The liberal Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board is fawning over the primary victory of Senator Barack Obama in their article, "Unforgettable milestone: Primary success for Obama and America".

The editorial board makes a startling statement in its editorial when they say, "This is a nation, after all, that once enslaved blacks. The country has been bent, molded and tempered by that fact and the quest to atone for it."

There you have the sole reason why the Democratic Party and the liberal media are fawning over Senator Obama. The primary victory of Senator Obama is due to the "quest to atone for it". And what is it? That this nation "once enslaved blacks".

The depth and breath of this statement is amazing but indicative of the belief system of liberal Democrats and those in the media. This nomination is in fact the "atonement" for all liberals.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune then points out that, "It is not the same government that once routinely denied people of color the right to vote." They are right. For you see it was Democrats who passed Jim Crow laws creating the status of "separate but equal" for blacks. It was Democrats that fought against giving blacks the right to vote and treating them equally. It was Democrats that overwhelmingly voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

How have Democrats atoned for their past evils? They created affirmative action. Promotion based on race not merit. A totally un-American concept.

The "selection" of Senator Obama by the Democratic party is based on their bedrock belief in and commitment to affirmative action. Affirmative action is the Democrats way of atoning for slavery. For Democrats and the liberal media the primary victory of Senator Obama is the "crown jewel" of affirmative action.

Americans when they apply for a job expect that their character, education, personal accomplishments and experience will get them hired, not their race or ethnicity. America was built upon the foundation of equal rights and equal opportunity. America has always been the haven for many fleeing from oppression because of religious beliefs, race or ethnicity.

My family came from Europe as have many other Americans. My family fled Communism. We never owned slaves and feel no need to atone for anything, let alone the slavery that took place in America 200 years ago. We certainly do not believe in giving any one race or ethnicity an advantage over another. Affirmative action is counter to the values and beliefs of America and Americans.

The Democratic Party in the end selected Senator Obama over Senator Clinton because they felt the need to "atone". The people who voted in the Democratic primaries did not elect Senator Obama. The Democratic Party via the Rules Committee and un-elected super delegates selected him over a highly qualified woman to be their nominee for President.

The Democrat Party has now nominated an unqualified, inexperienced but eloquent black man. As former President Bill Clinton pointed out this is the first time in history that a newly elected Senator with essentially "one year of experience in Congress" will be the Democratic Party nominee.

What we now see is the combination of achieving the "crown jewel" of affirmative action and the quest for "atonement" by the Democratic Party for their racist past. These two forces came together in the persona of Barack Obama.

But will American voters want to atone or not?

Will you vote for the next President of the United States because you feel the need to atone? Will you vote for Senator Obama because you believe in affirmative action? Will you vote for him even though he is not qualified for the position but because he must be given the Presidency to atone for past evils?

If you were picking your doctor, lawyer, financial planner or mechanic what would you base that decision on? If you were hiring someone to work in your company what would you base that decision on? When you fly and if you could pick your pilot what qualities do you want him or her to have? Would you make these decision based on the need to atone? We think not.

Most Americans do not feel a need to atone for slavery or anything else.

We believe the job of President must go to that person who has the experience, is best qualified and most accomplished. That person is John McCain.

What do you think?

Do you remember the Florida recount 2000? Do you remember the close vote in the 2006 Florida Congressional District 13 race. Well those are nothing compared to what the Democratic Party is doing to its own primary voters.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in their editorial, "Delegate mess continued" do a great job of pointing out the "Democrat Disaster in Denver" scenario that is unfolding.

Democrats are the first ones to scream voter disenfranchisement. They always blame Republicans for this sin of sins. We finally see the ugly face of the true culprits who are guilty of this secular evil - the Democrat Party itself.

As the Herald-Tribune points out, "Florida and Michigan, which held their January primaries earlier than the party designated, were stripped of their delegates by the Democratic National Committee. That left a trail of hard feelings in these two important swing states."

Hard feelings aren't the half of it. What has happened is the Democratic party has a totally dysfunctional primary election process. This process is so flawed that when you add the disenfranchisement of two key swing states into the mix you turn the entire process into a disaster.

As the Herald-Tribune explains, "The voters want to be counted; Florida and Michigan want a voice in the August national convention."

The Democrats do not have, like the smarter Republicans, a winner take all primary. The simple idea that, like in the general election, if you win the majority of votes you win all the delegates from a state. If they had such a process Hillary Clinton would now be the nominee.

