Unless I totally misunderstood a report on Fox News,
Obama has been a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood.
He has even taken donations linked to the organization.
Recently, an undercover operation by citizens, called
Planned Parenthood about making donations. They explained
that they specifically wanted the money to be earmarked for
abortions of "black" pregnancies only.
The taped phone conversations clearly show that the phone
representatives at the organization, were more than eager to
accept the money, with those stipulations. Some of the
dialogue was racist to the extreme, from an organization that
professes the desire to help the least fortunate of black and
other minority women end those unwanted pregnancies.
I hope that this comes as a big surprise to Obama, one of Planned
Parenthood's biggest supporters. Otherwise, we have seen yet
another side of our "wannabee" president exposed.
I also wonder whether the Obama campaign will return any
monies received from that organization.
Monday, March 31, 2008
And She wants to run Our Government?
There she goes again, she’s never managed, run or been an executive of anything besides this Presidential campaign and she’s in the red again.
Oh, but according to Sen. Clinton she’s “tested and ready” on day one to lead this nation. How long must we endure this assault on our good sense and judgment? Just who do the Clintons think that they are fooling?
Yes I know, I know that there are those who would support Hillary Clinton even if Rev. Jeremiah Wright were her pastor, and even if she is a sniper fire fraud, but come on guys if one of the two reasons (one is her experience the other is she’s a woman) that Sen. Clinton gives as justification for what qualifies her to be President turns out to be phony like for instance her 1996 Hillary and Chelsea most excellent Bosnia Adventure doesn’t that give you pause?
The fact that her Campaign is cash-strapped (again) and not paying its bills is an indication to everyone who is a conscious, sentient human being that Sen. Clinton is not credible even in her claim that only she has the experience to be president.
Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."—Kenneth P. Vogel
Let’s look at how the two campaigns compare:
The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $38 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $16 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.
The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, the cash she would have had available at the end of last month to spend on television ads and other upfront expenses would have been less than $2 million.
By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.—Kenneth P. Vogel
So based on the facts Sen. Obama has less debt than Sen. Clinton and more net cash reserves so who between the two would you say has the experience to lead this country if running a campaign is any indication of the ability to manage a multi-complex multimillion dollar enterprise?
Sen. Clinton once boasted that she has plenty of ideas yet the country would not be able to afford them all.
That statement is perhaps the only truthful thing that Sen. Clinton has said in this whole campaign.
With her claims of experience gone the way of sniper fire in Bosnia the only reason to vote for Sen. Clinton now is because she is a woman.
How ironic when the feminist movement was principally about making the genders equal while working for a day when gender would not matter. Yet, Sen. Clinton as managed to even set that idea of the movement back 50 years with her use of “Socialist Femi Nazi” gender specific politics.
And she wants to run our Government?
Friday, March 28, 2008
Meteorological Community In Shock Global warming not Real
Like a Hillary Clinton Sniper fire visit to Bosnia the real story is finally presenting itself about the one thing that Al Gore did actually invent, Global warming. And just like Sen. Clinton misspoke about her mis-recollection of her 1996 trip to Bosnia Gore has been misspeaking regarding catastrophe greenhouse effects and CO2 emissions all along. They are all made up stories, just as made up as corkscrew landings, and are not supported by the science.
Christopher Pearson of The Australian relates a recent interview between ABC’s National Radio Counterpoint co-host Michael Duffy and Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, which absolutely is the video that shows that there is and was no sniper fire in the theory of Global warming.
Duffy begins the interview with a straightforward and simple, “Is the Earth still warming?”
Dr. Marohasy replied, "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
What that initial answer she lays ground for the debunking of the CO2 greenhouse effect myth that is at the heart of the rhetoric which drives the Global warming hysteria.
Duffy’s follow up question, "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
A very polite way of saying that is just your opinion Dr. Marohasy but what do the real scientists say? Dr. Marohasy’s response was “No” it’s not. Real scientists already know it and have acknowledged the fact that the Earth is actually cooling.
"Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century.
So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Why is it that something so significant is not being discussed?
This is a monumental development in the discussion regarding Global warming and totally contradicts the narrative at the societal level which is the arctic ice shelves are breaking apart because of Global warming. Many believe Global warming to be decided science and they credit the United Nation’s IPCC which shares the Nobel Peace Prize for their work along with Al Gore in spreading the myth about our planet heating up.
While it is true that there are many who are attempting to create an atmosphere of controversy around the subject the science is not supporting the initial postulations for anthropogenic Global warming because as scientists actually study the phenomena the data is not supporting the initial thesis that man’s carbon emissions is the cause nor is the theory that the planet is heating up supported by the actual scientific study.
This is devastating news for people like Al Gore, Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut who are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate.
Marohasy says that the IPCC is just now accepting the arguments of the critics of anthropogenic Global warming. It probably will take time for some of the hard core proponents of the theory to divest themselves of their beliefs.
Christopher Pearson concludes, “If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed.”
That is what is at the heart of this issue, so many people “went all in” on this hyped up non-scientific green Earth fad and reputations are at stake. It will be extreme hard for the consensus to say, we misspoke about Global warming.
But they must we have the science, we have the video!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Superdelegates: Will they steal the Election?
[T]he superdelegate system is doing exactly what it was designed to do: defend the Democratic Party from Democratic voters. --Ted R. Bromund
Donna Brazile a Democrat superdelegate and campaign manger for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential bid has threaten to leave the Democrat Party if her fellow superdelegates decide this Democrat candidate process contrary to the vote of the Democrat voters.
It is against that backdrop that a group of rich and powerful Hillary Clinton backers are pressuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to withdraw her statements that superdelegates should support the will of the majority of voters.
They believe that superdelegate should go against the will of the voters and appoint Hillary Clinton as the nominee of the Democrat Party in spite of the fact that Sen. Barack Obama is presently ahead in the pledged delegate count and not to mention the fact that numerically Sen. Clinton has no possibility to over take him in the pledged delegate vote.
You remember the 2000 Florida presidential campaign between George W. Bush and Albert A. Gore. You remember the alleged disenfranchisement of Florida voters and the slogan, “Count every vote, every vote counts.”
Back then Democrats felt that ballot confusion and the inability to punch through paper voting ballots prevented citizens from exercising their constitutional guaranteed rights to vote. They blamed Republicans for their voting woes when most of their problems happened in polling places that were completely under Democrat control.
Al Gore threw the election into the Florida courts the process then when through to the Florida Supreme court which was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And because of the outcome at the U.S. Supreme court Democrats felt that the elections were stolen.
In essence what the U.S. Supreme court decided was that the Florida court should not have intervened, that voting process should have progressed without court interference that was not the ruling Democrats wanted so they claimed that the U.S. Supreme stole the presidential elections and appointed George Bush president. How twisted a claim!
Now 8 years later and according to David Saltonstall of the Daily News more than 14 million Americans have voted in this Democratic primary yet this election primary can be stolen from the voters quicker than a Floridian can say Chad! How?
Superdelegates that’s how. The superdelegate’s job is to bequeath the nomination to the Democrat candidate that they feel would be the best nominee regardless of how 14 million of you voted. The nominee is chosen by 795 party insiders. Normally the number of superdelegates would be 796 however it is presently minus one because of a death and a new delegate has not been assigned yet.
If Democrats who have protested so viscerally that 2000 and 2004 were stolen from the voters stand idly by and allow Democrat Party elites to dictate who the Democrat nominee will be in spite of the vote of the people or against the vote of the people then the Democrats are hypocrites and not fit to lead in this country.
Democrats for 8 years have blamed Republicans for their political misfortunes and if these same Democrats allow their own Party members to steal away their choice by vote, how can these Democrat hypocrites hold their heads up after the political hell that they've put this country through for what they called stolen elections?
Superdelegate is a Democrat code word that means that Democrat Party elites don’t trust their Democrat voting constituents’ ability to make the right choice for their Party.
Democrat superdelegates are training wheels for the Democrat unwashed masses the first sign of a Fascist like attempt of government control of the people and another in the long list of reasons why Democrat paradoxes such as superdelegates make them unfit to lead this great Nation.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Is Hillary Clinton Self-Deluded
Decked out in a scarf that appears to be a black and green Clown’s big bowtie Senator Clinton may be showing the early signs of Alzheimer’s because clearly she can’t tell the difference between sniper fire and flowers. Or at least she can’t remember the difference.
She says that she misspoke, that she made a mistake. Yeah like lying about an event that was recorded on video tape that’s a BIG mistake. And much different than her typical stealing and destroying documents which the Clintons are infamous for รก la Sandy Burger, Rose law firm billing records and FBI files found in the White house living area.
Yet I heard an interesting comment made about Sen. Clinton from Robert Novak last night. It was Novak’s opinion that Sen. Clinton had told the Bosnia story many times and over time it evolved and that she began to believe it so much that if she were given a lie detector test on her version of the story she would pass a lie detector test with flying colors.
What!?! Only someone who is totally self-delusional could believe a made up concocted story to the point that reality no longer mattered. That’s deluded. Is that the type of personality that we are dealing with in the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are the Democrats offering up another in a long line of delusional candidates?
