Barack Hussein Obama appears to have made another flip-flop.  Before, he was vehemently opposed to offshore oil drilling (and drilling anywhere else, for that matter).  Now, he appears to have changed his tune.  Sort of…  It’s hard to tell with Barack Obama.  Because if he isn’t flip-flopping, he’s purposefully vague so as to avoid taking a real stand on an issue and angering his liberal base.

New York Times Article

But why would Obama change his position when one week ago he was opposed to offshore drilling?  Probably because polls indicate that a majority of Americans want more drilling.  And we all know how Democrats forumulate their positions not based on their core beliefs, but on polling data.

Frauds and liars, each and every one of those Democrats.

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.

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.

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”.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader accused Barack Obama of using white guilt in his quest for the presidency.  Nader also said that Obama is talking white so as not to appear threatening to white people.

Ralph Nader said:

There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson?

He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

No, not all of us whites are eating up Obama’s dreck.

Nader is right about Obama not speaking out about the “plight” of blacks.  But to be fair, Obama hasn’t done much of anything.  He has no track record and no real accomplishments; his resume is as thin as can be.  Obama has produced no significant legislation and has not articulated a single original idea that isn’t a rehash of failed liberal and socialist policies of decades ago.

Do you really think Obama needs to address issues of concern to the black community?  He’s already got their vote for no other reason than the color of his skin.  He doesn’t need to.  What Obama needs is the white vote.  He isn’t going to get it by trying to bring pity on the black community when most of their problems (crime, violence, dismal academic performance, welfare dependence, etc.) are of their own making.

As for Nader’s criticism that Obama is talking white, Obama’s chief speech writer, Jon Favreau, is a white guy.  So what do you expect when a white guy is writing the words and thoughts of a candidate?  He’s going to sound like the speech writer.  Right?

NY Times Article About Obama’s Chief Speech Writer With Picture

Obama replied to Nader’s comments by saying:

First of all, what’s clear is that Ralph Nader hasn’t been paying attention to my speeches.

Maybe Nader has been listening to Obama’s speeches.  See the comments about Obama’s speech writer above.

According to a new LA Times-Bloomberg poll, Barack Obama is way ahead of John McCain among registered voters.

In a head-to-head matchup Obama leads McCain 49% to 37%.  Factoring Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Independent Ralph Nader into the race, Obama leads McCain 48% to 33%.

Of course, it is still early with over four months left to go and things will change.  Unless McCain gets into gear pointing out Barack Obama’s weaknesses and hypocrisy, he is going to lose.  There is no doubt about it that McCain will not win this race by playing the nice guy.  There is a lot of ammunition McCain could use to point out that Obama is not who he and his liberal journalist backers say he is.  McCain should seize on this now instead of letting Obama gain momentum.

McCain probably thought that his decision to use public financing when Barack Obama went back on his word would give him an advantage.  But it didn’t.  Most people couldn’t care less.  They may say they want a clean race, the truth is they want to know why they should choose one candidate over the other.  Refusing to criticize your candidate because you want to play the nice guy or you are afraid of charges of racism isn’t going to give the voters what they need to vote your way.

John McCain is like a stale fart that just won’t go away.  He should have learned his lesson in 2000.  Instead, he had to get back into this race and muck up Mitt Romney’s chance.  That’s not to say that McCain isn’t qualified to be president, because he surely is.  In fact, McCain is probably one of the most qualified people to ever run for the office.  But people aren’t looking for qualifications.  They are looking for a reason to rally behind someone.  McCain is offering nothing.

In this election I will not be voting for John McCain because I support him.  I will be voting for him because I know how dangerous, inexperienced, and unknown Obama truly is.

It looks like Hillary Clinton is $22.5 million in debt as a result of her losing campaign to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

Clinton loaned her own personal money to her campaign to the tune of $12.2 million.  Now she is on her knees begging for others to repay the money she owes to vendors and herself.

How sad.  How pathetic.  How typically Democrat!

