Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Let The Bailout Begin!

President Bush signed into law on Wednesday a huge package of housing legislation that included broad authority for the Treasury Department to safeguard the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies and a plan to help hundreds of thousands of troubled borrowers avoid losing their homes.

I can’t tell you how angry I am about this!
We do need to protect the big banks, but bailing out these other greedy jerks shouldn't be part of the deal!

All those folks, those speculators, those pretend investors, those greedy SOBs, have been let off the hook!

When their adjustable rate mortgage(ARM) adjusted to 10% and higher, they began to whine and moan! When their interest only loan came due they whined louder! When their back loaded 2nd and 3rd mortgages started piling up interest and penalties they moaned even louder!

Then, as the Real Estate market slowed and inventory began increasing and prices fell, they knew they would have a difficult time selling and realizing any profit at all. They were doomed!

After they had spent all the equity in their home by using it as an ATM, they saw the handwriting on the wall!

They'd been whining and complaining for months. It wasn't doing any good, they couldn't sell, so, they simply stopped paying their mortgages!

But, while they were complaining and crying to anyone and everyone who would listen, Sen. Charles Schumer couldn't pass up the opportunity to get in on the act. His sceptical comments about the management of the banks caused a run on IndyMac!

An important angle in the IndyMac failure that may get lost in ominous headlines tonight and tomorrow: federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank's failure. In simple language, federal regulators blamed Schumer for a run on the bank.

These idiots have caused a great deal of concern and some very serious problems in the entire mortgage banking industry! - In the entire housing industry! - In the entire country!
This is going to affect EVERYBODY!

"The law authorizes the Treasury to rescue the mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should they verge on collapse, potentially by spending tens of billions in federal monies. Together, the companies own or guarantee nearly half of the nation’s $12 trillion in mortgages.

Partly to accommodate the rescue plan for the mortgage companies, the bill raises the national debt ceiling to $10.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion. The bill also creates significant liabilities and risks for taxpayers, that are virtually impossible to calculate.

“We look forward to put in place new authorities to improve confidence and stability in markets, and to provide better oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Mr. Fratto said. “The Federal Housing Administration will begin to implement new policies intended to keep more deserving American families in their homes.”

A half-dozen top advisers to the president, including the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., who was the leading advocate of the legislation in the administration attended the signing. But it was not a particularly auspicious occasion given the precarious state of the nation’s financial system, and the pressure that Mr. Bush came under to sign a bill that contained provisions he had opposed.

Though the legislation was the product of months of intensive work by lawmakers in both parties and has been hailed as the most aggressive intervention by the government into the housing market in more than a generation, perhaps since the New Deal, no members of Congress were invited to the signing."

At least the signing wasn't the usual 'big show' and was a low key affair.
I'd be embarrassed too George!

I am totally shocked that President Bush caved on this. He had promised all along that he would veto any such legislation. His reversal has truly saddened me.

It tells the tale of woe that I thought would never be told.
That the Government will support you and yours for as long as necessary.
That the Government will assume all the risks in your new venture - that you no longer need worry about paying back that marginal loan on that risky investment.
Don't worry - the taxpayers will bail you out!

"Some experts have said that the law was wrong-headed in its effort to retain the hybrid nature of the mortgage finance giants, which are private companies with publicly traded stock, but which now have an explicit guarantee of help from the government — an arrangement that critics say privatizes the profits but socializes the risk and any losses."

Oh, these 'whiners' thought they were so clever.
They would buy a house that would continue to appreciate the way it had for the last several years and they would make a killing.

They thought they could play the real estate market and make a bundle.
They thought they knew how to read the market and would have plenty of time to sell and get out.

They thought they would sell this house, buy another and continue to move up in price until they had reached their ultimate goal of owning a million dollar house while only paying for a $200,000 house. They thought they were soooooo savvy!

Just who did they think they were? Rockerfeller? Trump?

Most of those ‘investor types’ are the folks we are ‘bailing out’ with this bill. Add the corrupt management at Freddie and Fannie and you have a FINE mess!

