Before I offer my thoughts on this topic I should, to be fair, disclose my own religious background and beliefs. Loosely raised a Christian, I was baptized as an infant, and growing up I attended Sunday School on a fairly regular basis. Occasionally, I would attend church services with my mother; my father, however, never went to church. At age 13, I attended Confirmation Classes, culminating in Confirmation into the Lutheran Church. Practicing religion ceased at that point until some eight years later when I attended non-denominational services every Sunday that I spent on Parris Island. Once again, however, practicing my religious beliefs ended upon graduating Boot Camp. To this day I maintain a moderate religious belief system, whether it is merely a backdrop for my morality or an acceptable explanation for things unexplained, I am not so sure. I don't dwell on the subject, and I’m not actively committed. I find some religions hypocritical, some cartoonish, and some down-right wacky, but I neither disparage nor belittle anyone's choice on what to believe, or even to believe at all. My thought is, “Whatever gets you through the day.” Whatever you need to do to be an upstanding citizen is fine with me. We have freedom of religion and freedom from religion in this country- but there seems to be vast differences in acceptable expression from one group to another.

There are more than 40 major religions in the world today. Some as old as written history; some forming much more recent. I suspect that anyone who chooses to believe in something as yet unproven falls into the category of “believer”. It is faith in the unknown or unexplained that forms the foundation of all theology. Faith in what is incomprehensible to us humans is known by a being or beings that are larger than we; superhuman, if you will. An all-powerful, all-knowing, supreme life form that provides the guidelines we follow in the hope of life-everlasting.

And what about those who don’t believe? There are those in the scientific community, “intellectuals” (as though, somehow if you’re not part of academia, you’re not an intellectual- so what does that make us? Stupid? That’s another blog topic… I’ll come back to that at another time...) who seem to be the loudest voice for non-believers. Can anyone doubt that even science is derived upon faith? Scientific discovery is founded in the belief in something (theory) followed by an attempt to prove it. I guess what separates the scientific community from the religious community (and in most cases- they are two distinctly separate groups) is that the scientific community will sometimes move on to another theory (religion?) when the former is disproved.

First- Voluntary (Mandated) Civilian Service. What the hell would these 18-25 year-old young adults do, exactly? How are they supposed to augment, or be as strong as our military? How are they supposed to aid our foreign policy agendas? Am I missing something on this?

I can see the posters in High Schools and Colleges all over the country-

---

"Voluntarily sever serve your country in the 'Student Partnership in Defense', (StuPiD) program and help change the world! After three weeks of in-depth training at the recently closed Fort Monmouth Army Base in beautiful New Jersey, you'll be prepared to step in and defend the nation in times of great stress. Here's how it works:

• Three weeks of intense training including-
• 50 jumping jacks (non-consecutive)
  
• Rock throwing for accuracy and distance
  
• Molotov cocktail training
• Community Organizing skills
• Safe incense burning techniques
  
• Nine weeks of practical application-
• Working from tenant buildings in some of the less affluent areas of your community
  
• Applying community organizing skills to register new proletariat and bourgeoisie voters
• Helping distribute food and clothing taken from the few remaining upper class to those who really need them
• Filling in to keep the economy moving in the event of labor disputes between organized labor and government
• This feel-good commitment remains- even after the expiration of the voluntary mandated part of the program
• You'll be forcibly asked to step in for striking low-income workers
  
• This may include exciting travel opportunities to cities like Detroit, St. Louis, or Camden, N.J.
• And gain valuable work experience in the fields of waste management, food service, or outdoor cleanup
• You'll also earn a living wage¹ for the entire time you're away from you previous job, family, and home

Sign up Today! _{**Campus gates will remain closed until all students have voluntarily registered.**}

¹ Massachusetts residents will be paid in small amounts of marijuana :~)_,

Second- Can we send some of these Atheist groups to the Middle East to spread their Anti-Judeo/Christian message? Hey, I'm all for freedom of religion, or freedom from religion if that's what floats your boat, but I'm not for infringing on anyone's right to practice their religion or for denigrating their choice of religion.

Third- Advice from the Left? Are they so emboldened by their new-found fortune that they're offering advice to the opposition (us) on how to win back the power?

