"Obama/Vitriol '08-Smear We Can Believe In"

(Cross posted at "America Needs Me")

That's the ticket.

Get used to the gutter-crawling from the Left because that is really all they have to offer. You would think that the Changey/Hopey folk would want to offer forth a vision of what their transcendent candidate, less than one week removed from his "symphony" and "masterpiece" of a speech, can truly do for his country. Here's what we've gotten from them so far:

Sarah Palin is a bad mother and John McCain is going to die at any moment.

If there was ever any doubt that the Main Stream Media lives on its knees in front of Obama's zipper, the last few days should have erased it.

In anticipation of Gov. Palin's speech tonight, the MSM Obama hacks have really ratcheted up the remarkably weak-ass attacks on her. It's a veritable "symphony" of desperation. The attacks don't have any substance, so they're trying to overwhelm with sheer volume.

Let's start with the most rapidly declining major city newspaper in America, The Los Angeles Times, which is now published from the back of a van in a downtown LA alley. It's remaining subscriber alerted me to these stories. The Times features a couple of hit pieces on Sarah Palin today. There probably would have been more but they couldn't afford the extra paper.

First, this one by Tim Rutten starts off highlighting what one of the Left's major problems is with Sarah Palin:

"...there's the fact that they appear unwilling to let her be alone with the media. God forbid anyone should ask about her views on, say, global warming -- she doesn't believe that human activity has anything to do with it. Perhaps they don't want anyone to hear her explain why she opposes hate-crime laws?"

Well, Tim, she's been preparing the most important speech of her life, taking care of a family crisis and, being the only true outsider in this race, meeting some key people. So, she's been a little f-ing busy. Obeisance to an unfair media monster isn't high on the GOP priority list these days.

Look at the questions he poses. I'll translate: "How can you be a successful woman and not be a Democrat? It's an outrage, I tell you!"

Along with the quick dispatching of Obama's change theme, Sarah Palin also K.O.'d a tired feminist line that was never true in the first place. The feminists, still compromised from having disappeared when Bill Clinton was preying on young women, are spinning out of control now that their "either/or" view has been spanked all to bejesus. I assume that Tim Rutten is a believer in feminism because he has an opinion column in a major newspaper. Plus, his picture shows him to be bearded and burly, just like all the women at NOW and NARAL.

Make sure your stomach isn't too full and read Rutten's whole piece. He accuses McCain of trying to hide behind appeals to privacy. Ironic, given that ever since the Supreme Court found that very, very well hidden "right to privacy" for Roe v. Wade, the Left has been hiding behind appeals to privacy so much that there probably isn't any room to squeeze someone from the Right in.

Next up from the Weekly World News L.A. Times is this bloviating exercise in condescension from Sam Harris.

Since the Palin pick, McCain's detractors have all become actuaries at MetLife. We should worry, the argument goes, about Sarah Palin becoming president because John McCain is going to kick at any time, actuarially speaking, of course.

The guy's survived the Viet Cong and cancer but, "the pressures of the presidency" are going to kill him.

Hey, what do the actuarial tables say about African-American men who smoke?

Of course they don't go there because they're presumably on board with Biden stepping in. We've heard a lot of talk about Joe Biden being ready to be president these past few days. So ready, in fact, that voters in his own party have twice rejected him for the job.

The opening line from the Harris drivel is another gem of nothingness that indicates just how off-balance the McCain haters are since Sarah Palin knocked them backwards:

"So let us ask the question that should be on the mind of every thinking person in the world at this moment: If John McCain becomes the 44th president of the United States, what are the odds that a blood clot or falling object will make Sarah Palin the 45th?"

Naturally, as "every thinking person in the world" is aware, falling objects are sentient beings that tend to seek out the older among us.

On to the real condescension:

"Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority."

Whoa...sounds like someone does a lot of shopping at elitistprick.com!

"Unhealthy"? More desperate flailing. "Average"? Harris must have gone to one of those schools where all the kids grow up to be state governors.

Explain to me how holding one of only fifty available jobs in a country of over three hundred million is average.

Allow me to speak on Mr. Harris's behalf:

"Well, you know, it's a western state...not as many people...blah, blah, blah. Screw it, I just hate Republicans!"

The Marxist Line Dance Society at the New York Times has its daily Palin hit piece out in the Opinion page. It's a mild one today when compared to Maureen Dowd throwing up all over herself yesterday. Thomas Friedman talks about the green angle to this election and the McCain/Palin ticket being nothing but shills for Big Oil. The first lefty in days to actually talk about Palin and issues and the whole piece is so limp you can almost hear the "Viva, Viagra!" commercial playing in the background.

To the chagrin of all on the Left, Sarah Palin will be speaking at the convention tonight. Many pundits say she has to hit one out of the park tonight.

Even more of us say she already has.

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards Blames his own Celebrity

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The John Edwards "affair," and his own words should give pause to every voter, not for the obvious reasons, but because he is such a weasel at heart.

...through a lot of work and success I got some acclaim as a lawyer. People were telling me, oh you're such a great person, such a great lawyer, such a talent, no telling what you'll do.

This was when I was 30, 31 years old. Then I went from being a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate, all of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissicism that leads you to believe you can do anything you want, you are invincible and there will be no consequences.

Blaming your public fall from grace on your ability to shill your followers is disingenuous and despicable.

The lesson for voters? Pompous and grandiose candidates are rejected by American voters, as was John Edwards, John Kerry and Al Gore.

Barack Obama will find that he is the not the One We Have Been Waiting For.

Sphere: Related Content

Obamas: Confusing Christmas with a "Seasonal" Event

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

H/T to The Obama Nation

The Obamas, in an unnamed magazine interview, agree that Santa Claus and "seasonal gifts," are appropriate, BUT Christmas gifts are not.

The Telegraph UK

In a magazine interview Obama and his wife Michelle revealed that one of their steadfast house rules is not giving Christmas or birthday presents to Malia, 10, and Sasha, seven.

The couple explained that they spend "hundreds" on birthday slumber parties and want to "teach some limits". Santa Claus is still permitted to deliver seasonal gifts however.

I was impressed until I got to that last sentence. I concede that Christmas gifts get out-of-hand, and the meaning of Christmas can be lost in the material wealth on December 25th.

But if Santa is allowed to come and leave "seasonal gifts" on the traditional day of Christ's birth, in a Christian home - them I confused.

Other cultures and religions have celebratory events at about the same time as our Christmas. Some celebrate with traditional Christmas icons such as Christmas trees, Christmas stockings, gifts, - even though they are not Christian. But the Obamas do not adhere to other cultures or other religions, do they?

