Obama was going to watch every line item in the federal budget

Remember?

"When I am president, I will go line by line to make sure we are not spending money unwisely." (Watch the following debate footage at 3:37-3:43.)



Well, that hasn't happened.

But he is showing himself to be fiscally conservative.

Having proposed a $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, he has asked the members of his cabinet to find $100 million in savings.

I first read about that this morning and the commentator said $100 million was 15 minutes of federal spending.

Someone suggested a better way to think about it. If you make $50,000 a year and, therefore, have a $50,000 annual budget, you would need to find $1.39 in savings. (Calculated by dividing $100,000,000 by $3,600,000,000,000 and multiplying that fraction by $50,000.)

Maybe we should make that a bit more realistic, however.

The real corollary is a family whose income is $33,400 a year but needing to borrow $16,600 in order to meet all of its "needs."

And the dad makes the "hard" decision that the family will have to spend $1.39 less than that!

Or . . . to make it really simple: It's a family whose annual income is $24,000 ($2.4T), but plans to spend $36,000 ($3.6T). Oh. No. They will spend only $35,999 ($3.6T - $100M).

Are you impressed?

I didn't think you would be!

Nor am I.

A second FDR?

I think, no matter what his policies and plans, Obama definitely exudes an aura of confidence and aplomb that seems to calm and soothe his hearers. . . .



I'm reminded of what, I'm told, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was famous for--his "Fireside Chats" that spoke to the hearts of Americans during a time of unsettled fear.

The question I have: is he speaking to frogs that are being cooked to death as the heat in the kettle slowly, slowly rises?

A little more about politics . . .

I am so sick of this election season!

I don't know that I have a whole lot of news worthy of taking your time, here.

• Sarah Palin is found to have "abused" her power as governor . . . apparently primarily by having failed to rein-in her husband. As the AP's Matt Apuzzo reports,
  

  Todd Palin had extraordinary access to the governor's office and her closest advisers and he used that access to try to get Wooten fired.
  
  Gov. Palin knowingly "permitted Todd to use the Governor's office and the resources of the Governor's office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired," Branchflower's report reads.

• And Obama has been tied far too closely to ACORN.
   
• And in an apparent surge of truly amazing "decency under fire" [or did he go too far? And was he conceding defeat?] John McCain stands up against outlandish charges against his rival.
  
  

But what I really want to write about are two things that have come to my attention in the last two days.

First, a tie between ACORN (and ACORN's tactics) and a fundamental philosophical paper written 40 years ago. And, second, a political commentary in our local newspaper that, together with my having finally read the platforms of my two chosen "third parties," has gotten me wondering if I should back off of my earlier claim that I think I finally feel free to "vote my conscience."

First, the philosophical paper.

In a fascinating (or should I call it disturbing?) paper written back in 2005 and found at DiscoverTheNetworks.org, "a guide to the political left," we read,

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. . . .

Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, . . . [a]ctivists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands. . . .

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones."

These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal.

"From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy."

As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness. . . .

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Yeah. I'd say that describes things pretty accurately!

And then the editorial that has me in a quandary about "voting my conscience" v. voting for the "lesser of two evils."

Mike Rosen, a conservative columnist with a modest libertarian bent, suggested, in yesterday's paper, that Party trumps person--with a corollary idea that "Major party trumps [i.e., ought to trump] minor party" affiliations.

A superficial cliche goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. [But that's naive.]

For better or worse, we have a two-party system. Either a Republican, John McCain, or a Democrat, Barack Obama, is going to be our next president. No one else has a chance. . . . Minor-party candidates are sometimes spoilers . . . but they don't win presidential elections. . . .

In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are already in place.

The Republican coalition is an alliance of conservatives, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, those who are pro-market and pro-business, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.

The Democratic coalition includes [people with different views].

I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, his party's coalition will be served. A Democratic president, for example, . . . can only operate within the political boundaries of his party's coalition. The party that wins the presidency will fill Cabinet and sub-Cabinet discretionary positions in the executive branch with members of its coalition. Likewise, the coalition will be the dominant source of nominees to the federal courts, ambassadorships, appointments to boards and commissions, and a host of plum jobs handed out to those with political IOUs to cash in.

It works the same way in the legislative branch. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.

