My Beauty Best Teacher

I'm going to come back to this post several times in the future, because there is a lot of gold to mine in this debate. Here are my running thoughts- I'll expand on some of these later.

First, while I was watching the pre-debate on ABC, as they went through the history/biography of both candidates, I thought to myself how surprising it is that this election is even a contest. McCain is a true American hero- a war hero who has been at the forefront of legislation for 20 years, has few scandals, and is a decent person, running against Obama, who is... what? A world traveler? A community organizer? Black? I don't understand how Obama could win- it's like everything our country has been about for the last several hundred years is all being forgotten. Our Founding Fathers would not be proud of us if Obama won. For a more comical take on this, see this earlier 'joke' I posted on this idea.

Economic Plan- Obama. Obama talked about putting forward a series of proposals to solve the economic crisis. Did he actually do those things? To whom? Was it in the form of legislation, or just talk? I don't recall this ever coming up in the news- if you brag about this sort of thing, shouldn't it be well-known? Obama then summed up the issues facing us. He emphasized that things are really bad right now and getting worse.

Economic Plan- McCain. McCain talked about the fact that he has been a leader on this issue and is trying to get a bipartisan approach passed. He talked about specific elements of proposed legislation that is working to pass. Although I got the sense that he is more about trying to be a leader than actually crafting the legislation, that's not really a bad thing for a President. He ended with a good quote about how this isn't the beginning of the end, but is the end of the beginning of the crisis- projecting hope. Going back, he did project a lot more hope than Obama throughout the whole debate- I don't get why Obama is the candidate of "HOPE".

Obama emphasized that the question to ask about this crisis is what did we do wrong several years ago. McCain stressed asking what we can do now and in the future. Again- why is Obama considered the candidate looking into the future- all he does is talk about how he would have made different decisions in the past. That's great if we have that time-travel machine invented, but we don't, so I want to hear about what you are doing now and will do in the future- both areas Obama can say very little about.

Obama said that there are problems that need solutions. McCain mentioned specific solutions that he was working on. Obama mentioned problems with the solutions. McCain offered solutions for the solutions. Obama offers visions and questions, McCain offers legislation and answers.

Obama thinks tax breaks for the rich are bad. As he said, he wants to grow the economy from the bottom-up- give money to the poor, and then the money will trickle up to the top. Has this economic theory ever worked in history? For that matter, which economics believe in this idea, or is this just another case where Obama has decided he is really smart and knows what to do. I guess this means that Obama believes in "TRICKLE-UP" economics!

Obama wants to give 95% of people a tax cut, but then clarified that it would not be a tax cut, it just wouldn't be a tax increase. Such a politician- not raising taxes is just that- not a tax cut. If this is what he means by cuts, I'd be worried- anything he wants to 'cut' will just stay the same, and anything he wants to stay the same will be going up. I guess if 95% get cuts, the top 5% will pay more now? That's a lot of money. That's anti-trickle down economics!

Obama talked about how the market doesn't solve problems and that deregulation doesn't work. See, Obama does not believe in the free-market- he does not think that you are smart enough to make the right choices about what products to buy and how much to pay for them. He wants the government to run the economy. He might fudge this, he might clarify this, but if Obama had been in the Soviet Union in the 1980's, he would have been closer to Gorbachev than Reagan!

Obama again references using the line-item veto to solve the issue of earmarks- he said he would "go line-by-line and veto stuff"- am I mistaken about this? I'm 99% sure he can't do that right now. Does he even understand what powers the Presidency has? See my earlier post on this subject- I've noticed this in the past too- this is a reoccurring claim by Obama, and really speaks to the fact that he is less knowledgeable about what the President can and can't do than a high school government teacher (me). Someone who is a constitutional scholar should educate Obama about this, or write an article on how Obama doesn't know what he is talking about.

McCain talked about looking at his record on tax cuts, fighting spending, etc. He emphasized that a tax system has to be fair for everyone, not one sided 'anti-rich'. He is a fighter of earmarks and government waste, and an independent or moderate would really like his record. As a conservative, I like it less so- he did vote against Bush's tax cuts, and has supported some large expansions of federal power. Regardless, his record is a 1000 times better on this issue than Obama's, who is the most liberal left-wing senator in Congress.

Obama talked about how oil companies shouldn't get any tax breaks, because if they do, others will have to pay more. This logic only works if tax cuts don't cause growth in government revenue- which they do- or you refuse to lower taxes overall- which as a liberal Democrat, he could never ever even imagine lowering taxes overall. Obama wants energy independence now by developing more solar and wind power. These will not work now- although in 20-30 years, maybe!

McCain cited specific attempts of his to fight wasteful spending by talking about contracts he had fought as wasteful, legislation he introduced to combat wasteful spending, etc. McCain took this chance to talk about his proposal to increase nuclear power in the US, which is a common-sense solution to our energy needs while satisfying those who believe in the global warming myth.

On what spending would be delayed, Obama said nothing specific would be, and instead just attacked lobbyists. McCain said that he would be in place a spending freeze until after the crisis was over. Obama will not freeze spending due to the financial crisis- instead, from his answer, it sounds like in a time of crisis when money was tight he would spend more. That's the change we need! McCain said that he would help the economy grow to off-set losses.

Lesson of Iraq. McCain said the lesson was on developing a good strategy and getting the tactics right. He said he pushed for these and got them, and then success happened. Obama said the lesson he learned of Iraq was that 6 years ago he opposed the war. The lesson he learned is that it is important to always say you were against decisions that are now unpopular. He really wants that time-travel machine. Odd that again he is more backward looking than McCain. Obama then said that he would never hesitate with the use of force, but he will hesitate a lot about whether to use it in the first place (ha ha ha). Read the transcript. That's what he basically said.

Obama said that McCain was wrong that we would be welcomed as liberators, thus showing his lack of judgement, and thus why he was unfit for command. I'm always curious when I hear this one- exactly who has not welcomed us as liberators? The bad guys? People who strap bombs to their children to blow up innocents shopping to show their opposition to democracy and freedom? So what if these people don't welcome us as liberators. Most of the population has. McCain hinted at this by saying that the good guys are winning now.

Obama that the role of the President is to make the first call, but let everyone else settle on the correct tactics. McCain said that making the right tactics is also important as President. Obama said this is just managing bad problems- that's actually a good point. Maybe the only job of the President is to set the big vision and not worry about the details. Although, the Democrats and Obama have spent the last 7 years ripping Bush for his weakness with details and lack of micro-managment of everything, so I think that although this might be a good point, it is not a fair one.

Afghanistan. Obama said that we should send in more troops, by pulling them out of Iraq. He denies that there are any bad guys or terrorists in Iraq. He wants to press Afghan government to give more welfare to its people and have a stronger national government. McCain said that a troop surge isn't just it- you need to change tactics too. He also said that you shouldn't tell people your moves ahead of time. Obama implied that he would allow attacks into Pakistan if cross-border attacks continue, McCain said that you have to think of Pakistan as a failed state, and treat it with caution. He only goes all-in if he can win. Both candidates bring up bracelet- did Obama steal this idea from McCain? That's sad. Says Afghanistan is the central conflict in the War on Terror. McCain says Iraq is. And says that if Obama thought that, he should have visited Afghanistan.

