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!"

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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?

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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?

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

Absolute Idiocy

Suggested Budweiser Campaign:

Sphere: Related Content

Truth Police Should Frisk Obama

If you believe the hype, and it’s obvious that many Americans do, then you have come to believe that Barack Obama is a new kind of politician.

You believe that he can unite the nation, despite the fact that he holds political views, that are to the left of those held by the vast majority of Americans.

You believe that he can work across party lines, despite the fact that he has no history of doing so in any meaningful way, over the course of his political career.

Most importantly, you trust him.

When compared to Hillary Clinton, any American politician appears to be a beacon of integrity, and Obama has benefited immensely from the media’s kid glove coverage and his supporter's glorification of his supposed above the fray political style.

However, recently those who follow politics closely have begun to see shades of a more typical pol, peeking out from under the Obama halo.

Questions regarding the candidate’s honesty and the manipulation of facts in order to further his political goals are piling up and the Obamaniacs in the media can’t ignore them forever.

First there was the denial of having been in the pews when Jeremiah Wright made his now infamous inflammatory comments about America.

When asked about this before the scandal blew up Obama said:

“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.”

When broken down, this statement is probably true, but why didn’t Obama come out and tell us that he had heard other inflammatory statements throughout his twenty-year patronage of the church. He just hadn’t heard those particular statements that were being repeatedly broadcast on cable news and being sold in the church gift shop.

He knew perfectly well that while the statement was carefully phrased so as to be very specific to the comments in question, the American public all interpreted the statement as a flat out denial of Obama having ever heard his pastor say anything which would offend the patriotic sensibilities of most Americans.


It was a political calculation. Obama only admitted having heard his pastors disturbing sermons, once he realized that the story wasn’t going away. But there’s no doubt that he knew that the man was political poison. Why else would he have specifically uninvited his own pastor to stand with him, when he announced his candidacy in 2007?

Next, Obama as well as a few other Democratic spin doctors have made a big deal out of a recent John McCain statement, but have taken it completely out of context in order to make McCain seem like a Warmonger.

Obama has said repeatedly at rallies “John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.”

But McCain never said that. Obama was adamant that we not take his pastor’s, clearly anti-American and conspiracy theory laden, words out of context, but Obama then proceeds to do exactly that to Senator McCain.

Everyone who is not completely blinded by ideology knows that when McCain used the “100 years” line, he was referring to the possibility that the U.S. might have to maintain a troop presence in Iraq, for quite some time. He never said that they would be there fighting a war. In fact he said that the presence would only be maintained, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

We have had the type of troop presence that McCain was referring to in places such as South Korea and Japan for half-a -century. It would be interesting to know whether or not Barack Obama considers us to currently be at war with those two nations.

Again, this is a typical politician move, taking someone else’s words way out of context for political gain.

It sometimes seems that Obama has bought into his own press and like his starry-eyed supporters, now believes that whatever comes out of his mouth is Gospel.

Obama recently said the following:


"As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.”

Now, this may be true as well. We may indeed be in a recession, but there is no possible way that Obama or anyone else can make a definitive statement as to whether we’re in a recession or not. At least not until the second-quarter numbers are revealed in mid-July.

Therefore, based on this statement we can only conclude that a.) Obama doesn’t really know what the definition of a recession is and probably lacks a basic understanding of fundamental economic principles or b.) He is intentionally saying something which can not be backed up by facts, for political purposes.

Obama seems quite deft at manipulating facts, even when the statement in question is not an outright lie. For example, the senator recently stated that he does not take money from the oil companies.

Makes sense. He’s against special interest influence in politics, right? That’s what he’s said repeatedly.

What Obama didn’t tell you is that no presidential candidate takes money directly from the oil companies. They’re not allowed to. It’s forbidden by law.

But Obama has received thousands of dollars in donations from top executives of big oil companies, they just didn’t use the company credit card when they made the contributions.

Yet again, we see the typical, slick politician in Obama rearing its ugly head.

Remember when Obama explained his refusal to wear a flag lapel pin:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. “

Then, all of the sudden, when his patriotism is being questioned for spending two-decades in the pulpit of a guy who thinks that the United States is no better than Al-Queda, Obama can’t find enough flags to surround himself with. I counted eight star-spangled banners behind Obama as he was giving his speech on race.
He abandons the flag when it’s politically expedient to do so and then wraps himself in it when he’s on the ropes.


Typical politician.

