I watched and listened to the entire speech. And as I said earlier today, I have to hand it to him, give him a crowd, a podium and a scripted speech and he is impressive. But platitudes, euphemisms and and socially pleasing altruistic reminiscences of friendships, do not a presidential or world leader make. Nor do apologists historically.

He originally wanted to give this speech at the Brandenburg gate and Merkel had enough common sense and political awareness not to permit that. So he gave it elsewhere at another monument and an estimated 200,000 came to listen. Even so, he never obtained long standing roars from the crowd. And more than a few times, his words about Russia, the EU, Afghanistan and Iraq commitments to both, fell on a lukewarm reception by the German audience.

With that said, the intent of the speech was quite obvious. He knows that he can't garner one single German vote, but he can attempt to come off looking presidential to the folks back home. And hopefully, he can influence a few minds back here, into believing that based upon his popularity there, that is more than enough reason to vote for him.

Some other news that came out today, concerning his campaign, at the least placed some well founded questions in the minds of the folks back home. Obama has supposedly created a 'transition' committee. Which is a wee bit like getting the horse before the cart.

I heard somewhere later this afternoon on the radio (while I was out and about) that John McCain had remarked upon hearing that report, that "his campaign hasn't even crossed the fifty yard line and they are already celebrating in the end zone." If that is an accurate remark, then I have to agree with the summation.  My impression is that this entire world tour is nothing but an attempt to have some photo ops and brief meetings where photos are taken of him with leaders and commanders and thus convey the illusion, that the is gaining worthy insight. And secondly that he will be seen by the folks back home looking presidential.

Make no mistake, the Berlin speech today was a play off of both Kennedy's legacy and Reagan's with the Germans and more so for the folks back home. And again make no mistake, this man is neither a John F. Kennedy nor a Ronald Reagan. But he is dangerously similar in many wasy to Jimmy Carter, only more dangerous. He is carrying a good con and many will gladly accept it, because their political angst and hatreds compel them to. But aside from that, America is watching. And something Americans as a whole take exception to is the conveyance of arrogance on the part of a politician. Obama is arrogant.

Obama says nuclear Iran poses "grave threat"

SDEROT, Israel (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear Iran would pose a "grave threat" and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon.

Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

President Bush has caught a lot of flak over the past two years as it concerns his policy of dealing with Iraq. While clearly stating that he wanted to give diplomacy a chance and if necessary, with the cooperation of other nations, utilize sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, he refused to take any options including the use of military force off of the table.

And equally, John McCain has been branded as McBush and McSame, for standing by the same principles. But now that Barack Obama is actually in the middle east, his words change from audience to audience and his message  is exactly the same as both his opponent and the current president. While he massages it and nuances it to appear that he is representing a different approach, it is clearly obvious that his position now mirrors what the president has been doing and what John McCain said he would do if elected.

And aside from that, Barack Obama attempted once again today, to put distance between himself and his previous remarks concerning his previous vision of Jerusalem as the only capitol of Israel and an undevided city. While addressing AIPAC six weeks ago, however, his message was quite different. But now that he is actually on the ground in Israel, he is attempting to redefine something he has previously said once again. Only this time, his tactic concerns how it plays in Israel and how his his views there will play with his plans of capturing Jewish votes back home.

New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent Jul 23 09:13 AM US/Eastern

NEW YORK (AP) - New York Times Co. says its second-quarter earnings fell 82 percent from the year-ago quarter boosted by a one-time gain. Meanwhile, print advertising revenue continued to shrink.

The New York-based newspaper publisher says its quarterly net income dropped to $21.1 million, or 15 cents per share, which included 11 cents per share in buyout costs.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected income of 22 cents per share in the latest quarter. Analyst estimates typically exclude special items.

Revenue dropped 6 percent to $741.9 million, missing the average Wall Street estimate for $754 million. Ad revenue slipped down 11 percent, hurt mostly by fewer classified ads.

Chief Executive Janet Robinson says business was hurt by the "U.S. economic slowdown and secular forces playing out across the media industry."

It doesn't surprise me that the New York Times in going in the tank financially. Outside of mainstream media outlets like cable news networks and the major three other networks, no one that I know of either reads the NYT or cares much of what they produce as either news or commentary.

It has long since been established, that the NYT is nothing more than Gotham's largest purveyor of liberal angst and anti American perspectives. And that is a reputation that they have justly and individually earned. Not from spotty partisanism, but from the ongoing demonstration of their purposely slanted news reporting on issues across the board. From the war in Iraq, to their coverage of the presidential election, nothing seems to escape their scrutinous and liberally jaundiced eye. As evidenced once again this week, by their refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to the Brack obama editorial.

