Not So Famous…

I can certainly appreciate when Republicans and conservatives get annoyed when Obama circumvents the Constitution.  One could ask the question as to why Republicans didn’t squeal when Bush did the same thing, but that’s neither here nor there.  Today we have a situation where the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from Guantanamo Bay to New York in order to be tried in the U.S. Justice System for his crimes against the American people.  Emotions are running high, understandably, but my concern is not how the people of the United States FEEL about this evil man coming to our shores; indeed, coming near to the very site he allegedly helped destroy, killing thousands of people.  My concern is whether this action is or is not constitutional.

Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Judicial Power extends to controversies between the citizens of a State  and citizens of a foreign state.  Listen, Republicans, you can’t whine that President Obama is ignoring the Constitution and then turn around and ignore it, yourselves.

What’s more a later amendment to the Constitution even has something to say about the rights of the accused in our justice system.  Amendment 6 to the U.S. Constitution (emphasis mine):

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Who has the rights, here?  U.S. Citizens?  No.  The accused in our system of justice gets these rights.  So much for a SPEEDY trial, eh?  However, in the nationalistic fervor that followed the September 11th attacks, the U.S. Congress (and public) appeared ready to vote President Bush whatever powers he felt he needed to defend us against terrorists, including the so-called Patriot Act.

My point here is not to be anti-patriotic.  I love the United States of America.  But we cannot give up our liberties guaranteed us by the Constitution simply because it’s popular to do so, or simply because a member of our own political party says we should. The Constitution is the law of the land, and we ought not ignore it whenever it is convenient. And not knowing what the Constitution says is no defense, people.  We need to know what it says in order to made informed decisions about the things on which we must vote.

I’ve heard the argument that the torture techniques used by the military to elicit the confessions of the Guantanamo Bay detainees might get these men off in the U.S. Justice system.  Maybe.  So?  If I were arrested for anti-state speech, and a confession were garnered by making me believe I was drowning, I would want MY rights protected. Rather than blame the justice system, maybe we ought to consider how we can claim the moral high ground when it comes to our treatment of those we are detaining in this non-war.

That’s another thing: Who are we really at war with?  Was war ever declared by Congress against a foreign government? We’re at war with an ideology.  I have a problem with that.  When Speaker of the California Assembly Karen Bass stupidly declared talk radio hosts’ keeping of politicians honest by threatening to not vote for them a “terrorist threat”, was she then determining that the U.S. was now at war with the talk show hosts? Because the government so enjoys redefining words, how can we be at war with an abstract concept?  If we are at war with no one, then, how can the 9/11 attacks be an act of war?  What’s more, if anyone sets a bomb and kills people, is that an act of war?  If a student of a high school brings a pipe bomb to school and sets it off in the name of Allah, are we now at war with that student?  His class?  His school?  Am I taking it too far?  Ok, fine.  So who, then, can actually declare us at war with talk show hosts, and my hypothetical student?  Congress?  So now we’re allowing Congress the power to make a person or group of people into a government of its own so that we can have a war with them?  Not actually declaring a war against a government was a handy bit of trickery by the U.S. Government, but it plays merry heck with our laws, doesn’t it?

So if we don’t have an actual declared war, how is a terrorist actually committing an act of war? By blurring the dimensions of what constitutes a war, we’re able now to declare an action by anyone that hurts us an act of war. This allows us to re-class anyone on the fly.

Ultimately, my point is that the Constitution has something to say about who, exactly, may be tried by our laws.  Something you’ll find when you read the Constitution is that it doesn’t mention Military Tribunals at all.  The Constitution being the highest law of the land (with regards to earthly governments) does not appear to recognize any judicial authority higher than that which is set up in Article 3.

So the terrorists being tried on U.S. soil is the way the framers of this nation intended it to be, even though they had no inkling of the method in which these people would break our laws.

Link to the original article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31494385/ns/us_news-security/

Now, before you all start freaking out about how I want terrorists to buy guns, you need to re-read my post title.  That is not what I said, nor is it how I feel.  I’ll explain, but you’re going to have to stay with me longer than a single paragraph.

First off, what determines whether someone is or is not a suspected terrorist? According to that article, it would be this list kept by the FBI. So if this list is some sort of master list that contains the people who are suspected of being terrorists, the question must be asked, “How does one make it into this list?”  The answer to THAT question explains why I titled this post as I did.

Let me recount for you three incidents:

1. Ron Paul Supporters Are Labeled Potential Terrorists

Yup.

Now, I’m not talking about Glenn Beck calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists.  I’m not talking about the Phoenix report that was recirculated claiming that Ron Paul supporters are terrorists. It was Missouri’s Information Analysis Center in a report released in February of 2009 that analyzed into existence the suspicion that someone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker on their vehicle could be a member of the Modern Militia Movement, and thus could be a terrorist.  This report was circulated through law enforcement communities, and one can only wonder if anyone new made it onto the secret FBI list because of it.  I supported Ron Paul, which I guess makes me a terrorist.

2. Returning Veterans Targeted as potential recruitment targets for right-wing extremist groups by the Department of Homeland Security, April 7, 2009.

“…the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups…”

I am not quoting that snippet out of context.  Read the report here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Yup…the DHS is basically saying this:

“Thank you for your service, you despicable terrorists.”

Regardless, now returning veterans are suspected of being potential terrorists.  How many of them made it onto the secret list?

3. Department of Defense potentially equates protest with low-level terrorist activities.

A multiple choice question on an exam administered by the Department of Defense asked the following:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?
* Attacking the Pentagon
* [Improvised Explosive Devices]
* Hate crimes against racial groups
* Protests

The correct answer was “Protests”.  So, if you’re exercising your right to peaceably assemble, which is guaranteed you by this really obscure document called The Constitution of the United States of America, you could be a low-level terrorist. Regardless of the fact that this test is not directly equating protests with terrorism, it’s definitely saying that any protest COULD be a terrorist act. This is a concerning move, and based on this, *I* could very well be on that secret list.

Now, all of these incidents were THIS YEAR ALONE. I qualify as a potential terrorist in two of those three incidents, and thus I don’t support any move by our government to bar legal citizens who have committed no crime from purchasing firearms based on some list maintained by our government, which has already been shown to have kept people on the list past when they should have been removed: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603968.html).

So I definitely DO NOT support any barring of individuals from buying firearms just because they made it onto some list that they can’t see, and can’t even find out if they’re on.

I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh while working, and something he said really caught my attention:

Caller, I agree with you that Tax Cuts are the way to go, but the Republican party doesn’t WANT tax cuts.

And THAT is one reason why I (and others like me) say that the Republican Party is dead.  They’re all trying to out-liberal one another despite the fact that President Reagan showed just how efficacious tax cuts can be to stimulate the economy.

It’s time for a third party to get the conservative vote.

I have sent a message to Boxer and Feinstein to oppose this stupid tax increase, and if you love beer, and the wonderful variety of it that we have in California, you should as well.  This is what I am sending to them:

As you well know, the Senate Finance Committee is considering a proposal to raise the Federal Excise Tax on Beer as a part of health care discussion.  This is a bad idea!

The concept of a tax on a vice is self-defeating. So we need money to pay for single-payer health care (assuming that is a good thing to have… a proposition that is by no means certain).  Taxing production of a good (thereby increasing the cost of said good) with the express stated purpose of lessening the consumption of said good can ONLY lead to a decrease in tax revenues from this source.  The single-payer health care plans, on the other hand, are ONLY going to rise, or at the VERY best stay level.  This tax, then MAY only provide a short term boost in funding, and is not a sustainable proposition for funding of this health care plan.

What’s more, who is the Senate Finance Committee to determine what I should or should not consume?  There are things in this world FAR more harmful to the human body than alcohol, and where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the power to regulate our habits?  (And no, “to promote the general welfare” does not count.  That is part of the preamble, which explains why the Constitution was necessary, and not a granting of powers to the government.)

