Wednesday, July 30, 2008


When Citizens Against Government Waste recently named Florida Republican Congressman John Mica as it's 'Porker of the Month' for his stance on earmarks, they also had some interesting things to say about earmarks:

"Earmarking is not Congress’ “job,” as Rep. Mica claims. Before the 1980s, Congress would fund general grant programs and let federal and state agencies select individual recipients through a competitive process or formula. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees named specific projects only when they had been the subject of hearings and approved by authorizing committees. Members of Congress with local concerns would lobby the president and federal agencies for consideration. The normal budget process, which is aimed at preventing abuse and allocating resources on the basis of merit and need, has become a sideshow in the scramble by individual Appropriations Committee members to pick winners and losers based on seniority."

Suffice it to say we couldn't agree more.

Read their article at:

Now the City Council is here to help you...

On Saturday July 26, contributor McPherson penned an editorial, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Well, we can't resist a follow up after reading in today's Omaha World-Herald about our wacky friends in California.

Below the fold on the front page today we learn, "Los Angeles aims to enrich diets of poor residents." How are they going to do it? The L.A. City Council is going to put a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in an area of the city that is 'impoverished' and has above average rates of obesity!

Once again, the nanny-state is passing laws to regulate personal responsibility. Does the L.A. Council think that these impoverished obese folks will just stop eating bad food,? And wait, hasn't the good Republican Governator signed a law prohibiting trans-fats? Won't that solve the bad eating habits?

Maybe the L.A. Council should put height/weight charts at the doors and require folks to be weighed and measured to see whether they meet the definition of obese before they are allowed into the restaurant or the drive-up line? Or do body mass measures, or whatever? This could create a few jobs that would be lost by the council's refusal to allow new restaurants to open and create jobs in this impoverished area.

Maybe Los Angeles could go a little further by legislating, as has New York City, that calorie counts of each food product be placed in letters equal in size to the menu item and price be prominently displayed?

Maybe, with California being the cutting edge, we in Omaha and across Nebraska ought to be asking our councilmen (and maybe even our legislators and governor) what they intend to do about obesity. Perhaps in Omaha, Councilman Frank Brown could introduce legislation of a similar nature? In fact, before next spring's council elections let's get all of our candidates on the record as to where they stand on passing similar vital legislation!

While we make light of this, this is serious stuff. It represents the Democratic, liberal mind-set, that government makes better decisions than its citizens, that the citizens are not capable of making responsible decisions. While some folks may not make responsible decisions when does it become the purview of the government to take over that responsibility at the peril and loss of rights to those that do? Enough said.

Hagel to second Obama's Nomination at Democratic Convention

Okay, so we may be fantasizing, but why not?

Senator Hagel has no doubt serious and sincere differences with President Bush on the conduct of the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, he voted to give the President the authority to conduct the war.

Senator Hagel (also known as I want to announce that I may announce later) has a solid voting record on the conservative side barring his support of Bush on the war. But Senator Hagel by his actions and abetting of Barack Hussein Obama has left the Republican Party, and certainly those Republicans of Nebraska who elected him to the Senate, a long time ago.

Given this, we humbly suggest he change his registration to independent or Democrat (it would make it easier for President Barack Hussein Obama to appoint him to dog catcher or something) and consider seconding Barack Hussein Obama's nomination in Denver in August.

Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa

In a vote that will no doubt make liberal Republican (RINO) Nebraska State Senator Dwite Pedersen a happy guy, the U.S. House yesterday passed a resolution apologizing for slavery. No doubt, with Pedersen, who sponsored the bill in the last session of the only one-horse, excuse us, one-house legislature in the United States will be able to tell all us rubes and hicks how wrong we were to defeat the bill.

But Pedersen should take heart. While he may not be there in 2009 (thank heavens!), you can expect RINO Republican Brad Ashford to probably reintroduce the bill given the new 'national momentum'.

We at the Objective Conservative happen to believe that apologizing for something that happened more than a century ago, perpetrated by others under a different culture of understanding, serves nothing other than that of creating victims who can blame their lack of success or acceptance of responsibility today on someone else.

For the article, see:

Republicans are Dumb

Maybe the Republican Party should give I.Q. tests to perspective candidates. They just seem to do stupid things that seem to contradict the moral high ground they claim to represent.

Case in point. Today we learn from Mary Ann Akers, The Sleuth, of the Washington Post that Republican Representative (TX) Pete Sessions held a fundraiser in a Las Vegas burlesque/strip club last year. As Mary Ann notes, "And the culprit is card-carrying conservative Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.). The same Pete Sessions who scolded Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake for forcing "their liberal values upon the rest of the country" after their infamous 2004 Super Bowl halftime striptease."

When Will these guys learn?

See the article at:

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

August Hall of Shame -- Senator Ted Stevens

In order to maintain our fair and balanced approach to our Objective Conservative Hall of Shame we have anointed Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska as our August nominee. Senator Stevens is exactly the reason why Republicans have fallen to the low level of esteem that they experience. The good senator was indicted earlier today on 7 counts of making false statements. He is accused of benefiting by $250, 000 in unlawful gifts by an oil company executive.

While we agree that the Senator deserves a fair trial and is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, we must acknowledge the strong odor arising from his actions just as we did with our congressman from Louisiana, Mr. William Jefferson, our July Hall of Shame nominee.

Let's Just Get it Over With, Shall We? - Doug Patton

July 28, 2008

Two schools of thought seem to prevail among conservative Republicans unhappy with the prospect of voting for John McCain. First, there are those who believe that McCain, though far from their first choice, is looking better and better as the campaign progresses, primarily because the alternative is totally unacceptable. Then there are those think that the Republic can survive a Barack Obama administration, especially if it ushers in another Ronald Reagan era.

Those believing in the former rightly point to Supreme Court nominations, tax policy and national security as some of their primary concerns. Their belief is that while McCain is wrong on global warming, wrong on immigration, wrong on free speech issues such as campaign finance reform, he is still infinitely better than Obama on many of the biggest issues.

The latter group believes that while Obama will appoint extremely liberal Supreme Court justices, those on the court most likely to retire are also liberal, thereby netting the Left nothing. This theory neglects to acknowledge the fact that Obama would be replacing eighty-something-year-old liberals with fifty-something-year-old liberals on the high court. It also fails to take into account that the president of the United States appoints hundreds of lower court judges during the course of four or eight years. We are still suffering under the hair-brained rulings of Jimmy Carter’s judicial appointees.

Add to those concerns the specter of crippling tax increases, crushing gas prices and a smothering nanny state, combined with the distinct possibility of terrorist attacks on a scale we could not have previously imagined, and the election of Barack Obama becomes a recipe for disaster.

