What the Lord Sayeth He then taketh Away… sometimes the very next day!
Great job as always, Mary Katherine Ham.
Publius+Forum Warner+Todd+Huston Election 2008 Barack+O
CNN Spins Obama Wanting to Bankrupt Coal Industry as Old News
-By Warner Todd Huston
In reporting the speech by Gov. Sarah Palin in Ohio today, CNN’s Political Ticker tried to spin her question about Obama’s coal comment as old news when it clearly isn’t. Palin asked why we are just now finding out about the interview where Barack Obama said he had hoped to bankrupt the coal industry but CNN termed this interview and Obama’s startling admission as “months-old coal comments” in an attempt to soften the blow to Ohio and Pennsylvania voters. The Political Ticker said that since the San Francisco Chronicle had these comments on its website for nine months, the news of Obama’s quote was no big deal. But this is a misleading claim.
As we know from P.J. Gladnick’s NewsBusters report, Obama admitted that his intention for new coal plants was to slap so many fees, regulations and taxes on any new venture that it would “bankrupt” the company that tries it.
Palin, stumping Sunday in Ohio’s coal country, brought this interview up at a campaign appearance in Marietta, Ohio. “Why is the audio tape just now surfacing?,” she asked the shocked crowd.
Continue reading “CNN Spins Obama Wanting to Bankrupt Coal Industry as Old News”
Ohio, Pennsylvania- Obama Wants Your Coal Jobs Eliminated
All you coal producers in Ohio and Pennsylvania, listen up good. Barack Obama wants to “bankrupt” your companies and put you permanently out of work.
Obama: I’ll Be President For ‘The Next 8 to 10 Years’?
By-Warner Todd Huston
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the reputed “Constitutional scholar,” just today said on CBS’s Face the Nation that he went to Iraq to talk to important leader that he expects to be “dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.” So, does this “Constitutional scholar” not realize that there is this little thing called the 22nd Amendment that holds a president to only two, four year terms? Um, that would be a grand total of only 8 years, Barack, not 8 to 10. Of course, the big question is, will we see this idiot gaffe race through the MSM as it would if a Republican had said it?
At the very least ABC’s Jake Tapper, one of the best political reporters in the biz, sure noticed. Tapper has a blog entry on his “Political Punch” blog all about it with an amusing side note about time travel added in just for fun.
Today on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that “the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.
Tapper zings the presumptuous nominee a good one.
The notion that Obama will be dealing with world leaders for eighjt-to-ten years, possibly up through July 2018, suggests that either (a) he believes that not only will he be elected and re-elected, but the 22nd amendment will be repealed and he will be elected for a third term, OR (b) he was speaking casually and just meant two terms.
Tapper goes on to zing Obama several more times before this entry is done.
But, why is it that Tapper is seemingly the only denizen of the MSM ever willing to bring out these stories? Why does the MSM so constantly give the Obamessiah a pass? I’ll bet you can say why.
But here is a real point to ponder. What if John McCain had said he’d be president for the next 10 years? Wouldn’t the press and every late night comedian gin up the “he’s old and senile” jokes until those jokes would go through the country like wildfire?
Lastly, we have yet one more example of this man’s arrogance. He is beginning to carry on foreign policy before he even gets elected!
“And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.”
You see, Barack, that is a president’s job! Have you been elected yet?
What do you think?
Continue reading “Obama: I’ll Be President For ‘The Next 8 to 10 Years’?”
‘Lifelong Conservative’ Throwing all Principles to The Winds and Voting for Obama
-By Warner Todd Huston
Larry Hunter claims he is a “lifelong conservative.” Yet, in his recent New York Daily News article, he also says he is voting for Barack Obama for president. The two simply cannot coexist. One has to be obliterated in favor of the other. And, regardless of the facile reasoning Hunter gives for his apostasy, this article does nothing to support any supposed conservative cause. It does, however, give the media something to crow about.
Larry Hunter begins by assuring us of his conservative credentials. A supply sider from the Reagan White House, Hunter had a 5-year-long stint as chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was a member of Bob Dole’s economic team for the 1996 presidential race and was chief economist for Jack Kemp’s Empower America. All of this does confirm his economic conservatism. But none of it says anything to his ideology otherwise. Still, regardless, we can take at face value his credentials and mark him as generally on the right side of the issues.
Yet, even after telling us his resume, Hunter says, “This November, I’m voting for Barack Obama.” Naturally, he says his “colleagues were shocked.” So should be anyone who thinks conservatism the best direction for this country.