Hillary Clinton is the most consistently dishonest, high profile political figure that this nation has seen in generations. I'm including her husband and Richard Nixon in that comparison. If she wasn't a woman and a former First Lady, Hillary would be a caricature, representing every negative stereotype that comes to the mind of the average American when they hear the word "politician".

After 16 years the Clinton’s are finally getting their much-deserved comeuppance, for the myriad of bold-faced lies, which they have told throughout their careers in national politics.


This comeuppance has arrived in what is shaping up to be an embarrassing political defeat for Hillary Clinton for a nomination, which would have easily been hers had Democrats felt as though she could be trusted.

If you still believe that Hillary is trustworthy, you are either not paying attention, or you’re lying to yourself in the same way the Clinton’s lied to us for all these years.

Obama’s manipulation of the facts on the occasions which I mentioned are nowhere near as offensive to the collective American intellect as are the Clinton’s collection of whoppers. On the other hand, he hasn’t been around for that long.


On the surface, Barack Obama is different. He’s young, he’s black, he’s incredibly charismatic, he transcends traditional racial lines.

Because of these differences, many people have prematurely jumped to the conclusion that his behavior must also be different from that of the run of the mill politician.

When examined closely, both his actions and his words are closer to those of your typical, deceptive, political office seeker, than those of a…..hmmmm? What’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh right. "Maverick".

-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Environmental Alarmism.

All right. Let's make a deal right now. When we're all cannibals because of global warming, we eat Ted Turner first.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary's Racist "Rocky" Analogy

Reeling from her Bosnia lie and with polls in the Keystone State trending in her opponent's direction, Hillary Clinton has begun subliminally using race in order to scare up votes in Pennsylvania.

Earlier today Clinton said that ending her presidential campaign now would be as if:

"Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough."

She continued with the Italian Stallion analogy:

"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up."

While on the surface the Rocky comparison may seem to be a harmless attempt at framing Clinton as an underdog who fights her way to the top, against all odds.
In reality, Clinton's words are a cleverly veiled attempt to scare white Americans into supporting the white contender against the violent, arrogant, seemingly unstoppable force of the black heavyweight, Barack Obama.

Repeatedly in the six Rocky films, we see the good-hearted, turtle-loving Balboa up against an angry African-American.

In the first film Rocky fights the cocky, African-American champion, Apollo Creed to a draw, only to watch as Super Delegates declare Creed the winner allowing him to keep his championship.

In Rocky II, Balboa finally wrests the title from Creed , only to be confronted by a scarier, angrier, blackier, black man in Rocky III.


Within the course of an hour, Rocky watches as this new challenger threatens his well-being, takes his title, kills his manager and makes an unwarranted pass at his wife.

"Hey, Woman. Hey, Woman! Listen here. Since your old man ain't got no heart, maybe you like to see a real man. I bet you stay up late every night dreamin' you had a real man, don't ya? I'll tell you what. Bring your pretty little self over to my apartment tonight, and I'll show you a real man."

Rocky beats Clubber Lang easily at the end of the film saving us all from a long, Jeremiah Wright-like, "Mr. T" title reign.


By bringing up Rocky, Hillary is hoping that white folks remember Clubber Lang, who represents everything that scares typical white people about black folks, including the big shiny chains,which in 21st century America are referred to as "bling".

Hillary is also hoping that we remember Rocky IV, and subconsciously view it as an example of what an Obama presidency would bring us on the foreign policy front.

In that film, Apollo Creed (black guy) is literally destroyed by the representative of our greatest foreign enemy. He stands no chance against the evil Ivan Drago and is killed in the second round after a flashy entrance.


Once again it is up to Rocky to restore our nation's honor, defeat the steroid enhanced Drago and avert nuclear Armageddon, by way of good, old fashioned, juice-free pugilism.

Hillary probably doesn't want us to remember Rocky V, since it was mind-numbingly awful. We also find out early on in the film, that Rocky has brain damage and that his wacky brother-in-law, Paulie(who represents Bill Clinton is this comparison) bet Rocky's entire fortune on Drago in the last film.


While this film doesn't really fit into Hillary's master plan, it may be representative of what a Clinton White House would look like.

Finally in Rocky VI (a.k.a. Rocky Balboa) Rocky once again goes the distance, with a black man who is younger and speaks far more eloquently than Balboa does. Of course pretty much everyone speaks more eloquently than Rocky, but you see how the whole thing could apply to the current Democratic race.


Now is the time for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and your college professors to take to the streets and demand that Mrs. Clinton apologize for this racially charged comparison to Philadelphia’s favorite, fictional son.

