If there is a silver lining for the citizens of Illinois in the wake of the national tragedy that struck on November 4, 2008, it is that (temporarily) we no longer have two despicable excuses for United States Senators. I realize that our governor will do his best (what normal people would refer to as worst) to replace Grand Chancellor Elect Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama with someone who will rival Detestable Dick Durbin in libiot legislative carnage, but for now I choose to look at the bright side.

Illinois no longer has a senator that began his political climb by kissing the ring of domestic terrorist William Ayers, who coincidentally is having his book re-released. Isn’t it sweet that in addition to having access to the minds of the students whose parents send to U of I Chicago, this festering sore on the face of humanity is going to profit from the election of Obama. Is that what they mean by historic, for the first time in our history a presidential election serves as a relaunch for the memoirs of a terrorist? Is it safe to assume that even though Barack Obama will be the main selling point for new copies of the terrorist’s narcissistic writings, that he will not receive a share of the royalties? Perhaps in the name of spreading the wealth around, Obama’s rightful share can be donated to ACORN for the purposes of corpse registering.

We are now free to move beyond the embarrassment of having elected Barack Obama as our senator. Unfortunately, Illinois’ gain is the nation’s loss. I wonder if Tony Rezko can get a hold of any property adjacent to The White House in case the Obama’s want to increase the size of their new yard. Can one purchase property while in prison or would “Big Brother” Barry have to pardon Rezko in order to get the good deal?

As I have written previously, we in Illinois can also hope that the Grand Chancellor Elect will help clean up our state. Again, this clean up would be only temporary (four or God forbid, eight years) and come at great cost to the nation as a whole. This particular clean up would involve draining the cesspool that spawns Illinois (Chicago) Democrat politicians and transplanting them in Washington D.C. If this is to happen, perhaps he can drain Madison County’s cesspool as well. Can we hope that Governor Blagojevich is refraining from appointing himself as Obama’s successor in order to make himself available for a cabinet position? It would be a bad deal for The United States of America… but Illinois would be rid of another embarrassment.

The Obama’s will have to find a church in the D.C. area to attend, at least for the next four years since after the 2012 election he can drop what I believe is a pretense of faith for the purpose of political gain. The Grand Chancellor Elect is fortunate that he will only have four years in his new church so if the pastor spews the same sort of hate as his former pastor, his denials of having ever heard any of it will be more plausible. After all, four years of attending a church and not hearing the sermons is more believable than twenty plus years of the same, is it not? We can hope his new pastor will not utter the words, “God damn America!”

It is a beautiful, cool Autumn day here in Southern Illinois. It is the kind of day that is conducive to feeling good and optimistic. I am trying to take advantage of the nice day to briefly reflect on the type of U.S. Senator that should replace Grand Chancellor Elect Obama. CNNPolitics.com has a piece that at least partially displays the model I would prefer Governor Blagojevich follow when making his upcoming decision.

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) – South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint on Friday became one of the first high-profile Republicans to publicly criticize John McCain following his electoral defeat, blaming the Arizona senator for betraying conservative principles in his quest for the White House.

The conservative senator, speaking to a group of GOP officials gathered in Myrtle Beach at a conference on the future of the Republican Party, described how the party had strayed from its own “brand,” which, according to DeMint, should represent freedom, religious-based values and limited government.

“We have to be honest, and there’s a lot of blame to go around, but I have to mention George Bush, and I have to mention Ted Stevens, and I’m afraid I even have to mention John McCain,” he said.

DeMint offered a long list of complaints about McCain’s record in the Senate and on the campaign trail.

I realize how unlikely it is that Gov. Rod Blagojevich would extract his head from it’s dark and foul smelling normal resting place and appoint someone like Jim DeMint to the Senate. As I stated previously, it is the kind of day that is conducive to dreaming and didn’t Obama, himself campaign on “hope?” Perhaps a political miracle will be performed and our governor will do the right thing for once. In the spirit of hope and dreams I offer the following as a suggestion for the governor’s consideration:

I don’t usually read David Brooks’ pieces, but I have heard quite a bit about his, ahem, “opinions” while listening to The Laura Ingraham Show. Apparently Mr. Brooks takes offense at the notion of principled conservatives leading the Republican Party. If the Republican Party is to one day rise from the ashes like the Phoenix, according to Mr. Brooks at least, they must follow “the Reformers.” (Note: By the Phoenix, I do not mean Arizona senator John McCain, although I’m certain David Brooks would include him in “the Reformers.”)

“The Reformers” sounds like a powerful group that a principled conservative could possibly support, right? Not so fast, as John McCain would say, “my friends.” “The Reformers” that are prescribed by Dr. Brooks as the cure for an ailing Republican Party are indeed nothing more than the RINOs that have played such a large role in the fall of the party. (Disclaimer: I am just a working man that graduated from Southern Illinois University so naturally I wouldn’t understand the complex thinking of those that , for example, graduated from the schools that gave us the Obamas.)

To overcome the odds and drag the once-great party back to the pinnacle of American politics, “the Reformers” must vanquish the enemy of progress. You may be thinking, “I thought liberal Democrats referred to themselves as progressive.” You would be correct, but there is not a lot of difference between liberal Democrats and the valiant “Reformers.” Just who the enemy is, David Brooks describes in today’s NY Times column, “Darkness at Dusk.”

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

The enemy has been identified, “the Traditionalists” with their antiquated principles and rustic attachment to conservatism. This menace must be eradicated if the Republican Party is to ascend to the heights envisioned by Brooks and RINO snobs everywhere! The party can only hope to survive if it makes itself completely indistinguishable from the Democrat Party. Make sense? Not to me, but then again I put more stock in common sense and values than I do an ability to identify wine.

Who knows why Brooks writes the things he does? Perhaps he is a Republican because his parents were Republican (much like the Democrats whose parents told them, Republicans are for big business and Democrats are for the little guy.) Perhaps the New York Times needed a Republican columnist and he is pretending for the sake of a paycheck. It could be that the bully who beat him up as a child grew up to become a principled conservative. Maybe it is as simple as elitist snobbery and the refreshing rise of Governor Sarah Palin pushed Mr. Brooks and fellow snobs over the edge.

Brooks describes the philosophy and attributes of the brave “Reformer”:

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

While I can agree with the benefit of appealing to younger voters, I disagree that the party should sell its collective soul in order to accomplish this! If liberal policies are what a voter of any age, or demographic seeks, why wouldn’t he, she, or it (transgendered?) simply align with the real Democrat Party? Why would said voter choose the cheap substitute that once was the Republican Party? Doesn’t the Democrat Party already cover the bases with the global warming scam and the manufacturing killing plans to combat the false crisis? I believe open borders advocates as well as those seeking to capitalize on perceived “inequalities” can meet there needs with the real Democrat Party.

Here is a suggestion for David Brooks and the rest of “the Reformers.” Please take your educated sensibilities to the party that already fits the description of your ideal and leave the Republican Party to be rescued by principled conservatives. Also, don’t let the door hit you on your way back to the more educated and sensibility enjoying coast!

Whether it be the droning from Sunday morning panels in the background or a perusal of internet “news” sources, the relentless spin is enough to make a thoughtful person nauseous. This dizzying assault on reason also had another effect. It helped to crystallize why our country’s electorate just did the unthinkable.

The first abdominal rumble occurred when I turned on Fox News Sunday and long time McCain pusher Bill Kristol was yapping. As a matter of principle I tune out when I see anyone I view as being integral in sticking us with McAmnesty as the sacrificial lamb to the left. This is also why I wouldn’t watch Huckabee’s show if you paid me. I don’t know if there was nauseating spin on Fox News Sunday, but Kristol’s appearance was sickening enough for me.

I must admit that I am something of a glutton for punishment so when I came back into the room after doing some of my domestic duties, I turned on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” “Big Brother” Barack Obama’s new Chief Enforcer Rahm “The Fish” Emanuel was the featured guest. I didn’t stop to listen to what he had to say. Instead I tuned in again later when the panel was gleefully celebrating the election results. Cynthia Tucker from Atlanta’s rag made sure to inject identity politics into the discussion. The subject of “Big Brother” Barack’s cabinet brought about the inevitable focus on the divisive liberal tactic of race and ethnicity based politics. Tucker proposed that Bill Richardson should be given some prominent post because so many hispanics voted for Obama! These people demand that qualifications should play second fiddle behind skin pigmentation! Thank you, Ms. Tucker for reaffirming exactly which party engages in race baiting!

I look at the panelists that populate these Sunday morning shows and the guests they feature and it hits. This is where a lot of the voters who somewhat pay attention to the political landscape get their information! Traditional news outlets are still informing the opinions of many people that pay SOME attention to politics. I say “some” for two reasons. First, those that get their information from these sources tend to get information that has been filtered through tight mesh Obama-strainer, which is what I am calling the filter the Obama media uses to decide what to publish and more importantly, what to suppress. Second, many people don’t seem to care enough to even want information. Apparently what they catch on a commercial or perhaps over hear at work is good enough for them. I am usually amazed when I talk to people and find that there is so much about The Grand Chancellor Elect that they had never even heard.

Then of course there are those that are informed and they either are hardcore socialists that will let nothing stand in the way of their agenda or they have succumbed to the Obama Kool Aid and believe wealth must be redistributed in order to harmonize the planet.

Back to the spin cycle. Breitbart has a funny article, “Internet revolution that elected Obama could save Earth: Gore!” The bulbous former internet creator is apparently squealing for relevance. No, he is not saying, “Ah created the internet and by proxy, single handedly made St. Barack Grand Chancellor of the Americas!” That may be what he is thinking, but apparently the man with a huge carbon butt-print thinks the internet elected Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama and now he wants it used to put himself back in the spotlight.

