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.

Above is a photo of Flipper, who somehow seemed appropriate for this post. Hi Flipper !

It has recently been brought to my attention that there is another fellow running for president, one whose name is NOT Barack Obama. Has anyone else heard about this ? I heard it mentioned on FoxNews the other day, in between the Obama stories and Obama speeches. His name is John McCain, and he's a Republican, in the mold of Democrat turned Independent, Joe Lieberman. I hear this McCain guy might even have purchased Alan Greenspan's book to learn about the economy, so you know he's a serious candidate. Obama bought Karl Marx's book to learn about the economy. That reminds me, don't forget to buy your tickets for Obamapalooza ! They're selling out fast ! I thought it might be a good idea to check McCain's record, since he could become president if Obama decides to move to Tibet and become a monk prior to november 4th, 2008.

John McCain has over two decades of military experience, over two decades of Congressional experience, and ran for president in 2000 (this is what former general Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter, refers to as "untested and untried", and with a straight face too ! Must be Clark's counterintelligence training).

McCain has a reputation for being a "maverick", which means he often stands against his own party on issues. This garnered much pseudo-love for Johnny Mac from the media throughout his career, but at some point McCain realized he'd have to get Republicans to vote for him if he wanted to become the Republican nominee (who says McCain's not too bright ?), so the maverick started jumping back and forth over a lot of fences to make himself appear more conservative base-friendly. He catered to some evangelicals he formerly disliked, and he decided those Bush tax cuts weren't so bad after all. He referred to himself as a "Reagan footsoldier" a lot during the primaries, and voila, it worked. McCain defeated Huckleberry and the Mormon (the guy the GOP SHOULD have picked as their nominee, who would have beaten Obama), and became the Republican nominee (note - To whom it may concern, Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is STILL missing. The search has been called off, though Rudy's picture is still on many milk cartons).

In any case, the Republicans are stuck with McCain now, so let's examine his flip-flops on the issues. Tracking McCain's flip-flops is no easy task, since most lists of them are contained on far left websites, and are thus wildly inaccurate. The far left websites are some of the biggest liars on the planet. One of the best website lists of McCain flip-flops is a sweet and rabidly "objective" little site called How Insane Is John McCain ? This site is about half right and half lies, and is also a perfect example of liberal compassion, tolerance, and diversity. It's premise, obviously, is that McCain is mentally unstable. That reminds me, the media wants me to tell you that the Republican attack machine is racist and will smear Barack Obama, so get your tickets to Obamapalooza NOW ! Children under 12 are indoctrinated for free.

Without further ado, here are some of J-Mac's more "nuanced" positions:

Tax cuts flip-flop -
McCain's most famous flip-flop. He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. Now he wants to make them permanent, and is even proposing more tax cuts if he becomes president. Back in 2001, McCain said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
Hopefully, McCain learned something about economics since 2001, but I doubt it. High taxes are very bad for our country. I call this a flip-flop in the right direction, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Liberals, who have never heard of the principle of scarcity, which underlies all economic theory, disagree. They want to send as much money as possible to Washington D.C. Somehow, they call this "fairness".
===
Social Security privatization flip-flop -
"I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be” - John McCain, June 2008.
“Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits” - John McCain, November 2004
“As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed” - John McCain, March 2003
This is undoubtedly a flip-flop, right ? Nope. It sounds like one, but it isn't. You must remember, Bush's Social Security plan was NOT a plan to privatize Social Security. It only contained a provision for a SMALL PART of SS funds to be placed into private accounts. Therefore, McCain could support Bush's plan for private accounts, as he did, and still be against a total privatization of Social Security, as he is. Subtract one flip-flop.
===
Abortion flip-flop -
“In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade…[overturning Roe would force] women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” - John McCain, 1999.

McCain in 2006, during an interview with George Stephanopolous:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion…You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

We'll call this the flip-flop for the evangelical vote that I mentioned earlier.
===
McCain flip-flopped on offshore oil drilling once gas reached $4 per gallon. Good ! Now if he'd only flip on ANWR. I guess that won't happen until gas hits $5 per gallon.
===
And if anyone can tell me what McCain thinks about immigration, please let me know. I can't figure it out. He came out with a plan, then was against his own plan, and now he's saying he's for it again. The Straight Talk Express has me straight confused on this one. I'll call this one a double reverse flip-flop with a half twist ending in a belly flop. I don't even want to hear what McCain has to say on the immigration issue anymore.
===
Ethanol flip-flop -
"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." - John McCain on CNN in 2003.

"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects" - John McCain, 2006.

Johnny must have watched Al Gore's movie.
===
The left-wing websites characterize many other McCain positions as flip-flops that really aren't. These include the estate tax, the 100 years in Iraq comment, FISA, and others. I have purposely left those off the list. In conclusion, let's just say that John McCain doesn't have much room to talk about Obama's many flip-flops. During the GOP primaries, the media made much of Mitt Romney's flip-flops, but they zipped their lips about McCain, who has as many if not more than Romney ever did. Now that Johnny Mac has the GOP nomination, the media suddenly discovered that John McCain has flip-flopped on about every position he ever held. Funny how that works, isn't it ? All the news that fits the agenda.

Barack Obama's flip-flops are coming so fast and furious these days that I think we should rename the Obama campaign Shock And Awe. It's shocking how easily Obama abandons a previously held position, and we should all be in awe of the fact that he gets away with it. Now, I'm just spitballing here, but wouldn't it be nice if we had some kind of group that would keep track of the issues and could question Obama on his endless contradictions before we make him the leader of the free world ? That would be very helpful and informative for the American voting public. We could call that group, say, the media.

Sadly, the majority of the mainstream media isn't much interested in speaking truth to power when it comes to St. Barack. They are more interested in swooning at his eloquence and patting themselves on the back for how wonderfully cosmopolitan and progressive they are. Truth has nothing to do with it. Who cares if Obama flip-flops on an issue or twenty ? That only demonstrates his "complexity". Yeah, that's the ticket.

But I'm probably just distracting you from the issues America really cares about.

The latest rollover by Obama is his stance on gay marriage. Previously, he opposed gay marriage, but said that individual states should have the right to form their own policies on the issue. Then California proposed an initiative to ban gay marriage, and….Obama OPPOSES it. So much for states rights. The gay marriage issue has become like so, so many others for Barack Obama. He opposes gay marriage, except for when he doesn't. In a letter to a San Francisco based lesbian/gay alliance group, Obama said he believes in:

“fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law…And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states”

Yet Obama still says he opposes gay marriage. Yup. Okay. Whatever. Hope and change. This is a historic election. It's the first time an invisible man will become president.

In addition to Obama opposing gay marriage (sorta), supporting the Second Amendment (sometimes), supporting the FISA bill (for now), supporting NAFTA (except when in Ohio or Michigan), and opposing the Fairness Doctrine (definitely, maybe), Barack made a speech yesterday voicing his support for the expansion of faith-based initiatives. With the continued softening of Obama's positions on Iraq, Iran, and his backpedaling on increasing the capital gains tax rate, it's starting to look like Obama is nothing but a "Bush third termer", if I may borrow a Democratic talking point (Sorry Dems, I couldn't resist taking that shot). When Bush started faith-based initiatives, the entire Left screamed "separation of church and state !" in unison. They were certain Bush was going to implement a theocratic thug state, reminiscent of the Taliban, but without the bourkas. That didn't happen, naturally, but what is the Left saying now about Barack the evangelical faith-baser ? They should be apoplectic, but so far the protests are far less than deafening. The Huffington Post mentioned Obama's faith-based speech (far down the page), but only said it "could cause controversy", and that Obama was doing it to "court the evangelical vote". No outrage from HuffPo, not that I really thought there would be. Somehow it's different when it's one of their own.

Barack Obama gave a speech on patriotism yesterday. I pretty much agreed with every word uttered by Mr. Obama in that speech. It's worth the read. Even though it was a self-serving and calculated speech, as are all of his (he IS a politician, after all), the principles he stated were sound, and quite patriotic. Obama said he would not question anybody's patriotism in this presidential campaign, and he will not sit idly by while anyone questions his. Clever bugger, that Obama, since it is virtually impossible for any sane person to question the patriotism of John McCain, while questions of Obama's associations with anti-american sentiment are rife (Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, William Ayers, Mrs. Obama, flag pins, and all that). Obama can't win a patriotism contest with John McCain (few could), so he's trying to take that issue off the table.

I don't question Obama's patriotism. I take him at his word, but I do question some of those past associations of his. It's a matter of judgement, not patriotism. When a guy like Obama has a history of being a leftist, I'm a little suspicious of the new centrist Obama who has appeared just in time to win the general election and become the president (with a Democratic majority Congress led by liberals Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). Obama's tack appears much more strategy than principle. That I do not admire (not that McCain can't be accused of the same tacking into favorable political winds on some issues).

Obama also said it isn't unpatriotic to dissent when you disagree with your government. That is also unquestionably true. Sometimes, dissent is required. I have dissented with some aspects of my government for most of my adult life.

But there is a difference between dissent and undermining your country. There is a difference between dissent and propaganda. There is a difference between dissent and lies. There is a difference between dissent and hate. I wish Obama had drawn some of those distrinctions in his speech, but he did not. As Obama was speaking about how dissent was patriotic, I was thinking of Moveon.org's "General Betray-us" ad, of Hillary Clinton saying it took "the willing suspension of disbelief" to believe Petraeus' testimony about the success of the Surge in Iraq. The "dissenters" had no problem calling Petraeus a liar for their own political gain. I was thinking about how the New York Times has divulged multiple classified U.S. intelligence programs during wartime (they did it again the other day by revealing classified details of the hunt for Bin laden). I was thinking about Seymour Hersch recently revealing classified information about alleged covert cross-border intelligence operations into Iran. I was even thinking about how the left-wing dissenters called American soldiers "baby killers" back during the Vietnam War. Thank goodness the hatemongers dissenters learned not to do that anymore……Except a few of them haven't learned. John Murtha (D-Pa), a former marine himself, accused the Haditha marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" in Iraq before any of them had even been tried, and now 7 of the 8 of Haditha soldiers have been acquitted. I haven't heard any apologies from the Distinguished Gentlemen from Pennsylvania. Dick Durbin compared Guantanomo Bay to Pol Pot and the Nazis.

That stuff isn't really dissent. That stuff is political propaganda designed to undermine the American government during wartime, with the reason being the acquisition of political power. There is nothing patriotic about any of that.

Lastly, I was thinking about outright political horse manure, like the kind general Wesley Clark was slinging about John McCain the other day, in what has to be one of the most tone-deaf displays of political nonsense to date. Clark actually tried to call McCain inexperienced, when McCain is the most experienced candidate to run for president from either party this year. Apparently, irony and hypocrisy don't register with Wes Clark, because the candidate Clark is backing, Barack Obama, is the most inexperienced person ever to get this close to the presidency. Clark actually called McCain "untested and untried", said about McCain that "he hasn’t held executive responsibility" (as opposed to all Obama's executive experience - NONE). Clark even said that McCain's "large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall". Uh, general Clark, John McCain's plane was SHOT DOWN IN VIETNAM. That's about as "wartime" as you can get. Duh, general. Btw, exactly what military service and experience does Barack Obama have ? That would also be NONE. See just how dumb Wesley Clark is here.

To his credit, Obama disavowed Clark's remarks, and I assume Clark has blown his shot at the vice presidency.

Can you say "cheesy" ? - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually traveled all the way to a town called UNITY, New Hampshire to meet, in an effort to bring Hillary supporters and Obama supporters together into one united Democratic party.

Unity, N.H. Oh, brother. Hand me an air sickness bag, please. Were all the hotel rooms booked up in Stupidsymboliccrap, South Dakota ? The candidates actually wasted jet fuel for such an empty gesture ? This one ranks pretty high on the list of all-time silly political theatrics. I half expected Michael Dukakis to show up in his tank.

In related news, John McCain's campaign made a stop in Deadhorse, Alaska.
===
Speaking of dead things, contrarian Christopher Hitchens was interviewed by Rich Lowry on PBS and said "if the GOP was a dog, it would be shot", among other things. Indeed, it looks like the GOP will be shot, precisely on November 4th, 2008. The interview is standard Hitchens fare and pretty entertaining. He's an equal opportunity offender, and takes shots at everyone - McCain, the GOP, both Obamas, and both Clintons. See it here.
===
We all know how the Left likes to ban things (guns, cigarettes, radio talk show hosts, army recruiting offices, free speech on college campuses, christian symbols, capitalism, logical thought, etc). Now, it seems they've even taken to separating food into patriotic and non-patriotic categories for purposes of banning the unpatriotic ones. For the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, the unpatriotic foods (fried) are banned, and only the patriotic foods (green) are allowed. Denver's mayor, John "Chickpea" Hickenlooper, called it "the new patriotism". Link.

Great. And here I thought the Soup Nazi was just a funny character on the Seinfeld show.

No word yet on whether onion rings and Southern fried chicken will be sent to Gitmo. Senate investigatory hearings are forthcoming, as soon as the Dems finish interviewing every last American citizen regarding their knowledge of Valerie Plame.
===
Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader is tired of Democrats blaming him for Al Gore losing in 2000. Nader said, "They [the Democrats] are so small-minded to keep the myth up that it wasn't them that got Bush in the White House, it was Nader/LaDuke.”

This is news to me. I didn't think the Dems had finished blaming the Supreme Court for 2000 yet.
===
In the weirdest story of the day, John McCain's former jailer at the Hanoi Hilton for 5 1/2 years said he'd vote for McCain if he was an american voter. From the Associated Press:

"If I were an American voter, I would vote for Mr. John McCain," Tran Trong Duyet said Friday, sitting in his living room in the northern city of Haiphong, surrounded by black-and-white photos of a much younger version of himself and former Vietnam War prisoners.

At the same time, he denies prisoners of war were tortured. Despite detailed POW accounts and physical wounds, Duyet claims the presumed Republican presidential nominee made up beatings and solitary confinement in an attempt to win votes.

Of course, if Duyet had admitted McCain and the other Hanoi Hilton prisoners WERE tortured, he'd be in jail himself. There is no freedom of speech in Vietnam. It is a communist dictatorship, due to the fact that………..well, you know. Peace with honor.

Over four months until the elections. It will only get deeper.

Now that Barack Obama has captured the Democratic nomination, it appears his campaign has moved into Presidential Calculation Phase 2.0, Operation Win The General Election. Obama has taken more non-left wing positions in the last few weeks than he's taken in his entire previous political career. He angered liberals by reversing his stance on public campaign financing. He reversed his position against the FISA bill and supported it. He reversed his position on NAFTA, said his previous smoke on the issue was "overheated campaign rhetoric", and now supports it. He came out in opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that abolished the death penalty for child rapists, and now, he has even come out in opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. Is that the gnashing of liberal teeth I hear ?

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," [Obama's] press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday. "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Holy Pelosi, Batman ! Is this a Democrat supporting democracy ? A Democrat supporting free speech ? Wow. They haven't done much of that lately. Of course, Obama's spokesman did say that stuff about network neutrality, public broadcasting, and minority ownership, so Obama doesn't support freedom THAT much, but it's still a giant step forward from the pro-Stalinist Pelosi position of reimposing the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle all those right-wing radio talk show hosts. You go, Barack ! Yes we can, er, I mean, good job.

Now try to remember the last time you heard a liberal come out in favor of the death penalty for ANY crime (other than the crime of being a Republican, that is). Yet, Obama favors the death penalty for child rapists, a stance that breaks with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, who thought the death penalty for child rape was excessive and therefore unconstitutional. This was another of those 5-4 decisions, with the conservative wing of the Court voting that the death penalty was not unconstitutional for child rape. This is one of the times when I think the liberals got it right, because I believe the death penalty is only an appropriate and proportional punishment for the crime of murder. Obama has even veered to the right of me on this issue. Who woulda thunk it ? Oddly enough, Obama previously took a position against expanding the death penalty for gangbangers who DO murder people. I'd attempt to explain the contradiction to you, but I didn't attend Harvard, so it's beyond my capability. It's too nuanced for the likes of me.

On to Obama's reversal on the FISA bill. From the Washington Post:

The Illinois senator's reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups, but Obama told reporters at a news conference this afternoon that he was satisfied with changes made to the original bill, including a provision that gives a secret court, rather than the White House, the final say on spying procedures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also switched sides on the legislation, for the same reasons as Obama.

"It is a close call for me," Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the "exclusivity" provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, "met my basic concerns." He said the bill's target should not be the phone companies' culpability, but "can we get to the bottom of what's taking place, and do we have safeguards?"

Most of the time, a decision that angers liberals groups is just fine with me, and this time is no different. Obama has the right concerns here. Oversight of the government's spying activities is the key. We don't want to handcuff ourselves in the fight against terrorism, but we do want to make sure the government doesn't exceed or abuse it's authority. I agree with Obama again (is this a sign of the apocalypse ???). Yes we ca…..never mind. I don't want to get carried away.

Now, if only somebody would teach Obama basic economics and convince him to stop trying to undermine the Iraq war when we're on the verge of victory………..

That would be change I could believe in.

And as long as Obama is making a right hand turn to sell himself to the general public, my estimation of him would increase greatly if he just admitted he was dead wrong about the Iraq surge.

But I won't be holding my breath. So far, the Obama spinmeisters have decided to flat out lie about that:

January 14, 2007: "We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops: I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground." - Barack Obama

July 20, 2007: "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked." - Barack Obama

May 30, 2008: "[Barack Obama] never disputed the fact that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference." - David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager.

Sigh.

Finally, in the ultimate bow to mainstreaming, check out Obama's family values television ad. It's truly precious, complete with the flag pin and everything (and listen to the background music. If any of you are South Park fans, it's reminiscent of Mr. Tweek's Coffee Shop music, lol).

Didn't the old Obama say flag pins were phony expressions of patriotism ? America, meet the new and improved Barack Obama, Version 2.0.

Barack Obama claims to be a new kind of politician. He's a uniter, not a divider (hmmm, that sounds familiar). Obama is all about HOPE, and above all, CHANGE. We know all this because Obama tells us so, repeatedly.

It's a little bit ironic then that Obama won his first Democratic primary in 1996 by getting all four of his Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot. It's doubly ironic when you consider that Obama had run on a platform of expanding voter rights and empowering disenfranchised voters. Here's an excerpt from a Chicago Tribune article:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of incumbent state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

Why indeed ? Obama explains it this way:

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.

"I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."

Seems pretty self-serving, not to mention, um, divisive. And as for whether Obama's main opponent, State Senator and legendary Chicago progressive activist Alice Palmer, should have been on the Democratic primary ballot that year, well, it's pretty disingenuous of Barack Obama to suggest otherwise. She was the incumbent and the frontrunner. He was the rookie.

Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

"There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's behalf. "There were deep disagreements."

Obama's rhetoric was detached from his actions from the beginning. Uniter ? Not hardly. Power seeker ? Absolutely. As Obama showed again in his primary against Hillary Clinton in 2008, disenfranchising voters is no problem to him if he gains from it. Meet your "new kind of politician".

Btw, Alice Palmer, who at one time had hand-picked Barack Obama to be her successor, endorsed Hillary in 2008.

Barack Obama's people have put up a website dedicated to answering some of the sillier internet rumors about Obama, such as the one about Obama being a Muslim. You can link to the site here. There is some pretty stupid stuff floating around the web about Obama.

One particular rumor that has made it's way beyond the internet to other media outlets is the Michelle Obama "whitey" rumor, the one that has Mrs. Obama using that term to describe white people. I've heard a couple variations of it. I mention this rumor here not because I believe it, but because of the way Barack Obama is responding to it. Obama gives the impression on his website that this rumor was started by Republicans as a smear tactic against him. That is NOT TRUE. In responding to a smear, Obama is himself falsely smearing others. Here's what Obama's website says about the "whitey" rumor:

Smear:

Michelle Obama Says “Whitey” On a Tape
LIE: Rush Limbaugh says a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word “whitey” from the pulpit of Trinity United

LIE: Blogger Larry Johnson writes “New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. I'll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours.”

LIE: Proven GOP sleazemeister Roger Stone says he has “credible evidence that some indelible record exists” of a tape of Michelle Obama using the term “whitey.”

LIE: Blogger: “Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women's Event.”

Obama lists Rush Limbaugh first, as if Rush was the perpetrator and was lying, when he wasn't. Rush only repeated that he heard the rumor, and Rush said he didn't know if there was any truth to it. Rush didn't say the tape existed, only that there was a rumor that it existed. Rush didn't tell a lie. Obama's website is the one lying here.

The first person I heard mention this rumor was DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST Bob Beckel on the Hannity and Colmes show on FoxNews. Beckel said he had four solid sources for the existence of the "whitey" tape. Both conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Alan Colmes acted shocked when Beckel mentioned it.

The primary internet source for this rumor was LEFT-WING blogger and Hillary supporter Larry Johnson of No Quarter. Obama mentions Johnson on his site, but no mention of his political orientation. Obama does make sure to mention the political affiliation of "GOP sleazemeister Roger Stone" however (whoever the heck he is. I never heard of him before). Also, the fourth "Liar" identified only as "Blogger" on Obama's website is a pro-Hillary blogger, whose site is known as Hillbuzz.

So, what we have here is a rumor about Michelle Obama that was started by the Left, which was later picked up and repeated by some on the Right, and is now being framed by Obama and others as a right wing smear job. Yup, sounds typical to me. Typically dishonest.

Btw, Barack Obama is not a Muslim, but he did attend an Islamic school for a little while as a child.

And to my knowledge, there is no truth to the rumor that Obama plans to surround West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with a huge 30ft fence to keep all us bitter people away from the other good people.

Your faithful rumormonger, over and out.

Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles

The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others

Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).

As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).

A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).

Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.