Rocky isn't just a story about a down and out fighter, with incredible courage and heart, who against all odds claws his way to the top of the boxing world.
It is also about a white guy, who beats up scary black guys. Hillary very much wants to be that white guy.

Next week we'll examine how the Short Circuit films promote violent Jihad against America.

The political silly season has begun. Happy April 1st!

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Just How Bad Is The Economy?

The 'Recession' Is a Media Myth
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
By John R. Lott, Jr.

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession.

A Nexis search on news stories during the three-month period from July 2000 through September 2000 using the keywords “economy recession US” produces 1,388. By contrast, the same search over just the last month finds 3,166. Or, even more telling, take the three months from July through September last year, when the GDP was growing at a phenomenal 4.9 percent. The same type of Google search shows 2,475 news stories.


Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.
A little perspective on the economy would be helpful. The average unemployment rate during President Clinton was 5.2 percent. The average under President George W. Bush is just slightly below 5.2. The current unemployment rate is4.8 percent, almost half a percentage point lower than these averages.

The average inflation rate under Clinton was 2.6 percent, under Bush it is 2.7 percent. Indeed, one has to go back to the Kennedy administration to find a lower average rate. True the inflation rate over the last year has gone up to 4 percent, but that is still lower than the average inflation rate under all the presidents from Nixon through Bush’s father.

Gas prices are indeed up 33 percent over the last year, but to get an average of 4 percent means that lots of other prices must have stayed the same or gone down. On other fronts, seasonally adjusted civilian employment is 650,000 people greater than it was a year ago. Personal income grew at a strong half of one percent in just February.

Despite all that, this last week, Barack Obama proclaimed “As most experts know, our economy is in a recession.” Hillary Clinton made similar staements last fall. Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, and we haven’t even had one single quarter of negative growth reported. The economy slowed down significantly during the end of last year, but that was after a sizzling annual GDP growth rate of 4.9 percent in the third quarter.

Housing has obviously been a big drag on the economy, but many other sectors of the economy, such as exports, have been doing well, some extremely well. For example, aerospace exports increased by over 13 percent last year.

The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people’s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox’s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias “is all part of the media’s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.”

Indeed, research has indicated that media bias is real. Kevin Hassett and I looked at 12,620 newspaper and wire service headlines from 1985 through 2004 for stories on the release of official government releasing numbers on the unemployment rate, number of people employed, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales, and durable goods

Even after accounting for how well the economy was doing (e.g., what the unemployment rate was and whether it was going up or down), there was still a big difference in how positive or negative the headlines were. Democratic presidents got about 15 percent more positive headlines than Republicans for the same economic news.

Yet, the hysteria created by this coverage can have another cost. It creates pressure for government to “do something,” even if that rush to do something actually ends up hurting the economy. For example, Obama's promises last week “to amend our bankruptcy laws so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan” will only further drive down the value of mortgage-backed securities, making any unstable financial institutions that hold them even more likely to fail. In the long term, who is going to want to loan money when the contract can be rewritten at a later date?

The news media have generated a lot of fear. Ben Stein has a point when he says “The actual economic conditions are not that bad. I think if we have a recession, if we have a serious recession, a great deal will lie at the media’s feet.” Hopefully a little perspective will enter the picture before even more harm is done.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

Sphere: Related Content

The List

Hillary's List of Lies
By Dick Morris

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie -- that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a "strong, decisive leader," 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama. (61 percent said it of Hillary.) Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

Sphere: Related Content

Anti-War Movement Sinks Lower

George Bush Killed Jesus

As far as we know Barack Obama was not present for this service.

For more disgusting liberals, who enjoy interupting people at worship, search for The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence on You Tube. This goofy group's sole purpose is to mock organized religion and throw their alternative agenda in the face of idividual's who just want to worship peacefully. I also think they like wearing the make-up.

These scary transvestites look like soemthing out of Star Wars.

It's Ok. I Still love you:

Sphere: Related Content

Poor Lanny Davis

To have to go on the air and make excuses, every time the Clinton's tell an obvious lie, must be so humiliating.

It's also hard to fathom that a sitting senator and a woman who wants to be President, now has less credibility than comedian Sinbad. Sometimes I wonder if this lady even knows that she's lying or if it's just a reflex.

If Hillary Clinton didn't have such a truth-telling problem as well as a tendency towards evasive answers i.e. illegal immigrant driver liscenses, she would have wrapped the Democratic nomination up, long ago.