“The young people who have been inspired by Barack Obama’s campaign and the movement that powered Barack Obama’s campaign want a purpose,” Gore said.

“One of the reasons we were all thrilled Tuesday night is it was pretty obvious this was a collectively intelligent decision.”

The Internet’s critical role in Democrat Obama’s victory in the presidential race against Republican John McCain was a “great blow for victory” in addressing a “democracy crisis” stifling action against climate change, Gore said.

I think The Goreacle is saying that he would love to serve as puppet master to the foolish and properly indoctrinated “young people who have been inspired by Barack Obama’s campaign.” Its a perfect fit, young people use the internet, he created the internet, young people are apt to buy the global warming manure, he profits from peddling said manure. Ah yes, a match made in American manufacturing destroying heaven!

Gore screams for attention as time is running out for him to close the sale. Once the next cooling cycle is in full swing it will be hard to convince even most Obamorons as to the faux threat of anthropogenic global warming! Not to mention he only has one yacht.

The Web has the potential to “revolutionize almost every aspect” of running for US president, according to Gore. He believes that social activism made possible by people connecting and sharing information online is in its infancy.

“What happened in the election opens a full new range of possibilities and now is the time to really move swiftly to exploit these new possibilities,” Gore said of turning the power of the Internet to cooling global warming.

Gore said Obama should announce a national goal of getting all US electric power from renewable and non-carbon energy within the next decade and spend the billions necessary to build an “electrinet” smart power grid.

“Web 2.0 has to have a purpose” Gore said.

“The purpose I would urge is to bring about a higher level of consciousness about our relationship to this planet and the imminent danger we face. We have everything we need to save it.”

Memo to the bloated Goreacle, come to Southern Illinois, step outside, and try to sell your global warming snake-oil with a straight face. Bring a coat, though, because it is chilly here.

The AP via Yahoo News gives cause for alarm with their spin in the article, “Obama reviews Bush orders on stem cells, drilling.”

“I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country,” Podesta said in a broadcast interview.

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” Podesta said.

President Bush has limited federal spending on stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

Also, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling, leading to protests from environmentalists.

“They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah,” Podesta said. “I think that’s a mistake.”

John Podesta, Clinton hack and president of The Center For American Progress is yet another example of  Obama’s “change” or to the casual observer, bringing back all surviving Clintonians. He spins sweetly about St. Barack’s desire to see that Alzheimer’s gets cured through stem cell research and apparently President Bush has always had it in for Alzheimer’s patients. What the vile bastard fails to mention is the key to the issue of funding, embryonic stem cell research. President Bush had the moral courage to oppose the destruction of human embryos for the sake of “science.” Given that there have been promising breakthroughs from adult and umbilical cord stem cell research and none from embryonic stem cell research, one can surmise that the push for federal funding is mainly an effort to further the pro-abortion agenda. Imagine the horror if the babies that would be destroyed as the subject of theses science experiments were recognized as such. That might harm the image of abortion. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW can’t have that!

Let’s not forget the second part where Podesta ominously warns that “Big Brother” Barry intends to placate his bark humping supporters at the expense of the citizens of this nation. Of course, if Barry gets enough former Clinton blow-hards to come back, maybe there will be a short term gain in wind power.

If we want to know what Barack Obama will do to our country if even half of his rhetoric was serious we only need to look to his campaign appearances for a recurring subtle clue:

Is there an Office of the President Elect? Mike Church was talking about Change.gov and The Chosen One’s apparent office creation this morning on his wonderful radio show on Sirius Patriot 144. If there is an Office of the President Elect, is it possible that he could just stay there and spare our nation four to eight years of Hell? A quick note about Change.gov, it is a good idea to visit it if you ingest poison and need to induce vomiting. It looks like the Obamoron web people spritzed up Barack Obama’s campaign web-site and tried to give it an official-sounding name.

Today “Big Brother” stood behind a podium adorned with a sign that actually read, “The Office of the President Elect!”

The arrogance of this man is only exceeded by the rabid adoration of his mentally ill supporters (or is that redundant?) Will he wait until his second inauguration to change the name of his office to something more catchy like “Grand Chancellor of the U.S.S.A.” out of fear that there are still enough sane voters that even his private media outlets couldn’t get him re-elected if he changed the name too soon? Certainly “President of the U.S.A.” is too common for the man who exceeds all that has ever been… at least in his own estimation.

Now to examine some positive effects of this tragic election. At least two Senate seats currently held by libiots will be vacated. While it is true that the governors of Delaware and my own unfortunate state, Illinois will replace the Grand Chancellor Elect and Vice Grand Poobah Elect with two more libiots, at least our two states will have each have one less libiot hanging around and ruining things on a local level for the next two years. (In case you haven’t noticed, optimism is my specialty.)