Iranian Threat. McCain wants to come up with a "League of Democracies" to combat Iran. Obama doesn't want to provoke Iran, and wants Russia and China to get involved in diplomacy with the US for sanctions. Obama said that isolationism has never worked, and elaborated that never in history has not sitting down with dictators worked. McCain gave example after example of when it had worked. I guess using actual events and experience is just not that important to Obama- or for Obama voters. Obama said that he has been a leader- he said that he had suggested that we need to think about looking at talks with North Korea, and this might have started progress. McCain said that North Korea isn't progress, and implied that if this is Obama's experience, then it is rather weak. Both candidates then got into an exchange about Kissinger- Obama is flat wrong on this.

Russia. Obama said that Russia is bad, but you can't piss them off. McCain said that this is naive, that Putin is bad, and that he's been there and seen it. It really doesnt' even matter if Russia or Putin is bad, Obama doesn't believe in good or evil, just how he can win more power. I wonder- has Obama the world traveler ever been to Russia, Georgia, Afghanistan, etc.? McCain called out Obama's slow response to Georgia conflict. Obama replied that he was the first to call for foreign aid for Georgia to help them build a bigger welfare system. He then said that one of the reasons that Russia is resurgent is because of oil, and so he supports increased drilling. Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure he never has done this and is way against drilling. But actually citing experience, past voting records, and real events is probably just boring.

Preventing another 9/11. McCain said we are safer now and led push for 9/11 Commission. Obama said safer in some ways but not enough. Isn't he supposed to be about hope? He was the less hopeful of the two. He then talked about world perception and how important that was. Is improving world perception more important than sponsoring legislation? McCain said we should stay in Iraq and win, Obama disagreed. Seriously? Isn't this the debate from 4 years ago? I thought Obama's position was thoroughly discredited by now.

Obama talked about catching Bin Laden, and that this is more important than winning in Iraq. Iraq is not worth it. It's about a broader strategic vision. McCain said that Obama does not have the experience and judgement to seriously say these things.

McCain said that his record speaks for himself.

Obama said that the children of the world no longer respect us, and that's why we should elect him. Has anyone seen the research on this claim?

The after coverage was also interesting to note- I was flipping around. Here is what I saw. MSNBC said that Obama missed his chances to get McCain, and that Obama looked better. CNBC was interviewing Democrats who repeated talking points I heard last week. CNN said that McCain knew his stuff and was more in command, but Obama looked good and wove themes well. Fox News said that Obama was more direct and knew more, but Obama was more nuanced and sounded better.

I judge the winner of the debate to be McCain.

Over at the Corner at National Review Online, Andy McCarthy writes an interesting piece commenting on Obama's surprising connection with Kenyan strongman Raila Odinga. Mark Levin also wrote about this (link here), and McCarthy draws heavily on a post from Mark Hyman of the Washington Times (link here).

The connection is very troubling between these two people. Once again, Obama has a connection to an anti-American thug willing to do violence, much like Ayers. Obama again has questions raised about his views on religion, as he supported for President in Kenya a Muslim whose followers slaughtered many Christians. Again, Obama has questions raised about his 'citizen of the world status'- why would he support the enemy of a government friendly to the US? Again we see Obama willing to associate himself willingly with socialists. And again Obama connects himself to someone pushing policies of division.

Here is how Odinga is linked to Obama:

Odinga evidently has a very close relationship with Obama. He is native of Kenya's Luo tribe, the same one to which Obama's father belonged. In fact, in early 2008, Odinga told the BBC he is Obama's cousin (i.e., that Obama's father was Odinga's "maternal uncle").

Odinga sought the presidency in Kenya's December 2007 election. In 2006, Obama came to Kenya and campaigned for him, simultaneously voicing sharp criticism of the pro-American government. His comments will sound familiar to Americans. As Hyman writes, Obama declared, "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials[.]... Kenyans are now yearning for change." Obama's visit, the culmination of consultations with Odinga that had gone on for years, vaulted Odinga's candidacy.(ACM — the outraged Kenyan government issued a rebuttal, greatly disturbed that Obama had represented that he was coming to Kenya to nurture Kenya/U.S. relations but, in fact, had used the trip as a platform to lecture to Kenya about social justice. Obama's interference in a foreign election, transparently designed to topple a government cooperative with the United States, comes close, to say the least, to violating the Logan Act, 18 U.S.C. 953.)

Linking Obama to Odinga is not 'racist' (in reality, I have no idea what race Odigna is), it is not trying to district people from the 'real issues,' and it isn't 'pushing McCain propaganda.' I'm mentioned Obama's troubling links to Odinga to point out that the man who wants to be our next President has a pattern of associating and supporting people who hate America. I'm point out the connection between a socialist strongman in Kenya and Obama because Obama wants to be a socialist strongman in the US. I'm posting about how Obama supports Odinga because Obama supports Odinga's policies of violence, division, socialism, and change.

Read for yourself this information- hopefully it isn't an indication of the scary stuff to come in the US once this guy gets in power.

In recent months, Obama has been compared to the likes of Jimmy Carter (recent Democrat who lectured to us as our nation dropped into malaise and high interest rates), Herbert Hoover (progressive Republican who thought active government and debts would stop a recession), and Woodrow Wilson (progressive Democrat professor who lectured to nation and strengthened unions while nation went into recession). These are all fair comparisons and each has its merits, but for some time now, I keep coming back to the idea that Barack Obama's Presidency is in reality a Michael Dukakis Presidency.

In Whatever Happened to the Massachusetts Miracle? I first wandered my way on to this idea when I realized that soon after Democratic Presidential-nominee Dukakis lost in 1988, the so-called 'Massachusetts Miracle' of prosperity also went bust, and his high-regulation, managed-growth, high-taxes, generous-welfare policies left a state that was mired deeply in debt, facing budget shortfalls, and not growing.

As the years have gone on, it has become increasing clear that Obama is Dukakis, as was written in my post Obama is Dukakis?:

...Both creatures of the liberal Northeast and of Harvard, with no sense at all of most of the rest of the country; both rationalists who impose legalistic criteria on emotion-rich subjects; both with fixed ideas of who society’s victims are, which do not accord with the views of the public; and both with a tin ear for the culture and a genius for creating wedge issues that split their own party...

In that post, I was highly critical of John McCain's campaign, which failed to capitalize on all of the weaknesses that Obama brought as a candidate, and contrasted it with George H.W. Bush, who was able to capitalize on all the weaknesses that Dukakis brought as a candidate:

...GHWB capitalized on the fact that Dukakis wasn't 'American', didn't like saluting the flag, blamed America for everything (later on Dukakis blames America for 9/11), and didn't reflect the values that made America great. GWB hammered away at how Dukakis was simply an elitist, no-nothing, Harvard-educated liberal who was purely smoke-and-mirrors and who, if put in charge of our nation, would never make the hard tough choices that have to be made. If you don't believe me, watch some of the ads yourself- check out at the website the ads "Tank Ride," "Revolving Door," and "Willie Horton." There is no coming back from those body blows that GWB inflicted on Dukakis.

