TRUST THOSE DEMOCRATS
SO IN THEIR WISDOM THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE IS GOING TO ADD TO THE PRICE OF GAS.. OBAMA'S PLAN NO DOUBT.. ADD TO THE TAXES ON GAS AT A TIME WHEN WE CAN HARDLY AFFORD TO START OUR CARS ANYMORE NEVER MIND GO ANYWHERE..BY TEN CENTS A GALLON..AND FOR THE TRUCKERS WHO MAKE THEIR LIVING TAKING GOODS ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR US.. FOOD INCLUDED..THEY HAVE TO PUT UP THEIR PRICES SO UP GOES GROCERIES TOO.. AND MANY OTHER ITEMS.. THIS IS NOT JUST A GAS TAX HIKE..THIS IS ONLY GOING TO INCREASE INFLATION.. WAY TO GO DUMMIES.
WASHINGTON - The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.
Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.
With gas prices setting records daily, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain and former Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a 90-day suspension of the federal fuel tax to give drivers a little relief at the pump. The fuel taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for road construction and repair and mass transit.
Clinton suggested making up for the loss by imposing a windfall profit tax on oil companies, an idea that Republicans rejected. McCain said the money could come out of the general Treasury fund, in effect adding to the federal deficit, and is still getting mileage from the idea.
"Some economists don't think much of my gas tax holiday," he said in a speech this month. "But the American people like it, and so do small business owners."
Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, opposed the idea from the beginning and the White House gave it a cold shoulder. Depriving the 52-year-old Highway Trust Fund of $9 billion at a time when it is heading into the red doomed the notion of a gas tax holiday in Congress.
The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. James Oberstar, and the chairman of the highway subcommittee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, presented fellow lawmakers with a list of how many jobs and how much money each state would lose. It ranged from $30 million and 1,000 jobs in Vermont to $664 million and 23,000 jobs in California.
"Because the trust fund is already looking at a looming shortfall, it would have moved project cancellations into the construction season," DeFazio, D-Ore., said in an interview. He said it was "highly unlikely" that oil companies would have passed savings along to consumers.
WASHINGTON - The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.
Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.
With gas prices setting records daily, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain and former Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a 90-day suspension of the federal fuel tax to give drivers a little relief at the pump. The fuel taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for road construction and repair and mass transit.
Clinton suggested making up for the loss by imposing a windfall profit tax on oil companies, an idea that Republicans rejected. McCain said the money could come out of the general Treasury fund, in effect adding to the federal deficit, and is still getting mileage from the idea.
"Some economists don't think much of my gas tax holiday," he said in a speech this month. "But the American people like it, and so do small business owners."
Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, opposed the idea from the beginning and the White House gave it a cold shoulder. Depriving the 52-year-old Highway Trust Fund of $9 billion at a time when it is heading into the red doomed the notion of a gas tax holiday in Congress.
The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. James Oberstar, and the chairman of the highway subcommittee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, presented fellow lawmakers with a list of how many jobs and how much money each state would lose. It ranged from $30 million and 1,000 jobs in Vermont to $664 million and 23,000 jobs in California.
"Because the trust fund is already looking at a looming shortfall, it would have moved project cancellations into the construction season," DeFazio, D-Ore., said in an interview. He said it was "highly unlikely" that oil companies would have passed savings along to consumers.
OBAMA SAYS " LEARN SPANISH"
JUST SO YOU KNOW BEFORE YOU READ THIS.. I HAVE NO ILL FEELINGS TOWARDS ANYONE THAT SPEAKS SPANISH, NOR DO I FEEL I AM BETTER THAN THEY ARE OR DESERVE ANYTHING MORE.. BUT PLEASE.. THIS IS TOO MUCH...
12-20 million illegal aliens blatantly violated our laws when they came to United States illegally. They take jobs away from hard-working Americans and legal immigrants who played by the rules and waited in line to have a chance at living the American Dream!
And what's Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn our language or assimilate into our culture?
In his own words:
"Understand this... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!"
"Make sure your child can speak Spanish..." Excuse me?
Make no mistake. He said it! And if you're one of the millions of Americans who did not actually hear him say it... NOW YOU CAN!
You can watch Barack Hussein Obama swagger across a stage and lecture the American people with an elitist and condescending tone, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish! "
Obama recently spoke at the annual La Raza convention and accused United States law enforcement officers of TERRORIZING people!
According the the San Diego Union Tribune Obama said:
"The system isn't working... when communities are terrorized by (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) immigration raids,
when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing."
Communities "terrorized"...? Babies torn from their mothers while they are nursing...? Children coming home from school to find their parents have been secretly spirited away...?
Is he serious?
Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to enforce our laws and secure our liberties.
To hear Obama talk, you would think they're jack-booted thugs!
And that's a strange point of view coming from a man who associates with the likes of:
Weather Underground member William Ayers, who advocated a dozen bombings, including the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972...
Jodie Evans, a radical, anti-American activist who facilitated over $600,000 in aid to Islamic radicals in Iraq...
Frank Marshall Davis, the anti-Christian radical and known member of the Communist Party USA who Obama looked upon as a "father," and let us not forget...
The Rev. Jeremiah "God D___ America" Wright, a man who called this great country the "U. S. of K.K.K. A"
Apparently people like Evans and Ayers and Davis and Rev. Wright aren't what's wrong with America.
The problem is "bitter" people like you who "cling to guns and religion."
The world would be a much better place if you simply got over your narrow-minded views and simply made sure your children learned Spanish!
And Obama Wasn't Speaking To The Local Chamber of Commerce; He Was Speaking To La Raza.
Possibly the most difficult irony to swallow is that when Barack Hussein Obama accused our law enforcement officers of "terrorizing" entire communities, he was speaking to La Raza.
Perhaps you've never heard of The National Council of La Raza (La Raza).
The liberal media tells us that La Raza (which literally translates to "The Race") is a civil rights advocacy group.
And that much is true; but some credible sources have also advocated the view that La Raza is tacitly allied to a much larger movement with a dark underbelly.
According to Judicial Watch:
"Americans should be outraged that their tax dollars are going to a group that, not only advocates open borders but organized many of the country's disruptive pro illegal immigration marches a year ago. Although the National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, it actually caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan."
"The takeover plan is referred to as the 'reconquista' of the Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and converted to Aztlan. While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite powerful and its leaders regularly attend congressional hearings regarding immigration."
The late-Congressman Charlie Norwood had this to say in an article published by Human Events just prior to his death:
"Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions."
"Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
"One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.
"This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:
"'Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.' (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)"
So, when Barack Hussein Obama tells you your children must learn to speak Spanish, who is he pandering to?
Americans deserve the answer to that question. And moreover, they need to hear Obama say -- IN HIS OWN WORDS -- that your children need to learn Spanish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W7srmHLclw
12-20 million illegal aliens blatantly violated our laws when they came to United States illegally. They take jobs away from hard-working Americans and legal immigrants who played by the rules and waited in line to have a chance at living the American Dream!
And what's Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn our language or assimilate into our culture?
In his own words:
"Understand this... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!"
"Make sure your child can speak Spanish..." Excuse me?
Make no mistake. He said it! And if you're one of the millions of Americans who did not actually hear him say it... NOW YOU CAN!
You can watch Barack Hussein Obama swagger across a stage and lecture the American people with an elitist and condescending tone, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish! "
Obama recently spoke at the annual La Raza convention and accused United States law enforcement officers of TERRORIZING people!
According the the San Diego Union Tribune Obama said:
"The system isn't working... when communities are terrorized by (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) immigration raids,
when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing."
Communities "terrorized"...? Babies torn from their mothers while they are nursing...? Children coming home from school to find their parents have been secretly spirited away...?
Is he serious?
Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to enforce our laws and secure our liberties.
To hear Obama talk, you would think they're jack-booted thugs!
And that's a strange point of view coming from a man who associates with the likes of:
Weather Underground member William Ayers, who advocated a dozen bombings, including the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972...
Jodie Evans, a radical, anti-American activist who facilitated over $600,000 in aid to Islamic radicals in Iraq...
Frank Marshall Davis, the anti-Christian radical and known member of the Communist Party USA who Obama looked upon as a "father," and let us not forget...
The Rev. Jeremiah "God D___ America" Wright, a man who called this great country the "U. S. of K.K.K. A"
Apparently people like Evans and Ayers and Davis and Rev. Wright aren't what's wrong with America.
The problem is "bitter" people like you who "cling to guns and religion."
The world would be a much better place if you simply got over your narrow-minded views and simply made sure your children learned Spanish!
And Obama Wasn't Speaking To The Local Chamber of Commerce; He Was Speaking To La Raza.
Possibly the most difficult irony to swallow is that when Barack Hussein Obama accused our law enforcement officers of "terrorizing" entire communities, he was speaking to La Raza.
Perhaps you've never heard of The National Council of La Raza (La Raza).
The liberal media tells us that La Raza (which literally translates to "The Race") is a civil rights advocacy group.
And that much is true; but some credible sources have also advocated the view that La Raza is tacitly allied to a much larger movement with a dark underbelly.
According to Judicial Watch:
"Americans should be outraged that their tax dollars are going to a group that, not only advocates open borders but organized many of the country's disruptive pro illegal immigration marches a year ago. Although the National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, it actually caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan."
"The takeover plan is referred to as the 'reconquista' of the Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and converted to Aztlan. While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite powerful and its leaders regularly attend congressional hearings regarding immigration."
The late-Congressman Charlie Norwood had this to say in an article published by Human Events just prior to his death:
"Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions."
"Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
"One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.
"This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:
"'Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.' (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)"
So, when Barack Hussein Obama tells you your children must learn to speak Spanish, who is he pandering to?
Americans deserve the answer to that question. And moreover, they need to hear Obama say -- IN HIS OWN WORDS -- that your children need to learn Spanish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W7srmHLclw
POOR OBAMAS
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would raise taxes on the rich, but as an investor, he seems eager to cut his own.
By Tim Middleton
June 09, 2008
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raises taxes on the wealthy, but as a member of that social class, he isn't eager to fall victim himself. He has invested at least $1 million in a fund that yields tax-free income.
The U.S. senator's latest campaign-finance disclosure shows that his investments have nearly tripled in the past two years to as much as $7.4 million, and his income in 2007 surged past $4 million, not counting his government salary.
Obama reported accounts with Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management, an elite firm that deals only with the rich, as well as a host of retirement accounts, some in the name of his wife, Michelle.
Because the required disclosure forms allow candidates to report their assets in ranges, such as $250,001 to $500,000, Obama's net worth at the end of 2007 -- not including his home and other nonfinancial assets -- was pegged between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000.
