Barack Obama has a huge lead over John McCain among Latino voters. Obama has 66% support of Latinos versus 23% for McCain.

The people, such as Rush Limbaugh, who said that Latinos would not vote for a black man were wrong. Very wrong.

In the 2006 elections Democrats captured around 70% of the Latino vote; in 2004, Democrats got 60%. Obama is hovering right around that 2006 figure.

In the end, Latinos are going to vote for whoever is going to promise them the most welfare freebies. That’s all there is to it. That is the main reason people vote for Democrats. It’s the “what you going to give me” factor that Republicans cannot match.

CNN Story

Presumptive DFL presidential nominee Barack Obama is in Germany today to give a speech pandering to euro liberals.  According to news reports, Obama is very popular in Germany, with 74% of poll respondents saying they would vote for them if they could largely based on his youthfulness, John F. Kennedy-like charisma, and his skin color.

None of those are valid reasons to vote for someone to be the leader of the USA and the free world. That’s just pure idiocy from people who can’t think beyond a manufactured public image created by political consultants.

Obama’s speech will be focused on US-Europe relations.  Liberals have been pounding away on the theory that the image of the United States has been damaged in recent years by the actions of President George W. Bush.  For some irrational reason, lefties believe that liberating 25 million Iraqi civilians from that cruel and ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein was unjust.  So that is why Obama decided on this topic for his speech which, undoubtedly, was written by Obama’s hired speech writers.

Several weeks ago Ralph Nader said that Obama was capitalizing on white guilt.  One must wonder if white guilt is the reason Obama is so popular in Germany.  Remember, this is a nation that tried to exterminate the Jewish race.  What other possible reason could there be for Obama’s popularity with a foreign nation that can’t vote for him and likely is largely unaware of his true character and his associations (Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William “Bill” Ayers).

In the end, it doesn’t matter what Germans think, because they can’t vote in American elections.  And that’s a good thing, because this is the nation that put Adolf Hitler into power because of his charisma and public speaking prowess, the same basis as their support for Barack Obama. Germans were wrong once, and they are again.

It is really sickening the way the American media is drawing parallels between Obama and the German visits by JFK and Ronald Reagan. The difference between those two and Obama is that they were presidents at the times of their visits and they actually discussed issues of substance, not pap like Obama is doing.

Federal regulators are pinning the blame on Democrat Senator Charles Schumer (NY) for creating a panic among depositors of IndyMac bank.  IndyMac bank recently was taken over by the federal government.

As you may know, no bank keeps 100% of its deposits on hand.  They take money that is deposited and lend most of it out, keeping only a small fraction as a reserve.  What Chuck Schumer did is unnecessarily spread rumors of the bank’s demise, causing fear among depositors that resulted in a run on the bank.

During a bank run, depositors line up demanding their money, even if they risk no loss because of FDIC deposit insurance.  No bank can survive a bank run since they retain only a small portion of deposits.  IndyMac had no liquidity left, thus they were forced into failure.

If that idiot Chuck Schumer had left his mouth shut the bank probably would not have failed.  Or if it did fail, it would have done so in an orderly fashion.  Now taxpayers will be on the hook for $4 billion to $8 billion because of Schumer’s idiocy.

You don’t need to have a reason for a bank to fail.  All you need is a rumor.  Even healthy banks can fail during a bank run.  Schumer created the rumor.  He is to blame for IndyMac’s failure.

John D. Hawke, former Comptroller of the Currency, (national bank regulator) said the following about Schumer:

If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system.

Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don’t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you’d be crazy to share information with Schumer.

A Democrat engaging in “incredibly stupid” conduct?  Everything Democrats do is incredibly stupid.  No surprises there.

Democrats destroy everything they get their hands on.

Violence in Iraq is down substantially.  Despite the success in Iraq, Barack Obama still opposes the surge.

Doesn’t Obama realize that the accomplishments against terrorists in Iraq would not have been possible without the surge?

Fox News Article

Barack Obama is on the wrong side of every issue, even after the fact.  How can you possibly be opposed to something successful?  It’s mind-boggling idiocy.

I’ve read several articles the past month or two about how the economic troubles faced by the United States are going to be problematic for John McCain.  Why should this be the case?

Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on investment and income on those who make over $250,000 per year.  Those are the people who create the jobs that Americans need.  How is leaving those people with less money to spend and invest going to create jobs?  It isn’t.  Less money means less spending and investment which means less jobs.  It’s as simple as that.

Barack Obama also opposes lifting bans on oil drilling where there are billions of barrels of oil just waiting to be tapped.  Gas prices are at record levels, leaving all Americans whether they ride the bus or drive vehicles with less money to spend elsewhere (bus fares are increasing all over the country because of higher fuel costs).  How is restricting new supplies of oil going to reduce the price of gasoline?  It isn’t.

High oil prices are also fueling food inflation.  People are spending more to feed themselves than before, leaving less money to spend elsewhere which means that jobs are going to be harmed.

If anything, the economic troubles should be good news for McCain because Barack Obama is on the exact opposite side of every issue that he should be on.

Raising taxes during an economic downturn is never a good thing.  Restricting the supply of oil during record high oil prices is not a good thing, either.  McCain and the Republicans need to do a better job of explaining this to the American people.  The last thing they should do is let the Democrats have control of the economic arguments when they are the ones responsible for the current situation.

