Friday, May 30, 2008

Flush With Cash?

All year the MSM has continuously portrayed the democrats as money raising machines. The MSM talks about Obama's prowess at raising money. Every day the MSM comes in with a new story at how the democrats are destroying the Republicans in raising money. This has led to many pundits believing the Republicans are doomed to another landslide victory by the Democrats. Many prognosticators believe the the Republicans are set to lose in record numbers and be completely out of power. All of this because the democrats are supposedly flush with cash.

However, the Denver Post says the Democrats are cutting spending at their National Convention. It seems they are about $15 million short. Now the Dems have plenty of excuses for their shortfalls in cash but they have no real answers. In a year when just about any democrat should beat any republican it looks like perhaps the republicans may be able to hang in there.

McCain looks to be in contention. McCain is doing better in head to head match-ups than the generic democrat vs republican. In the Senate it looks like perhaps the Republicans may lose 2-3 seats. This is not bad considering they are defending 23. In the House it looks like the Republicans may just hold their own.

So, I must ask, Are the Democrats Flush with cash? Or have they reached their fund-raising potential? Stayed tuned for this could be a very surprising election yet!

Out of Touch DEMs

The democratic party truly is out of touch. Just today, John Kerry an elitist Senator from Massachusetts said we were not at war on 9/11. Obviously he does not understand what it is like to lose a loved one during an attack on American soil. On 9/11 America was attacked. Over 3,000 people died at the hands of cowards. After eight years of attacking the empty Al Queda training camps the terrorists were emboldened. Osama Bin Laden believed we were weak and would not do anything other than wallow in our misery. America was weak after the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. We were weak after the brazen attack on the USS Cole. We were weak with Saddam Hussein. All of these attacks and the appeasement party did nothing.

It was no wonder Osama Bin Laden planned to attack on American soil. After years of a scandal ridden weak president we did nothing to stop the terrorists. We did nothing to stem the hatred of the impoverished Moslems. I always wondered why the greatest country on Earth would allow terrorists to invade our relative safety of peace. Today I received that answer.

John Kerry and the rest of the democrats did not believe we were at war. They did not believe we were at war even after the brazen attack on American soil. They still do not believe we are at war. The appeasement party believes that Iran is responsible for the success of the surge and not the American military. The appeasement party believes we will be able to have unconditional talks with our sworn enemies. The appeasement party believes in the ostrich syndrome. If we stick our heads in the sand long enough the bad guys will ignore us or go away.

How many attacks will it take for the appeasement party to understand Americans do not want war? Americans do not like war. Americans will avoid war. But Americans will not be attacked and let it go unanswered. We are a country founded on the principle of freedom. When that freedom is infringed Americans will band together and destroy the bad apple. We did it after Pearl Harbor and we did after 9/11. Too bad the appeasement party was asleep at the wheel.

Now America is faced with the king appeaser. Obama's stated policy of open presidential talks without pre-conditions will doom America. We will be attacked again under another weak democrat politician. How could anyone ever consider voting for a party this out of touch?

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Can Obama Take a Punch ?

John McCain came out swinging the other day and caught Obama square on his [foreign policy] glass jaw. McCain challenged Obama to accompany him on a trip to Iraq and speak to our senior military leaders, our troops, and tour the country in order to get a better view of the current conditions in Iraq. The eloquent one was sent reeling, a trip to Iraq was probably the furthest thing from his mind, but the gauntlet has been thrown, can he eloquently talk his way out of this one?

McCain points out that Obama spent only two days in Iraq back in January 2006. Since then Obama has been busy running for president. McCain, who has made eight trips to Iraq, charges that Obama does not have an accurate idea of conditions there because he has never really taken the time to sit down with our military leaders on the ground.

Obama is in a very tough position; he has already stated that he is willing to sit down with the leaders of Iran, how can he possibly refuse an opportunity to speak to American leaders in Iraq? The men he wants to lead as commander-in-chief. If he refuses the challenge, it will damage his already fragile foreign policy credentials and strengthen the argument that he is all talk and no substance. If he consents to a visit, the case can be made that his only reason for doing so is the McCain challenge.

The physical dangers aside, Iraq poses real threats to the Obama campaign. A trip to Baghdad means meeting with General Patraeus on his own turf, not in some Senate hearing room. It involves touring places like Sadr City, and Fallujah, places where our troops have died to make the streets safer. Obama will meet our brave men and women who risk their lives everyday, and he will see firsthand the improvements that have been made there since 2006.

It is all too easy to stand at a podium in Cedar Rapids and speak about the horrible mistakes in Iraq, and call for the immediate withdrawal of US troops. Obama is insulated by ignorance, but after he has met with our troops, toured the cities, seen how many Iraqis depend on our presence for the safety of their families, will he still be able to maintain that complete surrender is the best option for the US and Iraq? When it comes to Iraq, Obama prefers to think in general terms, knowledge is his enemy, and a trip to Iraq jeopardizes all of that.

The Obama camp now says that he may visit Iraq sometime this summer, so McCain’s challenge is already beginning to influence his actions. No one is likely to believe that Obama had a trip previously planned this year…or any year for that matter. It will be entertaining to see what develops now that McCain is pulling the strings on this issue. Let’s see if any “soaring oratory” can keep Obama off of that Baghdad bound C-17.

McCain has exposed Obama’s Iraq policy; “get out, forget about it… and damn the consequences”. A trip to Iraq? Obama doesn’t want to be bothered with it, but that pesky McCain may get Obama in body armor yet.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Obama: Following The Failed Policies of a Traitor

Barack Obama's stated stance on negotiating with our enemies without preconditions sounds eerily familiar to the appeasement philosophy of one Jimmy Carter. The appeasement philosophy failed 32 years ago and will fail us again. Jimmy Carter won the presidential election in 1976 and immediately started our country down the path of dismantling our military. In his view America needed to sit down with our enemies and negotiate away one of our strengths. Now Obama is spreading similar rhetoric in his campaign. Obama has stated that he will not fund more future combat systems. Obama has stated he will surrender to the terrorists. Obama has stated that he will reduce the military budget. These are the same failed policies of an American Traitor.

Jimmy Carter is the American traitor. Yesterday at the Hays festival our illustrious ex-president took it upon himself to sell out America and sell out one of America's closest allies. Mr. Carter commented that Israel has 150 thermal nuclear devices. Now Israel has never publicly claimed a nuclear arsenal but our ex-president decided it was time for him to spread the word to the world that yes indeed Israel has nuclear capabilities and that capability is 150 nuclear weapons. This comes on the heels of Mr. Carter's infamous visit with the leaders of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization that Mr. Carter is coddling to.

This is not the worst of Mr. Carter's traitorous acts. Mr. Carter also stated at the Hays festival the the European Union and Britain should ignore American requests enforcing an embargo of the Hamas led West Bank. This undermines current American Foreign policy. This ex-president has no business interfering with our National Security. Mr. Carter has to realize that he was voted out of office in 1980. America tried his failed policies for 4 years and decided his leftist ideals and appeasement philosophy were a complete failure. Mr. Carter has committed other traitorous acts including coddling to Hugo Chavez. Chavez is another tyrant that supports terrorist organization.

