I’m on vacation in Chatauqua, N.Y., but unfortunately, not on vacation from politics. Barack Obama was here before I arrived at this quiet enclave on the shores of Lake Chautauqua in the southwestern corner of New York state, 30 miles from Lake Erie.

I’ve learned from previous summer visits here with my wife’s family that a Southern Baptist church is not to be found. I guess that’s why they’re called Southern. So after shopping around for a friendly clime for Sunday worship, I’ve given up and settled for the nondenominational service at Chautauqua Institute, a gated community noted for its high-brow classical music roots and strongly liberal-left political discussions.

I’ve heard a few good sermons here: last year the Scottish chaplain to the Queen; the year before a black minister from Maryland. But this year it was “Barack at Chautauq.”

So far as I know, his name was never mentioned out loud, though I did arrive five minutes late so I may have missed the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, pastor of the Chautauqua Institution, leading the congregants in a chant of “Yes, We Can!”

I did hear her remind those gathered on the bare wooden pews of the open-to-the-outdoors amphitheatre that this is “the political season,” perhaps a gentle forewarning for the main speaker.

The Rev. LaVerne Gill, retired black United Church of Christ pastor from Michigan and currently Chaplain Administrator for the Chautauqua United Church of Christ, Inc., read the Scripture from Luke 18:1-8, Jesus’ parable of the widow and the unjust judge.

The main speaker was the Rev. Timothy Carl Ahrens, pastor of First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. Are you beginning to see a United Church of Christ theme here?

In case you somehow missed the youtube “G— D---- America!” ranting sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, don’t worry. No such wild rantings came forth from Ahrens, a calm, reasonable white minister, who also sounds totally unlike Father Michael Pfleger, the post-Wright visiting white minister of youtube and Trinity UCC pulpit fame.

But have no doubts that Ahrens is a fellow traveler with Obama, Wright and Pfleger. The Chautauqua program notes “Rev. Ahrens has been heralded as one among five pastors keeping alive the social justice tradition of the late William Sloan Coffin.”

Coffin, you may recall, was the Yale chaplain who took a leadership role in the anti-war movement of the ‘60s, among other causes du jour popular among the liberal-left. His anti-war antics continued to his death in 2006, including opposing the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf to liberate Kuwait after Saddam Hussein’s invasion from Iraq.

So there’s the common tie that binds Obama, Wright, Pfleger, Coffin and Ahrens, “the social justice” gospel.

Ahrens used his text, Luke 18:1-8, to illustrate the “social justice” gospel, turning Jesus’ words inside out and backwards to make his point.

To paraphrase the parable, a persistent widow seeks justice from an unjust judge, who finally gives in and grants her request just to shut her up.

Jesus tells us what the parable means in the opening verse, 18:1, “And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray and not to faint.”

Then Jesus sums up his point again in the closing verses, 18-7-8, “Shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”

So the point of the parable is persistent faith, like the widow used on the unjust judge until he finally gave in. Then Jesus turns from the unjust judge to God the Father, and says God will not only hear the cries for justice from his own, “I tell you he will avenge them speedily.”

The parable concludes with Jesus asking that when he, the Son of man, comes to the earth, will he find this kind of persistent faith on the earth? Or will he find the “social justice” gospel?

Ahrens answered “no” to Jesus’ question and “yes” to my imagined latter question, turning the persistent widow into “an organizer,” a forerunner, we must presume, of the young college graduate who came to the south side of Chicago to work as a “community organizer” and launch his career in liberal-left politics.

In furtherance of the “social justice gospel” in his church and city, Ahrens said he has “organized, mobilized and agitated” in Columbus, Ohio.

And just in case anybody didn’t get how radical his gospel is, Ahrens made it clear by adding he is “sick and tired of the religious right” and that part of the church in America.

Ahrens said Columbus “has the highest poverty rate in Ohio” and that his church ministers to “the least, the lost and the last” in his city.

But then he as much as admitted that government “social justice” programs have not helped lower the poverty rate in his city, saying political leaders have “wasted the tens of millions we have trusted to their care.”

So what is the solution to replace these failed government programs, such as welfare, that have resulted in more poverty, not less? More “tens of millions” must be demanded of these “unjust judges” he said. “Give them a black eye until justice is done.”

He then misinterpreted another act of Jesus, saying he “liberated the poor by turning over the tables of the money changers in the temple.” Wow, welfare in the Bible!?

And I thought that Jesus was chasing the thieves out of his father’s house of worship.

