Care to explain?

Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts

A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.

We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad, the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. That's a problem.

A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.

The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.

The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote The Turner Diaries, the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.

The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members.

Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military, he said, because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists.

The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.

The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.

They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military, he said. Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq.

The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. There are others among you in the forces, one participant wrote. You are never alone.

An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.

The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's military unit coordinator.

Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war, he wrote. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.'

He concluded: As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.

Like I said....we all only have to explain our
own decisions to God. Remember your argument here to me. It may come in handy.

God bless.

Someone explain this to me...

If you are a suspected terrorist or suspected terrorist sympathizer you can go to Gitmo or sent out of the country to a place where torture is A-OK for the rest of your life w/o being given a reason for the incarceration or access to our legal system, even if you are an American citizen but....if you are on a list of terror suspects, you can buy a gun just like everyone else.

Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by Associated Press
NRA: Don�t Ban Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
by Sam Hananel

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., �would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere �suspicions� of a terrorist threat.� 0506 07

�As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word �suspect� has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties,� Cox wrote.

In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

�When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked,� said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg�s bill.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.

�Right now law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list,� said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. �Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it.�

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

� 2007 The Associated Press.

Will someone please explain to me -
Why do you keep saying our vote does not count and that the next President has already been chosen?

I for one, have too much to do, to try to explain it....sm
to you, because frankly, I'm getting so I don't care.

There's nothing to find out, and they're making stuff up, so until you have something substantial, I have work to do.

However, if you would have posted about the screaming witch woman from up north and her rag on her, I would have really busted a gut being upset.

As it is, I'm just letting it all go, because Gov. Palin is better than you, better than me, and better than the media.

She will rise above it all, and come out on top. Of this, I have no doubts whatsoever.

That's all I have to say on the matter, cuz I have too much to type for more here....

Look at who you are trying to explain this to
xx

Please explain...
Please explain exactly how Democratic voters are misled. How are they being misled??? What, can they not read the English on the voter card? All I know is Ohio had 200,000 dead and nonexistant voters voting for Obama. I don't think it's the Democratic voters who are being misled, I think it's the American people, who don't realize what a complete scam is going on with this ACORN group.

Would someone please explain
How McCain can "guarantee" he's going to win as he said on Meet The Press yesterday?

Perhaps this will help explain....
Remember him talking about the tax "credits?" That is his way of floating giving tax rebates to people who pay no taxes. This is the opinion from someone on the other side of the pond...and explains it pretty well.

OBAMA TAX PLAN � 95% BULL?

Obama�s tax plan is receiving much praise from some elements of the Tory blogosphere. Promising tax cuts for everything and everyone is certainly a very attractive position, and I can see why so many ObamaCons are attracted to it; but does the claim really stand up to scrutiny?

Firstly, if you look at Obama�s promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans and then look at the billions of dollars needed for the government programs that he has pledged to implement or expand, and common sense should tell you that thing simply do not add up.

Secondly, the 95% of all Americans figure is suspect. Since more than 30% of working Americans don't pay any income taxes now - many in fact get a welfare check - how can they get a "tax cut?" So how does Obama back up this 95% claim? Well those of you with long memories may remember Bill Clinton�s battle to change the definition of what �is� is? What we are witnessing here is an attempt to change the definition of tax cut. To me, and I am guessing to most people, a tax cut means you get to keep more of what you earn. But for the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts disguised by the infamous "tax credit." All but one of these tax credits would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for an income transfer -- a government check -- from taxpayers to non taxpayers. In other words, increased welfare, a Demogrant if you will. Obama's marketing genius is to call this increase in welfare a tax cut; and given how UK conservatives have watched the collapse into failure of Gordon Browns tax credit system, I am mystified why they would support Obama�s.

That being said...he says it expands welfare. I say it is socialist. Same end result. Marxist redistribution of wealth. But it is working...LOL. He is sure hiding it from YOU.

Let's see if I can explain this to you..
most blacks voted for Obama; most are against gay marriage, as their vote points out. How hard is that for you to comprehend? The black vote FOR Obama hurt the gay marriage vote. Is that simpler for you to understand?

I really tried to explain to you......... sm
in my other response to you above that I don't hate you and that I don't hate gay people or teach my sons to hate them. I don't know in exactly what way you think I should reach out to gay people. I do know some gay people, and as much as I may like them as a person, I would have to tell them if they presented the subject my feelings on it and why.

