Moose Hunter Bags Community Organizer… Obama Retreats on Nuke Plan


Sunday, April 11, 2010, 10:28 AM
Jim Hoft

On Wednesday, Sarah Palin said Barack Obama’s new nuclear policy was like, “A kid on the playground saying punch me in the face and I’m not going to retaliate.” This upset the the president who later lashed out at the former Alaska Governor on her nuclear experience on Thursday.

Which led to this–
Sarah Palin clobbered Barack Obama Friday in her speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The former Alaska Governer responded to the “community organizer’s” attack on her nuclear experience.

She questioned what in Obama’s community organizing background led him to believe he was an expert on nuclear policy.

Today, the Obama Administration retreated from their previous nuclear plan.
Hillary Clinton told CBS that “all bets are off” when it comes to biological weapons.

The Obama administration’s nuclear posture review may have removed some of the intentional ambiguity from U.S. nuclear policy, but it does not leave the country any less safe, President Obama’s top national security advisers said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

In fact, they said, it gives a clear warning to other state actors that the U.S. will not ignore any growing threats.

“This is putting everybody on notice,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer in an interview conducted Friday at the Pentagon. “We don’t want more countries to go down the path that North Korea and Iran are.”

The revised nuclear policy says that the United States will not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack from a non-nuclear country. The policy, however, leaves significant contingencies, said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Countries which are non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (such as North Korea) or have been found to be non-compliant (such as Iran) are not exempt from nuclear retaliation under the Obama policy.

“We were concerned about the biological weapons,”
Gates said, “and that’s why the president was very clear … if we see states developing biological weapons that we begin to think endanger us or create serious concerns, that he reserves the right to revise this policy.”

Clinton added, “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”

Apparently, the former governor knows more about nuclear deterrence than the community organizer after all.
This round goes to Palin.

Sarah Palin’s Speech In New Orleans

Sarah Palin’s Speech In New Orleans

Posted on | April 9, 2010 |

by Smitty (h/t Gateway Pundit)

Sarah’s speech is a point-for-point flogging of the Administration. The folksy delivery will cause lefty heads near you to ’splode, to keep the volume low. President Sleeveheart has already publicly whined about her by name on the nuclear topic. If you follow that link, BHO claims the JCS ‘is comfortable’ with his nuclear policies. Sure.

Sarah Palin At SRLC – Don’t Retreat,Reload

On the topic of criticism of the Lefty agenda, your attention is drawn to The Valley of the Shadow. VotS has an interesting historical sketch of the Democratic non-command of international policy, going back to LBJ. Well worth your time.

Update: Tabitha Hale has a roundup of the New Orleans conference, including Rick Perry video.

Actually, Palin’s endorsement of McCain really does stink

Actually, Palin’s endorsement of McCain really does stink

One of my fellow Green Room contributors, CK MacLeod, stirred the pot with his recent post on the topic. Now, personally, I think comments should be responded to with more comments, and not with the bullhorn of the Green Room posting privilege. However, Allahpundit, with his beta wisdom, suggested a response in kind.

My first qualm was with the designation of critics of McCain, and of this move in particular, as “McCain haters”. Apart from being a tactic usually adopted by the left to demonize their critics, it also sounds eerily familiar to the RINO-in-question’s daughter, Meghan, who created the “NO H8″ campaign. It’s a cheap shot, meant to portray one’s opponent as operating on bigotry. Disliking the guy for his statements, penned legislation, policy positions, and campaign decisions does not amount to hate. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Barack Obama(haters!).

Then we get to the meat of the issue: why did Palin endorse McCain? We’ve all got various ideas, but CK’s precis is that she simply supports him.

Gov Palin agrees with Senator McCain close to 100% on foreign policy. She respects and likes him personally. She doesn’t blame him for the actions of some of his operatives during and after Campaign ‘08, and never believed it was his responsibility to play the roll of political Dad and discipline the other kids for her. She was and is quite capable of defending herself and charting her own course, and would have found it condescending and presumptuous for him to play protector.

