resulted in an unwanted baby problem growing in the womb of Mary Jo Kopechne all the way back in 1970. The flunky of the Kennedy family used his driving skills to solve the problem of Mary Jo, and blamed it on his inability to hold down his booze. And he used his family's ill-gotten gains (bootlegging profits) to hire the best lawyers (and for all I know, greased the palms of a few district attorneys along the way) to make all his woes vanish.

And yes, he is still in the Senate, and had it not been for his current ill health, would still be flapping his gums.

Give our Leftist leaders a healthy dose of their own Ritalin to cure their obvious attention deficit disorders. But these folks act as if they are brain-damaged, so don't expect any miracles, for the mental disorder known as liberalism runs deep.

The Left's Assault on the 1st and 2nd Amendments

Should Mr. Obama win the presidential election next month, American citizens will be perilously close to kissing their First and Second Amendment rights goodbye.

It is no secret that he—along with most Democrats, spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi, and even some misguided Republicans—intends to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, the biggest assault on free speech rights since LBJ moved in 1954 to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status should they speak out on political issues.

Regarding the First Amendment, note the wording as it stands: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By threatening to revoke a church's ability to speak out on the issues of the day—homosexuality, abortion, and the mentioning of candidates' names who support issues opposed by the church, to name just three—former President Johnson effectively ushered in an era of illegally muted free speech. Simply put, churches should enjoy the umbrella of protection as guaranteed by the Constitution, but do not. This fifty-four-year-old move clearly is in violation of the last half of the Amendment as quoted above.

The Fairness Doctrine, first introduced five years before LBJ tightened a federal noose around the neck of the church, is an invitation to the Federal Government to oversee matters of content of speech as broadcast over airwaves. (Currently there is consideration to expand a revitalized version of the defunct act to include the internet, though this remains to be seen.) The effect of bringing back this Draconian tool of the extreme Left would be devastating. Gone would be the freedom to broadcast your opinion over commercial airwaves without undue government interference; gone would be Christian radio programs, other than those devoted strictly to music; gone would be conservative as well as liberal talk radio, since the price for opining would simply be too high, namely by allowing equal time for dissenting opinions. While this sounds like liberty and justice for all, it is economically infeasible and would therefore crush free speech.

So why do the Democrats want to push for such a measure?

When President Reagan vetoed a bill which would have enshrined the Fairness Doctrine into law in 1987, conservative talk radio was born. Rush Limbaugh single-handedly brought the conservatives back to a semblance of power in 1994 against the Clinton political machine. Recall that during that off-year election, Republicans gained the House and Senate and were able to stymie Clinton and minimize his political influence for his remaining six years. (Clinton's appointment of the communist sympathizer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, formerly an attorney for the ACLU, to the Supreme Court was unfortunately something that could not be undone.) Following in Rush's footsteps were Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and many others who gave conservative voters a voice and a powerful tool to wield in their fight against the horribly biased mainstream media outlets, notably ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and most major American newspapers. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would return effective control of all media to the Left, snuffing what is left of our rights to free speech.

Enter Barack Obama.

The NRA has compiled a list of ten points which Barack Obama would seek to implement should he become president. If you are a gun owner, please pay close attention. Obama wants to:

1. Ban the use of firearms for home self-defense.
2. Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.
3. Ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.
4. Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.
5. Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
6. Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%!
7. Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.
8. Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.
9. Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.
10. Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

I would urge you to read this list again. I found it hard to believe the first few times I read it, and two months after having acquainted myself with it, I still find it hard to digest.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, in one of his arguments in the recent victory against the so-called DC Gun Ban (District of Columbia v Heller, 2008), pointed out the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they crafted the Constitution. He stated that citizens were entitled to arm themselves for the purpose of self-protection, which also included protection from the armed forces, in the event that the government decided to use military might to tyrannize its citizens. I agree it seems outlandish to allow atomic bombs, spy satellites, tanks, and bazookas for personal use. However, this was the intent at the time the amendment was written and became the law of the land. I see no reason that responsible, law-abiding citizens should be banned from owning any handgun, rifle, or semi-automatic weapon they can afford. And I do stress "law-abiding." The Constitution does not apply to illegal aliens, nor should violent felons or the mentally ill be allowed to own weapons of this type. (I would move for the restoration of rights for non-violent felons after a certain period of time, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this article.)

Outlawing guns and restricting or eliminating the sales of ammunition would invite a black market that would provide the criminal element the means by which they could terrorize unprotected Americans. If you doubt this, consider all the heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine that have been pouring into this country in steadily increasing quantities despite our best efforts to thwart their importation. Those who scoff at laws would not change their behavior simply because guns and bullets had become illegal. For most gang members with long rap sheets, possession of any firearm is already a felony—yet they continue to possess and use them routinely and with impunity. Clearly the criminalization of firearms for the general public would be a huge disaster; those of us who would insist on defending ourselves would do so at great legal peril.

At the risk of sounding as if I've ingested something I shouldn't have, it is not inconceivable that Al-Qaida may have funneled automatic weapons to their sleeper cells here in the United States. Compared to the hordes of humans who pour through the border with Mexico in any given span of time, bringing a few thousand crates of AK-47 rifles through a tunnel or across a barren stretch of deserted Arizona ranchland would be a trivial matter. When their sleeper agents are called upon by their evil governments to arise and attack the American public on our own soil—a shopping mall at Christmastime would make an excellent soft target, as would strategically chosen intersections choked by rush-hour traffic—their task would be an order of magnitude easier if you and I are unarmed. If you think this scenario came from Stephen King, guess again. Recall that in 1997, two gunmen held off dozens of LAPD officers from four divisions for forty-five minutes before finally being put down by a SWAT team; the police ultimately won that battle thanks to a generous contribution from a nearby privately owned gun store. Now multiply what we saw that day by, say, a thousand, and you will see serious carnage. Police bureaus will be stretched beyond their limits and unable to respond effectively. Responsibility could easily fall to gun owners to face down the enemy. Yes, this surely does sound like the stuff novels are made of; but fiction has a funny way of leaping off the pages and into the history books.

I don't know how to be any clearer on this: If you value the freedoms afforded us by the Constitution, specifically both of the first two amendments, you must not allow Barack Obama to be elected in November, period.