Waiting For The ‘Hammer To Fall’ – U.N. Small Arms Treaty Passes During Second Session…

Where has the outrage been?  Where was the fight?  Where was the warning from all the gun groups… the GOP? The guardians for the Constitution? Keys to Liberty  In the second session the United Nations Small Arms Treaty passes. It was obvious that it would, as Media Matters (George Soros) and Oxfam America Org. (Rockefeller Fund) have been silent on the issue for a few months after much promotion.

In the conference, the United States and Israel both agreed “they wished to disassociate themselves from preambular paragraph 11 of the Programme of Action, relating to the right to self-determination of people under foreign occupation”. This of course relates to Gaza and the West Bank as Israel believes  Erez ‘Greater Israel’  belongs to them. It encompasses parts of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria.

Does the United States fully understand that the American people are also under a ‘foreign occupation” by a corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA located in Washington D.C.? Time to understand what a Letter Rogatory is, and how it can be filed within this corporate country.

It is interesting to note, the “delegations agreed to strengthen the action programme’s implementation at the national, regional and global levels over the period 2012-2018. On follow-up measures, they decided to hold a one-week biennial meeting of States in 2014 and 2016, and a one-week open-ended meeting of governmental experts in 2015 to consider the Programme of Action’s full and effective implementation”. (Underline Emphasis is the author’s) Over the next few years ‘something’ is needed to fully implement this treaty by 2018. Each two years they will meet to see how the treaty has been complied with. This means new statutes in place at the federal level, further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. An assault weapons ban, large capacity magazine ban and stripper clips ban are just around the corner. In the future this will probably begin with more ‘false flag’ operations, stemming, and leading to our own government behind them. More Aurora, Colorado’s, more Sikh Temple type massacres around the country and maybe even a Oklahoma City bombing type event.

Video: about Oklahoma City Bombing

Further documents concerning this treaty can be found here including the UN Programme of Action, International Tracing Instructions, Firearms Protocol, Implementation Plan, the Agenda and much more. Here is their Declaration that was signed by all countries.

The Program of Action, mentioned in the Declaration stressed paragraph 8, 9, 10 and 11.

“8. Reaffirming our respect for and commitment to international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, the peaceful resolution of international disputes, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, “.   Non-intervention and non-interference? How about Syria? NATO is part of the United Nations.

“9. Reaffirming the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,”.  Collective means the state, in-contrary to our Bill of Rights guaranteed by our government, but ultimately granted by our Creator.

“10. Reaffirming also the right of each State to manufacture, import and retain small arms and light weapons for its self-defense and security needs, as well as for its capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “. This is just another statement dealing with a ‘collective right’, not an individual right.  The ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, along with all the ‘alphabet’ agencies of the federal and state governments are immune and the tyranny they will accomplish when this treaty is fully implemented staggers the mind.

“11. Reaffirming the right of self-determination of all peoples, taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and recognizing the right of peoples to take legitimate action in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. This shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” This section was examined previously. It is important to point out that the West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as an ‘sovereign and independent States’, therefore they are up for grabs.

Note also at this link, on the left hand side, near the top, International Assistance. This of course is assistance by the U.N. ‘blue helmets’ to enforce this treaty throughout the world.

Here is an interesting link to a planned destruction of ammunition and weapons in the Dominican Republic on Sept. 19th and 20th. Look alone the right hand side of the article and you will see it.

As Sun Tzu said. “you must have to paralyze the enemy: you must attack his plans before they can be implemented”.  Continue to stock up on things that will be banned soon.

Update

E-mail from Dudley Brown
“The United Nations’ Programme Against Small Arms meeting is in full swing in New York City.

And my sources inside the UN report countries such as Mexico continue pushing for a UN Gun Ban by the close of this year.

Both the “Small Arms Treaty” and the Programme Against Small Arms provide endless ways to accomplish this goal.

As you may remember, heading into the “Small Arms Treaty” Conference last month, anti-gun international bureaucrats were bragging that the conference would craft “the most important initiative ever regarding arms regulation . . .”

But thanks to your sustained grassroots pressure, no treaty was passed, likely because the Obama Administration could not get all the gun controls it wanted.

However, the gun-grabbers are back at it again this week and next, working to put together yet another anti-gun agreement — and this time, such an agreement WOULD NOT require a vote in the U.S. Senate.” dudley.brown@nationalgunrights.org

How I got on Dudley’s list, I am not sure, maybe because of my interest in protecting our ‘right to keep and bear arms’ and articles I have written in the past. I left a link for the e-mail so that you can contact him and asked to put on his list.
As I have always suspected, this is going to be put through as an Executive Order by either Obama or Romney. In similar fashion to Clinton and Agenda 21.

