He’s just so . . . normal.  

This isn’t worse than Barack draped in an upside down flag, though, is it?  Of course not.  It was just a jacket.  Other stuff Professor Obama and his friends have done are legitimately ridiculous and disqualify him for the high office of President of the United States.

Yet, Obama is only up 2 points nationally?  Maybe people don’t like being brainwashed?

The ad also smartly predicts a potential flip on the issue with respect to Yarmuth’s political approach.  It’s clear that even if Yarmuth pretends to change his position (which is doubtful in my opinion - he would probably just try to allow a vote on a terrible piece of legislation that would pretend to allow more drilling), he would revert to his old no-growth ways as soon as possible.  The real point is - even if they would “allow more drilling” it would be wrapped up in so much red tape that no more drilling would ever take place.

The ad also raises maybe the only thing about Saudi Arabia that is enviable.  They drill for oil there, you know?  Their gasoline is 45 cents per gallon.

Obama said in opposing Roberts, “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”

Well, it turns out the Messiah repeated himself and used almost the same exact line about Justice Samuel Alito when his confirmation vote was about to take place:

I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. He’s a smart guy, there’s no indication that he is not a man of good character. But, when you look at his record, what is clear is that when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless. 

Wake up, Obama!  It doesn’t matter who is powerful and who is not.  What matters is the Constitution.

Is it really possible that Professor Obama was able to see through the lies and deception and uncover the exact same nuance that disqualified both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito?  I don’t think so.

This is purely partisan psychobabble.  There was no reason to oppose neither Roberts nor Alito.  The only reason Obama did was because he didn’t have the courage to stand up to the freaks in his own party and stand up for these two highly qualified jurists.

Besides, how does this coincide with his un-American and insane and sickening willingness to kill children who survive abortions.  Are they not “weak” and “powerless?”

Obama said in opposing Roberts, “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”

Well, what does that say about you, Obama?  How are you using your formidable skills on behalf of the weak when you oppose the born-alive survivors act and then try to cover it up?

It’s un-American and sickening to kill children who survive abortions.  

They would edit it to death if Dyche tried to print anything truly conservative.

Today he mentions questions he thinks Senate candidates should be answering.

Northup correctly points out that even if Yarmuth does decide to advocate a vote on the issue that he will not have a new and better position on the actual issue.  Any bill passed by the House that “allows drilling” will be bogged down with so much red tape that no additional drilling will actually take place.  

Here’s the email from Northup:

Pelosi Pulls Back

After stumbling 2 weeks ago through an explanation on why she won’t follow her own rules to allow a fair vote on drilling onABC’s This Week, Nancy Pelosi has begun to soften her stance on drilling for American oil. Watch as Pelosi cannot even develop a reasonable response to why she will not allow a fair vote. Pelosi practically shutdown Congress in July to avoid a vote and subsequently got nothing done. She was able to hold off just long enough to take the recess and go on her already scheduled book tour.

On August 11th on CNN, she told Larry King, “Well, we can do that. We can have a vote on that” when talking about drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. However, in a radio address onSaturday, she made it clear that she will only allow such a thing to come to vote if it is weighed down with so many other pieces of legislation that it would undo any gains from drilling for more oil. These are the same pieces of legislation she tried to ram through Congress earlier in the summer by suspending rules for amendments. Releasing our national crisis oil reserve for a temporary relief is not a long term answer and even the New York Times rebukes the notion that windfall profits taxes and going after speculators will do anything to solve the problem.

Be on the lookout. John Yarmuth will soon join the line of Democrats wanting a vote on drilling, but be sure that Yarmuth’s views will mirror Pelosi’s. Drilling more and adding long term supply are the best ways to lower prices. Raising taxes and temporarily lowering our emergency reserves is old hat and irresponsible.

Yarmuth, of course, is wrong on the issue.  He’s wrong no matter what.  However, Northup has drawn attention to the fact that a potential partial flip-flop on political tactics surrounding the issue of expanded drilling will be nothing but an election strategy.  Not an energy strategy.

What exactly does this mean?  Well, I’m not sure.

Theoretically, Clark could have done this on purpose if he had money invested in such a way that profit would outweigh penalties from paying the taxes late.  That’s possible, but it still doesn’t look good for Clark.  

The other option to explain this is mismanagement of personal finances.  

Elected officials put themselves in a bad position when they do stuff like this.  On one hand, almost everyone encounters times when they pay things late or make mistakes.  On the other hand, elected officials need to set a good example and follow the laws that they play such a big role in crafting.  

He owed $1202.92 and had to pay $1490.53 on one piece of property.  On another one he owed $144.68 and paid $210.07.

With Doug Hawkins running a model campaign in the South End, Clark really can’t afford any bad PR whatsoever.  

Professor Barack Obama said that he would not have appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and narrowly avoided stating that he was “not experienced enough” for such a high post.  He switched mid-word from “not ex-” to “not a strong enough jurist.”

Obama was 29 when Thomas was appointed by George H.W. Bush to replace Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court.

Today, he’s running for President of the United States after serving in the United States Senate for about half of a term.  Moreover, he states that the hardest decision that he ever had to make was the decision to oppose the Iraq War - one which he made when he was in the ILLINOIS STATE SENATE!  The Illinois State Senate had nothing to do whatsoever with the U.S. decision to depose Saddam Hussein.  At least Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, John F. Kerry, and the other dingbats had to cast a vote in the appropriate Senate!

Barack Obama is a intelligent and educated fool.

Pastor Rick Warren, author of the ridiculously popular book The Purpose-Driven Life, interviewed both Barack Obama and John McCain separately for an hour.  Obama went first while McCain waited in a room where he could not hear Obama’s answers.  Then Warren asked McCain the same questions he asked Obama.  

In scenario after scenario it was revealed that John McCain simply has a greater understanding of issues, more depth as a person, more ability and readiness to lead, is more clearly defined as a person, understands himself better, etc. etc. etc.

It was really breathtaking to see the two guys interviewed in this way.  McCain, Obama, Warren, and the news people all deserve a tremendous amount of credit for participating.  Obama is just in the unfortunate position of being wrong on many issues.  

You have to read his 10 minute dissertation of an answer to Warren’s abortion question.  One conservative Congressman stated that for Obama to talk about Matthew 25 (Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me) while voting for partial-birth abortion is disingenuous and disappointing.  

I guess that’s true.  I don’t really find it disappointing, though, because I don’t expect anything more or different from Professor Obama.  That sort of academic pandering is exactly what I expect from him and that’s what I get every time I listen to him.  

From the protected and hallowed halls of universities across this country, professors sit in their offices and write at length trying to find the best and most correct answers to some very important questions and some inherently irrelevant questions.  That’s Obama.  

In the meantime, though, there are millions of people in this country who don’t have time to sit and write and think and debate.  These millions only want to work for their family, and work for their country, and try to make the world a better place for their kids, and worship God freely, etc.  That’s McCain.  

It’s leisurely hypothetical academia versus the necessity of realistic immediate decisions.  It’s clear which one of these characters should serve as our next president. 

Preview of York’s piece:

The contrast was striking throughout each man’s one-hour time on stage. When Warren asked Obama, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” Obama answered that opposing the war in Iraq was “as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt he meant America ill.” But Obama was a state senator in Illinois when Congress authorized the president to use force in Iraq. He didn’t have to make a decision on the war. That fact was a recurring issue in the Democratic primaries, when candidates Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and John Edwards argued that they, as senators, had to make a choice Obama didn’t have to make. And now he says it’s his toughest call.

When McCain got the question, he was able to tell an old story with a sense of gravity and poignancy that he seldom shows in public. He described his time as a prisoner of war, when he was offered a chance for early release because his father was a top naval officer. “I was in rather bad physical shape,” McCain told Warren, but “we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture.” So McCain refused to go. He made the telling even more forceful when he added that, “in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.” In one moment, he showed a sense of pride and a hint of regret, too; he came across as a man who did the right thing but not without the temptation to take an easy out. In any event, the message was very clear: John McCain has had to make bigger, more momentous decisions in his life than has Barack Obama.

McCain bested Obama again when Warren asked for an example of a time in which he “went against party loyalty and maybe even against your own best interest for the good of America.”

“Well, I’ll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on,” Obama said, “and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.” But it turned out that was an issue on which Obama had briefly allied with McCain and then jumped back to the Democratic mother ship, causing McCain to write Obama an angry note about the abandonment of what had been a principled position. As far as bucking your party goes, it wasn’t very big stuff.