Continue reading “‘Lifelong Conservative’ Throwing all Principles to The Winds and Voting for Obama”
Obama Stands Against Lobbyists? Well, not to Fund His Big Party he Ain’t
-By Warner Todd Huston
The leftists of the nutroots went gaga when Barack Obama claimed that he’d stand against taking money from lobbyists with his campaign for president. It was because, of course, he was for a “new era” in politics. He is for “change.” Isn’t he special, the nutrooters sigh contentedly.
Well, apparently Obama’s standard of a “new age” in politics doesn’t carry too far into his campaign. Obviously Barack Obama has no real power over the Party from which he claims to head because the Democratic National Convention is being funded by… you guessed it… lobbyists.
As the New York Times reports, the man being tapped by the DNC to head the fundraising for their national convention is well connected lobbyist Steve Farber.
Mr. Farber’s vast contact list could prove crucial in raising the millions of dollars needed by the Denver host committee to showcase Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in August in Denver. But Mr. Farber’s activities are a public display of how corporate connections fuel politics — exactly the type of special influence that Mr. Obama had pledged to expunge from politics when he said he would not accept donations from lobbyists.
Well, so much for getting the influence of lobbyists out of politics, eh Mr. Obama?
Continue reading “Obama Stands Against Lobbyists? Well, not to Fund His Big Party he Ain’t”
Despite Obama, New Democrat Fundraising Just Like the Old
-By Warner Todd Huston
Now that Barack Obama is the presumptive Democrat Party nominee he has made his first move to try to put his imprint on his party by making a show of eschewing campaign donations from federal lobbyists. As the new head of the party, Obama might expect to have sway over the way the party does business. If Obama imagined that he would have such power, however, he seems to have been mistaken.
Obama announced his fundraising policy idea in Virginia on the 6th saying, “Today as the Democratic nominee for president, I am announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard — we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists.”
That same day, the Politico put a call into the DCCC if they were going to live up to Obam’s idealistic plan. Apparently they aren’t.
So much for “change” in Washington.
But, there is an underlying theme where it concerns his fundraising that the Obama campaign is flogging that is also untrue. The claim seems to be that Obama does not take money from big donors and that his entire campaign is floated by small donors. After Obama’s new policy was announced, campaign manager David Plouffe sent off a quick email to reiterate this claim.
“We need to respond quickly and show that we are ready to take on Senator McCain in the general election,” Plouffe wrote. “We are going to compete in the general election the same way we have all along_by depending on a movement of more than 1.5 million people giving only what they can afford.”
It’s a nice spin, but not really the whole truth. Obama has had plenty of big donors, PACS and lobbyists donating to his campaign. A quick check of donation reports on OpenSecrets.org that he has had some very large donations from bundlers who are directly associated with big businesses, universities, investment firms.
| Goldman Sachs | $571,330 |
| University of California | $437,236 |
| UBS AG | $364,806 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $362,207 |
| Citigroup Inc | $358,054 |
| National Amusements Inc | $320,750 |
| Lehman Brothers | $318,647 |
| Google Inc | $309,514 |
| Harvard University | $309,025 |
| Sidley Austin LLP | $294,245 |
| Skadden, Arps et al | $270,013 |
| Time Warner | $262,677 |
| Morgan Stanley | $259,876 |
| Jones Day | $250,725 |
| Exelon Corp | $236,211 |
| University of Chicago | $218,857 |
| Wilmerhale LLP | $218,680 |
| Latham & Watkins | $218,615 |
| Microsoft Corp | $209,242 |
| Stanford University | $195,262 |
Again, so much for “change.”
Obama may find that it is harder to actually make change than to merely say it. So far, when it comes to change, his two cents seems to be worth just that much.
Continue reading “Despite Obama, New Democrat Fundraising Just Like the Old”
Reuters Gives us Another Christ-Like Obama Photo
-By Warner Todd Huston
Take a gander at this one…
Reuters gives us another Obama photo in a seeming Christ-like pose, halo surrounding him.
They just can’t resist it, can they?
Original caption:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama waits to speak in Aberdeen, South Dakota May 31, 2008. Obama said on Saturday he quit his Chicago church in the aftermath of inflammatory sermons that could become a lightning rod in the November election.
REUTERS/Rick Wilking
No, they aren’t in the tank, eh?
An Obama Presidency Will Set Race Relations Back Decades
-By Warner Todd Huston
I know some conservative Republicans who almost wouldn’t mind if Barack Obama does win the White House in November. Their theory is that once we as a nation elect a black man to the White House, that election will forever eliminate the claim that Americans are racist because we won’t elect a black man to that office. On its face, it seems a logical theory. In practice, however, it will not work. Not with this black man, not with Barack Obama. If Obama becomes president of the United States, his disastrous time in office will set race relations back 50 years.
