The 21st Century Inquisition Of Barack Obama by Proxy

Dr. Jeremiah Wright

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?

IPCC's bad Global warming Science

The Greenland Icecap

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!

Ferraro Stuck on Race since 1988?

Geraldine Ferraro

"[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.

IS IT BECAUSE HE’S BLACK?

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro

"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.

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 résumé shows some résumé 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.

Hillary Clinton meeting with Belfast women

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 résumé 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!

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

Rules aren’t Rules if you’re a Democrat

Senator Clinton arriving in Florida

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.

"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."

(See here)


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.

An Inconvenient Cooling

John Coleman founder of the Weather Channel

“Al Gore, the United Nations, environmental groups, and too often the reporters who cover the climate change debate are the ones who are out of step with the real “consensus.” They claim to be certain that global warming is occurring, convinced it is due to human causes, and 100 percent confident we can predict future climates.

George Will, in an October Newsweek column commenting on Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, wrote that if nations impose the reductions in energy use that Al Gore and the folks at RealClimate call for, they will cause “more preventable death and suffering than was caused in the last century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined.””-- Joseph L. Bast, Conference Host and President, The Heartland Institute

Do you think that we could possibly get Sens. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama to reject and denounce former Vice president Al Gore and his fear mongering about Global warming since 100 years of Global warming has been erased in one year virtually debunking Gore’s claims of immediate and imminent danger to the planet?

You remember according to Gore the planet has a fever and nothing short of the equivalent of the medical emergency procedure of throwing the U.S. economy into a “Green” chaos would fix it.

Oh yeah maybe also a new world-wide carbon emissions tax to tax people in all countries on earth would fix it too. A tax from which Mr. Gore’s carbon trading business (which he is a founding partner and is heavily invested in) stands to profit handsomely from if international laws are put in place like the ones being considered by Canada because of the Global warming scare which Gore almost single-handedly invented on college campuses and in speaking tours all over this country.

Aided by Al Gore’s contribution to the Global warming scare, Global warming profitting has now burgeoned into a multibillion dollar enterprise that lawyers, scientist and environmentalist will fight and kill for before they allow a little thing like a discredited and debunked Global warming theory hinder them from the billions that they stand to make.

The market, which in 2006 was valued at $30 billion, now spans Europe, where some 12,000 factories and power plants must comply with limits on how much carbon dioxide they can produce. It has tentacles in developing countries such as China, India and Pakistan, where speculators can earn and sell credits for, among other things, installing technology to reduce pollution.
To be sure, the market has its problems. So far, it hasn't reduced emissions as hoped.-- Janet L. Conley,Law.com

One little inconvenient truth stands between Mr. Gore and all those billions of dollars though, the Earth’s fever has broken and 100 years, that’s 1 century of Global warming, has been eradicated! Isn’t that wonderful news! Simply, there is no more Global warming to be concerned about.

Church bells all over the world should be ringing; the call to Islamic prayer should be heard all over. Thank God, thank Allah, thank Mother Nature all of the dire predictions and the entire U.N. IPCC road to Bali plans can be scrapped. The green house effect was just another pseudo scientific fad that we could talk about as we sipped our Lattes and ate our scones.

Do you remember just a few years ago that the mainstream media was determined to make President Bush admit that he made mistakes in invading Iraq? It was reported that the president was inflexible and dogmatic in his view because he refused to apologize for what everyone else in the media and the Democrat Party knew were boneheaded blunders.

Well, do you think that we’ll get an apology anytime soon for Mr. Gore? You know just a simple, hey guys you know something, I was wrong about Global warming… and I’m awful sorry! You think that’s possible?

Not a snowball’s chance in Greenland, Huh?

Well apparently the founder of the 24 hour weather channel, John Coleman doesn’t think that the likelihood of Al Gore and the acolytes of Global warming are going to apologize any time soon so he plans to sue Gore for the Global warming hysteria that Gore has invented.

“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”—John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

Below is Coleman in an interview that he had with radio and television host Glen Beck:



What about the Kyoto treaty and the United Nations IPCC, you think that there’s a chance that any one of the Senators running for president would reject and denounce the Kyoto treaty and the IPCC as the fraudulent agreement and the fraudulent climate change authorities that they are? No?