Hillary Clinton is rich.  She and her husband have reported assets in excess of $50 million.  They have grossed over $100 million in income since her husband left office.

Why doesn’t she pay off her own debt?  If she truly believed in her cause–which was herself–why wouldn’t she want to use her own money to support it?  Even after paying off this debt, she and her husband would still be multimillionaires.

Hillary Clinton is a woman who criticizes rich people and calls them greedy.  She extols wealth redistribution and economic equality.  But when it comes down to it, she is nothing more than a typical liberal hypocrite who wants to hold on to as much of her own money as possible while taking it away from everyone else.

If the Clintons are worth $50 million, Hillary could pay off this debt and still have $27 million left in the bank.  Awww, what’s the matter?  Can’t a rich liberal hypocrite live on only $27 million?  Not to mention the several hundred thousand they make per year off her senate salary and Bill’s pension?

Hillary Clinton did nothing but attack President Bush for “incompetence”.  But it looks like she can’t even manage her own money.  Who’s incompetent now, Hillary?

Yes he did it.  Barack Obama has played the race card against the Republicans.  This is what Obama said:

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Yes, Obama, you are inexperienced.  You are also a giant hypocrite who engages in everything he claims to be against from earmarks to grant requests for political contributors to crooked real estate deals.

It has nothing to do with you being black, Barack Hussein.  Our opposition to you is because you have no experience, you want to raise taxes and further block domestic oil drilling, you are weak on terrorists, and you have no track record to speak of other than your hypocritical behavior such as granting favors to contributors.  You are an absolute fraud.

Had people known more about Obama prior to his early victories in the primary season he would have never made it as far as he’s gotten.  The office of the presidency is the most important job in the world.  A relative  unknown like Obama with no experience is not suitable.

Barack Obama has character flaws so big you could drive a cement truck through them.  This is John McCain’s race to lose and if he doesn’t get out there and start criticizing Obama, he will lose.  Playing nice is not going to cut it when you’ve got the vast majority of the journalists and news media vigorously hyping your opponent. The news is nothing but a constant stream of pro-Obama propaganda.

At least Obama admitted that he is inexperienced. That’s one of the few truthful things that has ever come out of his mouth.

Don’t forget this crucial fact, Obama:  the Democratic Party is the party of slavery.  It’s true.  It was the Republican party that ended slavery.  The Democratic Party wanted slavery to continue.

Reuters article

This is interesting.  Barack Obama spoke out in favor of public financing in 2006 arguing that it would cost taxpayers less in the long run because of all the requests for pork projects and other “shenanigans” tied to private campaign contributions.

Now he has refused to accept public financing as he originally supported.  Watch the video.

ABC News Video Of Barack Obama Speaking In Favor Of Public Financing

You can read more at the ABC News blog entry.

Look how Barack Obama criticizes pork projects.  He himself has requested well over $300 million in earmarks.  He criticizes pork barrel spending and earmarks and he is a huge participant in it.

List Of Barack Obama’s FY 2006 & 2007 Earmarks

List Of Barack Obama’s FY 2008 Earmarks

How can anybody give any credibility to anything Obama says when his behavior contradicts everything he claims to stand for?  We are talking about massive hypocrisy here.  Hypocrisy, lies, and outright fraud.

Democrats telling lies?  Say it isn’t so!

Republican candidate John McCain’s team says that there were no discussions between them and the Barack Obama camp about accepting public campaign funds.

According to CNN, laywers representing the two candidates met on June 6th to talk about joint townhall appearances, and nothing more, officially.  The McCain team vehemently denies that any negotiations about public financing took place at that meeting.  McCain’s counsel Trevor Potter was quoted as saying:

We then spoke in general terms about the public financing system, with Bob (Bauer, Obama’s counsel) outlining reasons it could be considered ‘broken’ or irrelevant in 2008, and I explaining why Sen. McCain remained committed to it and thought it was good for the country.