Ahrens urged “political action” in the churches, warning, “some of your congregants will not like this.” No kidding.

And in case anybody missed the “gospel according to Barack,” Ahrens called for churches to be “holy and special agents for this change.”

So instead of doing as Jesus said, calling on God for justice, who he promised will “avenge his own elect… I tell you he will avenge them speedily,” the gospel according to Ahrens, Obama, Coffin, Wright & Pfleger says to demand justice from the unjust judges.

Now there’s some real change. But I sure don’t want to believe in this “other gospel.”

Over in the WaPo’s editorial section, Post staff writer Howard Kurtz describes Obama’s flip-flop on gun rights as “Pretzel Logic” and cites the above quote from his own paper’s news section as part of the case he makes for Obama’s “linguistic pretzel-twisting.” A lie by any other name…

Obama’s previous calls for a complete ban of handguns? Obama’s statement as recently as the Pennsylvania primary that concealed-carry laws should be tossed? Obama’s current campaign website statement that gun rights apply only to hunters with not a word about self-defense? All right down the memory hole, courtesy of his swooning mainstream media cheerleaders. Or should I say right under the Obama campaign bus?

McCain and 55 other Senators signed a friend-of-the-court brief calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the D.C. handgun ban. Obama was one of the few Senators who refused to sign that brief and he also spoke in favor of upholding the D.C. gun ban. But when the court ruled against Obama’s view, guess what? He don’t need no weatherman to know which way the wind’s blowing. Suddenly Obama’s “always” supported individual gun rights?

Really? Always? OK, let’s pretend that’s true and get to the huge “but” that he throws in after that whopper about what he’s “always believed.”

Obama's “but” says he supports “common-sense, effective safety measures” for gun-control. “Common-sense” like the idiotic Clinton assault-weapons ban: This gun’s OK, this one’s not, even though they’re the same caliber, operate the same way and hold the same number of rounds? Only difference is this one looks different from that one? Those kind of common-sense gun laws? Obama’s on record supporting that same law and calling for its renewal since its expiration.

And would someone please show me just one gun-control law that’s resulted in any “effective safety measures”? Fact is, when guns are outlawed, every single time and place that’s happened, gun crimes have gone up, not down. Case number 1: Washington, D.C., murder capitol of the nation. Case numbers 2 and 3: Chicago and New York City, two more sterling examples of strict anti-gun laws in, murder rates skyrocket.

So where are you more likely to get murdered? In D.C., New York City and Chicago; or in any place in the nation with concealed-carry rights? If you don’t know the answer to that question, you need to get out more. As Jesse Helms used to say, “Time to wake up and smell the coffee.”

The only gun laws that are proven to be “effective safety measures” are those concealed-carry laws which Obama previously said should be thrown out. In every single state where concealed-carry handguns have been legalized, gun-crime rates have gone down, not up. Why? Real simple, even “common-sense” if you will. When criminals know their planned victims might be armed, they just don’t commit crimes as often.

Floyd Brown, one of the creators of the now-infamous 1988 Willie Horton ads which helped defeat Michael Dukakis, has a new target, Barack Obama.

His new site, ExposeObama.com , is aimed at informing the public of topics the mainstream media is not discussing, such as about Obama’s positions on a variety of issues, including abortion, taxes, crime, health care, education and guns, reports Matt Lewis at Townhall.com in “Provocateur.”

I love the smell of victory in the morning! Finally some good news from the Supremes: By yet another 5-4 vote the high court today overturned the Washington, D.C. handgun ban and said the 2^nd amendment means … surprise, surprise, that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.

Rich Moran at American Thinker writes: [In one of the most significant constitutional rulings handed down in many years, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has ruled that individual Americans have a right to protect themselves with a firearm under the 2nd Amendment.

[It is the first time in the 218-year history of the United States that the Supreme Court has ruled on individual gun rights. …It settled the longest argument perhaps in American history; just what does the 2nd Amendment mean when it talks about a "well regulated" militia? A majority of the justices say that it includes the issue of self defense in the home - a breakthrough acknowledgment of an individual's absolute right to own a handgun for purposes of protecting his life and property.

[If Barack Obama is elected, chances are the makeup of the Supreme Court as well as its mission will change dramatically. Reason enough for many on the right to consider swallowing their disagreements with McCain and voting him in, Moran concludes.]

I gotta admit I was a bit pessimistic about our gun rights. After the high court’s recent 5-4 rulings granting “rights” to Gitmo terrorists and child rapists, I was afraid the court majority would follow that path in deciding that us non-terrorists and non-child-rapists ain’t got no stinkin’ rights.

Like the famous Mexican bandits in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” I was ready to say: “Rights? We don’t need no stinkin’ rights! We got guns!”

I think I’ll celebrate by going gun shopping!

Could the rapidly improving prospects of victory in Iraq rehabilitate the rock-bottom poll numbers for President Bush – and similarly deflate Obama’s popularity just in time for the fall election? Tony Blankley speculates on that unexpected possibility in “Was Iraq Worth It?”

Now, it is doubtlessly true that our invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) helped al-Qaida's recruitment. I have been told that by U.S. government experts I trust. But that is an old fact. What Osama bin Laden famously said about recruitment is also true: People follow the strong horse. And the new fact is that as we are winning in Iraq, as we are killing al-Qaida fighters and other Islamist terrorists there by the truckload (along with other insurgent opponents of the Iraqi government we support with our blood and wealth), we are proving to be the strong horse after all and can expect to see a reduced attraction for young men to join the Islamist terrorist ranks.

Fighting and winning always impress. Even merely fighting and persisting impress. Shortly after the fall of Soviet Communism, I had dinner with a then-recently former senior Red army general. He told me that the Soviets were astounded and impressed by the fact that we were prepared to fight and lose 50,000 men in Vietnam, when the Soviets never thought we even had a strategic interest there. They thus calculated that they'd better be careful with the United States. What might we do, they thought, if our interests really were threatened?

The full effects of the vigorous martial response of President Bush to the attacks of Sept. 11 will not be known for decades. But if history is any indicator, military courage, persistence and a capacity to kill the enemy in large numbers usually work to the benefit of such nations.

On Sept. 10, 2001, many Islamists thought America and the West were decadent, cowardly and ripe for the pickings. (Hitler thought the same thing about us.) On the basis of President Bush's political courage -- and supremely on the physical courage, moral strength and heartbreaking sacrifice of all our fighting uniformed men and women (and un-uniformed intelligence operatives) -- America's willingness and capacity to fight to protect ourselves cannot be doubted around the world. This may prove to be the most important global political fact of the first decade of the 21st century -- with implications even beyond our struggle with radical Islam.

It is time to reconsider whether President Bush or Barack Obama was right on whether to fight. Obama has had a good political run on the early and inconclusive evidence. As victory starts to emerge in Iraq, more persuasive data begin to fall on President Bush's side of the argument. This is a debate worth having before November.

Could McCain’s supposed run for “Bush’s third term” (as Obama keeps saying) actually turn around to put him in the White House? We shall see.

Two “pigs fly” incidents on the same day in the mainstream media?! First a NYT op-ed writer praises Bush (and McCain) for being right on the war in Iraq. Then a Washington Post op-ed writer slams Obama and praises McCain!? I guess that’s why they call them “op ed” writers.

The WaPo op ed writer is Roger Cohen, who penned today’s opposing-editorial viewpoint with “McCain's Core Advantage.”

Cohen slams Obama’s reversal on campaign funding as “far less forgivable” than any position changes by McCain due to Obama's “socialist realism language he used to rationalize his decision.”

Lordy, did he just call Obama a socialist!? Talk about pigs flying! Vast-right-wing conspirators have been pointing out Obama’s socialist dogma for some time, but to my knowledge this is the first time a “mainstream media” commentator has applied the dreaded “s” word to Obama. I'm gobsmacked! Why... that's almost as bad as calling Obama a liberal!

And of course, before Cohen can praise McCain he is obliged to first list all the reasons he doesn’t like him. But then he gets down to brass tacks.

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.

“Transparently false” pretty much sums up what us members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy have been saying about Obama from the get-go. I’d say it’s about high time that somebody on the left finally acknowledges that with Obama, there’s really no “there” there. “Scant” indeed.

David Brooks, token conservative at the New York Times, commits blasphemy at the leading leftwingnut newspaper: He praises President Bush!

In “The Bush Paradox” Brooks couches his praise in acceptable lefty language by first calling Bush stubborn and arrogant (probably the mildest criticism yet voiced amongst the “Bushitler!” wingnuts) but then notes it was those two traits that resulted in Bush being right on the Iraq war.

Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.

…Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.

…When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

…In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them. During that period in 2006 and 2007, Bush stiffed the brass and sided with a band of dissidents: military officers like David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and outside strategists like Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and Jack Keane, a retired general.