Tax-free income
By far the largest account, valued between $1 million and $5 million, was in the Northern Municipal Money Market Fund. It generated tax-free interest in 2007 of between $15,001 and $50,000.
Northern Trust "has built a well-deserved reputation around being the banker for the überrich," says Andrew Richards, a Morningstar equity analyst. In a report on the Chicago company's stock, he writes, "The firm estimates it serves roughly 20% of the richest families profiled annually in the Forbes 400."
Obama certainly doesn't fall into that category, but he does fit into the top 1% of U.S. federal income-tax payers. According to the Tax Foundation, this group accounts for 21% of total adjusted gross income nationwide but pays 39% of all individual federal income taxes.
As of 2005, the latest data available, the cut-off for the top 1% was adjusted gross income of $364,657. The cut-off for the top 5% was $145,283.
More on money and politics:
It's solar power's time to shine
Canadians warming to bank mergers: poll
The next Buffetts
Why is Ottawa eyeing your iPod?
All-governments liabilities add up to $150,211 per taxpayer: report
Why hasn't Canada caught the subprime bug?
Raising taxes
Obama has proposed a host of increases that would raise the federal income-tax rate on top American earners -- and not just that 1% -- to 52% from 35%, according to an analysis by Investor's Business Daily. That calculation includes applying the 12.4% U.S. payroll tax that funds Social Security to some income above the current $102,000 cap, and letting some of U.S. President Bush's tax cuts expire.
His former rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, has called his plan to raise Social Security taxes "a trillion-dollar tax hike on the middle class."
Interest on municipal bonds, however, is exempt from tax, which is why Obama's Northern Trust fund generates tax-free income.
Despite repeated requests over several days, the Obama campaign declined to comment.
Ballooning wealth
As recently as 2006, when Obama filed financial disclosures in advance of his presidential campaign, he reported a liquid net worth of between $1 million and $2.5 million. He and his wife already were private clients of JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) at the time, and their investments were very conservative.
Since then his wealth has ballooned, notably due to sales of two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." In 2007, he collected royalties of $815,971 on the former and $3,278,719 on the latter.
According to an attachment to his report, Obama received an advance in 2005 of $1.9 million for those books plus an untitled children's book, which has not yet been published. The attachment says that $200,000 of that was pledged to charity.
The royalty payments received in 2007 are in excess of the advance, reflecting robust sales.
Obama's Senate salary in 2007 was $165,200, rising this year to $169,300, in line with core U.S. inflation of 2.5%.
The Obamas also reported owning U.S. Treasury notes valued between $500,001 and $1 million.
Socially responsible losses
Both the candidate and his wife reported owning shares in Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund (VFTSX) in retirement accounts. His account was valued up to $250,000 and hers up to $100,000. Despite a miserable performance record, having trailed the S&P 500 Index ($US:INX) by an average of 3.1 percentage points a year over the past five years, Morningstar calls the fund "one of the most attractive socially responsible options around."
Obama reports that his wife owned shares in another, much better fund, Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX), that were worth between $100,001 and $250,000, also in a retirement account. However, the fund owns positions in three foreign oil companies -- Total (TTFNF.O), BP (BP.N) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A.N) -- that do business with Iran, a position Obama opposes. His campaign told reporters the Wellesley fund would be sold.
The Obamas also reported having invested between $100,001 and $250,000 in each of two college savings plans, one intended for children from birth through age 8, the other for kids 9 to 12 years old. The Obamas have two daughters.
They had a joint chequing account with Morgan Chase Private Client valued between $15,001 and $50,000. Michelle Obama had a similar account valued between $1,001 and $15,000.
The Obamas reported no liabilities, such as credit card debt. Mortgages and auto loans are exempt from reporting.
Separately, Obama released his 2007 income taxes, showing that he and his wife had adjusted gross income of $4,139,965, including $260,735 from salaries. They made charitable contributions of $240,370, or 5.8% of their AGI, and paid U.S. federal taxes of $1,396,772.
Michelle Obama resigned as a director of TreeHouse Foods (THS.N), a specialty food manufacturer, in May 2007. According to the disclosure, options she had to purchase company shares were cancelled when she resigned, and none was exercised during her tenure.
For now, the raise-taxes-and-avoid-them platform is occupied solely by Barack Obama.
By Tim Middleton
June 09, 2008
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raises taxes on the wealthy, but as a member of that social class, he isn't eager to fall victim himself. He has invested at least $1 million in a fund that yields tax-free income.
The U.S. senator's latest campaign-finance disclosure shows that his investments have nearly tripled in the past two years to as much as $7.4 million, and his income in 2007 surged past $4 million, not counting his government salary.
Obama reported accounts with Morgan Chase Private Client Asset Management, an elite firm that deals only with the rich, as well as a host of retirement accounts, some in the name of his wife, Michelle.
Because the required disclosure forms allow candidates to report their assets in ranges, such as $250,001 to $500,000, Obama's net worth at the end of 2007 -- not including his home and other nonfinancial assets -- was pegged between $2,022,016 and $7,356,000.
Tax-free income
By far the largest account, valued between $1 million and $5 million, was in the Northern Municipal Money Market Fund. It generated tax-free interest in 2007 of between $15,001 and $50,000.
Northern Trust "has built a well-deserved reputation around being the banker for the überrich," says Andrew Richards, a Morningstar equity analyst. In a report on the Chicago company's stock, he writes, "The firm estimates it serves roughly 20% of the richest families profiled annually in the Forbes 400."
Obama certainly doesn't fall into that category, but he does fit into the top 1% of U.S. federal income-tax payers. According to the Tax Foundation, this group accounts for 21% of total adjusted gross income nationwide but pays 39% of all individual federal income taxes.
As of 2005, the latest data available, the cut-off for the top 1% was adjusted gross income of $364,657. The cut-off for the top 5% was $145,283.
More on money and politics:
It's solar power's time to shine
Canadians warming to bank mergers: poll
The next Buffetts
Why is Ottawa eyeing your iPod?
All-governments liabilities add up to $150,211 per taxpayer: report
Why hasn't Canada caught the subprime bug?
Raising taxes
Obama has proposed a host of increases that would raise the federal income-tax rate on top American earners -- and not just that 1% -- to 52% from 35%, according to an analysis by Investor's Business Daily. That calculation includes applying the 12.4% U.S. payroll tax that funds Social Security to some income above the current $102,000 cap, and letting some of U.S. President Bush's tax cuts expire.
His former rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, has called his plan to raise Social Security taxes "a trillion-dollar tax hike on the middle class."
Interest on municipal bonds, however, is exempt from tax, which is why Obama's Northern Trust fund generates tax-free income.
Despite repeated requests over several days, the Obama campaign declined to comment.
Ballooning wealth
As recently as 2006, when Obama filed financial disclosures in advance of his presidential campaign, he reported a liquid net worth of between $1 million and $2.5 million. He and his wife already were private clients of JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) at the time, and their investments were very conservative.
Since then his wealth has ballooned, notably due to sales of two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." In 2007, he collected royalties of $815,971 on the former and $3,278,719 on the latter.
According to an attachment to his report, Obama received an advance in 2005 of $1.9 million for those books plus an untitled children's book, which has not yet been published. The attachment says that $200,000 of that was pledged to charity.
The royalty payments received in 2007 are in excess of the advance, reflecting robust sales.
Obama's Senate salary in 2007 was $165,200, rising this year to $169,300, in line with core U.S. inflation of 2.5%.
The Obamas also reported owning U.S. Treasury notes valued between $500,001 and $1 million.
Socially responsible losses
Both the candidate and his wife reported owning shares in Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund (VFTSX) in retirement accounts. His account was valued up to $250,000 and hers up to $100,000. Despite a miserable performance record, having trailed the S&P 500 Index ($US:INX) by an average of 3.1 percentage points a year over the past five years, Morningstar calls the fund "one of the most attractive socially responsible options around."
Obama reports that his wife owned shares in another, much better fund, Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX), that were worth between $100,001 and $250,000, also in a retirement account. However, the fund owns positions in three foreign oil companies -- Total (TTFNF.O), BP (BP.N) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A.N) -- that do business with Iran, a position Obama opposes. His campaign told reporters the Wellesley fund would be sold.
The Obamas also reported having invested between $100,001 and $250,000 in each of two college savings plans, one intended for children from birth through age 8, the other for kids 9 to 12 years old. The Obamas have two daughters.
They had a joint chequing account with Morgan Chase Private Client valued between $15,001 and $50,000. Michelle Obama had a similar account valued between $1,001 and $15,000.
The Obamas reported no liabilities, such as credit card debt. Mortgages and auto loans are exempt from reporting.
Separately, Obama released his 2007 income taxes, showing that he and his wife had adjusted gross income of $4,139,965, including $260,735 from salaries. They made charitable contributions of $240,370, or 5.8% of their AGI, and paid U.S. federal taxes of $1,396,772.
Michelle Obama resigned as a director of TreeHouse Foods (THS.N), a specialty food manufacturer, in May 2007. According to the disclosure, options she had to purchase company shares were cancelled when she resigned, and none was exercised during her tenure.
For now, the raise-taxes-and-avoid-them platform is occupied solely by Barack Obama.
WHY WE WON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA, FOR YOU RUBE
RUBE THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE TO ME ON MY BLOG AND I DELETED IT AND WILL ADDRESS IT HERE FOR YOU..
RUBE SAYS: I thought for sure this blog would have a bigger trun out. Oh well! The Obama hate groups such as the one you belong to Sunshine and Kara are shrinking.
I say: Rube, it has been posted for about 2 hours.. I am sure others will post comments later in the day and if they don't ..who cares.. the point is to communicate with people and even one counts in my book if they learn something about the real Obama.
Rube says:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women
Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November
By Tim Wise
June 5, 2008
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.
I say:.. Rube.. and Tim Wise.. first of all you start off with a premise that is not true.. I will not support or vote for Obama because of who he is.. not who I am and what I believe is right for women, men, children, or society as a whole.. or the country.. It is rather that what Obama represents is bad for all of those areas.. he threatens all of us and our country by his extreme left socialist policies and his attachments to those that are unscrupulous and have personal agendas that are not in our best interests.. Rezko and Khaladi, Wright and Farrakahn, Ayers and Dohrn and the PLO, Cones black liberation theology, George Soros, Walter Veltroni, Odinga and Kenyan Islamic extremists, the list goes on and on.. and it is nothing like a list of buddies that would in any way fall under those befitting a president..
Rube says:
I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified. That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.
First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.
AND I SAY:
HEY..YOU ARE RIGHT.. THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENDER SOLIDARITY TO ME.. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.!!! AND IT ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE RACIAL BONDING EITHER.. WHATEVER THAT IS.
AND RUBE GOES ON:
it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?
MY ANSWER TO YOU:
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT..??? OH MY..YOU MISSED THE BOAT DIDN'T YOU?? lol.. This is about a greenhorn by the name of Obama who has no real qualifications for president, no experience as he was only in his first half of his first term as a U.S. SENATOR, who has shown himself over the past year to be a chronic liar, an arrogant elitist, an opportunist, a RACIST, oh yes.. as is his wife..evidenced by their 20 year stint with Cones black liberation theology, he has no integrity as he never once took a stand against racism and hate and never left the church that embraced it; who has such poor judgement that he associates himself with the likes of criminals, terrorists, Islamic extremists, marxists, communists, foreign interests with their personal agendas like George Soros, and many others. He has a wife that thinks America is mean and who has never been proud of her country.. who gives speeches that smack of communism and marxism.. that want to control our lives and turn our country into a socialist empire that will meld with Soros' dream to be king of the global government..and he has made it plain that he will kiss the butts of anyone that will vote for him.. irregardless of integrity and honor.. he sells his soul and his character down the drain every other day in the name of getting elected and gaining power and fame.. NOT FOR THE REASON OF BEING A GOOD LEADER.. THAT IS CERTAIN..AND WELL DEMONSTRATED.
NOW GET THIS..RUBE.. AND TIME WISE.. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US VOTING LIKE ANYONE ELSE.. IT IS TO DO WITH VOTING LIKE US.. THINKING PEOPLE.. MEN AND WOMEN WHO SEE OBAMA FOR WHO HE REALLY IS AND CHOOSING TO FIGHT FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IS RIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY.. THAT IS NOT OBAMA.. WE FIERCELY DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER.. WE CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN AS A LESS DETRIMENTAL INFLUENCE ON THE WELL BEING OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZENS FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS UNTIL WE CAN AGAIN HOPE FOR SOMEONE WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AND INTERESTS THAT MEET WITH THE STRONG CHARACTER AND PERSONAL QUALITIES THAT SHOULD BE THERE FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. obama has none of them...
MY POINT IS.. dont you dare tell us who we can or cannot vote for or why.. we call the shots on our votes.. not you and not Obama and not the Obama camp and not Dean or Pelosi or Soros either. DID YA' GET THAT?
RUBE SAYS:
And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...
MY ANSWER IS:
There are many feminists out there and even our group may contain them.. but that is not our common ground..our common ground is what is good for our country and it's citizens..put the feminism out of your mind.. it's not an issue here.
rube says:
Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?
See, I told you your whiteness was showing
MY ANSWER IS: MAN YOU ARE SO SCREWED IN THE HEAD IT ISN'T FUNNY.. first of all.. this is nothing to do with voting for a woman..or a white.. it is to do with.. as I pointed out above.. NOT VOTING FOR SOMEONE WE CONSIDER VERY BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY AND US.. FOR OUR IMAGE AS A NATION, FOR OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, WITH OUR SECURITY, WITH OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR BLOCK HEAD PERHAPS..???/ WE WOULD ALL OF US VOTE FOR A BLACK PERSON..MAN OR WOMAN,, IF IT WERE THE RIGHT ONE.. AND THERE ARE MANY I KNOW OF THAT WE WOULD VOTE FOR RIGHT NOW, BUT NOT OBAMA..HE IS NOT RIGHT.. NOT THE ONE..NOT GOOD AND NOT SUITABLE..NOT QUALIFIED OR EXPERIENCED ENOUGH.. AT THIS POINT I MUST SAY I AM TAKING LIBERTIES BY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OTHERS BUT IF THEY DONT AGREE WITH ME THEY CAN SET THEIR FEELINGS DOWN HERE BELOW THIS AND LET US KNOW THEIR STANCE AS WELL.
MY WHITENESS IS SHOWING.. HOGWASH.. GUTTERTRIPE..BULLSHIP.. YOU DONT KNOW EVEN A LITTLE WHAT YOU SPEAK OF.. AND BELIEVE ME.. SOME OF US ARE BLACK IN CASE YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT TOO..IT IS NOT A RACIAL ISSUE.. YOU JUST PREFER TO MAKE IT ONE SO YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE TO BLAME SOMEONE WITH.. SORRY TO DENY YOU THAT.
WHY NOT GET A REAL JOB AND GO DISECT THE INTERESTS OF THESE UNSCRUPULOUS PEOPLE WHO BEFRIEND OBAMA.. SEE IF YOU CAN DO SOME GOOD THERE.. BUT QUIT TRYING TO READ OUR MINDS AND HEARTS.. YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE VERY POOR AT IT.
RUBE SAYS: I thought for sure this blog would have a bigger trun out. Oh well! The Obama hate groups such as the one you belong to Sunshine and Kara are shrinking.
I say: Rube, it has been posted for about 2 hours.. I am sure others will post comments later in the day and if they don't ..who cares.. the point is to communicate with people and even one counts in my book if they learn something about the real Obama.
Rube says:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women
Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November
By Tim Wise
June 5, 2008
This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.
I say:.. Rube.. and Tim Wise.. first of all you start off with a premise that is not true.. I will not support or vote for Obama because of who he is.. not who I am and what I believe is right for women, men, children, or society as a whole.. or the country.. It is rather that what Obama represents is bad for all of those areas.. he threatens all of us and our country by his extreme left socialist policies and his attachments to those that are unscrupulous and have personal agendas that are not in our best interests.. Rezko and Khaladi, Wright and Farrakahn, Ayers and Dohrn and the PLO, Cones black liberation theology, George Soros, Walter Veltroni, Odinga and Kenyan Islamic extremists, the list goes on and on.. and it is nothing like a list of buddies that would in any way fall under those befitting a president..
Rube says:
I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified. That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.
First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...
Your whiteness is showing.
When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.
AND I SAY:
HEY..YOU ARE RIGHT.. THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENDER SOLIDARITY TO ME.. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.!!! AND IT ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE RACIAL BONDING EITHER.. WHATEVER THAT IS.
AND RUBE GOES ON:
it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?
MY ANSWER TO YOU:
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT..??? OH MY..YOU MISSED THE BOAT DIDN'T YOU?? lol.. This is about a greenhorn by the name of Obama who has no real qualifications for president, no experience as he was only in his first half of his first term as a U.S. SENATOR, who has shown himself over the past year to be a chronic liar, an arrogant elitist, an opportunist, a RACIST, oh yes.. as is his wife..evidenced by their 20 year stint with Cones black liberation theology, he has no integrity as he never once took a stand against racism and hate and never left the church that embraced it; who has such poor judgement that he associates himself with the likes of criminals, terrorists, Islamic extremists, marxists, communists, foreign interests with their personal agendas like George Soros, and many others. He has a wife that thinks America is mean and who has never been proud of her country.. who gives speeches that smack of communism and marxism.. that want to control our lives and turn our country into a socialist empire that will meld with Soros' dream to be king of the global government..and he has made it plain that he will kiss the butts of anyone that will vote for him.. irregardless of integrity and honor.. he sells his soul and his character down the drain every other day in the name of getting elected and gaining power and fame.. NOT FOR THE REASON OF BEING A GOOD LEADER.. THAT IS CERTAIN..AND WELL DEMONSTRATED.
NOW GET THIS..RUBE.. AND TIME WISE.. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US VOTING LIKE ANYONE ELSE.. IT IS TO DO WITH VOTING LIKE US.. THINKING PEOPLE.. MEN AND WOMEN WHO SEE OBAMA FOR WHO HE REALLY IS AND CHOOSING TO FIGHT FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IS RIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY.. THAT IS NOT OBAMA.. WE FIERCELY DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WHOMEVER.. WE CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN AS A LESS DETRIMENTAL INFLUENCE ON THE WELL BEING OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZENS FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS UNTIL WE CAN AGAIN HOPE FOR SOMEONE WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AND INTERESTS THAT MEET WITH THE STRONG CHARACTER AND PERSONAL QUALITIES THAT SHOULD BE THERE FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. obama has none of them...
MY POINT IS.. dont you dare tell us who we can or cannot vote for or why.. we call the shots on our votes.. not you and not Obama and not the Obama camp and not Dean or Pelosi or Soros either. DID YA' GET THAT?
RUBE SAYS:
And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...
MY ANSWER IS:
There are many feminists out there and even our group may contain them.. but that is not our common ground..our common ground is what is good for our country and it's citizens..put the feminism out of your mind.. it's not an issue here.
rube says:
Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?
See, I told you your whiteness was showing
MY ANSWER IS: MAN YOU ARE SO SCREWED IN THE HEAD IT ISN'T FUNNY.. first of all.. this is nothing to do with voting for a woman..or a white.. it is to do with.. as I pointed out above.. NOT VOTING FOR SOMEONE WE CONSIDER VERY BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY AND US.. FOR OUR IMAGE AS A NATION, FOR OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD, WITH OUR SECURITY, WITH OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR BLOCK HEAD PERHAPS..???/ WE WOULD ALL OF US VOTE FOR A BLACK PERSON..MAN OR WOMAN,, IF IT WERE THE RIGHT ONE.. AND THERE ARE MANY I KNOW OF THAT WE WOULD VOTE FOR RIGHT NOW, BUT NOT OBAMA..HE IS NOT RIGHT.. NOT THE ONE..NOT GOOD AND NOT SUITABLE..NOT QUALIFIED OR EXPERIENCED ENOUGH.. AT THIS POINT I MUST SAY I AM TAKING LIBERTIES BY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OTHERS BUT IF THEY DONT AGREE WITH ME THEY CAN SET THEIR FEELINGS DOWN HERE BELOW THIS AND LET US KNOW THEIR STANCE AS WELL.
MY WHITENESS IS SHOWING.. HOGWASH.. GUTTERTRIPE..BULLSHIP.. YOU DONT KNOW EVEN A LITTLE WHAT YOU SPEAK OF.. AND BELIEVE ME.. SOME OF US ARE BLACK IN CASE YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT TOO..IT IS NOT A RACIAL ISSUE.. YOU JUST PREFER TO MAKE IT ONE SO YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE TO BLAME SOMEONE WITH.. SORRY TO DENY YOU THAT.
WHY NOT GET A REAL JOB AND GO DISECT THE INTERESTS OF THESE UNSCRUPULOUS PEOPLE WHO BEFRIEND OBAMA.. SEE IF YOU CAN DO SOME GOOD THERE.. BUT QUIT TRYING TO READ OUR MINDS AND HEARTS.. YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE VERY POOR AT IT.
