Dr. Asten: Hell, no!
I recently got in a heated discussion with an Obama supporter, over a status on Facebook which called on people to stop criticizing President Obama, since he believes they patted President Bush on the back for eight years. When asked to clarify the Obamist's status message, it turned into the typical left versus right debate we were exposed to during the Bush Years, where the liberal would engage in attacks ad hominem and the conservative would try to engage in substantive debate. Any person who followed the news coverage of the Bush Years knows that the Obamist's statement is a misspeak, if not a lie. If anything, the media metamorphosed from being the "government watchdog," to the "government lapdog." The media tried their damndest to keep President Bush from being reelected, and made it a point to form their coverage to make him look like the "Imbecile-in-Chief." I reminded him that Republicans and conservatives were all over President Bush for runaway spending, illegal immigration, McCain-Feingold, and bungling Iraq. Hell, several self-described conservatives were arguing against the US invading Iraq.
Those facts proved his theory wrong, but he wasn't letting up. In a move that showed his intent was to empty the punch bowl, and follow the media's line hand over foot, the ObamAid drinker tried to come after me using the line we heard in the beginning of the Obama Administration, giving Obama time to "fix George Bush's mess." I reminded him that the economy grew after Bush's tax cuts in 2001, we were privileged to have 52 months of economic growth, which began to decline the year the majority in Congress switched to the Democrats. I also told him that if President Obama was serious about fixing the economy, he would have allowed both Republicans AND Democrats in on crafting the legislation which culminated in the Porkulus law. I also noted that Obama doesn't want the electorate to look at his US Senate record, where the supposed fiscal conservative Obama supported both TARP and the bailout of Bear Stearns. I explained that Obama is at least culpable for our current economic situation, and that he's not blameless. The Obamist claimed that he was one vote in a sea of 535, against a lone President Bush. I rejected that line for exactly what it was...its lameness.
Clearly, the Obamist was feeling frustrated that his theory was falling like a house a cards, he went into a tirade against McCain, asking me if I believed had McCain beat Obama, if the economy would be "hunky dory," to which I said "No," with the caveat that McCain would have better vetted his Treasury Secretary, and not allowed a tax cheat to dictate tax policy. I believe McCain would have called on a bipartisan bill to emerge from Congress that would have actually "jumpstarted the economy," instead of scaring the shit out of people declaring this money is needed now, and waiting until next fiscal year to spend a bulk of the funds. By this time, the ObamAid drinker was in sputtering rage, most of his words were indeterminable. I also told the Obamist that while he is content on allowing Obama to quadruple the deficit, and continue to blame President Bush, his talking point is in the minority.
In getting me to say that McCain's policy probably would not make everything "hunky dory," the Obamist declared "victory." I admit, his bar for victory must have been low, if all he wanted me to do was say something bad about Republicans. His larger point was refuted over and over again, yet he continued to ignore it and was sputtering at me because I would not jump on his bandwagon. He did claim that he's willing to give Obama another year before he will say the economy belongs to Obama. I say by that point, most Democrats would have distanced themselves from Obama, and this ObamAid drinker will still be drinking from the punch bowl wondering why he's all alone. It's a shame the ObamAid drinker I was "debating" was my own brother...
Gateway Pundit shows us the all familiar chart that shows how much the Obama Administration plans to increase the deficit. There's also a story on Yahoo! that says that tax cheating US Secretary of the Treasury, lil Timmy Geithner, has not ruled out tax increases for the middle class, and I suppose ObamAid drinkers will invoke the cynic card, claiming all politicians lie. It doesn't occur to them that their cynicism, in the face of Obama blowing up the deficit, will have a perilous effect on us in the future. The Porkulus jive was an excuse to pander to his political donors and rationale to enact his disastrous agenda on the nation. 2010 and 2012 can't get here fast enough.
This weekend, I also had the privilege, I guess, to read Gwen Ifill's Obama puffery, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," more on that in a later blogpost...
Have a great day...
03 August 2009
30 July 2009
Maxine Waters: I am the fifth most beautifullest person on Capitol Hill!
...beware those who oppose me...
I must mention that The Hill must have been in a hurry to post their annual 50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill. There is no way in HELL that I will believe that Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) the harridan who loudly proclaimed she wasn't afraid of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, as if she had something to fear from them, is the fifth most beautiful person on Capitol Hill. No way in HELL! If Waters is the standard, then obviously, Medusa was a Republican congresswoman, since no Republican congresswoman or Senator made the list...lol! I certainly don't corner the market on looks, but this shit takes the freakin' cake!
Waters, in addition to not being afraid of mere men, isn't afraid of the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress either. She rips White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, for instituting his strategy in both the Election of 2006 and 2008, recruiting conservative Democrats in red districts. I, for one, thought Waters liked her party holding the majority in Congress, but you know I'm crazy as hell. At least Waters is on the right track in assigning blame, unlike the White House and stupefied blue bloggers, who continue to blame the GOP.
It's a very good thing that Waters is not on any committee that recruits candidates to run for public office, or she must have been too busy railing against Bush's War in Iraq to notice how many in the electorate were disillusioned by Bush and Republicans' spending habits from 2001-2006. Those "Blue Dog" Democrats won simply because they ran as all things conservative. Rahm Emmanuel is anything but stupid, he knew what he was doing. Had Waters' strategy worked, Ned Lamont would have ousted Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race...he didn't. Next year, it will be more difficult to portray Democrats as fiscally responsible in light of Porkulus, Crap-n-Trade, and ObamaScare, so my advice to Mrs. Waters would be to keep her protestations under wraps.
She's not the only one expressing frustration at the "Blue Dogs," as Hank Johnson (D-GA), who had the privilege of ousting Waters' fellow race-baiter, Cynthia McKinney in 2006, claims that opposition to the so-called "public option" was based on racism, since all the "Blue Dogs" are white. San Fran Nan went on a tirade against private insurance companies, calling them "villains." It must be hot as hell on Capitol Hill, with liberals fanning the flames. What liberals don't seem to understand is that profits are not eeevil, in fact, they represent customer satisfaction with the company's product, as Stephen Carter explains for us. A business has every right to fight against confiscatory policies of the government that seek to put it out of business. The so-called public option will do exactly that, by forcing private insurance companies to unfairly compete with government insurance plans, backed by taxpayer subsidies.
For more on the horrors of the so-called "public option," read this post by David Freddoso on Betsy's page...
But Obamessiah wants to assure you he's not antibusiness...it's his policies that are...
Have a great day...
