All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws - 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age - 26th amendment to the United States Constiutition.

This is the United States Of America. Our citizens have the right to vote, to have their voices heard, to choose their representatives in government. That is the essence of our democratic Republic. Without that, our freedoms are not secured.

But now we have a candidate running for president, Barack Obama, who wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million Democratic primary voters in Florida and Michigan. It appears the Democratic National Committee (DNC) wants to help him do it. Ironically, Obama claims to be a former civil rights lawyer who represented many people in voting rights cases. Now, he's advocating against voting rights. Is this the 'Change We Can Believe In' that Obama promises us ??? I think not. This is the Change We Do Not Want. Even more ironcally, Obama is a black man. It took nearly 200 years from the founding of this country for African-Americans to throw off the chains of slavery, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, prejudice, and voter intimidation to secure their full right to vote. Now Obama and the DNC come along and toss 2.3 million votes out the window at their whim. Welcome to the Obama Banana Republic, fellow citizens. What the hell was all that civil rights marching for anyway, if our votes can be brushed aside so easily ?

Obama wants to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters for one reason - it benefits HIM. Forget about the U.S. Constitution. Forget about the civil rights movement. Forget ALL that. Obama wants to be president, and the liberal Democratic establishment wants it too, so we can't be bothered with trifling issues like voting, civil rights, and Constitutions. In a third glaring irony, it was the Democrats who lamented over every vote being counted and recounted endlessly in Florida during the Bush/Gore presidential election of 2000, when it was to their advantage to figure out a way for Al Gore to win. Now, they don't care a lick about 1.7 million Florida primary voters, because they want Barack Obama to win. That is hypocrisy on a breathtaking scale.

And it's unconstitutional, criminal behavior. Peter J. Wirs cites the case law in his excellent article, called Specter Demands Sanity Check On Obama's Hypocrisy:

Constitutional law is unequivocal. Every vote cast must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Deliberately refusing to count votes cast may, under certain fact scenarios, constitute a Federal crime, United States v. Classic, citing now Section 241 of the Federal Crimes Code. Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."

In the United States v. Classic decision, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone expressed the majority opinion by stating that the Constitution's protection of the right to vote cannot be effectively exercised without reaching to primary elections and/or political party nominating procedures. Even the dissenting opinion in Classic recognized a Congressional right to regulate primaries.

Democrats should not be allowed to rip up millions of ballots. If the DNC doesn't find remedies for both Florida and Michigan's disenfranchised voters, Congress and the people should demand one. The principle of one person, one vote vastly overrides any other consideration here.

Now listen to the unamerican, vote stealing "compromises" Barack Obama has come up with for Florida (every "compromise" results in Obama being the nominee, btw. Some surprise). This comes from the Huffington Post:

Barack Obama is now floating a compromise on the Florida situation, telling the St. Petersburg Times that one idea would be to cut the delegations' sizes in half — a step back from his previous stance of splitting the delegates 50-50 between himself and Clinton, but a far cry from the Hillary camp's insistence upon seating them in full.

Obama only offered the "cut the delegate size in half" compromise after he knew it could not hurt his chances to become the nominee. Prior to that, he stuck to the absurd "50-50 delegate split" compromise, thereby nullifying the Florida primary and pretending 1.7 million Florida voters didn't go to the polls that day.

There is a DNC meeting this saturday, where the DNC will allegedly decide whether they care about democracy a little bit, or not at all. Stay tuned for the results.

I've been ignoring Barack Obama's growing list of mistakes and blunders, but they have been coming so fast and furious that I have to comment (okay, I don't HAVE to. I WANT to). I've already reported some of them, such as Obama referring to Iran as a tiny country that is little threat to the U.S., only to claim a few days later that Iran is a grave threat, so I don't have to repeat that one. Oops, too late.

Here goes.

===
Barry O's latest blunder was during his Memorial Day speech, when he confused Memorial Day, when we honor our fallen soldiers, with Veterans Day, when we honor our living veterans. Or, Barry sees dead people. You decide:

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." - Barack Obama, May 26, 2008

O's campaign spokesman Bill Burton reinforced the error in a retort to John McCain, when Burton said “Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation’s veterans, not a day for political posturing.” Ironically, Obama took several swipes at George W. Bush ON MEMORIAL DAY, which evidently were somehow NOT "political posturing." I guess I just don't understand the rules.
===
Last saturday, Obama, on a campaign stop in SUNRISE, Florida, said, ""How's it going, SUNSHINE? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. It's good to be in SUNSHINE!"

