You may notice I didn't use the acronym BOHICA in the headline, I only used BOHIC.

That is because BOHICA means, Bend Over, Here It Comes Again, but none of the groups I listed above, nor those like them, have even gotten "it" in the first place! So I dropped the "Again," and I am merely pointing out that they are going to get "it," this time for the first time.

It, is defined as the massive assault on their incomes that will accompany Barack Obama's tax plan should he be elected president.

Oh, don't go giving me that Race crap again, this is his plan, not mine. Obama has said over and over again that this plan will not affect people in my income category, regardless of whether it is $250,00 or $200,000 or $150,000. Hi, I am a member of the middle class. Pleased to meet you.

So it doesn't affect me, but it sure will come as a surprise to all those pampered professional athletes earning millions each year, not to mention the effete lefties in Hollywood making millions per picture, and the drugged-out rockers, rappers, groupies and roadies that make up the music underworld.

Are you a rich celebrity who is famous for being a rich celebrity? Well BOHIC baby, you are about to get the shock of a lifetime.

When he is out on the campaign trail Sen. Obama likes to attack "the rich" as if there actually is a caste system in this country where "the rich" are born to wealth and no one else has a right to aspire to "richness." He likes to talk down to Americans as if only he and a few close friends can start at zero and make something of themselves.

Sen. Obama likes to make it appear that a only few hundred multi-national corporate CEOs will be adversely affected by his tax plan - and by God, they deserve it!

But Obama is silent on the fact that many thousands of individuals in this country are small businesses unto themselves. This includes athletes, musicians and overpaid actors and actresses who live lavish lifestyles thanks to the freedoms they enjoy as Americans. Many of them also spend much of their free time bad-mouthing the country that guarantees these freedoms.

While they are running their mouths, they also have to file as small businesses because they make so much money.

If they don't at least file as a Sole Proprietorship or reinvent themselves as a Sub S Corporation, they'll get whaled with income taxes that would take a massive chunk out of their salaries not to mention product endorsements, speaker and appearance fees.

Individuals who have formed themselves into a small business can write off far more of their incomes in that category than they ever would be allowed to if they file their tax returns as individuals. But members of all the classifications I mentioned above, and many, many others, make far above $250,000 per year.

So while the campaigning goes on and the media continues to tell the first Big Lie of the 21st Century, thousands of "rich" Americans are about to get such a jolt to their psyches that we probably won't see a good sports contest, movie, stage production or concert for a long, long time.

When and if this happens, which means when and if Obama becomes president, it will certainly be a huge shock to the affected elitists. But it shouldn't be a shock at all.

My mother told me many times when I was a child that "you are judged by the company you keep." Well, Mr. Obama keeps company with Islamo-fascists, domestic terrorists, socialists, communists and assorted fringe elements, and he has done this all his life. So it is absolutely fair and proper to judge him by his associations, and to forecast that should he become president Mr. Obama will push hard to get his tax plan through.

Then, the chickens really will come home to roost. And I don't want to hear any complaining about this either.

These people who think they will somehow be exempt from the excesses of an Obama administration should look up terms like "purges" or maybe "pogroms." With a little more research they should be able to find "Red Guard" or "Khmer Rouge," or "Pathet Lao." All good and proper role models for the first Obama administration.

Oh, the term "Useful Idiots" wouldn't hurt either. I don't care if Marx was the first to use it, or Stalin or no one, it sure fits in this case. Every time there is a communist revolution masquerading as a socialist revolution, the lemmings who blindly follow the leader into these death traps are the ones who scream the loudest when things don't pan out for them.

They are the ones who feel the stab of betrayal the most, and they also are the first to be shot. Sorry about that, it's the way it goes. Look up Che Guevara if you don't believe me. Or, should I say, Late Allies of the Late Che Guevara.

Check into the thousands murdered by Castro, or the millions by Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. You'll see where this is going. Then look up William Ayers' ruminations on how many Americans need to be eliminated to make "The Revolution" take hold in the USA. I think the figure was 25 million. But again, don't take my word for it. You can find these figures under "Red Purges."

While we're at it, since there is about to be a massive redistribution of wealth, I'd like a car from Bruce Springsteen, and a new house from Bon Jovi. And just to show that I am looking past the immediate material wealth and have long term interests too, I'd like a retirement equal to that enjoyed by Congress - paid for by the On-Air staff, past and present, at NBC News.

I'll make up the rest of my bucket list as this pans out a bit further.

I enjoyed Rush Limbaugh's appearance on Fox and Friends this morning when he jumped right into the election fray by referring to the Democrat candidate as "The Messiah," and then ripped into the false opinion polls now being pushed by the media.

For instance, it does absolutely no good to have Real Clear Politics tell us what the "average" is of a bunch of the polls they have surveyed, when that "average" already is skewed by horrendously out-of-sync polls such as the one commissioned by the New York Times and CBS news.

That poll shows The Chosen One as Rush also refers to the Democrat, ahead by double digits. It is widely discredited since it involved interviews with a grossly over-represented sampling of Democrats and didn't determine by actual records checks whether the respondents are likely voters.

Several other media-commissioned polls are equally biased, and surprise, surprise, they all show the Democrat ahead by double digits. Yet many other polls, that never get mentioned in the American Terrorist Media, show the race either very, very close, or dead even, well within the margin of error.

More to the point, if you take all the polls done by news organizations out of the RCP sample, including FOX, and divide the result by the remaining polls it averages 3.75 percent in Obama's favor. Again when you factor in the margin of error, it means this race is tied, not at all a done deal, and it certainly doesn't show Obama running away with it.

That 1 percent spread, or statistical tie, oddly enough is the result that Investors Business Daily came up with, and that organization was the most accurate of all the polling organizations in the Bush Kerry race, which also was marked by manipulative polling from the news organizations.

But with all the chaos on the campaign trail, the other big news isn't what the Chosen One is doing to convince Americans to vote for him. It is that the Democrat candidate is heading to Hawaii, supposedly to visit his critically ill grandmother, who suffered a broken hip in a fall about a week ago.

We have been hearing ever since that unfortunate accident that Himself was "rushing" to her side, but not so fast that he couldn't stop to do some smarmy interviews with his propagandists in the mainstream media. Somehow, he also forgot to take his wife and children with him.

I find that odd, since about a decade ago I had a sense that my father wasn't going to life much longer. He seemed to have lost his spark of liveliness, his color wasn't good and his attitude wasn't either. I told my son, who was living more than a thousand miles away, that it would be a good thing for him to get back to see my dad, as it probably would be his last chance.

I was right, it was, but my son did get to visit his grandfather and has always been grateful that he did.

So why, with all the money in the world at his disposal, didn't The Democrat take his family to see his grandmother one last time?

Maybe, just maybe there is more to this story, such as the lawsuit that has been filed against him in Honolulu demanding that he prove he has a legal American birth certificate and is a legal American citizen and therefore is a legitimate candidate for president of the United States.

The Democrat already has defaulted on appearing to answer a federal lawsuit seeking the same information in Philadelphia, and according to some legal analysts therefore has already been judged to be unqualified for the office of president.

So, what is really going on in Hawaii? Is The Democrat going specifically to see his grandmother, or is her condition just a convenient excuse to answer a subpoena? And what about these lawsuits?

If this man, as a candidate for President of the United States, can make a big deal out of a plumber's license, why are we not supposed to make a big deal out of a birth certificate, which after all is the one piece of proof that everyone needs if they want to run for president.

Hey, Mr. Democrat presidential candidate - Joe will show you his (license) if you show him yours (birth certificate.) Sounds like a good trade to me.

If I have this correct, I am labeled a racist if I don't vote for Barack Obama because I don't agree with his view on government and politics, even though I would never in a million years vote for a white man who shares his views.

Furthermore, if I don't vote for Barack Obama, and millions of other people in America don't vote for him either, then we are all racists, who mindlessly vote based on skin color rather than our view of government and politics.

And, to top it all off, if John McCain gets elected, all black people in America are going to rise up, start shooting white people and burning down the country.

Once again, don't take my word for it. James Carville the Democrat spokesman and operative said earlier this month that if Obama loses it will be either "dramatic" or "traumatic" depending on which news outlet provides your information. Most people who reported on his comments said he was threatening riots if Obama loses the election.

Then, last week, Joe Biden tells two groups of Democrat supporters that if Obama is elected the US is going to be "tested" - meaning attacked - within six months of Inauguration Day.