I caught a few minutes of The Grand Chancellor Elect’s fan club Q & A this afternoon and FOX News had a caption that read something along the lines of, “Obama seeks a capable replacement in The Senate.” I found it quite refreshing that Barack Obama cares enough about Illinois to request an upgrade in our offerings to The Senate. From cbs2chicago.com:

“This is the governor’s descision (sic), it is not my deicsion (sic), and I think the criteria I would have for my successor would be the same criteria I would have as a voter,” Obama said, citing passion and a commitment to the working families of Illinois as among the most important qualities.

Obama has “a passion and commitment to the working families of Illinois?” That’s a relief, I thought the only reason he decided to go to Chicago to begin his political career is that he followed domestic terrorist and potential Secretary of Education, William Ayers there from Columbia University! Perhaps he has “a passion and commitment to” eliminating employment opportunities for “the working families of Illinois” in order to create the dependence required for his desired level of totalitarian control.

Since I’ve been following politics, Illinois hasn’t sent a capable person to The Senate, but hey, why not start now? Dick Durbin was just re-elected so a capable replacement for Barack Obama would give us in Illinois a grand total of one capable senator. Lets not kid ourselves, Barack Obama was never really a U.S. Senator, he used his seat strictly as a stepping stone to the Grand Chancellorship.

There is also the possibility that Grand Chancellor Elect Obama will raid Chicago’s corruption… I mean political machine for staff and cabinet appointments. He already tapped Scum Emanuel to be Chief of Staff (or mob enforcer.) We can hope, as citizens of Illinois, that he will make our state a temporarily reasonable state by moving some of our worst liabilities to Washington D.C. Of course the entire nation stands to suffer at the hands of this man and his Chicago machine cronies, but I am looking for any positive thread here. If he takes Ayers and Dorhn with him, that will be two fewer terrorists in Illinois!

If I could make a plea to Grand Chancellor Elect Obama, it would be to find some post for Governor Rod “Hair Helmet” Blagojevich. If we could be rid of this excuse for a governor, that would indeed be “change we could believe in!”

Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” of a quarter century ago has given way to Barack Obama’s “Evening in America.” The journey to the threshold of a potentially dark and frightening night will hopefully provide a road map for recovery. My hope is that American conservatives can look objectively back at the time since Ronald Reagan left Washington D.C. and learn from the mistakes and circumstances that culminated in this moment. I also hope that this particular moment is indeed the culmination so we will not have to slip further into darkness before we see a new dawn.

There are some positives that can be taken from this year’s disappointing election. The anxiety over who will win has now dissipated and while the result gives reason for grave concern, we now know what we face. With either result, conservatives were to face great challenges and certain conflict with the new administration. I believe opposition to misguided policies will be strengthened due to the fact that they will be crafted by the opposing political party (even thought the Republican Party has made itself largely indistinguishable from the opposing party.)

Those of us who reluctantly supported John McCain (for me personally, much less reluctantly after he named Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate) no longer have to struggle with our decision. We did what we thought had to be done. Now it is over and we can move past supporting a liberal Republican as the lesser of two evils. Perhaps enough Republicans will recall this election in 2012 such that we will not allow a liberal-lite candidate to win the party’s nomination. Those of us that feel we betrayed at least a portion of our values in attempting to protect our national well-being can break free from the bondage of settling to seek and support future candidates who share our principles.

The level of darkness and length of the night our nation faces will be determined by a number of factors, including our level of resistance. It is possible that Barack Obama believes in his own rhetoric. If that is the case, our resistance will have to be nearly constant. It is hard to imagine that the promises made to win the support of far left loons will actually become the base of a presidential agenda… but if Barack Obama believes in those promises, we will need to be vigilant. Considering the character of the people drawn to Barack Obama (i.e. domestic terrorist Bill Ayers), it is likely that he will indeed push a dangerous far left agenda as president.

An unknown and deeply troubling factor is the effect of Obama’s policies on our economy, society, security, and liberty. We can hope to avoid utter devastation at the hands of the first Marxist President of The United States of America, but that hope is little more than a glimmer. If Obama’s agenda unfolds as planned, the question will become: How much misery will be required to convince the electorate that it made a mistake? There is also the uncertainty associated with the ability of an increasingly dependant electorate to not only awaken but have the ability to rise out of the shackles of dependence. As resources are limited and more people turn to the government to have their needs met, the stronger President Obama’s stranglehold on this nation’s working class will become. Again, we can hope that this nightmare is not realized and Obama can be largely neutralized by a vigilant citizenry.

Is it possible that the two-party dominance could weaken such that citizens have actual choices in future elections? One can dream. There will come a point, perhaps in four years or assuming Barack Obama doesn’t attempt to pull a Hugo Bloomberg, in eight years, when we will be selecting the next president. Will there be viable options to Republican and Democrat? Will the nose-in-the-air Republicans such as Peggy Noonan, George Will, David Brooks, and Kathleen Parker have a party in which they can be comfortable? It is unfortunate that The Democrat Party would need to splinter in order for factions of The Republican Party to be able to stand as viable options.

