A VERY MERRY UNCHRISTMAS

12/03/2008

The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, the misnomer for a group of atheists, applied for and was granted the right to erect a holiday display on public property in West Chester County, alongside a crèche, a Christmas tree and a Menorah.

To celebrate the notion that they are slaves neither to religion nor tradition, these "freethinkers" have erected a 15-foot evergreen tree which they have dubbed "The Tree of Knowledge" and which they have decorated with colorful book covers.

Some view this as a satisfactory compromise. I do not. Why should Christians and Jews be forced to share their holidays with nonbelievers? Why should either holiday be compromised?

A number of questions arise, not the least of which is why would an atheist want to share in the celebration of either Christmas or Hanukkah, since both are based on worship of the One True God?

Speaking on Fox & Friends last December, a spokesman for the group said they just didn't want to be "left out", that they, too, enjoy getting together with friends and family, "especially at this time of the year."

And what, precisely, is "this time of the year" to an atheist? Anyone care to hazard a guess?

To Christians, it's a celebration of the time when God descended to earth to dwell among us in the form of his Son. To Jews, it's a commemoration of the rededication of the Temple, when a small flask of holy oil miraculously lasted eight days. To atheists, it's… Why, it's nothing at all! The holiday season holds no significance at all for an atheist!

If these folks were truly atheists, Christmas would be just another day. If they were truly atheists, rather than feel "left out" when they pass a Christmas display, they would rejoice that they are not among the poor deluded souls who celebrate such nonsense.

And then there's the evergreen tree they chose to erect—a Christmas tree, if you will. And they dare to call themselves "freethinkers"?! Surely one whose intellect is truly free, who is unencumbered by religious myths and cultural traditions, could have come up with something more original than a Christmas tree!!

The atheists claim to be promoting free speech and free thought with their display of a secular Christmas tree when, in fact, they are doing nothing more than copying the very tradition they claim to disdain—and setting a very poor example for their children in the process. They are telling their children, in effect, that they have nothing worth celebrating, no focus for their lives, so they must insinuate themselves into the holidays of those they claim to despise in order to feel they are a vital part of society.

Christmas is a Christian holiday. Hanukkah is a Jewish holiday. If atheists don't wish to celebrate either, they certainly have the freedom not to participate!

But if they think that by erecting a Christmas tree decorated with covers of books written by atheist authors, they are persuading the rest of us that their sole purpose is to encourage free speech and free thought, they are deluded.

If atheists are the freethinkers they claim to be, then why don't they exhibit a little of that vaunted freethinking and create their own holiday? While they're at it, they could develop their own holiday traditions!

Ripping off someone else's holiday and aping their traditions are poor ways of communicating your supposed intellectual superiority! The members of the Freethought Society strike me not as freethinkers, but as little children sulking because no one else wants to play their game.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

BOO

11/08/08

No, this isn't a belated Halloween post. I've just been getting weirded-out by the increasingly bizarre news stories coming out of Washington, San Francisco and, yes, even Antigua and Barbados, so I've decided to write about my gray-and-white parakeet, Boo. (See photo on sidebar!)

His proper name is Birdie Boo, but he also responds to Boo-Boo, Baby Boo, Sweetie Boo — and nearly anything else I call him, as long as it contains the name Boo.

I purchased Boo at a local pet shop a couple of years ago. I'd fully intended to get a standard green-and-yellow parakeet, but the green birds the shop had were splotchy to the point of being unattractive — to my eye, at least. However, there in the middle of the top perch, tucked in among assorted blues and greens, was a little guy who looked like he was wearing formal white tails. He immediately stole my heart, and I knew he was the bird for me!

Boo has a light gray-and-white breast, dark gray back and pure white wings and tail — an absolutely gorgeous little bird, as you can clearly see! He scolded like crazy while waiting in the little cardboard box for me to pay for him but then didn't open his mouth for six months after I got him home.

Now, however, I can't shut him up and he's a regular showoff! He loves music — almost any kind, loves to play on his homemade play tree (a black walnut sapling) with it's assortment of toys, enjoys conversing with his outdoor sparrow friends, and is fond of taking naps while sitting on my hand. When I use the desktop PC in "his" room, he plays on the keyboard, and when I write on my laptop, he perches on the rim of the lid and twitters away as I type.

Boo is particularly fond of molting/conditioning food, which purports to enhance feather color. I believe it, for my little gray-and-white bird now has a small cobalt blue patch of feathers on his rump and a slightly blue cast to some of the feathers on one side. But I let him eat the stuff, anyway, because for him, it's like ice cream.

His favorite treats are dandelion leaves and stems of grass seeds plucked straight from the front yard. In wintertime, a bit of lettuce or apple or broccoli will do.

He loves to show off his acrobatic skills, which he hones by practicing on a string of 8 interlocking plastic rings. He especially enjoys being praised for his prowess when he sits in the topmost ring. If I don't happen to notice him, he'll sit there patiently and whistle at me until I turn around and applaud his marvelous feat.

Oh, yes, and he talks. But only when he wants to! He has quite a repertoire: Boo's a pretty boy! (His favorite, and often accompanied by a wolf whistle.) Birdie-boo. Hello! You wait here! (That one's a long story…) Boo's a big boy! and various other jabberings. You never know just what will come out of that sassy little beak!

Just now, he's out of his cage and has decided it's nap time. He has settled on my left forefinger, making it particularly difficult to type. Somehow, his feather-light weight and warm little bird feet are comforting. He has just pulled one foot up and tucked his beak into the feathers of his back. That he trusts me enough to sleep that way on my hand makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

You might not think that such a tiny creature could be a good companion, but you'd be wrong. He's an enjoyable little feathered friend!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

DRINKING THE KOOL-AID

11/08/08

You may have noticed the way the mainstream media nearly swooned over Obama during the primaries and, later, during the presidential campaign.

Perhaps the most famous quip is Chris Matthews' excited description while covering one of Obama's primary speeches: "I have to tell you, it's part of reporting this case, this election — the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg! I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously, it's a dramatic event!… And that's an objective assessment."

Of course, it is, Chris. I can't imagine anyone suggesting you weren't being objective. I mean, is the Pope Catholic?!

Describing another of Obama's victory speeches during a primary campaign, Joe Scarborough, host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, gushed, "If anybody in America has heard a better speech in modern American political history, please email me!" Pul-eeze!!

Chris Matthews, "objective" anchor of MSNBC's Hardball, was even more effusive. "Two days before, I heard him speak before hundreds of people in the old Palace Theater in Manchester. It was the best speech I've ever heard! …first it was conversational, then it was unbelievable, and I'm tearing up and I'm writing down notes…. And he did it again that night at midnight."

Since the election on Tuesday, the press coverage has gotten even more bizarre. Take this item from Friday's news broadcast, for instance, in which Chris Matthews admits that he will no longer even try to be objective.

Matthews told Joe Scarborough, "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work."

Scarborough asked him, "Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist."

Matthews replied, "Yes, it is my job. My job is to help this country…. To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency."

Can you believe it? After eight years of Bush-bashing, a mainstream news anchor has suddenly decided that it's his job to make the Obama presidency successful??

You may remember that in a campaign speech, Barack Obama told the crowd, "A light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack!'"

It sounds like that light shined down on Chris Matthews from somewhere (I won't hazard a guess as to its source.) and he experienced that epiphany and he suddenly knew he just had to support the Obama presidency.

This is getting scary, folks.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THOUGHTS ON THE DAY AFTER

11/05/2008

Did any of you watch the news on the days following election day? Did you note the bizarre images that assaulted you and the absolute cluelessness of the news anchors, commentators and political pundits — and their glee that the rest of the world finally loves us?

I watched Barack Hussein Obama's extended family marching through the streets of Nairobi carrying a portrait of their homeboy and an upside-down American flag and it struck me as totally bizarre for several reasons.

• First -person accounts of Obama's birth indicate that he is a native-born citizen of Kenya, not of the United States of America — thereby making him ineligible to run for the presidency. Even if he later became a naturalized citizen, Obama would still be ineligible for the presidency. Some journalists insist that Obama holds dual citizenship, both American and Kenyan — possibly even Indonesian, since his school records in that country list him as a citizen, made so by adoption by his Indonesian stepfather. Contrary to what you might believe if you've been listening to the mainstream media, Lady Liberty is a jealous mistress. The United States has never permitted dual citizenship. When you take the oath to become a citizen of this country, you are required to renounce every other allegiance.

• That Obama's African kinsmen were carrying the flag upside-down was more appropriate than they may have known. An upside-down flag is a universal distress signal.

News anchors seem to be delighted that, at last! the rest of the world appears to love us — or, at least, to love Obama. Oh, joy! All over the world, people are celebrating Obama's election to the highest office in our land. Perhaps someone can explain to me why that is a good thing?

• The rest of the world has never had America's best interest at heart. They hold out their hands for our billions in foreign aid but couldn't care less if we were completely destroyed.

• The world despises America for its wealth and strength. They would like nothing better than to see us get our comeuppance. They would love to see us reduced to their level, to be one of them and no longer the leader of the free world.

• Does anyone remember the dancing in the streets after the attacks of September 11, 2001?

The stock market plunged nearly 500 points after news of Obama's win and "analysts" and "experts" were baffled. Me, I'm baffled that the analysts were clueless. Haven't they been paying attention to what Obama has been saying? And if they have, why are they surprised that the Dow dropped like a rock when he was elected president? I'm surprised it didn't completely tank.

• Obama said he wants to "spread the wealth around". That's a loose interpretation of the Marxist dogma, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." As anyone with any brains should realize by now, under a Marxist regime, there is no incentive for anyone to succeed, since any profit a man might make belongs to the collective. Such societies have always failed. Wouldn't you think a Harvard grad like Obama would be smart enough to know that? Or has his lust for power simply overshadowed his common sense?

• Obama has clearly stated that he intends to raise the capital gains tax.

• Obama has threatened to bankrupt any company that tries to build a plant using coal power, no matter how cleanly it is burned. This is not only bad news for power companies, it is the death knell for the West Virginia and Pennsylvania coal industry.

• Jim Moran, Democratic Congressman of Virginia and Obama supporter, condemned the Bush administration for believing "in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it." Yes, you DID read that correctly. Democrats think it's simplistic for you to expect to keep the money you've earned by the sweat of your brow.

All in all, it's been an interesting day — and I'm sure that, as the saying goes, we ain't seen nothin' yet

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

CAN WE?

11/05/2008

Some things are inevitable — like the passage of time, the motion of the tides… and the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency.

From the early days of the primaries, when Democrats and "independents" (translation: Democrats who delude themselves into thinking they might someday vote for someone other than the Democrat candidate) deliberately chose the weakest Republican candidate in those states with "open" primaries.

They chose a man with a history of stabbing President Bush in the back and compromising with liberals on important issues on which he would have done better to have stood his ground. They chose a man who had consistently alienated the conservative base of the Republican Party. They chose a man who would not be able to sufficiently differentiate himself from his Democrat opponent. They chose a man they knew they could defeat in the November general election.

And then, against all odds, Barack Obama swept in from nowhere and stole the Democrat nomination from president-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton. Obama had charisma. Obama had the support of the Chicago Socialist Party, of which he was formerly a member, and of rich extremists like George Soros, who has been working for years to bring about a world government.

Obama became the rock-star candidate who mesmerized crowds with neurolinguistic programming and covert hypnotic suggestions that peppered his speeches. Obama presented a blank mask to voters, a mask they could paint with whatever colors they wanted. Only rarely did we catch glimpses of the man behind the mask and when we did, his campaign hurriedly did damage-control to restore the blank façade.

Jeremiah Wright, with his racist rants and anti-American hatemongering, was tossed aside. He'd served his purpose and was no longer needed.

William Ayers was shrugged off as inconsequential.

Any mention or acknowledgment of George Soros was carefully avoided.

His birth records were hurriedly sealed when some people became curious about the real circumstances of his birth and whether or not he was eligible to run for the presidency.

He retaliated against newspapers which endorsed his opponent by kicking their reporters off his campaign plane and his staff excused his vindictiveness by saying the great man had needed to make room for Ebony staff.

Always, the mask remained blank and Obama made vague promises of "hope" and "change" that could be interpreted any way his listeners liked.

And yesterday in Pennsylvania, people who voted Republican on the rest of the ballot mysteriously voted for Obama for president. It looks like those subliminal suggestions really worked.

