The Dream Team? Would Obama heal rifts and use Clinton to secure a ticket that has wide appeal on the Left?

Not in a million years. Why? The New Queen of Mean. Michelle Obama's got an axe to grind with a LOT of people. This is apparent in her college writings, her belittlement of her own husband, her non statements about Rev. Wright (which belie her adherence to BLT), her recent speeches calling America a MEAN country (paybacks to come), and a place she's never been proud of. So is she the pragmatic type to swallow her bile and embrace her enemies if they are the enemies of her GREATER enemies? Robert Novak says this:

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

I've said in the past Michelle would torpedo any thought of the Dream Ticket. Look at her expressive face. She is the embodiment of grievance and resentment. Clinton would do well to fight tooth and nail discrediting Obama while she's still running, and try to set up another run for 2012 when he's exposed for what he is, because making nice won't break the ice. Michelle is determined to send the Clintons to the dustbin.

There's a new Cruella in town, and Hillary Clinton ain't got nothing on this one.

Coming to a Democratic agenda near you. More TAXES to fight Global Warming. After all, that's fair isn't it? Like disenfranchising Democratic Primary voters in Michigan and Florida? Well, the Clintonian arguments about those states aside, it's in the UK that we see the future of the fight for a Green World. And as a service to you readers, I'm giving you a quick update on how the Brits are feeling about the struggle for the planet. From the Toronto Star, we hear:

A survey last month of 2,002 British adults by the respected polling firm Opinium Research found:

- 72% are unwilling to pay higher taxes to fight climate change.

- 67% believe the government's green agenda is simply a ploy to raise taxes.

NO! Say it ain't so, the State would actually connive to raise taxes on false pretenses? Shocking, shocking I say.....

As Opinium's head of research, Mark Hodson, described the findings in the Daily Mail and Independent newspapers: "Britain appears to be feeling increasingly negative about being more carbon neutral. We are questioning the truth behind being greener and many feel the government is creating a green fear for monetary gain."

Neil O'Brien, director of the think tank, Open Europe, said British politicians "incredibly ... don't seem to have realized" the enormous financial cost to British families when they signed on to reducing GHG.

Or, maybe, they did, but feel it's their responsibility to choose for everyone how they should lead their lives. After all, the Human Intellect is the highest form, and the smartest should decide for all what's best for all.

Like Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Moderates and Conservatives are being labeled Racists by the Left because of their audacity to ask probing questions of Barack Obama about his relationships with domestic terrorists and his membership in a congregation of a Black Liberation Theology espousing Church. What this theology means is this:

The leading theorist of Black Liberation Theology is James Cone. Overtly racist, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the “chosen people.” In Cone’s cosmology, whites are “the devil,” and “all white men are responsible for white oppression.” Cone makes this point without ambiguity: “This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective,” Cone has written. “What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”

If whiteness stands for all that is evil, blackness symbolizes all that is good. “Black theology,” says Cone, “refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Small wonder that some critics have condemned black liberation theology as “racist idolatry” and “Afro-Nazism.”

Furthermore, according to Cone, “black values” are superior to American values. Sure enough, the “About Us” statement on Trinity’s web page includes the following Cone-inspired declaration: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”

It is troubling that Barack Obama’s closest friends and allies subscribe to an explicitly racist doctrine. Even more worrying is that the main exponent of Black Liberation Theology sees Obama as a kindred spirit. In the wake of the controversy surrounding Obama’s pastor and Church, Cone said: “I’ve read both of Barack Obama’s books, and I heard the speech [on race]. I don’t see anything in the books or in the speech that contradicts black liberation theology.”

The Reverend Wright says that if you have any problem with this, then you are attacking the Black Church. He also says:

“I do not in any way disagree with James Cone. Jim is a personal friend of mine.”

So, are we clear about this?

The Environmental movement, manifested in the adoption of Bio-fuel mandates, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Al Gore disciples and the newly minted "climate change" warriors all follow the standard Liberal Fascist path to dealing with problems confronting us. Using the most inept method (government) to solve our problems. The result, edicts like the UN mandated biofuel mandating 10% usage by 2020. Major amounts of our crops have been diverted to this idea, and as a result, the US is now, for the first time ever, importing wheat. We have lost our minds. Thanks to the Liberals. And people are being turned off by these ideological environmental alarmists.

The latest Gallup environmental survey shows that only 37 percent of Americans worry about global warming "a great deal," a drop from 41 percent last year.

Now the opposite of this is to say, I don't care, I'm going to drive the biggest car I want, and live the most extravagant resource using lifestyle I care to, because the Earth is here for me to hold Dominion over, according to the Bible. After all, people are more important than some small bird in some patch of woods nobody cares about.