On the other hand, for some reason John McCain didn't run a brutal, hard-hitting campaign that called Obama's policies, judgement, and character into question. He didn't go after Obama for his church, he didn't attack him for his terrorist friends, he didn't call into question his 'Americanism', he didn't question his patriotism, he didn't attack his naive views, he steered away from questioning his lack of experience, and he didn't attack Obama for his elitist schooling. On every major important point that McCain could have capitalized on, he pulled back, and only gently batted Obama around a bit. Oh, he hints here and there about stuff, but nothing smacks you in the gut with the full brutal face of a real battle that Obama could have brought against Obama. If you don't believe me, watch the ads yourself, and lick at the kitty milk that JSM poured playfully on Obama- see the ads "Celeb," "Education," and "Storm" for examples of how weak and unfocused the attack on Obama by JSM was.

So, I guess we have whoever ran GWB's campaign in 1988 to thank from saving us from the mess that we find ourselves in today, and we have whoever ran JSM's campaign in 2008 to thank for us finding ourselves in the mess that we are in today (may that person be smacked around by milk jugs)...

Months after I wrote these posts, it turns out that Dukakis actually visited the White House to give Obama advice- it was written in my post Dukakis Gives Advice to Obama: Obama Gets it?:

...Former Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis, the failed 1988 presidential nominee, recently visited the White House and delivered his strategy for the midterm elections: pound key precincts across the country with the message that Republicans want to implement the same policies that led to the Great Recession. Asked if the White House aides were receptive, he said, "I think they certainly get it." He declined to name the aides he met at the White House...

...Obama gets it- the Democrats in general are now all running on the 'blame Bush' strategy, even though they controlled (House for 4 years and Senate for over 6) and the White House for (3)....

Apparently, as usual, my instincts were right, because today my favorite numbers guy Jay Cost broke down the latest polling data, and Obama does not track like Clinton or Carter, but tracks most closely to Michael Dukakis:

...Accordingly, I think that at this point the Democrat that Obama most closely resembles is Michael Dukakis. To appreciate what I mean, let’s compare Obama’s current standing among different political groups with the 1988 exit poll results.

(see graph)

These are some very eerie similarities – Dukakis, unlike Carter, was able to hold together his party coalition. He lost the 1988 election because Republicans were firmly united behind George Bush, and independents broke decisively toward the GOP.

This is roughly how the current political landscape appears, which leads me to conclude if the election were held today, and the GOP nominated a reasonably attractive candidate, Obama would do about as well in the popular vote as Dukakis did. Given the geographical polarization of the electorate (i.e. the red state-blue state divide), Obama would surely capture more than the 111 electoral votes Dukakis carried. Even so, it would be a sizeable Republican victory. Not quite as smashing as Reagan’s victory in 1980, but still substantial.

Moving forward, I think that is the best way to compare Obama. Not so much to Carter, who was hampered by internal divisions that did not plague Obama, but more to Dukakis, whose final vote share is roughly consistent with Obama’s job approval rating over the last 18 months.

This is all good news- not good news that Democratic policies are destroying our nation, but good that we have been shown the way in the past by hard-campaigner George HW Bush how to defeat someone like Dukakis/Obama (new nickname for the list- Duke Bama?). One can only hope that the next Republican nominee will follow the path and defeat Obama, whether it is an establishment moderate like Romney or an outsider conservative like Bachman.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever read anything Dukakis has written? Leader-Manager in the Public Sector: Managing for Results or Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story.

During his State of the Union address on January 24, 2012, President Barack Obama offered up reasons why voters should give him a second term of office, arguing that

...In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs...

Many on the left (like Balloon Juice) are trotting out this statistic as evidence that President Obama's policies are successful at creating jobs and putting Americans back to work. Although the jobs are being created by businesses, and it could be argued that these jobs would have been created regardless of who was in office, liberals and Democrats and progressives argue that President Obama deserves credit for 3 million jobs created by him while he was President and that we should all vote for him again in 2012.

And to be fair, if President Obama's policies have been successful in creating millions of jobs for workers, then we should give him credit and a second term of office- President Clinton, who was a Democrat, deserved another term of office in 1996 on the strength of a booming economy. But also to be fair, if President Obama's policies have not been successful in creating millions if jobs for workers, let's hold him accountable and throw him out of office, because it is important to be fair.

So let's take a look at some numbers, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are pretty unbiased (although I will point out that any likely bias to be introduced by this government agency would favor Obama). These numbers are generated here, and are not seasonally adjusted. All numbers are in the thousands.

For comparison, let's first look at President Bush, the Republican in office who preceded Obama. According to the BLS, when President Bush took office in January in 2001 the number of people age 16 or older employed in our nation was 136181K. Over the next year, that number dropped to 134177 (Jan 02). By January of 2007 the number climbed to 144275K. Democrats took over control of the House and Senate at this time. The number of employed though continued to climb, hitting 146867K in July of 2008. It is at this point that the 'crash' occurred, and on leaving office the number of people employed had dropped to 145362.

A couple ways to look at this data. Overall, 9181K (over 9 million) jobs were created during Bush's time as President. If you want to say that 'the first year doesn't count', then Bush created 11185K jobs. If you want to say that 'the first year doesn't count and the first year of the next guy's Presidency does'- in other words, count as 'Bush' the years from Jan 02 to Dec 10, then Bush created 2392K jobs. If you want to simply count by 'first three years', Bush created 1555K jobs.

Now let's look at President Obama. According to the BLS, when President Obama took office in January of 2009 the number of people age 16 or older employed in our nation was 140436K. Over the next year, that number dropped to 136809K (Jan 10). Buy January of 2011, the number climbed to 137599. Republicans took back control of the House at this time, although the Senate was still controlled by Democrats. The number employed continued to climb, hitting 139869 today.

A couple ways to look at this data. Overall, 567K (half a million) jobs have been lost during Obama's time as President. If you want to say that 'the first year doesn't count,' then Obama created 3060K jobs (or, 'over 3 million' as he bragged about in his speech). If you want to simply count by 'first three years', Obama lost 567K jobs.

So, let's go back to the earlier point that Obama was trying to make- that his policies helped us to recover from a recession and created 3 million jobs, and so he should be re-elected. In comparison to the Republican who was in office before him- a Republican who Democrats said was 'dumb' and who made 'lots of mistakes'- Obama fares considerably worse by any measure. In overall comparison, Bush created almost 10 million more jobs; in 'first year doesn't count', Bush created almost 8 million more jobs; and in 'first three years' comparison, Bush created almost 2 million more jobs. By any comparison, the 'bumbling idiot' who was in office prior to Obama did a considerably better job at being around when jobs were created by businesses.

The argument against why Obama should be elected to a second term is not 'things got worse under Obama', because that's going to turn out to be not true (I imagine employment will grow enough over his last year to give him a positive balance overall). The argument against why Obama should not be elected to a second term is that his policies made the road to recovery longer, tougher, and worse and that his job-killing policies, supported by a Democratic Congress, led to the loss of jobs in America versus what we could have expected from anyone else.

If the Republicans nominate a candidate comparable to Bush, whom Democrats constantly attacked as unqualified and dumb, than we can expect millions more jobs than what Obama has demonstrated that he can create; if the Republicans nominate a candidate better than Bush (someone smarter, with more business savvy, leadership skills, experience saving bankrupt enterprises, experience balancing budgets, etc) than we can hope for more jobs created than under Bush. Either way, Obama should not be re-elected.

And keep in mind I ignored for our purposes here the increase in population in our nation that has occurred (see my earlier discussion breaking down the Employment-Population Ratio, which measures number of people employed as a percentage of the population- under Bush that rate averaged around 62%, and under Obama it has hovered around 58%, even over the past 22 months of job growth that Obama is bragging about the ratio has only gone up 0.6%). Population growth should naturally lead to more jobs being created- it did under Bush, but yet it hasn't under Obama.

And also keep in mind the debt that our nation has taken on to achieve these results. Bush created 9 million jobs and added 4 trillion in debt- Obama lost 500 million jobs and added 5 trillion in debt. This means that my children and grandchildren gave up a lot of their future for nothing under Obama.

Personal insults, soaring rhetoric, and misleading claims don't stand up the force of data, information, facts, and reasoning. President Obama needs to be gone.

BREAKING FAKE NEWS: In an unusual move for a sitting President of the United States, Democratic President Barack Obama time traveled from January of 2011 to February 2011 in order to to scold Democratic President Barack Obama for his political finger-pointing and lack of civility and honesty regarding the public discourse over the budget situation in Wisconsin.

January Obama reportedly said to February Obama "(We should all) strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents... more civility in our public discourse... only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."

In reply, February Obama said to January Obama "Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions..." and then DNC's Organizing for America arm -- the organization and people who were behind Obama's 2008 campaign -- began playing an active role in organizing protests.

At that point, early February Obama also time-traveled to today to sit down and talk with January Obama and what we will call Late February Obama. Early February Obama then said to Late February Obama that civility and cooperation are necessary to achieve policy goals like cutting government spending. “The only way you make those tough decisions is if you’re willing to cut the other side a little bit of slack,” he said.

Late February Obama replied by pulling out his Blackberry and ordering his political machine to begin working closely with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals and to organize additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana.

It was at this time that June 2008 Obama also time-travelled to offer his support to Late February Obama "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." He then left and supervised his supporters and organization produce signs that depicted Wisconsin Governor Walker with gun crosshairs over his face, signs that compared Walker to Hitler and Mubarack, signs accusing Republicans of hating and raping people, signs urging Democrats to not retreat but rather to reload, and signs urging 'death to tyrants.'

After the departure of June 2008 Obama, Late February Obama left and went back to the White House to try to work on spinning what he said so that he would appear to be some sort of moderate and not the closet extreme liberal that he is, while Early February Obama busied himself by looking admiringly at himself in the mirror, and January Obama congratulated himself on getting his poll numbers to rise after the shooting of the good Congresswoman.

(This account was fictional, but all quotes are real and are dated correctly and the signs that Obama's political organization is helping create are also real. Follow the links for more information.)

For those interested in more accounts of time travel, try Back to the Future Part II.

One year later, it appears that Obama has abandoned his 'search' for an official Church and instead has decided to make up his own religion through his Blackberry. I won't judge his actions- that is up to other people to do. But I can pass on to you the information.

In the middle of the campaign for President, Barack Obama (D), quit Chicago's embattled Trinity United Church of Christ only weeks after a 'great speech' where he claimed that he would never abandon his pastor. That was months before he took office, and since then, he has not formally joined a new Church. Once regular churchgoers who weekly choose to sit in the pews listening to Jeremiah Wright bash America and rejoice in the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11, he has now publicly attended services in Washington just three times in the past year, by ABC News' count. He didn't even make it to Church on Christmas.

But, that does not mean that he does not worship something, after a fashion. Obama told ABC Nightline's Terry Moran that his personal BlackBerry, which he famously fought with the Secret Service to keep, has actually become a tool of keeping the faith during his first year in office.
"My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, Scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."

The President's chooser of religious readings to read is Joshua DuBois. His path to power, according to www.whorunsgov.com, started after he was “struck by the injustice” of the acquittal of four New York City police officers who had shot and killed unarmed Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo. After that, he protested 'social injustice', and that led him to be invited to become a pastor and preacher at the United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God church. DuBois earned his bachelor’s degree in political science in 2003, and went on to Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School, where he received his master’s in public affairs in 2005. He moved further south to Washington, D.C., to enroll in law school, going part-time to Georgetown University. At the same time in 2004, he worked as an intern in Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-N.J.) office and then as a fellow in Rep. Charles B. Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) office. After Obama's 2004 Convention speech, DuBois thought that Obama was going to be someone powerful, and so decided to hitch his star to Obama's wagon. He was hired as a legislative correspondent in Obama’s Senate office in May 2005. DuBois never completed his law degree, leaving instead to work on the 2008 Obama presidential campaign. In 2008, at the age of 25, DuBois was appointed director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign. After Obama became President, he was named the head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

President Obama is receiving his spiritual guidance from a young political operative who has degrees in political science and international relations (from the liberal-slanted Woodrow Wilson school) and became a religious figure through political protesting. He, like Obama, worked on a law degree but never was a lawyer of note, and his stated support of Obama stemmed from a purely objective calculation of how to obtain power over other people.

Obama's spiritual advisor has decided to focus the Office of Faith in the White House less on faith and churches and instead redirect its mission to supporting neighborhood and community groups like ACORN. He is also an active member in an evangelical anti-poverty organization called Sojourners, which is characterized as "a loose network of progressive-minded Christians" who have been meeting in Washington for the past few years.

So, every day this guy, Joshua DuBois picks "a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day" (as Obama said). Even though Obama is supposedly a devoted Christian, he begins each morning with "quotes from other faiths to reflect on," quotes picked by a progressive, liberal pastor with a thin resume of spiritual and religious accomplishments but a thicker resume of political activism and powerful connections.

I know I started this post by saying that I wasn't going to judge Obama and his faith, but I can't help but opine that I am indeed concerned about the type of spiritual guidance that Obama is receiving during his time in the great office of President of the United States of America.