Today, we must face the reality of the election, the result of our naivete. Today, we must deal with a president-elect who hates this country, who fully intends to dismantle our defenses, who thinks our Constitution is deeply flawed because it doesn't provide for a welfare state nor reparations to the descendants of slaves, and who, in his own words, intends to "spread the wealth around".

Today, we must face the fact that we have elected to the presidency a man who may not even be eligible to hold the office.

Today, we must accept the consequences of our stupidity and greed.

Perhaps not tomorrow, but eventually, we will discover the reality of the man behind the blank mask; we will find out whom it is that we elected to the highest office in the land. But tomorrow, it will be too late to change our decision.

I don't know how you feel today, but I feel as though the entire cosmos is holding its breath… waiting… for that man to be revealed.

And springing, unbidden, from my spirit is the worship song from the fifth chapter of the Book of Revelation: "To Him who sits on the throne and unto the Lamb be blessing and glory and honor and power forever!"

It's the song sung by those gathered around God's throne just before the first of the seven seals is opened.

2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

Epiphany

10/31/08

"A light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack!'" (Barack Obama in a campaign speech)

God forbid!

But that aside, have you considered how pompous such a statement is? And then there's Barack Obama's description of what will happen when he's elected president: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to fall and our planet began to heal!"

What pompous arrogance! Can you imagine the reaction if George Bush or any other conservative made a similar statement? He'd be laughed off the stage and ridiculed by every news anchor and political pundit. But Obama is delusional enough to believe such things about himself — and to expect us to believe them, too!
The saddest part, though, is that his audience cheered these absurd statements.

Recently, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons offered an explanation for the seeming gullibility of Obama's audiences. They have openly speculated that Obama has been using covert mind-control techniques in his speeches.

Called neurolinguistic programming, this form of covert hypnosis was developed by Dr. Milton Erickson using various techniques such as slow speech, rhythm, tonality, repetitive phrases and certain hand gestures to open the mind to suggestion and to aid in implanting hypnotic commands. In Obama's half-hour prime time political ad, these techniques were in evidence.

Even though the statements Obama made in his infomercial were not consistent with the statements he made during the primary or even in his recent stump speeches, I'm sure many people bought them hook, line and sinker.

My favorite lie was, "I will rebuild the military." Not only do I recall that President Bush had to rebuild the military after eight years of a Democrat administration, but I clearly recall Obama's program for dismantling American defense which he spelled out in Iowa during the early days of his campaign for the presidency.

"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning and, as president, I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems, and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

After that very specific speech, Obama expects us to believe him when he says, "I will rebuild the military."

The most entertaining parts of the infomercial, however, were the sob stories, which Obama couldn't quite pull off. One family in particular was especially difficult to pity. The mother complained about having to shop the specials and skimp on milk because of the family's financial woes — yet she was sporting a set of acrylic nails and was so obese she could barely waddle. She looked as though she'd had more than enough to eat for a very long time!

While this woman pondered how much milk she could afford to buy for the family, I wondered why she didn't just give up her $25 manicures and use the money she saved to purchase groceries. It would seem the family's problem is not so much a financial one as it is a problem of misplaced priorities. Anyone who opts to spend money on a manicure and then complains she doesn't have enough money for food doesn’t need a government handout; she needs to grow up!

Strikingly absent was a look at how many cars the families had and how many cell phones and televisions they enjoyed. I'm sure that information would have been an eye-opener. This is the only nation in the world whose "poor" own cars, televisions, computers and cell phones.

As much as I enjoyed observing Obama's attempts to dupe and deceive, he did not manage to change my mind. I experienced no epiphany. He only left me wanting to smack that obese woman up-side the head and tell her to stop whining and get a life!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

JOE THE PLUMBER

10/19/2008

The media's treatment of Joe Wurzelbacher, a/k/a Joe the Plumber, strains credulity.

Joe is a simple working man who committed the apparently unforgivable sin of questioning Obama's stated tax policies. For that, the media have turned their collective investigative skills on Joe to try to discredit him.

Joe the Plumber doesn't even have a plumbing license, they breathtakingly report. Not only that, he owes the government back taxes!!

They don't explain to us why that disqualifies Joe's question to Obama. And they carefully fail to mention that Joe, who works for a plumbing company, doesn't need a license in Ohio, since he works for a plumbing company and is not self-employed.

They also carefully neglect mentioning the Democrat Congressmen who owe far more back taxes than Joe. After all, their mission is not to uncover corruption but to ruin the credibility of the man who dared to question Obama's stated intention to "spread the wealth around."

One can't help but wonder why they haven't investigated Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright with such enthusiasm. Oh… that's right. It's because Ayers and Wright are supporters of Obama.

In addition, Barack Obama himself has been misrepresenting and ridiculing Joe in his campaign speeches. "How many plumbers do you know who make a quarter of a million dollars?!" he derisively asks the crowd.
Joe didn't say he made a quarter-million dollars. He said he was thinking about buying a small company that made a little over a quarter-million and grow it, and he pointed out to Obama that his plan to gouge small businesses would seriously impact his ability to grow his business and hire more employees.

However, Obama, with his closed mind and stated communist policies, had no sympathy at all for Joe, the simple working-class stiff. Instead, if you can believe it, Obama told Joe, "It's always good to spread the wealth around."

Obviously, Obama meant that it's good to spread someone else's wealth around, since I don't see Obama giving away his millions! On the contrary, Obama and his wife have been dining on lobster and imported caviar in the Presidential Suite of the Waldorf Astoria in New York.

And then there's Jessica Hughes in Texas who received the call from an Obama campaign worker who asked her if she would support Obama. The woman told her, "No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets. I think you should find something better to do with your time."

The next day, two federal agents showed up at Hughes' door and accused her of making death threats against Obama. They said the campaign worker had turned her in and had told the Secret Service that Hughes said, "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor." When Hughes denies making the threat, the agents didn't believe her and asked why the campaign worker would have made up such a thing. That's a very good question.

If this is the way Obama and his cohorts treat "dissidents" in a society which purports to allow free speech, what will happen if he becomes president? Will those who oppose or question him end up in a Soviet-style Gulag Archipelago? Will they be sent away to "re-education camps", as they are in China? (After all, Obama has publicly stated his admiration for communist China.) Or will he simply use intimidation to quiet his critics?

