Barack Obama: spawn of a black African father and a white American mother

[Rasp]

Obanana accused of distorting the Bible

Barack Obama accused of distorting the Bible by evangelical leader James Dobson

A leading Christian evangelical has blasted Senator Barack Obama for dragging the Bible "through the gutter" and having a "fruitcake interpretation" of the United States constitution.

The broadside from James Dobson, head of the conservative Focus on the Family group, threatens to blunt Mr Obama's attempts to court evangelical voters, who traditionally vote overwhelmingly for Republicans.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Mr D
obson said.

He added: "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

In his radio show, Mr Dobson accused the Democratic presidential nominee of twisting Biblical passages like Leviticus, which Mr Obama said suggests slavery is acceptable and eating shellfish is an abomination.

He took exception to Mr Obama stating that Jesus's Sermon on the Mount was "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defence Department would survive its application".

By supporting abortion rights, Mr Obama was trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality" and supporting "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution".

Mr Dobson's ire was concentrated on a June 2006 speech that Mr Obama gave to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

The Obama campaign had previously indicated that the candidate would like to meet Mr Dobson.

The Focus on the Family leader has said he could not vote for Senator John McCain, the Republican
nominee, because of concerns over his conservative credentials.

Mr McCain had wanted to meet Mr Dobson but the evangelical leader said he would only meet the Arizona senator if he travelled to his Colorado headquarters.

Christian evangelicals could decide the 2008 election if significant numbers of them defect to Mr Obama - or even if they decide to stay at home rather than voting for Mr McCain.

 

[Taylor]

Is Obama's birth certificate a fake? The plot thickens

Faked certificate suggests that Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen

June 24, 2008


It is now a certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake.

The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.

The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, on
e with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.

That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.

Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.

An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same
official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.

Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."

Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.

(for image link) http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

So if he were re
gistered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama -- because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" -- must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to
refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.

Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations
might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified?

There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking.

Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended t
ime abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.

But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.

Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof. Talk about the audacity of hope.

But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying th
at a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.

The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting.

There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate -- if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land.

The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run for President.

If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now.

Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive
proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality.

 

[ZKR]

Vandals Tag 60 Cars With Anti-Obama Graffiti

​

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Vandals have spray-painted 60 city vehicles in Orlando, some with messages against Sen. Barack Obama.

The cars were parked across from city hall late Saturday night. Investigators say the culprits tagged notes such as "Obama smokes crack" and a racial epithet. They even left business cards on each vehicle.

Witness Mike Lowe first told police about the damage. He saw three cars with anti-Obama messages, while the others were just heavily painted.

"I'm driving by and every car I see has been hit with spray paint," Lowe said told WKMG-TV. "There is so much damage to them. There is messages written o
n them and the vandals left their business card, which is crazy."

The business cards disparage both Obama and Sen. John McCain but have messages of support for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Police also found that many of the vehicles had open gas tanks.

Orlando police are investigating.

 

[White Sail]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080701/cm_usatoday/obamasrealpatriotismproblem

Obama's real patriotism problem
Tue Jul 1, 12:16 AM ET
By Jonah Goldberg

Barack Obama has a patriotism problem that even Monday's flag-waving trip to Independence, Mo., can't squelch. And it doesn't have anything to do with his lapel pin.

In part because liberal commentators have such a hard time grasping why patriotism should be an issue at all, and the GOP is so clumsy explaining why it's important, the debate often gets boiled down to symbols. Like so much else about Obama, his position on the lapel flag changes with the needs of the moment. After 9/11, he wore it. During the debates over the Iraq war, he stopped because he saw the flag as a sign of support for President Bush. (He started wearing it again i
n May.) "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he added in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Read that line again: "What I believe will make this country great."

Not to sound too much like a Jewish mother, but some might respond, "What? It's not great now?"

This sense that America is in need of fixing in order to be a great country points to Obama's real patriotism problem. And it's not Obama's alone.

'Fundamentally good'

Definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the American context patriotism must involve not only devotion to American texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from European nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix thi
s or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is.

It's the "good as it is" part that has vexed many on the left since at least the Progressive era. Marxists and other revolutionaries obviously don't believe entrepreneurial and religious America is good as it is. But even more mainstream figures have a problem distinguishing patriotic reform from reformation. Many progressives in the 1920s considered the American hinterlands a vast sea of yokels and boobs, incapable of grasping how much they needed what the activists were selling.

