Barack Can’t Be Trusted With The Free World

There is a test of will underway and Obama is failing. Hillary is fighting for delegates from Florida and Michigan to be seated at the Democrat National Convention, while Barrack Hussein-Chamberlain Obama is appeasing her.

No Florida or Michigan delegates, pledged or super, under any circumstances should be seated. If any are it will because Clinton, an overbearing dominatrix, bullied, Obama, an incompetent weakling. Both those two states broke the rules of the Democrat Party, they knew they were breaking them beforehand, and they pre-meditatively did it anyway. This formula sounds exactly like what our next president will be facing with the likes of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, the PLO and other rogue states joining the axis of evil.

If Barry can’t handle tough-cookie-Hillary, what can we expect from him in dealing with dictators-intent-on-killing-us like axis of evil pals Kim Jung Ill, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad? Not to mention their groupies Muammar Qadhafi and Hugo Chavez?

Well, actually we know, because he told us. He will sit down and have open and honest dialogue with each of them. After those meetings he might sponsor a Malta-like convention where the post 9-11 world can be divided up between the dictators, in return for which Barack may promise that our carbon emissions will be reduced and he will sign into law a Global Poverty Tax against the United States, to be administered by the United Nations.

Some people in the world only understand strength and force. Clinton is one of them. She will continue to push with whatever means are necessary to have all the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated with full votes. This fight will not end today, but will go on all the way to their convention. After all she did win both states, so she has an argument.

Obama should argue that none of them should be seated, but he won’t. Instead he will give as many votes away that he has to without getting behind on the count. A little like Chamberlain giving away Czechoslovakia as long as Hitler promised not to attack England.

But there won’t be peace in the D-Party, until Clinton wins, or she is forced to surrender unconditionally. She won’t quit, and she should not be expected to. If she keeps fighting she could actually win. . . that is, as long as Obama lets her break the rules.

The “peace” conference to resolve the fate of Florida and Michigan is happening today. There are various proposals on the table. Clinton wants all of them seated. Obama is willing to let half from each state be seated, or all of them with only half a vote each. Hillary cannot go with either of Barry’s proposals, because if she does, she will be conceding defeat. Obama cannot go with hers because if he does, she will take the lead.

But all of this is beside the point. The point is that Barack “Barry” Hussein Obama should be demanding that none of them be seated. After all, he followed the rules, and she didn’t and isn’t. He didn’t campaign in Florida and he actually took his name off the ballot in Michigan, because both states were breaking the rules. Fair is fair, rules are rules, the law is the law. But he won’t stand up to her and demand enforcement of the rules. Why not? Because he is not a strong leader. He is overly concerned about the backlash from Florida and Michigan voters against him in November. . . he shouldn’t be.

The media will continue to portray him as a savior, and if he acts strong, they will help Democrat Floridians and Michiganites understand that Hillary, good-riddance, is a cheater, and he is a man of character. That would be leadership. But Barack is not a leader. Rather he is a Chamberlain politician – gutless, finger in the wind, and concerned only with getting elected and re-elected.

Tough adversaries roll over people like that. Hillary will fight to the end whether the D-Party suffers or not. Tough enemies like Jung Ill, Ahmadinejad and Assad are worse by far. With them we are talking nukes, war and Jihad. They are no doubt watching Hillary and her demands, and Barack with his obsequious appeasement with great interest. They understand them both – Clinton is power hungry and Barack is weak. Either, of them the dictators could work with.

For the good of the country, let’s hope that whoever the Democrats ultimately put forward gets beaten by McCain. At least with him at the helm our country will be protected and the tyrants will be kept in check.

The Bush Legacy

George "Dubya" Bush’s legacy will be that he saved us from the prickly, precise and politically correct pronunciation of WWW in internet addresses - Double You, Double You, Double You dot (whatever-the-company) is dot com.

Double You Double You Double You. . . . it’s as painful to write as it is to hear. Can’t it just be dubya, dubya, dubya??? It would be so much quicker. It rolls off the tongue so much better. It saves air time. It leaves much more room for disclaimers, and it reduces carbon emissions!

It would even be easier to just leave off the dubyas entirely. Why not just say (whatever-the-company’s-address-is) dot com? Some companies do it, why not all of them? Well, it is because lots of marketing executives think that the dubyas are important to the advertising message. They think that if they give them as a warning, kind of like a preface, more people will be ready with pen and paper to write the internet address down.