Most commentators took Biden's follow-up comments, that an attack could come from Russia or the Middle East, at face value. I had to laugh when Obama gave Biden a one-day timeout for his comments, and then tried to explain to the media, which adoringly lapped it up, that Biden really meant something else when he spoke so plainly and said the same thing on two occasions.

OK, I'll take Barack's point of view. Maybe an attack also could come from within, especially if Obama moves quickly to establish his National Police Force that he advocated in a speech in Colorado last July.

Remember when he said he wants national police force of the same size and strength as the military? Meaning he would have a force that could offset any intervention if there are activities on US soil that meet the definition of "all enemies foreign and domestic?"

Biden seems to know something and obviously has a very hard time keeping it to himself. But there is a warning in Biden's words and Carville's words and Obama's associations.

Never mind that no one is alive today who was subjected to the wrongs of the distant past; never mind that two generations of Americans have grown up in an America where the law of the land not only demands equal treatment for all, it requires equal treatment for all; never mind that the bulk of Americans alive today are descended from immigrants who were neither slaves nor masters three hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, nor even one hundred years ago.

Yet we have Carville thinly hinting of riots, Biden openly telling us we not only will be attacked within six months of Inauguration Day, but also telling his own supporters that they won't like the response and it will appear that we are not doing the right thing.

And we have Obama, with so many associations of questionable nature that we can't be sure of anything about him.

I had to chuckle at Biden's plea for his supporters to stick with the presumed Obama Administration if and when this attack comes, and the response appears to be so wrong, because in the long run everything will turn out fine! What does that mean?

Does Biden mean that everyone who is moderate or conservative politically will be imprisoned or dead? America will taken over by a foreign power? Biden gets to keep his millions, Obama gets to keep his and the middle class once again becomes the peasant class for a new form of aristocracy?

Think not? Check out the control that Bill Ayers had over his Underground Weathermen back in the 60s and 70s - even to the point of telling them when and with whom they would have sexual relations. Somehow I don't think that is what most American women want for themselves and their daughters when they speak of sexual equality.

Yet that was but one manifestation of the utter disregard and disdain that group had for basic American values - and remember, in their purest form the most basic of American values transcend race, religion, and national origins.

Then look at how much involvement Ayers has with Obama's political career. Obama can protest all he wants, Ayers is a mentor, has been a mentor, and will continue to be a mentor.

You can tell yourself that this is all just speculation and fear mongering, but my response is that you are living in denial. I don't believe for a minute that most black people in America are just waiting for a chance to hit back at "whitey."

There are plenty of white people in America who want to overthrow our democratic form of government and replace it with extreme socialism or communism, and there are plenty of black people, the bulk of black people as a matter of fact, who are prospering in America and won't support anarchy, socialism or communism either.

We all would lose under an Obama presidency. But the reality is that it wouldn't take a huge percentage of disaffected Americans of any race, or all races, to put the rest in bondage.

Want to know how? Start with controlling communications. That part is almost accomplished already. The mainstream media, including outlets in large and small markets, already is in the tank for every non-conservative candidate running for office in America.

The Internet, which is the only saving grace for those of us who are seeking the real truth, is run through the Pentagon. Control the Pentagon, say by being the Commander-in-Chief and you control the Internet.

And don't tell me about cell phones; they operate through government controlled satellites. Control the satellites, you control all forms of long-distance communication, including voice, faxes, videos, you name it.

Once communications are under control, you disarm the populace. Think not?

Consider this. A few weeks ago I attended a forum on the erosion of American freedoms at which constitutional attorney Robert A. Levy was a keynote speaker. Levy is co-author with William Mellor of the book The Dirty Dozen which explains a dozen Supreme Court decisions that have steadily eroded the freedoms Americans once took for granted.

After hearing Levy speak I was impressed with his grasp of the control our government has taken over our daily live. I chatted with him and bought a copy of his book which shows us in just 12 Supreme Court cases just what we are facing now, and could be facing in the future from a government run amok.

One of these is Bennis Vs. Michigan in which a woman whose husband used one of the family cars in which she had a demonstrable fifty-percent interest, for a tryst with a prostitute. He was caught, the car was confiscated and his wife took umbrage at losing the automobile since she had nothing to do with the charges lodged against her husband. The automobile was only incidental to the crime - and as Levy pointed out, the tryst could have taken place anywhere.

It wasn't as if the car was used by a prostitute to ply her business, say like a bootlegger or drug runner. But the wife lost, and the state kept the car, even though the wife was a victim in what the left often refers to as a "victimless crime."

Then take the case of Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut in which that city confiscated an entire neighborhood under eminent domain and gave it to a private developer based on the false claim that it would provide economic development - offices, upscale housing, shops and a marina.

The Supreme Court upheld that claim too. Yet the promised development has not been built to this day. People lost their homes and land, under a false claim that the greater good would be served, but it wasn't.

So what happens if our new president undergoes an attack from without or within, declares a state of emergency, takes over the Internet and all forms of communication for national security, and orders confiscation of all firearms for the same reason that Mrs. Bennis lost her car in Michigan? All that has to be proved is that it is possible that they could be used in a crime and presto!, they are gone.

Bennis vs. Michigan says the government can take your firearms even if they aren't used in the commission of a crime, and Kelo vs New London, Connecticut says it can confiscate your home and property under the flimsiest of rationales.

Good luck myoptic friends. I have a sinking feeling that all is not going to be well in America the day after Election Day.

We always seem to have an ample supply of people who think that they know what is best for everyone else, and once they impose their will on everyone else, we all will see the wisdom of having no personal rights.

I would remind them, or inform them, that there is a very fine line between a bully and a champion. Both have strength but the bully uses his strength in a very different manner than a champion. In particular, a champion defends those who are afflicted, while a bully just afflicts.

According to the words and actions of Barack and Biden and Carville, a very large part of America is in for a major dose of affliction. That isn't my interpretation, that is what they are saying.

I hope they are wrong.

The town of Enfield, Connecticut has a problem on its hands, the nature of which is the deterioration of the Thompsonville section, once a thriving center of business and social activity.

A number of factors, including an interstate cutting right through the town, and malls that accompanied urban sprawl, combined to isolate the T'ville section as it is called locally. Ultimately parts of the neighborhood declined as businesses left, and some residents followed.

About a quarter of the housing stock in T'ville is owner-occupied, while much of the rest is owned by absentee landlords. The absentee landlords are bearing much of the blame for not keeping their properties up to par.

The housing stock began to decline, and many transient residents replaced those who had left. Drug and alcohol calls soon began clogging the increasingly busy police logs.

The Republicans want a crack-down on crime, increased police presence, and pressure on absentee landlords to clean up and improve their properties. Drug activity and escalating violence that led to a murder in T'ville this summer bolsters their position.

State and federal elections are only weeks away and the local Democrats, who lost control of everything locally last year, are trying to keep two incumbents - Kathy Tallarita and Karen Jarmoc - in the state Assembly. As Democrats, both are members of the majority party that rules what is derisively called Connecticut's Do-Nothing Legislature in Hartford.

Tallarita, a member of the local political machine, whose brother was the mayor until last November, represents the T'ville section.

Tallarita's brother, the ex-mayor, is now on the sidelines - but is a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by a former supporter with whom the mayor had a public confrontation in 2007. Tallarita, the ex-mayor, reportedly is trying to convince the current Town Council, dominated by the Republicans who swept last year's municipal elections, to pay his legal fees.

To help their incumbents' campaigns, which have focused on bringing more services to T'ville, and to draw attention away from issues that might make voters question their priorities, Enfield's Democrat leaders decided it was time to call in some big time help. Big time as in US Senator Christopher Dodd.

With all that is rumbling around in the background, a nice visit from Dodd seemed like just the thing to focus attention away from years of failed Democratic policies.

Someone should have run that little scenario past local Republican Town Chairwoman Mary Ann Turner first. When Turner discovered that local Democrats had invited Dodd to do a "walking tour" of T'ville last Friday and make a pitch for increased federal services and funding, she went into overdrive.

"Not in my town," was Turner's response, implied if not spoken. She was referring primarily to Dodd's hike.

Turner immediately set about organizing a sidewalk protest to let the good senator know that not everyone in town thinks increased federal intervention, and the resultant increased taxes, are always a good thing.

Besides, Dodd had snubbed the Enfield Town Council delegation in March when council members from both parties traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with government leaders. He had promised to get back to them and reschedule a meeting, but seven months have gone by and Enfield is still waiting by the phone.