Dudley appears to have inside sources at the U.N., the information that he provides I have tested and found it to be accurate.

2nd Update

Here is a full list of the countries involved in this push Secretary-General Urges Redoubling of Efforts to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Small Arms, Light Weapons I’ll focus on the United States comment, I think you will find it revealing:

” STEVEN COSTNER (United States) encouraged all States to implement the Programme of Action to the fullest extent possible, in particular by building capacity in marking and tracing, while strengthening controls over international transfers. The United States had undertaken such efforts, and had destroyed about 1.6 million surplus, loosely secured or other illicit weapons in several countries since 2001, he said. It had destroyed some 33,000 man-portable air defense systems in 37 countries, and provided assistance by training military personnel. It had also concluded memorandums of understanding with more than 30 Member States to engage in the “e-Trace” programme, and had invited other States to do the same.”

“He went on to say that his country had provided additional assistance through the Export Control and Related Border Security programme, which worked to detect and interdict the illicit transfer of conventional arms, weapons of mass destruction and other materials. There were other areas in which more strengthening was necessary, he said, citing the need for more efficient international coordination and the sharing of best practices. He also highlighted the need to address gender-based violence, in line with Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) and the Programme of Action itself. It was crucial to include a gender perspective, in particular by enhancing the participation of women in the Programme’s implementation, he said. The United States also encouraged fellow donors to work more closely together, and to avoid duplication of efforts in order to make the best use of scarce resources, he said, urging Member States to work towards better coordination with other meetings and programmes.”

Just More proof of United States troops disarming citizens in other countries.

And for anyone who thinks United Nations don’t matter… think again.  Part of the scrambling going on right now in our government is because of a UN Resolution that Obama and Hillary committed us to.

By all the expert’s accounts and common sense the movie on Muhammad didn’t have a thing to do with the actions of the insane terrorists in Egypt, Libya, etc. The President of Libya has now come out and admitted that these were preplanned attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 and were not sparked by the movie. So why are Clinton and Obama so focused on apologizing for this movie? Why? For those who do not know this… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama are so busy apologizing because they agreed to UN Resolution 1618 whereby we (The United States and its citizens) cannot say anything negative about Islam, favoring Islam over all other religions in the U.S. They have already sold us down the river, through this U.N. Resolution which implements Sharia Law over the U.S. Constitution and favors Islam over all other religions and over our right to freedom of speech in the United States. Representative and GOP Primary candidate for President Michele Bachmann explained this on Huckabee this past Saturday

M~

Technorati Tags: UN,United Nations,small arms treaty,U.S. Constitution,gun confiscation,gun control,Second Amendment,Big Brother,stand-up America,false flags,NWO,global elites,NATO,Bill of Rights

Biden, Obamas tell health care tall tales at Charlotte convention

Barack Obama's father, also named Barack Obama, and mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. (Photo: AP)

Daily Caller:

Vice President Joe Biden, first lady Michelle Obama and President Barack Obama all told a story during the Democratic National Convention about battles the president’s mother waged with health care companies as she fought a terminal illness in 1995. But the version of events presented Thursday night differs dramatically from others, including those of at least two biographers and Obama’s own previous account.

“Barack had to sit at the end of his mom’s hospital bed and watch her fight cancer and insurance companies at the same time,” Biden said.

The first lady added to the story, observing from the podium that “watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented — that’s a tough thing to deal with.”

“When my mother got cancer,” the president echoed during a video played inside the Time Warner Cable Arena before his entrance, ”she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources.”

But in 2004, the president told the Chicago Sun-Times that he wasn’t present during his mother’s final days at all.

“The biggest mistake I made was not being at my mother’s bedside when she died,” he said then. ”She was in Hawaii in a hospital, and we didn’t know how fast it was going to take, and I didn’t get there in time.”

David Maraniss, who later authored the best-selling book “Barack Obama: The Story,“ wrote in The Washington Post in 2008 that Obama did not visit her.

“He was into his Chicago phase, reshaping himself for his political future, but now was drawn back to Hawaii to say goodbye to his mother,” Maraniss reported. ”Too late, as it turned out. She died on Nov. 7, 1995, before he could get there.”

The story Democratic convention-goers heard in Charlotte, N.C., however, was not intended as a tragic remembrance, but to convey the tragedy of suffering in a hospital without health insurance.

This narrative, too, is contradicted by history: Stanley Ann Dunham, the president’s late mother, did have health insurance to cover her uterine and ovarian cancer, through her job with Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda, Md.

“Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment,” according to Dunham’s biographer, New York Times journalist Janny Scott.

“Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

Scott also wrote that Dunham’s compensation package for her work in Indonesia included $82,500 — about $132,000 in today’s dollars — plus a housing allowance and a car, making that amount well within her means.

The story told from the podium Thursday in Charlotte has been a persistent refrain from Obama and his surrogates since his presidential candidacy began in 2007. His campaign produced an ad that year for the Iowa caucuses in which Obama claimed his mother was ”more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.”

“She wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality,” he told an audience in Santa Barbara, Calif., during a 2007 campaign swing. “She had been diagnosed just as she was transitioning between jobs. And she wasn’t sure whether insurance was going to cover the medical expenses because they might consider this a pre-existing condition.”

“I remember just being heartbroken,” the future president said then, “seeing her struggle through the paperwork and the medical bills and the insurance forms. So I have seen what it’s like when somebody you love is suffering because of a broken health care system. And it’s wrong. It’s not who we are as a people.”

Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth!!

Related:

Fact Check: First Lady's False Fairy Tale of Struggle

DNC-Backed, $100K-Earning Union Member Hits Romney 

Obama’s Speech Was Too Much of a Humblebrag

Eastwood:  Obama ‘Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetuated’

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare lies,ObamaCare,Joe Biden,President Obama,Election 2012,2012 Election,Mitt Ronney in 2012,Obama's Mother,Obama's family,watch the other hand,Obamaland,ObamaTax,healthcare insurance,Election 2012 falsehoods,speeches,Michelle Obama,repeal and replace ObamaCare,Hawaii,Election lies,smoke and mirrors

An Open Letter to President Obama From Lou Pritchett, a former Vice President of Proctor & Gamble...

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America, and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and "class," always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the "blame America" crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer "wind mills" to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use "extortion" tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett - Lou Pritchett worked for Proctor and Gamble for 36 years until his retirement in 1989. He is also the author of the 1995 Business Book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Source: PatriotUpdate.com

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Obama Needs to Brush up on Middle East History

For a man of his impressive educational credentials, Barack Obama has sometimes shown a surprising ignorance of history.

During the 2008 campaign, when challenged on his pledge to meet with foreign tyrants without preconditions, he said that presidents from Franklin Roosevelt on had met with leaders of enemy nations. Funny thing, but in my books on World War II, I haven't been able to find the chapters on the Roosevelt-Hitler and Roosevelt-Tojo summits. In his speech in the Tiergarten last summer, he told us that the Berlin Wall came down thanks to "a world that stands as one." My recollection is that the world was standing as two, and one side wanted to keep the wall up.

The good news is that in his speech to "the Muslim world" in Cairo last week, Obama showed a surer grasp of the past. The bad news is that he still has more to learn.

Obama got some important things right and pounded them home to his audience. Six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. "Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant and hateful." Al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11. "These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with." America's bond with Israel is "unbreakable." Good, though perhaps undercut later in the speech. "The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt." Very good, though lacking any reference to Saudi Arabia, perhaps because the list of sects not tolerated would be too long.

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," Obama said, "one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect." The unfortunate implication is that the United States did not respect Muslims before his inauguration. But then he went on to make points that George W. Bush made repeatedly in the seven years after Sept. 11.

"America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam." "All people yearn for certain things," including free speech, democracy, the rule of law, "the freedom to live as you choose." He also echoed Bush in his criticism of "a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."

Like Bush and other American presidents, Obama hailed the United States as "one of the greatest sources of progress the world has ever known." And the candidate who treated our mission in Iraq with scorn seems to have felt obliged to acknowledge that "the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein" and that the government of Iraq is "democratically elected."

But he still has some history left to learn.

"No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." But that's what the United States did in Germany and Japan, and in Iraq, as well. As one of the Democratic senators who insisted that the Iraqis meet benchmarks, Obama was a micromanager in that process himself.

"We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity" into Afghanistan. No, it was by choice; we could have stayed out and depended, as we did after the attacks of the 1990s, on homeland defenses. And as for his claim that "Islam has always been a part of America's story," that's a stretch, and one that requires airbrushing out the war against the Barbary pirates.

Most disturbingly, Obama seems to have gotten the history of the Israel-Palestine issue wrong. The plight of the Palestinians since 1948 or 1967 is not the moral equivalent of the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust, as Obama's "on the other hand" segue suggested. Nor are private statements by Arabs accepting the continued existence of Israel the moral equivalent of Israeli governments' public willingness to negotiate with Palestinians.

