The Respectfully Republican Conversation

I'm all for giving credit to the voters, they're seeing right through him too.  The joke going around is, I'm telling my friends I'm voting for Obama, but I'll actually vote for McCain.

I heard him talking yesterday about the banking committee, and it sounded like HE was the head of the committee and when they replayed it last night, I said to my husband he doesn't head that committee.  What the heck is he talking about?  Then the panel was giving more excuses for him, he's tired another long day, blah blah.  I changed the channel.  I knew he didn't head the committee but to find out today he's not even on it, so amazing.  Anyone else would be fried alive over that comment and taking credit where none is due, but we have to make excuses for him.   

I, too, watched that Q&A session and thought to myself: "I didn't know he was head of the Banking Committee!"  I was also surprised as this committee is usually headed by a long-term senator.  So when I read Susie's comments I was surprised to learn that he's not even on the committee.  Not a single word on this on any of the channels I was watching, although all day I heard about McCain's gaffe regarding the surge timeline. 

In the same Q&A he spoke twice as though he were already president and had to rephrase his answers both times to acknowledge he was not yet in the WH. His arrogance is on a par with Bush's, yet the same Democrats who despise this in Bush celebrate it in Obama.  Do they hate arrogance, or is it only arrogant Republicans?  

Some encouraging news for me though--and others who are and have always been liberals. A recent poll shows that those of my age (carrying Medicare cards) are immune to the cool Obama, and particularly it seems liberals of a certain age. No swooning for us over Michelle's off the rack dress and no dreams of an Obama wedding in the White House.  Just thoughts of how Americans will pay their doctors bills with mandated health insurance, protect their privacy by overturning FISA, stop the profileration of guns, and most important stop the executions. I was beginning to fear, in reading the Obama thread, that I was the last standing liberal in America.  Apparently not!  Lots of us planning to vote for Nader--6% now and growing each day.

Sorry to intrude on your Republican thread as I still don't plan to vote for McCain, but I was amazed that I had to learn on the Republican thread that Obama is not head of the  Banking Committee.  I may not vote for McCain, but I certainly do feel for him. He must be experiencing the Hillary Factor, wondering how he wound up in a Kafka novel!   His best bet is to push for open, off the cuff, Q&A's with Obama.  Obama's heming and hawing when he has to talk without a script is beyond irritating.  

Rosemary--I'm still waiting for results of second biopsy but not too nervous--yet.  Three doctors think it's just radiation scarring but to be sure . . . 

I don't think a Nader vote is for Obama or McCain--it's for Nader.  If people who think like me don't support third party candidates we'll go on forever with a two-party system, or in my view frick and frack.  Other than choice or no choice, there's not much difference between the two candidates in my liberal mind.  They both support the death penalty, guns anywhere and everywhere, intrusion on privacy, and a rewriting of the constitutional amendment as it pertains to religion. 

I doubt very much I'll get used to Obama, as he's already demonstrated that he's without principle, and unfortunately, McCain is starting to emulate him.  The things I liked about McCain a few years ago, and the things I thought I could live with if he became our president, are disappearing every day.  Taking a play out of Obama's game book I guess. But Obama's tics drive me wild--all that "awing" between words is even worse than McCain's "my dear friends."    I'll do what I did with Bush if Obama gets elected--I'll turn him off immediately when he appears on TV.  It worked for me for eight years and I'm really good at it now.  If McCain gets elected, I'll watch him once in a while, as I enjoy his sense of humor, and I get a kick out of him when he gets angry--shows a human being is alive under that political skin.  But to be frank, it looks like I won't be watching much political coverage after November.

I agree with Obama's tax plans though, as I agreed with Hillary's.   

Mine was on the outside of my breast--very strange looking lesion.  It was biopsed and came back as a probable radiation lesion, benign, but it could be a sarcoma, which is a soft tissue cancer caused by radiation, and lethal.  So I'm a bit nervous, but three different doctors say it didn't grow quickly enough to be a sarcoma.  That yours are hurting probably tells them it's radiation scarring.  But you should be vigilant.

Actually, now that I'm retired and my income is about 1/20 what it was when I had my own business, I'll welcome Obama's plan not to tax retirees who make less than $50,000.  So it works for me, although that's never been my criteria for paying or not paying taxes.  I don't think Obama's tax plan will affect most Americans, just those at the top of the income ladder, and I think that's how it should be.