This is an, I invented the internet, lie. No, this is an, I actually voted for the $87 million before I voted against it, moment. This is the time that we ask ourselves why is it that Democrats always seem find a seminal lie with which to define their candidacy and their candidates by?
But even greater than that, Hillary Clinton has once again made a world-wide laughingstock out of the Democrats, the stories of her Bosnia renown in her own mind will be forever told as the reason that the Democrats lost the 2008 elections. She had her laughs on Saturday Night Live a couple of weeks ago and I for one think that she has made this Democrat race for a candidate to be president SNL funny. Which is not good for Democrats but it great for Republicans.
And Saturday Night Live, I’ve got your next comedy skit… Now get this, Hillary and Chelsea are in an airplane over Bosnia Sniper fire is everywhere. Everyone is ordered to sit on their bullet proof vests and Hillary and Chelsea are ushered up front to the planes cockpit where it’s better enforced against bullet fire.
The Airplane does a corkscrew landing and sniper fire is everywhere and Hillary and Chelsea are rushed into cars as they are ducking sniper fire.
Then as they are driving away in the cars a faint phone ring is heard and it increases to loud, the first scene evaporates and now we are in a White house bedroom the camera pans over and we discover that the ringing phone is the “Red” phone.
We then hear a startled woman’s voice that has been startled awake from her sleep perhaps a dream the phone is ringing off of the hook.
The woman raises and its Hillary and she’s appears sleepy but angry that her sleep was disturbed and then she yells,“WILL SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT DAMNED PHONE, I’m dreaming here!!!
Live from New York its Saturday Night!
(Of course you’ll need to contact my people to discuss remunerations you’ll find we’re very agreeable.)
But seriously, who would have guessed that Hillary Clinton would single-handedly make the Democrats the laughingstocks of the world? It was such a silly avoidable lie. The sniper fire over Bosnia lie, yet the “do anything, say anything” Clintons prove once again that they are true to themselves.
To top even that, unbelievably, Sen. Clinton in true “Pimp my Child” fashion, even has Chelsea lying for her out on the campaign stump. When Chelsea was asked about her mother’s account of the events in Bosnia Chelsea replied, "Well sir, I think that my mother’s on record as having talked about this and I support what she said. I mean, I was there as well and I’m so honored that I was there."
Which means, translated from Clintonese which apparently Chelsea has learned to speak and since we now know that Sen. Clinton has admitted that she lied about the whole thing, Chelsea supports her mother’s lie. How embarrassing. Is there anyone in that household that tells the truth?
Which leads me to this, If Hillary is not busy this January I’ve got the perfect suggestion. A real life sitcom entitled, “The Clintons” or “Liar, Liar, Liar” (but the second title has kind of already been used minus one Liar.)
Put a camera on them and let America watch the most political dysfunctional family to ever once occupy the White house plot and plan to get back into the White house by any way that they dream up. (Again contact my people and we’ll work out the details.)
You’ve got to laugh out Loud, LOL, How many of you did Hillary sell on that “tested and ready” shtick? Boy it’s a knee slap!!! Then to top it off at a press conference Clinton had some jive brother, campaign spokesman Phil Singer trying to dis Sinbad’s recollection of the events in Bosnia.
Singer attempted to discredit Sinbad’s account of the events because Sinbad is a comedian. Singer kept saying something like, “You know Sinbad IS a comedian!” But ironically there’s not much difference in what Sinbad does for a living and what Sen. Clinton does, they both make up stories. Sinbad for paid audiences and Sen. Clinton for free for the American people.
Self-Delusional? You decide, in her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady." Now that’s delusions of Grandor and totally made up!
Which invoked this response from the paid comedian, Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
Man, you can only make this kind of stuff up if you’re Al Gore and John Kerry deluded. Republican have always know this about Sen. Clinton to which Democrats responded, “Aw you Repukes are always hatin’ on Hillary.”
I suppose now Democrats can no longer deny that the Clintons lie, not to say that Democrats mind having a liar for president heck they defended Bill Clinton’s lie! Remember, the “It was only sex” response. What they going to say now “Well she really was in Bosnia!” Just give me a break!
No what Democrats don’t like is a clumsy liar like Gore or Kerry someone that is so obvious that even the typical Democrat delusional person can tell that they’ve been lied too.
To which the sniper fired over Bosnia lie will now be added to the annuals of Democrat Party folk lore as the reason why it is not good to put forth your most self deluded candidates to run for the highest office in the land.
Not only is Hillary delusional, that whole Party is nuts! What’s next they going to bring back Al Gore? Now that would be delusional but funny!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Misspoke?
Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996.-- ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer
Question how do you misspeak about sniper fire that involved a plane that you, your child and witnesses were on? And how do you say lied in Clintonese?
I understand that rappers expand on the truth about their bullet wounds to get that much coveted street cred. But does a presidential candidate need bullet holes in a plane to get dangerous foreign experience cred to bolster her political rรฉsumรฉ?
Apparently Sen. Hillary Clinton though so when she began to convey a ridiculous story of how her good will tour, loaded up with a Singer, a Comedian and her baby girl, to Bosnia in 1996 all of a sudden became a harrowing fly by the seat of your pants mission that took on sniper fire.
And then when the plane landed she, because she was an important dignitary, the first lady, was rushed to safety crouching under the stalwart protection of the secret service.
Is that the way you remember it Sen. Clinton? Well unfortunately for you, but fortunate for the American people, you also took a camera crew and the camera remembers it a little bit different then you do, ergo your campaign’s admission that you may have “misspoke” about your Bosnia trip. Hum, where is Rev. Wright when you need him?
Sen. Clinton you could have opted to use your ‘I don’t remember’ shtick that worked so well for you in the past as it is reported that you used in an effort to avoid being indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice by repeating the phrases; ‘I do not recall,’ ‘I have no recollection,’ and ‘I don’t know’ 56 times under oath involving your Rose law firm dealings. Now, I don’t know if that is true or not. But boy, that strategy would have come in quite handy when Sen. Clinton was asked about her recollection concerning her ’96 trip to Bosnia.
Just another in the long line of lies by the Clintons and as David Geffen reminds us:
"Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."--David Geffen, one time friend and confidante of the Clintons
Oh and by the way here is that video Sen. Clinton that contradicts your account of running from sniper fire. In the actual account I think that you’re getting poetry read to you, a flower and greeted by a little girl.
I’m sure you probably would have preferred bullets instead. Got to keep up that dangerous foreign experience rep, now don’t we!
(see video below)
Monday, March 24, 2008
Richardson Number Two?
Wouldn’t surprise me! Governor Bill Richardson
who was extremely close to the Clintons, until Obama
moved ahead of Hillary in Democratic delegates, seems
to have slimed his way onto the presidential ticket.
I’m willing to go on record, based on Obama’s recent
statement that he has had numerous "meetings" with
the Governor of New Mexico, that they have struck a
deal. Richardson would swing his support from what
many considered a definite Clinton backing, to Obama,
in exchange for a spot on the ticket.
Obama, pretty seriously hurt by the revelations about
his relationship with the unpatriotic bigot "Rev"Wright,
desperately needs to take the Hispanic vote from Hillary,
if he is to even stand a chance of winning in November.
That is also why he is blocking an agreement that would
allow the Florida and Michigan primary results to be
counted. If those delegates were distributed according
to the popular vote, and Hillary takes Pennsylvania by a
huge margin (which looks more and more the case) Obama
would be in big trouble by the time the balance of the
states have their primaries.
Clinton could then argue that she has all the "big" states,
and that the delegate difference between her and Obama is
negligible at best................. she might just convince the
"super delegates" to vote in her favor. With each passing
day, it appears that Obama will not be electable come November.
In any case, I, along with millions of voters who have
already made up their minds NOT to let the country fall into
the hands of the super-liberals, are having a field day. I am
looking forward to watching the Democratic party self-destruct,
so that maybe after the extremists have been purged and
eliminated from the party, it will once again return to the "Party
of my father".
who was extremely close to the Clintons, until Obama
moved ahead of Hillary in Democratic delegates, seems
to have slimed his way onto the presidential ticket.
I’m willing to go on record, based on Obama’s recent
statement that he has had numerous "meetings" with
the Governor of New Mexico, that they have struck a
deal. Richardson would swing his support from what
many considered a definite Clinton backing, to Obama,
in exchange for a spot on the ticket.
Obama, pretty seriously hurt by the revelations about
his relationship with the unpatriotic bigot "Rev"Wright,
desperately needs to take the Hispanic vote from Hillary,
if he is to even stand a chance of winning in November.
That is also why he is blocking an agreement that would
allow the Florida and Michigan primary results to be
counted. If those delegates were distributed according
to the popular vote, and Hillary takes Pennsylvania by a
huge margin (which looks more and more the case) Obama
would be in big trouble by the time the balance of the
states have their primaries.
Clinton could then argue that she has all the "big" states,
and that the delegate difference between her and Obama is
negligible at best................. she might just convince the
"super delegates" to vote in her favor. With each passing
day, it appears that Obama will not be electable come November.