First of all — and there is just no other way to say this — the man is a liar. He claims to want to solve our partisan strife, doesn’t he? He claims he wants to work with Congress instead of against the other party. He is supposedly the man of “change” and “hope.” If you do a web search for “Obama reach across the aisle” you’ll get thousands upon thousands of hits. The general perception that Obama has succeeded in fostering is that he does, indeed, want to “reach across the aisle.”
Unfortunately for all of us, it is all a giant lie.
As a legislator, Barack Obama has absolutely no history of working with anyone “across the aisle.” There are instances when he has occasionally made statements that have seemed to auger support for an idea that is supported by the Republicans, but when ever it has come down to actual votes, his is always a straight up, far left, liberal vote. He has never worked with anyone on the other side of the aisle on anything. And there is no reason to suspect he’ll suddenly start such a practice upon stepping into the White House, either.
Worse, we have seen the sort of people he’s surrounded himself with and none of them are folks on the other side of the aisle. He is close friends with racists (Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan), he has the support of aging hippies who were domestic terrorists in their youth (William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn), he has even invited a young fellow who was mentioned as a communist while at Harvard to be his official campaign blogger (Sam Graham-Felsen). Then we get to his wife who is famous for having said that she was never “proud of America” until her hubby ran for president. She has also said things to disparage capitalism and called the country “mean.” But does Obama have any close associates and supporters who are Republicans, even moderate ones? No. Not a single one. And further more, he never has.
Then we add this little fact: Obama has rarely stood up to be counted on much of anything in his whole political career. He has never been a major activist for any cause. He has never led a movement or pushed an organized, identifiable agenda. He has no past of true leadership. His past is almost a blank slate.
So, what sort of president will he make? And why do I say he will set race relations back 50 years?
Continue reading “An Obama Presidency Will Set Race Relations Back Decades”
Appeasing Hitler ‘Not Unreasonable’?
-By Warner Todd Huston
In an effort to back up Obama’s gaffe that he’ll “talk” to anyone, even terrorists, as if diplomacy in and of itself was a cure all, editorial writer Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times has made a gaffe of his own that, in essence, makes the claim that negotiating with Adolf Hitler was perfectly reasonable even as each concession given to him by Europe’s prewar powers obviously gave him every reason to be brave enough to start WWII. Ramsey seems to be trying to justify the appeasement of Hitler in order to give Barack Obama the cover he needs to make his inexperience and naiveté seem less detrimental to his presidential ambitions.
Ramsey is worried, he says, about the “continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.” He feels that it was completely reasonable to cave in to Hitler in those days prior to the war.
What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before-and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.
After all, Ramsey says, Europe didn’t want a war, so just giving in to Hitler was not an “unreasonable” reaction to Hitler’s demands. So, since the rest of Europe couldn’t have realized how ruthless and evil Hitler was, their actions were just fine with Ramsey. If it was fine back then, he obviously imagines, it should be fine today. Since we cannot know the future, he seems to be saying, always caving in to tyrants just in case they won’t turn out to be tyrants should be just fine.
This also seems like Obama’s message.
Continue reading “Appeasing Hitler ‘Not Unreasonable’?”
Newsweek: Republicans ‘Successfully Scaring Voters Since 1968,’ Obama’s ‘Steady, Calm, Focused Leadership’
-By Warner Todd Huston
Here is a perfect example of the sort of wild-eyed leftism that is so infused into the very souls of every journalist that claims the mantle of the fourth estate. It’s also a perfect example of how they are in the tank for their messiah, Obama. Newsweek’s Rich Wolffe and Evan Thomas have presented a fawning review of how Barack Obama is so cool and collected under political fire, but warns their messiah that the GOP is still filled with meanies who have been “successfully scaring voters since 1968.” Of course, not a word is spoken of all the scare tactics that the Democrat Party has used since time immemorial and Wolffe and Thomas act as if their pals at the DNC are just innocents in the wilderness unfairly assaulted by those nasty Republicans.
After celebrating Obama’s new, gentler politics, Newsweek gets down to brass tacks to warn Obama about those awful Republicans.
If the candidate seemed weary and peevish or a little slow to respond at times, he never lost his cool. But the real test is yet to come. The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower- and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities. The 2008 race may turn on which party will win the lower- and middle-class whites in industrial and border states–the Democrats’ base from the New Deal to the 1960s, but “Reagan Democrats” in most presidential elections since then. It is a sure bet that the GOP will try to paint Obama as “the other”–as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters.