It's something to consider.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE ACORN NEVER FALLS FAR FROM THE TREE

How many of you have been keeping track of all the voter registration fraud being perpetrated by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)? I've lost track, too. Every day brings new reports of fraud.

What has been Obama's response to all this? As with all his politically inconvenient associations, he has thrown them under the bus and has attempted to disassociate himself from them.

Obama has denied he ever worked with ACORN and insists his only association with the radical organization was when he filed a lawsuit on their behalf back in the early 90s.

Have you ever noticed that politicians seem to develop very selective memories? Let's review the facts and see if they fit Obama's reminiscences, shall we?

• Fact: Obama was a "leadership trainer" for ACORN.

• Fact: Obama sat on the Board of Directors of The Woods Fund, which gave the Chicago branch of ACORN grants Of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002), and $40,000 (2002).

• Fact: In 1992, Obama directed ACORN's Project Vote, which managed to elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate.

• Fact: Chicago ACORN Leader Toni Foulkes referred to Obama in the 2004 US Senate Primary as "the candidate we hold dear."

• Fact: Obama's presidential campaign gave over $800 million to ACORN and then lied to the Federal Election Commission about it. (How many fraudulent votes do you suppose Obama got for his money?)

• Fact: This past summer, Obama told a New York journalist, "I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career…"

• Fact: Thousands of allegedly fake voter registrations submitted by ACORN are being investigated. At least nine states are reviewing voter paperwork, and Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) police are looking into similar accusations. Employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, commonly known as ACORN, are under investigation in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin since local election officials started noticing irregularities among the thousands of registrations submitted by ACORN. And guess who trained ACORN leaders? That's right: Obama!

Obama can back-pedal, lie and deny all he wants, but that won't change the facts, and the facts are that ACORN perpetrates voter fraud and employs intimidation tactics and Obama has been closely involved with that organization for decades and has trained them in these techniques.

So we can add ACORN to the growing list of unsavory organizations and characters closely associated with Obama: racist minister, Jeremiah Wright; domestic terrorists, William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn; racist black Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan, who calls Barack Obama the messiah; PLO associate and Israel-hater, Rashid Khalidi. The list goes on and on — and as each one is discovered, Obama denies his association and attempts to rewrite his past.

Is this really the man we want in the White House?

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

A FAIR ELECTION

Last week, one of my neighbors put out yard signs in support of McCain and the next morning, they were gone. Ripped out. Stolen.

A random act of mischief, you ask? No. This sort of thing has been happening regularly for several election seasons here in the county. Curiously, it's always the Republican campaign signs that go missing.

When did the Democrat Party realize they'd moved so far to the left that they could never win fair elections in a capitalist society and so made a conscious decision to try to steal them?

It's been going on for decades in the cities. Stuffed ballot boxes. Fraudulent voter registration. Dead people voting. No wonder the Democrats so vehemently oppose any attempt to require photo Ids at the polls!

But the dishonestly began in earnest in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore, Clinton's heir-apparent, mistakenly assumed he would win the election handily. After all, there were hundreds of felons voting in Arkansas and thousands of corpses voting in Philadelphia and all over the country, voting machines were being tampered with. How could he possibly lose!

However, despite all the tampering, the will of the people glimmered through the murkiness and it turned out to be quite different than the result Gore had envisioned, so Gore made an unprecedented move. Rather than conceding the election with dignity, as every one of his predecessors — even those involved in very close elections — had done, Gore, the Democrat Party and their ranks of unscrupulous lawyers set out to steal the election.

Did I hear you say it was Bush who stole the election? Granted, that's been a particularly successful bit of propaganda, but it just doesn't fit the facts.

Who can forget the news footage of those poor Florida election workers holding ballots up to the light to try to determine if there was any indication of an indentation next to Gore's name. Our vocabulary was expanded to include handing chad, pregnant chad, dimpled chad.

Here's the story you didn't hear. Bill Rouverol, the inventor of the voting machines in question, was furious that his machines were being maligned night after night in the national news. He tried to prove that his machines had NOT malfunctioned, but no one would listen to him, so he delivered one of his machines to Rush Limbaugh's studio. He invited Rush and his staff to use the voting machine, experiment with it, do everything they could to try to get the machine to produce even one incompletely-punched chad.

The result? In every instance except one, the machine produced a cleanly-punched ballot.

The exception? When more than one ballot was placed in the machine!

The inescapable conclusion is that Democrat election workers stuffed the machines in Florida with in a deliberate attempt to steal the election.

We are now less than a month away from another presidential election, and Obama's campaign has already promised that if Obama loses the election, they will put this nation through a post-election battle that will make Florida 2000 look like child's play. Already, their attorneys are drafting lawsuits in preparation for the battle.

In addition, groups like ACORN have filed thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms all over the country. One ACORN operative actually admitted to sitting at his kitchen table and creating names and addresses out of whole cloth to complete the forms, which he then signed himself.

An update: Nevada state authorities have just raided an ACORN office in Las Vegas and confiscated boxes of fraudulent materials. ACORN operatives filed duplicate voter registrations, used imaginary names and addresses, even used the names of Dallas Cowboys football players.

It bears mentioning here that Obama obtained his much-vaunted "community organizer" experience while working with ACORN. Until now, I would not have guessed that experience gained while learning fraudulent voter registration practices qualified one to run for president of the United States. Who knew?!

This nation is a representative republic. Its citizens are entitled to free — and honest — elections. No party has the right to impose its ideas on the citizenry. For the sake of this nation and its people, let's stand down; let's stop the dirty tricks and election fraud; and on election day, let each eligible voter have one vote.

In this age of moral decline, a fair election is probably only a pipe dream. But I can dream, can't I?

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO WOMEN'S LIB?

Sarah Palin is a strong, accomplished, independent woman, one who was not afraid to take on the good ol' boys firmly ensconced in the Alaskan state government. She doesn't believe in being limited by the status quo. She has an innovative approach to government and doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'can't'.

She sounds like the quintessential independent woman, doesn't she, a liberal Democrat's dream-come-true? So why did the Democrat Party and their accomplices in the media set about to destroy her the moment they recovered from the announcement of her nomination?

