Dear Mr. Obama,
I am sick. I am sick of your lies, your racial hypocrisy, your pointing fingers at "Reagan Democrats", members of the Likud Party because they want an Israel of the Brave, not the Grave like your friends do, and even your own Grandmother when you don't even have the guts to confront "Rev." Wright.
I am sick to death of your Blame America, Jew Baiting friends and advisers including Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, both of whom should be where the 58,000 who died fighting for us while they were trying to murder Americans; of Rashid Khalidi, of Senator KKK Byrd, of Samantha Power, Merrill McPeak, Zbigniew Brezinzski, Rob Malley and his Baker Boys friends - Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Danny Kurtzer, all of whom are self-loathing scum out to stick it to Israel (and they DO REFLECT your core values too), your wife, and that bigoted Reverend whom you sat through 20 years of virulent hate without saying a damn word.
Now you have the gall to chastize a President of the United States because he hit it on the head concerning Islamonazi appeasers and cowards - you've never served one day in the military - like you and Jimmy Carter. You even make derogatory remarks towards Cowboys.
Well, let me tell you something. The Cowboy is the Best American. They loved their animals, protected and loved their women and children, honored the flag and this country, and braved many hardships to do the job they were tasked to do. I'd sooner a cowboy as a friend than someone who has NO guts, No principles, Nothing. That's you, Mr. Obama.
Better a Cowboy than a Coward and Race Hypocrite.
In fact, Mr. Obama, you're not fit, morally or ethically to be my - or our President. I am just sick to death of you. Please go away, I hear Tehran or Gaza just might be your kind of place, and do take all of your friends and advisers and your spouse with you. You won't be missed.
Don't know much about geography--Obama 2nd edition
The man is clueless
Barack Obama is already explaining his anticipated loss to Hillary Clinton in the Kentucky primary this coming Tuesday. In part, Obama blames FOX News. In part, Obama invokes improbable geography:
Obama conceded that he has a steep challenge to get his message and background to voters in states such as Kentucky - where he trails Sen. Hillary Clinton by 27 points, according to a poll published earlier this week - and West Virginia, where voters chose Clinton over Obama by 40 points on Tuesday. "What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."
Obama does not note that Illinois and Kentucky are close enough to each other that they share a border.... Arkansas borders Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma, but it does not share a border with Kentucky. This is Obama's second big US geography gaffe. You know the big media would give Dan Quail and George Bush a lot of air time for this kind of statement, but for Obama, I suspect they will just say he was tired. He seems tired a lot lately for such a young guy. I think it raises questions about his energy level and stamina not to mention having a poorer memory than his 71 year old opponent.
Another Obama fantasy
Obama has a very shaky relationship with any reality at all, not only geography and history. He can't even tell the truth about his own recent past
This is pretty funny - in a recent speech Obama practically separates his shoulder patting himself on the back for entering the lion's den and, in a Detroit speech from May 2007, telling automakers they need to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets:
"We're going to have do what I did when I went to Detroit and told the automakers that they're going to have to raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We can make more efficient cars right here in the United States. There's no way they have to be made in Japan. But, it requires that Detroit changes its ways. And I have to say that when I delivered that speech, nobody clapped. The room was really quiet. But that's OK, because that's part of what is the task of the next president."
There are just a couple of problems - the video of the Detroit speech is available, and in reality Obama was interrupted by applause at that point in the speech. And why might he have been interrupted? Well, Obama came laden with carrots as well as sticks; this is from the WaPo account of the Detroit speech:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) yesterday proposed federal assistance to help U.S. automakers cover the cost of their retired workers' health benefits if the companies invest in technology to improve their vehicles' fuel efficiency.
In a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, the Democratic presidential candidate offered a plan to ease the pain of U.S. automakers even as he reiterated support for higher fuel-efficiency standards..... Obama proposed that the government pay for 10 percent of domestic automakers' health-care costs for retired workers through 2017 if the firms plow half the savings into equipment for making more efficient cars and trucks. Obama's campaign estimates that this would cost taxpayers roughly $7 billion over the next 10 years.
In addition, Obama proposed tax incentives for retooling auto assembly plants and the extension of tax credits for hybrid vehicles beyond the current 60,000-cars-per-manufacturer limit. His campaign put the 10-year cost of his plan at $20 billion and said it would be covered by auctioning greenhouse gas permits under a cap-and-trade program that Obama also supports.
Let's hear it for taxpayer subsidies! Greg Mankiw was scathing; the NY Times was laudatory, and barely mentioned the carrot part of the Obama speech. However, they included this:
Despite Mr. Obama's sometimes harsh words Monday, the diverse audience interrupted him 10 times for applause. "I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line," said Peter Eckstein, a retired labor union economist from Ann Arbor, Mich.
He's a hero! And I know it's true because I read it in the Times.
Socialism as the cure for terrorism?
The tired old Leftist idea that "poverty" is the cause of everything bad. A pity that Bin Laden is a billionaire!
David Brooks must have noticed, as I did, Barack Obama's bizarre statement on the Lebanon crisis. So he called Obama on the phone to find out if he really meant what he said:
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites "to peel support away from Hezbollah" and encourage the local populace to "view them as an oppressive force." The U.S. should "find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services."
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."
Brooks might not have noticed, but Obama just doubled-down on the message of his initial Lebanon statement. Samantha Power may no longer be with the campaign, but Obama articulated precisely her prescription for combating Islamic supremacist groups, who, in the Obama/Power worldview, rise to power and retain political saliency because they seek to address the legitimate grievances of a "disaffected" (Obama's word) people.
There are several assumptions at work here: that Hezbollah is popular among the Lebanese Shia because of its provision of material benefits, like medical clinics, instead of a compelling ideological message; that Hezbollah will peacefully acquiesce to western social-services projects in Lebanon; that the Shia will be inspired by promises to improve their standard of living, rather than Hezbollah's promise of religious glory and political dominance; that Hezbollah is a manifestation of domestic Lebanese conditions, and can thus be addressed by solving domestic Lebanese problems. None of these premises comes close to being true.
Obama's mention of Hamas was appropriate, but not in the way he thinks it was. Hamas slaughters Israelis on behalf of the "legitimate claims" and "grievances" of a group of people whose plight has rarely in history been more thoroughly salved with social services. The West Bank and Gaza are awash in UN- and EU-funded schools, medical clinics, and sinecure jobs programs. Even the trash in the West Bank is collected by large white garbage trucks with the letters "UN" stenciled on the sides. If social services "peel support away" from groups like Hezbollah, as Obama insists, why has Islamic radicalism become more and more popular in the Palestinian territories precisely while outside social services have gotten ever more expansive?
Make no mistake: Obama is not backing down from his promise of a dignity-promotion foreign policy. In its first act, he will insist on recognizing the legitimacy of the "grievances" of Iran's proxy terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. The message is clear: terrorism and savagery will win an audience with the American president. Please pardon me for calling this appeasement.
More 'Chicago Way' Politics from Obama
ABC News, the only news outlet among the Big 3 of the old network news shows doing commendable work covering Barack Obama, has a report that Barack Obama boasted about steering large amounts of state money to African-American owned investment firms in Chicago. He neglected to mention that the head of one of these firms has been a key fundraiser for him over the years, that the firm's employees have given quite generously to his campaigns, and has allowed him to use company-owned jets (hasn't the New York Times attacked John McCain for using his wife's company's private jet?).
Obama claimed that the investment firms had excellent investment performances that justified the steering of funds to them. Well, time for a fact-check (Washington Post-time to step up to the plate). In fact, the major beneficiary of Barack Obama's efforts has been the Ariel Fund headed by John Rogers, whose mother is a power broker in Chicago and Illinois politics. The fund's investment performance among its various offerings have been sorrowful for years. The flagship fund-the Ariel Fund (ARGFX)-has a record of underperforming its peers and the market for years.
Morningstar, the premier mutual fund advisory firm, rates its return as being "Below Average". That is an understatement. Yet John Rogers and the firms employees have done quite well over the years regardless of how their investors have fared. He seems to have inherited his mother's power broker status, with a close friend headed towards the Democratic Presidential nomination. Family dynasties are a tradition in Chicago.
The company relies on investments from city and state government and union pension funds who are under a mandate (whether official or not) to boost investments and deals with minority-owned firms. Who suffers? Pensioners, government employees and urban residents. Ironically, a large number of them are African-Americans. To enrich a few lucky and well-connected African-Americans, many others suffer subpar (to say the least) returns on their retirement savings.
As our population ages, the future viability of Social Security and Medicare has come into question. Remedies have been proposed and suffered from endless rounds of political flak. How will Barack Obama fare when he is in the Oval Office, backed by a Congress that will likely be more solidly Democratic and more likely to support his policies. What will those policies be? Will any privatization proposals introduced by him fare better than those of George Bush? Who will be the beneficiaries?
A Single Chicken Wing in Every Pot
Obama in Oregon yesterday:
Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
First Michelle Obama threatens to take away our pie, and now her husband demands that we eat smaller portions. Can the American people subsist on a diet of extra spicy hope and saut‚ed change? Yes we can!
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)