Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Is Colorado's Caucus System Obsolete?

As a member of the Douglas County Republican Party, it is my job to support the caucus system, and the candidates that are selected by the process. However, it would seem that the caucus system is not resonating with the voters.

Consider CD-6 - The seat being vacated by Congressman Tom Tancredo (who did not go through the caucus process himself)

The CD-6 selected two candidates: Ted Harvey with ~55% of the vote, and Steve Ward ~45% - State senators both.

However, in the march towards the August 12th Primary, polls are indicating that the two candidates achieving the most success are the two who opted to petition on to the primary ballot instead of participating in the caucus process. Rocky Mountain Right has provided polling information showing the race in CD-6:

Ballot................. (Raw)..... %

Ted Harvey.........(186 ).....11.0%

Steve Ward.........(141)........8.4%

Wil Armstrong.....(548).......32.5%

Mike Coffman......(570)......33.8%


*Note - These numbers were released by the Armstrong campaign-Bruce Donisthorpe of BWD Global managed the survey

Being a member of the party in Douglas County, I often hear two sides to the argument regarding caucus and assembly. In Douglas County we love our elected Republicans - and they all support the caucus system. However, some of these elected officials petitioned on, opting out of the assembly process during their initial run. This alone resonates with the anti-assembly crowd.

The question is, then, does the caucus system give the best candidate? Do the party activists know more about who is best set to serve the people, or has it simply become a "get in line and wait your turn" process?

I was discussing this very issue with a fellow Republican party member a little over a week ago, and he was adamant that the assembly process is doing little more than wasting money of the county party. So is this true?

In a district, such as 6th congressional, where upwards of 40% of the electorate are new to the area within the last 4 years, a caucus system supports more of an "old hat" mentality - that is, those who have been involved for a number of years and are long-term activists in local politics. Petition candidates play to that 40%, introducing them to the change they represent in the area, often informing them that even though they have missed out on the local process, they still have a voice in the primary. It is this fissure that creates the divide in local politics, even though it plays to their strength with the masses.

So, are candidates that are vetted by the old hats better for the people, or do we embrace candidates that rely more on name recognition and general election campaigning - working the people - to represent our district?

With a system that seems to be providing great candidates, but little more boost than "top-billing" in the primary election, one has to wonder if the system is obsolete. Has Colorado outgrown the assembly?

We will surely see in 2 weeks.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Housing Bail-out? Time to Pledge Allegiance to a Different Flag!

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson

The United States of America has hit an iceberg, and she is quickly taking on water. Our government has run this ship to her demise.

With a 9% approval rating, an economy in the tank, a lame duck president at the helm, Freedom and Liberty have been the first casualties of this New Union... and now the very people whom we so carelessly elected into office have begun sealing the coffin of the greatest experiment in the history of man.

The treasury is being plundered to the thunderous applause of the masses. The burden to bail-out the vain and covetous leeches of our society is being placed on our own pocketbooks... We are being given marching orders by a government that won the vote, but represents no more than 1/4 of the population respectively - that marching order is "On to the Gallows!" - for in this day we are seeing the death of the last best hope in the world.

If George Bush and the Republicans in Congress are no more willing to stop the Socialist Dictum in the United States, then perhaps we deserve a President Obama - who makes no attempt to disguise his vision for the socialisation of the United States. In fact, the afore mentioned parties are PUSHING the dictum!

Thomas Jefferson, the man who explained that the Tree of Liberty requires nutrients in the form of blood (from tyrants and patriots), also prognosticated that happiness in our society was directly linked to the separation of the people from government meddling! President Reagan understood this: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

However, today we find ourselves at a crossroads in this great experiment.

Two branches of the US government are in gross violation of the Contract with America - The US Constitution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court will likely be unable (or unwilling) to rule as such before the checks are handed out... checks from a treasury that is already absolutely void of funds.

See the fire on the horizon... smell the smoke... it is not the blaze in California - it is the Federal Reserve printing out monopoly money adorned with the faces of dead presidents.

Somehow in America we have lost the ability to do what is right over what is expedient or easy. We have lost the resolve to push through the hardships of our own misfortunes, in favor of wallowing at the robes of the powerful, begging for mercy. And mercy they shall deliver - for it is the vote of the pitiful that is keeping them in power. Promises of deliverance, handouts, freedom from their poor choices guarantees their vote - quid pro quo.

Little do these blind beggars realize that they steal from the left hand to satisfy the right... they are undoing their own great society, and ensuring the slavery of their children and grandchildren...

Am I being melodramatic - or am I being real? Are these words hard to read? Why - because they are true?

Free healthcare - free education - free housing - free soup?

When the government became an entity feared by the people, the society was lost... now it is an entity separate from the people (less a short voting season which makes no promise of actual change or restoration of liberty). When the government separates itself from the people, and works towards it's own ends - it is in violation of contract and stands to be recalled.

I can no longer pledge allegiance to a flag that represents the rape of my liberty, of my labors, of my life! I now make it my effort to remove any individual from office who supports socialist legislation such as the housing bail-out. I refuse to support a union of socialist republics - empowered by the slothfully covetous and vain masses undulating for that orgasm of government expediency in funding their ill-gotten goods.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the original intent of this nation, and to the individual liberty endowed upon us, for which IT stands, representing a nation free from tyranny, a people banded together against such, under Nature's God, indivisible, ensuring the continued struggle for liberty and true justice under the rule of natural law, for all.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Colorado: Obama or McCain?

The Quinnipiac University polls shows McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, the top choice among 46 percent of likely Colorado voters. Democrat Barack Obama is the top choice among 44 percent of likely voters. A month ago, Obama had an easy 5 point lead over McCain.

This is at the same time when Democratic candidate for Senate in Colorado blew a 10 point lead in the polls to Republican Bob Schaffer, now polling within the margin of error of Udall.

