Category Archives: liberal

>REACT: Can Obama knock off Clinton before the convention?

>With Barack Obama’s victory in the Wisconsin primary, it appears my slumber induced visions of a Clinton nomination maybe be no more than the stuff of which dreams (or nightmares) are made. I looks like Obama can not only snatch the nomination from Lady Hillary, but maybe, just maybe, lock things up before the convention. Should he win a critical number of delegates, and convince enough super delegates to endorse, he could preclude a bloody convention fight. He has the lead — and the “big mo” is definitely on his side.

An Obama candidacy makes sense. More often than not the Democrats tend to nominate their least electable candidates. I call it the “McGovern effect.” That gives the edge to Obama. More about that later.

>OBSERVATION: Is the theory of global warming slipping away?

>It appears that the controversy over global warming is getting hotter than the earth.

Is it wishful thinking on my part or is the conventional mythology regarding the causes and results of any global warming starting to turn? In recent weeks, I seem to have heard a lot more from the other side – from the “deniers,” as the critics so arrogantly like to call them. Apparently, the certainty of Al Gore and the Nobel Prize industry is coming under challenge by a growing number of scientists, whose voices are beginning to penetrate the cone of silence imposed by the mostly liberal media on the critics of the hothouse theory.

Lincoln once said that “widely held beliefs, whether well or ill founded, have the impact of fact.” In a more famous quote, he also noted that you cannot “fool all the people all the time.” I think both apply to the debate surrounding global warming.

First there was the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) special featuring a bunch of leading scientists debunking the U.N. report that sent the international fire alarms off. The BBC special not only took to task the accuracy of the U.N. report, but impugned the integrity of the process and laid the blame at the foot of money and politics rather than science.

Gore’s problem with the British extends to the education community. In a previous item, I noted that schools in Great Britain have disallowed the showing of his Oscar winning docu-ganda, “An Inconvenient Truth,” because of all its inaccuracies and political propaganda.

John Stossel, ABC’s special reports guy did an American version of the rebuttal to Al Gore — suggesting that it is the former Vice President who finds truth to be an inconvenience. While the left has attacked Stossel, the have not effectively rebutted the content.

Now, I know you are saying, what about all those awards – an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, no less. Impressive as they are, they are not the judgments of science. (I know the Oscar is the product of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and SCIENCE, but remember this is the profession known for fiction, hype and Paris Hilton.) These are political awards that are handed out by liberals to liberals – and the most political recipients make political acceptance speeches.

If you do not think so, you have not seen “An Inconvenient Truth”, or are too blinded by philosophic prejudice to have noticed – it stinks. Without even considering the pseudo science, it is a sophomoric production. At times, it seems more of a shameless Al Gore public relations film than a documentary. (Oh! That is what it is … an Al Gore pr piece. And it plays well in liberal circles.) Remember, Hollywood also promoted the global warming panic with, “The Day After Tomorrow,” a god-awful movie, riddled with global warming paranoia, that shows New York freezing over between lunch and quitting time. People turn into human icicles within seconds of exposure to the cold air, but the hero walks from Pennsylvania to New York to save his son. Now come on, how stupid can this stuff get?

Recently, David Deming, whose scientific credentials (geophysicist, adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma) are as good as any (and a lot better than Al Gore’s), penned an article that raised the question of “global cooling.” You read it right. No typo. Global cooling!
Deming concedes earth may be experiencing some VERY MODEST global warming in the modern times. Nothing out of the ordinary, and certainly no threat to humanity. The mean temperature of earth has not increased in the past nine years. No increase in hurricane activity. In fact, he suggests we maybe on the edge of a cooling trend.

The author offers an impressive list of instances of record breaking cold snaps — snow in regions that never had snow before. Record breaking lows scattered throughout the world. While we are supposed to shudder in fear of the North Pole turning into a tropical paradise, Deming notes that the South Pole is getting colder. Good old mother earth might be getting a few hot flashes, but nothing to worry about.