I must mention that The Hill must have been in a hurry to post their annual 50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill. There is no way in HELL that I will believe that Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) the harridan who loudly proclaimed she wasn't afraid of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, as if she had something to fear from them, is the fifth most beautiful person on Capitol Hill. No way in HELL! If Waters is the standard, then obviously, Medusa was a Republican congresswoman, since no Republican congresswoman or Senator made the list...lol! I certainly don't corner the market on looks, but this shit takes the freakin' cake!
Waters, in addition to not being afraid of mere men, isn't afraid of the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress either. She rips White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, for instituting his strategy in both the Election of 2006 and 2008, recruiting conservative Democrats in red districts. I, for one, thought Waters liked her party holding the majority in Congress, but you know I'm crazy as hell. At least Waters is on the right track in assigning blame, unlike the White House and stupefied blue bloggers, who continue to blame the GOP.
It's a very good thing that Waters is not on any committee that recruits candidates to run for public office, or she must have been too busy railing against Bush's War in Iraq to notice how many in the electorate were disillusioned by Bush and Republicans' spending habits from 2001-2006. Those "Blue Dog" Democrats won simply because they ran as all things conservative. Rahm Emmanuel is anything but stupid, he knew what he was doing. Had Waters' strategy worked, Ned Lamont would have ousted Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race...he didn't. Next year, it will be more difficult to portray Democrats as fiscally responsible in light of Porkulus, Crap-n-Trade, and ObamaScare, so my advice to Mrs. Waters would be to keep her protestations under wraps.
She's not the only one expressing frustration at the "Blue Dogs," as Hank Johnson (D-GA), who had the privilege of ousting Waters' fellow race-baiter, Cynthia McKinney in 2006, claims that opposition to the so-called "public option" was based on racism, since all the "Blue Dogs" are white. San Fran Nan went on a tirade against private insurance companies, calling them "villains." It must be hot as hell on Capitol Hill, with liberals fanning the flames. What liberals don't seem to understand is that profits are not eeevil, in fact, they represent customer satisfaction with the company's product, as Stephen Carter explains for us. A business has every right to fight against confiscatory policies of the government that seek to put it out of business. The so-called public option will do exactly that, by forcing private insurance companies to unfairly compete with government insurance plans, backed by taxpayer subsidies.
For more on the horrors of the so-called "public option," read this post by David Freddoso on Betsy's page...
But Obamessiah wants to assure you he's not antibusiness...it's his policies that are...
Have a great day...
Congressional Democrats on firing nine US Attorneys: Politization of the Justice Department!
Congressional Democrats on the dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation:...
My, how times have changed. Democrats charged the Bush White House for politicizing the US Department of Justice for firing nine US Attorneys in 2006. Besides the continual, stomach-churning apologies emanating from the White House for exercising its constitutional power, the only other bothersome thing about the entire matter was Democrats' ignorance of Clinton's unprecedented firing of US Attorneys, one of which, Jay Stephens, was investigating one of Clinton's friends in Congress, Dan Rostenkowski. No hell raising from Democrats occurred, even after Rostenkowski was indicted and convicted during the House Post Office scandal. It's helpful to note that Rostenkowski was later pardoned by the Clenis in 2000.
Even Jonathan Turley sees a problem with the Obama Justice Department's rationale behind dismissing these charges. So far, the administration's silence on this issue makes it seem that it's perfectly fine for voters to be intimidated by thugs with nightsticks, or any other weapon of choice. I seriously doubt that if the suspects had been members of white supremacy groups, the Justice Department would be so lax in enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them (and Obama's handlers love to remind me that he doesn't have it out for "whitey").
Also puzzling in this is the fact that the Obama Administration has stonewalled any attempt by Congressional Republicans to get an explanation of this action. The decision, an overrule of career civil servants at Justice, was made by Obama campaign donor, and number three at Justice, Thomas Perrelli. Dan Riehl believes this Perrelli fella shouldn't be the only one being subject to our concern. Glenn Beck is raked over the coals for suggesting that Obama's been the racist the entire time, but the rakes aren't paying attention to the evidence. They, instead, wish to focus on how the Right has supposedly increased its "racist" rhetoric since a black man took the presidency.
Let us wait to see how many Democrats cry "Polarization" at this travesty of justice...
Have a great day...
My, how times have changed. Democrats charged the Bush White House for politicizing the US Department of Justice for firing nine US Attorneys in 2006. Besides the continual, stomach-churning apologies emanating from the White House for exercising its constitutional power, the only other bothersome thing about the entire matter was Democrats' ignorance of Clinton's unprecedented firing of US Attorneys, one of which, Jay Stephens, was investigating one of Clinton's friends in Congress, Dan Rostenkowski. No hell raising from Democrats occurred, even after Rostenkowski was indicted and convicted during the House Post Office scandal. It's helpful to note that Rostenkowski was later pardoned by the Clenis in 2000.
Even Jonathan Turley sees a problem with the Obama Justice Department's rationale behind dismissing these charges. So far, the administration's silence on this issue makes it seem that it's perfectly fine for voters to be intimidated by thugs with nightsticks, or any other weapon of choice. I seriously doubt that if the suspects had been members of white supremacy groups, the Justice Department would be so lax in enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them (and Obama's handlers love to remind me that he doesn't have it out for "whitey").
Also puzzling in this is the fact that the Obama Administration has stonewalled any attempt by Congressional Republicans to get an explanation of this action. The decision, an overrule of career civil servants at Justice, was made by Obama campaign donor, and number three at Justice, Thomas Perrelli. Dan Riehl believes this Perrelli fella shouldn't be the only one being subject to our concern. Glenn Beck is raked over the coals for suggesting that Obama's been the racist the entire time, but the rakes aren't paying attention to the evidence. They, instead, wish to focus on how the Right has supposedly increased its "racist" rhetoric since a black man took the presidency.
Let us wait to see how many Democrats cry "Polarization" at this travesty of justice...
Have a great day...
Democrats: We're strong on terror, just like the Republicans...
...we're actually timid when it comes time to prove it...
Most Obamabots agree that the president has marked a sharp contrast to the bungling, keystone cop-like, Bush Administration. They have this mindset that because the Bushites actually took the terrorists at their word, they were being unfair to the terrorists. We were called on by liberals to understand their plight and moderate our rhetoric to appease the terrorists, and this way, they would go home and leave us the hell alone. Oh, and that our opposition to appeasement was inherent in racism (almost forgot that one...). On the campaign trail, Obamessiah called Bush foreign policy "dumb" and "made us less safer," (another instance where crazy lefties' theories were aired by Democrats) even though terrorist plots were being stopped by our Justice and Defense Departments. Upon his first day in office, Obama pledged, with Secretary of State Clinton's acknowledgement, that the US would engage in "smart power," who's first mission was to quell tensions in Russia (and we all know how that turned out...lol!).
So far, the Obama foreign policy of "smart power" has been anything but. From his slow-footed response to the Iranian regime's crackdown on protestors, condemning Israel while appeasing Arab governments that sponsor terror groups, to siding with a power grab in Honduras, the president is showing that he's more adept at being a grievance monger than being an actual leader, or a rebuttal against a policy he declared "dumb." Debra Burlingame, sister of late pilot Charles "Chic" Burlingame of Flight 77 fame, which crashed into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, writes an article in the Wall Street Journal about "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid's latest attempt to continue his jihad against the United States. In 2007, Reid filed a lawsuit against the United States claiming that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. SAMs are rules that are put in place against an inmate that would prevent him from corresponding, communicating, or contacting others when those actions pose a serious risk of bodily injury or death to others.
It should be no secret that terrorists do not cease their jihad once they enter prison. In fact, one of the reasons why Lynne Stewart sits in prison is because she violated a directive put in place against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, that he be prevented from communicating, corresponding, and contacting members of his terror group, a move David Cole of The Nation called a "stretch," and "an indication of how far things got in the 'War on Terror'" and equating the Justice Department to the terror groups. It is clear that Stewart was abetting her client, and not just a naïve woman who was caught at in the wrong place at the wrong time, as liberals claimed about John Walker Lindh, Yasser Hamdi, and José Padilla. While in prison, terrorists conduct prayer meetings in languages not understood by their English-speaking correctional officers. The Justice Department, in 2008, dismissed Reid's claim, and cited another terrorist, Mohammed Ajaj's similar disdain for the safety of the US.
In the discussion of Obama's not-to-well-thought-out move to close GITMO, several of his supporters latched on to the fact that no prisoner has escaped from SuperMax in Colorado. They don't note, however, the constitutional problems this move would cause, and I seriously doubt the ACLU will cease coddling terror suspects if they moved within the borders of the United States. The executive order was clearly designed to pander to the fringe element on the Left, you know the one that doesn't make policy for Democrats, to close GITMO. To be such a "smart man," the president clearly isn't thinking, on this, or other matters.
Most Obamabots agree that the president has marked a sharp contrast to the bungling, keystone cop-like, Bush Administration. They have this mindset that because the Bushites actually took the terrorists at their word, they were being unfair to the terrorists. We were called on by liberals to understand their plight and moderate our rhetoric to appease the terrorists, and this way, they would go home and leave us the hell alone. Oh, and that our opposition to appeasement was inherent in racism (almost forgot that one...). On the campaign trail, Obamessiah called Bush foreign policy "dumb" and "made us less safer," (another instance where crazy lefties' theories were aired by Democrats) even though terrorist plots were being stopped by our Justice and Defense Departments. Upon his first day in office, Obama pledged, with Secretary of State Clinton's acknowledgement, that the US would engage in "smart power," who's first mission was to quell tensions in Russia (and we all know how that turned out...lol!).
So far, the Obama foreign policy of "smart power" has been anything but. From his slow-footed response to the Iranian regime's crackdown on protestors, condemning Israel while appeasing Arab governments that sponsor terror groups, to siding with a power grab in Honduras, the president is showing that he's more adept at being a grievance monger than being an actual leader, or a rebuttal against a policy he declared "dumb." Debra Burlingame, sister of late pilot Charles "Chic" Burlingame of Flight 77 fame, which crashed into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, writes an article in the Wall Street Journal about "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid's latest attempt to continue his jihad against the United States. In 2007, Reid filed a lawsuit against the United States claiming that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. SAMs are rules that are put in place against an inmate that would prevent him from corresponding, communicating, or contacting others when those actions pose a serious risk of bodily injury or death to others.
It should be no secret that terrorists do not cease their jihad once they enter prison. In fact, one of the reasons why Lynne Stewart sits in prison is because she violated a directive put in place against Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, that he be prevented from communicating, corresponding, and contacting members of his terror group, a move David Cole of The Nation called a "stretch," and "an indication of how far things got in the 'War on Terror'" and equating the Justice Department to the terror groups. It is clear that Stewart was abetting her client, and not just a naïve woman who was caught at in the wrong place at the wrong time, as liberals claimed about John Walker Lindh, Yasser Hamdi, and José Padilla. While in prison, terrorists conduct prayer meetings in languages not understood by their English-speaking correctional officers. The Justice Department, in 2008, dismissed Reid's claim, and cited another terrorist, Mohammed Ajaj's similar disdain for the safety of the US.
In the discussion of Obama's not-to-well-thought-out move to close GITMO, several of his supporters latched on to the fact that no prisoner has escaped from SuperMax in Colorado. They don't note, however, the constitutional problems this move would cause, and I seriously doubt the ACLU will cease coddling terror suspects if they moved within the borders of the United States. The executive order was clearly designed to pander to the fringe element on the Left, you know the one that doesn't make policy for Democrats, to close GITMO. To be such a "smart man," the president clearly isn't thinking, on this, or other matters.
Mark Morford: The Birthers are hijacking the GOP's agenda...
...the crazies on the Left did no such thing about Democrats...
By continuing to blog about the "Birthers," I am not lending them any credibility, because I don't agree with their movement. When I blog about them, I am only discussing how liberals apply credibility with the same standards as the shifting winds. Mark Morford, a blogger at HuffnPuff pokes fun at Birthers and the GOP, by offering up 9 more conspiracy theories they could embrace once the Obama birth certificate story dies. He and I agree that the Birthers have no legs to stand on, in light of the evidence, it's a fallacious claim he makes which gives me a problem. He claims that while the Left has no shortage of crazies, they did not dominate discussion in quite the same way as the Birthers are about the GOP. Anyone remember Trig-gate?
After Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in the Election of 2008, journalists were airlifted into Juneau to try and dig up dirt on dear old Sarah. Barack Obama was licking his chops in anticipation for a saucy divorce story that similarly derailed the campaigns of his opponents for the US Senate. Unfortunately, Sarah was still married to her first husband and had children by him. She had no illegitimate children, and she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the union. Obama, whose lead over McCain was shrinking, began to panic. Soon, there were murmurings in the blue blogosphere about Sarah's fifth child actually being her grandson. "JACKPOT!" Obama said, reminiscing the 1970s and 80s gameshow. He stayed above the fray, but gave a milquetoast condemnation to liberals who pushed the story (and liberals blamed Sarah Palin for not quelling the rumors that started in the blue blogosphere...and they, oddly, don't call on Obama to do the same about the Birthers).
Need another? Look at Troopergate, where Sarah was under investigation for firing the Public Safety Commissioner. Before the investigation was complete, liberals were claiming that she abused her power and that she was unfit for being "a heartbeat away." The investigation found Sarah acted well within her authority to fire Walter Monegan for insubordination. Instead, liberals trumpted the notion that Palin "abused power," which was in contrast to the report. The report claimed she violated an ambiguous ethics law which said, "any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust..." Hell, she could be sued for merely releasing carbon dioxide in the air...and liberals felt that THIS was the sole disqualification for her VP candidacy? Obama had many more problems than that. He obviously had become unnerved by Palin, since he referred to her as a "pig" in one of his campaign speeches. I don't think Morford is convinced that crazies on the Left don't make policy for Democrats yet.
In the aftermath of the contentious Election of 2000, liberals became apopletic about the possibility that the winning president can win the electoral vote, but not the popular one. Various conspiracy theories emerged that President Bush conspired with then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris to throw the election his way. There was one article that posed the hypothetical that something was amiss because the governor of the state in question happened to be the brother of one of the candidates. Several news outlets questioned the results of the election in an attempt to make Bush's presidency illegitimate, with chief conspiracy theorist, Michael Moore claiming that the news networks followed the lead of Fox News Channel.
There were murmurings about US forces committing war crimes among the blue blogosphere that got aired on the floor of the US Senate. Everyone, who's honest, recalls Senator Richard Durbin on the floor of the US Senate referring to GITMO as a "gulag," even though no independent report stated that GITMO detainees were being abused. When the tragedy at Abu Ghraib was exposed, at least one prominent Democrat alleged that all detainees in US custody were treated similar to prisoners in Saddam's rape rooms. The Haditha incident brought out more hysterics as Congressman Jack Murtha and Senator John Kerry alleged our forces were killing innocents in cold blood, by breaking into their houses in the dark of night. This, no doubt, was borne on the pages of blue blogs.
In my final episode of the wackiness of liberals being aired out by Democrats, comes the impending Bush impeachment. Because liberals felt that "Bush lied, kids died," since the intel he used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, and because they felt Bushie wanted to dismantle the US Constitution amendment by amendment, they believed he needed to be impeached. It was a crackpot idea, in light of many Democrats claiming the same thing Bush did...only years earlier. But that didn't stop the Democrats in the US House of Representatives from staging mock impeachment trials. I think Mr. Morford should take a more objective view of the crazies on the Left, and how they routinely make policy for Democrats, and stop projecting onto Republicans.
Can he explain the regular meetings Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other prominent Democrats, have with kos and other liberal bloggers and fellow crazies?
Have a great day...
By continuing to blog about the "Birthers," I am not lending them any credibility, because I don't agree with their movement. When I blog about them, I am only discussing how liberals apply credibility with the same standards as the shifting winds. Mark Morford, a blogger at HuffnPuff pokes fun at Birthers and the GOP, by offering up 9 more conspiracy theories they could embrace once the Obama birth certificate story dies. He and I agree that the Birthers have no legs to stand on, in light of the evidence, it's a fallacious claim he makes which gives me a problem. He claims that while the Left has no shortage of crazies, they did not dominate discussion in quite the same way as the Birthers are about the GOP. Anyone remember Trig-gate?
After Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate in the Election of 2008, journalists were airlifted into Juneau to try and dig up dirt on dear old Sarah. Barack Obama was licking his chops in anticipation for a saucy divorce story that similarly derailed the campaigns of his opponents for the US Senate. Unfortunately, Sarah was still married to her first husband and had children by him. She had no illegitimate children, and she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the union. Obama, whose lead over McCain was shrinking, began to panic. Soon, there were murmurings in the blue blogosphere about Sarah's fifth child actually being her grandson. "JACKPOT!" Obama said, reminiscing the 1970s and 80s gameshow. He stayed above the fray, but gave a milquetoast condemnation to liberals who pushed the story (and liberals blamed Sarah Palin for not quelling the rumors that started in the blue blogosphere...and they, oddly, don't call on Obama to do the same about the Birthers).
Need another? Look at Troopergate, where Sarah was under investigation for firing the Public Safety Commissioner. Before the investigation was complete, liberals were claiming that she abused her power and that she was unfit for being "a heartbeat away." The investigation found Sarah acted well within her authority to fire Walter Monegan for insubordination. Instead, liberals trumpted the notion that Palin "abused power," which was in contrast to the report. The report claimed she violated an ambiguous ethics law which said, "any public official’s action that benefits a personal or financial interest is a violation of public trust..." Hell, she could be sued for merely releasing carbon dioxide in the air...and liberals felt that THIS was the sole disqualification for her VP candidacy? Obama had many more problems than that. He obviously had become unnerved by Palin, since he referred to her as a "pig" in one of his campaign speeches. I don't think Morford is convinced that crazies on the Left don't make policy for Democrats yet.
In the aftermath of the contentious Election of 2000, liberals became apopletic about the possibility that the winning president can win the electoral vote, but not the popular one. Various conspiracy theories emerged that President Bush conspired with then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris to throw the election his way. There was one article that posed the hypothetical that something was amiss because the governor of the state in question happened to be the brother of one of the candidates. Several news outlets questioned the results of the election in an attempt to make Bush's presidency illegitimate, with chief conspiracy theorist, Michael Moore claiming that the news networks followed the lead of Fox News Channel.
There were murmurings about US forces committing war crimes among the blue blogosphere that got aired on the floor of the US Senate. Everyone, who's honest, recalls Senator Richard Durbin on the floor of the US Senate referring to GITMO as a "gulag," even though no independent report stated that GITMO detainees were being abused. When the tragedy at Abu Ghraib was exposed, at least one prominent Democrat alleged that all detainees in US custody were treated similar to prisoners in Saddam's rape rooms. The Haditha incident brought out more hysterics as Congressman Jack Murtha and Senator John Kerry alleged our forces were killing innocents in cold blood, by breaking into their houses in the dark of night. This, no doubt, was borne on the pages of blue blogs.
