Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

Global warming

It would take an encyclopedia to cover the global-warming debate. I will not write that much, but I want to go on record about it to an extent.


The phrase “global warming” suggests nothing more than a series of scientific temperature readings. But thanks to Al Gore and others, it has taken on a much larger, political meaning, namely,

The earth is rapidly getting catastrophically warmer because of increased burning of fossil fuels by humans and emergency laws must be passed to reduce that burning of fossil fuels to Nineteenth Century levels.


Is the earth warming? According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the temperature of the earth rose a total of .6 degrees Celsius between 1900 and 1999. .6 degrees Celsius is 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s the total, cumulative 100-year change, not the annual change.

Like many, I wonder how they measure that, and where. If they use a rectal thermometer, my guess is they stick it in Mogadishu.

And excuse me, but how is a 1.08 increase in temperature over 100 years an emergency or even noteworthy?

‘Climate change’

After being embarrassed by numerous incidents of cold weather, the leftists changed the name of global warming to “climate change.” Now they get to bitch about and say “we told you so” in response to any weather other than average. My Harvard Business School classmate, Orit Gadiesh, is head of Bain and famous for the comment, “The average person has one tit and one ball.” There’s also the old chestnut that you can drown in a pond with an average depth of six inches. As any bell curve graph of data can confirm, if you get to use all data other than average to gain political power, you will be powerful indeed.

It’s always warming or cooling

In his book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, ABC 20/20 reporter John Stossel reproduces a graph of the earth’s average temperatures for the last 4,000 years. The so-called global warming about which Al Gore is so excited is a barely visible, tiny uptick just before the end of the graph. It is the smallest movement up or down on the 4,000-year graph. Earlier periods show much bigger upward and downward movements. They also show that the earth’s temperature has never been stable. The global-warming movement would have you believe it has always been stable until SUVs.

We did have a bunch of ice ages you know. The fact that they all ended indicates there must have been some big-time global warming back then, not just 1.08 degrees in 100 years. And most of that big-time global warming occurred before the human race existed, let alone before suburbanites began driving SUVs.

You can probably find the graph on the Internet. It is from the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology in Boulder, CO.


What about the notion that humans caused the 20th Century increase in temperature by driving cars more and having air-conditioning?

According to page 202 of Stossel’s book, since half of the 1.08-degree increase in earth temperature came between 1900 and 1945, and the use of fossil fuels was low then and did not dramatically increase until the 1950s and thereafter, it would appear that the cause is not humans burning fossil fuels.


Liberals would have us believe global warming is scientific fact. If it is scientific fact, why is it a liberal/conservative debate? Liberals and conservatives are not scientists, they are political advocates.

When politics gets involved, facts and truth go out the window.

It has been well said that the green movement is really the red movement in a disguise. The red movement—Communism and socialism, class hatred, profit hatred, and all that—has been discredited by having been tried in numerous countries. One of the great stories of the last several decades is the collapse of Communist and socialist economies because it simply does not work, and the replacement of those economic systems with capitalist ones. Unprecedented capitalism-created prosperity now characterizes formerly socialist countries like Russia, Eastern Europe, China, India, and Vietnam.

The emergence of the green movement now is an indication that the reds never were in favor of prosperity to begin with. They just hate those who win when competition, not politics, is the criterion as it is in free economies.

So now they are claiming to be green to save the earth, just as they claimed to be red to save the “workers of the world” before. In fact, they were red, and are now green, to jerk around those who succeed when competition decides the winners.

Global warming and the wider green movement is just a disguised effort to establish government control of much of the economy—the same sort of government control that socialism sought, obtained in many countries, then lost because of its massive failures.

Columnist Thomas Sowell calls it “Global hot air.”

6/26/09 Wall Street Journal article

The 6/26/09 Wall Street Journal had an excellent article by Kimberly Strassel. It was titled “The Climate Change Climate Change.” It listed people who dispute the so-called “consensus” of scientists who agree with the leftists on man-made climate change. Here are the noteworthy persons and groups in the article who dispute the existence of man-made, deleterious, reversible climate change:

Steve Fielding, Australian Senator
Polish Academy of Sciences
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
89% of Czech people in polls
Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France
Claude Allegre, French Minister of Industry and Innovation and former global warming supporter who retracted that position
The new parliament of New Zealand which promptly stopped the country’s cap and trade program
700 scientists as counted by Senator Jim Inhofe (OK)
Joanne Simpson, first female PhD meteorologist who revealed her opposition only after retiring out of fear for her job
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to U.N. climate report supporting global warming
Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Norway
54 physicists led by Princeton’s Will Happer who demanded that the American Physical Society reverse its position that global warming science is settled
Dr. Ian Plimer, Australian geologist

This is not a comprehensive list.

Melting icebergs

Global warming advocates say the higher temperatures will flood low-lying areas of the world including the coasts of the U.S.

Let me be Mr. Wizard for a moment. Get a glass of water and add ice cubes until it is almost at the top of the glass. Let it melt, then see how much flooding (overflow out of the glass) occurred. As you will see, it will be zero.

Why? Laws of physics.

Ice is frozen water. When it freezes, water in the form of ice takes up more space than the water it is made up of. That’s why frozen pipes or soda bottles burst when they freeze. Icebergs occupy more space than the water they are made up of occupied before they froze or will occupy after they melt. That’s why ice floats. It is less dense than the water it is in.

Furthermore, the tip of the iceberg that sticks above the water is precisely the amount of the increased volume. In other words, when the ice in your full glass of ice water melts, even though the ice stuck above the top of the glass, it will still precisely fill the glass, no less and no more.

Like a boat, ice floats by displacing its weight in water. Since it is less dense than water, it goes to the surface. But when it melts, it becomes water again so it occupies precisely the same volume of water as it displaced when it was ice. Melting water changes (reduces) its volume, but not its weight. When it goes back to being water, it occupies the exact same volume as the water it displaced when it was ice, therefore there is no flooding.

This applies to all floating ice including the entire Arctic (north) polar ice cap. The north pole has no land under it. Global warming advocates say the north polar ice pack will entirely melt in future summers. Whether it does or not will have no effect whatsoever on sea level. All of that water, whether in the form of ice or not, is already in the sea.


Glaciers and other ice and snow that are on land are another matter. When they melt and run into the sea, the sea levels can rise. That’s because they were not in the sea at all until they melted. Antarctica (South Pole) has some land under it.


The global warming people keep talking about carbon. How many tons of it we awful humans are putting into our air? Carbon offsets. etc.


Carbon is a black powder. Charcoal briquettes are carbon. It’s actually used to clean air in gas masks, kitty litter, and to clean water in filters.

Global warming is caused mainly by water vapor (clouds) (Here is an article about that aspect of it. ) and to a slight extent by carbon dioxide. To talk about carbon dioxide as if it were the same as carbon is like talking about lightning bugs as if they were the same as lightning.

Carbon dioxide is an odorless, colorless, non-poisonous gas. Plants need it to thrive. It comes out of your mouth and nostrils every time you exhale. Dry ice, which is white not black, is frozen carbon dioxide.

By speaking of carbon dioxide as carbon, they make it sound like dirt. That’s dishonest.

Components of air

How much carbon dioxide is now in the air after 100 years of it increasing “catastrophically?”

Would you believe 383 parts per million? European leftists were forming the number 350 with mobs of people in late 2009. Why? That’s what they want the number of parts per million of carbon dioxide reduced to. Why? It’s an excuse to take billions from corporations and spend it on their pet, and not cost-effictive, “alternative” energies.

Air is about 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, .94% argon, 1 to 4% water vapor, and .04% carbon dioxide. See the Wikipedia article on it for more details.

If you drew a pie chart of the components, carbon dioxide’s slice would be invisible unless the pie chart were enormous.

Lawn watering

The same liberals who are now out to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere are the ones who live in the city and got my suburban neighbors and I to pay punitive rates for the water we put on our lawns. Those lawns convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. Those lawns remove carbon dioxide from the air. They remove “carbon” from the air if you want to play the “carbon dioxide = carbon” semantic game. Why are my suburban neighbors and I not getting medals for our fight against global warming instead of being punished for our cultivation of beneficial plants like grass?

Drowning polar bears

The claims that polar bears are drowning because they cannot swim to the increasingly-far-apart ice floes are ridiculous.

The before and after aerial photos showing glaciers moving north only show hundreds of yards or a couple of miles movement. The polar bears wouldn’t even notice such things over 100 years. Plus they are not going to sit on a piece of ice until it gets out of sight of all other ice or the main ice pack. That has always been a danger to them throughout their existence, global warming or not. If the ice is really melting, all it will mean for polar pears is that they move north at an imperceptible rate over decades.

The ‘right’ temperature

Underlying all the global-warming doomsdayism is the notion that the temperature of the earth in 1900 was the “right” temperature.

Says who? Based on what? Seems to me the right temperature, if humans are going to get into the business of setting the planet’s temperature, would be the one that produces the highest world-wide crop yield on land masses and the minimum need for heating and air-conditioning where humans live.

Go continent by continent. The widest mass of land in South America is between the equator and 15º below the equator. Here is the complete list:

Latitude of greatest width
South America equator to 15º south
North America 30º north to 70º north
Europe 45º north to 60º north
Asia 25º north to 70º north
Africa 5º north to 30º north
Australia 15º south to 35º south
Antarctica Forget about it. We’re not going to grow crops or live there

As this table shows, the greatest earth land mass is between 25º and 70º north. OK. If we humans are going to decide the planet’s temperature, optimize those latitudes for growing crops and minimizing heating and air-conditioning cost.

Would that, by great coincidence, be the temperature of the earth in 1900? I doubt it. Probably it would be a warmer temperature.

In other words, the earth would likely better off if it were warmer. Maybe not the Maldives Islands, who recently held a government meeting in SCUBA gear underwater. But then dopes who build cities almost at sea level, or below sea level like New Orleans, deserve the floods they get.

Permafrost turning to mud

On 6/2/07, news accounts said that some Alaskan village built on permafrost was having trouble because the permafrost melted. The permafrost turned to mud. They had to build wooden sidewalks and the houses were tilting because the permafrost had been their “foundation.” So move. That was a stupid place to live to begin with, not unlike locating New Orleans on the Gulf of Mexico and below sea level.

What’s more important, letting some strange people live in a village on top of a previously frozen swamp or growing more crops in Canada and Siberia?

Never give a date

Economists joke about their predictions that they frequently give a number or a date but never both.

The idiot global-warming advocates should have followed that con-man advice. But they have given a number and a date. They say that widespread flooding and disaster will occur in 2020. That’s just 10 years away. I expect we will be done with them then as a result of their prediction not coming true.

Global warming reminds me of the fall-out shelter craze of the 1950s and 1960s, the OPEC oil “crises” of the 1970s, and the millennium bug hysteria of the late 1990s. Its dupes are going to be embarrassed. Don’t be one of them. I have a couple of Web articles about the recurring prophets of doom in finance and other areas like food shortages, oil, population, and so forth at

Religious discussion

I generally do not get into religious discussions because there is no convincing the true believers to change their minds. Global warming is a religious discussion. That is, its advocates will listen to no logic or facts that do not support their position. But when religious nuts, whether they go to church or not, start to change public policy in ways that affect me, I have to speak up.

8/13/07 Newsweek cover story about us ‘deniers’

Newsweek used to be generally a great magazine with a well-deserved reputation. But global warming seems to cause yet another derangement syndrome and Newsweek is not immune. Let me just make some comments about the various call-outs in the article. A call-out is a brief summary quote as opposed to the main body of the article.

Newsweek statement Reed response
Swedish chemist quantified how much the earth was warming due to carbon dioxide emissions in 1896 chemists do not measure the earth’s temperature; 1896 science should hardly be a basis for Twenty-First century policy decisions
Senator Al Gore holds hearings on climate change in 1988 patient zero
an unnamed study says climate change was a factor in the extinction of Coast Rica’s golden toads “a factor?” That’s pretty weak. How sure are they? How much of a factor? What were the other factors? Should world policy be set by a Costa Rican toad? Species have been going extinct continuously since the beginning of time, including before humans existed. It’s not always our fault.
Science and Environmental Policy Project pursues a media campaign to discredit evidence of global warming And the liberals are not pursuing a media campaign to credit evidence of global warming!? They won a freaking Oscar for their media campaign!
North American tree swallows are laying their eggs an average of nine days earlier than they did in the late ’50s. The article does not say this is due to global warming or how the average date of egg laying relates to the late ’40s, late 60s, or late 20s. In other words, this is pure innuendo; a non-denial denial of the skeptics’ claims.
Exxon gives several groups that question man-made global warming $19 million over the years So? Plenty of money is being given and spent on both sides. If Newsweek had evidence that the groups in question were lying, they should have presented that, not innuendo based on some vague notion that Exxon is evil per se. And that Exxon-haters are virtuous per se. Exxon is being accused of destroying the planet. They need to defend themselves.
mentions record-breaking forest fire season and the hottest year on record in 1997 and 1998 So? The magazine does not offer any evidence or even a statement that either was related to global warming. More innuendo.
Heat wave in 2003 kills 15,000 people in France alone expected to become more common in a greenhouse world No evidence or even statement that global arming caused by man-made carbon dioxide caused the heat wave. Begs the question of whether there is or ever will be a greenhouse world. Just says if there is a greenhouse world, such events will become more common. That is a conditional, tautological (by-definition) statement. Left unanswered is whether man-made warming caused the heat wave. They simply suggest such warming could cause similar events in the future.
2005 Katrina prompts debate over whether hurricane was result of climate change More innuendo. No evidence or statement that Katrina was caused by man-made global warming. Absence of Katrina in 2004 and 2006 not cited as evidence of lack of global warming. It’s heads global warming advocates win and tails global warming skeptics lose. No matter what happens or doesn’t happen, it can be cited as evidence of global warming but not as evidence of lack of global warming.
Senators Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller IV demand that Exxon stop funding groups whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but effective climate-change-denial myth. In other words, stop the heresy. It is not protected by the First Amendment. No longer any need to prove global warming. Any skepticism about it is now officially a myth. Since when do we rely on politicians for scientific truth? Obviously, their constituents believe in global warming and they want to get re-elected.
naysayers vs. consensus Over the years, the consensus said that the earth was flat, the universe revolved around the earth, trauma caused cancer, leeches would make you healthy by removing bad blood, Pluto was a planet, minorities and Jews were inferior, etc., etc.. Basically, the consensus has a poor track record and a bad reputation. Evidence is what matters. We do not take a poll to see what causes cancer.
aerial photo of 1,255 square-mile ice area calving off into the ocean in Antarctica in 2002 No mention of whether any such thing every happened before Al Gore got hot on this subject.

Newsweek also has an economics columnist: Robert Samuelson. Here, from his 2008 book The Great Inflation and its Aftermath, is his nice way of saying that global warming is dangerous bunk.

…an uncritical reaction to the possibility of global warming that may cause us to undertake costly policies that, in the end, do little to affect global warming but do weaken our economy’s performance.

He addresses global warming in detail on pages 237 to 242. He says about the same thing I do, although he tries to be more politically correct in his wording, I assume so he can keep his jobs at Newsweek and the Washington Post.

One of Saumelson’s summary paragraphs on global warming says this,

For now, anything that would sharply reduce the greenhouse gases requires shutting down large parts of the global economy…Measures short of that may be economically costly as well as ineffective. Only major technological advances can break the dilemma. Will we admit this? It seems doubtful. Our politics seem predisposed toward denial. We won’t admit the inconsistence, conflicts and simplicities of many appealing goals. We strive for the impossible and ignore the obvious.

And here is a general comment about do-gooders:

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm– but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

T.S. Eliot in The Cocktail Party, p.111)

John T. Reed

What Al Gore left out of his movie: the 800 year lag

by Dan Reed

Does CO2 have a strong effect on global temperatures? Al Gore shows a graph in his film An Inconvenient Truth where CO2 levels and global temperatures have a strong correlation to one another (based on the Vostok ice core samples). Both graphs are displayed on the big screen behind them, and he asks "Did they ever fit together?" Yes, Al, they definitely do fit together. He says the relationship is “complicated," but that the correlation shows that CO2 increases cause global temperature increases. That is certainly one possibility when you have a correlation, but it is not the correct conclusion in this case. If you zoom in on the graph, you find the exact opposite of Gore’s claim; the temperature change comes first, then the CO2 follows. CO2 changes in the graph lag 800 years behind the temperature changes.

"The scientists working on the Vostok ice core report that temperature changes PRECEDE changes in CO2 concentration by about 800- to 1,300 years." (

In other words, the earth gets warmer first, and that warmth appears to cause CO2 levels go up, not vice versa as Gore asserts. It would be like trying to tell you ocean tides are responsible for the moon’s gravity. Gore has swapped cause and effect. This is the same data from the Vostok ice core research that Gore uses. Search for “Vostok ice core 800 year lag” yourself on the internet to see for yourself. The scientists that collected the data acknowledge the 800 year lag. So the very ice core samples that Al Gore cites as his evidence for why human carbon dioxide emissions are causing warming, in fact, show the exact opposite.

Ice core samples show no evidence that CO2 causes global warming

This phenomenon of temperature changes causing atmospheric CO2 changes is explained in many places online including a British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. The short explanation is global temperature affects the solubility of carbon dioxide in water. In other words, when global temperatures decrease, the oceans dissolve more CO2, lowering atmospheric CO2. When global temperatures increase, the oceans dissolve less CO2, raising atmospheric CO2. The documentary also shows a much better correlation to global temperatures than CO2, which I will discuss below. (Go to timestamp 35:00 in the video to see)

What this means is the entire premise of An Inconvenient Truth is false. With a straight face, Al Gore shows you evidence that suggests heat increases CO2, but tells you the opposite. He just flat out lies about the details of the correlation that he cites as his powerful piece of evidence. The reason he gets away with this is because the x-axis of the graph cover over 600,000 years, so the 800 year lag is to miniscule to see with the naked eye. If you zoom in on the graph, the lag is clear.

You don’t have to be a climatologist to grasp the fundamental fallacy of carbon dioxide’s relationship to the greenhouse effect and global temperatures. As my father pointed out above, and the Swindle documentary as well, water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas, yet most discussions of global warming never mention it. The Swindle documentary goes on to explain how so many scientists and journalists could miss such a glaring fact.

Most importantly, the documentary finds a variable that correlates even closer to global temperatures than CO2, and in the correct direction. Any guesses on what the variable is? SOLAR ACTIVITY. Imagine that. That big ball of exploding fire in the sky is the biggest factor.

-Dan Reed

Will Obama survive messing with Americans’ cars?