Her problem is that she thinks that because she is a Clinton, that she can get away with anything. It worked for her husband, therefore it will inveitably work for her.

Thankfully this time the press did their job.

I wouldn't want to be a Democrat right now. That's not just partisan spin. It's coming from a guy who realizes that this isn't the best time to be a Republican.

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Kristol: The Only Reason To Purchase The New York Times

Let’s Not, and Say We Did

By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: March 24, 2008

I shuddered only once while watching Barack Obama’s speech last Tuesday.
Barack ObamaIt wasn’t when he posed the rhetorical questions: “Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?”

The real question, of course, is not why Obama joined Trinity, but why he stayed there for two decades, in the flock of a pastor who accused the U.S. government of “inventing the H.I.V. virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” and who suggested soon after 9/11 that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

But orators often ask themselves the convenient questions, not the difficult ones. And Barack Obama is an accomplished orator.

Nor was I shocked when Obama compared Reverend Wright, who was using his pulpit to propagate racial resentment, with his grandmother, who may have said privately a few things that made Obama cringe, or with Geraldine Ferraro, whom “some have dismissed ... as harboring some deep-seated bias.”

After all, politicians sometimes indulge in ridiculous and unfair comparisons to make a point. And Barack Obama is an able politician.

And I didn’t shudder when Obama said he could no more disown Reverend Wright than he could disown the black community. I did think this statement was unfair to many in the black community, and especially to all those pastors who have resisted the temptation to appeal to their parishioners in the irresponsible and demagogic manner of Reverend Wright.

But ambitious men sometimes do a disservice to the best in their own communities. And Barack Obama is an ambitious man.

The only part of the speech that made me shudder was this sentence: “But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”

As soon as I heard that, I knew what we’d have to endure. I knew that there would be a stampede of editorial boards, columnists and academics rushing not to ignore race. A national conversation about race! At long last!

Of course, memories are short. In 1997 President Bill Clinton announced, with great fanfare, that he intended “to lead the American people in a great and unprecedented [if he did say so himself] conversation about race.” That conversation quickly went nowhere. And just as well.

The last thing we need now is a heated national conversation about race.

What we need instead are sober, results-oriented debates about economics, social mobility, education, family policy and the like — focused especially on how to help those who are struggling. Such policy debates can lead to real change — even “change we can believe in.” “National conversations” tend to be pointless and result-less.

Or worse. Especially when they’re about race. In 1969, Pat Moynihan, then serving on Richard Nixon’s White House staff, wrote Nixon a memo explaining that “the issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect.’ The subject has been too much talked about. ... We may need a period in which Negro progress continues and racial rhetoric fades.” Moynihan, who was reacting against the wild escalation of racial rhetoric on all sides, was unfairly pilloried when the memo was leaked in 1970. But he was right then, and his argument is right now.

Racial progress has in fact continued in America. A new national conversation about race isn’t necessary to end what Obama calls the “racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years” — because we’re not stuck in such a stalemate. In fact, as Obama himself suggests in the same speech, younger Americans aren’t stalemated. They come far closer than their grandparents and parents to routinely obeying Martin Luther King’s injunction to judge one another by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.

Over the last several decades, we’ve done pretty well in overcoming racial barriers and prejudice. Problems remain. But we won’t make progress if we now have to endure a din of race talk that will do more to divide us than to unite us, and more to confuse than to clarify.

Luckily, Obama isn’t really interested in getting enmeshed in a national conversation on race. He had avoided race talk before the Reverend Wright controversy erupted. And despite the speech’s catnip of a promised conversation on race tossed to eager commentators, it’s clear he’s more than willing to avoid it from now on.

This is all for the best. With respect to having a national conversation on race, my recommendation is: Let’s not, and say we did.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama/Clinton Is A Losing Ticket

The Democrats have a big problem on their hands. Their frontrunner is in serious trouble with Independent voters, and doubts about his electability have begun to surface in party circles.

In addition to this, Democrats appear headed towards an ugly battle on the convention floor in Denver which could tear the party apart, not only between supporters of Clinton and Obama, but also along racial lines.

It’s obvious that Hillary Clinton still wants the nomination, but it would be nearly impossible for her to acquire a delegate lead at this point.

The arguments which her supporters put forward in attempts to justify a Clinton nomination without a pleged delegate lead, are extremely weak.

One such argument states that Mrs. Clinton could potentially have a lead in the popular vote by the end of the process and that Democrats should abide by the will of the people and nominate the candidate with the most votes.