This glimpse into the Obama's home life, on the most sacred day of the year, other than Resurrection Day, for a Christian, is one more reason to doubt his commitment to Judeo-Christian values. And yes, I know that I do not know what is in a person's heart. Nevertheless...

Christmas is not a "seasonal" event.

Sphere: Related Content

Controversy Settled In Germany Over Where Barack Obama Will Speak

Cross Posted From Wake up America

(The Victory Column)
Today a column came out in Washington Post from Charles Krauthammer discussing Barack Obama's intention to speak at the Brandenburg Gate and calling that intent the "Audacity of Vanity".

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

He goes to explain why he feels that Obama has an "elevated" opinion of himself.

Read the whole thing...

That type of criticism has been heard around the conservative blogosphere and Obama's intention of trying to use the Brandenburg Gate for his planned speech, also caused quite a stir in Germany.

But.....

What became a controversy within Germany over Barack Obama's desire to speak at the historical site of Brandenburg Gate, has been resolved and the location of his speech will be the Victory Column instead.

The Victory Column at Grosser Stern in Germany is second most well-known landmark of Berlin, with the Brandenburg Gate being the most well known.

It was announced weeks ago that Barack Obama planned to give a speech in Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate, which became a hot button topic in Germany with conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel criticizing the proposal and the Social-Democratic vice chancellor and foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, speaking out in favor of it.

The official statement from Merkel's office, via her spokesperson Thomas Steg, regarding using such a historical site being used as a way to pull a potent symbol of German division and reunification into the American elections, was, "To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans."

As the Germans fought this issue out within Germany and it became apparent that it was becoming highly controversial, Obama's campaign weighed in, via his spokesperson Bill Burtonm saying, "Senator Obama looks forward to his visit to Germany and his opportunity to meet with the chancellor. He has considered several sites for a possible speech, and he will choose one that makes the most sense for him and his German hosts."

The internal German struggle continued and as a result a compromise has been reached, where Barack Obama will speak at The Victory Column instead with the Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop.

The Brandenburg Gate is the spot where Ronald Reagan gave the speech where he told Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall", and John F. Kennedy visited the landmark site in the 1960s.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Global Poverty Act - Here's the Evil in S.2433

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The issues are staggering, and while we might be compelled to believe that these things can never happen to America, read the following and see if you still feel, in today's devious world political climate that these evils cannot surmount our freedoms.

Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act will undoubtedly cost the U.S. billions in new monies for foreign aid, but that' not the most important issue.

All text in red and all bold text is Maggie's emphasis.

Is Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act (Senate Bill 2433) tied to the United Nations, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) or the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) in anyway?

Yes. S.2433, the language of the Bill says: "A bill to REQUIRE the President to develop and IMPLEMENT," "the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal." Senator Obama's S.2433 cannot be separated from the U.N. Millennium Development Goal.

Who implements S.2433 after the President "creates" a plan?
The Secretary of State, Condoleesa Rice, her appointees with Congressional oversight by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.

What do we know about the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)?
Follow the links and be prepared for sudden nausea.

Does the United Nations Accept the Rule of Law?

The UN's Gravy Train to Iran

Ros-Lehtinen Statement on UNICEF Ties to Saudi Extremist-Linked Charity

Report Shows U.N. Development Program Violated U.N. Law, Routinely Passed on Millions to North Korean Regime

The UN Corrupting Itself - A Chavez Connection

Does S.2433 require a specific strategy (some believe that it does not)?
The Bill says that we [the U.S.] will IMPLEMENT the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal? Can it be any clearer?

Does The Global Poverty Act subjugate the United States to the will of the United Nations?
Yes, and it does so through the United Nations' Millennium Development Goal. It is important to remember that the MDG is a U.N. program.

The following is the proof that the MDG is a "tax on the world" levied by the United Nations. The text addresses only the requirements to be placed upon the U.S. and other countries, it leaves out most of the goal of eradicating poverty and disease, and focuses on how that eradication will be accomplished. Text taken directly from the U.N. General Assembly Millennium Forum.

The Forum (urges, advocates, calls upon or insists): The United Nations

To introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication.

Here's a tax on international finances! Who are transnational companies?

To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty, to be drafted in effective consultation and partnership with people living in poverty themselves.

To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means, the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament to be discussed in a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.

Someone, I think Orwell, said War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil. The U.N. plans for globalism, with the U.N. at the head of the snake, to abolish war. They think they are God.

To respect national sovereignty and the prohibition of the use of force, which are fundamental in the Charter of the United Nations. This principle must not be undermined. In the solution of conflicts, all peaceful methods in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Charter must be tried before measures of force are undertaken in accordance with Chapter 7. The General Assembly should set up a broad commission to analyse standards for forceful action in cases where crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide are committed.

1) The U.N.'s "prohibition" of force is not to be undermined.
2) How does a global principle protect anyone's sovereignty?
3) "Peaceful method" means un-acted upon Resolutions - we have painful historical reminders. .

To expand the United Nations arms register in order to show the production and sale of small arms and light weapons. It should include specific names of their producers and traders.

Our Second Amendment rights monitored by the United Nations.

Together with nearly all Governments that participated in the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, Forum participants consider that unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defence by any country could have dangerously destabilizing effects and create pressures to permanently retain high levels of nuclear weapons or even to increase existing levels. The deployment of theatre missile defences in Asia or other regions could have serious regional destabilizing effects. Such plans should be relinquished in favour of a worldwide missile launch warning system and a conference to review methods of ending production of long-range surface-to-surface missiles and long-range bombers

To establish a commission at the United Nations to devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that create new imbalances in global power relationships. The Conference on Disarmament should also establish a working group on this subject.

The U.S. met their non-proliferation goals five years early, while the U.N. was enabling Iran to grow its nuclear program.

1) No long-range bombers for the U.S.
2) No surface-to-surface missiles for the U.S.
3) No missile defense for the U.S.
4) No new technological development
5) No more power to protect our nation

To initiate a worldwide freeze on armed forces and a 25 per cent cut in production and export of major weapons and small arms, and to that end to adopt an international code of conduct on arms exports, as the beginning of worldwide build-down of conventional forces.

That's a "worldwide freeze" on armed forces - on our Marines, our Army, our Navy, our Reserves, our Coast Guard! AND an international "code of conduct" to implement a "build-down" of conventional forces.

To increase their efforts to promote and to comply with international humanitarian laws, limiting the methods and means of war and protecting non-combatants, civilian populations and humanitarian personnel.

