Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) plan to ignore the will of the people by not bringing offshore oil drilling to a vote in Congress. They are trying to "run out the clock" and are only a few days from doing so, since Congress goes on summer recess after this friday. Reid and Pelosi know offshore drilling would be approved if it was voted upon, because almost all Republicans are in favor of it, and enough Democrats have been persuaded by the high price of gasoline to change their minds about it. I urge you to help pressure Congress into voting on this issue. High gas prices are damaging our economy, and are particularly hard on those who can least afford it. There is NO reason not to vote in favor of offshore drilling. If you think things are bad now, wait five years until gasoline is $6-8 per gallon if we do nothing. Ask them to open up ANWR for drilling as well while you're at it. Drilling for oil is not the entire solution to our future energy problems, but it is a big part of the solution until we transition away from oil to alternative energy sources, which is a long ways off.

You can locate the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of your Congressional represenatives here, or you can add your name to an existing petition from grassfire.org here.

Your government is supposed to be answerable to you. Don't let the obstructionists Reid and Pelosi succeed.

Whenever I hear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) speak, it reinforces for me why Congress is so dysfunctional. It also reinforces the need for limited government, because Harry Reid might look like a milquetoast, but he has power, he's a hyper-partisan fighter, and he's woefully misguided. That makes him dangerous. If you can watch this video, where Harry tries to make the absurd claim that income taxes in America are VOLUNTARY (lol), and not come away thinking he's a clueless loon who shouldn't be within shouting distance of power, then you belong over at the DailyKos blog with the other moonbats rather than here. The only thing less voluntary than taxes is death.

Harry Reid was the one who exhibited that good old American can-do spirit by proclaiming "the [Iraq] war is lost" back in 2006. I'm happy to say it looks like Harry was as wrong about that as he is about voluntary taxes.

Another recent Harry gem was this statement, where Harry fully embraced Algorean deathstar philosophy:

"…coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. This global warming, it’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world. You’ve got to stop using fossil fuel. We have, for generations, taken it out of the earth, carbon out of the earth and put it in the atmosphere, and it’s making us all sick, and it’s changing our world."

Atta boy, Harry. Way to stand up for the home team. But you know what would REALLY make us sick ? Not having heat and electricity, which those fossil fuels provide. I'm pretty sure oil has made SOME positive contribution to our society. I mean, I don't think our food supply walks to the grocery story on it's own. If coal and oil is making us sick, why have our lifespans and standards of living increased so dramatically since the onset of the Industrial Revolution ? Maybe some perspective is called for. After all, man-made CO2 only accounts for 3% of atmospheric CO2. Plant life accounts for the majority of it. Maybe Harry should say "farming is making us sick", "trees are making us sick", or make some equally fatuous claim. Better yet, Harry should just stick to his main functions - robbing the taxpayers blind and making all aspects of our society dependent on and controlled by the federal government.

That brings me to what I really want to talk about today - Harry Reid's current battle with the Doctor No of the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK). It seems Coburn has frustrated Harry and other Democrats (and some Republicans too) by placing legislative holds on measures before the Senate. Here is how the New York Times describes the situation:

In the Senate, Mr. Coburn has continued down his singular path, driving Democrats and some Republicans to distraction with his prolific use of the “hold” — the ability of a single senator to object to moving ahead on a measure without a debate. He currently has holds on nearly 80 bills, the most of any senator.

Mr. Coburn’s approach is problematic when it comes to the mechanics of the Senate because most of the chamber’s work gets done by what is known as unanimous consent, an agreement among all parties to let a bill pass without a fight since full debate and votes on even the simplest matter can consume days.

In the liberal view of the NY Times, Coburn's approach "is problematic", because Coburn is asking for debate on certain measures, rather than just passing them through automatically. Hmmm. Isn't one of the reasons we HAVE a Congress in the first place to debate these issues ? Now the Times and Harry Reid think debate is just too cumbersome ? I see. In other words, they think the Democratic agenda should just be passed through automatically, regardless of what the opposition might think. You know, like they did it in the old USSR. Forget debating. Let's "streamline" our Democratic-led Congress. No debates, no votes, just unanimous consent. Da !