Here are my notes and thoughts as I watched President Barack Obama's 2012 State of the Union address:

• All of the conversation on the channels prior to the address centered on how this address is going to be used as a way to launch the President's re-election bid and as a taxpayer financed campaign speech. I've been watching these things for years and although past incumbents running for re-election have used this speech to speak about all their accomplishments, President Obama appears to be the most brazenly partisan in using this speech as a campaign speech.
• I found a list of past 'special guests' who have been invited by the President- Lenny Skutnik in 1982 (saved passanger from drowning plane), Sammy Sosa in 1999 (relief efforts in Dominican Republic and home run chase), Hamid Karzai in 2002 (Afghanistan President), Julie Aigner-Clark in 2007 (founder of Baby Einstein)... and now Warren Buffet's secretary in 2012 (prop to use to try to bring up point of taxing the rich more). Whereas once President's (both Republican and Democrats) celebrated people who had done things, President Obama celebrates someone who has called on other people to do more things (pay more money) and yet has no real accomplishments of her own (no offense- I'm sure she is a fine person).
• It was amazing and wonderful to see Congresswomen Giffords there- she has made such a great recovery and I wish her the best on her future.
• President Obama begins with his foreign policy accomplishments, which he can take credit for, although he should share this credit with George W. Bush, who put in place the foundations and background for many of these accomplishments (the pull-out in Iraq, the groundwork for catching Osama, drones and catching terrorists in the War on Terror, etc).
• Obama next suggests that private citizens should be more like the military and act as soldiers for the state. Citizens should stop fighting one another, stop disagreeing about the direction of the nation, stop pushing for their individual rights and liberties, stop trying to keep their property and the fruits of their labor, and instead citizens should serve the state, citizens should put aside their differences and just follow orders, and people should give up their wealth and property to the state so that it can redistribute it to those people who it favors. This all sounds vaguely familiar and has strong echo's of fascism in it, although I could sugar-coat it if you'd like.
• In 2008, the 'house of cards collapsed'- banks made loans they shouldn't have (which he pushed for a community activist), regulators didn't do their jobs (which they were not held accountable for), bonuses were paid to these banks and government agencies (to which they were never held accountable for)... he is on the wrong side of the ledger here- he was pushing for the collapse and after the collapse did not hold those people accountable.
• "State of the Union is getting stronger"- as if the mounting US debt is to be ignored and we're all just to pretend that trillions of dollars in my children's spending is not damaging the foundations of our nation and creating a time-bomb that will destroy America.
• President Obama says that he can't get anything done without control of every single aspect of our political system- he decries the 'obstructionism' of the GOP controlling one single house of Congress. No one- no one- should ever be elected President who says that he can't get anything done unless he has total power- that is bad for America and bad for democracy.
• "What is happening in Detroit can happen in other industries"- what happened in Detroit was that the auto companies were bailed out, costing taxpayers $80 billion in loans, debts forgiven, pensions guaranteed, and other loans. GM made $6 billion last year in profits- taxpayers should get that back, plus the next $74 billion in profits, and then we'll claim success in saving a company at no cost. Imagine if he were to bail every unprofitable business out at massive losses to taxpayers- what would that sort of economy look like?
• Proposes new tax on multi-national companies, to be redistributed to companies that 'hire here in America'- some sort of new loan to be administered by Obama officials based on conditions that he'd set. The increased taxes on MNC's will be sure to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services, causing inflation and hitting the poor especially hard. Why does Obama hate poor people so much?
• "We brought trade cases against China at over twice the rate as the previous administration"- but the Chinese just laughed at us because Obama bowed to the Chinese President and begged to borrow trillions more of their money so that he could blow it on his wasteful spending. It's nice that he's suing China though- I'm sure that's employing lots of lawyers.
• President Obama is mystified on why employers don't hire workers- perhaps if he would have had some sort of a job at some point in business or in the private sector or in some sort of productive economic enterprise he'd know that increasing regulations, fees, requirements, red tape, and the such encourage employers not to hire.
• Obama proposes starting a temp agency company... with taxpayer money. This government financed and supported company will compete with all of these Michigan companies.
• Obama is right- good teachers like me matter, and also he's right that teachers like me are attacked all the time- I'm bashed by liberals and progressives who call me all sorts of names. The President's other education policies are pretty- they are nice words that mean nothing since the federal government isn't supposed to be involved in education in any way other than making sure that there is equality in education for different races and sexes (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965).
• It is almost as if the right answer to everything that Obama says is the opposite of what he says. He says that it is wrong for taxpayers to be giving illegal immigrants a paid education and then sending them home at the end- he suggests we should make these people here illegally citizens after investing all that money into them, while I kind of think that taxpayers shouldn't be investing money into people here illegally. Get a work or education visa or something to stay here or pay your own way.
• President Obama attacks inequality in pay between mean and women in work- that's right Obama, tear this straw man up! That straw man can't fight back- I suggest he go after those who want children to work in coal mines next!
• I followed this line... "need more bullet proof vests... computers chips... innovations... industries... energy..." what???
• President Obama claims that our nation needs an "all out all of the above strategy"- it's double-speak though, because in his next line he clarifies that this strategy means less oil, less natural gas, less coal, and less drilling. His 'all of the above' strategy is going to include additional fees, regulations, and rules on companies that he doesn't like. So, in summary, he is pitching a "some of the below strategy".
• On to exploding batteries discussion... Bryan (the guy Obama referenced) used to build luxury yachts, but when government policies that Obama supported (he wanted a higher tax on yachts) destroyed Bryan's company and industry, Obama was there to throw taxpayer dollars at him to get him restarted building taxpayer subsidized wind turbines, and now Obama is some sort of 'good guy.' He's the bad guy in the story, kiddies. Holland-based Energetx Composites LLC, you just got mentioned by Obama in his State of the Union address- that's the kiss of death.
• Proposed more small fees and regulations and burdens on businesses... I missed what sort of scheme it was supposed to pay for in order to be 'budget neutral'.
• I'm caught up now... "we need smart regulations"... "we need rules"... these rules and regulations "make the free market more free"- LOL. Did he just say "I've ordered thousands of federal agents to spend thousands of man-hours to search for useless regulations that waste taxpayer money"- I must have heard this wrong. He's moving on though to proposing new rules and regulations- I guess he was done with the part about getting rid of regulations and rules after he threw the joke out there. Listening to him talk, I feel like he's a joke of a President.
• Someone add up how much all these regulations, agencies, bureau's, rules, and investments are going to cost America... I'll have to look at the transcript, but I'm pretty sure all he does is to propose these things without any sense of cost. A man (or woman) could spend a hundred years undoing all the damage that this guy is doing to our Republic.
• "The recovery is still fragile"- but earlier he said the "State of the Union is getting stronger"- let's square this round issue, folks.
• Did you know that President Obama has cut the deficit $2 trillion? And not raised it $5 trillion like what really happened? BIZARRO WORLD!
• Let's not forget this people- President Obama hates people earning millions and wants to go after them and confiscate their income redistribute it to people making less. Those who are already wealthy can keep it, those who are on the bottom might like it, but there will be no more moving between classes in Obama's America. This guy wants to slap class systems on us and turn our nation into the rich- those who already made their wealth and who have connections with government- and the rest of us poor. "You can call this class warfare all you want" he says- it's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare. It's class warfare...
• The partisan divide is getting worse every year he says... especially over the past 3 years. It must be George Bush's fault or something, right? Or maybe it's because you President Obama are the most bitterly partisan figure in the history of our nation and is tearing our nation into serfs and masters. President Obama attacks running a 'perpetual campaign'- but yet he is the worst offender in this, running continually for office in a way that no President in history has ever done, running campaign commercials a year in advance of the general election, and even trotting out his wife to make frequent partisan attacks.
• He just said-"With or without this Congress I will keep implementing laws and putting in place policies that I want, but if Congress went along with what I was already doing it would give me cover and get us all involved." This guy is a bully and a dictator. Maybe I heard him wrong though; I'll go back and re-read the transcript, maybe I got it wrong.
• The speech must be coming to an end- after spending a couple minutes in the beginning to address our military and veterans, we're now going to end with a couple minutes at the end about the military and veterans- I though think that the military shouldn't just be props in Obama's game of 'we're all in this together' meme; maybe he should talk about military programs in the body of his speech that he wants to cut or increase, about what he's been doing as commander-in-chief, etc. The military is not simply there to make Obama look good. "No one thought about politics on that day" Obama says- but yet the photo of Obama in the war room was staged. Nice words Obama, but in your mouth, they are just words, merely words.
• President Obama says that as long as we are all commoners, living like peasants on the land, serving our masters like serfs, than our nation will be strong. He said 'common' several times at the end- but private property, liberty, and protection of life wasn't mentioned.