So, why is there all this concern? International politics. A whole bunch of emerging and submerging nations want to gain some leverage by cooling down the high-powered U.S. and Chinese economies. The least productive countries want to go into a new business – selling us carbon credits they do not need (since much of their population lives in the gloriously green Stone Age). Rather than compete in the race called “progress,” they figure it is easier to simply trip the front runners.

A lot has to do with m-o-n-e-y. No surprise, eh? Major sectors of our society will gain major mullah from the fear mongering – everything from government grants to the providers of goods and services. Yeah, there is chunk of corporate America that stands to gain. Think of the lawyers passing rules and regulations as legislators and lobbyists, and seeing opportunity in new litigation.

Think power. The liberals see environmental fear as a wedge issue to maintain and gain power. They will save the cowering public from the mean old straw man they created — if given the power of public office. I once worked for a candidate. A voter said he was going to vote for my gal because she was a Catholic. She was not. But, the candidate did not correct the misconception and risk the vote. The Democrat strategy on global warning is ever worse, because they are not only not correcting any public misconceptions, they are among the folks spreading disinformation.

You may wonder, why has the American left embraced this issue if it is not good for our country – or the world? First, you have to keep in mind that a portion of the left is composed of visceral America haters. They are on the barricades at every opportunity to denounce their homeland. (And “yes’” there are those on the right who never see anything wrong with their America. A plague on both houses, as far as I am concerned.)

Others are monochromatic. They can only see green. Anything that appears to hint green, they are on board. Nice people, but color blind. Others are corpo-phobes. They miss no opportunity to attack the free market and the corporations that produce the enviable American standard of living. They are the central planners, and the history of doctrinal failure never dampens their enthusiasm for paternalistic government. Others see political, professional or personal advantage in the mythology. (Did I mention Al Gore?) Collectively, these folks seem to be the “some” that can be the fooled (or fooler) all the time.

The thing about science is that truth will be discovered eventually. We “all” will not be fooled all the time.

Here’s my bet. In twenty years, global warming will be a non-issue – and the polito-pseudoscience community will raise a new money and power grabbing panic issue. We will not perish from the face of the earth … and, in fact, we’ll hardly be inconvenienced by the ultimate truth. I am predicting that “global warming,’ will go by the way of the “population explosion,” the cataclysmic consequences of “nuclear bomb testing,” the depletion of all the earth’s natural gas, and the many other prognostications offered up by politico-pseudoscience community of their day.

Oh! Chuckle over this. The august scientific community of the late-1800s responded to motorized travel by warning that the human body could not sustain traveling at more than 45 mph. How about the theory that the moon is made of cheese. (Ooops! That was fairy tale. Sometimes hard to tell the difference.)

These are only the modern scientific faux pas. Let us not forget the “scientists” who proffered the once widely held belief that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. (Personally, I like the Indian image of a halved earth resting on the backs of elephants. I ultimately rejected that theory, however, due to the absence of a place for the pachyderms to stand.) In the Middle Ages, pseudoscientific bullstuff was advanced by the all-powerful religious leaders. Today it is the politicians, but global warming is still more religion than science.

What all this means is …. relax, This latest doomsday scenario will evaporate like a dew drop on a hot day. To be that “good steward” and green as Kermit, we do not have to rerteat into the primeval forest. Let’s use our technology for to continue the kind of progress that has made us the most successful civilization in the history of the world.

Al Gore should keep in mind that that guy who carries the sign that the world will end tomorrow is going to have some explaining to do “the day after tomorrow.” That truth is neither convenient nor inconvenient. It just is.

>OBSERVATION: Bob Cesca writes more %#@*&

>Bob Cesca, who writes regularly for Arianna Huffington’s “Huff n’ Puff” Post (as I like to think of it), is the nephew of a friend of mine. Since I am convinced that any direct communication to Bobbie will do no good whatsoever, I thought a letter to his Uncle Ray might be helpful.

Dear Uncle Ray,

I fear your nephew, Bobbie, is at it again. Unfortunately, it appears that he is the son of your brother and therefore presents a significant danger to the reputation of your good family name. Let me explain.

