Tuesday, September 16

Obama was Rght, Mccain was Wrong...again

Sunday, September 14

McCaskill Calls Palin the Earmark Queen of Alaska

On This Week with Stephanopolous, in response to Carla Fiorina's repetition of the blatant lie that Sarah Palin "never requested an Earmark a Governor of Alaska" - Clair McCaskill set her right: Palin is the Earmark Queen.

FIORINA: Sarah Palin as governor stood up and said, I know earmarks are corrupting. We must ask for less of them–

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But she still requested them.

FIORINA: As governor she did not. [...]

MCCASKILL: Sarah Palin has been an earmark queen in Alaska. That’s the facts.

It's nice to see the Ref's finally sarting to call the fouls, but amazingly - Fiorina was undaunted in her unending stream of lies.

The facts are that although Sarah Palin's Administration did cut some spending over her two years in office she has requested over $750 Million which was the largest per-capita earmark spending in the nation - BY FAR.

This isn't just a little white lie, that both McCain and Fiorina have been repeating. It's a Whopper!!

I know there are many that argue that we have been spending too much time on Palin, but she has been employed by the neo-cons to stand in contrast to Obama - and it's important that we point out that the comparison is completely bogus.

In her defense of Palin, Fiorina made several false claims about Obama.

Fiorina: The facts are that Sarah Palin Rejected the money for the Bridge to Nowhere [V. No, She didn't!] The facts are that Barack Obama, in his short tenure, has made more request for Earmarks, than Sarah Palin ever has.[V. Almost, but he didn't actually receive anywhere near that much] We need to ask Barack Obama if he's ever stood up against his party, has ever took [sic] a tough position...

Sometimes it's truly amazing how these people seem to buy into their own blather - but it's with this last mockingly posed question that Fiorina truly steps into the poop.

Let's just ignore the fact that Barack Obama stood up against the Iraq War - which was supported by most democrats - in the first place, and that he certainly went against the left of his party with his FISA vote, the real answer to this question is the fact that as a Rookie U.S. Senator Barack Obama took on both Harry Reid and Dick Durbin on the issue of EARMARK REFORM.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment today that mirrored the tougher legislation passed by House Democrats.

According to Craig Holman of Public Citizen, Reid's version, if it had been applied to earmarks as part of legislation passed last year, would have disclosed the sponsor of only approximately 500 earmarks. DeMint's amendment would have forced sponsors to be known of roughly 12,000.

But Democrats sought to block DeMint's amendment, with an effort led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). They failed, due mostly to nine Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and freshmen Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA), who crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Here's the roll call tally.

The Roll Call does not Lie, although apparently McCain, Palin, Fiorina and Leiberman do.

Obama taking the tough stand on that vote - going against his party - is very likely responsible for our even being able to track and identify all the earmarks that Sarah Palin has not just requested, but actually received including the money for the bridge to nowhere that Alaska KEPT!

The media has already realized they're being bullshitted, eventually the public will realize it too. You can't keep pissing on my shoes and calling it rain forever...


Here's more on Palin's Eamark career from CNN.

22 Obama Smears: Debunked

I don't often interact with the Wingnut-o-sphere these days, it's bad for my state-of-mind, and sanity. But after posting the following video and a few supportive links I received a set of complaining messages from a fellow Myspace Musician.

I also provided a set of links for various MSM articles documenting John McCain repeated LIES, and he responded that the media is Liberal and Biased and so on. Then he tried to send me a more "balanced" set of views.

He said...

You can find things on any candidate.

Yes, but that doesn't make it true!

Obama issues:

1. Sen. Obama gives flowery speeches on change and hope. But he's part of one of the most corrupt political machines of all time. And instead of fighting and trying to reform the corrupt Chicago Cook County political machine, he used it to rise to power. When reformers tried to fight it, Mr. Obama refused to help them and actually was instrumental in defeating the reform movement. He preaches a new kind of politics but supports and uses one of the worst political machines in the U.S.

Yes, Chicago can be a rough and tumble political atmosphere - but that doesn't mean Obama himself is corrupt, what evidence is there of his being corruptly influenced? Where are the specifics on Obama's helping "defeat the Reform movement"?

2. He led the battle in the Illinois legislature to assure that born-alive infants would not be treated as persons and would not be entitled to medical care. Instead, if Sen. Obama had his way, such babies born alive after a botched abortion would be left to die, thus legalizing what appears to be infanticide and murder.

This is inaccurate, Obama voted against this measure because it was redundant - and was already covered by existing state and federal law, he did not "lead the battle against the born-alive" movement, this was a bogus issue brought forward by right-to-lifers, just as the Terri Schiavo issue was exploited by them for their own ends.

3. When he first responded to Russia's invasion of Georgia, he said that aggression was wrong, but the U.S. would be in a better position if we set a good example. Thus he made it clear he was drawing a moral equivalence between Russia's aggression and the U.S.'s liberation of Iraq, which had violated 17 United Nations resolutions. This reaction alone, suggests not merely bad judgment but apparently no judgment at all. Then after giving it more thought, his second response was turning the matter over to the United Nations. That of course was a stupid idea as Russia has a veto in the Security Council.

That is inaccurate as well. What he said was this...

    "For many months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force - not simply Russian troops.

    No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.

    The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia - the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world."

With Video from CNN

4. He sat in the pews of the Trinity Church in Chicago, listening to a notorious racist, bigot and anti-American, Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, without a peep of protest. He did not leave the church until Rev. Wright said Obama is just another politician who says what he has to say. And that move was dictated by political considerations, not any moral outrage.

Barack was never in the pews on the specific dates when the most outrages statements such as "God Damn America" were made and even Reverend Wright has said so. That kind of stuff wasn't the only thing Wright preached, he was the original author of the "Audacity of Hope" sermon. William Kristol, who I mentioned before, once claimed Obama had been in the pews in the New York Times and had to RETRACT THE CLAIM, because he was just plain wrong.

5. He started his political career in a fund-raiser in the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist and anti-American. He still hasn't denounced him but says Mr. Ayers is now a member of the Chicago Democratic mainstream. He still maintains a friendly relationship with him, has served on a board with him, and has participated in speaking panels with him.

He likes Ayers, so does Mayor Dayley of Chicago. The man's never been convicted OF ANYTHING and has been helping on education issues in the Chicago community. This is guilt by assocation only, and out-of-date association at that. Obama's never been shown to support what Ayers said 40 years ago when he was 8 years-old - in fact he *HAS DENOUNCED* Ayers actions and words from back then.

6. He refused to wear a flag on his lapel, claiming he viewed it as a symbol of false patriotism employed after 9/11. He started wearing the flag only when he was embarrassed into doing so under political pressure. At that time he suddenly started ending his speeches with the words "God Bless America."

He wears a flag-pin when he feels like it, and doesn't when he doesn't. I agree with him about the pin being exploited as a symbol, real patriotism is about what you *DO* for your country, not what kind of china-made jewel you wear. It should be about Actions not Symbols.

7. He got an earmark appropriation from Congress for his wife's employer, the University of Chicago Medical Center. When questioned on the appearance of conflict of interest, he said there was nothing improper about that but he should have gone to his fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durban, to put the appropriation through. In other words, if there is an appearance of conflict of interest, you should hide it somehow instead of avoiding what creates such appearance. This is a pattern: saying one thing and doing the opposite. When he started to run for the presidency, he stopped putting in earmarks. As is his usual pattern, he started doing the right thing for election purposes only. So judge him by his record, not moves that are merely campaign calculation.

This is true, he did stop putting earmarks when he started running for President and prior to that he did request an Earmark for the University of Chicago - none of which Obama has ever denied. I think this is nothing compared to Palin who claims to have not requested ANY Earmarks for Alaska, when in fact, she has the largest per-capita Earmark requests of any state in the nation - including studying the DNA of baby seals - something which the McCain compain swears it would never do. Really? Never? Hmm...

Is this a sign of Obama's pattern of misleading on Earmarks or McCain's?

8. He favors increasing the capital gains tax, even though he admitted it will not raise tax revenue, but cut it instead. He justifies such an irrational move, out of what he calls a sense of fairness. That would mean less tax revenue, higher deficits and less incentive for saving, investment, capital formation, economic growth, and creation.

This is incorrect, he wants to cut the capital gains tax for small business to zero. For larger businesses making more then 250,000 he has talked about returning it back to the rates we had under Bill Clinton (20%) from where it is now (15%). Considering how Bush's changes took us from a surplus to a massive deficit, and how well the economy did under Bill Clinton's fiscal policies - I think that's just fine.

9. He called for negotiations without preconditions with the Ahmadinejad of Iran, Chavez of Venezuela, and Castro of Cuba. Even Senator Obama recognized the folly of this idea, so he backed off of it after an explosion of criticism. He thinks sweet talk solves all problems, and when a problem calls for something beyond sweet talk, he 's stumped. He speaks loudly and often, but carries a toothpick-size stick which he is afraid to use. Another example of Mr. Obama's naiveté was his comment that Iran is a small country not to be feared.

No, actually he didn't back off. He always said there would need to be preliminary work done and ground rules established before any such direct meeting - but that we *SHOULD* be working toward that goal of negotiating. Kennedy Talked to Kruschev, Nixon talked to Red China and Reagan talked to Russia. Oh by the way, while Bush was bashing Obama for being an "appeaser" for considering talking to Iran, his state department was TALKING WITH IRAN.

George H.W. Bush's former Secretary of State James Baker said on FOX NEWS: "You don’t just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well. Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies."

George W. Bush's Secretary of State Colin Powell has also echoed James Baker's statements, meanwhile Condi Rice has just recently had talks with Khadaffi.

Not talking isn't diplomacy, it's assholishness.

10. He called for withdrawal from Iraq, in effect, calling for retreat and defeat, which would have turned over the Middle East and much of the world's oil supplies to terrorists and their supporters in Iran.

That's just plain ridiculous. Al Qaeda in Iraq has already been defeated ala a report from the Washington Post Last October. (So much for not having any good news)

And that was mostly BY THE SUNNI IRAQIS THEMSELVES - something that would have happened much sooner if we hadn't been in the way causing a distraction.

As I said before this was documented by the 2007 NIE which stated the the primary cause for the drop in violence in Iraq wasn't the surge, it was the likelyhood of our impending withdrawal.

The Bush/McCain policy of extending the occupation has only delayed success, not accelerated it and now the Iraq government is openly calling for the same time-tables that Obama has been on about, *EVEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS STARTED TO AGREE TO A "TIME HORIZON" for withdrawals. Once again, Obama was right and McCain was wrong.

11. He associated with and made a land deal with convicted felon, Tony Rezko, even knowing he was under serious investigation. He admitted this was what he called a boneheaded mistake. Mr. Obama seems incapable of judging his associates, as his close and friendly encounters with the hate-America and terrorist crowd suggests. Even an otherwise friendly biographer, said he is at home with the hate-America types.

Tony Rezko was convicted just last month, in a trial that began in March. The land deal was years ago so that doesn't even make much sense. When the deal took place Rezco wasn't even under investigation, but several of his properties had gone into foreclosure - not reacting to *THAT* is what Obama was talking about. Again, this is guilt by association when our other option is John McCain who was a MEMBER of the Keating Five (Five U.S. Senators who had been "bought and paid for" by Charles Keating when his activities caused the failure of Lincoln Savings & Loan).

    "In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40 employees of American Continental Corp. McCain would spend more than $550,000 to win the primary and the general election.

    In 1983, as McCain contemplated his House re-election, Keating hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for him, even though McCain had no serious competition. When McCain pushed for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000.

    By 1987, McCain had received about $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.

    McCain also had carried a little water for Keating in Washington. While in the House, McCain, along with a majority of representatives, co-sponsored a resolution to delay new regulations designed to curb risky investments by thrifts such as Lincoln."

There is no evidence that Obama tried into intervene with Rezco in the way the McCain and five other Senators met with regulators on behalf of Keating. Admittedly McCain was very apprehensive at the meeting and tried hard not to do anything improper, but argubly *NONE OF THEM SHOULD BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE*. Interfering with an ongoing investigation in order to help one of your campaign contributors is the very DEFINITION of corruption.

12. He claims he will bring all sides together but he has never shown any signs or symptoms of bipartisanship. His record is that of a far-left liberal, the most liberal of any member of the U.S. Senate. He goes down the party line, and never reaches across the aisle.

That is again, incorrect. Just last week I posted this list of Obama's legislative accomplishments.

    * The *Lugar-Obama Anti-Terrorist* and Nuclear Poliferation Bill Because keeping Russia's decomissione nuclear materials out of the hands terrorist is "nothing to speak of.."
    * The *Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act* of 2006 which was implemented along with Republican Senator Tom Coburn (and original co-sponsored by John McCain) to establish an online searchable database of federal grants and contracts to help prevent the abuse of federal funds.
    * Obama and Coburn also combined forces to create a bill prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA from signing open-ended no-bid contracts
    * The *Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act* which among other things created strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.
    * The *Honest Leadership and Open Government Act* which prohibited former law makers from joining lobbying firms until two years after they have left office.
    * Obama wrote and introduced The *Iraq War De-escalation Act* which would have implemented the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and begin a phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq in 2007, with all brigades removed by the middle of this year - the threat of which according to the 2007 NIE was one of the chief reasons for the reduction in violence in Iraq and the beginning of the Anbar Awakening - not the "Surge".

In case you didn't know Dick Lugar is a Republican, so is Tom Coburn. What was that about "never reaching across the aisle?"

13. He claims he will bring change to Washington, but picks a long-term Washington insider, Sen. Joe Biden, who has been in the Senate for decades, and is rated the third most liberal in the U.S. Senate. He claims he'll be the agent of change, but in his acceptance speech he catalogs the tired left-wing Democratic agenda, that has been regurgitated every four years for decades. He talks change but dishes up only the old liberal dishes, which have been rejected by voters many times from McGovern to Carter, and which have failed when implementation was attempted. If Mr. Obama wins the White House, he is likely to have a veto proof Congress, which mean all of his left-loony proposals would probably become law. Electoral history suggests Americans don't go for such unrestrained power. Beware of an Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate that would bring us radical liberalism in its worst form.

The Change would be finally IMPLEMENTING the agenda, as well as overcoming the influence of corporate lobbyists in blocking it by empowering and inspiring the American people get GET OFF THEIR ASS and get directly involved.

His agenda isn't Carter's, it's closer to Clinton's and when that agenda was implemented just about *everyone* did very well during the Clinton years - even the rich.

The argument that American wouldn't go for a "Veto Proof" congress seems to fly in the face of the middle four-years of Bush's presidency where the Republican Congress wrote him a completely blank check. We tried it the Republican way, and it failed miserably - it's time for a change.

14. He says he wants to bring us energy independence but refuses to drill and extract our huge reserves, greater than those of Saudi Arabia. He wants us to check our tire pressure instead of drilling. Give me a break! He also advises everyone to tune-up their cars, even though most cars no longer need tune-ups.

He has not "refused to drill", he's said we ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF PLACES TO DRILL that we aren't even using yet. Also, drilling is not the solution to the problem and won't generate any results for 20 years.

Checking tire pressure and keeping our cars tuned would reduce about 7% of our current fuel consumption - which is MORE than we would get from additional drilling - and would happen RIGHT NOW, not 20 years from now.

15. He never sticks with a job. For example, when he became senator he started writing his book. Then within two years of becoming a senator, he started running for president. It is not surprising that he has no legislative accomplishments. This has been the pattern of his entire career. He never sticks with anything long enough to chalk up significant achievements. That's why when asked about his accomplishments, his supporters seem to be stumped. Dean Barnett, in an article in the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008), entitled "Would You Hire Barack Obama? The resume of a chronic underachiever," writes, "You'd have to conclude that Obama's failure to commit himself to any career sufficiently to excel at it suggests some unexplained restlessness." I'd say it suggests he's a dilitante, who flits from one project to another, but never stays long enough to deliver a satisfactory end product.

This is just bull. He was an Illinois State Senator for seven years. He's taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. He was an attorney for 11 years from 1993-2004. What do you mean he can't keep a job?

16. As talk show host Michael Medved has pointed out, the people vouching for him at the Democratic National Convention were mainly relatives, such as his wife and brother-in-law. There were not major figures vouching for him, because they could not vouch for a classic empty-suit. Even Hillary Clinton, in her convention endorsement speech, said Democrats must support him, but in no way vouched for his character or judgment. Contrast that with the people at the Republican National Convention who vouched for Sen. McCain - Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Sen. Fred Thompson.

No major figures vouching for him? Bill Clinton vouched for him. He used to be a President, right? That's kinda "major". John Kerry vouched for him, he ran for President once. Senator Mark Warner gave the Keynote address. Ted Kennedy endorsed and vouched for him. I know these are all talking points, but this one is just plain silly.

17. To bolster his foreign policy credentials, he picked Sen. Joe Biden as vice president. Sen. Biden voted for the war in Iraq, which vote Sen. Obama views as the symbol of bad judgment. So even Sen. Obama admits Sen. Biden ha bad judgment. Sen. Biden also comes up with wacky ideas of his own such as splitting Iraq, a sovereign nation, into three parts for the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. He also voted against the first Gulf War, even after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. I'd think most would consider that the height of bad judgment. He opposed the surge. He opposed Reagan's build-up to fight international communism, so his bad record is long and unbroken. Biden has judgment bad enough to match that of Sen. Obama's.

A lot of people voted for the Iraq War, but then the Bush Administration lied about it's intentions and blocked access to accurate intelligence information.

The U.S. itself is split - into 50 STATES, each with their own indivdual government and loose attachment to a fairly weak federal government. Biden idea is essentially *WHAT HAS HAPPENED) with the sectarian segregation of Iraq. That's all Biden was suggesting.

18. He flip-flops on matters that suggest he has no principles except the old Chicago machine principle of do anything you have to do to get elected. He promised to take public financing, something that the great reformer and change artist claimed to be committed to. Then when he saw it was to his political advantage to stay with totally private contributions, as that would bring in more money, he went back on his promise and rejected public funding. He said that his wide array of contributors to his campaign made his approach into public financing, one of his more nonsensical pieces of logic. He think if he uses sufficient oratorical powers he can make two and two equal ten, or private financing equal public financing.

Uh, what exactly did Obama flip-flop on? (This talking point apparently forgot to include it's own evidence!!) Assuming this is true - on say the FISA issue which actually pissed the LIBERALS OFF rather than pandered to them - Would it be like McCain whose flip-flipped on offshore drilling, on torture, and on tax-cuts for the wealthy?

19. He constantly uses such expressions as, "I would be glad to debate my opponent on that issue anytime, anywhere." But that is just for oratorical effect. In practice, he refused Sen. McCain's offer of a town meeting every week to debate the issues. He is clearly afraid of unscripted sessions. If he is not smart enough to go off the teleprompter and script, he is not smart enough to be president.

Uh, yeah - ok, whatever. It's not like McCain doesn't have planted questioners at his events - he does.

20. When he participated in the Saddleback debate with Pastor Rick Warren, he demonstrated again he doesn't make sense when confronted with tough questions without the answers on a script. When asked when does life begin, he said that was above his pay-grade. If that question is above his pay grade so is the presidency of the United States.

It's a medical question, or possibly a theological question. If you look at scripture it says in Leviticus 17:11 that...

    " 11'For (A)the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for (B)it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement."

If life is in the Blood, then life doesn't begin until the body forms blood vessels and that doesn't happen until several days after conception. Then again, you wouldn't want to base public policy of religious scripture would you?

He would like voters to view him as a man of great political courage, but he has a documented record of political cowardice. For example, when in the Illinois legislature, he voted "present" over 100 times and was well known for taking that route, of neither a yes or no vote. Present is a classic sitting on the fence and waiting to find out which way the wind will blow. As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008) has pointed out, " Has he shunned the easy path or broken with the conventional liberal pieties of those around him? Has he taken on his own party on a major issue? Nope."

No, that's wrong too. from the Boston Globe:

    "THE SPIN: Obama portrays himself as someone voters can trust to tell the truth and skip the usual political games. Clinton and John Edwards are using his "present" votes to offer a different picture -- one of Obama ducking tough issues or refusing to support common-sense legislation.

    THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.

    Illinois legislators often vote "present" and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his "present" votes by 10 or 20 other senators.

    In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. They also use "present" votes as strategic moves to defeat legislation or, of course, simply to avoid taking a firm position."

Like I said, wrong again.

22. Mr. Obama bases his campaign on his superior judgment, and that in turn is based on his speech against the war in Iraq. Of course, he never made a vote against the war, as at the time he was in the Illinois legislature, not the U.S. Senate. He gave the speech at an anti-war rally in the liberal Hyde Park section in Chicago. But votes are more important than speeches. And since he's been in the Senate, he's been wrong on every issue related to Iraq. These mistaken positions were summed up in an article by Emery in the Weekly Standard (Sept.1, 2008) entitled "Misfortunes of War: Success in Iraq Confounds the Democrats." It isn't easy to be wrong on every vote and pronouncement on Iraq, but don't underestimate Sen. Obama's ineptness in the foreign policy area. Mr. Emery writes: "He claimed that the Anbar Awakening took place as a result of Democrats' congressional victories, but it began in September 2006, two months before before the voting took place. He opposed not only the troop surge, but also the strategic changes that took place along with it, that did so much to enable the victory. He said the American military had noting to do with the Anbar Awakening or with the retreat of the Sadr militia, something denied by the Iraqi military and by the Iraqi Sunnis themselves. He was also wrong in his predictions that none of this would occur."

Ok, I've already hit this one. The surge helped, but it wasn't the primary source of the changes in Iraq. A change in the POLITICS is what has made things better and the Surge didn't even start until months after that happened. I have more on this here

Sen. Obama not only has judgment bad enough to make him wrong on every foreign policy question, but he also has the knack of picking advisors and close associates who have a strong record of being wrong. For example, his choice for vice president, Sen. Biden, and one of the senators that accompanied him on his trip to Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, introduced a resolution in opposition to the buildup that was the surge that turned the tide in Iraq.

Yeah, right whatever it's not like Chuck Hagel as a decorated vietnam vet (Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal) like say - John McCain - might have any experience in Foreign Policy, and did you hear - he's a Republican too?. What were they saying about a lack of "bipartisanship"?

Sen. Obama's inexperience in foreign policy is perhaps his most dangerous deficiency. But don't underestimate his ability to wreck our economy, destroy the incentives for entrepreneurs to take risks and build jobs, and to wreck our health care delivery system.

Or finally make us Energy Independent, fix our Health Care system, and stop PISSING OFF THE WORLD so we can start fighting terrorism and despotism together rather than all alone.

I signed off with "Thanks - that was fun, got more?"

If you happen to run into more of the viral Obama smear-mails from your Repub and Wingnut friends and family, feel free to use some of my debunking sources or your own. Forewarned is fore-armed.