But, let’s do a little review of the “scaring voters” that the Democrat Party has been a party to. And, heck, we don’t even have to go as far back as when the Democrats tried to cause fear that “miscegenation” would occur if Republicans were successful in ending slavery. Or the many decades of fear the Democrats spread with Jim Crow laws. No, we don’t even have to remind everyone that the largest number of members of the KKK were Democrats – heck, the Democrats even have an ex-KKK member as a Senator in West Virginia to this very day. Just about everyone knows these things even if the modern press wants us all to forget it.
Sunday Funnies New Offer: 57 State Lapel Pin
-By Warner Todd Huston
A few days ago it was reported that Barack Obama was ever so proud to have visited all “57 states” on his campaign swing. But, I noticed that he still avoids wearing that U.S. flag lapel pin, just the same. Well, I have finally found out why Barack Obama won’t wear that darned ol’ U.S. flag pin. Until now he couldn’t find one with all “57 States” on it. Well, the folks over at Suitably Flip blog have solved the problem for the junior Senator from Illinois.
Just in for the 2008 campaign season is the new 57 state U.S. flag pin for all the infromationally challenged Senators on your shopping list. Barack can proudly wear his 57 state flag pin at all the great celebrations to come. Like the birthday for the state of Guam, or the celebration for the state of Harlem… you know, all those great parties he’ll get invited to as the nominee for one of the two or three democratic Parties out there.
Now I only have one question for the Senator. Is this the flag of the “Damn United States” or the regular one that the rest of us live in?
For those of you who have not seen the video, here it is:
Now, the Suitably Flip bloggers gave us a list of the other 7 states, but I think they missed the boat with their choices. After all, they missed one state that the Obama’s definitely visit quite often. The state of DENIAL!
And now for a hat tip you won’t believe. This funny bit came to my attention through Andrew Malcolm’s entry at the Los Angeles Times’ Top of the Ticket blog. Yeah, I find it hard to believe they had enough of a sense of humor to throw a dig at their messiah, too.
Continue reading “Sunday Funnies New Offer: 57 State Lapel Pin”
Obama Agrees to PROTECT Union Corruption, not Eliminate it
-By Warner Todd Huston
So, Barack Obama claims he is a reformer. He claims he wants to clean up Washington D.C. He acts as if he just wants the truth told to the people. Well, here is some truth. According to the Wall Street JournalBarack has promised the Teamsters that if they give him their support he will kill the current Federal oversight agency that was created to root out union corruption in the workplace.
Yes, Barack Obama has said that he wishes to protect corruption, not eliminate it. Has he agreed to turn his back on fighting corruption merely so that he might be able to count the votes of union thugs in his column?
It has been revealed by inside sources that Obama secretly promised the Teamsters that he will end the strict oversight that the Federal government has through an independent oversight board that was set up in 1992 because of the mob influence rampant in the Teamsters. Obama has claimed that he favors “examining” the review board, but refuses to state publicly what that means.
Continue reading “Obama Agrees to PROTECT Union Corruption, not Eliminate it”
Contrary to Claims, Obama Very Close With Racist Preacher, Wright
-By Warner Todd Huston
See 2012 update: Obama’s 2007 Race-Baiting Video, Admits Being Close To Racist Preacher, Wright
**I published this on 3/17, but felt it worth re-publishing after the latest example of Obama pretending to be “shocked” by the racist Rev. Wright’s actions**
Many in the newsmedia are reacting with quite restraint to the revelations of comments by Obam’s racist “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Imagine if this were a Republican politician linked to such outrageous talk and you’ll realize how the MSM has been studiously underplaying this controversy. A benefit of the doubt seems to be the rule of thumb for how the media is treating Obama, a benefit that would be denied a GOP candidate.
But, as ABC’s Jake Tapper asked concerning Obama’s knowledge of Wright’s racist rants: What did Obama know and when did he know it? In this posting Tapper finds that Obama was distancing himself from Wright a year ago causing the question to be raised if Obama long ago wondered if Wright would be a liability? But, there is video of Obama lovingly introducing Wright even after that proving not only that Obama is very, very close to Rev. Wright, but also that he was not distancing himself from the man at all.
On June 5th, 2007, Senator Barack Obama spoke before 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University’s Convocation Center. Most of them were pastors and ministers attending a conference there.
He was there to speak on mostly post Katrina issues and to criticize the Bush administration’s efforts during that natural disaster. Obama tried his catch phrase of the moment, saying that a “quiet riot” might be occurring in America and he affirmed that he felt that America was a racist nation, that the reaction to Katrina had just “pulled back the screen” on America’s racism. Obama also used rhetoric heavily doused with religious symbolism.
