Rick Moran
This is an issue that isn’t going away for the Obama campaign and unless they address it in an effort to put it to bed, it will become one of those “distractions” the candidate really hates:

A few weeks ago, a diary entry at Daily Kos published several documents purporting to be Obama’s birth certificate. One of those documents is now a confirmed forgery, ferreted out by the website Israeli Insider:

Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.

The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider’s revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the diligent detective work of independent investigative journalists (led by JimJ and Texas Darling) and imaging professionals such as Polarik in the

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

By James Lewis

In his victory speech over Hillary, Barack Obama soared rhetorically about his feelings of humility. And yet he hardly sounded humble:

“generations from now,

we will be able to look back

and tell our children

(with mounting excitement)

that this was the moment
when we began to provide care for the sick,
and good jobs for the jobless.

This was the moment

when the riiiiise of the oceans began to slow,

and our planet began to heal.“[bolding added]

Now politicians are allowed some rhetorical overkill, but this is straight into Star Wars territory. There are no real precedents for this in traditional American speechifying, and that is saying something. Obama tells his hypnotized followers that we have not been caring for the sick (false); that we have no good jobs for the jobless (false); that the rise of the oceans (which doesn’t exist)  will begin to slow (false); and that our planet (which is feeling just fine, thanks) will finally begin to heal. (Also false).
So this is pure drivel from the deep regions of fantasyland. But Obama’s brain Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Randall Hoven from American Thinker:

Barack Obama is against lifting the ban on drilling for oil offshore because it would not reduce gas prices “this year, next year, five years from now,” according to CNN .

“John McCain’s proposal, George Bush’s proposal to drill offshore here in Florida, and other places around the country, would not provide families with any relief, this year, next year, five years from now… Believe me, if I thought there was any evidence at all that drilling could save people money who are struggling to fill up their gas tanks by this summer or the next few years, I would consider it, but it won’t.”

This sure looks like Obama, the great problem solver according to Al Gore , is not interested in solving any problems that show up only beyond “this summer or the next few years” or that take more than a few years to fix (5 tops, apparently).
Not very forward-looking, is he?  In fact, his time window of interest seems to coincide rather perfectly with what would be his first term as President.  Any problem that won’t show up during his term is not a problem he would try to solve.  So much for the vision thing.
Then where does that put global warming, by the way?  I was not aware that global warming would have dire consequences this summer or the next few years or that it could be solved within 5 years.  According to Senator Obama’s logic then, why try to solve it?  This would be especially so since even global warmists believe the next decade will involve little or no warming .  I also did not know that all the alternative energy sources Senator Obama advocates could be brought on line “this summer”.  Wow, those windmill guys are good.

I guess that means we can count on a President Obama to ignore the impending bankruptcies of Social Security and Medicare, for example.  Or what about levee systems that take more than a few years to put in place to help alleviate flooding that isn’t even expected to occur for maybe 100 years?  Too bad for the next Katrina victims.
Of course, Obama’s logic is based on the premise that gasoline prices would not fall until new oil is actually put in barrels.  But as Larry Kudlow points out , oil investors will start bidding down the price as soon as the knowledge of the availability of new oil becomes more certain.  That could mean that, if the ban on offshore drilling is lifted this summer, gas prices could fall this summer or the next few years.
In the long term we are all dead.  For Senator Obama, the long term begins about four years from now.

No Comments »

Bloggers are raising questions about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s qualifications to be U.S. president, because of the secrecy over his birth certificate and the requirement presidents be “natural-born” U.S. citizens.

Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot, a National Review blog, cited the “unlikely” but still circulating rumor that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.

Geraghty defined the concerns most clearly, stating: “If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen … because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ‘10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.’”

He then points out Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was 18 when Obama was born “so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.”