In any case, I, along with millions of voters who have
already made up their minds NOT to let the country fall into
the hands of the super-liberals, are having a field day. I am
looking forward to watching the Democratic party self-destruct,
so that maybe after the extremists have been purged and
eliminated from the party, it will once again return to the "Party
of my father".
SORRY IT IS RACISM!
When Sen. Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice, Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father - religious right leader Francis Schaeffer denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr.—Frank Schaeffer
Frank Schaeffer a convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church is calling all those who are bashing Senator Obama for associating with Pastor Jeremiah Wright Hypocrites. Why? Because according to Schaeffer Whites are smearing Sen. Obama by association and they are holding his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright to a double standard.
Schaeffer is suggesting that White people have been motivated by Racism because according to Schaeffer they are trying to keep the first viable Black candidate for President from achieving the goal of becoming president by racial means. Schaeffer also blames the right wing and Hillary Clinton for being complicit in the smearing Sen. Obama by association.
You’ve all have heard the incessant droning on about Senator Obama’s Pastor and why Senator Obama’s attendance at his church makes Obama a racist.
You all know of the hours upon hours that Rush, Fox News and my fellow Conservatives have put into this story dubbed pastorgate.
Yet, according to Schaeffer white Republican preachers cursed American all the time in the 1970s and 1980s, and he and his dad, Francis Schaeffer, crisscrossed America with a message denouncing our nation’s sins, but contrary to Rev. Wright’s experience, instead of getting in trouble they became darlings of the Republican Party. It was never called hate speech or anti-Americanism then. It was called a wake up call to the nation. Just what I’m I talking about?
Frank Schaeffer has recently come forward and argues that "right-wing preachers as his dad often did, preached that we are, 'under the judgment of God.' They call America evil and warn of imminent destruction. By comparison, Schaeffer says, Obama's minister's shouted 'controversial' comments were mild. (Can you imagine that?)
Every Sunday thousands of right-wing white preachers (following in my father’s footsteps), says Schaeffer, and rail against America’s sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the “murder of the unborn,” has become “Sodom” by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children.
What’s so amazing is that so many whites have feigned as if they never heard such preaching as Rev. Wright’s, as if his preaching were an anomaly that just comes out of the Black churches.
Which is surprising to Schaffer because he states that this type of America condemnation, this type of social commentary from the pulpit has its roots in the heart of the rock rim conservative sanctified and holy white churches of America of the 70’s and 80’s. How quickly we forget, Amen?
For those of you that read this blog you know that I said that this type of attack on Sen. Obama would come back to haunt Conservatives. And now the stench of Conservative hypocrisy is wafting through the air as this new revelation is unfolding.
Instead of asking the germane questions, who leaked the sermons of Rev. Wright, and for what purpose, we have been willingly lead down the path of 50’s and 60’s racial divides without putting up the slightest form of resistance. So what does that say about us?
The whole national narrative changed from Hillary’s red phone and lack of real foreign crisis experience to Sen. Obama’s pastor and race.
Here I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again Sen. Obama did not use his race as Sen. Clinton used her gender in this campaign but Sen. Obama’s race was always brought up by President Clinton, Sen. Clinton surrogates and the media.
The leaked sermons of Rev. Wright made it virtually impossible for Sen. Obama to avoid discussing race any longer, so the Senator from Illinois spoke as honestly about the subject as any politician has in recent memory, he offered hope and suggestions than would once and for all heal this nations wounded racial torn past.
Yet haters call Sen. Obama a reverse racist for his efforts. And in addition to that Sen. Obama was called un-American for attending a hate mongering, anti-American church.
Now it is revealed, according to Frank Schaeffer, that white churches all across America sermonized in this America condemnation kind of rhetoric all thorough the 70’s and 80’s and Schaeffer knows of which he speaks because he claims that he and his father were apart of it.
Now that the self-righteous and the holier-than-thou Obama bashing is slowly subsiding maybe we can have a mature discussion about the direction that this country is going in and about who we will chose to lead us in this confusing and volatile time in America.
To be sure, if we continue to allow the politics of the racist past to dominate the politics of our present we will continue in the back to the future attitudes of divisiveness that our Grandparents knew.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Now, Let Me Get This Straight............!
The militant muslims, who have perverted a religion of
love, are offended when someone "insults" their religion
by showing images of Muhammed!
They have a hit order out on the Danish cartoonist who drew
an "unflattering" image of Muhammed, while taking a swipe
at this violent, perversion that they call the "true faith".
Now, on the eve of the release of an unflattering film about
Islam, they have ordered yet another hit on the Dutch film-
maker.
This is ironic, since they have broken just about every law
and rule of the Muslim religion. They attacked without
warning, the World Trade Center, killing thousands.... when
they, by their own law, were supposed to warn the "infidels"
to convert before attacking. So much for honor!
They fight from the safety of women's Burkas, mostly hiding
behind those very women and their children. They attack from
the safety of hospitals and schools, and even from their
"sacred" mosques...... knowing that civilized westerners will not
attack those places. They hold no value of life, their victims'
nor their own....... because they have been sold a bill of goods by
the likes of Osama bin Laden, that seventy-two virgins await them
in their heaven. I wonder what surprise will actually present
itself when they finally arrive there in countless pieces.
In the interest of fair play, and in retaliation for their threats against
the Danish cartoonist, and now the Dutch film-maker, I want to
further dilute their "hit" orders. If enough people show that they
have no fear of these mindless infidels, and stand up against them,
their threats will become totally meaningless. With each successive
act of murder or threat of, they should be slapped back with such
force that they will eventually collapse from the anger within
themselves.
I attach a link for each reader to view and decide just how "insulting"
these cartoons are. To any moderate Muslims who might view
this link, I say............. this would not be necessary, had you reigned
in the radical elements of your religion.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/joe091/Mohammed.jpg
brooklyn
love, are offended when someone "insults" their religion
by showing images of Muhammed!
They have a hit order out on the Danish cartoonist who drew
an "unflattering" image of Muhammed, while taking a swipe
at this violent, perversion that they call the "true faith".
Now, on the eve of the release of an unflattering film about
Islam, they have ordered yet another hit on the Dutch film-
maker.
This is ironic, since they have broken just about every law
and rule of the Muslim religion. They attacked without
warning, the World Trade Center, killing thousands.... when
they, by their own law, were supposed to warn the "infidels"
to convert before attacking. So much for honor!
They fight from the safety of women's Burkas, mostly hiding
behind those very women and their children. They attack from
the safety of hospitals and schools, and even from their
"sacred" mosques...... knowing that civilized westerners will not
attack those places. They hold no value of life, their victims'
nor their own....... because they have been sold a bill of goods by
the likes of Osama bin Laden, that seventy-two virgins await them
in their heaven. I wonder what surprise will actually present
itself when they finally arrive there in countless pieces.
In the interest of fair play, and in retaliation for their threats against
the Danish cartoonist, and now the Dutch film-maker, I want to
further dilute their "hit" orders. If enough people show that they
have no fear of these mindless infidels, and stand up against them,
their threats will become totally meaningless. With each successive
act of murder or threat of, they should be slapped back with such
force that they will eventually collapse from the anger within
themselves.
I attach a link for each reader to view and decide just how "insulting"
these cartoons are. To any moderate Muslims who might view
this link, I say............. this would not be necessary, had you reigned
in the radical elements of your religion.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/joe091/Mohammed.jpg
brooklyn
Where’s the Heat?
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.—Richard Harris
It’s like invading Iraq and finding no weapons of mass destruction, Al Gore and his associates of politically orientated scientist have been pedaling the scare of immediate planet melt down a.k.a. Global warming although when instruments are deployed to confirm what they already know guess what, the facts do not support their claims. Mystery?
I guess good old Al just played on our fears!
The claim was our oceans were supposed to be this vast storage of heat. Gore postulated that the oceans of the world were the real repositories for his claim that the earth had a fever.
Now that instruments have been deployed to measure just how far gone Mother Earth is we now know that our oceans haven’t warmed up for the last four to five years!
We can’t say, Gore lied, people fried, now can we. I guess Gore lied will have to do.
Interesting enough 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming is supposed to involve the Earth’s oceans without significant temperature increase in Earth’s oceans the claim of global warming can not be sustained, the oceans hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.
In fact our oceans have shown a recent trending towards cooling, what this means is that the green house affect which claimed that heat is trapped in our atmosphere with nowhere to go is also wrong.
Bottom line is that the Global efforts to raise awareness about global warming were and are a bit premature and unfounded. Better pull or amend that public school curriculum!
As a final point, let me say that any effort to take money from people in the name of Global warming, Carbon tax or any of the numerous Global warming fraudulent schemes put forth by Al Gore, the United Nations, Governments or Private Investors should be halted and immediately investigated.
And why not put on trial everyone involve in this scheme and all of those who are found guilty of actively plotting to scam citizens of the world, or all who are found complicit in the Great Global warming scheme, put them behind bars for fraud.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Don’t Scream “Race” to Me!
From the start of the Democratic Primary season until today,
both sides have "decried" the use of race in their campaigns.
This is a fallacy of the first magnitude. Every statement from
both campaigns has been full of innuendo about the "forbidden"
subject.
Neither wants to take credit for bringing the subject out into the
open, but there it is and there it will stay. You cannot avoid
"race" when it is used as an "excuse" or "defense" by either side.
The Clinton campaign uses it as a yardstick for measuring
acceptance, under the guise of "race or gender", which is the
only way for Hillary to explain her difficulty in rising to the top.
The Obama campaign, while claiming to be "above" the use of
race to propel him to "stardom", has indeed used every subtle
hint, and some not so subtle, to achieve that end.
With virtually no credentials, other than his color, Obama has
claimed to be a "uniting force" for the country...... while at the
same time holding the record as the Senate’s most liberal
Congressman. He enjoys the backing of almost every celebrity and politician of color............. and though achieving some success in
the white community........... got to where he is by garnering some
90% of the black vote, in the nationwide caucuses.
That small and inconvenient fact is what angered some, when
Geraldine Ferraro brought that to the country’s attention, and what
got her labeled as a bigot................... along with me, I might add.
I did and still agree 100% with Ferraro’s statement, and recent events
are proving both of us right.
When news of Obama’s then Pastor’s rants broke, cracks in the
Obama campaign began to become apparent. The Rev.Wright does
not appear to be the "holy" man that he had been represented as, by
Barack. This man represents the lowest form of hate-mongering and
racism that I have every seen. How anyone, including the Senator
can justify his despicable statements is beyond all reason. Yet, with
the full backing of the black community, Barack Obama did just that.
He said that Rev.Wright has been his "spiritual advisor" of some
twenty years, and that he had never heard any of the statements that
the "Reverend" made. He claimed that Reverend Wright had brought
him to Jesus, had married him and his wife and had baptized both his
children.
When questioned as to why he had never heard those statements
in church, Obama said that he had never been in the church personally,
when any of the objectionable and poisonous remarks had been made.
I said at that time, in a previous post here, that he avoided eye contact
with the camera, and that his body language told me that he was lying
through his teeth. Common sense dictated that in a twenty year
relationship, supposedly that close, it was virtually impossible not to
be familiar with the Reverend and his racist and anti-American rhetoric.
As the situation heated up, Senator Obama saw the necessity of making
yet another television appearance to clear the air. This time, in front of
a wall of American flags, his statement about Reverend Wright was completely different. He said that he had indeed been in the church and heard those statements personally, but that he could not disown the Reverend because he was like family to him.
That alone was an admission to me, that he is not qualified to represent
us as President or in any other public office. He not only admitted that
he had lied, but he refused to disassociate himself from the pastor. Actually, he had the gall to explain away the black church, and the deep feelings or resentment and bitterness of the congregations. That was an insulting exercise in explaining a mind-set, which if one looks at the congregation in the videos, was totally unnecessary. Just viewing it was enough...... seeing just about every attendee at the service in total agreement with Rev.Wright,as witnessed by their hooting and hollering
and jumping up and down. If this is representative of the black church, I think that it is appalling Hopefully, there are churches with a less vitriolic congregation, and pastor.
Obama would have us believe the excuses, that the black community harbors great frustration and bitterness for having been suppressed
by the white community for so many centuries. Well, even assuming
thatis so, why take it out on the country or us........ who have bent over backwards in attempts to level the playing field? Affirmative action has given countless opportunities to blacks, at the direct expense of whites
who were more qualified and equally deserving. I don’t see any black church celebrating that!
If Obama and the black community really want to integrate society,
let’s get rid of the "Congressional Black Caucus", The Miss Black
America Contest", "The United Negro College Fund", and all those
organizations that demand that you be black in order to participate.
I would venture to say that if we had a "Miss White America" contest,
"The United White College Fund" or the "Congressional White
Caucus", the Reverend Jesse Jackson would be picketing the front
doors of all those organizations.
Let’s remember something here. The black community can blame
Europe and America for slavery, which was indeed a blemish on
all of humanity. But when they do,.......they had better remember
that it would not have been possible without the full cooperation of
the black African ruling classes, and the African tribal leaders who sold
their own into slavery.
both sides have "decried" the use of race in their campaigns.
This is a fallacy of the first magnitude. Every statement from
both campaigns has been full of innuendo about the "forbidden"
subject.
Neither wants to take credit for bringing the subject out into the
open, but there it is and there it will stay. You cannot avoid
"race" when it is used as an "excuse" or "defense" by either side.
The Clinton campaign uses it as a yardstick for measuring
acceptance, under the guise of "race or gender", which is the
only way for Hillary to explain her difficulty in rising to the top.
The Obama campaign, while claiming to be "above" the use of
race to propel him to "stardom", has indeed used every subtle
hint, and some not so subtle, to achieve that end.
With virtually no credentials, other than his color, Obama has
claimed to be a "uniting force" for the country...... while at the
same time holding the record as the Senate’s most liberal
Congressman. He enjoys the backing of almost every celebrity and politician of color............. and though achieving some success in
the white community........... got to where he is by garnering some
90% of the black vote, in the nationwide caucuses.
That small and inconvenient fact is what angered some, when
Geraldine Ferraro brought that to the country’s attention, and what
got her labeled as a bigot................... along with me, I might add.
I did and still agree 100% with Ferraro’s statement, and recent events
are proving both of us right.
When news of Obama’s then Pastor’s rants broke, cracks in the
Obama campaign began to become apparent. The Rev.Wright does
not appear to be the "holy" man that he had been represented as, by
Barack. This man represents the lowest form of hate-mongering and
racism that I have every seen. How anyone, including the Senator
can justify his despicable statements is beyond all reason. Yet, with
the full backing of the black community, Barack Obama did just that.
He said that Rev.Wright has been his "spiritual advisor" of some
twenty years, and that he had never heard any of the statements that
the "Reverend" made. He claimed that Reverend Wright had brought
him to Jesus, had married him and his wife and had baptized both his
children.
When questioned as to why he had never heard those statements
in church, Obama said that he had never been in the church personally,
when any of the objectionable and poisonous remarks had been made.
I said at that time, in a previous post here, that he avoided eye contact
with the camera, and that his body language told me that he was lying
through his teeth. Common sense dictated that in a twenty year
relationship, supposedly that close, it was virtually impossible not to
be familiar with the Reverend and his racist and anti-American rhetoric.
As the situation heated up, Senator Obama saw the necessity of making
yet another television appearance to clear the air. This time, in front of
a wall of American flags, his statement about Reverend Wright was completely different. He said that he had indeed been in the church and heard those statements personally, but that he could not disown the Reverend because he was like family to him.
That alone was an admission to me, that he is not qualified to represent
us as President or in any other public office. He not only admitted that
he had lied, but he refused to disassociate himself from the pastor. Actually, he had the gall to explain away the black church, and the deep feelings or resentment and bitterness of the congregations. That was an insulting exercise in explaining a mind-set, which if one looks at the congregation in the videos, was totally unnecessary. Just viewing it was enough...... seeing just about every attendee at the service in total agreement with Rev.Wright,as witnessed by their hooting and hollering
and jumping up and down. If this is representative of the black church, I think that it is appalling Hopefully, there are churches with a less vitriolic congregation, and pastor.
Obama would have us believe the excuses, that the black community harbors great frustration and bitterness for having been suppressed
by the white community for so many centuries. Well, even assuming
thatis so, why take it out on the country or us........ who have bent over backwards in attempts to level the playing field? Affirmative action has given countless opportunities to blacks, at the direct expense of whites
who were more qualified and equally deserving. I don’t see any black church celebrating that!
If Obama and the black community really want to integrate society,
let’s get rid of the "Congressional Black Caucus", The Miss Black
America Contest", "The United Negro College Fund", and all those
organizations that demand that you be black in order to participate.
I would venture to say that if we had a "Miss White America" contest,
"The United White College Fund" or the "Congressional White
Caucus", the Reverend Jesse Jackson would be picketing the front
doors of all those organizations.
Let’s remember something here. The black community can blame
Europe and America for slavery, which was indeed a blemish on
all of humanity. But when they do,.......they had better remember
that it would not have been possible without the full cooperation of
the black African ruling classes, and the African tribal leaders who sold
their own into slavery.
Let them eat Steak
In a 2 to 1 vote the Human relations panel of Philadelphia found that the owner of a famous cheesesteak shop did not discriminate when he posted signs asking customers to speak English, a city panel ruled Wednesday.
Joe Vento owner of Geno’s posted signs in October 2005 which were challenged by some who felt that Mr. Vento violated the city’s ordinances against discrimination.
Commissioners Roxanne E. Covington and Burt Siegel voted to dismiss the complaint, finding that the sign does not communicate that business will be "refused, withheld or denied."
Now the larger issue is this, how can a country whose motto is E Pluribus Unum forget that its responsibility is not to accommodate each and every foreign citizen with comforts of the countries from which they’ve abandoned by coming to the United States for hopes of a better life?
On the contrary this country’s responsibility is to accommodate all citizens by helping them assimilate into the American way of life.
