Well, tomorrow is the big day for Republicans; of course, for Democrats, you get to “Win It on Wednesday!” as opposed to Republicans who vote on Tuesday. *cough*

Now that we are at the end of this, the longest and most expensive election cycle in history ($5.3 billion? Are you kidding me??) with a record $1 billion plus spent by the two major party nominees, it is clear that the next four years will be a challenge to conservatives. Obama is at the very least a socialist (see also AmericanThinker.com), possibly even a Marxist (see also Yid with Lid and rightwingnuthouse.com), and McCain is a moderate RINO (Republican In Name Only, for the uninitiated). Just as Laura Ingraham is saying, conservatism isn’t losing even with an Obama win because there is no conservative in the race!

It certainly is interesting that ever since the 2000 elections, McCain has been Big Media’s—and the rest of the Democrats’—favorite Republican for being the maverick (originally a derogatory term, much like neoconservatism was), but after having secured the Republican nomination, all of that support vanished like Obama’s radical friends have disappeared when Obama’s connections to them have been raised.

At the very least, however, McCain will do the least harm to the Constitution, and that means everything to me. Just as Richard Dreyfuss, who is certainly no Republican, said this weekend on Huckabee, America was the first country created where the citizen (”the serfs”) can rise to power; before that, they were always under the heel of the aristocracy. The Constitution is the very document that gives us this opportunity by limiting the power of the federal government. It is a document that ensures that our representative republic, “The Great Experiment”, operates as such. If the federal government were to disregard it, our republic fails to be free any longer.

However, Senator Obama has shown us through his words that he would choose emotion over the rule of law. According to Pepperdine law professor and Obama advisor Douglas Kmiec, Obama “would want that discretion [of interpreting the law] to be exercised by someone who has empathy with those who are disabled, or those who are old, or those who are at the margins of society, especially where the statute is constructed to give remedy to their concerns.” (Source: CNSNews.com)

While I support helping those who are disabled, old, or at the margins of society, our laws are designed to be administered equally and fairly; that is why Justice is always portrayed blindfolded. To actually make an expressed practice of trumping fairness and the rule of law with feelgoodism is dangerous to the fabric of our democracy.

Obama, it has been revealed, goes even further in his disdain for the Constitution. An audio clip from a Chicago radio interview from 2001 has Senator Obama telling us that he sees the Constitution as a charter of “negative liberties“. (Source: NakedEmperorNews.com) American Thinker counters with a salient question: “How can liberty be anything other than negative? Liberty is the absence of external control. … The state power to coerce is not liberty.”

However, Obama wouldn’t agree with this. He and his friends ascribe to the belief that it is not our Creator who endows us with inalienable rights; rather, he believes it’s the state that does. Obama friend, advisor, and fellow University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein sums up the view best:

“You owe your life—and everything else—to the sovereign. The rights of subjects are not natural rights, but merely grants from the sovereign. There is no right even to complain about the actions of the sovereign, except insofar as the sovereign allows the subject to complain. These are the principles of unlimited, arbitrary, and absolute power, the principles of such rulers as Louis XIV. Intellectuals have assiduously promoted them; think of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes.” (Source: Power Line Blog)

This is a frightening, anti-democratic, anti-liberty view of government and governance. The state endows us with our rights? That is hardly antithetical to the Constitution and to the country for which our Founding Fathers fought and died. (Of course, it does not appear that Senator Obama has much regard for them, either—not just the Constitution.)

Sure, the above is not a quote by Senator Obama, but it is one expressed by yet another one of his friends and advisors. These are the people with whom he associates—his friends. If we are known by the company we keep, Senator Obama’s friends and associates have, on a weekly basis it seems, reminded us who he really is.

America needs to know just who is this person who may very well end up being our president; we have a right to know who our president really is and what he is about! Even Founding Father and our second president, John Adams, said so when he said, “The people have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge—I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers.”

Between the radical friends, the connections to terrorism, and the anti-Constitutional beliefs and worldview, the evidence is overwhelming as to the character and conduct of Senator Obama, no matter how much the Obama campaign and Big Media try to silence his critics and hide the truth.

Adams also said, “[A] Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” How very true. Once our government disregards our rights through our Constitution, we cease to be a free nation—the Great Experiment ends.

Preserve our Constitution and our way of life.
Ensure freedom and liberty for ourselves and our children.
Vote McCain/Palin in 2008!

So, Congress today is hoping to use Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke’s testimony today as reason for another bailout bill with added pork and a stimulus package to boot? Give me a break! Hasn’t Congress used enough of our money to meddle with the economy? There is NO constitutional provision for what they have been doing, and we shouldn’t let them take even more of our money to give to their buddies on Wall Street.

What is so wrong with lifting the burdensome taxation that is keeping the approximately $13 trillion overseas so that it would be more lucrative to invest the money in America? Just imagine what a $13 trillion private sector injection would do to the American economy and how it would trickle into the global economy!

I am reminded of a lecture by historian Burton Folsom in which he described the economic situation prior to the Great Depression. According to Folsom, taxes and tariffs were so punitive and widespread—there was even a tariff on grape juice concentrate!—that those with money to invest chose to invest it overseas in art, property, and other things. Are we seeing this same situation once again?