Let's say you're a registered Republican who prefers that party's philosophy of governance. And you're a fair-minded, well-intentioned person who happens to like a certain moderately conservative Democrat running for U.S. Senate. So you decide to cross party lines and vote for him. As it turns out, he wins, giving Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49. Congratulations! You just got Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.

That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in our two-party system it comes down to choosing between the lesser of evils? Exactly! . . . You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a fringe party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives.

A vote for McCain is a vote for the party of constitutionalist judges, Adam Smith, the NRA, Gen. David Petraeus and Ronald Reagan. A vote for Obama is a vote for judicial activism, Karl Marx, the ACLU, the NEA, the AFL-CIO, the NAACP, Al Gore, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann and Rosie O'Donnell.

Your vote; your choice.

Ouch!

A Labor Day meditation

What can I do? Got to comment on things while they are hot! And this is for today, Labor Day 2008.

Who's best for workers?
A Labor Day analysis of the two [presidential] candidates' positions

It's from today's Rocky Mountain News.

I'm amazed. It's actually a relatively substantive analysis.

Before I get into the analysis itself, I'd like to note something the author mentions early on:

The very concept of "working people" is fairly slippery. . . . Politicians who use the term clearly mean to exclude some Americans who do in fact work long hours but who earn too much money, in politicians' eyes, to qualify for consideration.

I thought I'd mention that because, suddenly, it makes one of Obama's acceptance speech promises: about how he was going to cut income taxes for 95% of all working families in America. When I heard him say it, I wondered how he was going to achieve such a goal. With that little bit of explanation, however, I think I understand. As long as you leave your terms undefined, there's a lot of wiggle room!

In the article below, the author said he (or she; the article is unattributed) "working people" means "those whose household income is at or below $75,000 (the median household income, reported last week by the Census Bureau, is $50,233 a year)."

So now the commentary and analysis: a comparison of the two candidates' positions.

. . . * Income taxes. Both candidates promise tax cuts, with Obama claiming Thursday that his would benefit 95 percent of "all working families." Moreover, McCain would make the Bush tax cuts permanent and double the dependent child credit from $3,500 to $7,000.

Obama has not been clear about whether he would let all the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 - if so, marginal rates would rise for everyone who files a 1040. He would, however, give a $500- per-worker tax credit for every household earning less than $150,000 and provide families a $4,000 credit for each college student.

Advantage: Obama for unmarried heads of household and (slightly) families with kids in college; McCain for everyone else - and a big edge to McCain should Obama let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

* Energy. Both candidates back a cap-and-trade proposal on greenhouse gases that would amount to a massive tax increase on fossil fuels, particularly coal. Consumers will pay higher energy bills.

Obama has promised a one-time, $1,000 energy "rebate" per household "for working families" that would be paid for with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. If the experience of the early 1980s is any guide, the tax would depress domestic energy production, boosting prices to everyone long after the rebate checks had been spent.

In McCain's favor, he opposes ethanol subsidies and mandates, which have caused corn prices to rise. Obama backs them.

Advantage: McCain.

Looking at what the United States' Ethan all policy has done to world food prices, I am astonished that Obama would back continued subsidies. I don't think McCain has a great energy policy. And I hate that both candidates have bought into the "man-made global warming crisis" mentality. (Thrilled that Palin has been forthright about her skepticism concerning the idea that global warming is man-made. But Palin is, most definitely, the junior partner in the relationship, so I'm not sure her perspective will count for much.)

Anyway.

Back to the analysis and commentary.

* Health care. Obama would build on the current mix of employment-based health insurance and government programs. He would cover more of the uninsured by forcing big employers to insure all workers and expanding government subsidies.

In the view of some prominent health-care economists, this plan could push companies to lay off low-wage workers, or at least not hire as many. That's no bargain. Whether it would save money for workers who are already insured is another matter. Obama is predicting a large reduction in annual premiums, but that seems extremely unlikely.

McCain, by contrast, would end the tax benefits for employer-provided health insurance and give individuals income-tax credits to buy coverage. He would also let people shop nationwide for insurance and let non-employer membership groups like AARP and unions sell group policies. McCain's plan would end a major tax distortion that has boosted medical costs. But we need a lot more details.

Advantage: Unsure. Perhaps Obama, if he is correct about a reduction in premiums--a very big if. The more likely advantage is to McCain.