Finally, this proposition will only harm small businesses who cannot afford to absorb the cost of this increase, and MUST pass this on to the consumers.  When prices go up, the demand for a good at the new, higher price will fall, and this will torpedo the brewing industry, which is really only starting to gain its momentum against the lesser-quality, but lower priced mass-producing brewing giants. So how is this a GOOD thing in an economic climate where small businesses are failing right and left already?  How will this stimulate the economy, and raise consumer sentiment, when they see their favorite breweries being shut down because of a tax increase that is only doomed to raise less and less each month…BY DESIGN?

I am overtaxed, and I cannot afford more taxes.  Beer is one of life’s great pleasures, when it’s done well, and the very businesses that are producing beer that is done well are the businesses that will be harmed by this foolhardy idea.

Please oppose the increase of the Federal Excise Tax on Beer, and protect the jobs and well-being of many who depend on the brewing industry, and the well-rated California brewing scene to boot.

Support Your Local Brewery had this to say about the excise tax:

http://www.sylb.org/excisetax.html

Seriously, send a message to Washington letting them know that their decisions as to what you should or should not put in your body are totally out of line, and taxing us to do so is even more ridiculous.

Don’t just get all huffy and post a comment without thinking.  I’m not interested in comments about how angry my insinuation makes you.  I’m not interested in how long the government has provided education.  All I’m posting this for is to get people to consider a United States in which the government did not provide education.

For one, the Department of Education is a HUGE tax dollar drain. In 2008, the requested budget for the Department of Education was $62.6 BILLION. If the extremely inefficient government gave those dollars back to the people from whom they took them, how better could those dollars be spent? What’s more, what do we GET when the Department of Education gets this money? Well, $300 million of that money is actually going to help low-income families obtain more choices in sending their children to PRIVATE schools.  So now we’re taking money from the taxpayer in order to allow them more options in sending their children to a private school?  What say we cut out the middleman?

Oh yeah, let’s not forget about the increasing drive to force children to accept deviant lifestyles as normal and healthy, thereby prohibiting my family’s free exercise of religion. Sex education at an increasingly young age. I object to these sorts of things and they are the reason I will not be sending my children to public schools.  However, I will be forced to pay for the Department of Education, regardless of that fact.

The biggest argument for cutting the Department of Education, however, is that it’s not a power allowed for in the U.S. Constitution. That’s right, folks. You CAN read the U.S. Constitution and understand what it says.  Go ahead.  I’ll wait….

….

Well, anyway, show me in the U.S. Constitution where the Department of Education is permitted, and I’ll grant you the argument.  However, you need to remember something as you’re reading it: Whenever a power is not granted to the Federal Government, it is reserved for the States.  Yes, that means we may be pushing the problem down one level, but I support that, as it inevitably means that some States will get it right.  At the VERY least, they have the potential to get it right.

Any arguments about how beneficial the DoEd is are easily refuted by the Constiutution.  What’s more, when you carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you might think of some other Federal Departments that could also be removed under the same argument.  Before you start telling me, “well if we have to get rid of the Department of Education because it’s not allowed in the Constitution, then that means we should also get rid of the Department of Whatever”, you should be aware that I agree with you on that count.

And you’re only giving me ideas…not proving that the DoEd is indispensable.

I went to the Tax Day Tea Party in my area, and I heard a great deal of complaining. Granted, what was being complained about was pretty justified.  You’re overtaxed, and you see the government spending your money on things you don’t want, don’t need, and couldn’t afford if you did. You see on the horizon that your taxes are going to be increased, along with the size of the government, and when you look at what your government is doing, you realize that the Constitution may as well have been printed on toilet paper for all the careful examination your government is giving it. These are very valid concerns of course, People, and I share them.  But…

This is your fault.

Our form of government is dependent entirely upon you to decide the laws and hold your politicans to account for their voting record.  Do you know what your 111th United States Congress has been voting on since it convened on January 6th, 2009? Do you know the voting records of your representatives? Do you know what your representatives stance on the role of the federal government in your life is?

How can you blame your representatives for voting as they have when you continue to elect them to office?

This is your fault.

Do you know what the U.S. Constitution says?  Have you read it?  When you were up in arms about the AIG bonuses, did you stop to consider that the ex post facto bill of attainder that the House of Representatives voted on to tax the bonuses just might be unconstitutional? If you knew it was unconstitutional, would you be incensed?  If you didn’t know that there’s a distinct possibility it was unconstitutional, are you ashamed? Do you know what the Constitution says?

This is your fault.

Who polices the government? Who determines when the government has overstepped its bounds?  The government?  Isn’t that something of a conflict of interest?  What would be the goal of policing the government? Wouldn’t the goal of policing the government be to prevent them from appropriating powers for itself that the U.S. Constitution never intended for them to have?  If that’s the case, then how can the government police itself?  Isn’t it the People’s job to police the government?  How can we do that if we’ve not read the document that set forth the powers and limitations on said government?

This is your fault.

We have ceded our power as the People of the United States, from whom the government derives its power, to that very government creating a self-perpetuating, power-grabbing government over which we have no control.  Instead, the government is looking how best to control you.  They do so in schools, which you pay for.  They do so by taking away your ability to defend yourselves, enforced by a police which you pay for. They control you.

And it’s your fault.

Do you feel guilty yet?  And I don’t mean the “I’m sorry” kind of guilt that doesn’t modify your actions in any way shape or form.  I’m talking about the kind of guilt that asks the question, “what can we do now?”

Because the first step to overcoming this problem is realizing that it’s your fault!

You can become informed and involved.  You can learn about the policies of people running for office, and you can vote them in or out based on their actions.  Granted, when it comes to rookie politicians, you have more words than actions on which to base your decision, but you can hold him to his words, by following through.  It’s no longer enough to be ignorant of what your government is doing to control you.  You need to take action based on your knowledge.  And you need to WORK to make yourself aware!

Because the state we’re in is OUR fault.  And only action can counter the inaction which the government has used to take away your liberty.  We can no longer conceive of a society where the federal government is limited in scope and power.  We’ve been innoculated against distrust by being told again and again that he government cannot be made smaller.  It CAN!  And when you read the Constitution, you can see how the Founding Fathers did not intend for the federal government to have the kind of power that it has.  Because it was not always this way!!!

What’s more, America survived and thrived when government was small in scope and intrusion.  And we can survive again.

It’s your fault, but that culpability also means that only YOU the People can make it right.

I am overtaxed, aren’t you?  But is there anything we can do about it?  We see President Obama promising huge amounts of money for bailouts of banks, companies, the International Monetary Fund, social programs, and all of this is coming out of whose pocket?  His?  Heck no!!  It’s coming out of yours, people!!  YOUR POCKETS!  How are you doing right now, financially?  Anyone get their hours cut or lose their job because of this freaking economy?  I know my hours have been cut by 20% with more cuts promised if things don’t get better.  I can’t freaking take this anymore.

I WILL NOT BE TAXED INTO OBVLIVION, AND I WILL NOT BE FORCED INTO ACCEPTING GOVERNMENTAL HANDOUTS!!!!  I can take care of myself if I am allowed to keep my money!

But can we DO anything?  YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!!!

Our government is supposed to be run by us, people!  If we don’t like the politicians we have, who else have we to blame but OURSELVES?  Our government has increased the national debt a horrendous amount.  And they only promise more.  They say that you don’t know how to spend your money correctly to stimulate this economy.  You apparently don’t know what goods to buy, or how to get your family living comfortably, so let them steal your money and spend it for you!!!  Do you like this?  Well if not, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!

Our government didn’t like the AIG Bonuses….so they spit on the Constitution, and passed an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW taxing these bonuses.  Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress cannot pass a Bill of Attainder or an Ex Post Facto law.  A bill of attainder is a law that affects an individual or group of individuals, rather than the population as a whole.  An ex post facto law is a law that does something after the fact.  Like taxing income at a different rate after it’s already been handed out WITH CONGRESS’ APPROVAL!  What’s more, Representative Paul Ryan gave a press release stating that he supported it because HE DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and wouldn’t have supported it if he’d known.  Well thank you for your hindsight, Representative, but you’ve effectively let us all know that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!!!!

THIS is who you have elected, America.

So are you sick of being overtaxed?  Are you sick of Obama’s grossly irresponsible spending at your expense?  Are you sick of our government incurring debt that our freaking GRANDCHILDREN will be saddled to pay off?  Let’s put the fear of the people back into the Government, and let’s let them know that we’re not going to take this crap anymore.  Come to the Tea Party on April 15th, and let the government know that you’re mad as hell about their reckless spending!

The Boston Tea Party happened because the colonists felt that they were being taxed without being represented.  Sound familiar?  This is the first step to taking back our government, and it can’t happen without YOU!

The tea party website can be found at: http://taxdayteaparty.com/ and there you can find a tea party near you. There are over 600 of these local tea parties happening nationwide, and you can be a part of it.  Find one near you, and see if there’s anything you can do to help.  Passing out Pocket Constitutions, making signs, offering to speak a little….who knows what you can accomplish.

According to many bloggers, the spenders are scared of us.  They’re saying things like, “Obama was elected by a popular majority, and these tea parties are threatening democracy!!!”  Listen, if that’s the case, then Obama has nothing to fear.  We’ll just be a couple little groups of people, and we’ll be the most microscopic thorn in Obama’s side that he’ll never even notice.

What they’re afraid of, however, is the fact that people who voted for Obama out of ignorance are now rejecting his socialist, irresponsible spending out of knowledge.

So go to one of the PEACEFUL protests.  Speak your mind.  Wake up the masses.  Get others fired up!  Bring a video camera, and post videos on YouTube.  Let’s let the government know who their bosses are.  US!

Modesto Tax Day Tea Party – 1010 10th St. Modesto, CA. – 12pm-6pm

So, my sensationalist title may have caught someone’s attention, but in a manner of speaking, it’s true.

Yesterday, I got an e-mail asking me to go to NBC’s website and vote on some poll regarding whether or not we should keep “In God We Trust” on our currency.  I didn’t even go to the site, to be honest, because I have no idea what the HECK NBC is supposed to do about our currency.  What’s more, online polls can be tricked, so the results are less-than-scientific.  Something else the e-mail said which kind of annoyed me was, “This is not for discussion.  If you agree, go vote, and if not, don’t.”

Well, what if I think your view is ridiculous?  You’re telling me that there’s nothing anyone can say that will dissuade you from your position? I guess that’s ok, but in my mind, things are ALWAYS up for discussion.  That’s what this blog is for.

First off, I’d like to ask you what is the point of having “In God We Trust” on our currency?  When did the entire nation begin trusting in God again?  One could make the argument that we never did, and I think it’s a valid point, but again I ask, what is the point?

Do you think that having that phrase on our currency is some sort of magical talisman without which we’ll lose the blessings of God regardless of whether the phrase really means anything?  I’ve been talking with a dear friend about whether or not believing in Christ is something that can be stated without being examined, and I say that it can not. Stating that someone trusts in Christ is NOT enough, because what is important is the Christ in which someone trusts.  The same is true about this phrase on our currency.  Because right now, one single fact is dominating this discussion in my mind:

It’s a lie.

Why have this phrase on our currency if it’s not representative of any form of reality.  I am reminded of the Presbyterian Church in the USA in the late 30’s and beyond, where their beliefs actually had little to nothing to do with their confessing document, the Westminster Confession of Faith.  What was the point of being a confessional church if they weren’t going to actually confess their confessing document, but instead took it to mean whatever they wanted it to mean?  It sort of made the Westminster Confession of Faith into something of a joke, much like “In God We Trust” is made into a joke today.

Here’s a suggestion, maybe we ought to spend some time making that statement into a reality on a personal level rather than getting incensed that there are people who see the statement for the lie it is and wanting to remove it, since it means nothing.  Let me add this:

I don’t think we should have that statement on our currency.  It’s tradition, fine.  I think it’s a lame tradition that makes a supremely important statement like that into a lie.  I can’t support a tradition that trivializes trusting in God, and I don’t think any self-respecting Christian should.

Apart from the post I just made a couple minutes ago, I’ve been delinquent in updating my blog.  I’ve started about 5 posts in the last week, but just haven’t felt like completing them.  I don’t really know why.

Part of it is that this whole “economy plus Obama” thing has gotten me down.  I hear some encouraging things from his fledgling administration about how we’re no longer going to be torturing detainees, and that he’s wanting to shut down Guantanamo Bay (though I’m not sure entirely how I feel about that.)  I like that his focus is going to be peace through diplomacy, rather than military action against anyone who feels that they want to govern their country without our “guidance”.

Obama, however, wants to raise taxes, and this is not a good thing.  He claims that he doesn’t want to raise taxes for the middle class, but he’s been slowly eating away at his initial “$250,000 a year” figure throughout his campaign.  Last I heard, it was at $150,000/year and dropping.  Ultimately, he doesn’t appear to want anyone to be TOO successful.  Because success is apparently ALWAYS gained by exploitation.  Regardless, when we create a society where we punish success and reward apathy, we create a society where mediocrity is king, and no one will strive for the highest.

That kind of thing worries me.  I know a lot of people think that Obama’s Newer New Deal is just what we need to pull us out of this economy, and I don’t agree.  A lot of people say “Roosevelt got us out of the first Depression, and now Obama will get us out of this one.”  I REALLY don’t agree.  It’s going to be painful, but the free market will swing up again.  It would have swung up again in the 30’s, and it will swing up again now.

Anyway, I originally wanted this to be an apology for not updating, but it’s turned into another rant.  :)  Looks like I had something to say after all.

First off…I don’t like Obama.  I don’t like his policies.  I don’t like his emphasis on vapid change with nothing of substance.  However…

I don’t think the world will come to an end with Obama in the White House.  Apart from stupid, worthless comments like “Obama is going to change the White House into the Black House”, Obama’s presidency is going to be filled with a great deal of what other presidencies have been filled with:  Striving with the checks and balances in place to get things done.

Obama will not accomplish everything he wants to accomplish.  The world rarely sits still long enough for a president to work on every domestic policy he promised to the American people. Obama’s first term will not be the best for America, no.  But I do think there are some good things that could come of this.

For one, the Republicans might want to look around and see what their pseudo-conservative movement has gotten them over the last 8 years.  Bush gained a lot of power for the government, and the office of President of the United States in particular, and now a member of the opposition party is in power.  Smooth move, Ex-Lax.  Republicans lost this race by forgetting their conservative roots.  However, even if the GOP continues to try to out-Socialist the Democrats, there could still be some good.

If the Republicans stop being conservative, they will outlive their usefulness, and could possibly begin fading away from the political scene.  This will set the stage for a 3rd party to gain some power, and I truly think this is where positive change will come from in America.

With Barack Obama as President, we might actually stand a chance in getting out of Iraq, and getting back to rebuilding our nation.  Granted, with Obama taxing the rich as much as possible, that rebuilding will slow to a crawl, but if he angers enough people, he won’t be back for a second term.

I won’t change anyone’s mind, I know.  I’ve heard the rants about Obama being the antichrist. I’ve heard about him not being a U.S. citizen.  I’ve heard about Obama and his plan to destroy America.  It’s not going to happen, people.  And we won’t likely be able to prove this for sure, because I don’t think McCain will be a viable candidate for president in 4 years, but a McCain presidency carried its own serious dangers.

During Bush’s tenure, he moved us closer to the government having supreme power over all.  He gained more power for the Executive Branch than nearly any other president in the last few decades.  He was NOT good for America.  And while McCain rejected some of these policies, he affirmed others, such as his position on the unnecessary wars, his position on the Patriot Act, and his position on these stupid bailouts.  People, McCain was not the savior, as Obama was not the antichrist.

When Obama fades from the political scene without having brought about Armageddon, however, you zealots for the cause will not remember how terrified you were when he was elected.  You’ll be too preoccupied with the current Big Thing, and you’ll pooh pooh the doom you foretold.  And on it goes….