Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

HYPE: The Obama Effect

I saw this adv for “HYPE: The Obama Effect” while watching Fox News this morning.

The trailer is even more compelling. I really hope that this movie will help unmask the left’s newest messiah and reveal the fact that once you get past all they rhetoric of “Hope and Change” Barak Obama is nothing more than a Jimmy Carter liberal in a shiny new package.

Obama changes mind on the surge: It ain’t so bad!

Let the flip-floping continue! Below is an article fromt he New York Daily News noting that the Obama Campaign unceremoniously removed all criticizm of the the surge from their website.

I don’t know that this represents a change of opinion. But more a change of tactics. You know… If you don’t have anything nice to say about the surge, don’t say anything at all. (Hat Tip to the CRP)

“Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq”
New York Daily News

“Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence.”
— Daily News’ James Gordon Meek

By James Gordon Meek
July 14, 2008

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. “The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” said McCain, adding that Obama “refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.”

The New Yorker Magazine ‘Satricial Stinkbomb’


Senator Obama has responded to the questionable cover art published by the New Yorker Magazine.

The Sacramento Bee reports:

In a statement Monday, the magazine said the cover “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.”

“The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover,” the New Yorker statement said.

Riiight.

The cover depicts Obama wearing sandals and a turban, his wife Michelle toting a machine gun and Afro, in front of a portrait of Osama Bin Laden hung over a fireplace with a burning flag.

I get the satire. The cover is so absurd that its supposed to spark debate and teach the neanderthals that Obama is pro-American, patriotic, non-threatening to white people, blah, blah, blah.

The problem is that most people won’t get it.

Its satire of lies, and if most people do not understand that its a lie that Obama is Muslim; that he supports Osama Bin Laden; that he is somehow UN-American, how are folks supposed to ‘get it’ all of a sudden?

Nope. People will look at the cover and it will simply confirm their unfounded suspicions of the Obama’s.

I do believe that this is just a blip on the radar for the Obama’s, and the Senator and his wife (and those within their campaign) better develop some very thick skins quickly. They need to take a page from the Jackie Robinson textbook for dealing with racial stupidity… they cannot win fighting every single affront and offense, and must continue to “rise above it” and address it strategically.

Obama says politics blocks economic solutions. Forgot to include the word “Liberal”

Barak Obama once again proves that he is a not quite ready for primetime player. He declared that we could solve our economic problems if only we could get politics out of the way.

Obama wrapped up his tour of battleground states with a summit focused on economic issues.

AP reported:

Barack Obama told top business leaders Thursday that politics often gets in the way of solving problems that threaten America’s ability to stay competitive in the global economy.

“There is surprising consensus in this country about what needs to be done — somehow our politics prevent us from acting on that consensus,” Obama said at an economic summit meeting. “We spend an enormous amount of time talking about what separates us, along party lines, along racial lines, along economic lines, but when it comes to how we need to retool America to continue its greatness, we’ve got a lot of stuff that we can agree on.”

According to his website, here are some of the policies he advocates that we could find agreement on:

• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans
• Support Job Creation
• Invest in Rural Areas
• Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
• Expand Flexible Work Arrangements

But here is the problem… He and his fellow Democrats have failed to support any of these measures.

They won’t support tax cuts for ALL working families. They refuse to support a flat tax, which would simplify the tax code overnight. They only want to support R&D tax credits for industries they approve of, not the ones that actually create jobs. And the union bosses that run the Democrat Party will not allow business to offer their employees the same flexible work schedules that their members often enjoy.

No… The “solutions we agree on” that Obama is talking about are the ones that he and his fellow liberals have cooked up. If he has his way we will be mandating “green technologies” that don’t yet exist, compelling employers to unionize against their will, raising the minimum wage and mandating that employees get more paid leave.

How exactly will these policies improve the economy?

Democrats need to realize that the government cannot do anything to improve the economy except getting out it’s way by freeing business from overregulation and getting out of the pockets of American families.