I am not at all sure you read his recent commentary. If public policy was not my addiction, I certainly would hit the spam button. Rather, I do skim the offerings of quite a few Internet writers. His writing is like a gory accident. I really hate to look, but I do anyway. Like an unhappy toddler, he grabs attention by throwing a tantrum — verbal.

Apparently, he has not inherited your family’s cordiality, talent for articulation and thoughtfulness. In fact, having read a number of his articles, I was surprised to learn that he was actually out of high school. His logic and language are a bit … shall we say … on the sophomoric side.

And the language? Oh my! He seems to think that a point of view is enhanced by name-calling and the use of street language. He could have used some of the training I got from the old nuns and a couple good college professors. I recall on professor saying that profanity is for morons.

There is an expression that one can disagree without being disagreeable. Apparently, your loving nephew, Boobie … ooops … Bobbie … is not familiar with the concept. Rather than counter an argument, he prefers to scorch those who do not align to his thinking with baseless labels such as liars, bigots, fear mongers, etc.

In one of his most recent tirades, he referred to his adversaries (and he seems to have lots of them) as “frightened, dickless hooples,” and then made a second reference to their “dickless status.” (What is a “hooples” any way? My friends Merriam and Webster were not familiar with that word either.)

In his article, Bobbie created a delusionary ad produced by imaginary adversaries. (I know. I Know. Cheesy, but that’s our Bobbie.) The pretend advertisers were labeled in the faux ad as “frightened dickless bigots…” He seems to view “freightened” and “dickless” almost as a hyphenated word. (Uncle Ray, I think you can now see my concern about Bobbie’s phobia-castration hang-up.)

I am not sure if it is an obsession, but he is in the habit of calling his political enemies “ratfuckers.” Judging from his favorite aforementioned description of their physiology, I wonder if he knows that you need a “dick” to fuck a rat – at least I assume so. Since I am not familiar with the status of the aforementioned “dicks,” or who (or what) they are being used on, I must yield to your nephew’s apparent superior knowledge.

You know, Uncle Ray, the lad seems to be a bit paranoid, too. I mean soooooo many people and institutions that are conniving to do him harm – and only Bobbie (and a few friends) seem to think they are smart enough to know the truth. Like others on the political fringe, he seems to think he has exceptional insight and knowledge to save us all from our own mass stupidity. I guess they just don’t trust most people. We are all either evil or duped – saved only by the mercy and wisdom of Bobbie and his few friends. When he was a child, did he play well with others? I suspect not.

I would tell you more about the article itself, but between all the name calling, straw men, specious arguments and hyperbole, I can’t quite recall what it was all about. Something about Obama being a terrorist … and Giuliani being evil incarnate … and some newspaper in Pennsylvania that he either liked, or didn’t like. I can’t recall now. His screeds tend meander like a shallow river. Has he ever been tested for Attention Deficit Syndrome?

He is more like the fireplace than the candle — preferring to produce heat rather than enlightenment. I guess that is good news. Given his distorted sense of reality, maybe it is good that his opinions get lost in all the potty-mouth prose. It is easier to not take him serious.

I notice that Bobbie seems to take some strange pride in his immature, profanity-laden writing. He boastfully invites people to read what he, himself, calls his “usual outraged, profanity-laced rants.” Reminds me of my uncle, the drunk. He was a proud drunk. Always bragged about how much he drank, and the stupid things he did when we was drunk. So, I guess if someone cannot be good, they can still be proud.

Hey! Maybe for this Christmas, you can sign him for journalsim or writing course – even better if taught by old nuns. Maybe some anger management thearpy. Maybe a haircut. That “Meathead” look (left) was a cliché when they did it on Archie Bunker – before Bobbie was even born, I assume.

Oh… and make sure he knows that dispite our differing opinions, I have a very happy outlook, am fully equipped, and harbor no speical allure for rats. Just so he can find some vulgarity other than “frightened dickless ratfucker” to describe me.

Merry Christmas, Uncle Ray. And extend my best wishes to Bobbie for a very happy whatever it is he celebrates around this time of year.