Geraghty continues: ” (Interestingly, apparently there isn’t much paperwork on Obama’s parents’ marriage. ‘Obama: From Promise to Power,’ page. 27: ‘Obama later confessed that he never searched for the government documents on the marriage, although Madelyn (Obama’s maternal grandmother) insisted they were legally married.’ Also note that Obama’s father apparently was not legally divorced from his first wife back in Kenya at the time, a point of contention that ultimately led to their separation.)”
The reports released to date show Obama was born in Honolulu to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, of Wichita, Kan.

According to FindLaw.com, which is cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”

Obama’s father, a student sent to the United States from Africa, lived several places in the United States while attending class. He then returned to his homeland. Obama’s mother later married another man and moved to Indonesia.

Geraghty said the Obama campaign could “debunk” the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.

“The campaign cited the birth certificate in their ‘Fact Check’ on William Ayers, so presumably, someone in the campaign has access to it,” he said.

Hawaii doesn’t make public information from birth certificates.

“If the concern of the Obama campaign is that the certificate includes his Social Security number or some other data that could be useful to identity thieves, that information could easily be blocked out and the rest released. (Although I wonder if identity thieves would find Obama a tougher than usual target, since using the name on purchases would almost inevitably bring closer scrutiny.),” Geraghty said.

The Obama campaign repeatedly has declined to respond to WND requests for comment.

The presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., already has gone through the same type of challenge, and the U.S. Senate responded with a resolution in April declaring him to be a “‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

That article declares that “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of president.”

McCain was challenged because he was born to two U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.

According to a report from Michael Dobbs on The Fact Checker, the McCain campaign consulted two leading jurists, Theodore Olsen and Laurence Tribe, and they agreed.

“They argue that McCain is a natural born citizen because the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal at the time of his birth on August 29, 1936, he was born on a U.S. military base, and both of his parents were U.S. citizens,” the report said.

Others say the issue isn’t quite that simple, and the matter could be resolved fully only by a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

4 Comments »

Found this article at NoQuarterUSA

First, I need to direct you to this entry at Rezko Watch, so that you will understand that the systematic internet abuse of people who do not support Barack Obama is planned by the Barack Obama campaign with the blessings of the Plastic Jesus Himself.

You will read about the “Echo Chamber” to be created on the internet, managed by the same man who led Howard Dean’s internet onslaught. You will also read about how the Plan includes media manipulation. Actually, the entire “plan” is practically Orwellian.

That’s right folks, Howard Dean and Barky Obama are in each other’s pants, so to speak, and have been from Day One.

Hillary Clinton never had a chance with the DNC. Nobody would have had a chance. The voters had no chance. The Plan was to put Howard Dean’s candidate, Barack Obama, in the candidate’s slot at all and any costs. Judging from what we have seen in the past year, this is not so hard to believe at all.

The idea here is to turn the internet into a constant Pro Obama “echo”. This includes going where people who do not support Obama are. It also included driving all Hillary supporters away from presumably “objective” sites until the sites become All Obama All The Time.

The most recent example of Obama-Planned onslaught was seen yesterday, when many established bloggers’ and message board users’ names and their links (including my own) were nearly simultaneously forged in messages on forums and blogs all over the net.

The messages, falsely bearing our names, stated that we have had a “change of heart” and now “support Barack Obama”.

Knowing fully well that this entire onslaught was a forgery, the gleefully Obama-Complicit Andrew Sullivan posted this entry using a message out of context from a No Quarter thread. Sullivan used the term the Clinton “Dead Enders“. The idea here is to make his readers believe that these forgeries were real, that we have all truly had a change of heart, and the few remaining “dead enders” are in a panic over it.

Andrew Sullivan knows damned well that these messages in our names were forgeries designed by Obama’s campaign. The fact is, a NQ user was seeing all those forgeries on the net and was perplexed. As a deliberate participant of the Obama-coordinated effort, Sullivan used that message to imply those of us whose identities were stolen had actually written those messages.

Not only did Sullivan’s out of context message give a false signal that so many of the No-Obama people were defecting, but suddenly his term “Dead Ender” started showing up on message boards as part of the Obama zombies’ posts to Clinton supporters. Like magic! See? Hopey Changey Magic! No Quarter does a more complete piece on this story here .