McCain should pose the following questions to the American people:

• How does taking money out of the economy by raising taxes sustain current jobs and create new ones since less money means less spending?
• How does raising taxes on investment going to encourage investment and the creation of new jobs?
• How does blocking new oil from making it to market help lower the price of gasoline?

Every dollar that is spent in the economy becomes income for someone else.  Every dollar saved or invested helps create jobs.  Democrats want to do everything possible to take money out of the economy and harm American jobs.  McCain and the Republicans need to speak up about this.  It’s basic economics, and the DFL is on the wrong side of the argument.

This morning I read the news and what did I see?  I see that oil prices have set a new record, climbing to $147 per barrel in intraday trading.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington are doing everything they can to continue blocking domestic oil drilling, preventing new supply from coming to market in the next few years.

With 250 million passenger vehicles on American roads we are going to require petroleum for many years to come.  Nothing, not even record oil prices, have made the Democrats see the error of their ways and the need for more supply.

Conservation and technology are the answer, Democrats say.  But there comes a point where people can’t conserve any more than they already are, and there comes a point where that conservation comes as a cost in reduced economic activity.  Technology?  Hydrogen cars are still many years into the future.  A recent news story I saw had an expert in hydrogen cars saying that it will be at least ten years before they are on the roads in any significant numbers.  Ten years!  What will we do in the meantime?  Continue to pay record prices for gasoline because the Democrat fools don’t want to allow more domestic drilling?

The people hardest hit by the high cost of gasoline are the very people the Democratic Party pretends to represent.  The Democrats screw over their constituents every chance they get, and those Democrat voters aren’t smart enough to realize it.

Inside Edition, the tabloid TV show, is reporting that Fox News did not release all of the video of Rev. Jesse Jackson in which the “man of God” said that he wanted to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off.

Rumors are circulating that the Rev. Jackson may have called Obama the n-word.  Conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly says that there are more harsh words from Rev. Jackson which have not yet been released, and may not be.

Does what the Rev. Jackson said sound like the words of a man of God?  No.  They are the words of a hypocrite and a man filled with hate, not the words of a man of religion or peace.  Jesse Jackson revealed his true character for all the world to see.  He is just another dirty fraud and liar.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat, a supposed man of God, said that he wanted to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off.  That’s right, this man of God is nothing more than a typical violent Democrat voter.  Watch the Youtube video:

Rev. Jackson Youtube Video

Jesse Jackson says the following:

See, Barack been, um, talkin’ down to black people on this faith based… I wanna cut his nuts off.

Barack…he’s talkin’ down to black people.

The Rev. Jackson, after making the statement that he wants to cut Obama’s nuts off, makes a slicing motion with his hand.  Apparently, the reverend didn’t realize he was on a hot mic and didn’t think anyone else would hear what he said.

How sweet, how typically Democrat!

Is anyone surprised that Barack Obama would change his position on withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

Obama rallied liberals by demanding that troops be pulled out.  When?  As soon as possible–immediately, in fact.  But here is what Obama said last week in an interview with Military Times:

Look, I’ve said this repeatedly from the start, and so I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.  (See Obama’s quote from Sept. 2007 below.) What I have repeatedly said from the start, when I introduced my first piece of legislation on this issue in January of 2007 is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. That we should send a clear message to Iraqi leadership that we are not going to engage in a permanent occupation in Iraq and that we are not going to have permanent bases there. That we want to bring a gradual withdrawal of our combat forces, that we would maintain a counterterrorism force in the region that could continue to keep al-Qaida on the run. That we would continue to have a protective force for our embassy, our civilian and humanitarian forces and that we would continue to train Iraqis both army and police, so long as those who are being trained were not falling back into sectarian patterns. And I have always said that as commander in chief I will absolutely seek the advice and counsel of our generals and our commanders on the field, not just our generals, but our mid-level officers and those who are on the ground doing the fighting.

So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground.

How is that any different that what President Bush is doing right now?  It is no different.  What Obama basically said is that conditions on the ground will dictate when troops leave and any decision to withdraw troops will be made in consultation with Iraqi leaders.  Not only that, but Obama also plans to leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

This is what President Bush said in November, 2006:

I believe it is very important, though, for people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground.

And this is what President Bush said in November, 2005:

As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

As the Iraqi forces grow more capable, they are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists. Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight against the terrorists.

Democrats are toning down their surrender rhetoric now that we have actually turned the corner in Iraq.  Why?  Maybe because they realize how wrong they were?  Afterall, it was the Democrats who said that the surge would never work.  Not only has it worked, but it has worked very well.

Barack Obama previously demanded immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  This is what Obama said in September, 2007, just ten months ago:

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was.

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

Too bad Obama doesn’t realize that almost everything he has said is archived for our effortless retrieval.  Remember this Obama quote from above:

This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.

Bullshit!  Obama himself demanded immediate withdrawal, and now he claims he never said it!

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?  The man is an absolute fraud.  Liberals are dumb enough to believe what he says, no matter what he says, just because he says it.

Looks like Obama has been caught in another lie, doesn’t it?  That’s not just another flip-flop, though Obama is a huge flip-flopper, that is an outright lie.

That’s why we call Democrats “dirty frauds and liars”.