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 »

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 »

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 »

Barack Obama’s campaign has been all about image. The well-dressed, impeccably groomed, and elegantly articulate speaker was able to speak of hope, change, and unity, and for awhile the public bought it. Capitalizing on the huge store of guilt, compassion, and hope for better racial relations among the vast majority of Americans of all races, Obama posed as the man who might heal the wounds of the past.

The bonhomie lasted for months, as the press corps, no strangers to their own guilt and hope and leftist inclinations, averted its eyes from those elements of his politics and life story that were discordant with a unifier’s mission, and portayed him as almost supernaturally virtuous. Obama long ago learned how to disarm strangers who might find him an unusual or perhaps threatening figure, and as long as the scrutiny didn’t get too detailed, the game worked splendidly.
But that was before Hillary Clinton’s campaign took him seriously. Before the Clinton war room wizards, past masters of planting stories and themes in friendly media hands, got to work on him. American Thinker and other conservative websites long have been pointing to his Alinskyite past, noting his Senate voting record and his propensity to associate with left wing extremists like Bill Ayers. But until very recently, the major media were Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Contemporaries, records dispute campaign claim that he was never ‘practicing Muslim’

By Aaron Klein, 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559

JERUSALEM – Was Sen. Barack Obama a Muslim? Did he ever practice Islam?

The presidential candidate officially rejects the claims, but the issue of Obama’s personal faith has re-emerged amid conflicting accounts of his enrollment as a Muslim during elementary school in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation.

Widely distributed reports have noted in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta’s Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as “L Soetoro Ma,” worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.

Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students, but exempt them from studying religion. Obama’s school documents, though, wrongly list him as being Indonesian.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was Continue Reading »

No Comments »

33 Senators Voted Against English as America ’s Official Language on June 6, 2007.

On Wed. 6 June 2007 Colonel Harry Riley, USA, Ret., wrote:

Senators:

Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348……to make English America’s official language is astounding. On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and principles of America , I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.

I don’t much care where you come from. What your religion is. Whether you’re black, white, or some other color……male or female……Democrat, Republican or Independent……. But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America ….and vote against English as the official language of the United States .

Your vote reflects Betrayal. Political Surrender. Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance. Dishonors historical principle. Rejects Patriotism. Borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator…impeachment… Recall……..Or other appropriate action is warranted or worse.

Four of you voting against English as America ’s Official Language are Presidential Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.

Four Senators vying to lead America , but won’t or don’t have the courage to cast a vote in favor of “English” as America ’s Official Language when 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.

This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as “political Hacks”…… Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States .

If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally “rock you out of your panties”……… And preferably totally out of the United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce… Your action only confirms this really isn’t about America …..it is about self-serving politics……despicable at best. It has been said: “Never Argue with an Idiot….They’ll drag you down to their level!
The following Senators voted against making English the official language Of America :

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) (Wants to be President)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) (Wants to be President)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd ( D- MN ) wants to be president
Domenici (R-NM) coward. Protecting his senate seat
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-win) - not unusual for him
Feinstein (D-ca)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-hi)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy - (D-ma)
Kerry (D-ma) (tried to be president)
Kohl (D-WI))
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (I-CT) Disappointment here…..
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL) (Wants to be President)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader
As Lazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-M

9 Comments »

By Joseph Farah

–

It’s going to be a strange presidential election year, no question about it.

For one thing, major party presidential nominees almost always have middle names.

In the past, it’s been, “All the way with JFK.” I think that was used again with LBJ. We all knew Richard Nixon’s middle name was Milhous. He wasn’t ashamed. There was Gerald R. Ford, then James Earl Carter, better known as Jimmy. Then came Ronald Wilson Reagan before the first George Bush who had two middle names – Herbert Walker. Bill Clinton was actually William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. And then, of course, came George Bush – known around the world by the initial of his middle name, “W.”

But this year looks different.

For if Barack Obama should get the Democratic Party nod, he’s made it clear we can’t use his middle name.

All I can tell you is it starts with an “H.” Even his Republican opponent has said it’s just not appropriate for anyone to cite his middle name.

It is the middle name we dare not speak?

Isn’t this going to be unusual?

I’m not quite sure why Barack H. Obama is so sensitive about Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Compares charter calling for murder of Jews to Declaration of Independence
By Aaron Klein

www.worldnetdaily.com

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama’s Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America’s Declaration of Independence.

The Hamas piece was published on the “Pastor’s Page” of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Obama pastor’s theology: Destroy ‘the white enemy’
‘If God is not for us and against whites … we had better kill him’

Barack Obama’s suddenly radioactive pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has defended himself against charges of anti-Americanism and racism by referring to his foundational philosophy, the “black liberation theology” of scholars such as James Cone, who regard Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people” who will only accept a god who assists their aim of destroying the “white enemy.”

“If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.”

Wright has not talked to media since video segments of his sermons over the past decade surfaced last week – including one in 2003 in which he encouraged blacks to damn America in God’s name. But in a 2007 interview replayed on the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity and Colmes” show Friday, he repeatedly fended off Sean Hannity’s questions with an appeal to authority, asking if the host had read any of the books of Cone, professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, or Dwight Hopkins, professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School, notes the Asia Times columnist who writes under the pseudonym Spengler.”

Obama, who has spoken of his pastor of more than 20 years as his mentor and moral compass, “wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says,” notes Spengler, by referring him as a “respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.”

But Spengler says “that way lies apolitical quicksand.”

Cone, he points out, was the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school in the 1960s, teaching that Jesus Christ himself is black.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

From Sun Times:

What would Barack Obama do? With a delegate lead putting him on track to win the Democratic presidential nomination and Republicans facing an uphill fight in November, what would the change Obama touts on the campaign trail mean were he to take over the White House? That question arises because of things he says as he politicks, including a couple of positions that have been undercut by his advisers.

