Many a heavy sigh I have in my despair,
Grieving that I was born in such an unlucky time.
I yoked a team of jade dragons to a phoenix chariot,
And waited for the wind to come,
to sour up on my journey

Today millions of Americans will be enjoying a day off work, enjoying BBQ, picnics, days at the park or amusement park, fishing, etc. we need to remember the reasons for this day off and beginning to the summer season in our fine nation.  This day is brought to you by the fine men and women in the US military who have selflessly gave of their time and lives to protect our freedoms and way of life to endure from our nation’s birth to today and beyond.

To the brave farmers and business owners of the Revolution to the brothers facing off across the battlefield in the War Between the States to our entrance into world affairs in World War I and II.  To the brave citizen soldiers, volunteers and drafted men who fought hard to stave off the march of Communism across the planet and to those who stood watch to stave off attacks until the threat was over.  To my fellow brothers in arms of our modern era military who have done their jobs professionally and with zeal to ward off dictators, terrorists, and warlords to protect our interests, security, and way of life and made sacrifices in their lives so we can enjoy all our freedoms.  For this thank you, for the hard work, sacrifices, time away from home in far away lands, missed holidays and anniversaries.  Thank you for showing people across the globe what true Americans are as apposed to those images in the movies.  To those whom fought in unnamed battles in unofficial and undisclosed areas and those who found out of plots against our country a much larger thank you.

In our modern polarized political worlds it is getting hard to make a sound without giving a position.  I think we need to step back and reflect on why we can have such public debates, both politically and socially.  Our freedoms have provided us enough time to think more freely about larger things then people in many countries, all of this was made possible by our military and supporting agencies who have kept us able to do this without focusing on security and where the next problems will come from.  We need to sit back and thank those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, served and supported those who served, and those who are serving today.

This is a day to remember the cost of all our freedoms, because freedom is never free.  While we are at parks, fishing, etc. we should take a pause, preferably at noon, and think of all the wars, conflicts, and places our freedoms were won, saved, and ensured to get to where we are today.  Least we forget where we came from and how we got where we are today, we have to remember the cost and the responsibility we all hold for maintaining these freedoms.  Thank your vets and present service members, remember those past, and shoulder the responsibility by voting for what is best for America and continuing our freedoms in earnest.  God Bless America.

Gallegly's bill to honor Reagan being sent to Obama - By Michael Collins Thursday, May 21, 2009: WASHINGTON — It took a tad longer than expected, but a bill to honor former President Ronald Reagan on what would have been his 100th birthday has cleared its final hurdle in Congress.

The Senate approved the legislation — sponsored by Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley — late Tuesday after a senator who had blocked the bill for two months agreed to allow a vote.  Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., had put the measure on hold because of a dispute over an unrelated amendment that he wanted to offer.

The Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act will create an 11-member commission that will plan and carry out activities celebrating the former president’s 100th birthday on Feb. 6, 2011.  Feingold thought the Reagan bill was an appropriate vehicle for his amendment, which would have established commissions to examine the mistreatment of German, Italian and other European Americans during World War II.

A Senate Republican blocked Feingold’s amendment, however, and he in turn blocked the Reagan bill. Feingold eventually relented and allowed the Senate to vote on the measure.  “When it became apparent that some senators were not going to allow my bipartisan measure to be added, I decided it was more important to pass the bill to commemorate our 40th president,” Feingold said in a statement released by his office.

Our Petty Senator - By Charlie Sykes, May 19, 2009, Milwaukee - Republicans are trying to pass legislation in the next few weeks to kick off the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth, and the only hurdle appears to be Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who is refusing to let the Senate vote on the bill.  Feingold’s decision to block passage of a bipartisan commission to celebrate the former president’s 100th birthday has nothing to do with antagonism toward the conservative icon. But he does want to use the momentum behind the bill to drive legislation of his own. ...

All of this is documented in a non-profit and nonpartisan congressional reporting source, Roll Call - article found here.  According to the Roll Call report:
"A GOP aide said some Senate Democrats were not comfortable with Feingold’s amendment. “That’s why he wants to attach it. [The Reagan bill] is a commission that everybody supports,” the aide said."
This is not the first time Feingold has blocked the bill in an attempt to attach his amendment, which passed the Senate in the 110th Congress with a vote of 67-27 but ultimately died as a part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.One of my Senators decided to block this measure as retalliation for blocking another measure, both non critical and both non partisan.  I am only a little outraged at the content of the bill blocked, Regan's 100th birthday is 2 years away.  What gets me is that for the past 2 months these Senators are bickering and blocking legislation on petty matters while our economy is sick, socialism is on the march, and we need them focused on fixing our government spending and gaping holes in SSI, banking regulations, bailouts, etc.  Not a petty spat over enturnments and birthdays.

Over the week Obama decided to call together a press conference to laude his auto emissions restriction regulation signing and to outline his policy and its impact on our lives and His view of our future.  The telling portions of this speech are the numbers He uses and assumptions made.  The speech is typical Obama rhetoric and what I associate with cotton candy, a whole bunch of fluff that when looked closely at dissolves into little if nothing significant.  As always Obama’s words are in black font and my interjections are in italic blue.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, everybody have a seat -- have a seat. What an extraordinary day. The sun is out because good things are happening. Before I get started, just some preliminary introductions -- I'll probably repeat them in my formal remarks, but I want to make sure that I acknowledge some people who have been critical to this effort and critical to so many efforts at the state and federal levels.

First of all, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has just been cracking the whip and, you know, making Congress so productive over these last several days. We are grateful for her. My wonderful Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, is in the house. Lisa Jackson, the outstanding administrator of EPA. Some of the finest governors in the country are here -- let me take them in order of good looks -- sorry, Arnold. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. Barbara Boxer just had to leave -- the head of the Environment Committee in the Senate, who'd done just outstanding work. And Senators Feinstein, Levin and Stabenow couldn't be here because they're busy voting on credit card legislation that we're going to get done before Memorial Day.  Well, we now know Obama is joining in the wagon train and circling them up to help deflect pressure from embattled Pelosi who needs to be fired by her voters sooner rather then latter, recall Pelosi California, you can do it!

And we've got two outstanding members of the House of Representatives, John Dingell -- where's John? Right here. The Dean of the House who's done so much extraordinary work around these issues, Sandy Levin. Please give them a round of applause. I also want to mention Ron Gettlefinger of the UAW, our president who's just been a great leader during some very trying times in the auto industry, and Carol Browner, who helped to make this all happen today. Please give Carol Browner a big round of applause.

Since I'm acknowledging everybody -- I'm in a voluble mood today -- let me go ahead and acknowledge my other members of the Cabinet who are here who are part of our energy green team and do just outstanding work on an ongoing basis. First of all, my Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. The guy who's just cleaning up the Department of Interior and doing an extraordinary job, Ken Salazar. Our head of HUD, Shaun Donovan. And our Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke.  This is telling, this means expansion of energy policies that will cause devastating damage to our economy and personal lives, read this month’s Road and Track for clear numbers as well as what the energy costs will have to be to shift to this green energy we are being told about.

Now, thank you all for coming to the White House today, and for coming together around what I consider to be a historic agreement to help America break its dependence on oil, reduce harmful pollution, and begin the transition to a clean energy economy.  See above.

This is an extraordinary gathering. Here we have today standing behind me, along with Ron Gettlefinger and leadership of the UAW, we have 10 of the world's largest auto manufacturers, we have environmental advocates, as well as elected officials from all across the country.  2 of these are actually government directed companies, Government Motors and Chrysler-Fiat who are beholden to administration ‘suggestions’ and directives – stopping making their top 5 selling vehicles and producing hybrids and electrics that are their worst sellers because no one wants to buy them.