Nonetheless, even though Dodd won't meet with the new mayor, Republican Scott Kaupin, he had no problem finding time to go walking in T'ville with a small contingent of Democrats. Or, so he thought.

Long before Dodd arrived, Turner and a band of sign carrying Republicans took up their positions in a parking lot where Dodd was to arrive. That didn't set well with the Dems who confronted Turner, and ordered her out of the area, threatening police action if she didn't leave.

I think the phrase "waving a red flag in front of a bull," might be appropriate here. Being threatened with arrest for exercising her constitutional rights to assembly, free speech and redress of grievances didn't exactly carry the kind of weight the Dems had hoped.

"Go ahead, call the cops," was essentially what she said in response.

After the local efforts were spent, it was time for a Dodd staffer to approach Turner. Sweet talk isn't exactly the best approach with her either.

Not only did Turner maintain her position on the issues with T'ville, she let the staff member know in no uncertain terms how she felt about a US Senator deliberately snubbing the mayor.

After that little discussion, the Dems told Turner they were cancelling the walkabout, and would just meet with Dodd indoors.

Next it was George Colli IV, a Suffield Democrat who is running for the state Senate seat that covers the area, against incumbent Republican John Kissel. Apparently Colli, who has a few problems of his own, figured a few photos with Dodd would be just what the doctor ordered to give his campaign a high-profile backer.

That didn't work either. Colli ended up just one more Democrat who tried and failed.

Ultimately, it was the man himself, Christopher Dodd, who approached Turner to find out just what it was she was protesting.

Turner wasted no time in letting Dodd know she was protesting HIM, and all who were aligning themselves with him, especially with the Countrywide mortgage deal, and the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae situation, and Dodd taking off for the cornfields of Iowa during the presidential primaries instead of staying home representing his state. That was all in one breath too.

When the dust was settled, Dodd blinked and didn't do the T'ville walkabout. He addressed the Dems indoors, and left for wherever Senators go at the end of a long day. But not before promising Turner that he would call Enfield Town Hall no later than noon on Monday to actually schedule a meeting with town leaders.

Monday noon came, and Monday noon went. No Dodd call.

Turner was right back on the phone to his office demanding to know why Dodd had snubbed her town again!

Finally a call was made.

"Have your peeps call my peeps," was the way the conversation went, or something like that.

In the end, Dodd blinked, Turner did not, but this story really doesn't have a happy ending, yet.

Dodd finally promised to come meet with Enfield officials, but not until after the November elections.

Turner says she isn't holding her breath.

Earlier this year I had the pleasure of being a keynote speaker at a four-day veterans event in Illinois at which The Moving Wall, a miniature version of the Vietnam War Memorial, was the focal point.

The Moving Wall makes its way around the country, giving veterans who may not be able to visit the original in Washington an opportunity to see it in miniature close to home. The Wall stays in an area for several days and it usually is the central point for other veteran-related activities.

The Moving Wall came to East Hartford Connecticut this weekend, and along with other ceremonies and units the U.S. Marine Corps Silent Drill Team also was featured.

It is great to see these units in our area, and many military units have regular touring schedules and people to help with smoothing out the arrangements. A call to their headquarters will get the ball rolling. In Illinois, the visit of The Moving Wall was arranged by the local American Legion post, and as is usually the case in such events, the work was done by a handful of dedicated members.

What I liked best about the ceremonies I attended in Illinois was the absence of politics. Dignitaries such as mayors, Senators and Representatives were there, and they gave speeches, but they didn't try to overshadow the meaning of the event, nor make the wall a centerpiece of their campaigns.

Unfortunately that was not the case in East Hartford, Connecticut. The appearance of The Moving Wall was billed as and run as the brainchild of Congressman John Larson, who brags of being the #5 Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Media silence notwithstanding, Larson is in a very tight race with Republican challenger Joseph Visconti, and in fact, came in a distant second in an unofficial poll run by the Hartford Courant last week. The poll was attached to the only statewide story the Courant has run on the race.

Visconti stayed neck and neck with Larson all day, but pulled away in late voting and ended up the following morning defeating Larson by 51 to 41 percent. Unofficial though that poll may have been, the truth is that if Connecticut's 1st Congressional District is a lock for Larson, as the Hartford media claims, he should have outpolled Visconti by 90-10.

But the refusal of media outlets to cover Visconti's campaign is not the biggest issue involving the appearance of The Moving Wall.

A much bigger issue is Larson's attempt to hijack the event for his lagging campaign. His refusal to serve in Vietnam, and his claims to be a strong supporter of the troops when he has been working against them make any attempt by Larson to appear as pro-troop sad, hypocritical and completely transparent.

Larson voted to cut off funding in Iraq, opposed the Surge, and stood mutely by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's side in Iraq earlier this year when she insulted our forces by saying they didn't win in Iraq, "the Iranians let them." If ever there was a time and place for a real troop supporter to stand up and be counted, that was it, but Larson said nothing.

That didn't stop him from taking inordinate amounts of credit for bringing The Moving Wall to Connecticut though.

The appearance of Marine musical and drill units is a definite draw for area military enthusiasts. So to give you a non-biased review of Friday night's ceremonies, here are the words of one of my brother Marines, who does not live in the First Congressional District and has no reason to support either candidate:

"It was too damn political. Every other word was Thanks to Congressman Larson. They even had a Barack Obama adviser. I overlooked it because I wanted to absorb and enjoy the moment," my friend said, "but it definitely was about Larson. I didn't appreciate it one bit."

Obviously visit by The Moving Wall, which is an emotional, as well as historic event, was definitely turned into a political event for a Congressman who is good with lip service, but by actions shows he doesn't really respect the troops.

But wait, it gets worse. In last week's East Hartford Gazette, in an article on the event, Larson was portrayed as a Vietnam vet himself!

From the Gazette: "Credited as being the idea of Congressman John Larson, the project has been in the works for a year. ... Motivated by strong personal feelings, Larson says he always talked about doing something like this. ... Given the upcoming 25th anniversary of The Wall, Larson decided it was time to knuckle down and do something.

He contacted friends and fellow Vietnam veterans Paul F. Barry and Craig Jordan. The logistics of it became their labor of love."

What? Larson's friends and fellow Vietnam veterans? The 25th Anniversary?

Perhaps someone should clue our hapless incumbent Congressman in on a little piece of federal legislation called the Stolen Valor Act. It carries penalties including jail time for falsely portraying oneself as a veteran and wearing medals and decorations when one is not a veteran.

You'd think an incumbent Congressman would know that, especially one who has been in Congress for 10 years and brags about being the #5 Democrat in the House of Representatives. Larson is a real mover and shaker who is responsible for much of the Legislation passed in the last two years, but he doesn't know he shouldn't allow himself to be portrayed as a veteran when he is not?

Not only does the Gazette article falsely credit Larson with being a Vietnam Veteran, it also gets the year of the dedication of the wall wrong. I attended the 25th Anniversary ceremonies at the national Vietnam War Memorial on Veteran's Day LAST YEAR!

The year 2008 is the 26th Anniversary of the dedication of The Wall. You can figure that out yourself by subtracting 1982, the year The Wall was dedicated in Washington, from 2008, which is this year. 2008 minus 1982 leaves 26, not 25. Good grief.

National media covered the ceremonies in D.C. last year, and a large contingent of Hartford area veterans, including members of the Vietnam Veterans of America Hartford chapter, marched in the parade. I was there, I saw old friends, we chatted, we reminisced! John Larson was nowhere to be seen, which was appropriate, but veterans from East Hartford were there.

It wasn't exactly a secret that the 25th anniversary was last year, not this year. How convenient that Larson gets involved in this project a year late, but right on time for his campaign.

Maybe someone on Larson's campaign staff should have asked him what year it is.

In a nutshell, Larson did the people who did the real work, and all of Connecticut's veterans, a major disservice by placing his campaign at the forefront of this effort. There still are many emotions surrounding The Wall from those of us who fought that war.

Those panels bear the names of 40 Marines who served in my unit and died in Vietnam. There are many others I knew who served in other units. I don't appreciate any politician at any level, especially one with an anti-military bias, using that wall and all it represents as a backdrop for a political campaign.

It goes beyond sacrilege to Vietnam Veterans, it is blasphemy! For that, Larson owes every one of us an apology.

As far as being referred to as a Vietnam veteran in the East Hartford Gazette, he and the paper owe us an explanation, a correction, and another apology.

The John McCain presidential campaign is placing phone calls to voters informing them of Barack Obama's refusal to tell the truth about his relationship with terrorist William Ayers. OK, so what?

Ayers is a legitimate issue in the campaign, due to both his violent assaults on Americans in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and his continued hatred and support for all things American to this day. Obama's associating with Ayers since the mid-1990s is an issue that Obama has been ducking since the primaries when Hillary Clinton brought it up.

But on Fox News Sunday, while McCain was being interviewed by Chris Wallace, the good folks at Fox decided to run a graphic of a New York Times-CBS News poll asking people what they thought of McCain's telephone ads - was he "attacking" Obama, versus "informing" the public.

Aside from the obvious question - "Who Cares?" - let's forget for just a second, that this "poll" was done by the two least trusted "news outlets" in the entire world, both of which are solidly in the tank for Obama. Let's forget that the Times is in middle of an attack series on Cindy McCain hoping that it will be sufficient to offset Obama's declining poll numbers.

Not surprisingly at all, by an overwhelming edge, the New York Times poll of 1070 "adults" says McCain is "attacking" versus "informing."

So freakin' what?

Where did the Times get these "adults?" From the ranks of Obama's campaign staff? At the CBS alleged "news room?" In a Bowery flophouse? (Yes I know, the Bowery is undergoing gentrification and there aren't as many flophouse as there used to be. But there are enough for this "poll.")

I wouldn't use the New York Times to line the bottom of a parakeet cage for fear they use ink that would poison the little songsters.

And CBS News? The outlet that gave us Walter Cronkite, the latter day communist sympathizer who went to Vietnam and lied to the American public after the military had just won the biggest and most important battle of the war? The man who claimed, while standing in the ruins of what had been the Viet Cong military structure that the war was "unwinnable!"

The man who led the charge that resulted in the deaths of millions of Southeast Asians at the hands of the communists?

And when the American viewing public was finally spared another nanosecond of Cronkite's total absence of credibility, who did we get for a replacement? Dan Rather! Oh Yeah, baby, I really, really trust CBS News.

But what is astonishing here is that Fox News Sunday is using a poll with no resemblance to reality, as The Word. Not one iota of explanation from Fox that the poll just might be of questionable validity.

Anyone who looks one line down from the percentages blasted across the top of the TV screen would know immediately that the source is suspect, the methodology is suspect and thus the outcome is suspect, along with being irrelevant.

Fox News knows this. Do the news executives and on-screen personalities think we don't look beyond the numbers?

In a Shephard Smith segment last week Fox News also reported a NY Times poll giving Obama a 13-point edge, when virtually every other national poll of "likely voters" a key element in getting to the heart of the matter, had the spread in single digits, many of them within or close to the margin of error. Fox's sudden reliance on NY Times propaganda that is thinly, and unconvincingly disguised as news, is remarkable.

In Sunday's FNS show, after tanking McCain on the question of William Ayers, we were treated to another "attack poll" - Fox's own Opinion Dynamics in this case - saying people don't trust Sarah Palin. Once again, where did this come from?

They claim to have polled 900 "registered voters," but what the hell does that mean? Were they all Democrats, a preponderance of Democrats, were they people who ever voted, were they kids who were just signed up by ACORN in a Chicago high school?

If the American public doesn't think Sarah Palin is up to the job, why is she drawing huge, enthusiastic crowds at every single appearance, and why are Obama's numbers dropping in every reputable poll while McCain's are increasing?

I have said it here on many occasions, that I can get spin and Democratic National Committee talking points on virtually every other MainStream Media outlet in America. I turn to a select group of reporters and commentators on Fox News to get a realistic appraisal of what is going on nationally and on the international scene.

But in recent weeks, and certainly on Fox News Sunday as well as the Panel of Experts commentary after the final presidential debate, credibility and objectivity went right out the window.

I don't care who the individual reporters and commentators are backing. I expect left-wing talking points from Juan Williams and Mara Liasson, and I expect conservative views from William Kristol and Brit Hume. What I don't want is the information that drives those opinions to come from questionable sources, posing as real news.

Especially when all those reporters and commentators have access to the same information as I do, and probably a lot more.

Here's another trend the upper management at Fox might want to consider. People turning off Fox News and not turning it on again. There already are several shows I refuse to watch on Fox, and oddly enough there are some viable alternatives on the other media ... Glenn Beck for one. (Although if he moves to Fox as has been reported, I might have to rethink my position. Unless he stops being objective and balanced too.)

I'd hate to see that happen, not me watching Glenn Beck, but people turning off Fox. I trust many of the reporters on Fox, I enjoy their reports, I believe they are knowledgeable, professional and well qualified to let us know what is going on out in the world.

I would miss them and their reports. But I don't need another national news outlet using questionable, incredulous sources that serve only to manipulate, not inform.

If Fox News, and especially Fox News Sunday, wants to go into the business of political strategy rather than political commentary, they should tell the viewers rather than trying to sneak it in on the sly.

Here's another poll I DIDN'T see on Fox. As of Sunday morning, the national polls had Obama slipping into the margin of error after leading by 9 points only a week ago. Why didn't Chris Wallace think that was important?

Here's another poll I didn't see on Fox: The Army Times has the military going for McCain 68 to 23. What do you think that means in states like Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and South Carolina with military bases and big veteran populations? Vets and the active military trend very closely together and there are about 25 million vets in America.

The only variations in the Army Times poll showed that African-Americans on active duty are going for Obama in a huge way, polling in the high 80s for him. But that reflects the national numbers and is no surprise.

Oh, and the Marines are going for McCain by a margin of 78 percent to whatever. Of course, most Marines serve in direct combat or combat support which is often the same thing. Also, as recently reported on FOX, the Marines are shutting down Camp Fallujah in Iraq, leaving in victory.

McCain was the guy who backed them while Obama was selling them out, and by now would have had our military slinking out of Iraq in defeat rather than marching out victorious. I would expect the combat vets to poll higher for McCain.

There also was another poll Friday that might come as somewhat of a shock. The AP and Yahoo.com ran a combined poll that showed Barack leading McCain by 44-42. But the poll of some 1600 likely voters, had a preponderance of Democrats responding - 250 more Dems than Republicans.

What does this tell us? That a lot of Democrats are coming right out and saying they aren't voting for Barack Obama. That poll with significantly more Democrat responders should have gone much higher for Obama. It didn't. That's news.

I found it on the Drudge Report. It wasn't hard to find. It even included all the background information. I wonder why I didn't see that on Fox?

There are two parts to this post. The first is what I have to say, and the second is what I'd like you to see. If you don't have a lot of time, why don't you just cut and paste the link below so you can see a YouTube video that comes in two parts.

Part one tells you all you need to know about the wannabe intellectuals Bill Ayers and his "wife" Bernardine Rae Dohrn who tried to engineer a violent overthrow of the United States in the 60s, 70s, and 80s; part two tells of their relationship to Barack Hussein (Steve) Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnvLSrOCNB8

You know how Barack likes to say that he was only 8-years-old when Ayers was bombing stuff and teaching his brain dead followers to kill people?



Bill Ayers in 2001 Wiping His Pseudo-elitist feet on the American Flag!








Well if you watch this video you'll see that Ayers and Dohrn continued their terrorist activities well past that time. (Barack was born in 1961.) They were just getting started in '69, and continued their attacks into the 80s.

In fact, the Wikipedia online encyclopedia says that Dohrn was a leader of the terrorist organization Weather Underground until she and her husband Bill Ayers came out of hiding in 1980. Nonetheless, they continued to support other members of the group who were continuing their attacks on the United States.

At that point Barack was 19, and both Ayers and Dohrn have refused ever since to renounce their violent crimes and acts of treason, and in fact, still brag about them.

The last violent assault by the Weather Underground was in 1983 when they attacked a Brinks armored bank car, killing two guards and a policeman. Barack Obama was 21. I guess he had his nose too deep into cocaine to take notice of what his future mentors were doing back then.

Although much of the questioning regarding Barack's character has to do with his relationship with Ayers, he also is friends with Dohrn - since Ayers and Dohrn are still married - and she was right there with her husband when they helped launch Barack's political career in their living room.

Dohrn is certainly worth a closer look. She was widely criticized in 1969 for a comment she made about the Charles Manson led Tate-LaBianca murders in Dec. 1969.