UPDATE III: Thank you for linking to this article The Western Experience, The Bitter Americans, and others!

Out of curiosity, I went on yahoo and I typed in the search "list of places named after George W Bush." Nothing. I tried Amazon and Wikipedia- nothing. On the radio today I heard a liberal talk show host talking about how Obama was not the egotistical, self-centered, and self-loving President- that it was Bush who was all those things. This is similar to a lot of what I heard through 8 years of Bush's term of office- that he was the type of guy who thought a lot of himself and who went around the nation naming things after himself. Turns out, the liberal radio host was wrong on this, as were all the Democrats who thought it would be Republican like Bush acting like a king and building monuments to himself.

On the other hand, the lord of czars Democrat Barack Obama already has dozens of things named after him. According to wikipedia, which has a handy list of things named after Barack Obama, Obama has already had schools, streets, and mountains named after him. I suppose that it is all of the many accomplishments that he has put in place during his short 7 months as President- nationalizing auto companies and banks, increasing the unemployment rate with massive spending bills, and give-aways to politically connected individuals all around the nation.

California has two schools named after Obama's greatness- the Barack Obama Charter School in Compton and Barack Obama Academy in Oakland. In Minnesota, there is the Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning Elementary in Saint Paul. In New York there is the Barack Obama Elementary School in Hempstead, and in Plainfield New Jersey there is the Barack Obama Academy. In Opa-locka Florida you can drive down Barack Obama Avenue and in Antigua and Barbuda you can visit Mount Obama.

All of his worship for Obama would simply be amusing if it didn't signify something more. I noticed this happening early on- Second School Named After Obama - but really didn't fully understand the phenomenon until I started to really think about The Religion of the Democrats . I suggest here that this worship of Obama is because liberals think that he is the One, the one who has hidden knowledge of the way of the world, and that by following him and worshipping him, they too can be part of the new kingdom of heaven that Obama is creating here on Earth. Louis Farrakhan called Obama the Messiah last week!

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into the fact that Obama already has more buildings and streets named after him than Bush 43, Clinton 42, and Bush 41.

I'm always fasinated by conspiracies- not because they I buy them, but because I like to take them out and look at them and see if they hold up in the light of day. As I wrote earlier regarding the controversy of whether or not Obama fufills the qualitification of being a natural born citizen (see my post Can you Smell what Barack is Cooking?) , if there was no fire then there shouldn't be all this smoke. Obama seems to be at the center of other controveries too- for example, I wrote here about Obama's Draft Registration Card Raises Serious Questions.

Then, as I was bumming around on the internet, I came across this little fun fact- apparently, according to the assessment records for Cook County, Obama doesn't own the house that he used to live in- the house is owned by a man named William Miceli. This man is a lawyer employed by Rezko, and Obama formerly worked with him. Odd that Obama wouldn't own this house, but it really is that odd, because you might remember that the way that Obama bought this house in the first place was by using fraud, deception, and illegal government kickbacks to Rezko, which is why he is in prision.

Through the wonder of the internet and copy machines and scan machines, the truth could be now known- that Obama is renting his house from the lawyer of a felon. That felon got government kickbacks- and Obama, a former government official, is living in his house? Smells like corruption to me.

If this is true, and if you doubt it email me your evidence, then it looks like Obama is further in trouble, because he was deducting his mortgage payments on his tax returns, and you can't do that for a house that you don't own.

Is there any fire behind this smoke? Is it reasonable to ask questions about this, considering the fact that many people associated with Chicago politics are shady and corrupt, and that Obama has had dealings now with several people who are going to prision for corruption? I think so. Committing mortgage fraud and tax fraud are crimes still in this country, whether they are committed by Obama or Nixon.

UPDATE: Days later, the World Net Daily picks up the scent and is on this one- I wonder how long before the MSM gets involved? Here is what the WND wrote:

WND confirmed the tax bill for the Obama home is mailed to Miceli, not to Obama or the Northern Trust account through which Obama has claimed the home was purchased. Records from the Cook County Treasurer's Office give the PIN number for the Obama property as 20-11-115-037-0000 and list Miceli as the person who receives Obama's property tax invoice by mail.

And here is the commentary over at Vox Propoli, very similar to mine:

So, who really did buy the house? Who owns it now? It's certainly possible that there's an innocent explanation for why Rezko's lawyer should be paying the property taxes on Obama's house, but something smells very, very fishy indeed in Cook County.

Before we visit the best posts of 2011, let's all take a moment to reflect back on some of my best posts from last year, 2010, and see how the analysis, predictions, and theories that I advanced in those posts have held up over the past year.

Obama: Didn't Waive the Jones Act, Made Gulf Spill Worse:
Occasionally I break a major story, like this one, which I was on well in advance of the MSM. Here was the story that I broke in 2010:

In reply to the emails from snarky liberals who ask 'just what do I expect Obama to do about the Gulf oil spill', the reply is 'get the hell out of the way'...Let loose the power of free markets and civil society and restrict government to limited and defined roles, and the world will be a better place. In this particular case, just 'what can Obama do'? Here is one of dozens of examples that are specific and have few drawbacks but Obama isn't doing- Obama can temporarily waive the Jones Act....

In retrospect, it is clear that Obama did have a reverse-Midas touch with the Gulf Oil spill- every move he made or didn't make during this disaster was the wrong one. From not temporarily waiving the Jones Act (which effectively forbid foreign nations from assisting the US by banning ships flagged, crewed, constructed, or owned by other nations from transporting cargo from one US port to another US port) to overstating the extent of the disaster (his talking about it caused a larger drop in tourism to the entire Gulf region than the actual disaster did), we can see in the Gulf oil spill just how aimless and unhelpful President Obama is when America faces an immediate crisis, and this post was yet more support to that argument.

Obama Nicknames
Every President has a nickname- Reagan was the Gipper, Bush was W, Clinton was Slick Willy, Thomas Jefferson was Long Tom, Chester Arthur was the Walrus, Calvin Coolidge was Cool Cal- so in this post I decided to pull together some of the top Obama nicknames that I have seen or heard. It's a good and solid list, and I've added to it over the past year (2011). My personal nickname for Obama: Waffles the Clown.

Oppose Race to the Top: Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose RTTT
This post was one of my 'thinking posts', where I was asked a question that I should have considered before but hadn't, and I went home and really thought through my views and beliefs and arrived at an answer. My instinct was always to oppose Race to the Top, which was President Obama's major education initiative, but I wanted to make sure that I was opposing it for the right reasons- not because the NEA was against it or because Obama came up with it, but because it violated conservative principles. Read the whole post, but here is a bit of it...

Recently, Michigan Senate Majority leader Mike Bishop asked me for my opinion on the President's Race to the Top program. I told him that I didn't support it, and he looked at me in a way that said "I thought you were a conservative" and "I thought you wanted to help education." At the time, I struggled to explain why I didn't like the program- I didn't really know all the details to it, but suspected that I was indeed correct in opposing it from what little I knew. He thought I was just a tool of the teachers unions, who also oppose RTTT, but I knew that for some reason I didn't like this initiative by Obama, and it wasn't just paranoid anti-Obama sentiment.... Today, via theblogprof, via Right Wing News, I came across the an article called "Ten Rules for Anti-Government Republican Radicals in D.C. ." As an anti-government conservative radical, the kind that our founding fathers were, the kind of people that built our nation and made our country a great success, I find these rules to be useful in helping me begin to articulate why I oppose Race to the Top....

Since I put together this post, I've gone on the radio multiple times in a variety of shows to talk about a true conservative approach to education, one that emphasizes decentralization of power, local control, less federal spending, regular and measured policies, structural changes, the humanity of the system, the lessening of federal laws, and the passage of good solid legislation. A good conservative believes 'first, do no harm' and 'less is more' and that the purpose of the state is to protect life, liberty, and property, and Race to the Top is not legislation that a conservative should support, even though it attacked the NEA and labor unions and put in place small good changes to the system. Read my whole post and you'll see yet another reason why thinking individuals should be opposing Obama in 2012.

Obama's New NASA Policy- Yet More Broken Promises and Lies
American Exceptionalism is being killed by Obama, in ways big and small. Once America was a great nation that put men on the moon- an exceptional nation capable of spaceflight and exploring new worlds. Now...:

Out of all of the broken promises of President Obama, this one is probably not the biggest to a lot of people. Out of all of the phony and lying rhetoric about hope and change, this latest policy announcement that kills hope and changes things for the worst is probably not the most backstabbing that he has uttered. But that does not mean that Obama's plans to destroy NASA's budget and redirect its mission away from exploration is not big or important to me....

Obama's attack on NASA didn't stop in 2010 as he continued to oppose its vision of boldly exploring new worlds and demonstrating America's amazing exceptionalism. I revisited this theme several times in 2011, notably in my posts Nuclear Power and Manned Space Flight: Victims of Democrat's Progress Backwards? and Obama Killed My Child's Dream of Being an Astronaut.  Obama and the Democrats will not be happy until America is an average nation that has fallen back into the pack of tyranny and debt that is the history of the world, and their policies towards NASA are an example of this.

Recommended Read: Codevilla's 'America's Ruling Class'
This post was an attempt to get people to read one of the most important essay's of 2010- Codevilla's essay America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution that was published in the American Spectator.

...it lays out quite clearly the two classes that are evolving in our nation- what Codevilla calls the 'ruling class' and the 'country class.' Codevilla echo's what I tell my students every year- it is getting increasingly important to understand how the ruling class in our society works and how they use government to maintain their ruling status, because our society is increasingly about what the government does and less so about what you do...

Revisiting this essay today, you can clearly see the increasingly divide in America between those people who are benefiting from government connections and those who are not, increased by the policies pushed by the modern-day Democratic party and to a lesser although still significant extent the Republican Party. Solyndra is a great example of this- a company that found favor in the ruling class was able to secure loans and help while other companies not favored by the ruling class had money taken from them in the form of taxes and regulations and fees and permits. The massive expansion in food stamps or the massive expansion of taxpayer subsidized healthcare are also great examples of how the ruling class is increasingly looting all of us in order to give gifts and trinkets to the country class as our nation descends into tyranny.

Frank Beckman (heard locally on 760 am) gave me this idea. He noticed the differences in the speech Michelle Obama gave on Monday with the speech Condoleezza Rice gave at the RNC convention in 2000. It's a fair comparison- both are black women, well educated, and in positions of power where they could advise potential Presidents.

I've gone through both speeches, quoting from them, comparing them, and hopefully making intelligent comparisons when it occurred to do so. I hope you enjoy, and see how these major advisers could be shaping the worldview of their presidential preferences.

Michelle Obama begins her speech by talking about herself- she jumps right how she was raised, and gives thanks to her father. She then states her main message of the speech- "And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them." To repeat- the values that she represents are hard work, honesty, and respect.

Condoleezza Rice begins her speech by thanking all those who have gone before her- great Presidents like Ford, Reagan, and HW Bush. She then states her main message of the speech- "The future belongs to liberty, fueled by markets in trade, protected by the rule of law and propelled by the fundamental rights of the individual. Information and knowledge can no longer be bottled up by the state. Prosperity flows to those who can tap the genius of their people." To repeat- the values she represents are liberty, free trade, and individual rights.

We'll stop here- both are great messages. But one sounds better on the streets of Chicago, trying to organize a community and help people, and the other sounds better in the White House, trying to lead a nation and defend America.

Obama goes on to speak about how her "piece of the American Dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me... All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do -- that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be."

Rice goes on to speak about something similar- that "Democracy in America is a work in progress, not a finished masterpiece. But even with its flaws, this unique American experience provides a shining beacon to people..."

Obama sees the failures of America, while Rice sees the triumph. That's a major difference in looking at America.

Obama says "I believe that each of us -- no matter what our age or background or walk of life -- each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation."

Rice says "In America, with education and hard work, it really does not matter where you came from; it matters only where you are going."

Compare those two statements- they both talk about background, but Obama's conclusion is that people most go to work for the state now, and be a slave to its desires, while Rice believes that people can do whatever they want in life, and don't owe anybody anything- including owing the state some sort of service.

Obama goes on to say that Obama will make a great President, because he will be "bringing us together and reminding us how much we share and how alike we really are."

Rice says that Bush will be a great President because he "challenges us to call upon our better selves, to be compassionate toward those who are less fortunate, to cherish and educate every child, descendants of slaves and immigrants alike, and to thereby affirm the American dream for us all."