The fact that there was even the need for such a sign, that the sign was challenged and that a city panel had to hold a hearing concerning its posting is an indication that America has lost its way.
Joe Vento should be praised for fighting for the American Dream. What else does, “Out Of Many, One”, mean if it doesn’t mean that from where ever you hail, from what ever ethnicity or country that you come from, join us in America and share our common experience which begins as it always has as long as immigrants have arrived to these shores by learning our ways and speaking the language that we all hold in common, English!
If E Pluribus Unum doesn’t mean that, then ultimately the American experience will become Balkanized and it will be no better than the countries that many of you fled to escape from.
Thank you Joe Vento for your insight, helping us all to understand the true creed of our country!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
More Than Black
Rarely does America have the opportunity to speak so openly and directly about the issue that has defined our Nation’s conflicted social struggle regarding race as we heard when Sen. Barack Obama rose to the occasion yesterday in the city of brotherly love and spoke to calm our fears.
Before now we as a nation have taken the coward’s way out by speaking about race in coded words or by mocking the subject in our media with shows like “All in the Family” or hatin’ on one another through our music in lyric and rhyme that uses pulsating beats by which to spew out racial hatred.
Barack Obama took on the challenge of over 200 years of American racial dysfunction that was foisted on him by situations totally out of his control. And Obama took on that challenge and met it with intelligence, wisdom and grace the likes that have not been seen since the 16th President of these United States was forced to deal with some of the same forces that threatened to divide this country.
For those who used Rev. Wright’s words to attack Sen. Obama while justifying their own racial fears Sen. Obama’s speech did not satisfy their need to hate him, but then again nothing will.
For those who support Sen. Obama this was a bright and shining moment that reinforced why you support him. For he indeed proved that he has the mettle to be President of the United States of America.
David Corn political commentator reviews Sen. Obama speech with a clarity and objectivity that demonstrates that one doesn’t have to be jaded to cover a human dynamic that is usually used to manipulate people as politics often does.
However I am sure the David Corn would agree with me that what we heard in Sen. Obama speech was not manipulation. No it was far from it, what we heard was a man, an American man who took on the issue of race that had heretofore been used against him repeatedly by opponents and media alike but somehow he transcended it for the good of the country and became more than black.
And with a calm and confidence that is unmatched in any other candidate that he is running against Sen. Obama assured this nation that our racial problems are more than just black our problems are economic and education and health care, etc.
Sen. Obama showed us that our problems are ones that we all face in common and they are problems that we will not defeat separated by traditional racial divides.
Though I will not vote for Barack Obama because of his Liberal politics and I believe those politics would lead this country in the wrong direction, I can say unequivocally that Barack Obama is where he is not because he is Black Ms. Ferraro, but on the contrary he is challenging for the Presidency of the United States of America because he is more than Black.
And in addition he has reminded America that her problems are more than about Race, America’s problems are about people all of the people that make up this great nation.
Loving, helping, lifting up people, that is why Barack Obama is where he is today and that is what the country has bought into Ms. Ferraro and you Conservatives that are hatin’ on Obama for somebody else’s words.
Listen to Sen. Obama’s own words you may not support him (As I do not support him) but do not project your own racial bigotry and hate on him. That is something that you will have to work out between you and your higher power.
(see speech below)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama Forced to Talk about Race
Sen. Barack Obama is in an unenviable position as he prepares to discuss “the reason that he is in the position that he is in,” a la Geraldine Ferraro.
In January Bill Clinton simultaneously introduced race and gender into the So. Carolina campaign when he forecasted that Blacks would vote for Obama and women would vote for his wife. This was believed by some as a attempt by the former president create a situation that his wife could benefit from since numerically Black votes are typically outnumbered by White voters.
The former president told voters at a campaign stop in Charleston that race and gender considerations hadn’t cost his wife or Barack Obama any votes so far this campaign – but that some women voters might be drawn to Clinton because of her gender, and some black voters to Obama because of his race: “They are getting votes because of race and gender. That’s why people tell me Hillary doesn’t have a chance to win here.”-- Emily Sherman and Rebecca Sinderbrand
Many believe that it was president Clinton’s meddling that primed the current tensions turning the Democrat once feel good historical campaign of the “first viable woman candidate” and the first viable black candidate” into a fight over race and gender.
There is no denying that the Democrat campaign has devolved into a sexist and racist fear mongering campaign that has been divisive for the party of “inclusion.”
This morning Sen. Obama will attempt to step out on these choppy waters and attempt to speak peace to the storm that threatens to break up the cohesiveness of the Democrat Party and wreak his candidacy.
According to Politico’s Ben Smith Sen. Obama will speak about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the larger issue of race in this campaign.
Sen. Obama added that he would also "talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church."
Sen. Obama campaign is now on the defensive a position that he is not used to being in.
The Senator should plan to speak about how he got in the position that he is in if he plans to recover. He will also need to be clear about the forces behind the controversy involving his pastor and race as an issue in this campaign.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The 21st Century Inquisition Of Barack Obama by Proxy
The following in no wise should be construed as support for Sen. Barack Obama. I will not and could not vote for Sen. Obama. That being said I could not express more how inappropriate the indirect and specious attacks against Sen. Obama are by targeting people close to him and attributing their actions and their words to Sen. Obama.
I could say that this is a wrong approach for Conservatives to take but I’ve heard so much of this blatant fear mongering that I don’t think many Conservatives are being rational.
I have consistently said that Barack Obama can be beat on the basis of his own words and his own beliefs. The day that we let stand this kind of guilt by association is the today that we are all condemned.
There I’ve said it as concise as I know how, for those of you that get it you can stop reading here. For those of you who believe that attacking Obama’s faith and using his minister’s words against him is justified allow me to show you where this kind of attack leads us.Alaphiah
In human history religion has be associated with some of man’s greatest achievements and accounted for some of man’s most barbaric and inhumane acts against one another.
To the religious sublime to the depths of religious absurdity man has attempted to understand and connect with a reason why we exist if there be one.
History is replete with harrowing accounts of religious tyranny. That tyranny was obviously on the minds of the founding fathers when they created the birth certificate of American, the Declaration of Independence. To be sure protecting people from tyranny whether it is the tyranny of governments or the tyranny of religion is principle in the society in which we live, and in the document which defines our society the Constitution of the United States of America.
Nonetheless though we have a birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence and though we have a society defined by the Constitution, In spite of these things what we have witnessed befall Sen. Barack Obama in the last few days is nothing short of the tyranny that the founders attempted to arrest by the ideas contained in the documents that originally give America life.
Over the last several days I have heard Conservative pundits and the main stream media attempt to make Sen. Barack Obama accountable for the words of another man.
No where in History, in Christianity or in the U.S. Constitution can I find that one man can be held responsible for the words of another man yet the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Sen. Barack Obama have been played and vilified and linked to Sen. Obama as if Sen. Obama himself is responsible for the actions and the thoughts of another man.
Neither have I found such an occurrence in the annuals of secular or religious law where one man was brought before a tribunal to account for someone else’s words.
Even in the gospels when a mother and father were brought before a court of sorts to determine how a blind man, their son, had miraculously gained his sight they said, “Ask him he is of age.”
Martin Luther
Speaking of religion, brings me to Martin Luther considered a heretic for opposing the established Church authority of his time. In 1521, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, demanded that Luther appear before the diet of the Holy Roman Empire at Worms to give an account of words that Luther had written. They were in fact and in deed Luther’s words, Luther’s ideas not someone else’s! Imagine if situations were like today Luther would have been tried for someone else’s words. But even in the Dark ages there was some standard of fairness.
To Christians Luther is revered as a modern day Church reformer. Luther single handedly initiated the Protestant movement in the Christian church, but did you know that Luther was a rabid anti-Semite who advocated the ideas that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and Jewish liberty curtailed? And did you know that Luther’s ideas were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933–45.
Martin Luther a revered Christian reformer and anti-Semite my question is can you find anything that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said that even comes close to this? Louis Farrakhan on this worst day never said anything that compared with what Luther taught about Jews yet Sen. Obama was made to disavow and repudiate Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright. But have Christians disavowed Martin Luther or the whole Lutheran sect or Protestantism?
According to Wikipedia there are about 800 million Protestants worldwide, among approximately 1.9 billion Christians. These include 170 million in North America, 160 million in Africa, 120 million in Europe, 70 million in Latin America, 60 million in Asia, and 10 million in Oceania. Shouldn’t all of these Protestants be made to disavow and repudiate the anti-Semitic words of Martin Luther?
One can not attribute one violent act that occurred after a Farrakhan or Wright sermon not one. Yet based on the words of Luther Nazi’s killed 6 million Jews. Surely Christians should be made to disavow Luther, Lutherans and the Protestant movement that came from Martin Luther’s words. This is extreme but no more extreme than calling for Barack Obama to disavow his pastor and Farrakhan.
Thomas Jefferson
The man who is credited for authoring the Declaration of Independence if he were alive today no doubt he would not be able to be elected President of this Country today even though he was the third man to hear the words and wear the title of Mr. President. But today because of the de facto religion test that we have in America and ignorance of the principles in the Constitution this founding father would not be electable today.