The international community civil society, Governments and the United Nations has a responsibility to stop promptly any genocide, war crimes or any massive violations of human rights. All those involved should seek to avoid any confusion between humanitarian help and military intervention.

Internationalism governs. Sovereignty is abolished. The United Nations Security Council reigns. Islam is implemented throughout the world.

If you are not familiar with the U.N. Security Council, here are some informative links:

Arabs Seek to "Halt" UN Security Council Meetings

The UN Security Council Takes Action Against Terrorism

Iran's 25-Year Atomic Program and the UN Failure to Launch

Rape in War: Will the United Nations Walk its Talk?

For everything you need on the U.N. Security Council go to:
Eye on the UN and UN Watch.

Globalization needs defining....it is transforming our world into a global village...We, of all ages, in particular our future generation the youth claim a space for that transnational civil society that even now is rising on the world scene with unprecedented ties, networking, exchanges and common action among peoples, groups, communities and organizations.

The youth of the world will "claim a space" for "that transnational civil society" in the world's "global village..." Where might that "space" be? Do the people in that "space" have a say about the youth's claims? Again, for emphasis: a transnational civil society

To develop a legally binding framework for regulating the actions of transnational corporations (TNCs), respecting the international labour, human rights, and sustainable environmental standards set by the United Nations and its relevant specialized agencies. The regulatory mechanism should include the active participation of workers and communities directly affected by TNC operations in order to prevent abuses and to subordinate TNCs to democratic civil authority and community-based modelling of socio-economic systems.

As I look around the web, I find no list of the evil-doing transnational corporations. If the U.N. plans to "subordinate" the transnationals to "civil authority" and "community-based modelling," we need to know who the culprits are. Could Google be on the list? Nah. Halliburton? I think so. "Big Oil" - oh yeah, but only careful "subordination" here, because the world needs "Big Oil" tax money, as well as its investment in exploration and drilling. Oh...there's always "nationalizing" the world's oil fields. The Islamic countries know how to drill for oil. They rule the U.N. Very convenient - but this is only a guess.

To examine and regulate transnational corporations and the increasingly negative influence of their trade on the environment. The attempt by companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable.

What does this mean, and who is patenting the life of others?

To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision.

The vision: The U.N. controlling a global economy - to serve the U.N.'s vision

How is a democracy defined within the hallowed halls of the U.N.? You and I don't have a clue but we know such democracies will be "subordinated" to the U.N.'s "civil society"

To develop migration policies, both emigration and immigration, in conformity with human rights standards, particularly to respect the global principle of freedom of circulation for all.

This is terrifying, really. The goal is to remove the sovereignty of our borders. We need to get up each morning with the idea of the U.N.'s "global principle of freedom of circulation" vision, think about it again at noon, and let it be the last thing we think about before sleep, because surely we will offer up a prayer to the Almighty that our leaders will repel this disgusting organization.

To make serious commitments to restructure the global financial architecture based on principles of equity, transparency, accountability and democracy, and to balance, with the participation of civil society organizations, the monetary means to favour human endeavour and ecology, such as an alternative time-based currency.

Restructuring the global financial architecture? Alternative time-based currency?

Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax,...which could also help to reduce currency speculation, and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.

Here's the tax on currency transfers and land. When has the MSM reported this. When has Barack Obama spoken of this?

Stop imposing economic sanctions, which deprive people of their basic economic, social and environmental rights and which make their struggle for survival, as well as for civil and political rights, more difficult.

We can make the case that sanctions are worthless, as it is the U.N. which strengthens them. Iraq and Saddam Hussein comes immediately to mind, especially the Oil-for-Food Program. Then and now, there's Iran. How does the U.N., always wanting diplomatic solutions to prevail, propose that we deal with tyranny ?

To fully incorporate women into leadership at every level and gender perspectives into all its operations; to hold Governments accountable for their obligations to promote and protect the human rights of women and girls; and to act as monitors of the implementation of commitments to end discrimination and violence against women and girls.

When it comes to Women's Rights, (or human rights for that matter) the worst offenders are Muslim countries. It's all is a matter of "degree," isn't it? I notice at the Millennium Development Goal monitoring sites, some Arab countries have shown some degree of improvement. What does that mean? How has it changed the life of women under the control of Islam and their Islamic male dominaters? The free world will finance achieving this goal? Think again.

To establish a global habitat conservation fund to purchase comprehensive protection of threatened, critical ecological habitat worldwide. The fund should accrue revenues from a nominal (0.5 -1.0 per cent) royalty on worldwide fossil energy production oil, natural gas, coal, collecting at least $5 billion to $10 billion annually.

Here's the tax on fossil fuels that is continually denied.

End of text from Millennium Forum.

A tax on fossil fuels, land, currencies, etc.? Investor's Business Daily didn't make it up, Lee Cary at American Thinker didn't make it up.

You can "monitor" the Millennium goals by country beginning here, although you won't learn much. Most of what we want and need to know falls into the "Insufficient Information" category.

I reject the U.N. and everything it stands for, because everything it stands for is against the best interests of Americans and freedom anywhere, and usually is intent on feathering the nests of a U.N. diplomat and a cozy relationship with the worst of the terrorizing scums on the face of the earth.

There are 21 co-sponsors of S.2433:

• Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL]
• and 21 Co-Sponsors
  • Sen. Joseph Biden [D, DE]
  • Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
  • Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA]
  • Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
  • Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]
  • Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA]
  • Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
  • Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, CT]
  • Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL]
  • Sen. Russell Feingold [D, WI]
  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
  • Sen. Charles Hagel [R, NE]
  • Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
  • Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD]
  • Sen. John Kerry [D, MA]
  • Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]
  • Sen. Robert Menendez [D, NJ]
  • Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
  • Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
  • Sen. Gordon Smith [R, OR]
  • Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]

The usual RHINO's support this traitorous Bill: Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Olympia Snowe. Gordon Smith (R-OR) is also a co-sponsor and I do not have much information on him. He's from Oregon, so...

Related: Obama's Senate Bill S.2433 - A UN Global Tax on the U.S.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Rationalizes Wright's Rhetoric

Cross posted from Wake up America

The recent firestorm that ensued after certain comments were published from Pastor Jeremiah Wright, (video found here) who is Barack Obama's pastor and has been for 20 years, forced Barack Obama to step up and give a speech today to supporters at Philadelphia's National Constitution Center.

The full text of the speech can be found here.