But, that boiler plate aside, there was two very interesting segments in Obama’s remarks concerning his racist “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. that are not getting the press it deserves. (See the video at Channel 2 News Chicago)
He was effusive in his praise and admiration for Wright, this foaming at the mouth, hate monger. This runs contrary to his late claims that he is somehow shocked by Wright’s racism, or that he now disagrees with him as well as his claim that he was not familiar enough with Wright to know of his point of view.
As the speech kicked off (at 1:07 into the video), Obama introduced the Rev. Wright to the audience with these glowing and highly personal words:
And then I’ve got to give a special shout out to my Pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country, so please everybody give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Trinity United Church of Christ.
Where’s he at? There he is. That’s him, that’s him right there.
You wearing a suit today, right?
This reveals a very intimate portrait of Obama and Wright’s relationship. Notice the last bit where Obama jokes about Wright’s penchant for wearing an Afrocentric style of dress and that his wearing of a suit at that event was uncommon. These are the remarks of a close friend to another loved intimate, not the words of a man making perfunctory comments.
Later in his comments Obama mentioned Wright again. (At 13:43 in the video)
You know, I’ve been on a journey trying to get at the truth that question for a long time. I mention Rev. Wright… I first met Rev. Wright when I moved to Chicago after college.
And that’s where I met Rev. Wright and started going to Trinity United Church of Christ and he helped me on another journey and introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. And I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things that I was too weak to accomplish myself, maybe he could accomplish them for me if I placed my trust in him. And I learned that ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things when they believe in him and they come together and are guided by him.
So, we see that Obama obviously had a close, long-term relationship with Wright not a casual one where Obama might have missed the Reverend’s long-standing agenda.
It is also interesting that Obama’s rhetoric was so steeped in evangelical Christian rhetoric. Isn’t a “fanatic” Christianity one of the charges so often leveled by the left against president Bush? Don’t they so often say that he is somehow too religious? And, how often did we hear from the MSM how “controversial” Bush (or any Republican) was for delivering a speech before Bob Jones University?
And remember, Bush just went to make a single speech at Bob Jones University and the media slammed him for months afterward. Yet, Barack has had an intimate, 20-year relationship with Wright who has vehemently called for God to damn America and the media yawns at the news.
In light of the criticism of Bush’s injecting “too much religion” in his presidency or that his administration is just like a ”Christian Taliban”, it is also a legitimate question to ask, where are those same accusers when this 2007 speech by Barack Obama is so filled with religious fervor? Where are the anti-religious left and the so-called separation of Church and Staters at now?
In fact, this entire speech is filled with nothing but class warfare, expansions of social programs, raising the minimum wage, typical great society type junk all couched squarely as a civic responsibility enmeshed with Obama’s view of Biblical precepts.
Now, as far as what Obama knew of Rev. Wright’s racist comments and when he knew it, ABC’s Jake Tapper is right on when he notes that Obama had dis-invited Wright from delivering the public invocation at his candidacy announcement more than a year ago. This obviously reveals that Obama had begun to distance himself from Wright before he announced formally for the presidency. It is plain that Obama knew of Wright’s problematic ranting long before his sudden claim that he is shocked by Wright’s past rhetoric.
Continue reading “Contrary to Claims, Obama Very Close With Racist Preacher, Wright”
Obama Tech Advisor Introduces Video of Gay, Singing Jesus Who Gets Hit by a Bus
-By Warner Todd Huston
As heard on the Rush Limbaugh Show, April 21 at around noon (CT). Welcome Rush Limbaugh listeners.
Also as heard on the Sean Hannity radio Show, April 21 during his first hour. We got Hannitized, folks.
Erick Erickson over at RedState tells us all of an anti-Christian video recently introduced with great frivolity by Internet philosopher and Obama technology advisor Larry Lessig. The video introduced at a Google Author series seminar shows Jesus singing the Gloria Gaynor tune “I Will Survive” in a very effeminate, theatrical way. As the song ramps up, Jesus throws off his robe and strips down to a diaper-like covering, then he sashays through a modern city until he gets hit by a bus in an intersection.
The worst thing about this is that this is also another scandal involving a Barack Obama campaign associate showing his disdain for the American mainstream, this time a disdain of Christianity. It turns out that Lessig is a somewhat secretive Obama campaign advisor, serving to assist the campaign on Internet and technology policies. As Erickson points out, Lessig hosts Obama’s tech policy on his own lessig.org website.
At the conference, the Google employees can be heard laughing and enjoying the show. The clip ends with Lessig claiming that we shouldn’t worry because a sequel shows that Jesus survives being run over by the bus. How comforting, eh?
Again, as Erickson points out, “Barack Obama’s campaign has regularly cited Lessig as a key supporter on technology issues (see here too) and made sure Lessig was quoted when listing Obama’s technology endorsers.”
Continue reading “Obama Tech Advisor Introduces Video of Gay, Singing Jesus Who Gets Hit by a Bus”
Call For Barack Obama to Repudiate Violence of His Union Supporters
Warner Todd Huston
This week a TV ad for Barack Obama was debuted. It was made by a union that supports Obama, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). Last week, the SEIU sent 700 of its members to violently break into a conference being put on by a union supporting magazine called Labor Notes Magazine. Several women were injured by the violent protests sponsored by the SEIU.
WE CALL FOR BARACK OBAMA TO REPUDIATE HIS SUPPORTER’S VIOLENCE!
What sort of candidate would gleefully accept the support of a union that violently attacked other union members? This was no heated argument that just blew up, either, no accident of passions. It was a purposefully violent attack planned and executed. The SEIU organized hundreds of its members, rented 7 busses to transport them to their target site, and then unleashed them to push, shove and beat their way into a conference being held by the union supporting magazine. It was no accident that people were hurt. That was the SEIU’s goal.
It isn’t just one incident, either. SEIU members have been engaged in a campaign of violence and harassment and stalking of members of the California Nurses Association for many months now. The courts are even having to get involved.
And here we have Barack Obama blithely accepting the support of the violence prone SEIU without raising his own voice against the attacks!
Continue reading “Call For Barack Obama to Repudiate Violence of His Union Supporters”
Obama Big Money ‘Bundler’ A Hugo Chavez Supporter, Will Media Report?
-By Warner Todd Huston
Adding to the growing mountain of evidence that Barack Obama either intensely dislikes the very country of which he wants to be elected president, or at the very least surrounds himself with those who do, news is breaking that one of Obama’s big money donation “bundlers” is virulently anti-military and a supporter of Hugo Chavez — the well-known Venezuelan dictator famous for his hateful anti-American rhetoric. There is even a photo of Obama “bundler” and Code Pink operative Jodie Evans arm-in-arm with Hugo Chavez. (Evans is the red head in the middle)
Code Pink has been at the forefront of the anti-war movement and has involved itself in many attacks on our members of the military. They’ve even targeted the wounded for their attacks on the war in Iraq. Because of this connection, pro-troop groups are demanding that Obama return the $50,000 that Code Pink operative Evans gathered from her associates to donate to the Obama campaign.
Catherine Moy of Human Events details some of Code Pink’s campaigns against our wounded troops in her latest blog posting.
Code Pink has also waged a campaign of psychological warfare against America’s wounded warriors and their families by protesting at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, targeting them with signs bearing messages such as “Maimed for a lie” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton,” the joint statement from pro-troops groups said.
Moy also recounts that Evans sat on the board of directors for a radical environazi group called Rain Forest Action Network (RAN) a group also connected to the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, groups that the FBI have reported are responsible for more than 600 criminal acts causing more than $43 million in damages over the last few decades.
Evans has been an organizer and operative of Code Pink since September of 2002.
Melanie Morgan also gives us a little reminder of some more of Code Pink’s greatest hits:
Kicked out of Pakistan after protesting the Pakistani governments efforts to combat the jihadists operating in that country, Code Pink’s leaders have also been some of the strongest proponents of former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s regime. Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin even renounced the United States and moved to Cuba before being kicked out by the government there. Turns out, even tyrants have standards. Who knew?
These are pretty radical organizations that sponsor some pretty dangerous and fierce anti-capitalist, anti-American campaigns. Is this the sort of extreme hater that a candidate of “change” and a candidate that says we should “come together” should be accepting assistance from? Should a candidate that wants a “new” politics be so happy to take the donations of someone who has led groups that have perpetrated acts of domestic terror? Should Barack Obama be so quick to accept money from a woman who has planned campaigns to harass our wounded soldiers as they try to heal in the hospital?
Another pressing question is, will the MSM report this story? Will the MSM tell the country that their vaunted candidate of “change” and “civility” is working with people responsible for acts of terrorism against Americans?
Continue reading “Obama Big Money ‘Bundler’ A Hugo Chavez Supporter, Will Media Report?”
Dueling Blogs– Alan Colmes Responds to Huston
-By Warner Todd Huston
Git out yer shootin’ irons and settle in for a blog duel, folks, because the inestimable Alan Colmes has answered to my poking at him on his less than secret blog, LiberalLand.com. Mr. Colmes sent me a little email notice that he has answered to my ribbing of him on the 13th and I have the honor to reply in kind with a fisking of his latest.
