What you should know by Tuesday morning

John McCain, along with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, has been a champion of Campaign Finance Reform.  The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold for its sponsors, was the first major overhaul of campaign finance laws in almost 30 years. 

In 2007 Barack Obama and John McCain both promised to accept public financing if the other party's nominee did.  McCain, being a man of honor (how's that working out for you John?), stuck to that promise.  Obama deceived the public and broke that promise.

It's easy to see why Obama makes himself out to be a liar; once he realized how much money it would take to defeat more qualified candidates, he had no real choice but to accept the money.  Due to the limitations on spending from public financing, Obama is outspending McCain by about 7-1.  He promises to outspend McCain as president by an even higher number.  Can you say higher taxes everyone, despite another soon to be broken promise by Obama.

Did McCain make a mistake by sticking to his promise and following up on his beliefs that campaign finance ought to be a fair fight.  It's possible that it might cost him the election, but not his integrity.  This is something that he believed strongly in and has fought for, once again against his own party's wishes, and he stayed true to himself.

What about all this money that the Obama campaign has collected?  Is it all legal?  Probably not.  In this day of Internet donations, prepaid debit/credit cards and an unwillingness to verify the validity of these donations by his campaign, too much opportunity exists for illegal money to be flowing in.  The campaign is fond of saying that many of its contributions come from millions of small donors, but what it doesn't say is that a greater percentage of funds are coming from those contributing more than $200.  Obama will also have received more than twice as many contributions of over $1,000 than any candidate in history. 

What are they doing with all that money?  Spending more money on negative campaigning than any candidate in history. 

With an ad spending disparity of 7 - 1 and an opposition party incumbent in the White House with an extremely low opinion rating, why is it that polls show Obama with leads of only 2%-11%?  Frequency of message is extremely important in selling something and Obama has a clear advantage.  The answer lies in the fact that the product and the message are not strong enough and without the extraordinary amounts of cash, Obama would stand no chance.

What will be the future of campaign finance reform?  There will still be a few attempts to fix it, but since Democrats were the ones screaming for it before and one of their own showed everybody what could be accomplished with private money, it will mostly disappear.  Obama has caused me to change my mind on one thing; I am now in favor of eliminating the public financing route and applaud Americans for supporting their political beliefs with their dollars.  The one thing that will be needed is to make certain that we can have more checks in place to keep out the corruption.

Here are the reasons I'd vote Democrat in this election.

P>

H/T Charlie Sykes

Sometimes, you come across a post that nothing less than a copy and paste will do. This is one of those posts. I can’t add anything to it, other than I fear our children will never know the truth and freedoms that we once enjoyed.

From Musings from the Elephant Man:

At A Loss...

Ever since I began this blog, I have had plenty to say on a whole host of issues. I addressed the state of our nation, the current economic crisis, the biased media, the humorous side of politics, Ronald Reagan, conservatism vs. liberalism, and so on and so forth.

But, as many of you know, the most frequent subject that this blog has dealt with is that of Barack Obama. I have done my very best to relay why I do not believe that he is qualified nor fit to be our next president. I have discussed his past relationships, his socialistic philosophies, his racist remarks and stereotypical views, his weak and naive military strategies, his utter disregard for human life, his numerous lies, and the list goes on.

Within the last 48 hours, new audio tapes have surfaced further demonstrating that Obama is a truly dangerous man. If Obama had it his way, he would completely change the entire makeup of this country. Everything that has made the United States what it is today; the Constitution, personal responsibility, capitalism, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; somehow repulses Obama. He, and people like him, don't see America as a shining city on a hill; rather, they see her as a country that is in need of radical change; a country that no man can love; a country that is the scorn of the world. This is why Obama refused (or did until it was politically expedient) to salute our flag or wear it on his chest. This is why Obama disparages our troops and downplays their heroic actions.

Obama has preached a message of change and hope, but very few people actually know, or in some cases, care what that change will be. Even more disturbing are the people who embrace Obama's change while understanding what it means. In the guise of defending the American Dream, Obama seeks to destroy it. In the guise of fairness, Obama seeks to steal from those who have achieved success and silence those who oppose him. In the guise of safety and equality, Obama will rewrite the Constitution. In the guise of world peace, Obama seeks to make America truly defenseless and befriend our enemies without counting the cost. In the guise of bringing hope and prosperity, Obama will bring despair and widespread poverty.

I don't think Obama wants to destroy America, I think he actually believes that he can make her better. I don't think he hates America, but on the other hand, I know he doesn't love her. Instead of viewing America as already great, Obama sees her as something that he can make great.

Obama is the most radical liberal/leftist candidate in US history; simply put, Barack Obama is a communist. I'm not afraid to say it because in America one can speak the truth without fear (at least for now). Obama's idea of "spreading the wealth around" and of "fairness" and "change" show us that he thinks it is the government's place and responsibility to control the economic well-being of it's people. Obama believes that a citizen's income belongs to the state and not to the individual. "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need," as Karl Marx so eloquently put it. In order to pay for his proposed 1 trillion dollar spending plan on top of America's recent bailout package (which I must say was a blatant and sad step in the direction of socialism), Obama will have no choice but to create a welfare state. The free market, which currently exists more in name than in substance, will be a thing of the past entirely as will private enterprise and capitalism. We have all seen what happens to a country when it does away with economic freedom, and it is not a welcoming thought (ex. USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.).

One of the most disturbing aspects of Obama's rise to power is that the American media have embraced him and manipulated his image in such a way that the average naive and politically apathetic American has no idea of what Obama really stands for. When balanced and objective journalism dies, democracy dies with it and free speech soon thereafter.

If given a filibuster proof congress and with an adoring media already in his back pocket, Barack Obama will have unprecedented power comparable to that of Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini. He will reign supreme and have the ability to implement all of his changes without interference or opposition.

For all of those who believe in Obama; for all of those who view him as a heroic savior descending from the heavens to save us; I would ask you to remember how the Germans hailed Hitler.

And so I write tonight, eight days before the most important election in United States history (I really do believe this), with a heavy heart and at a complete loss for words. What more can I say? The country that I love like nothing else on this mortal earth is eight days away from selling her soul in exchange for lies and false promises. My country is eight days away from giving up on everything that made her great.

Are we as Americans truly this blind? Have we given up on the American Dream? Have we given up on the greatest experiment in the history of mankind? Have we given up on America?

And while these questions will ultimately be answered eight days from now and in the coming years, as I look at what America is turning into, I can not help but feel sorrow at the present.

John F. Kennedy's mantra of "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," has been turned into "Ask not what your country can do for you, demand it!"

With such a selfishness pervading our culture is it any surprise that we are losing sight of what made America the greatest nation on earth?

When I contemplate our present situation, I am reminded of a famous quote by one of our founding fathers.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams

Now take a look at America in 2008. Wickedness is applauded and glorified in our streets. Our children are taught lies in our schools. The sanctity of life is a foreign concept to us. Personal responsibility has become a thing of the past. Those who strive to live a moral life are labeled as "intolerant" and "bigots." Those who believe in God and live their lives in honor of him are seen as weak-minded people in need of a crutch. America has lost her ability to blush.

No matter what happens a week from tomorrow, we as Americans are on a slippery slope leading to ruin. As we continue to move further and further away from God, religion and morality, it will only be a matter of time before this nation ceases to exist and the land of the free and the home of the brave is no more.

H/T An Ol'Broad's Ramblings

Some people will vote for a candidate, while others will vote against a candidate.  Here is a great compilation source with many, but certainly not all, of the reasons that build a strong case against voting for Obama.  http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

The greatest hits include: Obama's lack of experience; his extreme pro-baby killing (abortion) stance; historical proof of his extreme socialist tax and spend agenda, including his desires to tax everyone and spread the wealth around; his radical associations with friends and mentors like Bill Ayers, the terrorist who continues to have the same views today as he did in the 60's, and Rev. Wright, his family pastor for the past two decades; his close ties to ACORN (Association of Corrupted Organizations Registering Non-voters) that has illegally used taxpayer money for political activities and promotes vote fraud; his poor foreign policy judgment which includes his mistake on the surge and reckless approach to the Middle East; his disdain for Middle America; his consistency in playing the race card; his lack of accomplishments; his desire to cut anything that helps keep this country secure.

Please read the entire article.  It includes a number of videos; many of them use Obama's own words to make the case against him.

As if that weren't enough you can also go to http://smokefilledbackroom.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obamas-laundry-list-of-lies.html to see Obama's laundry list of lies.

This post is not designed to change the fogged up minds of those that have been drinking the Blue Kool-Aid.  But, for those of you that are undecided and not sure how to vote, this should be more than enough to alarm you about Obama and come Election Day cast your vote for John McCain.