>REACT: Burned up over the war

>We just past the first anniversary of war protester Malachi Ritscher’s self-torching. You may recall he is the guy who sat on a berm near the expressway, doused himself with some flammable liquid and lit a match. In a so-called “mission statement” he said, “If I am required to pay for your barbaric war, I choose not to live in your world.”

He has become something of a hero to a small cadre of anti war zealots, who consider his action sort of … well … noble. The anniversary was marked by a couple dozen people who gathered in the federal plaza to memorialize his flame out. Interestingly, I did not see any holding the customary memoral candles.

According to one of his sisters, Ritscher was “a casualty of the war.” She denied reports that her brother suffered from mental illness. WHAT? She denied that he was short a few cards in the deck when he lit that match?

Certainly, his death was tragedy. If we are motivated to use his death as a call for action, it should not based on his opposition to the war, it should be to address whatever madness caused him to kill himself. He may have chosen the war has his excuse, but it was not his reason. Hundreds of thousands of people have protested the war … and millions are burned up over it – figuratively only. But, Ritscher is the only person who thought that turning himself into a human torch was a meaningful means of influencing American policy. In that regard, his death was in vain. His impact nil. The opposition movement is so large that his contribution is imperceptible. My god, Cindy Sheehan was only marginally relevant, and she was in the press for months. The only result of Ritscher’s act of desperation is one less voice in the opposition choir.

It does not take professional analyst to know Ritscher suffered some sort of mental illness. No one ignites themselves for any rational reason whatsoever. To oppose violence through an excruciatingly violent act is not the work of a sane person. Not debatable.

I have always believed that suicide, for any reason, is the ultimate selfish act — without even the opportunity to beg forgiveness. It is illegal. It is immoral. Under the pretense of caring about humanity, Ritscher cared nothing about the feelings of his loved ones. He cared nothing about men, women AND children who had the misfortune of witnessing his horrific death. He cared nothing for all the good he might have done in the world in the years to come. He wanted to check out, but wanted to leave a little guilt trip in his wake – since he was leaving nothing else. His only contribution was to end any further contributions.

Jennifer Diaz, one of the organizers of the small memorial said his act “speaks for itself.” We can all agree on that, but not likely will we agree what it says. She concluded by saying that Ritscher had “made himself into an icon.” No, Jennifer. He made himself into a Roman candle.

>REACT: Thank God and John Walton for Wal-Mart.

>Wal-Mart just introduced the $199 computer. More about that below, but first a little preface …

The broad phalanx attack on Wal-Mart by the various battalions of liberal activists is typical of their hatred of the free market system, free trade and free just-about-anything-else — except lunch.

The unions grouse about Wal-Mart resisting representation – representation which would do nothing more than increase the costs of goods for the American consumer and make the fat cat leaders of labor a little fatter. They tell how Wal-Mart is paying wages in Asia that are a fraction of the American worker. They forget to mention that you can buy a bushel of corn in China for 12 cents. My tailor makes my pin-stripped power suits for under $100. I can leave KFC stuffed for about a buck and a half. I had $3000 worth of dental work (American dentist estimate) completed beautifully in China for $400. Also had a physical and the complete blood test cost me a Jefferson. (No, not a nickel. Geeez. A two dollar bill.)

In China, Wal-Mart is lifting tens of thousands of people out of poverty at every step of the supply chain. If Wal-Mart was such a damned awful employer, why is it when they open a store in China the job application line runs from Beijing to Shanghai? Unions also grouse about how poorly Wal-Mart treats its American workers. Same question. Why do they receive thousands of applications at every store?

Some of the alderman in my Chicago home town city council are fighting hard to keep Wal-Mart out of the Windy City – thus denying their constituents much-needed jobs and lower prices, and the city coffers some tax revenue. What is their motivation? Blind hatred with a dash of stupidity. Of course, that is only an opinion.