Obama says politics blocks economic solutions. Forgot to include the word “Liberal”

Barak Obama once again proves that he is a not quite ready for primetime player. He declared that we could solve our economic problems if only we could get politics out of the way.

Obama wrapped up his tour of battleground states with a summit focused on economic issues.

AP reported:

Barack Obama told top business leaders Thursday that politics often gets in the way of solving problems that threaten America’s ability to stay competitive in the global economy.

“There is surprising consensus in this country about what needs to be done — somehow our politics prevent us from acting on that consensus,” Obama said at an economic summit meeting. “We spend an enormous amount of time talking about what separates us, along party lines, along racial lines, along economic lines, but when it comes to how we need to retool America to continue its greatness, we’ve got a lot of stuff that we can agree on.”

According to his website, here are some of the policies he advocates that we could find agreement on:

• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans
• Support Job Creation
• Invest in Rural Areas
• Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
• Expand Flexible Work Arrangements

But here is the problem… He and his fellow Democrats have failed to support any of these measures.

They won’t support tax cuts for ALL working families. They refuse to support a flat tax, which would simplify the tax code overnight. They only want to support R&D tax credits for industries they approve of, not the ones that actually create jobs. And the union bosses that run the Democrat Party will not allow business to offer their employees the same flexible work schedules that their members often enjoy.

No… The “solutions we agree on” that Obama is talking about are the ones that he and his fellow liberals have cooked up. If he has his way we will be mandating “green technologies” that don’t yet exist, compelling employers to unionize against their will, raising the minimum wage and mandating that employees get more paid leave.

How exactly will these policies improve the economy?

Democrats need to realize that the government cannot do anything to improve the economy except getting out it’s way by freeing business from overregulation and getting out of the pockets of American families.

In Case You Missed It: Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

This article is from Politico.com:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the “diversity” of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”

In Detroit on Monday, the two different Obama volunteers — in separate incidents — made it clear that headscarves wouldn’t be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.

In Aref’s case, there was no ambiguity.

That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref’s friend Ali Koussan and two other friends, Aref’s brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would, but mentioned they were with friends.

The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.

The volunteer “explained to me that because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,” said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University.

Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the “political climate” in telling them they couldn’t sit behind Obama.

“I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Are you serious?'” Koussan recalled.

Shimaa Abdelfadeel’s story was different. She’d waited on line outside the Joe Louis Arena for three hours in the sun and was walking through the giant hall when a volunteer approached two of her non-Muslim friends, a few steps ahead of her, and asked if they’d like to sit in “special seating” behind the stage, said one friend, Brittany Marino, who, like Abdelfadeel, is a recent University of Michigan graduate who works for the university.

In Case You Missed It: Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

This article is from Politico.com:

Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”

Building a human backdrop to a political candidate, a set of faces to appear on television and in photographs, is always a delicate exercise in demographics and political correctness. Advance staffers typically pick supporters out of a crowd to reflect the candidate’s message.

When Obama won the North Carolina primary amid questions about his ability to connect with white voters, for instance, he stood in front of a group of middle-aged white women waving small American flags. On the Republican side, a Hispanic New Hampshire Democrat, Roberto Fuentes, told Politico that he was recently asked, and declined, to contribute to the “diversity” of the crowd behind Sen. John McCain at a Nashua event.

But for Obama, the old-fashioned image-making contrasts with his promise to transcend identity politics and to embrace all elements of America. The incidents in Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the country, also raise an aspect of his campaign that sometimes rubs Muslims the wrong way: The candidate has vigorously denied a false, viral rumor that he himself is Muslim. But the denials seem to some at times to imply that there is something wrong with the faith, though Obama occasionally adds that he means no disrespect to Islam.

“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”

In Detroit on Monday, the two different Obama volunteers — in separate incidents — made it clear that headscarves wouldn’t be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.

In Aref’s case, there was no ambiguity.

That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref’s friend Ali Koussan and two other friends, Aref’s brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would, but mentioned they were with friends.

The men said the volunteer, a twenty-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits. Miller said yes, but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.