WHY OBAMA IS LOSING EVERY DAY A LITTLE
After almost six weeks of a constant Obama lead, generally in the five to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat’s lead?
Part of the slippage is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.
Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate — who we don’t really yet know very well — reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least nine key issues:
After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers — but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.
As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the "black Bill Clinton," a turnaround of the "first black president" moniker that had been pinned on Bill.
Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue, oil drilling, exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West.
The Democratic claim that we "cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices" begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.
The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.
Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of "gradual adjustment" to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.
Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for ordinary people to afford the journey to work in the morning. And, with a 16-state media buy, the Republican Party and the McCain campaign are doing precisely that.
If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters. Where would they go?
Nader is still a possibility. But McCain can attract liberal votes. He doesn’t need to bleed Obama only from the right. His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left. If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama’s obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle.
Part of the slippage is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.
Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate — who we don’t really yet know very well — reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least nine key issues:
After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers — but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.
As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the "black Bill Clinton," a turnaround of the "first black president" moniker that had been pinned on Bill.
Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue, oil drilling, exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West.
The Democratic claim that we "cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices" begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.
The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.
Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of "gradual adjustment" to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.
Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for ordinary people to afford the journey to work in the morning. And, with a 16-state media buy, the Republican Party and the McCain campaign are doing precisely that.
If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters. Where would they go?
Nader is still a possibility. But McCain can attract liberal votes. He doesn’t need to bleed Obama only from the right. His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left. If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama’s obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle.
FLIPPING AND FLOPPING
It's getting difficult to tell whether Obama stands for anything
Sunday, July 06, 2008
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
It's a good thing many of Barack Obama's supporters don't care much about issues, because their candidate has been changing his position on them with dizzying speed.
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476)."Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul 'slashed rolls by 80 percent,' " ABC News reported July 1. "Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction."
When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia ban on handgun ownership June 26, Mr. Obama said he supported the decision of the 5-4 majority. But last November he told the Chicago Tribune he thought the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional. While in the state legislature, he proposed legislation that would, in effect, have banned handguns in Illinois.
Mr. Obama said he disagreed with another 5-4 Supreme Court decision the day before, which struck down a Louisiana law that had authorized the death penalty for someone who rapes a child. When he first ran for the state Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said he opposed capital punishment, and in the legislature he opposed applying the death penalty to gang murders.
Campaigning in Ohio before the Democratic primary there, Mr. Obama said the North American Free Trade Agreement should be renegotiated. One of his economic advisers, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, told a Canadian official that Mr. Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
When the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported this, the Obama campaign initially denied that Mr. Goolsbee had met with the Canadian consul in Chicago and then claimed he had been misquoted. After the CBC provided conclusive proof both of the meeting and what Mr. Goolsbee had said, Mr. Obama distanced himself from his economic adviser.
No longer. In an interview with Nina Easton of Fortune magazine published June 18, Mr. Obama said he didn't want unilaterally to reopen negotiations on NAFTA. "Sometimes during a campaign the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.
Last August, Mr. Obama called for easing the economic embargo on Cuba. When he was running for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he indicated he favored lifting it entirely. But in a speech to the Cuban American National Foundation May 23, Mr. Obama said he'd maintain the embargo.
Last September, Mr. Obama said he would accept federal matching funds for the general election campaign if his GOP opponent did the same. But on June 19, he announced he wouldn't. The reason was simple. The Obama campaign thinks it can raise more than twice as much as the $85 million he'd get from the feds. The flip-flop probably would have gone down better if he hadn't offered a transparently phony rationale for it.
"Mr. Obama had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation. He made a different choice," said The Washington Post in an editorial. "Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it."
Mr. Obama said on Jan. 28 that he would "strongly oppose" an intelligence surveillance bill that provided retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telephone companies that cooperated with the U.S. government. But on June 20, he announced he'd support a bill that does just that.
In a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton in April, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of assuming the presidency. But foreign policy adviser Susan Rice appeared to be laying the groundwork for another change in position in her appearance on MSNBC Tuesday. "That's not a deadline," she said. "He will listen to his commanders on the ground, he will follow and heed their advice."
Dominic Lawson, writing in the left-wing British newspaper The Independent Tuesday, described Mr. Obama as "the master of the U-turn."
Some Obama supporters are experiencing buyer's remorse, Mr. Lawson said, but most think "Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the 'redneck states.'
"To this group we must address a simple question," Mr. Lawson asked. "How do you know what Obama really believes in?"
Sunday, July 06, 2008
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
It's a good thing many of Barack Obama's supporters don't care much about issues, because their candidate has been changing his position on them with dizzying speed.
Jack Kelly is a columnist for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476)."Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul 'slashed rolls by 80 percent,' " ABC News reported July 1. "Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction."
When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia ban on handgun ownership June 26, Mr. Obama said he supported the decision of the 5-4 majority. But last November he told the Chicago Tribune he thought the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional. While in the state legislature, he proposed legislation that would, in effect, have banned handguns in Illinois.
Mr. Obama said he disagreed with another 5-4 Supreme Court decision the day before, which struck down a Louisiana law that had authorized the death penalty for someone who rapes a child. When he first ran for the state Senate in 1996, Mr. Obama said he opposed capital punishment, and in the legislature he opposed applying the death penalty to gang murders.
Campaigning in Ohio before the Democratic primary there, Mr. Obama said the North American Free Trade Agreement should be renegotiated. One of his economic advisers, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, told a Canadian official that Mr. Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
When the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported this, the Obama campaign initially denied that Mr. Goolsbee had met with the Canadian consul in Chicago and then claimed he had been misquoted. After the CBC provided conclusive proof both of the meeting and what Mr. Goolsbee had said, Mr. Obama distanced himself from his economic adviser.
No longer. In an interview with Nina Easton of Fortune magazine published June 18, Mr. Obama said he didn't want unilaterally to reopen negotiations on NAFTA. "Sometimes during a campaign the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.
Last August, Mr. Obama called for easing the economic embargo on Cuba. When he was running for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he indicated he favored lifting it entirely. But in a speech to the Cuban American National Foundation May 23, Mr. Obama said he'd maintain the embargo.
Last September, Mr. Obama said he would accept federal matching funds for the general election campaign if his GOP opponent did the same. But on June 19, he announced he wouldn't. The reason was simple. The Obama campaign thinks it can raise more than twice as much as the $85 million he'd get from the feds. The flip-flop probably would have gone down better if he hadn't offered a transparently phony rationale for it.
"Mr. Obama had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation. He made a different choice," said The Washington Post in an editorial. "Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it."
Mr. Obama said on Jan. 28 that he would "strongly oppose" an intelligence surveillance bill that provided retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telephone companies that cooperated with the U.S. government. But on June 20, he announced he'd support a bill that does just that.
In a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton in April, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months of assuming the presidency. But foreign policy adviser Susan Rice appeared to be laying the groundwork for another change in position in her appearance on MSNBC Tuesday. "That's not a deadline," she said. "He will listen to his commanders on the ground, he will follow and heed their advice."
Dominic Lawson, writing in the left-wing British newspaper The Independent Tuesday, described Mr. Obama as "the master of the U-turn."
Some Obama supporters are experiencing buyer's remorse, Mr. Lawson said, but most think "Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the 'redneck states.'
"To this group we must address a simple question," Mr. Lawson asked. "How do you know what Obama really believes in?"
Finally a vote that could set a precedent
On Election Day in November, voters in Colorado will be asked to clarify when human life begins.
According to the Washington Post, the Human Life Amendment, also known as the "personhood" amendment, states that the words "person" or "persons" in the state constitution should "include any human being from the moment of fertilization," thus providing fertilized eggs with the constitutional right to life enjoyed by all humans.
The mere presence of that question on the ballot could have a decisive effect on the outcome of the presidential election in Colorado by spurring pro-life voters to turn out in large enough numbers to help win a state for pro-life Republican John McCain that pro-abortion candidate Barack Obama is striving to win.
Moreover, the outcome of the vote, the first of its kind in the U.S., could have a ripple effect in other states where pro-life forces might be encouraged to adopt a similar ballot initiative.
According to Kristi Burton of Colorado for Equal Rights, a grass-roots anti-abortion organization, the purpose of the proposal is to provide a legal and legislative basis for protecting the unborn. Its passage would also open the door to modifying other laws for the same purpose, she told the Post, adding that it is not designed to outlaw abortion.
Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life, told the Post, "The goal is to restore legal protection to preborn babies from the moment they are conceived, which is the only way we're going to stop abortion."
The proposal has outraged pro-abortion forces who insist that the amendment is aimed at outlawing abortion in Colorado and ultimately overturning Roe v. Wade by igniting a court battle that would bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court where pro-life forces hope a conservative majority would strike down the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
While the proposal seeks to settle the controversy over when human life begins from a political standpoint, medical science answered the question definitively years ago by declaring that human life begins at conception.
In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee after receiving testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session) stated “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.â€
The report quoted professor Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic: "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
According to the Washington Post, the Human Life Amendment, also known as the "personhood" amendment, states that the words "person" or "persons" in the state constitution should "include any human being from the moment of fertilization," thus providing fertilized eggs with the constitutional right to life enjoyed by all humans.
The mere presence of that question on the ballot could have a decisive effect on the outcome of the presidential election in Colorado by spurring pro-life voters to turn out in large enough numbers to help win a state for pro-life Republican John McCain that pro-abortion candidate Barack Obama is striving to win.
Moreover, the outcome of the vote, the first of its kind in the U.S., could have a ripple effect in other states where pro-life forces might be encouraged to adopt a similar ballot initiative.
According to Kristi Burton of Colorado for Equal Rights, a grass-roots anti-abortion organization, the purpose of the proposal is to provide a legal and legislative basis for protecting the unborn. Its passage would also open the door to modifying other laws for the same purpose, she told the Post, adding that it is not designed to outlaw abortion.
Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life, told the Post, "The goal is to restore legal protection to preborn babies from the moment they are conceived, which is the only way we're going to stop abortion."
The proposal has outraged pro-abortion forces who insist that the amendment is aimed at outlawing abortion in Colorado and ultimately overturning Roe v. Wade by igniting a court battle that would bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court where pro-life forces hope a conservative majority would strike down the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
While the proposal seeks to settle the controversy over when human life begins from a political standpoint, medical science answered the question definitively years ago by declaring that human life begins at conception.
In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee after receiving testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session) stated “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.â€
The report quoted professor Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic: "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
RESPONSE TO OBAMA SAYS WE DONT NEED ANOTHER DR. PHIL
IN PARTICULAR, being as I can't post on Kay's blog, I wanted to address..
