At least the Obama campaign has turned Americans on to the hatred and racism which thrives in the nation's black churches.
I think it's opened the eyes of many, to one of the root causes of the perpetual victimhood and bigotry present in many of this country's black communities.
Seriously. How are Rev. Wright and this nut bar any different from stand-up comedians? I mean, besides all of the political and spiritual influence they wield in their communities? Oops, I think I just answered my own question.
Why don't we just make Chris Rock the Mayor of Chicago?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Another Crazy Obama Buddy
Monday, May 26, 2008
Dems Need to Get On The Right Side In The Iraq Debate
How wrong can a party be and still win an election?
Change That Matters
Iraq has changed. Why can't the Democrats?
by Matthew Continetti
06/02/2008, Volume 013, Issue 36
General David Petraeus was back in Washington last week. President Bush has promoted him to chief of Central Command (CENTCOM), which requires Senate confirmation. Under Petraeus's leadership, Iraq has changed dramatically. Why can't the Democrats change with it?
Bush announced the surge in January 2007. Iraq was a violent place. Al Qaeda in Iraq held large swaths of territory. Shiite death squads roamed much of Baghdad. The Iraqi political class seemed feckless. Hence Bush's decision to send more troops, replace General George Casey with Petraeus, and change the mission from force protection and search-and-destroy to population security. The new strategy's strongest proponent and supporter was Senator John McCain.
Democrats opposed the surge almost without exception. Barack Obama said that the new policy would neither "make a dent" in the violence plaguing Iraq nor "change the dynamics" there. A month after the president's announcement, Obama declared it was time to remove American combat troops from Iraq. In April, as the surge brigades were on their way to the combat zone, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaimed "this war is lost" and that U.S. troops should pack up and come home. In July, as surge operations were underway, the New York Times editorialized that "it is time for the United States to leave Iraq." The Times's editorial writers recognized Iraq "could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave." But that didn't matter. "Keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse."
Wrong. When Petraeus returned to Washington in September 2007, he reported that the
numbers of violent incidents, civilian deaths, ethnosectarian killings, and car and suicide bombings had declined dramatically from the previous December. Why? The surge--and the broadening "Awakening" movement, which began when the sheikhs in Anbar province rebelled against al Qaeda in late 2006 and accelerated when the tribal leaders understood America would not abandon them in 2007.
How did Democrats respond? MoveOn.org bought a full-page in the Times suggesting Petraeus had betrayed the American people. Senator Hillary Clinton said that to accept Petraeus's report required the "willing suspension of disbelief." Those Democrats who did not question the facts moved the goal posts instead. They said the surge may have reduced violence, but had not led to the real goal: political reconciliation.
Petraeus returned again to Washington in April of this year. Violence had been reduced further. American casualties had declined significantly. Al Qaeda was virtually limited to the northern city of Mosul. There were more Iraqi Security Forces, and those forces were increasingly capable. The Iraqi government had passed a variety of laws promoting sectarian reconciliation. And the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was demonstrating that he was a national leader by meeting with Sunnis and launching military operations against Shiite gangs and Iranian-backed "special groups" in the southern port city of Basra.
Democrats responded this time by saying the Basra operation was a failure and that any reduction in violence only meant Americans could come home sooner rather than later. Wrong again, because (a) despite early missteps the Iraqi army had control of Basra within a couple of weeks, and (b) any precipitous, politically calculated American withdrawal would clearly lead to more violence, not less. What is new is that Petraeus's strategy and tactics, his patience and expertise, have succeeded and now allow some of the surge brigades to return home without replacement--and without a spike in killing. There's every reason to continue his strategy, not abandon it and force a withdrawal.
On May 22, Petraeus was able to tell the Senate that "the number of security incidents in Iraq last week was the lowest in over four years, and it appears that the week that ends tomorrow will see an even lower number of incidents." On May 10, Maliki traveled to Mosul to oversee the launch of a campaign against al Qaeda. The number of attacks in Mosul has already been reduced by 85 percent. Acting CENTCOM commander Martin Dempsey says that Al Qaeda in Iraq is at its weakest state since 2003. Also last week, Iraqi soldiers entered radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr's Sadr City stronghold in Baghdad. They met no resistance.