The reality is though that you don’t need the dubyas when you say it, and most of the time you don’t need them when you write the address into the browser line. But it won’t change. They will continue to torture us with the dubyas pronounced with painful elocution – Double You Double You Double You.

Do you know why they don’t say dubya, dubya, dubya? It’s because they hate Dubya. It kills them to have to repeat his name and promote his presidency. By saying Double You Double You Double You they aren’t really saying dubya, dubya, dubya, what they are really saying is, “Bush lied people died. Bush stole the election in 2000 and 2004. Bush brought down Tower Number 7. It was a missile sent by Bush that hit the Pentagon. . . .” They really hate him. They actually call President Bush, “Mister Bush,” and former president Clinton, President Clinton! When they say Misss-ter Bush, they draw it out just a little to ensure that everyone can see the venom dripping off their tongue.

As an aside, do you know where that comes from? President Madison. He too was despised – little guy, dumpy wife, parochial, definitely not one of the elite (even though he is the Father of the Constitution). He also defended us from British bullying in the war of 1812. Anyway, they couldn’t call him President. Nope, instead they called him Misss-ter. As in Misss-ter Madison’s war, or Misss-ter Bush’s war. . . as if Bush or Madison started either of them.

Libs hate Bush and they hate his nickname too, and they hate him so much that they torment us with Double You Double You Double You each time an internet address is given. Their Double You’s to Dubya are the equivalent of Misss-ter to President.

It’s probably an evil plot, but there’s a chance it’s not. Correct pronunciation is hard for Americans, and gets harder depending on which part of the country you are in. In Texas for example they don’t say Double You. They say Dubya, which is how his middle initial became a campaign slogan. Before President Dubya lib Texans even said dubya. In fact, except for internet addresses, no one in America probably pronounces W as Double You. Even in Ecoptopia we don’t. Instead we say Dubayou.

The good news is that as soon as President Bush leaves office, and Senator McCain or, God forbid, Obamakins, takes over the libs will forget Dubya, and go back to the old tried, true and casually American way of saying W. Namely, dubya. If at that time, we drift a little more loose, it is easy to see us going from dubya, dubya, dubya in internet addresses to just plain “Dubyas.” A new word, an accurate word, a Texan word. This will be Bush’s legacy.

The Republican Mantra Needs to Change

There is a Republican mantra regarding illegal immigration that needs to change. It goes like this, “We need to build the fence, guard the border and crack down on companies that hire illegals.”

Hurray for the first two but not the third.

Democrats have their own convoluted mantra that translates into amnesty. Strangely, it also includes cracking down on companies that hire illegals – as if it is the fault of a business owner that our borders are porous. This goes along with their worn thin, politics-of-envy argument that blames everything on corporations (and President Bush).

Barack Hussein Obama’s website says that, “Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s website says that she believes that we should have, “strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers.” Exploit here of course means “to hire.”

Thankfully John McCain’s website makes no comment on penalizing business, but rather puts the blame on Washington, “Border security and our failed immigration system are more examples of an ailing Washington culture in need of reform to regain the trust of Americans.

There is a stark contrast in the approaches taken. McCain wants to fix the problem while HRC and BHO want a police state that will nail Americans, while encouraging the illegal activity of Mexico, a foreign country.

There is a lot to love about Mexico – Cancun, Puerto Vallarta, oil, their hard working people down there and up here, but there is also a lot to despise – their government first and foremost. They enforce their Southern borders in a Gestapo-like fashion, but encourage the illegal crossing of ours.

The Mexican government has worked to make illegal immigration here a whole lot easier.

• It plans to produce 70,000 maps marking main roads and water tanks for people wanting to cross illegally into the US, while arguing that, "The only thing we are trying to do is warn them of the risks they face and where to get water, so they don't die," at least according to Mauricio Farah of Mexico's Human Rights Commission.

• the Yucatan government (a state of Mexico) also produces educational materials (a handbook and DVD) to instruct its citizens on how to cross the border and how to avoid notice as an illegal immigrant once the border has been crossed. This guide also tells immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools and how to send money home.

• They even distribute a comic book which instructs illegal immigrants on how to sneak across the border.