In addition, Coburn the "obstructionist" also wants to offset spending increases with other spending reductions. From the same Times article:

[Coburn] said the Senate was shirking its duty by failing to give closer review to the hundreds of bills that slide through by unanimous consent. And he said Congress should not be clearing the way for billions of dollars in potential new spending — even on meritorious projects — without making reductions elsewhere. Fearful of the public debt piling up, he said he wanted the opportunity to at least propose those cuts.

“We ought not be borrowing and expanding the federal government unless we get rid of stuff that is not working,” he said.

Some bugger this Coburn guy is, eh, wanting to debate legislation and offset spending increases. Jeez. He must be one of them thar far right wingnuts.

Wait a minute. Didn't the Democrats themselves promise to offset spending increases with other spending cuts or tax increases to avoid deficit spending ? Why yes, they did. It was called PAYGO. They passed it in early 2007 (and then proceeded to completely ignore it ever since). So why are the Dems griping about Tom Coburn the Republican sticking to the very rules the Democrats setup ? That's pretty hypocritical. That's Harry Reid.

On yesterday's stop of Obamapalooza 2008, The World Tour, 200,000 Germans showed up for Obama's speech in Berlin. That is a mighty impressive turnout for my old country relatives from the Fatherland. Then again, we Germanic types have always had an affinity for charismatic men with a flair for public speaking. We get all worked up, and it doesn't always turn out well. Ask the Jews. We are well served to pay attention to a political candidate's substance, instead of focusing only on the style and glitz. So, it was kind of weird for me to watch Barack Obama speaking at the Siegessaule monument (Adolph's favored Nazi winged victory column) yesterday, not that Obama said anything wrong. He didn't. I'm not trying to equate Obama with Hitler either. That would be very unfair. Hitler HAD an economic plan.

Obama's Berlin speech was just fine. Most of it concerned Obama telling Germans about their own history, which the Germans know far better than Barack Obama does, obviously. That was kind of weird too. However, Obama read his speech very well, and didn't make too many mistakes. He read the speech better than I'd guess John McCain would have read it, so there you go, Barack Obama should be the next president, because he's the better speech reader, the better speech deliverer. What else could possibly matter in a presidential election ? I'm certain Obama's public relations arm, formerly known as the Mainstream Media, would agree. If we have settled any debates during Obama's excellent foreign adventure, I hope it is the question of whether there is a liberal media bias or not. I've long known the answer to that question (YES !), but it's reached such egregious levels with the Obama campaign that even the liberal media is commenting on it. Maybe only the New York Times is still in faux denial about their own bias. The Times wouldn't print John McCain's op-ed about Iraq, one week after they did print Obama's op-ed about Iraq. The Times excuse basically amounted to, 'well, McCain's op-ed was different than Obama's. If McCain wants to write another op-ed that is more Obama-like, like with Iraq withdrawal timetables, we'd be happy to print it'. Gotta love that New York Times. Can we stop referring to them as journalists now, and start calling them what they really are, left wing propagandists ? The NY Times won't even give the presidential candidates equal time in their newspaper, for god's sake. What more do you need to know ?

What I liked better than Obama's Berlin speech was Obama's previous speech to the Israelis. Before I get into the substance of that speech, I have to say, I think the Obama campaign missed a golden opportunity by not having their Messiah ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, with bystanders waving palm branches. What a photo op that would have been. Who needs to look presidential, when you can look simply divine ??? Politicians don't often get chances like that. Oh well. Opportunity lost.

I like the Obama who spoke to the Israelis, the Obama who realizes Iran is a grave threat. I call him Obama 2.0, the one who surfaced after the Democratic primaries were over. Obama 1.0, the liberal douche, said Iran was a tiny country who didn't pose a serious threat. As much fun as it would have been to hear Obama 1.0 try to tell the Israelis that Iran wasn't a threat (after they booed him off the stage, the Israelis would have carried him to the Western Wall and thrown him OVER it), Obama 2.0 is a much more responsible guy. He says things like this:

"The threats to Israel security…include outrageous acts of terror like the attack we just saw yesterday in Jerusalem. Rearming Hezbollah in Lebanon and an Iranian regime that sponsors terrorism, pursues nuclear weapons and threatens Israel's existence. A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon…I think there are opportunities for us to mobilize a much more serious regime of sanctions on Iran, but also to offer them the possibility of improved relations in the international community if they stand down on these nuclear weapons. What I have also said, though, is that I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat. And understand part of my reasoning here. A nuclear Iran would be a game changing situation not just in the Middle East, but around the world."

Exactly right, Barack. Get down with your bad self. No nukes for Iranian religious extremists.

But didn't liberals call Dubya a fearmonger and a warmonger when he said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Iran ? Why yes, they did. I wonder what they say now that their Messiah is on board the Bush foreign policy express (until next week, at least, when Obama is speaking in front of a group with different interests). I imagine the Mainstream Media will be talking about how "presidential" Obama sounded. Not that there's a liberal media bias or anything.

I realize there is a good deal of spin involved in politics, but it's something else altogether when a story is made up out of whole cloth. The common term for it is 'lying', and it's incredible how often politicians get away with it. The most recent example I've witnessed of outright lying (and with a straight face too) was done by Obama supporter and possible Vice Presidential candidate Senator Evan Bayh on the Fox News Sunday program. Bayh and fellow possible Vice Presidential candidate Senator Joe Lieberman, an Independent/Democrat and McCain supporter, were discussing the Iraq war with moderator Chris Wallace. At issue was the 16-month Iraq withdrawal timeline proposed by Barack Obama and approved (until it was un-approved) by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. First, here's Lieberman's statement:

LIEBERMAN: "Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today. It wouldn't be safe. Barack Obama and John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq. John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he'd rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States. The reason I say Barack — if Barack Obama's policy couldn't — had been implemented — if Barack Obama's policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn't be in Iraq today is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat. And that would mean today Al Qaeda would be in charge of parts of Iraq. Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There'd be civil war and maybe even genocide. And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And you know, you can't choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan. The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaeda has its tail tucked between its legs…"

Lieberman told the truth. Now, here comes the BIG LIE by Evan Bayh (the lie is in capital letters).

BAYH: "I have to respond to that. BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT FOR LOSING IN IRAQ. Barack didn't want the war to begin with. John McCain opposed surging troops in Afghanistan until last week."

LIEBERMAN: "…bottom line, no question that Barack Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq."

Bayh tells the BIG LIE again.

BAYH: "THAT'S NOT TRUE."

Now, c'mon people, I don't care if you are a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, or a communist, everybody knows that Barack Obama made his name by being the anti-war candidate, the one who was against the Iraq war from the start. Obama voted against funding the war. Obama said he'd end the war every day on the campaign trail. In january 2007, Obama proposed a withdrawal timeline that would have guaranteed that the USA lost the war. Obama was against the surge, said it wouldn't help, and still says he would be against it even in hindsight. He was wrong, but he won't admit it (has anyone noticed yet that Obama NEVER admits he's wrong ?). Now, he pretends like he always said the surge would bring security to Iraq. That's another big lie. He said precisely the opposite. The facts are, if Barack Obama's Iraqi policies had been implemented over the last couple years, Iraq would be a failed state today. Al Qaeda would be celebrating their largest victory, and an Iran controlled insurgency would be running large parts of the country. Barack Obama was all about losing the Iraq war. I never heard the words 'this is how we succeed in Iraq' pass his lips. He didn't care anything about success there. That's why his minions run around mouthing inanities like 'what does victory in Iraq look like ?', and 'there is no military solution possible in Iraq'. It's all designed to coverup the fact that Obama and the Democrats WANTED TO LOSE THE WAR IN IRAQ, because it would destroy Bush and the Republicans. Those are the facts. The Dems should at least be forced to own their own convictions, just this once.

But no. Instead, they lie, as they always do. Evan Bayh has the audacity to say Obama didn't want to lose in Iraq. The Democrats are moving on to their next cover story, their next talking point, their next obfuscation, their next tactical shift. They destroy history in their wake, as if nothing happened prior to today. Now they will even try to tell you that al-Maliki agreeing with Obama's 16 month withdrawal timeline proves that Obama was somehow correct, that Obama has quite a knack for foreign policy. You aren't supposed to remember that there would be no possibility of a successful 16 month withdrawal timeline in Iraq had we listened to anything Obama and the Dems said the last couple years. There would be only defeat. Not one of Obama's 300 foreign policy advisors should ever convince you otherwise.

And that's not a joke, Obama really does have 300 foreign policy advisors on his campaign. Hopefully, they should be able to craft a few speeches for Barack to tell overseas that make it seem like he has a clue. Then again, you'd think at least one of them would know what the Siegessaule monument in Berlin represents (Nazi power) before they choose it as a backup Obama speech site, after Obama's audacious ego was snubbed by the Germans at the Brandenburg Gate. Sieg Heil.

The high price of gasoline is hurting America. It is hurting the poorest among us the most. We import oil from countries that are NOT friendly towards us, such as Middle Eastern countries and Venezuela. We import oil from countries with unstable governments, such as Middle Eastern countries and Nigeria. Our entire economy hinges on those countries, therefore it's hardly surprising that we are very interested in the affairs of those foreign states, because the well-being of our own country depends on them. There is a direct correlation between what happens in the Middle East and the food you are placing into your mouth, the car you are driving to your job, and even whether you have a job or not. Oil is a matter of national security. That is why becoming energy independent is one of the most important jobs facing the United States today. Until we are energy independent, we don't control our own destiny, not to mention the fact that we are sending large chunks of our wealth overseas, strengthening some of those very countries who dislike us.

We should be doing everything possible to solve this problem, but one political party is standing firmly in the way, by not allowing us to drill offshore, or in ANWR, or to utilize clean coal technology. That same political party has made it impossible for America to build an oil refinery or a nuclear plant. That party is led in Congress by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who is actually stupid enough to claim "drilling [for domestic oil] is a hoax" (this is akin to saying 'farming is a hoax' in the face of a crop shortage), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who cares so little about America as to say "who is afraid of him [Bush] ?" when the President asks Congress to approve offshore oil drilling in the face of $4 per gallon gasoline. It isn't about Bush, Harry Reid, it's about America. All Reid and Pelosi care about is the Democratic party seizing power. They could care less about Americans. The truth is, they WANT the price of gasoline to be sky high, because they want to push through their alternative energy/global warming agenda, and they don't care who they hurt in the process, or for how long they hurt them. They will sacrifice us all for their political goals.

For proof, you need look no further than the Democrats alleged "solutions" to high gas prices. Barack Obama suggested a windfall profits tax on the oil companies (which would RAISE the price of gas, not lower it). The Democrat-led Congress shot down the federal gas tax holiday in a New York minute, and now they are trying to INCREASE the federal gas tax. Apparently, the price of gas isn't HIGH ENOUGH for the Democrats yet. The aforementioned Democratic leadership in Congress won't even bring offshore drilling or ANWR drilling to a vote on the floor, because they know the pro-drilling lobby has the votes to get it approved. Pelosi and Reid are thrwarting the will of the American people, intentionally. There is also a bill proposed by Democrats that would clamp down on oil speculation. This bill is an absolute farce, because there is no way for the U.S. Congress to clamp down on a WORLDWIDE oil speculation market. It they regulate the American market, the capital will simply move to another world market, such as London or Japan. It will only result in the LOSS OF MORE AMERICAN CAPITAL. The oil speculation legislation is a trick, a dog and pony show, that gives Americans the ILLUSION that Congress is doing something, when they are not.

The reason the Democrats can get away with such unamerican activities is - our president is a Republican named George W. Bush, a former oilman. Pelosi and Reid know that most Americans are going to blame the high gas prices on Bush, even if there is little Bush can do about it without the help of Congress, so they are perfectly willing to let you all suffer in order for them to gain politically.

For those of you out there who support the Democratic party, who may be saying to yourselves "alternative energy is the answer !", I would say, EVERYBODY agrees with alternative energy. Everybody is in favor of wind and solar power. The Bush administration has spent more money on alternative energy production than any other administration, so Bush agrees too. There is no way on this god's green earth that we AREN'T going to need oil in 5 or 10 years, however. If you believe that, you seriously need to reconsider. We WILL need oil in 10 years. We WILL need oil in 20 years. We can and should lessen the demand, but it isn't going away any time soon. What we SHOULD do is become energy independent, which includes drilling our own oil. We aren't going to harm the environment by drilling offshore or in that tiny patch of ANWR. That reasoning is an attempt to mislead you. Even during Hurricane Katrina, not one offshore oil rig spilled oil, and they were blown all the way in to shore. No wildlife will be harmed by drilling in that tiny patch of ANWR either. That's another red herring.