"Not surprisingly, Obama's strength is in the Denver/Boulder precincts where he leads almost two-to-one, while he trails everywhere else in the state. As the presidential race has tilted a bit toward McCain, GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer has moved into a dead heat after trailing Democrat Mark Udall by 10 points a month ago," Brown said. "
The poll shows that Democrats are taking hits because of the price of gasoline... This may or may not be the case (see my previous post on "who is to blame"), but the continuous Democratic talking points stating that high gas prices are good for us because it is demanding alternative means of energy production does not sit well with the voters - however true that statement is. The Democrats are coming out as "out-of-touch" with the reality of the voters, that it is impossible for us to maintain this gas spending even after we have cut back to driving to work only... it hurt at $2.00 a gallon - it kills at $4.00 a gallon... and when some are saying that they wish the prices would continue to increase (droping consumption, and stopping Global Warming). Meanwhile, the price of oil has dropped $20 a barrell since President Bush announced the repeal of the Executive Order banning deep sea offshore drilling. If Congress followed suit, I could foresee oil futures dropping well below $80 a barrel within weeks of such an announcement. Current oil prices are a result of lack of exploration, and the fact that all known sources of oil are going to be depleted within 40-60 years...

But this is not just a Colorado trend. Across the nation, Democrats are taking big hits in these early polls, which they usually do well in up to about November 3rd... Other swing state results in which McCain is closing the gap are:

  • Colorado: McCain is up by a nose 46 - 44 percent, compared to a 49 - 44 percent Obama lead June 26;
  • Michigan: Obama tops McCain 46 - 42 percent, compared to a 48 - 42 percent lead last time;
  • Minnesota: Obama edges ahead 46 - 44 percent, compared to a 54 - 37 percent Obama lead;
  • Wisconsin: Obama leads McCain 50 - 39 percent, compared to 52 - 39 percent.

Democrats were winning on the energy issue as recently as April -- convincing voters that their recipe for alternative fuels, wind and solar energy, was the best solution for America's future, public opinion guru Floyd Ciruli said this morning.

"Then it shifted in April, when gasoline hit $4 a gallon," said Ciruli, who heads Ciruli & Associates of Denver.

Suddenly, the pain at the gas pump was so acute that most voters moved away from the idealistic view of an American energy diet and looked for who to blame for the high prices, he said.

They chose the Democrats, who've opposed drilling off shore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, in the name of environmental sustainability.

Voters in each of the four battleground states support off-shore drilling and drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge — activities that McCain supports but Obama opposes. In Colorado, the margin is 52 percent to 44 percent.

This is great news for Republicans, and shows a trend that favors economics and energy issues beginning to dominate the political spectrum - namely because of the successes in Iraq. If the GOP can put a stamp on the success in Iraq, claim it as their own, put the emphasis back on Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan with a security policy in that region - the Democrats will surely lose. Their success since 2006 has been based on a referendum on Iraq... With Iraq off the table, the GOP stands to bounce back - for the following reasons:

- We have the best policy for plausible energy alternatives, and ending the immediate energy crisis
- We have the best economic recovery plan, one that does NOT include raising taxes (Mr Obama)
- We have the best plan for active conservation of our national parks, as opposed to the radical policy that has lead to the death of large percentages of forests, etc
- We have the best plan for foreign policy - Peace through strength
- We have the best plan for education

Applying small government solutions to these problems is the best way to solve problems.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

2008: The Need for Libertarians in the GOP

The Republican Party has traditionally been a party of smaller government and lower taxes. Unfortunately, the GOP has loosened their ties with the small government ideals over the last few years - it hurt us in 2006 and it threatens to hurt us yet again in 2008.

Truly the 2006 vote was a referendum on Bush's policy towards Iraq - which resulted in the immediate release of Rumsfeld. However, shortfalls in 2008 are not going to be directly related to Iraq... it is going to be a referendum on the perception of Republicanism... perception that may be right.

The GOP Primary field included some great, and some not so great Republicans... offering Social conservatives, Economic Conservatives, Social and Economic moderates, and arguably Social and Economic liberals. When the dust settled, the GOP had picked the nominee - Self proclaimed economically ignorant, and arguably a Social Democrat. John McCain is the fall-out from the fight for the "True Conservative". The result is a GOP candidate who, for the first time, does not represent his base as much as he represents the undecided middle-of-the-road voters. This may not be a bad thing on election day, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the libertarian - the true constitutionalists...

I would consider myself a libertarian within the ranks of the GOP. I firmly support the original intent of the founding documents, and believe that the United States has grossly strayed from her founding. I also believe that the Republican Party has to reconcile with it's libertarian base.

The United States was founded on a basis of personal freedom within the rule of law... but what happens when the law makers get "law-happy", voting in ridiculous laws bent on demanding conformity to social behaviors. What happens when the laws cease to represent personal freedom, and fail to promote individual responsibility?

You have a society heavily influenced by socialist norms. As such, liberty ceases to exist.

This is the very reason that John McCain needs to choose his VP wisely. He needs a "good faith" selection indicating a firm understanding of the core principles of the founding of this nation. Hopefully we see the fruits of his wisdom sooner rather than later.

But what about down ticket? What about activism? What about us at the grass-roots? Can the party survive as a defender of capitalism and liberty if we are losing the libertarians in the party?

The answer is a resounding NO... and we had better understand this before November 4th!

Who do I mean when I say "we", though?

I am talking to the libertarians directly. If we leave the party, if we choose to try and change the game instead of fighting harder for change within the party, then we lose... we all lose.

If you are tired of the leftward moving of the GOP... if you are frustrated with the politicking for party purposes rather than country's purposes, fight harder for a course correction within the GOP. Support GOP candidates with a firm understanding of the core principles... libertarian minded Republicans who understand true liberty.

Splitting the party does nothing more than deliver power to the other extreme - further making the "norm" a socialist-minded politician... if your hope is that the pendulum will swing back the other way, I ask you the question - what happens if the pendulum swings too far left and they grab it, keeping it from swinging?

We are not asking for a sacrifice of principle in favor of politics... rather, a reunion of the party in an attempt to right the ship, and move the country back into the right direction (pun intended).

From within the party, we have the power to select candidates in caucus and primary elections that more accurately represent the small government, low taxes ideology that the Republican Party truly represents. From within, we have the power to select candidates that can win, and can influence the course of our Republic. From within, our voice is more than a cry of "foul" from outside the gates... it is a voice of reason on the playing field.

Mark Udall's Problem - People Noticed Him

Republican candidate for Colorado Senate, Bob Schaffer, is closing the gap on ultra-liberal Mark Udall, says the latest Rasmussen Poll.

Mark Udall had spent time, money, and man-power to jump out to an early lead in the Centennial State Senate Race, airing commercials allowing him to get name recognition...unfortunately for Mark Udall, once people know you, they want to know about you!