Obama seems not to have learned from previous presidents' attempts to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that no solution is possible without an interlocutor willing to let Israel live in peace. His attempt to muscle Israel into stopping even natural growth of settlements beyond the 1967 line applies pressure to the party already willing to make peace. Obama needs to brush up on the Barbary pirates, but even more so on the last 40 years of Middle East history.

Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Source: THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER / CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CLINTONS

Asked why he was naming some of his rivals to top administration jobs, President Lyndon B. Johnson said it best: "I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in." President Obama seems to echo Johnson's management style in his handling of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By bringing them into his inner circle, he has marginalized them both and sharply reduced their freedom of action.  

It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a "monster").

With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.

Part of Hillary's problem is the institutional shrinking of the State Department. During the Bush years, while war raged, the Defense Department became more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy. And, under Obama, the financial crisis has propelled the Treasury into the forefront. State, with its emphasis on traditional diplomacy, has been forced to take a back seat. Even though Obama appointed Hillary, he clearly has not been willing to make her a co-president and confines her to the diminished role of her department.

For his part, Bill Clinton has been asked to be a special envoy to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. Obama's predecessor asked the former president to orchestrate the response to the Asian tsunami and then to Hurricane Katrina. Obama gives him Haiti.

Meanwhile, both Clintons are effectively muzzled and cannot criticize Obama even as he reverses President Clinton's free market proclivities and budget balancing discipline. Hillary, the supposed friend of Israel, must sit by quietly and watch Iran get the bomb while trying all the while to stop Israel from preventing it.

Bill can't even make money. Denied the ability to accept speeches from foreign governments or their organs and fenced out of continuing his profitable relationship with the Emir of Dubai, he and his wife must accept the loss of the $13 million they spent on her campaign and sit by passively, unable to earn the money to replace it.
Just as Lincoln buried his rivals Seward, Chase and Stanton in the Cabinet and then on the Supreme Court, and Wilson buried Bryan at the State Department, so Obama has hidden his predecessor and his rival in plain sight at the upper reaches of the government.

How long will Hillary subject herself to this discipline? Likely as long as Obama is popular. Should his ratings fade, she might move away from the president and could even consider a primary contest against him in 2012. But while he is on top of his game, she'll stay loyal.

But she is shrinking by the day. Once Obama's equal -- and before that his superior -- she now looks tiny compared to the president. She doesn't look like a president in waiting; she's more like a senior staff member hoping to rise in the bureaucracy. No longer at the head of a movement or the symbol of rising women all over the world, she has faded into the State Department woodwork. She is much less visible than her predecessors Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Madeleine Albright or Condi Rice. She is even less in the public eye than was Al Haig during his one-year tenure. One has to go back to the likes of Warren Christopher or William Rogers to find a secretary of State as far down the totem poll. This diminished status has got to grate on her and on him. But they are trapped in Obama's web and cannot easily escape.

By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 26, 2009

Dick Morris is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant.  Morris became an adviser to the Bill Clinton administration after Clinton was elected president in 1992.

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

A Portrait of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Educational and Professional Background

Judge Sonia Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa **** laude in 1976 and attended Yale Law School. At Yale, she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. She began her legal career in 1979 as an Assistant District Attorney in New York County. Since October 7th, 1998, Sonia Sotomayor has been a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Despite the fact that President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor for the district court judgeship, there is more to the story. "When President Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991, the New York senators Moynihan and D'Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled a senator not of the President's party to name one of every four District Court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan's pick." According to Ed Whelan, it is likely that Bush only nominated her to move along the other nominees that Moynihan was holding up.

Judicial Activism

Judge Sotomayor appears willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution. The most direct example of this is found in her decision in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 229 F. 3d 374 (2d Cir 2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001). In that case, Judge Sotomayor attempted to expand the liability of individual federal agents who violate constitutional rights to include corporations. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the plaintiff was "seek[ing] a marked extension of Bivens, to a context that would not advance Bivens' core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing." Correctional Services Corp v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).

Sovereignty

Judge Sotomayor has written a foreword to a book called The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases, which suggests that she believes foreign case law and statutes have a role in the adjudication of U.S. cases.

Track Record

In an October 3, 2008 commentary on National Review Online, Ed Whelan pointed out that "[o]n those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor's rulings, she hasn't fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases.
No one expects that Barack Obama will select federal judges who are faithful to the Constitution, and many Americans (especially we Constitutionalists) have expressed a sense of alienation and futility in opposing Obama nominees. The truth is, however, that now is the time to mount the most vigorous campaign possible on behalf of Constitutionalist principles. James Madison said it well, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives."