So he’s a hawk. Good. So is Joe Lieberman, one of his best pals. Will Palin endorse him on that basis alone? Lieberman is a liberal in almost all other ways. Additionally, foreign policy is but one of many factors to consider. I’d argue that it’s far more important to focus on that aspect of a candidate’s philosophy when they’re running for president, not for Congress. If she likes him personally, there’s really nothing to argue. Whether she blames him for the muzzling she was put under in October of ‘08, the post-campaign treatment, or not, is her business.

The key here is that Sarah Palin has been swelling her political influence at an accelerated rate in the last year, almost exclusively by weighing in on domestic issues. CK eventually gets to her compatibility with McCain’s positions:

She has no problem with the main thrust of his domestic views or his overall approach to politics. If she cares much about immigration politics – I’ve seen little evidence of it, though it’s clearly still a big deal to many grassroots conservatives – she’s happy with McCain’s post-”Shamnesty” positioning. I suspect that she cares enough about the Republican Party’s long-term prospects to want to see the issue handled soberly and positively.

Though post-’08 she’s been driven into a conservative cul-de-sac – in part by political circumstances in the US of A ca. 2010, in part by a learning experience that has included attacks on her from the left and from Brooks-Frum moderate/elitist conservatives – her political profile and her actual political conduct when in office, was moderate, bi- and non-partisan, and altogether maverick-y.

The importance of her positions is rather considerable, as people throughout the blogosphere have been casting Palin as the new face of conservatism; a latter day Reagan. If this is the case, let’s do a little comparison.

First up, the one that comes to everyone’s mind: amnesty. McCain authored the bill himself, with none other than Ted Kennedy. What’s Palin’s view on illegal aliens? Well, she’s stated she’s not for “total amnesty“. That’s sufficiently vague. Would it matter more to a Senator from a border state? Yes, but as 2007 proved, it matters to the majority of the conservative movement as well. Boiling it down to “I support his position on immigration” is not comforting, either. Tough call on that one. Perhaps they do agree.

How about global warming? Well, she was one of the first out of the gates after ClimateGate struck. In the same vein, she’s been one of the most outspoken proponents for domestic drilling, including in the ANWR area. McCain, on the other hand? He not only is against drilling in ANWR, but has long partook of the AGW kool-aid. Cap and Trade is another area where McCain and Obama get along swimmingly. Palin begs to disagree.

What about a Hot Air favorite: gay marriage? Well, we’re well aware of the McCain camp’s position, considering Meggie Mac’s approach. Sarah, once again, parts ways on the topic. Evolution? Again, they disagree. Some may say it’s a minor issue, but it’s seemed important to Sarah Palin.

Now, I’m not well known as a friend of birtherism. Hence, JD Hayworth’s membership in that group certainly gives me pause. However, at the same time, he’s anti-amnesty. He’s pro-drilling in ANWR. He doesn’t buy global warming, nor does he like the idea of cap and trade. Gay marriage? Uhhh…yeah. This is by no means an attempt to express support for Hayworth, but on the issues, he does have a more conservative scorecard than McCain.

Overall, my point is this: is Sarah Palin a strong conservative? If she is, why is she endorsing McCain? They disagree on a number of relevant domestic issues. She and Hayworth share more common views. If it’s personal, so be it. If Sarah Palin is a moderate, then very well. Let’s get that out into the open, and stop presenting her as a conservative icon, because there are few left who would consider McCain as such. Some have suggested that she is just being loyal to the man who chose her as his running mate for the presidency. Ultimately, the argument that Sarah Palin supports McCain because of his politics is frail. They’re at odds all over the place. It’s not “hatred” to point this out. Deal with it.

Sarah Palin’s Walmart Strategy

Sarah Palin’s Walmart Strategy

By J. Robert Smith

What’s notable about Sarah Palin’s book tour, which starts midweek, is where she’s not going.  She’s not going to L.A. or New York, Boston or San Francisco.  She’s going smack dab to the middle of the country. Fly-over country, liberals call it.  And it’s a shrewd move, not only in selling books, but positioning herself for a presidential run in 2012, if she chooses.