We are paying! You and I are paying! The taxpayers are paying! ... for their failed gamble.
We’re bailing out the ‘players’, the speculators, the less than smart investor, the corrupt loan officers, the mismanaged mortgage office... all those people that made all those terrible, risky decisions.

We're not bailing out regular folks that maybe lost their job or had an unfortunate situation where they couldn't work - NO! These people knew the risks and went ahead anyway! And, now, they're getting off scott free!

This is a very bad bill!

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

The Redeemer Commeth

Why is this Obama guy even being considered for the Presidency?
He has no experience, no credentials, no constituency.
How did he become the nominee for the Democrat Party?
Why has he enjoyed all this support, this ‘mania’, even though he a complete unknown?

Is he really smart?
I don't think he is, but what do others believe?
Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review for a year.
You're supposed to be very smart, very intelligent, to hold that post.
This is a comment from Atlas Shrugs, on Obama's qualifications:
We will begin with the first and most obvious sign of intelligence - grades.
Obama doesn't have them.

Oh, he's given the aura of possessing them - but when one looks closely at that aura, it disappears like smoke before your eyes. For instance, not once has anyone, ever, at any time, produced those grades. In no publication, either Obama's or anyone else's, has any cite been made of that average - was it a 4.0? (Straight A's?) Was it even higher - 4.3? (A+) (And today's high school seniors are graduating with 5.0.) Okay, how about a 3.9 or 3.8?

No. The answer is none. Never. At no time have Obama's grades ever been cited. And that is damning. Because as any person who's ever graduated from elementary, high school or college will tell you, their grade point average is so close to their identity as to be the identity itself. Therefore - for that 'identity' to be invisible as is the case with Obama, is quite revealing. In plain words, if someone doesn't mention a high grade point average, it's for only one reason - there isn't a high grade point average.

Is he really savvy?
Well, with so little experience, I don't see how he could be.
This is what the LA Times said about him this June:
Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

Is he politically connected?
Has anybody heard of this guy before last year?
Was he on anybody's radar at all? No.
He was merely an anti-Clinton pill that the Democrats could swallow.
From The National Review:
The Democrats have gone all the way. They have nominated arguably the most left-wing major party presidential nominee ever, certainly the most left-wing since George McGovern.

Obama’s victory is a repudiation not just of the Clintons personally, but of Clintonism.

Bill Clinton won the presidency based on the Democratic Leadership Council model of a new kind of Democratic politics that pivoted toward the center. Obama not only has had no Sister Souljah moment, he initially embraced his Sister Souljah (in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, introduced to the American public in videotaped rants). He has made no creative policy departure on par with Bill Clinton’s advocacy of welfare reform in 1992 — in fact, has made no creative policy departure at all.

He is the old wine of McGovernite liberalism poured into the alluring wineskin of “hope” and “unity.”

So what gives?
How is this guy even on the ticket in the first place?

Lets look at some of the reasons:
A) Mrs. Bill Clinton suffered from the worst kind of voter angst – Disgust!
They didn’t want 4 more tawdry years of stained dresses and late night pizza deliveries. Obama motored right past her even though he was driving a old junk car with 3 flat tires.

B) Obama's silver tongued double speak is the perfect delivery mechanism for the Marxist message of the Left. And, since the Left has been on a ‘Hate Bush’ kick for the last 7 years, they want nothing more to do with anything related to Mr. Bush or the Republicans. This is the root for the candidate’s reference, that voting for McCain is just asking for a 3rd Bush term. They think he's the right guy at the right time.

C) The media has been desperate for a ‘darling’ they could fawn over. Their efforts became focused when they realized Mrs. Bill Clinton was toast. Obama became their guy - almost overnight! They have covered every speech, every sound bite, every time the candidate kissed a baby. They have been very careful to not discredit him about anything, even though he has given them good reason. Even ‘The Three Stooges’ of network TV tagged along on his trip to Europe and the Middle East!
The MainStream Media LOVES this guy!

