"All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn." –Barack Obama

No kidding. And here I expected Obama to say "Yes, america DID start the AIDS crisis in Africa ! America IS exactly the same as Al Qaeda !"

But I'm very heartened that Barack vehemently condemns controversy. Let me say, I vehemently condemn controversy also. And I denounce it. And repudiate it. I'd also like to kick controversy's butt. I want to condemn cancer too, and repudiate that. I'm firmly of the opinion that cancer is bad, and that is my firmly held conviction. Always has been.

Barack Obama wrote to the Huffington Post about his pastor Jeremiah Wright's racist and hateful rhetoric. Read Obama's entire statement here.

Obama does what you'd expect anybody this close to the presidency to do when confronted with a similar situation - he denounces his pastor's comments. And condems them, repudiates them, etc, etc, blah, blah. There was really nothing else he could do, unless he wanted to pack in his political career.

But there's a part of Obama's statement that is very difficult, if not impossible, to believe. Here's Obama:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church."

Obama went to Wright's chuch for 20 years, engaged in numerous private conversations with the man who was his advisor, and he NEVER heard him make any of these racist, anti-semitic, anti-american, or just downright crazy statements ????

Right. And I've gone to 20 Cleveland Cavaliers games the past three years, but I've never seen Lebron James make a basket (I was always in the restroom every time he scored. Darn that iced tea). Give me a break already.

And even if we are gullible enough to believe that much, Obama goes on to say that Wright's racist and extremist comments first came to his attention "at the beginning of [his] presidential campaign," and Obama indicates he may have left the church had Wright not been "on the verge of retirement." Okay then…if Obama so condemned Wright's comments, then why did Obama appoint Wright to his campaign's African American Religious Leadership Council after he knew about the comments, a position that Wright has just now left ? Why has the Rev. Wright remained Obama's advisor until now, when this firestorm erupted ? Obama didn't seem like he was all that offended by Wright's comments until they were being splashed all over television screens across america.

Somebody's nose is growing.

You can hear some more of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "sermon" here.

No, this isn't about Eliot Spitzer, but I do have a quick word about him. It seems that the tv networks couldn't bring themselves to mention Spitzer's political party association after his sex scandal broke. Weird, huh ? It's funny, because when there's a Republican scandal, the fact that the guy's a Republican is ALWAYS in the lead sentence of the story. In fact, it was only recently that I learned Larry Craig's first name wasn't actually 'Republican', because the networks ALWAYS refer to him as 'Republican Larry Craig'. I thought 'Larry' was his middle name. Not that there's a liberal media or anything.

But this isn't about that.

This is about how the Democratic presidential race has devolved into ugly racial accusations.

First, for those of you who thought I was exaggerating about Obama's racist minister, Jeremiah A. Wright, in my Left Wing Lunatics post, get a load of the following video, where Obama's minister sweetly entreats his congregation in what will surely become known as his "God Damn America" speech. For any of you who want to defend Obama by calling this guilt by association, that's fine, but consider a few things first: Obama has attended this minister's church for 20 years. This minister married Obama and his wife. This minister baptized Obama's children. This minister brought Obama to christianity in the first place, according to Obama. This minister's "audacity of hope" speech became the title of Obama's book, and Obama has referred to this minister as his advisor. This minister advised and prayed with Obama prior to Obama launching his presidential bid. If this is guilt by association, well, it's a pretty darn strong association. Obama has to come up with more of a response to Jeremiah Wright's hate mongering than merely calling him a "crazy uncle".

On the other side of the Democratic identity politics mountain, former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro, a Hillary supporter, also made a stupid racial statement. This one sounds tame now in comparison to Reverend Wright's nuclear blasts, but Ferraro said:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Ferraro's statement is dismissive of Obama's political talents, which is the first way she's wrong. Her comments also imply that Obama is somehow the affirmative action candidate, another falsehood that attempts to marginalize him. Besides, you could say that almost every prior president in the history of the country wouldn't have gotten to where he is if he wasn't a white male. That would be valid, so even if Obama is riding his historic wave in part because of his race (that IS what makes this historic after all), isn't it about time ? After 230 years it finally becomes a plus to be a black man in politics in america and Ferraro feels the need to complain about it ? Pretty lame, Geraldine. Ferraro attempts to defend her comments here.

Even though I don't support many of Barack Obama's political policies (or Hillary's either), which is what this Democratic primary SHOULD be about but isn't, at one time I was encouraged by the way that the Hillary vs. Obama campaign didn't seem to be about race or gender. I was encouraged by the fact that we seemed at long last to be moving past the silly identity labels that divide us. I was beginning to hope that maybe we WERE moving into post-racist america. The Democrats have made me realize how woefully naive I was to ever think any such thing. The race card has been laid and played on all sides by the Dems in this power struggle, ever since the South Carolina primary. We haven't moved past anything. It's the same as it ever was, and that makes me sad.

And to think Democrats make a big deal out of it when a conservative talk show host uses Obama's middle name.

The Emperor's Club…is that the 796 Democratic superdelegates who are poised to trump the will of the people at their whim during the Democratic primaries ? Or is that the Democratic National Committee, who disenfranchised voters in two entire states during the Democratic primaries ?

Naw, it isn't a group of politicians at all. It's a different kind of prostitute, the kind that sell their bodies to emperors like Eliot Spitzer, Democratic governor of New York.

I guess I should write about what a hypocrite Spitzer is, and ask how a former prosecutor and attorney general who ran for governor on a platform of high ethical standards and cracking down on crime could prosecute people like the Emperor's Club and patronize them at the same time, but all you have to do is turn on the television to hear that stuff. Spitzer's hypocrisy is plain for all to see. I guess I could politicize this and talk about a "culture of corruption" within the Democratic party, like Nancy Pelosi did when Republicans were caught being corrupt, but that would only be partisanship, and basically dishonest, so I'll leave the dishonesty to Pelosi and her ilk. For every Democrat caught doing something like this, there is also a Republican caught doing something like this. There is no political party that has a monopoly on corruption. I could reel off at least twenty corrupt politicians from both parties right off the top of my head, and I imagine most of you reading this could also.

So, I'll take a different tack.

Spitzer spent $4,300 for a hooker ? For one night ? Are you kidding me ? And now they are saying he spent $80,000 for hookers ! That's a lot of booty for booty.

This proves what I always say about government spending. Your average Democrat will always spend way more than your average Republican. Compare Spitzer to Larry Craig, Republican governor of Idaho. When Craig allegedly went looking for a little something, he went to the airport restroom. That's called being a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, folks. Craig didn't waste no $4,300 just to get laid. Just think, all that money Eliot Spitzer wasted on hookers could have been used to buy little Johnny a new kidney, or buy food for those who are hungry in the world. Instead, Spitzer just throws all that money down a hole (pun intended). Larry Craig didn't waste money like that. I bet Craig, had he been able to complete his transaction, would have been in and out (pun intended) for twenty bucks, maybe less. THAT'S a public servant, ladies and gentlemen.

People are saying that Eliot Spitzer was a potential presidential candidate prior to this sex scandal, so I have to ask this question - Since when does a sex scandal disqualify a Democrat from being president or in a position of government power ? Hello ??? McFly ??? Just how short ARE everyone's memories ?

And haven't we seen enough of the wives of these cheaters standing beside them at the press conference, looking like they've just been hit with a club, but "standing by their man" (who didn't stand by them) ? The only time I ever want to see this again is if the wife wacks the sob over the head with a frying pan right on national tv. Stand by this.

As always, the message here is - power corrupts. It always has, and it always will. There is no way to eliminate it, but in order to minimize it, here's a suggestion:

Don't hand all the power over to the government in the first place. That's where those low taxes, limited government, free market ideas come from. Too bad we don't have political parties that actually follow them, as our founders intended.

Clinton/Spitzer in '08. I hear Obama turned down Hillary's offer of the VP job. Pretty rude of him after Mrs. Clinton was kind enough to offer, don't you think, lol ? Sounds like the Clintons are still in denial. I figure Spitzer would be a good fallback choice for Hillary. She's used to handling cheaters. Plus, with both Spitzer and Bubba in the White House, the Emperor's Club would probably go public and become a good growth stock.

As we begin to see signs that the american left wing terrorism machine is ramping up again, I find myself longing for the days when all the moonbats did was shout down conservative speakers on college campuses and create elaborate loony consipracy theories. They are moving well beyond that now, as they adopt the tactics of some other infamous fascist groups, like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Consider some recent evidence:

Several luxury homes in a Seattle suburb were burned to the ground. A left-wing environmental extremist group known as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) left a banner at the scene. Link

The antiwar extremist group Code Pink has disrupted several venues, most notably in defacing a Berkeley marine recruiting office. The uber-liberal Berkeley city council sided with Code Pink in wanting the marine recruiting office removed from the city of Berkeley. Link

Following the bombing of a Times Square military recruiting station, an anti-war protester claimed responsibility by mailing many copies of a 20-page manifesto to the Capitol. Link

Granted, this current left wing terrorism is small potatoes compared to what it was back in the 60's and 70's, when people like Barack Obama's buddy William Ayers were setting off bombs for the Weather Underground. Ayers is unrepentent, and told the New York Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs…I feel we didn't do enough." Ayers now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. I kid you not. I'm sure he's really "educating" his students. Link

Over on the far left websites (Daily Kos, Democratic Underground), they are worried that these left wing terrorist acts will be used to smear the political left. Earth to Daily Kos - Pointing out the TRUTH is not a smear. In fact, over at the Democratic Underground (DU) website, there is a post called 'You Don't Need A Weatherman' that starts like this:

Do you support the right of the people of Iraq to fight back against a hostile foreign occupation? If so, why are you at peace, fat and happy and not risking your precious little life? Why are you not joining in the fight against the empire by striking violent blows in the homeland?

In case you have any doubt, the 'empire' is the U.S.A. This post is a complaint that today's peace movement isn't doing enough. Link. Buck up, DU, it seems your fellow left-wing lunatics have heard your message and are beginning to mobilize.

When Barack Obama says he wants people to get involved, I'm pretty sure arson and bombings aren't what he has in mind. One thing Mr. and Mrs. Obama both agree upon, however, is that america is one really screwed up country. It underlies all of Baracks's talk of hope and change, and Michelle Obama just comes right out and says it. Here's the essential part of that New Yorker article, where Mrs. Obama talks down the country that has given her so much:

{-MICHELLE-Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”}

Then consider Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who has been Obama's pastor and advisor since the 1980's. Reverend Wright is a pulpit purveyor of anti-americanism, racism, and anti-semitism. Listening to Wright, you'd think america was responsible for all the ills in the world. Link. Here are a few samples of Wright's "preaching":

"Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”

"We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

"We do not care if poor black and brown children cannot read and kill each other senselessly."

"We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-semitic.”

"We started the AIDS virus, and now that it is out of control, we still put more money in the military than in medicine; more money in hate than in humanitarian concerns. Everybody does not have access to healthcare, I don’t care what the rich white boys in the Senate say. Listen up: If you are poor, black and elderly, forget it.”

"We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. And fact No. 10: We are selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant…"

Now, I can't get inside Obama's head, but if my minister and advisor started sounding like the black version of Adolph Hitler, I'd go find another minister and advisor, pronto. I sure wouldn't continue to attend his church and seek his counsel for twenty years, as Barack did.

The anti-semitic attitude of the far left isn't just some isolated incident either. Many have exhibited it in public, from Louis Farrakhan (Jeremiah Wright's hero) to Al Sharpton to Jesse Jackson. On another left wing website, the Huffington Post, where anti-semitic comments are routine, when they published a story about the senseless brutal slaughter of innocent Israeli students at the hands of Palestinians a couple days ago, Link, Huffington turned off the comments section to the post. I guess she knows her readers, and knew she'd be embarassed by the anti-semitism her far left lunatics would spew forth. I'd link you to that article, which I found on Huffington yesterday, but I couldn't locate it today. Perhaps it's been pulled.