Firstly, I will certainly admit that Mr. Colmes’ guns might bark a little louder than your humble Newsbuster’s (that’s me, of course). After all, he has a TV show and a radio show, as well as a well-visited blog. On the other hand, I merely watch TV and have been but a radio show guest speaker… however, I DO blog on one of the most visited conservative sites on the Internet (that would be Newsbusters.org, naturally).
Mr. Colmes’ reply consists of an opening sentence followed by bulleted talking points. So, what follows is his bulleted points after which my replies to each will appear.
Colmes began with this:
Continue reading “Dueling Blogs– Alan Colmes Responds to Huston”
Alan Colmes Agrees With Obama: Middle America is Full of Xenophobes
-By Warner Todd Huston
And now to add to the ever-lengthening list of Obamessiah apologists comes TV and Radio talker Alan Colmes to say that Barack Obama is right, Middle America IS filled with racist, overly religious, gun-nuts.
On his LiberalLand blog (the formerly secret blog he was hiding from the greater world), Sean Hannity’s co-host said the following:
And just where is he wrong? Pointing out why people may be bitter or frustrated, that there is xenophobia, that people sometimes cling to religion or feel paranoid about the government and embrace guns doesn’t mean you hate or disdain a portion of the population.
First of all people do not “cling” to guns and religion because of what a government does or does not do. It is especially demeaning to people’s religious sentiment to say that government is their reason for “clinging” to their religion. And secondly, Obama did not mean to say that people were merely frustrated. He was clearly trying to paint Middle America as racist, gun-nuts that were too stupid to understand what was going on around them.
Continue reading “Alan Colmes Agrees With Obama: Middle America is Full of Xenophobes”
Obama’s Deceptive Anti-Oil Ad: ‘I Don’t Take $ From Oil Companies’
-By Warner Todd Huston
Barack Obama has been airing a shamelessly anti-business TV ad in Pennsylvania for a while now. In the ad Obama himself, in his own voice, makes the claim that he doesn’t “take money from oil companies.” But there is a two-fold deception in this claim that Obama doesn’t tell his sycophantic fans. So where is the media to pounce on these cynical deceptions? They’re nowhere to be seen.
Recently I saw the ad where Obama claimed he didn’t take contributions from oil companies and the claim struck a chord in my memory. I was under the impression that oil companies could not legally donate to a campaign at all. So, I did some checking and it seems that FactCheck.org did an entire page on Obama’s deceptive Pennsylvania ad.
Here is the transcript of the Obama ad:
“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them. “
Yet, as FactCheck.org reminds us, it has been illegal for the last 100 years for an oil company to directly donate to a political campaign. So, while it is technically correct that Obama isn’t taking money from oil companies, it is ALSO true that neither is anyone else! Yet, here is Obama saying he doesn’t take oil money as if he has made a conscious decision to refuse their support. Someone who does not know that oil companies are barred by law from donating to politicians might easily be led to imagine that Obama is standing up against Bigoil with this ad. It is truly deceptive.
Continue reading “Obama’s Deceptive Anti-Oil Ad: ‘I Don’t Take $ From Oil Companies’”
Obama’s ‘Small Towns’ Gaffe Reveals Un-American Democrats
-By Warner Todd Huston
At a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama said that small town Americans living in the Midwest are religious zealots, gun nuts, and racists. So much for Obama being the candidate of “working together” and the wondrous architect of a “new politics.”
Obama’s dismissing of the civility and religiosity of the largest part of America’s citizenry is reported to have upset a North Carolina Hillary supporter who was tasked with introducing his candidate at a rally there. Former state party chair Tom Hendrickson got in his high dudgeon at Barack’s anti-small-town America rhetoric.
Here is what Obama said in California late last week that got Henrickson’s goat.
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Barack’s rhetoric is pretty bad, just as Tom Hendrickson said in North Carolina. So, before he introduced Clinton, Hendrickson lambasted Obama over those remarks. ABC’s Jake Tapper reports Hendrickson’s irate words on his Political Punch blog.
“I listened to that quote and I got mad,” Hendrickson said, “and I wanted to reach out to Senator Obama and say senator, we are from the rural part of eastern North Carolina. We are very proud of our heritage, we are proud of who we are. We are not frustrated. We are not bitter. We turn to our faith because we believe, and we hunt and fish because it is part of our culture and we enjoy it.
Ok, that’s all well and good. We have a candidate in Obama pandering to his far left, elitist California base by telling them he thinks Middle America is filled with racist, hicks. And we have a Southern Democrat playing the good ol’ boy card claiming to be “proud” of his fellow hicks in flyover country.