Thomas Jefferson considered an atheist by some or deist, regardless, believed to be an American icon today by all said:
"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545
“…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions…” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1,1802
If some one would have attempted to attack Thomas Jefferson on his religious affiliation as what is being done to Barack Obama one would have been told in no uncertain terms that Jefferson’s religious affairs are none of your business and are of a private matter.
Jefferson himself would have told you that.
What Barack Obama believes and how he worships, according to the author of the Declaration of Independence and a founding father, are between him and God and no one has the right to meddle in his beliefs or violate his privacy on the matter according to Jefferson.
Article VI
In article VI of the Constitution of the United States of American it is clearly set out that there can not be any form of a religious test to prevent public service.
The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:
“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”
In conclusion, Europe and Christianity had its Inquisitions in them the Church committed sins against humanity, early America had its witch hunts which Christians persecuted innocence people in the name of religion.
Today Conservatives use the words of one man to put another man on trial. It is an evil that even the evil of the dark ages with its Inquisitors pale against. Conservatives replay Jeremiah Wright’s words and link them to Sen. Barack Obama as if witches where being hunted once again.
Whether or not Jeremiah Wright is a racist, a black nationalist, or anti-American the fact that Conservatives would attempt to smear Sen. Barack Obama with religion and with word that are not his own is against everything that America has stood for from its very inception and will eventually come back to haunt Conservatives at the most inconvenient opportunity.
Sadly this tactic will do nothing to dissuade Obama supporters. Only those who would not vote for Sen. Obama any way will be affected in a negative way. What will happen is Liberals have another reason to think ill of Conservatives for using what seems to them to be a desperate attempt to derail their candidate.
Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible where he repudiates the virgin birth, deletes all miracles and disregards the deity of Jesus yet he would tell you that his religious beliefs are his own and between him and his God only.
Martin Luther an avowed anti-Semite, whose words were used by Nazis as justification to murder 6 million Jews but Luther also initiated the Protestant movement which 1.9 billion Christians have never disavowed themselves from the horrific words of Luther.
Conservatives and the MSM have trotted out Barack Obama’s pastor’s sermons in an effort to smear Sen. Obama by association. If Conservatives continue down this road will they be ask to disavow Jefferson and Luther?
Should they?
Friday, March 14, 2008
IPCC's bad Global warming Science
Conclusion: “The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.”—H. Sterling Burnett
The United Nations IPCC, co-honoree of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize along with former vice president Al Gore, is on the hot seat for politicizing Global warming and making a mockery of Science and the scientific method.
According to H. Sterling Burnett a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas, the IPCC has broken several scientific principles to advance Climate politics that are devoid of scientific fact.
The IPCC was created in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." This body set out to prove anthropogenic global warming and never once thought about questioning if in fact there was such a thing. So with original bias in hand they accomplished their mandate, they proved to their own satisfaction that man’s activities are the primary cause of Global warming in spite of evidence that the earth is actually cooling.
That would be the equivalent of setting out to prove that Bigfoot exists without ever questioning if there really was such a being as Bigfoot. All of the evidence that you gathered would confirm the reality of Bigfoot.
IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.--H. Sterling Burnett
The IPCC and public figures such as Al Gore have used this flawed information to promote the political scare of Global warming.
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect. – H. Sterling Burnett
According to Burnett using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.
Burnett further establishes that a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
In conclusion Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, nor did the IPCC apply the principles.
The bottom line is the whole theory of Global warming has been perched precariously on claims with no solid scientific method to back them up.
Interesting how the purveyors of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming are the actual “deniers” of truth, not these whom they have accused of being deniers!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Ferraro Stuck on Race since 1988?
"[I]f Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."—Geraldine Ferraro, April, 1988
How does the saying go: “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?”
It seems like every time the race topic is at the forefront of the Democrat Party Ms. Geraldine Ferraro is right there offering her views on the matter. And as I attempted to explain to a reader yesterday Ms. Ferraro seems to be harboring some racist views, well here’s further proof. Now Obama is not my candidate but I can’t stomach overt racism in any quarter.
Most of us are aware of Ms. Ferraro’s dismissive assessment of Sen. Obama’s raise to political prominence. Ms. Ferraro feels unapologetically that if Sen. Obama were White he would not be the Democrat front runner. But according to Ben Smith of politico that’s the same thing that she said about Jesse Jackson in 1988. So what’s up that that Gerry?
Are you purposely trying to divide the Democrat Party over race as Sen. Obama has suggested?
Ms. Ferraro when you attempt to equate Sen. Obama’s raise to the Democrat forefront with you being selected to be Vice president on the Walter Mondale ticket in 1988 that is just preposterous.
You are correct Gerry that the only reason that Mondale selected you was because you are a woman, thus making a White woman the first affirmative action candidate, Barack Obama’s candidacy was not given to him like yours was Ms. Ferraro.
Barack Obama entered into the race just like everyone else did and is running a campaign on his own merit unlike the candidate that you support, Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is winning votes and delegates on this own merit. He’s not dragging around a former president to identify his candidacy with, like Sen. Clinton is.
And you, Ms. Ferraro were selected to be vice president by one man because you are a woman, conversely Obama is winning votes from the American people. There is no comparison between you and him nor is there between him and Sen. Clinton!
That’s the difference that you’re missing Ms. Ferraro. Walter Mondale give you an unmerited vice president slot on his ticket as a way to use the fact that you are a woman in hopes to get the female vote.
No one has offered Sen. Obama anything he’s done it on his own. Well the second place Clinton’s have offer him the Vice presidency on a ticket that he is currently the front-runner on, a ticket on which he is earning the nomination for the Presidency on his own to represent his Party.
So Ms. Ferraro I’m not buying your fake offense! If this were the first time that you said something like this maybe, but you have a history of race baiting, you a produce of an affirmative action candidacy yourself.
It's good that you stepped down from your position on the Clinton campaign, maybe your candidate, Hillary, will do the same for the sake of Party unity, but I doubt it!
That's twice with the same anti-black attack Ms. Ferraro, that makes you a race baiter and a hypocrite to boot. And that offends me Ms. Ferraro! That offends me.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
IS IT BECAUSE HE’S BLACK?
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,"—Geraldine Ferraro
Well I’ve heard of stupid comments but I don’t think that I’ve heard any as stupid as Sen. Hillary Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks about Sen. Barack Obama as reported by Jim Farber Staff Writer of the L.A. Daily Breeze.
Ferraro the only woman ever to be selected by a major political party, the Democrat Party, for the position of vice president of the United States has made the most outlandish statement that I’ve heard in a while. And given that half of America believes that the only reason her candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is where she is today, is because she is a woman who is married to Bill Clinton, I wouldn’t think that anyone in the Clinton camp would want to go there.
Ferraro an ardent Clinton supporter believes that if Sen. Obama where a white man he would not be in the position that he is in. What position? Challenging for the nomination to be president of the United States of America?
Well if he were a white man why wouldn’t he be in this position? Need I remind Ms. Ferraro that there have been at least 43 White men who have been in this position and 46 White men who have been in the position to become Vice president?
All white men so what do you think that Ms. Ferraro is talking about?
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against,"--Geraldine Ferraro
What!?!
Didn’t it ever occur to anyone in the Clinton camp that with Sen. Clinton high negatives (half the country say they would never vote for her) that maybe its not the fact that she a woman maybe it’s the fact that she is the wrong woman!
Maybe Ms. Ferraro is simply emoting what the Clinton campaign is feeling. It was they who expected to run a campaign that would be hard for anyone to run against by running a woman against white men but this black man, Sen. Obama, is spoiling all of that.
Far too often racism is expected from the right, one would’ve never dreamt that the purveyors of multiculturalism, feminism, homosexuality and racial equality would openly display “Louis Eugene Walcott” racism against a candidate in their own Party!
“Louis Eugene Walcott”? Oh that’s Louis Farrakhan for all of you ill informed race haters! Yes I’m thinking that Ms. Ferraro’s remarks place her squarely in the racist column. Oh she’ll deny it but it can’t be anything else. Sen. Obama has not run his campaign as a black man I don’t think he mentions it but the Clinton’s have mentioned it and the Clinton surrogates have mentioned it as well as other racist on both sides of the political landscape have mentioned it too.
But isn’t it deliciously ironic that Ms. Ferraro’s candidate, Sen. Clinton, who would not be where she is if she weren’t a woman and if she weren’t married to Bill Clinton, can say such a thing against a candidate that has not made race a part of his campaign.
Conversely Ms. Ferraro’s candidate has made her sex a major component of her campaign and has continually played the sexism card because she is a woman.
Again, the only time that I even hear race being discussed is when it’s coming from racist Democrats who support Sen. Clinton or racist Republicans.
I’m not saying all Democrats or all Republican are racist, what I am saying is that most Democrats or Republicans who invokes race into this campaign are more than likely racist.
There are so many other things and one can fault Sen. Barack Obama on. To stoop to the race card as Ms. Ferraro has done shows a racial bias and complete laziness in political thinking.
I don’t know how Ms. Ferraro thought that such a remark could aide her candidate when the biases that such a statement invokes work against her candidate as well.
If we are not choosing and voting for the best candidate for the job then what are we doing Ms. Ferraro?
Below we have an arm waving nostrils flared Geraldine Ferraro attempting to assuage the fallout from her “Because he’s Black” retort. Notice at the end of the interview she turns everything around and accuses Sen. Obama of attacking her! I have yet to hear that Sen. Obama has even acknowledged what Ms. Ferraro has said. Unfortunately Ms. Ferraro does not come off as a progressive open minded multi-culturalist in this spot.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Phone’s for you Bill!
It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep but there’s a phone in the White house and it’s ringing who do you want to answer the call?
With that 30 second ad Hillary Clinton was able to drive home the point to the American people that she alone possesses the experience “tested and ready” to handle world crisis.
So that begs the question, just what duties in the non-elected and non-mandated designation of being the wife of the president gives one the experience to answer in a time of crisis? That is an important question because Sen. Clinton is using the time that she spent in the White house as first lady to bolster her claims of experience.
Since Sen. Clinton’s SNL claim that the media was being soft on Senator Obama it’s only fair that her claims of being experienced and of being tested and ready come under the same scrutiny as Sen. Obama’s campaign has recently come under.
It appears that Sen. Clinton is basing her claims of international experience, which would afford her alone the ability to take control of the reigns of government without any interruption in the transfer of power, if she were elected president, on the fact that she slept in the White house for 8 years along with the chefs, cooks, maids, personal assistants and other essential White house staff and personnel. Oh that’s right. Above all of that she was also married to the president.
So exactly what did Mrs. Clinton do as first lady that qualifies her to be the President now?
According to Nancy Benac Mrs. Clinton takes credit for the following:
‘She takes credit for helping bring peace to Northern Ireland, negotiating open borders for refugees fleeing Kosovo, standing up to the Chinese government over women's rights, and flying into Bosnia when it was too dangerous to send the president.’—Nancy Benac, AP News
However, a fact check of Sen. Clinton’s election rรฉsumรฉ shows some rรฉsumรฉ discrepancies with her claims. Sen. Clinton didn’t quite claim to invent the internet but she comes god-awful close to revising history to suit her political ambitions.
First her claims of helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. Fact Checker says:
Northern Ireland
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," Clinton said on CNN's American Morning on Wednesday.
Former Democratic Senate majority leader George Mitchell, who was a U.S. special envoy to Northern Ireland, told CNN that while Clinton was not directly involved in negotiations, she did play a helpful role in bringing in women's groups that made a difference.
in 1995 and the teapot she admired
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, was also involved in the process. He recalls one late-night meeting with former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Clinton and Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.
"There was a discussion of how the IRA would decommission its weapons. And I know that Sen. Clinton was part of that meeting," King said.
However according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province, Sen. Clinton’s claims are just silly!
Lord Trimble is reported as saying, Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played.
Kosovo
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," she said on CNN's American Morning.
According to facts checker; In May of 1999, she was in Macedonia visiting refugee camps near the Kosovo border and meeting with Macedonia's president and prime minister.
Sources with knowledge of her visit say she discussed the refugees' plight with those leaders. It's not clear how much she helped since CNN reported at the time that Macedonia reopened its border to Kosovar refugees before Clinton's visit.
China
"I've been standing up against, you know, the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights in many different places," she said on CNN's American Morning.
During a 1995 visit to Beijing, at a time when her husband's administration was trying to press China on human rights, Sen. Clinton made a speech condemning [China’s human rights] abuses.
We all know what Sen. Clinton feels about speeches now don’t we! If that’s all that she did then even she would have to say that she didn’t do much!
While campaigning against her rival for the Democratic Nomination for the presidency Sen. Clinton has made it known under no uncertain terms that mere speeches are nothing without action.
At one point of her campaign Sen. Clinton said, "It is time to get real, to get real about how we actually win this election... It is time to move from good words to good works -- from sound bites to sound solutions."
That another time she told an audience in Ohio that the choice in the Democratic primary this year is between someone in the "speeches business" and someone in the "solutions business."
"Americans have a choice to make in this election, and that choice matters," she said.
"We need to make a choice between speeches and solutions, because while words matter greatly, the best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action."
Based on Sen. Clinton’s own assessment of speech making and seeing that there was absolutely no change in China’s human rights policies after first Lady Clinton’s speech I wouldn’t equate, then first Lady Clinton’s 1995 speech in China with the 1989 standing down of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen square would you?
BOSNIA
"If the place was too small, too dangerous or too poor, send Hillary." Is how Sen. Clinton is known to glorify her trip to Bosnia.
Clinton cites her March 1996 trip to Bosnia, a goodwill tour, in which she was accompanied by Chelsea. (If there where any kind of danger would she have brought Chelsea?) Her airplane met with some wind turbulence upon landing but officials said at the time she took no extraordinary risks.
In any event a much needed trip to pad a lacking rรฉsumรฉ for a future presidential run.
Judging from this type of non-experience in addition to the failed way that she has run her bid to be president to date, if Sen. Clinton were to answer the 3 a.m. phone she would say,
Hello… (pause)…(Shouting) Somebody find Bill the red phone is ringing and I don’t know that to do!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hypocrisy,Thy Name is Democrat!
The Democrats have always been able to expose
scandal among Republican and Conservative
candidates for public office. .maybe that’s because
they have so much experience in it themselves.
Going back to "Boss Tweed", I don’t think that one
election has gone by, without the Dems letting loose
a barrage of claims, accusations and innuendo about
the opposing party candidates..... usually before
anybody can cite them.
We all saw their successful use, aided by the MSM,
of that technique, during the 2006 election cycle.
Because of several high-profile "scandals", and
the Democrat’s expertise at manipulating truth and
exaggerating relatively minor infractions, the
Republicans lost control of the Congress. Their
hype, gave the impression that all Republicans are
"dirty" and shouldn’t be trusted. The amazing part
of this is that all of the previouos Democratic scandals,
indictments, frauds, etc., etc., were responsible for the
Dems losing control in the first place.
Now we are left with a Congress, completely controlled
by Democrats.......... far from "pure as the driven snow",
and we are not seeing anything of what was promised
to the poor fools who voted them in. I for one, never
believed one word of their rhetoric, which is just
regurgitated from some previous election speeches, with
the date changed. I also, couldn’t in good conscience,
vote for any Democrat under the present circumstances.
They have much to prove to me, before earning my vote.
The party of my father is long gone............ and with it
we have the "party of Huffington, Moore and moveon.".
Once again, we are at a crossroads in this wonderful country.
Come November, we will have to decide on exactly who
is going to be steering our "Ship of State". I hope that God
keeps us all laughing long after that day...... because he sure
does seem to have a great sense of humor. The once-thought
shoe-in, Hillary Clinton.......... doesn’t seem to be the best
choice anymore; at least not to the democrats who have been
voting in the primaries and caucuses.
Albeit, the alternative doesn’t have it either. Barack Obama
has come out of nowhere, directly to the forefront of the
battle,...... and on what? Oprah's endorsement?
Change? Be very careful with that word, "change". Change
for what..... for the sake of change? Sorry, I don’t buy it!
He is a first-term Senator, who until seven months ago, was
known to only a handfull outside his home state. Now, with
a lot of fluff and flair, "eloquent speeches full of empty rhetoric",
he would have us believe that he is qualified to run the country.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my country run by a
president who has an acknowledged friendship with the organizer
of "the weather men".......... a known US terrorist organization.
Nor should our president even remotely associate with a church,
"Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago", that refers to
itself as, "Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian"...
whose pastor had a close personal relationship with Louis
Farrahkan, of "The Nation of Islam".... whose theology teaches
that, "whites are devils". As if that weren’t enough, Obama’s
"spiritual advisor", Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr,.conferred a
special award on Farrahkan
Only after these stories broke, did we find out that
Farrahkan had endorsed Obama, who was very hesitant
during TV interviews, to reject that backing.
All of this came together for me today, when word of New
York Governor Elliot Spitzer’s involvement in an FBI sting
on a prostitution ring, was released. Only this time, Spitzer
was on the wrong side of the (bed) fence. This in addition to the
fact that he is already under investigation on several other
fronts, involving suspicious and possibly illegal activity.
In my opinion........... it couldn’t happen to a nicer man.
When he was running for his office, he was ruthless against
his opponents and used as many dirty tricks as he could legally get
away with. He made sure that every detail of their lives was exposed.
Now, I guess it’s his turn. Oh, and ironically, and somewhat
reminiscent of current platforms............he theme was CHANGE!
With him out of the Governor’s Mansion, and former
Lieutenant-Governor Paterson taking over, things might just
get a little rougher for Hillary’s bid for the White House. I
don’t want to be the one to raise the "race card", but sorry folks,
it’s already been raised and quite high. I am sure that Paterson
will do everything in his power to promote Obama for the job
of President of the US. What am I basing that on? Simple
logic my friends, ....................simple logic.
