Saturday, December 6, 2008

Take Advice From Your Local Criminals - We Don't Want a New Jail

Bob please put this on your blog.

Please Vote "No" on the new jail proposal this Tuesday. The Cleveland County Jail has been our home for the past year. We don't want to move. We really enjoy it here, especially when we get 5 or 6 other people in our cell - we have a great time together.
We know that according to the State Health Department, the jail is overcrowded so we all use our free time researching the laws so we can milk you taxpayers even more with frivilous lawsuits. And when we arent't doing that, we are figuring out creative ways to escape from this outdated and run down place.
We are asking all the good folks of Cleveland County to please vote NO to a new jail. We like it here just fine thank you. So disregard the advice of all your local law enforcement officials including your past, present and future County Sheriffs who have endorsed the Jail Proposal - they don't know what they're talking about - trust us instead!

Jake The Snake and Slick Willy


Honest Abe

Bad Bad Leroy Brown

Gotebo Jake
Red Fred

Senator Feinstein Visits thatsjustbob

We all have thought for years that California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s elevator did not did not go to the top. I have even heard some people say she is not the sharpest tool in the tool shed.

Well, now I have proof. Today I received a letter from the Oklahoma Secretary of State. The letter states that, “ the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, through Senator Dianne Feinstein, has extended an invitation for you and a guest to attend the 56th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C. “

Attached was a letter to the Oklahoma Secretary of State from Senator Feinstein, requesting that the Secretary of State forward a letter to all Electors inviting them to the Ceremonies.

Now at first I thought someone was playing a joke on me until I noticed the words “Congress of The United States with Dianne Feinstein Chairman, Harry Reid and Robert Bennett” on the top left, then on the top right was “Nancy Pelosi, John Hoyer and John Boehner”, with complete details on how I pick up my tickets.

It is a nice gesture but I do not believe I will be making any trips to D.C. any time soon. As some of you may know December 15th at 2pm is the date we Electors attend the Electoral College to vote at the State Capitol in the Blue Room. Once we all cast our ballots for John McCain and Sarah Palin, the Governor and the Secretary of the State sign the ballot, the ballots are sealed and sent to Congress to be read during the Electoral College count. Once read before Congress the ballots are sent to the Library of Congress for its final resting place.


Mr. Honest Charley Rangel

If Charley Rangel was a Republican the Democrats would be calling for Congressional hearings. Republicans would be calling for his resignation. But wait, he is a Democrat and their standards or much lower. Since he is a Democrat the Democrat leadership will allow him to continue with his powerful Chairmanship. What will happen nothing, because Democrats don't really care about anyone other than themselves. Read the below article.


Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, reportedly steered almost $80,000 dollars in campaign cash to his son's Internet company for a pair of Web sites between 2004 and 2007. The Politico newspaper reports an expert says one of the sites should have cost no more than $100 to create.
Rangel paid more than any other House member, during that election cycle, for Web sites. He is currently the subject of a House Ethics Committee probe for his failure to pay taxes on rental income and his alleged use of House stationary to solicit contributions for a public policy center bearing his name.

Balkman Says Yes to Public Safety Sales Tax


Did you know there’s an election this Tuesday? This Tuesday – December 9th voters in Cleveland County will be voting on whether to pass a County Sales Tax for ¼ of a cent to be dedicated to the construction of a new county jail. I urge you to take time this weekend to learn about this proposed tax and I believe that you will agree with me that we need to support this proposal. I have included an article from The Norman Transcript that describes the proposal as well as a letter to the editor that I wrote the week before last.

Additional information about the jail proposal is available on the Cleveland County website at

From The Norman Transcript, December 3, 2009

Cleveland County voters are asked to return to the polls Tuesday to vote on a one-fourth of one-cent sales tax for a proposed $40 million detention center planned on Franklin Road, just east of U.S. 77.

County Commissioners want the proposed one quarter cent jail sales tax paid off and taken off the books as soon as possible, the board said last week.

If the sales tax is approved, a committee will oversee the monies received from the tax. The sales tax will be for 20 years but once the jail is paid for, the tax will stop.

The mayor or the mayor's designee of Norman, Moore, Noble, Lexington, Slaughterville and Oklahoma City will each appoint a member to the oversight committee. County commissioners will each appoint a member and other members will include a representative in the banking business, sheriff's office, the University of Oklahoma and a citizen at large.

The Cleveland County Detention Center was built in the 1980s to hold 177 prisoners. The center averages more than 200 prisoners and has for the past few years. The Oklahoma State Department of Health has mandated that the county fix the problem or the health department will shut down the jail or fine the county $10,000 a day.

My letter to the Editor

Let's keep our community an attractive and safe place to live, work and play by voting "Yes" on the proposed county sales tax on December 9th. The quarter cent sales tax will be used to construct and maintain a much needed new county jail here in Cleveland County. It might seem strange for this conservative Republican, who once signed a no new taxes pledge as a state legislator, to endorse a new tax. But one thing that Oklahomans of all political stripes agree on is public safety is government's most fundamental responsibility.

Norman and Cleveland County in general, enjoy a low crime rate thanks to the combined efforts of our police forces, the District Attorney's office and the web of social service and community agencies. It's no wonder Money Magazine ranked Norman as the 6th best place to live in the United States, the highest of any city in Oklahoma! It should be noted that two of the factors used in that survey were personal crime incidents and property crime incidents, and we ranked 2nd best in each category.

If we are to make sure our community is a safe desirable place to be, we must keep those who commit crimes locked up. But time is running out. Already, we have been repeatedly cited by the state numerous times for not having enough space in our county jail, and if we don't build a bigger jail we run the risk of being fined $10,000 a day by the state. Furthermore, the threat of frivolous lawsuits against the taxpayers brought by clever convicts hangs over us until we fix this problem.