The volunteer “explained to me that because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,” said Koussan, who is a law student at Wayne State University.

Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the “political climate” in telling them they couldn’t sit behind Obama.

“I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Are you serious?'” Koussan recalled.

Shimaa Abdelfadeel’s story was different. She’d waited on line outside the Joe Louis Arena for three hours in the sun and was walking through the giant hall when a volunteer approached two of her non-Muslim friends, a few steps ahead of her, and asked if they’d like to sit in “special seating” behind the stage, said one friend, Brittany Marino, who, like Abdelfadeel, is a recent University of Michigan graduate who works for the university.

In Case You Missed It: Muslims barred from picture at Obama event

This press release just arrived in my inbox:

OBAMA GIVES THUMBS UP TO THE PELOSI PREMIUM
Meanwhile CA Gas Prices Up $1.82 Per Gallon Under Democrat-Controlled Congress

In 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) made this bold election-year statement: “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.” Nearly two years later, what exactly has that “commonsense plan” gotten California families and businesses?

JANUARY 16, 2007: $2.61 (Source: AAA of Northern CA)

JUNE, 2008: $4.43 (Source: CA Energy Commission)

This week we learned that the Barack Obama is just fine with higher gas prices. In fact, congressional Democrats blocked efforts to lower them and instead proposed higher gas taxes that will further burden California’s working class.

Is this what the Democrat leadership mean by “commonsense”?

The Democratic Majority has given consumers the Pelosi/Obama Premium, which this week clocks in at $1.82 per gallon. That’s right, from the time the new Democratic Majority took control of congress, gas prices in California have skyrocketed almost two dollars from an average of $2.61 per gallon in January to $4.43 per gallon now.

As predicted before the summer driving season, the Pelosi/Obama Premium has only gotten worse, yet Barack Obama and other Democrats have done nothing to help Californians’ Pain at the Pump.

SPECIAL FROM CRP: Obama Gives Thumbs Up to the Pelosi Premium

This press release just arrived in my inbox:

OBAMA GIVES THUMBS UP TO THE PELOSI PREMIUM
Meanwhile CA Gas Prices Up $1.82 Per Gallon Under Democrat-Controlled Congress

In 2006, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) made this bold election-year statement: “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.” Nearly two years later, what exactly has that “commonsense plan” gotten California families and businesses?

JANUARY 16, 2007: $2.61 (Source: AAA of Northern CA)

JUNE, 2008: $4.43 (Source: CA Energy Commission)

This week we learned that the Barack Obama is just fine with higher gas prices. In fact, congressional Democrats blocked efforts to lower them and instead proposed higher gas taxes that will further burden California’s working class.

Is this what the Democrat leadership mean by “commonsense”?

The Democratic Majority has given consumers the Pelosi/Obama Premium, which this week clocks in at $1.82 per gallon. That’s right, from the time the new Democratic Majority took control of congress, gas prices in California have skyrocketed almost two dollars from an average of $2.61 per gallon in January to $4.43 per gallon now.

As predicted before the summer driving season, the Pelosi/Obama Premium has only gotten worse, yet Barack Obama and other Democrats have done nothing to help Californians’ Pain at the Pump.

Ding! Dong! The Witch is…. Oops… Not so fast!

The Associated Press is already calling the Presidential nominations for Barak Obama:

Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination
Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention
delegates,
becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall
campaign
for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former
first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout
in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as
more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of
delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South
Dakota and Montana later in the day.

So, one would think that the natural thing for Hillary Clinton to do would be to offer her concession speech tonight as well. But this may not be the case.

According to another AP story she may be willing to admitt she is down, but not out:

Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the
delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said,
effectively ending her bid to be the nation’s first female president.

The former first lady was not ready to formally suspend or end her race
in a speech Tuesday night in New York City. But if Obama get to the magic number
of delegates, 2,118, she was prepared to acknowledge that milestone, according
to aides who declined to be identified.

