This article, ( http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D928S7080&show_article=1), reports Barack Obama’s, warning that John McCain and the evil Republicans are tying to scare Americans.  I thought this was an odd claim.  Based on my own reaction, whenever I hear the anointed one speak, I assume that scaring the bejeebers, (whatever a bejeeber is), out of Americans was his reason for being.  I thought about why fear grips my heart tighter than the skin on Nancy Pelosi’s forehead whenever I hear the benevolent one speak.  Here are three reasons.

First, you don’t have to listen to the blessed Barack long before he spins off a list of a dozen or more problems he is going to solve for the people of America.  Unfortunately, they are usually all problems that any self-respecting person would take care of themselves instead of asking their neighbors to pay for it.  You wonder what he is going to propose next--a federal program to clean out our garages and wash our cars?  The scary part here is that I am gainfully employed and will probably get stuck with the bill.  He is buying votes with my money.

Second, it is clearly evident that how an economy works is a closed book for the generous and gracious one.  He doesn’t have a clue.  For proof, one need look no further than his ideas, (using that term very loosely), on solving the problem of gas prices.  In a nutshell, he would tax oil companies more, hand out another useless stimulus payment, and encourage us to inflate our tires.  Not the sort of world-class economic thought that inspires much confidence.  It is the sort of thought that should inspire fear in Americans. 

Finally,  I understand that the Democrat Party has problems with Presidential nominees.  Examples such as Kerry, Gore, Clinton and Carter immediately come to mind. The difference between them, (with the probable exception of Carter), and Barack “the one” Obama is that with the others, it was a safe bet that their Presidency may mess things up for a time, but they probably would not be an unmitigated disaster.  Electing Obama on the other hand is sort of like putting a tenderfoot Boy Scout in charge of the Strategic Air Command, an analogy that breaks down because the Boy Scout is likely to do a better job. The scary part here is that our political system is so badly flawed that a major political party actually chose this vacuous and pathetic Chicago political hack as the guy they think ought to run our country, and it seems that at least half of the electorate, for the moment, are buying into it.   

If Senator Obama had been around at the end of the Civil War, and applied the same logic to that conflict that he has in his recent comments on “the surge” in Iraq, he would have credited the end of the war to Robert E. Lee for having the Army of Northern Virginia stand down, and to slaves and slaveholders seeking peaceful resolution of their differences, instead of the determined military force of the armies of the north.

If you think about it, the trials of the Civil War are in many ways analogous to the Iraq war. In both cases the Presidents were eye-to-eye with the defeat of their policies due to poor planning and management, lost opportunities and poor, short-sighted leadership. It should also be sadly noted that in both cases the Democrat Party was working hard to insure defeat.

In both cases the Presidents perceived the need for a change in leadership and strategy. In President Lincoln’s case he found Generals Grant and Meade who crafted a strategy that turned the war around and ultimately broke the back of Confederate resistance.  In President Bush’s case he found General Petraeus, who created and led the surge strategy in Iraq that likewise turned the conflict around and has insured the accomplishment of the President’s goal of establishing a stable democratic government there.

While Obama’s somewhat tepid praise of the troops in Iraq is noteworthy, if not expected even from a Democrat, it is unfortunate that he cannot honestly admit that which he has now seen—that the surge has worked and the accomplishment of our national priorities there are very likely. It is easy to understand why. To openly admit that the surge worked would be an acknowledgment of the men responsible for it-President Bush and the warrior he chose to lead the effort, General Petraeus. To offer them any faint praise would be heresy in the Democrat Party.         

The Honorable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her accomplice, Harry Reid continue to hold US domestic oil supplies hostage in a effort to accomplish God only know what. It is probably a cynical political game typical of Democrats. They happily trade the economic well-being of 300 million Americans with their pathetic energy policy, in order to gain a little more power.

It will probably be a little harder for them to hold out however. The President revoked the executive order banning offshore drilling yesterday and today oil prices dropped $8 per barrel. It is a little too early to see if there is a connection and if the effect will last. The bright side is that it should give poor Nancy and Harry a restless night thinking about the political consequences of their economic war on America.