The Iraqi army and government have done exactly what Democrats have asked of it, and the Democrats remain hostile. Their disdain and animosity has not diminished one iota. Nor has their desire to abandon Iraq to a grim fate.
We keep hearing that this year's presidential election will be about judgment. If so: advantage McCain. For when it comes to the surge, not only have Obama and his party been in error; they have been inflexible in error. They have been so committed to a false narrative of American defeat that they cannot acknowledge the progress that has been made on the ground. That isn't judgment. It's inanity.
--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors
Monday, May 19, 2008
Quote Of The Year
"If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated."
-Thomas Sowell
From the article "Random Thoughts On The Passing Scene"
May 20, 2008
In The Tank....
Remember when the MSM used to hide their bias against Republicans? I don't, because it never has in my lifetime.
White House takes swipe at NBC News
By Klaus Marre
Posted: 05/19/08 03:40 PM [ET]
The White House on Monday sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of “deceptively” editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran.
At issue were remarks Bush made in front of Israel's parliament earlier this week.
Specifically, White House counselor Ed Gillespie laments that the network edited the interview in a way that “is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that [Bush] agreed with [correspondent Richard Engel's] characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it.
“This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts,” said Gillespie in the letter to NBC News President Steve Capus.
Gillespie used the opportunity to also inquire whether NBC News still believes that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. In November 2006, the network decided to label the infighting in the country a “civil war.”
“I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a ‘civil war,’ ” Gillespie wrote. “Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?”
Gillespie also hit NBC News on its reporting on the state of the economy.
“I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the ‘news’ as reported on NBC and the ‘opinion’ as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines,” Gillespie concluded. “I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.”
Friday, May 16, 2008
Weak: Carter At The Center Of Obama/McCain Debate
First of all, this debate is a good one for the American people to have and it’s one that John McCain will win.
There is no legitimate reason or benefit to be garnered from talking with Iran, other than to legitimize their tactics and rhetoric, which are exactly the same tactics and rhetoric we have been fighting since 9/11.
What Barack Obama is doing is using the mistakes made on the ground in Iraq and the unpopularity of our failings there to criticize the entire Bush policy and take us back to the foreign policy days of Jimmy Carter.
When Bush made his statement to the Knesset, which led to the current Democratic uproar, I believe that he was specifically referring to Carter, not Obama.
Carter has met with terrorist groups. He loves doing it and there is no evidence that it has had any positive effect, other than to give credibility to the terrorist groups themselves.
It is interesting that Obama immediately took the President’s statements to be a reference to him.
It was Carter who met with Hamas.
It was Carter who met with North Korea and set up the crummy deal which lead to that rogue nation acquiring nuclear technology.
Obama has countered the criticism from the GOP by pointing to the Bush Administration’s willingness to talk to North Korea. This is a bogus comparison.
It was John Kerry not Bush who ran on a platform of two party talks with North Korea. President Bush rightly opposed those talks and instead promoted six-party talks which have been effective in slowing down North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
Obama and his surrogates also compare the candidate’s willingness to meet with Iran to President Reagan’s willingness to meet with Michael Gorbachev. This comparison completely ignores the complexities and differences of the two situations and simply lumps all of our enemies throughout history together as equal in both the threat they pose and the political power which they wield.
The Soviet Union was a superpower with deadly weapons that had been aimed at us for 30 years. We had no choice but to go to the bargaining table with them because they were already big enough and powerful enough to demand respect on the world stage.
Ironically, it was years of Obama-like coddling and appeasement which allowed them to accumulate much of this power, particularly in the late 1970’s under President Carter.
By contrast, Iran does not posses the same gravitas on the world stage as did the USSR. They are engaged in a proxy war with us in Iraq and are killing our troops. We should focus on defeating them because we are capable of victory. We should not seek an easy way out by making a deal with them.
They do not have nuclear weapons but are intent on acquiring them. The entire world has said that this is unacceptable and that they should not be given the gift of credibility that a meeting with an American president bestows until they follow the rules set out by the governing authorities on this matter.
That’s the way you deal with nations like Iran. You rob them of the incentives to kill our soldiers by defeating them militarily; you isolate them by refusing to allow them a place at the table until they follow the rules.
You do not “trust but verify” you make them earn your trust through a process of verification.
The whole point of this struggle is to ensure that the Iranian theocracy does not grow into a world power in the way that the Soviet Union did. If that happens, we will have no choice but to negotiate with them, and no good can come out of that in terms of our overarching goal which is to defeat religious extremism in the region and ensure the survival of Israel.
Get it Barack?
The other thing that strikes me as odd, besides Obama’s apparent willingness to take us back to the days of Carter-style foreign policy, is that he and his aides are all over the news claiming that when they say they will hold negotiations with Iran, they are not necessarily implying that they will meet with Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
This can only mean one of two things. That they plan on meeting with the Ayatollahs who control Iran from behind the scenes or with a low-level Ahmadinejad underling.
Could you imagine a sitting U.S. president who is engaged in a war with religious extremists having a friendly sit down with the world’s leading proponent of Islamic theocracy? Why don’t we just skip the middleman a have a friendly chat with Bin Laden, while we're at it?
The other option doesn’t make sense either as it would signal to the world that the Iranian higher–ups are too busy to meet with President Obama, so we have to talk things over with Iran’s Secretary of Transportation, equipped with a fruit basket and a greeting card from Sistani instead.
The trick for McCain is going to be to defend the Bush foreign policy, which should continue, while not sounding like he’s defending Bush.
Obama is defending the Carter foreign policy, but unfortunately most of his supporters weren’t even alive when Carter was president, so linking the two of them is probably not a tactic that will be very effective come November.
Despite this, I encourage Mr. Obama to keep playing on John McCain’s turf.
-Dan Joseph
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Bush Says 'No' To Appeasing Terrorists - Left Outraged
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
What's so striking is that the Democrats immediately took Bush's comments to be an attack on Obama. Me thinks they protest too much.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
41%
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, just lost a primary by 41-points. Perhaps you Obama folks should rethink this whole "hope" thing.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Dream Map
I think it's possible:
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Give 'Em Hell Hanson
Hanson doesn't even bother to ask the most important question when it comes to examining the Bush legacy. If Iraq and Afghanistan are both stable democracies five or ten years from now, is there any way that these military campaigns can be viewed negatively through the scope of history?
May 08, 2008
Presidential Pariah
By Victor Davis Hanson
We are in one of the longest presidential campaigns in modern memory -- and haven't even started focusing on the general election.
It's been enough to drive most of us mad, but if there's one person in particular suffering the most, it may be President Bush.
It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.
That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.
Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.
When there is no incumbent in a long race, almost everything of the last four years becomes fair and uncontested game. In 2004, Bush defended his record for months on the stump; now it has become almost second nature for all three candidates to denounce it daily.
John McCain has distanced himself from Bush as much as he can, even as his Democratic opponents dub him John McBush -- when they are not outdoing each other in their denunciation of the president.
Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.
He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: "Recession! Worst since the Depression!"
Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year's first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.
There are serious problems -- high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.
Bush, like Truman, will have to leave his final assessment for posterity. But for a variety of historic reasons as well as his own self-interest, Bush should at least take his now-unpopular case to the people, with more press conferences, public addresses, stump speeches and one-on-one interviews.
Bush's own legacy will be affected by who succeeds him. Ronald Reagan received great press after leaving office in part because a Republican followed him for four years -- quite the opposite from the senior George Bush who was thrown out of office in 1992 and blamed for assorted sins the next eight years. Likewise, compare the image of Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton when a president from the opposite party followed each into office.
Second, public perceptions, such as ongoing consumer confidence or support for the war, can dramatically affect policy success or failure. Defending past decisions can sometimes improve their outcomes.
Third, it would elevate the arguments of all three candidates if someone could remind them that energy and food problems, foreign policy crises and economic woes usually involve bad and worse choices.
The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing "Bush did it" into the public conscious won't resolve our energy, economic or foreign policy challenges.
The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.
And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants -- if the Congress would only approve -- could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.