Just watching a comparison of Obama at Wailing Wall and McCain in front of cheese counter in a grocery store.  The media stinks in my view.  Americans are concerned about buying groceries, and not paying a politician to visit foreign lands for photo ops, yet it continues.  So so so unfair, and very bad journalism.  I read Beesie's comment on the Obama thread and agree totally.  Apparently, the Obama supporters think it's too cute that the journalistic principle of objectivity has gone by the boards.  Well, I guess if Obama can get into bed with Scalia, so can his followers.  Sad, I think. 

Rather amazing!  Just hearing on CNN that McCain is gaining ground in the polls.  If he can gain ground this week, something may be happening.  I wonder if perhaps it's the Obama team's arrogance in setting up a transition team, without yet the nomination, let alone the presidency, his continual statements that suggest he's already president, and his desire to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.  I can imagine that these things might annoy people--a lot. 

Beesie, I think I do get it. It's an age and maturity thing. Those who age (and mature) are more concerned with essentials. Those who are younger tend to look at surface.  A lot depends this year on which age group gets out the vote.  Generally, the older voter is more reliable and more concerned with policy than personality.  When one is sixty, whether a candidate looks good is of little importance, what his wife wears less important, and whether his children make their own beds not at all important.  We're more concerned with heating our homes in winter, having decent medical care, and knowing that the planet will be here for our families to enjoy when we're gone.  There seem to be few discussions lately on policy positions and lots more focus on personality.   

I'm in a quantry as I dislike Obama (and many of his positions, but not all).  I don't dislike McCain, although he does give boring speeches, but most of his positions are totally opposed to mine.  Nader and I agree on most things, but of course he can't win.  But if I vote against my conscience, I'll hate myself afterwards, as I did after voting for Clinton the first time round, so it will have to be Nader.  I suppose I could start a third-party thread, but who would read it!  So, I'm crashing the Republican thread until they tell me to leave.  

I just listened to Obama's speech.  So, what exactly did he say?  It sounded like a laundry list of the top 20 changes that we all would like to see in the world.  A world without nuclear weapons... eliminate discrimination... eliminate hunger... eliminate terrorist threats... eliminate AIDS... freedom for all people.... freedom of religion... etc... etc....  Oh, and Germany and other European countries, we need your help to do this, so let's all join together! 

I could have made the same list; any of us could have.  So what did Obama actually say about what he will do?  There wasn't a single specific in the whole speech.  Just a bunch of stuff that everyone will agree with. 

This speech will no doubt be praised as a great speech, but to me, it fell completely flat.  Yes, he spoke well (mostly, although there were a few stumbles) and he was inspiring (well, a little bit, anyway) but there was nothing there.  Typical Obama.  Style over substance.

I can't wait to see all the excitement about this on the Obama thread. I mean, wasn't it like just the best speech ever ever???

Anneshirley, I understand your dilemma.  Like you, on the issues I agree more with Obama than with McCain.  But as I see it, in the end, presidents (or leaders in any country) often must deal with circumstances that we simply can't foresee during the election.  So I always vote based on character and judgement.  And on that basis, Obama is clearly out of the game. 

Linda, I just read your post and since this is the Republican Conversation, I will edit my post to add that I agree with you about McCain.  I don't have the same position as him on many issues but I respect him and more importantly, I trust him to make the right decisions.  He has shown that he can work across party lines and in my gut I feel that he will be thoughtful and reasonable in whatever decisions he makes.  Of course, I'm Canadian so I don't get to vote.  And because I'm Canadian, my opinion is shaped more by world issues and the U.S. president's impact on world affairs than by internal American issues.  On global issues, McCain is simply head and shoulders above Obama.  I also like McCain because to me he is more in the model of a Canadian Conservative rather than a U.S. Republican.  While I hold don't any party affiliation, I've always leaned more towards the Conservatives.  In many ways, the choice in Canada is easier because there are fewer social issues at stake.  Universal health care, abortion rights, gay rights, etc. are all entrenched in our culture.  While some in the Conservative party may occasionally suggest reconsidering these things, in reality it would never happen so those issues generally don't need to be considered when choosing who to vote for.  For those of you in the U.S., I think you have a much more difficult choice.  