Maybe there weren't any clouds that day.

This gaffe is reminiscent of Obama's greeting to Sioux Falls, S.D., where he declared, "Thank you, Sioux City!"
===
Last thursday, Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and “one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the FERMENTATION of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about.”

Later, Obama said, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to FERMENT terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that’s not acceptable behavior.”

Shades of Dan Quayle. The word is "FOMENT" Mr. Potato-head, not "FERMENT". Not to mention that everybody already knows Chavez has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to FARC. Everybody except Barry, that is. Wake up, Obamabots. Time to arise from your sleep. Somebody fetch the holy water.
===
Earlier in May 2008, Obama showed off his vast knowledge of the country he intends to lead, by declaring, “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Wow. This guy is so smart, he has created 8 states that the rest of us don't even know about yet. Impressive.
===
Last May, Obama intoned, “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.”

The actual death toll: 12.
===
In another impressive display of his knowledge of geography, Obama explained why Hillary Clinton was leading in the Kentucky primary: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”

Those states in the middle.

On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois? Is it the one with 57 or 58 states, rather than the customary 50 ? For the record, Kentucky BORDERS Illinois, which you'd think Barry would know, seeing as how Illinois is his home state.
===
It isn't only maps that confuse Barry O. It's dates too. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents conceived him as a result of the march.

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. Unless Barry was born 4 years before his own conception, he was telling a whopper.
===
Speaking about a lack of translators in Afghanistan, the Obamanation pointed out, "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.”

Right. Or it could be because Iraqis and Afghanis speak different languages. The Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or non-Arabic languages.
===
There are several more Obama gaffes. Some can be found at Michelle Malkin's website here.

And to think, all Dan Quayle did was misspell the word "potato".

President Bush has threatened to veto a new G.I. Bill that passed the House and Senate. The Senate version was proposed by Jim Webb (D-VA) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). It would pay full tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11. Bush and other opponents of the bill, which includes Republican nominee John McCain, argue that with an all-volunteer military, the bill would encourage enlistees to serve only one enlistment period. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new and improved benefits would decrease re-enlistment rates by 16%. Apparent Democratic nominee Barack Obama supports the Webb/Hagel G.I. Bill. Proponents of the bill argue that we owe our veterans the same type of benefits they received following WWII, and that the loss of re-enlistments would be made up by increased numbers of new enlistees seeking the benefits.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times excoriated Bush and McCain in an editorial appearing in it's pages on Memorial Day. The Times editorial board opined:

"[Bush] is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break…So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home… Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put…a long-term investment in human capital, in education and job training, there is no good argument against an expanded, generous G.I. Bill".

I think I share the opinion of virtually all Americans when I say that our veterans deserve G.I. benefits after serving their country. What the New York Times left out of it's editorial is that the Webb/Hagel G.I. Bill isn't the only G.I. Bill that was proposed. The Times is, of course, doing this intentionally to mislead it's readers and to have the maximum political impact against Bush and McCain, but the Times does it's readers a disservice (as usual), especially when a competing G.I. Bill has been sponsored by McCain himself. In the McCain version of the new G.I. Bill, benefits are improved along with longer periods of military service, and the benefits are transferable to a soldiers spouse and children, an element missing from the Webb Bill (the Times didn't mention transferability either). The Senate Democrats blocked the McCain version of the G.I. bill. Here's a White House statement responding to the NY Times:

[The New York Times is] expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be…[The President] specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children. Secretary Gates has also laid out guidelines requesting transferability as well as “greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force." The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.” Adding, there are many other proposals before the House and Senate and the President “specifically supports” one “proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.”