And yet…and yet…

I resist the thought of an Obama presidency with everything that is in me. He is a radical on virtually every domestic and foreign policy issue you can name. He would appoint people to our courts who would continue the American slide into the gutter of moral relativism. He would surrender in Iraq and otherwise be a bungling commander-in-chief. He would meddle in every aspect of our lives and tax everything that means anything to us.

And yet I find myself wondering if it is a necessary evil. I cringe at the thought of listening to all the whining from those who will say the election was stolen if Obama loses. It might be worth four years of Obama in order to put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton out of business. Imagine no more excuses for the lies these two have been telling for the last thirty years. Imagine no more affirmative action. After all, if a black man can make it to the presidency, why is preferential treatment any longer necessary?

I find myself dreaming of a day when wide-eyed idealists on the left — especially African-Americans — who see their political salvation in this guy, will come to realize that a black man or woman can be every bit as incompetent and dangerous as a white man or woman with the same misguided worldview.

Many of us prayed for a J.C. Watts presidency or its equivalent. I personally hoped in 2000 that George W. Bush would pick Watts as his running mate. Had he done so, imagine how different this election year would be. The first serious black presidential candidate would be a conservative Republican whose election would truly have put the lie to the charge that white America won’t vote for a black man for president.

But that did not happen, and we find ourselves in 2008 with a European-style socialist knocking at the White House door. Perhaps it is time to put this race thing behind us once and for all. His presidency will be an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps it is time. Perhaps the only way to put this myth of ongoing systemic, institutional racism in America is to elect a black man and just get it over with.

From the Left Coast Report on John Edwards

James Hirsen, author of the Left Coast Report has this to say about John Edwards and the lack of press coverage for his 'indiscretion':

John Edwards’ Scandal Ignored by Media

After the National Enquirer broke a story about former presidential candidate John Edwards’ meeting at the Beverly Hilton Hotel with his alleged mistress and the child they had together, the mainstream media proceeded to ignore the story.

Coverage of the incident continued to be noticeably absent from most major print and broadcast outlets.

Fox News did corroborate that Edwards was where the Enquirer reporters said he was at the time, and that the potential Democratic VP nominee was not registered as a guest at the hotel.
This is a man who ran as a serious candidate for leader of the free world and whose wife is bravely battling cancer.

Still, the mainstream media for the most part have remained mum.

Now the U.K. Sunday Times has broken the overseas silence on the Edwards allegations.
“Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy,” the newspaper’s headline reads.

“Gotcha: Senator John Edwards, whose wife has cancer, has been caught in a sex scandal that ends his vice-presidential hopes,” the subtitle hits again.

Will The New York Times, The Washington Post, alphabet networks, and other major media players report the story now?

Caution: Waiting with bated breath for it to happen may result in oxygen deprivation, dizziness and potential fainting spells.

Is this the two Americas Edwards was talking about — one whose residents recklessly play around but don’t get busted, another whose residents get pummeled in the media for the same activities but whose reputations are left at death’s door?

Update on Our Hero of the Month and his party

Congratulations to Senator Coburn, our recently named Hero of the Month, and his GOP comrades who stopped Harry Reid's omnibus fat-filled earmark bill from passing. If only these guys had shown the same discipline between 2000 and 2006, maybe Republicans wouldn't be in the trouble they are today.

Until you stand for something, you stand for nothing!

See the article:

Monday, July 28, 2008

Objective Conservative Hero of the Month

While we seem to have so many candidates for the Objective Conservative Hall of Shame, it seems less than positive not to have a monthly honor for those we respect. Accordingly, we have established our Hero of the Month and for our first award recipient have chosen Senator Tom Coburn, (R), OK. Tom is a caring conservative, a doctor, a no earmark, common sense U.S. Senator.

He's in the news today because good ol' Harry Reid has tried to get around Coburn's holds on wasteful legislation and earmarks. We congratulate Senator Colburn as our first recipient of the Objective Conservative Hero of the Month.

See the latest about Tom at:

Is McCain Seeing the Light?

An excellent article by the Slueth, Mary Ann Akers, in today's Washington Post about a potential Vice President for John Sidney McCain. A Virginia Congressman, member of the leadership, a Jew, a pro-life, pro-gun, pro Federal Marriage Protection Act 45 year-old conservative, Eric Cantor. You might check it out at:

We at the Objective Conservative believe that John Sidney McCain should appoint someone just like this whose credentials are unqualifiably conservative and who is young and could ultimately become president. Another person that comes to mind is Mike Pence, Congressman from Indiana who we believe also has great potential. Appointing someone like this would not only give conservatives a reason to vote but would offer a bright future.

Incidentally, we've asked our ocassional contributor, Pat McPherson, to provide daily updates from the Republican National Convention to which he has been elected a delegate. Look for those reports beginning September 1st.

McCain, The Omaha World-Herald and Affirmative Action

Yikes, what will the elitists at the Omaha World-Herald say when they realize that John Sidney McCain has endorsed the Arizona initiative supported by black, former California Regent Ward Connerly? This is the same initiative that we in Nebraska will be voting on (barring any liberal, elitist, academia inspired roadblocks) in November, the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative. For those of you who wonder, Barack Hussein Obama is opposed to these initiatives.

So, kudos to John Sidney McCain for standing up in support of freeing state governments of these mandates that diminish the accomplishments of citizens.

See the article at:

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Republicans stand tall (at least once)

Congratulations to those 149 Republicans in the House who finally had the guts to stand up against a housing bill that President Bush flip-flopped on by agreeing not to veto after earlier threats to do so. While the bill still got passed, at least the majority of Republicans in the House stood up for ideology which has been sorely lacking for many years. Of course, there were lots of reasons for them to do so--upcoming elections, Club for Growth etc.

I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Save You (from yourself) -- Patrick McPherson

I believe strongly that government is not the solution to every problem and that government is not the instrument that should protect us from our own lack of good judgement and personal responsibility.

Hence, when I read that Governor Schwarzenegger (RINO--That's 'Republican in Name Only for you folks who didn't get it) is proud of signing into law a California statute banning all restaurants from serving food with trans fats, I find it difficult to stomach (pun intended).

The California ban follows ones passed by numerous cities which apparently also believe that restaurant customers need the nanny state to decide what is good for them and what isn't. This is even worse than the smoking ban because in this case you can't say you are defending those poor, otherwise unemployable, waiters and waitresses who because of their inability to find any other job must breath the second hand smoke of those unthinking slobs who care nothing about their own health let alone that of others and who spew their repugnant fumes into air.

I would ask at what point does government regulation over our life stop? Where will it stop as we slide down the slippery slope? Already, Chicago has banned (and now rescinded) its ban on foie gras (that's goose liver for those of you who haven't yet been convinced by Barack Obama to learn French) and we've seen a bill introduced in the South to require restaurants not to serve fat people (fortunately, it didn't pass). Can you imagine weighing in when you go out to eat?