We have long noticed that Obamazoids seem to use the same catch phrases, insults and barbs. Now we can clearly see where it is all it coming from: It is coordinated directly with the Barack Obama Campaign.

Look for the words “Dead Enders” to be used often this week, just as Andrew Sullivan used it. I have already seen it used at No Quarter, so it’s coming to the other theaters soon.

The Obama Web Echo Chamber also explains how it is that the sudden rash of forged Obama-Love messages bearing familiar users’ and bloggers names, were posted so widely on the internet so quickly. Inside of 24 hours, all the most used No-Obama websites had been affected, leaving readers confused and thinking that the community of bloggers who have no use for Barack Obama had a change of heart. That was the idea. But this was no instant idea. This wasn’t the impromptu work of a couple of kids in the middle of the night. This was planned.

Barack Obama owns the internet slaughter we have tolerated for more than a year, folks.

This man and his campaign has no interest whatsoever in the concept of Democracy. In the same way he has stolen delegates at caucuses and right In The Face of Michigan voters, this power-hungry man continues to unleash his his young zombies and will stop at nothing to force himself upon America and silence dissent. Frankly, I can see why his cousin Odinga has no problem killing off people who didn’t vote for him in Kenya. Silencing dissent is in his genes.

Barack Obama can’t kill those of us who will never support him like Cousin Odinga is doing, so instead he is working deliberately to kill our spirit, our dignity, our status as human beings, and our Choice of President. Remember, this is the same man who eliminated all of his competition when he ran for State Senate.

Honestly and truly, he is the most vile Presidential candidate I have witnessed in my entire not so short life, and that even includes George Bush. Now that’s amazing! His manipulation of the internet and his ability to bring out the malicious side of young people bear witness to what he is. His sponsors and affiliations bear even greater witness. Show me who you hang out with and I will tell you what you are.

After you have digested Rezko Watch’s piece and No Quarter’s piece, here is what I would like you to do:

Print out the most vile, insulting and filthy messages that you find here or anywhere on the internet. Show them to your friends and relatives. Take the worst ones. Show them to anyone and everyone. For example, show every Jew you know the screen shots from mybarackobama, which depict very clearly what this campaign really thinks of Jews and Israel. The pages have been scrubbed now, and screen shots have become the friend of everyone who opposes Barack Obama.

Truly, gang there is something to offend everyone that has been crapped out by an Obama ass on the internet. Make your printer your friend. Send links to everyone you know. Show them who and what Barack Obama is.

The Obama thugs online don’t even remember that there is a world away from their computers. They are mostly kids who are using the computer while their parents sleep or work. That’s YOUR world. Most people in the real world don’t even know who DK*s is. It’s a community unto itself. The majority of the country couldn’t care less about him or anybody’s blog for that matter.

Use the Real World to stop Obama. I can attest that it works! If Barack Obama wants to be malicious online via his “Echo” surrogates, then he will have to understand that his surrogates represent him. Use his own tool against him.

No Comments »

By Charlie Wolf at American Thinker:

Barrack Obama has women troubles, and Hillary Clinton is far from alone as being a problem. Danger lurks much closer to home.
First there are the 13 million disaffected women who supported Hillary not for her agenda but for her gender.  Fifteen times in her concession speech Hillary name-checked Barack Obama and fifteen times there were loud boos in the audience.  Yes, many will back Obama, but Democrats, unlike Republicans, don’t fall in line.  In one poll 40 per cent of Clinton supporters said they will not support Obama; whether that turns into votes for McCain is another matter.  
Then there is Hillary herself.  In her swan song speech (is it?) she claimed she would “do whatever she could to ensure that Democrats take the White House back and defeat John McCain,”  In their quiet chat together at Diane Feinstein’s house in Washington last week, I can only imagine that Obama said that the best help she can give is to give no help at all.  Obama can only hope that the Bill & Hill Show quietly retreats to the shadows only to appear  — briefly — at the convention in late August. Obama doesn’t need the distraction or the constant reminder that she is still about.
Then there is the problem of the vice presidency.  Unless Hillary announces unequivocally that she has no intention to stand and will not accept an offer, this will hang like a pall and a question mark over the Obama campaign.
Her brigade of soul sisters will continue to push for her to the Obama camp either with her endorsement and connivance or not.  The shards from those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling will start to fall on Obama and his campaign will suffer death from 18 million small cuts.
Obama does not have to wait until the nomination to name his pick for veep and the vetting committee he has set up will buy him some time but that still leaves a glimmer of unrequited hope for Hillary supporters.  Yet another distraction from his core message.
Of course, Hillary may not want the post.  She could figure that Obama will lose to McCain and this puts her in the position in 2012 to tell the party elders “see I told you so.”  Why be tainted as part of a losing ticket? Though she will on the surface give the appearance of helping the Obama campaign enough to secure her place in the party, it is in her interest not to help too much.  Giving the appearance of being “open to the idea” of the vice-presidency keeps the dance and the guessing going and distracts from the main thrust of selling Obama and his ideas (of which we know not what they are) to the electorate.  The distraction continues without her fingerprints on the gun.
And what if Obama should pick Hillary?  That brings up a host of problems of their own.  First there is the Clinton motivational factor on the GOP base — if Republican John McCain can’t rally his conservative base, the Clintons will. 
Then there’s the Michelle problem.
In her famous television interview with Martin Bashir, Diana the late Princess of Wales, referring to Camilla (now the Duchess of Cornwall) complained that there were “three of us in this marriage.”  Not only will Hillary not want to do a job she’s in essence already done - the vice presidency may even be a step down for her after being Bill’s co-president - but in Michelle Obama’s eyes it’s now her turn to be vice-president.
If Barrack Obama’s throwback ideas to the Carter administration aren’t scary enough, the thought of a Michelle Obama as part of the administration should really put the frighteners up.
Think back to Hillary Clinton’s time in office dodging those bullets in Bosnia or securing peace in Northern Ireland.  Imagine what Michelle can do as FLOTUS.  Think about Cherie Blair Britain, where I live,  and her time in Downing Street.  Mrs. Blair, or Cherie Booth as she is known professionally, was happy enough as a barrister to take her own husband’s government to court on human rights charges on a number of cases.  The recent publication of her memoirs have been a unneeded distraction to Gordon Brown  (notable fact: youngest son, Leo Blair, was conceived while she and Tony Blair were guests of the Queen at Balmoral.  She was too embarrassed to take her contraception as Her Majesty’s household staff unpack one’s bags).
Michelle will take the art of interfering first spouse to a whole new unexplored level.  This will be a lot more than just — as Bill Clinton spoke of Hillary — “two for the price of one.”
Be it her only recently found pride in her country or moans about the price of ballet lessons or complaints about what “it [criticism of the odious preacher, Rev. Wright] is doing to my kids,” Michelle is already famous for a strain of affluent victimhood; I can only feel for the White House staff who would have to suffer four years of her employ.
Add to this her leftist view of Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, not just of the military but of the whole nation; the nanny state with her as the chief nanny.  Think of this famous prediction from Michelle: 
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Hmm, where in the US Constitution does it give him the power to do that?  Michelle is Hillary, Cherie and Oprah on steroids
And yes, she will have the power.

Hell hath no fury…  Somewhere in all of this there will be a woman scorned; be it Hillary, Hill’s supporters or Michelle.  It won’t be a pretty sight.
London-based American talk show host, Charlie Wolf comments frequently on the US election on the BBC and Sky News.

No Comments »

Well, Well!  Congradulations to Obama! He wins the nomination. Lucky for him he did so well at first, as the last month or so, he really started to shine… for who he really was/is…. and people did not like it.  Read what a few Democrats say below.

—-

This empty endorsement flies in the face of the last 6 months. I, as someone who voted for Obama the first time around, have had a better chance to see what I was voting for since that early primary and like most Americans did not like what I saw. His vote totals went down each month and won only because of a quick start.
I will cast my vote for Mr. McCain in November.

 —-

This is the worst thing that could happen to the Democrat party. Hillary was the best chance to keep the White House.
What with Obamas ties to Racism and corruption. Obama should have dropped out after Rev Wrigth came to light. Many people mostly White, don’t like Obamas connections to this racist man.
Obama is also tied to Rezko. He was just convicted on 16 counts of corruption. This will be coming out during the General Election. Once America gets a true look at Obama, they will unite with McCain. It will cost the Dems the White House in Nov.

I am voting McCain all the way.

—-

It doesn’t matter what Clinton say’s Obama will never get my vote !

—-

I have never voted for a Republican in 23 years of being a voter, but there is something eerily “Jim Jones and the Guyana Tragedy” about Obama that I don’t like, so for the first and hopefully last time, this November the Republicans get my vote. And no, it has nothing to do with Rev.Wright.

—-

Those are just a few of the Demorats that realize that Obama is about the worst president we could have. 

We will keep you updated as the election continues!

Goodbye until the next post!

True Obama Facts!

1 Comment »

Speeches apparently contradict autobiography, Army documents

By Aaron Klein, World Net Daily
Two days after a speech in which Sen. Barack Obama erroneously claimed his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz concentration camp, inconsistencies remain regarding the much-touted military service of the presidential candidate’s family.

During the Memorial Day speech in New Mexico, Obama suggested his grandfather, the late Stanley Dunham, engaged in combat. But the Democratic senator’s autobiography says his grandfather never saw “real combat.” Also, Army records apparently contradict Obama’s claim his grandfather signed up the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.

As WND reported, Obama told the New Mexico audience, which included military veterans, his uncle was part of the division that freed Auschwitz. But bloggers and the Republican National Committee immediately pointed out the Nazi death camp was liberated by the Soviet Union in January 1945. The campaign later said it actually was Obama’s great uncle who helped liberate Ohrdruf, a sub-camp of the Buchenwald Nazi concentration camp.

Obama several times has suggested his grandfather served in combat.

During Monday’s speech, Obama said: “My grandfather marched in Patton’s Army, but I cannot know what it is to walk into battle like so many of you.”

In a 2002 anti-war speech, Obama told the audience, “My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields Continue Reading »

2 Comments »

By Vel Nirtist
 

Senator Obama recently expressed his deep love of, and “unshakeable commitment to” Israel. I believe him, but I am still worried. What exactly does he mean by love?