Whether the rest of the world likes America or not, it is the American economy that drives the world right now, and if Congress would use pro-growth, free market strategies to stimulate the economy, there would be no end to the economic growth this country—this world—would see!

Ah, but of course, such a plan would require those in the government to (a) have faith in the free market system that has proven itself time and again as the only economic system that works and (b) keep their power hungry fingers out of the economy and off of our money, leaving them unable to control where it goes.

Do we really want the people who were in large part responsible for our current situation to be in charge of how we get out of it? Do we honestly think they’ll fix it right and prevent it from ever happening again? This, despite the fact that they didn’t learn from the six times between the Civil War and World War I that the Congress meddled in the housing market, forcing subprime mortgages on lenders?

Like the old adage says, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It looks like this Congress—through ignorance or arrogance—insists on repeating it.

Please pardon my absence over the past eight days; my computer is having issues, and unfortunately, they are still ongoing, sucking up precious time and energy. My computer is nearly eight years old, though, so some problems are expected to arise; however, it appears that it’s the newest of my four hard drives that is at the root of the problems—a bit disappointing. Fortunately, the backups should prevent any file loss, but I am worried about the other drive that was on the same ribbon.

But that’s getting a bit too technical, not to mention it’s beside the point. This post is supposed to be about the third and final presidential debate of this year’s election.

I was getting a little worried about Senator McCain, there, and admittedly, I still am wary. Despite the senator’s history as a “straight talker”, his campaign since the national convention has seemed anything but; frankly, I’ve wondered if he’s a political wuss, and if he tanked last night’s debate, I would have seriously had to wonder once again (as I would have if he chose Senator Lieberman to be his running mate, as the rumors were indicating) that he was throwing the election. Conspiratorial, I know, but after having been betrayed so much over the past few years by Republicans who sought fame and power by eschewing small government, conservative principles, I have a hard time putting my full trust in a man who was the media’s and Democrats’ favorite Republican for the same reason—that is, of course, until he ran for president.

Last night, Senator McCain finally started showing a little bit of passion, and I was very glad to see it. He was on the “attack” for much of the debate, pointing out where his and Senator Obama’s differ while also making Senator Obama have to explain himself and his policies. This is something conservatives have been asking of him for a long time.

I do feel that he didn’t really keep on Senator Obama when the Democrat gave his explanations; more often than not, Senator McCain let the responses stand as they were without any further challenges. That made it appear as if Senator Obama was easily able to bat away the accusations with his own version of the truth.

On the good side, however, was Senator McCain’s repeated assertion that, despite what Senator Obama says, he will raise our taxes. (I do wish he would have brought up the fact that 40% of Americans do not pay any taxes, and an additional tax credit to them would be, in fact, income redistribution.) Americans need to keep hearing this because they have been fooled in the past—President Clinton is a prime example of a Democrat not keeping his tax-cutting word.

While Senator McCain is far from conservative, Senator Obama is even farther from it, and that is what scares me more. Never has a presidential candidate believed in and proposed more unconstitutional government regulation and intrusion into our lives—something I will elaborate on in an upcoming post.

Well, as long as my computer keeps working, that is.

I saw an advertisement Tuesday evening that surprised me. It had former senator George McGovern expressing opposition to a plan—supported by Senator Obama—to put an end to private voting for unionization. This plan would essentially strongarm workers into voting one way or another even if that means voting against their own wishes. While I hold a heavy distrust of unions and remain dubious as to their effectiveness and necessity today thanks to having seen more union leaders benefit at the hands of those whom the leaders are supposed to represent, this threat to a right to vote on the job, I believe, holds even darker ramifications.

Such methods of voting in elections—one in which someone is looking over the voter’s shoulder or one in which the vote can be traced back to the voter—have been popular in dictatorships around the world throughout the centuries, and while the dictators may get 99% of the vote in these kinds of elections, no one in their right mind would say that the elections are free and fair. Is such a position for union voting a harbinger of what is to come in political elections for this country? God only knows. (God forbid! But God only knows.)

Some may say that an abridgment to our right to vote here in America is preposterous and that it would never hold up on constitutional grounds. While it may be true that such an action by the government would be unconstitutional, it is only so for those who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. To those who believe that the Constitution is a living document, subject to interpretation and the context of the times, anything is possible.

Let me be clear: a living Constitution—one that is subject to interpretation—is a dead Constitution. Let me say that again: a living Constitution is a dead Constitution. Our rights and our government’s restrictions are written into that Constitution, and to say that, given the current situation, such a right is up for debate nullifies the whole document. If one can interpret one article one way, how can any other article be considered valid? If the right to bear arms can be interpreted away, what about due process? Or freedom of religion? Or equality of the races and a ban on discrimination?

For a nation to be stable, it must be rooted in founding documents containing inalienable rights that cannot be reinterpreted from year to year and from administration to administration. Our Founding Fathers risked life, and many shed their blood, to fight the forces preventing us from having these rights, and the very suggestion that our rights could potentially be in peril should be a call to everyone to the dangers faced by us and our way of life. A socialist dictator never starts off revealing all of his liberty-quashing plans at once; rather, he meters them out one by one, caching his desire to restrict our rights in some sort of necessary measure in dire times. Hitler did this. Saddam Hussein did this. It is only when a nation is too far down the road that it realizes just what is happening, and by then, it is too late.