Then there is the crowd that complains that Wal-Mart’s lower prices are ruining the market. Pause and ponder here folks. These libs are so whacko that they think higher prices are good thing – competition is a bad thing. They say higher prices means more pay for the workers. Well, a lot of those wage gains will be eaten up by the higher prices…..duh. And the over-paid union leaders seem completely oblivious to the fact that a company also must serve its stockholders and the consuming public – and there are a lot more of them than workers. Wal-Mart has been a key player in bringing down the prices of tens of thousands of consumer products, even in the face of modest inflation. These are real dollar reductions, not the theoretical stuff we get from economists and accountants. Tee shirts that were once $14 are now $5.

One of my more liberal friends (and yes I DO have liberal friends – quite a few, in fact) criticized Wal-Mart for practically putting FAO Schwartz out of business. If you are not familiar with them, they are a trendy upscale toy store that catered to the rich and famous. It seems that nasty old Wal-Mart began selling a lot of the same toys for a fraction of the prices charged by FAO to the price-is-no-object crowd. (Since my friend’s heart is bleeding for FAO, the term “limousine liberal” suddenly jumped into my mind.)

This is how the free market and competition works. This is a good thing. I mean, yeah, I am sorry to see FAO become more like a Macy toy department. They were a fun store. However, price rules for most people – as it should.

Now … about those $199 computers. I can’t wait for the libs to figure out how to criticize this one.

The left pays a lot of attention to public education (which, in and of itself, serves as an example of the failure of their philosophy). They like to think that they are the vanguard of progressive and innovative education. Everyone agrees that getting computers in the hands of students at an early age is a good thing. The education industry has expressed that need for decades (ever since Al Gore invented the Internet).

The fear and reality is that the computer age created yet another gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Those financially-challenged kids trapped in the liberal-run city school systems are at the greatest disadvantage. The affluent parents are buying their kids thousands of dollars of cutting edge electronics to support education, while the kids in the inner city schools are getting the benefit of electronic metal detectors to eliminate cutting edges of a different sort.

There have been scores of programs to try to provide computers. The Holy Grail was always held out to be the $199 computer. Most programs fell far short of success because of the cost of the equipment. Now cometh that nasty old Wal-Mart again, this with the $199 computer. Suddenly, the dream of every kid having a laptop is inching toward reality.

Just think of the impact on our children when we can finally bring modern technology to the disadvantaged. (We do not call them disadvantaged for nothing, folks). There have been tons written on the enormous benefits of computers for kids, so you can only imagine the impact Wal-Mart pricing will have on education.

Next time you hear one of these liberal groups kicking about Wal-Mart, just remember those kids who are getting a better education – something the lip-service libs and the kids-last unions have failed to do for a generation or two.

The free market works. Alleluia!

>OBSERVATION: Be a zealot for Halloween?

>As I look forward to the coming of Halloween, and selecting my hidden personality dress-up option, I suddenly realized that zealotry seems to be reflected through permanent fashion. I mean you can actually dress up for Halloween like some real people do every day.

Examples.

Today’s left wing radicals are often seen wearing their best 1960s radical hippie attire. While once a modern subculture style, the Jesus look-alike hair styles and rumpled poverty-esque Raggedy Ann and Andy attire can now only be viewed as some sort of neolib costume. Less radical liberals have sustained the pre-WWII tweedy cum academic look of the early Communist sympathizers.

Then my mind drifted to more extreme examples of zeal-driven dress codes. Until recently, Catholic nuns and priests were going around in clothing designed during the Renaissance – the remnants (no pun intended) of which can still be seen among the more zealous religious orders. What did God have in mind to decide that devotion depended on the resistance of modern style from that point in time? Why the Renaissance?

Then I wondered. What did the God of the Amish liked so damn much about that late 1800s? And not only haute couture but every other modern development from the electric light to the automobile.

Of course, up popped the Muslims. Apparently Allah decided that the fashion of devotion stopped about the time of the Christ, in whom they do not even believe. Did you ever notice that a lot of the Middle East war photographs depict scenes that look like sets for a Cecil B. DeMille biblical movie? What is with these theological fashion time warps?

Then I realized that as a conservative, I have no symbolic attire – no historic look that instantly tells the world what I am. (Okay. Okay. I heard that. Neanderthal? Very funny, but not truly relevant.) I cannot think of any right wing sect that has maintained a fashion for more than a season as an expression of philosophy. There was a moment that the Gatsby look of the Roaring 20s might have had a chance, but no.

