First they went after Thomas! Now it's Palin's turn!

The Dems love to talk about diversity. They are the self appointed party of diversity.

Are they really? I don't think so! They believe in diversity as long as you agree with them!

Back in '91, the first Pres. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

My first reaction was positive: what a great life story! what a great role model for young blacks!

What was the Dems' reaction? Lynch him!

How dare a black man leave the Dem plantation? How dare a black man think for himself? How dare a black man challenge the welfare state dogma of Jesse Jackson's party?

They threw everything at him, including allegations from Anita Hill.

During the nomination, Thomas had a word for it: high tech lynching!

Looking back, I was fit to be tied for days watching the way that a good man like Thomas was treated by the left.

Now, McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.

The feminist wing of the Dem party is in an uproar. They are ready to whip you with their bras!

Palin doesn't fit the feminist template.

Palin had babies rather than abortions. Did you hear that she is very religious?

Palin is a conservative who believes in the 2nd amendment. Did you hear that she has a lifetime NRA membership?

Palin believes in the traditional union of a man and woman in marriage.

Like Thomas, Palin is a threat to the left. Bill Kristol had a great explanation:

"Millions of Americans--mostly but not only women, mostly but not only Republicans and conservatives--seemed to get a sense of energy and enjoyment and pride, not just from her nomination, but especially from her smashing opening performance.

Palin will be a compelling and mold-breaking example for lots of Americans who are told every day that to be even a bit conservative or Christian or old-fashioned is bad form.

In this respect, Palin can become an inspirational figure and powerful symbol.

The left senses this, which is why they want to discredit her quickly."

All of sudden, the feminists are questioning Palin's experience. Did any of them question Obama's experience?

Let's get serious. Palin is the governor of Alaska. What executive position has Obama held?

The left is not about promoting blacks or opening doors for women. The left is about promoting the left!

Thomas and Palin don't share the left's agenda. Therefore, the left will try to destroy them.

P.S. Some liberals are honest and they see the left's double standard. Kristen Powers has a great post today:

"But listening to Obama supporters take to the airwaves to shriek with indignation about her lack of experience is just a little too rich.

Where were they when Obama, two years into the Senate, announced his candidacy for president?" (A BRILLIANT TRAP MAKES DEMS THE MALE CHAUVINISTS!)

Where were they? They were cheering Obama's pro-abortion and socialist agenda!

My favorite 3 from the Rolling Stones!

The Beatles were the greatest rock band. Unfortunately, they broke up in 1970 and we've been playing old stuff ever since. McCartney had a great solo career. Lennon did OK and was killed just as he was coming back to the charts. Harrison and Starr had limited solo careers.

The Rolling Stones are a different story. They are still going.

Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Charlie Watts are still in the band. Bill Wyman retired a couple of years ago. Brian Jones died in 1969. He was replaced by Ron Wood and Mick Taylor.

Bottom line: The Rolling Stones are the longest running band of the rock era.

My first choice is one of the early tunes: "It's all over now"

My second choice is "Ruby Tuesday", a rare ballad:

My third selection is "Jumpin' Jack Flash", one of the Top 5 greatest rock songs ever:

This is a bonus selection. In 1989, The Rolling Stones released "Steel Wheels", their best album since "Exile in Main Street". This is "Mixed emotions"

How much longer can The Rolling Stones go? I don't know. They look like a bunch of grandfathers doing rock! I guess that they will go on as long as they do great stuff like "A rock and a hard place":

The McCain team is beating up a rookie defense!

The McCain team is running great plays and tearing up Obama's defenses.

It started with the celebrity ads. The Obama team was not expecting it. The Obama team has never had a good response:

The Obama campaign can not react to these ads. How do you react to 'celebrity" ads when your candidate is nothing but a celebrity?

How do you take seriously a presidential candidate who zero managerial experience? Obama has never even been a nighttime shift supervisor at a local 7-11!

The second play was the interview at Rick Warren's church. McCain was crisp and Obama looked like a man weighing every word:

The third play was putting Gov. Palin on the ticket.

The McCain staff is now exposing the Dems' biggest wound. Obama has a 'woman problem"! Obama has a woman problem with women over 40! The problem did not get better in Denver despite all of the "hope and change"!

The Obama team is in shock:

"Hope and change" doesn't work anymore. It certainly doesn't work before a general election audience.

"Tax the rich" worked in front of silly college students. It doesn't work in a general election when the parents (i.e. taxpayers) are paying attention.