Democratic nominee Barack Obama rails on and on about his most excellent and superior judgement, which apparently all stems from his pre-war opposition to the Iraq invasion. At last count, Obama has pointed this out about 322,195 times on the campaign trail, give or take 100,000 times. I'd say being anti-war is the number one reason Obama is the Democratic nominee, or maybe second after the fact that the media has been unbelievably biased in his favor. MSNBC should be on his payroll, not that anybody watches that sham of a network. The other networks, excluding FoxNews and ABC somewhat, are not far behind in their unabashed Obama worship. As proof, in 21 Democratic debates, Obama got the tougher questions exactly ONCE (from ABC). Obama performed badly in that debate, and Obama's supporters were outraged, being so accustomed to their hero receiving preferential treatment as Hillary was excoriated by the grand inquisitors. There were no more debates after that one. The Audacity Of Hopester had had enough. No mas. Obama returned to his strong suit, making scripted speeches in front of adoring audiences. HOPE, CHANGE, AND YES WE CAN ! No questions asked. It's not too hard to stand up to zero pushback.

So, how has Barack Obama's judgement really been ? Let's take a look.

Barack Obama says he didn't know his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was a crazed anti-american racist. Ditto for the Catholic priest Pfleger. Judgement: Lying

Obama thought former Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn were just regular old college educators. Judgement: Lying again.

Obama didn't know his benefactor and leading fundraiser, convicted kickback artist Antoin "Tony" Rezko, was a mobster. He also didn't suspect Rezko might be looking for something in return even after Rezko bought a lot next door to the house Obama wanted to buy in order to facilitate the sale for the Obamas (the seller would only sell both properties together). Barry didn't suspect this in CHICAGO, the home of shady Democratic pay-to-play politics. Judgement: Naive, and that's giving BHO the benefit of the doubt.

Obama was against the "surge" in Iraq that has transformed that conflict. He said it could never work, that there was no military solution, and still clings to that belief. Obama declared the war lost, and still speaks only of pulling the troops out. Judgement: Wrong.

Obama either wants to negotiate with Iran with no pre-conditions or he doesn't, depending on what day you ask him. Iran is also either little to no threat or a very grave threat, depending on which way the political wind is blowing at the time. Judgement: Confused

Obama thinks he can get Iran's leaders to change their ways just by talking to them. Judgement: LOL

Obama wants enormous increases in federal taxation and spending when this country already has a huge debt and over $57 trillion in unfunded federal entitlement liabilities. Judgement: Economic insanity.

Obama didn't understand when Charles Gibson of ABC pointed out to him that capital gains revenue rose after the capital gains tax rate was slashed. Obama hem-hawed and then mumbled something about "fairness", one of his stock non-specific buzzwords. Judgement: Economically uneducated.

Obama railed against NAFTA while campaigning in Ohio and said he wanted to renegotiate that trade deal, but then O's people told the Canadians not to worry, that was just campaign talk. Obama rarely mentioned NAFTA again on the campaign trail after the rust belt primaries. Judgement: Screw you, Ohio

Obama has come out in favor of a worldwide ban on fissile material. Unless I'm mistaken, this includes the USA. Question. Who is going to make Iran fulfill their end of the no nukes bargain ? Obama could be setting up a scenario where we don't have nukes, Israel doesn't have nukes, but Iran could secretly develop nukes, making the Islamo-genocide wishers the lone nuclear power.
Even without this nightmare scenario, Obama is telling our allies and the world that he wants to turn out their lights. France gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear power. What is he thinking ?
Judgement: Don't let Obama anywhere near the White House. Ever.

Here's a quote from Barack Obama that didn't get much attention. See if you can spot the errors:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon. They're supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief".

1) Platoons are lead by Lieutenants, not Captains, unless it is a special forces type of unit, which a rifle platoon isn't. 2) Platoons aren't split across different theaters. 3) Congress controls the military's purse strings, not the CINC. This is more a sign of inexperience than bad judgement on Obama's part, but it's poor judgement too, because Barack was silly enough to believe he could sell this pile of manure to his audience. Judgement: Bogus

I don't want to make too a big a deal out of the flag pin issue, because it's not a big deal, but I am talking about Obama's judgement, so I want to know….how does Obama decide that wearing a flag pin is a meaningless display of patriotism SHORTLY AFTER 9/11 ? How do you make that decision at THAT time ? Any other normal time, okay, but sometimes a display of patriotism IS in order, especially after the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the country. I just think Obama's decision is very bizarre. I don't understand his thought process. Judgement: Huh???????