I realize that the idea of deconstructing the two-party system is highly unlikely to become a reality, but in the spirit of Obama’s campaign, one can hope! Assuming this dream is not realized, we will face the non-Obama related struggle to prevent the RINOs from convincing primary voters that despite the McCain example, our only chance to win is to run another soft-core liberal. The night will only be prolonged if we repeat our mistakes.

Here’s to remaining faithful to our values and to never forgetting how we arrived at this moment! Here’s to conservative leadership that can communicate conservative ideals (what a radical notion!) Here’s to the cleansing purge of Republicans that behaved like Democrats (or the division of the former party!) Here’s hoping that America will not have to wait a quarter of a century to awake to a new day!

The tidal wave of support for the absolute worst presidential candidate in my lifetime is thought provoking as well as alarming. What motivates a person to honestly believe in the promise of Barack Obama? What is the promise of Barack Obama? Will the Obama media machine’s slick sales pitch to the irresponsible provide a return on the (largely undisclosed) investments?

I believe a large portion of the mindless support for the Marxist who must not be identified accurately (at least according to his apologists) stems from a childish narcissism. It makes sense that Obama’s global unity rhetoric would appeal to people who believe they are the axis about which the globe revolves. Obama and his surrogates have been adept at striking the right chords with those that feel they are owed something. The sense of victim-hood has been magnified, manipulated, and targeted by the Obammunists. Who is responsible to meet the needs (real or perceived) of these people? Who owes these narcissists what they believe they are due?

While I never would have supported the brutal killing of innocent babies, as Obama supporters do (although I’m sure many of them block this nasty tidbit from their minds), I spent approximately 2/3 of my life developing a narcissistic mentality similar to that displayed by the Obamabots. The first 2/3 of my life was unpleasant and I felt entitled to something better. I was raised in environment where I learned to put my own wants above all else. No, I wasn’t taught this directly, but indirectly through the actions and attitudes in my environment. It should surprise no one that this environment was filled with the type of Democratic voters who thought Republicans meant “big business.” It should also surprise no one that these Democratic voters enjoyed their many self-indulgences (even the ones they couldn’t afford) due to the fact that they were indirectly employed because of the hated “big business.”

In my misery, I felt like there should be more for me. I believed that people with good jobs already had enough and should share. If somebody had something that I would like to have, I was jealous. I couldn’t find an easy way to get what I wanted out of life. I was miserable and felt victimized by those that had success. My focus on myself led to near self-destruction.

I was lucky. I met the woman that would be my wife and began to grow-up. I began to see the value of self-reliance and individual responsibility. When my wife became pregnant with our first child I became fully aware of exactly who was responsible to meet my needs (and wants) as well as the needs of the family we had created!

My wife had a college education and a job. I had a low-paying job that I hated. So I decided to do something that an Obamabot would likely never dream of doing. I took responsibility for the future of myself and my family. I went back to school and eventually got a better job. I sought increasing responsibility at work and this coupled with my achievement of a B.S. degree, allowed me to attain an engineering position. During this time I also converted to Catholicism which filled a gap in my life.

In short, I grew up. I didn’t ask taxpayers to provide for my future. It might shock the libiot Obamorons that the misery abated as I accepted responsibility. Another benefit of growing into self-reliance was a new generosity of spirit. I found that once I stopped expecting to receive, I actually felt inspired to give.

I hope the grown-up voters can overcome the narcissistic child voters Tuesday. Obama proposes to make it nearly impossible to follow the path I took. It will certainly be harder for people to grow up and be responsible for themselves when Obama’s job killing dreams are realized.

Today’s Washington Obamost has “an excerpt” from an internet series titled “On Faith.” It should surprise no one that the chosen excerpt is Deepak Chopra’s commentary, “Please Keep God Out of the Voting Booth.” Of course it may surprise or sicken the reader to see this rabid Obammunist even mention the Constitution.

There never will be, and never should be, a religious reason to pick one candidate over another. God hasn’t personally voted in an American election, but he keeps voting by proxy. In an ideal world that would never happen. Supernatural beings aren’t citizens. Omniscient deities don’t make choices (since they already know every outcome in advance). To anyone who holds a serious regard for the Constitution, voting your faith should be a private matter, not a public one. It wouldn’t make me happy to know that a Catholic friend voted for someone solely because he was a Catholic, or that a Jewish friend voted for someone solely because he took a hawkish stand pro Israel, but that’s their right. No public discussion is required.

Yet we have to be realistic. God is going to vote by proxy this year. The real question is where his massive voting bloc is heading, now that the Republican Party has been so thoroughly discredited. Can we hope that religious voting will return to being a private matter?

Please click the link to Chopra’s commentary if you want to read the rest of the piece and perhaps be insulted for even considering your faith as an influencing factor on your vote.