Paying an extra quarter cent on the things we buy to construct a new county jail is a good investment for the continued safety and security of our community. I hope other Cleveland County residents, especially those like me who usually do not favor tax increases, will vote yes on December 9th.

Polls will be open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday.

Please vote “YES” on December 9.

Thad Balkman

General Counsel, VP External Relations

Republican Party Abolished Slavery

the Republican Party Abolished Slavery
December 6, 2008

On this day in 1865, the 13th Amendment -- abolishing slavery -- became part of the U.S. Constitution -- when ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Despite protests from the Democrats, the Republican Party made banning slavery part of its national platform in 1864. Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the final version of the text, combining the proposed wordings of several other Republican congressmen.
All Republicans in Congress voted for the 13th Amendment, while nearly all Democrats voted against it. So strongly did President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) support the 13th Amendment, he insisted on signing the document, though presidential approval is not part of the amendment process.
Outlawing slavery was a Republican achievement.
This article is also on the Grand Old Partisan blog, each day celebrating 154 years of Republican heroes and heroics.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. See for more information.

Obama Wants Your Gun

Dear Fellow NRA Member,
Because Barack Obama's campaign promisenot to take away our guns is a lie.
He's not even in office, yet he's fired the opening salvos in a war against the future of the Second Amendment, our hunting and shooting traditions, and YOU.
Obama's FIRST attack on YOU: Appointing Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to be White House Chief of Staff. In Congress, Emanuel earned an "F" rating from NRA, and while working in the Clinton Administration, he was known as the "point man on gun control." He is an avowed enemy of the Second Amendment and will wield enormous power in the battle for the future of our firearm freedoms.
Obama's SECOND attack on YOU: If Hillary Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State, she'll rip the Second Amendment right out of the Bill of Rights. She'll be our nation's top diplomat with the power to determine whether the United Nations will pass, and Obama will sign, a global gun ban treaty that will surrender our Second Amendment rights and our national sovereignty.
Obama's THIRD attack on YOU: Nominating ex-Senator and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle-an avowed enemy of NRA-to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. NRA was responsible for defeating Daschle when he ran in South Dakota for re-election to the Senate. If Daschle is confirmed, he could hold the ultimate power to declare guns a "public health menace" and regulate away our essential liberties.
Obama's FOURTH attack on YOU: Nominating Eric Holder to be Attorney General. As former Assistant Attorney General, Holder was a key architect and vocal advocate for the Clinton era's sweeping gun ban agenda. He supported national handgun licensing, mandatory trigger locks, and ending gun shows as we know them.
Just recently, Holder opposed the District of Columbia's Heller decision that declared the Second Amendment an individual right. Holder also called for reviving the Clinton gun bans and, as Attorney General, would fight in court to prevent the landmark Heller decision from being made applicable to state and local governments.
Worst of all, if Holder is confirmed as the nation's top law-enforcement officer, he would control BATFE and wield enormous power to harass gun owners and sue America's arms makers out of existence.
Obama's FIFTH attack on YOU: In the job application for the Obama Administration, he made it clear that gun owners are second-class citizens and told 80 million gun owners not to even bother applying for a job. In the "White House Personnel Data Questionnaire" he asked:
"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."
This chilling notice to gun owners-that they are not welcome to serve in his Administration-shows the deep hostility for Americans' Second Amendment Freedoms that Obama and his Administration have in their hearts.
On its face, that question endorses gun registration-a mandate in only five states in our nation-and buys into the anti-gun premise that firearms are inherently dangerous and gun owners are prone to misusing them.
That's an outrageous mindset, especially for the President-elect whose sworn duty will be to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including our right to keep and bear arms.
Obama CLEARLY wants to make gun registration the law of the land.
First for employees under his control...AND THEN FOR YOU.
Working with a Congress dominated by gun haters like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and Charles Schumer!!!
Rubbing salt in gun owner wounds is the Brady Campaign, which just issued a completely bogus poll claiming that two-thirds of the Americans-including 60% of all gun owners-favor gun registration, licensing of firearm owners, and other sweeping restrictions on our firearm freedoms!
Add it all up and you have the potentialfor a Second Amendment disaster that's unlikeany other NRA members have ever battled.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Merry Christmas Poll

The Great 'Christmas' vs. 'Holidays' Debate
Dec 2, 2008
-By Mark Dolliver NEW YORK Like mistletoe and spiked eggnog, it's becoming a December tradition: wrangling over whether store personnel and ads should say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." Two new surveys find a general preference for the former option.Rasmussen Reports polling found 68 percent of respondents favoring "Merry Christmas," vs. 25 percent preferring "Happy Holidays." Men were especially likely to favor the "Christmas" version, with 71 percent doing so, vs. 65 percent of women.In a similar BIGresearch survey, 65 percent of respondents said they'd prefer that store employees say "Merry Christmas" to them, while 27 percent would rather hear "Happy Holidays." Moreover, 88 percent said they consider it "proper" for retailers to use the word "Christmas" in their ads.Inevitably, there's a partisan split in this seasonal debate. The Rasmussen poll found Republicans much more likely than Democrats (84 percent vs. 51 percent) to say they prefer "Merry Christmas." Conversely, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to favor "Happy Holidays" (43 percent vs. 13 percent).Well, have a nice December!