If Democrats had a process where if you win the overall popular vote, as they screamed and yelled about in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, you would win the primary that would be fair. If you count all of Michigan and Florida primary voters Hillary Clinton wins again.

If you decide that to win in November you need to take those states that have the most Electoral College votes against Senator John McCain then Hillary Clinton wins a third time. But you must win Michigan and Florida.

We know the Democrats will sort this out because their favorite constituency is now involved - lawyers. Shades of Bush vs. Gore and Election 2000. The Herald-Tribune states, "DNC lawyers say the only option under the rules is to cut the Florida and Michigan pledged delegations by half. The Clinton camp's attorney, by contrast, argues that the rules and bylaws committee has the authority to seat all the delegates, with full votes." Even their own lawyers can't agree.

The editorial gets it way right when they state the Democratic primary process, "may have raised doubts as to whether a party that blunders into such a pickle can be trusted to lead the country." This may be the understatement of the year.

We fully agree with the Herald-Tribune, "When in a hole, stop digging." But you see Democrats are so invested in the shovel industry, because they have been shoveling you know what for so long, they don't know how to stop digging.

We believe the Democratic primary will finally be determined by "Super Delegates" in Denver. Those unelected party bosses will decide on the winner. Not Democratic primary voters.

We are looking forward to the "Democrat Disaster in Denver".

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has a major article written by Zac Anderson titled, "Not so cool: Sarasota-Bradenton tops for 'greenhouse gas emissions".

Actually, the Sarasota-Bradenton area should get a medal for producing more CO2 than other areas. We are helping our plants grow because you see CO2 is plant food. When we breath we emit CO2. The plants love us.

Zac spends the entire article talking about and to global warming alarmists. He quotes Jerry Karnas, Florida climate project director for Environmental Defense who states "You have the perfect storm for a carbon nightmare." Carbon nightmare? Really? Freddy Kruger is a nightmare, not our good friend carbon.

Of course our very own Florida Representative Keith Fitzgerald is quoted. He states, "Studies like this [Brookings Institution study] are important,"...They give us evidence to back up these efforts to change our growth and transportation patterns."

"This drives home the point we've been making as far as encouraging redevelopment, urban revitalization and the importance of our land use pattern," said County Administrator Jim Ley.

"Change our growth and transportation patterns" and "land use pattern" are code for destroying our local economy with more restrictions and taxes on energy, gasoline, development and of course us citizens. All in the glorious name of reducing CO2 emissions.

In Sarasota County, FL there is a movement right now within a group called SCOPE to require 100% of new development and 50% of existing buildings to have solar water heaters within five years. I sit on the committee looking at this proposal from the SCOPE SEA conference. I will be reporting out on the results soon.

The interesting thing is that Zac, who is a reporter, does not discuss the other side of the issue. I always thought that reporters were supposed to present both sides and let us decide. That is fair and balanced. Clearly Zac is not.

The only quote he uses at the very end of the article is from Rep. Paige Kreegel, R-Punta Gorda, who favors a free-market approach."We can talk all we want about conservation of energy and people not moving out towards the periphery, but nothing does it more than $4 gas," Rep. Paige said. We agree with Rep. Page.

Since Zac didn't, we will give you the other side of the issue. Human caused global warming is a theory that has been proven to be false. We can measure CO2 emissions all we want but human caused CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of global warming. In fact, we are entering a global cooling period at a time when CO2 emissions are at an all time high and rising.

We now know the following facts:

· Ice core data shows that there have been repeated heating and cooling events on the earth long before human activity was significant. Global warming is a naturally occurring event. Attempting to interfere in this process may have unpredictable consequences.

· The Earth cooled between 1940 and 1975 while fossil fuel consumption rose dramatically. The Earth should have warmed if CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption is a cause of global warming. The theory does not fit the data.

· Ignoring data that does not fit a theory is poor science. Only one inconsistent piece of data is necessary to negate a theory.

So why do environmentalists, politicians and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune still cling to a debunked scientific theory? Global warming has transformed into a political movement. It is no longer science it is propaganda. It is a perceived vote getter, plain and simple.

We are saddened to read in the article that, "Sarasota County leaders said the report reaffirms their efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Such gases are trapped in the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect that warms the plant."

These "Sarasota County leaders" ignore the fact that Global warming stopped in 1998. We have entered a global cooling period that is predicted to last until 2015 according to current research.