So Obama brings us together and reminds us how alike we are, and Bush challenges us to be greater, more compassionate, and better than we are. Obama wants us all to wallow in the mud, saying- hey, we're all pigs together, while Bush wants us to rise above, be more, and be greater. Our country was built by people more like Bush, who challenged us to be more than we are, and not by people like Obama, who demands we all be alike.

Michelle Obama ends her speech by saying "So tonight... let us devote ourselves to finishing their work; let us work together to fulfill their hopes; and let us stand together to elect Barack Obama president of the United States of America."

Condoleezza Rice ends her speech by saying "We will go forth--to extend peace, prosperity and liberty beyond our blessed shores. Thank you. Let's go out and elect George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Good night. God bless you and God bless America."

I'm not editing these comments- I'm just quoting and comparing. So what do we get out of the closing statements by these two advisers with similar messages but different conclusions. First, I notice that Rice ended by saying God Bless, and God bless America, and Michelle didn't end that way. That might mean something, or might mean nothing- you decide. I see that Obama says that by electing Obama we will finish the work of our ancestors and fulfill their dreams- in other words, Obama is the savior. Whereas Rice simply says that Bush will extend peace, prosperity, and liberty- stuff that a person can do, although maybe not as impressive as a savior. Lastly, and this might just be semantics, but Obama asks everyone to 'stand together', where Rice asks people to 'go out.' You stand together when you are weak, and your biggest threat is separating from the herd. You go out when you are strong, and your biggest threat is not getting up and getting out.

Comparing these two speeches is relevent and useful, and gives me some further insights into the type of candidates that Obama is and Bush was. Bush was moralistic and willing to fight to bring liberty to other countries, for better or worse. Obama believes you're all the same, although he is better than you, and you should serve him.

By comparing Condoleezza Rice's speech and Michelle Obama's speech, it becomes more clear that you should vote against Obama in this coming election.

Democrats once screamed over and over the mantra that "Bush lied" and "Bush mislead" Americans to drag up illegally into the Iraq War. Democratic Senator Obama was one of the loudest to shrill this mantra, claiming over and over again that to get us to go to war in Iraq, Bush suppressed information that was contrary to his views, only published government reports that agreed with his agenda, and knowingly falsified information to bring us to war.

But one of the primary characteristics of a liberal is that they only care about power, and principles such as honesty and transparency only mean something when they feel those things can be used to gain more control over someone elses life. Now that Democrat Obama is in charge of the White House, information is suppressed, political pressure is brought to bear to make sure that government reports only say what Obama wants them to say, and information is knowingly and actively falsified in order to pass legislation.

And the media and the liberals are silent. They were so vocal about lying and misleading during the Bush years, when President Bush killed terrorists and brought democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. In retrospect, some of the information he used to bring us to war was not the most accurate, but most likely that was caused by mistakes, bad assumptions, and groupthink. That's a little bit different than a deliberate and purposeful attempt to mislead people using information that you know is false, or suppressing information that clearly contradicts your views, or putting political pressure from the White House of government agencies to ignore all those who speak out against its agenda. One is mistaken- the other is criminal.

Although Obama has only been in power of the US state for a short time, he and his minions are already applying pressure to produce government reports that fit their agenda, suppress those that disagree, and falsify information. For example, the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst’s report questioning the science behind global warming.

So liberals and Democrats, start up your shrill cries again- "Obama lied!" "Obama mislead!" The following are adaptions from from various "Bush lied" websites (here, here, here, here)- only the names and subjects have been changed, the language and structure remains the same. Surprisingly, changing 'Bush' to 'Obama' and 'war in Iraq' to 'global warming' is all I really have to do to use the language of the left against itself. Feel free to use these phrases whenever you want:

• "Obama led people to believe that global warming is real by repeatedly linking talking about it in his speeches. This is so effective that many Americans actually believed some sort of climate change bill is needed."
• "Obama has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for passing the Cap and Trade legislation. But Obama was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress."
• "This global warming bill is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global climate czar, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were."
• "Obama still insists that there is a "relationship" between human activity and the entire planet warming up. But several groups have released reports saying, among other things, that there is no "collaborative relationship" between human activity and global warming."
• "Americans who are fundamentally misinformed about global warming provide the bulk of those questioned in polls which show support for Obama and the global warming bill. Subtract them from polls and Obama is an unpopular president -- widely seen as having accomplished a bait and switch, redirecting U.S. anger and vengeance toward an issue that does not interest us."
• "Obama issued statements which 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to pass the cap and trade bill under decidedly false pretenses.'"
• "Obama has a habit of just making shit up when it suits his needs. Just look at his selling of his cap and trade legislation. Lies, lies and lies. But while I consider these lies the worst of the lot, the health care lies may be the one that causes the most damage. Some background: the Obama Administration wants to sell its socialized medicine plan to a wary nation. The budget was already out of control, and Democrats notice that the people are wary of creating new government entitlements. Obama needs their votes. So he lies to them."

David Paul Kuhn in his RealClearPolitics article The Whirlwind of Obama's Ambiguity compares President Barack Obama to a Rorschach test:

Liberals saw a progressive savior. Moderates saw a practical change agent. Americans saw promise of a post-partisan, post-racially divisive era. The projection was notably always considered positive. But Rorschach tests were meant to measure a negative condition. And after nearly one year in office, the Rorschach politician is, as president, facing the whirlwind of his ambiguity....

So the inkblot remains formless. The longer this is the case, the more difficult it will be to reconcile opposing views. Where liberal leaders saw hope, some now convey a degree of disillusion. Where conservatives once spoke of Obama in quasi-bipartisan tones, today they see their political bête noire...

The American mind cannot escape the gap between expectations and reality. And because of Obama's Rorschach persona, neither has he.

David Kuhn with this article imagines an Obama who is an empty form in which we project our own ideas, but I disagree with this 100%. Obama is not an empty form- he is a left wing liberal communist bent on advancing his agenda and enriching his supporters, and he has never been anything other than that, and he has been quite successful in that operation.

Kuhn, I think, is one of the many moderates and independents who stupidly got caught up in the hope and change rhetoric and saw something in Obama that was not there. That doesn't mean that Obama 'fooled them', it means that they were fools for voting for Obama. His voting record was clear, his statements about what he was going to do when he became President were clear, and even fools like me could see his agenda- the whole point about moderates and independents projecting their hopes onto this guy just means that moderates and independents were dumb voters last election.

Kuhn says that even conservatives feel for the Obama trick- I don't know what election he was following in 2008, but very few conservatives I knew thought that Obama was anything other than what we see he is now- very partisan and willing to do whatever (legal or not) to get his agenda in place. Obama won because Republicans nominated an ancient RINO, and that didn't motivate us, and independents and moderates got caught up in the wave of celebrity and guilt that led to Obama's victory.

For the record, I submit the following posts from before the election in which I did not project my views on to Obama, but correctly saw what he really is:
Obama is Conscious
Obama is Not Kennedy
Communists Join Terrorists in Endorsing Obama
Majority of Allegheny prostitutes Vote Democratic
Wikipedia Description of Fascist Sounds Like Someone I Know