I don't know about the rest of you, but unlike the Obamas, I WANT the far left lunatics to be lazy and complacent. The last thing I want is for them to become involved, energized, and active with all that venomous anti-american hatred they are carrying around. God only knows how much stuff would blow up or burn then. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, it could be deja vu all over again.

My fellow americans,

I have a dream, a dream of a shining city on a hill, where the buffalo roam, and seldom is heard a discouraging word. For now the skies ARE cloudy all day, my friends. As Dr. King said, "The thrill is gone, the thrill is gone away from me". We are not thrilled with the status quo. We are not thrilled when we have to work five days a week while pampered movie stars have lots of money, big mansions, and ride around in limousines. I ask you, is this justice ? Is it justice when Rosita, an undocumented worker, has to clean multi-millionaire Barbra Streisand's house for a few hundred dollars a week ? That is not justice. That is not america. No justice, no peace. I will take Mrs. Streisand's profits away and give them to Rosita who deserves them. Let Mrs. Streisand clean her own toilets, and let Rosita ride in the limousine. Yes we can !

If you have ever thought there was anything wrong in the world ever in your entire life, then I am your candidate, because I too have thought there were things wrong in the world. I am just like you. I bring not only change, but real change, and not only real change, I bring REALLY real change, that you can believe in with all your heart, from here to eternity, forever and ever, amen. I am courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. I have been to the moutaintop, I have seen other people's money, and I'm going to take it from them and give it to YOU, all my children. You who deserve that money so much. All you have to do is vote for me, and I will set you free. No longer will you have to work like a slave for things like food, shelter, clothing, and video games, for I will give them to you for free, because you deserve it. Yes we can !

No longer will you have to worry about how you will pay your car insurance or be held hostage by the cable television company, because I will make sure that every citizen in this country has his or her car insurance and cable tv bills take care of. Why should some rich man like Brad Pitt get 250 television channels when Jenny Pratt, a 25 year old waitress from Youngstown, Ohio, with three children and no baby daddy, only gets channels 2-14 ? Is that justice ? The bureacrats in Washington, D.C. say yes, but I say NO. Is it justice when your next door neighbor has three cars while you have only one ? I say NO. As president, I will take that car from him and give it to you, my friend. You who deserve it. No longer will we endure the tyranny of our neighbors having more than we do. No longer will we have to keep up with the Joneses. When I am president, we will ALL be the Joneses. Some say these things could not be done. Some say these things would not be done. Some say these things should not be done. Some say I'm as dumb as a bag of hammers, but I say, yes we can ! Yes we can ! Keep hope alive ! We will, we will rock you ! We will, we will rock you !

Now, some of the naysayers look at my campaign of ecstasy and utopia for all mankind and they say "King has no experience," or, "King's proposals aren't practical," or "King is insane in the membrane". These nattering nabobs of negativity don't want me to give your neighbor's car to you. They don't want me to give you free tv and millions of dollars you didn't earn. They don't want me to give you Nintendo Wii or force Domino's to deliver free pizzas to you door upon request. And why ? I'll tell you why, my children. It's because they are GREEDY, that's why ! They want all those Domino's pizzas for themselves, and they want YOU TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN PIZZA. That's fascism, my friends, plain and simple, and my campaign is about freedom. As president, I will be free to give you anything you want, and I will give you everything your heart ever desired ! Yes we can !

Other naysayers claim "King has no substance on the issues", and that's a debate I'm happy to have. Let me dispatch that notion right now, by proposing substantive solutions to some of this nation's other problems. In my first week in office, I will - end the war, stop trade to end the trade deficit, outlaw corporations (only the big, evil ones), give you all money so you don't need jobs, make school optional and free, erase all american borders, and make health care free. There, problems solved. Did I miss anything ? If I did, just drop me a line, and I'll take care of it in 10 words or less. Thank you for your support.

Yes we can !

Oops. The messiah stumbled yesterday. Barack Obama's aura of inevitability took a hit, as he was defeated by Hillary Clinton in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Obama did win in Vermont (and two Vermont towns noted for their liberal politics voted to arrest Bush and Cheney. Coincidence ? It's doubtful).

