This story is an astonishing thing.

Harry Reid and the Democrat majority in the Senate are prepared to somehow intervene in the election carried out by the officers and voters of the state of Minnesota, on the grounds that their candidate didn't win.

Well, their stated ground is that 'all votes were not counted'.  But what they want is for absentee ballots that were rejected by the state canvassing board, for legal and specific reasons, to be added back in and counted.  State laws require absentee ballots to be rejected for various reasons, among them the simple things like LACK OF SIGNATURE.  The reason for the law is obvious; if the ballot is returned unsigned, the canvassing board has no assurance the ballot was in fact cast by the voter who supposedly received it in the mail.

And voters know ballots get rejected when they don't add up, when rules aren't followed.  It is part and parcel of the election process that voters go by the rules and laws, and that when they don't, their ballots do not count.  The canvassing board in Minnesota is admirably adhering to the rules.

But Frankenberry has no doubt racked up a stack of ACORN-generated phony-citizen absentee ballots (remember their emphasis on early voting?) and wants them counted so that Frankenfunny can overcome his disadvantage of a hundred or so votes.

If Harry Reid can impose the camel's nose of the U. S. Senate under the State's tent, if he can get the Federal Government control of the STATE OF MINNESOTA'S business, then totalitarianism has begun.  It's illegal, it's wrong, and it SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. 

We have a constitutionally limited federal government with a clear delineation of state's rights.  Running one's elections is the STATE's responsibility. 

I don't hear Reid wanting to look into the rejected absentee ballots in any other state, like Ohio (where thousands of military ballots were rejected on genuinely specious grounds by a partisan hack of a SecState) or Virginia or Pennsylvania.  There are many more rejected absentee ballots in any one of those states than in Minnesota.  His stated goal of ensuring that all votes count is therefore a stupid, unimaginative smokescreen for his real desire, which is simply to get that seat for the Dems, whatever it takes.

God help the Banana Republic of the United States of America.

After all these years of being relentlessly told by the left that our personal rights to privacy and so forth were going to be violated by government, that we should deny government these rights to rifle through our records and listen in on phone calls and all that stuff because our privacy rights were in danger--  well, an American with no connections to terrorism has finally been run through that wringer.  All his personal records were rifled, the government tried to make trouble for him because of political reasons, laws were violated...  it's all TRUE!

Where do our rights come from?

Most people say "the constitution".  And they'd be correct, legally.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were too vague, and amendments were offered in a Bill of Rights to make them more specific.  We have the right not to be searched and have our possessions seized without due process of law, for example.  We have the right to peaceable assembly in public places for the purpose of political speech (and there was no fairness doctrine to tell us to make it half one side, half the other).  We have the right to keep and carry guns. 

These and others were included specifically to bolster the constitution in its refutation of British colonial rule, during which the Brits routinely searched, seized, broke up public gatherings and took weapons from the people. 

They were about maintaining power.  We are about maintaining RIGHTS.

At least we were.  :-)

But really, where do we get our human rights?  The founding fathers had a definite idea.

".... all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...."

Did you catch that?

The constitution and Bill of Rights do not GRANT us our rights.  They ACKNOWLEDGE that GOD granted us rights.

take the second amendment.  "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Never mind quibbling over the definition of militia, security, et al, pay attention to the second part.

The right (pre-existing right, implied) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (tampered with, removed, violated).

The Bill of Rights tells us we ALREADY HAVE the right to bear arms, before there even WAS a constitution or an America.  Congress can't REMOVE the right that existed before congress was CREATED.

That's why they're not called "American rights'.  They're HUMAN RIGHTS.  God made humans, God gave us rights, governments take them away.  America was formed because certain wise men got tired of having their God given rights abused by governments. 

I suggest that those who do not believe in God, and those who do not believe God has any place in government, explain how it is that they have rights.  I reckon the act of dismissing "endowed by their Creator" is equivalent to the act of abdicating your rights.  Rationality allows no other conclusion.

Banner day.

