Shrewd observers of the political scene will find nothing surprising in the following statement: Barack Obama (and liberals by extension), is not qualified to execute the duties required of a United States president. Specifically, he is weak and naive and  steeped in anti-American agitprop (as is the base of the Democrat party). He has never been held accountable for the decisions he has made or failed to make as the case may be. He has escaped accountability for failing to produce a  stamped, long form birth certificate, his affiliation with slumlord Valerie Jarrett, his involvement with the financial meltdown (Freddie,Fannie), William Ayers, Rhashid Khalidi, Jeremiah Wright, et al. This propensity to avoid accountability and even worse, to blame his mistakes on others has not escaped the notice of the blogosphere. In fact, the word Obama has now been rendered a verb. Courtesy of the folks at Visual Thesaurus, and quoting from the blog Japan from the Inside Out:

obamu: (v.) To ignore inexpedient and inconvenient facts or realities, think “Yes we can, Yes we can,” and proceed with optimism using those facts as an inspiration (literally, as fuel). It is used to elicit success in a personal endeavor. One explanation holds that it is the opposite of kobamu. (拒む, which means to refuse, reject, or oppose).

To drive the point home, here are two real life examples of “obamu” or the tendency to dither. First, from John Bolton:

Obama is no Harry Truman. At best, he is reprising Jimmy Carter. At worst, the real precedent may be Ethelred the Unready, the turn-of the-first-millennium Anglo-Saxon king whose reputation for indecisiveness and his unsuccessful paying of Danegeld — literally, “Danish tax” — to buy off Viking raiders made him history’s paradigmatic weak leader.

Beyond the disquiet (or outrage for some) prompted by the president’s propensity to apologize for his country’s pre-Obama history, Americans increasingly sense that his administration is drifting from one foreign policy mistake to another. Worse, the current is growing swifter, and the threats more pronounced, even as the administration tries to turn its face away from the world and toward its domestic priorities. Foreign observers, friend and foe alike, sense the same aimlessness and drift. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had to remind Obama at a Sept. 24 U.N. Security Council meeting that “we live in the real world, not a virtual one.”

Next up: James Taranto of Wall Street Journal fame: (the Taranto podcast is here.)

During the presidential campaign, Obama’s opponents mocked him for frequently voting “present” on difficult questions that came before the Illinois Senate. This is even worse. The commander in chief is absent without leave.

And lastly, Daniel Henninnger on Obama’s Nobel Decadence

Mr. Obama is at a crossroads in his presidency. As George W. Bush departed the White House, he said his successor would one day arrive at the need to make a decision that made clear the reality of being the American president. That moment has arrived. It is the pending troop-deployment for Afghanistan, a very hard decision.

After that, Mr. Obama will go to Oslo Dec. 10 to receive the Prize itself. That will occur in the middle of the Dec. 7-18 United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen, whose goal is among the explicit reasons why Mr. Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

Between Afghanistan and Oslo, we’re going to get some clarity about the Obama presidency.

Perhaps the most intriguing onlooker to this education is European Nicolas Sarkozy. On his good days, France’s president seems aware of the political and economic decay he has inherited. So it was striking at the United Nations last month when Mr. Sarkozy said that Mr. Obama “dreams of a world without nuclear arms.” Then, describing Iran’s nuclear threat, he said, “At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions.”

By “us” he means that the U.S. must lead. In the West, only the U.S. president can still make decisions based on hard facts rather than recede into soft moralism. The day that is no longer true, the U.S. will finally deserve a decadent Nobel.

The ramifications of a weak and naive U.S. commander chief are too chilling to ponder. May God give him the resolve necessary to do the job properly.

Kudos to Hugh Hewitt for his thoughtful apologetic on Political Talk Radio in an April National Review piece. Some excerpts:

Ratings for political talk are surging, partly because my colleagues and I are attracting new listeners and partly because the old ones are being counted more accurately.

In an age of fractured media, the new Peoplemeter-driven data tell advertisers who need to reach business owners, professionals, married couples with children, and “influencers” generally, where they can find them. These folks are listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the titans of the industry; to my colleagues and me at the Salem Radio Network — Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved, Albert Mohler, and Janet Parshall; and to Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Dennis Miller.

We are very much aware that every day some listeners are sampling our product for the first time, brought there by a deep concern that MSM is in the bag for the popular new president whose path to victory it smoothed by abandoning every standard of political journalism that was established in the past century. The MSM’s fawning coverage of President Obama has left even many of his supporters wondering where they can turn for a useful dose of perspective and constructive criticism. There are millions of moderate Democrats, including those who voted first for Hillary and then only reluctantly for Obama, who no more trust the MSM to report on the administration than conservatives do.