Bush is also a secretive man who listens too much to Dick Cheney. Well, the uncomfortable fact is that Cheney played an essential role in promoting the surge. Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right.

Then without repeating names mentioned earlier, Obama and Sen. Harry “The war is lost” Reid, Brooks points out who was wrong about the war.

…And now the cocksure surge opponents, drunk on their own vindication, will get to enjoy their season of humility. They have already gone through the stages of intellectual denial. First, they simply disbelieved that the surge and the Petraeus strategy was doing any good. Then they accused people who noticed progress in Iraq of duplicity and derangement. Then they acknowledged military, but not political, progress. Lately they have skipped over to the argument that Iraq is progressing so well that the U.S. forces can quickly come home.

But before long, the more honest among the surge opponents will concede that Bush, that supposed dolt, actually got one right. Some brave souls might even concede that if the U.S. had withdrawn in the depths of the chaos, the world would be in worse shape today.

I scan the NYT daily to find out what they’re for so I know what to be against. But every once in a while, as in the writings of Brooks and their other token conservative op-ed contributor, William Kristol, I find something I can agree with. Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.

Obama's lyin' possum is road kill. Lordy, that piece of stupidity didn't as long as a possum caught in the headlights of an 18-wheeler.

Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a governor in a strange place called Texas made a campaign promise to give Texans their long-sought freedom to carry concealed weapons. Wonder whatever happened to that Texas governor?

A.W.R. Hawkins writes about Texans with guns in ‘Freedom Reigns for All With Concealed Carry Law’

Amidst the frantic disinformation campaign by gun control proponents, the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association asserted that concealed carry laws reduce crime and violence because they present would-be criminals with a serious problem: the problem of ascertaining who is and who is not armed. For example, once such a law is in place, the would-be sexual predator must start guessing which female might have a .357 magnum in her purse with which to defend her life and dignity, and which might not. The dilemma for such a thug is that if picks the wrong the woman, his life is over. That is quite a deterrent for anyone accustomed to breathing, eating, and sleeping, criminals included…

When opponents of concealed handgun laws protest because such laws will lead to bloodshed, rising crime rates, and increased “shoot outs” in the streets, they fail to take into the account the fact that the evidence is wholly and overwhelmingly against them. And most importantly, they fail to understand that whether they ever get a concealed gun permit or not, a gun concealed on my belt makes their children less likely to be targeted by criminals or pedophiles as they play with my children at the park. To put it another way, again: when I’m free, you’re free. 

Nicholas J. Kaster at American Thinker asks ‘Will Estonia Liberate the United States?’

Estonia, liberated from communism in part by music, has embraced supply side economics and economic freedom. This small Baltic nation may have some lessons for America…

Mart Laar, who became Estonia's first prime minister in 1992, inherited the bitter fruits of socialism - an economy in shambles and the citizenry dispirited. "In an era of socialism," Laar wrote, "people were not used to thinking for themselves, taking the initiative or assuming risks."

…Supply-side economics is very controversial in the West, but Laar has little doubt of its effectiveness. "The flat-rate tax has been an important part of the Estonian success story," he said. "its easy to collect and easy to control." The only losers, he noted, were the tax lawyers.

In the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom compiled by the Heritage Foundation, Estonia ranked as the 12^th freest economy in the world, ahead of Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands-an astonishing achievement in a decade and a half. The result has been formidable economic growth, an average of 6% per year since the reforms began. The effects of the Singing Revolution have reverberated across the former Soviet empire, as five nations in the former USSR-Georgia, Latvia, Ukraine, Romania, and Russia itself-followed Estonia's lead in establishing flat taxes and adopting free market reforms.

Estonia's embrace of free enterprise, private property, and low taxes were built upon the Reagan-Thatcher vision of the 1980s. The supreme irony, of course, is that, while Estonia (and other Central and Eastern European countries) are taking Reaganism even farther than Reagan could, the U.S. now seems headed down the road of collectivism and higher taxes. As Central European countries are slashing tax rates, Barack Obama promises to raise the U.S. marginal income tax rate and to nearly double the capital gains tax. While the former communist countries are discovering the virtues of privatization, Democrats in the U.S. (and some Republicans too) are seeking a more expansive role for the state.

Ironic isn't it, that post-Cold-war eastern Europe is embracing Reaganomics and freedom at the same time that Reagan's former "shining city on a hill" republic is poised to elect a president and strengthen a Congress who will "collectively" turn us back toward the darkness of socialism?