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline," he said. “You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession."
perhaps this guy has been listening to Obama and Michelle for awhile .. who keep telling us that we are all suffering from broken souls, that we are bitter, that we are clinging to our bibles and guns, that we are isolated, fearful, cynical, anti-social, depressed.. Geez.. talk about mental depression.. that is what they both project.. these two who are the most unqualified and unlikely to fill the shoes of the "king and queen" of the free world..these marxist/socialists that want to control every part of our lives and at our expense. gosh.. no wonder people get the impression that this country is such a sad place to live and raise our children.. they have been whining about it for a year now.. telling us all these things about our country that need fixing.. to them I would say...
I am PROUD of my country.. I am PROUD to be from the strongest country on earth that not only offers us the freedoms and rights like no other country, but participates in helping people and countries around the world to free themselves from oppression ..from the dictators and butchers of the worlds evil side.. to alleviate starvation and disease around the world, to share cultural and educational advantages to those who have little or none.. who offers assistance from brave men and women of our country to defend the lives of others who are helpless or who suffer from the ravages of nature..medical aid and procedures in hospitals here in the U.S. that change lives of children who would never otherwise survive or live a normal life, or provide people with things we take for granted, food, shelter, medicine, books, school supplies.. etc.
Does this mean we don't have things to fix in our country.. ??? of course not.. we do.. and we should..better care of our poor, health care for all, better education system, teaching kids to be responsible and to help others, looking after our earth and learning to be less dependant on energy that is not renewable or accessible, using alternative methods and resources..wind, wave and sun sources of providing energy .. eliminating from our society those who are bigots and racists whether it be individuals or organizations..
and learning to be thankful and show appreciation for all the wonderful advantages we have and take for granted every day.
Whatever we can do to improve life and lives, we should, and that includes making sure that the government is not turned over to those who would destroy the basics of our great country..it was founded on Christian values which are disappearing daily and we are now not even allowed to call holidays by their proper names??? .. we need to protect those values.. we need to protect capitalism and our right to free trade and our rights and freedoms granted us in the Constitution.. we cannot allow a foreign power to gain control over our government or our Constitution.. for if we do it will be the end of America and our rights and freedoms as we know them.
So, the whining from the Obamas should never be ignored.. they need to have a reason to make us believe that their changes are what we need.. that we cannot possibly exist here without their socialist ideology and their hope and change.. We must make sure we let them know that if they want to whine they can go to Africa and then see how much they appreciate America.. I personally am sick and tired of them telling us all the things that are wrong or broken, including our souls.. they need to fix their own souls perhaps.. being as they are racists.. but leave our souls alone..we don't need a preacher.. we need a president.. Mr. McCain will provide us with that.
These two do need a Dr. Phil ..maybe it would improve their disposition and their their thinking..
"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline," he said. “You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession."
perhaps this guy has been listening to Obama and Michelle for awhile .. who keep telling us that we are all suffering from broken souls, that we are bitter, that we are clinging to our bibles and guns, that we are isolated, fearful, cynical, anti-social, depressed.. Geez.. talk about mental depression.. that is what they both project.. these two who are the most unqualified and unlikely to fill the shoes of the "king and queen" of the free world..these marxist/socialists that want to control every part of our lives and at our expense. gosh.. no wonder people get the impression that this country is such a sad place to live and raise our children.. they have been whining about it for a year now.. telling us all these things about our country that need fixing.. to them I would say...
I am PROUD of my country.. I am PROUD to be from the strongest country on earth that not only offers us the freedoms and rights like no other country, but participates in helping people and countries around the world to free themselves from oppression ..from the dictators and butchers of the worlds evil side.. to alleviate starvation and disease around the world, to share cultural and educational advantages to those who have little or none.. who offers assistance from brave men and women of our country to defend the lives of others who are helpless or who suffer from the ravages of nature..medical aid and procedures in hospitals here in the U.S. that change lives of children who would never otherwise survive or live a normal life, or provide people with things we take for granted, food, shelter, medicine, books, school supplies.. etc.
Does this mean we don't have things to fix in our country.. ??? of course not.. we do.. and we should..better care of our poor, health care for all, better education system, teaching kids to be responsible and to help others, looking after our earth and learning to be less dependant on energy that is not renewable or accessible, using alternative methods and resources..wind, wave and sun sources of providing energy .. eliminating from our society those who are bigots and racists whether it be individuals or organizations..
and learning to be thankful and show appreciation for all the wonderful advantages we have and take for granted every day.
Whatever we can do to improve life and lives, we should, and that includes making sure that the government is not turned over to those who would destroy the basics of our great country..it was founded on Christian values which are disappearing daily and we are now not even allowed to call holidays by their proper names??? .. we need to protect those values.. we need to protect capitalism and our right to free trade and our rights and freedoms granted us in the Constitution.. we cannot allow a foreign power to gain control over our government or our Constitution.. for if we do it will be the end of America and our rights and freedoms as we know them.
So, the whining from the Obamas should never be ignored.. they need to have a reason to make us believe that their changes are what we need.. that we cannot possibly exist here without their socialist ideology and their hope and change.. We must make sure we let them know that if they want to whine they can go to Africa and then see how much they appreciate America.. I personally am sick and tired of them telling us all the things that are wrong or broken, including our souls.. they need to fix their own souls perhaps.. being as they are racists.. but leave our souls alone..we don't need a preacher.. we need a president.. Mr. McCain will provide us with that.
These two do need a Dr. Phil ..maybe it would improve their disposition and their their thinking..
EVERY DEMOCRAT NEEDS TO SEE THIS
AND THEN THINK.. why is it that everyone in the world says he's a Muslim, most of all, all the Muslims??? and perhaps his claim to Christianity is just a cover?? but why would he choose to be a racist in the liberation theology church of Wrights rather than a Muslim?? I do not understand that unless there is a connection he does not want us to know about.. God knows he has enough already that would put the Chicago mafia to shame, but it does not make sense to choose to be a racist and hate monger of the Cones variety rather than just say you are a Muslim. There is something wrong with this picture. There are many decent muslims that live in our country.. but I don't know one racist that people would admire...does any of this make sense? Please watch this and then tell me you can honestly admire Obama as a person true to this country and it's people, someone who is not hiding anything or any connections or illegal support that we should know about.. someone that perhaps has an agenda that he is keeping private??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2737QUBxFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2737QUBxFY
OBAMA TALKS ABOUT FAITH??
The article below is what Obama wants us to believe.. he forgets that he has exposed himself and his beliefs to us already.. but he presents himself to us as a "new age messiah" and expects us to overlook all that we have in fact learned about him..THIS HAS TO BE THE HEIGHT OF ELITISM..and ARROGANCE.. here is the article:
Obama Addresses His Faith
Senator Describes Spiritual Journey
Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama is greeted enthusiastically at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in St.Louis By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 6, 2008; Page A01
ST. LOUIS, July 5 -- Sen. Barack Obama ended a week's focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make "faith-based" social service "a moral center of my administration."
The address, to one of the oldest and largest African American denominations, brought the senator from Illinois back to friendlier ground after a week's tour through Appalachian Ohio, conservative Missouri, the conservative stronghold of Colorado Springs, North Dakota and hardscrabble Montana. But in its religious tones, the address had a far wider intended audience.
"In my own life, " he said, "it's been a journey that began decades ago on the South Side of Chicago, when, working as a community organizer, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, that he could set me on the path to eternal life when I submitted myself to his will and I dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works."
He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. "The challenges we face today -- war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools -- are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan," he said. "They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in -- empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors -- these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws."
Of the two presumptive nominees for president, Obama has been far more outspoken about his religious beliefs than Sen. John McCain. Evangelical Christian leaders have remained skeptical, however, that Obama's faith comports with their own, especially given his support for gay and abortion rights.
James Dobson, the influential leader of Focus on the Family, last month accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology." Last week, some Christian conservatives sharply criticized Obama for unveiling a new campaign symbol for outreach to gay voters and for opposing efforts in California to pass a state constitutional amendment undoing a court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
But Obama said Saturday that he is optimistic about his ability to win support among evangelical Christians -- if not to win a majority of their votes, then at least to hold down McCain's margins. McCain has had his share of problems with the group since, after his losing 2000 campaign, he described some evangelical Christian leaders as agents of intolerance. Dobson, for instance, continues to say he will never vote for the Republican.
"If we show up," Obama told reporters aboard his campaign plane as he left Montana on Saturday, "if we let folks know that we're interested in them and we share a lot of common values, then we're not going to win 100 percent of the evangelical vote. We might not even win 50 percent of the evangelical vote. But we will at least take some of the sharp edges off this divide that's existed in our politics. And that hopefully will allow people to listen to each other, and that will help me govern over the long term."
Last month, Obama met for an extended session in Chicago with Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and the leader of the Graham ministry, along with about 30 other evangelical Christian leaders. McCain sought out an audience with Franklin and Billy Graham last week at the family's mountaintop retreat in western North Carolina.
On Monday and Tuesday, Obama will be back in Republican territory, campaigning in North Carolina and Georgia, where Christian conservatives remain a powerful force.
"Democrats can't shrink the map to win. I think we have to expand the map to win," he said. "And for a bunch of election cycles, we had such a narrow path to victory that if one thing went wrong, we were going to lose. I can't guarantee that we are going to win in any Southern state anymore than I can guarantee we're going to win in a place like Montana or North Dakota, but I can guarantee that we can give it a good shot."
Last week, Obama expressly came out against using "mental distress" as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives.
"Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman's right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family," he said Saturday. "And I've been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.
"It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases," he continued. But "it's not just a matter of feeling blue."
Such statements may run the risk of alienating Obama's liberal activist supporters. And Republicans have tried to counter all of Obama's moves to the center, framing them as proof that he is a typical politician without an ideological core, not the new breed of politician he says he is. The Republican National Committee accused him Saturday of flip-flopping on long-held beliefs regarding abortion.
But such moves could also broaden his appeal in battleground states and in Republican regions trending Democratic.
In his speech here, he tried to dispel the notion that he comes from Muslim roots, pointedly mentioning that his father, a Kenyan who left his family and returned to Africa when Obama was a small child, was an atheist.
Obama acknowledged how hard it has been for the campaign to dispel false rumors that he is Muslim or that he is not an American, as well as a sense among some voters that he lacks patriotism.
"In fairness to the American people, I am relatively new on the political scene, compared to a John McCain or a Hillary Clinton. My profile is not typical of a presidential nominee, not only because I'm African American, but I'm relatively young as a candidate," he said. "So it's not surprising that people are still getting to be familiar with what I've done, who I am, what I stand for. I do think it's been fed pretty systematically by e-mails that have been sent out. There's a concerted strategy to raise questions about me and to spread lies about my background, and in the Internet age, that's pretty effective.