I cannot begin to explain how the Obama campaign could twist my reiteration of Sen. McCain’s support of the system, and hope the two candidates would participate in it, into what they said today.

There you have it.  McCain as of today is committed to eliminating private money from presidential campaigns while Barack Obama flip-flopped from his prior position and decided to indulge himself in all that tantalizing money from rich liberals and special interests.

Obama could reverse his position and walk away from private money and accept public financing.  But he won’t.  He says one thing and does the exact opposite. Barack Obama is a total and complete fraud.

If you read the dirty things Obama said about McCain when he announced he was turning down public financing, it also shows that Obama is not committed to running a clean campaign as he originally said he was.  So much for ending dirty politics Obama…

Barack Obama is not who he pretends to be.

Obama originally portrayed himself as a uniter, then it was revealed that his spiritual mentor, friend, and campaign committee member Jeremiah Wright was a seething racist.

Obama said that he supports earmark reform.  Then he released a huge list of earmarks that he requested, including such gifts as $1 million for his wife’s employer right after she got a $200,000 raise in salary and an $8 million request for a company linked to one of his biggest donors.

He spoke out against special interests and the wealthy while he took millions of dollars from rich liberals and corporate executives, not to mention his crooked real estate deal with Tony Rezko which provided him a direct $300,000 financial benefit.

Obama wrote letters urging grants of taxpayer dollars to his financial backers on several occasions in the past all while speaking out against the very activities he was engaging in.

Now Barack Obama is backing out of his pledge to take public financing and the spending limits they entail.

Why?  Because Barack Obama is raising millions from the wealthy and special interests and he doesn’t want to have to forgoe that money.  That’s why.

Barack Obama is the exact opposite of everything he has pretended to be.  What’s worse, look at the reasoning he gave in his announcement.

From the NY Times

The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

Oh, and the Democratic Party isn’t going to do the same?  The DFL is not going to take union member dues and use that money to run ads full of lies and smears?  Absolutely they will.

It’s a shame that Barack Obama reneged on his promise to purse an agreement with his opponent to accept public financing.  It’s a disgrace the way Obama is spinning the true reason for his decision by pinning the blame on Republicans.

I cannot understand how any thinking human being can support such a hypocritical, lying fraud like Barack Hussein Obama.  The man is a total and complete empty suit.  Without his speech writers and teleprompters he cannot even put together a coherent thought.

I would love to hear Obama explain in his own words how raising taxes on income and investment during an economic downturn and taking money out of the economy is going to create jobs.

Barack Obama gave a speech today hammering John McCain and the Republicans for things which are the fault of Democrats. Let’s look at Obama’s comments and examine them with the truth.

Obama Hammers McCain

“[John McCain] also legitimately tout moments of independence from his party, and on some issues, such as earmark reform and climate change, he and I share goals, even if we may differ on how to get there.

It was Barack Obama who requested a $1 million earmark for his wife’s employer so they could build a new pavilion shortly after she got a raise in salary in excess of $200,000 per year. McCain says he has never requested an earmark, Obama has.

Interesting how Obama lies, isn’t it?

Chicago Tribune Article About Obama’s Earmarks

Among the pork-barrel spending requests Barack Obama has made since arriving in the U.S. Senate is $1 million for the hospital where his wife worked at the time and $8 million for weapons technology made by a big defense contractor with close ties to a major fundraiser.

In among them was a request for $1 million in federal funding in 2006 for a new pavilion at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where his wife, Michelle Obama, was a vice president at the time.

Now remember, shortly after Barack Obama got elected to the Senate, his wife was given a $200,000 raise in her annual salary. Does this sound like a payback? How can anyone argue that a pavilion is critical for the operation of a hospital?

Back to Obama’s criticism of McCain and Bush:

“President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush’s policy of ‘too little, too late’ into a policy of ‘even less, even later’. That’s not the change we need right now. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place.”

Um, we aren’t in a housing crisis. We are in a subprime crisis. Subprime means that the people are not credit worthy. What happens when you lend money to people who can’t pay it back? Well, they end up not paying it back and going into foreclosure.

If we look at this graph from the Mortgage Bankers Association, we can see that prime fixed rate foreclosures are lower than they were in the recent past. Prime adjustable rate foreclosures are a little bit higher, but they are still nowhere near as high as subprime foreclosure rates.

Try explaining that to the dimwitted Democrats.

“And while John McCain wants to pick up where George Bush left off by trying again to privatize Social Security, I will never waver in my commitment to protect that basic promise as President. We will not privatize Social Security, we will not raise the retirement age, and we will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”

Wealthy people are already paying much more than their fair share. When Social Security started, the retirement age was 65 and the average life expectancy was 67. Now, the average life expectancy is nearing 80. Social Security was never designed to provided sole income for a retired person; rather, it was designed to be part of a three-pronged stool which also includes personal savings and investment.

Social Security and Medicare–programs for the elderly–are bankrupting the nation. Medicare spending now tops $600 billion per year, and rising much faster than economic growth. They are not sustainable. But Democrats don’t care if they spend us into bankruptcy. And they are either not smart enough to see it, or are lying to appeal to their mindless voting base.

“As far as we can tell, John McCain doesn’t have a plan to make college more affordable. And that means he isn’t listening to the struggles facing a new generation of Americans.”

Now that’s just rich. You see, the truth of the matter is that tuition at the most liberal institutions of higher learning is the highest. The more liberal an institution, the higher the tuition. Look at Harvard, Yale, or any other liberal school. You’ll see tuitions in excess of $30,000 per year.

And a liberal like Barack Obama is going to tackle the high cost of education that liberals like him are responsible for?

These Democrats blocked oil drilling, then they blame Republicans for the high cost of gas. They jack up tuition at liberal universities, then they blame Republicans for the high cost of education.

You would have to be an idiot to believe anything these Democrats say.

It never ceases to amaze me just what kind of disgusting liars these Democrats are.

Barack Hussein Obama gave a speech today hammering Republicans for high gas prices and job losses. Let’s take a look at this for a moment.

It was Democrats who blocked domestic oil drilling every time it came up. Many–if not the majority–of these job losses are directly tied to high gas prices, which would not be as high as they are if American oil companies were allowed to drill back in 2001. The auto industry, airlines, and even smaller employers like taxi companies and restaurants are being severely harmed by high gas prices, which the Democrats are responsible for.

Are the American people dumb enough to believe the lies of the Democratic Party? And why aren’t these Republicans talking about how Democrats did nothing but block oil drilling all these years? Wake up, Republicans! Tell the truth about Democrats blocking oil drilling so the people can hear the honest truth instead of lies and spin from the Democrats. Pull those Democrat voting records and present them to the public.

Democrats are insisting that a “green economy” will generate 5 million jobs. Uh, no it won’t. And you want to know the truth? The truth is that once the “green” infrastructure is built, those jobs will be gone.

Remember the internet economy of the 1990s? Telecommunications companies spent billions laying fiber optic cable all over the country. What happened to those jobs after all the cable was laid in the ground? The jobs were cut.

The fact is Republicans know that high taxes and high energy prices retard economic activity. Less money to spend means less economic activity and less investment. Makes sense, right? Not to Democrats.

It has been reported by the LA Times that Hillary Clinton will end her campaign to be the Democratic Party Presidential nominee this Saturday and will endorse Barack Obama for the sake of party unity.

Party unity? This is the same party that tossed her aside like garbage. This is the party that treated her like a second class citizen. This is the party whose highest leadership turned their backs on her and endorsed her opponent long before the race was over and while she was winning state after state with huge margins over him. The position of the party leadership was in stark contrast to that of the rank and file DFL voter.

The only reason Barack Obama garnered so much support from Democratic Party leadership is because he is slick and new and they wanted to latch onto what they consider a rising star. The fact is that nobody really knows anything about him. He has no achievements to speak of, no significant legislation, and little experience. He does not have the critical track record which voters can use to find out who he really is. He has absolutely no qualifications to be the leader of the free world and commander of the United States military.

Most voters early in the race had no idea about his relationship with that crook Tony Rezko or his crooked real estate deal. Nor did they know about his membership in a black radical church. Or about his friendship and relationship with liberal terrorist William Ayers. Most younger voters are probably unaware that Obama is completely unoriginal, saying nothing that hasn’t been said before and going so far as plagiarizing from others. He is a manufactured political candidate, he is not the real deal.

Nobody really knows who Obama is. But we all know who Hillary Clinton is, for she has been under scrutiny for fifteen years compared to Obama’s six months. Despite that fact, the leadership of the Democratic Party abandoned Hillary and hitched their wagons to an unknown.

Backing an unknown entity and empty suit like Barack Obama is a huge political risk. Hopefully, it comes back to bite the Democrats in the future. For there is much still left to learn about Barack Hussein Obama, and with his thin resume, what we will learn in the future will not be favorable.

There is no question that Hillary Clinton is much more qualified to be President than Barack Obama is.

My hope was that Hillary Clinton would have turned her back on her party like they did to her and either run as a third party candidate or endorse John McCain. What’s wrong with Hillary? This is a woman who has been treated like a doormat by her husband for over 30 years, then she is treated like garbage by her party, which she has been a faithful supporter of for even longer.

Is Hillary Clinton suffering from battered woman’s syndrome in a figurative sense? No matter how badly she is treated by her partners, whether they be her husband or her party, she always comes back to them for more abuse.

Break the cycle, Hillary.

Now that Hillary’s political aspirations have not panned out, will she and her husband get divorced? That was the whole reason she stayed married to him all these years, wasn’t it?

I just saw a short clip of Barack Obama calling John McCain an American hero at a campaign stop. Obama has said this several times already.

The McCain camp should use those clips in their TV commercials. What better ammunition to use against your opponent than video of him telling people what a great American hero you are?

Not to mention it’s about the only truthful thing Barack Obama has ever said.

Fox News projects Hillary Clinton the winner in Pennsylvania based on exit polling.

Fox News Pennsylvania Projection

Obama was projected to have received 89% of the black vote, and 61% of young voters. Who says that blacks are voting solely based on race?

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would be bad for America. She is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite socialist millionaire. Barack Obama, however, is all those things and more. His relationships with left-wing radicals should be enough to scare anyone with any sense at all away from him. And his crooked real estate deal with Tony Rezko proves he is one of the dirtiest politicians of the modern era.

But we are talking about Democrats…so there isn’t much sense to be found. If Democrat voters had any sense they wouldn’t be Democrats.

Finally, Barack Obama says something honest and substantive.  Obama predicted that Hillary Clinton would defeat him in Pennsylvania tomorrow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24240609/

Obviously, Obama’s internal polls put the writing on the wall for him.

According to a new Suffolk University poll, Hillary Clinton has widened her lead over Barack Obama in the critical state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Democrats will take to the polls tomorrow, April 22nd, 2008, to cast their votes for their preferred candidate.

Just last week it was reported that Clinton’s lead over Obama had dropped to between 5% and 6%. One must wonder if Obama’s dismal performance in last week’s ABC News debate has had any bearing on the latest poll numbers. Or, one must wonder if these polls are very accurate at all. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow night.

There has been a lot of press in recent weeks about prominent Democrats urging Hillary to drop out of the race. But if she does indeed win Pennsylvania, and if by double digits as the latest poll suggests, then why would she even consider dropping out?

It is a beautiful sight to see the way that prominent Democrats have turned their backs on Mrs. Clinton, particularly those who have been close to the Clintons. Just last week former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, announced his endorsement of Obama in another sign of just how eager Democrats are to throw the Clintons out with the garbage. Reich, as you may know, is as about as communist of a person as one can get.

The Democratic Party isn’t just fractured along racial or gender lines, it is fractured along the top and the bottom. Party leaders are backing Obama while many rank and file working class Democrats are backing Clinton. One can only hope that this disconnect between the leadership and the individuals who comprise the party’s base will be exploited by Republicans.

If anyone doubts that Barack Obama is nothing more than an empty suit all doubt should be removed after reading this transcript of the April 16th, 2008, ABC News Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton debate in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

ABC News Debate Transcript

Just to show you one quick example of what an utter idiot Barack Obama is from the transcript on page three:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Barack Obama admits that he would do something detrimental to the United States and demand an increase in the capital gains tax rate which would reduce tax revenues because it fits his twisted liberal notion of “fairness”.

Democrats destroy everything. Every city, every industry, anything they can get their hands on they destroy. Logic goes out the window when Democrats are involved. Barack Obama is willing to do something harmful to the country because he thinks it is fair. Nevermind the reduced tax revenue or the 100 million stock-owning Americans negatively affected by Obama’s proposal. He does not care. As long as it fits his distorted liberal concept of fairness, it does not matter who gets hurt.

There is no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is a dangerous man given his desire to do harmful things regardless of the negative impact on government and people.

One thing this debate demonstrates is that unless Barack Obama is reciting a carefully practiced speech full of empty platitudes either written or stolen from someone else, he is as clueless as they get. This man is not suitable to be President of the United States. If Obama is willing to do one harmful thing to the country, and happily admitting his desire to do so, what other harmful things is he willing to do?

As for the Clinton capital gains tax rate, only the long-term tax rate was 20%. You had to hold the asset for at least a year to qualify for that special tax rate. Otherwise, you paid the full tax rate, which was significantly higher than 20%.

Some people will seize on the fact that Barack Obama leads John McCain in polls with people who have a post graduate education. But none of the polls ever indicate exactly what type of education the poll respondents have.

Is a master’s degree in Art History more impressive than a bachelor’s degree in Business? Is a PhD in Women’s Studies more impressive than a bachelor’s degree in Engineering? Does a bachelor’s degree in English or Jourmalism indicate that one has superior intelligence over someone who has a two year associate’s degree in Accounting? The answer to these questions is no.

When it comes to the education gap between Hillary Clinton and McCain, McCain leads her in every category except those with attainments of high school or less. I think this indicates just how disliked Hillary Clinton is.

Gallup Education Gap Poll

In the past, Hillary Clinton has demanded that troops start being withdrawn from Iraq in 90 days. Later, she refused to pledge that she would withdraw troops, said that the Democrats shouldn’t oversell the idea of withdrawals, and said that she would keep thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

Now Hillary is claiming that she is the only one who will end the war–the war that she helped start. Hillary was quoted as saying:

One candidate will continue the war and keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely. One candidate only says he will end the war. And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war and to rebuild our military while honoring our soldiers and our veterans.

Sen. Obama on the other hand says he will end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won’t necessarily follow the plan he has been talking about during this campaign, that his plan is just words. You can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly.

That one candidate being her, of course. Is she now finally making a firm pledge to withdraw troops, which she refused to do before? And for that one candidate who “only says he will end the war”, isn’t Hillary basically doing the same thing? Given her past record of flip-flops on Iraq, maybe she is the one who is who is full of empty rhetoric on the issue?

By the way, isn’t Hillary a wonder woman? Not only will she end the war, but she will also rebuild the military and honor soldiers. All that from just this one person? Simply amazing. I’ll guess I’ll have to consider voting for her…

Hillary must be getting really desperate to make unattainable promises like her latest to start withdrawing troops within 60 days should she be elected President. Next thing you know she’ll promise to travel back in time and withdraw the troops before they ever went in to Iraq.

Hillary is taking her last gasps. So sad. She had so many good opportunities for America…