And this gathering is all the more extraordinary for what these diverse groups -- despite disparate interests and previous disagreements -- have worked together to achieve. For the first time in history, we have set in motion a national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars sold in the United States of America. And I want to applaud the leadership of the folks at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change who've worked around the clock on this proposal which has now been embraced by so many.  Obama strong armed the companies to agree with bail-out money (why Ford did not take the money), there was no work, Obama told everyone what the end was going to be, they had to work out how to get there so a collaborative effort it was not.  This national policy, when you look at it, looks mysteriously similar to the California emissions law, oh wait, what happened to the lawsuit California filed against the US over emissions and CAFE standards, yes it just went away thanks to this.  As always follow the money to find out what is going on in politics.  So the rest of the country will not be told what and how to drive by California.

Now, in the past, an agreement such as this would have been considered impossible. It's no secret that these are folks who've occasionally been at odds for years, even decades. In fact, some of the groups here have been embroiled in lawsuits against one another. So that gives you a sense of how impressive and significant it is that these leaders from across the country are willing to set aside the past for the sake of the future.  California vs US Government for example.

For what everyone here believes, even as views differ on many important issues, is that the status quo is no longer acceptable. While the United States makes up less than 5 percent of the world's population, we create roughly a quarter of the world's demand for oil. And this appetite comes at a tremendous price -- a price measured by our vulnerability to volatile oil markets, which send gas prices soaring and families scrambling. It's measured by a trade deficit where as much as 20 percent of what we spend on imports is spent on oil. It's measured in billions of dollars sent to oil-exporting nations, many that we do not choose to support, if we had a choice. It's measured in a changing climate, as sea levels rise, and droughts spread, forest burns, and storms rage.  Wow, guess what, not everyone believes this as they were strong armed and forced to accept the measures.  Yes, we have a sensational thirst for oil, but all of this oil we use is NOT used by cars and trucks.  Where do chemical and plastics industries, diesel locomotives, ships, aircraft, power plants, etc. use for fuel, oh yea, oil.  Most of these do not fall anywhere close to CAFE and will only decrease our usage a very small amount, that is why it is being rushed through the legislation process so fast, just ask yourself why as the oil going into the vehicles CAFE covers is only a small percentage.  You think unstable gas prices send families scrambling just you wait for CAFE kicks in.  Gas prices will go up at least 5 times!  With fuel efficient vehicles on the road what about the lost gas revenue the federal and state budgets are used to?  What about your gas turbine and oil fired power plants?  Buy anything using diesel trucks and trains for transport guess what, that service will go through the roof.  Small business owner who needs a pickup or van, you have to pay $8k more before interest and extra taxes.  Think through the entire process and supply chain and you will see it does not add up.  We do have a choice.  How much of our oil is exported from the Middle East?  Try this on for size, we produce 10% of the world’s oil and consume 24%, so our shortfall is not that drastic it equates to a 14% net.  50% of our imported oil comes from the Western Hemisphere, that is the Americas people!  Only 14% of our TOTAL oil imports, crude AND refined, come from the Persian Gulf region!  By contrast 18% comes from Canada and 11.4% come from Mexico, more then Saudi Arabia’s 11%!  21% of our crude and refined oil comes from Africa so this whole unstable market is mostly bunk!  We do have a choice, drill in America and our coasts for more oil and natural gas but the Democrats blocked this and won’t entertain it, it is much easier to charge Americans $10 a gallon to force people into cities and mass transit then drill for oil closer to America, this is political hype in hopes we Americans stay lazy and stupid of the facts, HTTP://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm  The real purpose of this is to FORCE us into an environmental policy experiment to stop a theory which is not completely proven to be close to true yet.

And what is all the more tragic is that we've known about these costs in one way or another since the gas shortages of the 1970s. And yet all too little has been done. Calls for action rise and fall with the price of a barrel of oil. Worn arguments are traded across entrenched divides. Urgency fades, complacency grows, and time passes.  Bunk, bunk, bunk, BUNK!  Where did CAFE come from?  Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were created in 1975 in response to… anyone… address Title V of the Improving Automotive Efficiency Act in response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 and was to double the fuel efficiency of the time by 1985.  In 1985 our production began to fall but our usage rose as more people could afford cars and trucks sometimes multiple.  What is also curious in all this is our number of refineries has not increased, our production, refining capacity have fallen while our consumption has increased, but how much is due to cars?  Think about how many airlines and planes operated in the US in 1980 and today, trains, gas and oil power plants, and heavy trucking, this is where the increase has come from.  Here is something for your noodle.  What is the largest segment of the US population?  How many of them are going to continue to drive in their retirement?  Do you think our demand for gas, oil, and cars is going to increase during their moving from income to retirement or fall?  These measures are being sold as needed urgently now because the hidden agenda behind the results is ideological and based off of some group’s pot laden idea of a perfect world.  Follow the money people, who benefits from all this, if you think its a company you are false, go to the government and you will find the answers.

As a result, we have done little to increase the fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks for decades. Think about this. Consider how much has changed all around us. Think of how much faster our computers have become. Think about how much more productive our workers are. Think about how everything has been transformed by our capacity to see the world as it is, but also to imagine a world as it could be.  Um see above for details, 1975-1985 fuel efficiency doubled, 1985 to 1995 fuel efficiency almost doubled again, the reason it hasn’t since then, consumers DO NOT WANT CLOWN CARS!  Here in China there is a car called the QQ, 1 liter engine and about half the size of a VW Beatle.  This car only gets about 35 MPG but can only go 75MPH, this is our future America!

That's what's been missing in this debate for too long, and that's why this announcement is so important, for it represents not only a change in policy in Washington but the harbinger of a change in the way business is done in Washington. No longer will we accept the notion that our politics are too small, our nation too divided, our people too weary of broken promises and lost opportunities to take up a historic calling. No longer will we accept anything less than a common effort, made in good faith, to solve our toughest problems.  Telling stuff here people, it means grab your ankles, here comes the spending and change train.  Now I will admit we need change in America, change in the way we measure success and envision the American dream, we also need to reset our pay to lifestyle ratio but these policies are all in the WRONG direction.  Obama is trying to derail the US economy by cutting our legs off at the knees.  These measures will be devastating to our local and overall economy as we are forced to wean from personal travel freedom to being enslaved by regulations and mass transit, look into Obama’s land rights policy to see the second wave of this measure.

And that is what this agreement seeks to achieve. Right now, the rules governing fuel economy in this country are inadequate, uncertain, and in flux. First, there is the standard for fuel economy administered by the Department of Transportation. On top of that, the Environmental Protection Agency, in response to a decision by the Supreme Court, may have to set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles -- establishing another standard. California has sought permission under the Clean Air Act to require that vehicles sold in California meet yet another even stricter emission rule. And 13 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to adopt California greenhouse gas reductions if the permission -- called a waiver -- is granted.  Bait and switch people, bait and switch!  Oh, these measures are being enacted to consolidate all the policies thereby simplifying all these convoluted and complicated rules into one clear and concise efficient one – WRONG!  If so why would it be 1/2 as long as the convoluted stimulus bill and require a speed reader, contracted by the government and paid for by taxpayers, to read in a farce that guaranteed it would not be fully reviewed.  It is odd that he mentions California without mentioning the lawsuit they filed against the government to FORCE the rest of the country to adopt their policies.