"What's remarkable is that despite all that, things that have been going on since we announced -- I'm the nominee and have a pretty good shot at winning," he added.
IN SUMMARY.. HE SAYS HE WILL APPLY THE LESSONS OF HIS FAITH.. what lessons.. ??? to hate whites?? to blame whites?? that is the basis of the faith he has had.. and where does he get off trying to pass himself off as a Christian..?? no Christian preaches hate and harm to others.. no Christian preaches intolerance of those of different color or race.. and this is IRREFUTABLE.. he belonged to Trinity United and Cones black liberation theology for over 20 years.. there is not a chance in hell that he does believe anything but what he was taught.. (if so he would have left the racist church).. He cannot have it both ways.. he is a racist and hate monger because of his black liberation theology and he cannot turn around now and say "I'm a Christian and my beliefs are good and my religious values are good".. THEY ARE NOT.. HE IS A RACIST PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE..therefore.. he is NOT a Christian no matter what he says. He just does NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
He says: "So it's not surprising that people are still getting to be familiar with what I've done, who I am, what I stand for."..
Well, yeah.. we know you have done little to nothing in most areas.. you have been in the senate just a short time and what you have taken credit for was mostly prepared by others. Who you are.. well that is getting easier by the day.. you are politically very expedient, very inexperienced, though we can credit you with your expertise in Chicago Dailey Politics..you are arrogant, an opportunist of the highest degree, a proven liar many many times over about most things, a user of people (and then you throw them under the bus); we know you have no integrity, very poor judgement because of your choice of friends and acquaintances who range from criminals and bigots to terrorists and Islamic extremists and communists, you are so politically expedient and have shown that you will do and say ANYTHING to get a vote.. you sacrifice your principles and agenda in order to look "correct" or right.. and instead show us further proof of your indifference to all but furthering your own ambitions and seeking the coveted position you desire above all else.
LASTLY, what you stand for.. let's see.. you stand for racism, socialism, deceit, backstabbing, prevarication, partial birth abortions, Cones black liberation theology which means hate of whites; lack of integrity and poor judgement, lack of experience, elitism to the nth degree, arrogance, political expedience and "at all costs" attitude, jeopardizing core values for a vote, flip flopping on issues...inconsistency.. well..there is probably more but that will suffice to show what you stand for.. certainly nothing that America wants or needs.
In actuality he is an American but also a Kenyan and his whole family are muslim and some are Muslim (Islamic) extremists at this time..His father was a communist and he says in his book that he wants to emulate his father..who ended up an alcoholic which resulted in his death from a dui... There is so much inconsistent about his story..so much that is distorted in the version he gives that we cannot trust his word.. if we cannot trust his word we cannot vote for him and neither should anyone else that cannot see through this facade.. This man is not qualified to be president of the local dog pound never mind of our country and his representation of a "christian" is the biggest fallacy and pretense that he has yet tried. It will come back to bite him in the butt soon enough.
Obama Addresses His Faith
Senator Describes Spiritual Journey
Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama is greeted enthusiastically at a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in St.Louis By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 6, 2008; Page A01
ST. LOUIS, July 5 -- Sen. Barack Obama ended a week's focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make "faith-based" social service "a moral center of my administration."
The address, to one of the oldest and largest African American denominations, brought the senator from Illinois back to friendlier ground after a week's tour through Appalachian Ohio, conservative Missouri, the conservative stronghold of Colorado Springs, North Dakota and hardscrabble Montana. But in its religious tones, the address had a far wider intended audience.
"In my own life, " he said, "it's been a journey that began decades ago on the South Side of Chicago, when, working as a community organizer, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, that he could set me on the path to eternal life when I submitted myself to his will and I dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works."
He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. "The challenges we face today -- war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools -- are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan," he said. "They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in -- empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors -- these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws."
Of the two presumptive nominees for president, Obama has been far more outspoken about his religious beliefs than Sen. John McCain. Evangelical Christian leaders have remained skeptical, however, that Obama's faith comports with their own, especially given his support for gay and abortion rights.
James Dobson, the influential leader of Focus on the Family, last month accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology." Last week, some Christian conservatives sharply criticized Obama for unveiling a new campaign symbol for outreach to gay voters and for opposing efforts in California to pass a state constitutional amendment undoing a court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
But Obama said Saturday that he is optimistic about his ability to win support among evangelical Christians -- if not to win a majority of their votes, then at least to hold down McCain's margins. McCain has had his share of problems with the group since, after his losing 2000 campaign, he described some evangelical Christian leaders as agents of intolerance. Dobson, for instance, continues to say he will never vote for the Republican.
"If we show up," Obama told reporters aboard his campaign plane as he left Montana on Saturday, "if we let folks know that we're interested in them and we share a lot of common values, then we're not going to win 100 percent of the evangelical vote. We might not even win 50 percent of the evangelical vote. But we will at least take some of the sharp edges off this divide that's existed in our politics. And that hopefully will allow people to listen to each other, and that will help me govern over the long term."
Last month, Obama met for an extended session in Chicago with Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and the leader of the Graham ministry, along with about 30 other evangelical Christian leaders. McCain sought out an audience with Franklin and Billy Graham last week at the family's mountaintop retreat in western North Carolina.
On Monday and Tuesday, Obama will be back in Republican territory, campaigning in North Carolina and Georgia, where Christian conservatives remain a powerful force.
"Democrats can't shrink the map to win. I think we have to expand the map to win," he said. "And for a bunch of election cycles, we had such a narrow path to victory that if one thing went wrong, we were going to lose. I can't guarantee that we are going to win in any Southern state anymore than I can guarantee we're going to win in a place like Montana or North Dakota, but I can guarantee that we can give it a good shot."
Last week, Obama expressly came out against using "mental distress" as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives.
"Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman's right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family," he said Saturday. "And I've been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.
"It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases," he continued. But "it's not just a matter of feeling blue."
Such statements may run the risk of alienating Obama's liberal activist supporters. And Republicans have tried to counter all of Obama's moves to the center, framing them as proof that he is a typical politician without an ideological core, not the new breed of politician he says he is. The Republican National Committee accused him Saturday of flip-flopping on long-held beliefs regarding abortion.
But such moves could also broaden his appeal in battleground states and in Republican regions trending Democratic.
In his speech here, he tried to dispel the notion that he comes from Muslim roots, pointedly mentioning that his father, a Kenyan who left his family and returned to Africa when Obama was a small child, was an atheist.
Obama acknowledged how hard it has been for the campaign to dispel false rumors that he is Muslim or that he is not an American, as well as a sense among some voters that he lacks patriotism.
"In fairness to the American people, I am relatively new on the political scene, compared to a John McCain or a Hillary Clinton. My profile is not typical of a presidential nominee, not only because I'm African American, but I'm relatively young as a candidate," he said. "So it's not surprising that people are still getting to be familiar with what I've done, who I am, what I stand for. I do think it's been fed pretty systematically by e-mails that have been sent out. There's a concerted strategy to raise questions about me and to spread lies about my background, and in the Internet age, that's pretty effective.
"What's remarkable is that despite all that, things that have been going on since we announced -- I'm the nominee and have a pretty good shot at winning," he added.
IN SUMMARY.. HE SAYS HE WILL APPLY THE LESSONS OF HIS FAITH.. what lessons.. ??? to hate whites?? to blame whites?? that is the basis of the faith he has had.. and where does he get off trying to pass himself off as a Christian..?? no Christian preaches hate and harm to others.. no Christian preaches intolerance of those of different color or race.. and this is IRREFUTABLE.. he belonged to Trinity United and Cones black liberation theology for over 20 years.. there is not a chance in hell that he does believe anything but what he was taught.. (if so he would have left the racist church).. He cannot have it both ways.. he is a racist and hate monger because of his black liberation theology and he cannot turn around now and say "I'm a Christian and my beliefs are good and my religious values are good".. THEY ARE NOT.. HE IS A RACIST PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE..therefore.. he is NOT a Christian no matter what he says. He just does NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
He says: "So it's not surprising that people are still getting to be familiar with what I've done, who I am, what I stand for."..
Well, yeah.. we know you have done little to nothing in most areas.. you have been in the senate just a short time and what you have taken credit for was mostly prepared by others. Who you are.. well that is getting easier by the day.. you are politically very expedient, very inexperienced, though we can credit you with your expertise in Chicago Dailey Politics..you are arrogant, an opportunist of the highest degree, a proven liar many many times over about most things, a user of people (and then you throw them under the bus); we know you have no integrity, very poor judgement because of your choice of friends and acquaintances who range from criminals and bigots to terrorists and Islamic extremists and communists, you are so politically expedient and have shown that you will do and say ANYTHING to get a vote.. you sacrifice your principles and agenda in order to look "correct" or right.. and instead show us further proof of your indifference to all but furthering your own ambitions and seeking the coveted position you desire above all else.
LASTLY, what you stand for.. let's see.. you stand for racism, socialism, deceit, backstabbing, prevarication, partial birth abortions, Cones black liberation theology which means hate of whites; lack of integrity and poor judgement, lack of experience, elitism to the nth degree, arrogance, political expedience and "at all costs" attitude, jeopardizing core values for a vote, flip flopping on issues...inconsistency.. well..there is probably more but that will suffice to show what you stand for.. certainly nothing that America wants or needs.
In actuality he is an American but also a Kenyan and his whole family are muslim and some are Muslim (Islamic) extremists at this time..His father was a communist and he says in his book that he wants to emulate his father..who ended up an alcoholic which resulted in his death from a dui... There is so much inconsistent about his story..so much that is distorted in the version he gives that we cannot trust his word.. if we cannot trust his word we cannot vote for him and neither should anyone else that cannot see through this facade.. This man is not qualified to be president of the local dog pound never mind of our country and his representation of a "christian" is the biggest fallacy and pretense that he has yet tried. It will come back to bite him in the butt soon enough.
OBAMAS FLIP FLOPS CONTINUE TO OUTDO EACH OTHER.....
By The Numbers: Barack Obama's Vote Against Funding Our Veterans and Our Troops
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, Barack Obama travels to North Dakota for an event focused on our veterans. Yet, in 2007, only 13 days after saying he would vote to support our military men and women in Iraq, Barack Obama opposed billions in critical funding that our troops needed in a political move to satisfy his base. This included over a billion in funding for our veterans. In the end, Barack Obama's talk about supporting our military and our veterans were just empty words:
IN 13 DAYS, BARACK OBAMA WENT FROM SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ TO VOTING AGAINST IT
On May 13, 2007, Barack Obama Supported Funding To Give Our Men And Women The Equipment They Need In Iraq:
Barack Obama Told ABC's George Stephanopoulos That He Supported Funding To Give Troops The Equipment They Need. Stephanopoulos: "[Y]ou said then you have to say 'no' to George Bush because we can't get steamrolled. Yet you go in the Senate, your critics say, and vote for the funding every single time." Obama: "Because at that point you've got hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have to carry out the mission on behalf of the American people. It's not their fault that our civilian leadership made bad decisions and what I wanted to make sure of was that they had night vision goggles that they needed, the Humvees that they needed and I also felt and I've continued to feel this way that if we could create some semblance of stability and success in Iraq, that would be a good thing." (ABC's "This Week," 5/13/07)
· Watch Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O92kf_zKlC4
Thirteen Days Later On May 24, 2007, Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For Our Troops On The Group:
Barack Obama Was One Of Only 14 U.S. Senators To Vote Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
· "Courting The Anti-War Constituency, Democratic Presidential Rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton And Barack Obama Both Voted Against Legislation That Pays For The Iraq War But Lacks A Timeline For Troop Withdrawal." (Liz Sidoti, "Clinton, Obama Vote 'No' On Iraq Bill," The Associated Press, 5/25/07)
By The Numbers: What Barack Obama's No Vote Could Have Meant For America's Veterans:
· $595 million for medical facilities
· $228.982 million in additional funds to treat veterans of the global war on terror
· $20 million for vet centers and re-adjustment counseling
· $30 million to establish at least one new Level I comprehensive polytrauma center
· $9.4 million for operations costs associated with the establishment of new polytrauma residential transitional rehabilitation programs
· $10 million for additional transition caseworkers to work with separating veterans and their families
· $10 million for rehabilitation programs for vision impaired veterans
· $100 million for enhancements to mental health services
· $20 mi llion for substance abuse treatment programs
· $8 million for poly trauma clinic support teams
· $25 million for prosthetics
· $250 million for the administration of the VA health care system
· $32.5 million for medical and prosthetic research
· $83.2 million for general operating expenses
· $326 million in construction funding for VA-identified needs
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, Barack Obama travels to North Dakota for an event focused on our veterans. Yet, in 2007, only 13 days after saying he would vote to support our military men and women in Iraq, Barack Obama opposed billions in critical funding that our troops needed in a political move to satisfy his base. This included over a billion in funding for our veterans. In the end, Barack Obama's talk about supporting our military and our veterans were just empty words:
IN 13 DAYS, BARACK OBAMA WENT FROM SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ TO VOTING AGAINST IT
On May 13, 2007, Barack Obama Supported Funding To Give Our Men And Women The Equipment They Need In Iraq:
Barack Obama Told ABC's George Stephanopoulos That He Supported Funding To Give Troops The Equipment They Need. Stephanopoulos: "[Y]ou said then you have to say 'no' to George Bush because we can't get steamrolled. Yet you go in the Senate, your critics say, and vote for the funding every single time." Obama: "Because at that point you've got hundreds of thousands of young men and women who have to carry out the mission on behalf of the American people. It's not their fault that our civilian leadership made bad decisions and what I wanted to make sure of was that they had night vision goggles that they needed, the Humvees that they needed and I also felt and I've continued to feel this way that if we could create some semblance of stability and success in Iraq, that would be a good thing." (ABC's "This Week," 5/13/07)
· Watch Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O92kf_zKlC4
Thirteen Days Later On May 24, 2007, Barack Obama Voted Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For Our Troops On The Group:
Barack Obama Was One Of Only 14 U.S. Senators To Vote Against Providing $94.4 Billion In Critical Funding For The Troops In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Obama Voted Nay)
· "Courting The Anti-War Constituency, Democratic Presidential Rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton And Barack Obama Both Voted Against Legislation That Pays For The Iraq War But Lacks A Timeline For Troop Withdrawal." (Liz Sidoti, "Clinton, Obama Vote 'No' On Iraq Bill," The Associated Press, 5/25/07)
By The Numbers: What Barack Obama's No Vote Could Have Meant For America's Veterans:
· $595 million for medical facilities
· $228.982 million in additional funds to treat veterans of the global war on terror
· $20 million for vet centers and re-adjustment counseling
· $30 million to establish at least one new Level I comprehensive polytrauma center
· $9.4 million for operations costs associated with the establishment of new polytrauma residential transitional rehabilitation programs
· $10 million for additional transition caseworkers to work with separating veterans and their families
· $10 million for rehabilitation programs for vision impaired veterans
· $100 million for enhancements to mental health services
· $20 mi llion for substance abuse treatment programs
· $8 million for poly trauma clinic support teams
· $25 million for prosthetics
· $250 million for the administration of the VA health care system
· $32.5 million for medical and prosthetic research
· $83.2 million for general operating expenses
· $326 million in construction funding for VA-identified needs
Savage refers to Pelosi as Mussolini...
I don't agree with everything Savage says..but he is right on when it comes to this one.. tho..just look at this phoney witch..the democrats deserve her ..she looks like she just escaped from a mental institution.. this was in response to Stacey Wards post.. she has me blocked so I could not answer...
MORE NEW LIES OF OBAMA
NOW BEING PLAYED IN MANY STATES.. A NEW OBAMA AD THAT MAKES CLAIMS ABOUT OBAMA THAT ARE "totally and utterly false claims" and backs up my past quotes about Obama being a total liar and deceiver.. One of the items in his new ad claim that he moved people from "WELFARE TO WORK" an out and out lie.. for when the legislation (Welfare reform) went through OBAMA VOTED AGAINST IT.. how bloody hypocritical can you get??
When are people going to realize that almost everything that comes out of this empty suit is either a lie, a speech written by someone else, a flip flop on issues, a marxist ideology, deceit about his authorship of legislation, and just more lies.. lies ... and lies..it seems unending and I believe it is time to make him accountable. The old saying.. "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time.. but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" comes to mind here.
I am fed up with someone running for the presidency presenting lies for policy, lies for experience, lies for background, lies for accomplishments and even lies for family background.. it is time Barack Hussein Obama owned up to all his plain old fashioned BULLSHIT .. America deserves better and expects better.. he should pack it in and give Hillary a chance if that is the best he can do is continuously lie to us.
When are people going to realize that almost everything that comes out of this empty suit is either a lie, a speech written by someone else, a flip flop on issues, a marxist ideology, deceit about his authorship of legislation, and just more lies.. lies ... and lies..it seems unending and I believe it is time to make him accountable. The old saying.. "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of the people some of the time.. but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" comes to mind here.
I am fed up with someone running for the presidency presenting lies for policy, lies for experience, lies for background, lies for accomplishments and even lies for family background.. it is time Barack Hussein Obama owned up to all his plain old fashioned BULLSHIT .. America deserves better and expects better.. he should pack it in and give Hillary a chance if that is the best he can do is continuously lie to us.
OBAMA, ODINGA AND THE KENYAN JIHAD
I reported on Barack Obama’s active support of Kenyan jihadi candidate and Obama cousin Raila Odinga. What escaped mention was Odinga’s explicit plan to turn Kenya into an Al Qaeda terrorist incubator. A close analysis of Odinga’s agreement with Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi shows that — if Odinga had been elected as Kenyan president last fall — he would have made it impossible under Kenyan law for “any Muslim arrested for or suspected of Terrorism” to be tried anywhere but Kenya under Kenyan law. That law, in turn, would henceforth be exclusively Shariah law in “Muslim declared regions” — the “coast” and “North Eastern regions” of the country – see the map, below — now visited by hundreds of thousands of western tourists each year.
It is no coincidence that this area of Kenya borders Somalia – for many years an Al Qaeda stronghold — site of the Clinton administration’s version of the Bay of Pigs, in Mogadishu, the event that serves as the basis for the movie Black Hawk Down. Also noteworthy is Kenya’s proximity to Tanzania, focus of much of George Bush’s efforts to save Africa and, arguably, where Bush is today most loved in the world.
In these “Muslim declared” regions, the Odinga-Abdi agreement would outlaw – among other things – Farmer’s Choice, pork, other “haram products” and “women’s public dressing styles considered immoral or offensive to the Muslim faith” for all women, not just Muslims. At the same time, Odinga would establish a Sharia law court in every Kenyan “divisional headquarters.” One foreseeable result of these machinations is that Al Qaeda would be safe-havened in Kenya, free to foment mahem and terror around the world. Little wonder that Louis Farrakhan has endorsed Obama for president.
The question every Democrat should be asking is how any American president – as Barack Obama seeks to become – could support a scheme so obviously designed to further the global jihad? Restated: With Americans like Obama, who needs Al Qaeda?
Conservative Republicans face a related question: In light of this information, could you in good conscience not vote for John McCain in November if the Dems stupidly choose Obama as their “daddy”?
Kurt Schulzke
It is no coincidence that this area of Kenya borders Somalia – for many years an Al Qaeda stronghold — site of the Clinton administration’s version of the Bay of Pigs, in Mogadishu, the event that serves as the basis for the movie Black Hawk Down. Also noteworthy is Kenya’s proximity to Tanzania, focus of much of George Bush’s efforts to save Africa and, arguably, where Bush is today most loved in the world.
In these “Muslim declared” regions, the Odinga-Abdi agreement would outlaw – among other things – Farmer’s Choice, pork, other “haram products” and “women’s public dressing styles considered immoral or offensive to the Muslim faith” for all women, not just Muslims. At the same time, Odinga would establish a Sharia law court in every Kenyan “divisional headquarters.” One foreseeable result of these machinations is that Al Qaeda would be safe-havened in Kenya, free to foment mahem and terror around the world. Little wonder that Louis Farrakhan has endorsed Obama for president.
The question every Democrat should be asking is how any American president – as Barack Obama seeks to become – could support a scheme so obviously designed to further the global jihad? Restated: With Americans like Obama, who needs Al Qaeda?
Conservative Republicans face a related question: In light of this information, could you in good conscience not vote for John McCain in November if the Dems stupidly choose Obama as their “daddy”?
Kurt Schulzke
Confusion ..WHAT DID MICHELLE OBAMA MEAN??
The wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke Thursday night in New York City at a fundraising dinner for the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council.
She spoke about her husband's record pushing for workplace discrimination legislation in Illinois when he served in the Legislature there.
Barack Obama has said it should be up to individual states to decide whether to allow gay marriage. Michelle Obama says he wants equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law.
this phrase...