Anneshirley, I'm crossing everything but my eyes that nothing serious is wrong (if I crossed my eyes I'd be TOTALLY senseless).  I think after your doctors saw the lesion they'd be more concerned if they thought it was SOMETHING. 

If we can't talk you out of voting for Nader, well....we'll just have to accept how YOU feel.

I was a bit disappointed when McCain won the nomination.  But the more I hear him (when the media lets him speak), the more I have become to like him.  I never really cared for Romney (and not because he's a Mormon).  There's something about him that I cannot put my finger on.  And I hear his health care plan isn't going so well (that was HIS, right?).  I get so confused, but what's new!  I still like Bobby Jindal. (yeah, he's too young), and Governor Palin.  Poor McCain needs someone to put a fire under his @&$%!   I do like to listen to him when he's at a town hall meeting (of course we only get snippets). Oh, how I'd love BO to be brave enough to meet John at one of those meetings.

I guess I'll stop rambling. 

Shirley

McCain has said in the past, not very long ago, if Iraq wants us out, we leave.  He will NOT give comfort to the enemy by giving them a firm date This is very easy to understand and I agree with his statements.  I want the enemy to know we mean business and I don't want anyone to have to go back there.  Leave them stable and strong to fight their own battles, and pray we leave a good gov't in place.   It's Iran I worry about, if they won't stay on their side of the border, thinking we're weak, I'd rather have McCain dealing with them.   Obama wants to dismantle our nukes just in time for Iran to assemble some.  His entire candidacy drive me nuts. 

On another note, Madam Pelosi's dimwitted plan to use up our reserves has been voted down today.  She thinks a national emergency is high prices at the pump.  Fire her. 

Lisa, most of us repubs know he's fake.  That's why I like McCain -- he's not fake.  And when he says "my friend" I have no trouble with it.  It's just the way he shows endearment, IMO.  Or, perhaps to try to make us feel more equal with him.  However, I am very sorry to hear of Obama's behavior toward our military.  But, you know what, he was scared to really meet with them.  After all, he doesn't even give the credit to them for the surge.  Of course not.  He would then be shooting himself in the foot because he was against it.  He wanted to pull out, from what I understand, last March.  He has no clue how this "war stuff" works.  And, according to him, he has no intention of listening to the commanders on the ground. 

Anneshirley, my whole thing with Gore is when he made his little speech recently he had those big SUVs, and of course, it was idling for at least 20 minutes or more while waiting for him.  And he has the nerve to tell other people to ride their bikes or take public transportation.  Oh, I know I'm wrong.  I shouldn't expect him to use a less energy efficient car, or sale his boat.  I don't like him, and I don't trust anything he says.  I think he's still bitter because he lost the election to Bush...yes LOST!

Also, Maliki is not experienced when it comes to war and pulling out our troops.  I believe his own commanders do not want us to set this time line of 16 months.  Who knows what can happen.  And, like Rosemary said, McCain will not stay there if they want us out.  But, if THEY want us out and Al Queda comes back in...I'd say...sorry!

My great nephew was going to train for the Special Forces.  He then broke his arm and could no longer train.  Thus, they put him in a "class room."  He now wants to be a Medic.   And he understands that he can be right in the middle of the battle field.  Our young men and women are not forced to go to war.  They sign up.  I hate war, and I hope it's over very quickly.  However, I would hate to think that all the lives that have been lost would be in vain.

Yep, you got that right, Annshirley.  I'll be pulling McCain's lever.  In fact, I'm so disgusted I'm going to pull the repub lever. And I never do that.

As far as Roe vs Wade, it's not going anywhere.  What made me sick about Obama was this late stage abortion bill..when babies were born alive he voted to let them die.  Now, that makes me sick to my stomach!

I remember how upset you were when Hillary lost.  Yes, Hillary was also treated unfairly.  If I had my druthers, I'd druther Hillary be in the WH than BO.

I promise not to cross my eyes. 

Shirley

AnneShirley-Glad to see you on either thread.  Hope you get good news soon.

I think the disenfranchisement of so many voters on both sides will eventually lead to viable third parties. ( If you've been peeking here -you know conservatives aren't thrilled with McCain either) 

AnneShirley--If he said like John Fund's claim in the Wall Street Journal that he might not appoint a judge like Sam Alito who "wore his conservatism on his sleeve."------His personal disdain for his ilk is such that I feel in my gut that Roe vs Wade won't be threatened. It's not at the top of his agenda.  Betcha in private you'd just get a wink on the subject. LOL 

And I also feel that with an Obama Presidency we may leave Iraq but we could up with a novice inadvertantly getting us into Pakistan---No thank you------

Bottom line- like Shirley, I  don't agree with some of McCain's positions but I trust him.

"This election is so close that any vote for another will take its toll.  2004 was decided in some States by only 4-5 thousand votes."

 Rosemary--Barack's friends at Acorn (the radical association no one talks about) could come up with that many illegal alien votes in a heartbeat........They apparently are very busy in my neck of the woods in Philly
---------------------------------------------
From WALL Street Journal

A Victory Against Voter Fraud
By JOHN FUND
April 29, 2008; Page A13

In ruling on the constitutionality of Indiana's voter ID law – the toughest in the nation – the Supreme Court had to deal with the claim that such laws demanded the strictest of scrutiny by courts, because they could disenfranchise voters. All nine Justices rejected that argument.

Even Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three dissenters who would have overturned the Indiana law, wrote approvingly of the less severe ID laws of Georgia and Florida. The result is that state voter ID laws are now highly likely to pass constitutional muster.

But this case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, also revealed a fundamental philosophical conflict between two perspectives rooted in the machine politics of Chicago. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the decision, grew up in Hyde Park, the city neighborhood where Sen. Barack Obama – the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws – lives now. Both men have seen how the Daley machine has governed the city for so many years, with a mix of patronage, contract favoritism and, where necessary, voter fraud.

That fraud became nationally famous in 1960, when the late Mayor Richard J. Daley's extraordinary efforts swung Illinois into John F. Kennedy's column. In 1982, inspectors estimated as many as one in 10 ballots cast in Chicago during that year's race for governor to be fraudulent for various reasons, including votes by the dead.

Mr. Stevens witnessed all of this as a lawyer, special counsel to a commission rooting out corruption in state government, and as a judge. On the Supreme Court, this experience has made him very mindful of these abuses. In 1987, the high court vacated the conviction of a Chicago judge who'd used the mails to extort money. He wrote a stinging dissent, taking the rare step of reading it from the bench. The majority opinion, he noted, could rule out prosecutions of elected officials and their workers for using the mails to commit voter fraud.

Three years later, Justice Stevens ordered Cook County officials to stop printing ballots that excluded a slate of black candidates who were challenging the Daley machine. The full court later ordered the black candidates back on the ballot.

Barack Obama has approached Chicago politics differently. He came to the city as a community organizer in the 1980s and quickly developed a name for himself as a litigator in voting cases.

In 1995, then GOP Gov. Jim Edgar refused to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law. Allowing voters to register using only a postcard and blocking the state from culling voter rolls, he argued, could invite fraud. Mr. Obama sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and won. Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.

Acorn's efforts to register voters have been scandal-prone. St. Louis, Mo., officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn't exist. "We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside," said Democrat Matt Potter, the city's deputy elections director. Later, federal authorities indicted eight of the group's local workers. One of the eight pleaded guilty last month.

In Seattle, local officials invalidated 1,762 Acorn registrations. Felony charges were filed against seven of its workers, some of whom have criminal records. Prosecutors say Acorn's oversight of its workers was virtually nonexistent. To avoid prosecution, Acorn agreed to pay $25,000 in restitution.

Despite this record – and polls that show clear majorities of blacks and Hispanics back voter ID laws – Mr. Obama continues to back Acorn. They both joined briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn Indiana's law.

Last year, he put on hold the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. Mr. von Spakovsky, as a Justice Department official, had supported a Georgia photo ID law.

In a letter to the Senate Rules Committee, Mr. Obama wrote that "Mr. von Spakovsky's role in supporting the Department of Justice's quixotic efforts to attack voter fraud raises significant questions about his ability to interpret and apply the law in a fair manner." Of course, now an even stricter law than the one in Georgia has been upheld by the Supreme Court, removing Mr. Obama's chief objection.

The hold on the von Spakovsky nomination has left the Federal Election Commission with less than a quorum. As a result, the FEC can't open new cases, hold public meetings, issue advisory opinions or approve John McCain's receipt of public funding for the general election. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims that, even without the von Spakovsky hold, filling the FEC's vacancies will take "several months."