I am confused about the implication that the Constitution would discourage a person from casting his or her vote based on the things that are important to him or her. This notion is foreign to me, perhaps there is something in the Bhagavadgita that informs Chopra’s perspective. I took a course on Eastern Philosophy approximately 8 years ago which covered Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confuscianism. True I did not take this course out of any desire to learn about these religions, as I was motivated strictly by the idiotic degree requirements imposed upon college students. I do remember being unimpressed by the course material and coming away with a sense that a common theme in at least some of these philosophies was the avoidance of individual responsibility.

Perhaps there is confusion regarding which candidate Chopra is supporting despite the fact that The Washington Obamost published his drivel. A visit to his own web-site and blog should clear any doubts as to his hope for change. His recent blog post, “The Man Who Changed the World?” makes it clear why he would be afraid of American voters considering faith when casting this year’s votes.

Wanting to change the world is different from having to. The latter is what’s expected of Barack Obama if he’s elected. The huge crowds he keeps attracting aren’t looking simply for a new leader, or even a reformer to undo the bad things wrought by the Republicans. They are looking for transformation. This isn’t pure fantasy. Sometimes history forces change right before your eyes, and when that happens the road forks. You can tinker with the world as it is or you can remake the world as it should be.

While it is too bad Chopra didn’t stay in India and spare this nation from his interference, the fact is, he didn’t. Of course his idea of change involves one global “collective” and therefore he likely recognizes no borders.

Is Chopra advocating global communism with “Big Brother” Barack Obama as the head of the commune known as Earth? Does he seek a global unity based on his faith and does he see Barack Obama as promising in that regard? Perhaps he hopes to attain the goals of his faith via the Saul Alinsky “Rules For Radicals” notion that the ends justify the means. How appropriate that a spiritual Obammunist would seek to further the goals of his faith by issuing a devious plea to people of faith to cast it aside before they vote?

It should be obvious that any Obamoron would want voters to ignore faith and their sense of right and wrong on Tuesday, for a reasonable consideration of right and wrong would preclude casting a vote for the man who spoke out against “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” It would be obvious that Barack Obama’s campaign based on deceptive practices (Saul would indeed be proud) would not mesh well with a sense of right and wrong. Indeed the dangerous purveyors of Obammunism desperately need you to ignore common sense, your faith, right and wrong, and simply be dazzled by the theatrics. Vote with your brain switched off, that is their hope.

On a somewhat related note, “The One” mentioned selfishness the other day. Isn’t it amazing that these libiot Obammunists believe in charitable giving… as long as it is with other people’s money?!? What has Barry given to his brother in Nairobi? What has The Messiah given to his illegal aunt in Boston? How do the charitable contributions of the Demoncrat candidates compare to those of the Republicans? The selfishness charge is completely misplaced. Selfish describes the narcissist, Barack Obama. Selfish describes the “Gimme! Gimme!” voters that see the promise of increased handouts on the backs of this nation’s productive! Selfish describes the wealthy Obammunists that stand to gain when their smaller competition is wiped out by the tax increases and regulation nightmares that would strangle small business in an Obamanation! Selfish describes Deepak Chopra, who would see our nation suffer to fit his warped philosophy.

He wrote a book call “Dreams From My Father.” He campaigns on a platform of “hope and change.” He is no mere candidate. He is an iconic figure to libiots around the globe. The fans of “Big Brother” Barry have either fallen victim to his “Rules For Radicals” tactics or are indeed the vile elitists that intend to profit from the coming oppression of the working man. The crowds with their “village idiot” yells, as Mike Church calls them, don’t seem to realize that they are cheering for a proponent of slavery. He is not the vessel of “hope” portrayed by his campaign surrogates (i.e. The Washington Obamost or MSNBC.) He is Barack Obama, Thief of Dreams!

If one listens to, or reads the words of “The One” with an intellectually honest state of mind, there can be no doubt that if his magnificent plans were to be realized, the common man would be enslaved into a hopeless existence. Our limitations will be artificially set by an all-powerful oppressor in Washington D.C… or will Barack Obama follow the example of fellow Chicago Political Machine alum, Illinois Governor Rod “Hair Helmet” Blagojevich and basically “work” out of Chicago? Perhaps this would be best since Obama’s advisors already have roots in the libiot cesspool of northern Illinois. Domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers can set Department of Education policy from the comfort of his indoctrination post at University of Illinois, Chicago.

Slavery would seem like an outrageous description of the potential condition of the American citizen but then again, Obama’s oppressive proposals are nothing if not outrageous! Is it not slavery to work for a master, who will decide who benefits from one’s labor? If the federal government is to meet Barack Obama’s stated goal of “spreading the wealth around” or his ideal of “redistributive change” (as stated in the 2001 interview the Obama media isn’t sharing), it will have to take the role of master to the citizen slaves. Will it be left to ”Big Brother” Barry or one of his ministries to decide what amount of a working man’s labor should be seized to redistribute in the name of prole control? We, the proletariat will indeed require controlling, lest we rise on our own and determine our own livelihoods and futures. Through “redistributive change” those who work will be controlled as their labor is seized, thus preventing any upward mobility and those who don’t work will be controlled as their dependence is fed and fostered. A thoughtful Obama supporter would indeed have to have a sadistic streak to advocate on his behalf.