Obama's speech will, of course, be seen differently from a variety of people, die hard Obama supporters will see that he denounced specific comments made by his Pastor, moderates and independents might be left with some additional questions about his rationalizations almost excusing the more controversial aspects of the Pastor's "God Damn America" rantings, and the Republicans and conservatives will have definite ammunition to use against Obama if he ends up being the Democratic nominee of choice to run for presidency of the United States.

What his supporters will take to heart regarding the specific controversial remarks.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.

[...]

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

The rationalization that might give moderates and independents pause..

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

The portion that will give conservatives talking points against Obama.

For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

The take aways from these portions of the speech, for Obama supporters will be that he did denounce specific comments.

Moderates and independents, who have only seen those snippets of Wright's speeches and do not know Wright separate from what has been plastered in every newspaper and throughout the world wide web, over the last week, will see Obama rationalizing and excusing Wright's behavior and words.

Conservatives will see that Obama admits to having heard divisive and controversial comments and political views he claims are not representative of his own views and yet he continued to have a close association with him, even stating in this speech, "As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children."

The question that remains is, did Obama go far enough in this speech to stop the damage that has been recently reported where 56 perecent said that Wright's comments, "made them less likely to vote for Obama."

If conservatives were the ones polled there, that figure would not matter much at all because conservatives would not be voting for Obama in the general election anyway.... but 44 percent of Democratic voters were included in that figure.

Since 66 percent said they have seen, read of heard about Wright's comments, the takeaways from this speech of Obama's will be significant in scope, and time will tell if he went far enough in denouncing Wright or if the rationalizations will continue to damage him in the polls.

A very curious theme is developing in the blogosphere from those talking about this speech from Barack Obama.

All sides of the issue are happy with his speech, for different reasons.


Obama supporters are happy he denounced the specific Wright's comments and philosophy, Clinton supporters are happy that he rationalized and excused the man while only denouncing the rhetoric, giving them the opportunity to accuse him of "tap dancing", and McCain supporters are happy because they feel he opened himself up for criticism by trying to distance himself in a non distancing way and giving a "non-apology apology".

After reading the whole speech, do you think Obama went far enough in denouncing just the comments but not the man?

All Miss Beth's Barack Obama posts can be found on one page here.
.

Sphere: Related Content

The Release of Barack Obama's 2005-06 Earmark Requests Brings up Questions

Cross posted from Wake up America

Barack Obama has released his earmarked federal spending requests for 2005 and 2006 having previously released his requests for 2007. In the recent release there are specific requests that are being questioned in the media today.

In the midst of all three presidential candidates, Clinton, Obama and McCain, backing a proposal in the Senate to ban all earmarks for one year, an amendment to the Senate's 2009 budget act, which the Senate rejected with a vote of 29-71, Barack Obama has released his list of requested earmarks for 2005-06, then calling on Hillary Clinton to release a list of hers.

The Senate roll call on that vote found here.

"Earmarking" is the word used for a provision in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Usually, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

John McCain has long been known to be a vocal critic of earmarks and has refused to request spending for projects in his home state of Arizona. McCain recently challenged both of his Democratic rivals to reveal their earmarks for transparency.

Hillary Clinton ranked 10th highest in the list of Senators, for her $342 million worth of earmarks last year and has not released the details of her requests for 2007.

Barack Obama secured $98 million for Illinois projects for the fiscal year of 2008, but his requests totaled $311 million, according to the list he has just released.

Furthermore, according to information released Thursday by Obama, he had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.

His total requested funding was about $330 million.

One of those earmarks is being questioned. The earmark is listed as being for a "High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program".

Obama Requested $8 Million And Helped Secure $1.3 Million For The High Explosive Air Burst Technology Program. In 2006, Obama requested $8 million and helped secure $1.3 million for High Explosive Air Burst Technology funding. Through General Dynamics, this project supported the 25mm Bushmaster cannon, the primary weapon on the Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) and the US Marines’ Light Armor Vehicle (LAV). Under contract for System Design and Demonstration (SDD), GD-OTS is developing a Family of Ammunition for the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) to include a High Explosive Air Burst (HEAB) round. This program will upgrade the capability of the current forces BFV and LAV. Additional funding for the 25mm HEAB for the SFV and LAV will ensure this program will run effectively during its planned service until 2051. [House Report 109-676 (109th Congress); Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 2006]

That request resulted in $1.3 million in funding for the program, which was a defense project that was overseen by General Dynamics, one of the nation's largest military contractors. Obama's Illinois finance chairman, James S. Crown, serves on the company's board of directors and his family holds a large stake in the company.

Crown and his wife, Paula Crown, are members of Obama's National Finance Committee and have raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign, according to a list of fundraisers posted on Obama's campaign website.

Another one of the earmarks on the lists of requests was for the Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago, where Michelle Obama works:

Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago. UCH is one of the largest Medicaid providers in Illinois, and it provided more than $90 million in uncompensated care for Medicare and Medicaid patients this past year. To continue providing the best care for patients from all walks of life, UCH is proceeding with the construction of a new 600,000 square foot facility that will ensure their ability to provide the best care for patients well into the future. Funding will go towards assisting the construction and equipping a new hospital pavilion that will increase the Hospitals' clinical capacity by over one-third. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

The reason the media is questioning that particular earmark is because of what could be considered a conflict of interest.

His wife, Michelle Obama, has worked for the University of Chicago Hospitals since 2002, at the time she was executive director of community affairs, making a salary of, according to the CNN Money, $121,910. That salary rose to $316,962 in 2005 as she became vice president of community affairs, right after Barack Obama became the Senator for Illinois.

The Obama campaign says that neither of those earmarks were discussed with Michelle Obama or James S. Crown.

The complete list of requested earmarks for Barack Obama can be found here.

Aides to the Obama campaign say he will not be requesting any earmarks this year.

Now that Obama has released this list for public scrutiny, he is joining McCain is challenging Hillary Clinton to release her requested earmarks, in a release from the Obama Campign that says, "If Sen. Clinton will not agree to join Sen. Obama in releasing her earmark requests, voters should ask why she doesn't believe they have the right to know [how] she wants to spend their tax dollars."

H/T Talk Left and the Campaign Spot.

NYT is also discussing Obama calling for Hillary to release her requested earmarks.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama’s Dilemma and Our Potential Tragedy

Cross posted from Faultline USA and WUA.

Unless Obama is willing to come clean with America about his actual racial views and to explain how he could follow the teachings of a racist pastor for over twenty years, Obama will lose the Presidency and set back race relations in America for many years to come.

It’s not enough for Obama to play down Rev. Wright’s approach, or to describe Wright as “an old uncle I sometimes don’t agree with.” Obama must disavow his pastor and his racist church. Obama must explain to America how he plans to unite America while maintaining membership in a racist church that teaches hatred of America!!! (For more details on his church see the sidebar under Obama Revealed.)