Please explain....(sm)
why you think it would be *trickle-up poverty* and how that works. I can't wait to hear this one...LOL.

explain to me
all their "tax breaks" then
because maybe im missing the bigger picture.
the middle class... (ME included) got a tax break... my first one EVER... so until I see a better one under Obama's administration, I'll stick with what I believe is a tax break for everyone that pays taxes...
and how is it a fact that the "rich" pays what, like 80% of the taxes?

That would explain why
why a clear 7.2% margin of victory mandate was handed over on Nov 4, why seas of humanity were jumping for joy that night, why DC is filling up to the rafters as Jan 20 approaches and why the rest of the world is joining in our single-digit T-minus-9 countdown. The transition is coming off without a hitch despite your best efforts to protest otherwise, the guy has assembled a blue-ribbon team, has plans in place and is ready to roll. Like I said, you are not handling defeat very well and cannot stand to see REAL leadership emerge after W's scorched earth administration.

Please explain this one........ sm
"*..., even a black man.....*

That's right....even a black man. Is it so hard for you to fathom the idea that someone of a different skin color would be of equal standing to you? Do you just completely reject the ideas of civility and equality? Has it ever occurred to you that this *black man* has every intention of trying to help YOU keep your job and help you keep food on your table?"

Why is it that this inauguration is being tauted, especially by the Democrats, as "an historical event" in which the first African-American man will become POTUS and that is supposedly politically correct, but when a Republican or non-Obama supporter dares utter that he is a black man, they are jumped on like white on rice for being racist and bigoted?

Please explain.....nm
x

Please explain something to me.
It this is taxpayer money were are fronting and president and Congress are our electd representatives, why SHOULDN'T they regulate the use of that money to safeguard against excess, mismanagement and misuse of the funds?

Please explain to me how this is

all W's fault? Creating a breeding ground? What....do you want us to kick out all arab looking people and their arab children so we don't have homegrown terrorists? We can't do that.

As for terrorists threats....don't we generally get a lot of those? How do we know which ones are real and which ones are pure BS?

W is out of office. Now it is Obamarama's turn. What will you do if we are attacked and Obama fails to listen to warnings? Are you going to rake him across the coals too or are you still going to blame W?

Why does this guy know all this stuff about terrorists and attacks? Who are his sources?

Please explain....(sm)
How a stimulus package with spending (not the pub tax cuts) will encourage a depression.

Could someone explain to me........... sm

why it is really necessary for Obama to go on the trail around the country to promote his stimulus package? Shouldn't he be doing this with the Senate and working with them to reach some sort of middle ground? Seems to me that, whether the people support it or not, if it passes, we are stuck with it in whatever final form it takes. Why not just save the cost of loading up Air Force 1 and work it out in DC?

I'm not trying to pick a fight over Obama's use of AF1 (certainly, he is entitled to use it). I am just asking what is the point in trying to garner public support when he should be working with the Senate on this.

Please explain!
I've never heard "trout pout" before in my life? What is that all about and why it is a racial insult?

Okay...so explain to me
why Pelosi went to Italy on taxpayer's money! What I am saying, which you obviously failed to see, was our government needs to cut back as well. I think it would allow Americans to see that they are cutting back and willing to sacrifice in order to set things straight just like they want the CEOs to do. Instead, they continue to point their fingers at the CEOs and lecture them and yet they make no effort at all to change their spending ways as well.

Let me see if I can explain it this way, sm
Say I give you a birthday gift of $20 out of my pocket. That is a gift and you are welcome to use it in any way you see fit. I gave it of my own free will.

However, if I am forced to pay taxes to a government agency to give you help in buying groceries, I feel that the funds should be regulated inasmuch as what they will buy. If I am forced to pay taxes to support another person, it is not of my free will.

So many people see food stamps and Medicaid as a "gift" from the government when it is not that at all. It is taking money that I worked for and earned and giving it to someone else who did not work for it. "Gift" and "give" are not necessarily interchangable.

Can someone please explain why -
Mrs B thinks calling someone a miserable little wretch is better than nasty little wretch and why that is not insulting????

And what a bunch of hooey on the Darwin, Einstein or Newton comment. It was meant as an insult so I wouldn't even try pulling that...

You want to know what I mean when I say Mr. Dean talks through the mouth of a horse - it means he doesn't know what he's talking about. Did I say in my post "you" are the one doing the talking. No, I did not insult you. I spoke of my distrust of Mr. Dean, so what it was the wrong Mr. Dean, who cares and that's not the point.

You said you didn't insult me? Calling me Darwin, Einstein and Newton was certainly an insult. Tell me I'm talking like an a@@ is an insult and sure as you can bet calling me an miserable little wretch is certainly an insult.

I challenged you to provide the links where I started in with the name calling and you didn't. You can't and you treat anyone on this board who has a different opinion than you with rude comments (yes I read some of the other comments you made to other people). When you can't argue with something you resort to name calling. Yeah, whose a "miserable..." now.

I'll explain this because you obviously don't understand it. This is a political board where people can share opinions, articles and talk about politics. Moderator has said time and time again no personal attacks, no name calling. People here have tough skins, but when every post they make is met with calling them names like "snake, prophet, newton, einstein, darwin and miserable little wretch (all used in a derogatory sense), and others you have used" that's when it's time to say enough.

If you don't understand that maybe I can ask the moderator to explain it to you. Better yet you should read her messages at the top of this board because you have not yet. One is titled "Message for all posters on Political Board", and the other is titled "Beware of Flaming. Moderation is Kept Minimum on this Board".

Oh yeah, Don't bother answering.

Maybe somebody can explain this...
...in Islam (the 'one true faith' that all mankind must be converted to) the worst sin is to leave and join another religion. It merits death, preferably beheading I believe, (though stoning might do, or maybe bombing if you can't get close). Obama was raised a Muslim, then became a Christinan, he says. Why is all of Islam not calling for the customary penalty against this infidel?

Please, explain what you mean by this.
What has she done, or not done, with her own family at home that would in any way whatsoever effect her political leadership?

You know, my oldest grandchild was conceived by 2 high-school teen-agers. My son has always been a part of her life as have I and my husband. She is a freshman in college, going on a full 4-yr scholarship and a cheerleader scholarship. Yes, we were crushed when we found out, but the minute she was born we fell in love with her and recalled what a miracle a child is.

My point is, that happened, as did other things with my children. But, those things had nothing to do with my abilities to carry out my job at work.

How can you say she cannot lead her own family for one thing? And, even if there was anything to that, what would it have to do with fitness on the job. Now, think about your answer first, be sure you throw in any double standards, considering folks already in or have been in political office.

Then just explain to me
why this should not be investigated. That's what I am asking. Why should they block the investigation into this. I don't think you can make this accusation without at least attempting to uncover the truth. And I will say it again - blocking the investigation only makes the Dems look more guilty. And if the Dems value the truth, then who are these lying _____ sitting in Congress masquerading as truth-loving Democrats (and republicans)? There is no more truth in our government, and I am saying we can no longer tolerate it - Democrat or republican. Perhaps if they were held accountable, they might think about their behavior, rather than just knowing there is no one holding them accountable. In this case, the Dems just said go right ahead and keep on lying and covering up 'cuz we won't make you prove what you say.

Please explain WHY being against

Israel (or, more accurately, holding them accountable for their actions), is a place that no one in their right mind should want to be.

Seriously. I'd like an answer because I don't understand.

Can someone please explain to me

why all of a sudden NK wants to blow us off of the face of the planet. I mean...I know they have never been big fans of ours but why all of these threats all of a sudden? We aren't the only ones who don't want NK to have long range missiles and nuclear weapons. What gives?

I know a gal who was a foreign exchange student to my school. She was from South Korea and super nice girl. I truly wonder what has happened to her and if she is okay.

And PULEEEZE explain why that is!

I said "no problem" and asked her why anyone would flame her for making an honest make, and then, I guess, I did the unforgiveable:

I TOLD HER TO HAVE A NICE DAY.

Which planet are you living on?

Then perhaps you could explain to me how I am misreading this.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land. The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter. Under the Charter, there is no clear legal authority for war on Iraq.

Would someone please explain the humor in this?

Is this an example of conservative humor (since the conservative talk show below wants to be the first to air it)? Apparently (but not surprisingly), Michele Malkin is a huge fan and wants this song recorded. I agree with his First Amendment rights and think he should be allowed to record it, regardless of how obscene the lyrics are. I can't post the lyrics here because of the profanity, but they can be found at http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/06/hadji_girl.html

Sorry, but I don't get the *joke*.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060704/D8IKSGI80.html

Jul 3, 9:44 PM (ET)

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - A Marine who wrote and performed a song about killing members of an Iraqi family has temporarily shelved the tune, a record producer said Monday.

Cpl. Joshua Belile planned to record Hadji Girl with Hits Music Studios, and the conservative talk program The Mike Church Show planned to be the first to air it, said Jimm Mosher, co-owner of the North Carolina studio. But the 23-year-old Iraq veteran nixed the plans late last week, he said.

We got a call from him and he just said he couldn't do the recording at this time, Mosher said. I was led to believe that he had it from high command that he wasn't to record the song.

Neither Belile nor the Marines returned phone messages Monday evening.