Mark Udall had a very poor showing in the televised Schaffer v. Udall debate, held in Republican Strong Douglas County. Regardless of the spin that the Udall campaign attempted to put on the debate, the voters of Colorado who took notice of the debate saw each candidate for who they were and what they truly stood for.

Bob Schaffer revealed to the viewers the reason that we were in Iraq... a pro-invasion bill that excited the conservatives and made the liberals uneasy - then noted that it was penned by the Liberal candidate, Mark Udall. The body language of Mark Udall screamed defeat. And the voters noticed.

As the race continues, Mark Udall is going to be plagued by an electorate that is being made more aware of what the implementation of his type of policies would really mean for America. He is going to have to deal with the media fall-out from the Democratic National Convention, and more importantly he is going to have to explain to the Colorado Voters how a Colorado Democrat differs from a San Francisco Democrat, hoping that they buy that load and ignore the fact that in D.C. they are both working towards the same ends. Now that the campaigns are in full swing, Mark Udall is quickly realizing that he is going to have an uphill battle in pulling the wool over the eyes of the voters in Colorado.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Did Hillary Just Endorse McCain?

It appears that Hillary Clinton's campaign firm has just purchased the domain name - a site possibly reserved for a 2012 Presidential bid. (Though it may be a parked site for her 2012 NY Senate re-election bid... merely coincidental)

If Hillary is planning for a 2012 bid, is it an attempt to outmaneuver Obama with an "I told you so" to Democrats who will lose the presidency to John McCain... Could she be pulling for an Obama defeat so she can roar back into the primaries in 2012?

I suppose we will have to wait and see... this may be a first... A presidential bid 4+ years in the making.

Keep your eyes on the site:


A Free Sioux Nation?

Many of you know that I have been following the developments unfolding in the Republic of Lakota, and that I have been very sympathetic to their struggle. If you have followed the postings since December 2007, you would have noticed that first the US government rejected the legitimization of the withdrawal of the treaties, then they secretly began paperwork for return some of their land "the badlands", and now there is a referendum to the Oglala.

Russel Means is running a freedom ticket. Should he win, and become a legitimate representative of the Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux, the US government would have to take his withdrawal from the Treaties between the Sioux and the US Government seriously.

Though he is targeting the liberal and libertarian voters within the tribe, he makes great points to the conservative mind. I may contact him and suggest that he expand his target to include the conservatives as well.

There is a 20 minute video on his website in which he outlines the violations of the treaties with the Sioux... but he does more than that. He outlines cause for concern, and the cause of the Lakotah people being the poorest with the lowest life expectancy in the western hemisphere (lower than Haiti, he indicates). He notes that on the Indian Reservation, it is against the law for private property ownership, because the land is held in a public Indian trust by the US government - a socialist dictum forced upon the people by the US government. With no private property, there is no will to protect and enhance that property... economics 101. There are no banks on the reservations, no industry, no jobs... He claims that the regulations by the US government over the land and the people (they are ruled, as long as they remain on the reservation - our policy is intended to discourage Indian-ship) are to blame for discouraging innovation in Lakotah way of life... There is no motivation or innovation for fixing the education system, providing energy, and upholding the rule of law. His platform is that of independence against the archaic laws and regulations regarding Indians in America, and as such he is promising a vote for him is a referendum to the US government that the Sioux are supportive of his struggle to make them free.

It will be interesting to watch his campaign.

One thing to note is that during the wrangling of all the Indians onto reservations, regardless of the treaties signed with the US government at the time, all other tribes accepted payment for their stolen land and accepted the reservations as their homes - EXCEPT the Sioux. The Lakotah Sioux have refused to accept money for their stolen land, even though the Supreme Court ordered a payment to sit in trust for when they do accept it. This act of defiance brings further attention to the fact that the transfer of legally owned land (per the Fort Laramie Treaty) from the Sioux to the US was not legal. The land was taken at gun-point, by force, often resulting in acts of murder of unarmed Sioux women, Children, and Elderly (see Wounded Knee).

I have heard that the stance of conservatives is that Indian-ship is a racist mentality... and that Indians should embrace the free market capitalist society that America has become. Though I agree that the Indians should join the world market, it is the US government holding reservations in Trust that keeps them from doing so... But if the government cancelled their handling of the tribes, it would have to indicate that the US government is finally granting them freedom, and the option to join the Union peacefully and legally...

If they do not... if they decide to form their own government, free from over regulation of the US government - is that not their right? Don't our treaties recognize them as sovereign entities? If not, if we never thought of them as sovereign, why ever sign a treaty with them?

Food for thought... but November in South Dakota is going to be interesting.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Oil - Who's to Blame? Who's to Fix?

The topic being discussed (or is it disgust?) all around the world is the price of oil. $40 a barrel just a few short years ago, the price of oil was fastly approaching $150 a barrel - until an unexpected drop this week (Nearly 10% fall-off in 3 days).

I hear daily reports of democrats calling for alternative energy as the only means to end this crisis. I hear daily reports of republicans calling for increased drilling as the only means to end this crisis. This has turned into the ultimate political battle, each side blaming the other, but neither side fully stating to the American people what the cause is and the true implications it has on our society.

Let's begin by answering the question: Who's to blame?

Anyone in the know understands that crude oil is sold as futures on the Merchant Exchange, NYMEX. NYMEX is similar to the stock market, only instead of stocks, you are able to buy items at a price you expect to see at some future time. For instance, you can buy/sell a barrel of oil in August 2008, or August 2013. Depending on world events, the price of your future will fluctuate based on a market response to how that item will sell in the future. So who is to blame? The merchants, naturally. In a free market we have only ourselves to blame. It is we, the people who choose to buy and sell oil and gas (even at the pumps), who drive the market prices. Are we alone? Of course not. There is analysis of oil supply versus oil demand that drives the input into the sell of the futures...

What else drives the futures of sweet crude up? Congressional recognition of fables, such as human caused Global Warming - alarmists... This adds uncertainty into the future of the supply, and regulation of the use of the product. When carbon taxes are proposed, carbon based products (and carbon emitting products) are expected to increase in price, showing an offset. This forecast of gloom and doom drives the price up.

What drives the price down? The promise to ease restriction on the oil companies to explore oil reserves freely in the waters off the US. The oil may take some time to hit the market, but it is the prospect of increased supply that will add speculators to drive oil futures down, thus driving fuel costs down.