Americans are smart enough to know that you can not give a tax cut to 95% of the population by taxing the other 5%.

It's class warfare nonsense!

"Get out of Iraq" was a great line back in Iowa. He is now saying that he will get out "responsibly", which is a word game! Obama is not going to do withdraw troops from Iraq because he doesn't want to blow up the region.

In the end, Obama played with the anti-war movement. He told them what they wanted to hear back in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now, he has to deal with the real world consequences of such promises.

McCain doesn't have an Iraq War problem. McCain's position was clear.

He was for the war when it was very popular and every Dem rushed to the microphone to vote for it.

He called for a change in strategy when the war was very unpopular and the Dems said that it was lost.

He is also for the war now that the public is turning around and supporting the surge! (Confidence in War on Terror and Iraq at Highest Level Ever)

Obama, the anti-war candidate, doesn't talk about Iraq anymore. Why? Because we are winning and Obama is invested in defeat.

McCain was a leader. Obama was a poll reader!

Last, but not least, Obama's Chicaco friends are starting to add up into problems.

John Fund writes this: Obama Should Come Clean On Ayers, Rezko And the Iraqi Billionaire! It turns out that his relationship with Ayers, the 1960s terrorist, was a bit more complex than just the neighbor who lived down the street. There are still questions outstanding regarding Rezko and the Obama home:

The McCain campaign is taking the over confident Obama apart.

Get ready for Aggies football!

The Aggies have a new coach and a good chance to win some big games. He is former Green Bay Packers's coach Mike Sherman!

Last year, the Aggies were a disappointing 7-6.

The annual Texas-Texas A&M game will be played in Austin this year. Last year, our family went to this game, which is played on the Friday after Thanksgiving. The atmosphere is wonderful. The pre-game ceremony is worth every minute.

Of course, it's even more fun when the Aggies beat the Longhorns, as they did in 2007!

The Aggies will play Miami on the road. Oklahoma and Texas Tech are home games. Again, Texas is at Austin!

What's the best thing to do on a fall Saturday afternoon? You watch the Aggies football team enter the field behind the Aggies' band:

At halftime, the Aggie band puts on the best show in the country:

Go Aggies! Make sure that you beat Texas again:

What town (of any population) did Obama run?

This is what we heard from the Obama campaign:

"“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency...."

In fact, Palin has more executive experience than Obama. She ran a small town and was elected governor.

What town of 9,000, or of any population, did Obama run? The answer is none!

Does the Obama campaign want to get into an "experience debate"?

Get over it feminists. Get over it Dems.

Finally, these kind of attacks on Palin will backfire, specially with women!

Palin is a great choice!

Sarah Palin was not my first choice. Nevertheless, she is a great choice.

Palin is from Alaska, a conservative outpost. McCain-Palin will run against the Dem Congress, currently at 10% approval!

She is a very conservative on gun control and property rights. This is going to play well in rural areas where the very liberal Obama is already in deep trouble.

She is pro-life and will appeal to all of those mothers and grandmothers who are concerned with Obama's radical views on abortion, partial birth abortion and infanticide. This is going to excite the Republican anti-abortion base!

Palin has 5 children and a strong critic of same sex marriage. This is going to excite the Republican base, too!

She is not afraid of standing up for what she believes. She is tough!

Will her selection appeal to women disenchanted with Obama and the Democrats? It will attract enough to make a difference in swing states!

Great choice. Historic choice.

Last night, the Dems nominated someone who wants the government to take care of us by taxing the rich!

Today, McCain put a Western conservative on the ticket!

Alaska is in the middle of our energy debate. Palin will tell the country that we need to drill for oil in the US!

McCain-Palin was a surprise but it is a pleasant surprise!

It was a historic night!

It was a very historic night for baby boomers.

Who would have believed that a black man would be nominated in our lifetime?

We came close in 1996 but Collin Powell passed up the Republican nomination.

He passed it up again in 2000.

I am convinced that Collin Powell would have easily defeated Clinton in '96 because Perot would have dropped out and endorse him.

Let's give the US its due.

The US has done more to reverse segregation than any other nation in history.

Young blacks enjoy great opportunities today. They have a future that their grandparents or parents did not have.

We have gone from separate water fountains to a presidential nominee in 45 years. We forget that The Civil Rights Act was signed 45 years ago! (Let's not forget that it was Republicans, not Democrats, who made the civil rights legislation of the 1960s possible!)

Again, this is amazing and the US should be very proud.

We will step aside from the partisan fight and let BO and Mrs. Obama enjoy this evening. They are a wonderful family and let them enjoy this very historic night!