Car companies might then face three different sets of overlapping requirements, one administered by the Department of Transportation, one administered by the EPA, and still a third administered by California and 13 other states. This proposed national policy, under the leadership of two agencies -- and bringing together 14 states, 10 companies, as well as auto workers and environmental groups -- changes all that. The goal is to set one national standard that will rapidly increase fuel efficiency -- without compromising safety -- by an average of 5 percent each year between 2012 and 2016, building on the 2011 standard my administration set shortly after taking office.  Key word, rapidly, translation: driving the market place not allowing the market place to adjust and drive the companies.  Normal economics in normal markets is based off of supply and demand on the basic level.  This socialists policy will force the market to demand and supply, just the opposite.  Think about it, the market is no longer driving the car per say, the government is telling the companies what to produce and the consumers will have no choice, its a Field of Dreams market place now, build it and he will come…  Well, what happens if the consumers flatly reject the products?  Black market cars and trucks?  Welcome to socialism folks.

A series of major lawsuits will be dropped in support of this new national standard. The state of California has also agreed to support this standard -- and I want to applaud California and Governor Schwarzenegger and the entire California delegation for their extraordinary leadership. They have led the way on this as they have in so many other efforts to protect our environment. In addition, because the Department of Transportation and EPA will adopt the same rule, we will avoid an inefficient and ineffective system of regulations that separately govern the fuel economy of autos and the carbon emissions they produce.  Ahhhh, here we go finally the truth about the lawsuit is coming out.  Again bait and switch, repeat it enough times and people believe it is true.  MMMAAA MMMAAA MMMAAA!  Carbon emissions!  Can this be foreshadowing for a passage of carbon credits on cars and trucks in the not so distant future.  Not only will Obama save the planet by forcing our car companies to produce radically different cars he will be telling us how much we can use them.  Think of it as a nationally enforced leasing policy, drive too far one month and take a hit!  Big brother is looking more like a reality each passing week now. 

And at a time of historic crisis in our auto industry, when domestic auto manufacturers are making painful choices and restructuring their businesses to be viable in the future, this rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century.  Never waste a good crisis, Obama’s chief of staff laid out a whole slew of what was going to happen and no one really followed up on it, well here we see it again, using the excuse of the current economic climate as a hard place and tactics imposed like a rock with us consumers and our supply markets are in the middle, between a rock and a hard place.

Yes, it costs money to develop these vehicles, but even as the price to build these cars and trucks goes up, the cost of driving these vehicles will go down, as drivers save money at the pump. And this is a point I want to emphasize: If you buy a car, your investment in a more fuel-efficient vehicle as a result of this standard will pay off in just three years. In three years' time you will have paid off the additional investment required. So this is a winning proposition for folks looking to buy a car. In fact, over the life of a vehicle, the typical driver would save about $2,800 by getting better gas mileage.  Who cares how much money it takes to develop the cars, the companies have had them under development for over a decade, the reason they have not been taken to market is because the business case stated the market for them did not exist and the technology was too immature to produce the quality demanded.  Now we have poured tens of billions of dollars into 2/3 of the domestic industry place, taxpayer dollars, so money is not the issue.  For a new car to be taken from concept to production takes 4 to 6 years for assembly line changes, how will GM and Chrysler achieve this assembly line shortcut?  Follow the money folks. 
Bait and switch alert, bells and whistles galore.  As the price on the cars goes up the cost of the fuel goes down?  Save money at the pump?  Are you smoking crack with the mayor Mr. President (Marian Berry that is)?  We all know as our economy improves and American demand increases the price of oil will increase.  As Americans use less gas and tax revenues fall for national road and bridge maintenance the legislature will HAVE to raise fuel taxes to recoup the lost revenue, which will in turn increase the cost of services and products dependent on gas to get to us, think any service that uses gas; police, fire, ambulance, garbage, school bus, city, state, and federal agencies who travel, military, airlines, shipping companies, mail services, farmers (hit double for gas and fertilizer made from oils), any store that has merchandise delivered in any way, etc.  See taxes will have to go up not only at the pump but property taxes for renters, retail prices for customers, and sales taxes and service fees for the service and utility companies.  Paying off a difference of higher vehicle cost has to be factored into total ownership cost, added interest payments, insurance, hazardous materials disposal when trading in as these vehicles are the least environmentally friendly cars in the world in their construction materials, and dealer maintenance as aftermarket parts and labor shops will take years to develop.  Add in the increases in fuel taxes, or special taxes for non-fuel vehicles to recoup road maintenance, road services, and other infrastructure costs that have been taken out of fuel taxes but electrics and hybrids will no or barely use. 
I want to see Obama’s typical driver statistics.  I have been reading Road and Track, Car and Driver, and other industry leading auto magazines for over 20 years now and his numbers need close scrutiny.  How many miles driven per year, ratio of highway to city miles, lifetime of car compared to what?  All these need to be broken down clearer.  Currently the typical driver drives about 10,000 miles a year, mixers city to highway at a ratio where you can average the city and highway miles, and owns a car for 3 to 5 years.  Average cars get around 32/28 now days, so 50,000 miles at 30 mpg is 1,667 gallons of fuel, roughly.  At $2.25 a gallon that is $3,751 fuel costs, a hybrid today can do 30/45 and averages 38 mpg or 1,316 gallons of fuel, at same costs this is $2,961 or a grand whopping difference of $790.  This of course is assuming fuel costs stay stagnant and people drive new cars like current cars.  What about the #1 selling cars in America, you know the big ugly trucks?  You will have to pay a premium $8k per truck, translation higher costs for landscaping, senior centers shuttles, hotel shuttles, utility companies, and those who enjoy RV, camping, boating, biking, horseback riding, oh yea and farmers.  Hybrids won’t be able to tow, haul, or work like existing vehicles.  Oh and for those who are going to go diesel to escape the madness, guess again because Obama is going to wreak the same fines on those vehicles too, but to ALL of them, not just light trucks.  I personally vote for replacing all cars with horses and selling the manure to governments for fertilizer, they are green, cheap, and fatalities will be cut dramatically so insurance will become nonexistent.  Sure we will have to revert to mud streets but think of planet when we stop using asphalt.  Its win win for everyone!

The fact is, everyone wins: Consumers pay less for fuel, which means less money going overseas and more money to save or spend here at home. The economy as a whole runs more efficiently by using less oil and producing less pollution. And companies like those here today have new incentives to create the technologies and the jobs that will provide smarter ways to power our vehicles.  Man oh man, consumers pay less for fuel, only if you don’t TAX it more and subsidies the industry by hiking up the price, lying politician.  More money will be spent on taxes at home!  Using less oil, did you know autos make up only a small percentage of our oil usage per day?  If you convert all the energy we use into barrels of oil per day the renewable energies total a whopping 2.2%, that is solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc combined!  97.8% is coal and good old oil,  If Obama doubled it, like Bush did in 2005 then we would still not dent the surface and electricity would skyrocket, we subsidies solar and wind $24 and $23 per megawatt hour now, compared to coal and gas at $0.44 and $0.25 respectfully.  Plug in hybrids require electricity, I bet that cost of that is going to skyrocket very very soon.  New incentives to create new cars and jobs means he will leave the companies alone, else he will keep firing CEO’s and keep government control and investors away until they bend to his will.

And that's why, in the next five years, we're seeking to raise fuel-economy standards to an industry average of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016, an increase of more than eight miles per gallon per vehicle. That's an unprecedented change, exceeding the demands of Congress and meeting the most stringent requirements sought by many of the environmental advocates represented here today.  In 7 years were going to raise the MPG only 6 MPG not counting trucks from my calculations, wow color me impressed!

As a result, we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years. Just to give you a sense of magnitude, that's more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined. Here's another way of looking at it: This is the projected equivalent of taking 58 million cars off the road for an entire year.  Again what are the assumptions on these 58 million cars?  I already stated that most of our oil comes from the Americas, our Venezuela oil is heavy crude suitable only for junk oil, its best efforts are to create DFM, or marine diesel which is the lowest grade due to its high sulfur content.  Seeing most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico I am again not impressed by the number he is stating here and suspect them greatly as my industry inside experts have been saying for 2 years now how CAFE will not result in any significant reduction in our oil consumption as we use more oil in the creation of tires each year then in making gas.  Guess tires will cost $1,200 a set now.