Okay, you've won the election. Your guy will be in the Oval Office, Nancy will remain Speaker, and Harry will still be majority leader. Congratulations. It was your time; your turn. Hopefully you won't screw it up too badly; we'll see. But you don't have to look too far in the past to see the same thing happen to your party. Since you're so full of advice for us conservatives, here's a little in return: "Worry about yourselves. You're agenda is awfully radical, probably moreso than most of the folks who voted for you realize. You should be very careful in executing your plans, you may just miss and inadvertently execute yourselves sooner rather than later."

Finally- Chin up, Conservatives. We'll be back! Politics is cyclical- just like the economy; just like the weather. It's their turn now, and before long they'll screw it up so badly that even the ill-informed will not be influenced by the media and vote these guys out and our guys in. Then it'll be our turn to screw it up...and so on, and so on, and so on...

 I found November 4^th to be a relatively sad day; not just for me necessarily, but for America. Sure, it was historic- and I congratulate Barack Obama on his ascension to King. But what I find so sad is that the country elected a new President -one with no discernable history other than one that was vastly different from his campaign message- based on a solitary issue. Race.

I’m no historian, but can someone please tell me if any other President, less maybe George Washington, was elected by a majority of the electorate regardless of his political agenda? I have seen many of the post-election news reports, exit polls, MSM confessions, and ‘man-on-the-street’ interviews and clearly, the overwhelming issue for promoting and voting Obama was the chance to make history and put a black man in the highest office. Noble as that may be to some, I can’t justify installing anyone as Commander in Chief and Leader of the Free World, just because of skin color. In fact, if you asked Martin Luther King, Jr. he might agree with me. For it was that revered leader of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement, and the instrument by which Barack Obama’s rise to national prominence was made possible, who said the following: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” What is striking to me is that Barack Obama, this obviously intelligent, likable, charismatic, quintessential politician was in fact judged by the color of his skin and not by the content of his character. To me, that is sad. Sad and irresponsible- voting for someone because of the color of his skin is as irresponsible as not voting for someone because of the color of his skin.

I wonder now, if those who voted Obama somehow feel a sense of relief? A sense of ‘finally, I was able to do the right thing.’ Or, will it in short order have the opposite effect? Will those who have harbored this ‘white guilt’ that was so expertly preyed upon during this election cycle, take a different view of minorities in this country? Will they realize that the inability to succeed in America can no longer be considered race-based? Will they, in fact, become more conservative in their thinking? And what will that mean going forward?

Now, for anyone reading this and thinking that I am somehow racist in my thinking- consider this... Had the GOP ticket been Michael Steele/Sarah Palin, I would have voted that way in a heartbeat. As it was, I still voted McCain/Palin, because I believe republicans in general have a better plan for America than democrats; at least the democrats that control the democratic agenda. Barack Obama’s skin color- white, green, purple, black, orange, or any combination thereof, made no difference to me; he’s a far-left ideologue who will likely have a lasting negative effect on this country. But, maybe, just maybe- this election will finally close the book on the affirmative-action era and people of all races, gender, religion, and sexual orientation can finally be- in the words of MLK Jr., judged [solely] by the content of their character.

I have my doubts…

I'm curious...

By every measure- EVERY measure- the Democrats have the advantage in this election. But just to illustrate my point, here's my analysis:

Politics run in cycles; no party in this country has enjoyed an extended period of unchallenged rule. The last extended run was 2001 to 2006, when Republican graduates of the Democratic School of Governing proved to be quintessential politicians. After eight years of George Bush, and the vitriol by his opposition during that time, defending the office from the incumbent perspective is exceedingly difficult. Advantage: Democrats.

The Iraq War- by every measure a strong success. However, since success does not fit the desires of the pacifist-media, it hasn't helped those fighting to win, and remained unpopular enough to sweep the anti-war candidate to the nomination. Advantage: Democrats.

The Economy- Democrats always try to say the economy is hurting during an election year, and since this election year the economy is actually hurting, its not hard to make that point. When the incumbent is a Republican, and the disastrous economy is perceived by the masses as a direct result of corporate greed, Wall Street excesses, and lack of regulation, the Democrats have a winning argument. Advantage: Democrats.

