To begin with, let me say that I still believe this whole affair is garbage, cooked up by a few crackpots with way too much free time on their hands. However, how it has managed to hang around for over two years is fascinating. Especially when you realize that it has been Obama who has been keeping the controversy alive the whole time.

Apparently, Obama requested a copy of the long form of his birth certificate on April 22, 2011 (through his attorney), and the State of Hawaii delivered the document on April 25, 2011, one business day later. This proves that Obama could have released his long-form birth certificate any time he wanted to, even back in 2008 when this all started. Indeed, having done so would have ended this whole thing then and there. However, as we have since found out, nothing is ever cut-and-dried with Obama. After all, he had political points to score.

Whether or not it was Obama himself or one of his staffers, the calculation was made to allow the controversy to fester into the so-called “Birther” movement. This provided Obama and the Democrats a ready-made “boogie man” to point to whenever they needed a distraction. It also acted as a scapegoat for the President to dismiss his many critics by painting them all with the attributes of the birthers, whether they applied or not.

Enter Donald Trump. As only he can, Trump used his bombast to amp up the whole controversy. He single-handedly thrust it back onto the front burner of the media, and Trump’s poll numbers were increasing because of it. Even though the vast majority of Republicans had dismissed the issue, as I had, as garbage, Trump had somehow given it traction with the media. Thus, instead of helping Obama, it was now hurting him. Of course, this meant that it had to be ended, so like magic the elusive birth certificate was produced.

Of course, even though it is now evident that Obama could have ended this whole issue a long time ago, the left still has to blame someone else. So, they are now calling it a “racist” plot against the President. After all, everybody knows that the only reason anyone would question Obama is because he’s black, right? It can’t be that he was questioned on this because it is a routine request made of almost all Presidential candidates, could it? Or because all political candidates routinely furnish such documents at the beginning of their campaigns? Nope. It has to be because Obama is black, and anyone who questions his decisions is racist. It has to be!

Thinking people have always known two things about this controversy: First, they knew that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Second, that it is completely proper for a Presidential candidate to be asked to furnish his birth certificate as part of the media’s routine investigation of that candidate’s background. There is nothing inherently racist about it. In fact, Obama has been less-than-forthcoming about a lot of his background information, such as his college transcripts. During the 2004 Presidential Campaign, voters were treated to endless comparisons between Kerry’s and Bush’s college transcripts (remember the whole discussion about Bush’s “Gentleman’s C” average?). Now, Obama refuses to release his transcripts from any of the colleges he attended, while his minions brag about how intelligent he is. Am I the only one who sees something wrong here? If you’re going to brag about your intelligence, you should be willing to back it up with proof.

For someone who promised the most transparent administration in history, it seems that Obama is spending most of his time hiding everything he’s ever done.

If they couldn’t afford the mortgage to begin with, why did the bank give it to them? Because, under a Jimmy Carter administration law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to which huge changes were made by the Clinton Administration and passed by the Democrats in Congress, all financial lending institutions were required to make loans to minority applicants without regard to their ability to make the payments required by the loan. In fact, if the lending institutions didn’t make these loans, they faced huge financial penalties from the government.

Democrats had been looking at mortgage statistics and found that minority applicants did not receive mortgages at the same rate that non-minority applicants did. Being Democrats, they cried, “racism!” and quickly drafted the CRA. It never occurred to the Democrats that the reason that these minority applicants were turned down was because their credit was bad; they simply decided that it had to be racism because everyone knows that the only reason banks don’t loan money to minorities is because they are keeping them down. So, the CRA instituted quotas for the lenders to meet, and the rest is history.

Republicans saw this coming, and tried to get a new regulatory agency created to oversee the loan process and stop these bad financial practices, but the Democrats claimed that there were no problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevented anything from changing.