Under the McCain version of the G.I. Bill, people with longer military service get better G.I. benefits. That sounds reasonable to me, and so does the transferability option. So does the Webb bill provision. I'm not really taking sides here, other than the side of accuracy. I think the correct course is to craft a bill that combines all the necessary elements. There is a legitimate debate here, along with a golden opportunity for a bipartisan compromise, but we don't need the blatant distortion and demagoguery of the New York Times on this issue, nor do we need the unecessary political games that are being played. For once, it would be nice if politics was set aside and our soldiers could be taken care of as they deserve. Instead, our Senators appear to realize all too well that it is an election year, which is why partisan hacks like Harry Reid (D-NV) make statements like this:

This vote [to strike down the McCain bill] is a message to Bush-McCain Republicans that the U.S. Senate will not stand for political games at the expense of our nation's first responders and veterans," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

It's all about political one-upmanship to Dirty Harry. Our soldiers deserve better.

"…By engaging Iran [in dialogue], we reclaim the moral high ground — no small feat. If Iran refuses to budge, we have new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away" - John Kerry, May 24, 2008

(link)

Behold the mind of John Hanoi Kerry, where the USA needs to "reclaim the moral high ground" from Iran, a terrorist supporting country run by religious extremists (thanks Jimmy), where they do things like execute homosexuals and aspire to, in the words of the Iranian president, "wipe Israel off the map", because Israel is a "stinking rotting corpse". In addition, Kerry deems it "no small feat" for the USA to recapture the moral high ground from Iran. I wonder what caused the USA to sink to such depths in the mind of Messieur Kerry ? It must have been when the evil George W. Bush removed the terrorist supporting mass murdering tyrant Saddam Hussein from power in neighboring Iraq. I wonder if the Kurds agree ? Or the Kuwaitis ? I'm thinking NOT. I doubt if even the Iranians would want Saddam back.

Also, notice how Waffles says talking with Iran will give us "new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away". This leads me to wonder if Kerry is the slowest kid in the class, because everybody else already realizes Iran is a threat whose bad intentions are on plain display for all to see. Try to keep up, Mr. Kerry. Better yet, go away.
====
Next up is the Worst Person In The World, Keith Olbermann, who works for one of Barack Obama's public relations arms, MSNBC. Watch this video, where Olby raves on and on and on about Hillary Clinton's unfortunate remark about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June 1968. Granted, Hillary's comment elicited some pretty bad political imagery, but nobody in their right mind could think that she was talking about staying in the race because Obama could be gunned down. She was only talking about how nominating contests used to go on longer, in response to being asked for about the 10,000th time why she doesn't quit the race. Olberdork, however, not being in his right mind, raves on about it for over 5 minutes, building to a hysterical forced crescendo, blowing Hillary's comment so far out of proportion that you'd almost think she was involved in an assassination attempt herself. Olberdork is the most biased cowardly hack working in the "news" business today. He doesn't even feign fairness or honesty. He doesn't have anyone on his show who doesn't parrot his same dishonest leftwing bilge. There's no fairness and there's certainly no balance. Olberdork loves to make fun of Fox News for being rightwing, but on Fox, there is debate. Both sides of an issue are presented on shows like The O'Reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes. Those shows purposely have guests come on to argue the opposing points of view. Olberdork works in his safe little leftwing echo chamber, where never is heard a discouraging word, and then Olby has the nerve to sling mud at FoxNews. What a loser he is. If you really want FauxNews, look no further than Keith Olbermann.

I guess it also never occurred to Olberdork that his windy tirade about political assassination gave the idea more breath and exposure than Hillary ever did, by far, even if she had meant it as Olby pretends, which she didn't. I guess I could be wrong on that point, because there probably aren't enough people watching Olbermann's show for him to give ANY idea much exposure. I can't believe someone actually pays Olbermann to flap his lips. There must be millions of Better Persons In The World.

The pollsters and media talking heads tell us the Democrats have a huge advantage in the fall elections, an advantage extending to the 2008 presidential race. I'll up the ante by declaring it to be a 100% certainty that a Democrat will be elected president this year. I guarantee it. Either one of the two liberal Democrats will win (Barack Obama (D-ILL) or Hillary Clinton (D-NYY)), or the Blue Dog Democrat will win (John McCain (R-INO). All the Conservative Republicans have already been eliminated, and it was Republican primary voters who eliminated them (which is a perfect illustration of the confusion within the Republican party these days). McCain the Blue Dog impersonated a Conservative Republican for awhile to get the Republican nomination, but his true nature is slowly leaking out now that he is focusing on winning the general election. McCain has come out in favor of comprehensive immigration reform (a catchphrase for amnesty for illegals), said recently he would consider a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and alluded to the oil companies "obscene profits" (which are about 25% of the profits the government makes on a gallon of gas, which the government does absolutely nothing to earn, speaking of obscene). In the past, McCain has come out against drilling for oil in ANWR, and he also embraces global warming alarmism by endorsing the economically disastrous cap and trade system for carbon dioxide. Here's an excerpt from a january 2008 McCain interview with Weekly Standard's Mike Goldfarb:

Goldfarb: Some people are perplexed by your rhetoric on global warming. Is this one of those ‘no surrender’ issues, or is there room for discussion?

McCain: There’s always room for discussion. But I don’t know how any conservative can not support cap and trade. We did it with acid rain. The Europeans are putting it into effect. It’s a capitalist process that encourages green technologies. If we’re wrong, all we’ve done is adopt green technologies, in an effort to give our kids a greener planet.

As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.

That's a Democrat talking, not a Republican.

In the past, McCain partnered with Russ Feingold (D-WI) to pass campaign finance reform, which restricted political speech. McCain was part of the infamous "Gang of 14" who betrayed his own party on judicial appointments.

As you can see, McCain holds Democratic views on many issues.

The New York Times used to love John McCain for his "maverick" positions against the Republican Party, but now, John McCain is referred to in the Times and throughout liberaldom as a "Bush third term". They want you to believe there is no difference between George W. Bush and John S. McSame, I mean McCain. Of course that is a total lie, like so much of what the liberal media says regarding politics, but hey, if the media didn't lie, Democrats couldn't stay in power. The media runs sort of an equal opportunity program for the politically challenged, logic deficient Dems. It's an issue of fairness. It's what any Marxist worth his salt would do.

Democrats point to McCain's position of 'let's not destroy the Iraqi government by pulling out too soon' as proof that he is a Bush clone. McCain DID vote for the Iraq war, as did the majority of Democrats, and McCain DOES want to see the Iraqi government stand on it's own before we withdraw, unlike the majority of Democrats who wanted to pull out the second the political winds shifted against the war (but please don't question their patriotism, they all HONESTLY reversed positions the second it was politically advantageous to do so), but McCain was HIGHLY CRITICAL OF THE BUSH IRAQ POLICY for four years. McCain was the one who wanted the surge long before there was a surge, so he was hardly a Bush clone. McCain was also right about that, if it matters to anyone (it doesn't to the NY Times). Also, if it matters to anyone, Iraq keeps moving slowly in the right direction (the NY Times doesn't care about that either, and Democrats get downright testy if you mention it).

The other way Democrats try to equate McCain with Bush is because McCain doesn't want to reverse the Bush tax cuts. The Dems don't want you to think about it beyond that. The Dems want you to condemn those Bush "tax cuts for the rich", they want you to focus on that soundbyte, even though those tax cuts lifted the country out of a recession, and even though reversing them in this shaky economic atmosphere would be STUPID, unless, of course, bringing about a full-blown recession is the goal. Then it makes perfect sense. Put me down as being AGAINST implementing the largest federal tax increase in U.S. history at this particular point in time. You don't raise taxes in a recessionary cycle.

McCain has a history of fiscal conservatism, which you can't say about Bush, under whose watch federal spending increased greatly, with only a small percentage of that due to the war. McCain will attempt to reduce federal government spending. In that, he IS Conservative, but when you add all his positions in total, he fits the Blue Dog Democrat mold. The Blue Dogs are fiscally conservative too. Too bad they are an endangered species within their own party, because the Dems could sure use more of that. The majority of Dems lust after every dollar for themselves, because money is power, er, I mean, because they are benevolent and compassionate.

What's really comical here is how Barack Obama is the candidate being presented as the guy who can work across the aisle for bipartisan change, when Obama's record is down-the-line liberal on every single issue. Never has a politician's rhetoric and image been so removed from his actions and record as has Barack Obama's. There is, however, no truth to the rumor that William Ayers (D-WU) will be Obama's VP pick. That is just a rumor, and I don't want any of you to repeat it. I shouldn't even have mentioned it, the thing about former Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers being Obama's friend. I just shouldn't say anything about it, so I won't. Nor should I mention Obama's racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That's just wrong too. Let's just pretend Obama didn't hang out at that church for 20 years. That's the ticket. I'm sorry.

But anyway….

If you want someone who will reach out to the other side, John McCain's your man, not Barack Obama, or Hillary either. I say this though I'm not a McCain fan. The one thing I know for sure is that whoever wins the presidency in the fall, I won't like him/her.

During this week's superfluous dog and pony show hearings with the oil company executives, where Democrats worked up considerable vote-centric righteous indignation over the fact that the oil companies make profits (better they should lose money ?), representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) let the liberal cat out of the bag. When one of the oil execs blamed Congress for the high price of gasoline, citing the fact that Maxine Waters' Democratic party won't allow any domestic oil exploration (and hasn't for decades), Mz. Waters turned into Hugo Chavez, threatening like a good little commie to nationalize the oil industry. Waters seemed to realize what she was saying in mid-unamerican brain fart, and was momentarily at a loss for words. You really have to watch the exchange, it's priceless. It's not often you get a liberal on record telling the truth about their actual agenda. This is one of those rare times. Waters broke the liberal secrecy vow of 'never tell america what we really believe, or america will realize what radicals we are and never vote for us again'. Thanks to Hot Air for the video.

A few months ago, I heard Barack Obama (D-ILL) at a campaign rally, talking about how difficult it was going to be to take away the profits of the oil companies. When I heard Obama say that, I was thinking 'what gives YOU the right to take away the profits of the oil companies ?' They don't have that right, but Maxine Waters has shown the way. All the libs have to do is rescind capitalism and freedom. Piece of cake.

Hope I'm not being a divisive fearmongerer. Hey, what are those stormtroopers doing breaking down my front door ? I'll have to go see what they wa…

I want to stop talking about Barack Obama so much, I really do, but the man just won't keep his mouth shut, and every time he opens it lately, garbage pours out. I couldn't ignore this. Listen to this stuff he said about John McCain, from the Associated Press:

"Just look at what he said last week. John McCain gave a whole speech about what he'd do to make Washington work, but he didn't even mention the corporate lobbyists who are the main reason it doesn't work," Obama said. "He says he's against earmarks. Well, who does he think is slipping those pork projects into our laws? He says he's against waste. Well, who does he think is promoting it, waste in government? He says he's for opening up government. Well, who does he think is keeping it closed?"

Obama wants to talk about earmarks ? Fine, let's talk about earmarks.

John McCain requested NO earmarks for the fiscal year 2008. ZERO. I don't know how McCain could do any better than that. John McCain has been the biggest anti-earmark guy in Congress for years.

As for "who is slipping those pork projects into our laws", it's politicians like Barack Obama, that's who. Obama requested 100 earmarks for the fiscal year 2008, totalling $300 million. Obama has requests for $3 million for planetarium equipment, $200,000 for a new theater for plays, $8,500,000 for an asian carp barrier, $500,000 for marina improvements, $1,000,000 for a children's museum, $3,000,000 for a park, $4,000,000 for a reading program (don't schools already teach kids to read ? Just asking), $1,000,000 for expansion of an indigenous people's exhibit, and on and on. Here's the complete list. Obama has also requested earmarks for the hospital where Obama's wife works. An administrator at that hospital said Michelle Obama was "worth her weight in gold". No doubt. Mrs. Obama was promoted and her hospital salary tripled about the same time Barack entered the U.S. Senate. That was all entirely coincidental, I'm sure.

Obama wants to talk about corporate lobbyists ? Fine, let's talk about corporate lobbyists.

Obama is making a dustup about the fact that McCain has two people working for his campaign who were corporate lobbyists in the past. They are no longer corporate lobbyists, having resigned those positions to work for McCain's campaign. Let's not forget it was John McCain who championed lobbying reform and campaign finance reform in an attempt to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests. I can't really even believe Barack Obama is attempting this argument against McCain. If McCain was the Obamanator, he'd say 'this is a debate I'm happy to have', because reducing D.C. corruption and special interest influence has been one of McCain's passions. He has a long record showing that.

In addition, OBAMA ALSO HAS LOBBYISTS ON HIS PAYROLL. According to The Hill:

Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents. The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests.