I am eternally appreciative that the 1970s were not the time of conservative zealotry. I shudder at the thought of being permanently attired in hip hugger bell-bottoms (Yeah, men had hip huggers, too.), Nehru jackets (which were a throwback themselves) and ruffled tuxedo shirts

Looking back was no help in selecting this year’s costume. In the past, I have been a pope, a rock singer, a Chinese emperor, Dracula (not my most creative year) and a bumble bee (that may have been). Some say that customs reveal a portion of the inner psyche. If that is true, I don’t even have a theory as to the meaning of the bumble bee.

Still undecided is this year’s costume. Hmmmm. I could go in drag, but then everyone would mistake me for Rudy Giuliani. I could dress up like a liberal. Now, that’s a scary idea. If I can come up with enough global warming one-liners, I could go as Al Gore. Like: “A newly discovered major cause of global warming is hot air emanating for Al Gore’s mouth.” Hey! Cut me some slack. This is still a developing thought.

Maybe I will just stay home, put on a grotesque mask and scare the crap out of little kids who come to my door. Teach them a valuable conservative lesson. There is no such thing as free candy.

>REACT: Bob Cesca wrong about right … again!

>

Bob Cesca, the spewer of left wing pablum (and who I recently discovered is a nephew of a friend of mine AND whose photo [right] reminds me of Meathead in the old Archie Bunker show), is one of Arianna Huffington’s opinion-by-proxy scribes. In his most recent post on her blog he proffers that Amrerica is not a right-of-center nation, as we conservatives claim, but rather a left-of-center society, as he wishfully thinks. He presents his case with all the arrogant certainty of an extreme ideologue, utilizing dubious facts, out of context quotes and twisted logic.

Of course, his brief is not compelling or convincing … because he’s wrong. America IS politically right-of-center when relevant indicators are measured objectively.

Yes, our philosophic continuum spans from left to right, but more as an internal comparative convenience than a full and absolute standard. Compared to our erstwhile friends in the European Common Market, we are a household of right wingers. Only the smallest portion of our left wing (where Cesca and Huffington exist) can compare to the more abundant liberals in many other nations. If we overlay the American philosophic continuum on the international measure, the vast majority of you good citizens are right of the global center. Hence, we are a conservative leaning nation.

Cesca bases much of his claim on the individualistic religious beliefs of the founders, and the fact that most were not very fond of the great denominations. If he wants to make a case against America as a Christian founded nation, he makes some interesting, albeit debatable, points. They are not, however, relevant to his argument in support of a liberal nation.

Even many of our self proclaimed liberals are more conservative than liberal. Blacks, for example, are among the strongest supporters of litmus test conservative causes, such as the right to life, Second Amendment gun rights, heterosexual marriage exclusivity, school voucher, tough crime measure, and so forth. Many with bedrock conservative leanings eschew the media maligned right wing label. They prefer to be known as liberal among certain peers, even as they support one conservative issue after another. A rose by any other name, is still a rose.

If we are not a right-of-center nation, then why are our policies so conservative? Why is conservative talk radio so overwhelmingly popular, while liberals cannot get their media blabbermouths into even survivable ratings range? Legislation we call liberal wouldn’t even cross the center line in the parliaments of Europe. Why do the liberals dominating Congress shrink from the left wing campaign rhetoric? I dare say it is because they know the public is not with them. They would rather risk the betrayal of their less plentiful liberal supporters than the anger of the more conservative majority. George Bush is not in trouble because of liberal oppositon to the war in Iraq, but because he lost his conservative base with his drunken sailor spending policies. (If the GOP leaders figured this out, they might have curtailed spending when they had the chance, and been poised of leadership again.)

Cesca may enjoy the self certainty of his opinion, but the facts do not support him beyond the comforting fantasies of his own mind. Like Huffington, when you are so far to the political edge, you begin to think that the small crowd around you is a mob

I wonder if his liberal bluster is just to cover up his own latent conservative thoughts? Hmmmm?