Mr. Carter much like Benedict Arnold must feel under-appreciated. Carter is by far the worst president America ever had. Yet he feels America never understood or gave his appeasement philosophy a chance. So now just like Benedict Arnold, our ex-president is selling his country out. Jimmy Carter should be brought up on charges of treason.

Obama is falling in line with the same anti-American sentiment that Mr. Carter has. Obama displays his contempt for Americans. Obama has promised us a future of more appeasement. Obama has the same peace at any cost philosophy that Carter had. If America were to elect Obama what would happen when we again find that America has been diminished to a harmless speck on the wall with a hollowed out military? Would Obama follow the same traitorous footsteps that Benedict Arnold and Jimmy Carter have? Is this the best the democrats have to offer? Obama is a gaffe machine following in the footsteps of the weakest President in American history.

Monday, May 26, 2008

A Day of Remembrance

Today is a special day. This weekend traditionally marks the first summer days. It is a day to go to the beaches. A day to visit the ball parks. A day for cooking outdoors and enjoying a few drinks with friends and family. But more importantly it is a day to remember our service men and women who gave their lives to protect us from our enemies.

Today I am sure there will be anti-war protests in America. I however implore these individuals to take a moment and think about the fallen. Today is not the time to protest in America. Today is for reflecting on our rights and not exercising our rights. Today is about the fallen that provided our rights through dedicated selfless service. It is about the men and women that stood watch over the walls that protect us all. Today means much to America. It is a day for remembering, reflecting, and thanking the individuals that gave their lives protecting our freedoms.

Freedom is what makes America the envy of the world. There is no other country on Earth that allows it citizens the rights to freedom. We all have rights that no one else has. We are alone in our pursuit of individual rights and freedoms. Life is about making choices and America provides the opportunity for its citizenry to make these choices. These freedoms however have a price. These freedoms are paid for in the blood of the few. The blood of those willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of freedom. Of all days in the year please take a moment to recognize these true American Heroes.

Many folks will exercise their rights to protest today. They believe they are standing for a cause. Today it will not be a noble act but rather the act of the selfish. People that would protest today do not have what it takes to be a foot soldier. They believe the protests provide the grassroots efforts to change a Nation. However, all they are doing is committing a selfish sin. They are going against the very freedoms represented by the day. Tomorrow is another day. I would hope that those that would protest today would refrain until tomorrow. We need to keep our fallen in our thoughts and our prayers. Today is A Day of Remembrance.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

A Must See Video

The following link is for a video displaying the squalor people in Obama's State Senate district lived in while he lived in a $1.9 million dollar mansion. Is this his vision for America?

Post: What Obama Has To Offer African-Americans

Reckless Policy

The Eloquent One has spoken. Obama has no intention of seeking an energy strategy that will help ease the soaring gasoline prices. He sees no reason to offer a gasoline tax holiday that would help ease the burden of increasingly higher gasoline prices. With the price of a gallon of gasoline fast approaching $4.00 per gallon Obama does not believe a summer tax holiday would be beneficial. He does not see the 18.4 cents a gallon as helping strapped Americans. The Democrats ran in 2006 on a platform of introducing legislation that would reduce the burden of high gasoline prices. Instead what we got was prices that are over 50% higher today than they were in 2006.

Obama has the nerve to say higher gasoline prices will force Americans to change their "habits". I did not know that heating our homes and driving cars in the daily commute was a "habit". Obama obviously does not understand that automobiles are part of the fabric of American lives. Unlike Obama hard working middle class Americans drive from the suburbs to the industrial parks to stay employed. Using fuel is a necessity in American life. We require fuel or we will not be able to heat our homes in the winter. We need fuel or we will be unable to haul agriculture products from the rural areas to the urban areas. Fuel is not a habit. In the absence of feasible alternatives our economy is directly linked to fuel prices.

It is easy for the Eloquent One to grandstand and call use of fuel a "habit". Is Obama really that naive? Does he really believe that gasoline is a fad that can be done away with by making the cost to high? What will happen to the American economy with such reckless thoughts? The Eloquent One has very elitist type views. He believes it is as easy as turning on a switch. After all the Eloquent one does not have to drive his hybrid anymore because he has Secret Service drive him from place to place. He is not concerned with the high cost of fuel because he has duped 1.5 million Americans into donating $1 million dollars a day so that he can jet set around the country and espouse reckless and naive viewpoints.

The Eloquent needs to take some basic economics courses. Perhaps his local community college could offer him one. I understand that the elitist attended Harvard but obviously Obama was not required to understand the American way of life. Obama and the Democrats have broken their promise to America. They promised an energy policy that would reduce the cost of gasoline. However they did not tell us the policy would drive America to the brink of bankruptcy waiting for feasible alternative energy. Obama and the democrats are exceedingly gifted at passing the blame on Bush. When are we going to wake up America. The democrats sold us a bill of goods in 2006 and now they are failing to deliver. We were duped. Before the Democrats are done America will be destroyed. Our economy is teetering and yet Obama says we are not feeling enough pain yet.

Corrupt Politician Claims Victim Status

Earlier in the week House member Laura Richardson claimed that she worked out details with her mortgage company. Later we found that she had not worked out the details or at least not to the satisfaction of the mortgage company because her home was sold at auction. Now the despicable Representative says she was a victim of the mortgage crisis. She borrowed of half a million dollars to purchase a home with no money down. Then she neglected to pay her mortgage.

Ms. Richardson made a choice to use her funds to gain higher elected office instead of paying her bills. After winning a special election for the House of Representatives this despicable Congresswoman voted for a bill that would allow for debt forgiveness on mortgages just like her own. This Congresswoman really believed that the American tax payer should pay for her house. Instead the mortgage company got nervous that they would lose out and auctioned her residence for a $200,000 loss. She claims she is a victim and yet her actions made every American a victim. Essentially, this Congresswoman was a parasite that lived off the American society. She neglected to pay for her loan. The long term repercussions is that all Americans will find it harder to obtain a mortgage. All Americans will have to pay higher interest rates on Mortgages because they have become a higher risk investment because of Ms. Richardson and others just like her who obtained mortgages and never really intended to pay for them.

All we have to do is look at the facts. Ms. Richardson obtained a mortgage in 2007. She made a few payments then stopped after winning a special election. Shortly after winning the special election she voted for a bill on debt forgiveness. Ms. Richardson claims she had the details worked out with the mortgage company and had no idea her home was sold at auction. This is unbelievable. How could she not know her home was sold two weeks ago? She claims she did not use her influence as a Congresswoman. Again this is somewhat unbelievable. Her actions show she never really intended to pay for the home after winning the special election as she stopped making payments. She voted for the American taxpayer to bail her out when she herself failed to pay $9,000 in taxes. She claims victim status and that she is no different than other Americans. The problem is she is different. Most Americans are not in a position to pass along their debt to the taxpayer. Most Americans do not enter into debt with the intention of not paying the debt. Most Americans are responsible adults.

Americans are having a mortgage crisis because they entered into poor loans. The interest rates were low and they received adjustable rate mortgages. When the interest rates reset at a higher level these Americans could no longer afford the payments. This is not the case for Ms. Richardson. She obtained a loan after she knew full well that there was a problem in the housing industry. Her interest did not reset causing her payments to increase. She simply decided she was not going to pay the mortgage. She claims to be a victim. However she is just a deadbeat taking advantage of her position. This is just another corrupt politician from the left claiming victim status. She should be forced to resign from her position.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

The End Justifies the Means

According to Congressman from PA the Democrats lied to the American Public. Paul Kanjorski a democrat congressman said that the freshman democrats that ran on an Iraq withdrawal "stretched the facts". He shrugged it off as just being something politicians do to win elections. We all know our politicians lie, cheat, and steal to win campaigns but when a political party is willing to lie about its platform just to retake control of the government is out of line.

Many American voters believe in the fundamental platforms of political parties. Many voters are not political junkies digging into the candidate's true position. No the average voter tends to receive political viewpoints through the biased lens of the main stream media. The media never reported positive progress made in Iraq. It was a daily barrage of the negative. The main stream media ensured the public was inundated with negative views of Iraq and were accomplices in the charade that is the democratic party.

The Congressman says that the end justified the means. He believes that telling lies and duping the American Public is just a part of doing business. Telling lies is just the method to gain control of our government. The true colors are showing. The democrats are elitists that believe they are entitled to their positions. To a Democrat our government is for them to rule our lives rather than a government for the people.

It is no wonder this Congress has not been able to accomplish anything. The party of no ideas (democrats) just wanted to be in power. This was probably just an effort to receive more pork for their congressional districts. These bogus politicians promised us lower gasoline prices and yet the price of a gallon of gas has increased over 50% since the "stretching the facts" democrats got into office. Now they wish to raise the gasoline taxes to make it even more expensive even though they promised to reduce energy costs.

Makes a voter wonder what else the party of liars decided to stretch. Do the democrats have anything they will stand on? Are the democrats really that poll driven? It is no wonder America voted this party out of control back in 1994. They really do not have any ideas. They believe that the end justified their methods. They did not really want to lead America they just wanted power. Just goes to show a person that power is a corrupting force. Way to go democrat party; it is always amusing when a politician opens his mouth and actually admits that they will lie, cheat, and steal just so long as they are in power.

Barack's Failed Policies of the Past

George Santayana once said "Those that can not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." In an election cycle that requires candidates to promise change that is exactly what Barack Obama has done. Barack has made eloquent speeches regarding change without detailing what that change entails. However, the longer this campaign continues the more details that surface and the more it seems that Barack "the messenger of change" is nothing more than a recycler of the past.

In a recent you tube video Obama details plans for gutting the United States military. Obama will cut waste Defense spending. Obama will curtail investment in our military. Obama will no longer fund future combat systems. The rhetoric sounds great to the "peace at any cost" crowds but the policies have failed in the past and will fail in the future. The failed presidency of Jimmy Carter also implemented policies of appeasement and gutting the military. The results of which left our country vulnerable to attacks by even the smallest of threats.

Last week Obama claimed that Iran was such a little threat that there was no need for concern. We need not carry a big stick because Iran was not a serious threat to US national security. Thirty years ago Jimmy Carter did not think Iran posed a serious threat. Jimmy Carter had already dismantled the military by 1979 and had negotiated away our strengths with the USSR. When the Iranians took 52 Americans hostage America was unable to secure the release of these hostages. It took 444 days and a change in the Presidency before these hostages were released. The military with Jimmy Carter as Commander in Chief attempted an ill fated mission to secure the release but alas it was not to be due to the inability of the gutted and weakened America military.

I understand that Obama was probably in puppy love at the time. His youthful exuberance of the time probably means that he did not understand the failed policies of a failed presidency. But I would think Barack would have had plenty of time to learn this valuable lesson in history. Appeasement does not work and gutting our military will only leave us in a weakened National Security position.

I find it difficult to believe that a post 9/11 presidential candidate believes America will be able to enter into unconditional talks with Iran. I find it difficult to believe that a post 9/11 presidential candidate would consider dismantling Americas military might and leave us in a weakened position unable to defend our citizens and protect our homeland.

The return to these failed policies will leave us open to future terrorist attacks. The terrorists will attack America again it is only a matter of time. Do we really want a President that will hand over the keys? Do we really want a President that would rather stick is head in the sand than provide tough talk backed up with a strong military? I would much rather have peace through strength rather than peace at any costs. Obama needs to read up on his history. Obama needs to brush up on his foreign policy. The Islamist fundamentalists will not be happy until everyone is practicing Islam. An Obama presidency will only embolden our sworn enemies. With an Obama presidency America will only be in a position to concede ground. We will give up our freedoms in order to appease the fundamentalists. Obama please grow up and go away. Your change is nothing more than a return to proven failed policies.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Building a Losing Coalition

According to the pundits Obama has created a new coalition of voters. This new coalition paved the way to the possible nomination and is supposedly unbeatable. The daily kos fawns over Obama and preach that Obama's 50 state approach with this new coalition will break the backs of the republicans and lead to a lasting government ruled and controlled by democrats. This new coalition was strong enough to place Obama close to the nomination but will it win in November.

First we have to look at what the coalition is in the first place. A large portion of the Obama followers are young. This is a new group of possible democratic voters and seems to be a solid group of disgruntled Americans ready to vote for the eloquent one. The problem with this voter is that they are unpredictable. They may or may not show up on election day. Historically, the younger voters do not show up. Not since JFK has there been a large unexpected turnout from the younger voters. The next part of the Obama coalition is the affluent democratic voters. The George Soros type are firmly behind Obama. The eloquent One's Marxist viewpoints closely resemble their own. The problem here is that they were going to vote for the democratic nominee whoever that was. It would not have mattered who the democrats chose these liberal marxist will always vote for the democrat because they believe any democrat is better than any republican. The last big faction in the Obama coalition is the African American voter. Again just like the affluent democrats the African Americans were going to vote for the democratic nominee at a clip of 90-95%. So really what is new in this coalition? It is younger generation voter. It is true they are coming out in large numbers right now but will it be enough to carry Obama across the finish line.

To answer that we must look at the rest of the typical democratic voters. The blue collar union type workers have resoundingly abandoned Obama and his false hope message. First Obama lost Ohio. Hillary took an eight point win from Ohio. In and of itself this is not that bad. However, considering Obama had just won 10 straight States during the nomination contests leading up to Ohio. The Eloquent One had plenty of time to win over democrats in a purple state like Ohio. Alas, Obama could not close the deal. Then Obama lost Pennsylvania by 9 points. This is another purple state with a huge number of blue collar type democrats. Again Obama could not close the deal. Finally, in the last couple of states with large blue collar type democrats Obama lost big time. West Virginia provided a 41 point loss and Kentucky provided a 35 point loss. This can be spun as Obama does not need KY and WV to win in the general. However, that is not the point. The point is that Obama has alienated the blue collar worker and will be unable to close the deal in November if they decide to either stay home or find another candidate to vote for. Next we look at the Jewish American community. This is another big democratic voting block. While it looks as though Obama will garner 60% of the Jewish vote this is nowhere near the 80% generally garnered by the democratic party.

There are two big constituencies of the democratic party that have either taken for granted. Many Hillary supporters have openly suggested they will not vote for Obama. In some instances polls have shown almost 50% of Hillary supporters will either stay home or vote for McCain. This is not a good sign for Obama and his reconciliation efforts.

Obama has bet his entire candidacy on the young voter at the expense of traditional "lunch box" democrats and the Jewish voters. I am not sure this coalition can stand with a historically underrepresented voter at the expense of normally consistent voting blocks. Yes it is true Obama may have just built himself a losing coalition.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

An investigation is in Order

A US House of Representative walked away from a mortgage. Laura Richardson received a no money down mortgage in 2007. She borrowed $535,000 and then only made a few payments before having the house repossessed by the mortgage company and then sold for a loss at an auction. Just yesterday this despicable Representative claimed she worked out a deal with her mortgage company. Today the Daily Breeze reported that based on public information Congresswoman Richardson indeed did lose her house making her an outright liar. According to public documents James York (a real estate broker) purchased Richardson's house at a foreclosure auction two weeks ago. In addition to being a dead beat with personal obligations; Richardson failed to pay real estate taxes. She left behind almost $9,000 in property taxes. With Representatives like this it is no wonder why our Congress has a 16% approval rating in recent polls.

In 2006, America voted the the Republicans out of power. One of the main reasons was political scandals. We were promised ethics reform and transparency in government. Yet this story is hidden. There is no outrage by our Democrat led congress on the corrupt, irresponsible, and deceitful behavior of one of their own. The Main Stream Media remains quiet with this story. Obama and Hillary remain deaf to this story. Yet both of these candidates have been clamoring for the American taxpayer to bailout reckless and irresponsible borrowers.

I have to wonder is this who Obama and Hillary are talking about when the say the ruthless and unscrupulous lenders prayed the borrowers. Is this the ethical behavior Nancy Pelosi talked about when she proclaimed she would lead the most ethical Congress ever? This is another example of why America must throw the bums out of office.

Our politicians have all become accustomed to unethical behavior. Our career politicians have become complacent and believe they are untouchable. We must vote them all out of office.

I believe a full investigation is in order. I would like the following questions answered and then send this lying cheat out of office.

Did this Congresswoman abuse her power? Did she use her position in discussions with her lender to get a better mortgage deal? Did Richardson use this house as collateral for campaign loans? Is this why Obama and Hillary proposed bailout plans at taxpayer expense?

This Congress has done nothing in the 16 months since being elected with the exception of investigating the Bush administration. I have no issues with investigating the executive office in order to keep the checks and balances in place. However, it would seem to me that in order to hold credible hearings on corruption charges in another branch of government, the investigating branch needs to be credible and ethical itself. It will be interesting to see if Nancy has the courage to investigate one of her own or will she wait until it is forced by the will of the people.

The Democrats are big on takking about raising our taxes. They have already floated the idea of increasing the gasoline tax even though we are paying almost $4.00 a gallon. Both Democratic contenders have proposed big ideas on socializing our health care system by raising taxes on the rich. Both candidates are talking about education reform by raising taxes on the rich. Both candidates have proposed a socialist agenda by raising taxes on the rich. Yet they allow peers to neglect their own taxes. I have heard no outrage regarding this story. I have heard no outrage that another Democrat (Al Franken) refused to pay his income taxes. It sure seems the democrats are nothing more than the party that will tax everything and everyone except their own.

Yes it is high time we rid ourselves of the parasites that are our career politicians. Our career politicians are out of touch with reality. Our politicians preach to us. Yet when it comes right down to it they only represent themselves. Our career politicians will lie, cheat, and steal from the very people they represent. Our career politicians have failed us.

Obama the Prima Donna

“Lay off my wife”. This is the reaction of Barack Obama to criticism of his wife and campaign surrogate, Michelle. Obama the sensitive would like people to listen to his wife during campaign events and her stump speeches, but he is vehemently opposed to any criticism of her from the Republicans. Never mind the fact that Obama has been at times a very outspoken critic of rival Hillary Clinton’s husband Bill, especially after the South Carolina primary. The media – pampered and arrogant candidate believes that criticism of his wife is off limits, and that’s his rule.

Obama should realize that any surrogate, even his wife, is fair game in politics. If he wants to shield her from criticism, keep her at home or at least in the background. This “hands off” attitude is the result of the “rock star” treatment he has come to expect from the media and his fans [is that redundant?]. Obama is a spoiled politician with a portfolio of accomplishments that is as thin as his skin. He now angrily demands special treatment from the opposition…simply because he is Obama. The general election will no doubt be a very trying time for this political prima donna.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Rule Number two: Understand Your Adversary and Your Situation

Obama likes to point out that previous US Presidents like Kennedy and Reagan have sat down to talk with Soviet leaders, so his idea of talking with the Iranian president is not a sign of poor judgment or appeasement, he’s just doing what other presidents have done in the past.

There’s just one huge difference between the Soviet leaders of thirty or forty years ago and Ahmadinejad. The Soviets were not motivated by religious fervor; in fact they denounced religion in any form. True, they would have welcomed the destruction of the United States, and many times openly expressed those sentiments but their opposition to the US and our allies was based on political, not religious grounds.

Ahmadinejad’s hatred of our society is much deeper and more profound because it is based on religious beliefs that go to the core of his existence. He truly views the US and Israel as corrupt, evil nations that must be destroyed. The concept of co-existence is lost on this man. BO needs to understand these basic facts.

Obama takes great comfort in the fact that Iran presently does not possess the military capability to fill our skies with ICBMs and bring about our destruction, but he is making the serious error of using cold war ideals to shape his thinking. This is not the Cold War; these are not the Soviets…different times, different people, and different situation.

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us, and yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet”.

The naivety of that statement is appalling.

This is dangerous and outdated thinking. There were many important reasons the Soviets never went to war with the US, mutual assured destruction [MAD] being the main one. And although the Soviets were definitely armed to the teeth, and talked a good game, they never really displayed the willingness to unleash their nuclear might. Obama needs to shed this Cold War mentality and wake up to the realization that we are facing new enemies who will not follow some decade’s old Soviet doctrine to fight wars or conduct negotiations. His constant comparisons to the USSR are not only meaningless; they are based on fifty year old foreign policy.

These new enemies do not require a nuclear arsenal on the scale of the Soviet Union’s to horribly damage the US or our allies. They already have the willingness to use them; they just need the time to develop one or two. The fact that Obama feels these countries do not pose a serious threat shows how incredibly shallow his understanding is of the dangers faced by this nation…today.

Freaks Gone Wild

The leftist freaks over at Daily Kos have really sunk to new lows. They portray the Republicans as playing on fears and race baiting. However, prominently displayed on their web site at is a picture that is the epitome of both. The daily Kos loser called "one citizen" displays a photo of Michelle Obama bound to a tree surrounded by Klansmen getting ready to brand her. This is an outrage and a disgrace.

Sporting such images is nothing but race baiting and fear mongering. How can the whiny left complain incessantly that Republicans and the right play on our fears and race bait on important issues such as terrorism and patriotism when they themselves display photos of this kind? This photo is a idiotic attempt to play on the fears of their voting block and race bait. I am sure the left will not understand that this picture is racist and shows their lack of compassion and understanding of racial issues in our country. It shows their disdain and prejudices against working class Americans and plays on the fears of their African American voting block.

The picture pretends to cast the Republicans as wanting to burn the middle class. But really these immature radicals would do anything to keep their voting block in line by playing on fears and racism.

Pictures tell a thousand words. This particular picture tells of the lack of compassion and understanding the left claims to have. This picture tells of us the hatred the radicals have of America. This picture tells of the distinct lack of character in the radical left. This picture tells of the lack of integrity the left has. This picture tells of the contempt the left has of American freedoms and ideals. This picture tells us what a leftist government would do to America.

The leftist freaks have gone wild. They owe the American public an apology; they have disgraced themselves and our great country. Their hatred of our great nation is prominently on display.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

The Blame Game

The chosen one has ignored voters throughout this campaign. In West Virginia Obama was humiliated with a 41 point loss. Obama and his followers are attempting to spin this defeat as being too little too late. On May 20th Obama is staring at another embarrassing loss. Obama's hometown newspaper "The Chicago Tribune" calls this potential embarrassing loss in Kentucky as "seen leaning Clinton's way". In the latest polling data Obama is down 27 points. Is that what the Obama hometown media calls a 27 point deficit? Is it really leaning? Would the tribune be as kind to the Bulls if they were down 27 points?

Now Obama is claiming that he did not have the time to campaign in Kentucky. He only had a year and 23 debates but of course a years time is not nearly enough time to visit the Kentucky voters who just may be inclined to cling to their guns and religion. Kentucky obviously did not make the map of 57 States that Obama is so proud of visiting.

Obama is bashing Fox news as being unfair. He says Fox News was spreading rumors about his religious beliefs and his patriotism. I am not so sure they are rumors. The points being generated by Fox News is that Obama has been attending an anti American church with strong ties to the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan. The questions raised about patriotism revolve around wearing a flag pin and not respecting the Nations flag during the National Anthem. These are not rumors. They are fact and Obama refuses to address them. As soon as his church and his patriotism are challenged Obama cries racism and calls them false rumors. Again like the appeasement fiasco Obama cries the loudest when someone hits the nail on the head. Obama the appeaser screams that the President launched a false political attack. Fox inquires about his religion and patriotism and Barack says Fox is unfair to him.

The problem is that Obama just does not connect to voters outside his little reality of the world. His constituency has remained the young, African Americans, and the affluent far left wing of the democratic party. He has not connected to middle America. He shies away from States with a large majority of white middle class voters. The far left has been clinging to the idea that McCain is having issues because 25% of Republicans are not voting for him after he became the presumptive nominee (although he carries 75% and wins). Perhaps they need to look at Obama who lost one State by 41% and is about to lose another by 25-30% after becoming the presumptive nominee.

Obama is a loser. He refuses to debate after losing badly in a PA debate. Obama refuses to campaign in States where he has no appeal in order to say that in one year of campaigning he did not have enough time to visit Kentucky. What is going to happen once the Republicans are sure Obama is the Nominee? Does Obama believe the republicans will rollover? Does Obama believe he can stay on the fringes and have the media defend him forever? Does Obama believe he can play the victim and race cards throughout the campaign and still win? Obama is not in a position where he can alienate voters and still win in November. The electorate is upset and desires a change. They do not want another weak candidate that will run away from the issues. They want someone to stand up for them. Obama has proven that he is incapable of standing for anything. Every time he is questioned about an issue of concern he blames someone else. America needs a President that will take personal responsibility and Obama has shown he will not take that responsibility.

Tea Leaves

Democrats are busy reading tea leaves. They have won three open house seats that were previously held by the republicans. This bolsters their hopes to not only retain their governing majorities but increase the majorities to such a number as to make the republicans an after thought. Most of the political pundits agree that the republicans are in trouble. In fact republicans are busy attempting to redefine themselves and distance themselves from President Bush. My question is are the Democrats reading the tea leaves correctly?

On the surface it would seem they are. In 2006, the American voting public overwhelmingly sent a message that they were upset with the republican party and George Bush. The Democrats are three for three this year turning red seats in the house blue. Obama has stated that the republicans better watch themselves because negative ads against him do not work using as evidence the Mississippi house seat. I would tend to agree with the message that the republicans are in trouble except for some troubling details.

First, while the polls suggest a generic democrat beats a generic republican for President, the polls do not bear this out when Obama and Hillary are paired up against John McCain. Most polls slightly favor Obama and Hillary but the polls are within the margin of error. Additionally, a gallup tracking poll shows McCain up 3 points and a Rasmussen tracking poll has McCain up 1 point over Obama.

Second, there was a special election last fall in MA where the overwhelming favorite democratic candidate won but the result was within just five percentage points. In liberal MA it does not bode well for democrats when they barely hold on to a congressional seat. We can not over look this result and make claims that democrats are in much better shape than the republicans.

Third, there is a poll out from Quinnipiac that shows approval rating of the democrat controlled congress is at 16%. America is not supportive of any of our politicians no matter what party they are associated with.

Incumbents from both parties should be extremely worried this fall. The mood in the country is sour and Americans want change. As I read the tea leaves I would say many incumbents will be swept from office with the Democrats picking up a few seats in the house but the republicans will hold tough and still have around 190 seats. In the senate I would expect the Democrats to pick up 1-3 senate seats in what should be a huge opportunity for democratic pickups. After all Republicans are defending 23 seats in an anti incumbent year.

With the two party system the American voter is forced to vote for a democrat or a republican. In an anti incumbent year like this politicians from both parties should be concerned. If the democrats do not come up with a message soon they will allow the republicans to regroup and set the tone for not only this election cycle but future election cycles. Instead of being giddy the democrats need to have a plan.

As it stands right now I believe a serious independent run by a credible candidate with little or no political experience would trounce both McCain and Obama in the general election. Independent voters that represent middle America do not like their choices. That is why Jesse Ventura will be able to run and perhaps even win the Minnesota Senate seat.

Right now the republican base is in a state of disarray. But California just gave the conservative republican base a reason to unite. Over turning a gay marriage ban that is popular with the public is not going win over many conservatives. Obama's out of touch elitism is not going to gather much steam. Obama will be dragged down by his anti American and racist associates that include not only his pastor but also his wife. In the end, when the truth comes out about the democratic message many will rally around the Maverick or an independent. If ever there was a year for an independent to run it is this year. The Anti incumbent message voters have been sending should be ringing in our politicians ears. It also should encourage credible independent candidates to run.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Rule Number One: Always Negotiate From a Position of Power

Barack Obama is in a tough spot. He’s been called out on his stated willingness to sit down and talk with terrorist nations, first and foremost Iran. His fluctuations on these previous statements prove that he now realizes it may have been a monumental error to admit his true feelings in front of those television cameras. Barack is now busy laying on the spin to escape a GOP onslaught that represents just a small taste of what he will be facing after the August convention.

Obama can make our media swoon like love sick teenagers, but it is doubtful that he will impress our enemies in the same way. His expressed desire to negotiate with terrorist nations has weakened his position on the world stage before he has even been selected as the Democrat’s nominee for president. What follows is just my own view on what Obama can expect from someone who does not view him as a “rock star”;

Obama: I want to thank you for allowing me to come to Tehran so we can work out these differences between our two countries. By the way, that’s a nice Members Only jacket you’re wearing, I didn’t know they made them any more.

Ahmadinejad: The only difference we have is your imperialistic nation’s attempts to rule the world and destroy Islam. This jacket was a present from my good friend and fellow America hater Hugo Chavez.May you die screaming.