So Obama is doing the same thing he's criticizing McCain for doing by using former corporate lobbyists. Unbelievable. I wonder why that fact didn't make it into the Associated Press story. No, I don't really wonder. I already know why. It's the same reason so many falsehoods are promoted by the mainstream media. They are in the tank for the Democratic party. Or, maybe I'm wrong and the Associated Press just couldn't locate the information. I know it took me a good 20 seconds to find it.
=========
Next up from the Daily Obamanation is this little nugget of Messianic wisdom:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK” - Barack Obama

Well, there's news. I didn't realize we had to ask other countries for permission to drive, eat, and heat our homes. Boy, life sure sounds rosy in Obama's future world, eh ? We'll be immobile, hungry, and cold, begging the UN for food and energy. Great. Sounds sort of Dickensian, like Oliver Twist.

Change You Can Believe In.
=========
On the bright side, Obama has made some real progress on the Iranian foreign policy issue I wrote about the other day. Last week, Obama said Iran was a tiny country that wasn't a big threat to America, and now, only a few short days later, he realizes Iran is a grave threat to America. Congratulations, Mr. Obama. That must be that HOPE you keep talking about. I HOPE you figure out some more stuff real soon. I knew that 'American Foreign Policy For Dummies' book was a good purchase.
=========
I have one other thing to say about Barack Obama today, and it's regarding Obama's whining about the GOP picking on his wife. If he doesn't want his wife's statements to be used politically, he should GET HER OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. IF SHE'S MAKING STUMP SPEECHES FOR HIM, SHE'S FAIR GAME. What is wrong with this guy ? He's starting to act like he's the Thought Police, telling people what they can and can't discuss. And what did he mean when he told the GOP to "be careful" talking about his wife ???? What's he going to do, put the GOP in the Gulag if he becomes president ?

Major kudos to USA Today. An American newspaper has finally told the truth about the real economic crisis facing our country, which is the growth of entitlements, mainly with Medicare and that Ponzi scheme hidden income tax ripoff fake trust fund brought to you by the Democratic Party, Social Security (SS). Read the USA today article here.

As a side note about SS, Barack Obama took to using a little "politics of fear" (if I may borrow an Obaman rhetorical device) to falsely scare senior citizens into thinking John McCain was going to take away their SS. (link) Real classsy move from Obama the "new kind of post-partisan politician" (guffaw). Nobody has EVER suggested taking SS away from seniors. Nobody. Certainly not John McCain. To paraphrase some more Obama-style patter - Barack Obama's appalling attacks are the type of divisive, dishonest, and hypocritical partisan rhetoric that has characterized politics for far too long. It's the politics of the past, and the American people are tired of it. Americans want real change they can believe in, not more fearmongering, not more of the same old down and dirty intransigent politics so typical of the Washington D.C. inside power players - There. How did you like my Obama impersonation ? You know, it's really easy to talk like that. I think I'll form an exploratory committee to make a run for the Senate, Libertarian Party, I guess. The GOP has ticked me off, so they're out. They had their chance, and the Democrats are just flat out wrong about almost everything, so they'd be far worse. Thinking the Republican mess will be fixed by the Democrats is like thinking you can set your hair on fire and then put it out with gasoline.

Which leads me back to my intended subject. The entitlement liability, which constitutes the REAL federal deficit. It's over $500,000 PER HOUSEHOLD right now. Forget the credit crisis. Forget the mortgage crisis. Forget the Iraq war. This is the REAL crisis. I don't know about you, but $500,000 sounds like a chunk of change to me. Before long, we could be talking about real money. And every year we don't get a handle on this problem, the problem grows by a couple TRILLION dollars. If you want the "politics of fear", well, here's something to fear:

Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That's nearly $500,000 per household.

When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.

The $2.5 trillion in federal liabilities dwarfs the $162 billion the government officially announced as last year's deficit, down from $248 billion a year earlier.

"We're running deficits in the trillions of dollars, not the hundreds of billions of dollars we're being told," says Sheila Weinberg, chief executive of the Institute for Truth in Accounting of Chicago.

The Medicare liability alone increased by $1.2 trillion in 2007, but it doesn't appear in our deficit numbers anywhere. We still have to pay for it. The total Medicare UNFUNDED liability is $30.4 trillion.