Love is indeed a many splendored thing, and people use the word to cover a wide range of phenomena. There are, after all, love-hate relationships, not to mention varieties of twisted love. But even more benign forms of love come in a variety of shapes.
Love between equals is far from the only manifestation. How does Senator Obama see Israel? As a peer? Or perhaps something smaller, needing guidance?
I worry about a President Obama loving Israel the way a strict parent loves a child.
“Spare the rod and spoil the child” expresses well one dilemma of love. Pampering which gives instant gratification to both the parent and the child results in a selfish brat of a grown-up, unable to cooperate with others and making both himself and those around him miserable, or so believes the strict parent, full of love.
A President Obama might think that pressure on the Israel is the way to express his love. He might tell himself that pressure, both internal and external, pushed it to participate in the Oslo process and Madrid conference, to allow Palestinian self-rule, to arm Palestinian ”police” and “security” forces, to not react adequately to murderous “intifada,” to unilaterally withdraw from Hezbullia (or, geographically speaking, “South Lebanon”) and Gaza.  He can tell himself that pressure is in the “best long-term interests” of Israel.
The rod of terrorism which resulted from these moves was explained away by the political wise heads as a “sacrifice for peace,” under the assumption that the peace will indeed come about when “occupation” is lifted and the Palestinians are allowed full measure of self-rule and economic opportunity. The current pressure from Tony Blair and our own State department to remove roadblocks in the West bank and provide freedom of movement for the Palestinians — of necessity, to terrorists among them — that pressure is merely a kind parental rod guiding a child towards a better destiny.
So the question regarding Israel to candidate Obama is this: will his professed love for Israel translate into the loving rod of pressure, resulting in more terrorism which should be endured for the sake of the messianic vision of peace?
Or does he clearly recognize that all this is nonsense? Does he realize that Palestinian suffering (even if indeed “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people“ as he put it*) is purely self-inflicted?
Does he realize that Palestinians lived within the ‘67 borders for full 20 years, yet were not happy with them, and that they seek the destruction of Israel, not just the ‘67 borders?
Does he realize that Hamas is not some aberration, but a genuine expression of the mindset of the Palestinian people and of their intentions towards Israel?
Does he realize that were the Palestinians willing to live and let live, there would be peace starting yesterday — but the Palestinians find the “let live” portion unbearable, and would rather not live normal lives themselves as long as they can ruin normalcy for the Israelis?
Does he realize that the conflict is fuelled not by economic conditions, but by religious and ideological hate, which no amount of international handouts or even genuine economic prosperity will heal? 
Does he realize that, in the absence of hate, Palestine will be a prosperous country within any borders allotted to it, but if the Palestinians continue to torment themselves with their old drudges, and see others, rather then themselves and their fellow-Arabs, as the cause of all their problems, both past and present, no borders, ‘67 or otherwise, would stop terrorism?
Does he understands that Iran too is motivated by ideology and religion and not by some material interests which can be accommodated, and so there is nothing to negotiate with it other then the schedule of the world’s universal submission to the “True Faith” of Shia Islam?
If candidate Obama’s answer to any of those questions is a “no,” than no amount of his love for Israel — whether genuine of feigned — would do Israel any good. Because, for the sake of that love, for the sake of ”Israel’s own best interests” he will unleash the rod of pressuring Israel into unconscionable concessions, and causing it to continue to suffer under the rod of terrorism — or worse.
Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of “The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly.” His blog is at rootoutterrorism.com
_________________________
*Obama later “explained” his remarks this way:

Obama… explained that the Palestinians suffer because of their leadership. “I said that no one suffers more than the Palestinian people because of their leadership’s failure to recognize Israel, denounce violence and be serious about peace negotiations and regional security.” 

No Comments »

By Ed Lasky from American Thinker:

“Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct, presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” - Barackobama.com Barack Obama has enshrined the principle of unconditional summitry with Iran as one of the central foreign policy planks of his campaign for President. This despite recent efforts by Obama surrogates to confuse the electorate. The statement above is found on the campaign website of Senator Obama and reflects his view — repeated a number of times by himself in debates and question and answer sessions — that the thrust of his foreign policy will be personal Presidential engagement with tyrannical regimes across the globe, including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. But the focus clearly will be on Iran as the campaign moves along. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and is developing the means to construct nuclear weapons. What would be the consequences of such a Presidential meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad? Michael Gerson has written eloquently about the moral stain that will color the mere act of meeting with a Holocaust denier who boasts of his yearning to repeat the effort to exterminate the Jews. Obama, a man who on the campaign trail has declared that “nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have,” will be extending the honor of a Presidential meeting to the most dangerous anti-Semite of all. For what benefit? As Gerson wrote, “having made Iranian talks without precondition: his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice to move forward” There will inevitably be pressure to offer concessions to Ahmadinejad to help ensure a successful summit. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, who will Continue Reading »

No Comments »

By Peggy Shapiro at American Thinker:

Barack Obama’s call to action is “Change we can believe in.” I would love to believe it, but until now I haven’t even been able to understand it. What is going to change?  With his latest about face on direct talks with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Obama has finally clarified what he is going to change: his opinion. From terror to funding for tots, where there’s controversy and two sides to be wooed, there is the Obama about-face.
This week, Obama’s key foreign policy advisor, Susan E. Rice, told the New York Times that Obama never claimed he would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Iran’s president  Mr. Ahmadinejad. Dr. Rice said that Obama would not meet at the presidential level with this Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state without the preparation to use such a meeting as leverage for change. In fact, it was only right-wing machinations or imagination that “distorted and reframed” Obama’s views.
That was certainly a change from numerous statements candidate Obama made on the same topic.  Did John McCain enter the following posting on Obama’s campaign website? “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”  
Nothing could have been clearer than Obama’s response to Anderson Cooper during the YouTube Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Terrorist group prepared to make statement denying endorsement of U.S. candidates

From World Net Daily:

JERUSALEM – The Hamas terrorist organization is strongly considering issuing an official statement claiming it doesn’t endorse any U.S. presidential candidate and that remarks made by an official supportive of Sen. Barack Obama were “misunderstood,” a top Hamas leader told WND.

Other Hamas sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the terror group “understands” praise for Obama last month from Ahmed Yousef, Hamas’ chief political advisor in the Gaza Strip, is harming the Illinois senator.

In an interview with WND and WABC Radio last month, Yousef said he “hopes” Obama becomes president and compared the Illinois senator to President John F. Kennedy.

“We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections,” said Yousef.

“I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. … I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principal. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance,” Yousef said, speaking from Gaza.

Yousef was not asked which presidential candidate he supports. He volunteered his endorsement in response to a question inquiring whether he was surprised Obama and other presidential candidates criticized Jimmy Carter’s recent meetings with Hamas.

Yousef’s endorsement has become a top theme in the presidential campaign, with Sen. John McCain and Obama repeatedly trading barbs over the Hamas official’s comments.

While the terror group appears likely to release a clarification statement regarding Yousef’s support of Obama, Yousef today still implied he favored Obama over McCain.

“The Americans should reach the conclusion from the positions of McCain that while part of the Americans and the international community are seeking to speak with Hamas, McCain is attacking this position and is calling us terrorists,” Yousef said in response to a reporter’s query.

Obama also has repeatedly condemned Hamas as terrorists. But earlier this week the Democratic candidate said in an interview he understands why Hamas supports his presidential bid. Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has received an endorsement he might well wish he hadn’t — from the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas’ top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, delivered his endorsement in an interview with WorldNetDaily and WABC Radio in New York.

“We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections,” Yousuf said.

“I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America, to [put] it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance.”

The U.S. and Israel have been seeking to isolate Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in June and is classified by the State Department as a terrorist group.

Obama, as well as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain, have all referred to Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” according to WorldNetDaily.

Asked about Obama’s criticism of former President Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas during his Middle Eastern trip, Yousuf said:

“I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he’s a friend of Israel…

“I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse when one of them will be the president.”

4 Comments »

ELECTION 2008

Michelle Obama’s latest gaffe: ‘See, this is what gets me into trouble’

www.worldnetdaily.com

Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate Barack Obama, known for saying what’s on her mind – candidly, spontaneously and frequently – has exposed this trait yet again in a profile in the London Guardian.

Asked how she feels about Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase “fairytale” to describe her husband’s characterization of his position on the Iraq war, she first responded: “No.”

But, after a few seconds of contemplation, and gesturing with her fingernails, she told the reporter: “I want to rip his eyes out!”

Noticing an aide giving her a nervous look, she added: “Kidding! See, this is what gets

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

American Thinker: 

When Barack Obama made his official announcement that he was running for President over 14 months ago in Springfield, Illinois, the Senator made sure that his pastor Jeremiah Wright had no speaking role and was kept away from the ceremony. Obama campaign  manager David Axelrod  has admitted that there were concerns back then about what Wright might say.
When Senator Obama made his speech in Philadelphia on race in America following the first round of Reverend Wright media exposure several weeks back, he admitted he had heard some of the Reverend’s more controversial remarks in person in church.

“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.” 


But now, the Senator has really had enough of Reverend Wright. In a press conference Tuesday, Obama condemned Wright,  and claimed that Wright had offended him with his latest tirade on Monday Continue Reading »

No Comments »