All of this may be smart politics, but it is far removed from Mr. Obama's call for transcending the partisan divide. Then again, Mr. Obama's relationship to reform has always been tenuous. Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, notes that, while Mr. Obama supported ethics reforms as a state senator, he has "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic."

So we have the irony of two liberal icons in sharp disagreement over yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Justice Stevens, the real reformer, believes voter ID laws are justified to prevent fraud. Barack Obama, the faux reformer, hauls out discredited rhetoric that they disenfranchise voters.

Acorn's national political arm has endorsed Mr. Obama. And its "nonpartisan" voter registration affiliate has announced plans to register hundreds of thousands of voters before the November election. An election in which Mr. Obama may be the Democratic candidate.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com. His book on voter fraud will be published in July by Encounter.
------------------------------------------------------

 http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/acorn__os_ugly_ally_117189.htm

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07132008/postopinion/editorials/another_acorn_scandal_119692.htm

Roctobermom, my sentiments exactly.  Who cares what Europe or anyone else thinks about our country.  However, I guess I stayed quiet about my feelings because I didn't want to insult others who do not live in our country.  This is MY country, and I really shouldn't care.

Thanks for your kind words, Linda.  I'm still working on two of mine also.  One of my dds is not voting for Obama.  And, to tell you the truth these kids (at least mine) do not have time, or do not want to keep up with what's going on.  Some are going into the booth pulling the lever for their party.  I know they get tired of me sending them emails..LOL  I try to give them a break every now and then.  Heck, they probably delete my political messages.

Hey, Susie!  I'll have to read your article tomorrow.  It's way to late.  Gotta go to bed.

Shirley

Thanks folks for letting me stay on as I am obviously not a Republican.  

Just heard from doctor's office and my second biopsy returned with no evidence of atypical cells, which means they were all found on surface in initial biopsy, and I don't have a sarcoma.  It's too early for champagne at the moment, but later for sure . .

I found Obama's speech one platitude after another (Pull the walls down, said in ten different ways but with no suggestion on how this can be done, and quite frankly, from a tried and true cynic, something that has never happened in more than 2008 years).  Unfortunately, all of his speeches are platitutde with perhaps one exception.  I did greatly admire his speech on racism,  with the exception of the bit where he dragged his grandmother in, to call her a racist. That might or might not be true, but it was ugly nonetheless, which brings me to my point on yesterday's speech. It appears that this photo-op trip and his speech are creating a backlash.  Apparently, his campaigning overseas and his speech in Germany have offended many Americans, other than die-heart Obamamaniacs, as it carries with it the suggestion that he is criticizing the U.S. to strangers--a bit like the comments he made about his grandmother.  All the polls in the last few days show McCain gaining on Obama, and national polls give Obama plus three points, which is statistically insignificant.

Hillary became my candidate in the primaries only after Edwards dropped out, and it was all about her support for mandated health care.  I developed complete contempt for Obama over his refusal to use the word "mandate" because (no matter what he says) he knew the Republicans would jump all over the idea of "mandated" care in the general election.  This type of cowardice  keeps manifesting itself in his refusal to take firm stands on anything and his constant changing of positions.  Of course, McCain is no better on health care, but at least his position is a Republican one, and  he is, after all, a Republican.  Anyway, the following letter was printed in the Times in response to Obama's health care plan, and I thought I'd share it with you, as I truly believe health care is the most important domestic issue facing our country. 

To the Editor:

Barack Obama proposes to make health care affordable for all Americans with an injection of cash from the repeal of the Bush tax cuts and with savings realized from electronic health information technology and programs to improve disease prevention and chronic disease management.

While better record-keeping and prevention and management programs would improve the quality of our medical system, there is little data that they would actually save money. They certainly would not do so for many years.

Most waste in our health care system is a result of our reliance on private health insurers. Having multiple competing insurers results in costs for marketing, underwriting, billing, claims adjudication, executive salaries and profit.

Administrative costs account for 31 percent of all health care spending in the United States, but only 17 percent in Canada’s single payer system. The administrative costs of America’s own single-payer system, Medicare, are only about 3 percent, compared with 12 to 15 percent for private insurers.

If Mr. Obama wants to save enough to provide health care for every American, he needs to open the debate to include consideration of Medicare for all in the United States.

Rachel Nardin
Cambridge, Mass., July 23, 2008

A little Satire this morning from across the pond-- Times online

From The Times
July 25, 2008

He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.


And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”