The evidence based data showing the Earth's failure to continue warming has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear. The American people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public’s concern about man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989.

Curbing greenhouse gas emissions is a fool's errand that will cost us all with higher prices for food, fuel, energy and housing. These are the building blocks of our economy. They are beginning to crumble under the weight of the "carbon nightmare" propaganda.

Get ready for $10 a gallon gasoline, higher energy bills, and un-affordable housing courtesy of our local, state and nationally elected officials.

There is an Associated Press article on two recent moves to recognize gay marriages. In the article, "Gay right activists score wins in NY and Calif" we must ask: What is wrong with this picture?

The article points out, "Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17."

What has gradually and insidiously worked its way into our lexicon is the concept of "gay rights". There are no gay rights, period. Being gay is a life style choice. It is based upon a sexual obsession for the same sex, nothing else. There never has been any legal, moral or social justification for or acceptance of gay sex, until now. The unelected courts in Massachusetts and California have legalized gay marriage. The Governor of New York by executive fiat has recognized gay marriage.

What we are seeing is historic. The unnatural individual decision to enter into sexual relations between men and men and women and women being legalized by those not elected by the people and without the peoples consent.

Abraham Lincoln must be turning over in his grave as this is not a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people".

Our founding fathers understood full well previous experiments and various systems of marriage that had been tried over the millennia. Polygamy, communal living, adultery, state supported single parenthood and homosexuality have all been tried by societies to solve the problem of raging male and female hormones. All have failed.

The only model that has worked from a social, economic and moral perspective is the marriage between a man and a woman. Strong traditional families create more strong traditional families, healthy children, reduce poverty and lead to happiness and fidelity.

We previously wrote an editorial titled, "When did we legalize moral decay?". We citizens have over the years gradually added to the moral decline of our own nation. While we may not have been active participants we have been passive observers. Our passiveness has been interpreted by activists as not "tolerance" but rather as support. We have all gravely erred. We are paying the price in the growth of social ills such as poverty, broken families, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and domestic violence.

As we pointed out in our previous editorial here is how and when in American history we began to legalize moral decay.

First the moral decay of the family and marriage:

"The Flemming Rule (1960) was named for Arthur Flemming, then head of the Department of Health and Human Services, who issued an administrative ruling that states could not deny eligibility for income assistance through the AFDC program on the grounds that a home was “unsuitable” because the woman’s children were illegitimate.

In 1968, the Supreme Court’s “Man-in-the-House” rule struck down the practice of states declaring a home unsuitable (i.e., an immoral environment) if there was a man in the house not married to the mother. Thus, out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation were legitimized. In very short order, the number on welfare tripled and child poverty climbed dramatically." Janice Shaw Crouse, TownHall.com, November 23, 2007

The moral decay of social values:

Abington Township School District v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case argued on February 27–28, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963. In the case, the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional.

The moral decay of the respect for life:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid.

And finally, we have added to this inglorious list the further destruction of the family by the State of Massachusetts and the California Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage, and NY Governor David Patterson ordering state agencies "including those governing insurance and health care - to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages."

So long as we the people remain passive, we as a society will fall because the building block upon which all great societies are based is the traditional family.

We support Florida Amendment 2 that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. We cannot be passive and we are beyond tolerance. Action is needed, our voices must be heard on November 4th at the ballot box.

You have got to love the sheer devotion of environmentalists to their cause no matter what the cost in human suffering. We used to call them "tree huggers" in an endearing way. When they used to just hug trees they were harmless. However, since then 1960s they have become dangerous. Their record is one of good intentions but deadly results.

In his Sarasota Herald-Tribune guest column "Florida needs more energy efficiency, not another nuclear plant", Glenn Compton, Chairman of Manasota-88 comes out against nuclear power.

Glenn's standard for building nuclear power plants is, "the nuclear power industry should prove that nuclear plants, fuel and waste would pose no significant danger before a new nuclear plant is built in Florida."

We love Glenn's high standard and wish environmentalists like Glenn kept to this standard themselves. Let us give you just a few examples of the "pose no serious threat" standard as applied to Glenn and his ilk.

The DDT scare of the 1960s. A nationwide hysteria followed the publication of Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring in 1962, in which she labeled DDT a dangerous chemical that might be causing cancer in humans. It was the Sierra Club that led the charge to ban DDT. The Sierra Club went from a little known group of activists to today an international environmental force. They pointed to research, later proven to be totally false, that bird eggs were thinning due to use of DDT. There has never been any research that has linked DDT usage with the death of any animal species or human illness. Their efforts, the banning of DDT here in the U.S. and overseas, particularly in Africa, have directly led to the deaths of tens of millions of men, women and innocent children from mosquito born malaria.