She said, "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!" Later on she said she was just kidding!

I don't believe it either. The kidding part I mean.

What a sweetheart. Can you believe that this woman raised three children, two of them her own? Can you imagine what those kids have grown up believing? Did she speak glowingly of her support for a nutcase mass murderer when she told her children bedtime stories? Or did she just stick to bomb manufacture and booby traps?

And in their ritzy neighborhood in Chicago they are considered upright citizens! What a bunch of mouth-breathing Neanderthals must live in that neighborhood. Property values there must be a steal!

There has to be something in the air and the water out there. Obviously, it isn't only the Illinois political system that is corrupt and peopled by self-serving ignoramuses. It is beginning to look like the "upper crust" of Chicago society is merely the same sort of "crust" that is left in the settling tanks at a sewage treatment plant.

So we have to ask ourselves, just who is Barack Hussein Obama anyway?


Is this the real Barack Obama?



Or is this more to his liking?


Which picture of him is more representative of the real Barack?

And get this. Before Dohrn became a communist stooge, she actually graduated from law school! She may have been a stupid terrorist, but she also was an "educated" terrorist, and should have known better.

Dohrn has never been allowed to practice law, according to Internet reports, since even the Chicago legal system has some standards, lower than whale feces though they may be, and she can't get a license even there. (Maybe she should try out for plumbing work. Nah, too far above her pay grade and skill set.)

So, since she couldn't flourish in the legal profession, she now is an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center. And we wonder why we have such a screwed up legal system!

Let's get that little institute of higher learning way, way up on the list of places we'd never send a child to get a legitimate education, shall we?

Anyway, it is clear that Obama has worked with, for, and around Ayers and Dohrn for more than a decade.

Oh, and while we're at it, the video has some great information on how the "voter registration" group ACORN was founded back in the day by another Weather Underground simpleton. All these years later it has grown, still is spreading its pro-communist philosophy, and Barack Hussein Obama is up to his eye teeth in it.

It is clear from what you'll see on the video above that these terrorists not only have never renounced their past, they glory in it. What is not clear, is how Barack Hussein Obama expects us to believe that even though he helped them spread their communist philosophy in the Chicago school system, he thinks we (meaning those of us who think it is incredible that anyone is even considering voting this guy in as President of the United States) shouldn't make a connection between them and him.

And if we do, we're racist. I see.

It isn't racist, Hussein old man, I just don't like violent communist assbites who believe that my life is worth nothing while theirs is worth something, thus mine can be sacrificed, except in their minds it is no sacrifice.

I never thought I'd say this, but drooling, mindless, moronic sociopaths like these nitwits give communist philosophers a bad name.

Joe the Plumber, the working man from Middle America who had what may turn out to be an unfortunate encounter with Barack Obama, has been outed by the Associated Press which has revealed Joe doesn't have a plumbing license!

After a minutes long investigation during which at least one person was interviewed, probably over the telephone, the AP is now crowing in its latest pro-Obama expose that Joe had the temerity to respond that he doesn't need a license.

"Oh Yeah?" Retorted the AP? "Why Not?"

"Because I work for someone else and am not required to have a license," Joe averred.

But after another 30 seconds of incisive investigative reporting the AP was able to located a county bureaucrat who says Joe may be mistaken and at least his company has to have a license, but also doesn't.

The future of the two man firm, which gained national fame when Joe told Barack Obama earlier this week that he'd like to purchase it and be his own boss some day, now is in jeopardy.

Joe made the mistake of eliciting an admission from Obama that the Pretender to the Presidency actually would be charging him a much higher tax rate for realizing the American Dream and making a good living for himself.

Barack told Joe, that if Joe becomes successful, he should "share the wealth."

Hey, Barack has a lot of money and really big mansion. How about sending a few hundred grand my way? I have a couple projects on the back burner due to the economy, and if Barack shared his wealth with me, I could spread it around to a bunch of small contractors in my area.

Unconfirmed reports from the front indicate that Obama's Personal National Police force, which at the moment is still operating under the guise of Secret Service, are now looking into confiscating Joe's house, vehicles, kid, neighbors, and goldfish since his view of the world doesn't put Barack in a good light.

"We'll prosecute his ass to the fullest extent of the law," said an unnamed local reporter for an entirely forgettable news outlet. The reporter was reportedly a distant cousin of another alleged journalist who earlier this month created a national stir when he lied by saying he had heard someone yell "Kill Him!" at a McCain-Palin rally.

The alleged threat was supposed to be aimed at Barack, but even though the Secret Service and police were swarming all over the rally and have interviewed huge numbers of people since, the only person who heard the alleged remark is the alleged reporter. HMMMMM. Things that prove again and again that the media is in the tank for Barack Obama.

Anyway, Joe the Plumber says he is studying to take the test for his license, and I'm sure this will all work out once Barack and the media forget about him. Unless the bureaucrats in Joe's area are looking for their own 15 minutes of fame and get it by busting him and forcing him out of business and onto the unemployment line.

Is there a moral to this story. Well, yes kind of.

It goes like this: If you are at home minding your own business, and you see Barack Obama, a bunch of Democratic campaign workers, and the media heading down your driveway, run inside as fast as you can go.

Shut the door and lock it. Pull the drapes and shades. Don't answer the phone, don't answer the door, and by all means don't talk to them. You never know, you could end up jobless, broke and subjected to a fine for trying to make an honest living.

That pretty much sums it up. McCain did it and he did it without resorting to gutter tactics.

Obama said "eight years of failed George Bush policies," a bunch of times, and then he elaborated by saying, uh, I'm not sure. But it had a lot to do with George Bush.

I liked it when McCain said to Obama, "Senator I am not George Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have done it four years ago."

Obama's response wasn't all that hot. He stuttered and stammered a lot. Some people thought he was really, really dynamic, but they were on TV and they're paid to make up their minds ahead of time so what do they know? You can watch the debate on the Internet if you want and you'll see what I saw, Obama doing a lot of stammering and stuttering.

He wasn't very good on the abortion question at all. Not so hot on explaining his health insurance plan either. I don't want national health insurance, because frankly, I don't want a government doctor screwing around with my innards. Look what they do with our taxes!

And that's all she wrote folks.

McCain looked pretty good tonight. Obama just said the stuff he says on the campaign trail.

Oh, one last thing, Obama never apologized to McCain or repudiated a claim by a civil rights leader comparing McCain and Sarah Palin to George Wallace. Pretty lame on his part.

He also didn't dispute that claim that he has spent more money on negative ads than any other political aspirant in history.

So, who you going to vote for? My mind's made up.

To put it bluntly, if John McCain comes across in the last presidential debate as a "gentleman," then Barack Obama is going to wipe the floor with him.

This may not mean much when Election Day rolls around. If you go back to the Bush-Kerry debates, you may remember that the left was proclaiming victory through its propaganda outlets - NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC - etc., after it anointed Kerry the winner of all three encounters. But victory proved elusive.

I won't change my vote based on the outcome of a presidential debate, but others may. You never know.

I believe McCain was not well served by whomever arranged these "debates" in the first place. They supposedly are run by an impartial presidential "debate commission" the very name of which gives the impression of government approval, when the actual "debate commission" is a private bunch of left-wingers.

The Public Broadcast "moderators" who have run the earlier debates are hardly moderate, they are clearly left-leaning, they know it and admit it. In addition, only the moderators create the questions, which means you are going to get softballs for Barack Obama and spitballs for McCain.

But that isn't the issue here. Background - meaning the background of the candidates - is the issue.

Barack Obama is a product of the streets, regardless of how he tries to cover that up. He may have gone to HAAAVAAD, and he may even think he sounds like an intellectual by saying PACHISTAHN instead of Pakistan, but he can't hide his origins, even if he does refuse to produce a birth certificate or proof of citizenship.

Obama's history shows that when things get difficult for him, he gets mean and ugly. Ask Hillary Clinton, she'll tell you what it was like.

McCain on the other hand, is the offspring of multiple generations of career Navy officers; Admirals no less.

Barack went to a small college before he was miraculously plucked from among the masses for re-education and indoctrination at HAAAVAAD.

McCain graduated from the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Now in some regards you may think that would help McCain in the fighting arena. But not necessarily.

The Academy teaches boxing and self-defense, but it also teaches gentlemanly behavior, at all times on all occasions. Even Admirals can get thrown out of the Navy for "conduct unbecoming an officer." Remember that because it is essential.

What all this means is that John McCain is honor bound to fight cleanly. He can be expected to throw lots of jabs and hooks, occasional upper cuts, and ultimately look for a knockout blow to the jaw.

Barack on the other hand, will appear to fight cleanly, but all the while he is plotting sneak attacks to exploit his opponents' weaknesses. Barack will punch to the back of the head, punch low, use sucker punches, and kicks to the groin to get his opponent down.

And when his opponent is down, he'll continue kicking to vital spots, to make sure the opponent not only stays down, but is not likely to ever get up again. Once again, ask Hillary Clinton.

Barack sees the world differently than McCain, and in politics the advantage thus goes to Obama. Barack has no qualms about throwing a wad of paper at the back of the teacher's head and then pointing at the kid in the front row and yelling "He did it, he did it!"

In fact, that pretty much is the basis of Democratic political strategy.

But Annapolis grads fight differently - except for James Webb, who after all, joined the Marines. For instance, Navy Admirals have vast amounts of weaponry at their disposal, and they can order a ship to attack using the full range of its arsenal, or for that matter, they can order coordinated attacks by entire fleets.

They train for this and are extraordinarily good at it. They usually win in these circumstances through sheer force and application of a wide variety of weapons.

But when American ship Captains sink or shoot down an opponent, they will pluck the survivors from the water and provide humane treatment including medical care. Even our POW camps, including Guantanamo, are models of humanity compared to what our enemies traditionally provide for captured Americans.

But if you put Barack in the same position as an American Naval Captain, especially if he has taken casualties, or been wounded himself, he is far more likely to machine gun any survivors when they are in the water than have to concern himself with humane care of POWs.

So while the media is talking about "spirited" debates, which we have not had so far, except for Palin-Biden, they are really describing a patty-cake style of conflict that is ineffective for both sides.

But both sides know that if they are going to get any kind of momentum from the last presidential debate they better score and score big. They have to make the other side look weak and ineffective.

This works in Obama's favor because he will have no qualms about sucker punching McCain if he gets the chance. McCain may end up on the floor writhing in pain calling Obama a "dirty fighter" and deriving some sort of moral superiority from it, but Obama will be dancing around him chanting "I won, I won!"

McCain is the kind of nice guy who if he went below decks on a ship, say to the engine room, and saw a big wrench on the floor with two very disheveled sailors standing nearby, he'd assume they had been working on loosening a tough nut, or tightening a noisy engine bearing.

Obama in the same situation would look for blood to see if the wrench was not a wrench but a weapon that had been used by one of the sailors to swat the other one upside the head.

"Stand up!" McCain is imploring his supporters. "Stand up and fight!"

OK, that's a good start. But if he wants to win this battle, McCain has to take his own advice. He can be humane when he is dealing with the vanquished, but until then he should take to the last debate, and the campaign trail, with a baseball bat in one hand and a set of brass knuckles in the other.

Good isn't going to triumph over evil in this race if good looks like a wimp. McCain needs to go for the vital spots and use every weapon at his disposal to exploit them, including a knee to the groin if the opportunity arises.

Barack Obama has been claiming on the campaign trail that it is OK to hang around with, and work for an unrepentant domestic terrorist - William Ayers - because he (Obama) was only 8-years-old when Ayers was bombing the US.

In a statement released this week on Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground terrorist organization that bombed police stations, the US Capitol and the Pentagon, committed crimes including murder and robbery, Obama said he "assumed Ayers had been rehabilitated."

Really? Well a picture is worth 1,000 words, so apply 1,000 to this photo of Ayers wiping his feet on the US flag.

It was taken in 2001 for a magazine profile, just about the same time that the unrepentant Ayers said he hadn't done enough to bring down the United States.

Now we must ask ourselves, just how aware is Obama if this photo could slip by him in his hometown, in the same time frame that he and Ayers were working together?

Based on Obama's "Assumed" claim, I bet the entire Chinese army could infiltrate over our southern border and he would "assume" it was just workers coming in for their day shifts.

I was on the road for a while on Friday and heard occasional news reports that the stock market was down again, taking substantial losses.

But when I returned to my office and looked at the news, the market had turned dramatically and was nearly in positive territory. Within minutes, this dramatic turnaround had become an orgy of buying with the market shooting upwards like a rocket.

This recovery of the entire 700 points it had lost earlier in the day on massive selling, meant a total of 1400 points of movement in one day. But it wasn't over. The market continued upward, reaching 300 points above its starting average, for 1700 total points of movement.

Then as I watched in disbelief, in less than 15 minutes the market lost all 300 points it had just gained and another 128 on top of that. Sufficient sales had occurred in one-quarter of an hour to wipe out all the previous gains and the market ended up once again in the red. In all the market moved more than 2100 points in one session.

A colleague told me of reading reports that the 6,000 point drop the market has seen in recent weeks from its high point means a loss of some 8 trillion dollars in value. If that is true, and the combined value of all the stocks bought and sold Friday was on a par with the value of the stocks bought and sold since this slide began, then the New York Stock Exchange alone saw transactions amount to something in the neighborhood of 2 trillion dollars in one session!

Who could do that? Certainly not mom and pop investors. Most of the individuals in the market who thought they were on risky ground would have sold in the earlier sessions. Even institutionalized investments couldn't do that much that quickly.

We are talking the equivalent of about one-sixth of the United States' annual Gross Domestic Product, bought and sold in one day!

Did you see the news that the World Bank computers have been hacked, and very deeply, several times this year, going back to the spring? Did you see that the World Bank executives hid this from the public, supposedly to prevent a panic?

Does that look far more like a cover up than a security measure?

And don't forget, when our markets go down, Asian and European markets go down too. But interestingly, there also have been days when our markets were recovering, and the Asian and European markets saw massive losses regardless. What would trigger such uncertainty when the United States appeared to be stabilizing?

What we are talking about here appears to be a major coordinated assault on capitalism. It started out weeks ago, and every time it looks as though we have hit bottom and are about to start climbing out, whammo, another salvo is launched.

But from whom? The Internet is alive with buzz that socialist financier George Soros, still smarting from not being able to buy the election for Al Gore in 2000, or John Kerry in 2004 is behind it; has in fact threatened previously to join with others of like mind and intent to do exactly that.

But even Soros for all his billions couldn't do it alone. He couldn't even do it if he convinced Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and all of the late Sam Walton's family members to join him - not that any of them would.

No, this appears to be a coordinated assault on a level that requires entire nations, many of them, in concert with each other, to be participants. So who could it be?

Well, Europe is pretty much out of the loop since its countries' economies are based on capitalism too, and are suffering every bit as much as the United States. Even Russia took huge hits, and at first blush wouldn't appear to be in on it.

We can't completely discount Russia though, especially with all the posturing Vladimir Putin has been doing recently. First he poses with his shirt off, then he kills a tiger for sport, then he invades Georgia, then he gets another tiger - live this time - for a birthday present, obviously to make up for the outrage I'm sure he heard after hunting down the first tiger.

What is it with Putin? For my money, he is trying to display strength at a time when the world is in turmoil thus presenting a strong alternative to the west's candy-assed leaders. His invasion of Georgia got exactly the response he thought it would, lots of talk and blustering, but no action.

And since he started this little charade more than a year ago, I'd bet that he was aware of what was coming on the world financial markets even if he, or Russia, wasn't directly involved.

Others may have differing opinions on Putin's game, but I believe their opinions reflect their own personalities. The weak will see his posturing as a threat and will cower accordingly; the uncertain may well see him as a possible replacement for western leaders, so long as they don't get hurt in the process; and the strong will see it as a challenge to their leadership.

All that being said, I doubt that Russia has the capabilities to pull off Friday's chaos. And since he hasn't exactly been the Islamo-fascists' best friend, what with the unpleasantness in Chechnya for example, I doubt he would be all that likely to side with Al Qaeda.

But what about China? Did you notice that in all this uproar, we haven't heard much about China? The big news from that country was all about them successfully applying the technology they were allowed to acquire from us in the Clinton Administration to launch a manned spacecraft, send its astronauts out for a walk, and talk about building a space station!

On the world financial scene, they have been strangely quiet. Too quiet. And don't forget, the Chinese hold something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion in US securities.

Combine that with their laser shot at one of our defense satellites a while back, their submarine sneaking up on the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier out on the Pacific, using stolen American sonar technology, and all these poison products they have been sending to America and you have reasonable doubt - about China's intentions.