Could it be that voters who aren't moonbats in Vermont (the vast majority of us) are finally taking a peek behind the Obama rhetoric to see what policy resides there ? I certainly hope so. In the course of 20 Democratic debates, the moderators didn't make Obama answer one serious economic question about the effects of his policies, and the voters say the economy is the biggest issue. What a complete and utter farce. Voters deserve to know what all that "change" would be, and what all their "hope" would bring about. In that vein, I'd like to expose a little more Obama policy to the sunlight.

I've already talked about Obama's many, many, many proposals for new federal government spending, and I've linked you to the Obama Spend-o-meter, which tracks the cost to the taxpayers (that's you and I, folks. In an Obama presidency, the giant sucking sound will be coming from your wallets, in contrast to the Bill Clinton presidency, where the giant sucking sound came from the Oval O…well, never mind).

So let's take a different tack, and look at how Obama intends to pay for all that new spending. Townhall.com has a video that spotlights five of Obama's tax increases. You can link to the video here. I have to point out that Obama is proposing MORE than five tax increases. Townhall's list doesn't even include the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the more wealthy, which is a given, and other tax increases. Before I get into Obama's numerous tax increases, in fairness I have to point out where Obama has said he will cut taxes. Obama has promised a $1,000 tax cut for the middle class. He has also promised to give unspecified tax breaks to corporations that keep jobs in america ("unspecified" is why I don't believe this one for a second. I think it's a trick to make voters think Obama cares about business and jobs, when in fact his other proposals will destroy free enterprise, business, and jobs in america, as you will shortly see). Finally, Obama said he will keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class intact.

Here are the five Obama tax increases from Townhall's video. Let's call them 'Obama's Fave Five':

1) Nearly double the capital gains tax, raising the rate from 15% to 29% (Amanda Carpenter misstated the numbers in her video), and also hunt down what he calls "tax evaders" in foreign countries. Obama calls this his "tax fairness plan".

2) Remove the Social Security tax cap, imposing a 12.4% payroll tax on those earning over $97,000 per year.

3) Implement "green" taxes. Start a carbon tax to pay for Obama's $210 billion proposal to create green jobs.

4) Implement "patriotic" taxes. Require employers to pay all employees a "living wage". Require all employees to receive a pension plan. Require employers to pay 60% of all employee health care premiums. Allow unions to organize WITHOUT elections. Increase U.S. workers relative to those outside the U.S.

5) Implement global taxes. Obama is the lead sponsor of the Global Poverty Act, which would commit $845 billion in additional U.S. foreign global aid by 2015, which would ask nations to ban small arms and light weapons, and which would ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream media could put their pointy little heads together and relate some of this information to the general public, and maybe, just maybe, discuss the effects of all this on our economy ? No, I guess that's too much to ask. Instead, they talk about darker vs. lighter shades of Obama pictures, Obama in a turban, and Obama "denouncing and repudiating" Louis Farrakan's amti-semitic remarks, all of which doesn't mean diddly squat compared to these five business and job nuking proposals that Obama wants to bring to reality in our country.

Each one of Obama's fave five taxes will increase the cost of doing business in the private sector. Each one expands government control over free enterprise. Each one is anti-business. Each one puts america at a competitive disadvantage in the world. That one about allowing unions without an election might as well be coming from Lenin, it's so unamerican. Ditto for doubling the capital gains tax. Capital gains money has ALREADY been taxed. It's also investment money, retirement money, and nest egg money. To tax it at high rate discourages investment and harms millions of people financially. If Barack Obama's actual goal was to kill the american economy, his fave five would be a very good start, especially in combination with his massive expansion of spending and entitlements. We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, appear to be going into a recession, and in places like Ohio, jobs have been lost. Add Obama's "cure" to the mix and it could be 1929 all over again. No thanks.