James T. Harris is a supporter of John McCain and he is black.  He gained national attention for standing up for McCain and urging him to go after Obama by questioning his character at a campaign rally in Waukesha last week.  Mr. Harris began getting hate mail and death threats immediately.  Most of the e-mail that he received was like “How can a black man stand up and say that?”  He’s heard from many African Americans accusing him of being a sell-out.  James T. Harris must have missed the memo, the one that says if you’re black you can’t vote for McCain.  Death threats like this from Dhimicrats bring a whole new meaning to “bleeding heart liberals.”  People like Mr. Harris, that stand up to this type of persecution because of their beliefs, deserve all of our respect.  It's been very disappointing election seeing this type of racial divisiveness being promoted by so many of Obama's supporters. 

 DID YOU KNOW, PROBABLY NOT?

Question:  What is America 's first line of missile interceptor
defense that protects the entire United States?

Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska
National Guard.

Question:  What is the ONLY National Guard unit on permanent
active duty?

John McCain's Healthcare plan as he discussed in the debate last night is a clear winner over his opponents Fannie May/Medicare type plan.  First, anybody that thinks the government can run something this big, as the Obama plan would do, need only look at the current Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac mess created by the Democrats.  On a smaller level the Senate can't even manage their own cafeteria.  It was millions of dollars in the red for the year before they finally outsourced it.

Highlights of John McCain's plan include:

• A $5,000.00 tax credit.  What exactly does this mean?  James C. Capretta spells it out like this: 

Suppose a worker gets $50,000 in cash wages and $12,000 in health insurance.

Right now, he pays federal income taxes on the wages but not the health insurance. Let's assume, for reasons of simplicity, that the tax rate he is paying is a flat 25% on his wages. He therefore pays $12,500 in federal income taxes. His after-tax, after-health-care income is $37,500.

Now, under the McCain plan, his employer keeps paying the premium, which is now counted as income to the worker. He therefore pays federal income taxes on $62,000, or $15,500.

But he also gets a tax credit of $5,000 for health insurance, which means that, all in all, he owes $10,500 in federal taxes, or $2,000 less than he does today. His after-tax, after-health-care income is $39,500.

If the worker decides to buy his insurance in the open market instead of through the employer, the result will be the same. His employer is indifferent to how he pays his worker as long as total costs are the same. So instead of paying premiums, the employer pays his worker $62,000 in cash wages and does not pay anything toward insurance. The worker again owes $15,500 in taxes on this compensation, and he also must buy health insurance costing $12,000. So, his pre-tax income is $62,000, he owes $12,000 in health insurance premiums, and he owes $10,500 in federal taxes (after claiming his credit). His after-tax, after-health-care income is the same: $39,500 ($62,000 - $12,000 - $10,500), or $2,000 more than today.

• Gives people the choice, their choice for buying their insurance.  They can choose to stay with the employers insurance  coverage or go out and buy a plan on their own.
• Create more competition in the healthcare market to reduce costs and increase quality by opening up state borders so that you can get your insurance from the best source for you.

The Obama campaign doesn't want you to understand all of this because it makes sense.  They have come out with an entire series of ads that take certain parts of the plan and distort or create lies about it.  They are afraid that if people understand McCain's plan they will lose.

The truth is that under the McClain plan people will have more reliable, affordable and portable coverage than ever before.  The additional benefit will be that most will end up with more money in their pocket.

Yuval Levin, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center says:  There is no question that part of the aim of the McCain plan is to build a more functional non-group insurance market so as to slowly and gradually sever the link between employment and insurance. That would help make health insurance more portable and reliable, and allow people to feel secure about their coverage regardless of changes in their employment and their lives. The insecurity of employer-provided coverage is one of the chief problems bedeviling American health care and the middle class, and McCain's proposal would help address it without creating a powerful incentive to push people into government run insurance - as Obama's plan would do. Biden's deceptive description notwithstanding, that is an important part of the appeal of the plan, from the point of view of both the average American family, and the broader American economy.

If healthcare is one of your big concerns, you need to vote for John McCain on November 4^th.

Pro Life and Pro 2nd Amendment...

Thanks Charlie!

More than three years ago, John McCain proposed additional oversight and regulation on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a bill that had full Republican support and no Democratic support.  A bill that could have prevented much of what went wrong.  A bill that would have prevented these GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises) from speculating on the mortgage based securities that they packaged.  The profit from this speculation is what provided the means for outrageous executive bonuses.  Obama and his cohorts, the rest of the Senate Democrats killed the bill.  Why would they do this?  Maybe it was a difference of opinion.  If so, that shows again why McCain is better suited to lead this country. 

I don't think that is the real reason the Dems killed it.  See, if they sided with McCain, the Democrats would lose their big fat donations (bribes) from Freddie and Fannie.  You see, even though Obama has only been in office for four years, (less than two if you remove his time campaigning for President - something that he said he wasn't qualified to do less than two years before he decided to) yet he was getting bigger payoffs than more senior Democrats.   Conspiracy theorists have speculated that Dhimocrats actually wanted the collapse, to try to build an even better case for one of their own to gain the White House.

Republicans are usually against regulations, but in this case McCain went against conventional thinking and tried to get these GSE's under tighter regulations.  In his speech supporting this legislation this is what he said:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Fox News Journalist John Gibson, reports on how Obama continued to benefit from Freddy and Fannie and how Obama and the Democrats had much to lose if their golden goose was cooked.

JOHN GIBSON: All right Heather. Lehman Brothers' collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama.

Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the senate banking committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton white house, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn't afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's white house budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected 50 million dollars. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Apartment Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job.

Now remember, Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy's lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the senate. Next time you see that ad; you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem. Heather.

NAUERT: Wow, that's quite a report, begs the question - where is John McCain on this?

GIBSON: John McCain is a measly $20,000 after over 20 years so he really doesn't even come close in the political contribution department.

20 years of compiling this info and Obama, in less than four years, was number 2 in contributions.

John McCain has finally taken off the gloves to try to get the truth out, instead of playing nice with all of the Obama lies.  Here is what McCain is saying today:

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, "a good idea." Well, Senator Obama, that "good idea" has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you'd think he'd always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them.

Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn't he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won't tell you, but you deserve an answer.

John McCain has a proven track record of working with the other party and against his own to get done what needs to be done.  Obama has a proven record of poor decisions, poor choices for influential people in his life, corruption and lies.

Choosing McCain is the only reasonable decision.

 Please watch this video to get a short education on how the economic crisis got to this point.

Keith Olbermann is out as lead political anchor at MSNBC.  The network tried to use Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as anchors for their election coverage.  Olbermann was so incredibly biased and opinionated for Obama and against McCain that instead of acting like the anchor of a news show, he bitched and argued with everyone.  It was more like a bad imitation of The View with Keith Olbermann playing the part of Rosie O'Donnell.  Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw were incredibly embarrassed by all the cheerleading.  Olberman and Matthews will still have their own shows on the network and be used as analysts for the remainder of the election.  Olbermann was so far overboard the entire time that even when he was punished by being forced to provide commentary from New York instead of directly at the Republican National Convention, he still whined and bitched about everything.  Maybe now MSNBC will try to become a little more fair and balanced.  Not.

McCain was not my candidate.  Not originally.  His close ties to, and having worked with very liberal democrats had me worried.  Once it was clear that he was going to be the Republican nominee, he was the best of what was left.  Let's face it, the Democrats were choosing a nominee that didn't believe he was ready to run on a national ticket.  Even Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, doesn't believe he is ready, and in fact would have preferred to run with John McCain.  Hillary Clinton also chose McCain over Obama.

What won me over?  Was it 2000 Democratic VP candidate turned Independent Senator Joe Lieberman's endorsement speech for John McCain?  After all, the Democrats still think well enough about Lieberman to have placed him in a leadership position as an important committee chairman.  His speech was convincing, specifically the line about how McCain could anger his own party, but he was doing it because of what he believed in.

Was it Rudy Giuliani's fantastic speech, where he compared the resumes of the two Presidential candidates?  The first candidate, John McCain has an extensive list of accomplishments and experience and even some things that provide a "Wow" moment.  The second candidate, Barak Obama, his biggest experience has been to vote present rather than make decisions on important issues, which was the job he was hired to do.   Obama has never led anything and, in fact, has been doing nothing more than running for the next highest office ever since being elected to the Illinois legislature.

Maybe it was Fred Thompson telling the fantastic biography of John McCain, including his tenure as a POW.  He contrasted that with the description of Obama as the most Liberal and inexperienced Presidential candidate ever, but may be a good match for the Democratic congress, which is the most unpopular congress in history. 

Could it have been McCain running mate Sarah Palin?  She was engaging, funny, and extremely comfortable in her speech to the RNC.  McCain has made a tremendous choice for a running mate.  She has leadership experience and is a serious reformer.  Her record for ethics reform and standing up to special interests in her time as Governor is a testament to a good leader.  She was very good at hitting Obama at his weak points with shots while smiling and having fun.  My favorite line was when she said, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities."

Possibly it was McCain's own speech to the RNC that got to me.  After a tremendous build up by the speakers leading up to the candidates acceptance speech, my expectations were pretty flat.  How could he possibly perform as the Headliner when the warm up acts provided headliner performances?  But he did it.  He knocked it out of the park.  I particularly liked hearing him discuss how he has worked with members of both parties to do what he felt was important.  It is for this reason that Democrats like Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, as well as Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden consider him a friend and someone they enjoyed working with and consider him ready to lead.

So what won me over?  It was a combination of all the above.  While the Republican platform and ideals are what I most closely identify with, it is the person at the top of the ticket that I have to believe will follow through on those commitments while leading and protecting this country.  That is why I am proud to endorse John McCain as our next President.

What else has Obama lied about?  Anything that might help line his pockets or those of his friend’s maybe?

For one thing, not all of Obama's support comes from the little donor he likes to tout with increasing frequency. "Industry PACs may not give directly to his campaign, but employees of industries may do so, and many of his contributors have come from executives and their spouses," the Wall Street Journal noted. "For example, Mr. Obama leads all candidates in donations from the pharmaceutical industry and commercial banks, among other industries.

This is the dirty little secret of the internet financing that the Obama campaign enjoys, but doesn’t want us to know about.  He is accepting huge sums of money that are directed to his campaign by companies and industries that are buying his influence.

This is simply the large-scale version of a shakedown.  Seems that Obama and former Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee have read from the same Democratic playbook and have an awful lot in common.

Don't tell me that there isn't a severe liberal bias in the media!

In 1992 Dan Quayle was pummeled in the media for misspelling "potatoe", and his candidacy was finished.  Media tells us that this candidate is too stupid to be president.

In 2008 Obama says that he has visited 57 states with one more to go, but it gets no mention by most media or at best it was buried in another story on the last page.  He reminds me of one of the intelligence challenged contestants on Jay Leno's "Jaywalking".  Where they ask people on the street some of the most basic questions, but their answers are comical, because of how lame these people are.

To see the video of Obama and his 57 states click here.

You can bet that if John McCain had made this same mistake, we would be hearing about it constantly for the next six months.  Comedians and media would have many jokes about it being a "senior moment", and his candidacy would be finished.

Maybe if Obama paid more attention to the flag, he would get a visual reminder to help him with the correct number of states that make up The United States of America.  Here is a picture of the flag lapel pin that Obama probably owns.

One week after his 57 states comment (That's right, most of us haven't even heard of this, but it has been over a week), Obama came on stage to a raucous crowd and said "Thank you, Sioux City".  The crowd went dead silent.  Why?  Because he was one state away in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and not Sioux City, Iowa.  Maybe in Obama's 57 states, parts of Iowa and South Dakota have been combined while other states have been split up, but citizens still don't dig it if you screw up the name of their city.

Why is it that the media can destroy a conservative candidate for being stupid, but "The Great Speaker", Obama, gets a pass while consistently showing his lack of intelligence on basic facts.  This is as fair and honest as NBA referee, Tim Donaghy, who bet on games that he officiated.

I wonder which candidate the media is backing?  Hmmm?  What the f***?

More and more of my entertainment comes from the internet.  I particularly find a number of very clever and creative videos on sites like You Tube.

Here is one of my more recent favorites in light of todays Pennsylvania primary.

Sometimes I get the impression that all three of the major party candidates want somebody else to win the election.

This weeks biggest loser is Barack Obama.  In one short statement, while speaking in San Francisco, B.O. managed to alienate all of small town America.  The more often he speaks without a teleprompter in a prepared speech saying the same things over and over again, the more elitist and out of touch he sounds.  He doesn't acknowledge the Pledge of Allegiance, he won't wear the American Flag lapel pin, his preacher and Spiritual Adviser says "God damn America", and his wife Michelle said her husbands campaign made her proud to be an American for the first time.  This is not a one time mistake.  This is a pattern of being anti-American in actions and words. 

I can't give a pass to John McCain this week either.  It's one thing to confuse North Dakota with South Dakota, I mean who cares, really.  But, John has for the second time in public confused al Qaeda as a Shiite group instead of a Sunni group.  Most Americans don't get the difference either, but that's no excuse for the candidate who should have the most knowledge in foreign policy.

Hillary, why are you still married to this buffoon?  Just as talk was quieting down, and the media pretty well buried the story to begin with, Bill had to bring up your sniper fire story again.  He tried to pass it off that when you related that story it was late and you were tired.  The only problem was that it was a morning speech.  Maybe the two of you are perfect for each other.  Neither one of you know where the truth actually is anymore.  Both of them are telling a story about how Hillary tried to enlist after law school and was turned down.  As a law school graduate, from Yale no less, she would have been allowed to commission as an officer or Judge Advocate General, and the reasons she states she couldn't get in would not have applied.

Will the real winner please shut up!

If you watched American Idol Thursday night, you saw all three Presidential candidates in recorded messages asking for people to support the Idol Gives Back charity. (I swear I was only flipping through and don't usually watch Idol.  OK, so maybe occasionally, but never more than once or twice per week.)  First up was Hillary, who looked comfortable reading her prepared piece. Her appearance on SNL probably helped her.  Next up was McCain.  He was entertaining and even funny as he made a crack about Simon and immigration.  Last up was Obama.  He looked stiff and uncomfortable doing this.  Come to think of it, he has always looked a little uncomfortable when doing anything but a prepared political speech.

The three of them are running for a different type of American Idol.  One that we can start to tear down the second we elect them the winner.  It's America, and we have that right.  It's an easy thing to do and too many people enjoy doing it.

On this night, John McCain was easily the winner. 

This is Presidential Primary Season.  You are probably voting for the candidate that has the best track record and experience to improve our country or the one that has mapped out a specific plan that matches your desires and dreams for our country. 

Some people are voting based on the most insane reasons.  Some will vote for Hillary because she’s a woman and others will vote for Obama because he is black.  What has this got to do with which candidate would make a better president?  A story from the TV Show “The View”, had Whoopi Goldberg asking the others on the show if they would vote for Hillary if she wasn’t a woman.  Now first of all, other than the fact that Chelsea Clinton exists, there isn’t much proof that Hillary is a woman.  In that family it always seemed as if there were two alpha males competing for head of the country.  When Bill Clinton said “ I did not have sex with that woman”, I was kind of hoping he was talking about Hillary.  But, on the show, one of the other hosts said that if Hillary were not a woman she would vote for Obama, but she is supporting Hillary because she is a woman.  What are you thinking?  Voting for Hillary because she is a woman is sexist, and voting for Obama because he is black is racist.  Just when I think we have made some small strides in improving on racism and sexism, idiots speak and it all vanishes.

I sometimes wonder how women could even have any respect for Hillary.  Bill Clinton participated in some highly publicized extra marital affairs, and yet she thinks so little of herself that she still stays with him.  The upside for me if the Clintons win would be seeing what Bill Clinton would do in the White House.  Will he be Hillary’s version of Billy Carter, the embarrassing family member that gets drunk at the family parties and then makes such an ass of himself that you wish you could disown him, or will he find new and interesting ways to utilize the Lincoln Bedroom?

On the other hand, you have Barack Obama making a major showing in the primaries so far.  The man is an eloquent speaker, and with the use of cheerleaders stationed around him when he speaks, gets the crowds worked into a frenzy of cheering fans shouting for “Change”.  But if you ask any of his supporters what proof or track record he has for accomplishing what he says he can, you are usually left looking at the poor goof with his mouth hanging open and nothing to say.  Change for the sake of change isn’t always a good thing, but most people like the concept.  It’s the same reason that the backup quarterback is always the most popular player for the Chicago Bears.  Fans think he has to be better than the starter. 

The republicans look like they have already made their decision, with John McCain pulling away in the delegate count.  It was already a strange year for republicans, due to the backlash in the country against the war in Iraq; it appears that several potentially viable candidates shied away from running.  Conventional wisdom is that they would wait while the Democrats screwed things up again for the next four years before making their run for office. 

With the poor choices available in the Democratic Party, even a weak Republican candidate like John McCain makes the most sense.  He has the necessary experience and the right ideas on how to best protect Americans from terrorists as well as the big government, socialist ideas of the Democrats.  But the next step is still up to us, as we need to give him a better congress with which to work.