What happens when common sense is replaced by political ideology is this:

Five people are dead in Port Au Prince, Haiti after a week of food riots. Unions in Burkina Faso have called a general strike to protest the high cost of grain. Food riots have rocked Egypt, Cameroon, Indonesia, Ethiopia and other nations. In Manila, police with M-16s have supervised the sale and distribution of subsidized grain. Hoarders have been threatened with life imprisonment. In Thailand and Pakistan, troops are guarding fields and warehouses. In Egypt, the army has been called out to bake bread. Even in the United States, a run on rice has caused big-box retailers Sam's Club and Costco to limit the amount of rice consumers can purchase per visit (though the cap is extremely generous — each customer can buy four 20 pound bags of rice per day at Costco).

So what is there to do? We are traveling down a path that will have consequences affecting the grandchildren of today. Freedom means you are free to succeed or fail on your own efforts. We should use the freedom we have, to succeed on our own volition, not the government mandates of some Socialist regime. A long hard look at the Long Term Consequences of our modern lifestyles and the impact it will have on the Grandchildren is in the best interest of people. It falls under the category of putting People first. Take care of the Long Run if we care about our grandchildren, to put it simply. Farming, transportation, commerce and domestic comfort will always be consumers of energy and resources, they won't go away. So it's up to the civilization that put a man on the moon in 10 years to figure out how to support our population's needs without destroying the future. And daunting task, but not more than that faced by the space program.  Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison writes:

The key is increasing energy supply. By taking these measures, we can enable biofuels to be part of the energy solution, instead of contributing to the energy problem.

I am introducing legislation that will freeze the biofuel mandate at current levels, instead of steadily increasing it through 2022. This is a common-sense measure that will reduce pressure on global food prices and restore balance to America's energy policy. As the Senate debates this issue, we must remain focused on the facts.

At one point, expanding biofuels made sense for America's energy security. But the recent surge in food prices has forced us to adapt. The global demand for energy and food is expected to rise about 50% in the next 20 years, and the U.S. is well-positioned to be a leader in both areas. That will require a careful, finely tuned approach to America's farm products.

But I think the smartest thing we can do to put People's future first, is to keep the government's involvement at the absolute minimum. Let the market do it's magic, and start thinking about tomorrow instead of today. The ant, or the grasshopper?

Yesterday, it was Tim Russert asserting that North Carolina Republicans were injecting "race" into the campaign with their attack ad featuring Barack Obama and the Rev Wright's hate speech God D@mning America. Today, it's Chrissy Matthews picking up the mantra. Evidently, his show is on the rocks, in danger of disappearing from the network (hello Katie C.?) after the elections, so he'll try to drum up controvery. But as Allahpundit notes;

his paranoia is impressive, demonstrated here by the reaction of the panel (discussing the attack ad) to his argument. Dare I say, he’s the quintessential example of the progressive whose thinking has allegedly transcended race yet somehow seems to find racial stereotypes everywhere he looks.

The Clinton machine is claiming the MSM, especially MSNBC is pro Obama. You think? But what's interesting is that once again John McCain uses this as an opportunity to frame himself as above negative politics. Like when he recently distanced himself from the campaign speech warm up act of Bill Cunningham who repeatedly used Obama's middle name, Hussien. Good strategy? Michelle Malkin says:

Nonsense. It’s an idiotic strategy to convince more rank-and-file Republicans to stop giving money to the Beltway GOP elite.

He's convinced me.

The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is not specific in regards to demanding open borders. In fact, it allows for a nation's sovereignty to be defended. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Like obeying the very laws of Immigration. But the Church has thrown in with the Democrats in demanding the United States open it's borders to all. Why? Well, as Tom Tancredo has pointed out, the Church needs the hispanic influx in America to save it's very existence. Another reason there becomes a more distinct American Catholic Church, separate from Rome. Allahpunidt notes:

While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic.

These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration. The Landscape Survey finds that among the foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant); among native-born Americans, on the other hand, Protestants outnumber Catholics by an even larger margin (55% Protestant vs. 21% Catholic)…

Latinos, who already account for roughly one-in-three adult Catholics overall, may account for an even larger share of U.S. Catholics in the future. For while Latinos represent roughly one-in-eight U.S. Catholics age 70 and older (12%), they account for nearly half of all Catholics ages 18-29 (45%).

So the Church is in favor of open borders for all, right? Wrong. When it comes to Italy:

“The criteria for admitting immigrants can never be just economic. It is necessary to concern oneself seriously with saving the identity of the nation.” Italy was not an “uninhabited region” lacking in history and traditions, which was fit to be “indiscriminately populated.” While it could admit anyone it wanted, no one had a “right of invasion.” He (Cardinal Giacomo Biffi )  urged politicians to heed his words, since “not all of the cultures of those newly arrived are in favor of living together.” …

Not all are in agreement with this Pope. Seems when Muslims want to immigrate to Rome, to "take over the Crusader capital", the Church feels a little different. Difficult times for the faithful, at best.