Barack Obama is unqualified, incompetent, and inexperienced; a rookie at everything, and untrained for anything other than teaching law courses. He has spent more taxpayers’ money than all previous presidents combined after only 100 days in office. He has set in motion World War II-sized deficits and national debt. People around the world in the gold and currency markets are betting billions that his policies will cause imminent high inflation. He has promised to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq and adopted a Bush-like surge policy in Afghanistan after winning early presidential primaries as the anti-war, anti-Bush candidate.


Yet through it all, he has an approval rating in the 60s percentage-wise. He is Teflon, too cool for school, untouchable, a rock star.

Why? Because the American people, or at least a majority of them, are ignorant dopes. Jay Leno and Sean Hannity often ask simple questions of passers by on city streets. Most reveal themselves to be comically uninformed. So they sure do not know or care anything about foreign policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, defense policy, and so on. So Obama appears well on his way to bluffing his way through his entire administration and getting away with it.

You don’t want to go there, Barack

But then, he messed with people’s CARS AND PICKUPS!

Barack, Barack, Barack. Your airhead supporters either don’t understand all that policy stuff, or they don’t care, or, most likely, both. But Barack, baby, sweetheart, they DO understand cars. And you, Barack, will take their favorite cars and trucks away from Americans when you pry them from their cold, dead fingers!

In wonk speak

Thus far, they do not understand what you’ve done to cars because it has been reported in the newspapers they don’t read and on the TV news programs they don’t watch in wonkish code like CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, cap and trade, climate change, carbon footprint, greenhouse gases, green cars, and all that politician gibberish.

35 miles per gallon

Obama’s CAFE standards says that U.S. car makers must have a fleet average miles per gallon of 35.5 by 2016. (I guess that is during his final year in office when he can’t run for re-election if he gets two terms. He’ll be on the way out of Dodge when the public finally figures out what he’s done to their cars, that having to drive American-made Yugos turned out to be the “change they could believe in.”)

No magic motors

The average two-digit-IQ American thinks the CAFE standards will be met by the invention of magic motors that enable them to still drive their 4,000-pound SUV—only getting 35 miles a gallon in the process.

It doesn’t work that way. The Laws of Physics get in the way. You achieve 35 miles per gallon mainly by eliminating weight. You do that by making the car and all of its components, especially the engine, smaller. (For what little it’s worth, I took one semester of automotive engineering in college.)

Higher death toll

Someone has calculated that the incremental number of people who will die each year on America’s highways because of driving smaller, 35-MPG cars will exceed the total number of American military killed in Iraq so far. (I guess you could do that by projecting the small, 35-MPG-car type fatality rate to a much larger number of such cars being driven. Also, the death rate for cars of that size would likely go up because different, less careful types of people would be driving them when Obama forces them on us.)

Your future OBAMAmobile

What does this mean to people who get all their news from You Tube? They have to drive one of the following or a car like it:

• 2009 Volkswagen Jetta (4-cylinder manual transmission)

• 2009 Nissan Altima hybrid (4-cylinder transmission)

• 2009 Volkswagen Jetta sportwagen (4-cylinder manual transmission)

• 2009 Toyota Camry hybrid (4-cylinder automatic transmission)

The above four cars each get 34 miles per gallon according to the EPA. They and the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid were the only cars in 2009 that came close to meeting Obama’s new CAFE standards.

Pay for two engines and extra batteries

A hybrid is a car with two engines—one gasoline and one electric—and a whole bunch of batteries. Because of the extra engine and batteries, they cost a lot more than a comparable size gasoline-only car. A USA Today story said you would have to drive your car tens of thousands of miles or gas would have to go up to $5.60 per gallon in order for you to save in gasoline costs the extra amount you have to pay to buy the hybrid car up front. In other words, you will be worse off financially after five years of owning and filling up your hybrid than if you had bought a comparable, lower miles-per-gallon gas-only car.

Then there is the fact that while claiming he does not want to run the car companies, Obama has taken over two of the car companies: GM and Chrysler. That means you will have to go farther to find a dealer to buy or service a GM or Chrysler. There will be fewer dealers to get comparison shopping prices so you will likely have less bargaining power and therefore pay a higher price. They are also eliminating most of the models they were making in 2008.

GM is selling Hummer to Sichuan Tengzhong (that’s the company name) of Chengdu, China, a maker of heavy industrial machinery.

‘Vegan’ cars

Which brands will still be available is not yet announced, but given Obama’s preference for green, high-miles-per-gallon cars, one suspects that you will not be able to buy, or will have trouble buying, a new SUV, van, Corvette, pickup truck, Suburban, convertible, Camaro, 8-cylinder anything, Malibu, Impala, BMW, Infiniti, Cadillac, “muscle” car (“vegan” cars only under Obama management—likely model name: The Arugula), or Pontiac (terminated).

We may become like Cuba where astonishingly old—like 60 years—American cars are still on the roads because Cuba has no auto industry and is too poor to import new cars. They are still operating the cars they had when Castro took over. Americans will lovingly care for pre-Obama cars. Businesses will spring up to help them.

I would also expect small, unregulated-by-CAFE-standards companies will be created to make the cars that Detroit and foreign makers will not be allowed to make, call them “The Coca-Cola Classic of cars and trucks.” In terms of mileage, pollution, and all that, this will go against Obama’s environmentalist goals.

The history of convertibles

Remember what happened to convertibles?

In 1976 Cadillac sold the Eldorado as “The last convertible in America.” Then they discontinued it. All other American companies had previously stopped making convertibles. You could not buy any new American convertibles the following year and for some time thereafter. Then a funny thing happened. Small companies started chopping the tops off brand new cars and turning them into convertibles one at a time, like van-conversion companies that outfit the inside of vans with chairs and beds and all that.

Finally, Detroit decided to go “back by popular demand” into the convertible business.

The ‘New Coke of cars’

OBAMAmobiles will be the “New Coke of cars,” the MacLean Deluxe of vehicles, the twenty-first century equivalent of the disastrous Ford Edsel (1958-60—described as “looking like an Oldsmobile sucking on a lemon”), more like your 16-year old niece’s Smart Car than “your father’s Oldsmobile.”

Hey, why don’t we declare war on Russia and the U.S.?

Obama and his staff are supposed to be brilliant politicians. They won as he likes to point out. Obama and his advisors know not to mess with people’s guns. Well, then why are they dumb enough to mess with people’s cars? Almost everyone has a car. Lots of people do not have guns. Not smart, Barack. Sort of like Hitler deciding in 1941, when he had conquered almost all of western Europe, to invade his then ally, the Soviet Union, and declare war on the U.S.

Union guy

The media are currently running stories about the good old days with regard to American cars. Eventually, the public is going to figure out that Obama had a big hand in this. He’s not a car guy. If he had a car, it was probably a Prius. (A reader said it was a Chrysler 300. If so, where was his devotion to energy independence and global warming? Or his cool guy taste?) He’s a union guy. But he failed to think it through enough to see that giving $100 billion of taxpayers’ borrowed money to his United Auto Workers supporters meant messing with people’s cars.

Big mistake, Barack.

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm– but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

T.S. Eliot in The Cocktail Party, p.111)

Obama is deliberately trying to cause a depression

I suspect some readers will think the title of this article is preposterous.

Hear me out.

On page xv of the Introduction to Burton Folsom, Jr.’s recent book New Deal Raw Deal, Wall Street Journal Senior Economics Writer Stephen Moore said,

The Democrats’ current laundry list of “new” New Deal programs” from cap and trade anti-global warming regulations, to 52 percent marginal tax rates, to socialized health care, to $300 billion of new spending programs every year appear to be almost intentionally designed to torpedo the U.S. economy…if we adopt this “new” New Deal, the economy will almost certainly crater.

Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously said,

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

On March 6, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said,

Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security

Please also note that climate change and energy security have absolutely nothing to do with ending the recession, indeed, spending money on such things during a recession is the kind of thing that can turn the recession into a depression.

If a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, then it must also be a thing that Emanuel, Hillary, and Obama want to last as long as possible and to be as severe as possible.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget office says Obama’s plan will hurt the economy over the long term.

Here is a quote from a 5/16/39 column by Walter Lippman about radicals within Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal government. Lippman was an extremely influential national columnist. There has not been any comparable person since him.

The radicals, on the other hand, are…primarily interested in reducing the power of corporate business men, and the heart of their program is…precisely those deterrent taxes and those restrictive regulations which limit private initiative…they would rather not have the recovery if the revival of private initiative means a resumption of private control in the management of corporate business. Thus they cling to taxes which do not come anywhere near to yielding enough revenue to balance the budget because those particular taxes paralyze the financial power of the rich and well-to-do… The radicals regard the [government] spending as a substitute for recovery and as a means of altering the balance of social policy.

In the Obama administration, specific damage to the economy comes from:

• raising taxes on small business owners, estates, and on capital gains

• expand business decisions made by government bureaucrats and reduce the number of business decisions made by businesspeople

• remove more of health care from the private sector and put it into the government sector

• place a 15% to 20% carbon sales tax on gas and electric that will hit every American

• all but abolish private lending to students and replace it entirely with government lending

• end deferral of taxation on profits of U.S. companies abroad

• increase taxes on companies that search for oil and gas

• raise taxes on manager of hedge funds and private-equity funds

• various protectionist provisions

• limiting executive compensation at companies that receive bail-out money, thereby driving the best managers to companies not subject to such limits*

• constantly talking down the economy

• leaving the credit markets in a state of constant uncertainty by not coming forth with a plan to normalize them

• ignoring a federal law that prohibits FNMA and FHLMC from lending more than 80% of the value of a home without private mortgage insurance; now they have to make loans of up to 105% of of value without private mortgage insurance, in other words, worse subprime loans than the FNMA ar FHLMC ever made before

* A reader asked why executives should get bonuses when their companies lost money and stock value. Performance pay should be paid, when promised or warranted, to employees who beat the agreed-upon benchmark for measuring performance. The benchmark should not be one that would trigger bonuses because the whole market went up through sheer good luck. Similarly, executive pay should not be reduced when the company’s performance falls in terms of earnings and/or stock price, if the entire stock market and all companies suffered similar downturns through no fault of the executives. Bonuses should only be paid to employees who beat the benchmark. For example, if the whole market goes up 5% and the stock price of the company in question goes up 15%, the executives responsible for the extraordinary performance should get bonuses to reward their past success and to discourage them from leaving the company. Similarly, if the stock price of all similar companies went down 12% and the company in question only went down 5%, the executives responsible for the better-than-average performance should receive bonuses for the same reasons. In other words, execs should not be rewarded for the wind at their backs or punished for the wind in their faces, but they should receive bonuses for going faster than the wind at their backs or for not going backwards as fast as the wind in their faces made others go.

The Wall Street Journal said Obama’s plan is a “declaration of war on America’s capitalists.” Unless you are a Marxist, you know that America’s capitalists are the source of America’s world-leading prosperity. There are only a couple of countries that have no capitalists, namely Cuba and North Korea. They also have no prosperity.

Some will say that Obama obviously does not want a depression because he wants to be re-elected and he could not be re-elected if the economy is bad in 2012.

Oh, really? Have you ever heard of Franklin D. Roosevelt? He was elected president in 1932 at the bottom of the Great Depression. He blamed everything on his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, and on Wall Street, where the stock market crashed in 1929.

Roosevelt used the emergency of the Great Depression to get the most radical changes in the U.S. government in history through Congress.

None of it worked. See my brief article on what Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau said in 1939, seven years after Roosevelt took office. To put it succinctly, Morgenthau said none of the New Deal worked. It all failed. Unemployment stayed in double digits throughout the peacetime portion of the Roosevelt administration. If you want more details on that, read New Deal Raw Deal or a number of other books on the Depression.

So, when Roosevelt’s policies failed and the economy stayed in the Depression, did he lose the next election?

Are you kidding? He was elected to four consecutive terms, the only president ever to do that. It freaked out the nation so much they outlawed it with the XXII Amendment to the Constitution on 3/21/47, two years after Roosevelt’s death. To this day, the only federal term limit is the one that prevents another Roosevelt.

I suspect that Obama thinks he can use the current Depression to get the XXII Amendment repealed and serve four or maybe more terms as president. In the meantime, he appears to be ecstatic about his ability to slip all sorts of laws into various emergency packages thereby turning the U.S. into a socialist country whose main priority is to pay reparations to blacks (e.g., repeal of the Welfare Reform Act that Clinton signed and that everyone, even liberals, agreed worked great; expanded Pell Grants) and to enact as much socialist ideology into law as possible.

Former Democrat House leader and two-time presidential candidate Dick Gephardt once exulted that,

Every time the Dow goes down 100 points we pick up another seat in the House.

Here is a pertinent comment from Dick Morris:

The most rational explanation for Obama’s puzzling conduct — sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric — is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.

Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow. He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks.

Obama said through a spokesperson that he does not pay attention to the day-to-day movements of the stock market.

How about the week-to-week or month-to-month movements? It hasn’t mattered how often you look at them since you were inaugurated. It’s almost always down and down overall on a net basis since inauguration.

Gephardt and Obama apparently think the stock market is nothing but a gauge of how many contributions the Republican Party will get in the next election. They want it to go down. It’s a Republican thing, and it helps sell the “Crisis! Crisis! Crisis! Catastrophe!” story that, in turn, enables Obama to slip more socialist date-rape-drug type provisions into the back of the various bail-out and “stimulus” laws.

Once upon a time, the stock market was a Republican thing. No more. Now it’s the retirement money of most Americans.

I think Obama doesn’t care about it because it keeps giving him a thumbs down. He is a one-trick pony and that trick is bullshitting the public. The market, however, is smarter than the public. They look at the numbers. They are betting their own money on their analysis, not just popping off from a bar stool at the corner tavern. If the market ever turns up, there is no doubt that Obama will take credit for it.

The Obama administration has a number of respected economic minds including Geithner, Volker, and Summers. There is NO WAY any of them are blind to the fact that Obama is deliberately trying to run the country into a Depression and that his economic policies are anti-recovery. If those guys have any integrity, they will promptly resign in protest over what Obama is doing to the nation. Apparently, they are more interested in being administration big shots than they are in integrity or the financial health of the nation.

Obama has been studying Roosevelt’s playbook and adopted Roosevelt’s tactic of making scapegoats of businessmen and the rich.

Hoover, like George W. Bush, made a mess of responding to the initial drop in the stock market. But the vast majority of the pain of the Great Depression stemmed from the disastrous New Deal policies including protectionism, price fixing, government interference in the free market, crop price supports, etc.

However, to this day, the American people believe Hoover was entirely responsible for the Great Depression and Roosevelt saved America from it.

Tell me again how Obama doesn’t want to be Roosevelt with regard to prolonging and deepening the recession.

If there had not been a prolonged Depression, Roosevelt would have been just another president. Obama wants to be Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy all wrapped up into one. He thinks the American people will be at least as dumb regarding Obama’s actual performance as they are about Roosevelt’s. I am afraid he’s correct.

I appreciate informed, well-thought-out constructive criticism and suggestions. If there are any errors or omissions in my facts or logic, please tell me about them. If you are correct, I will fix the item in question. If you wish, I will give you credit. Where appropriate, I will apologize for the error. To date, I have been surprised at how few such corrections I have had to make.

The end of affirmative action

We may be at the end of affirmative action. Why? Referenda, subprime lending, and the Obamas.


Anti-affirmative action referenda have been passed or attempted in:

• Arizona

• California

• Colorado

• Florida

• Michigan

• Washington State

I do not claim that is a complete list. I would appreciate a complete list if anyone knows where to get one.

It is noteworthy that it is hard to get such legislation passed by legislators because they are afraid of pressure groups. Individual voters, however, are not susceptible to pressure groups. That’s why these laws are more likely to pass when voted on by all the people.


The nation has recently suffered a stock market crash, collapse of huge financial companies, passed a humongous bailout and watched almost every country in the world suffer similar problems.


Because some politicians pushed mortgage lenders to lend to so-called subprime borrowers. Substandard would be a more accurate description. Disproportionately, the borrowers were the same groups who benefit from affirmative action in employment, awarding of contracts, and college and graduate school admissions. Subprime lending is affirmative-action mortgage lending.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is the main government culprit. About 20% of subprime mortgages were made by mortgage lenders who came under the CRA. The CRA probably gave the idea of subprime loans to the other 80%.

Most Americans did not care too much about affirmative action when it just kept their kid out of Harvard or made it easier for “disadvantaged” minorities to rent an apartment or buy a home. But when affirmative action destroys their retirement savings, gets them fired, and/or throws the world into a depression, affirmative action is done.

It was always immoral: the institutionalization of the notion that two wrongs make a right. Namely, that it’s OK to discriminate against whites and Asians because blacks and Latinos were discriminated against in the past. That was bogus. But people let it continue.

When it becomes dangerous, however, that’s another story. Wrecking the world economy is dangerous.

The Obamas

Michelle Obama says her high school guidance counselor discouraged her from applying to Princeton because her test scores were too low. She applied anyway and got in. So she showed them, huh? Actually, it was obvious affirmative action. She did not deserve to go to Princeton. She did not earn it. She got in to fill a black quota. Princeton’s admissions policies are racist.

The Obama campaign said she got in as a “legacy” because her older brother had gone there as a basketball recruit. That’s a lie. Legacies are for the children of graduates, not siblings. Nowadays, probably just the children of prominent graduates. Legacies for all are long gone.

There is not and never has been a legacy admission policy for siblings of recruited athletes. My oldest son went to Columbia, another Ivy League school, as a football player. His younger brothers got no legacy admissions to Columbia.

Harvard Law School

When Michelle wanted to go to Harvard Law School, she was once again told her test scores were too low. She went anyway. Once again, affirmative action. Harvard Law School’s admissions policies are racist.

It happens that I applied to Harvard Law School in the winter of 1975-6. At the time I was an MBA student at Harvard. I applied for their four-year, joint Harvard MBA-JD joint program. Mitt Romney is a graduate of that program—a couple of years ahead of me. I got rejected. And I know it was not because of my LSAT score. My score was 99th percentile. For those not familiar with standardized test score percentiles, 99th is the highest possible percentile. Was I bumped aside by Michelle Obama’s black skin? Not per se. She bumped some other white man or woman about ten years later. But it is fair to suspect that I was bumped by the Michelle Obama of 1975.

Michelle Obama was angry that the whites and Asians at Princeton and Harvard Law treated her and her black classmates as if they were charity cases.

Perhaps if Michelle had been smart enough to get into those two schools on her merit rather than the color of her skin, she would be smart enough to know that charity cases is exactly what affirmative-action college and grad school admits are. Being treated like charity cases is exactly what should have happened to them.

They ought to have to wear a scarlet A. Actually, they do. It’s their skin color not a letter. When people see a black student at Princeton or Harvard Law School, they know or strongly suspect that the person is an affirmative-action admit, which is too bad for the blacks and Latinos who actually deserve to be there.

Michelle’s legal career

Another test of the application of affirmative action to admit Michelle Obama instead a more qualified would-be lawyer is what kind of a lawyer did Michelle turn out to be?

For sure, a short-lived one. I could not find the exact duration on the Internet, but the Obama campaign Web site has only this to say about her stay at the Sidley Austin law firm:

…corporate law was not her calling…

Actually, apparently no other kind of law was her calling either. She never attempted to practice law again. It is at least an even bet that she quit the legal profession so quickly after Harvard Law School because she sucked at it, not unlike the way she sucked at taking the Law School Admission Test. I expect that top law firms like Sidley Austin make extra efforts to recruit black lawyers, but I doubt they can tolerate weak job performance in such a competitive profession.

And what of the more qualified white guy who got rejected by Harvard Law to make room for Michelle? Most likely, he went to a less competitive law school or to a selective one that is prohibited from engaging in affirmative action—like Boalt Hall at the University of California—and had a far more successful legal career than Michelle Obama. But Harvard Law met their black face quota in the year book and in Harvard Yard on graduation day, and that’s what’s important to them.

Michelle’s career in Affirmative-Action Land

And what happened to Michelle? She switched to non-profit jobs where skin color means as much as it does to non-profit Princeton and Harvard Law, namely, working for the Mayor of Chicago, various political charities, and finally the University of Chicago. How much does she make? $325,000 a year last I heard. I break that down as follows:

$50,000 a year for being a Princeton/Harvard Law grad who no longer practices law—that is, what she would make if she were white

$120,000 a year for combining black skin with preppy pearls and vocabulary

$155,000 a year for being celebrity Barack Obama’s wife

On Thursday, March 12, 2009 on the WRKO (Boston) Howie Carr show they repored that Michelle Obama’s $300k+ Chicago hospital position has not been refilled since she left for the White House (and possibly will not be, or at least not at the same pay level).

What a surprise!

I see no evidence in Michelle Obama’s biography that she ever achieved anything on merit in her life. When she stepped out of Affirmative-Action Land briefly, she quickly flopped, then scurried back into Affirmative-Action Land.

Is First Lady an affirmative-action job? If she gets it, it will be because of the color of her father-in-law’s skin—so yes. Will a lousy performance as First Lady be overlooked because of her skin color? It depends on the nature of the lousy performance. Garden variety lameness will probably not be paid much attention to. If she resumes shooting her mouth off about the meanness of America or her not feeling any pride in her country until her husband was ahead in the polls, the American people will be extremely unhappy—perhaps to the point of firing her in 2012.

Barack and affirmative action

What about Barack?

We know he is smarter than Michelle because, unlike her, he was not dumb enough to tell the world that his test scores were not good enough to get admitted to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard Law. Lots of people say he’s intelligent. Historian Michael Beschloss said on Don Imus’s show that Obama has the highest IQ of any U.S. president. Imus asked, “What is Obama’s IQ?” Beschloss said he did not know.

How can he say Obama’s IQ is the highest without knowing the IQ of Obama and every prior president? He can’t. It’s just a guess based on Obama’s abilities as a smooth talker.

I would not know whether Obama is smart, and neither will anyone else until he releases his SAT and LSAT scores and his high school and college transcripts. Don’t hold your breath.

There is also the question of whether Michelle and Barack turned in adequate homework, classroom participation, and tests while in college and grad school. Affirmative action also is often applied to student performance by many professors.

Black columnist, authhor, and Hoover Institute Fellow Thomas Sowell frequently complains that affirmative-action admissions for blacks puts them into academic situations where they fail at much higher rates than whites and Asians at those same schools. He says that damages their self-esteem and self-confidence unnecessarily, wastes their time and money, and usually results in their flunking out never to return there or to another college or graduate school where they would have graduated.

Potential but no performance

The fact that Michelle lacked the test scores to get in and the performance to succeed in the legal profession after graduation strongly suggests that Princeton and Harvard Law School let her slide academically. That may also be the case for Barack. He didn’t knock anyone dead either as a lawyer or a law school lecturer. People who worked with Obama consistently describe him in the fashion of a joke Brazilians like to tell about their country.

Brazil has great potential and always will.

People who knew him keep saying that Barack could have been as good as he wanted to be, but he never lived up to his potential because he never bore down and worked hard at, or even stuck with, anything. He is permanently like some early twenties college grad who is still trying to find himself. Everybody gave him a pass beccause of his charm and great public speaking ability, so he never bothered to do any more than be charming and make charismatic speeches, and adopt his father’s African first name rather than stick with the name Barry, which is what the President’s father called himself in the U.S. and what the president himself always went by until he started using his race “coupon” to get into selective colleges..

Some would say I have no right to question their qualifications or student performance without proof. Yeah, I do. There is such a thing as affirmative action. Occidental, Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard Law are proud practitioners of it. Release your scores and grades if you are a “disadvantaged” minority and got into and graduated from those schools on merit rather than affirmative action. If you are unwilling to do that, wear your scarlet “AA.” You can’t have it both ways.

They want it, but did not benefit from it themselves

One of the great ironies of affirmative action is that blacks and Latinos spend great energy demanding it, then spend equal or greater amounts of energy swearing that they themselves were not beneficiaries of it. Yeah, right.

And what about Barack’s career as a lawyer? Not much more than Michelle’s. He was an associate at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a small Chicago law firm that apparently specializes in black political law, for three years then he was “of counsel” for five years when his license to practice law became inactive. There is a definition of the phrase “of counsel” at Wikipedia. The normal measure of success in a law firm is getting promoted from associate to full partner. Obama never did that. Obama was ACORN’s lawyer while at that law firm, but I have never heard of any case that Obama argued, let alone won.

The election of Barack Obama to the presidency is electoral affirmative action. As is characteristic of affirmative action, he neither earned, nor is qualified for, the position at this time, yet he has been given it. As Geraldine Ferraro correctly observed, if Obama were white, he would have been laughed out of the early primaries. If he were white, he would have gotten fewer votes than Dennis Kucinich. His blackness, such as it is, was sine qua non to his election, therefore: electoral affirmative action.


Imagine Obama were a passenger on a full 747. The plane takes off 20 minutes late and hits some turbulence about 45 minutes into the flight. Obama stands up and addresses the passengers. Flashing his million-dollar smile and making full use of his charismatic speaking ability, he confidently alleges that the pilot is incompetent as evidenced by the late departure and the turbulence. He assures the passengers that he is a far better pilot and says that they should vote him to replace the pilot.

A white passenger raises his hand and asks,

“Are you a licensed pilot? If so, are you certified to fly 747s?”

Obama: “I refuse to respond to racist smears.”

White passenger: “It’s not racist. It’s an important, legitimate question.”

Obama: “Would you have asked me that question if I were white?”

Black passengers nod as if to say, “Been there, experienced that.”

White passengers look down at their shoes remembering that blacks have often been unfairly treated in U.S. history.

They vote. Obama wins. He takes over the flying and the plane crashes killing all aboard because Obama did not have a pilot’s license and never learned how to fly a 747.

Some will say being a pilot is not the same as being a president. Well, there have been two people who were both pilots and presidents, both named George Bush. I am sure they would tell you that being president is far harder than flying a plane.

The main difference between being a pilot and being a president is that when the plane crashes, we know whose fault it was. But when government crashes, the various members of it all endlessly point fingers at each other. Because of the lack of clear lines of responsibility in government, no one is ever held accountable—or they are held accountable for things they did not have exclusive control over.

What we do know is that an incompetent president can do great harm to the country and the world. What we also know is that Obama has far less pertinent training and experience than any president in history—almost no pertinent training or experience.

Unfairly taints the talented blacks and Latinos

Some blacks and Latinos do earn admission and graduation on merit—like the one black who got admitted to Boalt Hall in California after affirmative action was banned by referendum. He want to Harvard or some such instead because he did not want to be the only black at Boalt Hall Law School. I admire and commend him for his Cal admission, but it is certain that his real accomplishments will be discounted by most people—including those of his own race—because they will assume he was an affirmative-action charity case. Affirmative action unfairly taints the genuine accomplishments of all blacks and Latinos in those realms where affirmative action is applied. That’s a shame, but apparently a self-inflicted one.

Diminishes black incentive to study or work hard

In his 2008 book The Logic of Life, Tim Harford has a chapter he calls “The Dangers of Rational Racism.” Among other things, he says affirmative action has hurt the motivation of favored students. They slack off in their efforts compared to ambitious whites and asians because they calculate they only need decent grades and their skin to get admitted. Studying hard became “acting white” and was condemned and socially punished by minority peers. Unintended perhaps, but not surprising consequences of affirmative action.

Same applies to getting and keeping affirmative-action jobs. When I was in the Army in the 1970s, my roommate, another Army lieutenant, worked in an office with some civilians. One was a huge black woman who rarely came to work and was surly to the boss. When they tried to discipline her, she said, “I’m black and I’m civil service so you can’t do nothing to me.” As far as I know, no one ever tried.

When I was a kid in the 1950s and early 1960s, parents of girls and discriminated-against minorities told their children they had to work twice as hard as a white man to get the same success. They did not think that was fair, but neither did they whine about it. They just told their daughters and minority sons to get their noses to the grindstone. Then, in the late 60s and early 70s, new black leaders said, essentially, screw that. Fight for equality. Demand equality.

They tried race riots in the summer of 1967. Those devastated the black communities in question. To this day you can still see the scars in those cities and see the financial effects in the form of uninsured small stores that charge high prices—combat pay for their owners and employees.

Affirmative action lasted longer—until now I am arguing in this article.

Affirmative action is a form of regulation. As explained in the 2008 book The Gridlock Economy, the best level of regulation is the Goldilocks level: not too much and not too little, just right. Affirmative action is too much. The nation either has, or is about to, realize that.

Unprepared for statewide office elections

The 11/6/08 Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on yet another adverse effect on blacks of affirmative action.

Running for president almost requires previously holding statewide office. Relatively few blacks have run for president in part because relatively few blacks have held statewide office. Blacks are underrepresented compared to their percentage of the population (13.4%) in the U.S. Senate and governorships. There have only been three post-Reconstruction black senators counting Obama and there have only been two black governors: Doug Wilder in VA and Duvall Patrick in MA.

Why is that?

There are black cities, congressional districts, and counties, but no black states.

In addition, the U.S. Justice Department has interpreted the Voting Rights Act to mean that they should push for gerrymandering of districts so as many as possible have black majorities. That makes it easier for blacks to get elected—IN THOSE DISTRICTS. But it also enables black candidates in those districts to ignore the white voters in those districts. That, in turn, causes almost all black candidates to run on the typical black-grievances-against-whites agendas. A lot of the trouble Obama had in the recent election stemmed from his embracing the black-grievances agenda of Wright, Farrakhan, and Flager and the radical chic agenda of Hyde Park in order to get elected in the South Side of Chicago district.

So how did Obama get elected U.S. Senator from Illinois? His Democrat primary opponent self-destructed as a result of a sex scandal during the primaries. During the general election, his Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, also self-destructed as a result of a sex scandal when his sealed divorce records were leaked then officially released during the campaign. Ryan and his wife had their divorce records sealed by mutual agreement. Their release came as a result of lawsuits in Los Angeles by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago radio station WLS. I guess we can surmise that the Trib and WLS were not Ryan supporters.

Ryan had gotten divorced from Jeri Ryan, his wife and the character “Seven of Nine” on the TV series Star Trek Voyager. In other words, Obama had no hope of winning the U.S. Senate Democrat primary or general election until the two sex scandals. Obama reneged on a promise to not use the divorce records. In other words, Obama’s winning a U.S. Senate seat was extremely anomalous.

In most other cases, blacks have trouble making the transition from out-blacking competing candidates in black districts, gerrymandered or natural, to win Democrat primaries or general elections to win statewide offices, namely governorships and U.S. Senate seats. In other words, by “helping” blacks win local, county, and Congressional seats by letting then cheat through gerrymandering, the do-gooders and affirmative-action pushers have handicapped black candidates who want to win the votes of mixed-race statewide or national electorates.

Affirmative action has become the equivalent of training wheels that are never removed, thus making blacks the equivalent, in many ways, of people who never learned how to ride a bike. It is long past time to remove the training wheels from black achievement. The subprime disaster and election of Obama may bring that about now.

Relinquishment of the moral high ground

When I was a kid in rural Delaware in the 1950s and earl 1960s, I went to a segregated school and attended movies at a theater where blacks had to sit in the balcony. In the south, blacks could not eat at the same restaurants or drink from the same water fountains or use the same public rest rooms, among other things.

Those things were wrong. Blacks protested and did so from the moral high ground. That moral high ground was crucial to their ultimate victory over segregation and discrimination.

But it turned out that most blacks were not morally superior to the whites who imposed segregation and racial discrimination. Indeed, those blacks were equally morally inferior. They did not want to end the wrongs, they merely wanted to turn the tables and become the oppressors rather than the oppressees.

The euphemisms they used for their discrimination oppressions were “affirmative action” and “minority set-asides.” The euphemisms they used for their re-segregation efforts were “Congressional Black Caucus,” “Historically black colleges,” “Black studies,” “Black student unions,” “Black graduations”, “Black culture,” and others. They hated being prevented from sitting at white lunch counters, yet they now segregate themselves at all-black lunch tables in high schools and colleges all over the U.S. It apparently was not racial separation they resented, but just not being the ones who initiated the separation.

I got this idea while watching a talk by Shelby Steele on C-Span on 11/8/08. I am not sure that’s what he said, but it matters not who said it. It is what happened in the U.S. in the last 50 years, culminating in Obama’s presidential election.

Thomas Sowell says racism is wrong and putting it “under new management” [affirmative action] did not change that.

Sanford and Son

I saw a pertinent episode of Sanford and Son once. That 1970s TV sitcom featured black comedian Redd Foxx as a junk yard owner. Desmond Wilson played his son.

In one episode, the father needed major surgery. The episode consisted entirely of his trying to get his initial assigned surgeon—a black doctor—changed. Why? Sanford did not want some affirmative-action surgeon cutting him open. He wanted a real surgeon—a white or Asian doctor.

As I said above, affirmative action can be dangerous when it allows unqualified people to borrow mortgages—or get professional licenses—or run the free world. And whites and Asians are not the only ones able to recognizing that.

Obama as president

Let’s move on to the possibility of an Obama presidency. I have not heard any blacks publicly express misgivings about Obama being president based on how he might hurt them if he wins, then screws it up. But I have no doubt that behind closed doors, when no whites are around, some blacks are expressing concern that Obama may win, take office, then screw the job all up and set blacks back decades as a result.

Is that what will happen?


How can I say that?


1. All presidents fail to an extent

2. Whoever is elected president in 2008 is going to inherit an intractable, worldwide economic crisis.

3. Obama has almost no training or experience for the job.

4. Obama has ensured his failure by promising more than anyone can deliver.

5. Obama himself apparently believes he is incompetent.

6. Obama has tacitly approved the notion that he is John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.

Failures of all recent presidents

Here is a list of president since I was in college and their failures:

President Failures
Nixon Vietnam, price controls, gas lines, Watergate, Impeachment, resignation
Ford inflation, recession, (Joke was that Ford’s economic and energy plan was to buy a car then park it in your garage and never use it), pardoned Nixon
Carter worst inflation ever in U.S., “malaise,” Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, windfall profits tax on oil companies

caused S&L debacle and gazillion-dollar bailout by deregulating, signed Tax Reform Act of 1986 which traded real estate passive loss limits desired by Democrats for low 28% top rate that has since been taken back by the Dems, Iran-Contra scandal, Lebanon military intervention and retreat, War on Drugs, Challenger disaster, Immigration amnesty law

George H.W. Bush broke promise of no new taxes (“Read my lips”)
Clinton Hillary health care initiative, Whitewater scandal, disbarred, impeached, multiple sex scandals, let Osama get away, lost Democrat control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, sleazy pardons, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy on gays in military, travelgate, Blackhawk down, troopergate
George W. Bush Iraq, Afghanistan, 2008 economic collapse and stock market crash, social security reform, No Child Left Behind, immigration, deficit, subprime crisis, medicare prescription benefit, Katrina, stem-cell research, North Korea nuke

A reader said I did not give Reagan his due. I did too. Remember, this is only a list of failures. I did not say he and the others had no successes. They all had some successes. This discussion is only about failures.

Winner’s curse

There is a phrase in the mathematics of bidding: the winner’s curse. It refers to the fact that the winning bidder at an auction often has bid too much and is overpaying for the thing purchased. In this election, it has a different meaning. Whoever wins the 2008 presidential election will be stuck with a catastrophic economic situation. Furthermore, it is a worldwide crisis which means it is beyond the powers of the president to solve it. It is also unprecedented, so the expertise to solve it does not exist in anyone, let alone the two candidates, neither of whom knows squat about economics or finance.

Obama will try to blame it all on the “failed Bush policies.” The public and media will give him about 100 days to do that. Afterwards—the remaining 1,360 days of his administration, the public will regard the recession or depression as the new president’s fault. Is that fair? It is if you replay their campaign assurances that they were the ones who could fix it. The guy who gets inaugurated in January, 2009 will be the 21st century Herbert Hoover and there is nothing he can do about it.

The solution to economic problems is to encourage the market in every possible way. Obama will try the opposite initially. He will increase taxes on capital gains and successful businesses and executives. That will deepen and prolong the recession or depression. Every time Obama cynically chases more votes with his Marxist rhetoric about going after big corporations and their executives and capital gains he scares away the very leaders and investors who are the only hope to restore a strong economy.

No training or experience

The best prepared president in the 20th century was George H.W. Bush—better known as “Bush the First” or Bush “senior.” He was the youngest U.S. naval pilot in history—a World War II torpedo bomber pilot who was shot down by the Japanese and rescued by a U.S. submarine. He graduated from Yale then was a successful businessman in the Texas oil industry. He was a Congressman, Director of the CIA, the first U.S. envoy to China since World War II, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and two-term vice president under Ronald Reagan. Predictably, he was also the most successful president in the last hundred years.

Barack Obama is the least qualified presidential candidate in the entire history of the U.S. Compared to the failed presidents listed above, he has almost zero useful experience. Those guys were governors or former vice presidents. Indeed, he has no pertinent training and only the briefest, most undistinguished experience as an Illinois state senator who voted “present” a lot and as a U.S. senator who was given a rare committee chairmanship in spite of being a rookie, then never held a single committee hearing. What he has mainly done as a legislator is neglect his duties while campaigning for higher office.

He was a part-time teacher of constitutional law for 12 years, but his recently broadcast interview on the Constitution—recorded before he became a national figure—indicates his main interest in the Constitution is in finding fault with it, the judges who interpret it, and the people who wrote it for their failure to incorporate “economic justice” and “redistribution of wealth” Marxist principles.

Obama has ZERO experience in the following aspects of the duties of the President:

• foreign policy

• national security

• finance

• economics

• managing subordinates

• large organizations

• civil and criminal justice

• labor

• agriculture

• health care

• housing

• transportation

• energy

• k-12 or college education

• military or veterans

His supporters will say that he will have advisors. No doubt, but the problem is he does not know enough to know whom to select for advisers. He will have advisers on which advisers to get advice from.

He will get conflicting advice as all presidents do. Because he has no experience, he will not know how to choose which of the conflicting advisors to listen to, or to go with some of one‘s advice and some of another’s, or whether to reject all of them.

Because of his lack of training or experience, he will get pushed around and conned by advisers, Congress, lobbyists, military brass, and by domestic and foreign enemies.

See my article on the lack of validity to the “he has advisers” argument.


All the adults reading this have been rookies at least once in their lives. I have been a rookie 10 or twelve times because I tried many different careers. You can see it in the 81 books I have written. When you and I were rookies, we screwed up. We had to guess at how to do things. We asked others what to do or how to do it and—in retrospect—recognize that we sometimes asked, and relied upon, the wrong people. When it came to managing people, we were initially too lenient, too willing to accept excuses for substandard performance. We got pushed around and taken advantage of by suppliers, vendors, bosses, co-workers, etc.

Obama himself has been a rookie a couple of times. He ran for Congress in Chicago and got beat by the then and still incumbent, a convicted felon ex-convict. He was a rookie “community organizer” and held meetings that no one in the community attended.

Being a rookie president of the United States is no different except for two things:

• The stakes could not be higher.

• Obama will be in a super fishbowl where his every word, action, and inaction will be evaluated microscopically where the other end of the microscope is occupied by tens of thousands of the world’s top experts on the subject in question as well as hundreds of thousands of political enemies who will twist or magnify or whatever to make Obama look bad.

Thinking back to your rookie time, how would you have fared under such scrutiny and pressure? Obama is gifted at schmoozing, reading a teleprompter, and basking in the adulation of his cult followers. But that is not enough to get him through the presidency. He is also pretty good at bluffing as evidenced by the fact that he got elected president. But they taught us at West Point to never bluff because if you do you will inevitably be found out and you will lose all credibility with your subordinates. Obama never learned that lesson. Indeed, at Harvard Law School I surmise they teach the exact opposite. So Obama, and we, are in big trouble as a result of his election to the presidency.

Promising more than you deliver

Suppose he is a brilliant student of the presidency and somehow manages to do a good job in comparison to other presidents. He will still be considered a failure.


There is only one way to do a good job and still have people unhappy with you. That is to promise more than you deliver. Has Barack done that? Is the Pope Catholic?

Obama has promised everything to everyone. Energy independence via mostly renewable sources that do not yet make economic sense. Free money for college. “Tax cuts” or plain old $5,000 gifts for 95%. Health insurance for everyone. More Army and Marine troops. Fix the world economy. End climate change. There is no hope that he or anyone else could keep all those promises. He cynically figures he can promise anything and everything to get elected, then bullshit his way out of keeping those promises after he gets elected. That is actually the only significant mistake George H.W. Bush made.

This is another manifestation of the winner’s curse. Obama bid for the presidency by promising more than any presidential candidate in history. After inauguration day, the American people will essentially say, “OK, winning bidder, pay up.” He cannot.

There is a feeling among whites that if Obama gets elected, that’s it. Blacks will then have gotten everything there was to get. No more free passes for skin color. And that’s if he has a successful presidency!

In fact, he has no chance of having a successful presidency. When he fails, the non-black population will be very angry and will end affirmative action throughout our society. Blacks will have been disarmed on the subject by Obama’s failure as president. Some things, like lending trillions of dollars, surgery, and the presidency of the U.S., are important, potentially dangerous matters. They are not places to be screwing around pretending that “disadvantaged” minorities are qualified for loans or licenses or jobs that many of the individuals in question are, in fact, not qualified for.

Obama himself thinks he is incompetent

Obama himself appears to believe, or at least fear, that he is incompetent at managing. What evidence is there of that? He is 47 years old. He has somehow avoided ever being in a job where you could measure his performance in all that time. His resume sounds like that of a person in his early twenties only it lasts for 27 years instead of the five that people normally spend in their early twenties. He seems to have existed in a sort of Never-Never Land where he never has to get a job more suitable for a 26-year old or older man.

After college, he worked for a year editing a couple of international business newsletters in NYC. That was the only job he ever had in the for-profit sector. Then he worked for a do-gooder, non-profit, charity-funded organization in also in New York City where he went to college. That’s fine for his age at the time: 22 to 25.

What has he done since then? Part-time “Community organizer,” part-time law school lecturer, part-time lawyer, part-time state senator, and absentee U.S. senator. Jack of all non-profit activities; master of none.

Other would-be presidents have tried to get their ticket punched with the most impressive jobs they could. Mitt Romney is one of the best examples. He prepared to be president and tried to prove he was well qualified by getting degrees from Harvard Business and Harvard Law—similar to Obama who has a Harvard Law degree. But then Romney also made $500 million managing Bain Capital’s private equity funds, turned around the scandal-ridden Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and was a two-term governor of Massachusetts.

George W. Bush got a Harvard MBA, worked in the oil business, ran the Texas Rangers baseball team, and was a governor of Texas.

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, graduated from Yale Law School, was attorney general and governor of Arkansas.

Reagan, Bush the 1st, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Gore, Kerry all served on active duty in the military during wars—and they apparently did so deliberately to burnish their resumes for later political campaigns.

What has Obama done deliberately to get ready to run for president? Avoid ever having a job where people could see whether he was worth a shit. He never had to meet a payroll or make a profit. He never led men in combat. He never was a mayor or a governor or a school principal or a government administrator. He never coached a team even as a volunteer youth coach. Never negotiated a contract. He never argued a legal case to a verdict that I know of.

He never did anything where a measurable result could be seen and evaluated by the press or the public or the others who worked for him or with him. His voting record says what it says but he has a zillion explanations of what it does not mean what it says. Too much of his “voting record” says “present” or “not present.” If he thought he could have gotten away with it, he would have missed every vote. Indeed, he mainly lost in his run for Congress because he missed votes on gun control when he was in the IL senate. He has assiduously refused to put himself where he had to do anything other than schmooze and charm people in casual conversation or make speeches.

Why? Logic suggests it is because he fears that he would fail or knows that he would fail.

In fact, no presidential candidate in history other than Obama has ever dared even consider running for president before getting varied and extensive experience—and showing voters what he could do—through a significant series of the most responsible jobs possible.

Well, guess what? The presidency is all the jobs Obama has so diligently avoided wrapped into one and then some. The best measure of Obama twisted selfishness and sociopathic disregard for others is that he knows he is incompetent, yet he has no qualms whatsoever about stepping into the Oval Office and trying to bluff his way through his first-full-time job, his first position managing others—at incalculable danger to the U.S. and the Free World.

Is schmoozing and making speeches part of being president? Absolutely. It’s an important part. But it’s only about 10% of the job. The other 90% is making policy decisions; recruiting, training, and retaining good subordinate managers; counseling and firing bad managers; and getting millions of subordinates to execute ad hoc jobs like responding to a crisis and routine jobs like caring for veterans, maintaining parks, and investigating federal crimes. Obama has zero training or experience at any of that. He will fail at those tasks as a result. And the nation will be hurt, perhaps seriously, by those failures.

President John F. Kennedy said the president made no easy decisions—only hard ones. He said all the easy decisions had been made at lower levels. The lower level government guys only passed the buck on the toughest decisions up to the President.

What’s Obama going to do when people start coming into the Oval Office asking him to make real, life-or-death decisions. Go back to doing cocaine which was how he dealt with the “trauma” of contemplating having a black father and a white mother? If he couldn’t handle that, and he has avoided ever having a real job, what the heck is he going to do when he has the toughest job in the world? Joe Biden was right. The presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training. And Barack Obama was right when he avoided ever having a job where he would have had to produce results. He is incompetent at anything other than schmoozing and speaking.

You can’t call him incompetent because his father was black. But that won’t stop him from being incompetent if and when he gets to the Oval Office. And no amount of schmoozing or speechifying spin or affirmative-action double standards prohibiting criticizing blacks will be able to hide his failures there. He can avoid the hard questions refuse to go on Hannity or agree to town hall meetings with McCain as a candidate, but there is no such option in the presidency. If, say, China invades Taiwan, President Obama will have to make a decision what to do about it. I predict he will try to schmooze the Chinese back to the mainland. I also predict it will not work.

A human subprime loan application

Obama’s candidacy is, in a number of ways, a human subprime loan application. For one thing, I have said that “subprime” is just a euphemism for substandard. Is Barack Obama substandard as a presidential candidate?


He has about 1/20th to 1/10th of the training and experience as previous major party nominees and presidents.

He seeks preferential treatment for his skin color which was also the case with many subprime borrowers.

Is his candidacy the human equivalent of a low doc or no doc loan application? You bet. Low doc and no doc mean low document or no documentation applications. Those did not require proof that the borrower was qualified. Obama has offered no such proof that he is qualified to be president either.

Recently, the Los Angeles Times reporter who has been traveling with Obama throughout the campaign wrote that he still does not know Obama. None of his colleagues do either. This was in contrast to other campaigns where the reporters who travel with the candidates do get to to know them.

It reminded me of what former Clinton aide Dick Morris said repeatedly about Hillary. It was along these lines:

Hillary thinks that if you got to know the real her, you would not like her. So she always hides who she is behind scripted comments and a fake personality that she thinks you are more likely to feel good towards.

Just as Obama behaves in ways that suggest he believes he is incompetent, he also seems to believe that he can only retain your affection if he prevents you from ever finding out who he really is. He is the lo doc no doc candidate.

Profound crime

If I am right that Obama knows he is incompetent, his willingness to campaign for and accept the presidency is profoundly criminal. He is knowingly committing the moral equivalent of a sort of mass scale malpractice. He could do trillions of dollars of damage to the nation. Since presidents make life-or-death decisions, he may well also commit mass manslaughter or mass negligent homicide.

There is little difference between what Obama is going to do on inauguration day and what Frank Abagnale, Jr. did throughout his life—before he went to jail. The movie Catch Me If You Can was loosely based on Abagnale’s life.

I know, George W. Bush arguably did something of that nature putting U.S. troops into Iraq, but it will take at least a few more years to draw final conclusions about that. George Bush is almost history. This article, like Obama claimed for himself, is about the future.

America’s blacks who voted for Obama purely for racial reasons are also co-conspirators to these crimes. They appear to recognize that Obama has virtually no suitable background for the job of president. But they appear to have gone ahead and voted for him anyway disregarding the welfare of the nation—of which they are citizens—because they regarded the self-esteem boost a higher priority than the well-being of America.

Whites who voted for Obama because he is black—and in spite of his obvious lack of qualifications—appear to have suffered temporary insanity—ranking proving their lack of racism to themselves and the world above our having a competent commander in chief and chief executive.

The second coming of JFK, FDR, and Lincoln

Obama has frequently been described as another JFK, FDR, and/or Lincoln. Not only has Obama not discouraged such statements, he has encouraged them. For example, he used Abraham Lincoln’s Bible to be sworn in as president. It was and is extremely foolish for Obama to allow such a towering bar to be set as the measure of whether he succeeds.

When I mentioned Obama’s failure to protest his being touted as the next JFK. FDR. or Lincoln, my wife said, “He believes it himself.”

I said, “Actually, I think he thinks he’s better than those guys. He is astonishingly overconfident about everything he does.”

Is Obama JFK? And Michelle, Jackie Kennedy?

No. Start with Jackie. She was beautiful enough to have been a model. She spoke fluent French as a result of having been educated in that country. She never made a political speech. She was raised so as to have an amazing amount of grace, class, taste, and style, which she revealed in her redecoration of the White House, invitations to leading classical performing artists to perform at the White House, shielding her children from the press, and the way she dressed.

Michelle has tried to imitate Jackie by wearing pearls and having musicians like Yo Yo Ma perform at the White House. But there is a ton more to it than that. She needs to be herself, although she tried that and it was a disaster. Now her best bet is to do what she ultimately did during the campaign. Keep her mouth shut and hide.

I already compared Obama and Kennedy at

Is Obama FDR?

A. We should hope not and B. No.

Roosevelt is regarded as the man who saved the U.S. from the Depression. In fact, he inherited a recession and turned it into a prolonged Depression through trade wars and such universally denounced steps as price fixing, paying farmers not to farm, and marginal make-work projects (like the collegiate-style concrete football stadium at my high school—zoom in to the max to see it). The Depression ended in spite of Roosevelt’s efforts as a result of World War II. See the current book New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.

College honor
Editor of the daily Harvard Crimson newspaper
Law school
Dropped out of Columbia law School because he had already passed the bar exam
graduated from Harvard Law School
Legislative career
New York State Senator
Illinois State Senator
Appointive career
Assistant Secretary of the Navy
National politics
1920 Vice-Presidential candidate
State executive office
two-term Governor of New York


Is Obama Lincoln?

only 18 months of one-room school house then self-educated by reading
wealthy kids high school in Honolulu, Occidental College in Pasadena, Columbia College in Manhattan, Harvard Law School
Legislative career
Illinois State Representative
Illinois State Senator
Law career

full-time from 1837 until president in 1861—in one famous case, Lincoln got his client off on a murder charge by discrediting a witness who said he saw the crime by the light of a high moon. Using an almanac, Lincoln proved the moon had almost set at the time of the crime.

Lincoln argued many cases including appellate cases that set legal precedents

part-time from 1993 to 2002

never argued a case

Military service
Company commander of an Illinois militia company in the 1832 Black Hawk War
Oratorical fame
1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates regarding slavery
Opening speech at 2004 Democratic National Convention that nominated Kerry
awarded patent in 1849 for navigating shallow waters with floats extended from the sides of river boats
Party leader
Founder of the Republican party


Obama is famous as an orator. I agree.

So are JFK, FDR, and Lincoln. But there is one big differences.

Obama is gifted at reading a teleprompter. He is like NBC news anchor David Brinkley of whom it was said he could have everyone on the edge of their seats if he read the Manhattan phone book. He did it in part with numerous pauses per sentence. Paul Harvey does the same. So does Obama.

JFK, FDR, and Lincoln, however, said many memorable things. Even with the best available speech writers, Obama has said nothing memorable.

Here are some memorable quotes from JFK, FDR, and Lincoln:


Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

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

I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, and I have enjoyed it.

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.


Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

We, and all others who believe in freedom as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.


Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.

Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

..that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


This guy has written two best-selling books. Actually, the first one flopped, then became a best-seller after his 2004 Democrat convention speech. The second was written after that speech. Can you remember any memorable line from either book? Me neither.

Obama was nobody until his keynote speech to the 2004 Democrat convention. Please give us some of the memorable quotes from that crucial-to-Obama’s-future speech. You can’t do it, can you? Me neither.

Then there was his speech on race. It was said that it would be taught in schools and memorized by school children. Please recite some of the great lines from that speech. Nothing, right?

Then there was his inaugural speech. With each of the former presidents listed above, some of the quotes are from their inaugural speeches. Obama just made his on January 20, 2009. Please remind us of the most famous quotes from Obama’s inaugural speech. You can’t think of any.

Obama cannot come up with any memorable lines. He cannot even find a speech writer who can, or maybe they did but he was unable to even recognize them when they were written for him and he cut them from the speech. Zilch. Nada.

But give credit where credit is due. The guy can read a phone book.

Will the media protect Obama when he fails?

People have become so used to Obama getting a pass from the media that they figure the same will probably happen after he takes office.


Why not?

A top editor claimed the media are not biased toward liberals. Rather, he said, they are biased in favor of the best story. I disagree about the liberals. There is a liberal bias in much of the media. But I agree with him that the media’s main bias is the good story, not Obama’s politics.

I am a member of the media. Have been for 32 years. What they want more than anything is readers. The classic way to get readers in the writing business is to write a man-bites-dog, not a dog-bites-man story. In other words, the public wants new stories.

“Old white guy gets elected president” is dog bites man. “Young, partially black guy gets elected president” is man bites dog.

So are “first black president selects cabinet,” “first black president gets inaugurated,” and “first black president settles into Oval Office.”

But “first black president has another day at the office” is not new and interesting. It’s boring. On the other hand, “president who spoke to huge adoring crowds and who energized young voters flops as president” is man bites dog. That is the story the media will be looking for as the days unfold after inauguration and they will have no trouble finding it. Will the media admit they screwed up? Sure. That, too, would be man bites dog.

We have all seen the media build some newcomer on the scene up, only to tear him down once his being on top became old news. The above explanation is why that happens and why that will for sure happen to Obama as well.

Even Joe Biden agrees with the above scenario. He said during the primaries when he was a candidate for president, that the presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training—a pointed reference to Obama. More recently, as VP nominee, he said that Obama would be tested shortly after inauguration, like Soviet leader Khrushchev did to the 47-year old John Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, which almost led to World War III. Biden also said that it would initially appear that Obama had screwed up his response. He begged the public to support Obama at that future time even though he will not seem at the time to deserve the support.

Lame, and also in total agreement with what I am saying here.

Charlie Rose Shows

It started within days of the election, most notably on the Charlie Rose Show where Tom Brokaw said we do not know who Obama is. Limbaugh put selected portions of the transcript on his Web site. For you knee-jerk, out-of-context accusers, those who have read the whole transcript say the excerpts are consistent with the whole. On a subsequent show, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham called the Obama campaign a “creepy cult of personality.” One thread in these Rose interviews reminded me of the line in the Carly Simon song “You’re so vain you probably think this song is about you.

You had one eye in the mirror

As you watched yourself gavotte

[Wikipedia says Simon’s use of the word “gavotte” means “a pretentious or egotistical style of dancing.”] Obama seems to me to have one eye on the mirror looking it himself always, even when there is no mirror and he needs to imagine one. I expect the dazzled public will eventually realize this and when they do, Obama will become an object of ridicule. His name may even enter the language like Borked. For one example, I predict that cars from Detroit that comply with Obama’s mileage and carbon fooprint requirements will be dubbed “Obamamobiles” and only bought by the same use-my-car-purchase-to-make-a-political-statement liberals who buy Volvos and Priuses.

On the other side, the media is already building George W. Bush up, most notably with regard to the meeting between him and Obama in the White House on 11/10/08.

“George W. Bush is a great guy” is man bites dog. So is “Obama is creepy.” Gotta love the traditional headline news media.