There is, unfortunately, a large segment of the voting public that will either not learn of Sen. Obama's true policies, positions and politics, because they only get their news and information from the MSM or are just so riddled with Bush Derangement Syndrome, no facts will dissuade their intentions.  Now that is a fair and balanced diet for you. 

What is unnerving, is that the Dem Proletariat, have got to know that their boy Barry is a probable disaster waiting to happen, both in terms of his exposure at the national level and the "true rookie" mistakes he is likely to make should he become president.  Yet, they flock to this walking contradiction in action and deed.

It has been speculated that this is in fact what the Dems have up their sleeve, a guy in the front office that is so green, they can pull his strings with impunity. 

Regardless of the circumstance, a politically power crazed Obama or a politically power crazed Democrat Party with a figure head for a leader, should the Dems win as is projected in November, $4.00/gal gas will look like the good ol' days. 

As for the people, they will be forced to take the bus, relegated to the back of Obama's ride, to be jettisoned at the first sign of dissatisfaction with the boy wonder or his presidential mandates.   

If you are a conservative or Republican, there are two ways to look at the probability that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president. 

On one hand, he has the huge advantage of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" working for him.  Add to that the overall frustration with the execution of the war in Iraq, a struggling economy and the just plain sense that people believe it is time for a change. 

On the other hand, you have a Democrat nominee that has almost no experience or qualifications for the job he seeks, is probably the most liberal candidate yet to run for president and who's foreign policy credibility will put this nation at its greatest risk since the peak of the Cold War.  No wonder he doesn't believe it appropriate to call his positions to account.

Sensing now that he will be the Dem nominee, Barack Obama has begun campaigning more like a presidential candidate than a primary candidate.  In so doing, he is flailing, flipping, flapping and failing to make a coherent case for where he stands on the issues, especially foreign policy. 

Barack Obama is counting on the media and his allies in his party to run cover for him in the election.  They will cry foul at every legitimate charge that is brought against the Senator's record, his public pronouncements and policies.  It will be a challenge for both the Republican Party and John McCain to stand fast in the face of such slanderous accusations and proclamations of "swiftboating" Obama, every time he comes under serious scrutiny. 

One can only hope that the McCain campaign does in fact have a few arrows in its quiver and in fact does not "disarm" unilaterally in the face of a media blitz.  Barack Obama has proven on several occasions that he cannot take direct in-coming fire without resorting to an angry tirade and personal attack to change the subject. 

If the McCain campaign takes aim at the real record and policy positions of Sen. Obama, they will find him a sitting duck. 

There comes a time when you have to go public with your position on serious and politically charged issues.  If you believe the polls, a leap of faith if you ask me, mainstream America wants to see us leave Iraq in the now timeframe, win, lose or draw.  The question is rhetorical but the answer is critical.  That answer will define our future.  On the question of winning or losing in Iraq, where do you stand? 

What, you may ask, makes this question key to the future of the West?  It depends on who is right in the debate over the true intent and the motivation of what is now referred to as “radical Islam.”  To all those who firmly believe that it is our interference in the Middle East that is the cause and fuel of Islamic violence, our departure from the region is deemed the action that will end the jihad that has been pronounced upon us. 

To those, including myself, who perceive an enemy determined to achieve our subjugation, only the harshest retribution against such an ideology, inflamed in religious extremism and hatred, can bring a serious end to their plan for global domination.  There really is no middle ground to this issue and the position “You” take will determine the consequences.  Where do you stand? 

The reason for asking this rather straightforward question is in response to a calculated effort, mostly coming from the left, to steep Iraq in failure and defeat.  The rationale for their position that we need to end military operations in Iraq is premised on poll results that indicate a majority of Americans now want to see an end to this war. 

No doubt, all Americans would like to see this conflict finally end.  What is not known are the circumstances that most Americans will accept as satisfactory conditions in Iraq before removing our troops.  Where do you stand?  

The polls that are sited as indicating that a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq, also indicate by a greater margin that they do not want us to lose.  The latter portion of this conflicting response is discarded from the mix, as politicians wax defeatist in their pronouncements for opposing the president’s plan to increase military strength, and his effort to finally bring sectarian violence in Iraq under control.  As this information is subjectively framed to qualify their argument, so too does it “frame the president.”

What seems to be a self-serving understanding among politicians and media types, to include both broadcast and print, is that they are the ones who “frame” the debate.  This is the essence of this discussion.  Who speaks for you, the media or do you speak for yourself?  Did you elect your representative to promote his or her personal agenda or to act in your behalf?  Where do you stand?  

In spite of the rhetorical proclamations of what their vote meant and the circumstances they believed were valid for casting that vote, members of Congress did give the president the power to go to war in Iraq.  It is not acceptable for any Congressman to now abdicate that vote for political expediency or to hedge their chances for re-election. 

For the second time in just over 30 years, elected representatives of the United States of America are embarking on legislation that will result in our defeat in a military conflict.  We are not losing the war in Iraq; it is the United States Congress that is declaring it so.  Congress has the power to declare war, they do not have the power to legislate whether we win or lose.