Now is the perfect time to arm ourselves with knowledge — to become knowledge-empowered! You can begin this process by visiting our Eagle Forum web site www.eagleforum.org and clicking on "Blackstone Blitz" — a short but power-packed study designed for just such a time as this. Continue to arm yourself with additional knowledge from reputable sources as the Sotomayor nomination battle heats to a white-hot intensity, climaxing in the confirmation vote in the U. S. Senate. Share that knowledge, and let your leaders know the truth about Constitutionalist judging!

How close is the "portrait of Sotomayor" to the "portrait of a Constitutionalist judge"? Judge for yourself!!!

Comments:

Golfinsailor:

She may get passed but probably not, as she has in all likelihood not paid her taxes, and most probably has a few too many skeletons in her closet, if she did pay her taxes she would be the very first one of Obama's appointees that has.

WaitinForHopeNChange:

She already mis-spoke and then had to correct herself on judges ‘making laws’ instead of interpreting laws and judging whether they are in line with the Constitution… a Supreme Judge’s job.

rcbpage:

According to Obama, Judge Sotomayor, is a good woman, but she is a crappy judge, most of her opinions and judgments have been overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional. she holds an judicial rating of 11 out of 44 points. and is extremely negatively biased against white males and toward woman and Latinos. She also believes that the  judicial opinions on our laws should be based  in the foreign laws of the EU and UN, and not our constitution. Another of her beliefs is that judges create policy, that one reason alone is enough to disqualify her.

AverageJill: 

Judge Sotomayor dismissed the case of the New Haven, Connecticut Firefighters Claiming Reverse Discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court  has decided to hear the New Haven Reverse Discrimination Case… should make you (us) think!

She drew much negative from her opinion and stand on this case.

AmericanRights:

Many of Sotomayor’s comments and opinions are troubling!  She has made statement like a Latina’s perspective would be different than a white males. Hello???  The law and especially the constitutional law is the law… period.  If can’t be objective, this is not the job for you.  It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make policy or affect policy in anyway!  You want a Constitutional specialist or at least some who understands the position of a Supreme Court Judge to fill one of those nine seats, and that is not her.  Sotomayor said, “ The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”  Hello??

ScaredInAmerica":

Sotomayor is liberal, a reverse racist, and believes that race and gender affect a judge’s rulings and opinions… and that that is okay.  She has also been described as combative and not a team player.

AvrelJax:

There is not room for empathy or personal belief on the Supreme Court. Justices need to be able to put their personal politics away and interpret the law according to the Constitution; no more no less.  This is not Judge Sotomayor!!  Time for the next nominee!!

Source: Knowledge Creates Power

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles:

• "Empathy" Versus Law
• "Empathy" Versus Law”… Continued
• Karl Rove: Obama's Past Will Haunt Court Pick
• How Joe Biden Wrecked the Judicial Confirmation Process
• New Haven, Ct. Firefighters Claim Reverse Discrimination
• Obama the Destroyer
• Justice not for all
• Firefighter Case Heads to Supreme Court

Summarily Dismissed

Sotomayor involved in controversial dispute now before the Supreme Court

Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA

Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security. The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees. Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve. “None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said. See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle  “This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax. “There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage. “In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques. “We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration. “They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information. “So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country. “Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America. “The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.” Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques. “I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said. “Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country. “This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way. “There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth. “And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience. “We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before. “We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.” Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them. “That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed. “People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.” Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened. “That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.” Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m. By: Jim Meyers See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V3661156 Source:  Newsmax Related Articles: On Torture And War Criminals Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates' The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth" Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos U.S. Presidential Libraries Video:  Top Intelligence Republican:  Ready Fire, Aim

The 100-Day Assault on America

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

By Larry Elder - a syndicated radio talk show host, contributor to TownHall.com and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.

Krauthammer and Panel on Barack's Recent South American Trips

Quote: 'President's Narcissism Knows No Bounds'

Krauthammer and Panel on Barack's Recent South American Trips, Pt. 1 of 2

• Glenn Beck: Obama used as propaganda tool
  

1,500 Troops Invited to Greet Obama... 600 Show Up

Obama bashed the Iraq War from Great Britain to Turkey. He further insulted the troops by telling them that now was the time to start transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis.

Lost on Obama and the mainstream media was the fact that 13 of 18 provinces were already completely under Iraqi control and the other 5 are close behind.

(Wikipedia)
He's not alone. Most democrats were so busy trying to lose the war these past few years that they didn't notice the progress.

So, was it really a surprise that only 600 troops managed to make it to the dog and pony show yesterday?
The WSJ reported:

Army officers had intended to have at least 1,500 troops from Camp Victory and nearby Camp Liberty, but the secret trip happened faster than expected, beating most of the troops by a couple of hours.

Only 600 made it.