The Nation ran a famous series then called "These United States," in which smug emissaries from East Coast cities chronicled the "backward" attitudes of what today would be called fly-over country. One correspondent proclaimed that in "backwoods" New York (i.e. outside the Big Apple): "Resistance to change is their most sacred principle." If that was their attitude to New York, it shouldn't sur
prise that they felt even worse about the South. One author explained that Dixie needed nothing less than an invasion of liberal "missionaries" so that the "light of civilization" might finally be glimpsed down there. These authors simply assumed, writes intellectual historian Christopher Lasch, that " 'breaking with the past' was the precondition of cultural and political advance." Even today, writes Time's Joe Klein, "This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right."

Echoes of these attitudes can be found in Obama's now infamous explanation that "bitter" working-class rural voters won't embrace him because they "cling" to God, guns and bigotry. But Obama's sometimes messianic rhetoric about "remaking" America — and the explicitly revolutionary aesthetics of his campaign — also rings a bell. "I am absolutely certain," he proclaimed upon clinching the Democratic nomination, "that generations from now, we will be able
to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." So wait, America never provided care for the sick or good jobs for the jobless until St. Barack arrived? That doesn't sound like the country most Americans think of when they wave their flags on the Fourth of July.

Obama went on to say that he will "remake" the country. Well, what if you don't want it remade? And Michelle Obama — who believes America is "downright mean" and is proud of America for the first time because of her husband's success — insists that Barack will make you "work" for change and that he will "demand that you, too, be different." What if you don't want to work for Obama's change? What if you don't want to be "different"?

America's 'Jedi Knight'

Liberals might giggle at what
to them sounds like paranoia. But if you aren't already entranced by Obama, Obamania can seem not only vaguely anti-American but also downright otherworldly. Star Wars creator George Lucas recently proclaimed that it's "reasonably obvious" Obama is a Jedi Knight. Mark Morford, a particularly loopy San Francisco Chronicle columnist, says Obama isn't really "one of us." Rather, he's a "Lightworker," the sort of being who can help us find "a new way of being on the planet." Self-help guru Deepak Chopra insists that an Obama victory would bring about "a quantum leap in American consciousness." Even NBC's Chris Matthews has been entranced by Obama's Jedi mind tricks. Obamania, he says, is "bigger than Kennedy. … This is the New Testament."

The notion that what America needs is a redeemer figure to "remake" America from scratch isn't necessarily unpatriotic. But for lots of Americans who like America the way it is, it's sometimes hard to tell when it isn't.

 

[Cali4yaokie]

Re: Is Obama's birth certificate a fake? The plot thickens

I think its a fake also. They intentionally blacked out the certificate ##. And I see no state seal markings either. Typical Nigger BS.

Faked certificate suggests that Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen

June 24, 2008


It is now a certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake.

The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.

The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's re
velation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.

That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.

Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior
Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.

An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.

Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."

Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 b
irth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.

(for image link) http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama -- because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" -- must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very lo
w resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.

Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II,
as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified?

There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking.


Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.

But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.

Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and
hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof. Talk about the audacity of hope.

But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.

The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting.

There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate -- if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land.

The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run
for President.

If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now.

Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality.

 

[madkins]

*

WhiteCivilRights.com

Google Is Shutting Down Anti-Obama Blogs

July 1, 2008

by Ian Mosley

Internet news commentator Warner Todd Huston’s latest article reports “It looks like Google has officially joined the Barack Obama campaign, and decided that its contribution will be to shut down any blog on the Google-owned Blogspot.com blogging system that has an anti-Obama message. …Google has begun to go through its many thousands of blogs to lock out the owners of anti-Obama blogs so that the noObama message is effectively squelched. Thus far, Google has terminated the access by blog owners to 7 such sites and the list may be growing.”��”��

The “blogosphere”��”�� has become a powerful and influential propaganda weapon, and it
is understandable why the mysterious and as yet unidentified forces which are behind the Barack Obama phenomenon would want to deny access to the blogosphere to anyone who is critical of their new, American cult figure.