Of course, even if Clinton does surpass Obama in the raw vote total, Obama has been victorious in most of the caucuses. These caucuses don’t rely on raw vote totals. Therefore, there is no way of telling how far ahead Obama would actually be in the popular vote had these states gone with a primary system.

Another issue floated by Clinton suporters is that Obama has benefited immensely from Republicans and Independents, voting in Democratic primaries. The fact that Clinton leads among registered Democrats is an issue among party loyalists who don’t care for what they see as outsiders hijacking their process. Clinton's people argue that these Democratic votes are the important ones and that she is the true choice of Democrats for the party's nomnation.

This is a very dangerous line for the Clinton people to put out there, because it allows Obama to counter by saying that he has attracted Republicans and Independents into the party with his message.

These Republicans probably cast their ballot for Obama as an anti-Hillary vote, or because the GOP nomination was sewn up early and they wanted their vote to make a difference.

Still others were likely taken in by Obama’s charm, but are now abandoning him as they realize that he doesn’t share their ideological leanings and that some of his close associates are less than reputable.


It doesn’t matter. The arguments made by Hillary's surrogates simply won't cut it.

Obama has followed all of the rules, something that Hillary can’t really say, with her campaigning and victories by default in states that she knew perfectly well weren’t supposed to be involved in the process.

Despite this, Clinton still has a lot of delegates and a ton of power. This gives her several options.

If she feels that Obama will lose in the fall, she could just let him take the nomination and get slaughtered by John McCain. She will then run in 2012, forgiving Democrats who abandoned her and easily snagging the nomination. It will be an “I told you Obama was unelectable but you didn’t listen to me” candidacy.

Another option is to use her super delegates, and float the ‘unelectablity of Obama’ concept at the convention. If this happens and the party awards her the nomination, without a pledged delegate lead, every black city in America will burn.

Blacks will not come out to vote for Clinton in the general election and no Democrat can win the white house without the black vote. Once again, the result is a John McCain presidency.

Finally, Hillary could make a deal with Obama and release her delegates to him, giving him the majority needed to clinch the nomination. In exchange Hillary could demand that she be put on the bottom of the ticket as the Vice-Presidential nominee.

While this would ensure that no devisive floor fight would occur at the convention, such a ticket would likely lead to a huge defeat for the Democrats in November.

Conventional wisdom says that the when selecting a VP, priority number one should be picking someone who doesn’t hurt your candidacy.

Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives.

These negatives go up when she talks.

She has no charisma.

Every American knows who she is and has made up their mind already as to whether they like her or not.

She does not deliver a state which the Democrats would otherwise have difficulty winning.


White men would feel snubbed by the Democrats who have decided on a black man and a woman to represent their party.

Republicans who are not enthusiastic for McCain and who were thinking about sitting '08 out, would flock to the polls in order to stop the Clintons from regaining power.

Questions would rage in regards to who would actually be in charge of the nation. Is it Barack Obama in the White House or are Bill and Hillary making the calls from the Naval Observatory? This is a concept that will be completely unappealing to independents.

Hillary Clinton is probably the worst possible person for Obama to put on the bottom of the ticket, but Obama might have to.

The Democrats really don’t have any good choices at this point.

Jerimiah Wright has severely wounded Obama. It appears that he has managed to stop the bleeding, but keep in mind that the American people really don’t know where Obama stands on the issues. They only know that he is an incredibly charismatic figure who spent God knows how many Sundays in the pulpit of a viciously Un-American, racist pastor.

I’m guessing that many evangelical Christians, who were not thrilled when McCain wrapped up the nomination, have been motivated by Wright’s angry sermons and will turn out in the fall to stop Obama. They will hold their nose and vote for McCain in high numbers. Perhaps not in the enthusiastic way that they came out for Bush in ’04, but enough to secure victories in places like Ohio and Florida.

When they add to the equation that Obama is to the left, politically of the vast majority of Americans, the Independents who stuck with him through “Pastorgate” will trickle away to the reliable, moderate, war hero.

This may be exactly what Hillary is hoping for.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Yes people. There is a terror threat.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey has been taken aback by the scope and variety of potential terrorism threats facing the United States, he told reporters Friday at an informal meeting in his office.


Attorney General Michael Mukasey receives terrorism updates during national security briefings.

"I'm surprised by how surprised I am," said Mukasey, who as a federal judge presided over terrorism-related trials in New York.

"It's surprising how varied [the threat] is, how many directions it comes from, how geographically spread out it is," he said.

Sphere: Related Content