But will drilling for oil ease the cost in America? Possibly, but not by much. This is because of the higher oil demand around the world. American oil will be sold freely on a world market, so as demand increases in other regions, the increased supply will not add to a surplus, and futures will remain high. Who profits from this? The oil companies, of course. Is this a bad thing? No... it is the free market at work.

Inasmuch, there are two additional options in addition to increasing supply to meet the immediate demands. The first is nationalizing the oil fields in US territory. Pass a bill in congress and ram it down the throat of the president stating that all oil drilled in the US must be released to US markets only, and sold only as fuel for the United States. Am I advocating for this? Absolutely NOT. But this is the mentality of the American People who believe that Congress can fix the problem, or that the Presidential Candidates have some solution that will control the oil markets. The oil market is a private enterprise. Love it or not, you are not entitled to cheap gas... it is the will of the people that drives the market. Which brings me to my second option - lifestyle changes. The oil industry is not responsible for funding alternative energy, nor are they obligated. They are in the market for oil... not in the market for creating a technology that will put them out of business - where is the sense in that? Lifestyle changes will drive a need for alternative means of energy. An increase in consumer demand for Fuel Cells, Solar Panels on the Rooftops, heck- even rocket packs, will drive the market to innovation and creation in these areas of research. We need to be pro-active about what we want to see on the market. If we don't see something that will drastically change our lives, we should invent it. Turn off American Idol, and turn on the tool box... put together a prototype Electric Hummer, or solar powered scooter... then market it as a means of alternative transportation or energy... Be the change that you want to see!

We are to blame for the mess we are in. Not Congress. Not the oil industry.

We are the solution. Not regulation of the industry by the government - Socialism is never the correct answer. Free markets drive innovation... and this is a problem that we can only innovate our way out of. We need to... I hear we are running out of oil anyway... (let's see how the futures like hearing THAT!)

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Mourning Israel

Though my heart goes out to the families of Regev and Goldwasser, I am truly in mourning for the state of Israel.

The policies in place for the Jewish country have led to a tactic of kidnapping in order to force lopsided prisoner exchanges, such as the one we have just been witness to. However, as we have seen during the Pomp and Circumstance for the returned Lebanese murderers, such policies are merely propaganda for the emboldened enemy.

Israel is a country that desires peace. It is a country that has been under siege since the British pulled out, leaving the fledgling country in charge of it's own fate. And her people... her people are resolved to live in a country of their ancestors, under rule of law, in peace with their neighbors.

The hate filled policies of muslims within and from beyond the borders of Israel make peace a distant dream. Where Israeli citizenship, voting rights, and even equal opportunity for success has been granted to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, they have been met with hatred, terror and murder. Call it racism, call it religionism, call it what you will... The muslims in the middle east have no moral ground for their struggle. They have been invited to live in a society offering opportunity for all under a largely secular government. Instead they choose violence.

What is worse is that Israel has seemingly lost her resolve, as a country, and the enemy smells blood. The muslims celebrate the continued murder of innocent Israelis, dancing on the graves of their fellow man. It may be that the battle for resolve is being lost, though I hope and pray otherwise.

In the mean time, I mourn the loss of the Israeli soldiers, the loss of Israeli resolve, and the loss of progress in the middle east.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Letter From, and Response to Disgruntled Republican

I received a series of e-mails yesterday from a group of three angry Republicans, charging that the GOP is openly endorsing a theocracy in the United States by supporting issues that are championed by the "religious right" (however you would define that demographic). I decided that I wanted to share the complaint and response here in an attempt to spark some dialogue.
Letter reads:

Dear Colorado and Douglas County Republican Party leaders:

The Republican Party must promote the strict separation of church and
state. I used to support the Republican Party because I am a firm
believer in individual rights, free markets, a strong national
defense, and the right to keep and bear arms.

However, the Republican Party alliance with the religious right on
"social issues" such as stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage
has turned off many former supporters such as myself.

Americans have a right to practice their religion as a purely private
matter, and I defend everyone's right to do so. But religion should
not be used to make public policy. The proper function of government
is to protect individual rights, not force one group's religious views
on everyone else.

I am glad that state Chairman Dick Wadhams refused to let Colorado
Right to Life set up a table at the state convention, as reported in
the June 18, 2008 Denver Post.

"Abortion foes blast Colo. GOP leader"

This is a small step in the right direction. But the Party must go
much, much farther and promote the strict separation of church and
state as Thomas Jefferson correctly envisioned. As long as the
Republican Party is in bed with the religious right, then I can not
support it. Hence, at present I no longer have a home in any political
party. To paraphrase a quote from President Ronald Reagan, "I didn't
leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."

I know many voters who feel the same way. Given that Colorado is a
"purple" swing state, this is not a good sign for the Republican

(This should not be taken as any kind of endorsement of Barack Obama -
I find his policies loathsome and anti-American.)

Thank you for your consideration,
P.S.: Please also forward this to Mr. Dick Wadhams and Ms. Perry Buck.

My Response:

Dear Dr. XXXXX -

Please let me begin by thanking you very much for your correspondence. Your act
of writing is a step toward progress in our political system. Let me assure you
that I hear your complaint loud and clear, and though I agree with your
underlying complaint, I disagree with the premise of your argument. Please
allow me to elaborate.

You seem to suggest that the opposition to stem-cell research and abortion
places the GOP “in bed” with the religious right. Why this may appear to be the
truth, there is an underlying connection that you are failing to acknowledge.
The Republican Party upholds the founding principles of Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness, as the founding fathers specifically cited as rights
Endowed by the Creator (Nature’s God, to be exact). These are rights not given,
but endowed – bestowed upon every human to protect. The idea of the endowment
of Life is not new and not owned exclusively by the religious right. In the
spirit of following the intent of the founders, and embracing their
understanding of basic human rights, the Republican Party must uphold the Right
of Life.

Inasmuch, the question is begged: When does life begin? Therein lies the

In accordance with the 14th amendment, the rights of the founding documents are
applicable to those “born” in the United States. That word would seem to
indicate that a fetus of any gestational age is therefore without rights. This
is the basis of the Roe decision in the Supreme Court. However, as a doctor,
you should well understand that a fetus is very much alive and responsive to
their environment from a fairly early gestational age, regardless of their
ability to survive independent of their mother at the time. With the complexity
of life in gestation, it serves humanity to better define Life – not limiting
life to begin merely at birth. Therefore we are in support of the Right of
Life, as we consider life to exist during gestation.

