Conventions and what to expect.

Realistically, it's just a shift from primary campaigning to general election campaigning. It's the function of a convention to give those who were not the victors in the primaries to throw the weight of their political machine behind the candidate who did win the nomination. To expect that a modern political convention (which serves approximately the same function as a pep rally) to serve as a forum where the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate who is nominated are actually discussed reasonably and thoroughly is an unreasonable standard in the modern convention era. The modern convention is much less about nominating and much more about a show of party unity after the essentially divisive process of primary campaigning. Especially in the case of the Clintons, who are heading up a political machine spanning more than a decade, including pivotal Southern Democrats, it is vital for their political legacy, their future political prospects and their position within the party to throw their support behind Obama. This is not to say that they have necessarily abandoned their reservations about Obama and/or the people around him. There are myriad other outlets for them to voice their objections and suggestions for change within the Obama campaign. But of course they won't criticize him on the convention floor. That is no longer the function of the convention, nor is it in the Clintons' interest.

What I Haven't Heard at the Convention in Denver...

Here is a central question that has not yet been answered:

Senators Biden and Clinton made a point during the primaries of saying during that Obama is not prepared to be president - that he is too inexperienced and is not qualified.  Yet here they are in Denver giving soaring speeches about how he is the right man for the job.  What happened in the past 4 months that made them change their minds?

And for those of you who just pass it off by saying "oh, everyone says stuff like that about their opponents in the primaries" - that is a poor reason.  Politicians should be held accountable for their promises, policies, and positions, regardless of the stage of the campaign.  To do otherwise encourages deceit and reduces the trust of the public.  Say what you mean and mean what you say, or don't say it.

Article

The Case Against Obama - In His Own Words
Lorie Byrd
Friday, August 22, 2008

It would be hard to make a better case against a Barack Obama presidency than the one Obama has made in his own words. The most memorable thing about Obama’s speeches is not generally what he says, but rather how large and enthusiastic the audiences are. If voters pay attention only to the symbolism and get caught up in the excitement of the Obamessiah and his throngs of fainting disciples, he stands a good chance of winning in November. If voters pay attention instead to the things Obama is saying, the case against an Obama presidency will be clear.  

Obama’s youthful appearance is often cited as one of his biggest assets, but when he opens his mouth he doesn’t always come off as presidential or even particularly intelligent. The political figure who perhaps has received the most ridicule in the past twenty years is Dan Quayle (due largely to a misspelled word on a flashcard he read during an appearance at a school). I wonder how much more grief would have been heaped on Vice President Quayle if he had made any of the following gaffes committed by Barack Obama (from Michelle Malkin):

· Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

· Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

· Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. 

Some of Obama’s gaffes go beyond simple slips of the tongue and confusion over numbers though and display a lack of knowledge on important issues as was the case when he commented on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” As Malkin pointed out, the real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan is because Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages. Worse than the lack of knowledge of the languages spoken in other nations is that he lacks an understanding of the threat posed by some of them. Or maybe he doesn’t. It is really a bit confusing. In Portland, Oregon, Obama said of Iran, “They don't pose a serious threat to us.” The following day in Billings, Montana he said: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Maybe it depends what the definitions of “grave” and “serious” are. As I said, it is all bit confusing. Maybe that is why so many focus on the crowds at Obama’s events, rather than to what Obama is actually saying to them.

If voters are paying attention to what Barack Obama says they will see not only a lack of knowledge of important issues, but on some of the issues where he is informed, an attempt to hide his true position and past votes.  

In the Saddleback Church forum last week, in response to Rev. Rick Warren’s question, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama responded: “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” As blogger Cassy Fiano points out, the idea that someone running for President would dodge such an important question in that way is “beyond ridiculous” and obviously an attempt to be as ambiguous as possible so that he does not offend those who disagree with the very radical positions he has taken on the issue of abortion during his political career. Obama’s past comments and votes on abortion legislation definitely say more about him than anything he is saying on the subject now. 

Another example of actions speaking louder than words can be found when we listen to Obama’s money talk. According to Obama’s tax returns from 2000-2006, the Obamas have given far less to charity than John McCain has. In all but the two most recent years reported, the Obamas gave around 1% or less of their income to charity. Their contributions increased in 2005 and 2006 to 4.7% and 6.1% respectively, but still are far short of those of McCain who gave 28.6% in 2006 and 27.3% in 2007. But if you listen to Obama’s words you will hear that he is very concerned about the least among us.

According to the following statement from an Obama speech earlier this summer, it appears pretty much everyone who isn’t Obama is a lesser being: “...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.” If Obama is able to slow the rise of the oceans then ending poverty and securing peace should be a cakewalk. I suppose he will only be able to accomplish such feats if elected President though.

This week John McCain pulled ahead of Obama in many polls and projections. Maybe voters have finally started listening to what Obama has been saying now that the thrill of his oratory is wearing thin.

Thoughts on Biden

I congratulate Senator Obama on his choice of Vice President.  Honestly, I am frustrated by his choice because I believe Senator Biden brings legitimacy to the Democratic ticket in a year when I am VERY against the Democratic nominee.  I believe Joe Biden was the strongest candidate in the primaries (at least at the debates I saw) but was never able to pull enough attention away from Clinton and Obama.  Had he been selected as the Democratic nominee I would have seriously considered voting another way despite policy disagreements because I believe Senator Biden is a thoughtful, experienced politician and a good man (from what I can tell).  I recognize "Good Night's" concerns, and Biden does have a track record of verbal gaffes, but I think this is an excellent choice for VP - in fact the best choice available.  I give Senator Obama a lot of credit for picking a running mate that is truly worthy of the office rather than the person who can give him the biggest lift due to demographic or geographic reasons (we'll see if John McCain can do the same).  I put my faith in Senator Biden to help Senator Obama make smart decisions should they be victorious in November.

John McCain and the Press

He has over and over gained a reputation for being a tough guy (one that I don't dispute, he's a tough cookie, to be sure) but more and more the stress of the campaign seems to be bringing out John McCain's temper.

Just take a look at how he treats a reporter who has been critical of him.

I think that, as someone seeking the chief executive office, he should have a bit more diplomatic savvy than that. But Graham's face is just priceless too...

Joe Biden...Interesting

It has been finalized. After a flurry of media (lasting more than a week) in which the people who knew something weren't talking, and anyone talking didn't know anything, we know who will "balance" the Obama ticket.

Joe Biden is a respected Senator, a foreign policy expert, etc. etc. He is clearly the answer to the "no experience" challenge against the Obama campaign.
(Biden's record)

However, he has proven again and again that his race and gender sensitivities are...less than might be desired as part of the Obama new-wave of Democrat-dom. (a Feminist perspective on Biden's record.) His previous comments from the beginning of the primaries make it clear that this senior senator, no matter how respectable needs to be checked. Look, for example at the #7 top political gaffe of 2007, according to Time Magazine

Or Richard Cohen's accusation that Biden has problems with "manic-obsessive running of the mouth"

There's also the fact that a recent poll with results published in the Washington Post comes right out and says that the presence of Biden in the campaign will have little or no effect on whether people choose to support Obama, with the difference between more and less likely within the margin of statistical error.

I gotta say, as an Obama supporter, I'm skeptical.

Above his Pay Grade?

What happened to "the buck stops here"?  Boy, the presidency has fallen a long way.  What else is "above his pay grade"?

I hope this gets big coverage (doubtful), because this is an unacceptable answer to any question posed to a President or candidate.  "I don't know" is at least an honest, respectable answer (although it would seem to call the practice of abortion into question).  Obama's answer is neither honest nor respectable.  It is a poor attempt to dodge a difficult and politically dangerous question.

Newsweek Article: Subsidized in the City

As a young adult, I can related to the author and her message.  

Adulthood means financial independence. So why do so many of my peers still live off their parents?

Melody Serafino
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 2:28 PM ET Jul 19, 2008

For the recent college graduate, living in New York—the city of dreams and opportunity—is no easy feat. As twentysomethings, we sacrifice having any semblance of savings to survive in a city that promises so much social and cultural diversity. After all, when the bright lights of the big city call, who can refuse? For those who crave urban living at its best, New York is a siren, singing an irresistibly enticing song—that is, until you're lured in and, before you know it, have forked over 80 percent of your salary for rent.

I always knew I would end up in New York. After college and a three-month stint living rent-free in an uncle's Tribeca apartment, I had saved enough money to renounce further financial assistance from my parents. If I was ever in a serious financial bind, I knew they would offer help, but after 10 years of private-school education on their dime, I didn't want to come crawling back for an allowance. Besides, wasn't that the point of my expensive education—to adequately prepare me to take on the world and take care of myself? Financial independence means social freedom and absolute control over my own life. Yet among my peers, I seem to be the only one who feels this way.

Why? Because the majority of them receive some sort of financial assistance from their parents—and few say they want to change anything about the way they live. One 25-year-old friend—whose parents pay for more than half her rent and all her utilities, as well as giving her spending money—snubbed the idea of compromising her lifestyle for financial independence. Another, a 22-year-old who gets a portion of her rent paid by Mom and Dad, admitted she would be willing to cut back on "superfluous spending," but was reluctant to move out of Manhattan and into a more affordable borough like Brooklyn or Queens.

Higher rents and the need for deeper pockets are part of the charm associated with city living, but urban pricing aside, it is possible to live in any city regardless of your age or income; it just takes a little budgeting and prioritizing. Surrendering to lifestyle flexibility may be unattractive, but sometimes it's necessary. It's easy to "keep up with the Joneses" when financial responsibility is someone else's problem. The fact is, my peers who flood out of designer stores, arms adorned with shopping bags, wouldn't be able to afford their purchases without ringing up a massive credit-card debt. By continuing to provide for their twentysomething kids, parents hinder their children's ability to be financially responsible. If you don't learn to budget early on, what will inspire you to do so when your finances become your own prerogative?

It's not just Manhattan where I've noticed this phenomenon. A Chicago acquaintance was promised an apartment as a graduation gift; a Boston friend receives a hefty monthly stipend. The stakes are higher in a city, which is why many young people feel the need to compete with each other. But when parental handouts are not only offered but expected, what is Generation Y learning about living on its own?

It is disturbing when "adults" don't have their own credit cards linked to their own accounts for fear of overspending. A friend confessed to me that she didn't need to build credit. If the need for a loan ever arises, she told me, she can go to her parents or—as she secretly hopes—a husband who will take care of it.

At 25, I'm still questioning what it means to be an adult. But I know that part of it means having the financial independence to never have to rely on my parents for my decision making. This is indicative of a sort of social independence as well. If I want to plan a vacation halfway around the world, I do—and no one can tell me otherwise, because I am depending on my own means to get there. I can live wherever I want because I am paying my own rent. Financial independence has allowed for absolute control over my own life—an undeniably liberating feeling.

There is something to be said for writing that rent check each month and knowing you've managed to live comfortably on your own terms. Racking up $500 shopping sprees on Mommy and Daddy's credit card may have its momentary allure, but the adult part of me believes that working for what you have is much more rewarding than being handed it on a silver platter. And I have my own mom and dad to thank for that.

My Favorite Obama Quote

From the August 11 edition of Time Magazine

Thank you for that, Senator Obama.  

The really sad part - this was in an article attempting to summarize each candidate's economic platform.  Apparently Time felt this quote best typified Senator Obama's plans for our economic future.  I hope they are wrong.

And Here McCain Makes the Same Vague Promises

Here McCain makes similar mistakes (see next post) in his energy ad.

1) McCain says more government spending will result in fewer jobs. How does he reach that conclusion?

2) McCain supports "renewable energy to transform our economy". What renewable energy, specifically, and how will it transform our economy? No currently available form of renewable energy is close to supplanting oil and coal as our primary sources of energy. They simply don't have the scale or the economic feasibility at this point.

3) McCain also promises to "create jobs and energy independence". Once again, how? How will you create jobs? And although I know McCain supports expanding domestic production, he doesn't actually say it here, so how is the public to know how he will pursue "energy independence", a political promise we have been hearing for 20 years with no effect.

Has the general public lost the ability to question what they hear? Why do we not demand that our candidates be specific with their plans rather than allowing them to make unchallenged promises without consequence?

Notice the specifics (or lack therof)

You know, it is ads like these that drive me crazy. This is an ad Obama aired during the Olympics. Notice the complete lack of details. The first 15 seconds only talk about "hands" while praising the american worker (how groundbreaking!)

In the next 15 seconds, we learn the following:

He has a new vision - "fast tracking alternative fules"
Can anyone explain to me exactly what this means?

He will "create 5 million jobs developing home-grown energy technologies"
What are "home-grown energy technologies" and, unless these jobs are to be government jobs, how exactly would he "create" them?

He then closes by saying "America's future is in our hands"
Gee...thanks - that is so helpful

Why the American people are willing to accept such fluff is beyond me.

Excessive Profits Confiscation Revisited...

Obama Remains Resolute In The War On Profits

Austin Hill

August 10, 2008

What an interesting week…
While traveling in Asia, President Bush criticized China over its abysmal record on human rights. While traveling across the United States, would-be President John McCain criticized the Bush Administration over its abysmal record on fiscal policy, and his political opponent, for being a pop culture icon. And while traveling on his own campaign trail, Barack Obama criticized his own public enemy of choice: American oil corporations.
Admittedly, the week was a rough one for Obama. It began with the McCain campaign having released a video commercial that portrayed Obama as a pop culture icon, and likened him to such notable celebrities as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
Obama reacted to this advertisement by insisting that he and McCain should both be talking about “the substantive issues,” and not about Britney Spears (this from the same Barack Obama who has ignored McCain’s invitations for a joint town hall meeting for nearly three months). Shortly thereafter, the Obama campaign released its own video commercial, claiming that McCain is “just like” President Bush and Vice President Cheney on energy policy, and that McCain is “in the pockets” of “big oil.”
Now think about this for a moment. Senator McCain compared Senator Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. An insult? You bet it was, and an intentional one at that.
Yet, Obama’s response was to compare Senator McCain to an actual President, and to an actual Vice President, and to claim that McCain is - - what? - - too supportive of American business? If Obama was intending to equalize the presidential campaign terrain this week, it’s difficult to imagine that being called a “friend to the oil companies” compares at all with being called a “pop star.” Similarly, its tough to fathom that for a man to be compared to the President of the United States is somehow worse than being compared to Spears or Hilton.
But this attempt to malign McCain by pointing out his alleged association with “big oil” is consistent with Obama’s entire campaign. Indeed, throughout his nineteen month pursuit of the presidency, Obama has seemingly taken every opportunity to malign American free enterprise - - be it the oil industry, the insurance industry, the banking industry, or the medical profession - - as though it were the source of all the world’s evils. Obama’s radical, anti-business streak showed itself again this week, in an outburst aimed specifically at the Exxon-Mobil corporation. After reporting a nearly $12 billion quarterly profit, Obama lamented that "no U.S. corporation ever made that much in a quarter" - - as though setting new records for financial success were a bad thing.
He then used the occasion to reiterate his plan for taxing the excessive, or “windfall” profits of oil companies, and to redistribute that revenue to “deserving families” in the form of “rebate checks.” But since when is it presidential to single-out an American company by name, and to publicly trash it? And what exactly is Obama (or anybody else) talking about, when he says the name “Exxon Mobil?”
Well, the Exxon-Mobil corporation is a privately held, publicly traded, legal corporation, governed by a board of directors, and headquartered in suburban Dallas. According to market analysis from the Wall Street Journal, the corporation employees over 80,000 people, and is the world’s largest publicly traded (not government owned) oil and gas company. It markets products in nearly every country on the planet, and provides energy that is the underpinning of both developed and emerging economies around the world (including our own).
This is what is so conveniently dismissed as “big oil” by candidate Obama. Forget the fact that the company employs more than the population of a small town. Never mind that those “windfall profits” that Obama gripes about pay dividends to stockholders - - stockholders who are “working Americans,” and retirees, and people of all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. And ignore the fact that “big oil’s” profits are helping to produce the future funding for union member’s retirement plans and pension funds. No, no, forget all that. Senator and almost-President Barack Obama is outraged because the Exxon-Mobil corporation set a new record for quarterly profits, he knows he can manage that money better than anyone else, and he’s determined that these dastardly corporate profits are, indeed, the greatest threat to the United States.
So while President Bush speaks out against the tyrrany of communism, and Senator McCain speaks out against the stranglehold of government that prevents Americans from using American energy resources, Senator Obama wages his own war on corporate profits. And herein lies the greatest insult of campaign 2008 - - Mr. Obama assumes that Americans don’t know any better.

