My Apologies

Before the election, I thought we needed to know the truth about Obama, because the media seemed to be ignoring the many problems.

When he won anyway, I decided to close the blog, in the hopes I was wrong and he would turn out to be competent.

I apologize. It turns out that in my blogging last year, I was much too generous in not pointing out his flaws. I really didn't think he could screw up this bad. I really thought the doom-and-gloomers were over the top.

I really thought the Democrats wouldn't be that stupid, when they had a competent candidate in Hillary Clinton, to pick a person that was incompetent and would destroy the country.

I was wrong. As I expect every person who used to have money and voted for Obama's "change" and "hope" now says on a daily basis. Becuase change we got, and hope has gone.

The question remains -- will people with money survive until we can throw out the Democrats in 2010, or will by that time the only people left be people who need the government to save them (although with all the people with money properly 'punished' by Obama/Biden/Pelosi, i don't know who they get next to pay).

I remember Albright once saying that the problem in the world was that the United States was the only superpower. It seems Obama and the Democrats want to fix that problem, at the expense of every hard-working American who saved their money instead of spending it or donating it to Barack's Election.

In 2006, when we threw out the Republicans for overspending and for "corruption", we didn't realize we were punishing ourselves. But since that fateful day in November, everything that was great about this country has been turned around by the Democrats.

It's our fault. Democrats promised change, and they gave it. Bush had to spend his political power keeping the Democrats from losing the war in Iraq, so other than marginally holding back their attempts to destroy the country (like SCHIP expansion which they have now done), or some social things like keeping them from killing quite as many babies, Bush didn't stand in the way as the Democrats detroyed our economy.

What might have been. Too many conservatives disliked Romney, because he wasn't conservative enough, or he was too Mormon. But it would sure be nice to have someone in the White House now who knew how to work with both sides of the aisle (Obama has never done that, and is ignoring half the country today). It would be nice to have someone who understands business, understands the economy, and had real ideas about how to solve health insurance and other issues without destroying the basic nature of our economic strength.

But even Moderate John McCain would have been better. He also could bring the country together. He would have brought in people who paid their taxes and who knew how to fix things. He wouldn't be expanding government at the expense of hard-working americans.

I don't expect to post any more to this blog, but it can stand as a testament to the basic fact that sometimes, things are worse than they seem at the time.

If it's September, time for Obama to lie about Social Security

Every September, Democrats around the United States pause to scare Seniors by lying about nefarious "plots" to take away their Social Security.

This year, Obama decided to use last week's market turmoil to frighten the poor seniors in Florida half to death.

The Obama ad is SO OUTRAGEOUS that even factcheck.org, which is owned by the Annaburg foundation, the foundation he is closely associated with and run by his friends, had to call him on it.

From Factcheck.org, harsh words for the candidate who promised he would run a clean, positive campaign, in their article "Scaring Seniors":

An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

That's not "Misleading", that's "Lie".

A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

Remember, on Friday Obama said that in these difficult times, we shouldn't be playing politics, or scaring people with our economic plans.

But now we find out that Obama is quietly running these ads, using the current turmoil to scare our parents, grandparents, and others, by lying about what McCain has supported, and will do as President.

I say "quietly" because apparently Obama's campaign didn't announce these ads. Normally, the campaign makes a big deal about ads. It's clear they knew these ads were false, and they wanted to keep their "distance". As FactCheck says:

The Obama campaign made no announcement of this ad and won't say where they intend to run it. It was first aired on a station in Flint, Mich. on Sept. 16, where it was recorded by the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNSI Media Intelligence. According to CMAG, the ad has been running in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Factcheck had to get a recording of the ad. I don't know if that means it isn't on YouTube. If it was NOT put out on YouTube by the campaign, that would be further evidence that the campaign was trying to hide the ad for as long as possible, to take maximum advantage of last week's stock market turmoil to scare seniors, McCain's best voter group, into voting for Obama instead.

Here are the MANY DIFFERENT WAYS that Obama's secret ad lies:

The three votes featured in the ad are from 1998 and 2006. ... None would have actually resulted in changing Social Security without additional, specific legislation.
...
The ad implies that Bush's plan bets the whole lot of Social Security funds on unstable stocks. In fact, it would have "privatized" only a small portion of Social Security taxes that Americans could have invested in private accounts, if they chose to do so.
...
The ad goes on to claim that the Bush (and McCain) plan would cut "benefits in half." This is a rank misrepresentation: Nobody now getting benefits, or even close to retirement, would have seen any reduction in benefits or cost-of-living adjustments under the plan Bush proposed in April, 2005.

