Ducking and using the Rope-A-Dope, the next Ten Year President has found the Israelis to be somewhat less hospitable than the King of Jordan.  Imagine that. Times Online reports:

The US presidential nominee was heckled as he visited the Western Wall... Orthodox men interrupted their morning prayers to catch a glimpse of the Illinois senator,...One yelled out: “Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!”

At a news conference in the southern Israeli town of Sderot, Mr Obama was asked about a pledge he made last year to meet without preconditions the leaders of Iran during his first year in office, a vow that has caused deep unease among Israelis and the American Jewish community. (gasp!)  Mr Obama, incorrectly, replied that what he actually said last year was that he would meet leaders of rogue states “at a time and a place of my choosing” and with “preparations”.

This protester shouted at Obama for the entire time he was at the wall.  How's it feel, Democrats?

The shine may be starting to dull as the Enemedia is getting clobbered for being in the tank with Obama, but not enought to stop them.  The CBS Evening News featured an analyst who found the Israeli's unfair to Obama. Why, a newspaper mentioned his Muslim schooling in Indonesia, his Muslim stepfather, his willingness to sit down with no preconditions with Iran, and....his  MIDDLE NAME!  (quick, call Bill Cunningham) Don't those Zionists know his middle name is off limits?  This may hurt him with American Jewish Voters!

Add to this the Israelis' insecurity about Obama's unknown policy positions. The Guardian reported:

Gerald Steinberg, head of political science at Israel's Bar-Ilan University,...said he had concerns about some (of Obama's) advisers who were, in his view, as "part of the Israel-bashing gang".

So, Obama strives to calm these Jewish fears about his intentions with Iran. He points out to the Israelis that his Senate Banking Commitee passed the Dodd/Shelby comprehensive Iran sanctions, accountability, and divestment act of 2008.  The Obamaphenoma stated:

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.

Except........he's not on that committee.  WHO IS THIS GUY?  Scott at Powerline sums it up fantastically:

Some day it may begin to dawn on attentive observers that Obama represents a type that flourishes on many college campuses. The technical term that applies to Obama is b.s. artist. Obama is an overaged example of the phenomenon, but his skills in the art have brought him great success and he's not giving it up now.

Seven Haditha Marines have been cleared from the charges championed by Jack Murtha, the strategic genius who'd have "redeployed to Okinawa" our forces in Iraq, effectively preventing the victory that seems clearer everyday.  This is Jack Murtha, the Representative from Pennslyvania who thinks our Marines are cold blooded murderers, remember him? 

Michelle Malkin has written a story in the New York Post about Murtha, and how he very well may soon be out of a job. You heard it, out of congress!  How? A veteran of Desert Storm, survivor of the 9/11 Pentagon attack, Army Reservist, and staunch conservative is running against him.  AND, who is still on active duty until August 1st. AND who is raising more than five times the amount of money for his campaign than Murtha is.  AND who says:

"I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty."

Who is this guy who's running a campaign the Enemedia is stone silent about?  Lt. Colonel William Russell.  And he's entered the political arena against Murtha specifically because of Murtha's accusations against the Haditha Marines. HIs web site mentions

He has served in the U.S. Army for 28 years of Active and Reserve service, including six tours in hostile fire zones. His deployments include Operation Desert Storm, action in Kosovo and most recently Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Finally, a Republican we can believe in. I wish this guy was running for the Senate seat of Ohio.  Better yet, he could pull an Obama.  Gain a congressional seat, then Immediately start running for the 2012 Presidential election.

ABC's Terry Moran asked Barack Obama if he had it to do over again, would the Senator support the Surge?

"No," Obama said.

This guy is another JFK, isn't he?  How about this candid unscripted response to a journalist :

"Let me be absolutely clear," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said today at a press conference in Amman, Jordan. "Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change."

And cash is just as good as money.  I think the mystery man behind Obama's campaign is Yogi Berra.  The 527's should hold onto their cash for the moment, this guy could break this wide open soon.  Maybe the National Enquirer is sitting on a story. I wish.

Now? The media is discussing about how half of Americans (read partisan divide) "think" there is favorable media bias towards Barack Obama. All because Rasmussen released a poll pointing out the obvious. The New York Times doesn't help by refusing to publish McCain's viewpoints after doing so for Obama. Or the Networks sending their anchors along to act as press agents for Obama overseas. Politico points out:

A Pew survey conducted from May 30-June 2 showed 37 percent of Americans felt that Obama received preferential treatment from reporters during the Democratic primary contests.  Another Pew poll, conducted in late December 2007, showed 25 percent of Americans believed that coverage of the 2008 election was biased toward Democrats, compared to just 9 percent who saw a pro-Republican bias. In 2003, a similar question showed a more even split in responses: 22 percent of voters said the media tended to favor Democrats, but 17 percent saw bias in support of Republicans, suggesting that conservative voters are especially concerned about media coverage in 2008.

See, it's conservatives that have the problem, not the media.  We shouldn't have any problem with opinion commentators anchoring news events. Like the idiot twins Matthews and Olbermann on election coverage.  Criticism of that is brushed off as being uninformed, as reported at the NY Daily News:

A mildly exasperated NBC News team Monday dismissed complaints about overcovering Barack Obama's Middle East trip this week as a lot of "hot air" - and also declared that MSNBC viewers don't mind a bit if opinionated analysts like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann anchor straight news coverage.

David Gregory, NBC's chief White House correspondent and host of "Race to the White House" on MSNBC, said MSNBC's broader style reflects the "revolution" in the television news business.

"We're trying to do something here," said Gregory. "We have a big tent. We have many different views, all on one network (???). We're doing reporting, analysis and opinion all under one umbrella."

Yes, yes....we know what you're trying to do there.  But don't tell us you have "many views, all on one network".  Vanity Fair published an article by Clintonite Dee Dee Myers, who reports:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which evaluates more than 300 newspaper, magazine, and television stories each week, found that from June 9 (after Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination) until July 13, Obama was more prominently covered every single week.

Of course, this Democrat can't quite say the truth. To Myers, the reasons for this are:

Obama is new and what’s new is “news.” As the first African-American to run a serious race, let alone win a major party’s nomination, Obama is running an historic campaign. Obama has created a “movement,” and Americans are simply more interested in him than in his opponents (are we?). Obama is running a smarter campaign (politically expedient?), and he knows how to court media attention (not hard when they faint at his mention). It’s also true that intense media coverage is a double- edged sword: the attention is great when things are going well, but it can doom a candidate if and when things start to go badly (IF we hear about it). And so far, Obama has had way more good days than bad days (thanks to what kind of coverage?).

So the problem seems to be, according to these people, that we think there's media bias.

The rise, the fall.  An irresistible momentum or a surge that is beginning to be spent.  Barack Obama electrified the Left of America with his rhetoric and oratorial style that sent shivers up Chris Matthews leg, and caused a spontaneous wave of euphoria among the legions of unbiased professional American journalists.  At last, a true Liber.....I mean, politician they could get behind.  But, what goes up......

A good Nat Hentoff piece in the Washington Times points out the growing feeling among our Liberal Americans.  An unease as they sit looking over their new bill of sale for the Brooklyn Bridge.

"He is trying to broaden his appeal to a larger electorate and to be true to this postpartisan, unifying message that he's been campaigning on."

In other words, driving hard for the center in an unvarnished attempt to win the minds of the sleeping middle of America.  But his appeal was from the Left's rank and file.  The grassroots 5$ a pop internet group. No longer, he's going after the big bucks.

As the July 3 New York Times reported, "Last week, the Obama campaign collected about $5 million at an event featuring celebrities in Los Angeles. The evening began with a dinner at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion for more than 200 people who had contributed $28,500 per couple, or raised $50,000."

Too bad there's not Carfax for politicans, something like a Hackfax or some such.... But anyways, the doubts begin to nibble at the edges of the Hope and Change disciples as Obama continues to break his pledges, like the filibuster of the FISA bill that wasn't, or the plan to increase funding for Faith Based Initiatives that drive the Separation of Church and State crowd crazy.  And now this scripted, non original thinker is dodging the European press in a valiant attempt to avoid being discovered as the empty suit he is. In  the Washington Post, a German writer, Christoph von Marschall of Germany’s Der Tagesspiegel  says:

Although Obama portrays himself as the best candidate to engage the rest of the world and restore America’s image abroad, and many Americans support him for that reason, so far he has almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists.

...perhaps we're witnessing the arrogance that comes from being so close to power. One of his campaign advisers told me recently: "Why should we take the time for foreign media, since there is Obamania around the world?"

He can run, but he can't hide forever.  Will he be found out in time?

Alerting the enemies of the United States of our intentions and methods of fighting them is the specialty of the New York Times, as has been proven over and over through history.  This thoroughly anti-American rag is going through rough times lately with diminishing circulation, much to my delight.  But perhaps they've seen the light, and decided to use discretion when dealing with the lives of Americans?  No, only if it's a Radical Socialist candidate for the Presidency.

Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East to find facts (read ignore facts but look good doing it) was a guarded secret at the NY Times amid "security concerns".  So, to be fair to all Americans, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC let us know about it.  And the Obamanites are not happy.  But not at MSNBC, they're mad at John McCain.  And the great orator and internationalist, John Kerry is furious.  At the NY Daily News we read:

Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam vet and big Obama backer, said he was "surprised" by McCain's apparent breach of protocol.

"I've been around enough of these trips to know that I'm leery of saying anything for security reasons. End of story," Kerry told the Daily News.

But not long to know to start telling the truth about anything, hey John?  How's the Ketchup business going?

But this whirl wind tour of the Middle East and Europe in an effort to appear sophisticated and engaged in international relations, is going to come down to nothing more than a Democratic Radical making a mockery of JFK and Reagan by presumptuously posing in Berlin. Obama will stand before a eurphoric crowd, apologizing for the United States' diligent efforts to keep Europe safe for the last 8 years, and promising to accomplish nothing of any specific action but offering golden platitudes while a halo shines around his countenance.  Eric Cantor at the Washington Times puts it:

JFK and Reagan changed the course of history with their respective speeches in West Berlin. They advanced the cause of freedom at ground zero of the Cold War. An Obama campaign speech in Berlin would merely be a way to score political points on the cheap. As he dresses himself in the garb of JFK and Reagan, the American people are too smart to take the bait.

Most of them, anyways.

WorldNetDaily published the transcript of an Obama speech from July 2 that Hugh Hewitt and others has been buzzing about. In his speech, Obama said:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

I usually don't waste your time with something everybody's already covering. But this is too stupendous to not comment on. I'm not sure which is more notable, Obama's audacity of cluelessness, or the Enemedia's brazen efforts to remove this statement from the published transcripts of the speech. Ed Morrisey is doing the best coverage of this so far...

Will the throngs at the Brandenburg gate be wearing Obama armbands?

The NAACP just finished it's convention here in Cincinnati. The local TV networks carried the presidential candidates speeches, as live "breaking news". (Everything is breaking news here, including the cow that got loose on the highway).  What we're not hearing on the top news of the hour, is the statement made at the convention by the Governor of New York, Mr. Paterson. The New York Sun (not the Cincinnati Enquirer) reports Paterson saying:

that the defeat of Senator Obama in the presidential election would be a victory for racism in America.

Clear enough. You don't vote Obama, you are a racist (and probably bitter, religious, xenophobic, and armed as well)  Well don't you know the deck is righteously being stacked against racism now. You cannot criticize this Democratic candidate about any facet of his past or personality or statements by his wife on his behalf. His own political media cannot even satirize the opposition's supposed "lies" about him on a magazine cover.  But this isn't simply a characteristic of this candidate's campaign. As Whoopi Goldberg so clearly told Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the View, Blacks and Whites DON'T live in the same America. And don't even try to say they do. You just don't understand, it's a Black thing:

We do live in different worlds. I’m sorry. I’m sorry it’s the way it is Elisabeth. This is the way it is. This is how I grew up. My mother could not go and vote in the United States of America, the place of her birth.... need you to understand is the frustration that goes along when you say we live in the same world. It isn’t balanced.

Like my Irish and Scottish and Catholic forebears who lived in equally intolerable conditions and separate cultures (gasp, I said it), discriminated against, tortured, murdered and driven into the ground by the nativists and religious zealouts of this country and England.  So forgive me for sounding aggrieved and entitled, but I AM entitled.....to enjoy the opportunity to succeed or fail on my own merits, paid for by the blood of patriots, because that's all I've ever had Whoopi. Thing is Whoopi, you're living in the past, we DO live in the same world, if you'd open your eyes and look.  Perspective is a terrible thing to waste.

Energy alternatives, gas prices, New Yorker cover illustrations, the market rising and falling, the new Batman movie, a growing concern over Pakistan, the Allstar game, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, the news these days is filled with everything except the one thing American Liberals have been torturing themselves with guilt and angrily attacking conservatives over.  That Illegal War in Iraq George Bush started, which we "cannot win" and which presidential hopeful Barack Obama has pledged to "end".  Victory is not in the Democratic vocabulary.

So today we go to Iraq, to hear the words of the foremost expert journalist, who has unfailingly been on the ground with the troops, watching as the months go by the developments concerning this "quagmire". Michael Yon has posted the following report about the situation on the ground there now.  His latest analysis says:

by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

Huh? Is this something I missed on the CBS Evening News? Did CNN have a special report I missed while my local news was broadcasting a live feed of Barack Obama at the NAACP convention here in Cincinnati?  My jaw hangs open.  This is being missed by the GOP the same way they're missing the chance to lead the nation into energy independence. Baffoons.

Expect this fact to be ignored by the Enemedia until a Democratic Politician can stand up and beat his chest proclaiming to all the surrender monkey syncophants and Leftist America Haters that fill the campaign coffers, that "he has ended the war in Iraq", just like he said he would.

From Commentary Magazine, Michael J. Totten weighs in to say:

What most of us still think of as “war” in Iraq is, at this point, a rough and unfinished peacekeeping mission. Whether it is officially over or not, it has certainly been downgraded to something else, and it’s about time more analysts and observers are willing to say so.

Democrats like Barack Obama insist that drilling offshore and in Alaska won't change the price of gasoline, that it's only a give away to special interests. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are stonewalling efforts to open areas to drilling.  Then this appears in the National Review:

Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

That's right. We haven't done anything except talk about becoming energy independent and opening domestic drill sites. And amazingly, the price of oil drops.  Just imagine when the economic engine starts to rev up.....

But Liberals in California are up in arms over the idea, saying it won't solve anything. The Sacramento Bee reports:

"Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. "The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence.

But hear this:

California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

The New Hampshire Union Leader had this to say about Democrats:

Maybe the quickest way to lower oil and gas prices would be this: Immediately enroll every Democratic member of Congress in an entry-level economics class.

The lack of even a basic grasp of economic concepts has led Democrats to oppose sensible policies that would begin to lower oil and gas prices. Instead, they push hair-brained ideas that make no sense.

Democratic party, stuck on stupid.

An overriding concern among Americans these days, is the cost of energy. As it should be, after all that's what drives the prosperity of our nation. But the clash of philosophies about our natural resources and their development has left us vulnerable. So what's new, you say?  I'madinnerjacket has been rattling his sabre for a while, threatening to shut down the gulf shipping. Nobody on the Left seems duly concerned to the point of action. Just hand wringing and an acceptance of eventual 10$ a gal gasoline from the Democratic party. As if it's inevitable. Well, with the Democrats in power it would be.

But now another enemy of the USA has issued a threat, using the price of oil as a gun to our head. Chavez in Venezuela is predicting 300$ a barrel oil, if the assets of the oil operation in his country (which he "nationalized") are frozen. No oil to the USA. From Reuters:

MARACAIBO, July 13 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday oil prices could hit $300 per barrel if U.S. oil company Exxon Mobil again freezes Venezuelan assets in a dispute over a nationalized oil project.

This contrasted with his Saturday statements that geopolitical tensions, particularly the threat of an invasion against Iran, could push oil prices to $200 per barrel.

Why has the congress of the United States left us open to direct aggression by Energy Terrorists?  Because they'll only act if we make them. They haven't come by single digit approval ratings by being go getters. Wheres' the fence, remember that?

It's up to you and I. Pressure should, and must mount on Washington to demand our country be defended, our future secured from being held hostage to totalitarian hostile regimes and special interests that see the United States' power as a threat to humanity. These special interests are fueling the Democratic party's fund raising machine. Already these extreme groups are chafing as Obama tries to move to the Center in a desperate bid to win the White House. Hear that sound? Kerryesque flopping.

But, if the people demand change in a big way, it could happen very fast. Just a real threat of a move to energy independence will begin to affect oil prices, and actual policy change and new resource development will start to strangle the economies of our enemies like Chavez and the Iranians, not to mention our "so called friends" like the Saudis. Alaskans are chomping at the bit, ready to start.

It can be done. We've done harder things. Do we have the courage now in the new Millenium?

UPDATE: John Cornyn weighs in to expound that, as reported at Powerline:

a number of Democratic officeholders have heard from their constituents, and they want to vote to expand energy exploration. But their leadership is making sure they cannot. You can feel the Democratic solidarity on this fragmenting. One of two scenarios is likely. Either the leadership wakes up and allows expanded development – in Alaska, outer continental shelf, shale – or I suspect Republicans are going to do a great deal better in this fall’s elections than most pundits now assume.

Fascinating times.

UPDATE: from the AP

WASHINGTON (AP) - In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

Now just what do you suppose would encourage congress to act?

The sides are drawn, recession or mental recession. Bitter xenophobe gun nuts or whiners. The facts get massaged. More snow on the mountains than ever, because the ocean is warmer. But the numbers on the stock market don't lie. We are having financial difficulties now. The Feds and Congress don't seem interested in actually doing anything about it. But there may be a sure fired action that would jump start the old American engine of prosperity.

Start drilling now. Start building nuclear power plants, now. Start building more refineries now. Start assembling wind farms now. And you'll see the American Economy skyrocket upwards. Like Ted Nugent, I'm no rocket scientist, but these facts are pretty simple to envision. They would all create jobs, and eliminate dependence on foreign oil. And all the complaints of the Blame America Liberals don't hold water when you consider modern technology. The over the top balls out whack job rocker, is calling out America:

Today, as in right here, right now, right this moment, some enterprising energy executive, energy engineer, or entrepreneur, must pick up the phone and call or e-mail a few of his patriotic buddies and convene an Energy War Council next week to solve this self inflicted fiasco. No Fedzilla bureaucrats allowed, as they will only retard the progress of such a group.

Let’s get it on America, and turn to face the howling storm like the American Bison. It is time for a defiant American beast once again. I smell a stampede and like it.

That's some Straight Talk. When's the last time you actually called the Capital to demand action? Shamnesty? Capital Switchboard: 202-224-3121

UPDATE: FROM THE AP 7/11/08:

Bush went to the Energy Department Friday, where he met with his senior economic advisers to discuss soaring prices for gasoline and crude oil. Bush said one answer is to increase supply in this country by tapping "the vast potential" of crude oil reserves on offshore lands and in Alaska as well as oil shale

UPDATE: FROM LGF 7/12/08

shale oil development is being blocked by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrats in Congress. The future of America's economy is at risk as a result.

LGF reports the Rockies contain 2 trillion barrels of oil in shale.  The world has only ever used 1 trillion up to this point. Get the point? Have you called Pelosi and Reid's office?

There is no doubt we're in a problematic situation over oil.  Importing 70% of it puts us in a very vulnerable position during dangerous times. The Government is not doing anything except wringing it's hands, and saying we just need to use less. Right. Brilliant. But now comes along the private sector to try and meet the challenge, as has happened in America, despite Liberalism, through the decades.  T. Boone Pickens is coming forth with ideas, based on facts and reason, that could lift this country above the bear trap of dependence on foreign oil. He says:

My plan calls for taking the energy generated by wind and using it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants. Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S. We can use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports. Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now. We can and should do so much more to build our fleet of natural-gas-powered vehicles.

He's talking about wind farms from Texas up to Canada. A bold move. But if the Democrats won't let us put them up offshore in Massachusetts, why would they let us do it through the Center of the Continent? Maybe because they don't live there? What about the people who do.  After all, a border fence sounds like a no brainer, until you try to build and all the land owners rise up.

There are other ways too.  Nuclear energy and offshore drilling, that anathema of the Liberals, can help during the transition to a new system of powering our nation.

Point is, there will always be obstacles to change.  How much will does the nation have to achieve it?  We stopped Shamnesty as a people. Want to save our future?

Sidenote: OPEC Chief warns of "unlimited oil prices" if Iran attacked. This is a good reason to call Nancy Pelosi and your congressman and senators to let them know how you feel about offshore drilling and Picken's plan.

Capital Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Tired of the same old, same old?  Need Hope for the future?  Change you can believe in?  Barack Obama will deliver on change...but not what most of his cult followers think.  Conservatives use facts and reason to come to conclusions about issues. The American Thinker has put forth these facts about Obama you may want to use in your discussions with your "Moderate" friends:

Obama opposes offshore drilling for oil. Voters support drilling by 67% to 18%. (Rasmussen, June 2008).

Obama supports giving driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Americans oppose this 76% to 23%. (CNN/ Opinion Research, Oct. 2007)

Obama supports affirmative action in public employment, contracting and university admissions.  Americans oppose giving an advantage in these areas on the basis of race by a margin of 82% to 14%. (Newsweek, July 2007) 

Obama says that he will cut funding for research and development of missile defense systems.  89% of Americans support development of or research for missile defense -- 8% don't. (Program on International Policy Alternatives, March 2004)  It's worth noting that Obama's closer to a pre-9/11 view of missile defense.  An August 2001 Bloomberg News poll showed only 49% favored missile defense at that time whereas 41% opposed it. 

Obama voted against a ban on partial birth abortions.  Americans support a ban by a margin of 66% to 28%. (CNN/Opinion Research, May 2007)

Despite his equivocal statements regarding the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, Obama has never met a gun ban he didn't like.  Although many Americans support certain types of restrictions on guns, they oppose broad bans by a margin of 68% to 30%. In fact, 58% insist no new gun laws should be passed.(Gallup, Oct. 2007)

Obama opposed the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act while in the Illinois state legislature.  The measure is designed to prevent abortion providers from withholding medical care and sustenance from infants born after surviving an abortion attempt.  There's no national polling data on this state issue, but when the Senate voted on a analogous piece of legislation --  the Born Alive Infant Protection Act -- the measure passed unanimously.

Obama voted against a bill that would make English the official language for conducting business with the U.S. government.  Americans support making English the official language 85% to 11%, including 79% of Democrats. (Rasmussen, July 2006)

While in the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted against parental notification requirements for abortions for minors.  Americans support parental notification laws by a margin of 79% to 17%. Even 64% of those identifying themselves as pro-choice support such laws. (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, April 2005)

Obama maintains that the Supreme Court's recent decisions prohibiting the use of race in determining public school assignments are wrong.  In contrast, 71% of American agree with the decisions and only 24% disagree. (Quinnipiac, July 2007)

IF our fellow Americans have not lost their ability to use Critical Thinking, and will wake up long enough to consider their futures based on facts, it's clear that Senator Obama is not a Liberal. He's a Radical, and a dangerous one at that.  Try that with your associates in the Dumbed Down Moderate Middle.

I keep expecting to see the Obama campaign produce the document that the State Department must have seen when he became a United States Senator proving his citizenship.  And I keep waiting.  And I get nothing.  And now:

Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims.  Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.

So, the Daily Kos is doing Obama's work of vetting his citizenship? Where'd Kos say he got the document featured at the site?

One impressed commenter on the site asks Kos where he got it. He answers: "I asked the campaign. This 'journamalism [sic] thing actually works sometimes."

He means, in a Dan Rather/Mary Mapes kind of way.

I'm still incredulous over this whole thing.  I can't believe it's really an issue.  What is the real story here?  Does the original document list Obama's race as caucasian or something?  What's the deal?  Enjoy this diversion, and stay tuned.

UPDATE: 7/6/08 LGF has linked an article that seems to dispel this issue. Fun while it lasted?