* Jobs. For most workers, the basic questions are: If you have a job, can you keep it? If you're looking for work, can you find it?

McCain's proposals would encourage growth and job creation; Obama's might in some cases - he said Thursday night, for example, that he'd eliminate the capital gains tax on startup companies, however he defines them. But some of his other proposals reduce incentives for capital formation and investment. For example, he favors a higher capital gains tax in most cases as well as higher taxes on dividends - meaning higher taxes on investment at a time when entrepreneurs (who provide jobs) need a boost.

The Democratic candidate repeatedly says he would create 5 million "green collar" jobs--but he means through subsidies. [I.e., therefore, t]hose would not be 5 million net new jobs.

McCain would cut the U.S. corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, which is closer to the international norm. He also backs cuts in taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Advantage: McCain (clearly).

In my opinion, the analysis seems fair . . . as far as it goes. My problem: the government is already bankrupt, so where will the money come from for either one of these candidate' "new ideas"?

I think the commentator's final paragraph is priceless, but I continue to wish someone would address the problem of the country's overwhelming debt:

No president operates in a policy vacuum. Congress always has the prerogative to adopt, amend or reject a president's agenda.

Some would argue . . . that Obama's promise to "end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas" would . . . help working families, but it's unclear how he intends to do this. Moreover, companies that invest abroad often end up expanding their operations here, contrary to the popular stereotype. In addition, . . .

. . . and here is where I find the coup de grace . . .

. . . one reason that U.S. companies invest abroad is because of the lower corporate tax rates they often find there. If Obama wants to keep more jobs in America he should follow McCain's lead and endorse a lower domestic rate, too.

--Especially if the commentator is correct about the international norm for corporate income taxes. Add high taxes to generally higher wage rates, and you've got a competitive disadvantage. I think American workers are willing to fight for their high wages, and employers are willing to invest in the capital necessary to make their workers efficient, but why should they have to fight the government as well?

Obama seemed unbeatable. And then . . .

I watched Obama's acceptance speech Thursday night--something I hadn't even really planned to do. But I was driving home from somewhere just before he began to speak, and I happened to be listening to NPR, something else I haven't done in months. Somehow, the excitement of the reportage got me thinking, "I really honest to listen to what the man has to say."

Based on everything I have heard or read about Obama, I am really not interested in him becoming our president. And, honestly, nor am I excited about McCain. I would prefer a true, limited-government libertarian (either big or little "L" libertarian!) in office. After eight years of a borrow-and-spend, unlimited-government Republican as president, I'm really not interested in four or more years of either more borrowing-and-spending or taxing-and-spending unlimited-government politicians in office. But I doubt my preferences are going to make much difference this election cycle!

Anyway, I listened to Obama and was impressed. (I've never heard him speak before.)

I was impressed not in terms of wanting to see him become our president, but in terms of his message. I thought, "McCain is sunk. A message of 'hope' and 'change,' even if it is empty, will tend to pull the heartstrings more than any stick-in-the-mud, reactionary, negative message of 'We can't afford it,' 'You're a socialist,' or, 'You're so naïve.'"

Beyond the appeal of the dreamy message itself ("Imagine"!), and Obama's incredibly smooth and apparently heart-felt delivery, I was astonished (though I probably ought not to have been!) at how many young people, and "people of color" there were at Invesco Field. And that the stadium was so full! And how do you get 75,000 people all to cheer so wildly at one time for a speech . . . especially when the man who is speaking makes such unbelievable claims about all "he" is going to do: how "he" is going to change the tax code, and "he" is going to make health insurance affordable for everyone, and "he" is going to transform America.

Oh, yes, and he is going to go through the budget, line by line, and locate billions of dollars to fund all of his favorite projects.

[I don't think so! Not when, as I noted a few weeks ago, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard W. Fisher, is able to say,

[A]ll we would have to do to fully fund our nation’s entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent . . . discretionary spending [that] includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut--almost eliminated, really--to tackle [the] problem [of unfunded federal government obligations] through discretionary spending. . . .

[J]ust to drive an important point home, these spending cuts or tax increases would need to be made immediately and maintained in perpetuity to solve the entitlement deficit problem. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children and every generation of children to come. And similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. . . .

[Of course, whether Obama is blowing smoke or not, I wish another recent president would have shown even a glimmer of gumption to go gone through the budget line by line and cut out the fat . . . instead of increasing so many line items beyond what his political opponents had even dared to ask for!]