Factcheck also explains that only future higher-income workers would see a reduction in benefits from the current unpayable projections. Low-income people would not have a reduction. And that reduction doesn't include the extra money from the private accounts.

Factcheck then examines the "cut in half", and shows that it's based on a false premise from one of Obama's MANY economic advisors:

The Obama-Biden campaign attempts to document their "cutting benefits in half" claim by citing a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities written by Jason Furman, who is currently one of Obama's top economic advisers. This won't do.

What Furman's study actually says is quite different from what the ad claims. Furman's report says that the "progressive price indexing" plan Bush supported would result in benefits for the average worker who retires in 2075 that are 28 percent lower than under the current formula. Obviously 28 percent is not "half."

The Obama-Biden campaign notes that Furman's paper also says that full price indexing of benefits – even for low-income workers – would result in benefits 49 percent lower than the current formula in 2075. But that's not the plan Bush supported, and we find no evidence that McCain ever supported it either. We asked the Obama campaign to show us where McCain has ever supported full price indexing of benefits, but so far they have not done so.

Note that they don't even raise the objection of a campaign citing the statement of their own campaign worker as "proof", just that they couldn't even get that right. Now, think about that -- what kind of economic advisor would allow a campaign to misuse his own supposedly scholarly work? Is that the kind of economic advisor we need right now, when our system is teetering precisely because economic advisors allowed the decisionmakers to misuse their scholarly work?

Factcheck closes with an admission that while McCain is TRYING to fix Social Security, Obama is making it harder by playing politics:

The system isn't exactly "going broke." But the latest official projection is that the trust fund will be exhausted by the year 2041, after which current tax rates will finance only 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits. We agree that "straight talk" is needed and that finding solutions will be hard. Ads like this, however, misinform the public and make the job of fixing the system more difficult.

Obama lies about McCain, Born Alive Act.

I think Obama says so many things wrong so that we can't possibly keep up.

In this latest news, Obama is really upset about an advertisement which truthfully exposes his vote against the Born Alive Act in Illinois, which I wrote about some months ago.

So Obama has lashed out, attacking McCain for "lying" about Obama's position.

Two problems. First, as I've shown before, it's not a lie. Heck, even the Obama campaign itself had to admit it's true he opposed the bill, and that the bill was exactly what was in the Federal bill. And there is tape of Obama specifically saying he opposed the bill because it might force government between the doctor and the patient if a baby is born alive after an abortion -- which clearly shows he's fine with the doctor killing an aborted baby, without interference from the government.

But more importantly, John McCain has NEVER attacked Obama about the Born Alive bill. In fact, the advertisement running against Obama is from a woman who actually WAS born alive, and is paid for by a 527, not the McCain campaign.

But the media has printed Obama's charges against McCain, and not one mainstream media outlet has chosen to inform their readers that Obama can't even listen to a 30-second advertisement without getting it's facts wrong. That's a pretty important thing if you want to be President, and the readers and voters deserve the truth, not the whitewash the media is doing.

Could Obama still be on drugs?

It might explain how, in the middle of the biggest crisis our economy has faced since 9/11, he can't make up his mind whether a bailout that happened on tuesday is good or bad.

It may explain why he thinks he didn't ask Iraq's foreign minister to delay negotiations, when a month earlier he told a news reporter that he had;

It may explain why he thinks Raines isn't his advisor, when the Washington Post reported it in July and it's been in Raine's Wikipedia entry for months (until tonight).

It may explain why Obama thought it would be a good idea to attack McCain for the injuries he sustained during his torture in Vietnam.

It may explain why Obama said the Sex Ed program for kindergartners that he voted for wasn't actually going to teach the Kindergartners anything about sex, when the bill explicitly said otherwise and the sponsore eventually changed it because of the outrage.

It may explain why Obama thinks that quoting his record is lying.

It may explain why Obama sat in a church "every sunday" for 20 years, and never noticed his pastor denouncing white people and America, even though he actually wrote a book about it.

It may explain why Obama hardly ever showed up for work, and why his subcommittee never held a single hearing.