In my final episode of the wackiness of liberals being aired out by Democrats, comes the impending Bush impeachment. Because liberals felt that "Bush lied, kids died," since the intel he used to justify the Iraq invasion was faulty, and because they felt Bushie wanted to dismantle the US Constitution amendment by amendment, they believed he needed to be impeached. It was a crackpot idea, in light of many Democrats claiming the same thing Bush did...only years earlier. But that didn't stop the Democrats in the US House of Representatives from staging mock impeachment trials. I think Mr. Morford should take a more objective view of the crazies on the Left, and how they routinely make policy for Democrats, and stop projecting onto Republicans.
Can he explain the regular meetings Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other prominent Democrats, have with kos and other liberal bloggers and fellow crazies?
Have a great day...
29 July 2009
Obama 2008: We should transcend partisan politics!
Obama 2009: All my problems are Bushitler's fault...
It's hard out there for a race-baiting president. He thought he was going to ride the wave of this transcendentalism political thingie and enact his agenda without any resistance. He was the one who was going to say a few words and all our problems would disappear. All he had to do was rely on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to get the magical wave started. Now, six months into his administration, the "stimulus" bill hasn't stimulated anything but his backers' pockets, crap-n-trade is stalled until September, and ObamaCare is all but dead on the Hill, and he's frustrated. Didn't his predecessor, in the note left for him on 20 Jan 09, tell him being POTUS wasn't easy? Perhaps dude shoulda stayed in the Senate a little longer.
He still believes his poll numbers are strong because he continues to blame others for his failings. In part, he's right, but the more people that wake up from his "Hope, but no Change" rhetoric, those numbers will come down as well. Some Democratic strategists are hoping to hypnotize the electorate in believing that Republicans have held the majority in Congress for the past three years, and that all of the problems we face as a nation is squarely on their shoulders. Slublog provides an antidote to the Democrats' poison. And Obama leads the charge hoping we all forget he's been a member of the US Senate since 2005.
In addition to it being difficult being President Obama, comes news also that it must be difficult to be a Democrat. A recurring theme throughout the campaign from Democrats was a similar theme of President Reagan in the Election of 1980, "were we better off than we were..." Since taking the majority on Capitol Hill, the unemployment rate has risen, the national debt has increased, and life doesn't seem to be getting any better. For the first time in a while, Republicans have a shot at regaining the majority in the House, as several polling outlets now say that a generic Republican will oust a generic Democrat on a generic ballot. I should note that the percentages are quite small, and in one poll, within the margin of error. Glenn Greenwald at Salon yawns. Would like to see the look on his face if the GOP does make a comeback!
Liberals can continue to be deluded in thinking Democrats are untouchable, in light of this evidence. The electorate is obviously not buying the spin coming from the Obama Attack Machine, as they are fed up with his punting and Democrats spending money we don't have. Obama has either forgotten, or hopes you have, that he was elected to fix the economy. If his "Swindle US" package had done at least that, I doubt he'd be facing an agenda stall now.
It's not only the economic agenda that leaves us scratching our heads. One episode where he could have shown leadership was the Iranian protests. His decision to "wait it out," effectively siding with the regime, is not what the Leader of the Free World should be doing. He should have condemned the Iranian regime the instant the crackdowns occurred, and refused to appear to be led by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, and finally having the gall to take credit for the protests he took two weeks to support. GayPatriotWest calls it "2LT syndrome." His lack of leadership is likely to get people killed, and I'm not sure he realizes that.
Say what you will about Bushit!, at least the man knew how to lead...
Have a great day...
It's hard out there for a race-baiting president. He thought he was going to ride the wave of this transcendentalism political thingie and enact his agenda without any resistance. He was the one who was going to say a few words and all our problems would disappear. All he had to do was rely on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to get the magical wave started. Now, six months into his administration, the "stimulus" bill hasn't stimulated anything but his backers' pockets, crap-n-trade is stalled until September, and ObamaCare is all but dead on the Hill, and he's frustrated. Didn't his predecessor, in the note left for him on 20 Jan 09, tell him being POTUS wasn't easy? Perhaps dude shoulda stayed in the Senate a little longer.
He still believes his poll numbers are strong because he continues to blame others for his failings. In part, he's right, but the more people that wake up from his "Hope, but no Change" rhetoric, those numbers will come down as well. Some Democratic strategists are hoping to hypnotize the electorate in believing that Republicans have held the majority in Congress for the past three years, and that all of the problems we face as a nation is squarely on their shoulders. Slublog provides an antidote to the Democrats' poison. And Obama leads the charge hoping we all forget he's been a member of the US Senate since 2005.
In addition to it being difficult being President Obama, comes news also that it must be difficult to be a Democrat. A recurring theme throughout the campaign from Democrats was a similar theme of President Reagan in the Election of 1980, "were we better off than we were..." Since taking the majority on Capitol Hill, the unemployment rate has risen, the national debt has increased, and life doesn't seem to be getting any better. For the first time in a while, Republicans have a shot at regaining the majority in the House, as several polling outlets now say that a generic Republican will oust a generic Democrat on a generic ballot. I should note that the percentages are quite small, and in one poll, within the margin of error. Glenn Greenwald at Salon yawns. Would like to see the look on his face if the GOP does make a comeback!
Liberals can continue to be deluded in thinking Democrats are untouchable, in light of this evidence. The electorate is obviously not buying the spin coming from the Obama Attack Machine, as they are fed up with his punting and Democrats spending money we don't have. Obama has either forgotten, or hopes you have, that he was elected to fix the economy. If his "Swindle US" package had done at least that, I doubt he'd be facing an agenda stall now.
It's not only the economic agenda that leaves us scratching our heads. One episode where he could have shown leadership was the Iranian protests. His decision to "wait it out," effectively siding with the regime, is not what the Leader of the Free World should be doing. He should have condemned the Iranian regime the instant the crackdowns occurred, and refused to appear to be led by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, and finally having the gall to take credit for the protests he took two weeks to support. GayPatriotWest calls it "2LT syndrome." His lack of leadership is likely to get people killed, and I'm not sure he realizes that.
Say what you will about Bushit!, at least the man knew how to lead...
Have a great day...
Liberals: Damn you rightwing nuts! Don't you understand the words that are coming out of our mouths?
...criticizing Obama is R-A-C-I-S-T!
You knew it wasn't going to last for long. The good doctah has returned to his senses and started seeing liberals for the opportunists they are. Coming on the heels of agreeing that the Birther issue is one not worth pursuing, comes a return to the theme that played throughout last year's presidential campaign...critiquing Obama is racist, especially if a white guy does it (if a black guy does it, like the good doc, then he's guilty of either not giving him a chance or a complete sellout). Borrowing a theme from conservatives about liberals' bouts with reality during the first eight years of the decade, comes their idea that conservative criticisms of Obama lie not only in racism, but because of ODS (if you have no clue about ODS, just replace the 'B' in BDS with Obama...and liberals always malign conservatives for not being original). Of course they believe the leader of the Obama Derangement Syndrome movement is none other than honorary senator, Rush Limbaugh.
Kleefeld goes on a tirade against Limbaugh for the parody, Barack the Magic Negro, based on an article in the LA Times, by a man of African descent, David Ehrenstein, who repeatedly lampooned Barack Obama on forgetting where he came from. In his first article, of the same name, Ehrenstein talks about how Barack Obama lent himself as the balm to assuage "white guilt," as Paul Shanklin's parody pointed out. His second article lampoons Obama for trying to play both sides of the fence on gay issues, by courting gospel singer, Donnie McClurkin, who claimed to be an "ex-gay," and complaining that the GLB"t" community was challenging his authenticity on gay issues. The final article went after Obama for allowing Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. The bottom line, Ehrenstein was making it clear that Obama is an opportunist, the same theme Republicans and Hillary Clinton voters pointed out during the primaries. Are Obamabots going call the lot of us "racists" as well?
Kleefeld, nor his friend Zandar, pointed out at least two instances where Obama has shown that he's out for "whitey." There was no mention by them about the Obama Justice Department dismissing a blatant episode of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, and playing the race card in Skip-gate before all the facts were known. He has offered nothing but scorn for the United States, and bends over backwards to embellish the record of other nations. This nation was founded by dead white guys, and the president believes he has to remind us they were racists, too.
Whenever the "race card" is played to shut down an argument, or cease criticism of a particular policy, the one it is played on should see the vulnerability in the other's argument. The "race card" is a distraction, and in this case, a distraction from Obama's failures as president. Democrats, namely San Fran Nan, are unpopular now as unemployment rises, and an increasing percentage of the electorate believes the government is wasting more money, and not helping the economy. The man is six months in his presidency and has very little, if anything, to show for it. And the best Obamabots have is to call us "racists"?
Liberals believe in this deluded notion that the more Republicans and conservatives go after Obama's vulnerabilities, they will alienate more members of the electorate. Oddly, this political strategy worked very well for them in 2006 and 2008. They continue to be deluded by the notion that Barack is indeed a "magic negro," who with a few words will make all our problems go away. Sometimes, I, too wish I was was dreaming...
Can the "magic negro" find the words soon? 'Cause my company is looking at layoffs if things don't get better...
Have a great day...
You knew it wasn't going to last for long. The good doctah has returned to his senses and started seeing liberals for the opportunists they are. Coming on the heels of agreeing that the Birther issue is one not worth pursuing, comes a return to the theme that played throughout last year's presidential campaign...critiquing Obama is racist, especially if a white guy does it (if a black guy does it, like the good doc, then he's guilty of either not giving him a chance or a complete sellout). Borrowing a theme from conservatives about liberals' bouts with reality during the first eight years of the decade, comes their idea that conservative criticisms of Obama lie not only in racism, but because of ODS (if you have no clue about ODS, just replace the 'B' in BDS with Obama...and liberals always malign conservatives for not being original). Of course they believe the leader of the Obama Derangement Syndrome movement is none other than honorary senator, Rush Limbaugh.
Kleefeld goes on a tirade against Limbaugh for the parody, Barack the Magic Negro, based on an article in the LA Times, by a man of African descent, David Ehrenstein, who repeatedly lampooned Barack Obama on forgetting where he came from. In his first article, of the same name, Ehrenstein talks about how Barack Obama lent himself as the balm to assuage "white guilt," as Paul Shanklin's parody pointed out. His second article lampoons Obama for trying to play both sides of the fence on gay issues, by courting gospel singer, Donnie McClurkin, who claimed to be an "ex-gay," and complaining that the GLB"t" community was challenging his authenticity on gay issues. The final article went after Obama for allowing Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. The bottom line, Ehrenstein was making it clear that Obama is an opportunist, the same theme Republicans and Hillary Clinton voters pointed out during the primaries. Are Obamabots going call the lot of us "racists" as well?
Kleefeld, nor his friend Zandar, pointed out at least two instances where Obama has shown that he's out for "whitey." There was no mention by them about the Obama Justice Department dismissing a blatant episode of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, and playing the race card in Skip-gate before all the facts were known. He has offered nothing but scorn for the United States, and bends over backwards to embellish the record of other nations. This nation was founded by dead white guys, and the president believes he has to remind us they were racists, too.
Whenever the "race card" is played to shut down an argument, or cease criticism of a particular policy, the one it is played on should see the vulnerability in the other's argument. The "race card" is a distraction, and in this case, a distraction from Obama's failures as president. Democrats, namely San Fran Nan, are unpopular now as unemployment rises, and an increasing percentage of the electorate believes the government is wasting more money, and not helping the economy. The man is six months in his presidency and has very little, if anything, to show for it. And the best Obamabots have is to call us "racists"?
Liberals believe in this deluded notion that the more Republicans and conservatives go after Obama's vulnerabilities, they will alienate more members of the electorate. Oddly, this political strategy worked very well for them in 2006 and 2008. They continue to be deluded by the notion that Barack is indeed a "magic negro," who with a few words will make all our problems go away. Sometimes, I, too wish I was was dreaming...
Can the "magic negro" find the words soon? 'Cause my company is looking at layoffs if things don't get better...
Have a great day...
28 July 2009
Democrats: Will someone rid us of these meddlesome Blue Dogs?
...out, out damned spot!
While ObamaCare stalls in Congress, its supporters continue, unabated, to look for any villian to justify why ObamaCare isn't law. They've tried President Bush, but he's been out of office since January. They've tried Rush Limbaugh, three times, and they've all failed. They've tried blaming the Republicans in Congress, only to be reminded they [Democrats] hold significant majorities in both chambers AND have a majority at the White House complex. The president has attempted, yet again, to fool the populace that ObamaCare is necessary. This time, he holds a townhall with members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Senate Republicans have told Paul Bedard, of US News and World Report, they have talked to at least 1 million people about the looming perils in ObamaCare.
Of course, ObamaAid drinkers will smear the GOP as being satisfied with the status quo, and rooting against the country. The idea is to shift focus from problems within the Democratic caucus, and this bill, and blame the Republican party. It is hard to argue that government can expand healthcare, improve it, and keep costs down. Coming under fire recently, has been the Congressional Budget Office, which has said none of the proposals that claim to save money, will do so, and according to charts at HotAir, even the tax increases proposed by Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will not be enough to offset the skyrocketing costs. Obama and the Office of Management and Budget director, Peter Orszag, have met with the director of the CBO, which is highly irregular. Ya think they're trying to cook the books on ObamaCare?
Blue Dog Democrats, one of which is my congressman, John Barrow (D-GA), seem to hold the key to the success or failure of ObamaCare. Recently, they met with both Henry Waxman and former House Energy and Commerce committee chair, John Dingell and appeared to compromise. Some reports are indicating differently, as the CBO has yet to weigh in on the costs of an offer made by the chairman. Until then, the Blue Dogs will not compromise. The US Senate, on the other hand, is mulling a strip of the "public option," which is designed to destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, and a strip of the healthcare mandate, which will not only destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, but will drive up costs.
That is the bottom line. Controlling costs, is paramount, despite how ever many liberals bitch and moan. If none of the Democratic-led initiatives have shown to control rising costs, why should Congress support them. Obviously, Democrats believe that the legislative body is answerable to them, not their constituents. During the upcoming recess, our representatives will be asked the hard questions in their districts, especially those who ran as all things conservative in 2006 and 2008. If a majority of the electorate doesn't sleep well at night with the thought of continually rising healthcare costs, then that should be reason enough for Congress to take more time and draft a better bill. The bottom line here is to cap rising healthcare costs, no matter who provides the care. The numbers show ObamaCare is not that vessel...
If Michael Barone is correct, Democrats attempts to continue to grow the federal behemoth will not sit well with an electorate that doesn't favor big government at the outset...
Have a great day...
While ObamaCare stalls in Congress, its supporters continue, unabated, to look for any villian to justify why ObamaCare isn't law. They've tried President Bush, but he's been out of office since January. They've tried Rush Limbaugh, three times, and they've all failed. They've tried blaming the Republicans in Congress, only to be reminded they [Democrats] hold significant majorities in both chambers AND have a majority at the White House complex. The president has attempted, yet again, to fool the populace that ObamaCare is necessary. This time, he holds a townhall with members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Senate Republicans have told Paul Bedard, of US News and World Report, they have talked to at least 1 million people about the looming perils in ObamaCare.
Of course, ObamaAid drinkers will smear the GOP as being satisfied with the status quo, and rooting against the country. The idea is to shift focus from problems within the Democratic caucus, and this bill, and blame the Republican party. It is hard to argue that government can expand healthcare, improve it, and keep costs down. Coming under fire recently, has been the Congressional Budget Office, which has said none of the proposals that claim to save money, will do so, and according to charts at HotAir, even the tax increases proposed by Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will not be enough to offset the skyrocketing costs. Obama and the Office of Management and Budget director, Peter Orszag, have met with the director of the CBO, which is highly irregular. Ya think they're trying to cook the books on ObamaCare?
Blue Dog Democrats, one of which is my congressman, John Barrow (D-GA), seem to hold the key to the success or failure of ObamaCare. Recently, they met with both Henry Waxman and former House Energy and Commerce committee chair, John Dingell and appeared to compromise. Some reports are indicating differently, as the CBO has yet to weigh in on the costs of an offer made by the chairman. Until then, the Blue Dogs will not compromise. The US Senate, on the other hand, is mulling a strip of the "public option," which is designed to destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, and a strip of the healthcare mandate, which will not only destroy the private healthcare insurance industry, but will drive up costs.
That is the bottom line. Controlling costs, is paramount, despite how ever many liberals bitch and moan. If none of the Democratic-led initiatives have shown to control rising costs, why should Congress support them. Obviously, Democrats believe that the legislative body is answerable to them, not their constituents. During the upcoming recess, our representatives will be asked the hard questions in their districts, especially those who ran as all things conservative in 2006 and 2008. If a majority of the electorate doesn't sleep well at night with the thought of continually rising healthcare costs, then that should be reason enough for Congress to take more time and draft a better bill. The bottom line here is to cap rising healthcare costs, no matter who provides the care. The numbers show ObamaCare is not that vessel...
If Michael Barone is correct, Democrats attempts to continue to grow the federal behemoth will not sit well with an electorate that doesn't favor big government at the outset...
Have a great day...
Lindsey Graham: Sotomayor's confirmation is a really big deal...
...so why should I stand in its way?
It is just being reported that Sonia Sotomayor has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee to have her nomination appear on the Senate floor next week. It should be no surprise that the votes were largely along party lines, with 12 Democrats supporting her and 6 Republicans opposing. What's that? You say there's one member unaccounted for? Well look no further than Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was the lone Republican voting to approve Sotomayor's nomination to go to the Senate floor. It sounds as if Graham, and any Republican that votes for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supremes, is hellbent on proving this mantra from liberals that opposition to a minority is racist. Liberals, of course, are of the mindset that all Latinos think alike and will see that a majority of the Republicans on the Senate Judicary committee will see this as a slight, not a disapproval of her policy stances. Who are the racists?
Like Obama, pro-Sotomayor types would like us to forget her rulings and her public statements. Her mask came loose during her confirmation hearings, and was noticed by not only righties, but some lefties as well. Her actions as a judge on the Second Circuit don't line up with her answers to questions during her confirmation hearing. Liberals and pro-Sotomayor types in the Republican party, don't care about that. They're more concerned with showing how "racist" the members of the GOP who don't support Sotomayor are. I'm close to going out on a limb and suggesting that the people who always rely on playing the "race card" to try and stifle dissent, where it is warranted, are damaging this nation...and they don't care.
We did not hear the race card being played by liberals when they decided it was ok to oppose Justice Clarence Thomas, or criticize Dr. Condi Rice every day of the week. They claimed their opposition lie in policy differences, not race. I am sure the electorate votes the same way, at least for the most part. When a person walks into a voting booth, they don't decide their votes on racial lines, they vote based on the candidate representing their views. If liberals' thoughts were correct, Michael Steele would be a US Senator, not necessarily RNC Chairman. Ken Blackwell would be governor of Ohio, not Ted Strickland. President Obama, as a US Senator, voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, because he did not like their rulings, and I'd believe that about the other 21 Democrats who voted against Roberts and the other 41 that voted against Alito. It would be hypocrisy for Democrats to suggest opposition to Sotomayor is strictly based on the fact the GOP doesn't like minorities.
And when have Democrats been above hypocrisy?
Have a great day...