Let us not realize the threat to our freedoms too late.

President Reagan said that freedom is only one generation away from extinction, and he could not have been more right. The forces of evil that seek to take our freedom away never tire, and they never quit. Therefore, we also must never tire, we must also never quit, against those forces, and the very fact that Senator Obama would dare support a bill that would eliminate an employee’s right to a private vote should raise red flags in everyone’s mind of his designs against all of our rights.

I thought I would have a thought-provoking analysis of round two of the Presidential debates.  I took pages of notes, hung on every word of both candidates and worked myself into a nice case of carpel tunnel.

But, after all the fireworks were over, and after the candidates had left the stage, the weight of the entire evening fell on me:  Senator McCain is an honorable man and Senator Obama simply is not.

Throughout his campaign, Obama has relied upon a highly developed sense of arrogance.  What the American people saw and heard tonight was an arrogance that has run its course.  Senator Obama showed us that rhetoric can only carry one so far.  After spending his capital of platitudes the IL Senator illustrated that he simply lacks the experience, sound judgment and honor necessary for the job of the President.

Did anyone else notice that Senator Obama fell back on his tried and true method of problem-solving:  Letting the government fight his battles for him.

He has a history of using government to bully people, businesses and communities.  And now he seeks to use the highest office in the land to continue his mandate of government intrusion (i.e., mandated healthcare coverage, including forced screenings and fines, nearly 1 trillion dollars in additional government spending, etc.)

Senator McCain, on the other hand, calmly exposed Senator Obama for the fraud he is.  Every answer the Senator gave (and understand, I am no McCainiac) oozed with straight-forward and matter-of-fact candor, sans the rhetoric.

I liked the fact that Mr. McCain told the American people that more government intrusion is not the answer.  This is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama.  I also liked the fact that Senator McCain, rather than speak in flowery words, actually explained how he accomplish his vision for America. 

I was especially impressed with the honor in which Mr. McCain explained his feelings of gratitude and pride for America and our military.  Throughout the night there was a genuineness and compassion to Mr. McCain that Senator Obama simply could not match.

God bless Senator McCain and have mercy on our nation.

A few days ago while listening to some congressmen and senators were talking about how their constituencies became more “half and half” on the bailout bill, I couldn’t help but wonder how that would even be possible, given the overwhelming lack of support in the polls. Then it hit me: we may be the ones electing our congressmen and senators, but we aren’t their constituency. Oh, sure, we are technically their constituency, but in reality, the constituency for which they work is Wall Street—the ones who buy their campaigns and take them on trips and give them all sorts of other gifts.

I had a laugh this morning upon hearing the latest polls about Americans’ satisfaction in Congress, in which 59% (I am pretty sure) hates the current Congress. But the best was how a full half of Americans say that a random selection of people from the phone book could do a better job in Congress than the current Congress! Only 17% said the opposite.

I sincerely hope that this election cycle, people will finally be fed up not only with Congress but also with their own Congressman if their Congressman was part of the power grab cabal that voted for the bailout bill. Maybe this year, we will actually throw them all out!

Well, at the very least, one can hope…for such a change.

Unlike Congressman Paul Broun, Georgia’s senators—Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson—voted for the porky bailout. Needless to say I was very unhappy livid that the senators would compromise any conservative principles they had for a quick fix that did not really need to be made so soon.

Herewith is my email to him (or, probably more accurately, his office since he probably doesn’t read these, judging from the form email responses), that was CC’d to Isakson and Congressman Broun, as well as local talk radio host Austin Rhodes, for good measure:

It hit me a couple days ago that it may be a good idea to actually show you what the $700 Billion Shirt looks like straight from here—since, after all, images have a much stronger impact on the mind than does text. So, to properly employ this devious marketing technique, I present you the $700 Billion Shirt:

To purchase these incredible shirts—there are many different colors and styles available!—check out our RightPolitik.com Store!

Apparently, you are now required by law to support this new, government-backed, hedge fund; it is your patriotic duty: Strategery Capital, LLC.

…one giant lurch backward for mankind.

Did you feel it last night, sometime between 9 and 10pm EDT? Because it was there, with the Senate readying the government’s money vacuum—the one that makes the giant sucking sound that Ross Perot used to talk about in 1992.

Does anyone think this is a good idea? Does anyone think the government really has a good track record with our money?

The government’s credit rating hovers somewhere around -6.321468×10⁸⁶⁵³, and they want to open up a line of credit with our money. We might as well not even carry wallets anymore!

A run down of Senate vote:

Did you see that? Even Bernie Sanders, the socialist, voted “no”. Of course, he probably thought it didn’t go far enough.

So, find your senators, and be sure to thank those who voted for it for failing you and the Constitution. Remind them of the oath they gave to support and defend it. And be sure to tell them to enjoy their last term in office because they will have primary competition next time.