But what caught my eye about this report, was the supposed secular influences afoot mentioned by their CEO, that she attributes to the supposed secular influences of the US economic slowdown. I have a news flash for this lady, the down turn in the US economy, is the least of reasons why the NYT and other major print publications all across this country are tanking. They were tanking long before the recent economic downturn and anyone who has been following their profit loss over the last five years knows that. People are tired of it  (them) would be the first and foremost contributing factor IMO. Most people don't want to be enundated by the daily liberal mantra being represented by the NYT and others like the Washington Post. Particularly when they are paying to buy their paper.  And the bygone days of massive coupon sections in the Sunday editions, if anything have taken taken a toll on the hangers on for profit, who were still buyin them.

Webster's defines secular as of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious. So these are the reasons that the NYT is shuddering under loss after loss of revenue reports? The organ that has championed and opined the secular belief system at all level? As if reading from manifestos of Marx and Mao and Hitler and Lenin and the ACLU was not enough of a demonstration in and of itself to foretell than once the bell of reason tolled, that it would toll for thee?

The NYT's representation that secular forces have contributed largely to their demise in corporate profits, is tantamount to Eve blaming the tree for her downfall, while completely ignoring the presence of the serpent.

McCain Campaign: New York Times Blocked Op-Ed Response to Obama by FOXNews.com Monday, July 21, 2008

The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.

“I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the op-ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach,” Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote the campaign via an e-mail later distributed by McCain’s team.

“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan,” Shipley wrote.

I always liked that line from the first Batman movie when the Joker asks: "have you ever danced with the Devil in the pale moonlight?" It certainly fits the current circumstances of the McCain campaign, as it applies to the realtionship with New York Times IMO.

Many of us knew last year when the NYT suddenly gave it's backing to McCain as the GOP candidate, that the dance with the Devil would be short lived. And as soon as John McCain clenched the GOP nomination, the pipe organ music stopped and the media ran away with all the chairs.

What the NYT is attempting, is nothing short of the Nancy Pelosi tactic of trying to limit the debate to her limited scope of desire.  Just like when Pelosi and other democrats tried to limit war funding to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, prerequisite on their demand that artificial timetables for withdrawals from Iraq be included in the funding bill, the NYT is attempting the same tactic from a different perspective.

The NYT editorial staff wants Americans to believe that their refusal to allow John McCain the opportunity to rebutt Barack Obama, has something to do with some faux editorial continuity. When that fails, they claim that they want John McCain to address his own plan for Iraq, which really means, his plan for withdrawal from Iraq. And only as long as it mirrors Barack Obama's.

John McCain's plan for the war in Iraq, is prominently displayed on his campaign website. Anyone, including the NYT are free to examine it and rest assured that they already have and on a daily schedule. And the comparison of difference between John McCain's published plan and that of Barack Obama, is that John McCain's plan isn't redacted daily to mirror the ever shifting position of the candidate. Which can't be said of the Obama site, or what his handlers of late have been revealed doing with his published policies.

The issue with the NYT isn't one of editorial sparing between two people. It it an issue of the two candidates for president of the United States being provided equal time to present their policies and beliefs to the people. And once again the NYT is only interested in the specifics of the candidate that they truly support.

So goes the reality when you dance with the Devils of media.

 

Oil Prices Tumble in Biggest Weekly Drop Ever Saturday, July 19, 2008

NEW YORK —  The price of oil recorded its biggest weekly drop ever, and a gallon of gas finally pulled back from its record high. So is it time to declare the energy bubble popped?

Experts won't go that far just yet.

"It's too early to say we've seen the worst of it," said Tom Kloza, publisher and chief oil analyst of the Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J. "We would be Pollyannish if we believe one week represents a trend."

Still, with oil recording yet another drop on Friday, some industry experts who just days ago thought there was more juice left in oil's meteoric run are reconsidering.

"If this is not the bubble's implosion, than it's a reasonable facsimile," analyst and trader Stephen Schork said in his daily market commentary. "Time will tell. Nevertheless, for the time being we no longer care to hold a bullish view."

Light, sweet crude for August delivery fell 41 cents Friday to settle at $128.88 on the New York Mercantile Exchange — well below its trading record of more than $147 a week earlier.

The average price of a gallon of regular gas fell about a penny for the day, to $4.105, according to auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express. Diesel prices dipped three-tenths of a cent to $4.842 a gallon.

The price of crude oil drops more in one week than it has in the history of oil trading and pricing period? And the mainstream media seems to not only care less....but they have yet to make the connection. Could that be no more complicated than the twin realities that are as obvious as the nose on their faces?

Early last week, President Bush lifted the executive ban on drilling in ANWAR  and along the American continental shelf. Remember, that was the same executive ban that Nancy Pelosi said two weeks ago, was the major impediment to lifting the ban on drilling period. Never the mind, that the congressional ban remained in effect then as it does now and that it is the real blocade to any development of our own resources of oil domestically.

Many economists and other politicians, have stated categorically that if the ban was lifted and we were allowed to pursue our own resources, that action in and of itself would result in an immediate reduction in the price of oil by $50 - $60 a barrel. But the nay sayers of the loyal left, continue to trumpet their purposely false belief and representation , that "America cannot drill itself out of this oil crisis."

So what happened with the drop of the price of oil, in less than three days from the time that President Bush lifted the executive ban... That's right, the price of oil dropped $20 a barrel. The largest price drop in history. So what would happen then...if congress were to lift the ludicrous ban on drilling in the tundra wasteland of ANWAR? And along the Florida and Gulf coast?

Do the political math folks. The price of oil would drop to at least $60 - $70 a barrel withing two weeks. The democrats know this. As they know that any precipitous drop in the current price of oil by lifting the ban, would result in the realization of the American people, of who has actually been the obstructionists behind what has led to this crisis to begin with.

Take unregulated oil speculation and the absurd ban on drilling for our own domestic supplies of oil out of the equation, combined with a free market economy? And the democrats are immediately revealed as the real phonies masquerading in the wizard suits behind the curtains in congress. The American people deserve better from their representatives on both sides of the isle, but the one's really turning the screws on the American people concerning oil, are not the evil rich or the oil companies. The one's responsible are the friendly neighborhood supposedly progressive liberal democrats. The same ones that are presently fish mongering the red hearrings and foisting the socialist reworked new deal proposals of one Barack Obama.

Americans need to be screaming at their elected representatives. And they need to be screaming so loud into the congressional office phones and those in the senate and with emails and letters, that these self serving political partisans have no choice but to listen. Either that or face the music come November in the general elections.

Write and call your congressmen and senators. Let them know that you know what is going on and who is responsible. And that you will remember who your real tormentors are come November.

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

The Washington Post

Some more clever rearranging of the facts to diffuse the reality, that taxpayers are really 'wage earners?' And the smoking gun comes to us via the collaborative efforts of two Washington DC liberal think tanks, in collusion with that most shrill of voices of the massaged truth and lies in politics, the Washington Post.

The sad folly to representations like these? Is that the supposed wage earners? Are already the least taxed individuals in this country. The glaring difference being, 'wage earners' are understood (by the clear thinking minds of reason) as those who work for hourly wage. Or in other words, the working class, or heaven forbid....the lower class. And the working class already have a bevy of tax credits and dodges, having been previously provided to them by the democrats. The earned income tax credit being the most glaring example of the liberal hostage mentality of the public treasury and the zombie legions of simpletons who actually buy the premise of 'liberal entitlements.'

Obama's mirage is a bit more involved and convoluted in reality. He would like the dumb masses to think that he is not pandering to the maleable socialist yearnings of organized labor and their minion followers, by asserting that he is for tax cuts for the 'middle class.' But the middle class in America, isn't made up of wage earners. It's made up of salaried employees and professionals and the hundreds of thousands of small business owners who file their business taxes as individual returns.

He is already after them with his smoke and mirrors representation of the evil 1% and the purposely misrepresented class of America's wealthiest people. And he continues to see the middle class as his own ripe for harvest private treasury to fuel his proposed tax and spend economy of balance. An economy that he would like people to believe is some form of a "New Deal." But it isn't any new deal. It's nothing more than the collective efforts of him and his like minded Vichy supporters, who are enraged that they haven't had their talons in the public treasury for the last eight years. The real deal is a socialist new deal.

And Bush's and the republicans in the house and senate pandering to them and letting them have their way on entitlement after entitlement for the past eight years, hasn't slaked their blood thirst for more by one iota.

Dream on....as the Thessalian people who accompanied their champion Achilles into the Trojan War, the myrmidons of the leftist socialist mirage believe that Obama is the new Achilles of this age and that he is immortal. The face that launched a thousand ships, also brought forth the downfall of two cultures. But such is the fate of fabulist and those that believe in them and their false gods and heros.

Obama calls criticism of wife 'infuriating'

Jul 17 01:10 PM US/Eastern By JULIE PACE

WASHINGTON (AP) - What gets under Barack Obama's skin? Criticism of his wife, Michelle Obama.

In an interview with Glamour magazine, Obama said attacks on his wife are "infuriating." The likely Democratic presidential nominee blamed the conservative press for going after his wife as if she were the candidate.

"If they have a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her," Obama told the magazine.

An Associated Press-Yahoo poll suggests Michelle Obama has higher favorable ratings than Cindy McCain, wife of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. However, Michelle Obama's unfavorable ratings are also higher.

Michelle Obama came under fire in February when she said she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. She later clarified her remark, saying she has always been proud of her country and was particularly proud to see so many people involved in the political process.

Obama said the attacks are ironic because his wife is "the most quintessentially American woman I know."

Michelle Obama, 44, has worked as a lawyer and hospital executive. The couple has two daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7.

The Internet has been a double-edged sword for the Obama campaign. While it's allowed them to organize supporters and raise millions of dollars, Obama said it's also provided a vehicle for rumors and myths to spread quickly.

"It's very hard to catch up," he said.

So Obama thinks that unfavorable coverage of his wife Michelle is infuriating? I don't guess he has seen much of the "liberal" media's coverage of Cindy McCain of late. The smear pieces addressing her former prescription drug habit, or her ownership of an inherited beer fortune in Arizona. Or the ties attempted to be made between her husband's support of the Cardinal stadium via supposed concessions to her beer franchise getting the exclusive rights to sell beer there.

What a crock of crocodile tears from the man of change. The verdict hasn't been cast yet on Michelle Obama, other than her finally being proud of her country remark from six weeks ago. and something tells me that there is far more to be mined on the dear lady and Barack Obama knows it. Therefore, he is attempting to deflect any criticisms away from scrutiny of Michelle's past and affiliations. Before they become more damaging to his politcal aspirations.

Somehow....I don't quite equate that to chivalry.

Media stars will accompany Obama overseas

WASHINGTON: Senator John McCain's trip to Iraq last spring was a low-key affair: With his ordinary retinue of reporters following him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on his arrival in Baghdad from New York, with just two sentences tacked onto the "in other political news" portion of his newscast.

But when Obama heads for Iraq and other locations overseas this summer, Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Obama on successive nights.   The rest of the story

The mainstream media, also known as MSM is always reporting how objective and unbiased they are. While at the same time their myrmidons in Hollywood entertainment and the humor news reports of the Daily show and the Colbert Report, are lamenting how Fox News is not fair and balanced and is outright biased and White House whorish in their coverage of the same news.

Yet when Barack Obama leaves for his Iraq (world tour) later this month, his touring entourage will be none other than the anchors of the three major network news programs in America. No bias there right? I wonder where Brit Hume and Shepard Smith will be when the plane leaves. And how long will it take for Keith Obermann to lament how wondrous the Obama tour was, when compared to the doddering representations of John McCain sure to follow from this media orgy over Barack Obama's epiphanies concerning Iraq.

But then again....I have become accustomed to the  non sequiturs originating from the left wing swoon of the supposed unbiased media.

Sharpton 'Very Disappointed' With Jesse Jackson

Calls For Public Figures To Be 'Consistent'
NEW YORK (CBS) ? Rev. Al Sharpton spoke out Thursday against Rev. Jesse Jackson's use of the N-word that was caught on tape while preparing for an interview for Fox News.

Sharpton, who has joined Jackson in opposition of the word, said on CBS News' The Early Show on Thursday that he was "very disappointed" by this latest revelation.

"I think this certainly does not reflect the Reverend Jackson that we all know and love," Sharpton said. "I think that we have to be consistent. We have denounced the N-word at National Action Network and other groups. Those of us and many of us who have used it privately said we must refrain from it if we're going to challenge people using it publicly."

It must be difficult for those in the race hustle business. Especially when they are caught engaged in the same things that they viciously attack others (not in the protected classes) for doing. The Rev. Al thinks that the Rev. Jackson should be more consistent.  That is certainly a unique epiphany from one of the two bigesst race hustlers in America. Especially one of the other.

That Sharpton had this revelation as it concerns his contemporary and counterpart? Should really not be much of a shock to the systems of the rest of us. Sharpton, the man who made his reputation and established his credentials on the proven lies of the Tawana Brawley....is after all, a paid analyst to all of the major news outlets including Fox News. Al is even a frequent dinner partner with Bill O'reilly and Sean Hannity. Although aside from picking up the dinner tab, they get far more street creds out of the dinner partnerships than Sharpton does. But a free dinner at Ruth Crist in New York is still worth something I suppose.

So the Reverend Jackson had a bit more to say last week than his reported desire to castrate Barack Obama. Should we be surprised? I don't think so. After all, we all now that the marginaliztion and demonization techniques of racial bigotry that apply to the rest of us, have little to no effect on their creators. Nor should they. Ask Al or Jesse. They will tell you. As long as the microphones are off.

What is amusing though, is that Fox News is so scared and intimidated by the dynamic duo of race bait, that even Fox refused to allow this news to be uttered from their own corporate lips. They sought to have some other entity report the reality as a leak. And in doing so, thus relieved themselves of any direct responsibility for besmirching gthte armor of the black knight of American civil rights legend. The leak ploy also gave Fox the represented appearance that they had sought to protect the virginal purity of their own soiled bed clothes and associations with both Sharpton and Jackson.

Politics makes strange bed fellows? That isn't even the half of it.

Release Denied for Sharon Tate Murderess

CORONA, California —  The state parole board on Tuesday denied a request for compassionate release to Charles Manson follower Susan Atkins, who stabbed actress Sharon Tate to death nearly 40 years ago and is dying of brain cancer.

The California Board of Parole released its unanimous decision hours after a 90-minute hearing, during which it heard impassioned pleas from both sides.

"Obviously, it was too hot of a potato for them to handle," said one of Atkins' attorney, Eric P. Lampel. "Of course we're disappointed. There's no basis for denying this."

Lampel filed a motion July 10 with Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Wesley asking for his client's release no matter what the parole board recommends. No hearing has been set, Lampel said after the hearing.

"We're going to be able to make the case in court. We'll take it to the next step," he said after being informed of the board's decision by The Associated Press.

Atkins' doctors and officials at the women's prison in Corona made the request in March because of her deteriorating health. She also has had her left leg amputated and is paralyzed on her right side, her husband, James Whitehouse, told the California Board of Parole Hearings.

I am as familiar as anyone my age with the crime of the 20th century. The Manson Family murders, inspire the same thoughts as those of the O. J. Simpson case IMO. Do you remember what you were doing, where you were at etc. when the news of the Manson Family murders first broke? And what were your thoughts after learning of Charles Manson and his band of murderers also known as the family, had escaped the death penalty.

I have been aware of the recent appeals by the family of Susan Atkins, seeking a parole for her since she has been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. No skin off my back side. Let her rot in prison are/were my sentiments. Then I had the opportunity today, while her California Parole hearing was in progress, to hear Vincent Bugliosi interviewed live on Fox about his sentiments.

I was prepared to hear the veteran prosecutor and the man most responsible for what justice was obtained against the Manson Family, cut quickly to the chase and state: "not no but hell no" as it concerned any compassion or consideration of parole for Susan Atkins or any of the others. But that was not what I heard. Quite to my amazement, Bugliosi told the interviewer that he wasn't going to play the role of the angered prosecutor. Bugliosi rightly pointed out that almost forty years ago now, he had obtained the death penalty for Atkins and her co-defendants. That was justice according to Bugliosi and it was a justice later denied by the US Supreme court, when they overturned capital punishment in America. Which led to all of the Manson Family's sentences being commuted to life. Justice should have been a relatively quick execution for all involved according to the veteran prosecutor. But that was then and this is now.

It's been almost forty years and Atkins and the others have paid a heavy price. But without saying it directly, what Bugliosi was intimating was that Atkins was now in the midst of her very real death sentence. Be it delayed but none the less deserved. And all the more poignant, because it was now being administered by her creator.

That wasn't what he said? But if you are good at reading between the lines, that was the precise point that he was making. And he bolstered that opinion by adding, that Susan Atkins isn't in prison and hasn't been in prison for months. She is in a hospital. A hospital that she will never leave in this life. She has brain cancer and the disease has already cost her the amputation of her left leg and the complete loss of movement on the right side of her body. And as the article above points out, at best she can string a few coherant sentences together a couple of times a day.

Therefore, there is no parole for Susan Atkins, regardless of whether she dies in custody or not. Her sentence has been carried out by the state and is being further carried out by her present fate. Therefore, the only question that remains is at what point does justice and compassion intersect. Or if it does at all. There is neither any need for or any requirement of compassion for Susan Atkins IMO. But her family didn't commit any crime. All that they are asking, is that the state show compassion and allow "them" to have access to Susan, while she slowly dies from the inside out.

As the article points out, the tax payers of California have already incurred over a million dollars of expense, just guarding Atkins since she has been hospitalized. And for what? She isn't going anywhere other than to the grave. IMO, her brother and her family have shouldered the burden of guilt that Susan strapped them with when she committed her heinous acts thirty nine years ago. Imagine the personal anguish that reality has caused them all these years. Therefore, is it now just to further the family's anguish, by preventing them the ability to even see Susan Atkins on her death bed.

Is justice really being served, by punishing the family for the terrible crimes that Susan Atkins committed almost forty years ago.

The beast from hell has finally had her worthy sentence and judgment passed an carried out by God. It is irrevocable and it is not appealable, there is no escape.  Susan Atkins is not long for this world and when she arrives at the end of her life in a few weeks, she will then truly begin  serving her sentence for her crimes. But in the interim, should we as a society, punish her family for having the temerity of simply asking for compassion for themselves for a few weeks or months.

Susan Atkins is one of the most revolting human beings that I have ever had the occasion to become familiar with. She deserves no mercy or compassion from me or anyone else for that matter. But I can't transpose those feelings onto her family. Nor do I believe that it is right for the state of California to do so now. 

Susan Atkins earned nothing more than that which she deserved and as Vincent Bugliosi so eloquently pointed out earlier today, there is nothing to be gained by transposing her guilt and sentence onto her family. Let the woman die in the agony that she surely must be enduring, but can we not at the least demonstrate compassion for her family. Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian Patricia Krenwinkel  & Charles "Tex" Watson, got what they deserved and that sentence was commuted, as was that of the Devil incarnate. I say let them continue to rot. But as an American....I have to side with the man who originally prosecuted them. We have done enough to this particular family. Let them have a small sliver of peace and be done with it.

Obama Campaign Outraged Over New Yorker Cover

NEW YORK (AFP) — Barack Obama's campaign decried Monday a satirical cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker magazine showing the Democratic presidential hopeful wearing Islamic dress while his wife holds a Kalashnikov.

The influential weekly defended its cover, titled "The Politics of Fear," as a critique of unfounded allegations during the campaign that have attempted to paint Obama, who is Christian, as a closet radical Muslim.

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," he said in a statement.

The campaign of Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, took his side.

"We completely agree with the Obama campaign that it is tasteless and offensive," spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

If you haven't heard or read about this story or seen the cover of next weeks The New Yorker magazine, then you must have been living in a cave in the eastern border regions of Afghanistan. Either that, or you were vacationing at the Amy Winehouse suite of your local motel 6.

The questions still not being asked....... What happens when the media becomes the story? That would be a good starting point for any investigative journalist attempting to get to the bottom of what happened over at The New Yorker last week. But to pursue that lone path of inquiry? Might lead you purposely past the larger looming reality of what The New Yorker story really represents in the bigger picture.

I for one, happen to believe that The New Yorker story wasn't the product of either satirical humor, or the creation of simple boredom and down time in the creative minds of stratified media. What the story  represents to me, is the beginnings of a potential quantum shift in the media love affair with Barack Obama. Combined with the fact that any time the music or the tempo of media pursuit changes....there is always an obscure maestro in the wings calling out the new melodies and assigning instrument sections for the new concert.

Something has changed in the media paradigm of Obama mania coverage by the media IMO. And the shot across the bow may very well be The New Yorker cover. Much has been said to question it's purpose since it's debue late last week and much has been said to defend it as mere satire by it's editors. But little has been said about possible inspirations or the potential conspirators that were/are really behind it in the first place.

This goes a bit beyond the latest SNL skit or some obscure Mad magazine cover. I for one, happen to believe that the fingerprints of the Clinton campaign are all over the crime scene on this one. Who else has the motive, access to media and the ability, to sway a major magazine published (where else) in the empire state of New York.  The silence in the media on the obvious by the way is deafening. So far, all that has been seen concerning attributions for the decision, are the comments made by the publishers. And their weak assertions that they were simply trying to be out front and funny, simply don't make sense. They called it satire. While the more accurate description is more appropriately sinister humor.

The national polls that showed Obama with as much as a 15 point lead a week ago, have now narrowed to less than a 4 point spread (margin of error) or a dead even race. And in the face of that reality, The New Yorker decided to spice things up a bit with some satire?

Stay tuned. I believe that over the next few weeks, there are going to be some more indidental revelations concerning Barack Obama and the media's approach to issues that they have thus far given him a pass on..

I have said for quite a while now, that Obama doesn't like the unscripted atmosphere of town hall meetings. It is something quite different from having the cardboard cut out backdrop of supporters that he is accustomed to, or the podium and the teleprompter and the media sound bites. And while McCain seems to prefer the atmosphere of the town hall, he continues to perform less than well IMO, in all observations that I have seen of him in those venues to date.

If Barack Obama had only a small modicum of ability to speak off the cuff, then I believe that his oratory skills would so immediately squash John McCain's rigid performances, that it would be a one fight title bout.

But Obama doesn't have that ability. The best that he can do is to limp along toward the debates and hope that he gets a friendly draw of liberal media moderators, who will pitch him softballs in front of the cameras.

In the mean time, John McCain needs to learn how to come across as something beyond a stiff shirt and frequently acerbic mime of his own political talking points and lame attempts at humor. Put a pair of overalls and a straw hat on him? And he would be a fair imitation of Grandpa McCoy (Walter Brennan) of the Real McCoys era of late fifties television. And that image doesn't bode well with the under forty crowd that is looking for real leadership and political persona. Or those of us who actually remember the Real McCoys. If John McCain wants to be perceived as the real McCoy, then he better start acting like one and drop the hokey hand chops and silly grin and go after Obama where he can do the real damage. Which is revealing him for what he truly represents. But that seems to be a tall order for the RINO, who continues to cling to his belief that the republican party has morphed into some population of dumbed down moderates that he can massage into thinking that he is a real conservative.

Barack Obama and those who literally idolize him, like to juxtapose him next to Abraham Lincoln and then attempt to assert all the similarities. And when that fails, they fall back on the comparisons to JFK. Which both fail miserably, once you actually listen to the man. Once you get past the fact that he is a junior senator from Illinois and he is in his middle forties, the comparisons between Obama and Lincoln and JFK become the immediately transparent illusions that they really are.  

Right now, Obama enjoys the friendly ring of the media supported hype fight. When he staggers the media giggles and eggs him on. When McCain staggers, they quickly push him back to the center of the ring, so that the staged battle of light weights can continue. And thus propel the ratings.

The present day media is in the business of entertainment. And the sooner the people turn away from the idiocy that masquerades itself as journalism, then the sooner these supposed journalist will see the light and get back to their original job description. And then? We might actually see some candidates for the office, who truly represent American values and our best hopes and dreams.

There was a good peek in the box on the sentiments of  Obama's recent tryst with the center and his pursuit of the supposed moderate vote last week in the Huffington Post. Afternet Link  Not that I read that rag period, but I came across the article linked via another site. The interesting part to me....was the realization and verification of my own observations of the democrats over the last eight years. And those observations are, that the rabid and wild eyed anti American factions of the democrat party, are literally beside themselves over Obama's course changes of late. From his reversal on gun control, to his support of telecom legislation, to his supposed redefining of his position on Iraq.

Iraq in particular seems to have set his crowd of loyalist at their deepest devide with him to this point. Not that his latest seeming reversals, be they either symbolic or hyperbolic, will result in any mass defection of the loyal party extremist who will gladly vote for him come November. But the loyalist are certainly expressing their anger and displeasure over his having had any audacity, other than the supposed audacity of hope, to veer even a smidge from the drum beat of procession that they see as their right of accession to the power that they see as rightly theirs.

You have to remember, these are the same people who a generation ago, would have been considered "yellow dog" democrats (those who would rather vote for a yellow dog than a republican.) Now? I'd say they are more akin to the black hearted attack dogs faction of the democrat party. They are literally the living and fire breathing effigy, of what  by any means necessary truly represents.

They are in my experience a conglomeration, of what use to be known as yuppies, the entrenched retreads of academia and their minions and those who have been do thoroughly indoctrinated into the belief that they have been disenfranchised by their very birth in this nation, as to be completely irretrievable lost as American compatriots.

It reminds me of the scene in Tombstone, when Wyatt Earp is questioning Doc Holliday over what motivates a man like Johnny Ringo, to be so heartless and evil.

Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?

Doc Holliday: A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.

Wyatt Earp: What does he need?

Doc Holliday: Revenge.

Wyatt Earp: For what?

Doc Holliday: Bein' born.

That pretty well sums up the simmering and seething hatred that I have witnessed for the past eight years in the American political sphere of partisan leftist politics. These people on the liberal left, have literally been carrying a large and empty hole right through the middle of them, ever since Al Gore lost to George Bush in 2000. And it is a  hole that they are incapable of ever filling, short of the self imposed redeeming qualities of their own hatred for their country and everything that it represents to their political ideologies and aspirations of an American socialist Utopia.

Don't kid yourself, their loyalties have little to do with the represented polices of any candidate in their latest stable of contenders and even less to do with their concerns of the ultimate damage or destruction to this country, that a man like Barack Obama will surely bring about should he win the presidency.

Which brings me to the next dialogue exchange in Tombstone, that I feel is prescient.

Sherman McMasters: [about Wyatt] If they were my brothers, I'd want revenge, too.

Doc Holliday: Oh, make no mistake. It's not revenge he's after. It's a reckoning.

The coming election may very well be that reckoning for this nation of the same magnitude as alluded to in that exchange referenced above IMO. If we as a nation elect Barack Obama, I am reasonably confident as a student and observer of the American political landscape, that we will see a recession if not out right depression in this country. Either a recession that will rival the escapades of Jimmy Carter's economic disaster and failed economic policies, or a direness of woe for this country that may even pale when compared to the stock market crash of 1929.