"She spoke about her husband's record pushing for workplace discrimination legislation in Illinois when he served in the Legislature there."
is then explained when you read below that it was a bill that was put through by Senators Kennedy and Lewis, NOT OBAMA and 19 other senators are named as co-sponsors including Clinton and Obama
and this speech was addressed to the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council and there was no mention of them in the statement below..everyone else.. but not gays or lesbians.. ?? So what was the point of her message.. ??
WASHINGTON, DC-- Today, Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Congressman John Lewis, along with more than a dozen Senate colleagues, introduced the Civil Rights Act of 2008, which will strengthen accountability when civil rights and workers' rights are violated.
Recent court decisions have weakened America's civil rights laws in ways that Congress never intended. This legislation will ensure accountability for violations of our civil rights and fair labor laws and give individuals the right to challenge practices that have unjustified discriminatory effect based on race, color, national origin, disability, age or gender. It also gives students the same protection from harassment in school that workers have on the job, and holds employers fully accountable for age discrimination and discrimination against our men and women in the armed services.
The Civil Rights Act of 2008 is co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Dodd, Lautenberg, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer, Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Clinton, Obama, Menendez, Cardin, and Brown.
She spoke about her husband's record pushing for workplace discrimination legislation in Illinois when he served in the Legislature there.
Barack Obama has said it should be up to individual states to decide whether to allow gay marriage. Michelle Obama says he wants equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law.
this phrase...
"She spoke about her husband's record pushing for workplace discrimination legislation in Illinois when he served in the Legislature there."
is then explained when you read below that it was a bill that was put through by Senators Kennedy and Lewis, NOT OBAMA and 19 other senators are named as co-sponsors including Clinton and Obama
and this speech was addressed to the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council and there was no mention of them in the statement below..everyone else.. but not gays or lesbians.. ?? So what was the point of her message.. ??
WASHINGTON, DC-- Today, Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Congressman John Lewis, along with more than a dozen Senate colleagues, introduced the Civil Rights Act of 2008, which will strengthen accountability when civil rights and workers' rights are violated.
Recent court decisions have weakened America's civil rights laws in ways that Congress never intended. This legislation will ensure accountability for violations of our civil rights and fair labor laws and give individuals the right to challenge practices that have unjustified discriminatory effect based on race, color, national origin, disability, age or gender. It also gives students the same protection from harassment in school that workers have on the job, and holds employers fully accountable for age discrimination and discrimination against our men and women in the armed services.
The Civil Rights Act of 2008 is co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Dodd, Lautenberg, Bingaman, Kerry, Harkin, Mikulski, Akaka, Boxer, Feingold, Murray, Durbin, Schumer, Cantwell, Clinton, Obama, Menendez, Cardin, and Brown.
HOUNDS CREDO and INVITATION
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO STACEY WARDS POST... A BLOG ABOUT HOUNDS.. (HILLARY OBAMA UNITED NOT DIVIDED)
SORRY.. there is no way in hell that you can expect any positive reaction to this request...
"So, we are asking all PUMA members to curb your disappointment, mute your anger and frustration and join HOUND to help change America. While the PUMA may be more swift and athletic, the HOUND is smarter and more perceptive."
and here is the reason why..
The puma preys on most species of mammals but seems to prefer deer. It is a powerful and expert hunter and can jump up to 18feet upwards in a single bound! By nature active both day and night, it has become strictly nocturnal in areas inhabited by man, its ONLY enemy apart from wolves. ..(note..NOT HOUNDS)
the puma can run very fast, as much as 45 mph, and because they can jump 30 ft (10 m) forward from a standing position, they can very easily catch slower animals. Pumas can jump 18 ft (6 m) straight up and can climb on rocks and in trees to hunt. Their bite is very strong, much stronger than a strong dog's bite, and their largest teeth are about twice the size of a large dog's teeth.
Pumas have a very powerful hunting instinct, and have sometimes been known to chase and catch humans on bicycles. A favorite food for pumas is the deer, but they will also eat smaller animals. In areas where pumas and people live close together, pumas have hunted dogs for food. Pumas live on average twice as long as hounds.
SO THERE YOU HAVE IT... Not only do we want to disassociate ourselves from the DNC, the Democratic party, but also Obama.. none of them have anything we want and we will never vote for Obama ..even if Hillary was on the ticket. We are supporting McCain and you can take your pipe dream.. or that of Mr. Rendell, and put it where the sun don't shine. In other words.. thanks but no thanks.
SORRY.. there is no way in hell that you can expect any positive reaction to this request...
"So, we are asking all PUMA members to curb your disappointment, mute your anger and frustration and join HOUND to help change America. While the PUMA may be more swift and athletic, the HOUND is smarter and more perceptive."
and here is the reason why..
The puma preys on most species of mammals but seems to prefer deer. It is a powerful and expert hunter and can jump up to 18feet upwards in a single bound! By nature active both day and night, it has become strictly nocturnal in areas inhabited by man, its ONLY enemy apart from wolves. ..(note..NOT HOUNDS)
the puma can run very fast, as much as 45 mph, and because they can jump 30 ft (10 m) forward from a standing position, they can very easily catch slower animals. Pumas can jump 18 ft (6 m) straight up and can climb on rocks and in trees to hunt. Their bite is very strong, much stronger than a strong dog's bite, and their largest teeth are about twice the size of a large dog's teeth.
Pumas have a very powerful hunting instinct, and have sometimes been known to chase and catch humans on bicycles. A favorite food for pumas is the deer, but they will also eat smaller animals. In areas where pumas and people live close together, pumas have hunted dogs for food. Pumas live on average twice as long as hounds.
SO THERE YOU HAVE IT... Not only do we want to disassociate ourselves from the DNC, the Democratic party, but also Obama.. none of them have anything we want and we will never vote for Obama ..even if Hillary was on the ticket. We are supporting McCain and you can take your pipe dream.. or that of Mr. Rendell, and put it where the sun don't shine. In other words.. thanks but no thanks.
THE CHICKEN PHILOSPHY
John the farmer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets', and ten roosters, whose job it was to fertilize the eggs.
The farmer kept records and any rooster that didn't perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time, so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so John could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.
The farmer's favorite rooster was old Butch, a very fine specimen he was, too But on this particular morning John noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! John went to investigate. The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.
But to Farmer John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result...The judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making: who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.
Vote carefully this year...the bells are not always audible.
The farmer kept records and any rooster that didn't perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time, so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so John could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.
The farmer's favorite rooster was old Butch, a very fine specimen he was, too But on this particular morning John noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! John went to investigate. The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.
But to Farmer John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result...The judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making: who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.
Vote carefully this year...the bells are not always audible.
HOW HYPOCRITICAL CAN WE GET???
Listening to the news this morning..Obama has now declared that he will be having "faith forums" with the Evangelicals. First of all the only religious training other than as a small child is in Cones Black liberation theology which is not Christian even, and is in fact based on hate of whites and marxism. What on earth could he have to share with them about that and why would they listen to anything he has to say about religion?
It seems to me just another example of that he will do anything, no matter how ridiculous and how phoney to get votes.
It seems to me just another example of that he will do anything, no matter how ridiculous and how phoney to get votes.
This is a sign of party unity???
Hillary Clinton got booed at a New Hampshire Democratic party dinner,earlier this week.This was the largest political dinner in New Hampshire history.Time-blog.com reported :
The first time was when she said she has always and will continue to work for “change for you. The audience, particularly from Obama supporters (they were waving Obama signs) let out a noise that sounded like a thousand people collectively groaning. The second time came a few minutes later when Clinton said: “Then there are two big questions for voters in New Hampshire. One is: who will be ready to lead from day one? The second,” and here Clinton was forced to pause as boos from the crowd mixed with cheers from her own supporters. “Is who can we nominate who will go the distance against the Republicans?”
Why does Hillary put herself through this nasty and disgraceful behaviour..If that was Obama on the other hand he would leave and never come back.
The first time was when she said she has always and will continue to work for “change for you. The audience, particularly from Obama supporters (they were waving Obama signs) let out a noise that sounded like a thousand people collectively groaning. The second time came a few minutes later when Clinton said: “Then there are two big questions for voters in New Hampshire. One is: who will be ready to lead from day one? The second,” and here Clinton was forced to pause as boos from the crowd mixed with cheers from her own supporters. “Is who can we nominate who will go the distance against the Republicans?”
Why does Hillary put herself through this nasty and disgraceful behaviour..If that was Obama on the other hand he would leave and never come back.
Carnage of Obama..is this what is coming?
By: Rick Pedraza
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton believes Israel will stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in November.
Bolton, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, believes the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20 of next year.
In an interview with FOX News, Bolton says, "I think if they are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President."
Bolton reasons Israel won’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given the Illinois senator's intended foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic.
"I don’t think they [the Israeli government] will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it,” he says, adding, “They’d have to make a judgment whether to [strike] during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor."
Bolton points to Obama’s statements in which he says he would engage Iran in direct talks and take the military option for dealing with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons off the table, a position he believes will further embolden Tehran to build a nuclear bomb.
In a related interview with The Telegraph, Bolton says he believes Arab countries will support an Israeli strike, effectively ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, while publicly denouncing it.
Their reaction, he tells the British paper, "will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations, but no action."
Bolton thinks Israel may consider postponing the attack, however, if Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., emerges as the victor in the presidential race. He says McCain's stance on Iran “is far more realistic than that of the Bush administration.”
Bolton doubts Iran would respond immediately with a counterstrike of its own, partially because Tehran would fear an American reprisal.
Earlier this month, Israel held a massive air force exercise over Greece that U.S., Israeli and Greek sources later confirmed was a test run for a strike on Iran's main uranium enrichment plant.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton believes Israel will stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in November.
Bolton, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, believes the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20 of next year.
In an interview with FOX News, Bolton says, "I think if they are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President."
Bolton reasons Israel won’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given the Illinois senator's intended foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic.
"I don’t think they [the Israeli government] will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it,” he says, adding, “They’d have to make a judgment whether to [strike] during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor."
Bolton points to Obama’s statements in which he says he would engage Iran in direct talks and take the military option for dealing with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons off the table, a position he believes will further embolden Tehran to build a nuclear bomb.
In a related interview with The Telegraph, Bolton says he believes Arab countries will support an Israeli strike, effectively ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, while publicly denouncing it.
Their reaction, he tells the British paper, "will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations, but no action."
Bolton thinks Israel may consider postponing the attack, however, if Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., emerges as the victor in the presidential race. He says McCain's stance on Iran “is far more realistic than that of the Bush administration.”
Bolton doubts Iran would respond immediately with a counterstrike of its own, partially because Tehran would fear an American reprisal.
Earlier this month, Israel held a massive air force exercise over Greece that U.S., Israeli and Greek sources later confirmed was a test run for a strike on Iran's main uranium enrichment plant.