Barack Obama has shown in his political career that he shows almost no
compassion for life in the womb, supporting late term abortion and referring to
children as a punishment. Having lost our first pregnancy, my wife and I are
happy to have recently delivered our first child – rest assured we do not feel
punished. My brother and his wife also recently gave birth to their first
child, who has been diagnosed with Propionic Acidemia – and rest assured, they
do not value his life any less, nor feel punished. I would assume that Mr.
Obama would consider such a child a burden on society and the parents – most
likely he would suggest such a fetus be discarded. But is it not the challenge
of life that should cause us to persevere… perhaps this young child holds the
key to medical research that could aid in curing this and other genetic defects.
Where Obama sees punishment and burden, I choose to see opportunity. This is a
fundamental difference between me and the Senator – and I would imagine that
this is a similar difference between the Senator and a majority of Republicans
who continue to fight, not because it is easy, rather because it is right.

The Republican Party does not openly nor privately advocate for any one
religion, but we are advocates against the absence of faith from the lives of
Americans. We are not a Christian organization, merely an organization that
supports and endorses the existence of faith as a basis of morality – not in
government, but in the lives and hearts of the individual, at their own request
and choosing. I personally could never be part of an organization that openly
endorsed a state religion (such as the Constitution Party which openly supports
naming Christianity as the official religion of the US). Furthermore, you will
notice that the ranks of the GOP are filled with many people of faith, from many
different religions. We support them all.

I do, however, tend to agree with you regarding the stance of the party
regarding marriage. In fact, I would suggest that marriages not be recognized
by the state whatsoever, other than for recording purposes (i.e. no tax
incentive for marriage or children). Marriage is a religious right, and the
early recognition by the states violated the intent of religious separation from
government. This directly resulted in the decreased view of marriage as a
sacred bond, and more of a contractual agreement between two people. But again,
this is a view that is widely debated – and we in the Republican Party openly
promote the debate.

It is a shame to lose grassroots activists, such as yourself, who are willing to
engage in meaningful and rational dialogue. I would like to remind you that the
members of the party have beliefs that vary in range and subject, and we turn no
member away. All that we ask is that you advocate for smaller government, lower
taxes, and hold a firm belief in the core principles. If you do, then there is
a home for you in the Republican Party.

I also should remind you that the expedient thing to do is to leave the party.
You will feel like you have accomplished something by protesting. However, you
have then given up your right to vote within the party, effectively surrendering
your right to advocate for change within the party. Though it is the more
difficult of the two paths, I propose that you re-join the party, and be a voice
for change from within the ranks. Doing so will allow you to help elect
representatives within the party as well as candidates for the ballot that give
you a voice.

Again, I thank you for your correspondence, and applaud your willingness to
share your discontent with the party as you perceive it. Rest assured, we are
listening, and are always willing to discuss the issues.

I hope that you appreciate the clarification of the issues you announced, and
that you strongly reconsider your actions regarding leaving the party.

Thank you very much.


Steven M Nielson
Secretary, Douglas County Republican Party


What else is there to say to disgruntled Republicans who echo the Democratic Party talking points? I suppose this is bound to happen from time to time, which is why it is ever more important that the activists within the party step up their campaign to counter the everyday attacks of the left, and stop this campaign of misinformation aimed at weakening our political movement.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Is NASA wrong on the Moon/Mars Launch Vehicle?

NASA Director, Mike Griffin, is the father of the next moon vehicle. A design concept aimed at piecing apart the US Space Shuttle components into a series of launch vehicles aimed at returning the US to space after the retirement of the shuttle, and eventually back to the moon.

However, Griffin’s focus on the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles may be the wrong path for the future of US space travel.

The Ares V, when complete, will dwarf the Saturn V in sheer size, yet will not allow for a single launch to aim for the moon. The Ares I will need to launch the crew in the Orion Capsule, which will dock with the Ares V upper stage (complete with lander), and the two will aim toward the moon. A complex ballet in space, made further more complicated by the Ares I development issues – most notably an acoustic envelope that exists in the early part of flight, causing vibrations that would kill the astronauts – a problem that NASA admits is part of dealing with new launch systems. The solution, says NASA, is reverse thrusters firing during launch… kind of the anti-booster. Leave it to the government to proceed with building a new launch vehicle that cannot launch without retro rockets used during launch – like building a new plane that cannot fly without anchors on it’s wings.

Since it’s inception, NASA has spent over $7 Billion on developing this new technology.

But is NASA wrong in scrapping the entire shuttle program? The shuttle itself is flawed, but the launch technology is proven, and perfected since the Columbia disaster. In fact, the changes made to the External Tank have improved flight safety and performance – for a program that has roughly ten flights left – sounds like a government fumble to me.

Enter the Jupiter DIRECT 2.0. When the Constellation Program was being conceived, there were a number of proposals to replace the shuttle. All incorporated shuttle technology, but none more so than the Jupiter Direct. The initial design proposal was questionable, and was cast to the side… however, a rogue group of NASA engineers (some of whom, no doubt, are working on Ares and see the unsolvable problems) may have fixed the issues with the DIRECT launcher.

The design uses the shuttle launch structure, minus the shuttle, placing a small engine pod attached below the tank and placing the payload above the tank. There is no vibration issue, no new configuration issue, and no expensive and time consuming development cost – it is the launch vehicle already in use.

However, NASA officials refuse to take a second look at the cost/schedule saving plan. They simply discredit the idea by citing the shortcomings of the DIRECT 1.0, claiming that there is no possible way that this design could be superior to the design which was chosen… sort of staying the course.

As an Aerospace Engineer (and employee of the Orion Program), I have had my doubts with the Ares-I launch vehicle from the beginning, and these problems/solutions are reason enough to build doubt in the success of this vehicle. We will find ourselves with an inefficient launch vehicle with questionable safety, and a price tag nearing $50 Billion and 5 years of development. It was my opinion from the start that the Ares be scrapped in favor of an Atlas V or Delta V launcher, slightly modified for human rating. NASA would not bite, as some components (notably engine parts) are Russian in origin and they demand an all-American design. The Jupiter DIRECT 2.0 solves this problem and has minimal development cost.