Watch this video for a real good expanation of what happened:

The head of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac during all of this was a man named Frank Raines. This is the man Senator Obama named as his Economic Adviser for his Presidential Campaign. What kind of economic advice do you think he would give to Obama if he is elected? Do you think it would be any different than what he did at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? What does this tell you about Obama’s ability to make sound judgments when it comes to the nation’s economy? It tells me this:

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

The first thing you should note from the quote above is that it is from the NEW YORK TIMES, the Democrat Party’s Official Paper of Record and obvious, vociferous advocate for the election of Barack Obama. I guess someone forgot to tell the new guy that these types of stories on the paper’s favored sons are supposed to be spiked.

The second thing you need to take from the quote, and from the rest of the article, is that Obama is drawn to the politically expedient action rather than to the action which would demand him to make a principled stand one way or another. This, according to the Democrat Party, is “leadership.”

In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add.

“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”

One thing we all know is that the President of the United States does not have the luxury of “avoiding the risks” of making a decision, especially in a crisis. What will an untested Barack Obama do when confronted with a critical international or national issue which needs a decisive resolution? It doesn’t look like making hard decisions in pressured situations is Obama’s strong suit. In fact, due to Obama’s lack of any type of executive experience whatsoever, noone knows what he will or will not do, including the Senator himself. This, according to the Democrat Party, is “leadership.”

Obama claims he represents “change we can believe in.” However, it appears that on critical issues he doesn’t really know what he believes, so why should Americans believe in him?

This picture was captioned: All this 9/11 worship is ghoulish and downright silly.

A day of commemoration for nearly three thousand innocent people killed by radical Islamic terrorists, and Liberals make it the butt of a joke. Words fail me.

While you are remembering and honoring those lost, please take a moment to remember one more thing:

Barack Obama takes these people seriously.

These images were taken from Right Wing News. which brought them to my attention.

Police arrests tally nearly 300 following sometimes violent confrontations this week, and more protests were planned for Wednesday and Thursday, the final two days of the Republican National Convention.

Some protest organizers have promised to resume their often confrontational actions near where delegates are meeting in the Xcel Energy Center until the GOP convention ends its four-day run.

Prior to the start of the convention, police raided several area buildings and found lots of protest materials:

Aided by informants planted in protest groups, authorities raided at least six buildings across St. Paul and Minneapolis to stop an “anarchist” plan to disrupt this week’s Republican National Convention.

From Friday night through Saturday afternoon, officers surrounded houses, broke down doors, handcuffed scores of people and confiscated suspected tools of civil disobedience.

The show of force was led by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office in collaboration with the FBI, Minneapolis and St. Paul police, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and other agencies.

…

At least five suspected leaders of the RNC Welcoming Committee, a self-described anarchist group, were taken to the Hennepin County jail, and another was being sought, said Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher.

On Saturday afternoon, he displayed a number of the confiscated items: a gun, throwing knives, a bow and arrows, flammable liquids, paint, slingshots, rocks and buckets of urine.

“We know these things were going to be used as weapons,” Fletcher said, a charge protesters and their advocates vigorously disputed.

Oh, OK. Why don’t you explain to us what exactly the buckets of urine and throwing knives were going to be used for then.

To be fair, “anarchist” doesn’t automatically equate to “liberal”. Anarchists protested the Democrat convention in Denver as well, so this may just be a case of idiots using any excuse they can find to create mayhem and damage property. Trouble is, these types of “people” typically act like terrorists:

THE LEFTISTS ALMOST KILLED US!

Later when the GOP busses started to take delegates from Minneapolis to St. Paul the anarchists started throwing sandbags and cement bags at the busses.

Unreal.

The bus I was riding was hit with cement bags that the anarchists were throwing off the overpasses down on the interstate. The anarchists missed the bus in front of us and nailed our bus with a direct hit.

The police had us slow down and then sent us under the interstate overpass when we were attacked.

There were several women and senior citizens on the bus.