This is so freakin' weird, I thought Ace was jerkin' my chain when I saw it, but it's true. Obama has bypassed us voters and gone ahead and moved straight into the White House, do not pass go, do not go to jail, just boot Bush out and take over the nation. I'm referring to the new President Barack Obama presidential seal, which he has just unveiled for his campaign, as shown next to the real McCoy.

I was sure it was a joke when I saw the BO seal motto, "Vero Possumus," which replaces "E Pluribus Unum" on the real McCoy, which is Latin and translates into "Out of many, one." So what does the BO seal motto translate, "It's the truth, I'm lying like a possum!"? Well it's actually supposed to translate into "Yes, we can," the official "Trust me, just don't ask me what I'm really going to do" Obama motto.

Once again, Obama has showed his total ignorance of us bitter, Bible-clingin', gun-totin', redneck yahoos who know a lyin' possum when we see one. I plan to do a "man on the street" survey of my fellow rednecks and see what they think "Vero Possumus" means. But I think I can make a prediction in advance. In addition to "Huh?" I'm going to get a lot of possum jokes. Sorry BO, this ain't ready for prime time.

To drill or not to drill, that is the question. More than 1 million Americans have already answered by signing the “Drill Here, Drill Now!” demanding that Congress take action to drill us out of this mess.

Or we can continue doing what we’ve been doing for the last three decades to solve our nation’s energy problems: nothing. No new drilling, no new refineries, no new nuke plants, no new coal mining, no nothing but jawing about how some “Eureka!” moment will replace our oil needs.

I’m a Christian and one of the favorite criticisms of us from the left is that we’re just dreaming of “Pie in the sky, by and by.” Well it sure looks like that’s the only hope the liberals in Congress (and the tree huggers and Al Gore’s global alarmists) are offering: Don Quixote’s windmills.

Call me simple-minded, but I’m sure of one thing. If we continue doing nothing, nothing’s what we’ll get, nothing but ever-rising gas prices.

Hugh Hewitt says: We can drill our way out of this problem. The problem is that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid won't let us. The choice in November is clear. A vote for any Democrat from Obama on down the ticket is a vote for $10 a gallon gas. Obama and his allies don't care now and they won't care next year even if Obama wins. The change you will get if the Democrats get the presidency plus the Congress will be prices at the pump skyrocketing.

And there’s one more thing we can do about the current crisis: Drive 55. I’ve been a “hurry up and get there” driver all my life, but $4 a gallon convinced me to try an experiment, driving the speed limit. I slowed down to 55 and my mileage has jumped immediately from 30 mpg to 35.

In my case, that means filling up every 10 days instead of weekly. While I’m waiting on some action by Congress, it’s better than doing nothing.

The best-laid plans of mice and men – and Barack Obama – seem to be falling apart. In the past few days, the Obamessiah’s halo has slipped and he has handed John McCain two gold-plated issues that may put the Maverick in the White House: drilling for oil here and terrorists’ rights.

Obama is against drilling for oil in and offshore of the United States and supports the Supreme Court ruling that grants terrorists legal rights in our courts. McCain is for drilling and against terrorists, that simple. And guess what? A big majority of voters agree with McCain and disagree with Obama on these two issues. What’s more fundamental than pain at the gas pump and allowing the ACLU to loophole terrorists out of jail?

Obama is essentially saying pain is gain at the gas pump and it’s only right and proper that Osama bin Laden gets a get-out-of-jail legal loophole.

Bill Sammon in the Washington Times reports: Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts, a privilege opposed by John McCain.

And I say – and most voters agree with me – that we should say, “Not only no, but H E L L NO!” I believe this is McCain’s two steps to victory.

On the first issue, Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (I thought a pack of cards was only supposed to have two jokers, not three?) all have said “we can’t drill our way out of this mess”? Well if not, just how are we supposed to get the oil to run our nation, sucking it up with straws?

So what can we do to get the message to Congress to drill for the oil we have right here, which Congress has blocked for 30 years? Join me and the 917,010 Americans who as of this minute have gone to AmericanSolutions.com and signed the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition.

On the second issue, Obama is saying the 1993 criminal trial of the first bombers of the World Trade Center should be our model for terrorism.

Today’s Washington Post reports: Former Navy secretary and 9/11 Commission member John Lehman cited that 1993 trial as "a material cause" of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks yesterday when Lehman participated in the McCain conference call.