Perhaps we, the grassroots activists of the net, take some action on an issue that is less a “limelight” issue, and more a Taxpayer Friendly obligation – write your Congressmen, write NASA, and write the candidates – ask them if NASA is on the right track with Ares. Ask them if it is prudent that we are scrapping the Shuttle launch system in favor of an unproven and unsafe launch system. Ask them if they should consider an alternative that keeps the current manufacturing jobs and processes in place, keeps our launch infrastructure in place, and requires less time and money for development overall. Ask them about Jupiter DIRECT 2.0.

Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)

Tasteless Tirade or Free Speech?

When did the United States become a country full of citizens void of rational independent thought?

When did we cease to have the ability to comprehend the deeper meaning of free expression, art, poetry, or literature?

The answer is clear: Rational thought went out the window when Political Correctness became king!

Political Correctness is a dangerous tool used by the "ruling" class to attack crimes of the mind - thoughtcrimes, if you will. Just like this Orwellian paradox, Political Correctness is used to attack the idea that free expression can be used to invoke independent reasonable conclusions.

Take, for example, the Danish cartoonist depicting Muhammad as wearing a bomb turban. The intent behind the cartoon is to invoke a cognitive debate by making the emotional argument so extreme - however, the mind of the masses have been made to think like children [1], unable to reason beyond the initial emotional instinct, thus unable (or unwilling for fear of committing thoughtcrime) to progress beyond the baser ability of the mind and participate in rational thought. [1. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways - 1 Corinth 13:11]

So when the New Yorker magazine publishes it's Barack Obama cover, are we to react in such ways that the Obama Campaign has reacted, attacking the overtly ridiculous emotional intention of the art as "tasteless and offensive", or should we consider the intent behind the cartoon - rational thought about the politics of fear? Again, I ask, when did we lose our ability of rational thought, of cognitive ability?

Have we become so controlled that we are as children - even those seeking the highest office in these United States?

In fact, the cover of the New Yorker is a beautiful representation of free speech being used to challenge political correctness and subsequent childish thinking, such as fear mongering.

Obama is not a terrorist, not a Muslim, and not going to invite Osama over for tea and crumpets.
What he will do, however, is establish policy in the United States putting emphasis on the new form of government slowly taking over in this country - Socialist Democracy. The evolution of the United States is one that began as a Republic, became a Democracy, and is inching dangerously close towards Socialism. Electing leaders such as Obama will ensure a march away from freedom, and ensure the end of this great experiment of freedom and liberty. (Tools are already in place to silence the opposition against the Socialist Savior)

*Republic, if you can keep it - Benjamin Franklin
*Republic vs. Democracy

Are we a nation now of child-minded mobs, such that makes a democracy in decline? Are we a people who believe in collective ownership of property, in any capacity - such that makes a socialist society?

Or are we a nation that supports the liberty of free expression, personal responsibility, and personal ownership - such that makes a true republic?

For a republic to survive, her people must be intelligent enough to recognize hysteria associated with ideals such as Political Correctness and Though Crimes.

Join with me in applauding the fight for intelligent thought that the New Yorker is attempting to maintain.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Maneuvering Iraq out of the 2008 POTUS Race?

I have noticed a trend in headlines regarding Iraq - The Conflict is Nearing End.

It may be so much so that by the end of the summer, should we continue down the path we are on (no major offenses by militants), the final plan for US presence in the country could be set.

I recently posted regarding a story that the Iraqi government is asking for a planned end to combat forces in their country based on the end of the UN Mandate requesting the US forces for security reasons. While this is taking place, Iraq and the US are working out a long term plan allowing some sort of bases and freedom to engage Terror Organizations within the country. This plan is due to be completed by the end of July... Two weeks from today.

Once this plan is established, all the debates regarding timetables, etc. are moot. Could it be that George Bush is effectively taking the wind out of the sails of the Liberal Warships by eliminating this topic as a major need to be filled by the next President? Possibly.

Barack Obama is attempting to claim success (and a win) in the Iraqi request for a planned troop withdrawal after the UN mandate expires. However, it has been the policy of the Republican President, GWB, to finish this conflict and secure the region.

Bush's policy has caused much consternation in the liberal ranks... however, the same policy has freed the country to democracy, free market, foreign investment, and security in the face of radical threats. Let's take a look at some advancements in Iraq that are being hushed by the left, but on day one of an Obama Presidency, victory will be claimed along these same lines (effectively taking credit for Bush's successful policy in Iraq):

*Iraq's economy: Foreign investment is on the rise, coming from Europe and Asia - the stability in Iraq is leading private investment firms to begin flocking to the country, bolstering the fledgling democracy.

*Iraq's economy: The UN is encouraging neighbors and world partners to forgive the Hussein debt of Iraq, allowing the country to start fresh on the world stage... The United Arab Emirates (UAE) took the lead and forgave $7 Billion (roughly 1/5 of Iraq's entire debt). The UAE has taken the additional step in reconnecting ties politically to the country, giving legitimacy to the government in the region.

*Iraq's Security: 15 of the 18 benchmarks set forth by the US Congress in relations to Iraq's security have been met. "The embassy judged that the only remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government's failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi Police." The current plan for Iraqi oil is privatization - though Iraqi oil unions are fighting against that end.

I firmly believe that the mission in Iraq is complete... We have eliminated the country's ability to make war with their neighbors and with the US, we have built and backed a democratic government representative of the people of Iraq, and we have trained and prepared the Iraqi people for security of their own country. The rest is up to them.

Now that we are in the phase of long term planning for troop deployment, the successes will have to be weighed and announced - and the results must indicate that combat is over, and the troops should be brought home (Less the necessary non-combat troops required to populate bases to ensure lasting security in the country - similar to Germany's bases post WWII). Continued combat missions should be halted, and the Iraqi police should conduct such missions. The US presence should be limited to strengthening the Iraqi military by way of continued training.

We will ultimately have to see the outcome of these security discussions (Status of Forces Agreement has been abandoned and replaced with this "bridge agreement"). But in the meantime, the successes in Iraq are evident. The need for US troops elsewhere are evident. The draw-down of US troops in September is evidence that Bush is planning to end this war, effectively removing it from the issues needing to be handled by the next President.

Will it be enough to remove it from the minds of the voters?

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Death Penalty for BLOGGING?

If the rational world needed another reason to look down their noses at the soon to be ill-fated Iranian government, the Iranian Parliament has just passed a new law stating that "online crimes" - such as blogging about the promotion of corruption, prostitution, and rejecting Islam - are now punishable by death.