The article continues “It isn’t just conservative sites that Google’s Blogger platform is eliminating. For instance, www.comealongway.blogspot.com has been frozen and this one is a Hillary-supporting site….All I can say is, WOW! If Google is willing to abuse its power like this even against fellow leftists, what does it plan against conservatives, the folks Google hates even more!? …So, it looks like what we have here is an Obama dirty trick to shut down political opposition. Looks like Obmatons aren’t much for that whole democracy thing, eh?”��”��

It is still unclear exactly what is going on in the upper echelons of power with the Obama phenomenon, but someone has tapped this young Black nobody for the gold ring, and that someone has power to spare. The media
has convinced millions of people to donate to Obama. Most of Obama’s popularity comes from the fact that he has stolen the anti-war issue from Ron Paul even though it’s dubious whether he will end the war any sooner than McCain. Whoever it is backing Obama also appears to have enough juice to lean on Google and start shutting down opposition on the Internet. Hopefully it’s just hackers who are friendly to Obama. Hopefully it’s not the government paving the way for the next CFR-approved two-party stooge.

Skara Brae,

madkins

*Google Images

 

[ZKR]

Five Reasons Not to Vote for Obama

Traditionally, the presidential election is a time to select a candidate, to vote for someone. The 2008 election will prove to be a different sort of election, however: one wherein a conservative's focus might not necessarily be who to vote for, but who to vote against. Barack Obama is a dangerous political opponent for John McCain. This isn't necessarily because he poses a strong threat as a candidate, but because his following's loyalty borders on fanatic obsession. John McCain might not be your ideal Republican candidate, but he deserves your vote precisely for who he isn't: Barack Obama. What follows are the five reasons I'm voting for John McCain and against Barack Obama.

Reason #1


If Barack Obama is defined by the company he keeps, he's a racist, anti-American extremist. From Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers to Bernadine Dohrn, just enough of Obama's skeletons have come out of the closet and endorsed him to cast a cloud of danger over his electability as the president of the United States. Indeed, much of Obama's primary campaign has been fraught with various allies from Obama's past and present dancing into the media spotlight. Then, after a fair amount of unsavory press, Obama apologizes for and separates himself from the same friends he aligned himself with mere months earlier. We need only consider Obama's remarks about Reverend Jeremiah Wright as his mentor, then the exposure of Trinity United Church and Obama's subsequent denouncement of Wright's anti-American speech to recall the pattern. Known terrorists, both domestic and international, endorse Barack as their man. Young Palestinian men lobby on his behalf in earnest. They do this because Obama in office ser
ves their own interests.

Reason #2

Obama's patriotism is questionable. In an election, we naturally compare one candidate to another. One candidate doesn't wear a flag pin. One candidate doesn't hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. One candidate has no military experience. One candidate's idea of foreign policy is to negotiate with enemies who wish to obliterate our existence over a cup of coffee. The role of the president should be filled by someone who loves our country, who values our history, and who has proven that he is ready to die to serve our country. The role of the First Lady should similarly be filled by someone who honors and respects the country her husband serves. It doesn't count when your patriotism begins just as your husband enters the presidential campaign. If Obama's friends don't derail his campaign, his own wife and life partner surely will.

Reason #3

Obama is a skilled
orator, a trait that has earned him a devout following in a party largely comprised of atheists. When Barack Obama opens his mouth to speak, liberals' ears seem to filter out the message and listen only to the words in a hypnotic trance. Their devotion to Obama mimics that of radical Christians to Jesus Christ. Criticize Obama to a liberal Obama supporter, and it's as if you've questioned the existence of God, only the resulting argument is much angrier and holds far less intellectual merit. It's more like telling an environmentalist that chaining himself to a tree won't save the earth, or informing a war protester that no one in Washington cares what he or she thinks.

It isn't Obama's following that is of the most concern, however. A public speaker as smooth as Obama will inspire fans on his own talents. Let's remember, however, that Barack Obama was a lawyer before he became a senator. And, like most lawyers, his words are best when rehearsed. However, Obama crumbles under pressure, and his i
mprovised remarks typically fall flat or offend. We need only recall the fallout from the "bitter small-town Americans", "typical white person" and "Can't I just eat my waffle?" to recall Obama's propensity to fumble the ball when he's running an unscripted play with nary a playbook in sight. It's one thing to offend foreign, enemy nations during wartime; offending majority populations of the country you represent is another, especially as you align for their vote in November. Judging from the multitude of politically incorrect missteps in his primary campaign, Obama seems to think that he doesn't need votes from entire segments of the population; namely, the middle of the country. This blatantly blase attitude must cost him the election to teach Democrats that conservative minds will not be discounted.