I happen to believe in free markets and personal responsibility. If you don't like second had smoke, don't patronize that privately owned business--punish it by not going there just as you might make a decision to buy a Honda because your Ford was crap. If you are dumb enough to fill your arteries with cholesterol by eating foods with trans fats, fill them up and help decrease the excess population as good ol' Scrooge would say.

The bottom line is that businesses will respond to the customer's choices and needs or they will fail and the American public should be smart enough to make choices themselves without the ever-increasing regulation of the nanny state.

I'm wondering when government will simplify my life by telling me what color of sock to put on in the morning? Surely,white crew socks must prevent athlete's foot.

See the article at:

Friday, July 25, 2008

Giving away your money

Our friends at Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) tell us that good ol' Senator Harry Reid is going to attempt to pass an omnibus spending bill that includes over $11 billion in EARMARKS. THAT'S RIGHT, $11 billion with a B! This is one of Harry's ways of getting around Senator Colburn's efforts to stop the earmarks otherwise. According to ATR the omnibus bill will authorize 34 new federal programs. Sure good we have that conservative democratic fiscal leadership that replaced those free spending Republicans.

According to our friend Laura Ingram:

Among its top legislative priorities: $5 million for a Jewish history museum in Poland, $183 million for "reconnecting homeless youths" (whatever the heck that means), and $1.5 billion for the DC Metrorail system, which the Heritage Foundation identifies as "the biggest earmark in history." Are Democrats trying to repeat the mistakes made by Republicans leading up to 2006? It'll be great if they suffer the same consequence, though it'll be less great if they drain our wallets in the meantime. "
Pat Toomey with the Club for Growth wrote his take on this bill:
They (the Democrats) are so mad that they've packaged 35 Coburn-blocked bills together and plan to force it through the Senate without debate! This 398-page "omnibus" bill will cost taxpayers over $11 billion. Included in that price tag is $17 million to prevent the interstate sale of monkeys and $12 million for a greenhouse in Maryland. For more background on this bill, go here. You can also watch a CNN interview of Sen. Jim DeMint, who is naturally on Coburn's side, fighting for taxpayers.

Sure good we have that conservative Democrat fiscal leadership that replaced those free-spending Republicans!

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Government Welfare to the Irresponsible

With the Bush administration giving in on the housing bill, the welfare recipients are already lining up to cut their interest rates, avoid foreclosure and take advantage of the government's latest attempt to bail out those who have exercised bad judgement. A good example of this can be found by checking out this article in the Washington Post:

The lesson to all is that never be afraid to exercise bad judgement or take a risk because if enough of you are dumb enough or vocal enough, Uncle Same will come to your rescue. Too bad that doesn't work for the small business folk that create the majority of jobs in this country. Those are the folks that created jobs, invested their hard earned dollars and made this country great!

John Edwards and the Media

In a revelation that catapults John Edwards into the lead for our August nomination to the Objective Hall of Fame, we find out that he has a mistress and a love child even while his wife is fighting what is probably terminal cancer. You'd hardly know this given the lack of media coverage. The National Enquirer, whom we would say has at least the same degree of credibility as the New York Times broke the story which you can read at:
Jack Shafer, writing for slate had some legitimate things to say about this. See:

Our friends at Real Clear Politics attempt to analyze it thusly:

"Jack Shafer attempts to explain why the media is ignoring the John Edwards love child story. One thing Shafer doesn't mention is that there was (and probably still is) a desire, perhaps unspoken, among members of the MSM to protect Elizabeth Edwards. She is well liked by the press, and there is understandably a lot of sympathy for her given the fact she has two small children and terminal cancer. No need to rub her face in the "allegedly" schmuckish behavior of her husband.

"But Shafer is right about the double standard that's been applied by the media in its blackout of this story vis a vis the Larry Craig incident. In particular, the New York Times deserves to singled out for additional ridicule, given that they went out of their way to publish rumors about John McCain being romantically involved with a lobbyist on the front page, yet they would not get near the Edwards love child story with a ten foot pole while he was running for president."

We fully agree with Shafer's discussion about the New York Times. Their bias toward Democrats was only heightened this last week by there refusal to allow John Sidney McCain to respond to Barack Hussein Obama's editorial unless it was under their terms and thus their editorial review. The folks at the New York Times and the so-called major networks are too busy, apparently, covering Barack Hussein Obama's world tour to cover what would otherwise be headline news were it a former Republican candidate for the presidency.

While you are at it,you might want to check out an editorial by Dennis Byrne at Real Clear Politics on the issue of the McCain/New York Times editorial. See it at:

Obama and the Surge

A good editorial in USA Today about the 'surge' and Barack Hussein Obama's refusal to admit that it has worked. Check it out at:

A somewhat analogous article by Carl Rove in the Wall Street Journal dealing with both candidate's flip-flopping with emphasis on Barack Hussein Obama's stance on the surge.
See it at:

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

From Our Friends in Ireland

'We, in Ireland, can't figure out why people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States .

On one side, you have a pants wearing lawyer, married to a lawyer who cant keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer who goes to the wrong church who is married to yet another lawyer who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run.

Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.

What, in Lords name, are you lads thinking over there in the colonies??

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Illegal Immigration in Nebraska and Liberal (RINO) Senators

The ever even-handed Omaha World-Herald leads the Midlands page with the headline, 'Immigration's economic implications' today. The story is about a proposed Fremont ordinance that would ban harboring and renting to illegal immigrants and would penalize employers that hire them.

Among other things, the rag paraphrases RINO (Republican in Name Only) Senator Brad Ashford thusly: "State and local laws must be "careful and measured", or they could drive large employers out of rural Nebraska." So like San Francisco Mayor Newsom, Senator Ashford appears more concerned about harboring illegals than following the law--which seems a little strange for the Chairman of the State's one horse, excuse us, one-house judiciary committee.

Of course, the article also gives the editorial page of the paper to pontificate in its lead editorial, "The need for respect". Basically, their diatribe says "can't we all just get along?"

Yes, we should all get along. Every citizen should get along with fellow citizens. But citizens in Nebraska are incensed at paying taxes to support illegals. They are incensed when illegals commit crimes. They are incensed that illegals get instate tuition--tuition subsidized by our tax paying citizens. And while the editorial page tells us that we're only doing this for 28 kids and what a constructive part of our society they will become, it just doesn't make sense to reward illegals. Do you think you could get instate tuition to go the University of Mexico? Not only would you not, but you'd be deported or thrown in the local jail for being their illegally!

The editorial rag gives a little credence to Governor Heineman's failed effort to standardize verification of legal status for determining those who should receive other state benefits, but blames the liberal turn down by the Judiciary Committee on the poor rubes who made too much noise at the hearing.