New Rasmussen Poll Concerning Pardons

46% Say Congress Should Be Able To Override Presidential Pardons
Friday, December 05, 2008
Forty-six percent (46%) of U.S. voters say Congress should be able to overturn presidential pardons it thinks are unjustified, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe Congress should not have that power, and 18% are undecided.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of female voters say Congress should be able to override pardons they don’t approve of, compared to 39% of male voters. Forty-six percent (46%) of men believe Congress should not have that power, but only 28% of women agree.
Most likely reflecting the current situation where a Republican president is granting pardons while Democrats control Congress, 58% of Democrats think Congress should have the power to overturn pardons, compared to 40% of GOP voters. Forty-six percent (46%) of Republicans say Congress should not be able to do so versus just 25% of Democrats. A plurality of unaffiliated voters by six points think Congress should not have the power to override the president.
Catholics and Evangelical Christians both give the edge to Congress, while other Protestants are evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of African-American voters think Congress should be able to overturn pardons, compared to 44% of whites.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls).
The end of presidential administrations historically are a time when presidents issue pardons. President Bush granted more than a dozen pardons right before Thanksgiving and is sure to announce more before he leaves office in January. Unlike the pardons of several of his predecessors, most recently President Clinton, Bush’s have not raised any criticism thus far.
The most famous pardon is President Gerald Ford’s of his immediate predecessor, Richard Nixon, in 1974.
Fourteen percent (14%) of voters say Bush’s pardons will be more justified than those of previous presidents, while 22% say they will be less justified. Fifty-four percent (54%) believe they will be about the same as those of his predecessors. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
Eighteen percent (18%) of men say Bush’s pardons will be more justified, but just 10% of women agree.
Twenty-two percent (22%) of Republicans feel that way, compared to 14% of unaffiliated voters and six percent (6%) of Democrats. Thirty-six percent (36%) of Democratic voters think Bush’s pardons will be less justified, a view shared by only 11% of Republicans and 14% of unafilliateds.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, a Democrat, has asked Bush to commute the prison sentence of George Ryan, the former Illinois Republican governor who was convicted in 2006 on federal corruption charges, but 66% of the state’s voters oppose a pardon for Ryan.
President-elect Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, who served in the Justice Department at the time, is likely to face questioning from Congress about his involvement in Clinton’s pardon of financier Marc Rich in 2001 under questionable circumstances.
Voters aren’t too concerned about the Holder nomination, announced on Monday, however. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index now gives Obama a +28 rating, matching his highest level yet.
For the most part voters appear to have confidence in the time-honored practice of presidential pardons. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say a good case is most important when seeking a pardon. Just 21% say political connections are most important, and 14% put the emphasis on a good attorney. Seven percent (7%) aren’t sure.
See the rest of the story at

Rasmussen Poll Best Days Ahead

America's Best Days
GOP Voters Grow Slightly More Optimistic About America’s Future
Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Republican voters now say America’s best days are in the future, while 48% think they are in the past, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Just after the election, only 30% of GOP voters thought the nation’s best days were ahead while 55% said they had come and gone.
Democrats say America’s best days lie ahead by a 53% to 30% margin. Among unaffiliated voters, 48% say the nation’s best days are in the future while 35% say they are in the past.
Overall, 47% of voters say America’s best days are in the future, while 37% say they are in the past.
Black voters also grew even more optimistic than they were just after Election Day. Now, 73% say the country’s best days are still to come, compared to 68% on November 6. Just 17% believe the nation’s best days already happened, compared to 23% in November.
White voters remain divided, with 43% who say the best days are still to come and 41% who say the opposite.
These numbers come as confidence among consumers and investors continue to hover around record lows in the Rasmussen Consumer Index, and one fourth of workers worry about losing their jobs in the Rasmussen Employment Index.
However, Barack Obama’s approval ratings continue to rise to record highs in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index.
The latest survey also found that 63% of American voters view society as fair and decent, while 24% see it as unfair and discriminatory. Those numbers have changed little over the past month.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls).
Black voters are less positive today than they were immediately after Obama was elected president. Just 23% view society as fair and decent, down from 42% on November 6. Over half (53%) now view society as unfair and discriminatory, up from 46% in November.
A separate survey conducted just after Election Day found that black voters grew more positive about relations between blacks and whites after the election.
While 68% of men view society as fair and decent, 59% of women agree. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men and 28% of women see U.S. society as being unfair and discriminatory.
Voters continue to favor a government that provides fewer services and sets lower taxes over one that demands higher taxes but offers more services by a 59% to 28% margin. Over half of Democrats prefer more services with higher taxes, while the majority of GOP and unaffiliated voters favor the opposite approach.
The plurality of voters (45%) believe America’s allies should do what the United States wants when it comes to foreign policy, while 21% say this country should do what its allies want. Another 27% say neither should be the case. Those percentages remain relatively steady each month.
Finally, 73% of voters say people who move here from foreign countries should adopt American culture, while just 13% say they should maintain the cultures of their home countries. Those numbers have also held steady.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)… let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs and historical data are available to Premium Members only.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

What Is Flying Over Austin?

See what is flying over Austin. Who is responsible? Is it an OU fan? Is it A Texas Tech fan? No it's a Texas fan. Is Mac hot about this?

Thursday, December 4, 2008

You Will Not Believe This Story

Just a little double standard, don't you think!