A “NAFTA-gate” brouhaha erupted after Obama made protectionist-sounding remarks, saying he would reopen negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement to correct defects that have cost U.S. jobs. Then it was reported that an adviser, University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, told the Canadian consulate in Chicago that Obama’s remarks should be viewed more as “political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Obama said the discussion had been “misreported.”

Obama has a reputation of understanding the value of free trade, so the Canadian report seemed reassuring on the economic issue if not altogether flattering to him in regards to candor while wooing voters in Ohio. But Obama followed up by saying he would reopen NAFTA to “strengthen the core labor and environmental standards.”

Which position, free trade or more protectionism, would prevail in an Obama presidency?

Then another adviser raised questions about his pledge for a scheduled pullout of troops from Iraq. In a BBC interview, Samantha Power said Obama “will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan — an operational plan — that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.”

That’s an imminently reasonable position, but at odds with Obama’s campaign rhetoric. He reacted by sticking to his position: “I will end it in 2009.” Democrats never tire of damning President Bush for ignoring military advice on Iraq, but their presidential candidates insist on retreating no matter what the generals say.

Faced with the realities of Iraq, what Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Top Obama Flip Flops

1. Special Interests
Back in January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the Clinton and Edwards campaign as “special interest” money. He changed his tune as he went after union endorsements himself. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.

2. Public Financing
Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. His spokesman now says that he never gave such a pledge, and Obama himself has attached several conditions, including regulating spending by outside groups.

3. The Cuba embargo
In January 2004, Obama said flatly that it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba,” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban-American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it was “an important inducement for change.”

4. Illegal immigration
In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a televised debate on January 31, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”

5. Decriminalization of Marijuana
While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the October 30, 2007 presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Clinton’s Flip-Flops here.

No Comments »

Obama is asked by fawning press, “Are you comfortable?” The video start in the middle, but still gives a good view of the media of this year’s campaigns bias. To see the whole video go to AlterNet Blogs The Media has never played to a candidate like this before. They refuse to look at his record, and don’t look the Obama/Rezko problem. They don’t look at his experience record, or his lack of it, for that matter. They just by into the “Obama is the Messiah” hype. Just wait until the actual race if Obama gets the nomination. He will crumble under John McCain, who has REAL experience.

Obama’s health care plan is not what he says it is. His stance on the Iraq War was not what he said it was. In 2004 he wanted to hit Iran and maybe Pakistan with Missiles. His budget plan is insane, adding $860 Billion in the next ten year for… Global Poverty!! Obama supports Partial Birth abortion, a practice most liberals are disgusted by!

Senator Obama is NOT WHAT HE SAYS HE IS!! Please, for America’s future, look at the FACTS!!

No Comments »

From Huffinton Post: 

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn’t because he possesses superior “judgment,” as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, “…on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” And, in Continue Reading »

No Comments »

From The Bulletin: 

The mainstream media have just committed one of the most disgraceful acts of journalistic malfeasance and nonfeasance in the history of America. By glorifying, deifying and canonizing Sen. Barack Obama and failing to examine his record, the mainstream media helped assure his nomination. Some experts say it is already in the bag, even if Hillary Clinton completes her astounding comeback by winning Pennsylvania on April 22.

The second act in that journalistic disgrace is that after the outcome of the nomination process was almost over, suddenly the mainstream media came to its senses and started half-heartedly covering the whole Obama story, which if told, in my view, would make it apparent that he is unfit for the presidency. For more on that conclusion, see my columns in the box accompanying this story.

Newsweek magazine, one of the worst offenders, is the publication that did a cover story on the senator and then on his wife, in which the two were painted as paragons of perfection, apparently without flaws. The first of the cover stories on the senator moved the great columnist Charles Krauthammer to observe that Newsweek had used up all its adjectives of praise and glory and will have nothing left for the Second Coming. Stories like that led to the Center for Media and Public Affairs finding that from mid-December through mid-February, Sen. Obama had coverage that was positive 84 percent of the time (while Hillary Clinton had positive coverage 53 percent of the time).

That same Newsweek, part of that paragon of biased and dishonest journalism family of the Washington Post organization, ran a story on its Web site that had this lead: “Life imitating art or just a Continue Reading »

No Comments »

By JOHN FUND
March 3, 2008; Page A17

On Tuesday, Barack Obama may well wrap up the Democratic nomination. Yet how he rose so quickly in Chicago’s famously suspect politics — and who his associates were there — has received little scrutiny.

That may change today as the trial of Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Mr. Obama’s friend of two decades and his campaign fund-raiser, gets under way in federal court in Chicago. Mr. Rezko, a master fixer in Illinois politics, is charged with money laundering, attempted extortion, fraud and aiding bribery in an alleged multimillion dollar scheme shaking down companies seeking state contracts.

John McCain’s dealings with lobbyists have properly come under a microscope; why not Mr. Obama’s? Partly, says Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass, because the national media establishment has decided that Chicago’s grubby politics interferes with the story line of hope they’ve set out for Mr. Obama. Former Washington Post reporter Tom Edsall, who now teaches journalism at Columbia University, told Canada’s Globe & Mail that “reporters have sometimes allowed themselves to get too much caught up in [Obama] excitement.” Then there are Chicago Republicans, loath to encourage the national party to pounce because some of their own leaders are caught in the Rezko mess.

For its part, the Democratic Party may once again nominate a first-time candidate they haven’t fully vetted politically. Democrats flocked to Michael Dukakis in 1988,

Continue Reading »

No Comments »