This point has since been scrubbed from the WSJ article.
Don't expect the mainstream media to report this.
They got their photo-op. That's what's important.

UPDATE: Macsmind has more, via Chisum:

Got this email from a sergeant who was there.

“We were pre-screened, asked by officials “Who voted for Obama?”, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line.They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.”

Take a look at the picture at AP and notice all the cameras are the same models? Coincidence? I think not.

Unreal!
You definitely won't be reading that in the Obamedia reports.

From Congressman John Campbell on the Spending Bill

Tuesday January 27th, 2009

Meeting with President Obama:  Today at noon, President Obama came up to Capitol Hill to meet with the 178 Republicans in the House. First, I was impressed because he was on time. OK, it’s a little thing but it is a little pet peeve of mine. President Bush was always on time and sometimes early. Governor Gray Davis was always late when I was in the California legislature.

But I digress. Then, it took a few minutes while Members of Congress went up to him to get his signature. Yes, your representatives are no different from everyone else when it comes to famous memorabilia either. Once all that was dispensed with, we got down to business. The President spoke for about 15 minutes and then took questions for half an hour.

Let me first say how impressive a man he is. I have never been in a small room with him before. He is very poised and confident and seems genuine. I doubt that there was a person in the room who did not come away from the meeting liking him. I never met President Clinton, but he had a reputation for his ability to charm a room. A fellow Congressman who had served during the Clinton presidency told me that as good as Bill Clinton was (and maybe still is), he thought that Obama was better. I might add that that kind of warmth and connection with a crowd may be part of what gets you elected president. As awkward as President Bush 43 often seemed on TV, in person in a small group, he too, was very warm, genuine, and likeable. Furthermore, the President’s grasp of the stimulus bill and the challenge that we face were thorough.  The atmosphere was cordial, and every question or comment was very respectful of the man and his office.

But in the end, I don’t think he changed any minds in the room, and I don’t think we changed his. I will be surprised if there is even one Republican vote in the House for the $825 billion bill as it is currently written.

We Republicans want to do a stimulus too. But we fundamentally believe that most of what is in this bill will not be stimulative. Infrastructure spending can create downstream jobs but increasing government buildings and adding more bureaucrats will not. Although tax cuts can be stimulative, giving money to people who pay no federal income tax, while at the same time refusing to cut taxes for the people who pay the most, and who could invest the most, is not stimulative. For his part, the President just disagrees. He admits that the bill has some spending in it that he doesn’t want either, but that the legislative process creates such things. He believes that people who pay payroll taxes but do not pay income tax still pay taxes and those taxes should be rebated. He also believes that spending will create more jobs than tax cuts or purchase incentives.

We Republicans believe that the enormous cost and the related borrowing are not worth the marginal benefit that will be achieved from this program and will actually retard growth in the future as this debt is paid back or as interest costs mount. Economics is an art and not a science, so there is, of course, room for disagreement.

Here are a few other tidbits from the meeting:

• The President believes that the “lost decade” of Japan is a more relevant comparison to the current economic situation than the great depression. He believes that the Japanese government did not act decisively enough to end their crisis.
• He says that the stimulus is only the “first in a range” of actions that government must take to manage this recession. So, expect more rescues or bailouts or spending bills after this.
• He acknowledged that we will have “unsustainable” levels of debt and deficit after this. His budget in February will require pain all around to deal with that. It was clear that the budget will include tax increases at some point. I would ask why are we spending more now to spend less later and cutting some taxes now only to soon raise them on someone else?
• Quiping to avid golfer and Republican leader, John Boehner (R-OH), who said his attitude towards his golf game, was “yes we can”.

We are not going to agree on this bill. I hope that this meeting laid the foundation for agreement on other things in the future.

Tomorrow is the vote in the House on this big spending bill. You will hear from me for the final time this week after that vote.

Until tomorrow, I remain respectfully,

Congressman John Campbell

Cartoon of the Day

Cartoon of the Day

-O'Farrell, The Illawarra Mercury Citizens of the World, I'm All Ears!

Foundations of Crisis, Part II: Generations

Generational conflict has been recognized since ancient times. The twist here is the discovery of several things that have previously eluded observers. One is that the well- known conflict between fathers and sons is only half the story; there aren’t just two generational types that alternate (e.g., liberal and conservative), but four. The reason for looking at it this way is that a human life can be conveniently divided into four stages: Childhood, Young Adulthood, Midlife, and Elderhood. Throughout all of history, a long life might be considered to be 80 to 100 years, with each of the four stages equaling a quarter of it.