The Media- One of the self-appointed jobs of the media (I say self-appointed because I've never seen the role of the media defined in the Constitution) is to point out the falsehoods being put forth to the electorate. This election cycle has been like none other, however. Truth is not an issue with this media, at least not in the dictionary sense of the word "truth". This media likes to play the "Spin"-"Fact" game, by making up the spin, and distorting the facts. Some AP writer with a pro-Obama agenda generates their own "spin" from a McCain campaign ad and presents the Obama talking point as "fact", regardless of whether there is a single actual fact in their reporting. Only a member of the media, or Obama's campaign, could look at this election cycle as fair media coverage. Advantage: Democrats.

Campaign Finance- similar to the media, no point in telling the truth if your in the Obama camp. Rather, lie about your intentions, then do what you want. And, on top of that, conduct a campaign contribution collection scheme that Al Capone would be envy. Hey? He operated out of Chicago too, didn't he? Advantage: Democrats.

Voter Registration- It used to be that you could always count on the Democrats to register 50% of the election year Obits, but in most elections, they would only mobilize 5-10% of those on election day. This year, however, they're involved in a coordinated, nationwide effort to crowd the voter rolls with so many false registrations that election officials have little chance of ensuring an untampered election. I'd still like to know whether Mickey Mouse registered Democrat or Republican. Advantage: Democrats.

Presentation- You take a smooth-talking, young, energetic, polished politician (note- I didn't say "reputable"), put him up against an older, less-that-polished public speaker, and the accomplished orator shines brightly. He comes across like so many inspirational speakers, preachers, and professors. All superbly trained in presenting their message in a fashion that appeals to their audience. Clearly, Obama speaks and people listen. That's an admirable quality, one that serves a politician well. Advantage: Democrats.

Race- The only way you can see Obama's race as a disadvantage in 2008 is if you're a Democrat (just ask Jack Murtha...); Conservatives and moderates recognize it for what it is- an achievment once thought unlikely, that shows the country as a whole for what it has become- one that no longer judges people by the color of their skin. At no time during this election cycle has any Republican made an issue of race. To us, it is not an issue. To the Obama camp and the complicit media- it has been used as a pre-emptive strike (and I thought they don't like those) to silence any critical opposition. Advantage: Democrats.

So- I go back to the subject of this post... What if John McCain wins? If I were a Vegas handicapper and this was an NFL game, I'd spot McCain two touchdowns and feel comfortable. I'd make it three if it was a Saturday game. The pollsters have been trying to influence voters and most pundits gave the election to Obama weeks ago. So what if John McCain wins? What will be the excuse this time? There is no way that the army of Obama lawyers will be able to point to voter suppression by Republicans- they've been playing that card for months without a shred of evidence. They can claim racism, but it would only be within their own party. By their own admission, they've registered so many more Democrats that even the pollsters oversample by 20% or so in their polls. If every registered voter votes their party, Obama wins in a landslide. So? What will it be? Hanging chads? Electronic voting machines hacked? Fire hoses? Racist threats?

If John McCain wins, as I predicted last week, the only viable reason is that the electorate is not ready for radical liberalism on a massive scale. I hope I'm right...

Regardless of your preference, please vote on November 4th.

A week to go-

I'm guessing we're all in for one heckofa week. So, I'm asking the question, "in your heart of hearts, how is this thing going to turn out?"

Here's mine:

November 4th- Beginning sometime around the 5:00 pm Eastern hour, CNN and MSNBC will begin subtle overtures of an Obama landslide. They'll initially be careful by saying "based on the exit polling" and "we're not trying to project a winner at this point." Not that the unabshedly brazen lefty newsies are above any of that this year, but they'll make a short-lived feeble attempt to act as though they are not trying to sway the vote.

During the six o'clock hour they will begin posting returns, probably including (but failing to mention) early voter numbers. Accuracy in reporting will not be required, nor sought after. Then the network election night coverage will begin. "This historic election" will be used over and over again, 9 out of 10 times in reference to the liklihood of a Black president. One or two of the women pundits will casually mention something like, "and even if all of the exits polls are wrong, and somehow John McCain -against all odds- eeks out a victory, there will be a woman as vice president." Throughout the evening, cameras stationed at the rented-Obama-camera stands will be showing jubilant (and probably inebriated) Obama supporters dancing and singing in Hyde Park. Occasionally, a shot of a so-called 'somber' McCain camp will be shown.