It occurs to me that maybe the next time the GOP holds a convention, they should have it in Texas where the Second Amendment was considered a God-given individual right before the Supreme Court had to verify the obvious. Chances are, those anarchists would have been run off or worse by the older people on the buses. Remember, most of these “people” were protesting the war by committing violence on innocent individuals who, for all they knew, could have shared their opinion about the war.

Remember back in the “good ol’ days” when protesters would typically stand around on sidewalks, marching in circles, carrying signs and yelling moronic chants at passers-by? Back then, the most offensive thing about the whole protest was their smell. Today’s protesters seem to have studied the terrorist’s handbook, as their main objective pretty much seems to be the wanton destruction of public and private property for its own sake. They seem to care little whether or not anyone understands or even knows why they are protesting. I call it Recreational Mayhem.

Here’s hoping we can get through the entire week without one of these bastards killing someone.

Turns out Democratic primary loser Hillary Rodham Clinton will get time to shine at the party’s national convention after all — and quite a bit of it. Democrats officially will choose Barack Obama to run against Republican John McCain this fall.

But in an emblematic move meant to heal divisive primary wounds, the vanquished Clinton name also will be placed in nomination alongside his during the traditional state-by-state delegation roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

And, she gets her own plum speaking slot.

So does her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Now, I don’t think that there is any chance in hell that Hillary is going to unseat Obama as the party’s nominee. However, this certainly portrays the Democrat Party as less united behind their Messiah as they have portrayed themselves. I mean, other than showcasing the fact that Hillary had nearly 50% of the Democrat vote during the primaries, what does this do? Not much by itself, but add it to this:

The campaign of Republican rival John McCain wasted no time, immediately producing an ad featuring Biden’s previous praise for McCain and comments critical of Obama from an ABC News interview last year. Biden had said he stood by an earlier statement that Obama wasn’t yet ready to be president and “the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden,” McCain campaign spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement. “Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president.”

In addition to the comments above, Biden also said this:

“I would be honored to run with or against John McCain because the country would be better off.”

So, when you add all of these things together, what do you get? You get a picture of a political party which is:

• Trying to please (or appease) party leaders who didn’t get the nomination.
• Nominating someone for President with very little executive, economic, or foreign policy experience.
• Nominating someone for Vice President who stands by his statement that the Presidential candidate is “not ready” to be President, and that said the country would be better off if he were running with or against the other party’s nominee.

Does this sound very united to you?

I have never been a McCain supporter during this election. I feel most of his views are not only not conservative, but could very easily been seen as liberal. Even if McCain chooses a very conservative running mate, and this is a big if, I’m still not sure that I could come out and support him. However, chances are I will vote for him, if for no other reason than to keep Obama-Biden out of the White House.

Watch the Democrat convention this week and look for the signs of division and anger; they shouldn’t be hard to spot despite the press’ almost religious worship of all things Obama. This will give you all you need to realize that Obama’s election isn’t as inevitable as the Democrats would like you to believe.

PITTSBURGH (AP) – Democrats shaped a set of principles Saturday that commits the party to guaranteed health care for all, heading off a potentially divisive debate and edging the party closer to the position of Barack Obama’s defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The party’s platform committee moved smoothly through a range of issues for the fall campaign and approved a document that will go to the Democratic convention in Denver later this month for adoption.

There was little dissent – or room for it – in the day’s meeting and a compromise on health policy took one flash-point off the table.

You see, as is usually the case, the Democrats are not really concerned about whether or not this is something which is good for the American people; they’re more concerned about what will make the Democrats look united during their convention in Denver later this month. In fact, the Democrats, while “guaranteeing” healthcare for everyone, don’t even have a clue as to how they are going to actually implement this “guarantee”:

Advisers to Obama and Clinton both told the party’s platform meeting they were happy with the compromise, adopted without opposition or without explanation as to how health care would be guaranteed.

Once again, to the Democrats, it doesn’t matter whether or not they actually do what they are promising; it just matters what their intentions are. However, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Other ways the Democrats plan to look good and feel good about themselves:

The party also:

_Promises “tough, practical, and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration.”