The young would be compelled to “50 hours of community service per year” according to the “service” page of the official campaign web-site. This can be described as slavery or a sentence. Neither option is pleasant! These “opportunities” for service may be presented in such a way that the gullible and the self-loathing among us find them acceptable or even wonderful. What is ignored by the foolish supporters of “Big Brother,” is that compelled service is much less meaningful than voluntary service. The Obamorons can’t seem to grasp the subtle differences between slavery and generosity or between seizure and donation.

An American was once allowed to have a dream and be free to pursue it. Barack Obama proposes to steal those dreams, unless of course they are dreams of Obammunistic service. “Joe The plumber” might dream of owning his own business. Barack Obama would dictate such a dream is not worthy of his collectivist vision. If Joe intends to pursue his dream, there will be a penalty! Personal success shall not be enjoyed without punitive taxation, or as Barack The Marxist put it “spread the wealth around.” Opportunity is a word that Barack uses to describe his Marxist goals. I am not sure who is worse, the dishonest candidate or the fools that believe him.

Opportunity will have no place in an Obamanation, for opportunity is not an accurate description of taking from the productive to equalize their wealth with that of the unproductive! No reasonable person could describe government imposed limitations on individual success as “opportunity!” As a means of prole control, those that don’t produce will be given the opportunity to eat the groceries bought with the labor of the productive. The people that support such a system do not subscribe to any American Dream. Instead the Obamorons and would-be ruling class would intentionally or otherwise subject the common American citizen to a collective nightmare. Our opportunity will be to achieve an equalized misery independent of our contribution.

Fret not, after some period of time we will grow accustomed to the oppression. Eventually our children and grandchildren might not realize to what you Obama supporters have sentenced them.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines death rattle as:

a rattling or gurgling sound produced by air passing through mucus in the lungs and air passages of a dying person

Years ago I worked as a CNA in a hospital (also as a nursing student, before I decided a healthcare career wasn’t for me.) The death rattle meant that the patient was going to be gone soon. One could hope it meant he or she would suffer no more and his or her soul would move on to a better place. The death rattle of liberty offers no such hope.

I was perusing news articles this morning and found three of them that provided food for thought on this subject. One from The Washington Obamost because it had such a telling title:

At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. “Obama was and is unstoppable,” the official said. “Please, God, let him win,” he added.

“It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative,” said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. “It’s been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it.”

Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. “The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don’t worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else,” said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “What they want is the bending of the knee, and they’ll get it from an Obama administration.”

John Bolton summed it up nicely. Of course this worthless waste of New York space prefers our nation to fall into Obammunism. Imagine the money Mr. Global Poverty Act will funnel to various U.N. programs! The U.N. Secretary General is probably going to call domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and get his advice on the best way to maximize the funds received under Obama’s direction. Global “social justice” at the expense of Americans, won’t it be grand?

Not that the U.N. man-crush on “Big Brother” Barack Obama is just about money. They can also look forward to a position of power over the “ugly Americans.” Unless they are blind, they can see Obama’s disdain for liberty and salivate at the thought of a fallen United States. If there is one positive in a Barack Obama presidency (not a positive for Americans), it is the fact that lesser nations will look better by comparison than they currently do.

Reuters has an article that, on its surface bears good news but when viewed through the lens of Obammunism, one realizes that pharmaceutical breakthroughs will be curtailed.

New Merck HIV drug works in untreated patients

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new class of HIV drugs can help control the virus in untreated patients, researchers reported on Sunday.

Merck and Co. hopes the findings will open a new market for its drug Isentress, the first drug on the market in a new class called integrase inhibitors.

Isentress worked slightly better than an older HIV drug called efavirenz in suppressing levels of the AIDS virus, the researchers told a meeting of the American Society of Microbiology and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Last October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared Isentress for use in HIV patients whose infection has begun to resist the effects of other drugs.

This problem, called resistance, is common in AIDS virus infections and is one reason why companies continue to develop new drugs to fight HIV.

Anyone that isn’t a drooling Obamoron should be able to spot the problem here. How do innovations in medicine occur? Is it a simple matter of St. Barack waving his hand over an empty bottle, which subsequently fills with whatever wonder drug a person may need? Some might argue that money (gasp… the evil profit) must be invested in research and development. Evil pharmaceutical companies are a target of Obama’s socialist plans, will they be allowed to profit? If they are not allowed to profit, how will research and development be financed? Is it a simple matter of re-educating drug company owners and researchers to give their intellectual property in the absence of any incentive? If so, I hope the number of people estimated to be eliminated in the re-education camps is smaller than the 25 million The Weather Underground estimated would have to be eliminated once they took over.