Oh. And the last incredible line about how "This [my candidacy] has never been about me. It's always been about you."

Right. (Not!)

But the line went down well.

*******

So, even though I don't believe a word Obama said about what he "will" accomplish, I sensed McCain was sunk.

And then yesterday. McCain picks Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska.

What?

[Strange: I remember having heard of her--i.e., having read of her--somewhere just a few weeks ago, in an article in some magazine we get. Just can't remember which one.

Anyway.]

Suddenly, I thought, maybe McCain can pull this off. Having as his running mate a woman, a relatively young woman (younger than Obama!?!), mother of five, staunchly pro-life, a gun-toting hunter and outdoorsperson . . . : it sure could change the dynamics of the campaign.

Now, suddenly, I sensed, people won't be talking about Obama; they'll have to talk about Palin. And the energy and dynamism of Obama's campaign compared to McCain's: it suddenly disappears.

We're still not talking about a whole lot of substantive issues. (I phrase it that way only because I see one [very] substantive issue being addressed directly: the issue of human life. But other than that--yes, extremely important, but still "only" one among many!-- . . . Other than that, what I've just talked about is wholly personality-driven.)

Oh. But it does remind me: I was struck by Obama's comment. Something about how, "No matter where we stand on the matter of when life begins, we can all agree that there should be fewer unwanted children."

Yeah.

But there is a big--huge--difference in how we might achieve that end.

Will there be "fewer unwanted children" because we killed the ones whose biological parents don't want them? Or will there be "fewer unwanted children" because there has been some (God-given) change of heart on the part of parents so that the children who were, at one time, unwanted, become wanted? Do we have a government that, by policy, seems to urge citizens to give in to their basest desires . . . or do we have a government that urges citizens to buck up and rise, if not to their highest moral plane, at least to a minimally non-destructive position?

Better, more accessible sources on the supposed "climate disaster"

I decided I'd better do some further research on the quote about Greenland I included in my post concerning the bad science of climate change.

I'm glad I did.

I came across the World Climate Report blog, what appears to be a much more accessible source of scientifically valid responses to the fear-mongers than is Steve McIntyre's excellent, but rather dense, Climate Audit site.

And so I found Greenland's Secret, an article from March 2004, where we read,

The recent hype in Nature notwithstanding, Greenland has been cooling for the better part of two generations.

It’s hot news: Temperatures in Greenland have been rising like a rocket during the past 10 years or so—returning to the temperatures that characterized the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s.

Yet that bit of history—that temperatures were as warm or warmer in Greenland 50 years ago—appears lost on the global warming crowd. Instead, they have increasingly pointed a finger at the changing conditions there during the past decade as a clear sign of anthropogenic global warming.

An article in the March 11, 2004, issue of Nature magazine even goes so far as to suggest that Greenland may be on a path of warming and ice loss from which it can never recover. Apparently, Nature writer Quinn Schiermeier is ignorant of the fact that 70 years ago, a similar temperature rise in Greenland was followed by six decades of cooling—it seems as if it recovered from that warming just fine!

Go down to the lower right of any page in World Climate Report, and you will find a list of other blogs and websites and a number of intriguing books and DVDs. Among the latter, I am particularly taken with The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr. "Citing the pioneering work of historian of science Thomas Kuhn and economist James Buchanan, Michaels and Balling demonstrate that it was inevitable that global warming would be distorted by the political sphere and that most scientists would either stand mute or actually assist in that process. But, the authors argue, such distortions in science are always temporary, and inevitably the scientific community will concede that earlier forecasts dramatically exaggerated the threat of global warming," says the blurb.

I only hope so. And that this final message comes some time before the socialistas place us small people under the weight of draconian laws that destroy our freedoms and cause us to suffer unnecessary want.

--Somehow I think I will be returning to this subject again.

It's too scary that both leading presidential candidates seem to have jumped on the global climate disaster bandwagon. I mean, McCain has been on that bandwagon since 2004, it appears. And Obama-come-lately, of course, isn't going to let a Republican out-Green him! Why, don't you know? "[R]eplacing the oil we use with . . . home-grown biofuels . . . will finally slow the warming of the planet." (Original sentence: "But building cars that use less oil is only one side of the equation. The other involves replacing the oil we use with the home-grown biofuels that will finally slow the warming of the planet." --Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, "The Coming Storm: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet," Chicago, IL, Monday, April 3rd, 2006.)