The only thing I am surprised about is that they do not pay coyotes with petro-dollars.

The argument on why illegals pour across the border is because that there is an economic incentive to do so. As if it’s our fault. Leaving aside that it’s easy, that many of them think a good chunk of the Southwestern United States is actually theirs, and that the Mexican government is hopelessly corrupt, how do you dis-incentivize the economic incentive? How about this, why not give American companies a $1,500 a head bounty for each illegal alien that they turn over to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)?

How’s that for out-of-the-box thinking? The good news is that the “investment” is paltry compared to how much illegals are already costing in crime, social services, health care, education, law enforcement, military, environmental, etc. . . Speaking of that laundry list, why not also allow hospitals, schools and social services to turn away illegals? And, if we have gone that far, why not declare that the fruit of an illegal act is also illegal – in other words no grant of citizenship to children born of illegals.

The incentive to illegally come will evaporate in a few short nights, the blame will be taken off Americans and placed on the Federal and Federale Governments where it ought to be, and conservatives can have a new mantra, “Build the fence, guard the border and give a bounty.” Come to think of it, we could shorten the whole thing and switch from a mantra to a chant, “We want a bounty hunter! We want the Dog!” (That would be Bounty Hunter Duane “Dog” Chapman of television fame.)

Barack Obama: Fighting for the illegal Latino Community

I ran across something weird on Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign website. It has to do with immigration.

It should be no surprise that he is an open borders kind of guy, even though he says he is in favor of building a fence and even voted for it. After all, he is a Democrat and a Chicago politician. It should also be no surprise that he packages his immigration position as if he is tough on illegals. What is a surprise is that he didn’t do it originally. Nope, he didn’t. Originally, on his website he flat out said what he was all about.

If you go now to the immigration issue section of his website at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf the headline for his position proclaims, “Barack Obama on Immigration.” But apparently that is not what it was originally coded to say. Originally, it was, “Barack Obama: Fighting for the Latino Community.”

Can you just imagine if he answered the question, “What are you going to do about illegal immigration?” and he said, “I am fighting for the Latino community!” I am sure his honesty would have gone over just grand in those Democrat debates – so grand that he may not have won the nomination.

For skeptics, do what I did.

I was helping my son with a research paper on illegal immigration. As part of the paper Ben needed to find out what the top three candidate’s positions are – McCain, Hill and Bill, and BHO. When we got to Barack we did a Copy and Paste Special (choosing unformatted text) of his immigration position, at the above mentioned url, into Word, and then much to our surprise, instead of the headline being, “Barack Obama on Immigration,” which is what it says on the website, it pasted as, “Barack Obama: Fighting for the Latino Community.”

Perhaps it’s all a mistake, perhaps it was just the work of an over zealous volunteer. Or maybe it’s a subliminal Jedi Mind Trick – an attempt to pander to both sides. Whatever it is I think the first hidden headline is more accurate than the second. After all, just look at his voting record:

• He voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
• He voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Which was the amnesty bill.) (Jun 2007)
• He voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
• He voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (I think this is a red herring. After all the fence isn’t even close to being built, and he hasn’t been pushing it.) (Sep 2006)
• He voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (Did you know that South Africa had a guest worker program. . . first a guest, then comes the demand for citizenship.) (May 2006)
• He voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
• He voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

Even though he voted wrong each time except once, he doesn’t want to publicize it. Rather, he puts a nice political spin on his positions, and makes it sound like he is as strong on the border as Tom Tancredo.

Here’s what he said on the Senate floor, May 23, 2007, “The time to fix our broken immigration system is now… We need stronger enforcement on the border and at the workplace… But for reform to work, we also must respond to what pulls people to America… Where we can reunite families, we should. Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should.”

According to his sweet and syrupy website here’s his plan:

• Create Secure Borders

• Improve Our Immigration System

• Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally

• Bring People Out of the Shadows

• Work with Mexico

It all sounds good in Obamaspeak, but translated into English it means, “Barack Obama: Fighting for the illegal Latino Community.”

Eye-Popping Survey By ccAdvertising

It appears that Barack Obama’s self-inflicted negative publicity is having an effect on his chances at the Presidency. He may be doing strong in the Democrat Party, but the following survey shows he is not doing so well with the electorate at large.