We at the Objective Conservative are sick and tired of our RINO Senators as well as those on the other side of the aisle that would turn our state into another San Francisco. We hope the constituents of those 49 senators will make their well on this subject known as they replace nearly half of them again this year and we hope that Brad Ashford will be replaced as the chair of the Judiciary Committee come next January.

The Omaha World-Herald will continue to sing kumbaya, but Nebraskans are fed up with supporting illegal aliens.

Young Republicans and the Future of the GOP

A good article from our conservative friends at the Washington Post today about the young Republicans. It's really not good and our leadership would be wise to look at it. There are lessons for us as we try to recruit young people to our party--we are doing so miserably now. There are lessons for candidates who want to win campaigns.
Mandatory reading at:

Sanctuary Cities, San Francisco (naturally) and our Laws

If you've listened to Fox News, the story of Edwin Ramos won't be new to you. It is a classic case of San Francisco and other cities efforts to make themselves 'sanctuary cities' with the unintended, but certainly knowable, consequences of crimes including rape and murder, in this case, a man and his two sons.

Wacky Mayor Newsom seems to well represent Nancy Pelosi's liberal sentiments ranging from gay marriage to sanctuary cities.

Perhaps what these California "leaders" should understand is that men and women have died for the freedom our citizens enjoy. This is a country of laws. CITIZENSHIP IS VALUABLE--NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. TO GIVE IT AWAY OR CASUALLY GIVE IT TO ANYONE THAT HAPPENS TO BE HERE ILLEGALLY DIMINISHES OUR LAWS AND THE SACRIFICES OF THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES FOR NATION.


See the article at:

Monday, July 21, 2008

Obama, Catholics, Vouchers and Flip Flopping

A diatribe from the Catholic League:


"When he was a state senator in Illinois in June 2002, Barack Obama was explicitly asked by Chicago media personality Jeff Berkowitz whether he supports school vouchers. “I would support anything that is going to be better for the children of Illinois,” he said. He emphatically added that “I am not closed minded on the issue.”

"In February 2008, Obama spoke to reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the issue. Still keeping an open mind, he said, “If there was any argument for vouchers, it was ‘Let’s see if the experiment works.’ And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what’s best for kids.”

"However, last Saturday Obama told the American Federation of Teachers that he was opposed to vouchers. When his campaign was asked about his new position, it released a statement saying, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.”

"Commenting today is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
“Guess Obama couldn’t resist pandering to the teachers union. It’s so easy to tell the media that keeping an open mind on school vouchers is the best way to go. But when cash counts—and the American Federation of Teachers has plenty of it—who cares about principle? Fact is, no amount of empirical evidence was ever going to change his mind.

“Obama now joins a long list of African American elites who wouldn’t dare send their kids to an urban public school, but who works hard at every turn to deny poor black parents the same options he and his wife are so lucky to have. We hope that Catholics, as well as African Americans, get the message.”

You would think that Catholics who are concerned about issues ranging from vouchers to marriage to life would not be fooled by the smooth-talking, flip-flopping Barack Hussein Obama.

France Takes a Stand Against Muslim Female

An interesting article from our friends at the New York Times on whether a woman who wares Muslim attire should become a citizen. While France, under its new leadership seems to be taking rightful concern about granting citizenship to its legal immigrants, one wonders if such an action could occur in Canada or the United States and not be called hate speech or worse by the ACLU and others of the same ilk.

Check it out at:

A few words of wisdom

Courtesy of today's Patriot Post and Walter Williams:

“One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence... Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution’s framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, ‘The powers delegated... to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.’ Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not ‘subordinate’ to the national government, but rather the two are ‘coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole.’... One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.” —Walter Williams

We Seem to have forgotten the 10th Amendment.

Do Court Appointments Make a Difference?

If you don't think that the judges a president appoints make a difference, we'd suggest you'd check out the Washington Post article at

The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided that abortionists (Planned Parenthood) in South Dakota could legally tell a mother about to abort that she has "an existing relationship" with the fetus that is protected by the U.S. Constitution and that "her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated." Also, the doctor is required to say that "abortion increases the risk of suicide ideation and suicide."

Planned Parenthood is an institution that American taxpayers subsidize with more than $300 million a year. IT DOES NOT RESPECT HUMAN LIFE. IT WAS FOUNDED BY RACISTS. IT HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE PRINCIPLES OF "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.


The Rules for Democrats and Republicans -- Doug Patton

July 21, 2008

"During his days doing stand-up in the 1960s, Bill Cosby recorded a track for one of his comedy albums about the American Revolution. As only Cosby could tell it, he spun a hilarious version of “the rules” for how the war for American independence was to be fought. The British, Cosby said, had to wear red and march in slow, straight lines, making them targets for the colonists, who were allowed to wear drab clothing that blended into the landscape and who could hide behind hills, trees and rocks as they took aim. It is a bit like this year’s presidential race, with Republicans playing by the British rules and Democrats in the role of the colonists.

"Like the hapless British soldiers in their bright red uniforms, today’s Republican candidates for office are marching toward their doom with “shoot me” written all over them. Consider the following rules for the two parties and see if they don’t sound like what is happening this year:

"The Rules for Democrats
Democrats (and liberals in general) are allowed to say, write and publish anything they want, regardless of how offensive it is or how much it degrades our political discourse. They can lie, cheat, steal, plagiarize and berate conservatives whenever they like. This is allowed because, of course, liberalism is correct and conservatives are not just wrong, they are evil.

"Barack Obama is allowed to take both sides of any issue. As a new type of candidate for president of the United States, he is allowed to talk movingly about “change” and “hope” while offering no specifics of any kind. He can send his wife, Michelle, out onto the campaign trail to spew foul, negative diatribes against America. He can disavow friends, family members, pastors, mentors and other supporters should any of them become an embarrassment to his campaign. And he can use his family as cute campaign props on national television whenever he likes.

"Obama is allowed to make outrageous claims about the racist tendencies and tactics of his opponent and his opponent’s surrogates. Because he is half black, he does not have to justify these comments in any way.

"Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all members of the U.S. press corps are required to serve as surrogate press secretaries for the Obama campaign. This will necessitate that when the candidate travels within or out of the country, the media — including the “big three” television anchors — are required to accompany him, reporting positively on his every utterance.

"The Rules for Republicans

"Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, his wife, Cindy, the Republican National

"Committee, any and all of the fifty state Republican Party organizations and all other McCain surrogates are strictly forbidden to mention Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school or his middle name on the campaign trail.

"Conservative talk radio hosts will be threatened by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, with a return to the days of the “Fairness Doctrine” whenever they mention Barack Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school or his middle name.

"Any criticism — in fact any negative mention — of Obama, his wife, his blasphemous, anti-American former pastor, his radical supporters, his Muslim father, his Muslim step-father, his education in a Muslim school or his middle name will be considered racist.

"Members of the mainstream media are forbidden to cover stories that are negative to Barack Obama or which present him as inexperienced, unprepared or out-of-the-mainstream of American political thought. Any negative coverage of Obama’s health care plan, plan for withdrawal from Iraq or any other position taken by the Democrat presidential candidate is strictly prohibited.

"And finally, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain is expected to help monitor and enforce these rules as he has always done in the past."

Friday, July 18, 2008

The Audacity of Vanity

Charles Krauthammer has made our day again with a great column on Barack Hussein Obama. It's mandatory reading. Check it out at:

A Matter of Time and Priorities

Why is it that drilling for oil in ANWR and the coasts makes no sense because it will take five to ten years to increase the supply of domestic oil?

Why is it that there is no hurry to fix Medicare which will go broke in 2019?

Why is it that there is no hurry to fix Social Security which will go broke in 2041?

Why is it that we are in such a hurry to fix global warming which we're not even sure exists (unless you are Al Gore), which we're not even sure of what mankind's contribution to it might be and which can't be fixed (assuming it exists and can be) on a unilateral basis by the United States without the joint efforts of the developing world (India, China, etal)?

Vote for Jim Esch

We know you'll find the title hard to believe, but after reading that poor Jim Esch had earned income in 2007 of only $14,000 we really think he needs a job or at least welfare, food stamps, etc. He does have assets apparently, but for some reason his life seems to be incompatible with work. Gosh, with a degree you'd think he could make a decent living. Why, even Lee Terry earned a living as a lawyer before going to Congress.

Apparently, Esch never learned timeliness from his business since it apparently took him six weeks beyond the filing deadline he claimed he never knew about to complete his federal filing of income and assets. It must have been a horrendously difficult task to collect all those W-2s and 1099s and to complete a list of all those assets.

So wouldn't be nice to have Esch paying taxes rather than perhaps taking advantage of the unearned income credit (we haven't seen his tax return, so he may not be taking advantage of this)? With his ability to meet deadlines and his proven business acumen he will fit in perfectly in Congress. Maybe he'll get a seat on the Ways and Means Committee. Congressman Rangel might help if Jim makes a small donation to Charlie's favorite college.

Vote for Jim Esch! -- If you're stupid and unemployed, or, better yet, write in your name.

Our Arab Friends

T. Boone Pickens is right. We have to quit sending $700 billion a year to our "Arab" friends for our oil. We could write a treatise on the many reasons to quit supporting these folks, but will just mention one issue today. That is the text books that our good ally, Saudi Arabia, continues to use. These text books are simply fundamentalist propaganda and training for the next waive of Islamic terrorists.

One can only wonder when your so-called allies won't refrain from teaching such hate inspired poison what our real enemies are teaching?

Whether you believe in global warming (which we do not), whether you believe that we have an economic and energy security crisis (which we do), whether you believe that we need to be in the Middle East or not (can you say oil and Israel?), the point remains that nothing good comes from our sending our dollars to these nations that hate us, infidels, and use those dollars to teach hate and train terrorists.

See the article on text books at:

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Oh, Charlie, Can You Spell Ethics?

Seems like only a few days ago we discussed good ol' Charlie Rangel's four rent-controlled Harlem apartments, one being illegally used as an office. And today, to our surprise, we read a Washington times editorial criticising Charlie for his use of congressional letterhead and contacts to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York--a $30 million project that has already gained support from a nearly $2 million earmark and nearly $700,000 in grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Now what questions does this raise? Use of Congressional stationary to solicit funds? Earmarks for a pet project? Special tax treatment and access for donors? We wonder if the Objective Conservative Center for Public Service could get on this program? But then, we can't twist the arms of large corporate interests, don't have any friends in congress to give us earmarks, probably don't have the friends in government (who want their budget increases) to give us grants and our stationary isn't nearly as impressive.

Charlie is now in the running for the August Objective Hall of Shame nominee.

Save those Killers-Listen to those Foreign Courts

Since we probably upset some of you liberal readers with our previous blog about Sheriff Arpaio and his ACLU adversaries, we won't stop there because no doubt you are also upset that several criminal Mexican citizens are on the path toward execution despite the fact that the World Court thinks their sentences should be reconsidered. After all, they didn't get help from Mexican consulates when they went to trial.

We wonder what help they would have gotten from their government if they'd committed their rapes and killings in Mexico? NONE!

No doubt President Barack Hussein Obama will make sure we pass a law so that these international courts can trump our courts' decisions. Certainly President Barack Hussein Obama will want to appoint judges that base their decisions on the laws of other countries rather than those of our Constitution. Perhaps Vice President Hagel can work on this as he tries to "reintroduce" the U.S. to the rest of the world.

See the article at:

The ACLU to the aid

Seems that our good friend and Maricopa County (Phoenix, AZ) Sheriff, Joe Arpaio is a bad guy because he has come across some 15,000 illegal aliens since his force and the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement started working together in early 2007. Obviously, the ACLU believes these poor illegals are having their rights violated by profiling.

Well, we still wonder what rights any illegal alien has? We also think it would be nice if some of Nebraska's law enforcement leaders would step up and follow Arpaio's lead.

See the article at:

Happy Cost of Government Day

From our friends at Americans for Tax Reform, we find that yesterday was a biggie for the American taxpayer.

"On July 16, Americans mark the national Cost of Government Day (COGD), the date on the calendar year when the average American finishes paying off his or her share of federal, state and local spending, and the regulatory burden. Cost of Government Day falling on July 16 means that you had to work 197 days out of the year just to meet all the costs imposed by government. In other words, the total cost of government – far more than taxation alone – consumes 53.9 percent of national income.

"The burden imposed by government has increased in recent years, leading this year’s Cost of Government Day to be four days later than last year’s COGD, and sixteen days later than COGD in 2000. The looming entitlement crisis will only exacerbate the problem of government consuming more of the national income and, if left unchecked, will move Cost of Government even later into the year.

"We have also calculated Cost of Government Day for each respective state –
where does your state rank?"

We at the Objective Conservative can only begin to speculate on what date our children will be celebrating this annual event if our congress keeps spending as it has while it fails to address the impending collapse of Medicare and Social Security......

Monday, July 14, 2008

Oh Hagel, Where are you?

We've learned from The Hill that Nebraska's senior (and thankfully, soon former) Senator Chuck Hagel will soon accompany Barack Hussein Obama to such exotic destinations as Iraq and Afghanistan. We suppose that if you are trying to be Vice President you have to do things even if it is for someone who happens to be of a different party. You can see the information about this at:

With that said, many of you probably saw Hagel's 'essay', or more correctly the excerpts of it from his speech to the Brookings Institution, in the Omaha World-Herald on it's editorial page yesterday. This looks like one of many essays that will be submitted to President Barack Hussein Obama by those desirous of applying for the Secretary of State job in his administration.

It's clear that where Senator Hagel is not is at any Republican events as evidenced by his failure to attend the Nebraska Republican Party State Convention held this last weekend in LaVista, Nebraska. You wouldn't know of this from the OWH daily rag which failed to cover for whatever reason several things that happened at this weekend's convention. For example, every elected Nebraska Congressman, as well as Governor Heineman and number other state and local officials addressed the convention. BUT THERE WAS NO ADDRESS FROM SENATOR HAGEL---THERE WASN'T EVEN A LETTER SAYING I'M SORRY I CAN'T BE WITH YOU OR A POSTCARD SAYING "WISH YOU WERE HERE".

To the good sense of the party organization, perhaps fearing a vote of appreciation for Hagel's 12 years of service to the Nebraska Republican Party might fail, there wasn't even a resolution honoring Chucky. AND YES, SUCH A RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE FAILED.

The senior senator from Nebraska, who can't find the guts or the ability to make a decision as to whom he will support for the Presidency of the United States has apparently given up on the Nebraska Republican Party and the Republican Party in general as he desperately seeks his next career.

Senator Hagel showed his political paralysis in his protracted and uneventful process of deciding whether he would run for the presidency more than a year ago. He said he had lots to accomplish before he made his decision to reverse his former non-decision. Unfortunately, he's accomplished little of what he promised and is again proving himself to be either intellectually paralyzed, an opportunist, or just plain confused. We think he's a bit of all three.

We wish Chuck would just show his real colors and endorse Obama and change parties if he really wants to serve as Vice President or Secretary of State in the next administration. Chuck's indecision on changing parties will do about as much to get him the V.P. slot as his indecision to decide to run for president did more than a year ago. His 'essay' may still qualify him to be the token elephant in Barack Hussein Obama's administration but he should still become a Democrat since there will be no words of praise or resolutions commending his service from the party that he has left behind.

Jessie Jackson Has No Clothes -- Doug Patton

The following is published with the permission of Doug Patton. We couldn't have said it better.

July 14, 2008

"In 1837, Danish poet and author Hans Christian Andersen published what would become one of his most beloved tales. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” told the story of a vain monarch who hires two con men to make him a new suit of clothes. The tailors tell the king that the material they are using has the quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or who is “unpardonably stupid.” When his suit of clothes is finished, and the emperor parades through town for his subjects to see what his tailors have made for him, only one little child states the obvious: “But he has nothing on at all!”

"I thought of Andersen’s story, and the honest reaction of the innocent child, when I heard about the latest antics of Jesse Jackson. In case you missed it, Jackson was set to appear on a Fox News show when he whispered to another guest (into a “hot” microphone), “Barack been talkin’ down to black people with this faith based…” He then proceeded to express the desire to surgically turn the Democratic presidential candidate into a eunuch. All because Barack Obama recently told a crowd of African-Americans that black men needed to take responsibility for their actions and raise the children they father. Could it be that one struck a little too close to home for the “reverend”?

"Obviously, Jackson disapproved of Obama’s statement. Apparently, telling men to take responsibility for their actions is “talking down to black people.” It seems that in his speech Obama forgot the victim’s mantra about how whitey is to blame for every ill in the black community and only government can fix it. (I have doubt that Obama believes these things; he just neglected to mention them.)

"Jesse Jackson’s entire race-baiting “career” has been one scam after another. This is the guy who staged the photos of himself holding the dying Martin Luther King, Jr., in his arms.

"This is the man who used to call abortion a tool of genocide against black people — even comparing it to slavery — but who long ago jettisoned his pro-life views in favor of the politically correct liberal party line on the issue.

"This is the man who has cozied up to Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mohammar Quaddafi and any number of other Arab thugs — all in the name of “peace.”

"This is the man who for the last four decades has shaken down corporate America in the name of racism, as chronicled in Kenneth Timmerman’s 2004 book, “Shakedown: Exposing the real Jesse Jackson.” As Timmerman points out, Jackson claims to have an annual salary of one dollar, but his lavish lifestyle includes limousines, three mansions, big bank accounts, first class travel, private schools and the best universities for his children.

"Having run for president in 1984 and 1988, Jesse Jackson is green with envy that this upstart freshman senator from his own home town of Chicago seemingly has breezed to the Democratic presidential nomination this year. Furthermore, as I have noted in previous columns, what greater threat could there be to his empire of victimization than to have a black man elected to the presidency? How does a professional “civil rights leader” shake money out of the corporate trees when a person of color is living in the White House? They are more likely to tell him to go get a real job than to write him a check under those circumstances.

"Jackson's latest whispered tirade against Obama is proof of his pettiness and his narcissism. The realities of his own out-of-wedlock child, combined with a massive sense of entitlement have given this man an ego that is out of control. Rarely has so little talent been rewarded with so much attention.

"As the out-of-touch members of the mainstream media fall all over themselves making excuses for the latest boorish behavior of their favorite race pimp, most Americans are not surprised by it. After all, we have known for forty years that Jesse Jackson has no clothes. "


© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton

Friday, July 11, 2008

Democrats and Housing

Well in the past few weeks we have seen where Senators Dodd and Dorgan have been blessed with sweetheart mortgage deals from their friends at Countrywide while they also are the beneficiaries of the company's largess when it comes to campaign contributions.

Now we find that gool ol' Charlie Rangel, Congressman from NY, is the beneficiary of thousands of dollars a month in savings by his renting of four rent stabilized Harlem apartments--one apparently be illegally used as a campaign office. You can see the article at:

Certainly Charlie is a candidate for the August Objective Hall of Shame, but we can't help but wonder why it is that these Democrat leaders seem to be getting all the sweetheart housing deals. An ethics investigation has been started relative to Dodd and Dorgan and the House should consider the same for omnipotent member Rangel.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Ernie Chambers Watch - 3 Days and Counting Down

He has to file by July 15 if he is going to help 'run' the new Learning Community Board which he helped to fabricate. That's just 8 days from now. We can hardly hold our breath.

Merci Beaucoup, Barack

You may note the latest addition to 'Today's videos', "Obama wants you--to speak Spanish". While we know that the liberals will say his statement was taken out of context (they are expert judges of that having refined the process for years), the fact is quite evident as to what Barack Hussein Obama thinks and he's not much worried about immigrants, legal or otherwise, learning to speak English. In fact, it's obvious from his statement that he doesn't really care whether English is our national language.

We liked Laura Ingraham's comments today on this topic:

"A DISGUSTING DISPLAY OF ELITISM: Barack Obama thinks you're stupid. At a townhall event yesterday in Powder Springs, Ga., Obama uttered the latest in a series of snide remarks about everyday Americans: "It's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup!'" Amazingly, the audience rewarded this bit of America-bashing with hearty chuckles and applause.

If he keeps this up, voters are increasingly going to wonder why Obama's more comfortable ridiculing his own country than going after actual threats - like Iran. Who wants a president who looks down on them?

And maybe Obama should spend some time mastering the English language before the next time he preaches the glories of multilingualism. The punch line of his statement above: "and alls [sic] we's [sic] can say is 'merci beaucoup!'"

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Helms Helped Give Us Reagan -- Doug Patton

July 7, 2008

He was one of only three U.S. Senators with the courage to vote against Bill Clinton’s nomination of the radical Ruth Bader Ginsberg to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. He never talked to The New York Times or appeared on any of the Sunday morning talk shows, telling his staff there was no point since none of his North Carolina constituents read that paper or watched those shows. He stood fast against communism in all its forms all over the world. In a debate over federal funding for AIDS research, he railed against the “deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct” of homosexuals, saying, “There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.” And he is largely responsible for giving us the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

He was Jesse Helms, and when he died on the 4th of July, he left enemies and friends alike pondering his legacy. Liberals called him divisive and a racist. Conservatives called him dependable.

If great men rebel against occupying the middle of the road, then Jesse Helms was indeed a great man. He was a stalwart defender of liberty, and he understood the meaning of the word. A journalist and political pundit before running for office himself, Helms wrote in 1959 on compromise in politics: “Compromise, hell! That’s what has happened to us all down the line — and that’s the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

Helms had gained fame across much of North Carolina for his five-minute commentaries at the end of the local nightly news broadcasts. In 1972, after 30 years in print and broadcast journalism, he threw his hat into the ring for a U.S. Senate seat. Formerly a Democrat, he, like so many of his fellow conservative southerners, had switched his allegiance to the Republican Party. He won that race, and went on to win re-election in 1978, 1984, 1990 and 1996. In ill health at the end of his fifth term, Helms retired in 2003 after thirty years in the senate.

Helms was an early supporter of Ronald Reagan for president. When the former California governor decided to challenge the sitting president, Gerald Ford, for the 1976 GOP nomination, Helms pushed hard for Reagan in North Carolina. After suffering several early primary defeats to accidental incumbent Ford, Reagan was ready to drop out. Helms insisted he stay in the race at least until North Carolina. Reagan agreed, and his victory there gave him momentum for additional victories in other primaries and for a close nominating convention. Although Reagan lost the nomination to Ford that year, it set the stage for his triumphant comeback in 1980, when he trounced the incompetent incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

Jesse Helms was a man of conviction, of loyalty and of faith. After his retirement from the senate, he published his memoir, Here’s Where I Stand, wherein he likened abortion to the Holocaust and to 9/11. He wrote, “I will never be silent about the death of those who cannot speak for themselves.”

For thirty years, through turbulent times, Jesse Helms was a conservative bulwark against the political, cultural and ideological degradation of late 20th Century American society. He loved liberty and did not suffer fools. In a time of trendy change, there were three giant conservatives: Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms. Now they are gone and we are left with John McCain. God help us.


© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton

Monday, July 7, 2008

Criticism and Challenge for Both Candidates

In the last iteration of Taxpayers for Common Sense' Weekly Wastebasket, on the issues of the coming failure of the Medicare and Social Security Trust funds and on the two presumptive presidential nominees, they said:

"Simple proposals like relying on technology or reforming payment systems, as Sen. McCain has proposed, or reducing waste in the system, as Sen. Obama has proposed, are fine small steps. But they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Both candidates have additional proposals, but nothing that really lays out a vision for fundamental change.

"Medicare and Social Security must be right at the top of the next president’s agenda. The impending demographic changes of the baby boom retirement, the increasing cost of Medicare and the looming fiscal insolvency of both programs have become too large to sweep under the rug."

Wouldn't it be nice if these guys quit worrying about what we should do about the topic of global warming and addressed financial issues where we know the date of failure and true impact on our citizens?

See the article at:

The Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative -- Pat McPherson

While you were busy doing everything from eating pancakes to watching parades to blowing off your fingers with fireworks on Friday, you might not have had time to read the front page of that day's Omaha World-Herald which I'm sure reluctantly announced that "An anti-affirmative action group submits more than 167,000 signatures; 112,000 valid names are needed to make the ballot." That was under the headline, "Petitions turned in: fight far from over".

The writer of the article, Martha Stoddard, wrote an article on this topic sometime ago (see archives of June 5, of the Objective Conservative) at which time I criticized her for her failure to identify Ward Connerly as a 'black' and as a 'former California Regent'. At that time I suggested her omission was either through ignorance or simply intentional. Well, once again she failed to identify Connerly as such and this time I can only postulate that it is simply an intentionally ignorant omission. Do you think that more information about Mr. Connerly might influence some voters who think this is either race based or anti-education in nature? But on to the subject of this diatribe.

More than 167,000 Nebraskans have signed the petition. They are not all ignorant dupes and racists as much of the intellectual elitists and academics of our state would have you believe. Apparently, these signers were not fooled by the scare tactics of David Kramer's (We can hopefully be friends, but disagree, Dave) Nebraskans United which would have led signers to believe that their lifes would be threatened by the out-of-state murderers who were ruthlessly fooling folks into signing the petitions. Apparently, these Nebraskans weren't fooled by the scare tactics that said these criminals would use the name and address information to steal their identities either. One can only ask where was the righteous indignation of the Omaha World-Herald editorial board in regard to these sleazy tactics? Certainly, if this had been a petition that the Omaha World-Herald supported, you can bet they would have been screaming "foul, unfair, misleading, a new sleazy low" with all the ink they could buy. The day will come when these now accepted tactics will be used against one of the Omaha World-Herald's pet petitions and you can bet they'll rediscover righteous indignation then.

Of course, out-of-state funds still continue to be a recourse for Nebraskans United since all their money is "clean" and raised here in Nebraska. If you want to feel good about their donors, consider the likes of such as Warren Buffett, The University of Nebraska Foundation and the Nebraska State Education Association, all real conservatives (yes, I jest). Well, I appreciate real conservatives such as Paul Singer, Bill Grewcock and Pete Ricketts who have made substantial financial donations to help pass the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative.

The people who signed the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative petition are not a bunch of uninformed, lied-to rubes, dupes or racists. The Nebraskans who have voted with their dollars to support it against the "How Could you be so ignorant?", mentality of the Omaha World-Herald, Nebraskans United and the elitists of academia are successful business folks. All are folks who believe in Ronald Reagan's notion of a colorblind society that neither rewards or punishes folks on the base of color, race, or anything else.