Thursday, December 4, 2008ANN ARBOR, MI — “A despicable double standard.” That’s what Thomas More Law Center President, Richard Thompson said as he blasted the University of Toledo’s response justifying its firing of Crystal Dixon from her post as Associate VP for Human Resources. Thompson was reacting to a press statement released by the University that claimed Dixon’s firing was about her ability to perform her sensitive job as associate vice president for human resources because of her statements in the Toledo Free Press.Dixon’s past job performance at the University – spanning six years and all in Human Resources – has always been outstanding. Her last job evaluation was excellent. In July 2007, Dixon was promoted to Interim Associate VP for Human Resources over all UT campuses. One month before she was fired, she was made permanent Associate VP for Human Resources (no longer interim). Of course all that changed once she publicly expressed her private views on homosexuality based upon her Christian faith.Thompson pointed to the fact that less than 6 months before Dixon was fired over her comments, the University’s vice provost, Carol Bresnahan, publicly attacked Christians who opposed domestic partnership laws, without being fired. Thompson said, “The University of Toledo has displayed a double standard that trashes the right to free speech. UT’s President encourages those who support the radical homosexual agenda to speak out, but punishes Christians who oppose the agenda.” In a December 22, 2007 Toledo Blade article, UT Provost Bresnahan, identified as an official of the University, attacked those who opposed the law on domestic partnership registry as bigots. She said, “It’s their religious beliefs, and bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.” Bresnahan, an admitted lesbian, was in effect attacking Toledo Catholic Bishop Leonard Blair who publicly expressed disappointment on behalf of many people in Toledo regarding the registry law enacted by the Toledo City Council.This past May, Dixon was fired by the University’s President because she responded to an opinion article written by the editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press entitled, “Gay Rights and Wrongs.” Dixon wrote a letter of response based on her personal perspective. She wrote, “As a Black woman ... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.”Further proof of the double standard was the UT President’s speech at a “Celebrate Diversity Week” rally in March 2007. He urged his audience to speak out about diversity. He said “If you have something to say, speak out and speak up. Speak up and never let it be said that people can’t hear you. You are important to this university. You are important to me, I care about you.” Apparently, he did not mean Christians who oppose the homosexual agenda. The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at .

Wal Mart

1 . At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.
2 . This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie). 9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.
11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately6.5 billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart
13. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street

Supreme Court Reviewing Obama's Citizenship

CHICAGO — The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election.
The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.
The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.
Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.
The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.
Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.
Other suits have been filed by Andy Martin, whose case was dismissed in Hawaii, and by an Ohio man whose case also was dismissed. Five more suits, all later dismissed, were filed in Hawaii by a person who is currently suing the "Peoples Association of Human, Animals Conceived God/s and Religions, John McCain (and) USA Govt." The plaintiff previously sought to sue Wikipedia and "All News Media."
The most famous case questioning Obama's citizenship was filed in Pennsylvania in August on behalf of Philip J. Berg and sought to enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating Obama. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept the case. Earlier, a federal judge rejected it for "lack of standing" — ruling that Berg had no legal right to sue. In cases like this, judges sometimes believe the matter is best left to political institutions, such as the Electoral College or Congress, said legal scholar Eugene Volokh of the University of California at Los Angeles.
The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.
Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard — and not all of those ultimately were successful.

Just Say No

To our Oklahoma Delegation:

Please do not bail out the Big Three auto makers. The United Auto Workers have not made any serious concessions. To be paid $168,000 a year, to screw bolts onto a part using an air driven-socket wrench is ridiculous ! I taught engineering at the University of Oklahoma for over forty years and never came close to making that kind of money.

Let them file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. If they don't survive, then Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes etc will provide us with all the American made cars that we need at a cheaper price.

It will be much cheaper for us to pay unemployment insurance to these guys than to increase our debt by 25-125 billion dollars. We survived the death of Studebaker and Hudson auto companies, and we can survive the death of GM, etc.

We don't need to pile on more debt to our kids and grandkids.

It's time to say NO to Bailouts. They have not worked! We are turning our country into a socialist state.The pursuit of Happiness is available to individuals,but the government cannot guarantee Happiness.

Thank You,

Prof. Edward F Blick
Norman, OK

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Sheriff Lester Picks Burnett

Sheriff-elect Joe Lester selected Rhett Burnett as his new Under Sheriff today. Sheriff Lester could not have picked a better person for the job. Rhett has been with District Attorney's office for the past 15 years and he is widely regarded as one of the state's top investigators.

Full Page Ad In Chicago Paper Challanges Obama

Obama Birth Certificate Rears Its Head - Again
By Liza Porteus VianaDec 1st 2008 2:44PM

Filed Under:eBarack Obama, 2008 President, Obama Administration
The election may be over, but not the controversy.Just when you thought the flap over the genuineness of Barack Obama's birth certificate was all said and done, in comes the We The People Foundation. The group purchases a full-page ad in The Chicago Tribune - the newspaper of the president-elect's hometown - today and Wednesday, called "Open Letter to Mr. Obama." It's described by the foundation as a "formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the 'natural born citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States of America." Click here to view the ad."Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8," the foundation says. PolitiFact has said it has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the document.Among other complaints, the foundation charges:-that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet an "unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited, computer-generated birth form created in 2007"-the Hawaii Dept of Health won't confirm Obama's assertion that you were born in Hawaii (the director of Hawaii's Department of Health on Oct. 31 personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.)-there are legal affidavits stating Obama was actually born in Kenya-Obama's grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended your birth in Kenya.-In 1965, Obama's mother legally relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and her son had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.We the People is in the process of choosing the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Obama's original birth certificate, if Obama directs Hawaiian officials to provide it. The group estimates costs will be about $20,000 to successfully complete the task, and they need money. Any donors out there?The birth certificate issue is like this annoying itch that just won't go away. During the campaign, the Obama camp tried to stamp out the rumors by posting information - and the birth certificate - on its Fight the Smears site. But that apparently hasn't stopped the rumor mill.A Kentucky truck driver last week filed a demand that Obama prove he is a natural-born U.S. citizen. Daniel John Essek, 47, wants the former Illinois senator to provide a copy of his birth certificate to a federal judge in London for verification."I may very well be chasing windmills thinking they're monsters," Essek told the Lexington Herald-Leader.A Pennsylvania judge threw out a pre-election court challenge to the citizenship issue, saying its arguments were frivolous. Other similar lawsuits have also been filed.Right Side News on Sunday so graciously pointed out that "Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth. This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year."This Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court judges will conference. It's expected the question of whether Obama is actually eligible to become the next president will come up. If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case, brought by Leo C. Donofrio against the New Jersey secretary of state, oral argument may be scheduled. You know the Internet is going to be abuzz with activity surrounding Friday's conference. We'll try to sift through the sludge and bring you the facts.UPDATE: Here's my Q&A with We The People Foundation Chairman Bob Schulz:Q.) Why don't you believe that the Hawaiian authorities have vouched for the authenticity of the birth certificate filed with that state for President-elect Obama? The state's Department of Health director on Oct. 31 released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.A.) Yes, Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they possess Obama's original birth certificate, however in their official press release they fail to state it is an original birth certificate from Hawaii.In fact, under Hawaiian law, a foreign born child can be registered as a naturalized (but not "natural born") U.S. citizen following application of the parents, (See, Hawaiian law provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. ). Such persons would be eligible to receive a "Certification of Live Birth" from the state, such as the document Obama has proffered. "Naturalized" citizens, such as the Governor of California, cannot hold the office of President.This of course, does not resolve the thornier issue as to the content of Obama's birth document. Specifically the stated "place of birth" may not in fact reflect the physical location of Obama's birth (as evidenced by the "original" certificate of Live Birth claimed to be in the possession of Hawaii officials), but rather the local Hawaii residency of the U.S. parent claimed in a birth registration application such as that provided by HRS 338-17.8 (See above). In any event the document is simply a computer-created document based upon the entries in a computer database, which may have been conceivably tampered with at some point.Hawaii law also provides for "amending" birth certificates. From the official web page: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country."In short, the document proffered by Obama does not contain all the information needed to conclusively verify that he is legally eligible to hold the Office of President.Additionally, beyond their refusal to minimally confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii, state officials also refuse to comment on the authenticity of Obama's birth document.All these questions could be resolved by Obama by simply providing access to his original birth certificate.Q.) What reputable sources have discredited the birth certificate already produced by Obama?A.) Attorney Phil Berg states in his lawsuit against Obama, "...three (3) independent Document Forensic Experts performed extensive Forensic testing on the Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's campaign website."He has not publicly identified his sources but one of them is reported to be a reputable professional forensics expert going under the pseudonym "Polarik" for his family's protection. His latest comprehensive report concluding Obama's document is a forgery can be found here. He has also posted a short YouTube video.Q.) How much did you pay for these 2 full-page ads (on Dec. 1 and 3)?A.) Tens of thousands of dollars. It was a negotiated amount.Q.) What sort of reaction have you received so far to the ads?A.) We have experienced significant media interest from primarily talk shows and newspapers, including some well-known media entities. We have hoped that our ads would spur public debate on this topic and hopefully, this may have begun.In the end, there is no practical reason why Obama refuses to produce his original birth certificate. He is seeking the Office of President and has a duty to provide evidence that he meets the explicit requirements established by the Constitution.

Republican Rejected, But Not Conservative Values

This is a very interesting article. I hope you will take the time to read it.
Republicans Rejected, But Not Conservative Values
By Warren Cole SmithEvangelical News PressNovember 26, 2008

The Republicans took a beating on Nov. 4. There can be no doubt about that. Barack Obama won the presidency, and the Democrats gained seats in both the House and the Senate.
But was the election a disaster? Hardly. As political strategist Karl Rove said, “In a year when all currents were running against Republicans and our campaign was lackluster and erratic, Barack Obama received only 3.1 points more than Al Gore in 2000 and only 4.6 more than John Kerry in 2004.”
Rove is right: this wasn’t a landslide. If you look at a map of the nation “colored in” by county, you’ll still see a lot more red than blue. And if you drill down, while Republicans might be wringing their hands, this social conservative finds much to like about this election. Here are a few lessons from the 2008 election that bode well for the future.

Culture Still Matters. Marriage amendments won California, Arizona, and Florida - and they won against overwhelming odds. California is the largest and one of the most liberal states in the nation, and the campaign against Proposition 8, the pro-marriage amendment, was extraordinarily well-funded. Yet it carried 52 percent of the vote, and 70 percent of African-Americans voted for it. Even Barack Obama is against gay marriage. This is a winning issue for social conservatives.

Moderate Republicans Were (Properly) Chastened. There has been some astonishment outside of North Carolina that “even Elizabeth Dole” got beat. But the truth is that she has been the very archetype of what has gone wrong with the Republican Party. Her departure may have cost the Republicans a seat in the Senate, but it is a welcome purging. And she is just one of many wishy-washy moderates among the Republican leadership who have been replaced by solid “movement conservatives” such as Indiana’s Mike Pence. Pence and his conservative friends know the Republicans can’t win by being faux-Democrats. Expect to see a clearly articulated and politically sophisticated conservatism come from them in the months and years ahead.

A Deep Bench Emerges. With “old line” candidates such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani headed for the showers, a strong bench is headed for the field - and they’re all pro-family, pro-life, limited-government, pro-defense conservatives. Governors Sarah Palin (Alaska), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), and Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota) have long been mentioned as possible candidates. But now a new name moves to the top tier. South Carolina’s Mark Sanford was elected chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association, leapfrogging the aforementioned governors onto a highly visible platform. Sanford has long had the ideas; indeed, he may be the most intellectually vigorous politician in America today. He’s also got the best resume of the crowd: service in Congress, two terms as governor, and he’s a reserve officer in the U.S. Air Force. Look for him to be mentioned more and more as a possibility for president in the months ahead.

Are there still problems? As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha.” Obama has promised to undo years of grass-roots legislative work on the life issue by signing the misnamed Freedom of Choice Act. It’s likely that he will have the chance to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices. The only good news there is that Obama appointments will likely replace liberals, thereby not changing the balance of the court. But judicial appointments at lower levels will likely have an impact on the judicial system of America for many years. And there are other concerns. Conservatives have to learn how to talk with African-Americans and Hispanics, who share many of our values, but who feel (sometimes justifiably, and sometimes not) they have been made scapegoats of Republican demagoguery.
But let me reiterate: things could be and have been much, much worse for conservatives in America. In fact, I would say that the “conservative” brand is in much better shape than either the “liberal” or “Republican” brand. So now is not the time to give up. It is the time to dig in. America’s and conservatism’s greatest victories are not behind us, but before us.

Warren Cole Smith is a North Carolina resident and the editor and publisher of Evangelical Press News Service.

WorldNet Daily Calls Obama A Fake

OBAMA WATCH CENTRALImaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake'It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth'
Posted: December 01, 200810:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A guru on the "Certification of Live Birth" Barack Obama's campaign posted online to rebut charges he is ineligible to be president due to the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement says it's a fake, and further, that such fraud is criminal.
The Obama campaign has told WND such allegations are "garbage," but Dr. Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media specializing in computer technology such as printers, scanners and digital imaging, disagrees. His analyses have been posted online in a YouTube video, which also is embedded here:
He explained to WND his four months of research on the images, including nearly 1,000 test images using actual scans and photographs of real certifcates, reveal there are several "giveaways" on the image itself. For example, the document has gray and white between the lettering, not green pixels as the rest of the background document, suggesting someone cut-and-pasted or typed new information that was embedded on top of the background.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
Also, Polarik said although the Obama form has a border and seal from 2008, it purportedly was obtained in 2007. He said the seal does not match seals on other documents from 2007, but does match those from 2008. His full report is posted at
In Polarik's view, there has to be a significant reason for a political candidate and campaign to go to such lengths.
"Obviously, there's something very critical to hide, or they wouldn't have spent the million dollars in legal fees to prevent the release of his original birth certificate," Polarik told WND.
"There's absolutely something to hide," he said. "If he was born in Hawaii they would have had a luau that would be continuing today.
"Not that the people who voted for him would care," he said, "but they used this forged document to convince the American voters.
"It's a scary thought to have someone who essentially begins his presidency as a criminal," he said, because the use of a faked document as identification is, in fact, a crime, he noted.
"It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth," he said.
The video has Polarik's face and voice disguised and he confirmed in talking with WND that he's using an assumed name because of the threats he's reported receiving.
Polarik said the issue of the birth location is a "chink" in Obama's armor, but the Democrat also has declined to release information about his college years, about his selective service and about his passports, including on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan two decades ago when it was illegal to go there as a U.S. citizen.
Polarik describes his findings and conclusions on the video.
WND columnist Janet Porter has written extensively about the birth certification issue.
"Look, we're not asking for the world here. Neither is the Constitution. Some pretty basic requirements like being 35 years old, having 14 years residency in the United States, and being a natural born citizen. When Senator John McCain was questioned about it, he showed his birth certificate without hesitating. When Barack Obama was asked by courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, he ducked and hid behind the right to privacy," she writes.
"Ironically, when Obama was running for the State Senate, he won by disqualifying every candidate who ran against him in the primary, including a guy who had been through a nasty and salacious divorce. Even though he had a small child who could be hurt by the information being made public, a court decided that the public's right to know; outweighed this poor fella's right to privacy, and he backed out. Obama clings to the 'right to privacy' regarding his own qualifications, just not his opponents."
She also noted the issue won't go away, and recommended a visit to to review what's happening.
"These are the facts," she wrote. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama's grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate. Instead of a birth certificate, Obama's campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad. Experts have called even that document an 'obvious forgery.'"
"Our Constitution still matters," she said.
Her group, Faith2Action, is working on funding for the purchase of time for a new television ad on the issue.
In the Philadelphia Bulletin, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira said a multitude of problems could result.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Vieira told the newspaper. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath.

"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."
"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," he told the newspaper. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."
He continued, "[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there. What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"
Vieira expressed confidence Obama eventually will be forced to produce documentation.
"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," he told the newspaper. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.'"
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has launched a program to allow concerned voters to express their desire directly to the U.S. Supreme Court for the issue to be resolved.
A conference among the justices is scheduled Friday on a New England challenge to Obama's eligibility.
"The case is brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the New Jersey secretary of state, and questions whether Obama is a 'natural-born citizen' as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution," Farah reported.
"It would seem a simple matter to resolve," he said. "Barack Obama could have put this issue to rest long ago by producing a complete birth certificate from Hawaii. Instead, he has chosen to stonewall the matter, citing a website post of what can only be characterized as a partial representation of a birth certificate – one that has been criticized as a forgery.
"Meanwhile, some of Obama's own Kenyan relatives claim to have been present at his birth in Mombasa. This controversy, which some have dismissed as frivolous, is as serious as the literal meaning of the Constitution itself."
The nation's Electoral College, the process through which Obama is to be formally voted as the next president, will meet Dec. 15, and his inaugural is scheduled Jan. 20.
Meanwhile, more than 125,000 have signed WND's petition seeking full disclosure of Obama's information.
The petition cites the U.S. Constitution's requirement that no one can be sworn into office as president without being a natural born citizen. It also asserts there are questions about Obama's reported Hawaii birth, that the Democrat has refused repeated calls to document his birth, that activist judges have declined to require him to shed light on the issue and that Hawaii – at the time of Obama's birth – allowed parents whose children were born in other locations to register the birth there.
WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.