Forget that the Iranian Parliament is guilty of funding the corruption of a generation, by airing children's shows that promote suicide bombing as a means to an (un)holy end for the sake of defending their Islamic Republic. Forget that they are responsible for terror training funding throughout the world. And forget that they are the epitome of corruption of civilized society... But let one blogger attempt to speak out against that corruption, and the state will have their heads (literally).

This is a direct affront to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights' 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The restriction of the individual to express themselves through religion or speech restricts the fundamental laws of nature regarding freedom.

I applaud the Iranian Parliament's decision. If the job of the US was ever to get simpler (that is to push for a revolution against Tyrannical Control over their citizens), they are helping by hammering the point home - Iranians are not free. Iranians do not live in a free society. Iranians should live in fear of their government, who now have the power to take your life at their discretion.

Now, feel free to enjoy some uplifting blogging - the entries of a madman:

Logic - Gen. Wesley Clark

h/t to Political Realm

Monday, July 7, 2008

Success in Iraq - Mission Accomplished?

How does one go about measuring success in Iraq? The benchmarks set forth for the fledgling Iraqi government are nearly met (15 of 18 successfully met), violence and casualties are at a nearly all time low, and the government is able to act independently from the US forces.

In fact, countries that had been opposed to the war have begun bidding for free market contracts in helping rebuild the economy of the country - China, France. The economy is being stimulated by debt relief and re-establishment of foreign relations with it's neighbors - the UAE just forgave $7 Billion in debt accrued under Saddam.

Today, the Iraqi government made it clear that they intend the US to hand over control and security of the country shortly after the UN mandate for security of the country expires at the end of 2008. The government has made it clear that they are ready to assist the US with a phased withdrawal, proposing a timetable that would be conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. Iraqi police are battle hardened, after being dug in with their American counterparts; the tiny air force may be ready to take control of the airspace of Iraq, defending it from foreign invaders (Iran); and the people of Iraq have taken personal roles in ensuring safety and security in their own communities, often aiding in the routing of local thugs.

Could this mean that regardless of the Presidential race, the US will begin a withdrawal supported by the Iraqi government in early 2009? And is this the elusive "Mission Accomplished" that Bush has been looking for in Iraq?

I would say that this success, and the ability of Iraq to secure itself, is a victory for the United States. This is a war that is ready to be ended, but not for political reasons... because the country is ready for the war to be over.

The US should maintain a presence in the region for stability, as in Germany and Japan post WWII (and Korea, post TKW)... of course, at the request (or agreement) of the US backed Iraqi government.

If this is a successful end to the war, perhaps that is why Obama has flip-flopped on the issue and is now "considering the input from the generals on the ground"... I guess it feels good to be on a winning team after all!

Denver's Pepsi Center Not Large Enough for Obama's Head?

Barack Obama will not accept the Democratic nomination at Pepsi Center in front of the 20,000 volunteers and delegates... instead he has chosen a larger venue to offer himself to the people - INVESCO at Mile High.

This move will be cause for change to city planning, state planning, and protester planning that has been in the works for some time.

But what it does is try to portray Obama as "the peoples candidate"... as in the "People's Republic of Obama"?

The acceptance speech is already going to be broadcast worldwide... what is Obama trying to show by snubbing the convention process in favor of a giant venue? His campaign's explanation is that he wants to make himself available to young folks who are new to the process...

While I would usually agree that this is a great idea, the 11th hour change to accommodate Obama's wishes is a sign of his arrogance and pompousness as he is dubbing himself Mr Inevitable... Alas, good sir... The American people are now watching you... and this intimate affair you have been having with the MSM is going to be coming to an end... The people of America will start to see your record, your habits, your confidants, and your true colors.

Hugh Hewitt, whom many of my long time readers know that I agree with rarely on Presidential Politics, has posted some great talking points regarding the True Obama. I will share some of them here, and we can begin to discuss why Obama cannot win in November.

1. He had a stumbling, bumbling close to his primary campaign, and the opening weeks of his general campaign have been marked by flip flops and lurches left. - Hillary Clinton made some of her biggest gains against Obama in the last few contests. Obama proved that he is not ready to handle a general election match-up.

2. He's hard left. - I have said it many times over, Barack Obama will implement change in America that will ensure that the United States of America becomes the United Socialist States of America.

3. He wants the marginal rate on total federal taxes, including his social security tax hike, to immediately rise at least 57% on the highest earners. Obama wants to raise taxes even in a weak economy, though this is a recipe not just for recession but worse. Obama also wants to raise taxes on dividend income and to return the death tax to its highs of eight years ago. - The top 1% of wage earners in the US already pay 50% of the total tax revenue, while the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3% of the total revenue. The top 1% are the job creators. They are the innovative and motivated. They bear the highest burden of our society already, a burden that if it becomes too hard to bear may take them out of the game. Imagine if you earned $99 and paid $10 in taxes because you were in a lower tax bracket... That is where the middle class finds itself. Now imagine that you work overtime on the weekends to try and put your children through college, and you earn $101, putting you into a higher tax bracket... Now you pay $45 because you worked harder and earned more. It would have been more beneficial to NOT WORK and take the $89 instead of bustin' your hump to end up with $56.

4. Obama has proposed more than a trillion dollars in new spending - That is not total budget, like GW Bush's $3.1 Trillion budget he just sent to congress... it is additional spending. With no spending cuts for failed programs, no stop to earmarks, that brings the US federal budget to an unprecedented $6.1 Trillion.

5. He thinks the most liberal member of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a great model for future Supreme Court appointments - Please see my post about the Heller v DC Supreme Court Case to see how this one would turn out.

6. Obama is not a strong friend of Israel. He spent 20 years in a church that was openly hostile to Israel, and he reversed himself on Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel after one day of criticism by Palestinians - I have posted my feelings many times regarding Israel, and their right to exist as a free country. Obama's embrace of the Muslim Countries to the extent that they regard Israel as a nuisance is the most troubling, especially to Jews who fight for life and religious freedom every day in that tiny country.

7. He supports abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion - The founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we were Endowed by Nature's God with certain inalienable rights, the most important was Life (as it was listed first). The Right To Life is the single most fundamental right that every being, every soul, has. It is more than just a "burden" that parents have to endure, being "punished with a baby" (Obama - "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby")... it is a responsibility for the action of sexual intercourse, and a result that, if unwanted, should not punish the child with death! Obama is absolutely wrong and extremely left-ward on his approach to abortion in the US.