And what does imposing more taxes or carbon emissions trading plans have to do with saving the planet? Nothing, absolutely nothing!

But you, dear Reader, have been so conditioned to believe that there is such a phenomenon as Global warming and that human’s are the cause of it that your ignorance has allowed very powerful and insidious forces to aligning themselves to take advantage of this projected multi-billion dollar fleecing of the world’s people all made possible by another invention of Albert A. Gore, Jr. – Global warming!

I am a Proud Conservative Liberal Republican!

Sen. John McCain
John McCain you’ve just won the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. What are you going to do now?

Sen. McCain’s response: I’m a proud Conservative Liberal Republican and I’m going to conduct a spirited but respectful campaign for the presidency of the United States!

Oxymoronic, Freudian or simply Moronic? Naw none of the above, it’s just the inscrutable, out of touch but straight-talking John McCain. Who is going to attempt to run an 1850’s campaign in a 21st Century world according to the Democrat National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean. Really Dean said that McCain talks like he’s in the 1850’s and Dean just may have a point.

One thing about a John McCain candidacy now that he’s clinched the Republican nomination, it will offer Conservatives plenty of, “I told you so!” moments.

What Conservatives have been saying is, what is needed for the Republican Party is someone who is willing to fight and advocate for Conservative values. Not someone who has a loving Stockholm syndrome relationship with their al Qaeda captors the Democrats.

Nonetheless the elite of the Republican Party in their wisdom, who are neither Conservative, nor advocates for Conservatism or fighters for Conservative values brought forth a conciliatory politically confused candidate whose idea of a campaign is a "dispirited or a spirited campaign" (McCain’s words not mine) that will be honored by his opponents like Danny Pearl’s humanity was honored by his Muslim captors.

Already DNC Chairman Howard Dean has begun to place road bombs at the feet of a Rodney King like John McCain who wishes that we just all get along.

Dean assaulted McCain much vaulted integrity with this barb: "Here's a guy who's a typical situational ethicist. He runs on his integrity, but he doesn't seem to have any,"

According to the Georgetown Voice, Dean has already attacked McCain’s age and looks when he said, with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field “looks like America,” while the all-white male Republican field (just McCain now) “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.” Believe me, we haven’t heard or seen the half of Democrat disdain for Republicans in this campaign. Not by a long shot!


Yet McCain feels that he can offer a positive respectful debate and win the Presidency in spite of the virtual negative 8 year assault on the Bush administration which has brought the President’s polling numbers down to a historical low. Good luck with that Senator!

It will take a miracle to withstand the assaults of the Leftwing without a combination of defense and offense in your campaign Sen. McCain. Sorry to break the news to you Senator but nice guys finish with historically low polling numbers and high public disapproval ratings. Just look at our President.

But maybe Sen. McCain has actually done it. After all he did find a title that will beat George Bush’s title of “Compassionate Conservative” hands down and in doing so maybe he has insulated himself from the Democrat hatemongering that we have come to expect from the left!

Senator McCain said that he is a “proud Conservative Liberal Republican!” Well that’s what he said. I’m not making this up! And hey I like it. It’s got that proud thing going on just like the homosexuals use. It’s kind of like Sen. McCain is coming out or something! Take a look:



Most conservatives thought that McCain was a closet liberal anyways so now we know. You go Senator! I’m digging it man I can see the bumper stickers now, Vote McCain: A proud Conservative Liberal Republican!

I think it’s absolutely brilliant! Sen. McCain can be all things to all people, He can be proud for the Homosexuals, he can be Conservative (but not too much so not to offend everyone else) for the Conservatives, he can be Liberal for the Liberals and he can be Republican for the Republicans.

The only thing better would be for him to be a Proud Conservative Liberal Republican Democrat! (Maybe that’s next!)

Senator McCain’s new designation is a kind of Universal Unitarian-Hindu religious Political experience that transcends the artificial barriers of partisan party politics. McCain could be a Democrat for the Democrats, a Liberal for the Liberals, etc, etc, etc. Hey, he could be a virtual political Gandhi G. Like Mohandas K. Gandhi was for India.

Looking at his latest legislation McCain has already reached proud conservative liberal republican Nirvana with his mixture of political yen and yang. Better known as McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold to name a few of his proud conservative liberal accomplishments. Maybe capitulations such as these will be enough to keep the haters of Republicans like Howard Dean at bay. (Though I doubt it.)

Who would have thought that it would be John McCain instead of Barack Obama bringing a divided country together?

Come on it has to be McCain you can’t even name one piece of legislation that Obama has passed that is even close to McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold in its reaching out to Republicans like McCain has done to reach out to Democrats.

Come on you might as well admit it McCain is the uniter! Go on you can say it.
Maybe the Senator can work that designation into a future speech or when he accepts his Party’s nomination at the Republican National convention September 1-4 in Minneapolis, Saint Paul

I can see him up on that podium now, “Friends, let me just say that I am a proud conservative liberal republican democrat!” And we are going to have a nice cordial and respectful debate with my friends in the other Party. Although they have sworn their hatred for Republicans and have vowed to destroy everything that Republicans stand for, I’m sure that we can find some common ground!”


Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, I think, puts in all in perspective when he says that the Republican candidate will not win attempting to be an all-most Liberal Republican without turning off people who will simply stay home. (See below)



Gingrich predicts that if McCain and Republicans continue on this “Proud Conservative Liberal Republican track Republicans will lose in November.

Well if McCain does lose at least we won’t have to stomach Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina being appointed to McCain’s cabinet or some other significant political post!

A Political Lesson!

A young woman was about to finish her first year of
college. Like so many others her age, she considered
herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other
liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes
to support more government programs, in other words
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather
staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed.
Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and
the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her
father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition
to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more
government programs. The self-professed objectivity
proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she
indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had
a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain,
insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load
and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go
out and party like other people she knew.

She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really
have many college friends because she spent all her time
studying. Her father listened and then asked, How is your
friend Audrey doing? She replied, Audrey is barely getting
by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and
she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus;
college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the
parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for
classes because she's too hung over.

Her wise father asked his daughter, why don't you go to
the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA
and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you
will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a
fair and equal distribution of GPA. The daughter, visibly
shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back,
'That's a crazy idea. How would that be fair? I've worked
really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and
a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing
toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome
to the Republican Party'.

Whoever wrote this, deserves a big round of applause.
Maybe if some of these "hot-shot" college rookies,
who are backing Obama, took a closer look at his policies,
they might get the point!

Momentum and Ginsu Politics

Sen. Clinton and Amy Poehler of SNL

"in the last several ... I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw Saturday Night Live, you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow.

I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it."—Sen. Hillary Clinton, MSNBC Ohio Debate 2008

The truth was she wasn’t happy about the way her campaign was going nor was she happy with the media coverage so with this one masterfully laid criticism Sen. Clinton was able to flip the script on the media and Sen. Obama. Sen. Clinton changed the national dialogue from exulting Sen. Obama to poor Hillary can’t catch a break.

Based on the subtle but insidious critique that the media had been soft on Sen. Obama but hard on her, Sen. Clinton was able to sic the media attack dogs on Sen. Obama, making the last couple of days his worst, while she laughed it up on SNL and on the Jon Stewart show. Thusly turning the momentum in her favor.

Sen. Clinton pointed out a perceived injustice against her, “the boys piling up on her again” but this time it was the media piling up on her and her point was that it was so blatant that even SNL had seen it and spoofed it.

Sen. Obama could have been cut with a Ginsu knife and not known he was cut (until he saw the bleeding) because that is exactly the effect that Sen. Clinton’s complaint had with voting Liberals and Democrats.

Obama didn’t even realize that he was bleeding until he lost Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island last night.

Momentum’s a funny thing. Though you don’t really see it when it begins to change, you can see it’s after effects but only when its much too late to do anything about it.

Seizing the momentum Sen. Clinton went on to appear on SNL before the March 4 primaries to further emphasize her allegations of the media unfairness towards her and alleged favoritism of Sen. Obama. SNL was only too happy to oblige. (See below)



And then as a coup de grâce Sen. Clinton made an appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart just before the voting. (see below)



Again Sen. Clinton made the point that she was somehow being treated unfairly. The result?

Sen. Obama is just now realizing that he has been cut and that he’s losing momentum fast!

Will Texas be Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Alamo?

The Alamo in San Antonio and The Texas State Capitol in Austin

"If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you,"—Bill Clinton in Texas

It happened just before daybreak on the morning of March 6, 1836 as Mexican soldiers advanced on Misión San Antonio de Valero.