Monday, December 1, 2008

They Are Coming For Your Gun

This is being introduced in each state
starting with California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Indiana, Tennessee, and Washington.

"No later than January 1, 2011,
all non coded ammunition for the calibers listed in this act,
whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets,
shall be disposed."

Do not let these types of so-called laws be passed!
They are coming for your guns.
Now they will find the unregistered ones via registered ammo.

All tyrants use the registration records
to confiscate guns from potential resistors.

Also, if someone steals your ammo and commits a crime, they will come to the one who has it registered.

Many law-abiding people who have guns but do not have Drivers license or government issued ID
cannot buy ammunition.

I do not have a Driver's license nor a government issued ID.
Nor do I want one or be forced to have one

By 2011, it will be a crime to have
Non coded ammunition in your possession

When fines are collected,
where does the money go?
Yes, you are right!...To build a bigger empire.

They are also taxing ammo
at the rate of 5 cents for each round.

Do not let it happen
5 cents today could be $1.00 per round tomorrow

Creates the Ammunition Accountability Act. Provides that all firearm ammunition manufactured or sold in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2010 shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that effective January 1, 2010, all firearm ammunition used within the State of Illinois shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that on or after January 1, 2010, a person in possession of non-coded ammunition that was manufactured prior to January 1, 2010, may transfer the same only to an heir, to an individual residing in another state maintaining the ammunition in another state, or to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Provides that the Department of State Police shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding System Database (ACSD) containing specified information. Establishes penalties and exemptions.
The "coding" is applied to the base of the bullet (where it's apparently supposed to hold together through firing and impact, in order to identify the ammunition. Now these bills (or this bill, really) exempt shotgun ammunition (which makes sense--the idea of encoding the hundreds of .08" diameter pellets in a round of #9 shot is obviously ridiculous), and muzzle-loader ammunition.

The other two bills, HB 4269 and HB 4349 are both called the "Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act," and although somewhat different from the first two bills, appear to be identical to each other. Here's the summary of these bills:
Creates the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that a manufacturer of ammunition for handguns and certain specified assault weapons sold in this State after January 1, 2009 must encode the ammunition in such a manner that the Director of State Police establishes. Provides that ammunition contained in one ammunition box may not be labeled with the same serial number as the ammunition contained in any other ammunition box from the same manufacturer. Provides that on or before January 1, 2011, an owner of ammunition for use in a regulated firearm that is not encoded by the manufacturer shall dispose of the ammunition. Provides that beginning on January 1, 2009, the Director of State Police shall establish and maintain an encoded ammunition database. Creates the Ammunition Accountability Fund as a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that subject to appropriation, the Department of State Police may use moneys from the Fund to establish and maintain the encoded ammunition database. Provides that beginning January 1, 2009, each person selling encoded ammunition at retail in this State shall collect from retail customers a fee of $0.05 for each round that is sold and delivered in this State. Establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act. Effective January 1, 2009.
These bills are apparently intended to mollify hunters, by "only" going after ammunition intended for handguns and so-called "assault weapons." This, of course, is ridiculous, as handguns have been built in nearly every caliber that rifles have, including the terrifying, airline-busting .50 BMG "weapon of war" (that's sarcasm, if you're wondering) and the .600 Nitro Express elephant gun cartridge. Additionally, "assault weapons" aren't chambered in special "assault weapon" calibers (although that little fact is conveniently ignored by the folks pushing bans of "high-powered assault weapons"), so there is no such thing as a special category of "'assault weapon' ammunition." In fact, the bill defines "assault weapon" by type, and among the designated "assault weapons" are several 12 gauge shotguns, meaning that, unlike the other bills, these two will apply to 12 gauge shotgun ammunition (.410 shotgun shells would also be affected, because the Taurus "Judge" means that .410 shells are "handgun ammunition"). Hunters take note.

Both types of bill have the program administered by the Illinois State Police--an organization that in it's zeal for citizen disarmament, has no compunction about breaking the law.

I mention banning ammunition, because although the bills won't explicitly do that, the enormous costs of tooling up to manufacture such ammunition will basically make it impractical for ammunition manufacturers to comply, meaning they'll simply have to stop selling ammunition in Illinois. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) has more on that, from when they were fighting such legislation in California (before California went the "microstamping" route, instead). If manufacturers (and retailers) would continue to serve the Illinois market, the cost of ammunition for the consumer would be prohibitive (even without the nickel per round tax imposed by the second set of bills).

By the way, neither bill mentions provisions for an exemption for hand loaders.

Illinois has apparently gotten tired of the slow progress of a relentless "slippery slope" procession of draconian laws, and has decided to push the state off a "teflon cliff."

Dick Morris Reports "Obama's Fund Raising"

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on the on December 1, 2008
Myths in politics take on a life of their own and the Obama campaign has been quick to cloak its incredible electoral success with a new coat of mythology. Two fantasies, in particular, pervade the amazing triumph of the Obama candidacy: That young people propelled him to victory by finally voting in large numbers and that small donors financed his campaign.
Were either myth a reality, it would be big news. Ever since the voting age was dropped to 18, politicians have been waiting for young voters to rock the system. But turnout among the young has been consistently and disappointingly low. From the manifest enthusiasm for Obama on campuses and the mammoth crowds of young admirers he generated, it appeared that the moment for the young had finally come. In the primaries and caucuses, young people flocked to Obama's bandwagon, often supplying his top heavy margins of victory in caucus states that propelled him to victory over Hillary.
But on Election Day, it did not happen. The Fox News/Opinion Data exit polling showed that the vote cast by people under thirty held steady at 11% of the total, the same level the organization's 2004 exit polls had found. Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International found a higher proportion of the vote cast by 18-29 year olds -- 18% -- but, by the same methodology, the firm found the 2004 voter base was 17% composed of people in that age cohort. Whether the young cast 11% or 18% of the vote in 2008 makes little difference. The fact is that neither polling firm found any real increase from the levels they found four years ago.

