Obama and Blagojevich

We were initially inclined to give Pres.-Elect Obama the benefit of the doubt in the Blagojevich scandal. For one thing BHO seemed more like a victim of an extortion attempt rather than a co-conspirator in this.

Then the coverup and stonewalling began. Previous statements from David Axelrod about Obama having talked with Blagojevich about who would fill the vacant Senate seat became "inoperative." News reports from November about the meeting were scrubbed from the KHQA web site. It strains credulity to think KHQA decided on its own to remove those stories now without a strong push from Team Obama.

Why all the spin control, if there's nothing to hide?

---

Illinois politics is such a cesspool. If only some post-partisan figure would arise there, someone committed to clean government, who would root out all the corruption regardless of party. Someone like Sara Palin.

The Blagojevich scandal is so bad that even the dead people who voted for him are ashamed of themselves.

An Informed Citizenry Is a Bulwark Against Tyranny

Ten minutes long, but don't miss a second of this.

The Lap Dogs That Aren't Barking

The sycophantic national press, having carried Obama throughout the campaign, now is providing ready-made excuses in advance for his upcoming struggles. No sooner does Obama call for reduced expectations, than the press obliges by telling us how hard he will have it. Why he's just like Lincoln and Roosevelt. Power Line comments:

"Well, yes, I can see the analogies. Like Lincoln, Obama will take office confronted by a threat of secession and civil war from the states that supported his opponent. No, wait....

The better analogy must be Roosevelt, who took office with the nation more than two years into a depression and with unemployment at 25%. Hey, at 6.5%, we're a quarter of the way there! In addition, of course, not only did Roosevelt face a "banking crisis" of his own, he had to worry about fascism rising in Europe and the threat of world war.

The 'two wars' meme is one we're hearing a lot, but by historical standards it's pretty silly. The war in Iraq is nearly won, while the Afghan conflict has so far claimed the lives of 609 American military personnel, every one of them a hero. But still: around 400,000 American servicemen died in World War II. Let's have a little sense of perspective here.

Actually, it isn't just Lincoln and Roosevelt who took office under more difficult conditions than Obama. Think of Truman; World War II was still raging and he had to decide to use atomic weapons to bring it to an end; beyond that, the Soviet threat was visible on the horizon. Or Eisenhower, who assumed office while the Korean War was going on. Or Richard Nixon: Vietnam and riots in the streets. Or Ronald Reagan, who began his Presidency with unemployment at 7.5 % and inflation at 12%. Was there a banking crisis? Oh yes, interest rates were at 18-20%. Now, THAT was an economic challenge! In addition, not only was the Cold War in full swing, the U.S. was losing with the Soviet Union advancing around the world."

Interesting Site Traffic

On a normal day DLMSY gets 50-75 visitors, but since TheOne's Ascension things have really been hopping. On Election Day, it spiked to 165. Yesterday, day 1 of the Age of Obama, there were 442, and today with 2 hrs to go we're already over 300. What's happening here?

The vast majority of the visitors are arriving from search sites and landing at our Obama Jokes page. Obviously, the nation's comedians are in a panic, fearing for their jobs. They have just realized that in a few short weeks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney jokes will be as worthless as our retirement accounts. Sure Joe Biden provides many, rich opportunities, but we've already seen how quickly that source can dry up when Team Obama puts Joe under wraps.

With the shortage of Obama jokes and the soaring demand, sellers of these jokes are raising prices, leading to an investigation by the Illinois Attorney General.

---

There is another, more sinister possible explanation for the sudden surge in search activity. Most keywords for DLMSY hits were variations on the theme of "racist Obama jokes." Perhaps an army of Obama supporters is compiling a master list of enemies...

What the Heck Did He Mean Here?

This is from a speech Sen. Obama gave in Colorado in July, 2008. Watch it and ask yourself what in the world he's talking about.

Here's the long version (24 min) from the Obama Campaign site. You might want to skip to the 14 min mark or so for a reasonable lead in.

So why would we need a "civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded" as the military? We already have the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, TSA and various federal and state law enforcement agencies. Since Defense is about 20% of regular federal spending (whatever that means these days), this suggests a massive spending project without any apparent purpose.

Taking the relatively benign interpretation of Obama's proposal, he may be suggesting, as the Left is wont to do, that all desired spending is a matter of "national security." He doesn't really have anything useful for them to do, but he's sure it needs to be done in a big way. In this interpretation the plan is only a colossal waste of money, to be spent on make-work projects like the FDR administration promulgated during the Great Depression. These kinds of programs were ineffective then, and they might well precipitate a depression if tried now.

Looking beyond that, we can guess that this may be a vehicle for channeling more federal money into favored "community organizations" such as ACORN, Nation of Islam, etc. Such a powerful, strong, well-funded civilian force would be very handy to have in the future for stealing elections, intimidating opponents, and perhaps busting a few heads, as needed. Anyone for pogroms?

Senator Stealth

While much of the media has been studiously ignoring Barack Obama's past outside of his two autobiographies, Stanley Kurtz of the National Review has methodically examined the record. Kurtz has documented Obama's days as a "community organizer," Obama's funding of radical leftwing causes through Bill Ayers' Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation, Obama's membership in the socialistic New Party, and the stealthy redistributionism of the the Gamaliel Foundation. The article on the latter has just been updated online:

Senator Stealth by Stanley Kurtz on National Review Online: "Beyond its revelation that Obama’s original community organizer home-base is pervaded by anti-Americanism, “Senator Stealth” foreshadows today’s debates over redistributionism, and shows that concerns over Obama’s radical “associations” cannot be separated from the most significant policy disputes of the campaign.

“Senator Stealth” also lays out a way of resolving the contradiction between Obama’s radical past and his apparently moderate present. After learning that incrementalism, rhetorical disguise, and ideological stealth are second nature to Obama’s community organizer compatriots, it’s tougher to take his current self-presentation at face value. More than two months later, the same issues play out in the latest flap over Obama’s ties to the NEW PARTY.

Finally, I couldn’t have guessed, more than two months ago, that the Obama campaign, abetted by the press, would have taken refuge in near-total denial of his unsavory associations, from the question of his New Party membership, to the relationship to Bill Ayers, to the links to ACORN. Obama has downplayed or denied these many ties to an extent that is shockingly at odds with the public record, while the press has played along."

Many people now accept Obama's pose as a moderate at face value and Hope, if elected, his Change will be moderate. Kurtz's research shows that posing as a moderate is an explicit part of the radical organizations and individuals that Obama has allied himself with during his rise to political power. Hoping for Change in Obama on that score is a long shot gamble that he is something other than what he has been throughout his adult life.

Read the rest of Senator Stealth and the entire Kurtz archive. You can't say we weren't warned.

Not the Auntie Zeituni He Knew

Washington Times - Obama says he didn't know aunt's illegal status: "CHICAGO (AP) - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Saturday he didn't know his aunt was living in the United States illegally and believes that laws covering the situation should be followed.

The Associated Press found that Obama's aunt had been instructed to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge who rejected her request for asylum from her native Kenya. The woman, Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUHN on-YANG-oh), is living in public housing in Boston and is the half-sister of Obama's late father."

Apparently her $260 campaign contribution slipped through the rigorous checks in the Obama Cash Machine.
Update: Corrected the amount of Mrs. Onyango's illegal campaign contribution.

Something's Happening Here

What it is ain't exactly clear. To quote the old Buffalo Springfield lyric. We're bombarded with "news" reports suggesting Obama has this election sewn up and the actual ballots are just a formality. Apparently the only questions left to answer are how large Obama's victory will be and how massive the Democrat majority in Congress will be. Yet there are many signs, for those who look closely, that the race is much closer than it is made to appear.

We wrote here about this topic and an excellent analysis of it by Zombie. A major element of the Obama campaign's strategy is to make an Obama victory appear to be a foregone conclusion. There are two benefits they are seeking: 1) to discourage opposition voters, so they give up prematurely and 2) to capture "go along" voters who will vote for whoever seems to be ahead.

It seems to be working so far, but is it really? All the polls show an amazing amount of "undecided" voters at this late date. It's less well-known, but there is also a large percentage of people who are refusing to participate in polls when contacted. There is reason to believe that both of these groups, when they actually vote, will be lopsidedly in favor of McCain/Palin.

Wynton Hall : Obama's Spiral of Silence - Townhall.com: "If Sen. Barack Obama loses the presidency or wins by far narrower margins than the double-digit lead some mainstream media polls predict, his weak performance will not be the result of the so-called “Bradley Effect,” which holds that black candidates underperform at the polls due to latent racism. Rather, the true culprit will be something public opinion scholars call the “Spiral of Silence Theory.”

In the 1970s, German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann introduced a provocative and startling theory of mass communication she called the “Spiral of Silence.” Noelle-Neumann argued that when mass media create an impression that the majority of society holds one view on a topic, those who hold minority opinions are cowed into a “spiral of silence” for fear of reprisal or isolation from those in the majority."

Goodness knows it's hard to stick up for conservative ideas on the heels of George W. "No Government Spending Program Left Behind" Bush's administration. Add in the widespread attitude that anyone who would vote against Obama, or criticize him in any way, is a racist and/or dangerously angry. Most people will choose just to say nothing.

So will this Obama strategy work? It's up to us. Don't let yourself be deluded into not voting. Remember an election is not a "bet" where you win by voting with the majority. If a bad candidate wins, we all lose. Period. It could very well be that next Wednesday we'll wake up to the biggest election surprise since Harry Truman failed to lose to the inevitable President Dewey. Wouldn't that be fun to see. Even if Obama wins, at least you'll know that the disastrous results of his policies won't be your fault.

---

Remember Republicans vote on Tuesday. Democrats vote on Wednesday. :)

Who Should We Trust on Foreign Policy?

It's hard to make a better foreign policy case for McCain than Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, did the other day. However, Melanie Phillips is up to the task:

The Spectator: "No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor."

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

It's an excellent article, and you should read the rest.

---

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly Biden meant when he told the crowd of Democrat fundraisers that they needed to stand behind Obama in the upcoming crisis, because his decision(s) would appear to be wrong. Did he mean Obama would cave to a threat, showing weakness before aggression, and embolden our enemies everywhere? That's certainly plausible, and it would mean Joe was asking them to stand behind Obama, because no one else would. Alternatively, was he saying that Obama would respond aggressively and recklessly to a situation, say by invading Pakistan, to show he's tough, and the fundraising group would be shocked and dismayed? Hope we don't have to find out...

Who Is Bill Ayers?

From Five Feet of Fury.

The Real Issue Isn't Joe

When is a Tax Cut Not a Tax Cut?

We noted previously that Obama is counting his tax increases as "spending cuts," but wait, there's more. He's also calling his spending increases "tax cuts." Somewhere around 40% of the populace is already paying no income taxes, so we were confused as to how 95% of people could get a tax cut. Used to be you actually had to pay taxes before they could be reduced, but no more. As the Wall Street Journal explains, Obama is proposing seven new "tax credits:"

Obama's 95% Illusion - WSJ.com: "Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be 'refundable,' which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this 'welfare,' or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a 'Demogrant.' Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable 'tax credits' would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as 'tax credits,' the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is."

So much for ending welfare as we know it. It's all about "spreading the wealth around." As he tells the plumber in the video, Obama doesn't want to punish his success. If he had, Obama would probably have given the guy a baby. Here's a tip: Just say, "Keep the change, Barack."

The Angry Right

Suddenly, the dinosaur media have discovered that some people at McCain-Palin rallies are angry. It seems some people there actually even dislike Barack "The One" Obama, if you can imagine. The impertinence! He has been annointed. Didn't those wingnuts get the message?

These reports of a few inappropriate catcalls from a crowd of thousands may be true, although we can't rule out plants from the Left attempting to discredit McCain-Palin supporters or plain media fabrications. Perhaps now that the MSM have discovered this angry speck in the eye of the Right, they might take a little notice of the log of seething rage that has been the public face of the Left for the past 8 years. Michelle Malkin has a good review of some of the fruits of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), Palin Madness Syndrome (PMS), and McCain Hatred. Then there is this video of the wonderful, tolerant liberals of New York's Upper West Side, and Jim Treacher proves again that it's impossible to parody these guys. When we start to see MSM stories about the eyeball popping rage on the left, I'll start to take their opinions on the subject more seriously.

Which is not to say conservatives, even libertarian conservatives like myself, aren't angry. I am angry, although I'm not about to assault anyone. I'm angry about several things.

The MSM have become an arm of the Obama campaign, abandoning any pretense of objectivity. Could they bother to look into Obama's past at all? How about spending just 1/100th of the resources they spent trying to smear Sarah Palin looking into Obama's buddies: Rezko; Wright; Pfleger; and Ayers. How about equal billing for the true story of Obama's ties to the socialist New Party along with the false story of Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party? How about looking into his record in Illinois, at Harvard and at Columbia beyond what he says in his autobiographies?

Obama has been able to run his campaign as a complete cypher. He's a political chameleon, running to the left of Hillary and to the right of McCain in the same election. In the primary he was planning to gut the defense budget, including missile defense, but in the first debate with McCain, suddenly missile defense is essential to him. He's actually claiming that he'll prosecute the war in Afghanistan more agressively than McCain. Who really believes that? Not his Nutroots supporters, who know that's just a put on to fool the rest of us. If any previous statements become inconvenient, he just denies he ever made them, and the press plays along. He's a bullshitter, constantly puffing up his resume with exaggerated or phony claims.

While posing as a "post-partisan," "post-racial" candidate, Obama has managed to run one of the most visciously partisan and openly race-baiting campaigns in history. McCain runs an ad comparing Obama to celebrity airheads, and gets attacked for "racism." McCain points out the links between Obama and former Fannie Mae CEOs, one white one black, who made millions while ruining the financial system, and those ads are "racist." Palin notes the Ayers connection, and that's, take a guess, "racist." Is it possible there exists some way to criticize Obama's record, words or deeds that is not racist? Perhaps a McCain ad that agreed that we need Hope and Change, but claimed we should Do More would pass muster. Nope, racist.

Joe Biden is a walking gaffe machine, but for some reason that doesn't matter at all. In the debate with Palin he made some ridiculous statements about "when we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Had Palin said that, the election would have been over at that moment. Even accepting the "official" explanation that he meant to say Syria, it still made no sense at all. Recently, he claimed that Franklin Roosevelt went on TV after the 1929 Crash to talk to America. This was odd, since Roosevelt was not yet president and TV had not been invented. Right after 9/11, Biden had this brainstorm:

At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.

He's there as the foreign policy heavyweight to add "gravitas" to the ticket. We can all feel so much better about an Obama presidency, knowing that Biden will be guiding him in key decisions. Yet the MSM perpetuate the myth of Biden's foreign policy expertise.

Update: Added the forgotten link above to Biden's suggestion to send a $200 million jizya to Iran to encourage future bombings.

When Is a Cut Not a Cut?

This caught our ear in last night's "debate" between John McCain and Barack Obama. The question is from Teresa Finch about why either of them should be trusted with our money. Good question, Teresa. This is part of Obama's answer (emphasis added):

Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate - CNN.com: "... And so while it's true that nobody's completely innocent here, we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets.

So here's what I would do. I'm going to spend some money on the key issues that we've got to work on.

You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We've got to reform health care to help you and your budget.

We are going to have to deal with energy because we can't keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children's future. We've got to have a different energy plan.

We've got to invest in college affordability. So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut."

Is there anyone sentient who believes that last part? How can that possibly be true considering the laundry list of "top spending priorities" that he recited here and in the previous debate. McCain has put the cost of Obama's spending plans at over $800 billion, and Obama has not challenged him on that.

As far as we know, Obama has offered few, if any, specific spending cuts. During the primaries he promised to eliminate the missile defense program, but he claimed in the last debate that he now sees missile defense as essential (at least until he gets elected).

The only explanation that makes sense is: when Obama says he is cutting more than he's spending, he must be counting his plans for tax increases as "spending cuts." This is standard liberal "framing" over the last several years, which attempts to equate goverment spending with letting people keep their own money. The underlying premise, which is never stated because it's indefensible, is that all money belongs to the government. Note that an actual spending cut decreases the government's role in the real economy, while a tax increase has the opposite effect.

We can also see that idea behind this Obama statement from the debate (emphasis added):

But understand this: We also have to look at where some of our tax revenues are going. So when Sen. McCain proposes a $300 billion tax cut, a continuation not only of the Bush tax cuts, but an additional $200 billion that he's going to give to big corporations, including big oil companies, $4 billion worth, that's money out of the system.

Actually, Senator, that's money back into the system. The real system, where wealth and jobs are actually created. The system is the private sector, not the government.

Again, Obama falsely equates government spending with letting the people who created the wealth keep some of it. Note the implicit claim that continuing the current tax rates represents some kind of giveaway to individual taxpayers. Meanwhile, in LiberalThink any cut in corporate tax rates, which are far higher than in the rest of the industrialized countries, would be a giveaway to big companies, and lost forever from "the system."

What would these evil businesses do with the government's money? Expand instead of contract? Stay in business instead of folding? Employ more people instead of fewer? Hold their prices down instead of raising them? Raise wages and benefits instead of cutting them? The horror.

Hyper Creepy

Can you watch this video without seeing visions of little children singing the praises of The Dear Leader or The Great Helmsman?

Note the prominent Obama seal in the background. Creepy with a capital-C.

UPDATE: More info on the video here.

Saturday Night Live Becoming Funny Again?

At least in some skits that seems to be the case:



We're not yet convinced enough to actually watch the show again, or even invest the DVR space on it. The funny part of these, of course, is the willingness to make fun of the liberals as well as the conservatives. We'll see if that holds up.

Another Obama Joke

An anxious nation waits breathlessly for Obama-related humor. Here's another release from the Strategic Joke Reserve to ease the shortage:

Poor John Edwards has gone from VP nominee to non-person in just a few short weeks after admitting he was lying and the National Enquirer was telling the truth. Sen. Obama, showing his Heart of Gold, expressed sympathy for Edwards. "The man has suffered enough," said Obama, "He's already been punished with a baby. Based on the smell of that baby, I'm calling for a Change We Can Believe in."

Obama Jokes

There is certainly a dearth of jokes about Obama, although given the things he's said and done there is obviously plenty of material out there. Partly this is because he and his acolytes are so humorless. They're liable to take offense at any joke about Obama they deem to be in bad taste (i.e. any joke). It's almost less risky to make jokes about Mohammed and rely on that famous Muslim sense of humor.

If John McCain or GWB or, Heaven forbid, Dan Quayle had dropped some of the pearls that have fallen from Obama's lips, those words would be staples of late night comedy. So far those comedy jabs that are thrown in Obama's general direction are mainly aimed at the fawning media cloud that surrounds him. Well, at least it's a start.

In view of this critical shortage, we have decided to release some of the Strategic Joke Reserve to alleviate the crisis. As a longer term solution, we favor increasing the domestic production of Obama jokes rather than depending on uncertain foreign supplies from Europe and the Middle East.

Obama's campaign has set new world speed records in its sprint from the far left to the center. He isn't flip flopping or abandoning his principles, though. He just takes a wide stance. When he got to the center, he found himself. Turns out he was the one he was waiting for there.

Unnerved by a tough question from a 7-year old about whether or not war is ever justified, Obama struggled to come up with an answer. Finally, he allowed that he would probably have supported World War II, reluctantly. "After the Germans dropped The Bomb on Pearl Harbor, President Truman really didn't have much choice but to declare war," said the Senator.

As part of the "Spare Change America Can Believe In" program, the Obama campaign today announced a plan to increase the number of states to 62. According to the press release, the plan would add five additional states, "We're going to bring in all three Canadian provinces, plus Alaska and Idahoe."

One reason you hear so few jokes about Obama is the threat of a special, Windbag Profits Tax on profiteers who take advantage of the shortage.

Obama's campaign is really frustrated at the persistent myths and falsehoods that continue to circulate about the candidate. For inexplicable reasons, many people continue to believe that: his middle name is Hussein: as a political gesture he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel; he and his family went to a church with a nutty, racist pastor for 20 yrs; he thinks Middle Americans cling to their guns, religion and xenophobia; and he hangs around with unrepentant terrorists and crooked real estate developers. Please do your best to set the record straight on these points.

We wrote these jokes, so if you quote them, don't forget to link here. If a simple Nebraska blogger can write Obama jokes in just a few minutes, just think of what dedicated, comedy professionals working full time can accomplish. Now that's change we can believe in.

---

It's funny, but it's no joke: It seems any criticism of The One is irrefutable evidence that the critic is a racist. Just in case you're wondering where you stand personally, a recent post in The Corner at National Review Online listed 25 signs you might be a racist. Here are the top 10:

1.If you think Obama's the most liberal member of the senate you...may be a racist.
2.If you object to Obama raising your payroll, capital gains and estate taxes you...may be a racist.
3.If you'd prefer a president have at least some foreign policy experience you...may be a racist.
4. If you're in favor of drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants you...may be a racist.
5. If you think "Vero Possemus" is Latin for "Massive Ego" you... may be a racist.
6. If you wonder why Obama was hanging around William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn you...may be a racist.
7. If your pastor is nothing like Rev. Wright or Father Pfleger you... may be a racist.
8.If you don't want the majority of justices on the Supreme Court to be like Stephen Breyer you...may be a racist.
9. If you're not impressed with Obama's 100% NARAL rating you...may be a racist.
10. If you're not sure whether Obama opposed or supported FISA reauthorization you...may be a racist.

To which we'll add: If you make any jokes about any aspect of Obama's policies, speeches, cronies, or general amorphousness, you may be a racist.

UPDATE: Added links to the original incidents inspring the jokes, since not everyone knows them yet.

Post Election Update: There are additional Obama jokes on this blog and elsewhere.