Obama: Really, that’s great. I’m headed to Venezuela right after I leave here, maybe he can hook me up with one. Hey, just wondering…but weren’t you one of those students that raided the US embassy and held our people for over 400 days? I could swear I saw you in a photo next to a few blindfolded hostages.

Ahmadinejad: No, and they were not hostages. They were invaders sent from your country to support the Shah and oppress our people. They should have been shot in the street like dogs.

Obama: Hey, hey, I feel you, I never agreed with the Shah’s rule or the US support of him. I applaud Jimmy Carter for hanging him out to dry and allowing the Ayatollah Khomeini to take power.

Ahmadinejad: Feel me? There are no homosexuals in Iran; I suggest you control your desires. I think Jimmy Carter is a great man; it pains me that he is an American.

Obama: Well a lot of people in my country are pained that he is an American also, but what can you do?

Ahmadinejad: You can adopt his policies and support freedom loving, oppressed countries such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. Only then will the United States be viewed with respect, not hatred.

Obama: I’m working on that.

Ahmadinejad: See that you do. Now what is this problem you have with our efforts to develop nuclear energy? Would you have our people live in the dark without electricity? Our towns and cities are not deserving of the same basic services that you take for granted?

Obama: No, no, no, that’s not it at all. I just, well, it’s hard to explain, but there are some people in my country, not me, but some people that are pretty sure that you are going to use that technology to develop nuclear weapons. And remember, you did say, more than a few times, that you want to wipe Israel off the map. That makes these people kind of nervous.

Ahmadinejad: Let them be nervous. We will not stop our hidden, well fortified, underground development of nuclear power. Iran is a peace loving nation, but why should we not have the same weapons as the United States, Russia, India, Pakistan, and most importantly Israel? We must be able to defend ourselves from enemies bent on our destruction. There is nothing your country can do to stop us from moving forward in this direction, but be assured; we are not attempting to build nuclear weapons.

Obama: Are you willing to let inspectors in to verify that?

Ahmadinejad: Absolutely not.

Obama: OK, now the next issue. My military advisors tell me that your country is providing IEDs, rockets, and is presently training and equipping fighters to engage American troops in Iraq. As you know I am wholly opposed to our illegal occupation of that country, and I am in the process of surrendering in Iraq. Can you stop these actions so I can show my country that you truly are a peace loving nation that is not engaging in these activities?

Ahmadinejad: I cannot stop what is not happening. I do not know what you are referring to, but even if we were supplying sophisticated IED technology and Iranian made rockets from a facility right down the street to fight your heinous occupiers, what do you have to offer us to entice us to stop?

Obama: Well, we would readily accept your country into the world community.

Ahmadinejad: We have no desire to be a part of your so called “world community”. You and your country are an insignificant stain on the world map that must be removed.We want nothing but your destruction.

Obama: Sorry you feel that way. Well, it’s been nice talking to you. I’ll tell Hugo you said “hi”.

Ahmadinejad: You are dismissed.

Here's a great article by Mark Steyn about Obama's urge to appease.

The Appeasement Flap Continues

Barack Obama has continued his false outrage and raised the rhetoric in the appeasement flap. Obama scheduled a press conference yesterday in effort to appear strong. Obama attempted to defend himself against an accusation of appeasement directed at the those that prefer the ostrich syndrome when dealing with rogue states and terrorists. The problem is the false outrage says the accusation of appeasement is a "false political attack" and fear mongering and never explains why the accusation is false.

First of all the accusation is not false. That is why Obama can not claim what was said is a lie. That is why the media is not burying the subject. It was Obama who said he would meet unconditionally with Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Both of these rogue leaders have direct ties to terrorists. Ahmadinejad has said our friend and ally should be wiped out of existence. Ahmadinejad provides funding and training to terror groups that undermine the security of Americans. Ahmadinejad supports Hamas and Hezbollah and is developing nuclear technology. Chavez has supported the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC). The FARC is a terrorist organization. Chavez almost declared war on Columbia when the Columbians attacked FARC terror base in Ecuador. Interpol has declared the computer files found in the base demonstrated the support Chavez provides the FARC terror network. Obama's own church wants to appease Al Quiada. Reverend Wright says "the chickens have come home to roost" insinuating 9/11 was America's fault.

Second Obama does not defend his words and in fact denies the words he stated on National television. Millions of Americans including myself heard Obama say he would have unconditional talks with Iran and Venezuela. He defended his position at the time by saying talking to the rogue states was the proper steps. Hillary jumped on the statement made by Obama and called the statement naive. Now Obama attempt to deny he made this statement and denies he has changed his position to adding pre-conditions to his talks. His response to Bush attacked McCain directly. Even though Bush never attacked Obama he just attacked the appeasement philosophy, Obama took the comment personal and launched a false political attack on McCain. Typical of all politicians. Can't defend your position attack the messenger or the opponent.

Appeasement has never worked. The French and British tried this with Hitler. When Hitler went into Poland in 1939 they tried to talk to Hitler without preconditions. Hitler assured the French and the British that he would go no further. The French and British believed the Germans and everyone knows what happened next. Kennedy and Johnson tried to appease the North Vietnamese. We negotiated rules of engagement that tied the hands of our military. We could not attack the infrastructure of the North Vietnamese because of unconditional talks. We negotiated ourselves into only being "advisors and trainers". The horrible mistake of appeasement got America into a conflict we could not win. Our appeasement strategy in Vietnam strengthened the resolve of the North Vietnamese rather than strengthen our position. Carter again tried the policy of appeasement with the Soviets and Iran. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan all we did was slap the Soviets on the wrist. We had already negotiated away our military power. The was nothing left to our military to back up our words. Instead of being able to do some saber rattling all we could do was unilaterally enact a grain embargo that only further hurt American economy and boycott the Olympics which only caused the Soviets to boycott our Olympics four years later. Iran was another story. Due to the weakness of American foreign appeasement policy the Iranians held 53 American diplomats hostage for 444 days. It was not until the tough talking Reagan took office that the hostages were released. Reagan backed up his tough talk with actions. The Soviets, Iranians, Libyans and others all knew America was determined to use military power as an option. There would be no unconditional talks only ultimatums. Again the policy of appeasement failed in the 1990s. Milosevic would not listen. We had the Dayton Peace Accords, we held talks in Belgrade and yet the atrocities continued. The ethnic cleansing continued until we projected our military power and entered into the Balkans. Iraq never believed we would use military power. We appeased Saddam throughout the 1990's. Saddam played the game of chicken with the US because he truly believed America had a policy of appeasement and containment. Under a Clinton administration that was our policy. Saddam believed he could do whatever he wanted because America was all talk and no action. We all know what mess we have today because of our past practices of appeasement and use of the "Ostrich Syndrome". It never works. We must continue to use tough talk and back it up with action.

Obama attacked McCain as being a third Bush term. Obama says McCain would follow the same Bush "Cowboy Diplomacy". I say that is not accurate. McCain will follow the Reagan philosophy of peace through strength rather than the Carter philosophy of peace at all costs that Obama would follow. I really hope Obama mets McCain in a debate on this issue. Obama would be shown as the man full of empty rhetoric. Obama wants us to listen to his words. Americans are mesmerized by his eloquent speeches. Does anyone really believe the Rogue States and terrorists will be so gullible? Time and again Democrats have attempted turn the other cheek diplomacy. Time and again they left America weak and vulnerable.