I also want to note that the agreement we have announced today is part of a far larger effort. In fact, on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Henry Waxman is chairing a meeting of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is working on an equally historic energy bill that will not only help our dependence on foreign oil, prevent the worst consequences of climate change, and build a clean energy economy, but will provide more than $15 billion to help build the cars and trucks of the future right here in America.  Five year plans?  Notice I left this alone until now, this is strangely sounding like the 7 year plans I hear about here in China all the time for Chinese politicians.  This sweeping energy policy will result in another Boston tunnel, a big dig that runs over budget and takes decades to implement, a big waste of time.  Sure it will help the environment according to scientists who believe in the theories of global warming, but seeing I have seen proof contradicting their theory we may need to slow down the stone age bus until we have ALL the facts.

And the recovery plan we've put in place, as well as the budget that builds on it, makes historic investments in a clean energy economy: doubling our capacity to generate renewable energy like wind and solar; investing in new battery technologies for plug-in hybrids; and building a smarter, stronger grid on which the homes, businesses and vehicles of the future will run.  Remember how I stated earlier that Bush doubled our 1.1% renewable energy production in 2005, well doubling that again will result in a big fat 4.4% of our current production and will require a subsidy of 53 times the cost!  You can keep those numbers!

Too often, lost in the back-and-forth of Washington politics, absent in arguments where the facts opponents use depend on the conclusions they've already reached, absent all that is this: Ending our dependence on oil, indeed, ending our dependence on fossil fuels, represents perhaps the most difficult challenge we have ever faced -- not as a party, not as a set of separate interests, but as a people.  Here he is right, he will have to legislate our lifestyles making our current way of life too expensive to continue, for those who doubt it can happen, take a look at what we pay now for energy and his 900+ page proposal or listen to the speed reader version to see if the numbers add up, they don’t.

We have over the course of decades slowly built an economy that runs on oil. It has given us much of what we have -- for good but also for ill. It has transformed the way we live and work, but it's also wreaked havoc on our climate. It has helped create gains in prosperity unprecedented in history, but it also places our future in jeopardy.  Um, the whole planet runs off of oil, it is what defines a primary world power and a second world country, without oil you have nothing.

Ending this dependence will take time. It will take an incredible effort. It will take a historic investment in innovation. But more than anything, it will take a willingness to look past our differences, to act in good faith, to refuse to continue the failures of the past, and to take on this challenge together -- for the benefit not just of this generation, but generations to come.  Higher costs, higher taxes, and keep paying because we are almost there, carrot and stick people, keep shelling out the money.

All the people who have gathered here today, all the auto executives, all our outstanding elected officials and appointees -- Ron Gettlefinger, members of Congress, governors -- all these folks here today have demonstrated that this kind of common effort is possible. They've created the template for more progress in the months and years to come. Everything is possible when we're working together, and we're off to a great start. So thank you everybody. I appreciate it.

By the way, I just want to mention, I think I still have my Ford parked in Chicago.  It's a Ford hybrid, it runs great, you guys should take a look.  But there are also some outstanding hybrids -- and energy-independent cars represented up here, so I didn't want to just advertise for one.  When will we see a hybrid presidential limo, motorcade, etc.?  When will we see hybrid tanks, airplanes, moon ships, and winged chariots, sorry I was in Nancy Pelosi ville for a second.  Seriously, the numbers don’t lie here, this is a recipe for disaster and it will pass hook, line, and sinker.  I have covered a lot here and my wife is yelling at me to get off the damn computer, so I will do my part to save energy by turning off the PC and living room lights and calling it a night, face it American tomorrow is a brave new day and I hope your checkbooks are ready because here comes the tax man!

I first did blogs like this immediately after the DNC convention and for the inauguration to help myself and others objectively review and understand the man we all knew was going to become our 44th President.  Since then I have become increasingly hostile against President Obama frequently displaying this on this blog.  I have seen too many attacks against our ways of life in America and feel I must revisit this forum for major public policy announcements Obama makes.  They will be led off with a slight feeling about the events surrounding the speeches followed by the speeches with injected comments at points I deem necessary and followed up with a short, very short, summation opinion on what was actually said and the potential impact of the speech on our ways of life in this country.  Comments are always welcome.  For those feeling I may be a tad too harsh, the main stream media, liberal bloggers, and liberal and moderate media and armature commentators had done much worse to the last president for 8 years, now the tables are just turned.

I have already blogged about Obama’s Norte Dame speech and its relation to Catholicism in America.  I will not revisit those opinions here but outline the areas of the speech needing thought and reflection.  Obama’s speech is in black font, my comments are in italic blue.

Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins — the aunts, the uncles — all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. Your continued and courageous — and contagious — commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.  Ding, we have our first hit, thoughtful dialogue is liberal code speech for the opposing side to compromise, concede, and ‘get onboard’ with what they feel is the only path or solution, wow he can’t even get out one paragraph without getting political.

Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.

And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.  I don’t know about you all, but I have found Obama to be extremely arrogant and self centered, of course he IS the first half black man elected as President of the US, and because of his past injections of himself into everything he comments on makes this attempt at humor and warming seem fake and disingenuous, then again it could be just me.

I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame ...

(Speech is interrupted by anti-abortion protesters.)  Just a quick note here, why don’t they publish the comments of the protestors?

We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennan’s adage that we don’t do things easily. We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.

Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. No, don’t worry, I'm not going to talk about that. We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world — Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack OBallers" did not pull it out this year. So next year, if you need a 6-2 forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.  Hmmm, his jokes are getting better, at least we know he wrote that one himself. 

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare — periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.  Ding ding, here we go folks, this is called foreshadowing, we can see the thunderheads darkening on the horizon now as the winds begin to lift and leaves turn over…

You, however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for the world — a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It's a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations — and a task that you’re now called to fulfill.  Here we go folks, hands up, start screaming, its like the drop of a rollercoaster!  It sounds like these times are as bad, if not worse.  What has happened in US history since 1846 as bad as this RECESSION, um Mexican War, WAR BETWEEN THE STATES, Lincoln assonated, Reconstruction, Spanish American War, McKinley assonated, San Francisco earthquake, WORLD WAR I, Stock Market Crash, Great Depression and 25% unemployment, World War II, Civil Rights movement, Korean conflict, Vietnam conflict, Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy assonated, Peace riots including Bill Ayres bombings, Race riots, Watergate, Energy crisis, Iranian hostage situation, Ukraine War, Gulf War, Dot Com bust, September 11th, Afghanistan War, Iraqi War, and these are just the lowest of the low points in the past 163 years so I want to know how our RECESSION and global recession compare with the numerous events listed above?  Don’t get me wrong, our times are tough now and things are bleak but in retrospect they are pretty darn rosy compared to even the mildest of the above listed.  What Obama is referring to is NOT what is going on around us now in our history, but what he expects us to do to CHANGE our futures by socializing and regulating our lives to a kin of Orwell’s 1984!

This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit — an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work.  Here again we see socialism rear its ugly head, fairness as Obama told Joe the Plumber is “spreading the wealth around”.  Life is NOT fair, ask anyone who was not born into privilege, well if life is fair then there is no real incentive to strive forward, no real penalty for failure, no real motivation to succeed.  Fairness is not what we most think of, a level playing field where we all start out as equals, we have that for the most part in America, no fairness is the equalizing of wealth by subsiding the existence of the poor by the fruits of the successful.

Your generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.  Here we go, into the loop-ti-loop folks.  First off, we CAN NOT destroy the planet, unless we detonate all our nuclear weapons on major fault lines simultaneously.  Stop believing the fear, all we can do is change the climate so that our species has a harder time surviving, and the cold hard scientific evidence points to contradicting conditions from the liberal fear mongering environmentalists.  We have no evidence that the warming of the planet is not a normal occurrence based off of multi-millennia spanning, naturally occurring, deviations in our axis wobble, planetary tilt, planetary orbit, sun spot activity, or the Earth returning to a Jurassic era style climate from the ice age that was triggered by mega volcanoes, asteroid impact, or who knows what else.  The Earth has cycles of extreme heating and cooling, we have not been on it long enough to understand this yet.  That is just the first point. 
On to point number 2, and this one is a doozy!  Reconcile our diversity of belief?  I understand the other parts, it means we have to be more politically correct and sensitive to our global neighbors.  While I don’t have a huge problem with this I do have an issue with Obama’s “Down with America” tour where he yucked it up with our sworn enemies.  I know, we need to reach out and give soft hand diplomacy a chance and I can live with that, but accepting Anti-American books from Chavez and laughing with him, the Castro brothers, and others who preach ‘death to America and our imperialistic ways is conceding more then I and many others care to accept quietly.  Reconciling diversity of belief is going into ideology territory and this is one of the root causes of wars for as long as civilizations emerged out of packs of humans.  How can you reconcile the issues between Hindus and Muslims, Jews and Muslims, Christians and Jews, Christians and Muslims, Buddhists and Christians, Taoists and Buddhists, and atheists to all of the above and even more?  Core beliefs are foundations and unless you can create a new core belief that is truly universal then I doubt the efforts of any group of people can achieve in 1 generation what has not occurred in over 10,000 years.  I feel he is hinting, telegraphing, or foreshadowing to something else here, oh what could that be???

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. And it's this last challenge that Id like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. For the major threats we face in the 21st century — whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease — these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.  Both passages are true and nothing new, can’t say anything bad about it, its all good stuff, but pure cotton candy, might as well thrown in something about sweeping back the tides or mopping up rain water.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times. Ditto

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you've received here at Notre Dame is that you've had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You've grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose — even accomplishing that can be difficult. Ditto Ditto

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.  STOP THE PRESSES!  Who is actually speaking out against stem cell research Mr. President?  Do you thing Catholics oppose stem cell research?  Being raised a Catholic I know a little about my church even if I don’t go nearly as often as I should.  We oppose EMBRYONIC stem cell research.  Embryonic stem cells are last centuries technology, they are more prone to go awry, cause cancer, and cause catastrophic complications according to the leading science journals, the stem cells found in umbilical core blood and fully formed and born children and adults is where the real cutting edge science is taking place.  Customized stem cells that are of the same body have less complications, DNA issues, and have proven better treatment results.  The federal funding on this is accepted and encouraged by all the Catholics I know and all conservatives as well, only the insane fringe would find it objectable.  Removing the order on embryonic stem cell research is only sending out scientists to abortion clinics to prove the ills of those stem cells we already know about today, why do this, what purpose does it serve other then finding another way to spend money and remove God from our lives.  Ok, re-web the presses and lets continue.

The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.  I don’t know, as I am stupid for clinging to guns and religion I guess I am out of reach for civil debate.  We can join in a common effort, and have for over 200 years.  You can’t legislate or control beliefs, nor should you.  The fact abortion is legal, being practiced, and federally funded all point to concessions and compromises on the side of religious peoples of all faiths in America, what has the left conceded in the debate?  And yes boys and girls, we have arrived and the real point of the speech today, its a policy speech and sales pitch, not a motivational accomplishment speech that commencement speeches are supposed to be.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.  I know you are supposed to personalize speeches to engage the audience, but it seems to me Obama loves to interject a tad more then that, he can not help but make all public addresses about himself.  Sure arrogance and self centeredness are attributes of a leader but this guy seems to relish in it more often then not.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site — an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.  This is a great story, unfortunately politicians love to make up such stories, but that is beside the point.  The morale of the story is universal and agreeable by all.  What is most telling is the fact the story describes the finding of a middle ground, but that middle ground offers nothing in the way of a solution to the debate, there is no advance in positions, just acknowledgement of opposing points of view.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.  Funny, he started out with all the points the pro-life crowd believe in and even 1 measure us moderates on the topic agree to as well but then he slips in some telling hints.  Sensible conscience clause, what is that?  The Freedom of Choice Act, aka – fully federal funding for ALL abortions, including later term infanticide to those children who survive the procedure, and clauses that allow full access to ALL women on the grounds of physical, mental, economic, or social well being.  His late term abortion policies collide with what most hospitals tout as a selling point, premature birth care.  He wants to make abortion up to the 8th month the same as in the 8th week, with the added provision that if the baby survives it will be killed no matter what.  This is where the clear ethics he talks about become opaque.  Many Catholics do not like, believe in, or support abortion but was are willing to accept it as we accept other faiths, beliefs, and views differing from our own, like Protestants and divorce and their lack of emphasis on the Holy Trinity and the Immaculate Conception, etc.  As for the equality of women, how exactly does allowing full unfettered access to all forms of abortion to children and women make them equal with others?  Women are the only sex able to get pregnant and have children so help me out on this equality point.  Women are respected more in American society then any other society on the planet, and I have seen many, many other societies.  Women can vote, have equal pay laws, anti-discrimination laws specifically for them, and special measures ensuring they have more privileges then others in certain respects and regards. Forgive me for being skeptical but I have no clue what he is referring to here, unless he is stating 14 year olds who get pregnant can get abortions without parental consent and full federal funding at any stage of pregnancy, again forgive me for being narrow minded but isn’t teen pregnancy a family matter and one that the family needs to work out in stead of being shut out, when does our government take precedence in knowing better for our kids then with this matter?

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.  Good advice, but killing of children who can survive outside of the womb if delivered and terminated is considered murder by me and almost all others.  Even the radical left accepted laws and measures protecting children in the womb when it comes to penalties to people who harm pregnant women through criminal acts; drunk driving, attempted homicide, homicide, etc.  If a person kills a pregnant woman the unborn child dies that person is charged with 2 murders, and penalized for such.  So therefore, if we recognize the life of a child in the second trimester onward in criminal cases in our legal system, why do we make an exception for them in the event their mother changes her mind or was negligent in her responsibilities for engaging in sex?  No one on our side is stating incest, rape, or clear medical complications are untouchable, we have allowed them to be valid reasons for abortion, but using it in the ways suggested are not going to be accepted by Catholics under any argument and will only be accepted by the pro-life crowd if irrefutable evidence can be provided.  You see, Catholics that their moral direction and foundation from our faith and as interpreted by the Vatican.  Our faith in God is not up for debate or governmental interpretation and that is why the debate on abortion in the Catholic Church is and has been over for many many years, and that in on many levels, not just some.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "differences of culture and religion and conviction can coexist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about.  In other words, those who came here are the good guys, those who did not show up or protested are irresponsible minorities worthy of marginalization.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago — also with the help of the Catholic Church.

You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.  Telling, very telling.  Our morale center is formed and our ethical foundation laid in our early childhood.  This is where we get our internal compass that tells us how far off the right path we have wandered.  Obama is telling us his foundation and compass are not formed in the teachings of any church, but in a secular environment where religion was not a foundation but an afterthought, not that there is anything wrong with that but it makes his position on views and belief that science can solve all our answers and God has no room in schools, public events (having the cross covered at Brigham Young University a few weeks earlier) etc.  While our government was set up to not have an official religion, guaranteeing religious freedoms in our country, however there is a huge leap from religious freedom and an entirely agnostic and unreligious state.

And it was quite an eclectic crew — Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents — all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help — to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.  All Christian religions strive to serve the public, but for the purpose of spreading the religion and exposing those non-believers to the compassion and word of God, not just to help for the sake of making a better community.

And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods — perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.  Again we see a hint of arrogance and pride, they invited me in and sang with ME from their hymnals, should it not be, they invited me in and I sang with them from their hymnals?  This was not an unintentional slip, Obama is very aware of what he is saying, unless the teleprompter is broken, still he knew what he was saying here, it has an air of holier then thou and as if he were leading the hymns.

And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads — unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched hearts and minds."  Take a closer look at the quote, reaching common ground on issues make it easier to hear and persuade others to adopt your point of view, converting them to your side!  This is why and how the missionaries were able to work towards Christianizing the Mexicans and Native Americas, they did not waiver, concede, or change their position, just changed the message for delivering the position to meet those listening.  The church is undermined if it changes to meet the needs of society, its job is to shape society, not be shaped by it!

My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And Id like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.  Where was this when the legislation for late term abortion was drafted?

Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You'll be called to help restore a free market that's also fair to all who are willing to work. You'll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You'll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they're talking about — by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.  By gosh honesty!

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.  Despite the advice we see how people like Ms California, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Dick Chaney, etc. speak passionately about the values they care about, they are incinerated in the press and mass media in a way that would make those in charge of the Spanish Inquisition envious. To Democrats free speech only applies to their speech, see how the tea party movement was treated by the Democrats and their lackey press like CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.  Forgive my skepticism but isn’t faith supposed to be the ability to believe in something without definitive proof?  Faith does not admit doubt, it allows belief without proof and in the face of doubt, knowing because you feel it.  I am still scratching my head on this one…

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.  Pass, I don’t buy this at all.  Now I know where the doubt to faith thing is coming from, he wants to use doubt to “temper” points of view, as in abortion is not the killing of a human.  abortion in second and third trimesters is murder and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise because many hospitals will laude their ability to keep children in the end of the second trimester alive.  If you can take the child from the womb and it has survived into childhood and beyond then you can not argue it is not the taking of a life.  The early forms are up for debate but as a Catholic I will never concede the view of the Church unless the Church proves otherwise, that is being Catholic.  My view is not open to debate, those who adhere to the principles of the Church are not open.  The loss of faith and growth of doubt in non believers lives is not to shape the Church, the use of common ground or “universal reasons” is to bring people close enough to be able to “see the light” and accept the teachings of the Church.  Now this is a free country and you can believe what you want, however the goal of every church is to grow their congregation and spread the philosophy and teachings from their interpretations of the Bible.  The aims of the Church are to spread God’s word, through kindness, charity, and hospitality, not to sell out their principles and views for harmony in a country.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.  Excellent advice, I wish seething liberals would be encouraged to follow it, ie. CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Salon.com, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc.  The debate is still open because the religions in this country refuse to concede the point that pro-abortion is the only choice.

So many of you at Notre Dame — by the last count, upwards of 80 percent — have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That's incredibly impressive, a powerful testament to this institution.

Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens — when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another — then all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  As a half breed myself I will state that I associate myself with Native Americas but I also know in my heart I was not raised in or fully follow that culture.  Mr. Obama was not exposed to or followed African American culture until his graduation from an ivy league law school.  He is only the first half African American president, he needs to stop advertising himself as such as he is abandoning and neglecting his mother, his dear grandmother and her family who raised him and he so tearfully placed in the limelight during the election.

There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land OLakes, Wisconsin — where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away — because life is not that simple. It never has been. But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.  What is the previous paragraph about if it has never been that easy then why tell the story of how a contentious time in our history was solved through a simple passion?  The message should be to seek out the simple solution path so we can work from common grounds toward more acceptable positions however the position on the 10 commandments will not change, too bad the rest of our faith is not that clear.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Overall the message would have been better if toned down, Obama is a great orator, however if you don’t listen by read the speeches then reading what is really meant is much easier.  Obama is good at sliding in little hints and points here and there and it needs to be looked at closely because over the next 3 years and 8 plus months he is driving this nation, unless we cut the power in 2010 with a sounding conservative legislative branch.  Obama started and ended strong and should have tried to inspire the class of 2009 more and not convince his supporters on abortion that he is going to keep pushing the practice down the throats of all those who oppose it and trust me, tax payer supported, mandated, and advertised abortion and lip service to adoptions and alternatives to abortion is shoving.  For the seniors of ND, I would have focused more on the economy, how greed and belief in money supplemented faith and led to the problems we have today, how we need to fix the system from within by adhering to and demanding our peers adhere to principles, values, honesty, and service above greed, success, and material goods.  This would have inspired the class and the nation more then trying to pursued Catholics that abortion is good and worth selling out your faith on.

• All state workers pay is cut to a scale proportionate to the minimum wage, lowest levels get 5% above minimum wage, every level above that gets 2% increase and capped at $75k/year.
• The state goes into proration, hiring and pay raise freezes, until the budget is solvent and able to afford such.
• All elected state and local officials pay is cut to $50k~$80k/year based on level until state is solvent.
• NO UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT.
• No overtime pay until state is solvent.
• All state facilities have to cut energy and operating costs to cover 8 hour work days and 5 days a week.
• All state and local employees/elected officials HAVE to take public transportation, except for emergency services of course.
• Sell off the state vehicles to a minimum and restrict usage. All state paid employees will work in shifts, only top level managers work 40 hours a week.
• Workfare will utilize people for public works only. On welfare, you must work 20 hours a week on public works projects like road construction, garbage collection, city beautification, parks maintenance, etc. No work, no benefits unless 3 seperate doctors declair you incapable of labor.
• Make deals with businesses to provide services for targeted tax breaks, drug companies get a 5% tax cut for providing wholesale or at cost medications to hospitals.
• State employees and workfare people get 5% above cost medical treatment.
• Reduce red tape and paperwork 40% across all government agencies.
• Suspend spending on non essential programs indefinitely, no state money to fund fisheries, research and development, etc. That is a luxury that can be funded when there is money to spend.
• Suspend textbook, school uniform, and equipment spending indefinitely, school administrators will have to manage and stretch resources until funding returns.
• No tax increases until unemployment is at acceptable levels, say less then 9%.
• Flat taxes, state sales tax, state income tax, state property tax, etc. Say 6% sales, 7% income, 8% property, etc.
• No complete tax exemptions for anyone until the state is in the black.
• All future surplus funds will be placed in trust to only be used in the event of a natural or man made disaster or with a 2/3 majority popular vote in times of extreme state financial crisis, never to be more then 1 year’s fiscal spending averaged and adjusted for inflation.
• Suspend all current contracts until fiscal health and a balanced budget or surplus is achieved.

This has been a busy week in terms of political bombs going off across our social landscape.  To go in chronological order we will start with my favorite political figure, Non-stop Nancy Pelosi.  She has indeed went non-stop, to the dismay of the DNC and White House who have had to spend political clout to try to distract an increasingly waking press.  Nancy Pelosi’s press conference demonstrated a leader who is unraveling and fortunately for all of us, not going down quietly.  Pelosi lied and she lied big.  Even in her home town the newspapers comments sections have been overwhelmingly unsupportive of her and calling for her head.  Nancy is trying desperately to eject chaff and flairs but she is dead to rights and I hope all the cover the White House and others attempt fall short, this woman does not deserve to be 3rd in line for President of my country.