It’s a strategy right out of the late Sam Walton’s playbook: go where there’s demand and the competition ain’t.  Walton, who could have run and won political campaigns, built Walmart into the behemoth it is today by opening his discount stores in small towns in the heartland, towns that the eight-hundred pound gorilla K-Mart ignored. 
Walton conquered the discount retail category from the heartland out.  He didn’t so much as clobber K-Mart as steal a march on it.  Palin may just prove that a heartland strategy does more than sell blenders and books.  It’s the foundation for winning a national election. 
Make no mistake, right now, heartlanders (and heartlanders in spirit) are feeling awfully ignored by Washington politicians.  The president and Congress are intent on ramming through a health care reform measure that an ever-increasing majority of Americans oppose.  They’re spending as if using someone else’s credit card (in fact, the people’s); they play Americans for dupes by calling an old-fashioned pork barrel bill an economic stimulus; and, for toppers, President Obama is playing Hamlet about Afghanistan, thus putting brave soldiers there at greater risk every day. 
What Palin will bring to places like Noblesville, Ind., Washington, Pennsylvania, and Fort Bragg, N.C, is her brand of popular conservatism: upbeat, optimistic and certain.  It really is an offshoot of the Reagan brand.  And the Reagan brand has its roots deep in the American character. 
Corny as it sounds to tone-deaf liberals, in the main, citizens believe in the American Way. It’s no accident that by a two-to-one margin, more voters identify as conservative rather than liberal, and that doesn’t count all those other voters who hold some conservative values and positions. 
And it may not just be conservatives and conservative-leaners who find Palin’s Americanism attractive.  Sean Trende, in a solid analysis for RealClearPolitics,  showed that in November’s off-year elections, principally in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, affluent suburban voters, who had been trending Democratic, moved away from the party toward conservative Republican candidates. 
But another striking fact from the elections was the continued movement toward the GOP of those who Trende and his colleague, Jay Cost, term “Jacksonians” (in part, heartlanders). 
“The historical base of the Democratic Party for two centuries has long been … Jacksonians: Culturally conservative, hawkish, and populist whites located throughout the South and Border states. They began breaking away from Democrats in the 1950s and 1960s — their reaction to the Party’s embrace of unions, blacks and liberals is a story that is so well known there’s no need to rehash it here.
“But this group remained at least in play for the Democrats. Clinton inherited a coalition consisting of minorities, liberals, urban voters, and a decent remnant of Jacksonian voters in the Ohio River Valley and the South, who still preferred a moderate-to-conservative Democrat to a Republican. This coalition became a majority coalition when Clinton used a combination of fiscal conservatism and social moderation to bring suburban voters on board.” 
Trende writes that in the 2008 presidential election, drop off in Jacksonians’ support for Barack Obama may have shaved seven percentage points from his vote aggregate.  It was the difference between a fairly close margin of victory (53% to 46%) and a landslide.
The dilemma this poses for Democrats, as Trende concludes, is that, though it’s possible for the party to maintain majority status absent the Jacksonians, it’s a very hard trick to pull off, especially if there’s a sustained migration of affluent suburban voters back to the GOP.
So, Palin’s heartland strategy means consolidating her base among voters from Kentucky north to Michigan, from central Pennsylvania clear over to the Rocky Mountains.  The Deep South is largely in conservative hands now.
And just as with Walmart’s strategy of building its retailing muscle from the heartland out, Palin’s next move should be into the nation’s suburbs.  Starting with her vice presidential nomination and afterward, the mainstream media and liberal pundits and bloggers have done an expert job of slicing and dicing Palin’s reputation.  Voter perceptions of Palin in affluent suburbs are more caricature than reality.  In many eyes, she’s a mix of good-looking airhead and gun-toting, social issues radical. 
Palin can explode those perceptions by engaging suburbanites on a retail basis, something that small-minded and controlling McCain campaign operatives barred her from doing last year. 
The former Alaska governor is, by appearances and reports, a warm and engaging personality who talks a common sense language that resonates with most Americans.  The key for her is to connect her conservative principles with suburbanites’ concerns.  She needs to illustrate ways that conservatism has practical and flexible applications to current problems.  Nowadays, most citizens, including upscale suburbanites, experience the challenge of raising kids the right way, keeping household budgets in balance and saving for rainy days and retirements.  They worry about keeping their jobs and are against tax hikes and profligate government spending. 
There is, in short, plenty of common ground between suburbanites and Palin.  It’s just waiting to be discovered.
Of course, no one should expect liberal poison pens to stop writing against Palin.  The clack of computer keys will grow even louder at the Daily Kos and Huffington Post.  The Katie Courics and the gang at MSNBC will step up their pot-shots.  But Palin engaging Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, among others, should go a long way in blunting the liberal invective that will increase with each stop of Palin’s book tour.  Again, something McCain campaign gurus prevented her from doing last election season. 
Sam Walton once said:
“Each Walmart store should reflect the values of its customers and support the vision they hold for their community.”
The same holds true for politicians’ relationships to citizens.  It’s not happening now in America.  Sarah Palin has the opportunity to change that for the better. 

Page Printed from: at November 16, 2009 – 11:18:12 AM EST


Books Palin

Fri Nov 13 2009 07:27:12 ET

Going Rogue: An American Life
by Sarah Palin
Chapter Four; Section 8, pages 255-257

By the third week in September, a “Free Sarah” campaign was under way and the press at large was growing increasingly critical of the McCain camp’s decision to keep me, my family and friends back home, and my governor’s staff all bottled up. Meanwhile, the question of which news outlet would land the first interview was a big deal, as it always is with a major party candidate.

From the beginning, Nicolle [Wallace] pushed for Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News. The campaign’s general strategy involved coming out with a network anchor, someone they felt had treated John well on the trail thus far. My suggestion was that we be consistent with that strategy and start talking to outlets like FOX and the Wall Street Journal. I really didn’t have a say in which press I was going to talk to, but for some reason Nicolle seemed compelled to get me on the Katie bandwagon.

“Katie really likes you,” she said to me one day. “she’s a working mom and admires you as a working mom. She has teenage daughter like you. She just relates to you,” Nicolle said. “believe me, I know her very well. I’ve worked with her.” Nicolle had left her gig at CBS just a few months earlier to hook up with the McCain campaign. I had to trust her experience, as she had dealt with national politics more than I had. But something always struck me as peculiar about the way she recalled her days in the White House, when she was speaking on behalf of President George W. Bush. She didn’t have much to say that was positive about her former boss or the job in general. Whenever I wanted to give a shout-out to the White House’s homeland security efforts after 9/11, we were told we couldn’t do it. I didn’t know if that was Nicolle’s call.

Nicolle went on to explain that Katie really needed a career boost. “She just has such low self-esteem,” Nicolle said. She added that Katie was going through a tough time. “She just feels she can’t trust anybody.”

I was thinking, And this has to do with John McCain’s campaign how?

Nicolle said. “She wants you to like her.”

Hearing all that, I almost started to feel sorry for her. Katie had tried to make a bold move from lively morning gal to serious anchor, but the new assignment wasn’t going very well.

“You know what? We’ll schedule a segment with her,” Nicolle said. “If it doesn’t go well, if there’s no chemistry, we won’t do any others.”

Meanwhile, the media blackout continued. It got so bad that a couple of times I had a friend in Anchorage track down phone numbers for me, and then I snuck in calls to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and someone I thought was Larry Kudlow but turned out to be Neil Cavuto’s producer. I had a friend call Bill O’Reilly after I was inundated with supporters in Alaska asking why the campaign was “ignoring” his on-air requests for a McCain campaign interview. I had another friend scrambling to find Mark Levin’s number. Aboard the campaign plane I was within twenty-five feet of reporters for hours on end. Headquarters’ strategy was that I should not go to the back of the aircraft and talk to the press. At first this was subtle, but as the campaign wore on, Tracey or Tucker would call headquarters to request permission, and someone in DC would respond, “No! Absolutely not- block her if she tries to go back.”

Sarah Palin talks clothes.

Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory

Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory

By Steven M. Warshawsky

Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television. 

What are they reading and hearing?  That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.  It’s inevitable.  It’s his election to lose.  What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama “winning” the race.  (But see here and here.)  The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama’s rallies.  The legions of blacks and young people who are more “inspired” than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests.  Etc.  We all know the story by heart by now. 