From May 1, 2008 through May 5, 2008, ccAdvertising completed a survey to a combined total of 90,000 homes in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania (10,000 homes from each state) extracted from the ccAdvertising database.

This survey compared John McCain, the presumptive Republican Nominee for President against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the final contestants in the race for the Democrat nomination for President. Combined results from respondents to this survey show:

John McCain Versus Hillary Clinton:

John McCain = 40.98%
Hillary Clinton = 42.04%
No Preference = 16.98%

John McCain Versus Barack Obama:

John McCain = 45.90%
Barack Obama = 40.42%
No Preference = 13.68%

In Summary:

John McCain is winning the popular vote against Barack Obama in the states targeted in this survey by 5.48%. Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote against John McCain in the states targeted in this survey by 1.06%.

When it is John McCain versus Hillary Clinton, John McCain wins 4 states (CO, FL, IL, and NH), with Hillary Clinton winning 5 states (CA, MO, NY, OH and PA). When it is John McCain versus Barack Obama, John McCain wins 6 states (CO, FL, MO, NH, OH and PA) with Barack Obama winning 3 states (CA, IL, and NY).

If Barack Obama is the Democrat Nominee the following changes occur in the State by State results:

California changes from a Hillary Clinton victory over John McCain by 15.82% to a Barack Obama victory over McCain by 12.88%. This is a 2.94% move to McCain.

Colorado changes from a John McCain victory over Hillary Clinton by 5.44% to a John McCain victory by 1.98%. This is a 3.46% move to Obama.

Florida changes from an 11.46% margin of victory for John McCain to a 25.52% margin for John McCain. This is a 14.06% move to McCain.

Illinois changes from a John McCain victory over Hillary Clinton by 2.29% to a Barack Obama victory over John McCain by 9.23%. This is an 11.52% move to Obama.

Missouri changes from a Hillary Clinton victory over John McCain by 3.97% to a John McCain victory over Barack Obama by 10.61%. This is a 14.58% move to McCain.

New Hampshire changes from a John McCain victory over Hillary Clinton by 5.90% to a John McCain victory over Barack Obama by 6.67%. This is a 0.77% move to McCain.

New York changes from a Hillary Clinton victory over John McCain by 7.88% to a Barack Obama victory over John McCain by 1.31%. This is a 6.57% move to McCain.

Ohio changes from a Hillary Clinton victory over John McCain by 1.02% to a John McCain victory over Barack Obama by 18.18%. This is a 19.20% move to McCain.

Pennsylvania changes from a Hillary Clinton victory over John McCain by 7.51% to a John McCain victory over Barack Obama by 5.95%. This is a 13.46% move to McCain.

Hillary Can’t Steal the Nomination with Super Delegates, But Obama Could Lose Because of Them

Super Delegates have been part of the Democrats’ system for choosing their presidential nominee since 1980! But, by judging from the media’s tone, you’d think that it was all dreamed up by Clinton, Inc., last summer. Here’s some examples:

"How could the Democratic Party be so, well, undemocratic? Backroom double-dealing; Suppressing the will of the voters; Super Delegates will likely decide the Democratic presidential nominee at this year's convention in Denver; Will Super Delegates decide Democrat Nomination? For the first time, Super Delegates may decide their party's nominee."

Doesn’t this coverage pass on a seedy, underhanded and scheming feel to the whole Democrat nomination process?

This is not to say that Democrats are not as Machiavellian as quasi-humanly possible. But the point here is that the rules regarding Super Delegates have been around for 28 years. It is not like the Clintonistas have the list but the Obamamamas don’t. They both do. The fact is that its a fair playing field for both Barack and Hill.

Here’s what’s going on. The media jumped ship with Clinton, just like Barack dumped his grandma, and supported Obama. Unfortunately, Obama has not won, while Clinton has not lost. Now the liberal media is in a quandary. Being liberals, they are as equally sly as politicians. Therefore, they have decided to attack the delegate selection process to push their guy forward, and have begun to predict rioting in the streets and a Chicago-style convention in Denver if the Super Delegates don’t do what the media wants them to do and support Obama.

Here’s the count after Pennsylvania. Obama has won 1,489 delegates to Clinton’s 1,333, while there are only 408 delegates left to win in the nine remaining contests. A quick calculation shows that if either Obama or Clinton wins them all they will both be short of the 2,024 needed to win.