Hadji Girl surfaced in a four-minute video on the Internet. In the clip, Belile sings about a Marine who falls in love with an Iraqi woman and then encounters hostility from her family. Relatives kill the woman, prompting the Marine to gun down the family members.

An anonymous person posted the recording on the Web site YouTube, but it has since been removed.

Belile has said his song was intended as a joke.

He did not violate military law, Marine officials said last week. Belile's commanders will handle the matter administratively, which can include informal counseling about his actions.

Belile, assigned to North Carolina's Marine Corps Air Station New River, has said he believes the Marine Corps handled his case fairly.

Mosher said Belile still plans to record the song. Belile has said he will leave the military when his five-year enlistment ends in October 2007.

We're wanting to record and produce it, Mosher said. I think it tells a great story.

Please explain to me, oh enlightened one...
all I ever said, and if you read the posts like you say you have, then you KNOW that to be a fact...was that I was not against immigration, I was against illegal immigration. I think immigrants should enter legally, pay taxes like the rest of us, and live happily ever after. What on earth is bigoted about that??? aren't you being exclusionary and bigoted in our attacks on me? Just because I don't agree with you? That sounds more like Mein Kampf to me. Okay, you are not idiotic for having your own perceptions. I accept that. So why am I bigoted for wanting illegals to enter this country legally, become citizens BEFORE they get the rights of citizens, and pay taxes like the rest of us. Where oh where my dear bookworm, is the horrorrrrrr in that??

Please explain where Sam is hateful?
I have seen nothing hateful posted. Seriously, I want to know what you consider "hateful."

no, no, that's not what I meant - sorry, will try to explain myself
Ok, my bad....I did not "articulate" myself well with that statement. I don't believe Obama is linked with the Iranian president, all I was saying was either side could take an off the wall statement like that and say it. I guess I used a really bad example, but the statement that if one or the other is elected we are going to have another attack on our country or this or that. Nobody knows.

I do agree with you about the religion issue. I actually believe all religions are bad in that way, but I didn't really mean that if Obama is elected they will be "out to get us" (and I don't believe that), I just used a bad example. I just thought the original post was a huge faux pas. Hope that helped explain it a little.

Religionopathy? Can you explain what you mean?
If you are going to participate in this discussion, can you explain what you mean? If it was just a nasty comment, then please, don't bother.

I'm confused - can somebody explain

Okay, I don't have a fancy law degree. Did sit on jury duty for a week some years ago, but this I don't understand. I thought there was something about rumors and gossip was not a legal basis in a case, but today I heard this (on a more liberal station), that there is an investigation into what Governor Sarah Palin did to her ex-brother-in-law, and the lawyers on Obama's side are having people testify under oath to what they've heard as rumor and gossip and it will be included in the investigation.

Can they do that? Like I say I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought rumors and gossip were not allowed in testimonies.

He never seems to explain how he will spend the
nm

You said Obama does not have to explain how he
xx

If that's true, how do you explain all these
bailing out of a sinking ship?

This is not a bash, but let me explain
I used to live 20 minutes from the border of Canada, we got a lot of perspective of what the Canadians thought of US.

First, this is not an election about race, but your comments are trying to suggest it is. Nobody in America cares about Obama's race. We care about Obama as a person. What is Obama offering the American people. What is Obama's plans for America. What will he do to our economic and foreign policies. What he wants to turn America into is not good for the country. Of course the people who support him will jump on your bandwagon and congratulate you on the "race" comment because they cannot defend the wrong he has done.

America does not want higher taxes which his plan will certainly increase our taxes. We work 50 and 60 hours or more at work to makes ends meet. Now we're going to have to work 80 hours or more because of the extra tax burdeon we will have to support all his programs while just handing the people who don't pay any taxes more money. Americans don't want our health care industry socialized, which is what his plan will do. We will no longer have control over our own health care.

We don't feel safe from our enemies with Obama's foreign policies. It's taken a lot since 9/11 for some Americans to feel that America is safe (or close to safe) from our enemies. Obama does not have the experience or knowlege of dealing with foreign leaders. A lot of us do not know where or who his allegience stands with. His ties to our enemies is not a very comforting feeling.

I find it funny how a lot of people will support Mr. Obama with his ties to the people who want to see us wiped off the planet, they'd rather see America turned into a socialist country. They'd rather see our freedoms and way of life taken from us. They want the people who work hard for what they have to work harder to give it to those who don't have and who refuse to do anything to better themselves. All for what? So that we can have a black president? That we have a president who is young?