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

These are the words of Obama’s pastor, who just retired this last month, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright is Obama’s mentor and the inspiration for Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope. ABC broke the story Thursday. “Good Morning America" aired this Brian Ross report on Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright.



It would appear that Obama makes no bold political moves without first checking with Wright. This is from a January 2007 Chicago Tribune profile of Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

“When Obama sought his own church community, he felt increasingly at home at Trinity. Before leaving for Harvard Law School in 1988, he responded to one of Wright's altar calls and declared a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Later he would base his 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention on a Wright sermon called "Audacity to Hope," --also the inspiration for Obama's second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."

Though Wright and Obama do not often talk one-on-one often, the senator does check with his pastor before making any bold political moves.

Last fall, Obama approached Wright to broach the possibility of running for president. Wright cautioned Obama not to let politics change him, but he also encouraged Obama, win or lose. . .”

Digg It!!!

Vote for this article at RealClearPolitics

Vote for this article at GOP HUB

Sphere: Related Content

You BET I'm Prejudiced--ESPECIALLY Against the Cult of Barack Hussein Obama!

Lately, I've been called a lot of things--racist, war monger, hater--you know the routine. I've also been consigned to hell and asked if I'm so angry because I've never had a boyfriend (which is hilarious considering I have three children and four grandchildren). But then, what do expect from brain dead lefties and moonbats who can't formulate coherent thoughts?

What could possibly cause this kind of teenage angst?

I have dared to criticize Barack Hussein Obama. I have dared to ask for clarification on several issues, not least of which is his allegiance to this country and its citizens, particularly in light of his disgraceful and disrespectful conduct regarding our most beloved symbol, our flag.

I have asked for clarification on his position on islam, particularly in light of the fact he was born muslim. For those who don't know, islam is a once in, never out religion. Because his abusive mother chose to conceive him by a muslim, he is muslim. That is the tenet stated in the koran. He had no choice in it; he has no choice now. He is muslim. He can proclaim he's Christian all he wants (which by the way marks him as apostate/infidel in islam and is now a marked man)--yet he belongs to a black supremacist Church currently under IRS investigation for mixing politics and religion. It is a completely afro-centric church which gives its allegiance to Africa first. It honors such muslims as Louis Farrakhan. It is not all inclusive of those who wish to join--you have to be black and be centered on Africa first. It's as Christian a "church" as the Westboro Baptist Church--just the black version. Goes back to his allegiance to America. And, he can still pray the muslim prayers and thinks they're beautiful. Here's a blurb from the 2007 interview with Nicholas Kristof (hat tip Stop the ACLU!):

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Here's what the call to prayer means:

“Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Hasten to the Prayer, hasten to the Prayer. Hasten to real success, hasten to real success. Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. There is none worthy of worship but Allah.”

Interestingly, there is an accompanying picture of Barack Hussein Obama with his Kenyan grandmother Sarah Hussein Obama at that link as well. What's so interesting is the picture is labeled as being Madelyn Dunham--his WHITE grandmother.

I have questioned his position regarding American sovereignty. This is in light of his co-sponsorship of HR 1302 and HR 3605, in which he pushes for globalisation to further weaken America.

I have dared to question his ongoing relationship with two people of the Weather Underground, William Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn. Barack Hussein Obama--as an attorney--is an officer of the court and he is friends with known criminals. The only reason these bombers (proud, unrepentant, no-remorse bombers at that) aren't in prison is there was a legal, FBI technicality. The fact Ayers and Dorhn are now university professors does not excuse the fact they are domestic terrorists, admittedly so, and Barack Hussein Obama has long-standing ties with them.

I question his childish idea of foreign policy. Any person with any portion of a brain knows al Qaida is in Iraq and has been since at least 1993. It has been shown through several sources, but of course most prominently through documents obtained in Tikrit and translated appropriately. Yet not only does this person seem to think al Qaida ISN'T in Iraq, he further believes deploying troops in and out at his whim is much like packing for a picnic and not the logistical nightmare it is. Further, he thinks John McCain invaded Iraq. If the "original OIF was wrong" according to him, why would a return trip to theater be right later? Other than this ridiculous idea of foreign policy (and let's not forget he wants to bomb allies), what is his stance on terrorism and the islam horde proclaiming a worldwide caliphate at all costs?

Hillary would answer the red phone, McCain would actually act on the urgency--Barack Hussein Obama would probably let the machine get it, roll over and go back to sleep.

He wants to talk to despots and tyrants. He thinks they're all into his huggy, touchy feeling idea of diplomacy. They are not. Ahmadinejad hangs gays. Fidel Castro populated a good chunk of south Florida with his policies. Vladimir Putin will eat Barack Hussein Obama for lunch--and smile picking his teeth with the leftover bones. He hasn't bothered to keep up to date on what's going on with NATO because he's been too busy running his campaign (during his one year term as chairman on the European Affairs subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). Yet he castigates NATO when he has no idea of the current issues.

I'm prejudiced against those who hate our military and have decided they know more about how to fight a war than those actually in theater. Those who side with MoveOn.org in treasonous ads such as the Betrayus ad (and Barack Hussein Obama did side with that ad).

He believes in taking all your money to give it to those who refuse to get off their lazy asses and get a job. In actuality, welfare needs to reform and tighten itself up, forcing the generational entitlement attitude into the realms of antiquity.

I get irritated when people try to take my guns away--the better to control the populace--in violation of my Second Amendment right. Such people, stripped of their rights to arms and using those arms as need be, are called slaves--to the government whim.

I become incensed when he wants to take my money and give it to illegals. I get incensed when he states he won't do anything to secure our borders (goes back to the sovereignty issue). I want the mandated fence built and if the government won't do it, it will be up to the citizens to do so.

I become completely enraged at someone who won't protect the rights of the unborn. Freedom of choice my ass, I'm sure the millions of aborted children would choose to live. Particularly those just days from being born, who are completely viable--yet he sees no problem with stabbing them at the base of the skull, widening the wound and sucking their brains out. It's called partial birth abortion and he's all for it. He LIKES killing babies in the name of choice--never mind he's allowing the destruction of yet another generation. And does he plan on using MY money to continue funding Planned Parenthood and other organizations of its ilk? Wonder what his stand on euthanasia is and how will he feel when his daughters feel he and his wife are too old to be productive and need to be put down?