Mrs. Obama proud of her country for the "first time"........only
because her husband is in the running for the Democratic
nomination, is racist. Barack’s friendship with, and his
almost refusal to disavow Farrahkan’s support....... a known racist
and anti-semite, is racist. His church, by it’s own definition
is racist. Obama garnering about 85% of the black vote, in all
the primaries and caucuses, is racist.
Now, I don’t want to see Hillary Clinton as President, but I sure
as hell don’t want to see Obama as President either. She carries
too much baggage, and he has absolutely no basis on which
to make an intelligent and informed decision on the safety of
our country. His backing comes from the far left, the yuppie-
puppies, and unfortunately, a large percentage of blacks who
are still "getting even" for something that we Americans had
nothing to do with.
brooklyn
scandal among Republican and Conservative
candidates for public office. .maybe that’s because
they have so much experience in it themselves.
Going back to "Boss Tweed", I don’t think that one
election has gone by, without the Dems letting loose
a barrage of claims, accusations and innuendo about
the opposing party candidates..... usually before
anybody can cite them.
We all saw their successful use, aided by the MSM,
of that technique, during the 2006 election cycle.
Because of several high-profile "scandals", and
the Democrat’s expertise at manipulating truth and
exaggerating relatively minor infractions, the
Republicans lost control of the Congress. Their
hype, gave the impression that all Republicans are
"dirty" and shouldn’t be trusted. The amazing part
of this is that all of the previouos Democratic scandals,
indictments, frauds, etc., etc., were responsible for the
Dems losing control in the first place.
Now we are left with a Congress, completely controlled
by Democrats.......... far from "pure as the driven snow",
and we are not seeing anything of what was promised
to the poor fools who voted them in. I for one, never
believed one word of their rhetoric, which is just
regurgitated from some previous election speeches, with
the date changed. I also, couldn’t in good conscience,
vote for any Democrat under the present circumstances.
They have much to prove to me, before earning my vote.
The party of my father is long gone............ and with it
we have the "party of Huffington, Moore and moveon.".
Once again, we are at a crossroads in this wonderful country.
Come November, we will have to decide on exactly who
is going to be steering our "Ship of State". I hope that God
keeps us all laughing long after that day...... because he sure
does seem to have a great sense of humor. The once-thought
shoe-in, Hillary Clinton.......... doesn’t seem to be the best
choice anymore; at least not to the democrats who have been
voting in the primaries and caucuses.
Albeit, the alternative doesn’t have it either. Barack Obama
has come out of nowhere, directly to the forefront of the
battle,...... and on what? Oprah's endorsement?
Change? Be very careful with that word, "change". Change
for what..... for the sake of change? Sorry, I don’t buy it!
He is a first-term Senator, who until seven months ago, was
known to only a handfull outside his home state. Now, with
a lot of fluff and flair, "eloquent speeches full of empty rhetoric",
he would have us believe that he is qualified to run the country.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my country run by a
president who has an acknowledged friendship with the organizer
of "the weather men".......... a known US terrorist organization.
Nor should our president even remotely associate with a church,
"Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago", that refers to
itself as, "Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian"...
whose pastor had a close personal relationship with Louis
Farrahkan, of "The Nation of Islam".... whose theology teaches
that, "whites are devils". As if that weren’t enough, Obama’s
"spiritual advisor", Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr,.conferred a
special award on Farrahkan
Only after these stories broke, did we find out that
Farrahkan had endorsed Obama, who was very hesitant
during TV interviews, to reject that backing.
All of this came together for me today, when word of New
York Governor Elliot Spitzer’s involvement in an FBI sting
on a prostitution ring, was released. Only this time, Spitzer
was on the wrong side of the (bed) fence. This in addition to the
fact that he is already under investigation on several other
fronts, involving suspicious and possibly illegal activity.
In my opinion........... it couldn’t happen to a nicer man.
When he was running for his office, he was ruthless against
his opponents and used as many dirty tricks as he could legally get
away with. He made sure that every detail of their lives was exposed.
Now, I guess it’s his turn. Oh, and ironically, and somewhat
reminiscent of current platforms............he theme was CHANGE!
With him out of the Governor’s Mansion, and former
Lieutenant-Governor Paterson taking over, things might just
get a little rougher for Hillary’s bid for the White House. I
don’t want to be the one to raise the "race card", but sorry folks,
it’s already been raised and quite high. I am sure that Paterson
will do everything in his power to promote Obama for the job
of President of the US. What am I basing that on? Simple
logic my friends, ....................simple logic.
Mrs. Obama proud of her country for the "first time"........only
because her husband is in the running for the Democratic
nomination, is racist. Barack’s friendship with, and his
almost refusal to disavow Farrahkan’s support....... a known racist
and anti-semite, is racist. His church, by it’s own definition
is racist. Obama garnering about 85% of the black vote, in all
the primaries and caucuses, is racist.
Now, I don’t want to see Hillary Clinton as President, but I sure
as hell don’t want to see Obama as President either. She carries
too much baggage, and he has absolutely no basis on which
to make an intelligent and informed decision on the safety of
our country. His backing comes from the far left, the yuppie-
puppies, and unfortunately, a large percentage of blacks who
are still "getting even" for something that we Americans had
nothing to do with.
brooklyn
Rules aren’t Rules if you’re a Democrat
Clinton did not object to the DNC stripping the states of their delegates when the decision was made last year. Some of her backers were on the committee that made the decision to do so and actively supported it.
"Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they're trying to rewrite the rules," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a call with reporters.—The Associated Press
The Sunday news shows were all a blazed with the prospect that Democrats would destroy Party unity over a fight for delegates who “don’t count for anything.”
That after all is how Sen. Clinton described Florida’s and Michigan’s delegates when she was campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire according to Sen. Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe. But now that there’s a very real possibility that Democrats are headed toward a brokered Convention meaning that neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama will have the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democrat nomination before the convention we have a rare opportunity to see the open and exposed machinations of Democrat operatives without Democrats being able to blame Republicans for Democrat’s usual dirty play because this is purely a Democrat fight.
Democrat primary rules were established and agree to by all Democrat officials that no state could hold their Democratic primaries prior to February 5 without being granted a special waiver.
But in complete defiance of those rules Democrats in the states of Florida and Michigan decided to flout the Democratic National Committees rules and hold their primaries before the February 5 date.
As a result the DNC, both Clinton’s and Obama’s campaigns and Democrat elders all agreed that Florida and Michigan would be stripped of their delegates and neither Florida or Michigan’s delegates would be seated at the Democratic convention. That was the rule. Senator Clinton had people on the rules committee that made this decision.
But now that it seem to benefit Senator Clinton’s campaign to have Florida and Michigan’s delegates counted the Clinton campaign has threaten to sue to have the delegates seated in addition the Clinton campaign is working behind the scenes to break the rules that they supported without prejudice just months before.
"The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination - attempt to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat nonexistent delegates from Florida and Michigan," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.(See here)
"The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats' ability to win the general election."
Again Sen. Clinton’s backers were on the DNC rule committee that made the decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates and her backers actively supported the decision. Nevertheless, here’s Senator Clinton denying that she ever agreed to strip the two states of their delegates. (See below)
What happened to the rules? Change happened to the rules, the same kind of change that Democrats are promising to bring to America. It’s the very change that Democrats are invoking with intent to the rules in the United States if they are ever elected to the Presidency.
Though Sen. Clinton claims that she never agreed to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegate, she only agreed not to campaign in either state. Yet she did go to Florida and she did campaign.
As reported by Mike Glover of the associated press. Only Senator Clinton believes that she agree not to openly campaign in Florida so she held a closed rally/fundraiser instead. Some are suggesting that she winked or skated close the edge of the agreement not to campaign in Florida, on the other hand I see this as yet again a Democrat’s refusal to keep their word and abide by rules.
That‘s what the Democrat message of change is all about. Regardless of what the rules are and regardless of if they are beneficial to the greater public weal rules can and will be changed at the whelm of an oligarchy of Fascist Liberal Democrats if they are elected in November.
You may not find that terribly troubling because you believe in change but there is still the other half of the country that believes that rules are rules, heritage is heritage and American culture is American culture and these things should be honored and preserved not dismantled and destroyed for the sake of the Socialist idealists who make up the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, it’s Sen. Hillary Clinton behind this sudden confuse about the rules and whether or not the rules should be changed at the last minute. Reminiscent of Al Gore’s 2000 decision to withdraw his concession to then former Governor George Bush consequently Gore’s actions threw this country into the partisan war which we find ourselves today.
The DNC rules stipulate that states that have not been granted a special waiver must schedule presidential nominating contests after Feb. 5. Florida and Michigan Democrats chose to violate and openly defy DNC rules.
"While we may not like the rules, if we don't respect the rules, then we are going to have chaos," said committee member Yvonne Gates of Nevada.
It is reported that Sen. Obama said that he played by the rules, and the rules should be honored.
A look at how Democrats deal with this issue will give one a sense of how Democrats would run the Country. And it’s not looking so good for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)