During the nine o'clock hour, MSNBC will be the first to call a state for Obama. It'll be Massachusettes. They'll call it with 2% of the vote reported. Vermont and New York will follow closely behind. Before 11:00, CNN will begin scrolling numbers in Pennsylvania that show McCain ahead in the polls. With 30% of the vote counted, PA will be 52% to 38% for McCain. Wolf Blitzer will report that the Philadelphia and Pittsburg urban areas "must not be reflected in these numbers." Jack Murtha will call it a KKK conspiracy. By 11:30, Fox will call PA for McCain, follwed by Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and will show Florida 58% to 40% McCain with 25% counted. The Electoral Map will begin to redden- Keith Olberman's face will begin to redden. Chris Matthews will begin to wimper and will have to be replaced with Rachel Maddow.

By midnight on the east coast, Obama surrogates will begin the initial claims of voter fraud perpetrated by conservatives. Reports of broken down GOTV buses used by the Democrats will surface (file photos of the Katrina buses will be used.) Fires will be set in Detroit. By 1:00 am, Fox will call the election for McCain. In the most stunning news of the evening, it will be revealed that Delaware went for McCain. Obama will not conceed; instead, he will suggest that he was an outright victim of racism, and will ask that his loyalists "get in their faces." The Democrats will lose one seat in the Senate, and the House will stay as it is today. The media elite will by stunned. Jimmy Carter will ask for a recount to be conducted by the Iranians.

Okay, I got a little exuberant at the thought of an Obama loss... But I stand by my prediction- McCain/Palin -large- and Obama/Biden will not carry Delaware. I just think that the majority of Americans will wake up next week and realize that this is not a movie- that electing this guy will have real consequenses, and that a smooth talker is more likely a swindler than a leader. We're not buying the snake oil.

Comments are encouraged...

I've been hearing over and over the term "steady leadership" in describing Barack Obama by his many surrogates during this campaign. The Truth Fights Back website attempts to explain this "steady leadership" as it relates to his reactions "in the first hours of the economic crisis." According to the site he did exactly the following: he had phone conversations with his advisors; attended normally scheduled campaign events where he refrained from blaming John McCain directly for the meltdown; spoke by phone again with several federal officials including Henry Paulson and Ben Bernacke; and attended a private fundraiser in Los Angeles where he addressed the celebrity crowd and praised John McCain's heroism in Viet Nam. That's it. That's their definition of leadership.

I posted a comment here on Townhall yesterday in response to a news story about the former governor of Massachusettes endorsing Barack Obama. He too sited the "steady leadership" Obama has shown and would provide in the White House. My comment posed one umbrella question... what has he done? Can anyone actually site an example where in some meaningful way, Barack Obama displayed any tangible leadership? Another comment responded by saying, "interesting point, but I thought leadership was leading an overwhelming amount of people based on charisma and trust." To that I would say, "interesting point as well. But doesn't that sound a lot like the Pied Piper?"

Having spent six years in the Marine Corps, I learned a lot about leadership, at least in the vein that the USMC sees befitting. JJDIDTIEBUCKLE. Any of you jarheads out there recognize this acronym? Justice, judgment, dependability, integrity, decisiveness, tact, initiative, endurance, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge, loyalty, enthusiasm- the Marine Corps Leadership Traits. I utilized these traits to advance through the ranks during my years in uniform, and they have since served me well in civilian life. I don't see charisma and trust on this extensive list put forth by generations of exceptional leaders.

So, I ask again. Just what has Barack Obama done to 'earn' this "steady leadership" mantra that has been spread by his surrogates since he began running for President? What major piece of legislation did he author (not just add his name to, in preparation for his run for President) that was brought to the floor, voted on, passed, and signed into law? What significant action has he performed as a U.S. Senator that has been to the benefit of a significant portion of the electorate? What, simply, is his major leadership ability? Given the media's unwillingness to challenge Obama on almost anything, I'm quite sure the campaign operatives put the message out to their surrogate; something like-- "keep hammering 'leadership'. It's the one area we're most succeptable. Throw it out there- the drones in the media will eat it up."

Great speakers do not necessarily make great leaders. They may spout an elegant message but his or her delivery is not nearly as important as the substance of the message. And just saying you're a leader, does not, in fact, make you one.