Environmentalists "posed a serious threat" to human life in their race to ban the use of DDT. It should be noted that the UN now supports the use of DDT, finally recognizing the horrible results of banning it.

Next came the nuclear scare of the 1970s with the founding of Greenpeace. As Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace said, "In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands."

The result of Greenpeace's efforts, a total shutdown of the then budding nuclear power industry. This led to the U.S. move to fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to meet our ever growing demand for cheap and reliable power.

Today, Patrick Moore admits the error of his ways and supports nuclear power. Patrick states, "Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

Glenn in his column uses the old Greenpeace scare tactics when he without proof states, "The cumulative health effect from all of the daily individual safe doses of radiation exposure on humans is not known." What Glenn fails to point out is that we have had U.S. Navy nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines for decades with no incidents and no human caused health problems. Our sailors and Marines are living, eating and sleeping just yards away from nuclear power plants with no ill effects.

Finally, we have the big Kahuna of environmental bad boys - Global Warming. This is the greatest environmentalist political movement of all time. It has joined all environmentalist groups with the far left in a coalition to stop the use of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power. They actually believe that burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming.

We say political movement because the science behind human caused global warming has been debunked. Go here, here, here and here to learn why human caused global warming is a hoax. Global warming stopped in 1998 even though CO2 emissions have increased dramatically since then.

The human caused global warming hoax promoted by Glenn and his fellow environmentalists have brought us corn based ethanol. Environmentalists and their Democratic partners in Congress were behind the energy bill passed in December 2007, which mandates a huge spike in the biofuel production requirements from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion in 2022. This means approximately 20 million new acres of U.S. farmland will have to be dedicated to biofuel crops to meet this mandate. What is interesting is that it takes more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol. Go figure.

What has the environmentalist solution to reduce carbon emissions by using ethanol done? This good idea has caused the price of food to rise. The skyrocketing cost of food staples like grain has caused protests involving thousands of people in places such as South Africa, Egypt and Pakistan. These protests turned deadly in Haiti and even led to the ouster of Prime Minister Jacques-Edouard Alexis. Rice is being rationed in the U.S. According to the UN the worst is yet to come as we take more and more farmland away from producing food to producing fuel.

So what is Glenn's new solution to stop global warming. Given all the previous great ideas of environmentalism that have killed millions, polluted our rivers, streams and the Gulf of Mexico, caused food riots, destroyed the nuclear power industry, taken coal, oil and natural gas powered plants off the table, raised our gas and energy prices? Conserve.

We love the childish innocence of this solution. We can save the planet by conserving. Sounds so simple, wonderful and naive.

The real solution is nothing is off the table.

When it comes to the production of energy our economy and the global economy demand cheap reliable power. That means we need to develop and wisely use all the resources we have been blessed with. Oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar.

Given their dismal and deadly record it is time for environmentalists to step aside and let the best interests of the human race take precedent.

Waldo Proffitt gets it way right when he supports President Bush's veto of the farm subsidy bill passed by Congress this past week.

In his column, "Bush gets it right on farm bill", Waldo states, "...I feel obliged to opine here that he did exactly the right thing this week when he [President Bush] vetoed the 2008 farm bill sent to him by Congress." Waldo goes on to say, "with a five-year price tag of almost $300 billion.... it's not entirely accurate to call this a "farm" bill. It's a 'farm and earmarks' bill."

Waldo is particularly upset by government subsidizing sugar growers. He rightly points out that with sugar subsidies, "we do know the worst, the most unjustified and probably the most costly element in the bill is what it does to enrich the sugar industry at the expense of U.S. citizens in their roles as both consumers and taxpayers."

We fully agree with Waldo. Government subsidies pick winners and losers in what is supposed to be an open market system in the U.S. What subsidies do are take money out of one pocket (the taxpayers) and put it into another pocket (the activity subsidized) with an out come of higher prices for consumers and support for that activity over other activities.

Where Waldo and I will differ is on what should and should not be subsidized. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says that federal government should subsidize anything. Today the federal government tries to subsidize nearly everything from individual behavior (health care, education, energy, housing, etc.) to what crops are and are not grown.

Subsidies are in fact an insidious form of socialism.