You undoubtedly know the mission as the Alamo where Texans famously took a last stand against General Antonio López de Santa Anna's Mexican army.

William B. Travis, Jim Bowie, David Crockett will long be associated with that heroic struggle against impossible odds.

On Tuesday March 4, 2008 today in Texas Sen. Hillary Clinton is said to be face with her last stand. According to everyone including the former president Bill Clinton if Senator Clinton doesn’t win Texas the end of her campaign would be inevitable.

It’s ironic but not impossible to understand how a media made candidate of politically correct inevitability suddenly lost her luster after she was exposed to harsh light of reality.

Sure the fairly tale of the first woman candidate for the presidency is a good storyline but in reality Sen. Clinton is not the first woman to run for the office so the liberal doctors of spin remade her into the first viable woman to be a candidate for the presidency which immediately denigrates all of the 32 or so other women that ran for president before her.

But denigrating is not something new to Sen. Clinton she has made a career of denigrating people explicitly and especially George W. Bush, Republicans, The vast rightwing conspiracy, women who had affairs with Bill Clinton and now her Democrat opponent Barack Obama. She has denigrated one and all.

It's Sen. Obama's turn and Sen. Clinton claims that Sen. Obama, who is reported to have the most liberal record in the Senate, has campaigned against her by playing right out of the Karl Rove’s Republican political play book, also she has intimated that Sen. Obama gives aid and abets the vast rightwing conservative movement, which by the way is out to get Sen. Clinton and her husband the former president.

When Sen. Clinton cares to denigrate the most she will normally use that fowl 10 letter word, R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N. Now that is not only politically paranoid but divisive and wrong! Wrong because what this country needs at this time is someone to bring us together not someone who insists on continuing to stab at the unhealed wounds of the 60's,70's,80's and 90's.

All of which begs the question, why would women chose this hyper-Partisan and obviously under qualified political opportunist to pin their hopes and aspirations on, desperation? Do women really think that there will never be a qualified woman to lead this nation ever, so they'll just settle for anything or anyone?

Even the equally hyper-Partisan Liberal commentator Eleanor Clift who never sees anything objectively regarding Republicans demonstrated a rare truthful moment when assessing the Clinton campaign in her piece Day of Reckoning:

The much vaunted Clinton campaign operation, billed as the biggest, baddest game in town, had no post-Super Tuesday strategy because its leaders apparently didn't think one was needed. Whether that's due to arrogance or ignorance, it's the campaign equivalent of what President Bush did in invading Iraq without a post-Saddam plan.

The primaries are in a very true sense a practice run for the White House, and if you emerge with high marks, as Obama has, it's a pretty clear statement of the kind of government you would run. Obama has shown a steadiness in demeanor and message. Clinton has blown through $120 million dollars, and her persona is more confused than ever.

A USA Today cartoon captures the shifting moods with a political weather map and a "Five-day Hillary Forecast: Monday…Friendly; Tuesday…On the attack; Wednesday…Complimentary; Thursday…Hostile; Friday…Conciliatory."—Eleanor Clift

If hyper-Partisans like Clift are now fault finding, the Clinton campaign may well be in its last throes.

Or take Emma Brockes’ assessments of Senator Clinton’s misfortunes:

There are purely practical reasons why she is behind - lack of organisation after super-Tuesday, money shortages, the complacency of the campaign in its early stages - but it's the cultural reasons that really get people going. "Regardless of what she does, it's portrayed as calculated, contrived," says Sue Carroll, a senior scholar at the Centre For American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.-- Emma Brockes

Oh so now even the Libs are seeing what I warned about in September 2007 when I cautioned that Hillary Clinton was the Darth Vader of the Clinton administration. A cold calculating political manipulator that puts Dick Cheney to shame by far!

Oh yeah you’re being punked you gotta know that. When Hillary Clinton was in the Whitehouse she was to Bill Clinton what Dick Cheney is to George Bush. Hillary was the Darth Vader of the Clinton administration.

She was behind the destroyed Rose law billings, she was behind the travelgate firings, and she was behind filegate. All political scandals yet her role in them was always unclear. Ergo she was the Dick Cheney of the Clinton administration.