Why does China need to build its own space station when there already is an international space station well under construction? Doesn't it want to be part of the world of modern nations? Or would its space station employ weapons that could be used against earthbound targets, that China's leaders don't want us to know about?

Would China line up with extremist Muslims, using their oil gorged bank accounts to send the west into turmoil, and raise questions about the validity of capitalism as a world philosophy?

Remember, both the communists and the Islamo-fascists are intent on world domination, with their version of government the only form of government. Obviously there would come a time when the Islamo-fascists and the communists would fight each other, but think of the manpower each side would have available to them from conquered and enslaved countries.

Remember too, that neither communists nor Islamo-fascists care one whit about human life, albeit for different reasons, and will sacrifice untold millions as long as the few at the top get what they want. So, would China, which has been supporting Al Qaeda ever since we invaded Afghanistan, link up with Islamo-fascists if Chinese leaders thought they could emerge as a lone superpower in the end?

My vote is yes, unquestioningly.

It is easy, considering everything above, to see what happened Friday as an assault on our financial cornerstones, in an effort to weaken, demoralize and ultimately destroy our democratic form of government. What transpired on Wall Street Friday did more damage to the core of our government and freedoms than the attacks on 9-11, even though there was no immediate loss of life or property.

If it was a deliberate act of sabotage, the west must act strongly, quickly and decisively.

The Pentagon has super computers at its disposal, and one of the great things about the computer age is that even though billions of transactions took place Friday, they can all be traced to their origins. Relatively quickly too.

President George Bush is now facing the greatest challenge of his administration, and while meeting with other world leaders is a nice symbol, he might get far more done by ordering the Pentagon to turn its computers loose on tracking Friday's transactions on Wall Street, looking for patterns.

If he finds that Soros or any other individuals or institutions were involved, he should immediately freeze all their assets, not just here, but in conjunction with leaders worldwide too, and seek an international arrest warrant.

If he finds that China or any other countries that still have sympathies for Al Qaeda's Islamo-terrorists were involved, directly or indirectly, he should consider it an act of war and respond accordingly.

Barack Obama started off his part of the most recent presidential debate by lying.

John McCain started off his part of the most recent presidential debate by flubbing the return.

Obama blamed the current financial crisis one-hundred percent on "eight years of failed George Bush policies." (Gag me with a spoon will you please!)

McCain could have and should have nailed Obama right between the eyes by responding that the financial crisis is the direct result of Democratic meddling with safeguards that were put in place back in the 1930s to prevent just such a meltdown. He could have and should have noted that in 1999 Bill Clinton took off the brakes on what has become an out-of-control, headlong, downhill dash into financial oblivion.

He didn't. McCain could have and should have noted that even when the GOP tried to return the controls by initiating legislation in Congress in 2003 and other times, it was stymied by cries of "racism" from the very people who had a vested interest in seeing this situation develop.

McCain could have and should have noted that the real racists in Congress are those Democrats who gave false hope to poor people, many of them minorities. They, including hypocrites like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Henry Waxman and even Obama himself, did this by luring poor people, many of them minorities, into an impossible financial trap. They offered home ownership through mortgages that had no controls and a built in time-bomb detonator that would yank their dreams away in a heartbeat, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

Then, when it happened these Congressional hypocrites cried "Racist!" Right after that rallying cry comes "Failed George Bush policies."

Another note to McCain. Stop bashing Bush and Dick Cheney. That isn't your job. We understand your Maverick label so don't belabor the issue. Obama and his Democratic cronies are doing enough Bush bashing for everyone, you don't have to join in the chorus.

Obviously, McCain's handlers are telling him to avoid mentioning Bush at all cost, unless he is blaming something on the sitting president, which sounds petulant if not outright childish. "I didn't do it, he did it! I was just over here watching, but I didn't do it!" Enough already!

Some of us still like the president and vice president. If my history books are accurate, roughly the same number of us like George Bush and Dick Cheney as the number who liked George Washington! Do we agree with every single thing they do every single time? No. But we agree with a lot they did, and do, and McCain isn't making this any easier by offending one-third of the total electorate.

The biggest problem McCain has is that Obama may be blowing smoke up America's collective skirt, but he looks good doing it. McCain may have better ideas, and yes, certainly a better record, but he seems to be tiptoeing on eggshells, afraid to score points when he can and should.

He is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end he isn't satisfying anybody. Want to see how to win the last debate? Watch a video of Sarah Palin debating Joe Biden!

Sarah Unchained. Portrait of a Winner!

Gov. Sarah Palin went right to the heart of Barack Obama's character on Saturday when she linked him to radical anti-American Bill Ayers, who with his wife, was a founder of the Weather Underground.

That radical, domestic terrorist organization claimed opposition to the Vietnam War as its originating principle. But its terrorist activities that started in 1969, when Richard Nixon had already begun withdrawing troops from Vietnam, continued through the 70s and into the early 80s.

Ayers was quoted in the New York Times in 2001 saying the Weather Underground didn't do enough, even though they bombed police stations, the Pentagon and the US Capitol. Ayers lately has been saying that the quote means they didn't do enough to end the Vietnam War.

But actions speak louder than words, and although the United States military had left Vietnam by 1972 the Weather Underground did nothing to stop the slaughter of millions in Southeast Asia, especially after the communists took over in 1975. So let's not get caught in the anti-war propaganda. The Vietnam War was just a convenient excuse to launch attacks on the core of America.

In addition members of the Weather Underground continued their attacks on the United States itself for nearly another decade after 1972.

The last act of defiance by a member of the group was the attempted robbery of a Brinks armored truck in 1981 in which three people were murdered. Kathy Boudin, the Weather Underground member who was captured in that shootout, was released from prison in Sept. 2003.

The New York times, writing of her release, called the botched armed robbery that claimed the lives of two police officers and a Brink's guard, "a last gasp of Vietnam-era radicalism."

By pleading guilty in 1984, Ms. Boudin avoided a life sentence, a factor that did not sit well with the victims' survivors when she was allowed to go free.

Weather Underground member Cathy Wilkerson said in an interview about the book she wrote about her deadly "adventures," that the cult's leadership used what amounted to communist "reeducation" tactics to convince its members of the righteousness of their cause and to keep them in line.

From the New York Times, "She describes self-criticism sessions led by individuals who used the jargon of psychotherapy. Many in the ranks slept on floors and survived on pennies, but the leadership enjoyed opulent creature comforts. A strict "need-to-know" policy was enforced, meaning individuals could share little information, creating a culture of paranoia.

In the interests of creating "new men and new women," ... the leadership pushed an antimonogamy policy, giving joyless parties where virtual strangers had public sex. "We threw ourselves into the possibility of remaking ourselves as more effective tools for humanity's benefit to the point of sacrificing our own humanity."

In December 1969, according to the Times, a Weather Underground gathering in Flint, Mich., called for war on the United States. Wilkerson says the message was: "Violence was cleansing and resurrecting."

So let's not kid ourselves about Ayers and his intentions. That he escaped a prison term only because the defense successfully argued that evidence against him was gathered illegally by the FBI doesn't alter the nature of his mission. If the Patriot Act had been passed in 1969 Ayers might still be in jail.

The fact that both Ayers and his wife are university professors in Illinois where they live under the benign shadow of the Daley Democratic political machine, gives much credence to the oft-heard complaint that many of our nation's colleges are dominated by the radical far left.

And consider this from the NO QUARTER blog site http://noquarterusa.net/blog:
Barack was the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Foundation. Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist with wealthy family connections, had co-founded the Chicago Foundation and named Obama as the Chairman of said entity. So by 2001 Barack and Ayers had worked closely together on an effort to reform Chicago public schools. I am all in favor of school reform. But if you are involved with politics you ought to understand that if you hang with, work with, and politic with a guy who is an unrepentant terrorist that it might reflect badly on you. In fact, you should put some distance between yourself and said terrorist.

Barack did not. What is curious is that Barack despite facing criticism about his lack of experience, is closed mouthed when it comes to discussing his stint running a $50 million dollar foundation. What is he hiding?

(This photo of William Ayers is posted on the Rezko Watch blog site, which notes it was first discovered by Patrick Henry, who comments at the No Quarter blog. It came from a 2001 photo shoot promoting the publication of Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days. The photograph appears in the August 2001 Chicago Magazine interview with Ayers by Marcia Froelke Coburn. On the first page of the article entitled "No Regrets", Coburn writes: This-violence, death, and white-hot rhetoric-is his past and Ayers insists he has no regrets. "I acted appropriately in the context of those times," he says.)