It is just being reported that Sonia Sotomayor has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee to have her nomination appear on the Senate floor next week. It should be no surprise that the votes were largely along party lines, with 12 Democrats supporting her and 6 Republicans opposing. What's that? You say there's one member unaccounted for? Well look no further than Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was the lone Republican voting to approve Sotomayor's nomination to go to the Senate floor. It sounds as if Graham, and any Republican that votes for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supremes, is hellbent on proving this mantra from liberals that opposition to a minority is racist. Liberals, of course, are of the mindset that all Latinos think alike and will see that a majority of the Republicans on the Senate Judicary committee will see this as a slight, not a disapproval of her policy stances. Who are the racists?
Like Obama, pro-Sotomayor types would like us to forget her rulings and her public statements. Her mask came loose during her confirmation hearings, and was noticed by not only righties, but some lefties as well. Her actions as a judge on the Second Circuit don't line up with her answers to questions during her confirmation hearing. Liberals and pro-Sotomayor types in the Republican party, don't care about that. They're more concerned with showing how "racist" the members of the GOP who don't support Sotomayor are. I'm close to going out on a limb and suggesting that the people who always rely on playing the "race card" to try and stifle dissent, where it is warranted, are damaging this nation...and they don't care.
We did not hear the race card being played by liberals when they decided it was ok to oppose Justice Clarence Thomas, or criticize Dr. Condi Rice every day of the week. They claimed their opposition lie in policy differences, not race. I am sure the electorate votes the same way, at least for the most part. When a person walks into a voting booth, they don't decide their votes on racial lines, they vote based on the candidate representing their views. If liberals' thoughts were correct, Michael Steele would be a US Senator, not necessarily RNC Chairman. Ken Blackwell would be governor of Ohio, not Ted Strickland. President Obama, as a US Senator, voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, because he did not like their rulings, and I'd believe that about the other 21 Democrats who voted against Roberts and the other 41 that voted against Alito. It would be hypocrisy for Democrats to suggest opposition to Sotomayor is strictly based on the fact the GOP doesn't like minorities.
And when have Democrats been above hypocrisy?
Have a great day...
Kelly King: No one told me Obama's so damn clueless...
...I'm surprised it took me this long to figure it out...
Each day of the Obama presidency that passes, I feel vindicated in my belief that he was not going to be close to the post-partisan, post-racial, transparent politician elected to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Kelly King, who is a member of the Cambridge Police Department, has stated that because of Obama's demonization of the police department in Skip-gate, she will no longer support Obama, nor his friends Dr. Gates and Governor Deval Patrick. It is refreshing to hear that more and more blacks are becoming aware of reverse racism, that blacks are guilty of racism more often than their white counterparts. Many of those who played the race card, immediately felt the 911 caller did so because she felt that blacks could not live in a nice neighborhood, where Professor Gates lives. It didn't occur to President Smarter-than-Bush that once Al Sharpton got involved, that he stuck his foot deep down his throat. h/t: The Black Sphere and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS
Conservative sage, Thomas Sowell, writes in a recent article that those who were paying attention, shouldn't be surprised at Obama's slight to the Cambridge Police Department. I have written a few posts that talk about Obama's willingness to stick it to "whitey," no matter the cost. Obama supporters weren't too concerned about his time as a "community organizer," which tends to play off the racial tendencies of blacks against whites. They weren't too concerned that his political career was launched in the home of a man and woman, who were hellbent on destroying this country. It didn't even faze them that the man sat in a church led by a black separatist for 20 years, without flinching. Well, maybe they cared, but their ultimate goal was to portray John McCain as Bush, The Third Term.
Can't blame the man for taking advantage of white guilt. Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Hillary Clinton were being portrayed as the obstacles to a smooth and articulate black man. Their gaffes were replayed throughout the campaign trail. I believe Cynthia McKinney expressed a little jealousy that she wasn't getting as much coverage as Obama did (someone tell her it's the hair...). Obama did not come across as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, he hid his race pimping very well, and it's admirable in a politician. But the mask is slipping, and we should continue to take note, and spare no expense...even if the media and Obamabots believe asking Obamessiah hard questions is racist.
Kevin Jackson, of the Black Sphere, believes that no matter the progress the United States has made on race relations, it is imperative that Obama, and his race-pimping allies ensure blacks still feel inferior. For those of us in the real world, we should already know how ridiculous Obama and his allies' notion is. He is proof positive of the progress the nation has made to make up for Democrats racist past. He just believes we're too stupid to notice...
Have a great day...
Each day of the Obama presidency that passes, I feel vindicated in my belief that he was not going to be close to the post-partisan, post-racial, transparent politician elected to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Kelly King, who is a member of the Cambridge Police Department, has stated that because of Obama's demonization of the police department in Skip-gate, she will no longer support Obama, nor his friends Dr. Gates and Governor Deval Patrick. It is refreshing to hear that more and more blacks are becoming aware of reverse racism, that blacks are guilty of racism more often than their white counterparts. Many of those who played the race card, immediately felt the 911 caller did so because she felt that blacks could not live in a nice neighborhood, where Professor Gates lives. It didn't occur to President Smarter-than-Bush that once Al Sharpton got involved, that he stuck his foot deep down his throat. h/t: The Black Sphere and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS
Conservative sage, Thomas Sowell, writes in a recent article that those who were paying attention, shouldn't be surprised at Obama's slight to the Cambridge Police Department. I have written a few posts that talk about Obama's willingness to stick it to "whitey," no matter the cost. Obama supporters weren't too concerned about his time as a "community organizer," which tends to play off the racial tendencies of blacks against whites. They weren't too concerned that his political career was launched in the home of a man and woman, who were hellbent on destroying this country. It didn't even faze them that the man sat in a church led by a black separatist for 20 years, without flinching. Well, maybe they cared, but their ultimate goal was to portray John McCain as Bush, The Third Term.
Can't blame the man for taking advantage of white guilt. Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Hillary Clinton were being portrayed as the obstacles to a smooth and articulate black man. Their gaffes were replayed throughout the campaign trail. I believe Cynthia McKinney expressed a little jealousy that she wasn't getting as much coverage as Obama did (someone tell her it's the hair...). Obama did not come across as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, he hid his race pimping very well, and it's admirable in a politician. But the mask is slipping, and we should continue to take note, and spare no expense...even if the media and Obamabots believe asking Obamessiah hard questions is racist.
Kevin Jackson, of the Black Sphere, believes that no matter the progress the United States has made on race relations, it is imperative that Obama, and his race-pimping allies ensure blacks still feel inferior. For those of us in the real world, we should already know how ridiculous Obama and his allies' notion is. He is proof positive of the progress the nation has made to make up for Democrats racist past. He just believes we're too stupid to notice...
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)