George Stephanopolous appeared on several media shows before the recent Democratic debate, and was prompted to ask serious questions of the candidates. Appropriate questions. Questions with more gravity than anything Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews asked the Republicans on MSNBC. What happened? All heck broke loose. You could hear the Democrats and their media shills howling all the way to Antarctica. It appears the Left does NOT want Obama to reveal his character to the American public, and clearly, he's not comfortable answering. Stumbling, fumbling and whining the whole time over the unfairness of being questioned about his associations and judgement, we've got the classic, I mean classic scenario of Ultra Liberal Socialist Obama squirming under the very questioning Democrats find fair for the GOP.

"They like stirring up controversy and they like playing gotcha games, getting us to attack each other." Obama said.

By asking questions worthy of a candidate for President of the United States? Give me a freaking break. The nutroots don't agree.

By midafternoon Thursday, more than 15,600 comments were posted on ABC News' Web site, the tone overwhelmingly negative. A prominent TV critic, Tom Shales of The Washington Post, said Gibson and Stephanopoulos "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."

Will Bunch, a Philadelphia Daily News writer, posted an open letter to Gibson and Stephanopoulos on his blog. He wrote that he was so angry that "it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking."

Over at Daily Kos, the following statements are made:

does anyone know the name of his (Stephanopolous) boss?  we need to have his a$$ fired by Sunday

I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

That our main targets should be CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS.  All four are right wing networks

They want radical and militant.  Lets give it to them. SHUT THE NETWORK DOWN!!!!

Message sent: Back off, keep the questioning softballs, and set up Obama to carry on with the Hope and Change mantra, unquestioned about his elitism, faith, patriotism, associations with terrrorists,  and cynicism. ABC better get back in line, or else!

Just like Bill Clinton bringing up the Bosnian escapades of Hillary, the Rev. Wright just can't let well enough alone. And Obama has got to be cringing.

Escalating into full-preaching mode, Wright thundered, “Fox News can’t understand that. [Bill] O’Reilly will never get that. Sean Hannity’s stupid fantasy will keep him forever stuck on stupid when it comes to comprehending how you can love a brother who does not believe what you believe. [Pincham’s] faith was a faith in a God who loved the whole world not just one country or one creed.”

At that point, congregants nearly drowned Wright out with a booming standing ovation.

Wright also referred to Fox News as “Fix News."

As Hot Air noted, ABC broke the story, not Fox. But there is no defense whatsoever of Wright's original statements, no spin can undo his monologue of hate. Time to put up the hurricane shutters, between this and the "bittergate" problem, there's going to be so much spin this week, we'll have gale force winds.

This is the guy everybody thinks is the savior? Obama said the following in San Francisco about Pennsylvania, and the Leftist bloggers are all wagging their tongues saying, "well, he's right, he just should have called them rednecks". The Liberal comments on this Politico thread are very educational.  Reported in the Politico, Obama said:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Barack and Michelle hate America and what it's built on. The Black Liberation Theology simmering under their skins cannot stay quelled for long. Look for more of these America Hating eruptions in the future.

We can only hope this is the beginning of the end for the United Nations, but I won't hold my breath. The over the top America Haters Club has a Human Rights Commission Leftist calling for an investigation. About what? The NY Sun reports:

A new U.N. Human Rights Council official assigned to monitor Israel is calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Who is this guy? Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University. This leaves me breathless_ gasping for reason and facts in an atmosphere choked with Socialistic Propaganda spawning from of all places, American Academia.  That's right, one of the last bastions of Communism in our nation, harboring the refugees from the 60's .

On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

Of all people, Bill Clinton put it best when confronted by 9/11 truthers at one of his speeches. "How dare you!"

A common sense axiom of our society says, money can't buy you love. Popular culture begs to differ. All around us, everyday, are people carrying the burden of anger, grievance, frustration, loneliness, depression and a general feeling of alienation. So is this something new? Something unique to our generation in this place and time? The most obvious question to me is, wouldn't all the advances mankind has made over the last 50 years lead to a much happier life than previous generations had, after all, isn't that the point of modern convenience, security and safety? Isn't that what all the have-not masses are clamoring to be given a share of by the Socialist Demagogue Populist Politicians? The Wall Street Journal reports:

Despite the sharp rise in our standard of living in recent decades, Americans today are little or no happier than earlier generations. Why not?
...five professors surveyed some 4,000 Americans, asking what they did the previous day and then quizzing them in detail about three randomly selected events from the day. Those surveyed were asked to rate the three episodes based on feelings such as pain, happiness, stress and sadness. All this was used to calculate what percentage of time people spent in an unpleasant state.
The standout (result) cluster was what the authors label "engaging leisure and spiritual activities," things like visiting friends, exercising, attending church, listening to music, fishing, reading a book, sitting in a cafe or going to a party. When we spend time on our favorite of these activities, we're typically happy, engrossed and not especially stressed.

What's key, is that over the last 40 or 50 years, it's reported that men and women have substantially more leisure time to pursue happiness. What gives?

Instead, there's been a significant increase in the hours devoted to what the authors call "neutral downtime," which is mostly watching television. Women now spend 15% of their waking hours staring at the tube, while men devote 17%.

Watching TV may be low-stress and moderately enjoyable. But people aren't mentally engaged the way they are when they're, say, exercising or socializing.

The TV has robbed us of a quality of life we worked hard for the opportunity to enjoy. Many don't watch it as much as others, but the point made is, as a society, our consciousness is being babysat by a cathode ray tube dulling our senses and alienating us from each other, physically and spiritually.

Are Americans starting to get a clue about what the representative of Hope and Change really stands for? Barack, quoted in the Hill said:

“if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.

This is not out of context. It's a clear statement of belief about the held values of the speaker about Life itself. And there are millions of Americans who share this idea. And they are part of the problem with America today, plain and simple. Of course, the O man's team is spinning wildly to rationalize, justify and sanitize his remarks. But they are there, just like the Reverend Wright's. No doubt, for all to read. This election won't be a referendum on politics, it'll be a yardstick measurement of  the quality of the character of the American people here in the new Millennium. James Lewis at the American Thinker, says this about Obama:

Obama's expatriate mother, who raised him until age ten, was apparently a zealous anti-American. His father was absent, an African Prince out of a boyhood fantasy. All his life Obama moved from one little subculture to the next, all the way to Columbia, Harvard Law and Trinity UCC. Everywhere he went  he encounted zealous anti-Americans, beginning with his mother.  Just think about that.

I do think about it. And what all the Liberal Progressive Americans say about our country, and God, and Life. I wish the great dumbed down moderate middle would come up for air, and smell the coffee.

Oh man, this blog has asserted that Hillary is unqualified to manage even a lemonade stand. Well, today her campaign is having to deal with this:

The Bosnian girl who famously read a poem to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her 1996 visit to the war-torn country is shocked - and her countrymen infuriated - that the former first lady claimed to have dodged sniper fire that day.

Emina Bicakcic, now 20 and studying to become a doctor, told The Post she stood on the tarmac at the air base in Tuzla, greeted Clinton and even had time to share the lines of verse she'd written - all without fear of attack from an unseen enemy.

And I've characterized the GOP candidates as the gang who couldn't shoot straight! But it goes on, with this in the Politico about Obama:

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign.

Hello? Moderates, are you out there? Anybody awake?

Obama's got the Rev. by the back of the pants, and he's hurtling him between the two huge sets of black tires. BEEEEEEP, BEEEEEEEEEEEEP!! CNN reports:

Sen. Barack Obama says in an interview scheduled to air on TV Friday that he would have left his church if his pastor had not retired and had not acknowledged making comments that "deeply offended people."

But take heart Rev., the big O is making it clear he's only doing this because of the evil racist dividers of this nation.

"I think he's saddened by what's happened, and I told him I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way and people haven't seen the broader aspect of him," Obama said.

But hang in there, I've got a feeling we will be seeing the broader aspect of the Rev. Wright as the campaigns continue. Barack is saving his black reputation. Had Wright not retired, I'd bet the Obama's would continue to show up every Sunday with their kids. But not with Grandma.

His lofty and empty rhetoric is lulling the swooning kool-aid drinkers into a euphoric trance. What does he really stand for? His policy, explained by Dean Barnett contains stuff:

jammed with high-minded goals but an aversion to taking on the intellectual or physical challenges necessary to achieve them.
Given the stark disparity between their expressed goals and the Doctrinaires' reluctance to act, the Obama Doctrine is predictably overflowing with internal contradictions and sweeping flowery assertions that ignore uncomfortable facts on the ground.

Obama's doctrine developer, Spencer Ackerman of the American Prospect asks America:

"Why not pursue the enlightened global leadership promised by liberal internationalism?" Ackerman asks. "Why not abandon fear? What is it we have to fear, exactly?"

Why not? What? Well... as Dean so eloquently puts it:

To answer the question of what we have to fear today, perhaps Team Obama could talk to Theo van Gogh. Oh never mind--he's dead. Maybe they could ask Hirsan Ali, who has millions of people who would like to make her dead, too. If they're of a mind to, they could begin a dialogue with the gay community in the Netherlands or the rocket-dodging population in Israel. They would likely find that people are fearful for a reason.

Honestly grappling with the very real perils of our era would mean putting the airy idealism and hollow rhetoric on hold. The Obama Doctrine shows that Barack Obama and his Doctrinaires have no intention of doing any such thing.

And the Liberal Progressive sheep keep munching the grass, while the wolves gather just out of sight in the woods.