The third article is an omen from Reuters:

Venezuela’s Chavez wants to jail rival

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Saturday to imprison his main political rival, intensifying a campaign against a man he calls a crime boss just a month before he faces tough regional elections.

Opposition leader Manuel Rosales, who lost to Chavez in the 2006 presidential vote, is governor of the oil producing state of Zulia and is running for mayor of its capital Maracaibo.

“I am determined to put Manuel Rosales behind bars. A swine like that has to be in prison,” Chavez said.

The future is less than bright. Do the political enemies of “Big Brother” Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama have this to worry about? Obama is only a candidate and we’ve already seen the writing on the wall. Remember “Thought Criminals Punished in Denver“? How about “Missouri’s Obama Truth Squads“?

Our grasp on liberty is slipping and it has been for years. My pessimistic side believes that we are doomed to hit the rock bottom of a tyranny at the hands of the Obammunists before enough people will wake the hell up! My optimistic side believes that McCain can win the election and we can win a four year liberty extension. We can use this extension to find conservative leadership, attempt to educate Obamorons on individual responsibility and common sense, and to purge The Republican Party of the nearly Democrat RINOs that have taken over.

Are there enough thinking Americans left that have not been fooled or lulled into some outrageous support for the liberty eliminating Obamanation?

How despicable. Racists are given a national platform for division in this election more than in any other in my memory. (For those of you whiners, please note I said, “in my memory!”) Ideally race would not be an issue, but the racists will have none of it! Under the guise of inappropriately named “equal opportunity” and “equality” these racists fight for special treatment and demand anything but “equality!” Of course in this election one campaign is wielding a racist weapon to be used for bludgeoning anyone that doesn’t support its candidate. I am not going to say which campaign but here are a few hints:

• Bill “Guilty as Hell. Free as a bird!” Ayers
• Rev. “God Damn America” Wright
• Karl Marx
• Saul Alinsky
• Hollywood members of FAG (Film Actors Guild… i.e. “Matt Damon!”)
• Babies left to die in hospital linen closets
• Forcibly spreading a plumber’s wealth around
• A candidate that cares so much… his own brother lives on a buck a month

But none of those hints matter in modern times, no, no, no. (Or as Jeremiah Wright says, “Naw, naw, naw!”) We live in an era of accepted racism and racism, as long as implemented by the acceptable groups is beyond reproach. This racism is a great weapon because any who oppose it are labeled as … racists, only now the bad kind.

Rachel D’Oro has a piece at Townhall.com about some of Alaska’s socially acceptable racists, “Alaska’s minorities feel ignored by Palin.” The title tells me that Rachel D’Oro is probably one of Townhall’s writers that believes Governor Palin doesn’t fit her elitist view of what a vice president should be and from what background a vice president should come. I would personally prefer all Republican elitists to splinter off and form a third party (perhaps The Bow Tie party and George Will could be its chairman.) It is truly sad that a person with values and a working class background is reviled for her values and working class background!

Back to the Alaskan racists, who are upset that not enough was done by Governor Palin to grant special treatment to citizens of Alaska based solely on skin color and ethnicity.

“She has no sensitivity to minorities,” said the Rev. Alonzo Patterson, a Baptist minister and president of the Alaska Black Leadership Conference. “She’s really inciting a lot of African-Americans to get out and vote.”

Since taking office in December 2006, Palin has had a sometimes tense relationship with black leaders, who say they’ve been ignored in their efforts to get more minorities hired in her administration.

Artificial diversity, while popular in the twisted society of today, is just that: artificial. Why do these groups have such a problem with achieving positions based on skills, qualifications, and an ability to do the task? What does skin color have to do with the ability to do any job? I’ll move on while I wait for your answer.

In Alaska, the issue of race relations usually focuses on Alaska Natives, who make up 18 percent of the population. Blacks, in contrast, make up 4 percent.

Patterson and Odom say that when they’ve pressed Palin about diversity in hiring, she gets defensive and even testy.

“If you’re going to embrace the entire country, you need to address the issues here,” said Marilyn Stewart, president of the Alaska Black Chamber of Commerce and a volunteer on Palin’s gubernatorial campaign who has served Republican and Democratic governors. “Most certainly there are qualified minorities who would love to be part her administration. People aren’t asking for her selections to be based on color, but because of qualifications.”

Imagine getting testy when pressed to make hiring decisions based on race! How can the president of something with the word “Black” in its title say the last sentence in the above excerpt? These groups by their very existence make all such decisions based on color! Special treatment based on color (or gender, or nationality) is the obvious purpose of their existence. Artificial forced diversity creates tension. Again, I must ask why these groups believe that the people they represent are not capable of achieving success on there own merits?

Is it that our society as a whole has been so ingrained (or indoctrinated) that racism is acceptable as long as it is directed toward white people? If so, why don’t we let Barack Obama and his Annenberg Challenge partner (and part time terrorist) Bill Ayers convert all public schools to “Social Justice Schools?”