Tomorrow, we will get back and support McCain because he is more qualified. BO's speech was "pander" and "tax the rich" but we will fight that battle tomorrow and at the Republican Convention next week!

P.S. John McCain showed a lot of class tonight by congratulating BO with this message:

The US economy won't be the next president's priority!

We love to give presidents credit, and blame them, for the US economy.

In fact, there is a very little that presidents can do beyond proposing tax reforms.

Presidents don't create jobs. They don't force people to buy homes they can't afford or tell banks to make bad loans.

Finally, presidents have very little to do with the value of your home going up or down. (Trust me. Your home value has nothing to do with the Iraq War!)

For example, did Bill Clinton's policies cause the huge market crash of March 2000? Didn't millions lose their savings because of that crash?

You heard a lot of doom and gloom in Denver. You will probably hear more tonight from BO.

This is what you won't hear in Denver or from Dems:

"Since Bush has been President, the unemployment rate has remained under 6.3% and averaged 5.2% (In Clinton's eight years it remained under 7.3% and also averaged 5.2%.)" (Hoven)

This is what happeend in the last year of Clinton:

"The last four fiscal quarters under President Clinton showed steadily declining GDP growth rates of 4.8, 3.5, 2.4, and 1.9 percent, respectively."

Bush, or Gore if he had won Tennessee, came into office with an economy declining rapidly.

Do we call that the Clinton recession?

What's our next president going to be busy with?

It won't be telling "yes we can screamers" what they want to hear about how everything is terrible because Al Gore couldn't win Tennessee!

Get over all of the talk about the economy. On the domestic side, our next president will have to make the incredibly difficult and unpopular reform of entitlements. In other words, someone has to finally do something about Social Security and Medicare.

To his credit, Pres. Bush tried to reform Social Security by giving younger citizens a chance to privatize their investments.

How did the Dems react? They said that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security! (The Dems reacted to Bush's reforms the same way that the PRD in Mexico is reacting to Calderon's PEMEX reforms!)

Again, he didn't. What he was calling for was a reform of a program that will go broke unless we take drastic action. Millions of baby boomers will start getting checks over the next 20 years. "Hope and change" won't cover the checks!

What else will keep our next president busy?

Let me tell you: Iran, Russia, Hugo Chavez, foreign oil, Al Qaeda in the Afghan mountains, etc.

The Dems won in 1976 (Carter) and 1992 (Clinton) saying that the Republicans didn't pay enough attention to our economy. What happened? Carter and Clinton spent most of their time consumed with foreign affairs.

What do we remember Carter for? Iran!

What is Clinton's legacy, despite all of the garbage that you heard last night: Doing nothing about terrorism and allowing Al Qaeda to attack US interests without consequence.

By the way, Clinton knows a lot about his inconsequential legacy. This is why he is desperately trying to get back into the White House to do something about it. For more on this, read Clawing for a Legacy By Charles Krauthammer!

Does it matter that we elect someone who understands foreign policy? The answer is yes!

The Dems understood this during the primaries and they warned us that BO wasn't ready!

We would welcome an election about McCain's judgement!

The Democrats have gone from "hope and change" to "Bush-McCain" to challenging McCain's judgement. Along the way, BO is sinking in the polls. Wonder why?

We welcome that debate.

Let's have a debate about McCain's foreign policy judgement.

Let's start with Iraq.

First of all, Biden voted for the war. There was very little difference between McCain and Biden on Iraq.

Second, BO opposed the surge. McCain supported the surge, which is the main reason that we can have a discussion about withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Bring it on. Let's talk about judgement.

Marriage, religion and our political parties!

When did this trend start? I don't know for sure. However, I'd guess that it coincides with the secular left's takeover of the Dem party in 1972.

Today, there is a marriage gap and a religious gap between the parties.

On religion, Gallup shows this:

"John McCain continues to dominate Barack Obama among religious Americans, winning among those who attend worship services weekly by a 53% to 37% margin, and losing to Obama among those who seldom or never attend church by 54% to 34%......

Not only does McCain do much better against Obama among those who attend church frequently, but he also beats Obama by an 8-point margin among Americans who say religion is important in their lives, while Obama wins by a 22-point margin among those for whom religion is not important."

On marriage, Gallup shows this:

"Among American registered voters who are married and whom Gallup interviewed Aug. 1-19, John McCain is leading Barack Obama by 13 points; among unmarried American voters, Obama has a 22-point margin....

A large part of the explanation for this marriage gap resides in the basic fact that the two major political parties are fundamentally divided by marital status.

Almost two-thirds of Americans who identify with the Republican Party are married, while a majority of Democrats are unmarried."

Again, it wasn't always this way. I don't think that JFK or Truman or FDR had to deal with such a marriage or religion gap.

This is why McCain's victory is so important. Like Pres. Bush, Sen. McCain will put justices in The Supreme Court who understand the correct role of the judiciary, i.e. let the people vote on abortion and same sex marriage!

McCain hits BO on Iran!

Have you heard Iran mentioned during the first two nights of the Dem convention? WE have heard a lot of "doom and gloom" but not a word about the real threat facing the West.

Perhaps, we will hear something about Iran from Biden or BO. In the meantime, McCain hit another one out of the park.

The Jewish American vote is critical in Florida. My guess is that most Jewish Americans must be wondering why the party of Harry Truman has been so soft spoken about the threats that Israel faces.

I think that they will like this McCain ad.

Does BO really want to get into an argument about homes?

BO made a very foolish mistake today. He jumped on McCain about "owning homes".

The background is that a reporter asked McCain about his homes. McCain did not how many homes he owned, hardly a crime given that his wife comes from a wealthy family.

The issue is not home ownership. After all, how many homes does the Kennedy family own? Kerry? Gore?

Who cares? It's irrelevant!

The issue is honesty. How did you buy your home? Who helped you buy it? In BO's case it was Rezko. Who was Tony Rezko, his Chicago friend? Rezko was a "....political associate convicted of six counts of wire fraud, six counts of mail fraud, two counts of corrupt solicitation, and two counts of money laundering."

BO is very vulnerable on this topic because of his relationship with a fellow named Rezko:

Was this really an endorsement for BO or the beginning of the Clintons' 2012 campaign?

My initial reaction to HRC's speech was a bit shocking. I was expecting the big unity speech. What I watched was HRC talking about HRC!

HRC did not say anything about BO's character. She said that Michelle would make a great First Lady. HRC did not say that BO would make a great president!

HRC spoke a lot about herself and women's rights. She never said that BO has the qualifications to be commander in chief, one of her primary criticisms just a couple of months ago!

Incredibly, HRC said nothing about the historic angle of the Dems naming a black man. This is remarkable given the support that blacks give the Dems every four years!

Yes, there were some good lines, such as Bush-McCain and the "twin cities".

Yes, she had a good line about "no way, no how, no McCain"!

Next week, you will hear Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, and perhaps Romney if he is not chosen as VP, give endorsement speeches for McCain.

Trust me! They will be profound endorsements of John McCain's character and experience.

HRC's endorsement is one of the weakest ever! Again, she did not say that BO would make a strong president. She simply said that we shouldn't have McCain in the White House!

This was about HRC setting the table for 2012! I can't believe that the BO staff will be very pleased with this endorsement.

Forget unity! This is about the Clintons getting ready for 2012! Last, but not least, did you hear that former Pres. Clinton may not join the Dems at BO's acceptance speech? Can you think of the last time that a healthy former president did not attend a convention's final night?

What Catholic Church is Nancy Pelosi going to?

Nancy Pelosi gave the most amazing explanation of abortion to date:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.

And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.

And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know.

The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.

Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.

There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.

And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.

So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.

But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.

And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.

That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.

My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think.

But that is not the case. So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground.

We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to."

I guess that this is what happens when you represent San Francisco or you have to pander to the pro-abortion feminist wing! Better than that, the Speaker does not know what she is talking about!

It would be interesting to show this video to Pope Benedict for comment.

My guess is that the Pope would say that abortion is the taking of a human life snd would disagree strongly with Pelosi.

Why else does a woman choose to have an abortion?

What is she preventing?

The answer is that she does not want to give birth to a baby nine months later.

What else is the objective of an abortion?

Ed Morrissey challenges Pelosi by reviewing what the church has written about abortion:

"The notion that the Catholic Church declared abortion a sin at the same time as the Pill is patently absurd, and shows that Pelosi has either lied about studying the issue in terms of Church history or lied about what she found. Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church."

Pelosi also blamed the Republicans for opposing contraception.

Of course, it's always the Republicans' fault! Is it too much to ask the Speaker to get the Dem majority to pass something without blaming it on Republicans?

This is a STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

"We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers.

No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb.

In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.

They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.

Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name."

Speaker Pelosi has also opened the door to a debate regarding Obama's radical position on abortion: