Whatever you want to call it.

What would we do without Barack Obama? This seems to be the common theme of the greater Democratic voting concensus - a group that holds enduring enthusiasm for a presidential candidate that really has no leadership experience or compelling credentials to lead anybody to believe that he could be a worthwhile president of the United States. While there seems to be no doubt that the motto of "change" is something that the United States desperately needs, unfortunately there is no corresponding evidence that Barrry Obama can pull off any level of substantial "change" that will ultimately be viewed as beneficial to this nation. Obviously we have all read Barry's "Blueprint for Change" that has been glossed over time and time again - you can read Barry's "Blueprint" on his website and I would hurry to print a copy because this literature is being hailed as being Biblical in proportions in Democratic circles and probably will not be free to the public for long - but Barry's entire political philosophy will not be free either. I keep hearing Obamamaniacs harping on how they can't wait for Barry to win the election so that gas prices will drop - funny that Obama voters say this because Barry's blueprint does not adequately address the issue of rising energy or fuel prices. Conversely, Obama's energy plans are likely to increase energy pricing across the board as Barry institutes cap and trade measures and tax increases on non-renewable energy sources - read the text for yourself - I know that you all have your printed copy handy (I do).

Recently, I found it interesting that the only viable presidential candidate that has vowed to ignore the budget deficit crisis is none other than Barack Obama. John McCain and Bob Barr have both committed themselves to either shrinking the budget deficit or seeking a balanced budget amendment. Obama has made it clear that he intends on spending tax money, instituting new spending policies, and taxing the hell out of anyone who makes over $250,000 per year. While it may seem fair to go after those hideous people making in excess of $250K, remember that most of you work for these very people - the people that you depend on for your yearly wage increases. Another hot topic among Obamamaniacs is the issue of the war in Iraq and Obama's pledge to end the Iraq war - eventually..... It seems rather interesting that Obama once pledged to end the war rapidly, and then he actually learned what we were doing there and the events that were occuring in Iraq, and the new pledge turned into a "withdrawal dependent upon the situation" scenario. Hmmm........ I'm sure that most everyone (whom is not voting for Obama at least) noticed Barry's little speech of "my first day in office I will meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and give them a new mission - end the war...yada, yada, yada" - this sounds great, but the only problem with this is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not command ground forces in active military engagements, and they have not had a role in active duty strategic command since the early 1980's. Obama would actually give an "end the war" command to his Secretary of Defense and this command would be sent directly to ground force commanders such as General Patreaus. Perhaps it is just me, but I would have thought that Obama would hold at least a small amount of knowledge about the role of Commander in Chief if this is the "job" that he is seeking....

One thing that I will give to Barry is that he must certainly have the biggest set of heuvos of any presedential candidate in history. While President Bush has been characteristically brash and bold in putting Congressional Democrats in their place and also single handidly facing an international terrorism crisis, Obama probably has Bush beaten in any concept of bravery. Obama has spoken loudly of his intentions to spend more tax payer money than any other president in history - and this is no easy task. Many may remember that Franklin D. Roosevelt injected drastic amounts of money into New Deal programs and had quite a few of these programs struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; Roosevelt's New Deal may have been essential to saving Americans during the Great Depression, yet Barry Obama is speaking of government expansions that make Roosevelt's errors in constitutionality look relatively benign and all for the sake of increasing his voting base in a fraudulent voter buying scheme.

Few other Democratic presidents could ever claim to have the apparent heuvos that Barry has. The only peanuts that Jimmy Carter ever laid claim to were being grown on the family farm, and we all know that Monica had control (figuratively and literally) of Slick Willy's party bag, but it seems apparent that Barry is officially "the man" - you would think that this guy would have fifteen kids at the very least...

The most enlightening aspect of Obama's campaign is the God-like zen that Obama has created among the masses of Democratic voters - you know, the people that claim "we don't worship him" and then mumble "change we can believe in" while sleeping. Have you noticed that even referring to Barry as "Bomer" or "Bomber" is considered blasphemy among Democratic circles - the people who claim to never worship Obama and then make threats to those whom insult their presidential messiah? Interestingly, many of these same Democrats found great delight in referring to President Bush as "dubya" and "the village idiot" and then find themselves unable to cope with anybody who refuses to jump on board of the Obama idol worship bandwagon. The Obamamaniacs consider anyone resisting Obama's mark of the beast to be members of the conservative "warmonger" breed of American voters. I've always found it interesting that hardened Democrats refer to Republicans as "warmongers" when such notable events as WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were products of Democratic presidents. President Clinton's presidency was littered with war actions - including a demoralizing defeat in Somalia. Now who are the warmongers? A Republican got us out of Vietnam. A Republican ended the cold war without one shot being fired. A Republican throttled Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military in a matter of hours in the early 90's. Why do Democrats even try to make an argument?

Regardless of any substance, lessons of history, lessons learned, or careful reservation, the Obama voters are making a stand to get their juvenile candidate into the White House. The prospect of free health care paid for by people who actually work just seems so important. I noticed that Obamamaniacs are insisting that Americans have a "Right" to healthcare - another indication that these people have never read the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, but good for a laugh at the very least. Obama supporters believe that the economy can be "saved" if Obama injects billions of dollars of taxpayer money into federal entitlement programs. The Obama supporters never watched European economies collapse as federal spending consumed the national GDP of Eastern European nations. Obama supporters never knew that Obama's plan for "change" is merely comprised of repressive social programs and heightened regulatory practices which target free markets - ploys that have destroyed nations around the world (interesting that the U.S. gives monetary aid to many of these same nations to this day). Either way, the Obamamaniacs won't care about their own obvious ignorance and carelessness. Change is on the menu for America - hopefully the voters will decide to go on a diet.