This stuff is Economics 101. You don't create new jobs by making it harder and more expensive for companies to do business. You don't expand business and jobs by taking away profits. You don't help the economy by reducing private sector investment. Obama's policies would strangle business. Then, I'm sure, the next dunderheaded liberal would come along and blame it all on the business sector some more, call them greedy, and ask for yet MORE government intervention in business to "fix" things, when what should be done is to make our businesses MORE competitive, not less. The real fix is the exact opposite of the liberal prescription. The real fix is low business taxes, less regulation, and liberty. This stuff is so obvious that anyone who ever took one college business class should understand it. Apparently, Barack Obama didn't take one. Heck, anyone who has ever balanced a checkbook should be able to understand it, or even anyone who can add and subtract, when you get right down to it.

Makes me wanna holler.

“I have some news, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda — It’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq…I don’t understand how Senator Obama would say he would go back to Iraq if Al Qaeda were there when Al Qaeda is there and everybody knows it,” — Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail.

“I’ve got some news for John McCain — he took us into a war, along with George Bush, that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged.” — Sen. Barack Obama on the campaign trail.

This exchange highlights the difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding the Iraq war. Republicans believe we should stay there until we are successful, until Iraq is secured from the terrorists and insurgents and can stand on it's own. Democrats believe we should never have gone in, and we should get out ASAP. Obama has pledged to withdraw all troops in 2009 if he is elected president. McCain's statement that we might stay in Iraq for 100 years has been hyped to the rafters by Obama, even though McCain wasn't talking about fighting another 100 Years War, he was talking about a residual non-combatant force staying in Iraq, such as we have in Japan, Germany, Korea, Bosnia, etc. McCain's position is to finish the job in Iraq.

Obama's stated foreign strategy is not pacifism, however. He wants to withdraw from Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan. He has also said he would strike Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence" (and apparently, Bush has already struck Pakistan).

I think almost all americans wish the Iraq war was over. That is a given. I don't know of many who enjoy war, and I'd wonder about the sanity of anyone who did enjoy it. We hate the cost in human life the most. We hate the monetary costs as well. Obama continually talks about what he could do with the $12 billion we are spending in Iraq each month. He says it could go toward health care, schools, infrastructure (Hey, it just occurred to me. Nobody talks about paying down the debt anymore. Strange. That seems important…but I digress).

I also want the Iraq war to be over, but I don't want Iraq to descend into chaos by a premature american withdrawal either. After all that has been sacrificed to remove Saddam Hussein, push back Al Qaeda, fight the insurgency, secure the country, reconstruct the country, and get to where political reconciliation finally seems to be creeping forward, I would hope our next president would be responsible enough not to risk throwing all that away just to score some political points.

This brings me back to the quotes I repeated at the beginning of this post. Obama's point that we should never have gone into Iraq is MOOT, not to mention that it avoids McCain's point about Al Qaeda. The fact is, we ARE in Iraq. The fact is, Al Qaeda IS in Iraq. The decision the next president might have to make is — where do we go from here ? Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of saying he was against the Iraq war back in 2002, even though he never had to vote on it, since he wasn't in the Senate. He's used that non-voting opposition to beat Hillary and Edwards in the primaries (who both were in the Senate and voted for the war, as did the majority of Democrats), and it appears he's going to use the same tactic against McCain. Notice how Obama has already started saying "McCain took us to war, along with Bush", as if it was all really McCain's idea. That's a politician for you. For a candidate who says this election is about the future, Obama seems to be the one talking about the past an awful lot. Read those quotes again. McCain is the one talking about the present. McCain is the one talking about where we go from here. That's what presidents have to do. The rest is politics. Obama is good at politics, good at speeches, and real good at getting a total free pass from an adoring media when he makes a mistake, as he did here.

—-

When I watched Hillary's commercial with the little girl sleeping, where the phone rings at 3am and something has happened in the world, (a very valid question to ponder when electing a president, btw, not "fearmongering" as Obama wrongly claimed), the president I wanted picking up that phone wasn't Barack Obama. Hillary had that much right. Unfortunately for Hillary, she wasn't the name that popped into my mind either. It was John McCain, the one with military experience, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the one who was first elected to the Senate in 1982. Experience DOES count. The Dems thought military experience was so important in 2004 that they dressed John Kerry up in a uniform and had a bunch of his fellow Vietnam soldiers lined up behind him onstage at the Democratic National Convention. It was "John Kerry, reporting for duty" back then. As ridiculous and ironic a spectacle as that was, the message was clear. No chickenhawks for president (even though Bush WAS in the service, oddly enough). Well, now it's 2008, Dems. Obama wasn't in the military. We have one candidate with military experience versus one chickenhawk who wants to become a wartime president and who wants to attack Afghanistan and Pakistan. What say you now, Dems ? Were you lying in 2004, or are you lying in 2008 ?