D) The Left is showing it’s true motivation - guilt.
Their Great Society has failed.
The Civil Rights movement has failed.
Affirmative Action has failed.
But they continue to spew that tired old line, that they are the ‘party of the people’. Their guilt is mountainous.
They have preached racial equality for so long, hoped for 'the dream' to come true for so long, waited for this moment for so long... and now it is within their grasp.
The first black president!
They will do all they can to elect Obama.
They will stop at nothing to put a black man in the White House.
They desperately need to offer up a 'token dreamer' to validate the effort of all those failed years.

They know this may be their only chance at redemption!
- Their only opportunity to prove at last that 'the dream' can be realized by anyone.
- That equal rights have come to America at last!

Just remember, these equal rights are just for men - black and white.
Everybody else has to have their own redeemer!

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The Arrogant One...

This Obama guy sure thinks a lot of himself.
It's been mentioned that he already has a 'transition team' in place for when he takes the White House.
How presumptuous of him!

Just who does this guy think he is???

It's like he expects to be the president so why wouldn't he go ahead and plan for it? Right? Sounds logical. Makes prefect sense.
Except for one thing... He hasn't been elected yet!

His recent trip to Israel makes the point.

Here is a guy running for the President of the United States, on a trip to Europe and the Middle East, under the pretense of a Congressional junket, and making a political stopover in Jerusalem to insert a prayer message in the wailing wall, while his supporters display his campaign banner for all to see!
How rude! How insensitive! How arrogant!

Obama Plasters Political Banner!
We can only hope that the rest of the world will forgive The United States for being so arrogant, so imprudent, so brash.

This man is truly an 'obamination'. He offends me, he offends my friends and he offends everything American.

Obama's Summer Vacation

The Democrat's Presidential candidate has decided to visit several countries this summer in the hope of generating some 'foreign policy' buzz. We all know that he has absolutely NO experience in anything that would make him qualified to be President of the United States, but this trip is his attempt to bolster his puny 'statesmanship' credentials.

He even took the entire entourage of news gathering bafoons including the 3 Stooges of network TV, Gibson, Couric, and Williams. I'm sure we'll get fair and balanced coverage from those clowns... NOT!

As a matter fact, NBC has hailed the junkett as Obama's 'Tour of Duty' as if he were actually serving in our armed forces!

NBC News Refers to Obama's Trip as 'Tour of Duty'
By D. S. Hube...
It's bad enough that Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East is getting an insane amount of MSM coverage (the three big network news anchors? Whoa!); now, NBC News believes it apt to compare Obama's sojourn to ... an actual military tour of duty. Yes indeed. Check out (the link) at right how anchor Lester Holt introduces last evening's Nightly News.

HOLT: "Tour of Duty" as Obama visits the war zone: The fight over where to send combat troops next.

I never served in the military and I find it quite grating that a major news organization would refer to a presidential candidate's foreign trip to a combat zone -- a candidate who never served, incidentally -- as a "tour of duty." Does anyone else recall former President Bill Clinton's claims that he was on 'activfe duty' as Commander-in-Chief, and therefore immune from any prosecution during the Paula Jones matter? After protests by some veterans' groups, Clinton withdrew his claim (although it's unclear if it was due to these protests or because it was a lousy legal argument).

I wonder if NBC will similarly withdraw its specious headline.

When he visited Iraq he met with Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Almost immediately the candidate stated that al-Maliki had agreed with his assessment of the war and his plan for troop withdrawal. Obama wants a definite troop withdrawal by 2010 and al-Maliki is supposed to have agreed with him.
But, it ain't necessarily so...

The Washington Post printed an editorial about the visit to Iraq...
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of (Obama's) visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Well there ya go. The candidate will twist the truth to match his position on nearly any issue. This guy is really dangerous!

Then he planned a stopover in Germany and had wanted to give a speach in front of The Bradengurg Gate, but that proposal has angered some German politicians...