>OBSERVATION: Obama a danger to black churches

>

When I served as campaign media guy for Mayor Gene Sawyer’s 1989 attempt to retain his office on the fifth floor of City Hall, it was my pleasure to travel with Hizzoner as he made the Sunday rounds of black churches. It was an all day event.

I say “pleasure” because I am a total fan of black gospel music. I cannot get enough of Mahalia Jackson. Having grown up in the sonorous monotones of Gregorian chant, I find the foot stomping, hand waving, and sweaty swaying of the black Baptist tradition entirely uplifting. In terms of religious preference, I am as black as Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Father Michael Pfleger. Okay … maybe not as black as Pfleger.

Traveling with Sawyer was also politically enlightening. At each stop, Sawyer was presented to the throng in characteristic black minister style, with the over-the-top introduction punctuated with endless audience responses of “amen” and “you tell ’em, bother.”

Typically the minister would praise the good work of the Mayor, remind the audience that he is a “brother.” He would call on the assembled to spread the word to all the neighbors. It was not the word of God he was promoting, but the message of the campaign. Get out and vote “for our man Gene.”

The Mayor would then say a few words about the campaign, the issues, and the need to get out and vote for him. In some cases, a “special collection” was taken to be handed over to one of the Mayor’s aides.

Often during these Sunday services, three little words would pop into my mind – Internal Revenue Service. Clearly, the black churches were grossly violating federal laws governing 501(c)(3) tax exempt institutions. To be tax exempt, you must avoid partisan politics.

Despite this common knowledge, the black ministry has always enjoyed an informal political exemption from the law. Black churches were routinely used by candidates, Republican and Democrat, as political platforms. We were just too politically correct to call in the feds. After a couple hundred years of slavery, and another hundred years of segregation and prejudice, we were entirely too guilt ridden to point an accusatory finger at the black God merchants.

Now cometh, Barack Obama. Obviously, he is the darling of the black ministry. However, he brings more public and media attention to the black churches than any previous candidate – even the Almost Reverend Jesse Jackson. This in turn is raising the questions of propriety and legality to new heights.

Ironically, it is the liberal attack on Jerry Falwell, and the religious right, that will make the case against the liberal and black churches today. Barry Lynn, the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lead the successful effort to get Falwell’s tax exemption canceled for a couple years. Today this unabashed left-winger is parsing his own eloquent arguments in an incredulously inept defense of churches serving as liberal political platforms. He is trying to sell a difference with out a distinction.

>REACT: Guiliani is right about a Dem in White House

>Have you ever had one of those situations were the truth should never be said out loud? Former New York Mayor and now presidential aspirant Rudy Giuliani recently said that the election of a Democrat president is more likely to result in a terrorist attack on the United States that the election of a Republican. Sounds pretty self-serving (which it is), and pretty outrageous (which it is not). Despite the whining of the Donkey presidential wannabes, Rudy-pa-tootie is right.

Before the last election, this blog offered a similar version – that the pending success of the congressional Dems would increase terrorist violence all around the world, but especially in the war torn countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. That prediction has come to pass, although I don’t see any of the new leaders of the Senate and House taking responsibility for it.

The logic is simple, and persuasive. Anything that suggests the United States lacks full resolve and commitment to the defeat of terrorism aids and abets the enemy. In the appeasement and surrender mentality of the liberal Democrat, the terrorists find hope, confidence and renewed determination. Perceiving America as a “house divided,” they naturally fight harder.

It is common sense that they will test the new and weaker America with provocative attacks. They we test the limits with increased carnage. They will find propaganda benefits from the public pronouncement by Senate Leader Harry Reid that the war is “lost.” He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but as the leader of the Senate, he has used his position to betray our fighting men and women. The recruitment efforts of the maniacal mass murders will benenfit from the belief in a possible victory– hence more young men and women volunteering for martyrdom through death and destruction as human bombs.

The election of a surrender at all cost Dem president will be celebrated in terrorist-ville with more bullets and bombs – and the United States will NOT be spared. That is just a fact.