After citing Pamela Geller dozens of times in this blog and others, for years, as well as telling everyone I know about her blogging and the battles she fights, I happened to write her about something that caught her eye and now I"m front and center on Atlas Shrugs.

She even made my post sticky to the top of the blog.  :-)))

Pam Geller's blog synthesizes all that I feel and think and believe about America, Israel, the Jews, radical Islam and the coming loss of common sense and goodness and decency.

And aside from that, she's strong-willed, determined, passionate and GOOD.  

And gorgeous, but maybe I'm biased by all the rest of that stuff.

Naaah.  :-)

This one is simple as can be.

The car companies in Detroit, the big three, GM, Ford and what's left of Chrysler, are near bankruptcy.

Other car companies located in the USA are doing fine.  Lots of plants in states like Tennessee and the Carolinas are cranking out cars that people are buying at a profitable price for the companies.  They're not AMERICAN companies, I grant you, but the jobs thing and the suppliers thing and the general economic thing are the same for practical purposes.

But our own companies are in deep doo doo.  The total cost per employee per hour in America's companies is over $70, counting benefits and all.  For the other companies, it's less than $50.

The reason for this is, of course, the UAW.  Those other companies are not unionized, but the UAW has had the big three over the proverbial barrel for decades.  GM is now obligated to pay its retired workers almost as much as its present workers.  It isn't just a disadvantage for the work force costs, as I mentioned above, it's ADDITIONAL employee costs for NON productive workers.

The unions have dominated these companies for decades and largely gotten what they wanted.  But now they're on the cusp of killing the golden goose.

Many Dems say bankruptcy would cost three million jobs, but of course bankruptcy is merely reorganization of debt, not the closing of the company.  Job losses might occur at the companies who are holding GM debt, like parts suppliers and such, and perhaps a trimming of the main payroll will be part of reorganization, but it's hardly three million jobs.  As Jeff Sessions pointed out on the radio this morning on Bill Bennett's show, Delta Airlines went bankrupt and now they've roared back and even bought a smaller airline.

This, though, is the bottom line; the present business model at GM is untenable.  They lose over a thousand dollars, perhaps over two thousand, on every car they sell.  It's employee costs that rack up this loss.  If we 'bail out' these guys and the business model doesn't change, it's money down the crapper.  PERIOD.

So what is government recommending?  That they use the money to retool for green cars.

So not only is government not demanding a better business model, they're demanding that GM build cars NOBODY WANTS.

It's clear to congress that the voters are very unhappy with this idea of a bailout.  Unless GM, Ford and Chrysler adopt a business model more like the foreign companies in American states use, they will continue to lose money.  Remember, the big three were losing money back when everyone else was making money hand over fist.

If the Dems had honesty, they'd simply propose writing checks straight to the UAW.  That, after all, is their primary concern.

But the voters are appalled and that's causing some Dems and most Repubs to refuse to go forward with this bailout.

Bankruptcy is cleansing and minimally destructive, and that is clearly what should happen.  But if it does, the courts will rule that the big three need to radically overhaul their union contracts and the UAW will be suffering some mighty big cuts in pay and benefits.

San Fran Nan is not likely to go there, but she's unable at present to gin up enough support for the bailout to pass the House.

As Limbaugh so often says, stalemates in congress which result in government doing nothing are usually the best possible outcome for taxpayers.  Let us hope this one is well and truly gridlocked.

I've been trying to focus on this gay marriage thing, to get it stated cleanly and sharply.

Maybe this is it--

When you get a marriage license, when the government approves of your proposed marriage, do they ask who you love?  Do they ask who you'll be having sex with?  Do they ask if you'll be happy?

No.  They ask if you're adults, male and female, unrelated to each other, and sometimes they ask other agencies if you have things like outstanding arrest warrants and so forth.

The government doesn't care who you have sex with, and neither do I.  The government doesn't want to know who you love, and neither do I.  The government isn't interested in your search for happiness, and neither am I.

