Obama's trip will hurt his campaign

Obama's current overseas trip is going to end up hurting the Freshman Senator in the long run. Americans don't like their political candidates going overseas to get votes from people who don't even live in the country. It looks arrogant and presumpuous. Plus while Obama has been overseas McCain has been hammering him and talking to people in swing states about issues they care about. Americans generally like having their candidates in the place they want to govern. For instance If I was running for governor of South Carolina going to Arkansas, even to meet with the governor, probably wouldn't help me in my campaign.

Obama at the very best stayed pat during this trip. He may have even lost ground. The truth is if Obama is going to win this election he should be up double-digits. I may have said that before but it bears repeating. I think it's safe to say that McCain will pick up a majority of the undecideds, also known as people who don't want to say their voting Republican, on Election Day. Obama believes he will bring new voters to the polls and maybe he will, but will it be enough? I doubt it. Alot of people think I am crazy, but I still think McCain could win forty states. With Obama saying things like "Israel is Israel's closest friend." It's only a matter on time before he has one of those flubs on the national stage. Perhaps during a debate with McCain, if he ever accepts McCain's challenge.

Obama's other problem is that he comes off more and more has an ordinary politican. He changes his views when it's conveinent, claims he didn't say something or that people misunderstood what he meant. Of course for a candidate with an extensive background on issues this wouldn't be a big deal, but for someone like Obama where all you have to look at is what he has said over the last year and a half, it matters when he switches positions. It makes it easy to paint him as a person who can't make decisions and who lacks judgement. I expect Senator McCain to hit Obama with exactly those two charges from now until the election. Trust me by the first Tuesday in November the shine will have come off the golden boy.

Oil down another $5 a barrel

Oil continued to drop this week. Light, sweet crude for September delivery fell $2.23 today to $123.26 a barrel. Retail prices have dropped about ten cents per gallon in the past week. Of course I'm sure the President will get no credit for this.

England wants new laws prohibting knives.

That's right apparently some citizens in England our campaigning for tougher laws against knifes. I guess this is what happens if you don't have a problem with guns.

Judge Robert Connor of England was trying a case involving a teenager who is accused of wounding another teen with a knife. In England it is against the law to carry a blade longer than three inches. I'm sure that wouldn't go over well in America especially here in the South. After the Teen said he needed only one hand to open the knife the judge spoke up and asked, "It happens I have a folding knife in my pocket. You need two hands to open it, don’t you?" That's where the trouble started

Under English and Welsh law it is an offense to carry in public a blade longer than 3 inches without good reason. Furious anti-knife crime campaigners called last night for the judge to be fired for bandishing a knife. Lyn Costello, co -founder of the Mothers Against Murder and Aggression campaign took the lead saying, “He should lose his job. One teenager a week is being murdered on the streets of Britain and here he is brandishing a knife.” Ms. Costello also asked judges in Great Britian for tougher sentences for those carrying knifes saying that they should not be carrying their own knives.

“Enough is enough – we need to get tough on knives in this country and our judges should be handing out tough sentences, not brandishing their own.”

Why the New York Times refuses to publish McCain's Op-Ed response to Obama

The liberal New York Times showed their bias once again by refusing to publish an op-ed by John McCain in response to an Op-Ed by Barack Obama on the Iraq War. The New York Times told the McCain camp that their piece had to include timetables, something that McCain vigerously opposes. Times op-ed editer David Shipley, who was a speechwriter and special assistant for President Clinton from 1995-97, wrote in an e-mail to the McCain camp, "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

I'm sorry you want a piece that mirrors Obama's piece, sure I'll call Obama and ask him what he thinks before I rewrite my article. Maybe Obama could write my piece too. Maybe we can get rid of the First Amendment while we're at it. Why bother allowing people to hear opposing views? Your editorial board is far smarter than anyone else in America. I'm sure that response would satisfy The Times.

The truth is the two editorials are different because (gasp) the candidates have different views. The truth is if Obama had his way we would've left Iraq disgraced, leaving behind a sectarian war that would've resembled the slaughtering of the Cambodians after Vietnam. Now there are zero sectarian deaths being reported in Iraq. "In his report to the United Nations Security Council, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the 15-nation council that there were no confirmed ethno-sectarian deaths in Baghdad last month compared with the more than 1,600 such deaths in December, 2006. The number of civilian deaths throughout Iraq have dropped by 75 per cent since July 2007." Yes you read that right zero sectarian deaths, and a 75% drop in civilan deaths. If we had withdrawn early as Obama wanted to this could not have happened.

Here's a question why weren't these statistics on the front page of every newspaper in the United States? Here's a story that does more than suggest we're winning, and possibly may have won, the Iraq War, and it's treated as if it's not news. How can it be news when were losing, but not be news when were winning? How can bad news constantly make the front pages, but good news is almost impossible to find. Those of us who are conservative already know the answer to this question, but for those less enlightened I'll explain it to you. It's not news if it makes President Bush look good. It's not news if it makes America look good. It's not news if were not torturing prisoners, or killing civilans, or comitting other types of unspeakable war crime. All that would be news, but when our soliders do their job and flawlessly execute a strategy that liberals said would never work, and that gives Americans cause to be proud of their country, to the liberal media that's not news.

Please go to http://readerarticles.realclearpolitics.com/?period=all and vote for this article if you liked it.

They took away my tomatoes for no reason.

The FDA has found a strain of salmonella in a jalapeno pepper that caused a nationwide salmonella outbreak. The real problem is that I couldn't have tomatoes for a month and they weren't even the problem. I don't even like jalapenos! I'm glad the FDA found the problem, but it doesn't make up for the month long tomato famine I endured. I want those responsible for this egregious error prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also want a dozen free tomatoes provided at government expense.