Nancy knew about the integration tactics used against al Qaeda operatives in 2002, fresh after September 11th, when she was just a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and had NO problem with it then.  When the war support fell away and the radical left cost policies came into majority fashion she pounded her pulpit in demands for prosecution and impeachment, then she wanted to call for war crimes against former administration officials, all this while knowing darn well she knew about what had been going on the whole while and either hoping to gain a political middle ground compromise or stonewall through ‘national security’ roadblocks raised by the current administration, well it all backfired.  The new Democrat appointed head of the CIA, the former head of the CIA, Dick Chaney, and others in the know are not backing down on his assertion Pelosi knew, and knew all, of what was going on since 2002.  Sure the briefings she is decrying now are classified but she was in the room, the charts and briefs made are clear, the words describing the tactics used are clear and even Pelosi’s aides have stated such, before being sacrificed under the bus by her bus and the party, a willing sacrifice for a greater cause.  The curious part is the sudden announcement of about face on the state of the second round of detainee photos and the restarting of military tribunals by the White House, distraction or coincidence?

As China has cut off access to YouTube until at least the fall here so my usual links to that are unavailable, however I have listened to and seen the 4 plus minutes video and she is so obviously lying from body language, voice temperament, and how flustered she is, not only in her delivery but her reaction to questions and challenges.  Not only did she lie, she accused the CIA of performing an illegal act by intentionally lying to Congress, something against their prime directives and illegal under our laws.  The CIA has extensive records proving who and what are part of the record, she is claiming the records are wrong.  Well, she wanted a tribunal to discover the truth, lets let that happen now, lets see what she really knew, when she really knew it, and at what point she felt to backtrack and take the classic Democratic stance of voting against something before voting for it made so famous by John Kerry.  This is simply just a political ploy to try to the issues of the tactics used and who authorized them instead of taking a politically advantageous stance and then abandoning it and railing against it when the tide of public opinion turned like a true Democrat and weak minded liberal.  She was all for the war after the attacks, but because we have not been attacked again she is now against the means for gaining that safety and taking a hard stance against the means that obtained that information.  Unfortunately she was complicit, she knew what was going on and instead of downplaying it she tried to use it as a key separation tactic, well you can’t do that if you are in the middle of it!  Her pants are on fire and I hope she fully burns for her stance on “torture” when we all know what our agents did is only considered torture if used by police on citizens, compared to what real torture like the kind John McCain lived with for years it is nothing more then a minor inconvenience, like no coffee at breakfast.

Over the weekend President Obama gave a commencement speech to the graduating seniors of Notre Dame University, a private Catholic University.  The issue at hand is not that Obama gave the commencement speech, really that is between the president of the University and the deans.  The problem is the honorary degree granted to Obama by the administrators.  The problem, for those who have not heard, is that Norte Dame, being a Catholic university, is a religious school that is supposed to uphold the principles and values of the Catholic Church.  Obama has only 1 real piece of legislation tied to his entire political career, the sponsorship of an Illinois bill that authorized and budgeted later term “partial birth” abortions.  Catholics see life as being sacred, a gift from God and something to be protected and seen as life at all of its stages.  Catholic Bishops and leaders have been in an uproar over this honorary degree, not the speech he gave.  Obama, ever the opportunist, used the event to call for a rational dialogue on abortion, to the Church there is no debate, they see it as murder, that is the principle of the Church, for right or wrong, what Obama was doing was coming into a Church based activity and spew government opinion and insult the very values of Catholics and those in charge of teaching those principles to the young students under their charge.

The problem is the state of the Catholic Church is set in stone, there is no dialogue or concession Obama can discuss with the church.  This goes to the problem of liberals on values.  Protestants started out as a liberal movement within the Church, the Catholic Church was very corrupted for quite some time, and things needed to change, that is another topic in Western Civilization.  However the position of the Catholic Church is not up to debate or dialogue, the position is crystal clear, no abortion if you are a member of the Church.  Is Obama trying to drive a wedge into the Church to splinter its unity and core?  Is Obama wanting to show the Pope that his influence in America is waned and essentially over?  Is Obama trying to use his popularity and appeal to steal away youth from the Church?  Is Obama just demonstrating to the radical left that religion’s pull and control over conservatives is diminished to such a point that it is a joke?  What ever his intentions, the problem is that we all know there is no debate on the views of abortion when it comes to the Church.

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune wrote an excellent article that outlines the real issues between the Church and Obama’s stance on pro-choice policies.  The article, Thoughtful voice all but lost in Obama-Notre Dame drama, he correctly opens the article with the statement “This controversy has been spun as Catholics opposing a president offering a commencement address at Notre Dame. That's not really the issue. What most are angry about is that a great Catholic university is conferring an honorary degree upon a politician whose position on abortion is in absolute conflict with Catholic teaching.”  Any attempt to state differently is absolute distortion.  Further down in the article Kass continues, “(Mary Ann) Glendon was to have received the Laetare Medal, described by Notre Dame as the most prestigious honor awarded to American Catholics. But in a completely non-nuanced open letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins, Glendon turned it down.  In her letter, Glendon said that she did not oppose Obama speaking to the graduates. What bothered her was Notre Dame conferring an honorary degree on a president who supports abortion rights.”  No matter the buzzwords, digressions into intolerance or hate speech the left tries to employ, the case is clear, and no amount of talk can cause the Church to sell out its morals, beliefs, or principles and any thought to the contrary is against the Constitution.  Catholics don’t want abortion outlawed, they don’t want their government to fund or encourage it, which is exactly what Obama and the far left want, to tell the church what beliefs, morals, and principles to subscribe to because they know far better what is good for Catholics then some old German guy living in Rome.  How can I dare say this?  I don’t have to, the liberal press has, in Chicago papers “…suggested that it was "an extreme embarrassment" for a Catholic university to confer honors upon a pro-abortion-rights president. For this grievous sin against Obama, mayoral brother Billy Daley attacked the cardinal in a Tribune op-ed piece, calling the cardinal's stance "an embarrassment to Chicago Catholics."

Here is the real kick in the teeth for the radical left, they are losing the ideology of their message.  First of all the facts are that Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff identified as ''Roe'' in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion now opposes abortion so much she went to Notre Dame to protect against Obama’s honorary degree, and was allowed to leave without being arrested which would have been major bad press for the pro-choice crowd.  Next is that the recent Gallup poll released just before the weekend.  In the poll 51% of Americans identify themselves with being pro-life, only 42% identify with pro-choice, this is a first in American society since the Roe v Wade decision!  Only 14 years ago the same poll had 33% pro-lifers in America, that means over 14 years of the left organizing, publicizing, and demonizing the pro-life crowd they have gained 18% of public opinion, that is a huge turnaround for a secular country where religion is increasingly under attack.  Those believing it should remain legal in all circumstances has fallen to 22% from 34% in 1995 and is now at its 1972 levels when polling on the issue began.  The polls conclusions state that “It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public’s understanding of what it means to be ‘pro-choice’ slightly to the left, politically,” the poll found. “While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.”

In the Philadelphia Bulletin’s article, Obama Outside Mainstream America on Abortion Marjorie Dannenfelser, Susan B. Anthony List President, “believes Mr. Obama’s pro-choice policies are putting the White House at odds with the U.S. public. Since taking the oath of office, the president has worked to increase abortion services with the latest example being his call to remove a ban on taxpayer funded abortions in the District of Columbia.  The president has also lifted the ban of funding overseas abortions and has moved to rescind job protections for health care workers refusing to participate in abortion procedures. During the presidential election he campaign in favor of the Freedom of Choice Act and said the abortion issue was above his “pay grade.”  “President Obama and the pro-abortion majority in Congress are in a collision course with public opinion on abortion policy.  What we’re debating right now – taxpayer funding for abortion – dramatically outstrips public opinion.”  Encouraging news for conservatives in the upcoming 2010 elections is that “the poll found the number of Republican-leaning Independent voters who consider themselves pro-life rose 10 points, from 60 percent to 70 percent, since the last time the poll was taken in May 2008”, according the Bulletin article.  It seems that the distaste for radical policies like tax payer funding of abortions, expanding the acceptance and reach of abortion dialogue as an accepted alternative to pregnancy, and policies like the Freedom of Choice Act and the President’s late term abortion victory are turning off more Americans then they are encouraging them to side with the left.