The government would throw out an application for marriage between two men on one ground, and one only:

It is not marriage. Marriage is a union of two people of opposite sexes.  So there are three aspects of it-- 

TWO, PEOPLE and OPPOSITE GENDER...

If you change the number of them, the nature of them or the gender of them, you are not talking about marriage.  If the gays succeed and "marriage" now means "the union of two people of whatever gender they want", there will be no rational barrier to those who wish to proclaim the marriage of three people, or thirty. 

think about this--  if it's made legally mandatory for employers to provide benefits for spouses of whatever gender OR number, employers will be bankrupted by benefits costs.  And what rational defense is there for limiting marriage to two people if the gender aspect has already been opened for consideration?  Why not the number?  can anyone argue that it should be kept at only two, after it's already been decided that it won't be kept to opposite sexes?.

And what about the nature of the participants?  Must they be human?  Living?  Why not marriage between a man and his dog, or sheep, or FLOCK of sheep?  Or motorcycle? 

It will be the end of the word "marriage" for practical purposes. 

Don't laugh at the dramatic prediction; they've already ended the meaning of another word.  GAY. 

A few decades ago it meant 'happy, lighthearted", but that meaning is lost to history.  People remember it, but nobody has the courage to use it that way anymore.  Political correctness.

You can live together, form whatever kind of union you want, declare eternal love for each other, mingle finances if you wish (not advisable), name each other as beneficiaries in your life insurance (REALLY not advisable), in your will (REAAAALLLY, etc), and so forth.  You can name each other in a living will for hospital visits and the like.  There is a very short list of things married people have that unmarried people do not.

...Medical benefits from some employers..

...Retirement program beneficiary assignment from some employers..

...Limited survivor benefits in social security for death of spouse, if he or she (or she or he) had social security..

These three things all amount to money. 

But money isn't all they want.  They want APPROVAL.  To be more specific, they want laws passed which forbid DISAPPROVAL.

They want Christian and biblical condemnation of their lifestyle to be made a hate crime. 

In some countries they are already there.  Canada already has gone there, with preachers committing hate crimes by reading the Bible, and I think one of the Nordic countries has settled it that way too. 

Gays, essentially, want to make Christianity into hate speech, punishable by law. 

Have you ever seen any group of people so determined to outlaw, suppress and terrorize their CRITICS?

Well, yes I have.  Radical Islam. 

Ironically, the only other group sharing the same goals and tactics as presently used by the gay activists is a group that will happily STONE GAYS TO DEATH.

If they both succeed, we'll have a nation in which it is illegal to criticize gays or muslims. 

I just wonder what they'll do when the radical muslims criticize gays.  With large heavy objects.  Seriously.  Radical Islam regularly executes, often by stoning, sometimes by simply pushing a wall of bricks down onto them, gays.  In Iran they have cranes and nooses in the backs of pickup trucks, moving around the cities for public hangings of gays, to make sure people from their own neighbourhoods are treated to the sight of them swinging in the breeze.

The gays are plenty tough when they're challenging a bunch of ordinary, peace-loving Americans going to church on a Sunday morning. 

But if they truly believe America treats them badly, they need to remove the feathered, sequined headdresses and clear the peripheral vision; they should be RELIEVED to be living here. 

Seriously.

************************************

addendum--  I recently had a lovely talk with a middle aged Iranian woman working as a salesperson in a department store, women's clothing. 

I was the designated purse holder, you see.  :-)

Among the numerous things we discussed was the official Tehran government stance on gays.  I introduced it by asking her how it was that Ahmadinejad could say, as he did at Columbia, that there are no gay people in Iran.  I took that statement as an ominous threat to gays and their friends, because after the speech a young Iranian woman reporter told him "I know gays there myself" and he replied "give me their names and addresses, I'd like to meet them".....  if your bones don't get chilled at this sort of thing, you are an ignoramus.

The Iranian woman then corrected me.  She said Ahmadinejad was right, in a strange way.  Government in Iran stands by the idea that there are no gay men there.  Wanna know why?

In Iran, if you are a gay man, you have the choice to get sex change surgery, free from the government. 

Or you can go to prison, or worse.  Those are your two options, once your sexual preference becomes known to them.

Naturally, the sex change surgery is VERY popular.  :-)  And, because it can technically be said of any recipient of that operation that he is now a WOMAN, the government is content with its proclamation that there are no gay men in their country.  Lesbian women they are not concerned with, but a gay man is an affront to Islam.  So, by turning him into a woman, the problem of Islamic condemnation of gay men is 'solved'.
 
I do not know if this is true, but I have no reason to doubt the woman I talked with; she was charming, sincere and earnest, and took the time to speak to me because she believes if Americans and Iranians simply talked, the chance of war would diminish greatly.

Then again, hardly any wars are begun by 'the people' of a country.  It is their governments that conflict.

She was a breath of fresh air, and I was left with a great desire to visit Iran.  Their ancient ruins, Roman and Persian and otherwise, are said to be among the finest in the world.

Chicago reporting very very bad days to come.  Daley warns of large scale layoffs.

Amusingly, Daley also warns of the reason for this; large scale CORPORATE layoffs to come, which have apparently been communicated to him by business leaders.  I am sure that they did not intend for him to speak of them publicly this way, before they happen, but it's the Democrat way to describe the coming failure of business in such a way that it HASTENS such failures.

See Schumer, Chuck, and Indymac Bank.

Now we see it all coming together.  Business suffers and fails, which drives down city revenues from taxation.  Democrat-managed city governments come face to face with declining revenues, and show the world how the 'spend it before you get it, spend more than you'll get' Democrat style holds up when economic troubles arrive.

There are lots of businesses who will survive downturns.  They plan ahead, stockpile cash, limit leveraged spending, secure their business against reductions in future revenue.  And they make it.

Chicago will NOT make it.  Blood will flow.  And, as always with Democrats, it's the LITTLE PEOPLE, the BLUE COLLAR WORKERS, who suffer and are crushed.

I will hazard a bet that the salaries of the executives of this government do not shrink one PENNY during the bad times.  It's the working jobs, the regular guys trying to make a living, the little people depending on Chicago to provide the pension they promised for retirement, who are going to get the shaft.  Sewers, trash, roads, public services, parks, meter workers, police, all the regular joe jobs will take hits you can't believe.  And since Chicago is one of the many cities whose retirement funds are riddled with shortfalls and questions, this could well be an opportunity to shed future expense by firing people who are not vested in retirement yet. 

Democrat political management always turns out to be a gigantic slaughter, with ordinary working folk on the wrong end of the blade.  Any bets which way the unions of city workers ordered their rank and file to vote? 

The ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is not like the American version of ABC.  It's more like the BBC, a state sponsored media network.  It's not just TV and radio, though; now they have blogs.

And this blog of theirs has run a story about the Indian Prime Minister, a girl without a prom date, until finally President-Elect Obama got around to reassuring him by telephone that their relationship was very important.

Small problem--  the photograph accompanying the story is a pic of Obama sitting on a chair in a trashed out campaign room, one worker barely visible sitting on the floor at frame's edge, the clock on the wall reading three o'clock exactly (presumably AM, as the room is deserted with lights on), and the TELEPHONE OBAMA IS HOLDING IS UPSIDE DOWN.

I don't know if he posed for this as a joke, or if it's photoshopped... but it is definitely NOT a pic of Obama speaking to the Indian prime minister. 

The ABC hasn't noticed, and the pic is still attached to the story.  I'll wager it's gone by tomorrow, but try the link anyway for your own amusement.

Thanks as always to our Aussie guiding light, the one and only Tim Blair, now blogging at the Telegraph.  As Tim says, the media is finding its own level, and sinking fast to do it.

... and for two reasons.

One, it is pre-set fraud, ready to be committed.  The system was designed to be electronic from beginning to end, not allowing in any stage the dependency on human hands to write, corrupt or screw up the totals, and

Two, THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THIS IN THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THIS STORY.

No wonder every single 'lost ballot' that turns up is a vote for Frankenberry.  Hennepin Country is a Democrat county, and the management of local election polling stations is entirely in Democrat hands.  If the machines in ONE COUNTY were programmed incorrectly, that cannot be anything but deliberate.  Everybody else got it right. 

EVERYBODY got it right, except the county that will 'discover' enough votes to get Franken over the top.

The corruption of American elections continues, and the future looks ever grimmer for Democracy.  This is banana republic stuff, or Chicago thug stuff.

UPDATE-- it's worse than I thought; the system was working perfectly during the primary, and between then and now the IP address that the computer tabulators used to relay the digital tallies to county computers has NOT CHANGED.

This means the machines should have worked just like they did in the spring.

The fact that NONE of the machines in Hennepin County (heavily Democrat) could call in their results with the automated system means one thing and one thing only-- the system was deliberately screwed up, so the human error angle could be re-introduced.  And all the errors in Hennepin County so far have been 100% in favor of Frankenfraud.  They've taken 69 votes FROM Coleman, and added several HUNDRED votes to Frankenfraud, and all this before the recount even BEGINS.

Three senatorial seats were close enough for a recount.  One requires a runoff.  All three of the recounts are being systematically rigged by the Dems, and they'll get all three, even though all three showed Republican leads before the rigging began.  And Georgia?

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Dems (lawyers, ACORN guys, thugs, you name it) are headed there to do their thing in the runoff.  They can't steal this one, because it calls for a reVOTE instead of a reCOUNT.  But they can do what they did all across the country, rig and cheat and steal.... 

We live in a banana republic, amigos.  America is already gone.  Once Dems have their fangs into full unobstructed power, they'll simply game the system even more, to KEEP and EXTEND their power, and because they'll be staffing all the institutions and have a majority at the Supreme Court, nobody will be able to do a dammnn thing about it. 

We should be doing something NOW, but all I see is mouths moving.  Talk. 

Having argued pointlessly against several true dopes in the past few months about gasoline prices (the evil big oil conspiracy, the evil Bush Saudi conspiracy, etc), I now find myself waiting by the phone like a high school girl with acne, hoping one of them will call so I can gloat.

Or at least that one might call and fill me in on how the recent price collapse of gas could be of benefit to the evil conspiracy participants.

But no.  No call, no prom date, no hope.  I'm not going to hear from any of them until gas goes back past $4 a gallon.

Could be a nice long while.  Today in Dallas, I paid $2 a gallon.  Filled up my empty tank for $28.  Been a long time coming, but I"m glad to see it.  :-)

How have we come to have so many functioning adults in this nation who do not have even the slimmest comprehension of the law of supply and demand?

Okay, so we already know that millions of new voter registrations came in this year, and that a high number of them were minorities enlisted by ACORN and other groups.

It is safe to say that, because Obama was the candidate, voting by black Americans was at an all time peak.

Latino voting, too, was higher than usual, especially in California.

Interesting, then, that out there in the land of redwoods and blue celebrities the ban on gay marriage, prop 8, passed--  because without 7 in 10 black votes and 6 in 10 hispanic votes, it is impossible to get to a majority of votes for the ban.  It passed by only two or three points.  All it would have taken to defeat it was for half the 'yes' votes from the black community to be added to their 'no' votes instead.

Blacks made up 10% of the electorate in California, and 70% of them, which is 7% of all votes, were in favor of the ban on gay marriage, along with more than half the hispanic votes.  Without these two minority groups the proposition would have failed.

These black and hispanic voters turned out in record numbers, and for one reason; Barack Obama's candidacy.  And yet, that very number was the cause of the passing of Prop 8.  And Obama himself has repeatedly declared his own opposition to gay marriage.

I have always said that the black community doesn't even realize how conservative it is.  They are using their votes to extract concessions, usually in the form of some kind of remuneration or another, from the Democrat party.  The same goes for the gay lobby, not in money of course but in the alteration of the basic social structure for their benefit.  And they can't help but feel robbed at this point.  They gave their all for Obama and the new left, and their reward is to be defeated by one of the other liberal voting blocks and dismissed by His O-liness too.  Gays feel trapped politically; they know Christians and other conservatives are not going to defend their 'rights', but now it seems their own side won't do that either.

But gays are NOT in the same position as blacks.  Their grievance is overblown and dubious.  When they argue that gay rights are equivalent to the civil rights addressed in the 1964 laws, the modern American center-right black voter snorts in amusement.  Black people wanted, demanded, deserved to be treated as social equals instead of second class citizens or worse.  Gays, on the other hand, seem to want special treatment.  They want rights that heterosexuals would not have, special rights, among them the right to 'marry' someone of the same gender. 

No, it's not the right to go in the restroom through the door marked 'straight', or drink at the 'straight' water fountain, or to use the front door of a 'straight' restaurant instead of the back; they want a door with 'gay' on it, just for them.  They want to redefine words, to alter social structure at its core, not to give them the same rights as everyone else but to remake society in their image.  

Think about it.  Any gay man has the same right I do, to marry a woman.  It is not the state's responsibility to make new rights for people who refuse to exercise the old ones for their own reasons.  Might as well say 'marriage' shouldn't be limited to two, or humans, or living creatures.  If a man can marry another man, why not three men, or six men and four women, or two dogs, one man and a motorcycle?  Words have meanings, and altering them wholesale to suit those who don't LIKE the meanings is not 'liberating'; rather, it's the slow destruction of any real communication.

And the papers are filled, this week, with images and stories of just what happened at those 'post - 8' demonstrations/riots.  Over and over, hostile gays shouted down whatever black people were visible.  The N word was heard loudly, again and again.  "You're not welcome in this town, n****r."  "It's the n****rs' fault." 

SERIOUSLY.  Even two black gay men carrying a sign saying vote NO to prop 8 were repeatedly abused and blamed for the vote.  What more could they do besides vote against it and appear in public opposition to it? 

Apparently, what they should have done was change their skin color. 

If it were possible to smile at this, I'd be smiling.  It's hugely ironic.  Never thought the first large scale public demonstration in decades to feature this kind of openly hostile racist talk would be a demonstration of GAY LEFTISTS.

No, gay rights do not belong on the same page as real civil rights.  The psychological and emotional weight born by the black American is terrible, even today.  I cannot imagine, only try to understand from my distance.  Black voters, some of them, feel that the scales must be balanced for past wrongs.  The Democrat party has consistently promised this, and even though they have not delivered, they are the only side that makes promises such as this, so the deal is done.

In exchange for this dealing with the devil, so to speak, black families have been decimated and their social structures are broken down, victims of the constant grappling with federal welfare and its devastating effects on ambition and the work ethic.  Women raise children without a man in the home simply because government checks are larger for single mothers.  This kind of destructive temptation is very hard to resist, and is the more destructive because of that fact.

And yet, in spite of all the dancing with the Democrats over the years, when the opportunity arises for an expression of their views on the issues, the black community can regularly be depended upon to show a wide and deep streak of social conservatism, as they did in this case.

It's one of America's tragedies that the effort to make black people understand how conservative they are has not been forthcoming from the leadership of America's voting conservatives.  From where I sit, it's a hanging curve.  Show them, in a mirror, themselves.  Look at them, a largely Christian people who try like crazy to raise their children in a strong home, to teach them right from wrong, to install a work ethic, to inspire to personal accomplishment.  They are swimming against the tide so much of the time and in spite of this their performance is admirable on the whole.  Anytime you find black families who are not overcome by the culture of welfare and the shattering of the family unit, you find strong families and solid communities.

Black Americans are conservatives.  If it weren't for the turmoil of the past, if it weren't for that great and terrible story, it would be easy for them to see their true path.
 

Here's a story of a pregnant woman going into labor on the lakeshore...  at the party for His Oliness the Obama...  :-)

Lucky for her baby that nobody there thought he was a product of a failed abortion, eh?

Although a couple of people close to me are somewhat more negative about our future than I am, their concerns are the same as mine.  I wonder how it came to be that I, of all people, have come to be the most optimistic in my circle.  :-) 

But I am. 

Don't get me wrong; we have the nose, ears and neck of the communist animal under the tent, and it's pushing for all it's worth.  Soon a series of court decisions and policy initiatives will attempt to establish, for the foreseeable future, that it is a RIGHT in this country to demand the money of your fellow citizens, and the old 'right' to keep what you earn (in other words, the dated and antiquated "property rights" our founding fools envisioned) will fall by the wayside.  I see nothing impeding these agenda items, and I do fear for our future.

But we recovered from Jimmuh.  In fact, Jimmuh caused us to see the value in Ronald Reagan, who couldn't overcome his party's ingrained habits in the primary of '76 but blew them away (except for Bush, his close competitor and future veep) once Jimmuh's sad fumbling and leftist mumbling came to the surface of the national consciousness.

I am not so convinced that the kind of hardcore leftism Obama instinctively embraces will survive cold hard reality.  I suspect his self-claimed "pragmatism" will be given every opportunity to shine as he deals with a most dangerous world and a most difficult economic circumstance at home.

He can only raise so many taxes before the effect of that policy will easily be seen, and when he is RUNNING the country that has to meet its promises and discovers there isn't enough revenue to do it, he might have to get pragmatic about that kind of thing.

But the thing that brings me the greatest optimism is that there is no 60 vote supermajority, and that the Senate minority leader has proven himself capable of organizing effective filibusters and blocking legislation.  And we cannot forget the propositions across the country which are based in genuine conservatism and which passed, including some of Connerly's anti race based preference laws and of course 8 in California.  Whenever genuine conservatism, unalloyed, is presented to Americans, it is accepted and supported, even in the People's Republic of California.

Now young Barry has the keys to the family car and is responsible for driving it safely.  And the public, including the many tens of millions expecting the 'rich white guy's money' to fall into their laps are going to be severely disappointed by reality, by Obama.

That said, I am enormously proud of this nation in a larger sense, for obvious reasons.  It has now proven what I always knew, that racism is less and less important and is receding into history.  And now one man has the chance to prove to the sixty million who voted for him that he truly is just as capable, dedicated and wise as any 'rich white people' ever were.

I wish him the best, I send prayers Heavenward on his behalf, and I am not convinced, not yet, that this country cannot survive and thrive during and after Obama.    Perhaps later, after he 'organizes' millions of willing thugs to spray-paint the homes, and threaten the families, of any congressman or senator who has the temerity to try to oppose his politics, I will crack and give in and agree the nation's been destroyed.  Time will tell.

But the "Obama Recession" the markets are showing us this week adds doubt that the revenues will be anywhere near sufficient in His administration to accomplish his redistribution goals; how do you redistribute nothing?

His O-liness will figure out a way, though.  After all, he's already figured out how to cut ZERO, how to cut taxes for people who don't PAY taxes.  :-)

A group of Obama supporters are walking the street with signs.  A 75 year old man with a McCain sign appears.  They complain.  It escalates.  He is SHOVED into a fire hydrant and ends up sprawled on the sidewalk with assorted injuries.

The man who shoved him is being prosecuted.

But the news story prints, without analysis or further investigation, that the little old man was the one causing the problem.  ".. asked to leave because he was causing a disturbance" is the testimony given from unnamed participants.

Last time I checked, it's legal to walk down the sidewalk carrying a sign endorsing a candidate, assuming local laws are obeyed.  But as usual, it's the Dems who act like thugs and get violent. 

First the little old lady gets hit repeatedly in the head by the stick from her McCain sign, torn from her hands by her assailant in New York, now this.

Elderly people are now not just targets of criminals, burglars and fraudsters and such; now they are being targeted by Obama supporters.

What a country.