Sure John McCain is not the first choice for a lot of us. We would have rather seen Ron Paul, Mit Romney or any of the others selected, but this is who the republican party chose.

A lot of us are researching what John McCain has done in his political career and what Barack Obama has done in his political career and we are comparing who would be better for America. It has nothing to do with the color (or lack of color) of their skin, it has to do with their character and judgment. It is a very close race and until election day is when we will learn who the people voted for. Here in America the polls do not mean anything. They are just a tool for the media to use to try to influence people, but thankfully most Americans do not vote based on just what polls say, and as we all know what happened with Tom Bradley (better known as the Bradley Effect) we know that polls do not mean anything, and the true results only happen on election day.

For a lot of conservatives we are choosing McCain over Obama because we feel McCain's plans and ideas are better for Americans. He has fought for Americans his whole political career. He has fought with both democrats and republicans on issues he feels are wrong for America.

Obama has too much "bad baggage". Sure he's a good speaker. He should be, after all he's a lawyer. He has had years of experience arguing cases in court rooms, but just because he speaks well, dresses nice, is good looking and had a lovely wife and 2 beautiful little girls does not mean that what he will turn our country into is right for America. Seeing as you have access to most everything on the Net you should visit some independent sites that are neither for or against both candidates and learn more about them, their history, their affiliations, who they studied under, who supports them, who donates to their campaigns. Who are they, what have they done in their careers and what are they trying so desperately to hide.

This campaign is different. We had a women running, Hillary, who now after being defeated are learning that she would have been a lot better for America than what is in there now. As the saying goes if she was elected "at least we know what the devil looks like". I voted for Obama over Hillary, but now I wish I voted the other way.

This election is also different because never in my adult years have I have heard such bias liberal media just trying to tear out the souls of anyone who is not democrat. Issues are in black in white in front of their faces and they choose to ignore them. We have people like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and others who made a fortune from the housing crisis while they knew it was wrong, yet the democrats will say it was all Bush's fault, when President Bush does not vote on these issues. Sure President Bush is not the most intelligent. As my friend says "He's one fry short of a happy meal", but he didn't vote on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Congress did. We were lied to by the democrats and this is where it got us. But the liberal media ignores that. Then we have the top democrats (Nancy Pelosi, and a couple others that I forget their name right now- Harry Reid, that's his name and others) who have the authority to impeach President Bush, and there is plenty legitimate and legal reasons for him to be impeached but they are not doing it. So the democrats will whine about Bush and how he should be impeached, but they don't say anything against the democrats for not impeaching him. There are a lot of conservatives who want Bush and Cheney impeached, so you have to ask yourselves why is Pelosi and others not doing it. I, as others believe, Pelosi and the others have done something wrong (accepted money or whatever it is) and they've been told not to do anything or else.

Anyway....yes, this election is different than others. We have one candidate who is a true American hero, who will fight for Americans and has fought for us. He doesn't belong to the "good ol boys" club like Bush/Cheney. Then you have the other candidate Obama who is so deep up to his neck in shady doings, associates, and everything else we are finding out. Also the same people who have donated and are in charge of President Bush are the same exact people who are supporting Obama (makes you think twice about that one).

You said Barack's wife is well spoken and I agree with you there. I also believe McCain's wife is well spoken. She has dedictated her life as a special education teacher and nurse. She has spent her whole life helping others. She is a truly beautiful lady like Michelle Obama on both the inside and out. Two extra-ordinary women who would make fine first ladies.

Obama's campaign is all about change. Yes everyone is tired of Bush/Cheney, and we certainly don't want to go back to the Clinton/Gore years, so people are looking for a change, just not the kind of change Obama wants to make. He also says its time for change but he picks Biden for a running mate. The same Biden who said that Obama was not ready to be President. Clinton also said Obama was not ready to be president. So Obama wants change but he picks a running mate who has been in Washington as long as McCain has. McCain's campaign is about putting America first. Which means fighting for us. We saw his courage and his fight while he was in a POW camp. He fought then and he will fight now. His running mate goes to show us McCain will truly put change into Washington. He picked a qualified person who gives Americans hope that more than only lawyer's can be elected. She has the experience (she has more experience than Obama does) to be elected as a VP. She's a fast learner and has come as far in a few weeks that took Obama almost 2 years to get to.

So, your post did not offend, but you need to know that this election is not about race. It's about ethics, integrety, patriotism, knowlege, courage, and sticking up for the American people. All qualities that John McCain and Sarah Palin hold.

I'm not saying I believe they will win because it is a very close election, but I like many others hope they do win. We want to be able to remain a free country and prosper the way our founding fathers wanted the country to be.