Which brings me back to the Pied Piper legend of old. To briefly describe the story-- A town was overrun with rats. A stranger came to town and promised to remove the rats. The town accepted the proposition, and the piper played a musical pipe to lure the rats into the river where they drowned. With the rat problem resolved, the townspeople reneged and refused to pay for the service as promised. The man left angrily, only to return sometime later - this time playing his musical pipe for the children of the town, who in turn, followed him out of town and were never seen again. (One hypothesis for the origin of the pied piper legend claims the childred left the city to become part of a pilgrimage, military campaign, or "children's crusade" but were never returned to their parents. These theories see the unnamed piper as their leader or recruiting agent.)

So beware of the Pied Piper my friends. Beware of the man promising change with charisma and charm. Do not trust such a man solely on these characteristics alone. For he may one day "lead" us all into an abyss as we follow to the tune of his soothing notes.

Who is really wielding the power?

Someone is pulling the strings. It’s not Obama; clearly he doesn’t have the experience or the wherewithal to amass such a powerful following. But as with every corrupt politician, following the money trail will likely provide the origin of the Obama puppetmaster(s).

That’s what is so clever about the “Obama” campaign; they figured out how to conceal the money trail- at least to this point. The “grassroots effort” so often spoken about regarding the Obama rise to prominence is not just college students; not just local volunteers; and not just community organizers and groups like ACORN. The real effort was probably conceived in 2001; probably as a response to the failed Gore legal challenges. My guess is certain like-minded groups (such as MoveOn.org and ANSWER) decided that typical presidential campaign strategies would no longer suffice in a country that, contrary to media reports, tilts overwhelmingly right of center. [In my 43 years on this planet, only 15 have seen Democrats occupying the top job- LBJ (’65-’68), Carter (’76-’80) and Clinton (’92-’00). I believe that presidential elections most accurately represent the national electorate- House, Senate and local elections are more easily influenced by on-the-ground circumstances, sometimes setting aside ideological beliefs.]

Community Organizing- It has been asked, just what is community organizing? Conservatives question the motives and the left along with the media defend its institution. The puppetmasters? I think they are laughing quietly to themselves while this diversion rages on. ACORN has been duped into registering as many people (democrats, and mostly black democrats) in the name of electing a black man president. But the puppetmasters know that what they are really doing is tying up local resources critical to fair voting accountability and creating the opposing argument of right-wing voter suppression.

Far-left Community Organizing- This, I believe, is what has been building since 2000; organizing the far-left money base. I don’t believe that the puppetmasters knew at that point who their candidate would be. John Kerry emerged, probably to their dismay, because the pacifists had an anti-war veteran to drive home their message. Iraq dominated the 2004 election cycle, and the majority right-of-center populace understood the lessons learned from Viet Nam. It bought more time for the puppetmasters, however. Politics runs in cycles. Twelve years of Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle, eight years Clinton/Gore and eight years Bush/Cheney. The time was right for a swing back to the Democrats. They had four more years to drum up support from the money machines in the far-left political sphere.

The perfect storm- The Bush second term began with fabricated stories of another election “stolen” by voter suppression and faulty balloting; highlighted the difficulties of the Iraq War and gave a larger voice to anti-war baby-boomers; and culminated in an economic crisis blamed by his opposition on conservative capitalism. But prior to Election Day and seemingly out of obscurity, a dashing, young, hip, up-and-coming and practically uncontested State Senator emerged and provided an inspirational speech at the Democratic National Convention. I think it was at that moment the puppetmasters, like the Grinch Who Stole Christmas, “got an idea! An awful idea! [They] got a wonderful, awful idea!” Before them a mesmerizing orator; like Ronald Regan, a man able to energize a crowd. They recognized the symbolism of his race and the huge potential for capitalizing on an increasing willingness to effectively embrace a coronation of Dr. King’s “dream.” And then they learned of his upbringing…

Indoctrination- They had in Barack Obama the perfectly prepared puppet for their stage show- Chicago-trained and financially backed; radical race-influenced agenda; formal education from far-left inspired Columbia University. And a vanity superseded only by his drive to be ‘the one’. This was a man that they could mold, but was already formed in the shape that they needed- the complete package of education, drive, communication ability and race- behind whom a network of established support mechanisms that helped propel him to national prominence. His belief system closely matched those of his soon-to-be masters- and what didn’t, could easily be changed at the mere suggestion that it would further his career. He was placed on the hook, dropped in the water, and left to see if the fish would bite.