Many would say that providing government scholarships and low cost student loans for college is good for America. In fact, when government subsidizes college education then colleges and universities charge more for a college education, which makes government increase the size of their subsidy to keep up with costs. This leads to an artificial cycle of inflation that puts the cost of education, for those who pay for it without a government subsidy, further out of reach.

We should not be subsidizing anything and let the free market system work on its own. That is a dramatic statement but one we must consider.

Let's just take the energy industry. The prices of energy and gasoline are rising rapidly. This is a supply and demand problem in large measure. However, Congress subsidizes oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, biomass, and ethanol production. We can all agree that it would be better if all these energy industries made it on their own. Let the market decide at what level each of these energy industries grow and prosper on the merits of their products and services.

We believe that subsidies in general are bad and produce bad outcomes for both taxpayers and consumers. Unlike Waldo we do not single out just sugar.

As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman said, ""One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

The results of subsidies are bad.

President Bush said that America is "addicted to foreign oil". He is right.

President Bush wants us to dramatically cut our dependence on foreign oil. So do we. However, the Democrats in Congress have been and are passing legislation and implementing policies that force us to remain addicted to foreign oil and prevent us from using those natural resources we have been blessed with.

America depends on cheap and reliable power to fuel our growth. Fossil fuels are the life blood of a strong and growing American economy. High cost and unreliable power will bring down our economy. Wind and solar are currently high cost and unreliable sources of power.

Since the Democrats took control of Congress two years ago the price of gasoline, energy and food have dramatically risen. Gasoline alone has gone from $2.19 a gallon in 2006 to $4.00 a gallon today. Is there a relationship, or cause and effect, between the policies of Democrats and the rise in price of gas since they took control? We believe so.

Are Democrats by design forcing us to remain "addicted" to foreign oil? We believe the answer is a resounding yes.

So how does America break the addiction to foreign oil? This question is the basis of the current debate in Congress and among Americans as they fill up their cars and trucks every day.

The two sides are in the debate are: 1. drill for our own oil now and 2. conserve fuel and use alternative energy sources - wind and solar.

This past week there was an impressive group of oil company CEOs testifing before Congress. Here are some excerpts from that testimony:

One theme that emerged from the [U.S. Senate] hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market.

John Lowe, Executive Vice President of Conoco Phillips, pointed out: "I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.

We continue to be amazed by statements of national and local liberal Democratics. Their sheer arrogance and disdain for every day taxpaying workers and their families is breathtaking.

We have so many examples that it is hard to select just a few but we will try.

Let us start with Senator Barrack Obama. Here is his unbelievable statement at a campaign rally in Roseburg, Oregon on May 17th.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Now let us go to a comment by our own Florida District 69 Representative Keith Fitzgerald, a Democrat. Representative Fitzgerald said at a recent Tiger Bay forum, "We can't let taxpayers tell us how to spend tax dollars".

I wonder which taxpayers Keith is referring to?

Then we have our one and only Democratic School Board member Shirley Brown. Shirley had an e-mail exchange with Sarasota resident and tax payer George Fuller about spending. Here are excerpts from that exchange:

George said in his e-mail to School Board member Brown, "Reading last week's front page article about government job cuts one is led to believe it is unfair [that] government employees are laid off. The story misses the point…….the people were hired in the first place because tax money was available and to government types that means expand the workforce.

I defy the average citizen to notice the government cuts in personnel in their personal lives. I defy anyone to tell me they noticed an increase in government services when a new government employee was hired.

Face it, your government, my government, has been spending millions of dollars needlessly for years. Would the millions wasted by government have been better utilized by the taxpayers?

The scary part is we are only talking about local government. I cannot begin to imagine the waste and corruption in the State and Federal Government and we probably don't want to know. The result might be worse than the Boston Tea Party."

Here is Shirley Brown's reply, "I do believe that there is often a direct relation to the number of government and employees and the increase in the population served. I know that is true for the school district. As the number of students increase, we must increase the number of teachers then later schools, principals, janitors, etc...

I agree that government should never over tax its citizens and that we can't tax our way out of an economic downturn. But I can't agree with the statement that taxpayers know how to spend their money better. One just has to look at the bigger and bigger gas guzzling SUV's and Hummers that were purchased over the last 10 years or the increase in spending on designer clothes and spa treatments or the rush to get rich quick in the real estate market. Taxpayers foolish borrowing and spending along with greedy business practices have to share in the blame of our current economic woes. It is not all government's fault."