So overall, yeah, I am prejudiced. Damned prejudiced at this fallacious empty suit who thinks he has enough experience to run this country when he doesn't have a clue, when he wants to sell the country down the river, who has a wife who speaks "Orwell" speak and has never been proud of the country she wants to co-rule over like Trailer Trash Hillary (and more of a racist than Barack Hussein Obama, just not as good at hiding it). And someone who didn't keep their word and at least complete one term as a senator.

He has voted "present" more than he's voted yeah or nay--what the hell kind of record is that? Honorable? No. Chickenshit and indecisive, ball-less, yellow bellied and brainless. I am prejudiced against black supremacists who pull the racist card at the drop of a hat and declare parts of their lives off limits while attacking anyone and everyone who dares disagree with him.

How about all the times he's actually voted but then said he pushed the "wrong" button--if he's pushing the "wrong" button in session, who's to say he'll be capable of pushing the "right" button when necessary? He and I were born the same year and I know I'm already in bi-focals--maybe he needs his eyes checked to make sure he's pushing the "right" button in his senatorial votes? After all, we know HE'S got the best health care, right?

I'm prejudiced against someone who speaks well and thinks he's the messiah (watch his body language), someone who has fashioned himself as a cult leader and revels in the description. And I'm prejudiced against his camp whores and cult followers who don't have the brains or balls to do any serious questioning of him themselves, castigating those of us who do see through the smoke and mirrors. Guess they're too worried about losing their "hoped for changes" in their gu'mnt handouts. Hitler, Castro, Mao, Stalin, Kruschev--they were all gifted speakers as well. The world is still recovering from their "charisma" and "soaring oratory".

After all, freebies at the taxpayer expense is what he's promising. Who do you think is going to pay for his largesse? How about all the pork? Only one place to get it and that's taxpayers, people. You and me. Well--you if you're working. I know I'm working. But then if you're not a taxpayer, you're the one benefitting from my work, aren't you?

Barack Hussein Obama is a racist of the worst kind--and so is his wife. They hide behind they're pretty rhetoric and don't have the courage to answer questions. They don't have the guts to answer honestly when caught in their lies or their missteps, verbal and otherwise (REZKO anyone?). They are not in the least bit trustworthy. They hate America and all it stands for. Where is their condemnation of Code Pink and the Berkley issue if they're so patriotic? Don't they have the guts to do something different, to separate themselves from the pack of moonbats, and condemn those who protest the very people who fight for them? No, they don't--they side with Code Pink (the SAME Code Pink by the way who called for MARINE help while they were protesting the Marines!).

I'm prejudiced against racists, socialists, communists, those who undermine our country, those who want to deviate completely from our constitution and bill of rights. I'm prejudiced against idiots who can't read, who bury their heads in the sand, who can't address a post, who have no concept of asking a substantive question and who are just plain stupid and aren't afraid to let their rampant stupidity show.

Damn right I'm prejudiced. And feel free to send this post to Barack Hussein Obama (since others have been sent to him). I do still have a First Amendment right to free speech--at least until the socialists try to get the Fairness Doctrine enacted again to shut up their critics.

Also posted at Digg! here; GOP Hub here and Real Clear Politics here.

Sphere: Related Content

When Will the Cult of Barack Hussein Obama Start Answering Questions?

There has been quite a tempest in a teapot lately over the use of Barack Hussein Obama's middle name. You see, it's quite alright to use a white candidate/white president's middle name throughout history. Apparently, it's "racist" to use the arab-muslim's middle name. What do I mean by that?

How many out there have heard of "FDR"? How about "JFK"? "LBJ"? "RWR"? "WJC"? "GWB"?

How about "Franklin Delano Roosevelt"? "Dwight David Eisenhower?" "John Fitzgerald Kennedy"? "Lyndon Baines Johnson"? "Richard Milhouse Nixon"? "James Earl Carter"? "Ronald Wilson Reagan"? "George Herbert Walker Bush"? "William Jefferson Clinton"?

How about "HRC"? "Hillary Rodham Clinton"?

All white--and all known by their full name. So, what's the big deal with Barack Hussein Obama? Here's the catch--the only reason the left wants to make a big deal out of it is because it reveals something they don't want people to question--his muslim ties. It could all be handled so simply if he just said, "hey, my father gave me his name and there's not a lot I can do about it". But he doesn't, does he? He allows people to play the racism card for him, doesn't he?

Why doesn't he just step up to the plate and be a man?

Let's ask another question. Why do we hear so much about his arab family, see all kinds of pictures of him in his muslim garb, generally being so proud of his arab family--and we hear very little about the white half of his family? Particularly the white grandmother who made his college dream possible? Is he ashamed of them? I guess so--his mother, his white mother--was a complete and total flake from all reports. While the left would have you believe she was "ahead of her time" as far as being a whacked out hippy goes, the stark reality was she was an abusive mother. She provided no stability for her children, she modeled no love for a country who had treated her and her family well, she shacked up with not one but two muslims (admittedly she married them)--the first abandoning her for his fly-ridden country in pursuit of a government position. That's not what a good parent does--that's what an abusive parent does and models. But then, to the left, this is considered good parenting.

No, we don't hear about his white family, do we?

Just how did his white grandmother afford an Ivy League education for him? How many jobs did she have to work, how much did she sacrifice so he could have that vaunted mind twist, the mind twist that he's entitled to do whatever he wants because he's black and he's entitled?

How about his ties to the Weather Underground--ties he maintains to this day with confessed, unrepentant, non-remorseful bombers. The only reason they weren't prosecuted was because of a legal technicality. At the very least, as an officer of the court, this association is highly suspicious.

Who is funding his campaign? What groups are behind his money? Hmmm...the Muslim Legal Defense fund for one. A British-Iraqi banker (Rezko) for another. But he has no muslim ties, right?

Why did his cousin Odinga call Barack Hussein Obama for help/counsel during the recent Kenya crisis? Just what did he hope to accomplish in calling a freshman senator? What strings did he think that freshman senator could pull for him? Common sense would say none, relative or not. and yet, he was given permission by the State Department to call his cousin regarding the upheaval. Why? What is the connection? Again, common sense states it should be just a familial thing, but it quite obviously is not.

Why is Barack Hussein Obama so ignorant on the Iraq situation? The man is ignorant about the al Qaida presence in Iraq and seems to think John McCain invaded. He has no clue about the actual situation, wanting to withdraw troops from what he calls a failure only to state he would send them back into [another] failure if the situation were proven to be what we have been saying it actually is all along. He certainly has no clue as to the logistics of such a feat.