The myth of the small donor is even more important. Most political observers did not attack Obama for his breaking of his pledge to accept public financing because of our belief that he was funding his campaign by a massive outpouring of small donations. We felt that he was single-handedly accomplishing campaign finance reform and did not mind that he opted out of the public system. Indeed, we cheered as he amassed a $600 million war chest as it signified the clout of the small donor and showed the vulnerability of the old fat cat/PAC network that others used to raise money.But we were fooled by Obama's propaganda. In a story by Fred Lucas, CNSNews reports that the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) found that only 26% of the donors to Obama's campaign gave $200 or less, compared to 25% for President Bush's campaign in 2004. How did Obama fund his campaign? The old fashioned way, from fat cats. CFI found that he got 80% more money from large donors (over $1,000) than from those who gave less than $200.Obama did benefit from small donors slightly more than other campaigns, but not enough to make the historic statement it appeared at the time that was taking place. CFI notes that 47% of Obama's total fund raising came from large donors, compared to 60% for McCain, 60% for Bush in 2004, and 56% for John Kerry. This trend represents a movement in the right direction, but hardly the revolution that has been mythologized.These revealing stats are more than a footnote to history. They represent the denouement of a carefully cultivated myth. Obama sold America on the idea that his campaign was animated by hordes of small donors who we're attracted online. It now appears that this line was nothing more than a convenient smoke screen to mask his dependence on the traditional forces that have always funded presidential campaigns. And it puts into a new perspective the massive amount Obama raised and his brazen reversal of his public pledge to accept the limits imposed by public financing of campaigns.Now that we know that Obama funded his campaign the old way - from rich people and special interests - it is reprehensible that he did so to the tune of over $600 million. When it looked like he was using the money of small donors to buy the election, it was excusable. But we were fooled.

McGuigan Speaks Out About James Bond

ENT Bond review 11-26

In new Bond film, Daniel Craig is superb as 007
By Patrick B. McGuigan
Sentinel Managing Editor

Daniel Craig may be the best James Bond ever. He certainly qualifies as the actor who has most thoroughly confounded critics who thought a blond and blue-eyed fellow known previously for artsy films and stage acting could never pass muster as Ian Fleming’s edgy, hard-drinking and frequent smoking master spy.
Frequent smoking has left the series, but edgy and hard drinking remain. Craig’s performance in the 2006 film, “Casino Royale,” blew most away most critics. With “Quantum of Solace,” a solid sequel story that begins just minutes after conclusion of the last film, Craig secures his place in the Bond pantheon alongside the original and still most popular 007, Sean Connery.
Speaking of Connery, there is a brief hotel lobby scene in “Quantum”where Craig’s character checks on a message, then retrieves a briefcase belonging to someone else, a crucial moment in the plot development. Before and after an exchange between Craig’s character and a girl at the desk, the camera provides brief glimpses of a fellow reading in an easy chair near the front desk.
I was certain it was Sean Connery. A note posted on The City Sentinel’s MySpace page, Tulsa Today’s website and Norman activist Bobby Cleveland’s blogsite brought a flurry of responses. Most agreed with me, but an impressive minority report it is Michael G. Wilson, producer of the film who has popped up (Hitchcock-like) in the last few installments. The latter group is no doubt correct, but see for yourself. The moment referenced is about a half-hour into the film.
It would help, but is not essential, to have seen the last installment before going to this one. The essentials of that story are: Bond falls in love. The object of his affections dies in a way that makes him believe he was betrayed. He was not, and thereby lies this tale.
This is a story about revenge, regret, sorrow, heartbreak and the call of duty in a world gone mad. Evil men and their minions pose as caring environmental stewards, yet still have allies among world leaders and intelligence agents when all the duplicity and deceit of the group known as “Quantum” (long-time Bond fans, think: Spectre) is understood. While certainly a brilliant action film with lots of explosives and several brutal fights, this is nonetheless a Bond story for those with literate tastes and an appreciation for compelling character portrayals.
A few critics have said this is the least subtle Bond ever filmed. I must have seen a different motion picture. Craig pours spectacular and believable emotion into a glance, a stare, a gulp of liquor, a kiss for a woman he never beds, and a flurry of eloquence in tribute after learning of the death of a woman he did.
The supporting cast is uniformly superb, but special praise goes to Olga Kurylenko as the Bolivian agent who becomes Bond’s friend, Mathieu Amalric as retired agent Rene Mathis, whose departure from the series is masterfully handled, and Jeffrey Wright as American agent and Bond friend Felix Leiter. The bad guys might be the film’s relative weakness, but one that is not disabling.
For this reviewer, this excellent movie is not quite the equal of its immediate predecessor, but my wife liked it better for both the abundance of action and Bond’s believable vulnerability and understated grief.
The film includes a poignant exchange between Craig’s Bond and the incomparable Judi Dench’s M, director of the British secret service. Their emotional back story in the “Casino” and “Quantum” gives meaning to her words, like mother to son: “I want you back.” He replies, “I never left.”
That’s good news from Bond, James Bond.