Archive for July, 2008

Obama Suffers From Kennedy-Confusion Syndrome

July 25, 2008

If you start thinking you’re John Kennedy, take two of these and then check yourself into a rubber room.”

There’s little question that Obama seeks to be viewed as the next Kennedy:

Even before Obama clinched the nomination, Germans viewed him as “the new Kennedy.” Over the next few days, that notion is likely to get conveyed to American voters, which is precisely what Obama wants.

His speech in Berlin is being compared to President John F. Kennedy‘s appearance in the divided city, at the height of the Cold War, which drew ecstatic crowds and became the stuff of legend. (Another part of Obama’s effort to model himself after Kennedy: giving his convention acceptance speech before a large crowd at a nearby stadium, as JFK did in 1960.)

Obama spoke to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin – his greatest turn-out ever. But It’s frankly rather hilarious how the event has unfolded.

Obama originally wanted to insert himself into the Brandenburg Gate scenery of Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech and Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech. But that was just a bit too much of a brazen display of ostentatious arrogance for German Chancellor Angela Merkel. So Obama had to find another location for his Obamessianic rally so he could show just how much Europeans love him.

So he picked the Victory Tower, another historic landmark.

This one was made famous by Adolf Hitler, who used it as the phallic-symbol backdrop for his own political rallies. Maybe great messiahs think alike. From Uber-messiah to Oba-messiah. And the same people that cheered the first one are now equally enthusiastic about the second one.

One can only go so far in any Hitler-Obama comparison, obviously; for one thing, nobody really knows just WHAT Obama stands for, do they? But like Obama, Hitler spoke also spoke in broad generalities to paint beautiful images, and used his personal cult of charisma and his power as a speaker to rally the people to himself.

But Obama doesn’t want to identify himself with Hitler, but with Kennedy. So let’s look at that relationship instead.

When President Kennedy came to Brandenburg Gate and spoke on June 26, 1963, he said:

There are some who say that Communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are even a few who say that it is true that Communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin…

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free…

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner”.

Kennedy presented a vision of freedom from tyranny, and Reagan’s speech anticipated his fulfillment of that vision a short time after he delivered it on June 12, 1987:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

And just how is Barack Obama in any way part of that vision? How is the man who said that liberating 25 million Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein – from rape rooms, from being taken away by secret police and never seen again, from mass graves – was a bad idea? How does that deserve to share the stage with Kennedy’s vision of freedom and his willingness to stand up and fight tyrants to secure that freedom?

Barack Obama is a guy who didn’t even bother to waste his time going to see some of the injured American heroes recovering from wounds sustained fighting for the freedom of human beings in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But there’s another thing.

Given that Kennedy and Reagan both stood up against communism (and in Reagan’s case, stood against it over and against the continual opposition of Democrats in Congress), it is pertinent to ask: what really is the difference between the Communist Party that Kennedy and Reagan fought to defeat and The Democratic Party of Barack Obama today, anyway?

Let’s see, Karl Marx’s proletariat and bourgeoisie; the Democrat’s “two Americas.” Check.

The belief that the evil wealthy proletariat enslave the poor by seizing and hoarding the means of production. Check.

The demand to seize the assets of the evil proletariat in the name of the people. Check.

The liberal-Democrat ideology of a “separation of church and state,” which does not exist in our founding documents but is very much a part of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. Check.

The theology of Barack Obama’s long-time spiritual mentor – black liberation theology – comes right out of Marxism and does little more than view Christianity through Marxist eyes toward a Marxist end. Check.

President Kennedy had the vision to realize the need to cut taxes to stimulate economic growth.  But Barack Obama clearly doesn’t share the same principles.

Pardon me for having a really, REEAAAALLLLYYY hard time seeing John Kennedy in Barack Obama.

As Dennis Prager has put it many times, “A 1960s Kennedy liberal is a conservative today.”  It is most definitely NOT Barack Obama.

Where’s that guy who said, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy“? I think we can use him now.

Advertisements

Obama Arrogance Keeps Getting Creepier and Creepier

July 24, 2008

I had to laugh when I heard the following:

AMMAN, Jordan – Democrat Barack Obama’s entire traveling campaign apparatus is in place. He will speak Thursday at an historic site in Berlin that could draw tens of thousands of spectators. And chief campaign strategist David Axelrod might even assemble film crews to gather footage of it, possibly for a TV commercial.

But senior aides engaged in a bit of rhetorical gymnastics Tuesday as they faced reporters who questioned their resistance to acknowledging the political aspects of Obama’s week-long, high-profile tour against the backdrop of an intense American presidential campaign.

At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.”

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

It’s one thing for politicians to speak of what they will do as president before they are actually elected to such. They need to present that image of confidence. They all do it.

But, goodness gracious, it pretty much takes arrogant chutzpah, puts it on a rocket ship, and launches it straight up into the stratosphere, to make the claim that Barack Obama is actually the president right now.

There’s a level of arrogance about the Obama campaign that simply goes well beyond creepy.

Obama didn’t say the above gaffe; an aide did. But it continues a definite Obamamessiah trend.

Stuff like this has been coming out of the Obama campaign for quite a while. Froma Harrop noted in a story that appeared back in February:

Sophisticated commentary now notes the growing creepiness of the Obama campaign: Its aversion to substantive policy discussions. The sermonizing — “In the face of despair, we believe there can be hope.” And the messianic bit — “At this moment in the election there is something happening in America.” (That would be he.)

Volunteer trainees at Camp Obama are told not to talk issues with voters, but to offer personal testimony about how they “came” to Obama. Makes the skin crawl.

Centrists generally do not find cults of personality entertaining. The mass hypnosis reminds them of the mortgage frenzy — all these people buying into a dream and not caring about the fine print.

It does make the skin crawl. People talk about how they “came to Christ.” There’s something eerie about borrowing this particular metaphor and applying it to a liberal politician.

I’d like to tell you that Froma Harrop was just making stuff up. But the story of the Obama campaign instruction “how I came to Obama” stuff is genuine. And really, really creepy.

It’s relevant that most of the liberals who are viewing Obama in such inspiring – and irrational – religious terms are secular humanists. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.” That’s why they believe so passionately in Obama in spite of every evidence to the contrary.

I stumbled across this pro-Obama article that radiated all of the creepiness of one who has place personal faith in Obama the way I placed mine in Jesus of Nazareth.

Apparently, the only reason that Obama used a plane to embark on his foreign trip rather than walking across the Atlantic ocean to get there was because the latter course would have taken too long (that, and how would he have brought his massive media entourage with him?).

That level of arrogance comes straight down from the mountain top:

Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that “the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.

“And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.”

We’re talking about a man who not only assumes that he will be elected and then re-elected, but that he will be so completely adored that a grateful and worshipful nation will repeal the 22nd Amendment for him so he can continue to lord it over us beyond the eight-year limit that would apply to other, lesser figures.

So it’s understandable that one of his worshipping aides would say something like, “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.”

After all, how could the Obamamessiah NOT be the president? Why are you not bowing down before him even as we speak?

I’ve written about the sheer arrogance of both the man and his campaign in an article titled “Brandenburg Gate: Pseudo-Candidates Need Pseudo Credibility.” In short, I ridiculed his presumptiveness over his seeking to place himself at the site of Kennedy’s “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” speech and Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall” speech, and over his “Great Obama Seal.”

Like ANWR and oil, there’s a lot of productive drilling that can be done with Obama and arrogance.

One day, the Bible says that a great world leader will emerge who will literally be worshiped in place of God (Revelation 13:4). I sure do hope we’re not there already.

Obama Forced To Reveal Mutually Contradictory Positions

July 23, 2008

A July 20 Associated Press story asked the question which answer is obvious: “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” The article begins:

NEW YORK – Television news’ royalty will fly in to meet Barack Obama during this week’s overseas trip: CBS chief anchor Katie Couric in Jordan on Tuesday, ABC’s Charles Gibson in Israel on Wednesday and NBC’s Brian Williams in Germany on Thursday.

The anchor blessing defines the trip as a Major Event and — much like a “Saturday Night Live” skit in February that depicted a press corps fawning over Obama — raises anew the issue of fairness in campaign coverage.

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The reality is, “Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?” is a rhetorical question (a question with such a patently obvious answer there is no point in answering) to any but the most deluded.

But what we are seeing is that there is some evidence that the media – and particularly the three elite network anchors who had been described as “Obama’s three press secretaries” – don’t like being so obviously “in the tank” for Obama. They want to show their viewers that they really aren’t as biased as everyone thinks they are. And that means finally asking Obama a few tough questions instead of merely basking in his magnificence the way they usually do.

Katie CouricSURPRISE! – attempted to pin Obama down on some of his inherent contradictions regarding Iraq.

Obama stuck to the same position he gave at a press conference. Allow me to emphasize certain statements in boldface:

Sens. Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, and Jack Reed just released a statement about their day in Iraq. The three are overnighting in Baghdad and will arrive in Amman tomorrow for their first and only press conference of their trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The statement notes the security progress in Iraq but gives the new military tactics a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, all opposed the troop surge.

Obama in an interview with ABC News that’s posted at the bottom of this story in which he says if he had it to do all over again he would still oppose the troop surge. He told ABC what he did not expect or anticipate in Iraq was the Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda and among the Shi’ites decision to play ball politically via cease fires rather than continue their campaign of violence. How the surge affected the calculations in either case is left unsaid by Obama, according to ABC.

The surge is and has been the central story in Iraq since it began in January 2007. Obama, who told CBS on Sunday, that he “never” has doubts about his foreign policy, is in no way re-evaluating the surge or what he did or did not anticipate would arise from it. This may give fodder to John McCain’s camp and other skeptics of Obama’s approach to military tactics, strategic thinking and the ability to adapt his own views to unexpected events.

So our military gets only “a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence“? And so who gets the real credit for Obama? The Sunni sheiks and the Iraqi government for disarming Shiite militias such as Sadrs!

Does that jive with history? Is it just a coincidence that things were going poorly that Democrats were claiming defeat left and right, and then we had the surge, and then things started going well even as Democrats claimed they weren’t? And our soldiers were just window dressing while Iraq fixed all of its own problems?

I hope you’re not actually as stupid as Barack Obama thinks you are.

President Bush announced the surge strategy on January 7, 2007. 20,000 additional U.S. troops were committed, with the majority – 5 brigades – heading into Baghdad. Within slightly over a month, there were enough American troops to substantially back an Iraqi-led effort to secure the city of Baghdad.

Do you remember Demacrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, “The war is lost“? in April of 2007?

Who doesn’t realize that it was General David Petraeus and the surge that John McCain had been advocating all along that turned things around?

Who doesn’t realize that if we hadn’t listened to great men like Petraeus – and ignored trivial fools like Obama – we would have cut and run in abject disgrace from an emboldened terrorist enemy?

According to the New York Times:

When the Anbar tribes first began cooperating, they told the Americans where the extremists were hiding weapons caches, burying bombs, and running safe houses. Then they set up checkpoints and began engaging in gunfights with Qaeda cells in the Ramadi area.

With attacks decreasing against both Americans and Iraqis in Anbar, and large numbers of tribesmen lining up to join local security forces, the American military has begun to try to replicate its success.

A story by the Times clearly shows the bulk of the Sunni fighters signing on to fight the terrorists and insurgents beginning sometime in May 2007, directly coinciding with the surge. 4,000 Marines deployed to Anbar province.

It is simply a lie to claim that the Sunnis began fighting on their own, or that the surge did not massively influence their willingness to fight. To the extent that the Anbar resistance preceded the surge, it was small, it relied greatly upon American soldiers, and it didn’t explode until after the surge.

The same applies with the Shiite efforts. The effort to disarm Shiite militias such as Moktada al Sadrs Mahdi army. A New York Times story appearing on October 11, 2007 begins (again, boldface mine):

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 — In a number of Shiite neighborhoods across Baghdad, residents are beginning to turn away from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia they once saw as their only protector against Sunni militants. Now they resent it as a band of street thugs without ideology.

It wasn’t until the surge took effect – and Shiites began to recognize that they were protecting them – that the Shiite people began to renounce the militias and the Shiite-backed Iraq government had the backing to demand the disarmament of the troublesome militias.

Barack Obama is thus revealed as a demonstrated liar without shame who gives our heroic soldiers – who have been absolutely magnificent – a “fraction of the credit.” I GIVE THEM ALL THE CREDIT!!!

Our soldiers succeeded when cowardly and craven men like Harry Reid and Barack Obama predicted that they would fail, and very likely even rooted for them to fail (You might recall House Majority Whip James Clyburn acknowledging that good news from Iraq was bad news for Democrats; or you might recall Rep. Jack Murtha presuming that Marines were guilty of war crimes and convicting them before the trial which exonerated them).

The soldiers succeeded. It was Obama and his fellow Democrats who failed.

Barack Obama gives our soldiers no credit because this man who “never has doubts about his foreign policy” cannot acknowledge he was wrong – no matter how obviously and completely wrong he was.

Liberals claim that Bush was inflexible and would not admit his mistakes? Obama is rigid to about the trillionth power.

Obama’s rigid ability to deny reality emerged again as he went to Israel and Gaza.

He had previosly said:

“Let me be clear,” Senator Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Then as a result of Palestinian anger he said:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

As a direct result of Obama’s complete abandonment of his earlier position, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said of Obama’s reversal:

“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”

Way to go, Barack. You sure contributed to Mideast peace. Any other issues you want to resolve with your courage, your integrity, your resolve, and your strength of character?

Now, any normal human being would acknowledge that they had changed their position. But not Barack Obama. He is so personally arrogant, so unyielding, so deceitful, and so intellectually dishonest even with himself, that he simply does not have that capacity within him.

“I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. I have said it before and will say it again…but I’ve also said that it is a final status issue” that must be decided by negotiation, he said in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

No. You continue to lie. You continue to say things that are the logical contradiction of what you said earlier, and then you continue to deceitfully and disingenuously misrepresent yourself having been consistent all along.

We can also go back to his incredibly foolish campaign promise from last July:

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” Obama answered.  “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.”

And his website USED to say:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions

Now he says:

A year ago, Obama was asked whether he would meet personally, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations during the first year of his administration to resolve differences with the United States. Obama said he would.

On Wednesday Obama said, “I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation.”

The point is to say, “No. You didn’t say that at all, you lying weasel. Are you such a completely dishonest man that you can so blatantly lie even to yourself? In grammatical terms, those “if…then” constructions are called “conditionals.” The fact is, you have by now applied so many DIFFERENT PRECONDITIONS to your “without preconditions” policy that your original statement is revealed to have been a) foolish beyond belief; and b) a complete lie.

This man is dangerous, and it is nowhere revealed more than in his foreign policy. He is completely incompetent; he is completely untrustworthy; he is completely wrong; and he is completely unable to recognize obvious contradictions.

Returning to the issue of Iraq, let me make a point: Obama claims the surge was wrong because we’ve diverted resources we should have used in Afghanistan to Iraq. And Obama’s alternative to the surge in Iraq was to instead exert diplomatic pressure by setting a timetable for withdrawal. Obama believes that by setting a date for retreating from Iraq in stone the Iraqi government would be pressured into getting their act together.

Now, if Obama really thought that idea that would have worked in Iraq, why then is he now proposing what clearly amounts to the exact same surge strategy for Afghanistan instead of demanding a withdrawal date that would pressure the Afghani government into getting their act together?

Do you see the inherent contradiction?

Obama’s position on the surge has essentially been: “The surge will fail.” Then he said, “It kind of worked, but we still shouldn’t have done it.” And now he says, “The same strategy that I vehemently opposed in Iraq will work in Afghanistan but it was my idea all along.”

I wrote an article titled, “U.S. vs. Nuclear Iran: Russia, China Block Any Resolution – Again,” that establishes the virtually identical similarities between trying to check a possibly weaponized Iraq with the current environment of trying to check a possibly weaponized Iran. By Obama’s philosophy, we can not move to use military power to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons until: 1) We are absolutely certain they have them (a belief based on the known intelligence is not enough); 2) United Nations resolutions justifying war; and 3) a military alliance similar in size to that of the Gulf War in 1991. Since NONE of those three conditions are likely to be met, we cannot possibly attack Iran to prevent their development of nuclear weapons. And then we would be dealing with a nuclear-armed terrorist belligerent state that is immune to attack (unless you want World War III) and free to attack our interests again and again with impunity.

What would a President Obama do? This is a man who can’t even stand up to his own rhetoric, much less terrorist murders.

Barack Obama is a complete disaster waiting to happen. If we are foolish enough to elect him president, rogue tyrants and totalitarian leaders will recognize Barack Obama’s insipid pandering weakness and immediately begin to exploit him, and the world will be shocked to discover just how empty he truly is.

Obama’s National Finance Chair Pritzker At Epicenter of Sub Prime Crisis

July 23, 2008

Well, Obama’s been at it again.