If you think America should stay out of the business of Middle Eastern countries, then help pursue an energy path where we won't NEED those countries in the future. The domestic energy blocking path the Democrats have led us down for the past 25 years has insured that we are more and more involved with those countries. Ignore all the lies you will hear from the Democrats. There is enough domestic oil for us to never have to buy a drop from Saudi Arabia. There is enough for us to never have to buy a drop from Venezuela. If we combine domestic drilling with alternative energy and conservation, we can solve this huge problem, but we'll have to either change the Democrats minds or get rid of them first. Until that time, get used to being poor and dependent, just how the Dems want you. Get used to recession, because it will become a permanent way of life for the next few decades.

When the poll came out that said only 9% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing, I felt really sorry for that 9%, who must be woefully misinformed. Congress has never been worse. When Congress gets an issue as obvious as this one wrong, they aren't just ignorant, they are enemies of the people.

In clarifying his position regarding the Iraq war, Barack Obama said the following:

"I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out."

That is a very definitive statement. Very decisive. Very presidential. It would be very impressive, except for one minor detail…

The Joint Chiefs of Staff don't have operational command of U.S. military forces. They don't carry out the mission in Iraq. They serve as military advisors to the President. Obama can tell them anything he wants, and it won't change a thing in Iraq. If Barry Brilliant wants to change the mission in Iraq, he needs to tell the Secretary of Defense and the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands (CENTCOM commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and the US commander for Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno).

I know Obama doesn't have any military experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any management experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any foreign policy experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any economics experience, and I know Obama doesn't have any executive experience, and I know Obama has precious little congressional experience, and I know Obama has changed his views on almost every major policy issue you can name, but is it too much to ask for Obama to actually figure out how the federal government works prior to becoming President ? I think not. There should be SOME requirements to be President beside the ability to con gullible people into voting for you. Perhaps we need a NPLB program (No President Left Behind).

I'm wondering, is it possible for Obama to serve a summer Presidential internship or something under Dubya prior to the fall elections ? He really needs the experience, and 2009 is coming up pretty quick. It would really be a shame if a President Obama THOUGHT he ended the war, and then 16 months later he discovered all the troops were still in Iraq going "withdraw ? Nobody told us to withdraw." Maybe Obama could wear an President Trainee badge around the White House for the next couple months that reads "Hello, my name is Barack Obama. Ask me about the chain of command."

I am, of course, assuming Barack could first pass the mandatory background check and drug test for the President Trainee job. Also, the President must be a non-smoker (for insurance reasons), so Obama could be disqualified right there. Luckily for BHO, he won't be required to submit a resume or even pass a basic skills test. President of the United States is apparently an entry level position, no experience required. You'd think the President would at least have to pass a civil service exam, but I guess the position isn't as critical as, say, a sewer worker or a fireman. Those people need tangible skills.

Talking about Obama reminds me, July 16th was Cost Of Government Day (COGD). That's when the average American pays his share of government's financial burden. Happy COGD, each and every one of you. It's great to live in freedom. To celebrate, go ahead and splurge today. Buy a quart of gasoline. We could arrange COGD parties every year, but you never know on which day COGD will fall, because government keeps growing and growing. If we elect Barack Obama, who promises to "invest in American families" (aka, tax and spend) as far as the eye can see, it won't be long until we can celebrate COGD with a costume party, because it will probably fall on Halloween. Sigh.

This link contains 2008 federal budget data. These are the numbers I'm going to use for my following proposals.

The estimated federal revenue for 2008 is $2.9 trillion. Of this amount, $1.788 trillion goes to mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare. Medicaid, Welfare, Other entitlement programs, Interest on the Debt). Subtracting out the interest on the federal debt leaves us with an annual entitlement program budget of approximately $1.5 trillion.

We have approximately 300 million people in our country. Of this number, about 25% of them are children under 18. This leaves roughly 225 million adults in America. If we divide our entitlement spending by the number of American adults, we see we are spending $6,666.66 (an omen ?) in entitlements for every single adult in America. Now, many of those adults are relatively wealthy folks who don't really need any entitlements. They can afford their own health insurance. They aren't on welfare, and they have private retirement plans. Or they may just have enough wealth that none of that matters. The top 25% of wage earners are those earning $77,500 or more. Let's assume they don't need help with government entitlements and subtract them from the equation. That leaves us with 168,750,000 American adults who make less than $77,500 per year. That leaves us with annual federal entitlement spending of $8,888.88 for each of those 168 million+ people. Of those people, there are still many who don't need entitlements. They could be wealthy people who don't work. If we wealth tested people, we could eliminate the need for many more entitlements. For the sake of simplicity, let's round off the numbers and say we could provide 150 million American adults with a $10,000 check each year for the amount we are currently spending on entitlements in this country, $20,000 for a married couple.

So, why don't we just DO that, or at least something like that ? We'd have to make some adjustments, since we don't want to keep running huge federal deficits, and we also want to pay down the debt. If the deficit is $300 billion for a year, then we'd have to adjust the yearly checks down to reach a balanced budget. That means people would receive a check for $8000 instead of $10,000. I think people would be motivated to make sure our federal government balances it's budget when they see how the deficit comes directly out of their pocket, don't you ?

What we have accomplished is to eliminate the federal budget deficit, eliminate the problem of people with no health insurance (the uninsured would HAVE to purchase private insurance with their check), dismantle the huge wasteful government Social Security/Medicare/Welfare bureaucracies (saving a ton of money by dismantling them), eliminate the future entitlement crisis, and give Americans a financial boost. That's problem solving, something very few of our political power brokers in Washington D.C. seem interested in doing.

I'm just spitballing here, trying to float a seed of an idea, since our current entitlement system is a gigantic disaster that MUST be reformed, or our children our going to suffer terribly due to our irresponsibility.

Any thoughts ?

Above is a photo of an aborted fetus (story below)

From the Wayward Home For Mentally Ill Moonbats: There have been some celebrations of the death of former White House Press Secretary and Fox News host Tony Snow on the left-wing blogosphere. The link provided is but one example. Sick freaks.

The return of Clintonian politics ?: We all remember how the Clintons used to sell access to the Lincoln Bedroom. We also remember how Marc Rich's wife donated $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library, and then Marc Rich was granted a miraculous last minute pardon by Bubba as he and Hillary were exiting the White House with the good china and silver flatware in tow (at least they left that condom covered Christmas tree behind. Classy - as if Bubba hadn't degraded the presidency enough already). Well, now it may be that the Bushies are taking a page from Slick Willie's pay-for-access playbook. Stephen Payne, a lobbyist with close White House ties is selling opportunities to meet Bush luminaries, such as Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, or even the Big Bush himself for a mere $250,000 presidential library donation. In addition, the Bushies will supposedly even say nice things about the donator in exchange for the do-re-mi. Isn't that cozy ? If this story is real, expect to hear a LOT more about it in coming days. This isn't some Democrat getting a sweetheart deal on housing (Obama, Dodd, Rangel). This is a REPUBLICAN scandal. That's big news, baby. I think we should frog march Karl Rove out of the White House, pronto. What's that ? He's already out ? Oh….Well, then, let's boot Scooter Libby out on his can then. What's that ? Oh…….

The Daily Obamanations: While kissing up to La Raza the other day, Barack Obama referred to our illegal immigration enforcement personnel as terrorists and fascists. Hmmm. And here I always thought they were, like, LAW ENFORCEMENT !!! I don't have a fancy Harvard law degree like Obama does, so I guess I could be wrong. Maybe the next time I get busted for running an interstate gambling ring a traffic ticket, I'll call the police officers a bunch of fascist terrorists. I'll tell them Obama told me so. That should work out just fine.

Not to worry, however. Obama assures us he is against crime in general, and wants capital punishment for Bin Laden as long as the whole world agrees with us, and as long as Bin Laden doesn't become a martyr, and as long as we all understand Obama isn't generally in favor of capital punishment, except for when he is, which usually he's not, mostly, except in the case of narrowly defined child rape or other narrowly defined unspecified crimes and circumstances, but not when they are gang-related or fall upon select minority groups more heavily, and stuff like that. It's crystal clear, really, and that's a debate Obama is happy to have, because McCain is like Bush. Failed policies. Hope and change. Yes we can. Changing for change. New. Improved. Economy size. A chicken in every pot. Tippecanoe and Tyler too. Keep hope alive. We are the ones we've been looking at, er, waiting for. I believe that children are the future. I love babies, little fuzzy ducks, and America. Education is super neato. Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste, gibberish, gibberish, gibberish……

Sorry, everyone. It's just that I get so carried away with my Obama euphoria. He's so, so…brilliant.

Slippery slope THIS, you SOB: Speaking of Obama's "brilliance", have you heard about Barry Brilliant voting against the 2001 Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act ??? A federal version of the same act was signed into law in 2002 by George W. Bush. It states that if a child being aborted is born still ALIVE, then it may not be killed after it's born. In other words, it states that a live born baby IS a LIVE BORN BABY. This is pretty obvious stuff for most people. When most of us see a baby crying and squirming around on the delivery table, we assume it's a baby, not a clump of inhuman tissue that can be disposed of at our discretion. We'd refer to the killing of a birthed live baby as MURDER. Not Barack Obama. He assumed it was a threat to Roe v. Wade and voted against the rights of the live babies to live. I kid you not. I couldn't make THIS up. If you want to watch something really pathetic, watch CNN attempt to rehabilitate Obama's twisted vote on the Act. Listen to James Carville's spin near the end for some real inanity. This is freaking unbelievable.

No word yet on how Obama will vote on Dr. Mengele's upcoming proposal to extend the right of abortion into the twenty third trimester. Word is, Barry's leaning towards voting "present".

One of the things that irks me most about the Bush Jr. era is how an allegedly Compassionate Conservative president, along with an allegedly Conservative Republican majority Congress, increased federal spending by over 30% and ran up unprecedented federal deficits, adding over $4 trillion to the federal debt. For the life of me, I can't find the "conservative" in such alleged Conservatives. I'm sure I heard something about Republicans being for low taxes and limited government. I'm certain I read that somewhere. Perhaps I was mistaken. Our federal debt comes to roughly $32,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. The interest alone on the federal debt is over $400 billion every year. What's even worse is, if you add in all the unfunded entitlement liabilities for which the government has us on the hook, the REAL deficit is about $2.5 trillion each year. That's what we commit to as opposed to what we have paid for in future Medicare/Social Security and other entitlement programs. Those monies are not included in the federal budget. If that sounds like a lot of money to you, well, it should. What's even worse than that is, we are transferring wealth out of the United States to foreign countries at an astounding rate, never before seen in the history of our country. When we import nearly 70% of our oil from foreign sources, that's a nice fat wad of American wealth that is waving bye bye to America. China owns a sizeable portion of our debt as well. We are selling our country piece by piece to the highest bidder, living way beyond our means, outsourcing our jobs and industries, and then we wonder why our economy is stagnating.

Forrest Gump could figure this one out, but our politicians seem to be totally stumped (or bought).

So, we kicked the Republican Congress to the curb in 2006 (deservedly), and we put the Democrats in to replace them (undeservedly). And according to the polls, we are going to put a Democrat, Barack Obama, in the White House too (waaay undeservedly). Okay. It is what it is.

Before we put Mr. Obama in the Oval Office (or that other guy, old whathisname), maybe we should figure out what he'll do once he gets there, even though that's a near impossible task, since Mr. Obama's elastic policy positions don't lend themselves to much analysis. I almost feel bad now for calling John Kerry a flip-flopper back in 2004, because Kerry was a rock compared to Obama the human jellyfish. But let's give it a try.

The two presidential candidates discussed our enormous federal deficits a little the other day. John McCain promised to cut spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget by the end of his first term in 2013 (hey ! That's what Conservatives are supposed to do ! I knew I read it somewhere). Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a different take on federal deficits. He doesn't have any intention of balancing the budget, and it's not even a priority for him. From an Associated Press news story:

Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

"I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families," Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge.

So there you have it. McCain will attempt to balance the budget, and Obama will attempt to spend a ton more taxpayer money with no regard to the budget, deficits, or debt. It's not hard to find the Conservative between those two. It's also not hard to find the economically sound approach between those two (Hint - it isn't Obama). When the economy is already stagnant or in recession, raising taxes and spending to new astronomic levels is a recipe for disaster. It's almost like Obama WANTS to drive the country into recession. Either that, or he just doesn't understand economics. The more likely scenario is that Obama doesn't understand economics. After all, he doesn't have any experience balancing budgets, managing economies, or even running a business, to go along with his no military experience and scant Congressional experience. Why is Obama the nominee again ? I keep forgetting. Oh yeah, he's a good public speaker (isn't there an old saying about 'bull-something walks' ? Oh well, too late).

Here's a thought - Since Obama wants to run up more deficits and increase spending (like Bush did), and McCain wants to balance the budget and cut spending (unlike Bush)……DOESN'T THAT MAKE OBAMA THE ONE WHO IS THE SAME AS BUSH, AND MCCAIN THE ONE WHO IS FOR CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN ????

Vote for Barack Obama, for a Bush third term.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually defeated. 15 of 18 surge benchmarks have been met. Violence has dropped dramatically, to it's lowest level in 4 years. The insurgency is being quelled as crackdowns against both Sunni and Shia insurgents have been carried out. The Iraqi people are rejecting violence. Iraqi troops are taking mission leads now, with US forces providing backup roles. Iraqis already run 9 of 18 Iraq provinces. The US is beginning to draw it's troop levels down. There will be more troop reductions this month. Some troops will be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Now, as part of current security negotiations with the US, Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki has called for a timetable for American troop withdrawal. An Associated Press article states the Iraqi position as follows:

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong … We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," [Iraq security adviser] Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said.

He provided no details. But Ali al-Adeeb, a Shiite lawmaker and a prominent official in the prime minister's party, told The Associated Press that Iraq was linking the timetable proposal to the ongoing handover of various provinces to Iraqi control. The Iraqi proposal stipulates that, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country. After that, the country's security situation would be reviewed every six months, for three to five years, to decide when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely, al-Adeeb said.

"This is what the Iraqi people want, the parliament and other Iraqi leaders," said al-Adeeb.

The proposal, as outlined by al-Adeeb, is phrased in a way that would allow Iraqi officials to tell the Iraqi public that it includes a specific timetable and dates for a U.S. withdrawal. However, it also would provide the United States some flexibility on timing because the dates of the provincial handovers are not set.

This is the best news yet. It looks like we can finally start pulling our troops from Iraq. President Bush has resisted fixed withdrawal timetables up to this point, preferring instead to have troop levels dictated by conditions on the ground in Iraq. Defense secretary Robert Gates reiterated that view yesterday:

"As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the future," Gates told reporters Tuesday during a visit to Fort Lewis, Wash. "However long that takes really will depend on the situation on the ground. But things are going very well at this point."

While wanting troop levels to be determined by the conditions on the ground, Bush himself has said US forces would leave if the Iraqi government told us to leave. In May, 2007, Bush said "It's their government's choice. If they were to say, 'Leave,' we would leave."

I think it's time to grant the Iraqis their wish. All along, the stated plan from the Bush administration has been "as they stand up, we'll stand down." Well, the Iraqis are standing up. It sure took long enough, but they are finally taking control of their country, and it IS their country, not ours. A withdrawal timetable now might actually be a positive thing, a signal to the Iraqi people that the US is not interested in occupying their country, only in securing it. This timetable would be predicated on successful completion of the Iraqi mission, not on failure-producing political tactics, as were previous calls for withdrawal by Democrats, including Barack Obama. If Obama and the Congressional Democrats had gotten their way in 2006/2007, there would have been no surge, there would be no successful completion of the Iraq mission, and there would be no stable Iraq government. There would be only defeat and chaos.

John McCain should get some props here. He was the one who advocated for the surge long before there was a surge. McCain was long a critic of the pre-surge Bush/Rumsfeld Iraq policy that was not working, and McCain was proven correct. Obama, on the other hand, displayed only his inexperience and desire for defeat, claiming that the surge could never work. What was that Wesley Clark said about military experience not qualifying a man to be president ? Sure, Wes, whatever you say. Go find another talking point, because you know what REALLY doesn't qualify a man to be president ? NO EXPERIENCE, whose name is Barack Obama.

Setting a success-based timetable for withdrawal from Iraq could also quell the suspicions of those who view the US as imperialists in the Middle East. If our presence in Iraq is a terrorist recruiting tool, as the Dems have long said, and are most certainly correct about, a withdrawal timetable might lessen that a little bit. Of course, we'll still be in Afghanistan, so I'm not sure how much it would be lessened. Probably not much. The Dems never spoke about THAT part of the equation, because it would have mostly nullified their point. All the Dems were really interested in was losing the Iraq war. Fortunately, we didn't take the Dems advice, and today Iraq is far better off because of it. After taking down Saddam's wretched government, we obliged ourselves to the Iraqi people. It looks like that obligation may soon be fulfilled (knock on wood), and then we can get out of Iraq, the right way.