Obama and the Democrats say they will restore respect for America. I ask who do they want to respect us? The liberal left would have America believe that respect is equated being likability. Many countries dislike that America talks tough and carry a big stick. But that does not mean they do not respect us. These countries that do not necessarily like our methods still respect us and our ideals. I can only assume that the democratic philosophy of appeasement and the Ostrich syndrome is because they mistakenly equate being liked with respect. They want the Iranians to like us. They want the Venezuelans to like us. They want the Cubans to like us. Unfortunately, the rogue states and terrorists will take that as a sign of weakness to further their resolve to take what is not theirs.

The appeasement speech by Bush hit a nerve. The Democrats know they are weak and that their philosophy has never worked. Weak resolve gets world leaders in trouble. If we do not stay strong in the middle east we will be severely weakened and have to return to clean the appeasement up in the future. Obama needs to grow up and understand that America is strong because of Military force projection and not in spite of it. We need to use diplomacy but we need to back our diplomacy up with action and not words.

Friday, May 16, 2008

Media in Frenzy over Bush Remarks

Media talking heads have taken great offense to statements made by President Bush in his speech to the Israeli Knesset yesterday. Concerned that Bush’s remarks are a direct condemnation of their candidate, the MSM once again rallied to Obama’s aid calling this a “two-pronged Republican attack”, noting that John McCain agreed with the President’s statements. In his speech the President stated that;

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”

Obama supporters claim this is criticism aimed at the possible Democratic nominee because of his stated willingness to negotiate directly with Iran, a country that is a proven sponsor of terrorism. Bush alluded to attempts directly preceding hostilities in 1939 Europe to placate a militaristic Germany and avoid conflict;

“We've heard this foolish delusion before. We have an obligation to call this what it is, the false comfort of appeasement”.

Neville Chamberlin declared “peace in our time” after returning from his mission to appease Hitler in 1939. Six years later their cities in ruin, millions had perished violently on the European continent.

Bush’s remarks may also be directed at Jimmy Carter, who last month foolishly sat down with the terrorist leader of Hamas, a blood thirsty organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Carter’s trip merely provided Hamas a new degree of credibility in the Arab world… terrorists [and some liberals] appear to be the only people who truly believe Carter has any credibility left at this point.

Is Obama considering appeasement, or is he just willing to use dialogue to establish open lines between the US and Iran to avoid conflict? He obviously sees dialogue as a tool to establish better relations, but is that how Iran sees it? Probably not. Obama has to avoid the mistake of mirror-imaging when dealing with Iran. The Iranians do not share our belief system, morals, or the same opinion on the use of dialogue as most western nations. Iran is certainly not bringing the same attitudes or goals to a discussion with an American President. To Iran, the mere fact that a US President requests a face-to-face meeting is a sign of weakness on our part, a propaganda coup. In their minds, they have gained the upper hand at that point.

Obama is tragically mistaken if he thinks his silver tongued eloquence will make the Iranian leadership swoon like our gullible media. The Iranian president has repeatedly called for the destruction of the United States and Israel,and Iran is rapidly moving toward the development of nuclear weapons.Mere words are unlikely to change that situation. Israel has made clear that a nuclear Iran will not be tolerated…and that is not Obama-style rhetoric.The Israelis know too well the horrific cost of "false comfort". Appeasement is not an option when your homeland is within missile range of a nuclear armed nation calling for your destruction.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

If The Shoe Fits

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have taken great offense to a statement made by President Bush today. Bush said "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,...". Obama says this is a false accusation "a false political attack". Nancy Pelosi called the statement beneath the office. Senator Biden said the statement is BS. Tough statements from the Democrats condemning remarks made by the President.

I must ask my self why the tough talk and condemnation? Was the statement a false accusation? Was the statement aimed at Barack Obama? I would bet the farm that the reason for the tough stand against the comments by Bush is because the democrats know they are weak on foreign policy. Barack Obama calls the statement a false attack. Yet it was Obama who said he would initiate dialog with Iran within the first year in office without any pre-conditions. Even though Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. It was Obama who called Isreal a "sore" just the other day. It was Nancy Pelosi who engaged in dialog with the president of Syria. Former President Carter just visited with terrorists in the middle east and routinely has discussions with Hugo Chavez. This behavior does not support the idea that the comment was BS as Senator Biden would say or a false attack as Obama would say. No it seems that this is indeed the stand the democrats would take in regards to foreign policy. So why the strong offense to the statement?

If the democrats believe in dialog with terrorists why not stand up and defend their position? It seems to me that the democrats must believe in establishing diplomatic relations with rogue states and terrorist organizations. So why the false outrage?

The false outrage is a typical political act. The act of denial and outrage is the initial reaction all politicians make when controversy is stirred. Think Richard Nixon and his "I am not a crook" statement. Think Bill Clinton and his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

This false outrage displayed by the democrats is nothing more than rallying the base while hoping the issue goes away. No democrat wants to be painted as weak on foreign policy or weak on terrorism. They know the party stand is to engage in dialog with hopes the terrorist and rogue states will leave us alone. The "Ostrich Syndrome" is the foreign policy espoused by the leftists. Yet they do not like it when they are called on it. Obama took personal offense even though the comment mentioned no one in particular with the exception of the American Senator 69 years ago. Yet all the false outrage.

It has been my experience that those that scream the loudest about harsh remarks are those which the remarks most effect. The truth always hurts. When the shoe fits you will usually find what you are looking for. Is it any wonder why Americans historically view the Democrats as weak on foreign policy?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008


Barack Obama was a no show for yesterdays primary in West Virginia. Obama was humiliated. Just one week after a convincing 15 point win in North Carolina and receiving an insurmountable delegate lead Obama lost in humiliating fashion. While many of his supporters will argue that the game is over and this result is insignificant, I have to wonder what this tells us about the future.

Obama was complacent after his 15 point win in North Carolina. Obama started his general election campaign. His focus changed to John McCain. The problem is, Obama taking the Democratic voters for granted. Look at what happened to the New England Patriots in football this year. They had a great year. They went undefeated all the way to the super bowl. Early in the year the Patriots dominated their opponents. Blowout after blowout. Then at the end of the regular season they had some scares. They probably deserved to lose more than once in their last 4 or 5 games. Finally when the big game was finally arrived the Patriots lost. In a historic collapse New England lost their way. Sound Familiar?

It appears Obama could be headed down a similar path. Exit polls showed that 2/3 of Hillary voters would not vote for Obama. 1/3 said they would stay home and another 1/3 said they would vote for McCain. These numbers do not bode well for Obama. The most outspoken of Barack backers have alienated many voters.

Obama followers have a habit of calling Hillary supporters uneducated voters. This type of elitist attitude is not going win a general election for President. Obama can not win if he does not get the Hillary vote. Obama has won less than half of the democratic votes in the primaries. His lead and likely winning margin in popular vote will be a plurality of democrats. If Obama loses 2/3 of Hillary supporters it would be impossible for him to win.

Obama needs to lick his wounds from last night and start telling the American public how he is going to heal the deep wounds of a splintered democratic party. He must heal these wounds in order to avoid an electoral landslide in November. Obama will in all likelihood win the nomination. Obama is only going to win the popular vote in the primaries by 1-2 percent. This is hardly a mandate.