And maybe he was afraid there would be a drug test if he showed up at a military base in Germany to visit the troops.



No, I don't think Obama is still on drugs (it's possible he still sneaks a smoke, but smoking is legal for now). I just think he has an audacity that makes him think he can lie all he wants, and nobody will care.

And figures if anybody DOES call him on it, he can always denounce them as racist.

Obama insists he has idea what to do.

Jonathan Marks, from the Politico, who has done his share of trying to cover for Obama, seems to have become quite exasperated at the thankless task.

Which leads him to post this, part of an article titled "Obama outraged at being accused of not supporting something he doesn't support":

Obama, on the trail in New Mexico, had this to say of McCain:"And today he accused me of not supporting what the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank did with AIG despite no evidence whatsoever that that’s what I had said."

To recap, when I wrote earlier today that Obama supported the bailout, I quickly was instructed by his staff that this was not the case. He just didn't oppose it, I was told.

Now he's so adamant about not opposing the Fed's move that he's complaining about McCain's portrayal.

Where, I wonder, is the line between not opposing and, ya know, supporting.

The fact is that in all of Obama's speeches, he has yet to say if he supported the AIG bailout, or opposed it. He is afraid to take a position, in case (like the surge) he comes up completely wrong again.

On the other hand, the much more experienced Sarah Palin, who has HAD TO MAKE REAL DECISIONS in her job, has made a clear statement on the bailout, as has John McCain. (Joe Biden said something about giving people toasters and how we are unpatriotic if we don't pay more taxes).

We can't afford a President who votes "Present". I guess since Obama has betrayed his economic advisor, he can't really say what position he holds until he finds somebody on the Democratic side who isn't hopelessly tainted by the corruption that led to our current monetary crisis.

Of course, by next week we'll hear how Obama actually caused the bailout to happen. Because if there is ONE THING that Barack Obama is good at, it is denying what he has done, and taking credit for good things he had nothing to do with.

Obama: I am an instrument of God's Will

Well, he did say those "exact words". By Charles Gibson's standards, which the left seems to really support now, those are the "exact words" of Barack Obama. Which sounds like Obama thinks he is a devine messenger sent from God to work HIS will on America, like it or not.

Here is the original source:

The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will.

See? You too can be Charles Gibson. Just find something perfectly reasonable that the candidate said, like that he is praying to do God's will, or that she is praying that our leaders would do God's will. Then skip the part about it being a prayer, or about asking God, and just quote the part about God's will.

Then accuse the candidate of being some holy warrior.

It's easy. We can say Barack is a muslim, since he talked about "my muslim faith". Never mind that he was talking about people who were NOT talking about him BEING a Muslim -- just quote the part you like.

You can do this with the interview results to. If the candidate makes you look silly, just edit that part out. If she gives a great answer, erase it -- or better yet, edit it in the middle so it looks like she is clueless.

If none of that works, you can use the Charles Gibson Mindreading Special:

"Sarah, what number am I thinking Of?"

Scott Ott responds: Barack Obama -- Still Crazy

John Bachelor : Obama in meltdown

John Bachelor covers the story of Obama's false attack on McCain's technological prowess:

After a year of starving and abusing 32 year old John McCain, no medical attention, abandonment and isolation in a windowless cell at the North Vietnamese Potemkin Village of a prison called the Plantation, the sadistic boss of the camp, Major Bai, called "Cat" by the POWs, ordered that the torturers break the admiral's son and force him to sign a confession.
...
The torturers started by rebreaking his left arm. Then he was trussed in ropes and beaten every two or three hours. According to the definitive Naval Institute Press volume on the POWS, "Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia, 1961-1973," this sadism continued for four days.
...
What also stays with John McCain is the damage to his arms. When he was released in 1973, (left, returning to US care) his right arm was two inches shorter than his left. He cannot lift his arms above his breast. He cannot comb his own hair. And he is not dexterous enough to type at a keyboard.

But some democratic supporters say we should just get over this, that this is just whining, that a "real man" wouldn't worry about this kind of thing.

Bachelor continues:

This meltdown explains how it is possible for the Obama-Biden campaign to issue, on the eve of Hurrican Ike that will dominate the news for twenty-four hours, the most cynical and stupid of webads that attacks John McCain for not being in the economy enough to use the internet. The webad is the worst of postures-- it is snide:

"1982, John McCain goes to Washington," an announcer says over chirpy elevator music. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't. He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer...