Now let's talk about some politics we really should fear (if you aren't scared already). Suppose Barack Obama becomes president and the Democrats seize a larger Congressional majority in november. Both are likely possibilities. That would give the Dems almost unfettered power. The Dems would immediately start implementing BRAND NEW HUGE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS to add to the enormous entitlement debt tsunami headed our way already. Massive increases in taxes would have to follow, which is another really bad idea when our economy is already slowing and shaky. Add it all together, and the Democrats will create an environment for the PERFECT ECONOMIC STORM (all to help us, of course). Imagine what each American household will be on the hook for then.

You want the truth ? There's the truth. Our politicians can't handle the truth, which is why they hide behind distortions and outright lies. I'm willing to bet you haven't heard any of these numbers being talked about during the presidential campaign (which has been going on for over a year), and I guaran-darn-tee you haven't heard a Democrat mention them probably ever in your lifetime.

I BEG ALL YOU VOTERS TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE REASONS I JUST MENTIONED. THE OUTCOME COULD SWAMP THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF YOUR CHILDREN FOR TWO DECADES OR MORE.

So liberals, since you are actually in favor of all these entitlements that will bankrupt the country, I beg you to exhibit a little of that alleged liberal compassion and send at least $531,000 to me, Da King. I'm one of those little guys you love to "help". Thank you very much. I knew I could count on you. God bless, er, I mean, dos vedanya.

Warning to liberals - I am going to talk about Barack Obama again, so please read carefully.

I extend this warning because, in the past, when I write something like "Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense", liberals read it as "I'm a heartless racist Republican dittohead who hates black people and the poor". This time, I'd like to point out the difference between those things up front, to hopefully avoid any further misunderstanding.

If that is understood, then I can continue, by saying…

Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense.

Two things stand clear about Barack Obama's presidential campaign. First, he's going to be critical of all things Bush, that's a given, and second, he is going to try to link Bush to John McCain at every turn. Obama and the Democrats in general are running against George W. Bush much more than they are running against John McCain, even though Bush isn't running. That's why Obama's foreign policy speech from last week didn't discuss just how Bush's policies were wrong, his speech discussed how the "Bush/McCain" policies were wrong. Obama said "Bush/McCain" so many times (at least 10) that I started thinking maybe those guys are really one person rather than two, or at least conjoined twins. The second that John McCain became the de facto Republican presidential nominee, he stopped being the Democrats favorite ethical stand-up bipartisan maverick Senator who bucked his own party in the name of truth, justice, and the american way, and he started being McCain the Bush clone, the Bush third termer. Funny how that works. The New York Times can't find anything nice to say about John McCain anymore. It's so sad when a love affair ends.

Here are some examples of Obama's 'Bush/McCain Are Conjoined Twins' strategy on Iran from that speech:

"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for…[Their foreign policy] made Iran stronger. George Bush’s policies. They’re [Bush/McCain] going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy…Our Iran policy is a complete failure right now, and that is the policy that John McCain is running on right now. He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism. I’m running for President to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course. I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy".

I think you all get the message here. Barack Obama is clearly against George John Bush McCain's Iranian policy. Clearly.

Now for the kicker, the mind-blowing mother of all hypocrisies. About 10 seconds later, in the exact same speech, after savaging Bush's Iranian foreign policy, Barack Obama said this:

"It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, its support for terrorists and its threats to Israel, then it can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions. But in the Bush-McCain view, everybody who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an “appeaser.”"

For those of you who don't recognize it, presenting Iran with a choice between it's nuclear program, it's support for terrorists, it's threats against Israel, and suffering sanctions and further isolation IS THE BUSH POLICY TOWARD IRAN !!!!! After trashing Bush's Iranian policy, Obama turns right around and adopts it as if it's his own !!! And then Obama pretends that Bush doesn't even hold his own policy !!! IS ANYBODY OUT THERE LISTENING TO THE WORDS COMING OUT OF BARACK OBAMA'S MOUTH ??? The media sure isn't, because none of them even appeared to notice. By the way, did any of you notice how Obama had pretty much the entire mainstream media at his beck and call last week ? He had about 30 minutes of free campaign commercials all over the news networks, on demand. In the interests of fairness, the media later gave John McCain-Bush III about 30 seconds too. It's only fair. The media also couldn't be bothered to point out that Obama's new position on Iran (the Bush position) is a complete about face from his previous stance of negotiating with Iran without preconditions (the position Hillary ridiculed in the Democratic debates). Obama has now completely surrounded Iranian foreign policy by taking both sides of the argument, as he attempts to do on so many issues. That is as hypocritical as can be ("nuanced" in New York TimesSpeak). My reaction to Obama's foreign policy drivel is the same reaction Lebron James has to that obnoxious chubby guy in the lawnmower commercial: "get that weak stuff outta here !"