Presumptive nominees do not run out the clock and lose in the final stretch by 41 points. Obama should be humbled by this and reach out to those voters that have been alienated by the fanatical cult like followers of his. These "educated idiots" need to tone it down or they will be the downfall of Obama in what should be an historic election.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The [Future] Swiftboating of Barack Obama

Every democratic operative and most, if not all of the [anything but] mainstream media are steeling themselves for the torrent of negative GOP ads should Obama be nominated in August. They will no doubt attempt to lessen the impact of any critical GOP ads against Obama by immediately dumping them into the swiftboat category.

In the hyper sensitive minds of most liberals, the term “swiftboat” refers to any form of criticism directed at their candidate based on [actual but distasteful] past or present behavior. Bring up Jeremiah Wright, swiftboat. William Ayers, swiftboat. Tony Rezko, swiftboat. The MSM and the democrats are still smarting over those damaging 527 ads during the 2004 campaign funded by John Kerry’s former unit members from the Vietnam War. So offensive were those ads to our media elites, that they have already begun discussing the future swiftboat ads they see coming from the GOP.

The liberal psyche dictates that only a democratic can be the victim of a swiftboat ad, and that only a republican can deliver a swiftboat. President Bush was not swiftboated by Dan Rather during memogate because the documentation Rather used to support his accusations was demonstrably false, and besides, Bush is a republican.

Therein lies the difference, memogate was an egregious effort to harm a candidate based on manufactured evidence that was quickly discredited. The ads sponsored by the swift boat vets were clearly meant to harm a candidate, but have never been proven wrong, not even by John Kerry four years after the fact.

So when you hear the media moan about a democrat being the victim of a swiftboat ad, there’s a good chance that the “gist” of the ad is true. The MSM is simply upset because these ads represent the inconvenient truth, for both them and their candidate.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

The Coronation

The main stream media has proclaimed the democratic nomination process to be over. They have crowned Barack Obama the winner. Now neither Hillary nor Obama has the requisite 2025 delegates and neither is able to reach the magic number without the super delegates but alas the press has spoken and Barack has been anointed. In fact Obama has spoken and said he will declare victory on 20 MAY 2008.

It is true Barack probably has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead. Yes it is true Obama currently leads in the popular votes cast. In fact in every describable way Barack is in the lead. Yet when the next states in the primary cycle vote the anointed one will probably lose by 30-40 percent. In West Virginia, the latest poll shows Obama down by 43 points (66%-23%). West Virginia is not the home State of Hillary nor is it the adopted Hillary State. Yet Obama the crowned victor is down by 43 points. In a close primary election cycle I could understand Obama losing a state this late in the game but not by 43 points. On May 13, Obama will be a big loser. On May 20, Kentucky and Oregon will vote. Obama is again down big in Kentucky. The latest poll shows him trailing by 34 points. Again Kentucky is not the home or adopted State of Hillary. Also, Oregon will vote on May 20. Currently Obama is in lead with polls showing a modest (by comparison) 12 point lead for Obama. Of course the 12 point lead could evaporate after a humiliating 40 point loss in West Virginia.

After these three states there are three more primaries scheduled for Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. What if the crown Prince happened to lose all six of these States? Would Hillary not have a right to claim she has the momentum and should be the victor? I have never seen a nominee lose a state primary by over thirty points. This should be humiliating. Maybe Obama should be out trying to sell his ideas in States left to vote rather than taking vacation with a non nonchalant attitude. Obama figures he has done enough to claim the democratic nomination. He does not care that he is going to lose half of the remaining primaries by 30 or more points. How will the lack of concern for Michigan, Florida, and the remaining six primaries play out in the general election.

We need to ask ourselves what strength is there in a candidate that loses by 30-40 points in the last primaries prior to the general? What strength does Obama really have? Will Obama be able to recover from these humiliating defeats? Will the democrats really crown an inexperienced candidate that is big on rhetoric but little on details? Stayed tuned because this is about to get interesting. If Obama becomes the nominee will he win or will McCain ultimately prevail?

It must be New Geography

Barack Obama has visited 57 States during this campaign. He only missed Alaska and Hawaii. It seems his staff would not allow him to visit these last two states. That's right folks since I have been away in the last two weeks I learned we added nine new States. I am still trying to figure out where these states are at, what the names are of these nine states, and when Obama visited them.

I feel like Rip Van Winkle. I must have been asleep for a very long time. I guess everyone should be attending Harvard law school in order to learn the real deal and get to know all of our United States. I know I only graduated from a small State University and they may not have the funding to understand the big things pertaining to America but I would have thought this small school would have at least let the students know that Alaska and Hawaii are one state and not two. It must really take a Harvard education to learn the real deal.

Obama and his campaign will try to blow this off as a simple gaffe unworthy of media attention. As Americans we need to ask ourselves the question "Do we really need a President that does not understand our form of Government? Lets look at the US Senate. This is a governmental body that Barack should be intimately familiar. We have 100 US Senators; two from every state as established by the US Constitution. This simple gaffe shows a fundamental lack of understanding of our constitution. The simple gaffe runs much deeper than Obama did not know how many States we have. This gaffe shows the basic contempt Obama has towards his fellow Americans and our form of government.

Maybe this was a Freudian slip. Maybe Obama has dreams of adding nine additional States. Perhaps Obama would like to annex Mexico; that way we would not have to discuss illegal immigration. Maybe Obama would like to enter negotiations with other Marxist dictators; Cuba and Venezuela are two prime candidates. Why not add some terrorist nations maybe they want to be a part of the US. Perhaps Obama could give up on the American dream and go for terrorist support. Obama might offer Statehood to Hamas and Al Quaida. While Obama is at perhaps he will negotiate Statehood to Rogue Nations like North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Syria. Maybe these nine new States are what Obama has in store for America. Is this the change America is in for?

The cult like fanatics that support and follow Obama point out that no one can dig anything up on Obama. These fanatics say people need to focus on little gaffes in order to find cracks in the Obama armor. Well I say to them please look at your candidate closely. This one remark concerning Obamas visiting 57 States shows Obama is painfully lacking in experience. All we have to go on when making a decision about Obama is his words and actions. We know Obama followed his Spiritual mentor for over twenty years. The Spiritual mentor was anti-American. The fanatics will say we can not hold Obama accountable for the views of his Pastor. They rationalize the relationship as everyone has associates who say things we do not agree. While it is true we all do have associates we do not necessarily agree with all the time; most of us would not call them our spiritual mentor and would at least try to sway the opinions of our associates and not try to applaud the radical views. We know Obama has served on boards and socialized with Antonin Rezco and William Ayers. Rezco is on trial for political corruption and Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist bomber.

This is what we know about Obama: He socializes with corrupt contractors and terrorists, he attends radical anti-American church services, and he does not understand the US constitution. My spouse (a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen) even knows how many states we have. In fact my spouse had to take a test that showed a basic understanding of our government. It is truly a shame that a candidate for President with a Harvard education does not know enough about America to even know how many States we have in our great Nation. I always heard my parents say they did not understand the "new math" my school was teaching. This gaffe must be the "new geography" that Obama was taught.