Incredibly, their first criticism of Palin was that she has no business running for public office because she has five children! How, they asked, would she possibly give her children the attention they deserve if she were engaged in a national political campaign?

Come again?? Isn't the Democrat Party the party of freedom, choice, tolerance and women's lib? Haven't they for decades urged women to burn their bras, send their kids to daycare and enter the workforce? So why this nearly psychotic opposition to Sarah Palin's candidacy?

Then they criticized her for choosing to give birth to a Down's Syndrome child, instead of murdering it in the womb.

But. . . doesn't the Democrat Party contend that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not she will carry a pregnancy to term? Oops, I forgot. They only believe in 'choice' if a woman chooses abortion, not if she chooses life. A rather small-minded view, wouldn't you say?

Next, liberals contended that Governor Palin has no foreign policy experience. Okay, I'll concede that one. But she does have executive experience — which is more than anyone can say of either Obama or Biden, neither of whom have foreign policy or executive experience.

What I notice most about all the furious daggers the left has been aiming at Sarah Palin is that none of them contains any substance. Their goal is to destroy the woman personally. They have no interest in discussing anything of substance with her.

Have you, like me, been appalled at the ferocity of the personal attacks against Palin? Have you wondered why both the Democrats and the press reacted in such an extreme way?

My conclusion is that they consider Sarah Palin a threat. Yes, you heard me correctly. Sarah Palin is the embodiment of a so-called 'liberated' woman, yet she is happily married, the mother of five, a conservative and, worst of all, a Christian with a firm moral foundation — all anathema to the left.

Up to now, liberals wanted us to believe a woman could only be liberated if she divorced her husband and aborted her children. Sarah Palin has proved them wrong, and they're so furious they can barely see straight.

Way to go, Sarah!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE ALASKAN GOVERNOR-BABE

September 8, 2008

John McCain has finally announced his choice of a running mate: Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.

Governor Palin is very popular in her home state. She hunts, fishes, is a lifetime member of the NRA, a former beauty queen, and the mother of five children. Sarah Palin is the quintessential American woman.

McCain's announcement came only hours after Barack Hussein Obama's very unmemorable speech at Invesco Field and took all the wind out of his sails.

The left immediately responded with their usual spoiled-brat whining.

Obama's campaign sniped, "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil, and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies. That's not the change we need. It's just more of the same." Obama later tried to smooth over this gaff by explaining that his campaign sometimes reacted with a hair-trigger, but I suspect the initial reaction of the campaign represents their true feelings. Democrats talk the talk, but it's the Republican Party that walks the walk. Liberals know that's the truth and hate to be shown up for what they really are — elitist snobs.

Obama is treading on dangerous ground when he complains that Governor Palin has "zero foreign policy experience". I'd like to hear about Obama's foreign policy experience — or even his executive experience. Anybody?

But the loudest complaint of liberals was that his choice of a running mate proved that John McCain is not the maverick he claimed to be. They whine that if he truly were a maverick, he would have chosen a more liberal running mate like Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge.

It would seem Democrats consider Sarah Palin too conservative for their taste. They've obviously forgotten that Palin is the Republican Party candidate. The Democrats have already chosen their vice presidential candidate: an old Washington insider with no foreign policy experience and no executive experience.

How like little children they sound! They're whining because the Republican candidate won't play their game and march to their drum.

Liberals took the choice of a truly conservative presidential candidate away from Republicans by crossing the ballot to vote for McCain in the open primary states. They deliberately chose a candidate who would not present a clear contrast with their own Democratic nominee, making it easier to muddy the waters when discussing the issues facing our nation. And now they somehow think they have the right to tell McCain whom to choose as his running mate? What arrogance!

The Democrat Party already held their convention. They've chosen their candidates: a young black upstart with absolutely no experience and an old Washington insider only 6 years younger than John McCain — and now they want to tell McCain whom he should choose for his veep? What conceit!

The bottom line is that the Democrats are scared to death of having to face a McCain-Palin ticket. Sarah Palin is intelligent, talented, capable, energetic, conservative, and beautiful — in other words, she's a liberal's worse nightmare.

Congratulations, Senator McCain! You've chosen a winner!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

OBAMA'S BORN ALIVE DILEMMA

.
As I read the transcript of the Regular Session of the Illinois State Senate of April 4, 2002, I noticed that during discussion of the so-called Born Alive Bill, supporters refer to the subject as a child, while Senator Obama refers to it as a fetus, even though the child is a separate entity outside the mother's body.

To the left, the term "fetus" is nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize the baby that is at the heart of this discussion.

Senator Obama has been doing a lot of back-pedaling lately in an effort to deny statements he made in that Illinois Senate session. He insists that pro-lifers are lying about him.

Let's help the Senator set the record straight once and for all, shall we?

First, Obama recently said he would have been willing to vote for the Illinois bill had it been the same as the federal bill which enjoyed such broad support. I have read both the federal and the Illinois bills, and they are virtually identical.

Secondly, Obama said he voted against the Illinois bill because it would have abridged rights granted under Roe v. Wade. Paragraph (c) of the Illinois bill states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this section."

Let's examine more of Obama's arguments, taken directly from the transcript of the Illinois Senate:

"As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus…" Obama is essentially saying that since the abortionist is terminating the pregnancy, the fetus has already been deemed nonviable. Viability is determined by whether or not a child can survive outside the mother's womb and is obviously not a consideration for the abortionist, since both the woman and her abortionist are determined that the child will not survive.

Obama continues, "…if the fetus…is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead [How's that for sensitivity!], that, in fact, they would then have to call in a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved." Obama objects to calling in an honest-go-goodness doctor, one who is accustomed to treating live babies, rather than killing them, to assist the child who has survived the abortionist's butchery. And notice his choice of words. He objects to the need for a second doctor to "make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved". Obama isn't concerned with saving a child's life; he only wants to make damned sure the child is dead!

"…let's say for the purposes of the mother's health…that labor is being induced…" I think we can safely say that very few abortions are performed because of concern for the mother's health. Of the over 40 million abortions performed since Roe v. Wade legalized the killing of children in this country, the overwhelming majority of these children were killed for no other reason than that they were an inconvenience to their mother.

"I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births." It's called the Born Alive Bill, Senator, because it is about live births. Accidental live births. Babies who are born alive, despite the abortionists' best efforts to kill them.