Doesn't it comfort you to know these guys are ready to "work for you"? (It doesn't me!)

I think I'd better quit now before my blood pressure rises too high!

Your opinions, please!

I got another phone call Saturday morning seeking my opinions related to the presidential race. This one was from a political research group at Quinnipiac University. I wasn't sure I really wanted to answer their questions. All the way through, they wanted me to choose one of two possible answers: "Which: This or that?" --And I kept saying, "Neither. I prefer _____." --And I'd mention a third alternative. Or something in between.

"Obama or McCain?" --"How about Barr . . . or Paul? . . . But if you force me to choose between Obama or McCain, I guess it's McCain . . . holding my nose."

"What should the president promote: development of renewable fuels or oil drilling?" --"Ummmm. I'm not convinced that's the president's responsibility. But if I have to, . . . Oh, good grief! . . . How about both?!"

"Renewable fuels or nuclear energy?" --"!!!!!"

Another McCain/Obama preference question. --"Y'know, Obama really scares me. Actually, it's not so much Obama himself. It's the American people who are all ga-ga over him . . . for what? He reminds me too much of certain other historical figures who were voted into office on popular euphoria only to cause unimaginable havoc. . . ." --I was thinking of Hitler, in particular. But there have been others.

Charles Krauthammer, as usual, wrote an insightful piece first published in various national news outlets on Saturday. (Our Rocky Mountain News didn't run it till this morning. But I think he's nailed it when he spoke of "Obama’s elevated opinion of himself."

There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Obama is

• a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name,


• a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times.

As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever

• produced a single notable piece of scholarship?


• Written a single memorable article?

His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly.

In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.”

--Sorry. Politics generally bores me. I didn't see Obama's performance. But if Krauthammer is expressing anything near the truth, I would have to agree: Obama's opinion of himself is beyond amazing. It's quite scary, actually. Guys like this don't need anyone else. They know their destiny . . . and if we, the people, aren't willing to stop them early, they will ensure we participate in the destiny they have waiting for us.

Are you ready to meet yours?

As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: “I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his podium, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down. He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish” — a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how “embarrassing” it is that Europeans are multilingual but “we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, ‘Merci beaucoup.’” Obama speaks no French.

As with other dictators and tyrants of recent memory, perhaps the American people should pay attention to what Krauthammer notes about Obama the stern taskmaster. Should he become president, he will require much of us. And of himself? . . .

His wife assures us that, . . . “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation. ... Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is? We are getting to know.

Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

And then there's this from "Little Green Footballs": "Obama Shunning Foreign Media."

Christoph von Marschall of Germany’s Der Tagesspiegel says the Barack Obama campaign has been making sure Obama doesn’t have to answer any real questions from the international media: Snubbed by Obama.

Barack Obama is on his way to Europe, where an adoring public awaits. But I wonder if the reception would be quite so enthusiastic if Obama’s fans across the Atlantic knew a dirty little secret of his remarkable presidential campaign: Although Obama portrays himself as the best candidate to engage the rest of the world and restore America’s image abroad, and many Americans support him for that reason, so far he has almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists. When the press plane leaves tonight for his trip, there will be, as far as I know, no foreign media aboard. The Obama campaign has refused multiple requests from international reporters to travel with the candidate.

As a German correspondent in Washington, I am accustomed to the fact that American politicians spare little of their limited time for reporters from abroad. This is understandable: Our readers, viewers and listeners cannot vote in U.S. elections. Even so, Obama’s opponents have managed to make at least a small amount of time for international journalists. John McCain has given many interviews. Hillary Clinton gave a few. President Bush regularly holds round-table interviews with media from the countries to which he travels. Only Obama dismisses us so consistently.

This spring Obama allowed at least one foreign reporter on trips to Ohio and Texas. But as the campaign has progressed, access has become more difficult for foreign correspondents. E-mail inquiries get no reply, phone calls are not returned. My colleagues and I know: We are last in line. We don’t matter.

My take: his staff is desperately worried that the candidate will make a gaffe, as soon as he ventures into uncharted territory. Foreign reporters tend to ask questions about ... you know ... foreign stuff.