Obama's plans of change have little to do with anything other than change for the sake of change and the entrenched mantra of the leftist nation that seeks to see it all changed and at all costs. Barack Obama was recently quoted as saying "my friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you will join with me as we try to change it."

Which may very well go down in history as the identifying phrase of his candidacy and potential  presidency, that foretold precisely the horrors and realities of the terrible things to come.

Pelosi Asks Bush to Draw From Petroleum Reserve to Combat Surge in Oil Prices Tuesday, July 08, 2008

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked President Bush on Tuesday to draw down a portion of the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to reduce crude prices and help motorists who are suffering from the rising cost of gasoline.

The House Republican leadership responded to Pelosi's proposal by noting that she was supporting a supply increase — something the Republicans have rallied behind in the form of increased offshore drilling, which the Democrats oppose.

Pelosi's proposal, contained in a letter to President Bush, comes as Americans continue to face average unleaded gas prices over $4 a gallon. The increases have followed a surge in the price of crude oil on world markets, though crude eased $5 on Tuesday to close at $136 a barrel for the day.

"The severe energy price crisis facing millions of Americans compels strong presidential action to assist consumers and strengthen the economy," Pelosi said in her letter, which asked Bush to "draw down a small portion" of the country's oil reserve.

Pelosi cited historical examples of such moves in times of uncertainty, from the elder President Bush's use of some of the reserve's oil leading up to the first Gulf war to a similar measure by President Clinton in 2000 to address the threat of a home-heating oil crisis.

Once again, all that the liberal left has to offer is more lip service. Nancy Pelosi's solution is for us to dip into the strategic reserve? This from the same woman that on the heals of hurricane Katrina and $3.50 a gallon gas....promised us that the democrats could do it better in 2006. Elect them to congress and they would get a handle on the gasoline prices.

If anything has changed for the better since then, I am certainly unaware of it. And it wasn't six weeks ago, when Senator Charles Shumer (D-NY) was telling us that it was foolish to drill in ANWAR. Anything that we gained by drilling would take ten years to come on line and would maybe account for a once cent per gallon reduction in price at the pump according to Chucky.

Then two weeks later when President Bush went to Saudi Arabia and attempted to talk the Saudi's into increasing production for the summer? Shumer lambasted him for failing in the attempt and then quickly added that if the Saudi's would just give us a million more barrels a day? The price of gas would drop immediately by forty to fifty cents per gallon at the pump. Yet two weeks earlier? That same million barrels a day that we could have been be getting out of ANWAR, would only result in a penny a gallon savings.

These are the plans and schemes of the democrats. Don't drill, but dip into the strategic reserve. And how long will that last Ms. Pelosi? And what happens when we go to replace it? How much will the cost per barrel be to put back what you siphoned off? And what if we actually need that oil for  a "strategic" purposes?

More empty talk, shallow promises and partisan solutions, that don't amount to more than a warm bukect of spit.

Kerry says McCain lacks judgment to be president Jul 6 04:13 PM US/Eastern By HOPE YEN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry says Republican John McCain doesn't have the judgment to be president.

If that's the case, then it's probably a good thing McCain rejected overtures from Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, to form a bipartisan ticket and run with Kerry as his candidate for vice president.

Kerry had no kind words his Senate colleague Sunday, accusing McCain of poor decision-making on everything from backing tax cuts for the wealthy to making support for continuing the U.S. military presence in Iraq the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

"John McCain ... has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he's made about the war. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction, wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it, wrong about Sunni and Shia violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves," Kerry, who supports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"If you like the Bush tax cut and what it's done to our economy, making wealthier people wealthier and the average middle class struggle harder, then John McCain is going to give you a third term of George Bush and Karl Rove," the Massachusetts senator added, echoing an Obama campaign talking point.

Once again, John Kerry is the campaign man of wrongs. Four years ago, we listened to his litany of wrongs, as he expounded upon all the supposed reasons that George Bush had been wrong and he had been right all along over the previous four years. Except for that brief period when he was wrong, but later became right. You remember...."I was for the war before I was against it."

So here we are four years later....and in the space of the last two weeks now, we have seen Obama surrogates stepping forward to supposedly take one for the team. First with Wesley Clark and now with John Kerry. And all that either have to offer is more mud and slander aimed at John McCain, while ignoring that their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, collects negatives with the regularity of lint in a belly button.

And the beauty of liberal politics? Is that when these Obama surrogates are called out on their missteps and over reaching character assaults against McCain? The man of the hour Obama, can simply decry their remarks obliquely and speak of his belief in unity behind vision and the change that he will bring to the political landscape.

When pigs fly.