President Barack Obama should follow the example set by North Vietnamese  negotiator Le Duc Tho in 1973 and refuse the Nobel Peace Prize.  Many are criticizing the decision to award Obama the Peace Prize.  This isn't the first controversial decision by the Nobel committee.

It is inconceivable that the Commander in Chief  of a nation whose  troops are actively engaged in armed combat should be awarded a peace prize.  I happen to support the U.S. role in both conflicts, but recognize that involvement in war is inconsistent with receiving the Nobel Prize.

If Obama has made an "extraordinary effort" for peace, why are Americans still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?  How is the practice of Americans killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an example of "reaching out" to the Muslim world?   Is the Nobel Prize Committee demonstrating racism  by seemingly suggesting that  the killing of Muslims is insignificant?

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war.  Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible,  but  peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about. 

The Nobel Committee awarded the 1973 Peace Prize to Tho and Henry Kissinger for the work on the Paris Peace Agreement designed to  end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.     Tho refused to accept the award because he realized his nation had not abandoned its goal of uniting Vietnam by force if necessary.    Kissinger initially accepted it but subsequently attempted unsuccessfully to return it.

Tho and Kissinger at least had done something  that  could qualify  them for consideration.  Obama has done nothing but talk. 

Obama has  not ended any war as President Theodore Roosevelt had  when Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for helping negotiate an  end to the Russo-Japanese War.  Many questioned the decision to give the award to Roosevelt because American military forces were dealing with a violent rebellion in the Philippines.

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war.  Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible,  but  peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about.

President Obama should  not accept a Peace Prize so long as these conflicts are going on.

Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, Le Duc Tho, 1973, Vietnam, Henry Kissinger, Theodore Roosevelt, refuse
  

Why should we believe statements about health care from the most secretive president since Richard Nixon?  We have no way of knowing if presidents who keep significant secrets in some areas are telling the truth on other matters.  

Barack Obama's continued refusal to release minor personal documents like his actual birth certificate, college records, etc. implies he is covering up important information that we should know about.   Unless his critics are correct, none of the information should have any adverse affect other than possibly causing some embarrassment.  

A president who feels he has to keep personal secrets is very likely to also keep secrets about his proposals including those involving health care.   He shouldn't be surprised that many people suspect he has ulterior motives for some proposals and may be lying about their impact.

Obama has lied on other important issues.  Last year he said there wouldn't be any new taxes for most of us.  After being elected he proposed huge tax on carbon emissions that will affect all of us.  The purpose of the tax is to allow the greedy financial interests who bought the White House for him to make billions trading "carbon credits".  

I don't know if his critics are correct that the refusal to release his actual birth certificate is due to him being born outside the U.S., but there doesn't appear to be any other reason for him to keep the birth certificate secret.  Does the birth certificate indicate Obama was born outside the U.S. or could it include information that might indicate that Obama is not  the child mentioned on the certificate?  Perhaps the real Barack Obama died shortly after birth and his mother in a humanitarian move adopted an African orphan to replace the baby she lost.    She then used the U.S. certificate to make it appear her new child was born in the U.S.

Incidentally there is now a claim that someone has found a Kenyan birth registration indicating he was born in Kenya.     As was the case with the document used to claim he was born in Hawaii, the other side suggests it is a forgery.  And, like the Hawaiian document, it merely states that there is a birth certificate rather than being an actual birth certificate.  Those who believe the document is valid suggest it may have been produced in connection with his mother's divorce case.

There once was a time when the refusal of a politician to release a document would provoke editorials demanding that the document be made public.  Journalists were suspicious of politicians who kept secrets.  Journalists were concerned that  politicians who kept secrets might be covering up scandalous behavior.

So why  no editorials about President-elect Barack Obama's refusal to release a copy of his  original  birth certificate or at least allow a representative group of journalists examine it?

Would journalists be as trusting of a Republican politician?  Have they forgotten William "I never had sexual relations with that woman"  Clinton?

Obama is from Illinois, a state with bipartisan corruption.  The current governor, a Democrat, seems destined to join his Republican predecessor in jail for selling favors. 

Real journalists should be naturally suspicious of all politicians,  because con artists can sometimes sound more convincing than those who are telling the truth.  
  
Ordinary citizens have to provide copies of birth certificates  to apply for Social Security or  even renew drivers'  licenses they have had for decades.  Why is it unreasonable to require someone wanting to be president to provide something more than a vague Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" to prove he is a citizen?  No one is going to use the information to steal his identity.

Hawaiin officials will only confirm that he has a birth certificate on file, but not that it indicates he was born in Hawaii.  Hawaii allows parents who are Hawaiian residents to register the births of children   born elsewhere.

Real journalists would be asking what Obama is covering up instead of supporting his secrecy.  Real journalists wouldn't be surprised that many suspect Obama is covering up a major problem such as the possibility he wasn't born in the U.S..  

After all why else would he want to keep the document secret?  He's already been elected and any embarassing information contained in it cannot change  the election results. Releasing the document won't compromise national security -- the reason often given for wanting to keep foreign policy related documents, such as the Pentagon Papers, secret.

I don't know if Obama was born in the U.S.  or not,  but  I know he could easily have  eliminated doubts by  allowing Hannity and Colmes or some other journalists to examine his original birth certificate. 

By allowing Obama to keep his birth records secret, the media may  cause Obama to think he can get away with refusing to release other documents that might contain damaging information.

Are those who call themselves journalists refusing to challenge Obama because they are afraid if they look behind the curtain that  they will discover  their "wonderful wizard of oz" isn't a wonderful wizard after all. 

 

Was Richard Nixon right?  Are presidents above the law?  Congress seems to think so.  It has no plans to require  Barack Obama to produce evidence that he is a "natural born citizen" of the United States  in order to take the office of President.

If  Congress isn't going to require Obama to prove he is a citizen, it should do the next best thing and enact legislation that insures he qualifies regardess  of where he was born or any subsequent actions that could have compromised his citizenship under existing legislation.  

Failure to insure Obama is a citizen  could create a constitutional crisis if the  courts eventually recognize that they have to  consider  whether or not  Obama is qualified to sign acts of Congress into law and  enforce them.  If an unqualified president can sign bills into law than  it is no longer important whether or not the bills themselves comply with the Consitution.

The courts have thus far rejected lawsuits questioning the "standing" of the plaintiffs to raise the issue.  A person being prosecuted for violating a law would have "standing" to question if the law were properly signed into law.

Failure to insure that  Obama is a citizen could allow nations that have evidence he may not be a citizen to use that evidence to blackmail him into doing what they want.  

Congess wants states to require us to provide proof of citizenship to renew drivers' licenses we have had for decades.  Shouldn't it impose the same requirements on those who want to be  president, or isn't it important whether or not a president complies with the Constitution?

So far Obama has only produced a vague "Certification of Live Birth" that Hawaii issues for babies that might have been born outside of Hawaii, including outside the U.S., to Hawaiian parents.  According to Hawaiian statues:

"[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."

Barack Obama's mother certainly would have taken advantage of this option if her baby had been born in Kenya as some have alleged but not proved.  Pregnant Mexican have been known to cross the border into the U.S. for the sole purpose of allowing their children to be born as U.S. citizens.  Obama's mother would have wanted the same for her baby if she had miscalcuated and been in Kenya at the wrong time.

Dr Chiyome Fukino has stated:  "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." 

However, she has not said that the document states Obama was born in Hawaii.

Hawaii's "policies and procedures" even allow "Amended certificates of birth [to] be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country."

Based on past political controversies,  the refusal to state that Obama was born in the U.S. indicates that he probably was not born in the U.S.  Those who blindly accept Obama's claim that he is a citizen have forgotten President William "I never had sexual relations with that woman" Clinton.

 If  I wanted to be president, I would be willing to let the Washington Post publish a copy of my  birth certificate on its front page.  After all who is going to attempt to steal the identity of the President of the United States. Obama's refusal to make his complete birth certificate public indicates he is hiding something.  What else would he be afraid of than that the document shows he was born outside the U.S.?

It is generally accepted that Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, but some question whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya.  Congress could eliminate this problem by making provisions in 1986 legislation retroactive to some time prior to Obama's birth.  Any child born to an American parent, or at least an American citizen mother, would automatically be a U.S. citizen.  Congress could require DNA evidence for those who claim an American citizen father.  There is legal precedent for basing a child's legal status  on the mother's legal status.  During the period of slavery a child was considered free or slave based on whether the mother was free or slave.

Other questions about Obama's citizenship involve him becoming an  through adoption by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro.   They cite  a school document indicating he is an Indonesian citizen.  If Obama failed to follow the proper legal actions to negate that citizenship, Congress could change the law so that his failure isn't important.   Another set of allegations involve a suggestion he traveled under a non-U.S. passport after becoming an adult.   This allegation would involve legal restrictions that Congress could easily change so that they don't affect Obama's citizenship

If any of the allegations about Obama.not being a U.S. citizen are correct, there are likely documents possessed by foreign documents that would confirm the allegations.  If Kenya has a document indicating Obama was born there, Kenya could use the document get financial support from the Obama administration or even military assistance in the event of a civil war.  If Indonesia  has documents showing Obama as an Indonesian citizen such as an Indonesian passport, it could use documents to coerce Obama into helping the Indonesian government.  If Obama traveled to another country using a non-U.S. passport the countries he visited might blackmail him.

If Obama isn't a citizen and the courts don't remove him,  or if the fact isn't discovered until after he leaves office,  a precedent would exist for naturalized citizens such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to become president.

I don't know if Obama is an American citizen or not, but if he is he can easily eliminate any doubt by making his birth certificate public.   His failure to do so indicates he is covering up something. The something he is most likely covering up is that he was not born a U.S. citizen and the only way he can constitutionally serve as president is if Congress changes the law so that he does qualify as a citizen.

If Congress doesn't insure Obama is a citizen and the courts remove him because he isn't a citizen, Congress would have to repass every piece of legislation passed between the time Obama took office and the courts ruled he was not constitutionally qualified to sign legislation into law.   If the Democratic Congress allowed a non-citizen Democrat to become president, the public might react by refusing to ever again vote for a Democrat for any office.

We average citizens have to prove to government we are citizens  just to renew an old  driver's license.  Shouldn't those who want to run our government have to prove to us  that they are citizens before they take office?  Or are elitist politicians above the law.

Many  people suggested after the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate that she was  comparable to Jimmy Stewart's character in the Frank Capra
movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".   The character in one of the other movies in the unofficial trilogy that included "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" is  somewhat similar to the  Democratic presidential nominee  Barack Obama.

"Meet John Doe"  is about a man plucked from obscurity because of his inspiring speeches.   In the movie set in the Depression, Barbara Stanwyck plays columnist Ann Sheridan who is one of many employees fired from "The Bulletin" after it is purchased by wealthy tycoon D. B. Norton (played by Edward Arnold who was also in "Mr. Smith..."), a man with apparent fascist tendencies who wants political power.    For her final column after being fired, she makes up a letter by a man called "John Doe" who treatens to jump off city hall because of all the corruption, etc. in the country.  The letter becomes a sensation and  as a condition of rehiring her she has to find someone  who will pretend to be the ficticious author of the letter. 

From a large group of unemployed men who claim to have written the letter, she selects a baseball player with a bad arm played by Gary Cooper (who also had the lead in "Mr Deeds...").  Doe takes the job in exchange for a promise of money so he can have his pitching arm fixed by Dr. "Bonesetter" Brown.  

The paper then proceeds to carry a series of protest columns ghost written by Sheridan under the John Doe byline.  Norton decides to put John Doe on the radio and Sheirdan's mom persuades her to provide a more positive speech instead of the negative columns.  Norton notices his servants are entralled with the speech and decides to start a national movement   in John Doe's name.

Norton wants to use the movement to help him and his crooked friends take over the White House with Norton as the candidate.    Doe overhears the plot and leaves town.

In the real life version Barack Obama is the person plucked from obscurity because of his ability to deliver inspiring speeches and the wealthy tycoon is George Soros who decides to have his "John Doe" run for the presidency, possibly because Soros, who was born in Hungary, is ineligible.  Obama unlike John Doe decides to go along with the plot and run for president.  

Are we in a  Frank Capra movie?  We'll know Tuesday.  A victory by  Sen. John McCain  could indicate we're in a Frank Capra movie and everything will eventually turn out okay.   A victory by  Sen. Barack Obama could indicate the movie is by someone like Roger Corman and we don't know how things will turn out.       

Are you a conservative who would like to avenge Barry Goldwater's loss to Lyndon Johnson?  Do you have the knowledge and equipment to produce a video for YouTube? 

Have I got an ad for you.  In 1964 Lyndon Johnson produced an ad called  the "Daisy Ad"  that featured a little girl with a daisy followed by a  video of a growing mushroom cloud.
 
Barack Obama's  repeated threats to invade nuclear armed Pakistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden make him  a perfect subject for  a modern version of  such an ad.

The ad would begin with a clip of Obama in the second debate saying ""And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out."

Next would be a news anchor, or possibly two reporters.  The anchor or 1st reporter would say: "President Barack Obama today told Pakistan to turn over Osama bin Laden or the United States would take care of him."

Then the anchor or 2nd reporter would say:  "The government of Pakistan has responded to President Obama's ultimatum by stating that it does not take orders from the United States and any attack on Pakistani civilians would have grave consequences."

Next would be a video clip of a little girl with a daisy followed by a video of a mushroom cloud.

 I have an 8 year old computer and dialup, so I'm not in a position to make such an ad.  I believe such an ad could harm Obama the way the original ad harmed Goldwater.

I don't have time right now to check to see if any of those newspaper editors and columnists who are calling for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to resign are also endorsing Sen. Barack Obama.  If any are doing both they are  hypocrites and probably partisan or even racist.  

Sen. Ted Stevens was recently convicted of not reporting various  gifts and home remodeling work from a powerful oil services industry company.  Sen. Barack Obama received money from the University of Chicago hospital in the form of a doubling of his wife's salary after he was elected to the Senate and then attempted to circumvent the normal National Institutes of Health grant process by earmarking  brain trauma research money for the hospital. He also attempted to earmark $1 million for a hospital expansion project.    Ironically, one of the critics of Obama's  research earmark was  Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

Both Senators have accepted favors from those who wish their help in obtaining government benefits.  That used to be called bribery.  Why should one Senator who has taken a bribe  have to resign and another allowed to become president? 

Is it because one is older than the other or of a different party or has a different skin color? 

We apparently have different standards here in Kansas than they do in Washington.  One of the county commissioners who is retiring this year has an auto dealership. When the county purchased vehicles that his dealership bid on  he abstained from participating in the decision. Local city council members abstain if a decision impacts their outside interests.

If Sen. Stevens  were honest he wouldn't have accepted favors from a company that did business with government.  If Sen. Obama were honest he would have stayed out of any decision involving his wife's employer instead of actively attempting to obtain funds for the employer.

Perhaps Obama could be excused on the grounds he is too young to know any better, but if so he is also too young to be president.

We should have the same standards for all Senators regardless of their party affiliations. Young Senators should be held to the same ethical standards as old Senators. 

Not all racists are anti-black.   Some racists believe that blacks are less capable of being honest and thus shouldn't be held to the same ethical standards.  I believe that blacks are just as capable of being honest as whites and should be expected to adhere to the same ethical standards.   I don't recall ever working with a black person whom I thought was dishonest, but there were a couple of white law enforcement officers who  became crooks.

I've seen occasional recent references  comparing  Pakistan to Cambodia during the Vietnam War.  If the Bush administration, or Barack Obama, thinks the two are comparable it is making the biggest miscalculation since the U.S.  made the mistake of getting too close to China in the Korean War.   Obama wants to expand the current Bush attacks on border areas to include an attack on Osama bin Laden where ever he might be in Pakistan.

U.N. forces had routed the North Korea Army and appeared to on the verge of winning when China became concerned that the Americans might decide to go ahead and conquer China as well because China had been supplying the North Koreans.  China responded by sending in its army.  President Harry Truman decided that it was best not to antagonize the Chinese any more than necessary and prohibited  bombing supply bases in China.

Enemies using sanctuaries  isn't a new situation for the U.S.  Andrew Jackson faced such a situation  along the border of what was then Spanish owned Florida during the administration of President James Monroe.  Jackson took care of the problem by in effect declaring war on Spain with nothing more than an ambiguous letter from President Monroe. Jackson invaded Florida without any authorization from Congress and captured the Spanish governor at a poorly defended fort at Pensacola.  Spain after a protest decided Florida wasn't worth the trouble and ceded it to the U.S.

 During the Vietnam War communist forces started using areas  of Cambodia along the Vietnam border as sanctuaries for supply depots and troop bases.  Cambodia with a population of only 7 million and no military force to speak of couldn't force the Vietnamese out and was afraid that acknowledging their presence would draw the country into the war.  North Vietnam denied having any forces in Cambodia. 

The U.S. occasionally bombed these forces and sent in commando type forces, but denied doing either.  The U.S. didn't want to formally enter the country because it didn't want to  risk forcing Cambodia to ask for assistance from someone like China or the U.S.S.R.  Cambodia also ignored the actions of  the U.S. claiming it wasn't aware of the presense of foreign troops or any bombing. 

In early 1970 Prince Norodom Sihanouk's efforts to keep the country out of the conflict failed and he was overthrown in a coup by pro-U.S. officials.   The new government  invited the U.S. in to eliminate the communist bases.  Subsequently the country endured a civil war that resulted in over a million deaths.

Pakistan with an estimated 2006 population of 165 million is the 6th most populous nation in the world with a population equal to the population of Iraq plus the population of  Russia.  It has the world's 7th largest military force, including nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.   Pakistan's population is approximately equal to the combined populations of World War II Germany and Japan. 

Militants are a potential threat to overthrow or even take over the government.  They would welcome an incident  they could use to attract support for  a  Jihad type war. 

Al Qaeda may be using Pakistan as a sanctuary as part of a  strategy to create an incident to draw Pakistan into their Jihad.  Osama bin Laden  might welcome  being killed if he could  achieve martyr status  and induce Pakistan to declare war or to start supplying his forces with conventional or nuclear weapons. 

Pakistan has already had a problem with a government scientist helping other countries develop nuclear weapons without government approval.  Other government officials might respond to a U.S. incident by allowing militants to "steal" nuclear weapons.  If those militants could also "steal" a missile that could be fired from  a ship, they might be able to destroy a U.S. city.

The United States have enough to handle without having to take on a major military power like Pakistan.  Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan do increase the hazards of those serving in Afghanistan just like the Cambodian sanctuaries increased the  threat to those of us who served in Vietnam.  The rockets and mortars fired in my direction may have been stockpiled in Cambodia before being provided for attacks.  The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces where I was took their R & R in Cambodia.

However, the potential threat of a  much wider war makes the risk of attacking sanctuaries, or attempting to attack Osama bin Laden as Barack Obama wants to do,  too great to take the chance.  Pakistan isn't a weak nation like Cambodia or early 19th Century Spain. Pakistan has a stronger military force than China had during the Korean War.  Little Iraq ignored an ultimatum. Why would any intelligent person think Pakistan would take orders from the U.S.?

Sen. Joe Biden speaking to Democratic donors in Seattle has revealed a major secret that Sen. Barack Obama didn't want revealed.

Biden warned supporters that our enemies would very likely  test  Obama  within the first six months if he is elected president, much like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev tested newly elected president John Kennedy.  Biden also warned that Obama might not handle it well.   Obama's "gonna need your help to use your influence within the community to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

For those unfamiliar with the Kennedy administration, Khrushchev decided he could take advantage of the young president because Kennedy appeared weak at a summit meeting and had mishandled an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.  Khrushchev  responded by constructing the Berlin Wall and preparing to place missiles in Cuba.  Khrushchev eventually pulled the missiles out of Cuba after moving to the brink of nuclear war, but he got what he wanted with  a guarantee of a communist regime headed by  Fidel Castro in Cuba.  The Berlin Wall remained until 1989.

The pro-Obama New York Times attempted to minimize the significance of the remarks by quoting Obama's efforts at damage control.  

“A period of transition in a new administration is always one where we have to be vigilant, we have to be careful,” Mr. Obama said. “We have to be mindful that as we pass the baton in this democracy that others don’t take advantage of it - that’s true whether it’s myself or Senator McCain.”

One likely test of Obama would come from Osama bin Laden.  Obama said in the second debate:  "And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out."

If Obama is elected, bin Laden may  challenge  Obama by saying "here I am. Come and get me."  He will know Obama's statement saying he will order Pakistan to turn over bin Laden will prevent the Pakistani government from moving against him.

Obama doesn't understand that the government of the nation of 145 million people  will not give in to any  American ultimatum like it were some tiny Latin American country.  Pakistan has nuclear weapons and can easily destroy any attacking force.   Any Pakistani government foolish enough to appear to be taking orders from the U.S., which many Muslims refer to as "The Great Satan", would be overthrown by radicals.  Many of these radicals would be willing to take a chance on a nuclear war with the U.S. because they would not mind dying to further their "jihad" to help radical Islam take over the world.

If Obama were foolish enough to attack Pakistan by attacking bin Laden, Pakistan might feel it had no choice but to destroy the base that launched the attack or even declare war on the U.S.   Pakistan might even  secretly provide al Qaeda with one or more nuclear weapons.

If Obama backed down from his threat, bin Laden would portray it as a sign of weakness and  use it to increase  recruitment and plan for terror attacks against the U.S..  Bin Laden  might  also be able to use Obama's apparent weakness to increase recruitment for new operations in Iraq.

Norm Crosby suggested during the Jerry Lewis Telethon that this may be the election when voters "hope that nobody wins."   He might be right. 

Sen. Barack Obama has suggested that Sen. John McCain  would be a continuation of the Bush administration.  I wish that I thought  one of the presidential candidates would be as effective a president as George W. Bush, but I don't.  The current set of major party candidates may be the worst since the 19th Century.

 I would rather have four more years of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton than have four years of either Barack Obama or John McCain.  I would rather bring back Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush, in spite of their ages, than have four years of Barack Obama.

Neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton will be considered a great president,  but both are likely to look good compared to which ever of the major party candidates  wins  this year's election.

The only ability Obama seems to have is the ability to con people into thinking he can handle the presidency.    He has never  handled any executive  position and doesn't understand  the War on Terror or the current economic  situation.  There is more to being president than just looking good on television.  Fred Thompson knows how to act like a president on television, but I wouldn't have voted for him either. 

Obama is less experienced than the 20th Century's least experienced president Warren G. Harding.  Obama shares  Harding's tendency to associate with corrupt individuals.  Unlike Harding, Obama may himself be corrupt considering that he attempted to earmark a million dollars to his wife's employer after the employer more than doubled her salary  Providing government benefits after receiving money  is usually consider bribery.  

He cannot understand that regardless of whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, the country has  become a battleground in the War on Terror.  If we leave before the Iraqis are able to  keep al  Qaeda from taking over, Osama bin Laden (OBL), or another al Qaeda leader, will move to Iraq and use its oil revenue to fund al Qaeda's operations.
 
Obama doesn't understand that if OBL is hiding in Pakistan, OBL is doing so because even if the U.S. kills him there, his successors might be able to use the action to  either take over Pakistan or at least gain access to some of its nuclear weapons.   Sending troops into Pakistan, as Obama wants to do, could spark a full scale war with Pakistan  which not only has nuclear weapons, but also a population nearly as large as the combined populations of  World War II Germany and Japan.  

OBL is not a Hitler type leader who wants power for himself.  OBL  believes he  is pursuing a cause  that is bigger than he is. He believes he might benefit in the afterlife if he became a martyr to that cause. 

Obama's comments about the current economic situation  are just simplistic partisan nonsense.  He fails to recognize that the sitaution results from global economic problems rather than the policies of President Bush.  

The basic problem began with a boom during the Clinton administration.  Historically, economic  booms fuel greed and encourage  those with money to feel they cannot lose regardless of the risk. Booms may also encourage politicians to believe that busts are a thing of the past.   The boom could have gone bust with the double shock of 9/11 and the Enron collapse, but Bush helped prevent that outcome.       

McCain isn't much better on economic matters than  Obama, but he does recognize the dangers of tax increases in a bust situation.  If I remember standard economic theory taxes should be increased during growth periods to prevent a boom situation and pay off any debts and reduced during recessions to stimulate the economy.  Reducing taxes is less expensive than sending out economic stimulous checks. 

As an experienced executive McCain won't be distracted by having to learn how to be in charge of an organization.  McCain has a better understanding of what can go wrong because of his experience during the savings and loan crisis in the late 80's.

McCain understands the War on Terror and recognizes the need to win on all battlefields.   He is unlikely to  make the mistake of starting a war with Pakistan.

McCain's weakness is that he doesn't come across as a strong enough leader.  I don't expect him to  be another Roosevelt (TR or FDR), but  he could exhibit the fiestiness  of Harry S. Truman.  McCain was too laid back during the debates which is one way he is like George W. Bush.

Obama also  shares a trait with Bush.  Obama decided to follow Bush's example and choose an older vice president who could tell him how to handle foreign policy.  If Obama really were as intelligent as his supporters claimed he would have selected a woman for his vice president. 

I'm not a fan of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, but I would concede that she would have been a better choice for vice president than either Sen . Joe Biden or Gov. Sarah Palin.  She would have been a better choice for President than Obama or McCain.     

Obama's foolish decision to choose Biden allowed McCain to select Palin as his running mate.  She's the only bright spot in this dismal election.  She is better prepared to be president than Obama.  Like Vice  President  Calvin Coolidge, who became president after Warren G. Harding died,. she was selected for the vice presidency during her first term as governor.    

Theodore Roosevelt, who like Palin was 42 at the time he was selected as vice president, was also in his first term as governor.  However, he had also briefly been an under secretary of the navy as well as an army colonel (the army equivalent of the rank achieved by McCain in the navy).    It's too early to say Palin is another TR, but she has a similar enthusiasm.  TR may have been the ultimate presidential maverick.

I wasted  another evening on Tuesday watching one of  the media events ignorant  journalists  insist on misrepresenting as debates.   The candidates repeated the same cliches they used in their first debate.

Once again Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated that he is dangerously ignorant in the area of  foreign policy and the War on Terror.  Once again journalists ignored his mistake. 

Obama. is apparently incapable of understanding the fact that sending military forces into another country without permission is an invasion.  It doesn't matter why the troops enter the country, it is still an act of war.   The fact that Osama bin Laden might be in Pakistan  doesn't mean the U.S. can invade Pakistan without fear of retaliation -- and  Pakistan most definitely does have nuclear weapons.

Obama doesn't understand the volatility of the situation in Pakistan.  The country has been on the brink of a civil war for many years and its government could fall at any time.  An American invasion would force the government to declare war on the U.S. to try to keep the country united.  The first action in that war might be a nuclear attack that would wipe out our forces in the Middle East.

Obama's obsession with bin Laden and Afghanistan indicates he doesn't understand the War on Terror.  This war isn't a traditional war against an enemy with a geographic base. 

Al  Qaeda can function without bin Laden and might even benefit if the United States killed or captured him.  Others are available to head al Qaeda  if something happens to bin Laden.

Death at the hands of the U.S. would make bin Laden a martyr and violent Muslims would rally to avenge his death.    Capture of bin Laden would provoke efforts to capture Americans any where in the world in an attempt to obtain hostages to trade for him.

Al Qaeda doesn't have a fixed location that  it has to defend.  If pushed out of one area, al  Qaeda will move to some other area with a large Muslem population.  If  the U.S. leaves Iraq before the Iraqis  are able to  maintain stablity in  the country, al Qaeda will move in and use Iraq as a base.

It is no longer important whether or not Iraq should have become a battleground in the War on Terror.  The fact is that Iraq is a battleground in the War on Terror and we cannot afford to turn that battleground over to al Qaeda.

Why are journalists so naive about politicians?  If they had any sense they would realize that politicians are not the most truthful individuals. 

Some politicians lie to mislead voters.  Others lie because they don't really know what they are talking about.

Legislative politicians are particularly prone to changing their positions based on political expediency.  Legislators can always blame the executive branch if something goes wrong.
 
Members of the U.S. Senate have long been known for saying one thing in the Senate and the opposite back home in the states they represent.   As Gov. Sarah Palin observed in the recent vice presidential debate, Washington politicians often are for things before they are against them or against things before they are for them.

Both presidential candidates have changed their positions on important matters during the last year or so.  Sen. Barack Obama first claimed that he would accept public funding for his presidential campaign then changed his mind.  Sen. John McCain once supported realistic immigration reform before he realized he needed   the support of anti-immigrant groups.

Presidential candidates will deliberately make false promises to get elected.  Sometimes they even lie to themselves.  John F. Kennedy probably believed he could get civil rights legislation through Congress, but he failed to do so.

President Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 with a slogan "He kept us our of war."  Less than six months after being reelected, President Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

Herbert Hoover ran for president in 1928 promising  "a chicken in every pot and a  car in every garage."  A year after he was elected the stock market crashed.

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson said he wouldn't send "American boys" to fight a war that should be fought by "Asian boys."   A year after he won the election paratroopers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade were fighting for the lives against a much larger force in War Zone D in Vietnam.

So why do journalists assume we can believe anything polticians say?  Why do journalists suggest we should evaluated presidential candidates upon what they say rather than what they have done?

Perhaps journalists ignore the fact that polticians have lied in the past because they have memories like a VHS tape.  When they get to the end of the tape they simply record over whatever they used to know. 

Or. perhaps, today's journalists just aren't  very smart.  They don't understand that  politicians  will deliberately lie if no one challenges them with the truth.  Journalists don't understand that politicians, especially male politicians, often have a greatly inflated sense of their own abilities.

The economic portion of the so called debate Friday night was a waste of time. Neither candidate provided more than a vague set of conditions for evaluating any proposal. They want us to put them in charge,  but have nothing to offer for dealing with the current  crisis. 

But their lack of any solution shouldn't be surprising. If either had a solution to the credit he would have been in Washington trying to get Congress to adopt his solution instead of debating in Mississippi.  Hopefully, President George W. Bush will solve the problem before they take office.

Sen. Barack Obama kept trying to bring  up the issue of health care which is irrelevant to the credit crisis.  In general Obama seems more concerned with playing the blame game than ending the crisis.    The important thing now is to end the crisis. 

Both candidates repeated the old religions of their parties. 

Sen. John McCain says he  is going to freeze  federal spending except for defense and entitlement programs. It'll never happen.  Republicans have been talking about that for decades and  haven't succeeded. 

Most programs have too many supporters in Congress to be reduced.  Federal agencies often have regional offices, and the communities with those offices will  pressure  their  congressional delegation to  keep  those offices open.  The communities  or organizations that benefit  will also lobby for keeping the programs.

Sen; Obama claims he's going to raise revenue by closing corporate loopholes.  Democrats have been promising to do that for decades and haven't succeeded yet.  Congress creates new loopholes faster than it eliminates old ones.  Even if Congress did eliminate loopholes no money could be raised by taxing companies that are already losing money. 

McCain has a better chance to freeze spending than Obama has to eliminate corporate loopholes.  The president can veto spending bills.  The president cannot force congress to close tax loopholes.

McCain is correct  that Obama's spending program  would require a general tax increase rather than a reduction.  If Obama really believes that he can cut taxes and increase spending, those nice young men in their clean white coats need to take him to the happy home.  

According to the Main Stream Media, Obama is supposed to be stronger on economic issues.  I saw no evidence of that Friday night.

Based on the comments  the  candidates made on the economic situation  during the debate we would be better off keeping President George W. Bush for the next four years or bringing back Bill Clinton.  Many  people have forgotten that  Bush brought  us through the economic crisis  that followed  the 9/11 attack.

Senator John McCain is correct. He and Senator Barack Obama should return to Washington to do the jobs we are paying them to do instead of participating in a political reality show called a debate.  The place for two United States Senators to debate during an economic crisis is on the floor of the United States Senate. They can present their views about what to do and attempt to gain support from their fellow Senators.

Someone who cannot demonstrate leadership as a Senator will not be able to do so as President. 

They can participate in one of those debates anytime. At present their responsibility is to take care of the business (TCB) they being paid to take care of  as United States Senators. If Obama didn't want to continue being a Senator while he ran for president he should have done the honorable thing and resigned like Bob Dole did when he ran for president in 1996.

Obama doesn't want to TCB in the Senate. He prefers being a celebrity who goes around making speeches to adoring crowds because he likes to hear himself talk.     

Would you promote someone who spends all his time talking about what he would do if promoted instead of taking care of business in his current job?   Getting legislation through Congress is one of the president's most important jobs.  Appearing on talk shows isn't.

Does Obama  want  to merely talk about  some vague change or does he actually want to produce changes?  Perhaps Obama doesn't want to return to the Senate to do his job because he has done such a lousy job as Senator.

If Obama wants to play the spoiled brat  who has to have his way about a debate, perhaps  McCain's running mate  Gov. Sarah Palin can stand in for McCain while McCain TCB's  in the Senate.

Republicans have jumped all over Barack Obama's statement in a George Stephanopoulos on "This Week," on ABC on September 7.
 
"Let's not play games," he said. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."

The Main Stream Media have largely ignored the statement because members of the MSM believe it is there job as Good Democrats to make Barack Obama look good.

Even the Republican oriented Washington Times criticized Republican bloggers for their treatment of the subject.  "But illustrating the difficulty of preventing false rumors about his faith from spreading, anti-Obama groups within one hour of the interview had sliced it out of context and were sending it around via email. They also were blogging about it."

 Israelinsider  is more critical suggesting that Obama really meant what he said.  "In one of the most astonishing gaffes in American political history, in a national televised interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulus, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama referred to 'my muslim faith,' confirming what researchers and political opponents have been claiming.  While Stephanopoulus several seconds later tried to correct him, saying 'Christian faith,' it was too late. The damage was done. Obama clearly did not mean his Christian faith, since he was admitting that 'John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.' The term 'Christian faith' would not make sense in that context."

Both the Times and Israelinsider may be ignoring a more important issue than whether or not Obama is a Muslim.  The MSM have been claiming that Obama is supposed to be more intelligent than other politicians.  If that were the case, he would accidentally say "my Muslim faith".  If he did make a misstatement it indicates he isn't much different from President Jerry Ford who made a misstatement about Poland and Eastern Europe in the 1976 presidential debate.

Obama might sound intelligent reciting a prepared speech, but the real test of intelligence is the ability to think and talk at the same time without making simple mistakes.  If President George Bush  had made a similar misstatement, the MSM would make it a headline or a soundbite.  Comedians would have made jokes about it.  If members of the MSM want to be considered as real journalists they need to report the mistakes made by all politicians, not just the ones in the other political party.  Obama only seems to be smarter than Bush because the MSM are protecting him from his mistakes.        

The following transcript is from Israelinsider to show the context of the Obama's statement. .
    STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention your Christian faith. Yesterday you took off after the Republicans for suggesting you have Muslim connections. Just a few minutes ago, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, said they've never done that. This is a false and cynical attempt to play victim.
 OBAMA: You know what? I mean, these guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand. The...

    STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections.

    OBAMA: No, no, no. But the -- I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said that's wrong.

    OBAMA: Now, well, look. Listen. You and I both know that the minute that Governor Palin was forced to talk about her daughter, I immediately said that's off limits. And--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith.

    OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

    Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come--

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

    OBAMA: -- my Christian faith.