WOW! Amazing, outrageous, unbelievable.

Are you connecting the dots between Senator Obama, State Representative Fitzgerald and School Board member Brown?

Each truly believes that they (big government) are in a better position to determine how to spend your and my money than we are. Senator Obama and Board member Brown clearly know best how we should live our lives.

Frightening isn't it.

It is for these reasons that we support Senator McCain for President and Laura Benson for the Florida House District 69 seat. Ms. Brown is not up for re-election but we must be wary of her attitude toward you and me, now and into the future.

Here is in their own words the "Audacity of liberal Democrats" for all to see. Words do matter.

The editorial in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "Bush's shot misses the mark", should be retitled "We endorse Barack for President".

It reads straight from the Obama play book. I wonder if they just cut and pasted the editorial from an e-mail from the Obama campaign. Or maybe from Howard Dean.

The Herald-Tribune uses the two pronged Obama attack plan. The first prong is to talk about and denigrate President Bush. The hypocrisy of this position is Obama said he was a new type of politician who would reach across the aisle and work with others. He would bring hope and change. There is no hope, change or reaching across the aisle in what Senator Obama says or does. His words speak louder than his actions.

Obama uses the same old attack politics of 2000. Talk down President Bush, talk down Republicans, and attack the administration using the same worn out phrases and sound bites.

Obama is not an agent of change. The only change he wants is him in the oval office. Nothing else.

Using this Obama tactic, the editorial board says President Bush's speech before the Knesset, "came across as clumsy and self-serving."

I don't think the editorial board took the time to watch the speech. For those who would like to see a video of the entire speech please go here.

In the speech the members of the Knesset and audience gave numerous standing ovations to President Bush. It was a historical speech because it addressed the strong alliance and historic bonds between Israel and the United States.

The President properly pointed out that, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along....We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The second Obama tactic is to say what is wrong with talking to our enemies.

The Herald-Tribune uses this Obama tactic by saying, "Just because the United States engages in talks with a hostile foreign power does not mean that America will give in to its demands."

Well we agree.

The Herald-Tribune then quotes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that, if Iran would give up its uranium enrichment program, she would meet with Iranian officials "any place, any time, anywhere to talk about anything."

Well we agree. Giving up its uranium enrichment program is a "precondition" to any talks. However, talks between the Secretary of State and Iran. Not the President. Get it?

Senator Obama when asked if he would meet unconditionally and without preconditions in the first year of his Presidency in Washington, D.C. or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela he said, "I would."

Sound like Neville Chamberlain?

Since this CNN debate Senator Obama's campaign said he would not meet with Iran's President until they give up their nuclear weapons program. “Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said [Obama Communications Director Robert] Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program."

If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from President Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

What the Herald-Tribune fails to tell you is that the Bush administration has been engaged in talks with Iran. There are frequent direct talks between Ambassador Crocker and Iranian officials in Iraq about their support of the terrorist Mahdi militias. There are ongoing talks between Iran, the EU with U.S. involvement. The U.S. has also engaged the U.N. Security Council in toughening sanctions against Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program.

If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, President Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.

So does Senator Obama agree with these efforts to engage in talks with Iran or not? Apparently not because he dismisses anything Bush.

However, Senator Obama recently said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Senator Obama is clearly sending a signal to Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that he does not consider them a "serious threat". He uses the simplistic standard of size of a countries defense budget to determine who in the world is worthy of being considered a threat. Al Qaeda spent a total of $500,000 to conduct the attack on 9/11. This simplistic vision of Iran's capabilities is dangerous.

So, meeting with Iran unconditionally, without preconditions and Iran does not pose a "serious threat".

There you have the Obama foreign policy on Iran and other enemies of the U.S. in a nut shell.

We also get a feel from Senator Obama on how he would deal with terrorism and terrorists at home. In his memoir Audacity of Hope is the following quote on page 261: "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the [Democratic President Roosevelt's] Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

"That I will stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Clearly Senator Obama and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune are standing with "them". Who is standing with U.S.?

Senator Obama has a new global test on American behavior. Here is his unbelievable statement at a campaign rally in Roseburg, Oregon on May 17th.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

So, Senator Obama, what countries are we going to give control of our cars, dinner table and homes to? Do you plan to allow the UN to determine how we will enjoy the "pursuit of happiness" outlined in our Constitution?

Perhaps you are signaling that your administration will be telling us what we can drive, eat and control the temperature in our homes for the good of the state. Sounds a lot like the old USSR.

The man's arrogance knows no boundaries.

Here are Senator Obama's own words and words do matter.

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

He is clearly sending a signal to Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that he does not consider them a problem. He has stated he will meet with the leaders of these countries without preconditions. He uses the simplistic standard of size of a countries defense budget to determine who in the world is worthy of being considered a threat. Al Qaeda spent a total of $500,000 to conduct the attack on 9/11.

Senator Obama has just signaled to Israel that their neighbor Iran, which has called for their destruction, is not to be worried about by the United States. Amazing.

Cuba and Venezuela are spreading Communism throughout South America and Senator Obama does not think they pose a "serious threat". I am sure Columbia and our allies in South America do not agree with him. Senator Obama is signaling that FARC terrorists supported by Venezuela need no longer fear American intervention.

Senator Obama is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. His own words say so.

While the veterans community throughout the United States and Florida get ready to hold Memorial Day services and in our own Sarasota County we will dedicate a new national cemetery to honor those who gave the last full measure of devotion, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune decides to run a story on a dysfunctional, dishonorably discharged Iraqi war veteran who is a felon.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune should be ashamed of themselves for publishing "The spoils of Iraq war". It is one thing to be against the war against Radical Islam. It is another thing to, at this haloed time with malice and forethought, present a story of a dysfunctional former soldier who has a bone to pick with our military.

This smacks of the infamous 1971 Winter Soldier Conference in Detroit hosted by Senator John Kerry. The purpose of the conference was not only to discredit the war against communism in Vietnam but to discredit America's soldiers. It was highly successful. At the conference Vietnam veterans were called baby killers, murders of civilians, guilty of war crimes, portrayed as dysfunctional drug users and psychologically damaged because of PTSD.

All of these false accusations have been proved wrong. But the myths persist even to today.

This article is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune's Winter Soldier Conference part two. Here they are trying to paint soldiers who have served honorably as dysfunctional and shamefully use Private Earl Coffey to do so.

We have hundreds of Iraqi veterans in our community who have not stolen money while on active duty, have never been court-martialed, are still serving or were honorably discharged, came back to the United States and began a life working hard, supporting loving families and raising children.

As a Vietnam Veteran, I know how these brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan must feel when they read this story. I felt it in the 1970s.

The anger that wells up and disbelief that any newspaper would want to highlight the dysfunctional over the true heroes. The heroes that they and we left behind in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, WW II, WWI, the Civil War and the American Revolution.

We will continue to recognize our local Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who gave the last full measure of devotion on Memorial Day, May 26th. We will dedicate our new national cemetery on June 1st. We will recognize those that serve and all veterans as the heroes that they are.

We will continue to support our military, our veterans, their families and their orphaned children.

As Abraham Lincoln said on November 19, 1863 a cold winters day in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania when he dedicated a new national cemetery, "But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow - this ground...It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that theses dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

God Bless our military, our veterans, their families and orphaned children.

First we learned about the strong Marxist background of Senator Barack Obama from his memoirs. We learned that among his friends he included "the more politically active black students, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors, feminists, and punk rock performance poets.".

Then we learned about his "mentors" and "heroes" Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis both card carrying members of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). We also learned that his father was a communist. We know about his good friend and close adviser Larry Lessig who is also know as the "digital communist".

Now we learn from the Sam Webb, National Chair of CPUSA himself, his parties support for Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular.

Joel Wendland of the CPUSA writes in his article Landslide: Sweep Republicans from Power in November, "At its quarterly national committee meeting this past weekend, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) called for a landslide in the November 4th elections to defeat John McCain and strengthening the Democratic Party majorities in Congress."

Wendland says, "Obama's candidacy is unique in all of this excitement. It is transformational and new. It has brought new forces into the process and built new organizational forms."

"What makes it different is that it [Obama's campaign] has the feel of a movement," Sam Webb, CPUSA National Chair said. Obama speaks to people's desires and inspires them. "He is a fresh voice on the political scene. His courage and astuteness are obvious," Webb said.

According to Webb, "His desire to overcome racial and religious and national and other divisions "strikes a deeply responsive chord far and wide."

"To say that Clinton has garnered the vast majority of the working-class vote is simply wrong", Webb said.

"Black voters are overwhelming working class. The working class has divided its vote between the two. Trade union voters have given a slight edge to Clinton, but Obama has polled well and has won important union endorsements", says Webb.