Prospect of Obama at Brandenburg Gate Divides German Politicians
BERLIN — With the pillars of the Brandenburg Gate looming in the background, tens of thousands of adoring Berliners turn out to greet Senator (Obama) with wild cheering. It may have seemed like the perfect campaign stop on the candidate’s highly anticipated European tour, an ideal way to burnish his foreign policy credentials.

Instead, the plan — widely dissected in the German news media but never confirmed by the Obama campaign — has exposed fissures in the German government, with the conservative chancellor, Angela Merkel, strongly criticizing the proposal and the Social-Democratic vice chancellor and foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, speaking out in favor of it. The ensuing uproar here has underscored the hazards for Mr. Obama in taking his presidential campaign overseas.

Mrs. Merkel has made clear she disapproves of having this potent symbol of German division and reunification pulled into the American election fight. “To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans,” said a spokesman, Thomas Steg, at a news conference Wednesday.

ABC has reported that Obama's stop in Germany...
There may be no greater opportunity for Obama to show (and need to show) he loves his country than when the throngs greet him in Berlin Thursday.
(That's partly because his fellow Americans can watch a million Germans march every night on the History Channel -- and we all know how that film ends.)
And as Obama soaks up the love, he needs his country to love him back.

For as well as it's been going, we don't know how this visit ends -- how an anti-war, anti-administration candidate can deliver a foreign-policy address abroad and not seem anti-American; how hundreds of thousands of Europeans can cheer a presidential candidate and not scare swing-state voters; how the Obama shtick plays with a foreign backdrop; how a candidate who is just plain different fills the JFK-Reagan slot in Berlin.

How is this going to play out?
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Mainstream Media will portray this visit as a great coup for Obama. They'll say he has established himself as a great statesman and that the citizens of the world have embraced him. He is now ready to assume the mantle of President Of The United States!
But most of us know that this guy is an empty suit, a nobody, a con-man, a charlatan.

My Goodness!
Watching this 'Obamamania' fiasco is like watching a mob of lemmings running for the sea.
It's a facinating sight but you know they are all headed for disaster.

In the end, I wonder why the lemmings, and we Americans, continue to gather for this plunge into darkness?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Mainstream Media... Biased or Not?

Several months ago, a friend and I were discussing the frustration we felt about getting decent news coverage of what was going on in Iraq. He remarked that he had seen nothing about 'the surge' or it's effectiveness. I agreed and said I felt the news we did get was so biased toward the left that it was unreliable at best.

We both sort of shrugged and said, "what can we do?" I didn't have an answer then, and I'm not sure I have one now. But that conversation got me thinking more about the news bias we seem to be experiencing. What the heck was going on with the mainstream media?

I had been hearing the conservative radio folks like Rush Limbaugh describe the mainstream media as the 'drive-by media'. The more I heard the phrase, the more the MSM was living up to their billing as 'drive-bys'.

It seamed that nearly every event was covered with a perceived degree of importance relating to your politics.

If you were conservative, your story got honorable mention on page 8.
If you were liberal(or progressive as they like to be called nowadays), your story was front page news and they would even send a stringer to get some video 'B roll' for a lead story on the late news.

Yes, I did see a bias. And so did a lot of other people. But every time I would mention this phenomena I was summarily dismissed as seeing conspiracies where there weren't any.
I was even told that I must be wearing a 'tin hat'.

For those of you in Rio Linda, wearing a tin hat is the preferred method of blocking the governments attempts to read your mind or to influence your thought process with their secret 'mind wave'.

The tin hat theory has been around a long time. If you're accused of wearing one it means you're a little wacky. That you duck for cover when you see the dreaded 'black helicopters'. That you know the car with the blacked out windows parked down the street is full of very secret CIA types.

Well, we suddenly have a concrete reference to this media bias, and it's not a theory any longer. But of course, we knew it was always true from the beginning. The way the press described The President in very unflattering terms... the way the press eagerly began to root for Obama even before he defeated Mrs. Bill Clinton... the way the press simply ignored events that didn't suit their politics! It was fairly obvious.

So now... the New Your Times has refused to print an editorial from the Republican candidate, John McCain.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

... Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

The NYTimes wants McCain to rewrite his editorial to more closely mirror Obama's position???
Is that bias enough for you???

"The question really needs to be posed. Is this type of coverage fair?", said Eric Cantor, a Republican congressman. "This is nothing but a political stunt."

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said: "My prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defence issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman.

"McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media's narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him."

McCain's piece wasn't anything controversial... It simply didn't meet the philosophical and political standards of the NY Times. Well, excuuuuse me! What a bunch of crap! Those idiots deserve all the mean, nasty, vile contempt we can bestow on them!

McCain said... In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Oh... the Times didn't like that at all!
McCain was dissing their boy! How dare he!

The Times has come out with some lame-ass excuse for their editorial policy, but it really doesn't matter.
They aren't real journalists any longer... they're just a bunch of liberal hacks jumping on the Hate Bush/Hate Republicans bandwagon.
Fine... so they support Obama. They deserve each other.

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

This is going to be a real disaster for conservatives. The 'Drive-Bys' are all behind Obama and McCain doesn't seem to have an answer for combating the bias.

What's next? I wonder if McCain can win against such overwhelming odds? He's going to need something very powerful to convince voters he is the right choice. We all know that Obama has absolutely no experience, is not trustworthy and hates America.

Obama would be a very risky choice.
McCain can be a healthy check on the excesses of a Democratic Congress, but he doesn't seem to really want the office.

Can McCain win the hearts and minds of Americans?
Can McCain defeat both Obama and the bias from the mainstream media? They have already annointed, consecrated, coronated, ordained and beatified their candidate.
How do you defeat the 'chosen one'?

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Not Sophistocated Enough?

I surely believed that the magazine cover with the obamination and his wife would cause more of a stir, but it seems to be going away...

When the cover of The New Yorker first appeared it seemed that everyone in the democrat camp felt dissed. They were all calling for the removal of the issue and an apology from the publisher.


Even the candidate himself called the cover a 'scare tactic', since it portrayed him in Muslim attire and his wife totin' a gun.
The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts (Obama) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

But, others, like Andrea Mitchell, said that, "dumb Americans might not get the 'sophisticated' cartoon".

Scott Whitlock reported that... journalist Andrea Mitchell and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart discussed whether Americans are not "sophisticated" enough to understand the attempted satire in the cartoon featured on the cover of the current New Yorker magazine. According to Mitchell, "...The only question there is whether [the cover] is too sophisticated to actually be perceived the way it is intended."

You see The New Yorker has long been the bastion of elitist thought and snooty behavior. I once subscribed to the magazine but was constantly appalled at the way the average American was 'talked down to' and regarded as a cretin.

As far as I know the magazine hasn't changed it's editorial style, so I suppose it can be assumed that they still see us regular folks as 'those people'... the servants, the hired help, those low lifes.

Whitlock goes on...
The Post's Capehart suggested that the uneducated voters in Middle America might not comprehend the high minded satire: "...The folks at the New Yorker are very smart, very learned, learned people, but once you get outside of the confines of Manhattan and the Upper West Side, you sort of begin to wonder if anyone-- if there was a conversation around the table about how will this be viewed by people who won't necessarily get the joke."

Mitchell, it needs to be pointed out, has a history with snobbery. This is the same woman who in June was forced to apologize for bashing rural Virginia as "real redneck."

During Monday's "MSNBC News Live," she also asserted that "critics" say the cartoon cover "depicts almost every false stereotype that Republicans have been launching against Barack Obama, plays into all the fears that are being generated on the web."

Of course, one might point out to Capehart and Mitchell that much of Middle America might not read the New Yorker. And that it's the members of the liberal media who seems to be most bothered by the "satire."

So, I guess the cover controversy will surely go away, now that it's common knowledge that neither of the Obamas got the joke.