Fifteen-hour-a-week broadcasting allows for many more subjects and much longer conversations than any other platform in the media. Talk radio is prospering because it is the last place for extended, serious discussions with policy experts who are not part of the MSM’s dominant worldview. I spent a decade as a news anchor with the PBS affiliate KCET in Los Angeles, so I know as well as anyone about public television’s strong leftward tilt. I can say from experience that the only broadcast space that will carry long conversations with folks such as classicist and military historian Victor Davis Hanson or Iranian experts Michael Ledeen and Claudia Rosett, or extended interviews on Israeli elections with the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens or Commentary’s John Podhoretz, is talk radio.

(Rush and Oprah Winfrey are the country’s two greatest communicators, a simple truth to which their ratings attest.)Here’s the secret to our success: Our shows are the last places in America where genuine, sustained, intelligent debate actually occurs on-air, where Left and Right — whether guests or callers — meet, argue, and listen. Americans since the time of the Revolution have always enjoyed — strike that, loved — political debate. And they like it hard-hitting, but not vulgar; pointed and passionate but not extreme or bigoted.

Thanks Mr. Hewitt; I heartily agree.

Which is not easy to do given the ranks of the depraved that characterized the Roman Emperors at the empire’s zenith. The names of Caligula, Nero and Domitian come to mind immediately. America’s version of these cruel, petty and tyrannical individuals comes in the form of a practice of unspeakable horror: “partial birth abortion”. Supposedly, America “doesn’t torture.” However, Partial-birth abortion is a sanitized way of describing the torture and abuse of defenseless and vulnerable individuals. It should be outlawed and the child put up for adoption if necessary. This video says it all:

With virtually the entire Western World gushing over President-elect Obama’s most recent cabinet appointments, it’s time for a more sober assessment. Do the appointments of Clinton, Jones, Gates (reappointment), Napolitano and Rice (Susan), indicate that Obama indeed intends to govern from the center? (whatever that means). That remains to be seen, but tonight’s radio show will feature Marathon Pundit’s own John Ruberry, for a second appearance to dish on all or at least many things Chicago. At 8:30 PM EST we will be joined by fellow Blog Talk Radio host Just A Grunt for reports on the just-concluded Georgia US Senate Race. And for another take on Illinois politics, visit Illinois Review. They will will be appearing on my show Tuesday, December 16, 2008.

Topics covered tonight: Rezko,George Ryan,Blagoevitch,Illinois Senate Pick,Saxby Chambliss, Palin.

Raconteur, skeptic, and atheist Christoper Hitchins has joined the ranks of Palin Derangement syndrome victims. David Horowitz does a nice job of deconstructing the syndrome. The piece contains some reference to the fact that Hitchins is also an Obama supporter (he uses Palin’s religious beliefs as cover for the support). Or is he???? Now you tell us Hitchens?

Talk Radio, The Fascist Doctrine, the “left-wing boomlet”, and the future of Conservatism as seen through Brian Mahoney’s “The Radio Equalizer”

Bertram Gross warned of dangers of “Friendly Fascism” before Jonah Goldberg’s newer model.

The British press is increasingly assuming the role of skeptic (American ‘journalists’ once performed this role but no more).

Vladimir Putin NOT an Obama Kool-Aid drinker.

It’s nice to have a non-hagiographic “deconstruction” of the Obama hagiographers.

Victor Davis-Hanson summarizes the demise of “journalism” nicely in this piece. I won’t even call them journalists for that matter; that term conveys respect. I now know why Limbaugh calls them “drive-bys”. I prefer “ink-stained wretches” or jock-sniffing, cheerleading partisans, or glassy-eyed Mandarins. Take your pick..of the following interviews and let me know your thoughts.

Special Election Eve program from 7:30-9:30 PM EST. GOP candidates nationwide will be able to call in and speak about themselves and their candidacies.

Check the blogroll for the best blogs to survey for election results

Comparisons are indeed odious, but need to be made in this case. By Super-Rich, we mean folks lie Warren Buffett, George Soros, and many Wall Street titans. The short-hand term for such individuals: The “More Money Than Sense” crowd.  By Socialists, we mean folks like Democrats, liberals and… Barack H. Obama. This piece is an OUTSTANDING illustration of the dangers these folks pose for the rest of us. It also demonstrates once again that these people are not altruists. In fact, quite the opposite. They are selfish, greedy, and duplicitous.