Now this doesn’t mean that she will still be running for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination. But you can bet she will be positioning herself to be the next presidential candidate from her party. And she will do this by either negotiating for the VP spot or undermining Obama’s candidacy by injecting umnpopular issues into the campaign.

Obama’s Greatest Hits

As much fun as liberals and the media like to make of President Bush’s verbal gaffes, one would think that they would at least be fair in their reporting and cover at least some of the misstatements by the presumtive democratic nominee Barak Obama.

Well syndicated conservative columnist, Michelle Malkin put together an abreviated list of such verbal mis-steps, I though you might enjoy reading .

* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

*Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

*Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you Sioux City…I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

*Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

*Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

*Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

*Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

*Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:”

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

__________________________________________

Why? Why you ask? Here are a few examples of why we love the Bush-isms…. Courtesy of Salon.com:

“I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be—hold hands.”—on how he can contribute to the Middle East peace process, Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2008

“I welcome you all to say a few comments to the TV, if you care to do so.”—Inviting visiting Irish dignitaries to address the media, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2007

“I don’t particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it.”—Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007

“All I can tell you is when the governor calls, I answer his phone.”—San Diego, Calif., Oct. 25, 2007

“And so, in my State of the—my State of the Union—or state—my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation—I asked Americans to give 4,000 years—4,000 hours over the next—the rest of your life—of service to America. That’s what I asked—4,000 hours.” —Bridgeport, Conn., April 9, 2002

“I want to thank the dozens of welfare to work stories, the actual examples of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter themselves.”—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2002 (Thanks to George Dupper.)

“One of my concerns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be.”—On benefits provided to military personnel, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

“You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test” (Feb. 21, 2001).

“I’ve coined new words, like misunderstanding and Hispanically” (March 29, 2001).

THERE ARE DOZENS MORE WHERE THESE CAME FROM! NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE ALL THIS UP! Bush.. the gift that keeps on giving…!

Democrat Party’s racist roots are starting to show…

Despite years of trying to portray themselves as “The Party of Diversity” the true face of the Democrats are finally showing through, as exit polling from primary after primary shows that race is playing a major role in how Democrats are voting.

North Carolina & Indiana:

Race again played a pivotal role in Tuesday’s Democratic presidential clashes, as whites in Indiana and North Carolina leaned solidly toward Hillary Rodham Clinton and blacks voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, exit polls showed.

West Virginia:

One in five white voters said race was an important factor in their vote and 83 percent of them voted for Clinton against Obama, who would be the first black major-party presidential nominee.

Mississippi:

As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.

But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.

As a matter of fact Alan Fram of the Associate Press wrote:

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender’s race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.

Isn’t this the enlightened party? … Open to a diversity of cultures?

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

This just goes to show that the party that fought to keep slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crowe, authored the Southern Manafesto and fought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act hasn’t strayed too far from it’s racist roots.

As far at their modern day racist policies… I’ll leave that for another post.

Obama fails history lesson

Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history as he continues to defend his commitment to meeting, unconditionally with the leaders of country’s that are enemies of the United States.

In his victory speech following the North Carolina Primary, Obama declared, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Well Real Clear Politics published a commentary by Jack Kelly pointing out that Barak’s statement demonstrates stupidity, not wisdom. Kelly writes:

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

So apparently, Roosevelt and Truman did not agree with Barak’s belief in unconditional talks with enemy states. In fact, they held that the only condition that merited talks was that of “Unconditional Surrender.” Kelly goes on to debunk the Obama’s “wisdom” when it relates to the actions of President Kennedy:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

“There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions,” Mr. Abel wrote. “There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.'”

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: “Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs,” Mr. Reston wrote. “He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.”

Ok…. I’m still waiting for the “Wisdom” to which Obama is referring? Like a school yard bully, Khrushcev saw Kennedy’s overtures as a lack of will to fight, which we all know, will provoke said bullies to be even more bold and aggressive. I wonder how much sooner the cold war could have been ended, had Kennedy not compromised our credibility as a military superpower ready to do whatever it took to protect our citizens.

There is a popular saying: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through his own words, Barak Obama demonstrates that not only has he failed to learn vital lessons from history, he hasn’t even learned the facts of history.

__________________________________________

So are you saying that Kennedy should have engaged in a nuclear strike with Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Whatever you think of Kennedy, the fact that he did NOT engage nuclear weapons at the time was one of the BEST decisions he could have made.

One example of when a President engages in Diplomacy: Jim Lea writes in Stripes.com:

“… Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected U.S. president in November 1952 and fulfilled a campaign promise to go to Korea and attempt to bring an end to the war. He arrived in December and made it clear that he, too, was looking for an armistice rather than a military victory. (NOTE: An amristice is a truce, NOT unconditional surrender).

He let it be known to Moscow, Peking and Pyongyang that if the talks were not reopened and did not proceed satisfactorily toward an armistice, U.N. forces would “move decisively without inhibition in our use of weapons and would no longer be responsible for confining hostilities to the Korean Peninsula.”

There was, however, no response from the communists to Eisenhower’s statement or to a proposal by Clark that the two sides exchange sick and wounded prisoners. Lt. Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor succeeded Van Fleet in February and continued to conduct skirmishes with the North Koreans and Chinese. A break in the Panmunjom deadlock came in March, some three weeks after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died.

North Korean and Chinese delegates agreed to an exchange of sick and wounded prisoners. The armistice talks resumed in April, the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners took place shortly thereafter, and the POW issue was settled by mid-June.

The two sides agreed that each would be allowed to persuade any prisoners who refused repatriation to change their minds.

With the armistice almost a reality, battlefield action increased as Chinese and North Korean troops made a final attempt to grab more land. On July 13, communist forces drove eight miles into the central sector of the 8th Army line. Taylor counterattacked, but ended the final battle of the war July 20 because negotiators had nearly reached an accord.

The agreement was signed at 10 a.m. July 27, 1953, in a building hastily erected by the North for the ceremony.”

My point: That talking – even when you are a newly-elected president seeking to end a war going nowhere – can produce results.

Wright’s Revenge?

The following is from an article from the New York Post accusing Rev. Jeremiah Wright of intentionally sabotaging the presidential campaign of Barak Obama.

As I am sure you know, I have my own thoughts about this issue, But I wanted to know what Y’all thought about it before I commented. Well David? What say you?

REV-ENGE IS SWEET FOR ‘BETRAYED’ PASTOR
By FREDRIC U. DICKER State Editor

(Albany)- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama’s presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has “betrayed” their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. “After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn’t know about Jeremiah’s views during those years, that he wasn’t familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn’t hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,” said the source, who has deep roots in Wright’s Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

“Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now,” the source added.

“Jeremiah doesn’t care if he derails Obama’s candidacy or not . . . He knows what he’s doing. Obviously, he’s not a dumb man. He knows he’s not helping.”

The source spoke yesterday about Wright’s motivation for thrusting himself back into the news, the day after the pastor appeared at the National Press Club on Monday and embarrassed Obama by accusing the United States of terrorism.

Wright has said the reason he has begun granting interviews and making public appearances now is that he wants to defend black churches.

But the source said the preacher’s motivation is much more personal.

The source noted that the roots of Wright’s disillusionment with Obama began last year after the Illinois senator unexpectedly yanked him from participating in the public announcement of his presidential campaign.

“That’s why Jeremiah revealed . . . that he had actually been at the [announcement] hotel and prayed privately with the Obama family before the official declaration,” the source told The Post.

“Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship.”

Obama further angered Wright by trying to distance himself from the pastor ever since videos were made public earlier this year of the preacher alleging that America brought 9/11 upon itself and that people should say “God damn America,” not “God bless America.”

The source added, “After 20 years of loving Barack like he is one of their own, after he was embraced by this congregation as a brother in Christ, after his pastor was a father figure to him and gave him credibility in a city he had not grown up in and in a black community that was suspect of someone from Hawaii and Harvard, he thanks him by not allowing him to speak publicly at his announcement last year?

“A lot of people in the church believe they were there for this man when no one else was, and a lot of people don’t believe it any more when Obama claims he loves the man who did so much for him,” the source added.

__________________________________________

This is BS! Dicker and his “source” offer no definitive proof that the Reverend is opening his trap to purposefully hurt Obama’s candidacy. Who is this source? How is he related to Reverend Wright? For all we know, Hillary could have been the source! Just no credibility at all…..

Now, I believe the Good Reverend Wright to be an egomaniac. He is selfish and self-centered. I believe that he did what he did because he is selfish – not out of some twisted sense that Obama “betrayed” him. Remember, Obama stood by him originally; there was no denouncement of Pastor Wright – at least not until after his visit to the National Press Club and the Detroit NAACP… So why would the Reverend do the events to hurt Obama for denouncing him? And as for Obama distancing himself from Wright’s original comments or asking him not to speak at his campaign announcement – I just do not believe that Wright is that dense that he cannot see the bigger picture. He does what he does because he thinks only of himself – not about Barack, the Country or the Church. This consipracy theory just does not add up.

Honestly, I was okay with the bulk of Rev. Wright’s prepared remarks to the National Press Club. He was speaking a very harsh historical truth to an audience that, at times, was egging him on with their positive replies to the Reverend’s ‘call and response’ techniques. He explained that in the sermon which has been the source of all this controversy (the “God Damn America” quote), he was actually quoting someone else. However, this dude then goes on in the Q and A to basically repeat the charges that America brought 9/11 on itself. SHUT UP! SHUT UP MAN!

I am glad that Obama distanced himself from him. It was time, and it is necessary.

Star Jones Lynches Bill O’Reilly for saying he wouldn’t lynch Michelle Obama…Huh?

Here’s the deal…

On his radio show, Bill O’Reilly was responding to a caller regarding some recent allegations against Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate, Barak Obama. O’Reilly responded to the caller declaring that:

“…I DON’T WANT TO GO ON A LYNCHING PARTY AGAINST MICHELLE OBAMA UNLESS THERE’S EVIDENCE, HARD FACTS, THAT SAY THIS IS HOW THE WOMAN REALLY FEELS. IF THAT’S HOW SHE REALLY FEELS — THAT AMERICA IS A BAD COUNTRY OR A FLAWED NATION, WHATEVER — THEN THAT’S LEGIT. WE’LL TRACK IT DOWN.”

Well in response to his comments former TV personality Star Jones felt it necessary to write an open letter to her fans on her website in which she stated:

I’M SICK TO DEATH OF PEOPLE LIKE FOX NEWS HOST, BILL O’REILLY AND HIS ILK THINKING THAT HE CAN USE A RACIAL SLUR AGAINST A BLACK WOMAN WHO COULD BE THE NEXT FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES, GIVE A HALF-ASSED APOLOGY AND NOT BE TAKEN TO TASK AND CALLED ON HIS CRAP.

Where was the racial slur?

He was saying that he did not want to join the rest of the right wing media (what little of it there is) in going after Michelle Obama without some proof that she had said or done something wrong. He wanted here to have her day in court.

Back in the days of the “wild west” people used to bring together mobs to go after and punish people whom they believed had done wrong. These mobs were not concerned with justice, they simply wanted vengeance. We used to call these mobs “Lynching Parties”. And they did not only lynch black people!

Like most liberals who attack conservatives, Star Jones is pretending to play mind reader; acting like she has a crystal ball that allows her know the motivations behind what someone says. She then plays on people’s fears and biases (in this case black people) to make a declarative statement that has little to know basis in fact.

It is a stretch to say that O’ Reilly was advocating for the “lynching” of Michelle Obama. And it is absurd to say that he said it the way he did because she was black.

Let’s not be so quick to judge the motives of others when they say something questionable. Bill O’Reilly wasn’t willing to “lynch” Michelle Obama without giving her a chance. So let’s return the favor and not be so quick to lynch him.