Meanwhile, on the Super Delegate front, Obama has 238, while Clinton has 259. Added to their current totals this puts Obama at 1,727 and Clinton at 1,592. If Obama wins all the 408 delegates up for grabs, which is a practical impossibility, as none of the remaining states are winner take all, he goes over the top and reaches the magic 2,025 mark with 2,135, while if Clinton wins them all she is still short at 2,000.

So, if neither can win, how does someone win? In addition to everything else described there are 298 more Super Delegates that are uncommitted at this point. Depending on how they go, they could push either candidate into the victory circle.

Here’s the interesting thing about Democrats and their process. None of the delegates that have been selected so far, whether regular or Super are bound to vote for any particular candidate. True, regular delegates are more likely to vote for whom they worked for, but that is beside the point. The point is that they are not bound. Super Delegates meanwhile are also not bound. They can vote however they want. . . and, just like regular delegates, they can change their mind. This reality is not indicative of a gamed system, rather it is simply the way the rules work, which is fair to both sides.

In 2004, as an example, Howard Dean was doing great with his Super Delegate count, but after he crashed and burned in the Iowa Caucuses, they all switched to John Kerry. Super Delegate independence happened in 1984 as well. Gary Hart came on strong against Walter Mondale and won 16 states to Mondale’s 10, but Mondale sewed up almost all the Super Delegates. Were those years examples of subverting the will of rank-and-file Democrats? No, they were merely representations of how the system works.

Not everyone agrees though, especially if they are reporters or Obama supporters. U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, in an interview with History.com, sanctimoniously said, "I'm confident that in my party, which prides itself as being a party of the people, Super Delegates will be nominating the one with the most pledged delegates."

The one with the most pledged delegates? Hardly. Rather, Super Delegates will support the candidate most likely to win in 2008, which seemed like Obama all the way up to the point where his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, took center stage.

The Shepard’s Crook of Christianity

Ebola is to humans what Black Liberation Theology is to the church.

Ebola was popularized in the movie “Outbreak” and the book, “Hot Zone.” The virus is what they call a Level 4 pathogen that causes severe hemorrhaging and rapid death through the massive destruction of the liver. But, unfortunately, for those in favor of reducing the number of people on the planet, it also kills animals. The strains of the virus have eerie sounding names – Ebola Zaire, Ebola Sudan, Ebola Reston, Ebola Tai and Marburg.

Amazingly, the Ebola virus under an electron microscope looks a little like a sheep herder’s staff, hence the name, “Shepard’s Crook.” If it happens to show up in your blood, or in that of your pet monkey, there is a nine out of 10 chance of death.

Black Liberation Theology (BLT) is the Shepard’s Crook of Christianity and one of its prophets is Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Without one of his flock running for President of the United States, Wright’s message would probably not have hit front page news. But since Obama, unifying-man-for-all-seasons and candidate-for-Hope-and-Change, is running for the top job it only makes sense that all of his background examined. Ooops. Bad timing for him, Wright, and BLT.

Obama is now in triage, a political casualty of Wright’s BLT-inspired raving rants.

Glenn Beck interviewed former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell on March 20, 2008. Blackwell, a black man, said, “The proponents of liberation theology like Reverend Wright say that God commands us to form government that will supervise our economy to create government subsidized jobs under central government planning, guaranteed healthcare and education by having government control both.”

In other words, liberation theology is socialism wrapped in Christianity. BLT’s contribution to the gift is a racial ribbon and bow.

BLT consists of 12 primary points and a few sub-points. They are available for review on the Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago) website. According to TUCC, “These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.”

Most have explanations following them and, unfortunately, the explanation sometimes makes the palatable much less, and the less than palatable much worse. An example is the first one, “Commitment to God.” Normally, I would applaud anyone urging this affirmation. But, when the explanation includes racially charged words like, “Black Christian Activists,” and “soldiers for Black freedom,” I am less inclined.

1. Commitment to God.
2. Commitment to the Black Community.
3. Commitment to the Black Family.
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education.
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence.
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic.
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect.
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”
9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions.
11. Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.
12. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System.

A Find and Replace of “Black” for “White” illustrates how abhorrent the principals actually are – Imagine if your local AG, Presbyterian or Baptist church had a value system kicking off with Commitment to God and the White Community. Meanwhile, a Find and Delete of “Black,” with some minor grammatical edits, illustrates how noble they could be. (The exception that you can’t put a positive spin on is the disavowal of “Middleclassness,” which is a tone ringing similar to, “Revolution of the Proletariat.”)

With this as a value system, it is no wonder Wright has said the things he has, while what is to be wondered is how much Obama actually believes.

There is some good news though. Blackwell, in the same interview with Glenn Beck, also observed that Obama’s home church does not express the “dominant view” of the African-American Christian community.

For Obama it isn’t so much that he attended Wright’s church, but that he remained there for so long. He was recruited there, indoctrinated there, got married there, saw his children baptized there, has stayed there for 20 years, and apparently is planning on staying for that much longer. The disconcerting explanations for his sojourn might be that either Obama had BLT before he arrived, or that Wright’s message was the means for infection. In either case not many incubators could culture BLT better than TUCC.

There is another possibility. Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., may be the one in 10 that is immune. If he ends up as President let’s hope so.

Four Speeches - Two Good, Two Bad

March 28, 2008 - Lead balloons don’t fly just because reporters say they do. In this presidential cycle we have now witnessed two such spectacles – Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Both gave speeches at critical campaign junctures, both were met with enraptured media applause, both patterned their deliveries after historical precedents, and both failed.

For Mitt it was JFK, and for Barack , MLK. Their three-lettered mentors probably feel let down, because neither protégé rose to the occasion. If Willard Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama’s clutch-play opportunities connected, they may have become exalted and joined the ranks of those known merely by initials. But alas, it is not to be WMR or BHO.

The short and sweet of it is that neither Mitt nor Barack answered the question being asked. In Mitt’s case it was, “Why is Mormonism not a cult?” and, for Barack, “Do you support Jeremiah Wright’s hate-mongering?” If they had, things would look a lot different today. Mitt would be the Republican nominee, and Barack would have buried Hillary. But no, Mitt’s failure paved the path for Mac, and Barack may have handed it to Hill.

The reason that JFK’s “Don’t worry about my Catholicism,” and MLK’s “I have a Dream” speeches were so successful, is that they directly addressed the concerns of the day along with rising to rhetorical excellence.

With JFK the nation needed to be reassured that he would not be a pawn of the Vatican. For MLK the challenge was for Americans to be told that there was something more important than the color of a person’s skin.

On September 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy made the following points:

“I believe in an America where. . . no Catholic prelate would tell the president . . . how to act. . . I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

Kennedy took the issue on directly, answered the question and put it to rest. That is why he succeeded. Concerns about Romney had nothing to do with the Mormon Church directing the presidency. No one was concerned about Romney’s patriotism, divided loyalties, or that he would be directed by Salt Lake City, rather they were concerned that his church was a cult.

Romney gave his speech on December 6, 2007, kicking it off with a memorable line, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

Compared his situation to Kennedy’s, "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts. . . ”

Played a straw man gambit, "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church. . . will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.”

Laid the groundwork for addressing the big concern, “. . . I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.”

Then dodged the question in an indignant manner, "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.”

And finally wrapped things up with some trademark pandering, "I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.”

No wonder he failed.

On August 28, 1963 Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his most memorable address. His appeal was for equality and it was delivered in a day when that commodity was sadly lacking. Everyone at the time needed to be reminded of what our country stood for, and MLK rose to the occasion magnificently.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

If he had lived he probably would have seen it all come true. Unfortunately he was murdered and his torch passed to less reputable clergymen, such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright.

Since Obama sat under Wright’s tutelage for 20 years it made perfect sense to ask the question, “Do you support your pastors’ hate-mongering?” And so on March 18, 2008 Barack Obama responded.

He started off on the right track. “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.”

If he would have stopped there and offered some tangible solutions the day would have been won. Instead he refused to do what wasn’t being asked, and threw in a false moral equivalency just for fun. . . “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.”

Which laid the groundwork for justifying the Reverend’s remarks. . . “For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.”

And finally shifted the blame in vintage liberal fashion. . . “Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed. . .”

It is too bad that MLK was not around to advise Barack, and JFK not available for Mitt. If they had, or if Obama and Romney gave more than lip service to their mentors’ speeches, the playing field would look a lot different today.