You would think that Barack Obama would have taken a week off campaigning after his humiliation on Wednesday to bone up on the issues, but that's not Baby Barack.  He was right back on the campaign and fund-raising trail peddling his idiotic line that Mitt Romney wants to lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans by 5 trillion dollars.  It's not even possible.  Confiscation of every dollar over $100,000 earned in America in a year could only run this $3.8 trillion federal budget for 6 days.  I don't have the precise figures on how the Romney tax plan would affect the "wealthiest Americans", but just the numbers cited above show us at least one of two things:

Either BO and the Democrats are blatantly lying to us again, and counting on the media herd to protect the lie, and /or
 
Barack Obama has never been forced to learn the value of a dollar (now rapidly shrinking, thanks to his Greenback Party economics to the value of an oak leaf), and thus has never truly understood anything about money and value at all.  Thus he becomes a perfect tool for George Soros, who has experience in destroying nations by destroying their currency.

I think it's both.


In an Alfred Hitchcock collection my sister Judi bought me many years ago, I read an August Derleth mystery story featuring his detective hero Solar Pons.  The key to cracking the case was Pons's ability to read the note found as not being in code, but simply in being written in olde English, using words that have not only gone of out of fashion but had dropped from the collective memory.  Pons states "English is a noble, expressive language.  It is a shame that so many of its most colorful words have passed from general usage."  (I'm quoting from 35 year old memory; corrections welcomed.)  In honor of Pons (and Derleth), I want to dust off an old word to describe the Obama we saw exposed by Mitt Romney (and be fair, by Jim Lehrer, who I've never liked but who apparently did a creditable job Wednesday night).

Barack Obama is a dilettante.  He is "a person having a superficial interest in an art or a branch of knowledge" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition).  Of true expertise on any subject he has not a whit.  Instead, he is the personification of the worst kind of a person that our political system can attract.  He has a talent for sleazy self-promotion, and virtually no other talent.  Shorn of his teleprompter, his speechwriters, and his earpiece, he stand before us as a man of no intellect, no depth, no dignity, and no integrity.  He is a Lenin without Lenin's intellect, a Stalin without Stalin's industriousness (thank God).  He is a man with a fine speaking voice, but with nothing to say worth hearing.  He is, in fact, a very mediocre man, a warning of the catastrophic dangers of Affirmative Action.  He has treated the Presidency as a part-time job, and Wednesday night the whole world saw the consequences.  He is a lightweight in the heavyweight division, and his knock-out by the heavyweight Mitt Romney should have come as no surprise.

It has been grimly amusing to see some leftists complaining about the job Jim Lehrer did as moderator of the first debate.  He has been described as too old and too white, which of course brings up the question of how white is white enough to host a television debate?  Is their an answer?  Isn't Chris Matthews just about the whitest white guy you ever saw, or would that be Lawrence O'Donnell?  Don't they even realize how ridiculous they sound?  Did Jim Lehrer get "whiter" in the four years since he  moderated the debate on September 26th, 2008 between Barack Obama and John McCain?  I don't recall any complaints about his performance then.  What they're really complaining about is that Lehrer was unable to prevent B.O. being so smashingly defeated.  It's hardly fair to blame Jim Lehrer for Obama's limitless inadequacies.

Bob Savage of WYSL radio (check it out here) had an interesting thought about BO's off-putting performance.  He pointed out that he has been surrounded by people telling him that he's something special for almost all of his life, and has thus never truly had to develop the ability to test or defend his beliefs in public or even in private.  It's no surprise that he prefers fundraisers and campaign appearances to press conferences and debates.  The ability to debate and speak persuasively is like a muscle -- if you don't train, you don't gain.  If you debate a man or woman whose ideas you react to with "What an idiot!" instead of "Why do they believe that?", you will lose.  The deep-thinking 19th century Illinois lawyer Abraham Lincoln was known for preparing for a court appearance by developing the opponent's side of the case as thoroughly as his own.  As a result of his hard work and forethought, it was virtually impossible to surprise him in court.  It was clear Wednesday night that Romney had not only more brain-power and understanding of the issues, but had also prepared much more diligently. 

I declared years ago that Barack Obama was a man of mediocre talents -- an man of no intellectual depth and a disturbing inability to learn from experience, whether it be his own or that of others.  His cold, arrogant disregard for other people and their beliefs and opinions was based on nothing but the fawning adulation of others.  Tell a mediocre man that he's brilliant for too long and he'll believe it.  If you then make that man President, you are endangering your nation's future. 

After Wednesday night, let's hope others see that, too.