Well it looks like Senator Barack Obama has now garnered the loving embrace of the Communist Party of the United States of America.

My guess is that Senator McCain will not carry the CPUSA vote. Of course he spent thirty years in the Navy fighting communists. It is understandable they would not support him.

That is why we support Senator John McCain over Senator Obama. One will fight our enemies. The other will join our enemies to destroy all that we value as Americans.

According to Columnist Paul R. Hollrah, "After arriving at Occidental [College in Los Angeles], Obama chose his friends carefully. He tells us [in his memoir] that, among his friends he included "the more politically active black students, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors, feminists, and punk rock performance poets."

"Then, after transferring to Columbia University two years later, he found that "political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful," took on the flavor of the "socialist conferences" he sometimes attended at New York's Coopers Union." "As Obama was preparing to graduate from Columbia he wasn't sure what he wanted to do with the rest of his life. Finally, in 1983, he decided to follow in the footsteps of one of his heroes, radical leftist and communist fellow traveler, Saul Alinsky. He concluded, "That's what I'll do… I'll organize black folks at the grass roots… for change."

"There wasn't much detail to the idea," he says. "I didn't know anyone making a living that way. When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly. Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. 'Change won't come from the top,' I would say. 'Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.' "

Barack Obama moved to Chicago, Alinsky's hometown, and established himself as a community organizer.

So who is Saul Alinsky?

According to Wikipedia, "Alinsky was a critic of a passive and ineffective mainstream liberalism. In Rules for Radicals, he argued that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends, and that an intermediate end for radicals should be democracy because of its relative ease to work within to achieve other ends of social justice."

In Rules for Radicals Alinsky writes, "There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

This is where Senator Barack Obama's campaign about "Change" comes from. He is not talking about positive change but rather the change outlined by his mentor Saul Alinsky. Revolutionary change. Socialist change.

In order to reach his goal Senator Obama, with the help of the radical left, the media and the Democratic party, is setting the stage for this radical leftist change agenda. He and his supporters are demonizing President Bush, Republicans, conservatives, Christians and those who believe in America.

As his mentor Saul Alinsky said, "They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future." Obama believes, "the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends", even if that means lying, cheating and stealing. Obama will change the future.

Yes, change the future for the worst.

NOTE: Oddly enough, another of Alinsky's most ardent admirers turned out to be the woman who is now his principal opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her 1969 senior thesis at Wellesley College was titled, There Is Only The Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.

We continue to be amazed at the editorial board of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. In their column, "Same old drill", they take the totally illogical position that we should not drill for our own oil.

Their rational is it will take us ten years to get the oil flowing. This was the same rational that caused former President Bill Clinton to veto an energy bill in 1995 that would allow drilling in ANWR. If that bill had been signed we would have 1 million barrels of American owned oil flowing now into our economy every day.

According to Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post, "It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.' "

As Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said, "The real common sense solution, as we transition away from dependence on fossil fuels, is to increase the supply of domestic energy. We need to get the government out of the way and allow use of plentiful resources under our control. If Congress stopped penalizing and handcuffing our domestic energy production, we could produce an additional 2.7 to 3 million barrels of oil a day within a relatively short period of time."

Senator Cornyn went on to say, "That is why Senate Republicans have introduced legislation, The American Energy Production Act, an important step towards driving down gas prices for all Americans. If enacted, this new legislation would allow access 24 billion barrels of oil—enough oil to supply America for 5 years with no foreign imports. It would also provide for authorization to explore for American oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)."

We have shown over and over again that conservation and greater efficiency (like fleet mileage standards) do not work. According to the Manhattan Institute, "The history of the twentieth century is one of gigantic increases in efficiency—and even larger increases in consumption. The American economy has experienced massive efficiency gains: for each unit of energy, we produce more than twice as much GDP today than we did in 1950. Yet during that period of time, our national total energy consumption has tripled. Paradoxically, when it comes to energy, the more we save, the more we consume."

Prices do go down when you increase supply. The best way to lower energy prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy.

We have taken off the table drilling for more fossil fuels in Alaska, the East and West coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. We have not built a new gas refinery in over 30 years. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in over 40 years.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune is oblivious to the pain caused by high gas and energy prices. All they, and their environmental friends in Congress, care about is reducing carbon emissions.

Americans don't care about carbon emissions. What American's care about is cheap reliable energy.

The "same old drill" is the solution. Increase supply and reduce price. Economics 101.