After all, how could the liberal, elitist magazine continue with their defense of the cover, when it became apparent the candidate and his wife couldn't grasp the intended satire???

And you can bet the liberal mainstream media has recieved their marching orders to 'lay off' the New Yorker story. The candidate shouldn't be made to look stupid!

I guess the candidate is not as sophisticated as he would have us believe?
Maybe he is just a poor black man from the ghetto after all?
Maybe he is black enough? Eh... Jesse? Eh... Rev Al?

I don't think so... He's just as dumb, or dumber than everyone else.
He surely doesn't have the experience nor the 'savvy' to be President!

It's the elitist east coast liberals that believe that they are the enlightened ones. That they alone hold the keys to the vault of knowledge and power in America.

They were hoping for a miracle in Obama, that he was one of them.
That they would have a kindred spirit in the White House.
It's been sooooo long! Not since Jack Kennedy have they enjoyed a rich east coast liberal over their martinis and manhattans!
They were so hopeful!

Instead they're saddled with another 'hick'... and they sure don't like what has happened!
Just another un-sophisticated yokel hoping for a miracle of his own.
Shades of Jimmy Carter!

Monday, July 14, 2008

Scare Tactic???

Heh, heh, heh. The Obama campaign is really pissed!
Aw shucks... ain't that just too darn bad?!?

The New Yorker Magazine has published an article about the Obamas and has a characterization of them on the front cover.

The obamination and his campaign is upset that it portrays he and his wife in an unfavorable light. Poor baby...

"The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

What about all the cartoonish, boorish, unflattering images of President Bush? The media has had a field day portraying The President as a childish imp, with big ears, and very unflattering language in the 'bubble'. The President hasn't said a single word in all these years.

But the Obama campaign wants an appology right now! Right NOW!

I think the image is pretty funny.
It has the candidate in Muslim garb, his wife Michelle in camo with a rifle slung over her shoulder and they're giving each other the 'fist'. In the backround is their fireplace with the American flag burning and a picture of OBL above the mantel. Pretty funny stuff if you ask me.

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Looks like it's done fairly well.
At least it's a cartoon.

But, not this one...

This picture is real!

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

Im sure Mr. Page is talking about those of us that may think Obama was raised as a Muslim, went to Muslim schools as a child and can offer no documantation that he has converted to Christianity...
- and has a bunch of anti-American buddies.
We're the ones that are the 'crazy' and 'ignorant'. Umm-humm.

Curious to see how the obamination plays this one...

Friday, July 4, 2008

Happy Birthday America!

Ahh yes. The 4th of July!
Fireworks, good food, family fun and racin' at Daytona!

Independance Day.
The day the United States declared itself to be a free nation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

- We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
- We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,

and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved;

and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,

and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Residents Angered by Group's Distribution of Korans

I found this article today...

Some Houston residents are upset after Korans were left on the doorsteps of hundreds of homes in their neighborhood as part of a campaign to educate people about Islam.

Residents of Braes Timbers in southwest Houston began finding the holy books two weeks ago, MyFOXHouston.com reported. The Korans came with a note saying they had been left by the Book of Signs Foundation, which claims to have distributed 30,000 free copies of the texts to residents throughout the city.

"If we went into a Muslim country and left a Bible, we would be in prison and then decapitated a few years later," Sue Ann Pieri, a resident who chose not to destroy the book, as other neighbors did, told MyFOXHouston.com.

The foundation, which left the books on doormats or hanging from doorknobs, said in a note accompanying the Koran that "rather than judging Islam and Muslims by the actions of a few, we want our fellow citizens to judge us by the book that influences and guides the lives of over 1 billion Muslims."

Tarick Hussein, the president of Houston's Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the station he believes the Book of Signs Foundation wants to educate non-Muslims about the religion.

He told MyFOXHouston.com: "This is a very peaceful way of conveying a message."

Yeah, but we really don't want to learn anymore about the 'religion of peace'. We've already had a belly full!