Now is the time to begin picking the pieces of the armor away that are cracking in the DNC and in Obama.  His popularity will quickly nose dive as he makes more and more concessions on liberal ideals and corner stones of policy.  What conservatives need to do is not sell out their core and values but tout them and capitalize on them to offer a solid and stable solution to the shifting sand and rule by popular opinion that this government has been showing us since 2006.

Buried deep in the LA Times Blog section of their website, on the Top Of the Ticket – Politics, Cost to Cost With the L.A. Times blog an interesting article by Ashley Powers outlines the possible beginning of the end for the honeymoon between the liberal press and the Obama administration.

What makes this article interesting, besides being published on the LA Times website, is the fact that the liberal press is beginning to report on the utter blatant hypocrisy of the Obama administration.  If the media treated Obama with the zest and zeal they did when G. W. Bush was in office, and their radical blog ilk like Salon, Huffington Post, etc then those of us in the ultra small minority of the web could drop this and go directly onto policy and alternative solutions.  But because no one else has been doing so thus far, someone has to.

According to the article, remember back in the good old days of February, when we were losing only 250,000,000 jobs a month according to Nancy Pelosi and TARP was the headline of the month, well back then Obama stated "You can't get corporate jets, you can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime." when his press corps found out about an annually scheduled awards event to recognize banking employees and give them access to the company’s executives by one of the bailout recipients?  Soon afterwards corporate sponsorship for stadiums and sporting events evaporated, still going on with golfing events being cancelled due to lack of sponsors, and other banks cancelled scheduled trips.  Now of course there was abuse of tax payer funds and misuse of government funds but the president used it as a chance to climb up on his freshly minted bully pulpit and preach to the evil barons of corporate America oh the sins of spending, capitalism, and the free market economy.  Well, now the shoe is on the other foot.

It has just been announced that the Lecturer on All Things Morale will be the headliner for this years fundraising event for his good pal, Harry Reid, the House Majority Leader.  Powers states “… what better way for a new Democratic administration to symbolize cutting out excess in a time of hardship for millions of Americans than to hold a mega-fundraiser in Las Vegas, that urban personification of understatement, for a guy with millions in hand already and no one to spend it against?”  This is no BBQ at the ranch where people will pay a few thousand dollars for a plate of ribs and fresh air, no it will be a HUGE orgy of entertainment and liberal slickness held in the Colosseum at Caesars Palace and feature party faithful Bette Midler and Sheryl Crow on May 26th.  Remember Obama raised over $750 million last fall which is reported as being more then the bonuses AIG paid out and Obama forces employees to pay back!

Now we all are aware of the HUGE carbon footprint for Obama’s Earth Day speech in Iowa, and his $375,000+ photo op for Air Force 1 shadow and 2 F-16 escorts over the statue of liberty, promised to be held from the public but leaked after the price tag was made public, by the NY Times by the way…  So how much tax money is being spent for AF1, fighters, air and ground crews, security, shipping the presidential limo and convoy, police overtime for the local residents tax bills, Michael's wardrobe (at least Sarah Palin’s was bought by the GOP, Michael’s is paid for by us – how can you prove it isn’t?  Oh, lets not forget Obama’s federal paycheck we fund going to Vegas slot machines, blackjack and craps tables, etc.  Will Barack charge Reid a speaking fee?  Will the mayor uphold his pledge to give Obama a piece of his mind?  Well, at least Obama has a valid excuse for going to spend and raise more money then spent on AIG, BoA, and others chastised back in February, they are trying to keep themselves in power to save the rest of us by providing the leadership and example of how to sacrifice and scrimp in this economy until we are healthy enough to spend freely again.

Just like Specter “changing” sides the retirement of David Souter has little impact on America’s political landscape.  Specter had been siding and voting with the DNC party line as consistently and often as the Democrats across the isle, good riddance.  Justice David Souter will retire at the end of June.  President Obama will get to exercise the power of the Executive branch by appointing a replacement Justice who will serve for life or they decide to retire.  Souter was appointed by the first President Bush and turned out to be one of the staunchest liberal leaning justices.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  The Supreme Court needs to be fair and balanced because of the following legal principle, justice is blind.  Unfortunately in this day and age of political polarization and crystallization we have people in power who want to extend the reach of their power and influence as well as repay political favors and debts.

Ever since my first draw of attention to Supreme Court appointments, Clarence Thomas, in 1991 and the circus of confirmations surround it I have been exposed to the term litmus test.  The litmus test is a list of criteria used to select a person to ensure they will do what you want them to do.  As Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life the influence is long lasting and people in the opposition party are always eager to do what they can to block a candidate they feel does not fit their litmus test.  Over the past few presidential campaigns the litmus test issue has become a large on.  The funny thing is Republican candidates and confirmers were forced to state they would not use or submit a nominee to a litmus test.  For the last 8 years the Democrats were edgy of the thought that the highest court of the land would become activist, able to overturn Roe vs Wade which legalized abortion.  Since then the term has been flung far and wide as something that has to be avoided and guarded against at all costs to keep only highly qualified and truly impartial justices on the bench.  Well, this is now a piece of partisan history.

President Obama will live up to his campaign pledge of July 17th 2007 when he pledged in a planned parenthood clinic “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”  From this we can see the President is clearly looking for an advocate judge, one who is sympathetic toward upholding abortion, entitlements for the poor, affirmative action, same sex marriage, and nationalized health care policies.  Of course you have to read between the lines but seeing Illinois State Senator Obama’s only record of legislation was to sponsor a bill that would mandate late term abortion survivors be terminated by any means necessary, babies who can breathe independently and are touted by hospital premature maternity wards nation wide are to be left and neglected until death in Illinois is quite telling towards his pro-choice stance.  His statements during the Saddleback Church debates were vague and telling on his answer dodging and political side stepping.

According to the Justice oath: 28 U.S.C. § 453 "I, my name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." the President’s earlier statement is contrary to the exact oath of the Supreme Court.  According to the oath empathy and understanding are contrary to the “without respect to persons” and “do equal right to all” portion of the pledge.  Thus ANY litmus test is contrary to selecting a justice, for either party or any administration.  The qualifications are simple.  The Supreme Court applies the policies and laws of the Executive and Legislative branches against the Constitution to ensure they do not violate any section, amendment, or intent of the Constitution.  Applying a litmus test removes the blindfold of justice and places weights on the scales of justice leaning them left or right. 

Souter was a leftist leaning Justice.  Obama has already signaled he will select an activist and partial nominee whom will adhere to a DNC ideology and philosophy and not intimate and in-depth knowledge of the Constitution.  This means we will change our an apple for an apple.  As the toxic rhetoric of the left has only been amped up since the election victory in November last year we in the center and right have no illusions of following the rules and expectations.  Of course to be fair it has been just over a century since this has happened as partisan politics has become a game of back and forth and both majority parties have been consumed by a perpetual cycle of one-ups-manships of tit for tat.  So in the grand scale of balance and fairness Souter being replaced by a liberally slanted or even liberal activist justice will be of minimal or no impact on the court as a whole.  Those of us in the 44% who did not vote for Obama and those who did not vote do not expect any different, hopefully we can keep growing and expanding our message from the TEA parties that the government works for us all, not just the intellectual elite who believe socialism, nationalizing private sector banking and large scale manufacturing, entitlement expansion, expanding government, burdensome taxation, irresponsible spending, and other liberal ideas that are too detrimental to the freedoms and pursuit of happiness.