Let's get to the bottom of this. Why does Obama so adamantly oppose making medical assistance available to babies who survive abortion? I think we can discover his real motives in this statement: "Look, I got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby, I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16…"
Obama considers a baby a punishment for moral failure, the equivalent of AIDS or syphilis.
Senator Obama, the pro-lifers are not the ones doing the lying and dissembling; you are.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

CLOSE, BUT NO CIGAR

Paul of Tarsus called them "false Christians". They were people who had infiltrated the church and distorted the gospel. They tried to fake it but didn't quite succeed.

Obama is one such "false Christian".

I hear you out there. You're screaming that I should not judge other people's Christianity. Why not? Paul did.

Obama walked down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ because he needed "a vessel for [his] beliefs." He says his faith "means that those sins that I have…hopefully will be washed away." He's not certain his sins have been forgiven, he only hopes they will be. And who could be certain if he'd been sitting under the ranting of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years?

In his "Call to Renewal" speech, Obama takes exception to those who "live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences." But isn't that what being a Christian is all about? I guess Obama must have missed Jesus' words, "If anyone would come after me [be my disciple], he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Obama says his favorite scripture passage is one that comes "at the end of the Sermon on the Mount." He calls it "that precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." Actually, that passage occurs quite a bit farther back, near the end of the book, when Jesus is talking to his disciples about the last judgment. It is also worth noting that Jesus defined his brothers and sisters as "those who do the will of my Father."

Obama, on the other hand, interprets this passage as being "about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class." I don't think that's quite what Jesus had in mind, do you?

Obama complains, "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles"—but has Obama been reading his?

He asks, "Even if we did have only Christians in our midst…whose Christianity would we teach in the schools…James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" How about the gospel of Jesus Christ?

And he wonders if we should abide by the Old Testament dietary laws and those passages that "suggest slavery is okay." The man is obviously unaware that through the arrival of the Messiah, God instituted a new covenant with mankind which supersedes the old one and which nullifies the Law of Moses.

The New Testament also addresses slavery. In fact, Paul advises slaves to obey their masters "with respect and fear, with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" and admonishes slave owners to treat their slaves with kindness. Paul tells believers to remain in whatever state they were when they became Christians. "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so." Quite a different gospel from the one cited by Obama and preached by Jeremiah Wright, isn't it?

Obama says he believes marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman—but that he would not support a constitutional amendment to that effect. Rather, he believes we should allow "civil unions…for gay partners." He adds, "I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state." Mere semantics. The Bible clearly considers homosexuality a perversion, not only in the Old Testament he dismisses, but in the New Testament, as well, where the apostle Paul calls such relationships "unnatural", yet Obama's so-called Christianity embraces them. According to Obama, his "core values" are strong enough to allow it. What core values??

Obama's sham-Christianity is not Christianity at all. It's merely an attempt to make himself palatable to American voters.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

MOONING THE UNION

In a stunning news release last week, Tyson Foods announced that their plant in Shelbyville, Tennessee, will no longer close for Labor Day. Instead, they will celebrate the Muslim holiday, Eid al-Fitr.

Eid al-Fitr literally means "festival to break the fast" and is celebrated at the end of Ramadan, a 30-day period of partial fasting. (I'm sure I'll catch flack for that one but while Jesus may have fasted for 30 days, Muslims don't. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast only during daylight hours and eat after sundown.)

The new union contract which replaced Labor Day with Eid was negotiated and implemented last fall but did not come under public scrutiny until the good folks of Shelbyville discovered that family members who work for Tyson would not be attending the traditional Labor Day barbecue.

Tyson's Director of Media Relations, Gary Mickelson, said the new contract also provides for a company-furnished prayer room in which Muslim employees are allowed to pray during a paid seven-minute break.

Stuart Applebaum, the national president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) said it is the job of the union to "stand up to win respect for every worker's right to practice their faith." And so the RWDSU made obtaining Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday a priority in their contract negotiations.

I didn't notice anything in the press release about a valiant effort by the union to obtain Good Friday or Easter, Christendom's most holy days, as paid holidays, or of Tyson Foods providing a chapel where Christians may pray. Obviously, an oversight.

Once again, we have the tyranny of the minority. Reportedly, about 20% of Tyson's Shelbyville work force are Somali Muslims who emigrated to the United States but expect to live as though they are still in Somalia.

I think it is extremely illogical to emigrate to nation with Christian traditions and then try to warp that society to accommodate your own religion. Why not just emigrate to a Muslim nation?

If, on the other hand, you insist on coming to America because you value freedom, don't try to impose your religious traditions on American society. Consider taking a personal day to celebrate Eid; don't insist that the entire plant close down for you.

Tyson spokesman Mickelson noted that "implementing this holiday [Eid al-Fitr] was a challenge, since it falls on a different day every year and is declared on fairly short notice."

I suspect someone is trying to dupe Tyson Foods and/or the RWDSU. The Islamic Society of North America has provided dates for the celebration of Eid through the year 2015: October 1, 2008; September 20, 2009; September 10, 2010; August 30, 2011; August 19, 2012; August 13, 2013; July 28, 2014; and July 17, 2015. That's hardly "short notice".

Isn't it ironic that the first casualty of creeping Islamic fundamentalism in Tennessee was the day set aside to honor American working men and women—and that a labor union was instrumental in its demise?
One can only wonder if, when the holiday falls in July, Tyson and the RWDSU will opt to replace Independence Day with Eid al-Fitr.

UPDATE: I had no beef with Tyson's closing their plant for Eid, but I did have a problem with them replacing a traditional American holiday with a Muslim holiday and, apparently, so did a lot of other folks.

In a statement released on Friday, August 8, Tyson Foods announced that the union and the company had changed their minds and reinstated the Labor Day holiday, while keeping Eid al-Fitr as a paid holiday for this year only. After this year, a personal day will be added, which may be used as each employee sees fit.

Union president Applebaum expressed surprise and dismay that Americans were not "more sensitive and sympathetic" to the demands of Muslim fundamentalists.

I am surprised that Applebaum and his union are not more sensitive and sympathetic to American workers and American traditions.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

ICH BIN EIN...AH...ER...

I distinctly remember Obama telling us how embarrassed he is because we uncouth Americans aren't fluent in French and German. Remember that?

I believe his exact words were, "We should have every child speaking more than one language. You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is, 'Merci beaucoup,' right?"

And so Obama went on a tour of the Middle East and Europe to set an example for the rest of us, the unwashed bitter clingers of the American hinterlands, of how to behave in polite company.

He had an interesting discussion with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq—in English. And then he met with the King of Jordan and had an in-depth discussion of Middle Eastern affairs—in English.

After that, Obama displayed his credentials as a diplomat and statesman by offending our allies, the Israelis. In a blazing example of what not to do, Obama had his staffers plaster the police barricades at the Western Wall, the most holy site in Israel, with campaign posters.

I suppose we should give him some points, though. The campaign posters that desecrated the holy site were printed in Hebrew.

Obama performed the traditional ritual of tucking a prayer into a crevice between the stones of the ancient wall—but exhibited his self-centeredness by praying only for himself and not for the peace of Jerusalem.

In Berlin, Obama spoke to a crowd of nearly a quarter-million that had gathered earlier to hear a concert. He treated the Germans to a rather lengthy and boring history lesson—in English.

And in Paris, Obama held a joint appearance with French President Sarkozy in which he complimented Sarkozy—in English. Not even a merci beaucoup, if you will!

At every stop, Obama reportedly discussed "climate change" and other urgent matters. Hmmm… he must have missed last week's report by a former NASA scientist who informed us that the UN computer models are deeply flawed, used inaccurate data, failed to take into account the effect of the sun on the earth and that, in fact, there is no man-made "global warming".

Ah, well, a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders can't expected to be on top of everything—even if it is the main topic of his discussions with a half-dozen world leaders.

But I think the thing that stood out most in everyone's mind was the embarrassing amount of verbal stumbling exhibited by the man who would be president. Rush Limbaugh managed to fill an seven-minute tape with Obama's er's and ah's.

It would appear that the man who raises his voice in soaring rhetoric when he's reciting a memorized speech or reading from a teleprompter cannot think on his feet and has great difficulty forming an intelligent sentence when left to his own devices.

In fact, left to his own devices, Obama isn't quite certain how many states make up this great nation of ours. Is it 57? No, wait, it's 58!

For years, liberals have ridiculed President Bush and have been known to utter of Obama, "It will be nice to have someone in the White House who can speak!"

Is this really what they had in mind? No, thanks! Er, I mean, non, merci!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

MENTAL RECESSION

McCain advisor and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm was much quoted in the press last week when he called us a nation of whiners and said we are in a "mental recession".

Despite the ridicule heaped on Gramm by most of the press, and despite John McCain's distancing himself from Gramm's remarks, some political commentators quietly admit that Gramm is right. He simply chose an unfortunate way of expressing the facts.

It has not gone unnoticed that, in an obvious attempt to gin up a recession during this election year, the media has made an heroic effort to persuade the American public that the economy is in the toilet. They quietly ignore good economic news while headlining anything that can be misinterpreted as "evidence" of a recession.

Take, for example, the housing market. A couple of weeks ago, one of the major networks breathlessly reported on that "new home sales plunged one percent last month!" Since when is a one percent drop referred to as a "plunge"? Since the media decided the Democrat Party needs a recession in order to win in November.

Although economic indicators are not consistent with recession, only a slowdown of the economic boom we've lately enjoyed, we hear a constant drumbeat of "recession" in the daily news.

Because of this constant hammering by the media and the phraseology journalists have deliberately chosen to use, the American public is being brainwashed into thinking the economy is in recession.

As a result, the public has reacted precisely the way the media calculated they would: by becoming more careful with their spending, thus contributing to the slowdown.

For months, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans believed we were in a recession, even though their personal financial status remained unchanged. They had obviously bought into the media hype.

The media and the Democrat Party with whom most of the media are aligned learned an important lesson long ago. If you repeat any lie often enough and loudly enough, you can brainwash the public into accepting it as fact.
An excellent example of this tactic is the media's successful campaign to convince the American public that there were never any WMDs in Iraq, despite mounds of solid evidence to the contrary.

As early as the 1980's, Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas on the Kurdish population in his own country. This is well documented by the United Nations. In fact, one of the conditions of the truce which ended the 1991 Gulf War was the destruction of Hussein's stockpiles of those chemicals and the dismantling of the facilities used to produce them. Despite repeated warnings, Hussein did not comply. And yet today, because of valiant efforts by the press and the Democrat Party, the American public is convinced those chemicals never existed. They have been brainwashed into believing a fairy tale.

The media have performed the same feat of brainwashing with regard to the economy in this election year. And so, despite economic indicators to the contrary, they have managed to persuade the public to believe in their ginned-up, imaginary recession.

There is, indeed, a recession—a psychological recession, as former Senator Gramm pointed out.

And, true to form, upon having been discovered at their game, the press is howling furiously in protest.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE TYRANNY OF IGNORANCE

Earlier this month, Dallas County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield (who happens to be white) ended up in hot water because he complained that the central collections office had become a black hole, where paperwork often seemed to vanish. Black colleagues, Commissioner John Wiley Price and Judge Thomas Jones, immediately pounced on the unfortunate Mr. Mayfield, objecting to the term "black hole" and demanding an apology for the "racially insensitive" comment.

I don't know about you, but if I were as illiterate as Commissioner Price and Judge Jones, the very last thing I'd want to do is open my mouth and let people know it!

Yet it seems there's no lack of ignoramuses ready and willing to make public spectacles of themselves.

For years, certain people have made lucrative careers out of exploiting such ignorance and promoting racial turmoil in this country. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright spring immediately to mind.

Ironically, such men exploit racial issues under the guise of working for civil rights and racial equality.

Men like Jackson, Sharpton and Wright have exploited everything from an employer not having as many blacks on his payroll as they think is appropriate (I think we've all heard about Jesse Jackson's shakedowns.), to deliberately misdefining perfectly appropriate English vocabulary words, to accusing the United States government of "creating the AIDS virus" in order to kill blacks.

Why? To keep their own careers afloat and make sure the issue of race is never laid to rest in this country.

The Don Imus incident is an excellent example of such exploitation. Last year, Imus was canned for referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's".

Certainly, the remark was tasteless and no one in their right mind would commend Imus, but very few people would even have heard the remark had it simply been shrugged off as the nonsensical gibber of a shock jock. However, thanks to the conscientious efforts of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Imus' remarks were broadcast to the entire nation and his radio show canceled—after Sharpton and Jackson met with CBS President/CEO Les Moonves. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Such deliberate exploitation of racial slurs, both real and imagined, has resulted in a thought-police mentality. We labor under the burden of political correctness and have been forced to choose our words ever-so-carefully—not to more adequately express our thoughts and ideas, but so as not to offend the ignoramuses among us.

Such tyranny is directly responsible for the incident that took place in Dallas and an earlier incident in Washington, DC.

The DC mayor's unfortunate aide, David Howard, was forced to resign after he used the word "niggardly" in a discussion over budget problems. Do you remember that one? Marshall Brown, one of Howard's coworkers, in an amazing display of ignorance, objected to the use of the word "niggardly", insisting that it was a racial slur.

Wouldn't it have been refreshing if, rather than accept his aide's resignation, the mayor would have grown a pair and gifted the ignorant Mr. Brown with a dictionary of the English language?

Alas, such an appropriate response to such obvious ignorance is only the stuff of daydreams.

This nation will never move past the race issue as long as people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright make careers out of exploiting such gross ignorance.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

GUNS AND RELIGION

When he thought we weren't listening, Barack Hussein Obama made the amateurish mistake of bad-mouthing Pennsylvanians behind their backs in a speech he gave at a private fundraiser in San Francisco.

Apparently, Obama didn't think any of his elitist friends would rat him out or, if they did, that we folks here in darkest Pennsylvania would be too busy clinging to our guns and religion to bother to turn on our TVs.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns and religion or to antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigration sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Such condescending tripe!

It's clear that despite the time he spent campaigning in Pennsylvania, Obama has absolutely no understanding of what makes the people of this state tick. Though he "helped feed a baby cow" (Hint to Obama campaign: It's called a "calf".) in State College, raised a glass with some locals in Burnham, and bowled in Altoona, he badly misinterpreted the views of his hosts.

Obama views the world through the prism of "black liberation theology" which he adopted while sitting under Pastor Jeremiah Wright's racist ranting for 20 years. In Obama's narrow world-view, religion is the opiate of the masses (Hmmm… now where have I heard that one before…?) and there is no legitimate reason for owning a gun.

Heads up, Obama! I'm going to clue you in on a few things about Pennsylvanians.

Pennsylvanians are not "anti-immigration". A great many of us are descended from German immigrants. However, we are anti-ILLEGAL immigration! There's a world of difference. We believe in enforcing federal immigration laws. If you enter this country legally, we'll welcome you. If you sneak across the border and then continue to break our laws, we'll arrest you and try our darnedest to have you deported.

We do not "cling" to our religion out of a sense of desperation. Hard as it may be for you to accept, some folks actually believe in God and attend church to worship Him! Now, I understand how difficult that might be for you to understand, since you have no clue what Christianity is really about and attend church only as a social exercise.

Neither do we "cling" to our guns. We enjoy owning guns. We use them to target-practice at the many sportsmen's clubs and pistol clubs in the region and to participate in our state's numerous legal hunting seasons.
As for those jobs that "have been gone for 25 years", they've been replaced by other jobs. We haven't been sitting around on our duffs collecting welfare for generations, like the folks back home in Chicago. We're working, Obama, not looking for handouts! We take pride in our work and don't appreciate it when people look down their noses at us.

Steve Reed, Mayor of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, commented, "We think they [small towns] are the bedrock of the American values that have built this nation..."
Absolutely!

Senator Obama, if you want my vote, you'd do well to expand that narrow mind of yours beyond your warped view of the world and take a look at how the hard-working American middle class really feels about the issues confronting us.

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.

THE WAR ON THE CELL PHONE

So what is it about the use of cell phones that seems to bother some people?

First, there was a campaign to ban the use of cell phones while driving. While I agree that safe driving requires two hands on the steering wheel—at least, most of the time, I see no reason to designate the cell phone as the root of all evil.

Why not campaign to ban CD players in cars? Fiddling with CDs is at least as dangerous as using a cell phone! And what about eating? Doesn't munching a burger while driving qualify as dangerous behavior? Apparently not. In the eyes of the zealots, only the cell phone qualifies as a distraction while driving.

So legislation was passed and we all bought Bluetooth devices, but did that satisfy the zealots? Not on your life! They then pointed to studies that indicate it isn't the use of cell phones that creates the distraction, but the conversation itself. According to the zealots, only conversations conducted on cell phones, whether hands-free or not, are dangerous. Conversations with real, live people sitting in the car create no distraction. Go figure. And so we were encouraged not to use even our hands-free devises while driving.

An aside to the zealots: As a cell phone user and mother of two, I can assure you that no distraction can compare to a couple of pre-schoolers yammering in the back seat. Now go ahead and campaign to outlaw that!

Now that the zealots have made their point and have relentlessly hammered into the general public the notion that cell phone use while driving is a cardinal sin, they'll go away and leave us alone, right?

Of course not, you fool! Now they've begun a campaign to convince us that the mere use of a cell phone anywhere, even outside a motor vehicle, will result in brain tumors. They want us to believe we will all suffer gruesome deaths at a young age because we have embraced modern technology.

The story of the cell phone-brain tumor connection is slowly catching on, having been reported, re-reported and re-re-reported by a number of news outlets. After it takes off, what will the zealots attack next?

Our computer keyboards, of course! During the course of the past several weeks, I have heard no less than a half-dozen news reports detailing how many germs have set up residence on my keyboard, waiting to strike me down with some dire illness. Why, according to the zealots, the keyboard I'm now using contains more bacteria than my toilet! If we don't stop using our computers immediately, a contagion will arise that may wipe humanity off the face of the earth!

I'm waiting with bated breath for the reports that are sure to follow which prove that video gaming causes cancer.

Don't you get tired of all these half-baked so-called "studies"? And don't you wonder who funds them? And to what purpose?

Perhaps the folks who keep warning us of the dire consequences of using modern technology are in cahoots with the global warming nuts who want us to revert to our pioneer past.

I have a word of advice for them: Get a life!

© 2008 by Libbi Adams. All rights reserved.