This candidate who so boldly promised that he would be so different – and who has since demonstrated just how cynical he is to even make such a claim – has taken on yet another senior level campaign representative who is tied to the very worst scandal that is currently dragging this country’s economy down.

Penny Pritzker, Barack Obama’s National Finance Chair, has – as Ricky Ricardo used to put it – “some ‘splainin’ to do.” And Barack Obama has his own explaining to do – for naming her to his campaign in the first place. Pritzker has secured about $200 million dollars in campaign funds for Obama, but there’s a definite down side if people become aware of her past.

John R. Emshwiller writes an article based on the FDIC Report’s own finding and conclusions:

For the Pritzker family of Chicago, the 2001 collapse of subprime-mortgage lender Superior Bank was an embarrassing failure in a corner of their giant business empire.

Billionaire Penny Pritzker helped run Hinsdale, Ill.-based Superior, overseeing her family’s 50% ownership stake. She now serves as Barack Obama’s national campaign-finance chairwoman, which means her banking past could prove to be an embarrassment to her — and perhaps to the campaign.

Superior was seized in 2001 and later closed by federal regulators. Government investigators and consumer advocates have contended that Superior engaged in unsound financial activities and predatory lending practices. Ms. Pritzker, a longtime friend and supporter of Sen. Obama, served for a time as Superior’s chairman, and later sat on the board of its holding company.

The Office of Thrift Supervision report said:

Superior Bank suffered as a result of its former high-risk business strategy, which was focused on the generation of significant volumes of subprime mortgage and automobile loans for securitization and sale in the secondary market. OTS found that the bank also suffered from poor lending practices, improper record keeping and accounting, and ineffective board and management supervision.

Emshwiller further notes:

Ms. Pritzker served as Superior chairman until 1994. During that period, Superior “embarked on a business strategy of significant growth into subprime home mortgages,” which were then packaged into securities and sold to investors, according to a 2002 report by the Treasury Department’s Inspector General.

“Superior was at the forefront of the securitizing of subprime mortgages,” says Timothy Anderson, a retired bank consultant who has studied Superior and other failed thrifts.

So we see that it was during the Clinton years that this financial strategy that would lead to such an incredible disaster had its geneisis, and it was in the liberal bastion of Chicago – and a liberal financier – who were at its forefront.

For a time, the strategy of making high interest home and auto loans to people with bad credit appeared to work like a charm, yielding big profits-and large dividends for the Pritzkers. But it was essentially blood money profits made mainly on the what Moe Bedard referred to as “foreclosure blood and misery of millions of Americans.”

People like the Pritzkers made money if people paid the high-interest loans; and they made money if they didn’t through the ensuing foreclosures.

It only became a problem for the banks when the overly inflated housing market values came down to earth and people who owed more on their homes than they were worth began walking away from those high interest subprime loans in large numbers.

A USA Today story by Ken Dilanian notes that:

Superior, co-owned by Pritzker family trusts, began focusing on subprime loans in 1993, according to the FDIC Inspector General’s report. At the time, Pritzker was the board’s chair. She left the board in 1994 and continued as a director of the bank’s holding company. In 2002, the Pritzkers agreed to pay, through trusts, $460 million in a settlement with the government relieving them of liability.

So now we have a decided pattern – beyond the Chicago political link – to Obama himself. He named Jim Johnson to head his vitally important Vice Presidential Selection Committee. A Wall Street Journal story showed how Johnson received favorable treatment on personal loans from major sub-prime player Countrywide Financial Corp. Johnson – former chairman of now also in trouble Fannie Mae – went to Countrywide repeatedly to get new loans at sweetheart rates as a FOA (Friend of Angelo [Mozillo]). Johnson essentially received kickbacks received kickbacks in the form of great mortgages and lax underwriting guidelines on 3 properties totalling $1.7 million while millions of the “little people” crashed and burned.

In a prepared statement, the Obama campaign noted that Ms. Pritzker was never accused of wrongdoing by regulators in connection with Superior, and that her family agreed to pay $460 million to help defray the costs of Superior’s collapse.

That isn’t quite true. Rather, the federal regulators were simply never fully able to sort through all the flawed accounting and masked operating losses to find the smoking gun, and the offer of several hundred million dollars made them willing to quit looking. You don’t pay 460 million bucks unless you have an awful lot of skeletons in your closet. Pritzker was able to buy her way out of jail.

And please tell me something: just how is Barack Obama supposed to produce “change” when he surrounds himself with the same “old” greedy executives that have profited handsomely in this mortgage and housing crisis, and even pioneered the despicably greedy concept itself? Just what kind of benighted fool is going to think this guy is going to be one iota different? The sub prime scandal originated in Obama’s backyard, and Obama keeps handpicking figures tied to it.

Moe Bedard writes an article titled “Pritzker, Predatory Subprime Pioneer, Still On Obama Team” that provides a lot of documentation and includes a lot of links to other sources of information. The more you read, the more you learn about Obama’s choice for finance chair.

People had better start taking a serious look at Barack Obama – and ALL the horrendous people he has been keeping around him for years – before its too late.

San Fransisco Liberals Have Blood On Their Hands

July 22, 2008

San Fransisco is finally becoming known as the contemptible place that it is.

Among it’s stupid, irrational, immoral, and frankly un-American policies, it is an official sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and his ilk are just so darned pleased with how wonderful they are.

But Mayor Newsom and the city of San Francisco have blood on their hands.

The man charged with killing a father and two sons on a San Francisco street last month was one of the youths who benefited from the city’s long-standing practice of shielding illegal immigrant juveniles who committed felonies from possible deportation, The Chronicle has learned.

Edwin Ramos, now 21, is being held on three counts of murder in the June 22 deaths of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. They were shot near their home in the Excelsior district when Tony Bologna, driving home from a family picnic, briefly blocked the gunman’s car from completing a left turn down a narrow street, police say.

Ramos, a native of El Salvador whom prosecutors say is a member of a violent street gang, was found guilty of two felonies as a juvenile – a gang-related assault on a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman – according to authorities familiar with his background.

In neither instance did officials with the city’s Juvenile Probation Department alert federal immigration authorities, because it was the city agency’s policy not to consider immigration status when deciding how to deal with an offender. Had city officials investigated, they would have found that Ramos lacked legal status to remain in the United States.

As a 17-year-old juvenile, Ramos – a gang member – boarded a bus with two other gang members and beat and kicked a passenger. The event was recorded by the bus’ surveillance cameras, and Ramos was convicted of assault and of participating in a street gang.

At this point Ramos could have and should have been referred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE). But San Francisco’s Juvenile Probation Department’s policy for dealing with offenders stipulated that “probation officers shall not discriminate in any fashion against minors based on their immigration status.”

He was released to the custody of his mother, but still considered a ward of the court and on probation.

Within days of his release, Ramos – again with two others – approached a pregnant woman from behind and tried to rip her backpack-style purse off her body. When the woman’s brother tried to prevent the attack, Ramos punched him and fled. Ramos was again apprehended. He was convicted for attempted robbery – a felony – but was somehow cleared for the assault.

Again, San Francisco relied upon its inflated sense of pseudo-moral superiority and did not notify ICE.

About one month after being released to the custody of his mother’s sister – and three months before the murders – Ramos was again arrested in San Francisco after police pulled him over because his car had illegally tinted windows and no front license plate. An alleged gang member in the car tried to discard a gun, but police recovered it and later concluded that it had been used in a double killing, authorities said.

The police report of the incident cited “numerous documented contacts” that officers had with Ramos and the man who allegedly discarded the gun, and said both were active members of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang.

San Francisco prosecutors, however, declined to file charges against Ramos, saying they couldn’t prove that he knew his companion had the gun.

So much for that old legal adage, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Apparently it is one in San Francisco.

Danielle Bologna is not a very good person, by liberal standards. She has the politically incorrect audacity to actually be upset that a criminal illegal immigrant who should have been deported was walking around free to murder her husband and her two children.

Apparently she should be ashamed, because even as we speak, San Fransisco is running television ads with public money celebrating itself as a “sanctuary city.”

Mayor Gavin Newsom has bowed to the national outcry enough to rescind the sub-element of the sanctuary city policy that prohibited turning over criminal illegal immigrants to ICE for deportation.

But that’s too little, and way, way, WAY to late.

Newsom has said that he was not promoting crime with his policies.

But he’s not merely promoting crime, he’s exporting it.

San Franscisco – that bastion of liberal, secular humanistic, politically correct, smarmy, arrogant, self-righteous, and anti-American ideology – they are firmly committed to the notion that other people should pay for their immoral stupidity.

It was recently learned that San Francisco was dumping – and illegally dumping, mind you – the criminal illlegal immigrants that it was just too pure and wonderful to have deported.

San Francisco — An effort by San Francisco to shield eight young Honduran crack dealers from federal immigration officials backfired when the youths escaped from Southern California group homes within days of their arrival, officials said Monday.

The walkaways are the latest in a string of embarrassments for city officials who are protecting illegal-immigrant drug dealers from federal authorities and possible deportation because of San Francisco’s 1989 declaration that the city is a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants.

Until recently, San Francisco flew juvenile illegal immigrants convicted of drug crimes to their home countries rather than cooperate with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, a practice that drew national attention when The Chronicle reported it Sunday.

When federal law enforcement authorities demanded that San Francisco halt the flights and began a criminal investigation, the city decided to house some of the dealers in long-term youth rehabilitation centers. Some of those centers are run by a nonprofitcompany called Silverlake Youth Services in mountain towns southeast of San Bernardino.

Eight Honduran juveniles who had been convicted of dealing drugs in San Francisco were sent within the past few weeks to the company’s group homes, where one month’s placement costs $7,000 per youth – an expense borne by San Francisco taxpayers.

Within 10 days of being sent to the unlocked group homes, however, all eight youths ran away, said Bill Siffermann, head of juvenile probation in San Francisco. He said his agency has issued arrest warrants for them.

San Bernardino County has long been a dumping ground for the rest of California, but San Francisco has taken it to a whole new ridiculous level, exporting undocumented immigrant drug dealers to private group homes in Yucaipa.

But they can’t pass off or export the blood that is on their hands; all the media-relations campaigns they can perform notwithstanding.

San Bernadino is considering a resolution that says “San Francisco’s ‘reckless and irresponsible practice of exporting potentially dangerous illegal alien drug dealers to the county of San Bernardino … poses a significant risk to the health, safety and welfare’ of San Bernardino County residents.”

San Fransisco’s version of “Let them eat cake” is, “Let the poor counties eat our criminal illegal immigrant drug dealers.”

Herein is a nutshell example of liberalism when liberalism is allowed to flourish. Let liberals run things for a while and they will create one hell after another. And when it becomes a problem, they will pass the problem off on someone else.  It is what they do; it is what they are.

San Fransisco is the type of city that sticks its thumb into the eye of everything that most Americans believe in and stand for. It is the kind of city that gives special parking permits to make it easy for America-hating protestors to block Military recruiting stations. It is the kind of place that usurps the will of voters and the law by marrying homosexuals on its own terms. It’s the kind of place where transvestites are able to barge into a Catholic Church and mock everything God-fearing people stand for with impunity.

Let us not forget House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a San Fransisco Democrat in good-standing; she is every bit as liberal and as vile in her agenda as Mayor Gavin Newsom.

And let us not forget Barack Obama, who wants us all to learn Spanish, and who is prepared to pander to Hispanics as much as necessary in order to win the White House. He came to San Fransisco to tell his fellow liberal elite what he really thought of Pennsylvanians and their bitter, religious, gun-toting, anti-illegal immigrant values.

You put a House Speaker Pelosi with a President Obama, and you give liberals real power. You give liberals real power, and you will see just how much they will look just like Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Fransisco value system.

If Barack Obama Wrote An Honest ‘Thank You’ Note…

July 21, 2008

I came across this from someone via email.  I couldn’t find anything that was factually untrue, so I pass it on:

My fellow  Americans,

As your  future president I want to thank voters of all political stripes for  their mindless support, despite my complete lack of any  legislative achievement, my pastor’s ties with Louis Farrakhan and  Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, and my blatantly liberal voting  record while I present myself as some sort of bipartisan  agent of change.

I also  like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal  behavior somehow qualifies me for the presidency after 8 years of  claiming Bush’s youthful drinking disqualified him. Your  hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political  chicanery.

I would  also like to thank the Kennedys for coming out in support of me.   There’s a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK  started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped  Martin Luther King Jr., they both slept with Marilyn, and Teddy’s  negligence caused the drowning death of a young woman.  I’m not going  anywhere near the Kennedy cousins, especially Michael Skakel.

And I’d  like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support.  Her love of  meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the  White House.

Americans  should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or  achievement, but because I make people feel  good. White  people who vote for me will get relief from their racist guilt.

I say things that sound meaningful but don’t really mean anything because  Americans are tired of things having meaning.  If things have  meaning, then that means you have to think.

Americans  are tired of thinking.  It’s time to shut down the brain and open up the emotion.

So when you go to vote in November, remember don’t think, just do.  And do it for me.

Thanking you in advance.

Barack Hussein Obama

And that’s change you can believe in!

Are Tributes to Fallen Soldiers “Clutter”?

July 21, 2008

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like “clutter” in her halls:

Some members of Congress have been told that they have to get rid of their tributes to fallen soldiers, because they are cluttering the halls.

Congressional Quarterly reports that a group of lawmakers — headed by Republican Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina — is imploring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to change a new policy that bars free-standing flags, furniture and easels because they are considered hazards.

Jones has easels outside his office depicting the faces of constituents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, like many of his colleagues, he has been told that he must get rid of the display by August 2. Jones says, “We’re going to just have an ongoing contest of me putting them up and them taking them down.”

What can I say?  There are clearly two worldviews clashing in Congress, and two very different attitudes toward our fallen soldiers.

I have no doubt that dozens have been seriously injured dodging all those tributes in the halls.  Maybe Speaker Pelosi could spend the rest of her term in the relative safety of Iraq or Afghanistan where there isn’t so much hazardous “clutter”?

Personally, I’m firmly on the side of Republican Congressman Walter Jones in this dispute in wanting to honor our fallen heroes every way we can – and most definitely in NOT considering the tributes honoring them as “clutter.”

I hope you are, too.

Radovan Karadzic Captured: Clinton Finally Gets His Man

July 21, 2008

The Serbian war criminal and architect of the genocide of more than 8,000 men and boys in the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica was finally captured. Bill Clinton finally got his man.

You remember President Clinton’s war in Kosovo.

This is tongue-in-cheek, of course; Bill Clinton had nothing to do with his capture. Serbian security forces captured him after 13 years on the run.

I’m not ridiculing President Clinton; I’m merely preparing to make a comparison.

The fact that it took 13 years to get karadzic ought to give the liberal critics of President Bush who have long-ridiculed him for not being able to capture or kill Osama bin Laden a rare opportunity to face reality. When a powerful man has resources, an area in which to hide, and a population that will enable him, he can elude capture indefinitely.

Osama bin Laden has all of the above, plus some of the most inaccessible terrain on the planet, and plus the clearly off-limits territory inside Pakistan.

It has been frankly amazing to me how far liberals have run with the “Bush can’t even get bin Laden!” slogan given that it has always been a purely trivial rhetorical point. The simple fact of the matter is that President Bush has done as much as any American president could prudently do to get the murderer responsible for 9/11.

The arrest of Radovan Karadzic gives those who believe in and long for justice hope: it took years to get this murderer, but this monster is finally in custody. Hopefully, the day we capture or kill bin Laden will soon come.

I trust that the United States – under any future presidential administration – will never rest until it captures or kills Osama bin Laden, or is able to directly confirm his death.

Good job, Serbia. This is a day to celebrate justice.

A Hope For Some Rare Awareness About The Economy

July 21, 2008

I was in a Wal Mart store a little while back, and got into an argument with an older employee with whom I have periodically chatted.

In that discussion, I discovered that the man was a Democrat, and a pretty liberal one to boot.

And I learned that he had a terribly flawed memory about the Clinton years.

His primary contention was that he had never seen the regional economy so bad. He told me, “When Clinton was president, I had no trouble finding work. But now this Wal Mart job is the best I can get.”

Well, to put it into six words: he’s wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

The Press Enterprise, Riverside County’s (and the Inland Empire’s) largest paper, had a front-page article on July 19 titled “Inland unemployment rate hits 8 percent, highest in 9 years.”

I didn’t have to pull out my calculator to realize that “nine years ago we were in the height of the Clinton presidency.

So why on earth was my liberal Democrat friend at Wal Mart so completely wrong?

Partially because that’s precisely what the media told him to think (you ever hear that sarcastic expression, ‘If I want your opinion I’ll give it to you’?).

John R. Lott did a study that demonstrated that the media viewed the economy through rose-colored glasses during the Clinton years even when the economy was in fact entering a recession. By contrast, we have been hearing the word “recession” for the better part of a year now under a Republican president even when the economy was actually growing and even though the economy is STILL not in recession according to the standard definition of the term. When Bill Clinton was president, the media largely saw even negative news through rose-colored glasses. By contrast, throughout the Bush presidency, the media has been hypercritical – as well as hypocritical – of virtually every economic development.

It is simply a demonstrable fact that the media have for years given Democratic administrations’ economic performance every benefit of the doubt, and given Republican administrations’ economic performance an unrelentingly critical review. Republicans aren’t angry that the media is portraying the economy as being in a recession; they are angry because the media subjectively and unfairly refuse to evaluate Democrat-managed economies by the same standards.

And when it comes to the economy, perception often becomes reality, because people who think that the economy is tanking will invariably begin to act in ways that subsequently cause the economy to tank. As one example, if people are continually told that the economy will worsen and the housing market will continue to decline, will they buy homes now, or will they hold off and wait for the market to further decline and lower prices further? But by waiting, they are actually contributing to the market’s actual decline.

So the same media that helps to create positive perceptions of the economy during Democratic administrations helps to undermine the economy during Republican administrations. They frequently resort to downright irresponsible reporting to do so. And when Democrat and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich used the term “DEPRESSION” to describe the Bush economy, he was going beyond even the irresponsible media and pandering to the very lowest form of demagoguery.

Is our economy really doing so terrible?

Just to demonstrate how horrifyingly irresponsible Robert Reich was in his prediction of a “Bush depression” on March 14, 2008, the VERY NEXT DAY the story emerged that the United States continues to have the best and most competitive economy in the world!

I hate to be rude, but Reich revealed himself for the vile little pandering and demagoguing rodent that he is. Yet rabid little rat or not, he continues to be paraded from elite media network to network with all the fanfare of an enlightened analyst who truly understands what is going on.

My liberal friend at Wal Mart assured me that the economy was always great under Clinton, and that Clinton balanced the budget. The fact that neither statement is true doesn’t matter. Today’s liberals are fitted with psychological filters designed to prevent truth from entering their minds.

First of all, Bill Clinton most certainly did not get off to all that great of a start as president. If he had, he wouldn’t have contributed to the greatest landslide in political history with a massive 52 seat swing in the ’94 midterm elections that put the Republicans in power for the next dozen years.

Furthermore, President Clinton – all ubiquitous media misrepresentation aside – most certainly DID NOT balance the budget. What he did was fiddle with the numbers to pay off the public debt by borrowing from the intergovernmental debt (particularly from the Social Security Trust Fund). The so-called “Clinton surplus” is simply a myth: The national debt continued to grow and grow and grow, and the last Clinton budget was $133.29 billion in the red.

And when President Clinton left office, he also left President Bush with an economy that was very definitely stumbling into a recession about as bad as the one we’re stumbling into now. He also left President Bush with Osama bin Laden (when he rejected a Somali offer to literally hand him over to us) and with an al Qaeda that was growing stronger and stronger after repeatedly attacking the United States throughout the Clinton administration.

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that:

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Please don’ think that the vicious 9/11 attacks – which President Clinton could have nipped in the bud by taking out its chief leader and architect – didn’t massively hurt the U.S. economy. Yet a liberal media ensured that President Bush duly received all the blame for both the recession and the attack.

The Press Enterprise article points out that a year ago, the two-county unemployment figure was a reasonable 5.9%. If anything, we have Nancy Pelosi and her “commonsense plan” to thank as much as anyone for the dramatic increase that has taken place during the oversight of a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. But you can count on the fact that the media will never connect the economic downturn to the Democrat’s control of Congress the way they routinely connect President Bush to it.

What’s caused the dramatic negative economic turnaround in the last year?

Is it the sky-high increase in oil prices? I have written again and again that it is Democrats – and Democrats virtually alone – who deserve the blame for the current situation by refusing to allow us to act in a responsible way by drilling the oil we have right under our feet and right off our shores.

See my articles (in order from the earliest to the most recent):

Democrat’s ‘Commonsense Plan’ Revealed: Let’s Nationalize the Oil Industry

Blame Democrats for Sky-High Gas Prices

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

Democrat’s Ideological Stand Against Domestic Oil Terrible for US Economy & Security

If You Want $12 A Gallon Gas, Vote for Obama and Democrats

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama: The Three Stooges of American Energy Policy

Is it the secondary market fiasco and the subsequent housing market collapse? While Republicans deservedly merit some of the blame, let us not forget that it was Democrats who demanded that poor and unqualified borrowers had to have access to home loans. And let us not forget that the principle political figures involved in the subsequent scandal have been Democrats (Former Fannie Mae Chairman and former Barack Obama key assistant Jim Johnson, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad headline the list among other prominent Democrats).

The media that would have left no stone unturned in launching exhaustive and well-covered investigations into Republicans in any kind of similar situation has conveniently allowed the Democrat’s scandal to vanish off the headlines. They continue to play the part – of Democrat apologist and enabler – that they have chosen for themselves all along.

And we saw an all-too typical example of Democrats and the media ganging up to harm the economy under a Republican administration. Sen. Charles Schumer unnecessarily notified the public of the impending federal takeover of IndyMac in California, creating the equally unnecessary lines and panic among account holders. And then there was the media flocking like vultures, breathlessly envisioning one worst-case scenario for the American economy after another.

Don’t you DARE try to claim that Democrats – who were so utterly consumed with investigating baseball players’ for allegations of steroid abuse and with repeatedly demonzing oil executives at one communist-type show trial “hearing” after another that they were entirely blindsided by the secondary market collapse – were one iota less to blame than the Republicans even at their worst.

And don’t you dare believe that Republicans under George Bush mismanaged the economy in spite of the Democrats’ best attempts to keep it rolling smoothly along. If anything, it was precisely the other way around.

My liberal friend is responsible for unquestioningly believing the liberal media spin rather than engaging in the critical thinking that would let him see the truth about the disinformation campaign going around all around him. Please don’t make the same mistake.

Barack Obama Even Cuts and Runs From His Own Positions

July 20, 2008

In a HIGHLY favorable piece from a far-left liberal newspaper (just consider the title: “Obama stance on Iraq Shows Evolving View“!!!), Barack Obama is nevertheless revealed to have simply been all over the place regarding Iraq. A much tougher – and much more substantial – piece shows just how way, way, WAAAAY all over the place Obama has been regarding Iraq:

But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side.4 Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal.

Is that what a president does? Does he waffle this way, then that, depending on the frequent shifts of the political breezes? Or is a president – and anyone who wants to become president – forced to carefully decide what needs to be done, and then commit himself (just as he commits his troops)?

Oh, things are going well, so I’m committed. Oh, we’re having a few setbacks, so I demand a withdrawal. Oh, things are better now, so I’ll “refine” my policy. Oh, my left-wing base is turning on me, so I’ll recommit myself to my previous withdrawal policy.”

Could a president send troops, change his mind and withdraw them, change his mind again and increase their number form when he withdrew them before, and then decide that he shouldn’t have sent them after all and withdrawn them again – all within the span of about 2 1/2 years?

Conservative critics have pounced all over Obama:

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: “My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground.”

Well, if that’s true (and you’re not a rank, hypocritical liar without shame who plays politics even when men’s lives hang in the balance), then why did you announce your rigid commitment to a 16-month timetable for withdrawal BEFORE you went to Iraq and actually listened to those commanders?  The reality is, you’re not going to listen to them at all – just as you’ve NEVER listened to them.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that Obama would renege on his Iraq policy – which is exactly what he tried to do until his liberal base erupted in outrage over the reversal.

The man is a veritable bastion of courage and integrity.

Barack Obama has been in favor of a timetable for withdraw since late 2005. What would have happened to Iraq had Barack Obama been our president? If we had pulled out of the country when Obama said we should (depending, of course, on how Obama felt about the war that day), a too-weak and too-unstable Iraq would have almost certainly descended into chaos, become a terrorist stronghold, and forced us to invade for yet a third time.

In January of 2007, John McCain proposed a troop surge in Iraq, and Barack Obama opposed it:

(CBS) Sen. John McCain supports President George Bush’s planned troop surge in Iraq, while his fellow Senator, and likely opponent in the 2008 race for the White House, Barack Obama would rather see a “surge in diplomacy.”

A showdown between Congress and the president looms after President Bush said he would send 21,000 more American troops to Iraq. Meanwhile, a new poll indicates that the public is overwhelmingly against the plan.

Obama pursued a plan of action that would have done NOTHING as Iraq began to stumble into chaos. John McCain – as the article acknowledges – took an “overwhelmingly” unpopular stance and supported a policy that WORKED. [And note the pessimistic stance liberal CBS took on the idea of the troop surge].

American military commanders are close to declaring complete victory in Iraq.

Even Al Qaeda has openly admitted that they have lost in Iraq.

The result of this success is that Obama scrubbed his earlier positions regarding the surge from his website. That’s “change” for you: no major political candidate in American history has ever been so completely disingenuous regarding his positions.

As an Associate Press article by Nedra Pickler put it:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

By the time Obama staffers got through editing Obama’s previous positions:

Only one of his plan’s subheads remains unchanged, the first one — “Judgment You Can Trust.” That’s a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.

That’s right: “judgment you can trust.” You can trust a man who takes every position under the sun depending on his political expediency, plays politics when soldiers’ lives are on the line, scrubs his own website of his previous erroneous positions, and then blithely pretends he’s had the same position all along.

As Barack Obama launches his foreign visit accompanied by the in-the-tank anchors from the in-the-tank networks and all the media fanfare they can produce, the narrative will be that Obama is right about the timetable for withdrawal.

But the only reason we can reasonably talk about a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq is because better and more courageous men were in charge – and Barack Obama was not.

As you listen to the in-the-tank media hype for Obama, don’t forget that.

Obama has repeatedly cut and run from his own positions: from dismissing the wearing of flag pins to wearing them constantly; from publicly vowing that he could never denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright any more than he could denounce his own grandmother to publicly denouncing Jeremiah Wright; from filling out questionnaires to denying that he filled out the answers on the questionnaires; from being an opponent of free trade to being a supporter of free trade; from telling a Jewish audience that he supported Jerusalem as the eternal capital of a Jewish state to telling a group of Palestinians that he was open to negotiating the status of Jerusalem; from claiming that Iran was not a serious threat to claiming that Iran represents a serious threat; from vowing to accept public financing to refusing to accept public financing; from supporting the Washington D.C. ban on handguns to supporting the Supreme Court decision overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handguns; from swearing he would filibuster any FISA bill that did not allow lawsuits against telecoms to voting for a FISA bill that didn’t include any provisions to punish telecoms; from vowing to end the Iraq war in 2009 to saying he would refine his position to listen to military commanders to saying he would end the war in Iraq irregardless of the commanders.

The liberal editorial board of the New York Times has recognized that Barack Obama seemed to lack a functioning moral compass. Last week New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that Barack Obama has no moral compass whatsoever. He ended his piece by saying:

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Don’t forget that Barack Obama is a pandering, waffling, flip flopping liberal who doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions.

Increasingly even liberals are recognizing that Barack Obama is simply not fit to lead.