And the reason that you are so willing to let her back into the Whitehouse is that you’ve been duped, tricked, played, or punked by an elaborate roost which is only meant to confuse language and meaning so that the Clintons and the Democrats can get what they want. It’s really a work of diabolical beauty here’s how it works.—Alaphiah

If the people of Texas and Ohio really want change and are tired of the status quo today may be the end of the so called Bush Clinton dynasty of politics and the beginning of the 21st Century where we turn the page on the politics of personal destruction and hyper-partisanship.

Those things should be relegated to the Clinton library along with the hundreds of Sen. Clinton’s first lady documents that we will never get to see.

A loss in either Texas and/or Ohio may not be enough to put Sen. Clinton in the rearview mirror because of her stranglehold on Super delegates but a loss in either or both will go a long way in making her last stand inevitability undeniable at last.

SHE PLAYS ON OUR FEARS!

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. listens to undecided voters at a cafe in Portsmouth, N.H. in this Monday, Jan. 7, 2008 file photo(AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File)

"We've had a red phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer.”—Senator Barack Obama

Tested and Ready?

Senator Hillary Clinton has been first Lady of Arkansas and first Lady of the United States of America which one of these non-elected, non-political designations gives her the ability to answer the emergency “red” phone in the Whitehouse?

This ad is so ridiculous that it makes “Saturday Night Live” look like the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. (which may be as ridiculous as SNL)

Another Frat boy plan of the Clinton campaign that has gone terribly awry! What was the Clinton campaign thinking just after introducing the “Picture”? A picture of Sen. Obama in what was an obvious attempt to invoke a 1000 words of innuendo, and to link Obama with some urban legend myth that he is a closet Muslim.

That coupled with what Republicans recently unleashed which Michele Obama characterized as the ultimate fear bomb, “Hussein” Sen. Obama’s middle name, the fear mongers are out in full strength.

If stunts like this ad are indicative of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s experience and judgment then that makes it a foregone conclusion that Sen. Clinton didn’t learn an awful lot about the American people or how to govern in her stint in the White house as first Lady.

As Senator Obama so adroitly states, "The question is not about picking up the phone. The question is: What kind of judgment will you make when you answer?"

This is one time that I agree with former president Bill Clinton when he said in his 1992 campaign for Governor of Arkansas,

``This election is a race between hope and fear, between division and community, between responsibility and blame, between whether we have the courage to change, to stay young forever, or whether we stay with the comfort of the status quo."—Bill Clinton 1992 Arkanas gubernatorial Campaign

Only this time it’s the Clinton’s who are on the side of fear and status quo!

Oh! And here’s a Clinton law of politics told by none other than Bill Clinton himself.

Global Warming has been Wiped Out

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. .—Michael Asher

Put away all your plans to raise a Global tax United Nations. Stop all of the Global initiatives to stop Global warming Greens. Stop all of the Global warming legislation and Stop all of the Global warming re-Education. Global warming is no more.

All of your anthropogenic global warming theories and all of your CO2 conjecture all wrong. Over the past year, China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

All of the events that I just mentioned are impossible under the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Under that theory CO2 is supposed to trap heat in the atmosphere by a green house effect creating a no escape condition for heat thereby causing the planet to get hotter and hotter until Earth’s temperature reaches critical mass and burn the earth to a crisp and melt the ice caps raise water levels, creating famines and drought world-wide.

The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.—Michael Asher

Scientists now say that in one year’s time one century of warming has been wiped out. The argument is over. Everyone who has promoted the theory of Global warming was and is terribly wrong.



Graph shows warming trend drop

So please return the Nobel Peace Prize, the Oscar and all other phony awards and acknowledgements that were meant to prop up the unscientific arguments supporting the earth’s warming. Return all of the grant moneys and Government funding.

Please issue the appropriate reports and apologizes to the world’s peoples for the false and misleading culture which has grown up around the false claims of anthropogenic global warming.

Barack BS!

If McCain ever uttered a truer phrase, I haven't heard it yet. He said, as an obvious swipe at Obama, that you need more than "Eloquent speeches full of empty rhetoric"!

Barack would have the young, foolish and inexperienced, believe that he is a "uniter", much as George Bush claimed. But............ Bush actually did make great progress in crossing the aisle, whereas Obama is just so much hot air.