Why is it a requirement of the left to continue to blame others for your actions? In several of his speeches Barack Hussein Obama has misquoted people, using third hand information, regarding ammunition and troop equipment. He blames the lack of equipment on the president, completely discounting his hand in refusing funding for the troops. He's proud to continue to vote against the troops and what they need--but when he's shown the results of his actions it is no longer his and his fellow congress critters' fault--it's the president's. What reality is he living in?

Oh yeah--entitlement, take no responsibility for your actions fantasy land.

If Barack Hussein Obama wants people to think of him as a Christian instead of an apostate muslim, why doesn't he do more to distance himself from a muslim friendly, black supremacist church who proudly endorses Louis Farrakhan? Why doesn't he distance himself from Farrakhan instead of grudginly--after much stammering and stuttering--accepting his endorsement? Why doesn't he distance himself from his days of going to the mosque with his father and step-father and his madrassas education?

Just what is his stand on islam? Well, maybe this quote from his book, "Audacity of Hope", will give you a clue (HT Debbie at Right Truth here):

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Debbie's entire article is well worth the read.

She also quotes David at The Strategic Failure regarding Barack Hussein Obama:

We are the ones we have been waiting for.
--Barack Obama

and:

For these reasons, Barack Obama is a perfect symbol of Chicago. Arrogant and motivated, he is a natural self-promoter. A practicing Christian, he bears a Muslim name. Identifying himself as an African-American, Obama is the offspring of a man from Kenya and a woman from Kansas. A self-proclaimed son of Chicago, he attended school overseas and spent most of his childhood in Hawaii, the last state, the state that doesn't appear on most maps. Obama, like Chicago, is from everywhere, and he is from nowhere. And he promises great, ambiguous things: change, hope, unity. His critics call him messianic, and there is no doubt that he is peddling his own religion. Five days before the Texas and Ohio primaries, the questions about Obama do not concern his intelligence, his judgment, his oratory, or his political acumen. No, the questions are more basic: Who is he? Where did he come from? What does he believe in? What does he want?

Another excellent article and well worth the read.

Ultimately, these questions need to be asked and investigated thoroughly. Barack Hussein Obama needs to step up to the plate and state unequivocally what his stand is on islam, why he ignores his white family and clings to his arab-muslim family, how does that family feel about his apostasy to islam, why he's chosen to belong to a black supremacist church who welcomes dual faith--both muslim and Christian, as has been documented elsewhere in the blogosphere (the quote below is here at Sons of Pigs and Apes):

IF I AM MUSLIM AND I BELIEVE IN PROPHET MOHAMMED, PEACE BE UPON HIM AND I ALSO BELIEVE IN JESUS, PEACE BE UPON HIM, DO I HAVE TO GIVE UP MY ISLAMIC FAITH TO BE A MEMBER IN YOUR CHURCH?" SHE ANSWERED, "NO. WE HAVE MANY MUSLIM MEMBERS IN OUR CHURCH." It is important to note that Muslims would not attend church.

He needs to outline how he rose from the child of a comfortably middle class white mother, abandoned by his power hungry black father, into the political persona he is today. You would think as long as he and his wife are clinging to the racism card they would be proud to outline their rise to power, as an inspiration to others. I have to question why we don't.

He as to answer why he flaunts his allegiance to his arab-muslim ties while ignoring his white family.

He needs to put meat on the bones of his "hope and change" rhetoric.

He also needs to quit believing in partial birth abortion on demand, big government, how he's going to fund all his socialistic plans, etc.

In short, Barack Hussein Obama has some 'splainin to do. The question "is" when will he start answering questions instead of relying on empty rhetoric? There have been many messianic orators throughout history--unfortunately, charismatic oratory doesn't necessarily equal someone who is capable of doing the job. Or of doing it in a way beneficial to the populace (i.e., Fidel Castro, Evita Peron, Mao, Hitler, ad nauseum).

Sphere: Related Content

Cult of Barack Husssein Obama--The Blind Who Will Not See

A couple of days ago, I wrote a post [here] on making a choice between Hillary or Obama (if I were a demonrat and had to make that awful choice.) In that post, I published the picture below, which has made its way over the internet.


Now, those enthralled with the cult of Barack Hussein Obama (oops, using a person's given name is now politically incorrect--or at least in this case it is--TOO DAMNED BAD) were quick to denounce anyone who used this picture as racist and quick to defend his actions--it was political politeness, after all.

Let's forget for a while the child was sired by a Kenyan who drank himself to death (well, he wrapped his Mercedes around a pole) after failing as a "powerful" government mover and shaker and, of course, after he abandoned his infant son and wife.

Let's forget for a while Obama, Sr. was indeed muslim.

Let's also forget for a while Obama's first cousin is a Kenyan involved in the slaughter going on in Kenya (it seems Odinga doesn't care for democracy) and Obama became involved in this matter (although it must be said he had State Department permission to do so).

Let's also forget for awhile Obama's step-father was also muslim.

Let's forget Obama accompanied his step-father to the mosque and attended madrassas.

Let's forget his current "church" is based on an "Africa first" attitude and has Louis Farrakhan on hand. Oh and his "church" is now under an IRS investigation, as reported in this AP article here.

Let's forget Farrakhan has now endorsed Obama and Obama (after much stuttering and stammering) refused to distance himself from this particular extremist endorsement.



Let's not forget how he would endanger our national security by refusing to fight the terrorists. Apparently his ideological "soul" brothers.

After all, from his wife we hear "Orwell" speak and an extreme lack of pride in this country, even though she's led a charmed, blessed life. Take a good look at her pictures again--this woman is pissed at the world and she's not hiding it well at all. Take a good look into her eyes--those are the eyes of a seriously angry woman on the edge.



Now, from Sweetness and Light (where the original picture came from) we have another picture of Obama. However, this one isn't a political photo op or political politeness. This is an ordinary family picture. And once again, he is in full muslim regalia.



I don't buy something just because someone says it's so. I know many who proclaim themselves "Christian" who are some of the most hypocritical people in the world. But, I'm supposed to believe Barack Hussein Obama just because he says so? That's the practice of idiots. He may say one thing--but his actions and associations say quite another.

I'm not into following deceptive, lying, megalomaniac cult leaders and that is what Obama is.

Too bad there are so many sheep following him blindly, to the slaughter.

Sphere: Related Content

If I Had to Make a Choice...Hillary or Obama?

I hate to say it ladies and gents, but if I had to make a choice between Hillary or Obama, I'd probably choose Hillary. Better the devil you know....

We all know Barack Hussein Obama (don't give me crap about using his middle name--no one bitches about using Hillary RODHAM Clinton, do they now?) likes to talk about "hope" and "change". This week, we started to hear (from his wife) some of the "changes" he wants to make.



But first, of course, we had to hear her spout her hatred of America in her now famous quote, courtesy of the AP on February 20, 2008 here:

In Milwaukee on Monday, Michelle Obama said: "Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Of course, from the same source, we have Barack himself trying to backpedal and tell us what she REALLY "meant" (what IS the definition of "IS" again?):

Barack Obama, interviewed on WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas, expressed frustration that his wife's comments became political fodder.

"Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn't at all what she meant," Obama said.

"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America," he said. "Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

She's only "proud" now because she sees herself as the black version of Jackie Kennedy (a woman of far greater stature and class) when in fact she is nothing more than the black version of Hillary Clinton. That statement has nothing to do with color per se--it has everything to do with entitlement mentality and trailer trash actions.

Don't give me the racism crap--facts is facts. Another particular fact is both she and her husband have played the racism card for all it's worth, but we're not supposed to notice that.

A woman who ostensibly is eying the White House as her next address had damned well better be proud of this country and all it stands for and had better get over her "lack of pride" in it as well as her entitlement mentality damn quick. This is the internet babe--this isn't (to quote an old commercial) your father's news sources.

But wait--she went another step further a day or two later. We "right" thinking people are often accused of "Orwellian" actions and thoughts. However, any person with a brain knows when you are accused of something, most often the accuser is guilty of the actions he or she is accusing YOU of. Such is the case here, in another quote from Miss "I Can't Stand My Country" Michelle, (from The Campaign Spot at the National Review Online here):

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

and:

"You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged."

To further quote Jim Geraghty, same source above:

I'm sorry, nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President of the United States to demand anyone shed their cynicism. And I'm all for people pushing themselves to be better, but I don't think the President demanding it is the way to go about it.

And what if we kind of like our lives as usual? What about Americans' freedom to be uninvolved and uninformed?

and:

Ah. Apparently apathy will be criminalized, then?

Does anybody on the left side of the aisle find this rhetoric a little creepy? Isn't this describing an authoritarian presidency way beyond anything George W. Bush has done or proposed?

Do the powers of the presidency really encompass everything Michelle says Obama wants and plans to do? Based on this rhetoric, isn't he actually running for
messiah?

Who is truly "Orwellian"? Here's a hint--it's not the Republicans.

Let's look at the "faith" issue.



The MSM made mincemeat out of Romney's mormonism. Well, while I am uncomfortable with a lot of the tenets of mormonism, I would much rather have a mormon, someone with values, in the White House than a closet muslim AND a man who practices his particular brand of Christianity in a church based on racism against whites. In fact, a leading member happens to be Louis Farrakhan. The church believes in AFRICA first--NOT America. He and his family's membership in this church is immediately suspect BECAUSE of that allegiance. He's running for the AMERICAN presidency--not Africa's. He's running in a country PREDOMINANTLY white. So, he and his wife are going to throw all the whites under the bus? No, they haven't come out and said so--however, it does leave one wondering. WHERE does his allegiance lie? The church--Trinity United Church of Christ--can be found here.

This doesn't address his muslim ties, either. He can proclaim all he wants he isn't muslim. I don't buy it and I don't believe it. He has strong familial ties to the current upheaval in Kenya through his cousin Odinga. His father is tied to the upheaval as well. The issue plain is not settled nor has it been investigated properly.

I WILL make one clarification for the ignoramuses out there--there are many who continue to state Obama is the one who wouldn't swear into office on a Bible but chose to do so on the koran. This is false--it was Keith Ellison who insisted upon swearing into office on the koran. So those who think Obama exercised this inanity, get it right--it was Ellison.

Yeah, I went there.

So far, we have an America hating woman who has decided to be the black version of "Trailer Trash Hillary" although she would like to be "Camelot Jackie". And she hates America so much she has decided to engage in full "Orwell" speak, hoping there are enough out there she can snow, by apparently mandating thought control during her husband's messianic campaign and presidency. We have a man who refuses to be honest about his and his family's muslim ties and who the MSM has chosen to ignore faithwise because it's not "politically correct" to question either those ties or his connection to a racist church but it was fair game to go after a white mormon.

But wait Dick and Jane, there's more!

Now, we see a report of part of a speech made by Obama in which he quotes an alleged Army Captain (as if he spoke with this source himself--it turns out it was third hand information) who only wishes to speak on conditions of anonymity:

[...] You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon - supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment. And you know, the question is, on the critical issues that we face right now, who's going to show the judgment to lead? [...]

This quote comes from several sources, but I found it at A Newt One here. Granted, troops in theater often have to do without needed items--that's been a fact in every war this country has ever fought and is not exclusive to the Bush administration. Further, I don't think there has ever been an administration which has had to tolerate as much treason as this administration has had to tolerate. Obama speaks as if it's once again "all Bush's fault" when he seems to forget how much funding he and his fellow traitors refused the troops for necessary items. He definitely seems to forget he and his fellow traitors have done all they can to tie the hands of the president and imperil the troops. How convenient for him to forget.

Moving right along, let's look at some of Obama's friends and associates.

Jay at Stop the ACLU! has an excellent post here in which he describes Obama's associates--radical, liberal and revolutionary associates. These associates were members--along with Obama--of the Weather Underground. A quote from Jay's article:

Ayers and Dorhn are extremist radicals from the 1960's anti-war terrorist group the Weather Underground, and they are unrepentant in the bombings they were a part of. They disappeared in 1970 after a bomb designed to kill army officers in New Jersey accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse. They turned themselves over to authorities in 1980. While the Weather Underground claimed 25 bombings, these characters were never prosecuted.


Charges were dropped due to improper FBI surveillance.

Go read the full article.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are too many alarming things coming to light regarding this man and his wife. He truly is NOT what we need leading this country and I truly believe he would be much worse than Hillary. And I can't stand Hillary.

The question is, when is the left going to wake up? When are they going to start educating themselves into the reality of their anointed messiah? This man and his wife are dangerous. If anything, they're closer to prison cells than they should be to the White House.

He would endanger our country by refusing to acknowledge the enemy we face. He wants total control of your life and your thoughts. He has a rather shady past, a past which has (one way or another) formed his sympathy towards terrorists and extremists (the home grown kind). His wife hates America. He stands for racism of the worst sort.

Truly--wake up America. Come out of the drug induced haze and stupor and see where your idiocy is taking you. Oh, and my choice is NEITHER Hillary nor Obama--I'm voting a REAL American--John McCain.

Sphere: Related Content