If she is ten, I don't know what we are feeding kids these days.

We don't elect people based on what the rest of the world thinks.

Signed, America.

You know, the last 8 years would have gone a lot better if you did.

Signed, the whole world

Now ... some speech specifics. You hear me constantly complaining about government education in this country. Obama's speech only reinforces my position. There are so many things that Obama said last night that would have been laughed out of the stadium if only the crowd knew how absurd they were. Those people weren't there, though, because they were educated policy wonks. They were there to engage in celebrity worship. Last night was a not-so-adult version of the final episode of American Idol.

The Obama campaign is dedicated to the idea of chaining John McCain to George Bush. Once again last night we heard that bit about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time. That line works because the dumb masses don't know any better. Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn't have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting "with" the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh ... but remember, as our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree has told us many times, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to "vote with the president" would be not to vote at all. As Dick Morris wrote: "The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president."

Morris also points out a series of important issues on which Bush and McCain did not agree:

• McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
• McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.
• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Using the same methodology you would probably find that most Democrat senators also voted with Bush 90% of the time.

Now here's one part of the Obama speech that was particularly clever. As you know, we've been talking about Obama's plan to raise taxes on the very people, small businessmen and women, who are providing about 80% of the new jobs our economy is producing. Obama's response last night was to say that "I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."

Here, again, is where the ignorance of the American voter comes into play. I can just hear some of my listeners now: "That Neal Boortz said that Obama was going to raise taxes these small businessmen. Obama said he is going to eliminate them. There! I knew it! Boortz is a liar!"

Pay attention now. Obama said he was going to eliminate capital gains taxes. These small businessmen generally don't pay capital gains taxes. They pay income taxes. Obama's plan is to raise the income taxes on these entrepreneurs. Telling the American people that he will cut their capital gains taxes is simply a charade; a charade the uneducated will buy.

Did you hear Obama last night say that McCain describes middle class as someone making less than $5 million dollars a year? Now you may laugh at that idea and think it absurd. Trust me ... there are hundreds of thousands of Obama voters out there who will take that seriously; who will think that McCain thinks that someone making $4,500,000 a year is middle class. Tell me, is that playing on the stupidity of the American people?

Then there's Obama's line about the Republicans and McCain not proposing one penny of tax relief for over 100 million Americans. Sounds good. But if you're educated; if you know the statistics; if you pay attention you will know that the bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay only about 3% of all individual income taxes collected by the federal government. When you get to the bottom 40% that percentage figures drops to zero. Now just what is our current population figure? Around 300 million or so? That would bean that about 120 million Americans have no federal income tax liability at all. Yet there's Obama saying that McCain is offering no tax relief to these people. Relief from what?

There was another line in Obama's speech that is very typical of far-left politicians. Obama seems to feel those with higher incomes in this country have not earned their way. Whatever the wealthy have was given to them, not earned. So Obama tells the adoring crowd that Republicans want to "Give more and more to those with the most, and hope that prosperity will trickle down to the rest." As I said, this is a standard Democrat theme. Wealthy people didn't earn what they have, it was given to them. And since it was given to them, there's nothing really all that wrong with taking more and more of it away from them ... just to even things out a bit. Remember, please, that Obama flat-out said that he wants to raise taxes on the rich not to bring in increased government revenues, but to make things more "fair."

This idea that whatever wealthy or successful people have was given to them is reflected in the idea that people should "give back." Charity isn't recognized for what it is; one individual giving some of what they have earned to another in need. No .. it's just someone giving back some of the stuff that was given to them. Accomplishment and the concept of earning seems to have no place in Democrat rhetoric.

As I was trying to wrap up these notes this morning a Wal-Mart ad came on television. It seems that you can go to some Wal-Marts and get a prescription for one of 300 medications filled for just four dollars. That's for a 30-day supply. If you want a 90-day supply it will cost you ten bucks. There can't be one of you out there who could possibly think that the government could provide these drugs to you for the same price. Yet Obama told us last night that the private sector simply cannot handle our health care needs.

One clear realization after last night. After watching the show in Denver ... and watching the scene at Times Square in New York City last night ... there is a clear sense of mass hysteria over Barack Obama. What fun it would be to walk up to one of those cheering people and engage them in a discussion on the differences between a capital gains tax and an income tax. Wouldn't you just love to watch their expressions as you detail the way that government has intentionally restricted free market involvement in the delivery of health care? What do you think their answer would be if you were to ask them just how you give income tax breaks to 100 million Americans who don't pay income taxes? The blank expressions of the faces of these screaming masses would be priceless.