This is the “narrative” that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year’s presidential campaign almost from the start.  Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama’s?  Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination?  The MSM decided that electing the nation’s first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation’s first female, socialist, patriotic president.  And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.


Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address.  A huge story.  One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race.  I’m referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain.  There are numerous “Democrats for McCain” type organizations.  There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain’s candidacy.  There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats.  And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush – but who are going to vote for John McCain this year. 


Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party.  Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is.   (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)


Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters?  They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters.  Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the “PUMAs” – which stands for Party Unity My Ass.  These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama.  Let’s not forget that during the Democratic primaries – real elections, not polls – Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict  they will, then Obama’s smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.


Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City.  There were several Democrats in attendance.  Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  Indeed, the gentlemen who “keynoted” the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns.  Hardly a right-wing conservative.  He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president.  (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama’s “government knows best” attitude when it comes to domestic issues.)  Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain. 


There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans.  (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)


Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats:  I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City.  You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that.  Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt “assaulted” on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters.  This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama.  It is remarkable (and welcome).  Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day?  Of course.  Will Obama win New York?  Almost certainly.  But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I’m sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama’s true prospects for victory this year.


The point is simple:  Don’t believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media.  If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently.  Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates.  Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially “Hillary Democrats.”  These voters may very well determine the election.  Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.   


Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support.  Granted, Barack Obama’s supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain’s supporters are about him.  Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah.  But this does not mean that Obama’s supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain’s.  Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls.  Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home.  These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic.  And 51% of “unexcited” voters will defeat 49% of even the most “inspired” voters.  Every time.


Of course, we all know what the mainstream media’s “narrative” will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election:  The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics).  The “right-wing attack machine” scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest.  Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting.  We know this story by heart as well.


So be prepared.  In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier.  For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.


We’re now 11 days out from Election Day and I wanted to give you an important campaign update.

An Associated Press headline said the other day that this race is “All even in the homestretch.” All indicators point to this race coming down to the wire, so it’s extremely important to reach out to undecided voters – the key to winning this election. The election is in your hands and I’m asking you to make the case to undecided voters for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Here’s what you should tell them… 

Instead of spreading wealth around, John McCain and Sarah Palin will spread opportunity.

Recently in Ohio, Senator Obama finally broke down and famously told “Joe the Plumber” that his economic plan is to, “spread the wealth around.” Joe is working hard to realize the American dream, as are millions of other people who work hard, pay taxes and dream of owning a small business one day. Barack Obama will raise taxes on hardworking Americans to give a government handout to the 40% of Americans who pay no income taxes.

Thanks to “Joe the Plumber,” voters are starting to see the clear difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on taxes. Joe’s story is your story … the story of hard work and the American dream. “Joe the Plumber” isn’t just one man in Ohio … it’s every person in America with hopes, dreams and the desire to work hard with the opportunity to succeed.

John McCain and Sarah Palin have an economic plan that celebrates the American dream of opportunity, not government giveaways. In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. That’s why their economic plan – Jobs for America – is so important for the American people in this time of economic crisis.

While Barack Obama is ready to “spread the wealth around,” John McCain has a plan to get our economy moving so everyone has access to good jobs, a quality education and the opportunity to succeed.

John McCain and Sarah Palin don’t just talk about change … they deliver.

This election is certainly about change – there’s no doubt about it. But that’s why we’re talking to voters about the difference between lower taxes and the opportunity to work hard for the American dream … or higher taxes and government giveaways with Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

You can trust John McCain and Sarah Palin because they are the real deal; reformers with a record who stand by their words and will always put their country first.

Time and time again this team of mavericks has stood up, taken on tough issues and delivered. They’re the real deal. They have a clear record that can deliver results, not just rhetoric that delivers votes.

In the last 11 days of this campaign, we want voters to hear the story of “Joe the Plumber” to understand the important differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. Please take a minute today to watch videos submitted to our “I’m Joe the Plumber” video contest to see how people all across America recognize that they too are Joe the Plumber. Then forward this message to your friends with a personal message about why you’re like Joe the Plumber and why you are supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin on Election Day.