George Bush could learn from "Give 'em Hell, Harry." A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end -- and was ultimately rewarded for it.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Where We Are With Wright
Out of political necessity, today Sen. Obama finally took a hard line towards his former pal Rev. Wright. Apparently he is now outraged over what are essentially the same comments that he could not disown a month ago. Here's a good analysis from Jonah Goldberg.
Jonah Goldberg:
Looking for Mr. Wright
The minister reveals that he's as radical and bigoted as his critics insist.
April 29, 2008
God bless the Rev. Jeremiah Wright!
After Barack Obama gave his big race speech in mid-March, many critics noted that the Illinois senator had thrown his own grandmother under the bus to defend his controversial pastor. Well, Wright proved over the last few days that he would not be outdone. He not only threw Obama under the bus, he chucked much of the liberal and mainstream media under there with him. If this keeps up, to paraphrase Roy Scheider in "Jaws," he's gonna need a bigger bus.
For six weeks, Obama's biggest supporters have diligently argued that to so much as mention Wright is in effect racist. When Hillary Rodham Clinton said that Wright wouldn't have been her pastor, Andrew Sullivan gasped on his Atlantic blog that this was "a new low" in the election. When Lanny J. Davis, Clinton's consummate spinner, defended her on CNN by describing what Wright actually said, CNN's Anderson Cooper lambasted Davis for daring to even repeat Wright's comments. Newsweek's Joe Klein chimed in, "You're spreading the poison right now."
Obama and his defenders have repeatedly insisted that the bits from Wright's sermons that got wide circulation last month had been taken "out of context." His infamous sound bites were grounded in concrete theological or factual foundations, they claim. He was quoting other people. He's done good things. Nothing to see here, folks.
And so God bless Wright because he's left all of these folks holding a giant, steaming bag of ... well, let's just call it a bag of "context."
Let's start with the news out of his speeches Sunday and Monday: Wright, Obama's mentor and former pastor, is worse than we thought. He's a bigot, at least by the standards usually reserved for white people such as former Harvard President Lawrence Summers or "The Bell Curve" author Charles Murray.
On Sunday in Detroit, he explained to 10,000 people at the Fight for Freedom Fund dinner of the NAACP -- an organization adept at taking offense at far less racist comments from nonblacks -- that whites have an inherent "left-brain cognitive, object-oriented learning style. Logical and analytical," while blacks "learn not from an object but from a subject. They are right-brain, subject-oriented in their learning style. That means creative and intuitive. The two worlds have different ways of learning."
Blacks even have better rhythm, Wright explained.
CNN carried the speech live, and news anchor Soledad O'Brien reported from the scene that it was "a home run."
Then, Monday morning at the National Press Club, Wright attempted to clear the air about all of the supposedly deceptive sound bites he's been reduced to.
So, does he stand by his "God damn America" statement?
Well, yeah. He explained that until American leaders apologize to Japan for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as to black Americans for slavery and racism, we will remain a damnable nation.
What about that bit about America's chickens coming home to roost on 9/11? Yep, we heard him right. "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it not to come back on you; those are biblical principles," he explained.
Asked whether he stood by his assertion that the U.S. government created HIV as part of a genocidal program to wipe out the black race, Wright mostly dodged but ultimately offered this nondenial denial: "I believe our government is capable of doing anything." He also offered a zesty defense of Louis Farrakhan -- "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century" -- and dismissed criticism of Farrakhan as an anti-Semite.
To cap it off, Wright threw Obama under the bus. First, the pastor explained, Obama himself had taken Wright out of context. Moreover, Obama neither denounced nor distanced himself from Wright. And, besides, anything that Obama says on such matters is just stuff "politicians say." They "do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." So much for Obama's new politics.
On Friday, Wright appeared on Bill Moyers' PBS TV show, in which Moyers all but shouted "Amen!" every time Wright took a breath. The impression viewers were supposed to take away: Wright is on the side of the angels, not like those "Swift-boating" crazies at Fox News.
But then Obama himself told "Fox News Sunday" that he considers Wright fair game -- as long as you don't quote him out of context.
It's a deal.
Wright is every bit as radical as his detractors claimed and explodes Obama's messianic rhetoric about standing foursquare against divisiveness. Which is why that chorus you hear rising up from the John McCain and Clinton campaigns sounds an awful lot like this: "God damn Jeremiah Wright? No, no, no: God bless Jeremiah Wright!"