Just as each person’s life holds four stages of about 20 years each, each generation comprehends a group of people born over about 20 years. Members of a particular generation tend to share values and ways of looking at the world not only because their parents also shared a set of views (which the kids are reacting to), but because every new generation experiences a new set of events in a way unique to them. They hear the same music, see the same events, are exposed to the same books. Members of a generation share a collective persona. There appear to be four distinct archetypal personae that recur throughout American history. And throughout world history as well, although that’s a bit beyond what I hope to explore here.

It also seems, throughout history, that there are periodic crises. About once every century, or about when each of the four generational types has run its course, a cataclysmic event occurs. It generally takes the form of a major war, and it generally catalyzes a whole new epoch for society.

The four mature generations alive today each represent an archetype. Let’s review them from the oldest now living, to the youngest.

Hero Archetype

The “GI” generation, born between 1901 and 1924, includes basically all living people in their mid-70s and older. They grew up and came of age in the midst of the most traumatic years in human history: the 1930s and ‘40s. This was a time of catastrophic financial and economic collapse, world war, political dictatorship, genocide, and virulent ideology, among other unpleasant things; a period of intense turmoil. The times required them to be civic minded, optimistic, regular guys who could be counted on to do the right thing, fit in, and see that everybody got a square deal. As a consequence of what they’ve been through, they tend to be indulgent parents. As kids they’re “good”; as adults they’re selfless, constructive, and communitarian. Hero archetypes encounter a Crisis environment in Young Adulthood; assuming they survive it, the odds are the rest of their lives will be lived in growing economic prosperity, leading to a leisurely retirement.

Artist Archetype

Meanwhile, another generation was being born at the height of the Crisis – something that seems to occur roughly every 80-100 years — from 1925-42. This generation, the “Silent,” watched these titanic events happen but were too young to take part in them. They were relegated to being protected, while trying to be helpful in the limited ways available to them. They’re overprotected as children, when they might be characterized as “placid”; they tend to underprotect their own children as a reaction. As adults they’re sensitive, well-liked, sentimental, and caring.

Prophet Archetype

Next came the group we call the “Boomers,” born from 1943 to 1960. This was the first generation born after the Crisis was over, and they grew up in an environment where their parents (mostly GIs and early cohort Silents) felt obligated to protect them from all the trauma of the preceding years and were desirous of giving them all the things they never had. As kids they’re seen as “spirited.” Later in life, they tend to be narcissistic, presumptuous, self-righteous, and ruthless. Born after a Crisis, their Childhood years coincide with a rebirth of society, and their Elderhood coincides with another Crisis. More on them below.

Nomad Archetype

The fourth generational type is represented by today’s “Generation X,” born 1961-81, during what might be called an Awakening period when the Boomers were in the limelight. As a consequence, they were overlooked and a bit abandoned. Their reputation as kids can be summed up as “bad.” They’re oriented toward survival, which is partially a result of their being underprotected as children. When they become parents, they react and become overprotective. They tend to be savvy, practical, tough, and amoral.

The kids born between 1982 and perhaps 2002 should be another Hero archetype. My own experience with them is that they’re shaping up that way. Represented by clean-cut, straight-arrow Power Rangers. Quite a reaction to the sewer-dwelling Mutant Ninja Turtles that were analogs for the previous generation. They’re “can do” kids, programmed to do the right thing in a smoke-free, drug-free, eco-sensitive, politically correct world. Like all Hero types, they respect their elders, do what they’re told without much questioning authority. That’s just the type of person you want to have fighting a war for you, and that’s probably just what they’ll wind up doing. Just like the last Hero types, the GIs. (Iraq was first. Iran next? Or will it be Saudi Arabia?)

It’s risky to characterize everyone born in a certain time frame as sharing a persona; after all, people are individuals, not ants or atoms, each like the other. But it’s really no different than characterizing people by the country they’re from. There’s no question in my mind that people share characteristics by virtue of the milieu in which they live, and that’s true of time as well as geography. Take a look at the people you know by age groups, and see if they don’t roughly fit the brief descriptions.

The interesting thing is that through about 400 years of American history, it’s possible to see these generational types repeating themselves. It’s not an accident. The characteristics of each type shape the next generation, as well as current events. And events leave a further imprint on all of them.

Making an Example of the Boomers

Just as every generation has its own persona, the character of each generation evolves as it moves through life. The Boomers are perhaps the most relevant example of this. First they were Mouseketeers and Beaver Cleaver clones. Who could have guessed they would mutate into Hippies and even Yippies as they reached Young Adulthood, reacting against everything they’d grown up with, everything their parents worked so hard to give them.