The One- And bite they did. The main stream media abandoned the beloved Clintons at the drop of a hat. This is extraordinarily significant- not only did they turn their backs, but they went so far as to insinuate that “America’s first black President” was using the race card against Obama. They had a woman candidate and instead threw their support behind a male. Barack Obama is without a doubt an impressive politician, but more importantly to his handlers and the complicit main stream media, he is an impressive black politician. In 21^st century America, that gave him greater star power than any white politician, male or female; so long John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. College students and Gen-X’ers, mostly raised in the post-discrimination era, rightfully can’t identify with the horrid beliefs held by a once racial society. They are, however, educated to understand that oppression did occur, and believe that they can do something to repair the damage. And many are now prepared to usher in the effect of the cause; the reaction to the action; the final scene in a feel-good movie-of-the-week. And for their parents- hopefully this brings to an end a distasteful conversation. He will be “The One” to help us turn the page.

The Potential for Change- Similar to the radical Islamic extremists, radical far-left extremists have far-reaching goals. I suspect this is a plan that has been developing for eight years, and one that will likely take decades to fully implement. ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’ and the change must begin with popular support. The far-left cannot employ one past method of political takeover- the military coup, because they don’t command the military- in fact, they would likely attempt to significantly draw-down the military once they gain complete power. Instead, they will purchase support. Tax incentives for the poor. Redistribution of wealth from the few to the many. Even the liberal rich not included in the takeover plan, will eventually realize what has happened albeit too late to save their fortunes. The death tax will expand exponentially so that the transfer of wealth can no longer be passed through family lines, but forfeited to the government to be distributed to the (somehow still-remaining) poor. The far-left drug dealers will be selling cheap dope to the eager masses, all in exchange for votes and the false impression that democracy still rules. Not fascists, but a new[ly exposed] breed of Liberal- I’ll call it the Compassionate Coalesced Progressive Party or CCPP (not to be confused with the CCCP…) fully intent on establishing a classist-style of rule.

Organization- There will be a hierarchy in this new political arm. Whoever is currently pulling the strings, the puppetmaster, will remain atop the heap- though I suppose it is a relatively small committee rather than ‘the man behind the curtain’. Underlings will include people like Bill Ayers and Jesse Jackson- not unlike Mafioso lieutenants, they have a unique sphere of influence though individually not resourceful enough to force their way into the upper echelons. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Discarded in their next run for office. It is possible they will be offered some token position with zero influence and effectively gagged, but equally possible they will be left behind entirely. They are too erratic, too boisterous, and too mouthy to be trusted. More likely, the acclaimed will emerge from college campuses in the northeast and northwest; both in the form of tenured professors (for stature) and “progressive-minded” graduates similar to Obama, groomed to succeed their predecessors.

Lasting Change? - Unlike dictators, communists, fascists, or monarchists of the past, the CCPP will not fear a military uprising. With the knowledge that overthrow will have to come from the public; keeping the common people in tow will be their main charge. Working hand-in-hand with the “global community” will be a way to not only spread the wealth even further (keeping more Americans just above the poverty line and unable to support a political coup), but to continually market themselves as the compassionate world-view innovators they profess to be. Alas, with all past governments that survive by discouraging the citizenry and their desire for a better life, eventually they will be challenged- if not from within, then from abroad. And it is that long term vision, similar to that of the radical Islamic extremist, which will ultimately be tested.

If it happens, I give it eight years…

You all owe it to yourselves to read this:

Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables"

I noticed it on Drudge's page this morning. What else can possibly be said? Bloggers need to jump on this- you knew Biden would prove his liability at some point.

Okay- not really. But give me a moment to make my point.

Wikipedia says this about Bill Ayers:  In 1970 he "went underground" with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, in which Weatherman member Ted Gold, Ayers' close friend Terry Robbins, and Ayers' girlfriend, Diana Oughton, were killed when a nail bomb (an anti-personnel device) they were assembling exploded. Kathy Boudin and Cathy Wilkerson survived the blast. Ayers was not facing criminal charges at the time, but the federal government later filed charges against him.^[3] Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

Wikipedia says this about sex offenders: The term sexual offender is a broad term, with sexual predator being used to describe a more severe physical or repeat sexual offense. Sexual offenders are also sometimes classified into levels [1], where the highest level offenders have the most aggravating crimes and thus, the most risk to the public and usually must register as a sex offender for their entire lives. Low level sexual offenders may serve only a probationary sentence and only register for 10 years as well as having less restrictions placed on them compared to higher level offenders. As a label of identity it is used in criminal psychology. Especially in the United States the person, if convicted, is most likely required to register with the respective jurisdiction's sex offender registry, a county- or statewide database that is often public and accessible to everyone through the internet.