The list continues, and I will continue to work so that all 75,000 seats in that stadium are empty, or at least filled with those who know Obama's looming damage to the country and the world.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Iran - US: Battle in Hormuz

As the war of words heats up surrounding Iran's defiant nuclear program, both countries are beginning to unveil what a war between the two countries would look like.

Israel will clearly make the first blow, striking the nuclear sites of Iran in hopes that they can curb their nuclear weapons development. This is going to happen sooner rather than later, and is going to be a massive country wide attack, necessary to destroy all of the nuclear development. As well, Iran's nuclear sites have been built in reinforced bunkers to avoid an Iraq-style destruction (the Israeli's destroyed Iraq's above ground nuclear sites in the early 80's), so these bombs would have to be of some substance.

Iran has declared that if they are attacked by Israel, they will retaliate by destruction of Israel. One would assume that they would push the button and activate their army of suicide bombers to cause civil unrest in the Hebrew nation. Israel's response would be nothing short of total destruction of the Palestinian territories as a reminder that they exist at the pleasure of Israel.

Meanwhile, Iran has declared that any attack on their facilities would cause a closure of the Strait of Hormuz - a 21 mile waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and all her oil resources to the Indian Ocean. The Strait lies pinched between Iran and Oman. Iran closing the shipping lanes in the Strait would prohibit the shipment of 40% of the world's oil supply - a move that is not going to be taken lightly by the world community.

As well, Iran (who is counting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as their main
defense against attack), has been studying US military ship operations in the waterways in an attempt to face the foe off their own shores. Iran has developed a "stealthy" sea plane (see picture) that is intended to deliver torpedoes and other anti-ship weapons. (The plane is not stealthy, as the top-mounted rotor would light up any radar detector)

The Untied States reminds Iran that the Naval 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, just on the Persian Gulf side of the Strait, and that any attempt to engage the Navy militarily would be met with "Captains who are ready to defend their ships".

Let's analyze this situation for a minute. The most dangerous foe is one who has nothing to lose. George W Bush is out of office in less than 6 months, with no concerns of re-election. After the November election, regardless of the outcome, Bush has absolutely nothing to lose. November 5th is a day that Iran should circle on their calendars. With the elections behind him, George Bush has a blank check of power that he could use to unleash hell on Iran, especially if Obama becomes president... a legacy ended with an exclamation point!

Should Israel attack prior to US election day, there would be some politicking, but the Iranian Navy would see instant and utter destruction at the hands of the US forces before one missile was fired from their Naval Missile Boats. The Iranians are outgunned, outclassed, and outnumbered in their own waters. Any threat to the US vessels would be seen as an act of war and would be cause for annihilation. The Iranian Navy would last less than 24 hours as we hit them with everything we have got.

On the ground, a campaign of bombing training camps for military and terrorists, as well as military and nuclear bases, would ensue. The US would not need to put boots on the ground. Our goal would merely be to take away Iran's ability to make war. Their infrastructure would not be able to stop the cruise missiles, and other bombs.

The Iranian Air Force would be eliminated while their planes were still on the ground. Bases would be struck overnight. Any plane that did manage to scramble would have no friendly territory to land... and without an enemy actually in the air to dogfight, they would be forced to land at their own peril.

The POTUS has the ability to take military action without the approval of congress for a period not to exceed 90 days. This would make an attack on Iran legal and legit by American Law.

The Iranians talk as if they have a big stick... but what a whiffle bat has in size, it lacks substance. The Iranians are being permitted to exist at the pleasure of the United States... If we decide that they have crossed the line, and actually pose any sort of a threat, there would be hell to pay.

disclaimer: "Iranians" refers to the government of Iran, the military infrastructure, and the other than friendly citizens of that country... all others are exempt.

Heller Revisited - Under the Obama Court

The year is 2011.

Heller v. DC has long since been decided... Now the Supreme Court is witness to Michelle Obama v. United States - an historic case in which the First Lady of the United States has brought a federal suit against the US "on behalf of the people" to protect us from gun crimes plaguing inner cities and "polluting our society".

The case has been brought before the new faces of the Court.

John Paul Stevens retired after 35 years on the court, replaced by Associate Justice William Jefferson Clinton.

Anthony Kennedy retired after 22 years, leaving the swing vote seat open to replacement by a Ginsburg-esque radical left justice.

Antonin Scalia retired after 25 years, opening the door for the newest face of the court... another Obama appointed Ginsburg-esque justice.

The court is now comprised of 3 Conservative/Orignalist justices and 6 Liberal Marxist justices. The court's structure is the perfect setting for long lasting legacy of the Obama Presidency.

The opinion of the court falls along these lines, 6-3 in favor of Michelle Obama, stating that the intent of the founders was to provide security for the Citizens of the United States, "A security that is provided by the offices of the government and the military established to defend and protect the United States." The opinion further states that "the private ownership of firearms is a direct threat to the stability and security of the United States and the powers inherent to the offices and military of the government." The Liberal controlled Congress and Senate pass sweeping legislation calling for the upholding of the Court's decision, mandating an immediate mass-collection and destruction of all private firearms. The legislation passes into federal law after President Barack H. Obama signs the bill, with his proud wife standing immediately to his left.

On the streets of America, private citizens are instantly labelled as criminals. Scenes of violence erupt across the nation as police efforts to confiscate weapons are met with resistance. States are forced to mobilize the national guard to aid in the efforts of disarming the populace.

As the resistance in America is crushed, the federal government, under Obama, announces a success in unifying the people of America in a crime free society.

Of course, this is a fictional scene, but one that is eerily possible under a Socialist minded Marxist like Barack Obama. Barack Obama will be a political power for the state, over the individual... which is touted on his website:

This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virtually no chance they will be elected on a National level.
Hat tip to The Rocky Mountain Right for the link to the Obama Page and the quote from the page.

Never before has a Leftist been so close to victory in American Executive Politics... There have been many Democrats or Center-Left leaders, like Bill Clinton, but Obama promises to lead this country with a Socialist fist... Some would classify this as hype or panic... I would suggest it is a prognostication of things to come under a Marxist leader in America - The end of Liberty... Change, indeed!