Hendrickson is 100% right, of course. Obama has nothing but disdain for Middle America and he should be called on it.
There is only one problem with Hendrickson’s little tale and that problem comes in at the tale end of Tapper’s report.
Amos points out that, interestingly, the crowd had little reaction at all. They, in fact, seemed a tad bored.
Tapper says “interestingly” as if it is of but little concern. I, on the other hand, find it disturbing. It says to me that the North Carolina Democrats that Mr. Hendrickson was speaking to, people that are supposedly the sort of average North Carolinians from the same sort of “small towns” that Obama seems to hate so, weren’t upset in the least at Obama’s comments likening them to racist gun-nuts, etc.
Why is this one might wonder?
Let me posit to you that these Hillary supporters weren’t upset because the remarks that Obama made were not that big of a deal to them. In other words, these Democrats AGREED with Obama’s characterization that most Americans are overly religious, racist, gun-nuts. So, when Mr. Hendrickson tired to stir the crowd against Obama’s comments, they didn’t react because it didn’t make them mad in the first place.
And this gets to the nub of the issue. Most Democrats hate the average American. Most Democrats assume that most Americans are racists. Most Democrats agree with Obama that Americans are evil people.
THAT is the Democratic Party of today. A party that hates its fellow citizens. Obama’s charge against his fellow countrymen is garbage, of course. But few in his party think so, few disagree with his mischaracterization of Middle America. And THAT is the most disgusting part of this whole story.
Continue reading “Obama’s ‘Small Towns’ Gaffe Reveals Un-American Democrats”
2007 Video of Barack Obama and Rev. Wright Signing Books Together
-By Warner Todd Huston
On Feb 8, 2007 Channel 2 News Chicago had a little puff piece on Senator Barack Obama discussing his soon to be launched presidential campaign. It happened to air just before Barack’s “60 Minutes” TV interview and it focused on Barack’s attendance at the Trinity United Church of Christ. The interesting thing about this video is that Barack is seen sitting side by side with Rev. Wright as they sign copies of Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope.” This chumminess seems to make the lie to the claim that Barack was in any way upset at his “spiritual mentor,” Rev. Wright.
It is curious why the CBS 2 video showing a beaming Barack and Wright has not been more widely played by the media, but it does prove that Barack only recently, in the middle of scrutiny and only in the last month, has found himself trying to claim he disagrees with the racist Rev. After all, he was still quite friendly with the ranting Rev. Wright in the CBS video of but a year ago.
It just goes to cast a heavy pall of doubt around Barack’s supposedly oh-so earnest claim that Wright’s long-time rhetoric now disturbs him. There is no evidence that this could be true as this not very widely seen video shows.
Continue reading “2007 Video of Barack Obama and Rev. Wright Signing Books Together”
Obama HAS to Hate America or Lose ‘Black Vote’
-By Warner Todd Huston
On Friday, March 28th, Barack Obama made his latest stab at explaining away why he spent 20 years as a comfortable member of the volatile and racist Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago. This was the church where Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. bellowed sermons filled with hate for whites and the United States of America as well as a church that published anti-Jew, pro Hamas terrorist articles in church newsletters. And, like all Obama’s other “explanations on this matter” this one leaves a lot to be desired.
This time, Obama tried his best to make us believe that he would have quit the church over Rev. Wright’s racist, hate filled rants if the good Rev. hadn’t retired first – even though it was only a year ago. In an excerpt from an upcoming interview CNN reports that Obama earnestly hoped to assure America that Wright’s rhetoric was “outrageously wrong” and that his brand of “religion” would have caused Barack to quit the church had it continued.
The problem is, when you look at what Barack really said, it does not assure us that he would have left the church over Wright’s obscenities any more than a child caught with his hand in a cookie jar could be believed should he say that it was the last time he intended to steal a cookie. It’s easy to claim what you would have done after being caught at something. But the proof is in the pudding as history shows what was really done. Barack didn’t leave the church over Wright or anything else. He sat in that congregation with his wife and children nodding his head and saying “Amen” to Wright’s 20 some years of railing against the United States.
Barack talked about the controversy on ABC’s “The View” and tried to sound as if he was somehow disturbed by Wright’s long history of anti-Americanism and racist diatribes.
“Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church,” the senator said.
To ferret out the real truth here, let’s break Obama’s claim down line for line, let’s Fisk the rhetoric, if you will. (Barack’s words follow in bold)
Continue reading “Obama HAS to Hate America or Lose ‘Black Vote’”