Reason #4

Obama's politics and ideals are too far skewed on the liberal end of the political scale to strike a balance with Americans as a whole. No matter the
political affiliation of a sitting president, his job is to appease the majority of his constituents, the American public. Radical liberals clamor for our next president to be a polar opposite to George W. Bush; conservatives know that accomplishing this won't automatically fix the ills that plague our country. The checks and balances within our legislature make any change a gradual one, over many years. Amid a tenuous situation in the Middle East, too liberal of a response by our next president casts the United States as lily-livered pansies, too afraid of hurting feelings to eradicate terrorism. Extreme left-wing Democrats either don't realize this or don't care, and Obama is their man. If he gets into office, small-town typical white Americans had better cling to their guns and religion, because Obama will muck up civilian rights to both.

Reason #5

Obama's experience is lacking. This isn't to say that a junior senator can't be president one day. The presiden
cy is fraught with unique challenges, however, ones that can't be adequately prepared for in any branch of the government. In the business world, even the best candidates from upper management must pay their dues before aspiring to become CEO. The team captain must prove his or her leadership potential over several seasons to earn that 'C' on a uniform. In every other successful realm of the American culture, experience yields a top leadership position. Why should the presidency, the most historically esteemed and influential position in the country, be any different? Obama's inexperience lands him into trouble with his improvised remarks and shaky responses to tough issue-based questions. His inexperience causes him to make crucial errors and oratory missteps under pressure. He is simply not ready. Democrats can clean up his image and repackage him in 2012.

In every endeavor, Barack Obama has flouted the intellect of the constituents whose vote he aims to obtain. He's dazzled his starry-eyed foll
owers with well-crafted speeches that render them vociferously loyal; in cult-like fashion, they zealously support Obama to all who will listen. Separate Obama from his gilded memorized passages, and his words clang jarringly and offend like a cat walking across piano keys at twilight. Pin him in a corner with tough questions on issues and his allies, and he strikes like a caged animal trapped in a corner. Obama's speeches act like a mirror through which radical liberals see exactly what they want to see in their next president. It is up to the rest of us to peer through the looking-glass and see Obama for the inexperienced, unsavory presidential candidate he is.

 

[Gabrielle]

NYT Editorial Bashes Obama's Recent Flip-flops
By Noel Sheppard | July 4, 2008 - 10:25 ET

For several weeks, NewsBusters has been critical of the media for not exposing and critiquing presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign flip-flops.

Well, on Independence Day, the New York Times editorial staff not only took on the junior senator from Illinois' recent changes of heart, but did so by implying that maybe he's change you can't believe in.

Sure, cynics will point out this was done on a holiday at the beginning of a three-day weekend making it certain few people will see it.

Though true, the words are indeed there

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things...Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the
hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. [...]

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11. [...]

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. [...]

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constituti
on as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”��”�� [...]

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

Pretty shocking stuff, wouldn't you agree? After all, if the Times editorial board is going to start pointing out Obama's flaws and flip-flops, this is indeed significant.

On the other hand, if this is a one-time shot across the bow on a day when few people pick up a newspaper, this could be the Times giving rare balance to its publication in order to present itse
lf as not being as biased as most open-minded people know it to be.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/04/nyt-editorial-bashes-obamas-recent-flip-flops

 

[madkins]

*

WhiteCivilRights.com

Obama Got “Discount”��”�� on Home Loan

July 5, 2008

by Jeff Davis

Slowly, hesitantly, tentatively, a few of the mainstream news media outlets are beginning to do their job and investigate Barack Obama. Initial indications are he’s just another corrupt, self-promoting politician. Unfortunately the media are still wearing their “kid gloves”��”�� whenever his name comes up.

Obama worked for a law firm that did civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development. I guess that means using our taxpayer dollars to build more ghetto high rises and suing any employer, that an uppity Negro had a complaint about.

One source notes “The publicity from his election as the first black president of the Harvard
Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.[19] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.[19] He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. The manuscript was finally published as Dreams from My Father in mid-1995.”��”��

So, just because a bunch of liberals at Harvard voted Obama to be the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review (essentially winning a popularity contest), Obama apparently got a lucrative contract to write a book. The book was supposed to be on race-relations, but Obama instead wrote a self-promoting book called “Dreams from my Father.”��”�� It’s not clear from the title if he means his Kenyan father who disappeared after two years or his Indone
sian father, whom his mother hooked up with after the African daddy disappeared.

Obama spent a considerable amount of time in various universities including Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. He put in a few years with a couple law firms, wrote his self-promoting book and taught briefly at the University of Chicago Law School. Then he went into politics in 1997 winning a seat in the Illinois state senate which he occupied until 2004. Then he won an election to become the junior Senator from Illinois in 2005. Curiously many Americans are under the illusion that Obama voted against the Iraq War. Obama was NOT a Senator when the vote on the Iraq War was taken on October 11, 2002. The war started in March 2003.

The Washington Post reports “Shortly after joining the U.S. Senate and while enjoying a surge in income, Barack Obama bought a $1.65 million restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood. To finance the purchase, he secured a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust in Illinois.
The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a ’super duper jumbo.’ Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates… Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama’s rate could have saved him more than $300 per month. Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. ‘The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust,’ he said in a statement.”��”��

Isn’t it curious how politicians with virtually no marketable skills are always rolling in dough? A Senator is paid $169,300 per year. If Joe Sixpack asked a mortgage lender for a $1.65 million dollar home loan at a discount rate with no points (and he had the same sa
lary as Mr. Obama), he would get the bum’s rush, possibly with a swift kick in the rear as he exits the door. Obama’s only extraordinary activity aside from becoming Senator was writing a book. Did anyone buy that book BEFORE he became a presidential candidate? Exactly how interesting was Obama to ordinary Americans before 2007?

The Post article continues “Driving the recent debate is concern that public officials, knowingly or unknowingly, may receive special treatment from lenders and that the discounts could constitute gifts that are prohibited by law. ‘The real question is: Were congressmen getting unique treatment that others weren’t getting?’ associate law professor Adam J. Levitin, a credit specialist at Georgetown University Law Center, said about the Countrywide loans. ‘Do they do business like that for people who are not congressmen? If they don’t, that’s a problem.’ ”��”��

Actually, no. The question is not “Do Congressmen get unique treatment others don’t get?”��”��
Of course they do. The question in this case is “Did Barack Obama get special corrupt treatment he wasn’t entitled to?”��”�� Notice how, when pinned down, the liberal media deflects and diverts our short attention span from the actual issue by broadening it and turning the story into some kind of generalized discussion that wanders all over the board and away from the person to be shielded, in this case Obama himself.

Can you imagine the screams and shrieks from the news media if any other politician (say a conservative White Republican of any kind) had gotten this kind of preferential treatment?

Considering the kind of immunity Obama usually receives from the media regarding any critical scrutiny of his affairs, the Washington Post deserves credit for mentioning this incident. But even so, I notice that they barely whispered it, and the story of Barack’s sweetheart loan deal has obstinately refused to “grow legs.”��”�� In the Washington Post it was reported, and in the Washington Post it has
remained. This is a sure indication whenever the media as a whole wants to suppress a story, and one of the ways they kill it. They report it once, in one outlet, and then all the other media outlets just ignore it and refuse to pick it up. Sort of like the coverage they’ve given Obama’s earlier marijuana and cocaine use. Can you say “different rules for the quota-hire”��”��?

Skara Brae,

madkins

*Google Images

 

[Dragasès]

He's just a common nigger feeding off of sycophantic white liberals and other grovelling cowards of the R word.

 

[Montrose]

http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/2008/06/schwartzer-with-yiddish-momma.html

 

[Gabrielle]

Oh boy! Check out this video!

JESSE JACKSON SAYS HE WANTS TO CUT OBAMA'S 'NUTS OUT'


http://www.nypost.com/seven/0709200...e_jackson_sharply_criticizes_obama_119161.htm

 

[patriot08]

.

I'm not buying Jesse (spit in the white folk's food- he admits it. Google it) Jackson's story.
He fell on the sword to make Obama look good. Separate Obama from the 'radical blacks'.
Set-up. Just like 'disowning' the 'Rev' Wright. Obama's ratings were falling, so Wright was put up to blowing off at that press conference, then Obama immediately calls one and 'disowns' him. (What else could he do? He'd already said he could 'never disown his uncle Wright'.)
Fast forward to the White House, Obama, Wright, Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan gather to toss back the scotch, break out the cigars and guff haw about how they bamboozled whitey.


.


]

 

[Panzer]

There is no word to express my hatred for this beast.

 

[patriot08]

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a can
didate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.
Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.
Where is the bloodhound American 'fr
ee press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? (WHOM OBAMA WENT TO KENYA TO CAMPAIGN FOR) Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or the fact that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist Peop
le's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?
As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-America
n activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?
A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. 'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'
There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America
in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.
Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce
our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?
Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?
reprinted with permission
‚© Rich Carroll 2008
crossedrifles@hotmail.com

 

[Gabrielle]

Jackson's Obama comments almost went unnoticed
A Fox News technician transcribing the tape overnight heard it, and it took off from there.
By Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 11, 2008
‚» Discuss Article
NEW YORK -- The news that the Rev. Jesse Jackson took a crude swipe at Sen. Barack Obama this week put renewed scrutiny on the relationship between the veteran civil rights activist and Democratic presidential contender.

But Jackson's vulgar criticism of Obama came close to going unreported.

Jackson made the comments to a guest before an interview on Sunday's "Fox & Friends," whispering that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that Jackson wanted to "cut his nuts off."

The comments went unnoticed in the control room, Bill Shine, Fox News' senior vice president for programming, said Thur
sday.

The scathing remarks first came to the attention of an employee working the overnight shift Sunday, who transcribed the tape as part of training for the network's ongoing digital conversion. Otherwise, "it potentially would have not been discovered," Shine said.

On Tuesday, a staff member in the digital department e-mailed Jackson's comments to a producer for "The O'Reilly Factor," who was vacationing in France. The producer alerted the show's staff back in New York later that day.

News executives immediately realized the import of the footage.

"I looked at it and thought, 'This is going to be news,' " Shine said. But the cable network did not put the material on the air right away.

"We cautiously and patiently went forward with the story," he said, adding that producers reached out to Jackson and Obama to let them know about the material.

Shine said the civil rights leader did not ask Fox News to hold back the tape. But before the network even aired his c
omments, Jackson went on CNN Wednesday afternoon to preemptively apologize.

Shortly afterward, Fox News teased the news of Jackson's remarks on "Special Report With Brit Hume." The network didn't air the more vulgar part of Jackson's comments for two more hours, when the clip ran on the top-rated show hosted by Bill O'Reilly.

"It was Bill's staff who had been working on it, and we felt it would be appropriate to put it there," Shine said.

O'Reilly told viewers that the network had decided to air only portions of what Jackson had said, saying there was "more damaging" material.

Shine declined to comment on what else Jackson said, adding that news executives were in discussions about whether to air more of the tape.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-jackson11-2008jul11,0,1647731.story

 

[Gabrielle]

Obama: What are you doing, Reverend?

Jackson: Nut 'N Honey.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2008/07/11/weekend-captionfest#comments

 

[Taylor]

It appears that SOME of the N.Y. liberals are actually waking up!

 

[Rasp]

Nigbama Camp Outraged At Magazine Cover

WASHINGTON -- Ba-lack Obama's campaign has denounced a New Yorker magazine cover showing the Democratic presidential candidate dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist as "tasteless and offensive."

The magazine's editor called the cover a work of satire.

The illustration on the issue that hits newsstands Monday, titled "The Politics of Fear" and drawn by Barry Blitt, depicts Ba-lack Obama wearing traditional Muslim garb -- sandals, robe and and head dress. His wife, Michelle, is drawn dressed in camouflage, combat boots and an assault rifle strapped over her shoulder[/COL
OR].

The couple is doing a fist bump in front of a fireplace in which an American flag is burning. Over the mantle hangs a portrait of Osama bin Laden.

 

[vorlos]

Obama campaign outraged by New Yorker cover

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080714152414.ywhxksb5&show_article=1&image=large

Barack Obama's campaign decried Monday a satirical cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker magazine showing the Democratic presidential hopeful wearing Islamic dress while his wife holds a Kalashnikov.

The influential weekly defended its cover, titled "The Politics of Fear," as a critique of unfounded allegations during the campaign that have attempted to paint Obama, who is Christian, as a closet radical Muslim.

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton sa
id.

"But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree," he said in a statement.

The campaign of Obama's Republican rival, John McCain, took his side.

"We completely agree with the Obama campaign that it is tasteless and offensive," spokesman Tucker Bounds said.

The cartoon drawn by Barry Blitt shows the couple standing in the White House's Oval Office with an American flag burning in the fireplace under a portrait of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Obama, who aims to become the first African-American US president, wears a robe and turban while his wife Michelle is in military fatigues with an Kalashnikov strapped to her back.

The couple also give each other a fist bump -- a common greeting they have given each other in public and which a Fox News television presenter once called a "terrorist fist jab."

"Our cover 'The Politics of Fear' combines a number of fantastical images about the Ob
amas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are," said New Yorker editor David Remnick.

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall -- all of them echo one attack or another," he said.

"Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover."

The editor noted that the magazine includes two "very serious" articles about Obama -- a commentary and a 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago. :lol: