Posts Tagged ‘Senator Obama’
How Obama got elected (Video)
I find it funny how little these Obama voters know about the candidates or their campaigns.
Normally I would dismiss stuff like this as juvenille propoganda. But the responses in this video are totally consistant with just about every encounter I had with Obama supporters.
The video’s creator writes:
On the evening of November 4th, 2008 I along with millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama’s extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances and policies could be elected President of the United States.
This is further proof that the news media, completely engrosed with Obama’s persona, simply refused to do their job.
Twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.
Change we can believe in?
If I sound bitter, I’m not. The American public has spoken. This election was about change; and clearly Barak Obama offered the kind of change that voters were looking for. My only question is, what kind of change exactly is that?
Throughout the election, I came across Obama supporters who had no idea what his record was or what he planned to do once elected. But , they did know that we needed change. My response was always the same, “Out of the frying pan, into the fire- That’s change!”
My brother David seems to think that Barak Obama will learn from the mistakes of the past. He believes that unlike Clinton, who also had the benefit of a working majority in both houses of congress, Obama will not adopt a far left agenda. For the nation’s sake I hope he is right.
However, I just don’t think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will be able to help themselves. When left unrestrained by conservative roadblocks, liberals seem to develop a policy turrets syndrome. “RAISE TAXES!” “UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!” “END GLOBAL WARMING!”
You name it, they will propose it. It doesn’t matter whether or not it will work; or what the negative consequences may be. As long as it sounds good they will run it up the flagpole. But this time they have enough people to salute and actually pass their liberal agenda. The only question that remains is whether or not a man who was the most liberal member of the Senate will sign on the dotted line.
Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical.
This Brotha has escaped the plantation!
Thank God! Someone else gets it!
DeLuz Brothers Discuss Race And The Presidential Election
David believes that the Republicans are up to their old tricks, including fear-mongering. Meanwhile Craig thinks that while some of the complaints are legitimate, the Democrats are also doing whatever they can to deflect legitimate criticism away from their candidate by declaring it all to be racist.
To tune in simply go to http://www.deluzbrothers.com/ and click on the Listen Live Button at the top of the page.
You can even join the conversation by calling in at (347) 237-5073. We will be breaking down the upcoming election and much more. You don’t want to miss the fireworks!
Details Below:
When: Friday, October 10th
Station: Blogtalk Radio
Live Audio Steaming at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/The-DeLuz-Brothers
TIME: 9:30-10 am (PST)
Call in Number: (347) 237-5073
Why I can’t Vote For Barak Reason #1 = He voted against the Infant Born Alive Act
I find it difficult to understand how anyone could vote against protecting the life of a child. This is not about abortion. These are children! To let them die amounts to infanticide.
Here is the story that CNN did:
For more on Obama’s voting record on this issue go to BornAliveTruth.org.
Democrats fought McCain’s efforts to address pending finaincial crisis
Obama’s Congressional Allies Have Been Attacking Sen. John McCain For Engaging In Negotiations On Legislation To Stabilize Financial Markets:
“In Interviews After The Meeting, Obama Pointed A Finger At His Rival For The Faltering Talks…” (Michael D. Shear and Jonathan Weisman, “Debate Still In Limbo As Democrats Blame McCain For Interrupting Process,” The Washington Post, 9/26/08)
Obama Suggested The Negotiations Were Damaged By Presidential Politics. “Obama suggested the talks were damaged by politics. ‘When you start injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations you can actually create more problems rather than less,’ Obama said on CNN.” (Alison Vekshin and James Rowley, “House Republicans Undercut Bush On Rescue, Slow Talks,” Bloomberg News, 9/26/08)
But McCain Has Led Efforts To Reform Financial Markets:
The Washington Post: “[W]hen It Comes To Regulating Financial Institutions And Corporate Misconduct, Mr. McCain’s Record Is More In Keeping With His Current Rhetoric.” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)
John McCain Urged Action More Than Two Years Ago, Co-Sponsoring Legislation To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Warning: “If Congress Does Not Act, American Taxpayers Will Continue To Be Exposed To The Enormous Risk That Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Pose To The Housing Market, The Overall Financial System, And The Economy As A Whole.” McCain: “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Statement On Co-Sponsorship Of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005,” Press Release, 5/26/06)
In 2002, McCain Called For Greater Oversight Of Financial Markets Following Accounting Scandals. “In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. ‘I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation,’ he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. ‘But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor — and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years — can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work.'” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)
McCain Led The Charge To Remove Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt. “Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he ‘seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government’s demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well.'” (Editorial, “‘Always For Less Regulation?'” The Washington Post, 9/19/08)
And Obama Ally Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Blocked Multiple Attempts At Reforming Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Spanning Back To 1992:
“[Frank’s] Record Is Close To Perfect As A Stalwart Opponent Of Reforming The Two Companies, Going Back More Than A Decade. The First Concerted Push To Rein In Fan And Fred In Congress Came As Far Back As 1992, And Mr. Frank Was Right There, Standing Athwart. But Things Really Picked Up This Decade, And Barney Was There At Every Turn.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)
“Two Years Later, Mr. Frank Was At It Again. ‘I Do Not Regard Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac As Problems,’ He Said In Response To Another Reform Push. And Then: ‘I Regard Them As Great Assets.'” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)
“A Month Later, Freddie Mac’s Multibillion-Dollar Accounting Scandal Broke Into The Open. But Mr. Frank Was Sanguine. ‘I Do Not Think We Are Facing Any Kind Of A Crisis,’ He Said At The Time.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)
“Three Months Later He Repeated The Claim That Fannie And Freddie Posed No ‘Threat To The Treasury.’ Even Suggesting That Heresy, He Added, Could Become ‘A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.'” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)
“In April 2004, Fannie Announced A Multibillion-Dollar Financial ‘Misstatement’ Of Its Own. Mr. Frank Was Back For The Defense. Fannie And Freddie Posed No Risk To Taxpayers, He Said, Adding That ‘I Think Wall Street Will Get Over It’ If The Two Collapsed.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08)
Obama Ally Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, After Receiving A Sweetheart Deal On Loans For His Own Houses:
Obama Joined Sen. Dodd – Both Top Recipients Of Fannie And Freddie Contributions – In Opposing Reform Measures And Weakening Existing Regulations. “During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.” (Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner, Op-Ed, “Where Was Sen. Dodd?” The Washington Post, 9/12/08)
Dodd Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07)
In 2003, Dodd, Chairman Of The Senate Banking Committee, Received Preferential Loans From Countrywide Financial On His Two Homes Which Saved Him $75,000. “Senators Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, refinanced properties through Countrywide’s ‘V.I.P.’ program in 2003 and 2004, according to company documents and emails and a former employee familiar with the loans. … Senator Dodd received two loans in 2003 through Countrywide’s V.I.P. program. He borrowed $506,000 to refinance his Washington townhouse, and $275,042 to refinance a home in East Haddam, Connecticut. Countrywide wai ved three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan, and one-fourth of a point, about $700, on the second, according to internal documents. Both loans were for 30 years, with the first five years at a fixed rate. The interest rate on the loans, originally pegged at 4.875%, was reduced to 4.25% on the Washington home and 4.5% on the Connecticut property by the time the loans were funded. The lower rates save the senator about $58,000 on his Washington residence over the life of the loan, and $17,000 on the Connecticut home.” (Daniel Golden, “Countrywide’s Many ‘Friends,'” Portfolio, 6/12/08)
Obama Ally Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Has Been A “Leading Voice For [Financial] Deregulation,” Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, And Was Instrumental In The Collapse Of Bank IndyMac:
Until The Current Financial Crisis, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) “Had Been A Leading Voice For Deregulation,” Supporting Repeal Of Great-Depression Era Regulations, Re-Examining Corporate Oversight Laws, And Opposing Reducing Taxpayer Risks Associated With Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. “Until the current credit crisis, Mr. Schumer had been a leading voice for deregulation: He ha s championed the repeal of a Great Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from underwriting securities; he has written an opinion piece calling for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be ‘re-examined,’ and he has opposed a bill that sought to reduce taxpayer risk in the event of a housing market slowdown by requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to sell their entire investment portfolios of about $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage assets.” (Joseph Goldstein, “Pro-Deregulation Schumer Scores Bush For Lack of Regulation,” The New York Sun, 9/22/08)
Schumer Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07)
__________________________________________
Conservatives keep trying to put this at the feet of the Democrats, but I am not buying it. The above article points out that Rep. Frank was a leading supporter of Freddy and Fanny as far back as 1992. However, between 1994 and 2004, the Republicans controled at both houses of Congress – meaning the Republicans had 10 years – and four years of unified government – to make changes. No… the Republicans were happy with the status quo, and if they had wanted to make changes they had the chance and passed it up.
On Barak’s Speech: Don’t Believe the Hype!
When evaluating Barak Obama’s acceptance speach last night one has to wonder who exactly he was talking about, because he sure didn’t sound like he was describing himself.
I think Tucker Bounds, McCain 2008 spokesman, put it best when he said:
“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”
Now before my liberal friends start accusing me of drinking the conservative Kool-Aide, let me share with you the following information on Barak and just a few of his misleading claims (Hat-tip to the CRP)
BARACK OBAMA’S TOP MISLEADING CLAIMS
MISLEADING CLAIM #1: Barack Obama Can Bring Democrats And Republicans Together. OBAMA: “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
NPR’s Juan Williams: Barack Obama “Doesn’t Have The Record” Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has.” NPR’S JUAN WILLIAMS: “You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there’s John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn’t have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn’t have the record.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 5/7/08)
To Watch: (Click Here)
The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen: “There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically.” “Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don’t know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain’s decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That’s why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.” (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, “McCain’s Core Advantage,” The Washington Post, 6/24/08)
Politico’s Jonathan Martin: “He’s pretty much a conventional liberal on the issues and has few examples of breaking with his own party, so how does Obama try to pull off being ‘post-partisan?'” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama’s Third Way: It’s All In The Tone,” Politico, 6/30/08)
Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion.” “Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, ‘unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.'” (Tim Talley, “Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse,” The Associated Press, 6/10/08)
“The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat …” (Editorial, “Obama’s Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?” USA Today, 1/28/08)
In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=12, Accessed 3/3/08)
In 2006, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 96 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpPp2usgY6Y&reason=0, Accessed 1/27/08)
In 2005, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=12, Accessed 1/27/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #2: Barack Obama Will Ensure That Our Troops On The Ground Have “The Equipment They Need In Battle.” OBAMA: “As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
MISLEADING CLAIM #3: Barack Obama Has Not Supported The President. OBAMA: “These challenges are not all of government’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. … But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush “For The Most Part.” REPORTER: “For a couple of days, they’ve been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that’s going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?” OBAMA: “I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I’ve been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there.” (KMOV [St. Louis, MO], 6/10/08)
To Watch Barack Obama’s KMOV Interview (Click Here)
· The New York Times’ David Brooks: Democrats Saying McCain Represents The Third Bush Term Are “Just Factually Inaccurate.” “Finally, the Obama people are too convinced that they can define McCain as Bush III. The case is just factually inaccurate. McCain will be able to pull out dozens of instances, from torture to global warming to spending, in which he broke with his party, as Rush Limbaugh will tell you.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “Calling Dr. Doom,” The New York Times, 6/3/08)
Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh: “As We Now Know Nearly Four Years Later, McCain Was Dead On In His Analysis Of What Went Wrong In Iraq.” “In early November 2003, at a time when Fred Dalton Thompson was playing a tough D.A. on ‘Law and Order,’ John McCain was cross-examining Donald Rumsfeld for real on Capitol Hill. It was still very early into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but the as-yet-unacknowledged (by Rummy, that is) insurgency was already out of control. Alone among his fellow GOP senators, McCain blasted Rumsfeld for not putting enough U.S. troops on the ground, and for resorting too soon to ‘Iraqification’ — that is, transferring security to ill-prepared Iraqi forces. In an extraordinarily blunt speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that grim autumn, McCain warned that ultimately Iraq could become another Vietnam ‘if we lose popular support in the United States.’ The next day, the secretary of Defense asked McCain to breakfast. ‘I read y our speech,’ harrumphed Rumsfeld (that ‘must have been an enjoyable experience for him,’ McCain later joked to me). Then Rummy patiently explained to his fellow Republican why he and his top civilian brass (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and the usual crowd of incompetents) would continue to do things the same way. They ‘believed there was no need for additional troops,’ McCain later related. McCain had already realized that Rumsfeld was a lost cause. The real question, the senator suggested to me back then, was whether George W. Bush himself would push Rummy to make changes. ‘I’d like to see the president fully engaged,’ McCain said. Bush needed to be on top of ‘more details of what’s going on.’ As we now know nearly four years later, McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq. Right down to the need for Bush to get engaged and fire Rumsfeld. McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about Bush’s current ‘surg e’ is that if it had occurred back then — when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years — it might well have succeeded.” (Michael Hirsh, “Why McCain’s Collapse Matters,” Newsweek, 7/26/07)
· John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)
· John McCain Is “Widely Acknowledged To Have Charted A Course Independent Of Bush” On Climate Change. “On global warming, McCain is widely acknowledged to have charted a course independent of Bush. Immediately after the 2004 election, in which he stumped for Bush’s re-election, he sharply distanced himself from Bush on climate change, calling the administration’s stance ‘terribly disappointing.’ McCain had co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman to curb greenhouse gases in 2003. Bush had opposed any such move, citing possible harm to the economy and doubts over global warming.” (William March, “McCain Bucks Ties To Bush,” The Tampa Tribune, 6/11/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #4: John McCain Believes We’ve Made “Great Progress” And Families Aren’t Hurting. OBAMA: “He said that our economy has made ‘great progress’ under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the e conomy are strong.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
· FactCheck.org: Obama Use Of Quote Is “Misleading” And “Distorts” John McCain’s Words. “The second and third quotes the Obama campaign uses from McCain are more misleading. The ad shows McCain saying: ‘[T]here’s been great progress economically.’ The quote comes from an interview McCain did with Peter Cook at Bloomberg Television in April. … McCain was making a case for what he believed were positive economic developments during Bush’s time in office. However, the fuller quote shows McCain was saying that whatever progress had been made, it wouldn’t be enough to comfort families ‘facing these tremendous economic challenges.’ His comments overall are pessimistic; he cites ‘challenging times’ and ‘enormous difficulties.’ The Obama campaign distorts his views by using just a snippet of his remarks.” (D’Angelo Gore, “Distorting McCain’s Remarks,” FactCheck.org, 8/19/08)
In The Full Question And Answer Cited By Barack Obama, John McCain Clearly Said That We Are In “Tough Times” And Families Are Facing “Tremendous Economic Challenges.” Bloomberg’s Peter Cook: “I’m going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?” McCain: “Certainly, in this time, we are in very challenging times. We all recognize that. Families are sitting around the kitchen table this evening and figuring out whether they’re going to be able to keep their home or not. They’re figuring out whether they’re– why it is that suddenly and recently someone in their family or their neighbor has lost their job. There’s no doubt that we are in enormous difficulties. “I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, yo u could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America’s economy are strong. We’re the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery. But these are tough times, tough times, and nobody knows that more than American families including in small towns of Pennsylvania. They haven’t lost their fundamental religious beliefs, their respect for the Constitution, their right to bear arms. They are still– keep America as a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.” (John McCain, Interview With Bloomberg TV, 4/17/08)
To Watch Video Of Obama Economic Attack Compared To John McCain’s Full Response: (Click Here)
ABC News: Barack Obama Proved “He Knows How To Twist With The Best Of Them” When He Cited The McCain Quote. “Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. Speaking in Erie, Pa., Obama charged: ‘John McCain went on television and said that there has “been great progress economically” over the last seven and a half years.’ Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain’s Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is ‘no comfort’ to struggling families.” (Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib, “Obama Twists McCain On Economy,” ABC News, 4/18/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #5: Barack Obama Will Pay For His Massive Spending Increase. OBAMA: “Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime — by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less — because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
Barack Obama: “I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013.” “‘I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,’ Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has “No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending.” “Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending.” (Editorial, “Failure Of Nerve,” Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)
The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not “Even Trying” To Balance The Budget And “Frankly Says He’s Not Sure He’d Bring It Down At All In Four Years.” “Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.” (Nedra Pickler, “Analysis: Obama Won’t Try For McCain’s Budget Goal,” The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
The National Journal’s John Maggs: “[Obama] Has Rhetorically Committed To A ‘Pay-As-You-Go’ Approach By Offsetting New Spending And Tax Cuts With New Taxes Or Spending Cuts, But His Proposals Do Not Come Close To Meeting This Standard.” (John Maggs, “Obama On The Economy,” The National Journal, 5/31/08)
Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama “Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of” His Proposals. “The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do.” (Peter Nicholas, “Adding Up The Cost Of Obama’s Agenda,” Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)
The New York Times’ David Brooks Said For Barack Obama To Fund His Domestic Programs, He Will Have To Break His Pledge Not To Tax The Middle Class. “Both [Obama and Clinton] promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.” (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “No Whining About The Media,” The New York Times, 4/16/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #6: Under Barack Obama, We Will Achieve Energy Independence. OBAMA: “And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
The Detroit News: Barack Obama’s Energy Plan Will “Do Nothing To Answer The Nation’s Long-Term Needs.” “The latest additions to Sen. Barack Obama’s energy plan, outlined during an appearance in Lansing Monday, may win the Democratic presidential candidate some votes from disgruntled consumers in November, but they’ll do nothing to answer the nation’s long-term needs.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Energy Plan Is Fueled By Populism,” The Detroit News, 8/5/08)
The Washington Post Editorial: Barack Obama Offering Gimmicks On Energy. “When his presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), proposed a gas tax holiday as a way to reduce the high cost of driving, Mr. Obama showed political courage and intellectual honesty by refusing to sign on to that obvious gimmick. ‘It’s an idea to get them through an election,’ Mr. Obama said. Now he has two such gimmicks of his own.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)
Barack Obama Opposes Allowing States To Decide If They Want To Drill Offshore To Increase American Energy Independence. Obama: “The politics may have changed, but the facts haven’t. The accuracy of Sen. McCain’s original position has not changed: Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Press Availability, Jacksonville, FL, 6/20/08)
Barack Obama Opposes Immediate Gas Tax Relief For American Families. Obama: “I think John McCain’s proposal for a three month tax holiday is a bad idea.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Blue Bell, PA, 4/21/08)
Barack Obama Called John McCain’s $300 Million Prize For A Better Battery A “Gimmick.” Obama: “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices. Gimmicks that will only increase our addiction for another four years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)
Barack Obama Criticized Expanding Nuclear Power. Obama: “That might make sense in Washington, but it doesn’t make sense for America. In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than, guess where? Right here in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Las Vegas, NV, 6/24/08)
Barack Obama Is Proposing A Tax On Oil That Will Only Lead To Higher Prices At The Pump. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)
The Washington Post: Barack Obama’s Tax On Oil Will Only Lead To “Higher Prices At The Pump.” “But to add a five-year tax increase on top of that to pay for a one-year gift to voters would, indeed, increase the cost of doing business. That cost would be passed along in forgone investment in new production, lower dividends for pension funds and other shareholders, and higher prices at the pump– thus socking it to the consumers whom the plan is supposed to help. If oil prices fall, there might be no windfall profits to tax. Then the Obama rebate would have to be paid for through spending cuts, taxes on something else or borrowing.” (Editorial, “Tapping Tired Wells,” The Washington Post, 8/6/08)
MISLEADING CLAIM #7: Barack Obama Will Cut Taxes. OBAMA: “I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95% of all working families.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Denver, CO, 8/28/08)
Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)
FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple…. But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standar d deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (“The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, https://mail.cagop.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.factcheck.org/, 7/8/08)
FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (“The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_32000_question.html, 7/8/08)
Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)
The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)
Biden on Obama: This ad wrote itself!
It is going to be fun watching as Democrats try to spin these very public statements that Barak is not ready to lead by very popular figures like Biden & Clinton.
Barack Obama: The Child – The Messiah – The Obamessiah
This video pretty much says it all…
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 MeekBy James Gordon Meek
July 14, 2008Barack 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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…
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.
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
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?
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.