We all know that Wiki is unreliable as it relates to current political affairs, given that it may be revised by nearly anyone. However, it seems to me that since there is a section called "Obama-Ayers Controversy", the editors have scrubbed the Ayers entry quite thoroughly. And since it is also likely that the editors are attempting to spin the "controversy" in a pro-Obama light, the balance of the entry must be fairly acceptable to the pro-Obama crowd. That being said, I will conclude that it is reasonable to assume that Bill Ayers, in the past, conspired to injure, maim, or kill people- building anit-personnel devises that inadvertantly exploded and killed its makers, leads me believe this to be true.

So- given that Bill Ayers clearly wished to harm people in his past, if he lived near you, would he be "just a guy who lives in [your] neighborhood"? Would you sit on a board (charged with distributing funds to radically-motivated groups) with him?

And what about that registered sex offender? Is he just a guy who lives in your neighborhood? Would you sit on the PTA with him? Would you?

Not a reasonable question voters should ponder before stepping up to the polls?

(This version corrects the misspelling of "Ayers")

I know, there must be 1000 of these blogs, in Townhall alone, even. But, I've got my questions still, even with only 20 days to the election. So here's a sampling:

1. This question is to both Senator McCain and Senator Obama: The economy was moving along at, by all accounts, an acceptable pace over the last several years, until George Bush _______________________ (fill in the blank.) I get so tired of "the policies of the last eight years..." I know both candidates want to distance themselves [from someone with a higher approval rating- at least as it releates to his actual job] but what, specifically did the President do to cause the stock market to lose 40% in roughly two weeks? Not rhetoric, actual examples, please.
   
2. Again, to both Senators: If the President has the ability to cause the market to take such a massive hit, how long before your plans, if enacted exactly as you propose, would it take to regain all of the losses? Again, the President has such a minimal effect of the economy as a whole, yet like a football quarterback, he gets all the blame when the game doesn't go well.
   
3. Senator Obama: I heard a surrogate from your campaign explain recently how the 40% of Americans that don't pay Federal Income Tax would still get a rebate. He indicated that since all working Americans (are supposed to) pay FICA taxes, they would get a $500 rebate for the money they have been paying into Social Security. Where does that money come from? Are they then not paying into what is supposed to supplement their own retirement income? Even if the answer is that it would not come from the Social Security Fund, wouldn't that still be 'robbing Peter to pay Paul?'
4. Senator McCain: If you are unwilling to discuss what some might (wrongly) percieve to be the racially-charged subject of Jeramiah Wright during this campaign, is it likely then that you might waffle at a more critical time, like in how to deal with radical Muslims? I'm concerned that if he cannot mention the outrageous statements of the Reverend and Obama's inconceivable response to the effect those statements have had on his ideology, for fear that the 95% of black voters who were not going to vote for him in the first place might have a more negative opinion of him, then how will he handle religious extremism? Will he not be worried he'll offend the certain percentage of Muslims that want to kill us more than they already are?
5. Finally, to both candidates: Given that you are both Senators, both having been legislators for a considerable period of your adult lives, what would you describe as the most significantly positive piece of legislation that you either authored, or co-authored, that has been enacted into law- at any level of government? And how did this help the American citizen? I believe this is a fair question- Obama does not have the experience of McCain, but shouldn't be judged solely on the number of years in office. Moreover, McCain has been a Washington insider for a long time, and that shouldn't be held against him as an agent of change. So, what have you done for me (or your constituents) lately? 

Enjoy the debate. I don't suspect Scheiffer will be the least bit fair, but Senator McCain chose this line of work, so he's got to rise above the partisanship if he wants to win this thing. I'll read about it in the morning as I'll be switching over to South Park...

Some predictions (mixed with a bit of satire) to review periodically over the next four years (assuming an Obama presidency):

1. Within 30 days of inauguration, a massive troop withdraw will be announced for Iraq. He promised to end this war and I believe him- regardless of the consequences. Some support troops will be sent to Afghanistan, but will only stay long enough to support the forthcoming Afghan troop-withdraw. By June 2009, the US will no longer have a military presence in the Middle East.
2. Combat troops will be offered an early discharge with severance. 40% of soldiers will take the money, 3% of Marines.
3. Even as the economy stabilizes and money begins flowing freely again, cries of "more needs to be done" will be bellowed from the halls of Congress. Some will suggest that the campaign-promised tax credits cannot be realized, and in fact, a tax increase will be required to "get America moving again". Bush will be blamed. Joe Biden will rant for patriotic tax contributions by all and Nancy and Harry will propose a tax hike on individuals earning more that $50k- and families earning more than $100k per year. Obama will further endear himself to the masses by proclaiming that the needed revenue can be offset by massive military-spending cuts. He'll argue that with our forces again in the Motherland- I mean, back home again- and no threat of war on the horizon as long as he is in office, we can effectively eliminate all military spending outside of payroll for at least the next two years.
4. Michelle will be charged with re-vamping the failing public education system. Working closely with the NEA and Democratic Governors across the nation, a new standardized K-12 curriculum will be established. The school calendar will be revised to allow for year-round classes with vacations allowed of up to one week, twice during any calendar year. Teachers will be paid on a student achievement basis- some dollar amount for each student that successfully progresses to the next grade level. To insure fairness, the teacher will be required to give his or her "word" that the student did, in fact, learn and retain course material. Testing will be graded on a sliding scale based on zip-code. A new student volunteer requirement will be enacted with GOTV as the emphasis. This will be overseen by a new cabinet-level committee, the Volunteers Organized by Teachers/Educators for Democracy, or VOTE Dem, headed by Maude Hurd. Home-schooling will be ruled unlawful as parents are deemed unfit to educate their children. Private schools will be heavily taxed.
   
5. The Charles Schumer Justice Department will commission an army of Special Prosecutors to investigate everything from Charlie Rangel's republican (unbeknownst to him, of course) accountant's fraud and false reporting, to how the Bush Administration and Karl Rove (specifically) managed to hide the WMD's in Iraq. It will eventually be determined that the WMD's had been moved in the first days of the Bush Presidency to the basement levels of the World Trade Center, exacerbating what was merely a "message" by some radical Middle Eastern Right-Wingers, who never intended to inflict so much damage. George Bush will be blamed.
   
6. Billed as a way to be environmentally responsible, the NYT and WaPo print media will voluntarily cease print publications, instead "merging" with PBS to form the "New Media." The House Appropriations Committee will be extolled for this innovative thinking, and the "new era of American journalism." Publically-funded efforts to silence conservative radio voices will ensue.
7. A major play to legitimize the United Nations will begin behind closed doors, and eventually be revealed as a beacon to fledgling rogue nations across the globe. Sudan will lead the effort to eliminate hunger, and Hezbollah will head the new "Global Icing Awareness Cooperative."
8. The first major foreign policy shift will be the lifting of all sanctions on Cuba. Hollywood will once again flock to Havana and Lucy will marry Ricky in sit-com after sit-com. Cubans will still be forced to remain on the island.
9. Joe Biden will begin the process of repairing our good name throughout the world. He will be commended by the state-run media for his efforts to regain the trust of the French, increase our imports from Spain, and pledge all of the coal the Dutch could want to power their windmills. Time Magazine will name him "Man of the Year" for 2010, and he will acknowledge the award with an acceptance speech once given by Sean Penn for his role in Mystic River.
10. Obama will sign "Present" to no less than two-dozen deficit-spending initiatives during his first year in office, while attending more than three-dozen Hollywood fund-raisers. He will begin campaigning for re-election in 2012- May 1^st of 2009. His main focus will be national health care, which he will be unable to institute in its campaign-promised form due to budgetary restraints. His new plan will call for the cooperation of Canadian clinics to see American patients thereby keeping costs for new facilities in the states to a minimum. Lines will begin forming in North Dakota.
11. The next terrorist attack will be orchestrated from Mosul, Iraq and hit multiple communities across America. George Bush will be blamed.