He claims that he has bridged the partisan gap, and cooperated with Repubicans on legislation. Well, it only takes one peek at the record (Records are something that most politicians hate, because they ultimately come back to bite the public servent on the ass!) to see that Obama is lying through his teeth. He has only "cooperated" on several very high-profile bills that he believed would help his career. On all the rest, he was an obstacle of greater proportion than Ted Kennedy.

He really believes that he can dupe the first-time voters, who sincerely believe that he will bring change............... regardless of the fact that he doesn't stand a chance in hell of following through on that promise...... and he knows it. By the time he finishes making enemies of the Clintons and their closest associates and backers, and if he succeeds in becoming the Democratic candidate for president, he would be starting off behind the eight-ball. Add to that, the Right side of the aisle, and we have a totally impotent president.

As an intelligent man once said............... "be careful what you wish for............. you might just get it"!

brooklyn

Tim Russert, McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism

Tim Russert
Two things about being Meet the Press’ Tim Russert. One, you don’t have to report the news if you’re Tim Russert, you can make it up as you go along, sort of like former CBS reporter Dan Rather. And the other thing is, you don’t have to connect the dots in a story you simply make more and more dots and when there are more dots than anyone can count you just pretend that the dots are connected.

That’s the McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism that Mr. Russert performed on Sen. Barack Obama with two questions that were of the, “Do you still beat your wife,” variety.

Russert with his penchant for the gotta sensational interview went overboard at the Democrat’s debate held in Ohio two days ago with his McCarthyite and Yellow Journalistic type tactics.

With two craftily configured questions Mr. Russert attempted to impugn the character of Sen. Obama by intimating that Sen. Obama was a man who would go back on his word and secondly Mr. Russert implied by association that Sen. Obama was a racist Jew hater.

A liar and a Jew hater both sensational and damning charges that could end a campaign or a political career like the blacklist of the McCarthy era that ended many a Hollywood entertainer’s career. A liar and a Jew hater, both allegations were the thrust of Russert’s two pronged assault on decent journalism and Sen. Barack Obama a decent man.

Both veiled charges contrived in the mind of Russert and devoid of the facts and void of true journalist integrity.

Both questions were attempts to leave a negative impression in the minds of voters about the Illinois Senator and presidential hopeful.

And at least one question Russert already knew the answer to; the other question one would think he should have known the answer.

First Russert posed this question;

Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring, keeping your word.

Nothing more important.

Last year you said if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it.

You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we can work on an arrangement here.

Why won't you keep your word in writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?

On a questionnaire, The Midwest Democracy Network Presidential Candidate Questionnaire (see here) Sen. Obama checked “YES” to this question; “Question I-B: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” and Sen. Obama wrote this response;

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.

The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Sen. Obama answered Mr. Russert;

Tim, I am not yet the nominee. Now, what I've said is, is that when I am the nominee, if I am the nominee -- because we've still got a bunch of contests left and Senator Clinton's a pretty tough opponent. If I am the nominee, then I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides

Russert responded by; “So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word.” Russert still ever attempting to create the illusion that there was something wrong.

SEN. OBAMA again responded,

“What I -- what I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.”

Shortly after in a post debate interview Mr. Russert acknowledged that he knew what Sen. Obama had written on the questionnaire (Russert had a copy of it) that if he (Obama) were the nominee he would sit down and negotiate with the Republican nominee and he (Russert) thought that Sen. Obama would simply have referred to the questionnaire.

Therefore Mr. Russert’s whole line of questioning purposely misrepresenting Sen. Obama’s stated position and attempted to leave the impression in the voters’ minds that there was something going on that wasn’t.

Sen. Obama exact written words were, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” And that is what Sen. Obama repeatedly stated to Mr. Russert yet Russert attempted to sensationalize a John McCain accusation that Sen. Obama was going back on this word, but how could Sen. Obama be going back on his word, he’s not the Democrat nominee yet!

Sen. Obama’s point was that he can’t look pass Hillary Clinton. Sen. Obama is still locked in a battle with Sen. Clinton. Unlike John McCain, Sen. Obama’s competition didn’t just drop out of the race like Mitt Romney. So it would be presumptuous of Sen. Obama, at best, to engage Sen. McCain about general election financing as if he were the nominee now.

This whole line of Tim Russert questioning was ill contrived Yellow journalism.