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Far Left: Eight Years of Shame
From The NY Post:
A man heckling First Lady Laura Bush and daughter Jenna outside the 92nd Street Y was arrested after he punched a wheelchair-bound girl whose parents had told him to shut up, authorities said Wednesday.
German Talis, 22, was shouting obscenities at the Bushes, who were leaving the building Tuesday, when he crossed paths with Wendy and John Lovetro and their daughter Maureen, 18, who has cerebral palsy.
They had been in the audience to hear the Bushes talk about their children's book, "Read All About It."
"He began yelling about Iraq and Iran at Jenna Bush. She was waving at the crowd. I told the guy, 'What are you doing? Shut up. This is about a child and books,' " said John Lovetro. "He was unperturbed. I said, 'Get out of here! You're being a moron!' "
The next thing he knew, Talis was allegedly punching Maureen, a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Reagan Dems Snub Obama
Super delegates should be asking themselves one thing tonight. Can Barack Obama win the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in November? If the answer is "no" then they would be wise to abandon him ASAP.
The Democrats can't win the White House without two of the three big swing states of Ohio, Pa. and Florida.
Florida seems to be turning more red by the month, and the fact that Obama pretty much insulted the entire Keystone State in San Francisco earlier this month, should give Democrats great pause.
Then again, could a party that developed a presidential nominating system this bad be any good at electoral math?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Gibson Shines, Obama Whines
Last night's Democratic debate was the best yet. After 20 debates during which the moderators allowed both candidates to slide by, offering up the same empty rhetoric on Iraq and class warfare platitudes, Charlie Gibson finally has the cajones to put their feet to the fire on important issues of character.
Obama was clearly rattled and spent the day after, whining about how unfairly ABC treated him. He also lambasted the press for not talking about the issues that Americans are "concerned about" but instead talking about his shady associations with terrorists and America haters as well as the sudden reappearance of his flag lapel pin. I thought that "true patriotism" consisted of "speaking out on the issues" Senator?
It doesn't help Obama's case that he hopelessly fumbled the most important policy question that he was asked that evening. This was on the issue of capital gains. Both Obama and Mrs. Clinton have made no secret that they wish to raise the capital gains tax from its current rate of 15% to God knows what.
Thankfully, Charlie Gibson accurately pointed out that over the last twenty years, higher capital gains tax rates have lead to lower government revenues. When the rates are lowered that revenue shoots up.
But, Obama didn't seem to care. In typical liberal Democrat fashion, Obama showed that he was willing to sacrifice economic growth for the sake of sticking it to the wealthy in the name of economic "fairness". He then tried to change the subject to the housing crisis.
There's a term for an individual who puts class warfare and counter productive concepts of economic "fairness" above economic growth. We refer to them as "socialists" It's becoming clear that Obama is one.
Hillary is about to throw the kitchen sink at Obama in a last ditch effort to stop him. McCain is collecting ammo and holding his fire until it's necessary. The "Weather Underground" story is bubbling, waiting to explode. Jeremiah Wright keeps talking.
The honeymoon is over for Obama.
Kudos to ABC News for finally treating him like a front running presidential candidate.
Hamas Endorses Obama
"We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America." - Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to Hamas' Prime Minister
Friday, April 11, 2008
Elitist Obama Steps In It
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
This quote is a big deal. Over the next week or so, myself and many others will be going over it in order to show the public just how out of touch with the mainstream American Obama actually is. Let me try to be the first.
There are so many things about this statement that should permanently damage the Obama campaign that it's difficult to figure out where to begin.
First, many of the jobs in the Rust Belt did disappear and have continued to disappear over the last few decades. Our economy has become far more technology based in recent years, making many of these industrial jobs obsolete. This is not to mention the damage that unions and high taxes have wrought on these big companies causing many of them to move overseas or south of the border.
Obama is correct in saying that far too many political candidates have promised that these outdated jobs will come back to town, when the truth is that they are gone for good.
Despite this, it's hard to believe that folks in Pennsylvania who lost their jobs 25years ago, are yet to find another form of employment.