New McCain Ad

This is exactly the type of ad John McCain needs to be running - it highlights the disparity between Obama's rhetoric and his track record, especially compared to McCain's well-established reputation for bipartisanship.  I especially like the Clinton quote at the end.  McCain's ads have attracted a lot more attention recently - I hope he can keep the momentum going.

Energy Article by Charles Krauthammer

The Democrat Plan for Losing

Charles KrauthammerFriday, August 08, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Let's see: housing meltdown, credit crunch, oil shock not seen since the 1970s. The economy is slowing, unemployment growing and inflation increasing. It's the sixth year of a highly unpopular war and the president's approval rating is at 30 percent.
The Italian Communist Party could win this election. The American Democratic Party is trying its best to lose it.

Democrats have the advantage on just about every domestic issue from health care to education. However, Americans' greatest concern is the economy, and their greatest economic concern is energy (by a significant margin: 37 percent to 21 percent for inflation). Yet Democrats have gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling for domestic oil and gas. By an overwhelming margin of 2-1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the last 27 years.
Democrats have been adamantly opposed. They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected?

Barack Obama remains opposed to new offshore drilling (although he now says he would accept a highly restricted version as part of a comprehensive package). Just last week, he claimed that if only Americans would inflate their tires properly and get regular tune-ups, "we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."

This is bizarre. By any reasonable calculation of annual tire-inflation and tune-up savings, the Outer Continental Shelf holds nearly a hundred times as much oil. As for oil shale, also under federal moratorium, after a thousand years of driving with Obama-inflated tires and Obama-tuned engines, we would still have saved only one-fifth the oil shale available in the United States.

But forget the math. Why is this issue either/or? Who's against properly inflated tires? Let's start a national campaign, Cuban-style, with giant venceremos posters lining the highways. ("Inflate your tires. Victory or death!") Why must there be a choice between encouraging conservation and increasing supply? The logical answer is obvious: Do both.
Do everything. Wind and solar. A tire gauge in every mailbox. Hell, a team of oxen for every family (to pull their gasoline-drained SUVs). The consensus in the country, logically unassailable and politically unbeatable, is to do everything possible to both increase supply and reduce demand, because we have a problem that's been killing our economy and threatening our national security. And no one measure is sufficient.

The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?

Congressional Democrats demand instead a clampdown on "speculators." The Democrats proposed this a month ago. In the meantime, "speculators" have driven the price down by $25 a barrel. Still want to stop them? In what universe do traders only bet on the price going up?
On Monday, Obama outlined a major plan with mandates and immense government investment in such things as electric cars and renewables. Fine, let's throw a few tens of billions at this and see what sticks. But success will not just require huge amounts of money. It will require equally huge amounts of time and luck.

On the other hand, drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes, and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created.

The problem for the Democrats is that the argument for "do everything" is not rocket science. It is common sense. Which is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, surveying the political rubble resulting from her insistence on not even permitting drilling to come to a floor vote, has quietly told her members that they can save their skins and vote for drilling when the pre-election Congress convenes next month. Pelosi says she wants to save the planet. Apparently saving her speakership comes first.

Energy Idea

I just had this idea and I want some feedback:

• 70% of all oil consumption goes to gasoline - any energy policy that seeks to reduce consumption must start here

Consider the following scenario:

1) In the interest of national security and energy consumption, the government will now add a $1/gallon tax on all gasoline (not jet fuel, only automobile gasoline).

2) Total revenues from this tax will not be retained by the federal government, but will be disbursed evenly across all tax payers (everyone receives the same amount)

In this scenario, the price of gasoline would rise (reducing consumption), but the government would not be profiting because the $$ is returned to the public. Additionally, since the total tax revenues are distributed evenly to the public, those who use a large amount of gasoline a year would receive a penalty (because their share of the total will not amount to their contribution) while those who use a small amount of gasoline or none at all will be rewarded (as they will be receiving a share of a tax they did not pay). In this way we have a double incentive to reduce consumption while avoiding the usual problem of increasing creating a tax that is a direct transfer of wealth from the citizens to the government. Also, since the refund is only paid to tax payers rather than tax filers, it should not be seen as an expansion of the welfare system (which would distort its purpose)

For businesses, we would need to find a way to lessen the tax burden or exempt them altogether.

Do you think this would work?

Why or why not?

Berlin Speech Analysis

Barack Obama's Naive Berlin Speech -- Part Two
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's recent speech in Berlin may have been a hit with American journalists. That, however, is due to most journalists' politics, not to the profundity of Obama's remarks. They were neither profound nor stirring. Indeed, a careful study of the speech should lead an impartial observer to be concerned about Obama's grasp of the world. I started my analysis last week; I conclude this week.

Let me begin with that which was praiseworthy.

Obama: "This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York."

This was Obama at his finest -- defining the enemy and defining the task.

Obama: "America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida."

This, too, was important. Any American who calls on Europeans to fight is doing something courageous, as indeed Obama learned within a few days, when Europeans roundly criticized him for suggesting they contribute more to the war in Afghanistan. This only proves that with all his "global citizenship" talk, if he is elected, Obama will be no more popular in Europe than any other president who makes demands of Europeans.

But nearly all of the rest of the speech was either meaningless or wrong.

Obama: "The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow."

In the seven years since 9/11, I have not seen a study that relates terrorism to poverty. And, as everyone knows, all of the 9/11 terrorists came from relatively wealthy homes. Obama's assertion is simply a statement of faith. That faith is liberalism -- increasingly a doctrine with more non-empirically based beliefs, i.e., dogmas, than most traditional religion: "Poverty causes crime"; "black incarceration rates are a result of racism"; "war is not the answer"; "capital punishment doesn't deter"; "tax increases on 'the rich' help the economy"; "more money for education" and countless others.

Obama: "In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common."

Obama is right that the view that "America is part of what has gone wrong in our world" is "all too common" in Europe. But one would hope that an American leader, especially one who may be the next president of the United States, would tell a European audience how wrong such a perception is, would tell them that whatever his or their differences with American policies, America has been and continues to be the greatest force for good on earth.

Obama: "The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all."

Obama is certainly right that Darfur "shames the conscience of us all." But he offers not one suggestion concerning what to do about it. Nor one lesson that he draws from it.

Obama: "Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world…"

Which Europeans? What new burdens? Where are they taking more responsibility?

What new burdens have Spain, France, Norway or Sweden taken on? It seems to many of us that most European countries work hard to ensure that their welfare states prosper and, beyond that, do little to promote liberty on earth or even ensure their won security and values.

Obama: "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."

What new walls is he referring to? The wall America is erecting to keep people from illegally entering? The barrier Israel has erected that has reduced terror there to almost zero? It would seem that those are actually good walls. Or is he referring to the walls many Muslim immigrants to Europe build in order to insulate themselves from Western influences? One doubts it. But there is no way to know, since Mr. Obama again offers a platitude that means little.

And as regards "the greatest danger of all," that remains, as it always was, acts and doctrines of evil, not walls or carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama: "The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

Those thoughts are lovely. But what matters is who is responsible for erecting these walls. For example, is it Christians or Jews or Muslims who today are erecting walls between "Christian and Muslim and Jew"? Obama seems to imply that all are equally responsible.

Obama: "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. … This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons."

This naivete is frightening. A "world without nuclear weapons" is a foolish and dangerous fantasy. The problem with nuclear weapons -- as with all weapons -- is not that they exist; it is that evil men may obtain and use them. Those of us preoccupied with protecting the innocent want good nations to have the most powerful weapons on earth. We do not share Sen. Obama's goal of America and its enemies having the same weapons.

Jeremiah Wright

Just in case you forgot about this...DON'T!