They came of age during a period that might be called an Awakening, and it’s recurred on schedule five times so far in American history. Awakenings are times of religious and moral ferment, when the youth tend to challenge prevailing cultural values pretty much across the board. Young adults were into New Age things this time around, in the 1960s and ‘70s. At the time it seemed utterly shocking and completely new, but that was only because nobody then alive had seen the previous Utopian Awakening in the 1830s and ‘40s, the Pietist Awakening of the 1740s and ‘50s, the Puritan Awakening of the 1630s and ‘40s, or the Protestant Reformation of the 1530s and ‘40s.

Like all the generations before them that grew up in similar times, they eventually put away the things of their youth. But who guessed that their next mutation would be into Yuppies, whose motto was not “Peace and Love” or “Revolution for the Hell of It,” but “Shop Till You Drop” and “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins” as they moved into midlife.

But even now the acquisitive mania that characterized the ‘80s is ebbing, now that the first cohorts of Boomers are crossing over 50. You can already see the signs of their next stage of evolution, in the judgmental behavior of people like William Bennett (George Bush) and Dan Quayle (Ann Coulter) on the “right,” and Al Gore and Hillary Clinton on the “left.” They did sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll in the ‘60s. They believe they’ve fought the war of good against evil in both Vietnam and the segregated lunch counters of the South. They know they were the first generation to have traveled widely thanks to the jet, to have been brought up by television, and had the telephone as a given. They’ve been there, done that, and now that they’re getting older, they’re going to make sure that everyone else benefits from their wisdom — like it or not.

The Boomers are an archetypal Prophet generation, a type born after a secular crisis, just in time to create another one. Get the image of a grim elder, with a well-defined vision of what’s right and wrong, calling down wrath, and laying down the law for a troubled nation in chaotic times. That’s the type of person who tends to lead countries into wars, as well as through them. Interestingly, the Boomers in America have their counterparts abroad today, especially in China, where they grew up during the Cultural Revolution. Two ideologically driven, righteous groups running two such powerful and alien cultures is almost a guaranteed formula for a millennial-sized crisis. Which should appear, coincidentally, sometime shortly after the millennium. (We’re right on schedule.)

Regards,
Doug Casey, The Casey Report

P.S.: Hope to see you tomorrow for the final installment. ‘Til then…

Source:  Whiskey and Gunpowder

One of the things I found most interesting about this article and in the reporting of the news is the changing or sliding (the re-writing) of history... again and already!!  The accepted and set years designated and for the Baby-boomer generation has always been 1946 to 1964...  Yet already, because the powers that be want to make President Obama a post-boomer president, a president of the young... representing change, they have already manipulated and changed the boomer generation years to 1943 to 1960... Obama having been born in 1961, how convenient!   HMMMM... here it goes.  President Obama is a boomer president... a young boomer, but nevertheless a boomer, that has garnished the support of the young... the next generation... but no matter what the sale or pitch, President Barack Hussain Obama is the 3rd Baby-Boomer President, and hope and change are very much boomer beliefs and characteristics!

The greatest crisis in our lifetime has been 911 (7-years ago)... but perhaps the the present financial crisis and continued war, if the author's  theory is correct, was needed to awaken the present young voting generation and scare them into involvement. And Boomer Obama and his promises of hope and change, however undefined, came at just the right time...

Marion Algier, Baby-Boomer~

It's Over, Or Is It??

The election is over. Senator Obama has turned into President Obama. The country has voted, the world has gasped, and the Republican Party has been dealt a major blow in years. It’s over. Is there anything left? Yes. You. And the millions of Americans who yesterday didn’t give their votes to Obama.

Think about it: years of unpopular Republican presidency, George Bush’s approval ratings hitting all times low, years of war, the global financial crisis, huge troubles with economy, and . . . McCain gets 46% of popular vote against Obama’s 52%. And this is despite Obama’s most expensive campaign in history, despite his unprecedented spending on TV time, despite open pro-Obama bias of every major media outlet, despite McCain’s age, despite Obama’s charm, despite celebrities swooning about him, despite polls predicting 10 point lead, despite all of this — Obama still gets only 52%? If there’s a reason to hope that America hasn’t lost its spirit, it’s the one.

Yesterday, in his acceptance speech Obama promised to be a president for all America. It will be our job to hold him accountable for delivering on that promise. It will be our job to make sure different views are well represented in Congress and in state governments across the country. It will be our job to concentrate on things that matter, to demand accountability from the government and media, to be thoughtful about electing our leaders – first of all the leaders who claim to represent us. The times of hoping that someone somewhere will elect the right people to represent your views and beliefs are over. In democracy only those who are truly involved make the difference. This election has made history and is history. Our reasons to stand up for what we believe in are not.

Source:  Dr. Slogan's Prescriptions