Obama paints a picture of a jobless redneck, polishing his shotgun and watching the 700 Club because 25 years ago he lost his job and he's been down on his luck ever since.
So the first instance of Obama's elitism, evident in this quote, is his lack of faith in the persistent nature of the average American. This idea that an individual who loses his job, will remain unemployed for two and a half decades, because he is too lazy or simply too stupid to find employment is incredibly insulting. However, it fits in very well with the worldview of the Democratic Party that the free-market is unfair and that the federal government is best suited to fix its inequities.
Obama lists five things which he believes these perpetually unemployed schmoes have "clung to" since their assembly line shut down. It is obvious that Obama views each of these things in a negative light.
He uses "antipathy to people who aren't like them" (racism) and "anti-immigrant sentiment" (xenophobia), two things which a vast majority of Americans view negatively, and couples them with religion and guns, things which a great many Americans view in a very positive way.
However to liberal elites like Obama, guns and religion are just as bad as racism and xenophobia. Liberals rarely say this, but Obama let it slip out when he was speaking in San Francisco.
On the gun issue, Obama obviously doesn't understand the attachment that many in this nation have to their firearms. They view them as a valuable tool in protecting their families or for recreation, letting off steam at the firing range or hunting.
But Obama is from Chicago. In his world, guns are seen in a completely negative light. They are used almost solely to commit heinous crimes and wipe out young lives. Gun control advocates love to throw around statistics which show hundreds of "children" dying of gun violence every year. What they don't point out is that this violence is not being perpetrated by the five year old son of the rural Pennsylvania mill worker, but rather by the teenage gang-member on the south-side of Chicago who is getting revenge on another teenager for disrespecting him.
On the issue of guns, Obama just doesn't get it.
He claims that religion is yet another thing that these unemployed folks "cling to" once they lose their jobs. This is incredibly insulting. Not only is Obama implying that religion is an artificial comforting device of the lower classes, equivalent to their love of guns, but he is also implying that these folks all of the sudden looked to God for help once they lost their jobs.
He is claiming that God is little more than an outlet for these poor, ignorant people's bitterness.
Again, this is a typical, liberal-elitist view of religion.
The truth is that these Americans most likely grew up with religion in their lives. Their relationship with God is not one of convenience but rather a lifelong relationship and one that has served to strengthen familial and community bonds throughout American history.
Liberals like Obama tend to see religion in a negative light. They see it as the opiate of the masses, as a quaint throwback to puritan times with more negative effects on the populace than positive ones.
As we now know, Obama's experiences with religion are far different from those of the average American. He has experienced religion in the Muslim world and in the black churches of Chicago,which we now know more about than we ever cared to, but he seemingly has no clue as to the way the vast majority of Americans worship.
On the issue of religion in America, Obama just doesn't get it.
As we know, "anti-immigrant sentiment" is code among liberals used to describe the beliefs of anyone who opposes illegal immigration or who wants to protect our Southern border.
As with all issues involving people of a different skin color, liberals believe that this desire to control the flow of those coming in from other nations is based purely on racism and xenophobia.
Once again, the good people of Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the nation who are concerned about our porous borders are far more intelligent and well schooled on the issue than Obama and most other liberals give them credit for.
These folks understand that unchecked illegal immigration poses an economic and national security threat to this nation and touches on the American people's dedication to its core principles regarding law and order and national sovereignty.
The American people overwhelmingly want tough federal government action when it comes to illegal immigration, but like most liberals on the issue of illegal immigration, Obama just doesn't get it.
Obama and others on the left also believe that anyone who doesn't live in a big city must automatically be a racist. Assuming that people who don't have jobs are blaming their misfortune on "people who are not like them" is once again tantamount to calling these people ignorant. Quite the uniter this Obama guy is.
Finally, the part of the statement that really left me scratching my head was when Obama added "anti-trade sentiment" as an attitude which the unemployed have adopted due to their frustration. Once again Obama is clearly trying to point out that like racism and xenophobia this sentiment is unjustified.
But it's Obama himself who has been railing against free-trade for the last four months, publicly opposing NAFTA in order to score votes in the Rust Belt, while his surrogates engage in a whisper campaign with foreign dignitaries, ensuring them that in reality the candidate actually supports the agreement.