Bachelor tries to explain how Obama could let this happen:

Perhaps the webad writers were unaware of John McCain's disability. Perhaps they skipped the detail that John McCain depends upon Cindy McCain to type his e-mail messages. Perhaps it just does not make sense, to a campaign headed by the fresh-faced forty-something David Plouffe, that there are men walking around who have been tortured and permanently disabled by the enemy.

Perhaps, as I have been told by my best Democratic Party source, the Obama-Biden campaign is in meltdown, there is no single message, there is no unity, there is no vision, and so separate but equal parts with lots of cash but not much learning are just wandering off the trail.

Was it just last week that Obama said that his ability to run his campaign proved he was ready to be President?

Will the Obama supporters complain that Obama's ability to not mock disabled vets has nothing to do with being President?

Obama refuses to apologize for ridiculing wounded veteran

It's now been almost 24 hours since Obama, who keeps promising he's going to talk about real issues, instead ran a paid advertisement falsely mocking John McCain for his war injuries.

This was an ad which lied about McCain's knowledge of technology, making fun of him because he had someone else type into his computer. McCain does this because it hurts him to type, because of injuries inflicted on him when he was a Prisoner of War.

Stories have been written about McCain's trouble with the use of his arms, and also about how technologically savvy McCain actually is. If Obama's campaign had done ANY research, they would have known that in the Senate, McCain is a leader on technology issues (Obama might have known that if he had spent any significant time actually IN the senate).

Instead, they picked up some news item where McCain, self-deprecating as always, made fun of his injuries, talking about how he needed others to do his e-mail. And Obama, being an elitist, and looking down on anybody who isn't Obama, immediately thought -- "What a great idea for a commercial -- we can make fun of McCain and make him look stupid".

Which itself deserves an apology. For whatever else you can say, McCain has never said Obama was stupid.

But if Obama wants to make fun of every old person who doesn't use the internet, I guess that's a "campaign strategy". Some would call that age warfare, pitting his largely young and inexperienced supporters against the older, wiser general populace.

Some can't believe Obama would be ignorant of McCain's injuries -- which would suggest he purposely attacked McCain for being disabled. Yesterday, I didn't think so. I figured Obama was simply to naive to realise what he was doing.

But if that were the case, Obama, once it was pointed out that he had committed the unpardonable sin of mocking an injured war hero, would have pulled the ad and apologized. And frankly, I expected him to do so. Obama may be naive, may be inexperienced, and certainly is in no way ready to be President. But he's not suicidal.

But shockingly, we have now gone 24 hours, and Obama has NOT pulled the false, dispicable ad from YouTube. And he has not issued an apology to the wounded veterans of our country who are unable to do what people like Obama, who never served, can do easily.

As someone said, it would be like attacking the blind governor of New York because he can't drive.

So, Obama has an advertisement that says that wounded Veterans who can't use their arms to get on the internet are not qualified to be President, and are instead to be objects of ridicule. And he has refused to apologize. And that is NOT someone we want as President of the United States.

Raising Kaine: We aren't electing an American Idol Winner

I guess it had to happen. After months of the Democrats pushing an American Idol candidate (Obama), even when they had a perfectly competent, experienced candidate (Hillary Clinton), they find themselves "out-idoled" by the Republican ticket.

And so NOW they figure out that the Presidency is not about popularity, but about experience, ideas, judgment, and who can actually LEAD.

Of course, the problem with this belated reality check from the left is that, on all those counts, John McCain beats their candidate hands down.

In fact, in rankings of the "ready for President" status of the 4 candidates, Obama ranks last, even below his own VP pick.


Of course, the simple fact is that Governor Sarah Palin is not really an "American Idol" pick. She is a serious candidate. She has been in government longer than Obama, and has executive experience.

In fact, if you were trying to figure out what "experience" you would want heading into the job of President, it makes sense that you want someone who first gets a job running a small government, and then gets promoted up to running a larger executive branch, before trying out for the biggest executive lead position.

Of course, Palin is the only one running with that kind of experience. At least McCain has some leadership training, having been an Officer in our military. Was Obama even a Boy Scout?

Obama did lead the Harvard Law Review. So far as I know, they managed to publish every month, so at least he made the trains run on time, so to speak.