I hope that there are enough signatures from enough counties to let this go forward to the November ballot. I also hope that Nebraskans United, the Omaha World-Herald and their elitist allies will show a little more respect for the initiative process which our legislators and judges have made much more difficult than it should be or was originally intended to be. The citizens of Nebraska deserve an opportunity to vote on this, not more tawdry scare tactics (or no doubt, soon to be filed legal challenges) by those opposed to the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative. Let the voters decide!

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Flipflopping to the Center

If you haven't noticed, we at the Objective Conservative tend to like Charles Krauthammer and his editorials. We missed this one last week and think his assessment of Barack Hussein Obama's shift to the middle is right on target. Pretty soon, the only difference between Barack Hussein Obama and John Sidney McCain will be their age and looks which is exactly what Barack Hussein Obama wants.

See the column at:

To further illustrate Barack Hussein Obama's move to the right you might want to check out the editorial by our good conservative editorial board at the New York Times:

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Great American Ideas

Returning to our Independence Day thoughts, there is a good column by Maggie Gallagher on 'The Three Great American Ideas" which once again puts the importance of our Constitution and the philosophy of those who authored it in perspective.

Check it out at:

Democrat Big Oil Critics = Hypocrites

Well, does it surprise you that some of the biggest critics of big oil companies in the congress are in fact holders of thousands of shares of oil company stock? Would it surprise you to know that many of the chief Democratic opponents of big oil are stock holders? That's what we are told in a recent article from The Hill.


Check it out at:

New York Times Displays Court Paranoia

In what can be viewed only as a fine example of the liberal sentiment of the New York Times editorial staff, it's editorial today on the status of the Supreme Court concludes:

"In placing these rulings in the larger context of the court after two appointments by President Bush — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both dedicated members of the conservative movement — it is important to note that the Guantánamo decision was 5 to 4. Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing justice, cast the deciding vote. In other cases, like the gun-control decision, the rulings might have been more sweeping and more damaging if the conservative bloc had not needed the moderate-conservative Justice Kennedy’s vote to form a majority. One more conservative appointment would shift the balance to the far-right bloc.

"If that happens, the court can be expected to push even further in a dangerous direction. It would most likely begin stripping away civil liberties, like the habeas rights vindicated in the Guantánamo case. The constitutional protection of women’s reproductive rights could be eliminated. The court might well strike down laws that protect the environment, workers’ rights and the rights of racial and religious minorities.

"The court was teetering on the brink in this term. Voters should keep that firmly in mind when they go to the polls in November."

You can read more of their paranoid dribble at:

With that said we find their concerns even more reason why conservatives must unite and vote (even if they hold their nose to do so) for John McCain in hopes of making the New York Times worst fears come true!!

Sadley for the New York Times, it also appears that the Supremes may have to reconsider their verdict on the death penalty/child rape case as the Justice Department has admitted it erred in not informing the judges that there was indeed a federal law dictating death for child rape. We trust this time, should the case be appealed and reheard, that Associate Justice Kennedy will make a different decision which will no doubt put the editorial staff of the New York Times on serious medication.
(For more on this, see:

E Pluribus Unum -- Maybe no longer

With our nation's birthday at hand, we came across the "E Pluribus Unum" the Bradley Project Report on America's Identity. The report points out a number of disturbing trends that tend to portend a future of our nation as not exactly 'Out of many one.'

Check this out at:

Since we know our liberal readers will not agree with the report and in order to maintain our fair and balanced stance we would refer them to David Broder's column of today in which he takes some umbrage at the report. See:

The Second Amendment

Larry Elder delivers an interesting (First part of more to come) column on the Right to Bear Arms today. It has some very interesting quotes (some surprises) which in our mind simply affirm the wise decision the Supreme Court made in the D.C. handgun case.

Check it out at:

The Right to Life.....and the slippery slope

A great column by Ken Blackwell today on the primary promise of our Constitution and the slippery slope that eugenics is providing to allow folks to deprive the unborn of that opportunity.

It strikes us that many of us who have survived the abortion holocaust since 1973 would possibly not be here had parents made the decision to abort us because we might have had a gene that might have given us a disease at some time in our life, maybe.

Say what you want, but it is a slipper slope.

See his column at:

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Obama's Smelly House Deal

Today's Washington Post reports on the latest chapter in Barack Hussein Obama's housing embarrassments. If you recall, there was considerable attention a while back about Obama's criminal friend (one of several), Tony Rezko, who through his purchase and split of a property may have saved Barack Hussein Obama nearly $300,000 on his Chicago mansion (it's nice that this rich man, kind of like Ted (not John) Kennedy, whose concern is for the poor, lives in a six-bedroom mansion with four fireplaces and a four car garage).

Now, we find out that Barack Hussein Obama, like fellow Democratic Senators Dodd and Dorgan, got a sweet-heart deal on the financing of his home. He got a 5.625% rate when the average rate on a super jumbo mortgage was 5.94% with out points. So unlike the poor people he proposes to protect who have to pay at least one point (1%), and often more on their total borrowing, good ol' Barack Hussein Obama saved at least $13,200 on his modest $1.3 million mortgage origination and probably $300 a month on his payments on this loan for which he claims he received no special treatment!

It's bad enough we have U.S. Senators taking advantage of sweetheart deals, but when we have a candidate for President of the United States guilty of doing so, while he purports to be the 'change' element in the race, we can think of only one adjective to describe Barack Hussein Obama---HYPOCRITE!!!!


For the article:

Independence Day

As we approach Independence Day, we thought this item from today's Patriot Post would be appropriate to consider:

'The Necessary Holiday'

"If our nation’s Founders could visit us on this, our 232nd Independence Day, what would they make of us? What would they declare of us? "

"A hint can be discerned in a letter from John Adams to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776, as the Declaration of Independence had just been approved. “It ought to be commemorated,” said the man who would become our second president, “as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Day’s Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Support Your Porkers

While we at the Objective Conservative have our Hall of Shame, our friends at Citizens Against Government Waste have their 'Porker of the Month'. This month their nominee is none other than Senator Dodd for his VIP treatment and financial windfall courtesy of Countrywide Lending. If you check our archives, you'll note we've been talking about the sweetheart deals that both Senators Dodd and Dorgan got from Countrywide. In our opinion, we would have let both of the senators share the award.

Sorry, but more on judges and voting

As we continue our 'ad nauseum' assault on the issue of judges we'd direct your attention today to a column by Thomas Sowell who is considerably more eloquent in his discussion of the importance of casting a meaningful vote for president.

Sowell concludes his column with the following:

"When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next 4 years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation."

We couldn't agree more.

See his column at: