Sunday, August 31, 2008
Keep The Change, We Can't Afford IT
Since “Change” is the theme of NoBama’s campaign, I’ve been giving some thought to what change seems to mean to him. Frankly friends, I say, “Barak, keep the change, we can’t afford it!”
Barak NoBama started life named Barak, but later changed to Barry. When asked he said: “Actually, my name’s Barack Obama,” and explained that “Barry” was just a way of helping him “smooth the way into society,” He later changed back to Barak.
Seems he’s changed a lot of things in his life including his faith. Raised Muslim, changed to Christianity? (We’ll see)
Below are a list of changes (flip flops). It was not difficult to find these examples. I’m sure you can contribute more:
CHANGE #1: Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground
CHANGE #2: Despite Pledging To Accept Public Financing, Barack Obama Has Reversed His Position And Opted Out Of The System
CHANGE #3: Barack Obama Is Backtracking On His Support For Unilaterally Renegotiating NAFTA
CHANGE #4: Barack Obama Is Considering Reducing Corporate Taxes Despite Having Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America
CHANGE #5: Barack Obama Has Changed Positions On The D.C. Handgun Ban
CHANGE #6: Barack Obama Has Shifted From Opposing Welfare Reform To Celebrating Welfare Reform In A Television Ad
CHANGE #7: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Criticizes The Administration's Energy Policy Despite Having Voted For The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill
CHANGE #8: Barack Obama Has Shifted Positions On Nuclear Power
CHANGE #9: Obama Adviser Said Obama Was Not Opposed To An Individual Health Care Mandate Despite His Opposition During The Primary
CHANGE #10: During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, But Now Backs A Compromise Bill
CHANGE #11: Barack Obama Disagreed With The Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Convicted Child Rapist Although In The Past He Opposed The Death Penalty
CHANGE #12: Barack Obama Has Backtracked From His Earlier Commitment To Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition"
CHANGE #13: After Saying Jerusalem Should Be "Undivided," Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked
CHANGE #14: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Has Backed Away From His Earlier Support For Normalized Relations With Cuba And Ending The Embargo
CHANGE #15: Barack Obama Is Against The California Ballot Measure Banning Gay Marriage Despite His Assertion That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman
CHANGE #16: Barack Obama Says That "Mental Distress" Should Not Be Reason For A Late Term Abortion Which Contradicts His Past Extreme Pro-Abortion Views
CHANGE #17: Barack Obama Said He Would Debate "Anywhere, Anytime" But Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings
Change #18: Barack Obama decides to tap the strategic oil reserve. Obama last month said he did not think the country should use the strategic oil reserves "at this point."
Change #19: Obama now says he's "open" to oil drilling.
Change #20: Obama flip flops in the same sentence in response to a seven year old girl's question about why he wants to be president. Obama wants to turn back the clock and more forward; Back to the Future?
Change #21: Obama doesn't know correct stance on Georgia.
Change #22: Obama insists he voted for protecting infants who survive abortion, but he actually voted against just such a law. When he insisted that he only voted against it because it would water down abortion, he lied because the law included such a provision.
Change #23: Obama said, at the Saddleback forum that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, but would vote against a federal amendment saying so because it would prohibit people from visiting their lovers in hospitals. California has a proposition that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and doesn't restrict civil unions. He won't support it.
Change #24:Obama was friends with domestic terrorist William Ayers and then "denounced" him.
Change #25: Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.
Change #26: The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."
Change #27: Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
Change #28: Decriminalization of Marijuana: While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana
Change #29: Running for President or Vice President of the United States: On the January 22nd edition of “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange: Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’” Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed. ” Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?” Obama: “I will not.”
Change #30: Single-Payer Healthcare: On January 22nd, the Hillary Clinton Campaign releases a video that proves that Obama lied about his position on “single-payer healthcare.” The video compares statements Obama made during the January 21st Democratic debate with those he made to an AFL-CIO conference in June 2003 while campaigning for the Senate
Change #31: NAFTA: On February 29th, the Obama campaign told Canadian Television (CTV) that no message was passed to the Canadian government suggesting that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated. However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser
Change #32: Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Barack Obama repudiated what he called “inflammatory and appalling remarks” made by his Chicago pastor. Obama said he had not been present during the sermons in question. Obama told MSNBC, “Had I heard them in church I would have expressed that concern directly to Rev. Wright.” Please note, he says that he would have expressed concern, not repudiate, the words. (Source: Audacity of Hypocrisy) Previously Obama had said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me
Change #33: Jerusalem: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."
Change #34: Meeting with Foreign Leaders: Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions
Change #35: Palestinian Elections In 2006: Obama Says That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006. But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An "Opportunity...To Consolidate Behind A Single Government."
Change #36: The Threat of Iran: Obama's comments in Oregon: I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.... Later in Montana, Obama changed his tune:
Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust...
Change #37: North Korea: U.S. Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama has recently indicated he no longer opposes the removal of North Korea from a U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Obama in January 2005 came out against the removal of the Stalinist nation from the list until it gives an account of the kidnapping and death in the North of the Rev. Kim Dong-shik in 2000.
Change #38: PATRIOT Act: "Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is the right thing, and the Senate showed earlier this year that it can be done with the oversight of our judicial system so we do not jeopardize the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for. We should not let the PATRIOT Act expire at the end of this year, but instead extend the current law for three months so that we can come to an agreement on these critical issues in Congress." On the Issues FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it.
Change #39: Illegal Immigrants and Driver's Licenses: As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted to require illegal immigrants to get a driver's license. The change? In the November 2007 CNN debate, he was asked what his stand was on that issue and he said, "I am not proposing that's what we do."
Change #40: Gay Marriage: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Obama Mocking and Ridiculing the Bible
No wonder this Muslim schooled individual felt at home in Rev. Wright's church. This video shows Obama's true colors.
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=4FCNKwHRCQM&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i1.ytimg.com/vi/4FCNKwHRCQM/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIowtWkI7Mb-0qwQdntvzVW&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=4FCNKwHRCQM&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i1.ytimg.com/vi/4FCNKwHRCQM/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIowtWkI7Mb-0qwQdntvzVW&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1
Obama's Backbone Deficit
August 21, 2008
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Last week raised important questions about whether Barack Obama is strong enough to be president. On the domestic political front, he showed incredible weakness in dealing with the Clintons, while on foreign and defense questions, he betrayed a lack of strength and resolve in standing up to Russia's invasion of Georgia.
This two-dimensional portrait of weakness underscores fears that Obama might, indeed, be a latter-day Jimmy Carter.
Consider first the domestic and political. Bill and Hillary Clinton have no leverage over Obama. Hillary can't win the nomination. She doesn't control any committees. If she or her supporters tried to disrupt the convention or demonstrate outside, she would pay a huge price among the party faithful. If Obama lost - after Hillary made a fuss at the convention - they would blame her for all eternity (just like Democrats blame Ted Kennedy for Carter's defeat).
But, without having any leverage or a decent hand to play, the Clintons bluffed Obama into amazing concessions. Hillary will speak on Tuesday night in prime time. Chelsea will introduce her. She will get to play a film extolling her virtues produced by Harry Bloodworth Thomason. Bill will speak on Wednesday night. Hillary's name will be placed into nomination. She will get to have nominating and seconding speeches on her behalf. And, on Thursday night, the last night of the convention, the roll call will show how narrowly Obama prevailed.
So Obama gave away Tuesday night, Wednesday night and part of Thursday night to the Clintons. It will really be their convention. A stronger candidate would've called their bluff and confined the Clintons to one night on which both Hillary and Bill spoke (he would have outshone her). He would have blocked a roll call by allowing a voice vote to nominate by acclimation. He would have stood up to the Clintons and recaptured his own convention.
If Obama can't stand up to the Clintons, after they have been defeated, how can he measure up to a resurgent Putin who has just achieved a military victory? When the Georgia invasion first began, Obama appealed for "restraint" on both sides. He treated the aggressive lion and the victimized lamb even-handedly. His performance was reminiscent of the worst of appeasement at Munich, where another dictator got away with seizing another breakaway province of another small neighboring country, leading to World War II.
After two days, Obama corrected himself, spoke of Russian aggression and condemned it. But his initial willingness to see things from the other point of view and to buy the line that Georgia provoked the invasion by occupying a part of its own country betrayed a world view characterized by undue deference to aggressors.
We know so little about Obama. His experience is so thin that it's hard to tell what kind of a president he'd be. While he nominally has been in the Senate for four years, he really only served the first two and consumed the rest of his tenure running for president and disregarding his Senate duties.
So we have no choice but to scrutinize his current transactions and statements for some clue as to who he is and what he'd do. In that context, his reaction to the first real-time foreign-policy crisis he faced as a nominee leaves his strength in doubt. So does his palsied response to the Clintons' attempt to make Denver a Clinton convention.
Is Obama an over-intellectualizing Hamlet who is incapable of decisive, strong action? With Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and Russia resurgent, there isn't much room for on-the-job learning.
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Last week raised important questions about whether Barack Obama is strong enough to be president. On the domestic political front, he showed incredible weakness in dealing with the Clintons, while on foreign and defense questions, he betrayed a lack of strength and resolve in standing up to Russia's invasion of Georgia.
This two-dimensional portrait of weakness underscores fears that Obama might, indeed, be a latter-day Jimmy Carter.
Consider first the domestic and political. Bill and Hillary Clinton have no leverage over Obama. Hillary can't win the nomination. She doesn't control any committees. If she or her supporters tried to disrupt the convention or demonstrate outside, she would pay a huge price among the party faithful. If Obama lost - after Hillary made a fuss at the convention - they would blame her for all eternity (just like Democrats blame Ted Kennedy for Carter's defeat).
But, without having any leverage or a decent hand to play, the Clintons bluffed Obama into amazing concessions. Hillary will speak on Tuesday night in prime time. Chelsea will introduce her. She will get to play a film extolling her virtues produced by Harry Bloodworth Thomason. Bill will speak on Wednesday night. Hillary's name will be placed into nomination. She will get to have nominating and seconding speeches on her behalf. And, on Thursday night, the last night of the convention, the roll call will show how narrowly Obama prevailed.
So Obama gave away Tuesday night, Wednesday night and part of Thursday night to the Clintons. It will really be their convention. A stronger candidate would've called their bluff and confined the Clintons to one night on which both Hillary and Bill spoke (he would have outshone her). He would have blocked a roll call by allowing a voice vote to nominate by acclimation. He would have stood up to the Clintons and recaptured his own convention.
If Obama can't stand up to the Clintons, after they have been defeated, how can he measure up to a resurgent Putin who has just achieved a military victory? When the Georgia invasion first began, Obama appealed for "restraint" on both sides. He treated the aggressive lion and the victimized lamb even-handedly. His performance was reminiscent of the worst of appeasement at Munich, where another dictator got away with seizing another breakaway province of another small neighboring country, leading to World War II.
After two days, Obama corrected himself, spoke of Russian aggression and condemned it. But his initial willingness to see things from the other point of view and to buy the line that Georgia provoked the invasion by occupying a part of its own country betrayed a world view characterized by undue deference to aggressors.
We know so little about Obama. His experience is so thin that it's hard to tell what kind of a president he'd be. While he nominally has been in the Senate for four years, he really only served the first two and consumed the rest of his tenure running for president and disregarding his Senate duties.
So we have no choice but to scrutinize his current transactions and statements for some clue as to who he is and what he'd do. In that context, his reaction to the first real-time foreign-policy crisis he faced as a nominee leaves his strength in doubt. So does his palsied response to the Clintons' attempt to make Denver a Clinton convention.
Is Obama an over-intellectualizing Hamlet who is incapable of decisive, strong action? With Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and Russia resurgent, there isn't much room for on-the-job learning.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Governing is Above Obama's Pay Grade
Michael ReaganWednesday, August 20, 2008
Anybody who watched Barack Obama’s sorry performance during Saturday Night’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency with Pastor Rick Warren had to come away with the question, “What is this guy doing running for president of the United States?”
The worshipping media described his comments as “nuanced,” the word they use to describe “wishy-washy.” It was full of those “on the other hand” answers to Pastor Warren’s probing questions.
Obama was anything but wishy-washy, however, when he said that knowing when human life begins was “above his pay grade.” He was just plain evasive, obviously seeking to play down his extremist view that abortion at any time, in any circumstance, is perfectly acceptable to him.
This isn’t surprising since he took the lead in the Illinois Senate in fighting a bill that would outlaw the barbarous murder of newborn infants who survive being killed in a partial-birth abortion.
During the forum, his struggle to please everybody by straddling the issues was plain for all to see. He showed he was willing to say and do what he believed everybody wanted to hear. When you try to find any real depth in his beliefs you quickly discover he is utterly shallow and soulless, a sloganeer instead of a missionary.
He’s just a politician on the make, trying to be all things to all people -- an empty suit proclaiming empty promises.
Being without real depth, his platform merely floats on a surface of promises categorized as “Hope” and “Change,” neither of which is clearly defined.
He assures us that he wants to change Washington and sweep away all that this city represents. Yet one has only to look at next week’s Democratic National Convention to understand that it’s not change, but lots more of the same.
Just look at the roster of speakers lined up and try to find a single new face. It’s the same old lineup, the same old roll call of familiar Democrat politicians who have constituted the leadership of the national Democratic Party for eons.
Change? Does inviting Jimmy Carter (arguably the worst president in our long history and a dedicated foe of Israel) constitute meaningful change?
Is John Kerry a new face, or simply a retread of a failed presidential candidate who represents his party’s recent past as well as its immediate future?
How about putting Al Gore on the speaker’s dais? Al Gore, the high priest of the phony climate-change religion who to this day can’t accept the fact that he lost to George Bush in 2000 and never stops whining about it. That’s change?
Just what changes the old Democratic order when you have Bill Clinton speaking one night and Hillary Clinton the next night?
Is Mayor Daley, Obama’s strongest backer and the boss of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, a symbol of change?
You look at this upcoming convention and you have to ask yourself, “Have I not seen this show before?”
We saw it in 2004 and 2000 and 1996 and 1992, and every other Democratic convention going back to Harry S. Truman. And by the way, if Truman were alive today he would be the one familiar face who wouldn’t be invited to speak.
Plain-spoken Harry would take one look at Obama and we’d be hearing some of his patented obscenities. Truman had no tolerance for politicians who tried to pass themselves off as messiahs, above the give and take of everyday politics.
Change? It’s simply more of the same old thing: power-hungry politicians lusting after the authority to impose the decades-old Democrat, socialist, big-brother programs on the American people. An authority the people wisely continue to deny them.
Barack Obama hasn’t demonstrated that by virtue of any past experience that he possesses the capacity to be president of the United States, a job far above his pay grade.
Anybody who watched Barack Obama’s sorry performance during Saturday Night’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency with Pastor Rick Warren had to come away with the question, “What is this guy doing running for president of the United States?”
The worshipping media described his comments as “nuanced,” the word they use to describe “wishy-washy.” It was full of those “on the other hand” answers to Pastor Warren’s probing questions.
Obama was anything but wishy-washy, however, when he said that knowing when human life begins was “above his pay grade.” He was just plain evasive, obviously seeking to play down his extremist view that abortion at any time, in any circumstance, is perfectly acceptable to him.
This isn’t surprising since he took the lead in the Illinois Senate in fighting a bill that would outlaw the barbarous murder of newborn infants who survive being killed in a partial-birth abortion.
During the forum, his struggle to please everybody by straddling the issues was plain for all to see. He showed he was willing to say and do what he believed everybody wanted to hear. When you try to find any real depth in his beliefs you quickly discover he is utterly shallow and soulless, a sloganeer instead of a missionary.
He’s just a politician on the make, trying to be all things to all people -- an empty suit proclaiming empty promises.
Being without real depth, his platform merely floats on a surface of promises categorized as “Hope” and “Change,” neither of which is clearly defined.
He assures us that he wants to change Washington and sweep away all that this city represents. Yet one has only to look at next week’s Democratic National Convention to understand that it’s not change, but lots more of the same.
Just look at the roster of speakers lined up and try to find a single new face. It’s the same old lineup, the same old roll call of familiar Democrat politicians who have constituted the leadership of the national Democratic Party for eons.
Change? Does inviting Jimmy Carter (arguably the worst president in our long history and a dedicated foe of Israel) constitute meaningful change?
Is John Kerry a new face, or simply a retread of a failed presidential candidate who represents his party’s recent past as well as its immediate future?
How about putting Al Gore on the speaker’s dais? Al Gore, the high priest of the phony climate-change religion who to this day can’t accept the fact that he lost to George Bush in 2000 and never stops whining about it. That’s change?
Just what changes the old Democratic order when you have Bill Clinton speaking one night and Hillary Clinton the next night?
Is Mayor Daley, Obama’s strongest backer and the boss of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, a symbol of change?
You look at this upcoming convention and you have to ask yourself, “Have I not seen this show before?”
We saw it in 2004 and 2000 and 1996 and 1992, and every other Democratic convention going back to Harry S. Truman. And by the way, if Truman were alive today he would be the one familiar face who wouldn’t be invited to speak.
Plain-spoken Harry would take one look at Obama and we’d be hearing some of his patented obscenities. Truman had no tolerance for politicians who tried to pass themselves off as messiahs, above the give and take of everyday politics.
Change? It’s simply more of the same old thing: power-hungry politicians lusting after the authority to impose the decades-old Democrat, socialist, big-brother programs on the American people. An authority the people wisely continue to deny them.
Barack Obama hasn’t demonstrated that by virtue of any past experience that he possesses the capacity to be president of the United States, a job far above his pay grade.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The Obama Tidal Wave
The Obama Tidal Wave
We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.
His speeches have inspired millions, and yet most of his followers have no idea what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change', or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.
The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma. Both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions.
On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler, too, inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.
Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans riding on the Obama Tidal Wave it is just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the reality of the ride is what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:
• He voted for partial birth abortion.
• He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of- state abortions.
• Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government (quotas)..
• In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
• Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
• Admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine in high school and in college.
• His religious convictions are very murky.
• He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why?
• Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations. Why?
• Opposed the Patriot Act.
• First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform.
• Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
• Supports universal health-care.
• Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
• Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
• Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
• Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform. Making illegals citizens.
• Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
• Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
• Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. (241 votes Demo, 10 votes Republican)
• Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
• Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax. Tax Increase.
• He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Tax Increase.
• Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded...which is not true.
• He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it.
Bill Brown
We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude.
His speeches have inspired millions, and yet most of his followers have no idea what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change', or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'.
The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma. Both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions.
On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler, too, inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.
Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans riding on the Obama Tidal Wave it is just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, but the reality of the ride is what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:
• He voted for partial birth abortion.
• He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of- state abortions.
• Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government (quotas)..
• In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe.
• Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
• Admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine in high school and in college.
• His religious convictions are very murky.
• He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why?
• Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations. Why?
• Opposed the Patriot Act.
• First bill he signed that was ever passed was campaign finance reform.
• Voted to allow law suits against gun manufacturers.
• Supports universal health-care.
• Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
• Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
• Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
• Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform. Making illegals citizens.
• Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
• Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
• Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. (241 votes Demo, 10 votes Republican)
• Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
• Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid into Soc. Sec. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax which now hits middle income brackets. Tax Increase.
• He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax. Tax Increase.
• He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Tax Increase.
• Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded...which is not true.
• He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it.
Bill Brown
Experience?
I found this on a shooting forum:
Food for thought...
If I only had 143 days of experience, Would you hire me to fix your car? Would you hire me to run your company? If I only had 143 days experience would you hire me to run the country? Something America might want to think about!
Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much. From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working (??).
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that. This isn't taking into account the days he has missed. In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.
Think about IT
Food for thought...
If I only had 143 days of experience, Would you hire me to fix your car? Would you hire me to run your company? If I only had 143 days experience would you hire me to run the country? Something America might want to think about!
Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much. From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working (??).
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that. This isn't taking into account the days he has missed. In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.
Think about IT
"Pay Grade" Unartful Dodge
‘Pay grade’ unartful dodgeSmart money shouldn’t be on Obama
By Michael Graham Wednesday, August 20, 2008
“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”
In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!”
In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.”
This is definitely not your grandfather’s Democratic Party.
Certainly not mine. My grandfather, Ray Futrell, was a lifelong FDR Democrat, the kind who would proudly rather vote for a wife-beating, syphilitic drunkard than for a Republican. In fact, he would find the previous sentence entirely redundant.
My grandfather helped push Patton’s tanks across Europe, and one reason for my grandfather’s unshakable party loyalty was his belief that Harry Truman saved his life by dropping the A-bombs on Japan.
If Truman hadn’t made the call - if he’d demurred that such a profound life-and-death decision was “above my pay grade” - my grandfather believed that he and untold thousands of Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland.
I miss my grandfather, but I’m also glad that he isn’t around to witness the tragic descent of his beloved Democratic Party.
Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing.
Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.
And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (“is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”
There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. “That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy!” is one of them. “I did not have sex with that woman” is another.
But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.”
With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.
Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can “handle the job of commander in chief.” Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.
Who can blame them? Obama wants the difficult duty of taking on Iran and North Korea, but he can’t even handle Rick Warren or the Clintons - the latter having commandeered Obama’s own convention in Denver next week and forced their way into a pro-Hillary roll call. Having been routed by the Clintonistas, Obama wants a chance to lead against al-Qaeda? Please.
Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.
Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they’ve already cast, like Obama’s extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.
That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician.
He is certainly no Harry Truman.
By Michael Graham Wednesday, August 20, 2008
“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”
In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!”
In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.”
This is definitely not your grandfather’s Democratic Party.
Certainly not mine. My grandfather, Ray Futrell, was a lifelong FDR Democrat, the kind who would proudly rather vote for a wife-beating, syphilitic drunkard than for a Republican. In fact, he would find the previous sentence entirely redundant.
My grandfather helped push Patton’s tanks across Europe, and one reason for my grandfather’s unshakable party loyalty was his belief that Harry Truman saved his life by dropping the A-bombs on Japan.
If Truman hadn’t made the call - if he’d demurred that such a profound life-and-death decision was “above my pay grade” - my grandfather believed that he and untold thousands of Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland.
I miss my grandfather, but I’m also glad that he isn’t around to witness the tragic descent of his beloved Democratic Party.
Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing.
Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.
And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (“is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”
There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. “That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy!” is one of them. “I did not have sex with that woman” is another.
But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.”
With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.
Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can “handle the job of commander in chief.” Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.
Who can blame them? Obama wants the difficult duty of taking on Iran and North Korea, but he can’t even handle Rick Warren or the Clintons - the latter having commandeered Obama’s own convention in Denver next week and forced their way into a pro-Hillary roll call. Having been routed by the Clintonistas, Obama wants a chance to lead against al-Qaeda? Please.
Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.
Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they’ve already cast, like Obama’s extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.
That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician.
He is certainly no Harry Truman.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Obama on Clarence Thomas
Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2008
Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.
Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.
Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.
Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Catholic Case Against Barack
by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)
Posted 08/12/2008 ET
In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown. But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously. For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan. Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary." Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure." And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death." Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste. How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this? If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath? How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate. When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous." Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide? Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right? Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail? And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
Posted 08/12/2008 ET
In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown. But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously. For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan. Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary." Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure." And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death." Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste. How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this? If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath? How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate. When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous." Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide? Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right? Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.
Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "Case Against Barack." For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail? And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
A Blank Screen and An Empty Suit
by Greg Garrison
In his most recent study in vapidity, The Audacity of Hope, Barack Hussein Obama does a remarkably terse and honest job of describing himself. If only Americans were to take him at his word: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Indeed. Of course, one’s first reaction might be, “What the hell is that supposed to mean?” But, in point of fact, we find ourselves articulating such queries daily with Kid Wonder; all that blather about “change we can believe in,” “hope we can change with. . .change we can hope for. . ..beliefs we can change with” or whatever, seems to have mystified folks all over the fruited plain, making his “blank screen” metaphor spot on. It is just that entirely vacuous theme which keeps dogging the media’s most recent incarnation of the Great Liberal Hope; his suit is as empty as a beer keg after a frat party.There is a little-reported piece of polling data floating around from a recent Rasmussen piece that asked folks about their “comfort” level with each of the candidates. 55% of voters said they would be comfortable with John McCain as president, but only 39% said so of Obama. Hmm. . .could it be that at some point the American voter is going to come face to face with that -- well, uh. . .that blank screen? And when it happens, just how comfortable can we expect said voter to be? But there is more.Turns out that whole blank screen idea is far more accurate a self-portrait than the senator might have wanted to confess: time after time his descriptions of himself in print offer a painfully consistent look into the man. This blank screen not only seems to lack physical features, it also appears to be pretty barren of character as well, and two examples demonstrate just how empty that expensive suit really is. First was his cowardice as a state senator in Illinois. The issue was partial birth abortion -- or rather what to do with the occasional baby who slips past the abortionist’s knife and out into the air of earth without being murdered enroute. Of course, such a faux pas is a big-time no-no for the doc, but historically what they have done to remedy their slip-ups is set them aside and let them die. So the Illinois Legislature proposed a statutory answer that would require those little guys who had escaped the knife to be treated like the living human beings they are. Not a tough vote, right? Well, not so fast. Then-state Senator Obama voted “present.” Yup, he didn’t even have the courage to vote his pro-abortion philosophy, instead opting to occupy that tepid abyss reserved for those whose timidity precludes them from taking a stand at all. Sounds pretty much like a blank screen to me.Then there was the story out of Canada about a dissident journalist named Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Muslim Zionist jailed in Bangladesh for his pro-Israel and pro-American writings. The Canada Free Press reports that the prisoner’s supporters garnered huge bipartisan support from our Congress, with polar-opposites like Dick Durban and Rick Santorum equally engaged in trying to free the guy from incarceration and torture, with one notable exception. When repeatedly and specifically approached, the best Senator Obama could do was to look confused and to respond in non-committal tones (Canadafreepress.com, July 29, 2008). Imagine that. Once again, the man faced a challenge -- in this case, a challenge simply to go along with a tidal wave of support from his own party -- but he just could not do it. Blank screen or empty suit, take your pick. Character does count, even in these latter days of licentiousness such as we faced through eight years of Slick Willie; and at some point before the polls open in November, I’ll bet we will all get a few really good opportunities to gaze into the face of Barack Obama and see just how blank a screen he really is.
In his most recent study in vapidity, The Audacity of Hope, Barack Hussein Obama does a remarkably terse and honest job of describing himself. If only Americans were to take him at his word: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” Indeed. Of course, one’s first reaction might be, “What the hell is that supposed to mean?” But, in point of fact, we find ourselves articulating such queries daily with Kid Wonder; all that blather about “change we can believe in,” “hope we can change with. . .change we can hope for. . ..beliefs we can change with” or whatever, seems to have mystified folks all over the fruited plain, making his “blank screen” metaphor spot on. It is just that entirely vacuous theme which keeps dogging the media’s most recent incarnation of the Great Liberal Hope; his suit is as empty as a beer keg after a frat party.There is a little-reported piece of polling data floating around from a recent Rasmussen piece that asked folks about their “comfort” level with each of the candidates. 55% of voters said they would be comfortable with John McCain as president, but only 39% said so of Obama. Hmm. . .could it be that at some point the American voter is going to come face to face with that -- well, uh. . .that blank screen? And when it happens, just how comfortable can we expect said voter to be? But there is more.Turns out that whole blank screen idea is far more accurate a self-portrait than the senator might have wanted to confess: time after time his descriptions of himself in print offer a painfully consistent look into the man. This blank screen not only seems to lack physical features, it also appears to be pretty barren of character as well, and two examples demonstrate just how empty that expensive suit really is. First was his cowardice as a state senator in Illinois. The issue was partial birth abortion -- or rather what to do with the occasional baby who slips past the abortionist’s knife and out into the air of earth without being murdered enroute. Of course, such a faux pas is a big-time no-no for the doc, but historically what they have done to remedy their slip-ups is set them aside and let them die. So the Illinois Legislature proposed a statutory answer that would require those little guys who had escaped the knife to be treated like the living human beings they are. Not a tough vote, right? Well, not so fast. Then-state Senator Obama voted “present.” Yup, he didn’t even have the courage to vote his pro-abortion philosophy, instead opting to occupy that tepid abyss reserved for those whose timidity precludes them from taking a stand at all. Sounds pretty much like a blank screen to me.Then there was the story out of Canada about a dissident journalist named Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Muslim Zionist jailed in Bangladesh for his pro-Israel and pro-American writings. The Canada Free Press reports that the prisoner’s supporters garnered huge bipartisan support from our Congress, with polar-opposites like Dick Durban and Rick Santorum equally engaged in trying to free the guy from incarceration and torture, with one notable exception. When repeatedly and specifically approached, the best Senator Obama could do was to look confused and to respond in non-committal tones (Canadafreepress.com, July 29, 2008). Imagine that. Once again, the man faced a challenge -- in this case, a challenge simply to go along with a tidal wave of support from his own party -- but he just could not do it. Blank screen or empty suit, take your pick. Character does count, even in these latter days of licentiousness such as we faced through eight years of Slick Willie; and at some point before the polls open in November, I’ll bet we will all get a few really good opportunities to gaze into the face of Barack Obama and see just how blank a screen he really is.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Can we ask?
Go to this link to watch a very powerful, short video of the one who would like to be your Commander In Chief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg8Od734wmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg8Od734wmA
Obama: Flimflam Man?
Debra Burlingame
Flashback 2004: Newly elected Sen. Barack Obama, explaining why he won't run for president in 2008.
"I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. Uh, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the senate. Now, there's some people who might be comfortable doing that, uh, but I'm not one of those people." (See it here.)
Obama has missed 248 votes (44.8%) in the current Congress, from January 2007 through June 2008. So, the question is, between starting his first job working in federal government on January 3, 2005, and essentially abandoning his duties as senator in January 2007 to "apply for a job" as President of the United States, where's the evidence that he "knows what he's doing?"
On the energy crisis:
No to drilling, no to nuclear power, no to clean coal: He supports taking "windfall profits" from oil companies and giving $1,000 bucks to everyone. Yaaaay!!!!! Says inflating your tires will have greater effect than off-shore drilling. Wants to harness the wind and the sun and have everyone ride bikes. Guess commercial aviation is just, well, screwed.
On Iraq:
Said sending more troops for the surge would fail, and in fact, would cause MORE violence. Now says success of surge was do to "Sunni Awakening" which "no one could have anticipated." Troops just got lucky.
On Islamic terrorism:
He says it's caused by poverty, hopelessness and despair, not fundamental Islamist ideology.
On Iran:
Says it's a small country that poses no serious threat. Would meet with Mahmud Amadinejad without preconditions.
On Pakistan:
If Pervez Mushariff won't aggressively hunt down al Qaeda, says he'll "bomb Pakistan."
On capital gains tax:
Admits that doubling the tax from 15% to 28% will reduce tax revenue due to reduced investment and economic growth, i.e. will be bad for the economy, but justifies it on the basis of "fairness" - this is straight income redistribution.
On healthcare:
Free for all - including illegal immigrants. Yaaaaaay!!! Will pay for it by raising taxes on incomes of $250,000 or more. Yaaaay!!! Screw them!!! Yaaaay!!!
On our obligation to the world:
He says U.S. has a moral obligation to educate the world's children and lift them out of poverty.
When confronted with questions about his rookie status and questionable judgment, Obama's pat response: you're just afraid of me because I "look different."
Is this the post-racial presidency? Do we want to spend the next four to eight years being accused of racism any time we question President Obama, his policies, his cabinet appointments, his choice of advisors?
Are Obama's comments about knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job "just words?"
Flashback 2004: Newly elected Sen. Barack Obama, explaining why he won't run for president in 2008.
"I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. Uh, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the senate. Now, there's some people who might be comfortable doing that, uh, but I'm not one of those people." (See it here.)
Obama has missed 248 votes (44.8%) in the current Congress, from January 2007 through June 2008. So, the question is, between starting his first job working in federal government on January 3, 2005, and essentially abandoning his duties as senator in January 2007 to "apply for a job" as President of the United States, where's the evidence that he "knows what he's doing?"
On the energy crisis:
No to drilling, no to nuclear power, no to clean coal: He supports taking "windfall profits" from oil companies and giving $1,000 bucks to everyone. Yaaaay!!!!! Says inflating your tires will have greater effect than off-shore drilling. Wants to harness the wind and the sun and have everyone ride bikes. Guess commercial aviation is just, well, screwed.
On Iraq:
Said sending more troops for the surge would fail, and in fact, would cause MORE violence. Now says success of surge was do to "Sunni Awakening" which "no one could have anticipated." Troops just got lucky.
On Islamic terrorism:
He says it's caused by poverty, hopelessness and despair, not fundamental Islamist ideology.
On Iran:
Says it's a small country that poses no serious threat. Would meet with Mahmud Amadinejad without preconditions.
On Pakistan:
If Pervez Mushariff won't aggressively hunt down al Qaeda, says he'll "bomb Pakistan."
On capital gains tax:
Admits that doubling the tax from 15% to 28% will reduce tax revenue due to reduced investment and economic growth, i.e. will be bad for the economy, but justifies it on the basis of "fairness" - this is straight income redistribution.
On healthcare:
Free for all - including illegal immigrants. Yaaaaaay!!! Will pay for it by raising taxes on incomes of $250,000 or more. Yaaaay!!! Screw them!!! Yaaaay!!!
On our obligation to the world:
He says U.S. has a moral obligation to educate the world's children and lift them out of poverty.
When confronted with questions about his rookie status and questionable judgment, Obama's pat response: you're just afraid of me because I "look different."
Is this the post-racial presidency? Do we want to spend the next four to eight years being accused of racism any time we question President Obama, his policies, his cabinet appointments, his choice of advisors?
Are Obama's comments about knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job "just words?"
Friday, August 8, 2008
Obama's Excellent European Adventure, Part Deux?
August 8, 2008
Exclusive: Obama’s Excellent European Adventure, Part Deux?
Pam Meister
Never say Barack Obama is a quitter. Despite the noticeable lack of bounce from his recent sojourn to the Old World (not enough air in his tires, perhaps?), he plans on returning to Europe after the Democrat Convention in order to woo celebs and other well-heeled supporters in Geneva, Switzerland at an event hosted by none other than George Clooney.
Yes, that George Clooney, who recently bought the rights to yet another anti-Iraq war film and is considering one of the lead roles for himself. Considering how well other anti-war films have done recently, you know he’s not looking to make money but probably has his eye on Oscar. And he’ll no doubt get it for being “brave enough” to make a movie that is critical of our presence in Iraq. Sticking it to the man, questioning authority, and all of that rebelliousness that made the ‘60s so repulsive…I mean, groovy, man, groovy! Peace out.
I tell you, if you could bottle Clooney’s brand of bravery, Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be begging to turn themselves into the feds! But be sure to question the timing if it happens on Bush’s watch.
For $1,000 a pop, you can hear Clooney sing the praises of Obama at the reception. And if you’re one of the lucky few (75 to be exact), for $10,000 you can sit down to a rubber chicken and arugula dinner while Obama talks about the bitter, gun-clinging Bible-thumping folks back home who couldn’t afford a plane ticket to Geneva, let alone spend another ten grand to see the Messiah turn a commonplace meal into an elegant feast just by being there. (I have a feeling Mayhill Fowler from Huffington Post won’t be invited to this one.)
Another Kodak moment, brought to you by the Obama campaign. Say Brie cheese!
It’s funny how Obama is planning to go to a fundraiser in Europe hosted by a mega celebrity, considering the outrage by his campaign over this ad by the McCain campaign about Obama’s high-flying celebrity status. And so soon after the convention? Shouldn’t he be campaigning here in America? Shouldn’t he be accepting John McCain’s invitations to join him at town hall meetings so he can take questions on the issues from real, everyday Americans about things like the economy and national security?
All throughout this campaign we’ve heard Obama claim that his opponents are using “distractions” in order to avoid talking about the real issues. In fact, I almost feel that “distraction” has become a dirty word. Yet the biggest distraction during this campaign has been Obama himself. Not only is he telling everyone what they can and cannot talk about – we can’t mention his former pastor, his relationships with domestic terrorists and card-carrying Communists, or his wife’s comments as his proxy on the campaign trail – but he’s also changed his position on everything from offshore drilling to when the troops should come home from Iraq faster than Brad and Angelina can sign the adoption papers for their next kid. (They want to be the first on their block to collect the whole set.)
In addition to Hope and Change™, Obama’s also banking his candidacy on a law degree (a dime a dozen in Washington), his experience as a community organizer (a.k.a. rabble rouser), his days as an Illinois state senator (where his voting record consisted of nearly 130 “presents”) and his 143+ days as a U.S. senator, where his biggest accomplishment has been to advance legislation that will cost American taxpayers a whopping $845 billion more than we already spend in foreign aid to help stop “global poverty” – with plenty of guidance from the UN.
My husband says that in retrospect, Obama makes John Kerry look experienced.
Some people believe that Obama’s trip to Switzerland will soon be canceled because of “the PR nightmare of leaving the country again to go hobnob and fleece international elites in Switzerland right before the election.” Perhaps since this event is set to happen during the Republican convention, the Obama campaign figured the fundraiser would fly under the radar.
But while Obama is busy seeking funding from Clooney & Co. in the exotic setting of Geneva, average Americans are wondering how they will fill up their cars and buy groceries for the week. They’re also looking at the continually improving situation in Iraq and see McCain as a much stronger Commander-in-Chief.
Sit down, take a load off and enjoy the cheese and crackers…the election is still a few months away!
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Exclusive: Obama’s Excellent European Adventure, Part Deux?
Pam Meister
Never say Barack Obama is a quitter. Despite the noticeable lack of bounce from his recent sojourn to the Old World (not enough air in his tires, perhaps?), he plans on returning to Europe after the Democrat Convention in order to woo celebs and other well-heeled supporters in Geneva, Switzerland at an event hosted by none other than George Clooney.
Yes, that George Clooney, who recently bought the rights to yet another anti-Iraq war film and is considering one of the lead roles for himself. Considering how well other anti-war films have done recently, you know he’s not looking to make money but probably has his eye on Oscar. And he’ll no doubt get it for being “brave enough” to make a movie that is critical of our presence in Iraq. Sticking it to the man, questioning authority, and all of that rebelliousness that made the ‘60s so repulsive…I mean, groovy, man, groovy! Peace out.
I tell you, if you could bottle Clooney’s brand of bravery, Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be begging to turn themselves into the feds! But be sure to question the timing if it happens on Bush’s watch.
For $1,000 a pop, you can hear Clooney sing the praises of Obama at the reception. And if you’re one of the lucky few (75 to be exact), for $10,000 you can sit down to a rubber chicken and arugula dinner while Obama talks about the bitter, gun-clinging Bible-thumping folks back home who couldn’t afford a plane ticket to Geneva, let alone spend another ten grand to see the Messiah turn a commonplace meal into an elegant feast just by being there. (I have a feeling Mayhill Fowler from Huffington Post won’t be invited to this one.)
Another Kodak moment, brought to you by the Obama campaign. Say Brie cheese!
It’s funny how Obama is planning to go to a fundraiser in Europe hosted by a mega celebrity, considering the outrage by his campaign over this ad by the McCain campaign about Obama’s high-flying celebrity status. And so soon after the convention? Shouldn’t he be campaigning here in America? Shouldn’t he be accepting John McCain’s invitations to join him at town hall meetings so he can take questions on the issues from real, everyday Americans about things like the economy and national security?
All throughout this campaign we’ve heard Obama claim that his opponents are using “distractions” in order to avoid talking about the real issues. In fact, I almost feel that “distraction” has become a dirty word. Yet the biggest distraction during this campaign has been Obama himself. Not only is he telling everyone what they can and cannot talk about – we can’t mention his former pastor, his relationships with domestic terrorists and card-carrying Communists, or his wife’s comments as his proxy on the campaign trail – but he’s also changed his position on everything from offshore drilling to when the troops should come home from Iraq faster than Brad and Angelina can sign the adoption papers for their next kid. (They want to be the first on their block to collect the whole set.)
In addition to Hope and Change™, Obama’s also banking his candidacy on a law degree (a dime a dozen in Washington), his experience as a community organizer (a.k.a. rabble rouser), his days as an Illinois state senator (where his voting record consisted of nearly 130 “presents”) and his 143+ days as a U.S. senator, where his biggest accomplishment has been to advance legislation that will cost American taxpayers a whopping $845 billion more than we already spend in foreign aid to help stop “global poverty” – with plenty of guidance from the UN.
My husband says that in retrospect, Obama makes John Kerry look experienced.
Some people believe that Obama’s trip to Switzerland will soon be canceled because of “the PR nightmare of leaving the country again to go hobnob and fleece international elites in Switzerland right before the election.” Perhaps since this event is set to happen during the Republican convention, the Obama campaign figured the fundraiser would fly under the radar.
But while Obama is busy seeking funding from Clooney & Co. in the exotic setting of Geneva, average Americans are wondering how they will fill up their cars and buy groceries for the week. They’re also looking at the continually improving situation in Iraq and see McCain as a much stronger Commander-in-Chief.
Sit down, take a load off and enjoy the cheese and crackers…the election is still a few months away!
Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Butter Cutter by Maj. Anthony Milavic, USMC (Ret)
The Butter-Cutter On The Campaign Of “Change”By: Maj. Anthony F. Milavic, USMC (Ret.)The presumptive Democratic candidate for president of the United States, Sen. Barak Obama, has made “change” the theme of his campaign. In an effort to learn the substance of that theme, I changed and sought out the Butter-Cutter on the left side of the Chow Line in the virtual Mess Hall.
“That's right! The brother's gonna change.” the Butter-Cutter declared without prompting.
“Well, early on, Sen. Obama pledged to stick to public financing. Now with his coffers full of cash, he has withdrawn from that commitment. Is changing his mind what the Senator means by 'change,' ” I asked.
“Look, man, this way, he can do more than with public money. So, he changed his mind. Man, he ain't dumb!"
“At one time, the Senator also pledged to get rid of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, by taking 'the hammer' to Canada and Mexico and threatened to cancel it unilaterally. Now, he calls those statements 'overheated.' . . .
““That's right! Change, man, change! Ya know what I'm sayin'?““
He also declared that he would filibuster any bill that included retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Later, the Senator said that he would vote for the new FISA bill, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping. Is this more of the kind of change the Senator intends to bring to the presidency?” I asked further of the Butter-Cutter.
“Yeah! Yeah! He changed like he said, man. Hey, man, don't he talk sweet? Ya see the brother talk ta all them people in Philly back in March? Man, that was sweet! Not like that McCain. He can't talk wertashit, man . . . not wertashit! An', he only talks ta people face-ta-face in little groups. He's not like the brother who talks ta thousands at one time!”
“Senator Obama refused to wear a U.S. flag pin because, as he said, it had become a substitute for true patriotism; then he started wearing it. Why do you think he made that change?” I queried the Butter-Cutter.
“Oh, man, a bunch o' them small-town people who pray, keep guns, 'n' are afraid of everything trash-talked him. So, he put on one o' them little pins 'n' they stopped. Ya know what I'm sayin'?”