I suggest Obama change his campaign theme from 'Change You Can Believe In' to 'Change That Isn't Change', or maybe he can use that old David Byrne/Talking Heads blurb from the 80's, 'Stop Making Sense', because when it comes to foreign policy, Obama stopped making sense a while ago. In sports terms, Obama might be the Rookie Of The Year, but he sure doesn't deserve the MVP.

I could write 10 posts about what was wrong with Obama's foreign policy speech last week, and perhaps I will. It was riddled with falsehoods, doubletalk, and distortions. I only pointed out some of the more egregious ones this time. See ya later.

Isn't it sad to see the President Of The United States begging Saudi Arabia to pump more oil ? And then being turned down ? It didn't have to be this way.

Isn't it sad that the war funding bill has to be kicked around like a political football by Congress ? The Democrats attempted to add all sorts of non-war related domestic items to the bill, the Republicans revolted and sat out the vote, and the end result was, the war funding bill was voted down. The troops appreciate your non-support, you sorry politicians.

Isn't it sad that every bill that comes before Congress seems to go over budget and is full of all kinds of unnecessary earmarks to inflate the cost, as was seen in the Farm Bill that Congress sent to Bush's desk ?

Isn't it sad that we've spent a billion dollars on this presidential election race, and we haven't even reached the general election phase yet ? There are still 5 1/2 months until november. This election seems like it's gone on forever. There has to be a better and more cost effective way, not to mention one which doesn't disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan.

Isn't it sad how Barack Obama thinks any political opinion that differs from his own is "divisive" and "the politics of fear" ? What an ego. Bush told the Israeli Knesset that he disagreed with those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals, and Obama went into what John McCain termed "hysterical diatribe" mode to denounce Bush's words. Why is it that Obama's endless attacks against the Bush administration AREN'T "divisive", but Bush says one thing (that wasn't even directed toward Obama) and you'd think the world just collapsed ? Here's just one of many overblown comments from the Obama campaign yesterday:

“Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts.

Ludicrous political theater. It makes Bush's comments sound equivalent to, say, Pearl Harbor. By the way, during his hissy fit, Obama repeated his schizoid foreign policy of NOT negotiating with Hamas because they are a terrorist group, but YES to negotiating with Iran, a state sponsor of terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, and a designated terrorist group themselves (Iranian Revolutionary Guard). Is anyone ever going to call Obama on any of his nonsensical and contradictory rhetoric ? It seems not. He's historic, after all.

Speaking of Obama, here's another in a growing number of very sad quotes from him: "We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together and pass the farm bill immediately". Uh, stand up to WHAT special interests ? The Farm bill by it's nature is a bundle of money thrown at special interests in the form of subsidies. Here are only a few of the special interests being catered to in the Farm bill, courtesy of Jacob Sullum of Townhall.com:

"…tax breaks for racehorse owners, "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers, research funding for organic farmers, enhanced price supports for domestic sugar producers, increased subsidies for dairy farmers, a $170-million earmark for the salmon industry, and billions of dollars in automatic payments and "permanent disaster assistance" for corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybean growers. Take that, special interests!"

To be accurate, Obama would have to say passing the Farm bill required a bipartisan CAVING IN to special interests (which Congress did, as usual, and it was bipartisan, just as Obama requested). Is anybody really listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? It seems not. The more I hear Obama talk, the less sense he makes.

And the very saddest thing of all on the political front yesterday also involved Obama's words, when Obama criticized the Bush administration for promoting democracy in Palestine and Iraq. I assume this means democracy would no longer be an important part of american foreign policy during an Obama presidency. That would be a major foreign policy reversal. Yeah, who needs liberty and open government ? Bah, humbug. Like I asked before, is anybody listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? Obama said "words count". I couldn't agree more, and Obama's words are scary, not to mention, dare I say, divisive.