The price of oil is at an all-time high, having recently reached $105 per barrel. As a result, we are paying more for gasoline at the pump than ever before. Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail, continually blame the high price on George W. Bush, as if Bush personally sets the market price, or as if Bush policies drive up the cost of oil (and Dems do have at least one point there: war). You hear a lot of talk from Democrats about Bush having buddies in the oil industry, or Bush being a former oilman himself. What you don't hear from Democrats is how THEIR policies have consistently driven up the price of oil, have inhibited the production of domestic oil, have resulted in america importing more oil from foreign countries, have driven up our trade deficit, and have funded our enemies. Such Democratic policies include: forbidding drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), forbidding offshore drilling increases, imposing so many regulations that no new oil refineries have been built since the 1970's, high taxes on gasoline, a virtual ban on more nuclear energy……

And now the Democrats are at it again, seeking to drive up the price of gas and home heating oil by imposing $18 billion more in taxes on american oil companies via the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Axt of 2008 (H.R. 5351), which passed the House last week. Those additional taxes and removal of subsidies will undoubtedly translate directly to higher prices at the pump for you and I, and will hit the pocketbooks of the poor and working class the hardest. You remember the poor and the working class, don't you ? Those are the ones Democrats claim to help. Maybe Obama can explain this "help" in his next speech about hope and change and unity. When I heard Obama talk about "taking away the profits of Exxon-Mobil" to raucous applause at YSU a couple weeks ago, he left out the part about the resultant higher prices at the pump. I wonder if the crowd would have applauded had Obama told the truth and said, "I'm going to make you all pay through the nose for oil because there MIGHT be global warming". I think not, but that's why he's a politician. Yes we can (destroy the country).

In addition, H.R. 5351 only raises taxes on companies that drill and refine oil in the United States (Exxon, BP, Conoco-Philips, Shell, Chevron), so CITGO, the personal ATM machine of Venezuelan leftist coca-head Hugo Chavez, is exempted and receives a 6 percent advantage over the american companies. I'm sure that will do a lot to reduce our foreign oil dependence. NOT. On the bright side, it has been a week or two since Chavez last threatened to stop selling oil to the U.S.A.

Here's Nancy Pelosi and company making a statement about H.R. 5351, in a stunning example of up-is-down speech:

"With the price of oil above $100 a barrel, this Congress is again taking action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and support the domestic production of renewable energy…Already pinched at the pump, American families are now feeling the effects of higher energy prices throughout the economy. This legislation is another critical step in a series of concrete actions this Congress is taking to address soaring energy costs, grow our economy and create new jobs, strengthen national security, and begin to reduce global warming."

Pelosi is actually pretending these new taxes will reduce energy costs ! She left out the part where the reduced energy costs won't happen until maybe the year 2025, if ever. This leads me to another point. Why do Democrats keep insisting they are going to create millions and millions of new "green" jobs ? Since when does the government create jobs, other than government jobs ? The private sector is where all the "green" jobs would be created. There is already an enormous market for "green" jobs. Pretty much all the government has to do is get the hell out of the way. Maybe offer some tax breaks as incentives for the new technologies. Huge tax increases is the last thing the government should be doing here, the last thing the government should be doing now, with the price of oil already the highest ever and the country on the edge of a recession.

Bush has threatened to veto this legislation. When he does, I'm sure the Democrats and the media will portray him as being in the pocket of big oil. You can count on that.

In other news from the House of Representatives, 3 post offices were named and two inaugural balls were scheduled last week. The Protect America Act is still unaddressed, hampering our intelligence gathering capabilities against suspected terrorists. Maybe, in another example of up-is-down speech, Pelosi can call a press conference to say that means "americans are safer from terrorism". Oh wait, she already did that.