But there is far more to Obama's association with people like Ayers and convicted felon Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The latter is a native of Syria, long considered a terrorist state, who moved to Chicago and was a major Obama financial supporter until convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery earlier this year.

For instance, Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which bills itself as a philanthropic organization devoted to improved education and other worthy causes. However, since 2003 the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to groups opposed to legal ownership of firearms.

These include the Violence Policy Center, which reportedly received more than $4-million over a decade ending in 2006, wants a total ban on handgun ownership, not to mention semi-automatics and other firearms, and strongly supports "substantial restrictions" on legal gun ownership.

But there is even more. In July of this year, in a speech in Colorado, Obama called for the establishment of a National Police Force, equivalent in size and strength to the military.

Why on earth would we need an agency that easily would require a half-trillion dollars annually to establish and maintain, especially when we have the FBI, CIA, National Guard, US Marshals, a plethora of intelligence gathering agencies, the US Park Service, and on and on?

Why especially, when calling for this organization would you compare it to the military, unless you wanted a force that would neutralize the military?

You don't have to take my word for it, check out these sites.

From World Net Daily, posted July 16, 2008:Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech. 'Civilian security force' missing from 'call to service' transcript
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784

You can watch a video of his comments on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw

The comments in question are at the 16-minute mark. 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."

We have plenty of police in America, including local, county, state and federal officers. We don't need a national police force either from a Homeland Security or budgetary viewpoint.

Most democratic countries don't have huge national police forces that are the equivalent in manpower and firepower to the military. There are countries that do, however, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin and other murderous dictators, Germany under Hitler, Cuba under Fidel Castro, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea, Vietnam, and lately an effort by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

So, is that the model of government that Obama is mimicking? Does he want to turn the United States into a Police State? If so, why? Who does he intend to control? People who previously owned firearms?

Remember, we have some 25-million veterans in this country who are trained in all forms of warfare from hand-to-hand combat, through small arms right up to nuclear weapons. They are a massive deterrent ... unless they are disarmed.

There hasn't been much about this in the national media, which is no surprise. But it seems very, very odd to me that with just a little bit of research on the Internet I can find compelling evidence that Barack Obama may well have ulterior motives in his run for the presidency.

I noticed that Democratic mouthpieces spent a lot of time on the Sunday morning political talk shows trying to throw water on Sarah Palin's questions about Obama's patriotism and associations.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on the other hand, is it paranoia when they are obviously out to get you? If the leftist talking heads are trying to shut her down, it is all the more reason for Sarah Palin to talk even more.

From his long-term association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is clearly racist and anti-American, to the Syrian born Rezko, to Ayers, to the Joyce Foundation, a pattern has emerged, and it is not one of support for traditional American freedoms.

There are many people on all sides of the political spectrum who say we don't really know as much about Obama as we should. Looking at his position on leftist terrorists, as well as his friendships with them, I'd say that is a gross understatement.

The bottom line was that at the end of 90 minutes of debating, Joe Biden was ranting, angry, emotional, nearly breaking down at one point.

Sarah Palin was still cool, collected, and in charge of her message and her emotions.

Wait, which one is supposed to be subjected to mood swings??

Palin did far better than just meeting Biden, she beat him. She never got off track, she never lost the point of her message and she never lost her composure.

She didn't do a lot of one liners, except pointing out that in the morning there will be films of what Biden said back when, as opposed to what he is saying now.

Biden spoke nearly constantly of the Bush Administration, while Palin spoke of the future and what she and John McCain envision.

She fielded the foreign relations, energy, and domestic policy questions with aplomb.

If handling tough times and the pressure of a national debate is an indication of who should be the vice president, one heartbeat away from the presidency, Sarah Palin proved she is more than up to the task.

At the end of the day Biden was looking hard, emotional and distraught. He wanted to point a finger of blame anywhere he could so long as it didn't come back at him. Biden looked like a man who knew he hadn't done the job.

He didn't look like a vice president.

Republican members of the US House of Representatives held firm and did the people's will on Monday, shutting down Speaker Nancy Pelosi's political manipulations and refusing to pass her Wall Street Bailout Bill.

Pelosi, true to form, gathered her inner circle of lackeys and, upon seeing that the travesty she calls legislation was not going to pass, allowed some of her minions to vote against the bill so they could claim solidarity with the people on the election trail. Connecticut Congressman Joe Courtney was among those who received dispensation from Pelosi. (It would be interesting to know what he had to give up in return.)

Judging from reaction in his home district, Courtney didn't fool anyone, and neither did Pelosi. You can hide in bed with the covers over your head all you want, but the people still know where you are, and that the conditions that led to this crisis were put in place by Congressional Democrats and former president Bill Clinton.

Pelosi and her propaganda ministers went to the MainStream Media and whined that "the Republican leadership" was to blame for not passing the bill because the GOP didn't muster enough Republican votes. But the Big Lie didn't fool anyone on that front either.

This is a classic example of just how out of touch Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Barney Frank, the Democratic National Committee and the ultra-left wing of the Democratic Party - including Barack Obama - are with the American voters. Most Senators - like Connecticut's Chris Dodd who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and was often the recipient of lobbyist donations that led to the financial meltdown - aren't up for re-election so they don't care what the people think.

But communications with members of Congress were running 3 to 1 against the bailout because the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want their tax dollars spent to reward a bunch of incompetents and criminals who see the federal budget as a feeding trough for their porcine appetites.

The Republicans did the people's will, because the people demanded it, not because they were trying to manipulate home district voting trends ahead of the November election.

As of this morning the Senate - apparently Reid saw that propaganda doesn't work in the age of the Internet - was planning on leap-frogging over the House of Representatives and passing its own version of the bill. The House is on recess for Rosh Hashanah, but may revisit the issue as early as tonight or tomorrow.

In another obvious propaganda ploy the news media and politicians have stopped referring to the 700-billion-dollar bailout as a bailout and now call it a "rescue." What was that line going around the last few weeks about lipstick on a pig? Still a pig isn't it?

Rescue my rear end. This is a bailout for for crooks and incompetents.

I sincerely hope that Republicans in Congress hold firm and see that the American people are on their side. We don't want this type of behavior by a few elitist financial manipulators rewarded by a massive influx of taxpayer dollars so "The Rich" as Obama continually refers to his real supporters, can continue their lavish lifestyles unabated.

More importantly, WE THE PEOPLE want to know who was responsible for this fiasco, and if there are applicable disciplinary, civil or criminal penalties we want them.

We want to know more about Chris Dodd's sweetheart mortgage deal. We want to know more about the lobbying money he took, and Barack Obama took.

We want to know more about Barney Frank's romantic relationship with a Fannie Mae executive. Frank, who received some $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie Mae is openly gay and had a relationship with a male Fannie Mae executive at the time he (Frank) was sitting on an oversight committee.

We need to know more about this, and by all means I do NOT mean the details of their relationship. I mean, how that relationship affected decisions made by Frank on Fannie Mae issues, and whether Congressional influence was up for trade.

Most of us don't give a damn about the nature of this relationship by the way. If there were people on the oversight committee's having heterosexual relationships with executives in the GSEs, lobbying firms, you name it, they should be investigated too.

We need a federal investigation and we need it to begin yesterday.

I see the Democrats are trying to restart the dormant investigation into why the Bush Administration replaced a half-dozen or so federal prosecutors a couple of years ago. They pulled the US Attorney from Hartford, CT, to restart this witch hunt, just as she was about to be asked to launch a federal racketeering investigation into illegal immigration "Sanctuary Cities" in Connecticut. (We aren't supposed to see the "coincidence" here.)

Nonetheless, there is still no corresponding call for an investigation into Bill Clinton firing more than 90 US attorneys when he became president, so obviously this is just another diversion. (Not that I need to repeat this, but the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and they can be replaced at will for any reason or no reason at all. This latest "investigation" will go nowhere and is just another diversion.)

But I want to know why, with all the useless, dead-end "investigations" the Democrats have launched since George Bush took office over politically charged but otherwise irrelevant issues, they don't want the financial meltdown on Wall Street investigated.

Probably because it would go directly into their offices!

Nonetheless, in the interests of preserving the union, we should have an impartial, all encompassing investigation, and if it hits Big People in Big Places, then it is time to bring them down to size, including sending them to prison if warranted.

And you can take that to the bank.