Lehman said grand jury evidence in the 1993 bombing was "put under seal" and not made available to the CIA, thus denying the agency timely access to information that "would have enabled many of the dots to be connected well before 9/11 and . . . give a good chance to have prevented" the later attack. In particular, he cited information concerning a connection between Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged ringleader of the 2001 attacks who is imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and the bombing.

So on one hand, the secret evidence was withheld from the CIA by the courts. On the other hand, guess what happened to all the evidence in that 1993 trial that was revealed to the terrorists’ attorneys? The next day, it was published on Al Jazeera, the all-terrorist network, for Osama and his ilk to read.

And Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News last night that when it came out in the 1993 trial that investigators built their case on the terrorists by listening in on their satellite telephone conversations, the next day Osama bin Laden suddenly stopped using his satellite telephone. Big coincidence.

Now there’s a national security plan only an ACLU liberal could love: Tell our military, “There’s a lawyer attached to every bullet.” And tell our enemies, “Go ahead and sue us. We’ll pay for your lawyer!”

“These are times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”—Thomas Paine, Dec. 23, 1776.

James Lewis at American Thinker quotes Paine in a call to action for all conservatives in the midst of this bleak winter of our trying times in America.

Six months before November 2008, many conservatives are down in the dumps. John McCain is behind in the money race. George Will thinks we are doomed --- an amazing thing to say, half a year before a toss-up election. Even Rush is in a sulk about John McCain.

But the stakes are higher than they have been in the last fifty years. No major US political party has ever nominated a radical Leftist before --- and Obama can't hide his real loyalties. Even Bill Clinton was more of a 'moderate' Democrat. Obama is a True Believer in the Left, like a younger Hillary Clinton after a sex change and a major sun tan.

What can you do? Lewis suggests several ways you can fight the good fight.

It’s quite obvious the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama. But The Washington Post has taken its Obama defense a step further, attempting to rehab the reputation of Obama’s former church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, with a Sunday article: At Obama's Former Church, Hurt Lingers

The article notes that TUCC’s new pastor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, replacement for the “retired” pastor, not-rev. Jeremiah Wright, instituted a policy of no interviews with the media by staff or members in an attempt to stem further negative press about Wright’s inflammatory sermons. But of course, the WaPo is an exception to that “no media” rule since they’re obvious about their attempt to help TUCC flush Wright’s sermons down the memory hole.

WaPo’s article leads off with: "We are a wounded people," said the Rev. Otis Moss III, the pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Members are also quoted, including one tidbit that rebuts Obama’s insistence in 2004 that he regularly attended Sunday worship services at Trinity.

Members talked about the possibility of sharing their pews with the first black president. On the rare occasions that Obama attended church, he sometimes received a standing ovation.

So perhaps Obama actually told the truth when he insisted he had missed all of his pastor’s “greatest hits” sermons when Wright went off on “whitey.”

The article uses a “sound bite” to cover the entire TUCC controversy, from Wright’s “G-D America!” through not-my-father Pfleger’s spittle, while decrying the "sound bite" coverage of Wright's greatest hits.

Wright, the author of more than 4,000 sermons, became a public caricature through inflammatory, 30-second sound bites. He reiterated his most divisive opinions during an appearance at the National Press Club in late April. In a last-ditch attempt at damage control on May 25, Trinity invited a white Roman Catholic clergyman to take part in a "sacred dialogue on race."

The result? During his sermon, the Rev. Michael L. Pfleger mocked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying she cried about Obama's candidacy because she thought: "I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show."

How’s that putting a positive spin on the anti-white rhetoric of both Wright and Pfleger in just two short paragraphs? Spin cycle on high. Why imagine their surprise that the visiting white clergyman would say things exactly like those Wright said.

But then the article lets slip an actual news item (How did that get in there?) that perhaps Wright hasn’t really retired from his pulpit/soap box.

Trinity's only method for recovery in Obama's absence, members said, is a renewed devotion to those same (black liberation theology) principles. But that might be complicated. Wright had planned to retire June 1 and install Moss, his hand-picked successor. However, on last weekend's service program, Wright remained listed as the senior pastor even as Moss delivered the sermon. Some church members said Wright might be interested in returning to the pulpit, and they remain unsure as to who's in charge.

Stay tuned. And keep those video cameras rolling at TUCC. I can’t wait to see what Big Daddy Wright says when he returns to “his” pulpit.