Secondly Russert played the McCarthyite racism by association anti-Semitism card. Russert asked:

Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.

On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

What support? Russert is quoting a headline in a paper that claimed something. Russert did not offer one direct quote that Louis Farrakhan said, “I support Barack Obama.” Yet based on this innuendo Russert was able along with Sen. Clinton’s aid to exact a rejection and denunciation of Louis Farrakhan and Sen. Obama's Pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright from Sen. Obama.

Obama must feel like Peter who rejected and denounced Jesus Christ three times to people who want Jesus dead.

But notice how Russert did it, he raised the specter of Louis Farrakhan alleged anti-Semitism over the head of Sen. Obama by connecting Farrakhan’s alleged “backing” for Obama with Farrakhan’s past statements about Jews that have nothing to do with Obama running for President.

Then Russert introduced Obama’s pastors’ activities with Farrakhan as if either had anything to do with Obama. A whole lot of dots but none of them connected to Senator Obama.

Russert continued:

The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."

What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

This is a stunting example of McCarthyism. An indirect accusation that because Farrakhan is considered an anti-Semite by some people and Rev. Wright’s association with Farrakhan may be construed as anti-Semitic therefore Sen. Obama’s association with Rev. Wright and reported “backing” from Farrakhan by extension makes Sen. Obama guilty by association.

That type of thinking should send chills up the spines of Americans. Does anyone think about what a fascistly repressed country this would be if we demanded that everyone who got a positive remark by someone our opponents dislike, one would have to immediately disavow the person making that remark? For example, should Karl Rove have to reject and denounce Bill Clinton who had some positive words about him on Fox News?

But [Karl] Rove is good. And I honor him. I mean, I will say that. I've always been amused about how good he is, in a way.-- Bill Clinton, Fox News with Chris Wallace 9/24/2006

Tim Russert’s journalism is subtly accusatory and passively aggressively damning in general but what he demonstrated in the Democrat’s debates was more stridently McCarthyite and Yellow and wrong!

Multiple Personality Disorder?

Sens Obama and Clinton share a similar background

Have you been keeping up with the recent Democrat Presidential Nominee debates? I gotta tell you that last night’s MSNBC debate left me a bit puzzled.

After the debate in Texas where Sen. Clinton somewhat delicately acknowledged that she felt it such an honor to be on the same stage as Barack Obama and then in the span of 48 hrs Sen Clinton was spinning on a top raving with Obama flyer in hand challenging Obama to an all holds barred World Wrestling Federation Debate I thought, “There will be blood!” See here:



And here:

“So shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That is what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio . Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

“These attacks on what we tried to do the last time we went after universal health care is the worst kind of politics. Number one, it is wrong and untrue and number two it is exactly the talking points the health insurance industry used on a daily basis. Sen. Obama knows that it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they cant afford it.”

“Time and time again you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats. Well I am here to say that it is not only wrong but it is undermining core Democratic principles.”

Blood? I viewed in and saw nothing of the kind. Oh they had their little lover spats over Health care and NAFTA but judging the way Hillary had called out Obama you would have thought that there was going to be some major Obama butt kicking going on. Instead we got the same tepid pattycake, tag you’re it, “that’s not what I said… Did too!” That we’ve always been getting.

But I must confess that recent events got me to wondering how can someone go from cordially gracious, to meet me Ohio for a fight and then placidly calm and seemingly rational in a 48 hr. span?

Then it occurred to me that what we are witnessing is Multiple Personality Disorder. MPD often occurs in the candidate of inevitability when she is losing her bid for the Presidency and is listening to a multitude of consultant’s advice on how best to present herself to the American people.

Be more tough, be more gentle, cry a little, etc. so you never know which personality that is going to show up when that candidate decides to present the face that this or that block of the constituency wants to see.

We have seen Sen. Clinton morph and transform into characters reminiscent of the movies “Sybil”, “The Three faces of Eve” to “Me, Myself & Irene” and frankly it’s scary.


There were no substantive or new developments in last nights debates other than the Tim Russert’s Louis Farrankan Obama got cha question and Sen. Clinton ever evolving change of character.

Sen. Clinton’s husband the former President, Bill Clinton offered this, “I can't make her younger, taller and male!”

Which is all true but it’s not for a want of trying!