So which is it, Senator? Is free trade a positive force being used as a scapegoat by Pennsylvanians to explain their plight, or is it the true cause of their suffering?
You can't have it both ways. The meteoric fall of Mrs. Clinton is evidence of that. Remember the illegal immigrant drivers licenses flap?
And what about Mrs. Clinton? She will no doubt try to make an issue out of this remark, but it's probably too late for her to do so. Remember, many liberals who will be voting in the Pennsylvania primary have the same elitist attitude as Obama, so while it could potentially help Clinton widen her lead in that state, it could also hurt her.
Regardless of whether Clinton wins in the Keystone state, the consensus is that it's probably over for Clinton.
Clinton surrogate, Sen. Evan Bayh, played the electability card saying,
"The far right wing has a very good track record of using things like this relentlessly against our candidates, whether it's Al Gore or John Kerry and I'm afraid this is the kind of fodder they might use to really uh, to uh to harm him with."
And rightfully so. Ironically, this is just what Bayh is trying to do, using the GOP as a foil to disguise the Clinton's identical motives.
Barack Obama is cool. Kids love him. He oozes charisma. He's relatively young for a politician. These qualities lead some to believe that he must be in touch with the majority of the American people, who are modern, open minded and ready for change.
The truth is that Obama has no clue as to the desires and lifestyle of the average American. His worldview is only representative of the black inner-cities and the latte drinking, global citizens found in the penthouses of New York and the hybrid cars cruising the streets of San Francisco.
With this attitude, there is absolutely no way that Barack Obama can ever hope to become the President of all the people.
This, as well as the Reverend Wright issue, will undoubtedly come back to haunt him in the general election.
Is Obama "out of touch" with a vast swath of the American public? It would certainly appear so.
Strike Two senator. You're running out of chances.
- Dan Joseph
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Democrats Alienate American Ally
Alienating our allies and cow towing to the desires of the special interests are charges that the Democrats have been making for years against the President. Today, the Democrat's reminded us of the innate hypocrisy which has always permeated their party.
As the President comes off a huge victory in Europe, achieving a unanimous missile defense agreement with NATO, the Democrats handed a victory to Hugo Chavez by killing a free trade agreement with one of America's staunch South American allies.
But the labor unions always come first.
At least the leadership of the unions. Democrats continuously oppose democratic reforms within the Unions, such as secret balloting which would let union employees dissent without fear of retribution from the higher ups.
Democratic leaders and voters also fail to realize that it's not free-trade agreements which have lead to job losses in industrial states such as Ohio and Michigan, but rather demands from unions and higher taxes, which have forced industries to relocate to places which are friendlier to business.
The Democrats have filled party coffers for years by giving unions more power to make demands of businesses and then driven those business overseas by taxing the hell out of them.
Then they blame it on the GOP, even though NAFTA and other major free trade agreements were signed into law by their hero Bill Clinton. NAFTA being one of Clinton's two major accomplishments during his eight year tenure, one has to wonder when the Dem's will turn against welfare reform in order to use it as a campaign issue.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Delusion of The Day
"Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"-- Barack Obama
So can any of you Obama supporters out there, defend this statement?
Monday, April 07, 2008
Jeannine Aversa: Cheerleader For A Recession
More bad journalism is the result of the left-wing media's latest attempt to talk the nation into a recession. Here we see AP's Jeannine Aversa throwing the word around very loosely, just as Sen. Obama did last week.
WASHINGTON (AP) -"It's no longer a question of recession or not. Now it's how deep and how long. Workers' pink slips stacked ever higher in March as jittery employers slashed 80,000 jobs, the most in five years, and the national unemployment rate climbed to 5.1 percent. Job losses are nearing the staggering level of a quarter-million this year in just three months."
For the benefit of Ms. Aversa, let's once again go over the definition of the term "recession."
A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We are not even positive that we have had one such quarter as of yet.
Aversa's lack of consideration for the facts in her reporting is a bit disheartening to this aspiring journalist but perhaps the AP will reprimand her and suggest that next time she try to appear a bit less jubilant in regard to the prospect of a severe economic slowdown.
More here: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/04/05/ap-it-recession-no-longer-question-or-widening-agreement
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