_Favors restoration of the ban on assault-type weapons and other “reasonable regulation” that recognizes the constitutional right to own and use firearms.

_Favors helping religious groups provide social services as long as “public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate.”

_Promises to close the Guantanamo detention center.

_Promises to double the Peace Corps.

Conservatives will see that these ideas are nothing more than tired, old liberal talking points which have been rejected by the American public for the last thirty years. I mean, what good will it do the U.S. to double the Peace Corps? Absolutely no good at all; its just another way to reach into the taxpayers’ pockets and extract more money to make the Democrats feel good about themselves. Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center? One more step in the Democrats’ attempt to convince terrorists that they understand them and want to help them. Afterall, they had really good reasons for what they have been doing for the past few years, right?

If this is the future, I weep for it.

If I had to sum up what I’m feeling, I’d have to say that I feel abandoned by the Republican Party.

The conservative principals upon which the Regan Revolution and the Contract for America were built seem to have been abandoned by the party “leadership.” When these principals were used as the foundation of the party platform starting in 1980, the Republican party enjoyed great success with the electorate. When Bush The Elder deviated from these principals, the Republicans lost the White House. When Newt Gingrich brought the party back to these principals in the 1994 mid-term elections, the electorate once again rewarded the Republicans with their first Congressional Majority in decades. Now, Bush The Younger has once again deviated from these principals and the Republicans will pay for it come election time.

Of course, McCain didn’t do himself any favors by adopting almost all of the Democrat agenda into his campaign. It seems as though he is going out of his way to alienate himself from the people he needs to get elected. Unfortunately for him, he’s doing an excellent job.

None of this is a secret to the Republican Party “leadership.” It’s been hard to look at a conservative blog or other publication over the last year or so without seeing somebody comment on all of this. So, the question becomes: Is the Republican base being ignored by those in the GOP who think that they know better?

Of course they are. Which leads to this question: Will it take a landslide loss in the 2008 Election on all levels for the GOP to realize the need for new and responsive leadership? Probably, but as I’ve noticed for the last year or so, the current “leadership” is heavily in denial and is refusing to see the obvious. A landslide loss may not be enough of a disaster to remove them.

So, thanks to the total abandonment of conservative principals by the GOP “leadership,” we’re all looking at having a President who associates with known racists, associates with known terrorists, associates with known anti-Semites, and has no clue regarding foreign policy, the economy, or healthcare. In fact, without a teleprompter, he can’t even speak as well as the current President.

Change isn’t always a good thing, especially when it’s made for it’s own sake.

Her financial and vocal support for Barack Obama has not endeared her to some fellow Democrats.

“I’ve got a lot of flak from feminists who feel that I should be supporting Hillary Clinton, but I thought the whole point of feminism is that you’re not supposed to be defined by gender,” she says.

“I don’t understand the reasoning behind that, because I wouldn’t vote for Condoleezza Rice and I hated Margaret Thatcher.”

…

Always busy, Sarandon is about to start work on the romantic period drama The Colossus, but with the presidential election campaign being heatedly contested, she also has bigger things to consider.

“If McCain gets in, it’s going to be very, very dangerous,” she says.

“It’s a critical time, but I have faith in the American people. If they prove me wrong, I’ll be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don’t know. We’re at an abyss.”

Do you remember all of those celebrities who promised they would leave America if Bush was either elected in 2000 or re-elected in 2004? Well, here we are at the next Presidential election, and here go the liberals “threatening” to leave if their candidate doesn’t get elected. It reminds me of my little sister when she was about three years old. She used to tell me that if I didn’t give her what she wanted, she would hold her breath until she turned blue. Of course, just like the liberals, she never carried out her “threat.”

At least this year there is some unity between the Democrat candidates and their supporters: The candidates are making empty promises and the supporters are making empty threats.