Rick Davis
Campaign Manager, McCain-Palin 2008

A Humble Plea to McCain and Obama Supporters:

A Humble Plea to McCain and Obama Supporters:
  Dear friends,
 I am truly astonished by the ignorance Obama supporters have displayed
in their quest to get someone – ANYONE – into the White House. Now, wait
a minute. I can well understand your dislike or even hatred of our
clown, GWB, but he is not the root cause of all of our problems. Our Congress
is. And a change there would be welcomed by all. You ain’t gonna get
it done with Obama. You gotta fire the whole damnable crooked Congress.
(Read my book, “BERNIE’S WAR!”).
Perhaps I’m looking at all of this from a different perspective than you
because my life experiences have been so different from yours. I’m
80-years old and have traveled the world where I’ve seen a great deal.
I spent five years on active duty as a fighter pilot in the USAF and
another seven years flying with the Air National Guard in California and Texas
as well as a few years flying in the USAF Reserve. I spent three years on
active duty in Germany flying Czech border patrol with “cold guns” in
aircraft inferior to the MIG during the Korean “Police Action” when it
was thought that Korea was a diversion for a Soviet invasion of Western
Europe .
I lived abroad for a total of 28 years. Three years in Germany, twenty
years in Switzerland and five years in Great Britain where I was based
doing “spook” work for the U.S. behind the Iron Curtain before it fell.
During that era of the Cold War I ventured to Moscow, Prague, Warsaw,
Bucharest, Peshawar, Pakistan and Bulgaria posing as a Swiss
French-speaking arms dealer purchasing weapons we surreptitiously
supplied to the Afghani Mujahedeen in their successful fight against the Soviets

all of which came back to haunt us.
I’ve been there and done that and have had close associations with top
government people in Germany , the Netherlands and Great Britain . I’ve
had more foreign affair experience than Obama could ever dream of and, yet,
wouldn’t have the temerity to deign myself “Presidential” material;
although I feel eminently more qualified to judge who would NOT be best
for our country. My long-time world experience should count for
something in my plea to you to abandon this miscreant flake. You will only be
doing yourself and our country an enormous disservice if you persist in your
support of this flash-in-the-pan opportunist. On this, you MUST trust
I’ve associated closely with European royalty and African politicians.
I’ve traveled to the Far East to observe their cultures. My point is
that Obama, although formally well educated and a brilliant orator, is a
neophyte when it comes to understanding the world and is uniquely
unqualified for the job as President of these great United States . His
knowledge of economics is nil and his tax proposals absurd and
life-threatening to the U.S. not only in economic terms but in
preserving our national security as well. I don’t want a “citizen of the world”
to be President, I want a citizen of the good old USA to be President.
Screw the rest of the world as they have well and truly screwed us. The time
has come for us to awaken and start looking after ourselves. Now THAT
would be CHANGE if that’s what you’re looking for.
While McCain has abstained from playing “the race-card”, Obama  is
playing it to the hilt even though he’s technically not an African-American.
To qualify for this distinction you must be at least one-sixth black.
Obama is only one-eighth. His father would be, as he was one-sixth. No,
Obama is more Muslim than black yet he trades on his blackness.
The larger question I have about him is that we really don’t know much
 about him other than what HE  tells us, what we read on blogs and from
some serious non-partisan investigators whose factual reports are,
unfortunately, generally ignored and which receive precious little
media exposure.
 I, as a registered Independent, a military veteran and a patriot,
beseech you to put aside party considerations and vote for the lesser of the
two evils. Yes, I am NOT a McCain supporter, but he is, at least, not a
flake, doesn’t carry Muslim baggage and is a PROVEN hero and patriot
WITH experience. It’s not a party issue. It’s all about electing the best
we can trust with what we’ve got to work with. Mr. Obama is NOT that guy.
Please, please rethink your voting position.
Thanks for reading my innermost thoughts. I care about all of you, but
I care more about our country. Please help me to do both.
William P. ( Bill ) Lear, Jr.