In 2006 and 2007, he called for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. Forces from Iraq, even threatening to cute off all funding for them. Later, he changed that to a promise to withdraw all U.S. combat forces in 16 months. His 14 July article in the New York Times contained yet another change. He now agrees to a residual force in Iraq with three missions: pursue Al Qaeda, protect American service members, and train Iraqi security forces. What do you make of those changes?” I asked.
“Hey, man, what's wrong with ya? Yeah, he changed like that: we're winnin'! Right? Ta get the votes to be prezidant, the brother's gotta be on the right side o' the fence. So, he changed! Ya know what I'm sayin'?”
“In March, Senator Obama said that he could not 'disown' the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his spiritual mentor and friend for over 20 years. Then in April, he changed his mind and publically dumped him. What does that say about his loyalty to friends?” I asked the Butter-Cutter.
“Oh, man, that don't mean nuttin'. The Rev said the brother had ta say that sh** because he wanna be prezidant. It was all just a little shuckin' 'n' jivin'. Ya know what I'm sayin'?”
Last week, he was scheduled to visit wounded U.S. soldiers in a military hospital in Germany. When told he could not bring members of the media and campaign officials with him, he changed his mind and cancelled the visit. Is that conduct befitting someone who aspires to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States?”
“Man, he was busy over there meetin' with prezidants 'n' talkin' ta thousands of people. Ya hear him talk there? Man, he talk sweet, sweet, man! That McCain talks ta ordinary people 'n' only a few atta time like he wanna be personal 'n' friends er somethin'.”
As we have seen, Senator Obama has changed his mind on campaign financing, NAFTA, FISA, wearing of a U.S. flag pin, keeping U.S. Forces in Iraq, the Rev. Wright, and visiting wounded soldiers. His demonstrated performance suggests that the substance of his campaign theme of 'change' and how he will conduct himself as president if elected is--change whenever it is politically expedient!”
“Ah, man, listen! When he be prezidant, the brother gonna talk sweet 'n' change. He ain't like that McCain dude who don't talk wertashit! The brother, now, the brother talk sweet! Ya know what I'm sayin'? He talk sweet 'n' change. That's what he's gonna do when he be prezidant! Ya know what I'm sayin? Hey, man! YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYIN'?”
“I know!” I said emphatically and then turned and walked away from the Butter-Cutter on the left side of the virtual Chow Line.Semper Knowing "Shuckin' 'n' Jivin',"
“That's right! The brother's gonna change.” the Butter-Cutter declared without prompting.
“Well, early on, Sen. Obama pledged to stick to public financing. Now with his coffers full of cash, he has withdrawn from that commitment. Is changing his mind what the Senator means by 'change,' ” I asked.
“Look, man, this way, he can do more than with public money. So, he changed his mind. Man, he ain't dumb!"
“At one time, the Senator also pledged to get rid of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, by taking 'the hammer' to Canada and Mexico and threatened to cancel it unilaterally. Now, he calls those statements 'overheated.' . . .
““That's right! Change, man, change! Ya know what I'm sayin'?““
He also declared that he would filibuster any bill that included retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Later, the Senator said that he would vote for the new FISA bill, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gives blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping. Is this more of the kind of change the Senator intends to bring to the presidency?” I asked further of the Butter-Cutter.
“Yeah! Yeah! He changed like he said, man. Hey, man, don't he talk sweet? Ya see the brother talk ta all them people in Philly back in March? Man, that was sweet! Not like that McCain. He can't talk wertashit, man . . . not wertashit! An', he only talks ta people face-ta-face in little groups. He's not like the brother who talks ta thousands at one time!”
“Senator Obama refused to wear a U.S. flag pin because, as he said, it had become a substitute for true patriotism; then he started wearing it. Why do you think he made that change?” I queried the Butter-Cutter.
“Oh, man, a bunch o' them small-town people who pray, keep guns, 'n' are afraid of everything trash-talked him. So, he put on one o' them little pins 'n' they stopped. Ya know what I'm sayin'?”
In 2006 and 2007, he called for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. Forces from Iraq, even threatening to cute off all funding for them. Later, he changed that to a promise to withdraw all U.S. combat forces in 16 months. His 14 July article in the New York Times contained yet another change. He now agrees to a residual force in Iraq with three missions: pursue Al Qaeda, protect American service members, and train Iraqi security forces. What do you make of those changes?” I asked.
“Hey, man, what's wrong with ya? Yeah, he changed like that: we're winnin'! Right? Ta get the votes to be prezidant, the brother's gotta be on the right side o' the fence. So, he changed! Ya know what I'm sayin'?”
“In March, Senator Obama said that he could not 'disown' the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his spiritual mentor and friend for over 20 years. Then in April, he changed his mind and publically dumped him. What does that say about his loyalty to friends?” I asked the Butter-Cutter.
“Oh, man, that don't mean nuttin'. The Rev said the brother had ta say that sh** because he wanna be prezidant. It was all just a little shuckin' 'n' jivin'. Ya know what I'm sayin'?”
Last week, he was scheduled to visit wounded U.S. soldiers in a military hospital in Germany. When told he could not bring members of the media and campaign officials with him, he changed his mind and cancelled the visit. Is that conduct befitting someone who aspires to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States?”
“Man, he was busy over there meetin' with prezidants 'n' talkin' ta thousands of people. Ya hear him talk there? Man, he talk sweet, sweet, man! That McCain talks ta ordinary people 'n' only a few atta time like he wanna be personal 'n' friends er somethin'.”
As we have seen, Senator Obama has changed his mind on campaign financing, NAFTA, FISA, wearing of a U.S. flag pin, keeping U.S. Forces in Iraq, the Rev. Wright, and visiting wounded soldiers. His demonstrated performance suggests that the substance of his campaign theme of 'change' and how he will conduct himself as president if elected is--change whenever it is politically expedient!”
“Ah, man, listen! When he be prezidant, the brother gonna talk sweet 'n' change. He ain't like that McCain dude who don't talk wertashit! The brother, now, the brother talk sweet! Ya know what I'm sayin'? He talk sweet 'n' change. That's what he's gonna do when he be prezidant! Ya know what I'm sayin? Hey, man! YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYIN'?”
“I know!” I said emphatically and then turned and walked away from the Butter-Cutter on the left side of the virtual Chow Line.Semper Knowing "Shuckin' 'n' Jivin',"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
