"Then I'll get on my knees and pray, we don't get fooled again" The who
The notion we should not care about the relationship between Wright and Obama is absurd. Character does count. Who Obama associated with in the last twenty years does count. Character mattered in the Monica Lewinsky scandal with Bill Clinton, and it counts now.
In the first speech Obama threw his grandmother under the bus; in the second speech he threw Wright under the bus to join her.
So, who is this Obama? Obama states, The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago." How can this be? Obama is either lying or he is about as naïve as naïve can get. Was Wright this radical person in 2001 when he made his original statements on AIDS? on the chickens coming home to roost? When did Wright turn radical? I don't think anyone believes that Wright was not the same radical person he was now as he was 20 years ago. Yesterday, Wright defended every one of the positions that had been played over and over again, and he even expanded on them. He mentions Nicaragua and the Misquito Indians, an ethnic group on the Atlantic side of Nicaragua and other Central American countries whose roots come from Africa. Liberation Theology was a movement in Latin America that took place during the late 70s and early 80s to arouse the peasant population to overthrow the governments in power. Obama had to have known.
And then what about the 1.6M 10,000 square foot house in an all white neigborhood Trinity Church purchased for Wright? What about their social gospel? I guess that is for the other guy.
Obama attended the million man march by Louis Farrakhan with Reverend Wright. This had to have been an organized event, and Barack Obama must have known the relationship between Wright and Farrakhan unless he was led around blindfolded. Obama says, "Wright contradicts everything I have done in my life" – He is just realizing this? What happened to the last twenty years?
Barack Obama states, "They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing." Was it not political posturing when Obama even joined Wright's church for his own political ambitions?
"Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before" He still claims he has never heard the comments. We were always told these comments were taken out of context. Even in the softball interview given by Moyers, large portions of the sermon were given. It is apparent to any rational person that Wright was the same today, yesterday and he will be the same tomorrow. The context was worse in the Moyers interview than if the media only used the continuously looped snippets,
We bombed Gadafi's home and killed his child. "Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock!" We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians - not soldiers - people just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost!
Barack Obama was right when he stated, "when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses."
In the question and answer session, Barack Obama was asked and then answered the following:
QUESTION: Reverend Wright said it was not an attack on him, but an attack on the black church. First of all, do you agree with that? And second of all, the strain of theology that he preached — black liberation theology — explain something about the anger that seems to be some of the sentiments in the church in (inaudible). How important a strain, then, is liberation theology in the black church? And why did you choose to enter the church then?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, in terms of liberation theology, I am not a theologian. So I think to some theologians there might be some well worked out theory of what constitutes liberation theology versus non-liberation theology.
I went to church and listened to sermons. And in the sermons that I heard — and this is true, I do think, across the board in many black churches — there is an emphasis on the importance of social struggle, the importance of striving for equality and justice and fairness, a social gospel.
So I think a lot of people, rather than using a fancy word like that, simply talk about preaching the social gospel. And there's nothing particularly odd about that. Dr. King, obviously, was the most prominent example of that kind of preaching
Obama is an intellectual; so for him to not understand what his church teaches when it is on their website's talking points is astounding:
One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.
• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.
This was a major movement in Latin America in the 70s and 80s.
So, the question still remains. Why did Obama remain in this church for twenty years and subject his children to this rhetoric. Is this who we want for president?
The Associate Press printed the timeline about Obama's relationship with Wright. (Italics are my comments)
Timeline of Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright
Key dates in the relationship between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
1972 — Wright becomes pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.
1985 — Obama begins working as a community organizer in Chicago; meets Wright.
1988 — Obama embraces Christianity after hearing a Wright sermon on hope. In the sermon, "Audacity of Hope," Wright states "where white folks' greed runs a world in need", and Obama bases his book, Audacity of Hope on this sermon.
1992 — Obama joins Trinity United Church; Wright officiates at Obama's wedding.
Feb. 10, 2007 — Obama decides not to have Wright deliver the invocation at the launch of his presidential campaign. Obama told Wright he could get rough at sermons. He knew.
Feb. 22, 2007 — Rolling Stone magazine publishes a profile of Obama that includes Wright using profanity to condemn American racism. Did Obama not know that too or was he reading Vanity Fair?
March 13, 2008 — ABC News airs a report on some of Wright's inflammatory remarks. Clips from his sermons begin circulating on TV and the Internet.
March 14, 2008 — Obama calls Wright's remarks "completely unacceptable and inexcusable;" says the reverend had stepped down from a campaign advisory committee.
March 18, 2008 — Obama delivers speech on race; criticizes Wright but says he can't "disown" him.
April 28, 2008 — Capping a media blitz after weeks of silence, Wright says criticism of his sermons amounts to criticism of black churches in general.
April 29, 2008 — Obama says he is "outraged" by Wright's "divisive and destructive" comments and their relationship has been permanently damaged.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 65% of Likely Voters oppose an increase in the Capital Gains tax. Just 16% favor an increase, while a fifth of voters are not sure.
Senator Obama and Reverend Wright permeated the airwaves this weekend. Who do you think Wright was trying to help? Himself?– he is trying to sell a book-, or Obama? Hmmm I don't think so.
Wright was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wright was dressed in a suit and well-coiffed. He sure didn't look like the radical everyone portrayed him to be. Bill Moyers seemed to be quite enamored with Wright. Wright talked of the black experience, "
I was a teenager when I heard the call to ministry. I grew up in a parsonage. I grew up a son of and grandson of a minister, which also gave me the advantage of knowing that there were more things to ministry than pastoring. I had no idea that I'd be preaching or pastoring a church at that teenage year. As a matter of fact I left Philadelphia going to Virginia Union University. And unfortunately, I was starting during the civil rights movement. And the civil rights movement showed me a side of Christianity that I had not seen in Philadelphia. I had not seen Christians who, as I saw in Richmond, Virginia, who loved the lord, who professed faith in Jesus Christ and who believed in segregation, saw nothing wrong with lynching, saw nothing wrong with Negroes staying in their places. I knew about hatred. I knew about prejudice. But I didn't know Christians participated in that, in that kind of thinking.
He talked of Black Liberation Theology, "I think that's a fair bumper sticker. I think that the terms "liberation theology" or "black liberation theology" cause more problems and red flags for people who don't understand it." I understand liberation theology, and I also know it's a perversion of the gospel. Click on
Reverend Wright claims the sound bites that are endlessly looped take his words out of context, but if one examines the entire sermon, the only conclusion one can reach is that they are not taken out of context.
We bombed Gadafi's home and killed his child. "Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock!" We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians - not soldiers - people just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost!
The United States has been more benevolent, and has helped more nations than any other nation in the world. At the end of World War 2, many more people would have died if we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When confronted by Mike Wallace about controversial statements Obama had heard during Wright's sermons, Obama soft peddled the answer, and talked about the Jim Crow laws, etc. I don't think Mike Wallace was talking about the Jim Crow Laws. We all know racism is wrong, and we all know the Jim Crow laws were wrong. There is more audio. From Hugh Hewitt.
The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us into the Vietnam War. Governments lie. The government lied about Nelson Mandela, and our CIA helped put him in prison, and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie. Turn back to your neighbor and say it again. Governments lie (audience responds). The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposefully infected African-American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia. And Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, let me make myself perfectly clear, we are not...governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme, orchestrated by Oliver North, and then they pardoned, the government pardoned all of the perpetrators, so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie. The government lied about adventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and are connected between 9/11/01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie. The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don't find them some weapons of mass destruction, they're going to do just like the LAPD, and plant them some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie. (applause)
When I was in Nicaragua, and I saw the liberation theology movement; I didn't worry about it every reaching our borders. I was wrong. Liberation theology is trying to become mainstreamed. It was rejected by the Vatican, and it should be rejected by any rational person.
Sure, the Blacks have had a different history than most Americans. I don't mind if their church focuses on its African traditions. I don't even mind a Black Messiah. After all, the renaissance painters painted a white Messiah which is also probably not true. Jesus was probably more of a middle-eastern color since he was born in the Middle East.
There is a reason the Reverend Wright coddles Louis Farrakhan. Reverend Wright is a radical and Louis Farrakhan is a radical. Obama attended this church for twenty years without batting an eye as Reverend Wright would say. He also took his children to see this radical preacher on a weekly basis.
Even the Reverend Wright admits that liberation theology comes from the vantage point of the oppressed. This is not the gospel. The gospel does not refer to class. The "poor" is the "poor in spirit" not "poor economically" As Joe Klein of Time Magazine said, Black Liberation Theology is not the Black Church. I would go further; Liberation Theology is not Catholicism.
As of April 2008 there were a total of 197 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of 169,901 MWe in operation in Europe and 13 units with 11,795 MWe were under construction in five countries.
Country
in operation
under construction
number
net capacity MWe
number
net capacity MWe
Belgium
7
5,824
-
-
Bulgaria
2
1,906
2
1.906
Czech Repuplic
6
3,523
-
-
Finland
4
2,696
1
1,600
France
59
63,260
1
1,600
Germany
17
20,470
-
-
Hungary
4
1,829
-
-
Lithuania
1
1,185
-
-
Netherlands
1
482
-
-
Romania
1
1.310
-
-
Russian Federation
31
21,743
7
4,789
Slovakian Republic
5
2,034
-
-
Slovenia
1
666
-
-
Spain
8
7,450
-
-
Sweden
10
8,974
-
-
Switzerland
5
3,220
-
-
Ukraine
15
13,107
2
1,900
United Kingdom
19
10,222
-
-
total
197
169,901
13
11,795
Nuclear power plants in Europe, in operation and under construction, as of April 2008
In the countries of the European Union 35% of electricity are generated by nuclear energy in 2005. France holds the top position with a share of 78.5 % followed by Lithuania with 70 %, Belgium and Slovakian Republic with 56 % and Sweden with 46.7 %.
The Democrats are trying to give McCain the election, and McCain is trying hard to give it back. He wants to run a respectful campaign. Let's not mention Pastor Wright, let's not mention Bill Ayres. Let's run a respective campaign, and let Obama win. Wait until Soros starts running his 527 ads via moveon.org. Almost sounds like compassionate conservatism. What does McCain think? Is he playing a friendly game of Monopoly?
"The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children's children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature."
Pelosi has repeatedly used the same fictional quote.
There is one problem, no such quote exists. Nancy is writing her own bible
You know things are not looking good for Obama when Maureen enters the fray. Maureen Dowd, a far-left liberal, and an Obama Supporter nails it when she says
She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama? Continue Reading
Barack Obama, stubbornly clinging to his right to be charismatically shallow, at first complained that Hillary Clinton was unfairly criticizing him for being all flair and fluff with no substance. Now he's upset that Clinton and the media won't let him discuss substance. Based on some of his speeches lately, I'm thinking he ought to be grateful for the diversion because his policy proposals might not survive serious scrutiny
Maybe it's unfair to interpret literally Obama's repeated stump speech assertion that we Americans aren't perfect but are "perfectible" and conclude he possesses a New Age or secular humanist worldview rather than a Christian one, which clearly rejects the notion of man's perfectibility.
Then again, his policy proposals do sound strikingly utopian -- almost as if he's saying we truly can achieve perfection, end poverty, eradicate health care problems, establish universal harmony, legislate away all corruption, and attain wholesale energy independence without, by the way, liberating ourselves from the shackles of enviro-policemen, who forbid us from exploiting our own resources.
Obama's pitch to fawning audiences is so hopelessly idealistic and his promises so painfully unrealistic that it's amazing he's taken as seriously as he is.
If George W. Bush were to deliver the pap Obama routinely includes in his speeches, he'd be laughed off the stage. "Saturday Night Live" skits would be hard-pressed to exaggerate the vacuousness of his utterances. In fact, I'd be surprised if sympathetic journalists weren't cleaning up Obama's quotes before publishing them. But YouTube isn't so forgiving. "We believe we can change, and that's the kind of hope I'm talking about."
Continue reading "New Column: Beware: Obamutopia" .
Hillary is not good for America, and Obama, he is downright dangerous for America. But, I am glad Hillary won Pennsylvania with a big win. I don't think she should drop out. Hillary should keep on fighting til the last drop of blood. With Hillary in the race, we are finding more and more out about who Obama is, and the picture is not a pretty one.
I used to like and respect Newt Gingrich but when I see him on Al Gore's moronic global warming commercials, it makes me want to regurgitate. Same goes with Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson. This world has gone completely insane.
I remember the first Earth Day. It was in 1969. I was a Sophomore at Los Gatos High School. We were assembled on the front lawn, and Eddie Albert of Green Acres fame came to speak. I have always been a fan of Green Acres. This earth day however was the beginning of an environmental movement responsible for the banning of DDT, (a pesticide that controlled malaria in third world countries), responsible for the cessation of the production of nuclear power plants, responsible for stopping the drilling or exploration of oil, responsible for the global warming fraud, responsible for the corn ethanol fraud (causing food riots throughout the third world where food suppies have become more expensive and more scarce, such as indonesia because of a dearth in soybeans) and the list goes on.
And then we have Al Gore. This is from Newsbuster.org Al apparently has a hard time telling fact from fiction. He used a computer-generated image from the fictional movie, "The Day after Tomorrow." Oops!
It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.
More bad has been created than good from this so-called earth day. I am all for being good stewards of the Earth, but we have gone completely insane.
Celebrate Earth Day - Destroy Capitalism - Michelle Malkin Of course Pelosi and her cohorts are already attempting to destroy capitalism with her killing the free trade deal with Colombia.
I just finished reading "Dreams from My Father" by Barack Obama. At times, it was a tedious read. This was one book you can definitely speed read, because there is a lot of fluff within the pages. Does it give you a lot of insight about Barack Obama? Not Really. You do begin to understand where Barack Obama's class warfare comes from especially between the African-American community and the White community. Barack Obama associates with characters that are pessimistic and angry. You also can't help but believe Obama is sucked into this world too.
In one chapter noted below, he talks about change, but he never says what he wants to change, he just wants to change. This narrative of course remains the same. He still talks of change but no one can figure out what he wants to change. He even admits he doesn't know what he is talking about when he says, "There wasn't much detail in the idea."
In the chapter he talks of change was during Reagan's tenure. He talks of Reagan, his minions and his dirty deeds. He wants change during a time of great change for the better. Reagan was responsible for creating optimism after the inept Carter years. Obama talks about change in the mood of the country. This period was a very optimistic time in American history. Reagan was responsible for ending the cold war without firing a shot, lowering interest rates from double digits, and creating an unprecedented economic boom. I don't get it. What is it that Obama wanted to change?
When Obama listens to the "The Audacity of Hope" speech, he sees himself in this world of pessimism and despair. But, Obama's world was nothing like that. Obama never lacked for anything. This is the dichotomy of Obama's world. He lived a life between the privileged and the middle class, and he went to the top universities, but he envisions himself in John Kerry's two America's where he is one of the have-nots, a member of the downtrodden he claims to defend scratching his way to the top.
Chapter 14 - This is the chapter where Barack Obama meets Reverend Wright – The audacity of hope chapter.
Barack approaches Wright on organizing the churches
Reverend Wright shrugged, "Some of my fellow clergy don't appreciate what we're about. They feel like we're too radical. Others, we ain't radical enough. Too emotional. Not emotional enough. Our emphasis on African history, on scholarship-"…
The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel – the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting titled Hope.
"The painting depicts a harpist," Reverend Wright explained, "a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountain. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.
"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That's the world! On which hope sits!"
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the state House. As the sermon unfolded, through, the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate. The reverend spoke of the hardship that the congregation would face tomorrow, the pain of those far from the mountaintop, worrying about paying the light bill. But also the pain of those closer to the metaphorical summit: the middle-class woman who seems to have all her worldly needs taken care of but whose husband is treating her like "the maid, the household service, the jitney service, and the escort service all rolled into one"; the child whose wealthy parents worry more about "the texture of hair on the outside of the head than the quality of education inside the head."
"Isn't that the world that each of us stands on?"
"Yessuh!"
"Like Hannah, we have known better times! Daily we face rejection and despair!"
"Say it!"
"And yet consider once again the painting before us. Hope! Like Hannah that harpist is looking upwards, a few faint notes floating upwards towards the heavens. She dares to hope….She has the audacity to make music….and praise God….on the one string…she has left!"
Barack then writes,
I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories---of survival, and freedom and hope---became our story, my story; the blood had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed more a vessel carrying the story of people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique universal, black more than black; in chronicling our journey.
Chapter 10 Pg 199
One of Barack's composite characters Rafiq with whom Barack had a close relationship.
In a sense, then, Rafiq was right when he insisted that, deep down, all blacks were potential nationalists. The anger was there bottled up and often turned inward. And as I thought about Ruby her blue eyes, the teenagers calling each other "nigger" and worse, I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn't also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage toward whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyalty above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.
Chapter 6 Pg 122
Political discussions, the kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or the African Cultural fairs that took place in Harlem and Brooklyn during the summers.
Chapter 7 – Here Obama talks of change. Doesn't mention what he wants to change, but he just wants to change. He hasn't a clue of what even needs change. I was reading it while asking myself What is he talking about? What does he want to change?
In 1983, I decided to become a community organizer.
There wasn't much detail to the idea; I didn't know anyone making a living that way. When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly. Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, music and self-absorbed. Change won't come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.
That's what I'll do, I'll organize black folks. At the grass roots. For change.
This is the man who is close to becoming president. God help us all!
I was impressed with the questioning of George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson as moderators in last night's debate. They asked the tough questions that needed to be asked. I give an A+ to ABC for such a great debate, a C on Hillary's performance and a D- on Obama's performance. If you had not seen this debate, you need to.
In my last post, I wrote the following,
Tonight is the last of the Democratic debates. I hope instead of the amity we have seen between Hillary and Obama in these last debates, we see blood in the streets. I am hoping Hillary exposes more of the vacuity that is Obama. We can only hope.
Hillary did not disappoint. Stephanopolous and Gibson were the Roman judges, and Hillary Clinton was the Roman accuser. Obama was left bloodied and wounded after he was left flagellated by his Roman accuser. This was a big win for Hillary. It was also a big win for John Mccain, and he wasn't even there.
What was revealing was not only Obama's vulnerability but the inane policies which may come to fruition if either Hillary or Obama is elected.
Relationship with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers
I was surprised when Stephanopolous actually asked Obama about his relationship with Bill Ayers since Obama's relationship with the former terrorist has not gotten much press. Bill Ayers is an anti-war terrorist, a former member of the Weather Underground who was responsible for several terrorist bombings including the pentagon. He stated on 9/11 he never regretted setting bombs. Obama's campaign has admitted that Obama and Ayers had a friendly relationship. Video below.
Obama tried to spin his way out of it by saying his relationships shouldn't matter. It doesn't reflect on who he is or on his values. Hillary came back with a vengeance albeit polite, but Obama seemed quite uncomfortable. He even tried to compare his relationship with Ayers to that of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn because of Coburn's views on abortion. Last I checked Coburn was not a terrorist. Coburn is just another Republican with whom Obama disagrees. How is he supposed to be the great unifier when he compares Republicans to terrorists?
Hillary did take the opportunity to bash Bush, and wanted the Republicans to apologize for the Bush years. Huh? She bashed Bush with every opportunity given to her.
Gibson pressed Obama on Reverend Wright's Comments. Obama reiterated that he had not seen his comments on youtube before they appeared on youtube in effect saying that he never saw Reverend Wright make such comments during his twenty year relationship. Of course, that comment lacked credulity. Gibson asked about how he could not have known since he had rescinded an invitation to the Reverend to deliver an invocation on the day Obama announced his attention to run for the Democratic presidential nomination because as Obama put it "Wright could get kind of rough." Gibson repeated his question when Obama seemed to skirt the question. Obama then stated,
These comments were objectionable, they're not comments I believe in…the church and the body of Wright's work and ministries were not represented by the comments that ended up on TV. And so, what I think I tried to do in the speech was speak to a broader context…there is anger in the African-American community."
He states Reverend Wright is a marine, but then again Timothy McVeigh was a decorated United States Army Soldier. So Obama's statement of Reverend Wright being a former marine is a non-sequitur.
Hillary chimed in,
"For Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been just intolerable for me. You get to choose your pastor not your family, I would not have stayed."
Hillary also mentioned the association to Farrakhan and the church's bulletin delivered to Hamas. Hamas came out in support of Barack Obama today.
Another point for Hillary, by now you could see Obama's face starting to perspire blood. Obama kept trying to say how it doesn't matter, and it was the issues that the American people cared about. Obama wonders why we care. It has to do with character. Why Obama would even wonder why it is important should disqualify him for president. The exchange between Obama and his relationship with Wright and Ayres reminds me of a saying in Spanish, "Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres." - "Tell me with whom you walk, and I will tell you who you are."
Hillary was landing so many punches against Obama, Obama finally came up with a counterpunch regarding Hillary's trip to Bosnia. Hillary then said,
I may be a lot of things but I am not dumb. I said some things that were not keeping with. I apologized for it, it was in my book. I went to Bosnia it was a war zone. There were concerns. I have gone to more than 80 countries. This gives me more advantage over McCain. I should try and get more sleep.
Of course, I don't think anyone believes that Hillary's Bosnia trip lie was because of sleep deprivation. We already know Hillary's flaws and her inclination to mendacity, but we are now finally cracking the armor of Obama that just a few weeks ago seemed impenetrable.
In addition, Hillary apologized while Obama squirmed, outright lied, and evaded the questions. For someone who was supposed to be above this kind of politics, he sure has entered the mire.
Bittergate
Gibson brings up the bitterness comment which Obama made in front of a San Francisco liberal elite crowd:
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations
Obama stated
No doubt that I can see how people have been offended. Not the first or last time I say something that's been mangled up. Let me be clear: People are going through very difficult times, even before the housing crisis
Obama continues to defend his elitist statement.
The point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion. They end up feeling 'This is a place where I can find some refuge. This is something that I can count on.
Obama doesn't apologize for his statement, he defends it, so he did not mangle his words. He meant what he said.
Again Hillary moves in for the kill
I am the granddaughter of a man who was a factory worker in Scranton. Went to church. They don't "cling to religion when Washington isn't listening to them….I can see how people would be offended at taken aback."
The War in Iraq
We all know what Hillary's and Obama's stance is on the Iraq war, and their plans on leaving as soon as they get into office, but what they said last night was chilling. I believe these statements were made to please their far-left constituency and the code-pinkos.
Gibson asked both Hillary and Obama that if they were in office and the generals on the ground said if we leave Iraq, we would destabilize Iraq, would they still leave especially when General Petraeus said the steps we have so far taken are fragile and reversible. Here were their answers.
Clinton
One word yes. We don't know what will happen if we withdraw. We do know what happens if we stay.
Obama
Yes - Because that is the role of the Commander in chief not the generals. We will proceed in an orderly fashion out of Iraq.
Both of them could care less on the advances we have made in Iraq, and they will disregard any recommendation from the generals in the field. True, it is ultimately the decision of the commander in chief, but this is a chilling and a frightening scenario. How they figure this will make us more secure is beyond me.
Taxes
If anyone is still deluded that the middle class will not have their taxes raised under an Obama or a Hillary presidency, they only need to pay attention to what Obama and Hillary were saying during the debates.
Stephanapolous plays a video of McCain when McCain made one of his great statements playing on the title of Obama's last book, The Audacity of Hope. McCain said "They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year — and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind" Gibson asks Hillary if she will commit to not tax anyone making over 200K. Hillary commits, and then Gibson asks if she will raise taxes even in a slowing economy. Hillary says yes, because she does not believe it will adversely affect the economy. Hillary was against the lifting of payroll tax limits, Obama was for it.
The Heritage Foundation states:
The wealthiest 1% of taxpayers (about 1.3 million in all) already bears a disproportionate share of the tax burden. In 2005, the latest year for which IRS data is available, they earned 21% of all the adjusted gross income. But they paid a whopping 39.4% of all the income taxes. And the 13 million households who earned more than $104,000 (the wealthiest 10%, who would bear the brunt of higher Social Security payroll taxes) accounted for over 70% of Uncle Sam's take.
So, this begs the question, how are they going to pay for all their new programs. Hillary Clinton wants to establish a new cabinet position, the secretary of poverty to solve the nation's ills, and she wants to cut the crime rate in the nation by half by doubling the police force everywhere. Programs, programs, but only you rich folk will pay for it – and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Now Gibson pressed further, "capital gains rate was reduced by Clinton 20 percent and by Bush 15 per cent and revenues increased each time." He then mentions 70% of people own stock of course implying that every income class pay capital gains taxes. Obama squirmed, wiggled and the blood began to drip:
Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair (my note – and that doesn't make sense or have anything to do with the middle class having to pay increased capital gains rate.)
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible
He tries to make it sound smart and confusing in hopes he can fool the people. Notice the phrase, "for purposes of fairness." That is a euphemism for redistribution of wealth.
Gibson then says, "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up." Gibson, of course, ignored all his fluff. Reminds me of a math problem where the author puts in all kinds of extraneous information to see if you can extricate that which is important to solve the problem.
Obama squirms again and responds with this inane answer, "That might happen or it might not, depends what is happening on Wall Street, and on how business is going. Took McCain three times on foreclosures" Not sure how he managed to deflect his answer to foreclosures and McCain, but it didn't work. His cluelessness on the economy was evident. What did that answer even mean? We have the data, revenues go up. McCain may have joked about how he didn't understand the economy, but his economic speeches have been excellent. Obama is just plain clueless. The final answer is of course Obama plans to raise the capital gains tax and dividend tax rate, and it will affect the middle class. He was not able to squirm out of that one.
Clinton responded to the same question by saying, "I would not raise the capital gains tax rate above what we had it before 20%. I am sure against lifting the payroll tax that Obama proposes." Obama then responded, "What I have proposed is that we raise the payroll tax above 97K." Gibson was on his toes, and said, "that is a tax on people under 250K. There are a lot of people between 97 and 250. Oops! Obama was caught in his web of deceit. He then said, "That is why I said I would look at those guys in between. You can't get something for nothing." When did he say he would look at anyone - he said no taxes on the middle class. I say Bingo! – tax on the middle class and anyone else he can think of to pay for his massive programs.
This was a very revealing debate and one of the best so far in the Democratic debates. The underlying theme of the debate was that Americans are an angry and frustrated lot. It was a departure from the namby pamby kumbaya let's hold each other's hand debate the Democrats pine for. The left wing blogs were angry at the debate because of the truths it exposed. This debate revealed the empty suit that is Obama. We already know about Hillary so there was really nothing new about her. Hillary took off the gloves, and began to flagellate Obama. The blood oozed from Obama's forehead. His sainthood status has been badly damaged, and he no longer seems to ride that horse of invincibility. McCain has been delivering some good economic speeches of late, but what worries me is McCain wants to have what he calls "a respectful campaign." In the world of the left, that does not exist. They will come out with guns a blazing. Obama has substantial chinks in his armor, but will McCain take advantage of it. The jury is still out. I have been surprised at how well McCain has done on his economic speeches. I hope he does not underestimate the zeal of the Democratic Party. If he does, and if he does not do what is necessary to get elected, we will elect the most left-wing liberal to the United States Government no different than Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. This is something the United States cannot afford.
For further analysis
The misleading statements or factual errors from the debate from www.factcheck.org Clinton said "people died" in 1970s bombings by a radical group of which an Obama acquaintance was a member. In fact, the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.
Obama said, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins." Actually, he did. He said last year, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest" because it had become "a substitute for ... true patriotism" during the run-up to the Iraq war.
Clinton claimed that applying Social Security taxes to wages above the current cap "would impose additional taxes on ... educators ... police officers, firefighters and the like." Actually, not many of them would be affected. The cap is $102,000 a year.
Obama denied his handwriting appeared on an old questionnaire that said he supported a ban on possessing a handgun, and he said he has never taken that position. Actually, his writing does appear on one of two versions of the questionnaire.
Clinton said she believes "market manipulation" is partly to blame for rising fuel prices. She offered no evidence of that. Past investigations of alleged price gouging have concluded that it’s mainly market forces that push prices up.
Tonight is the last of the Democratic debates. I hope instead of the amity we have seen between Hillary and Obama in these last debates, we see blood in the streets. I am hoping Hillary exposes more of the vacuity that is Obama. We can only hope.
Nancy Pelosi may be responsible for single-handedly losing an entire continent as the heritage foundation aptly states:
In American election years, a theme sure to grab the nation's attention is who "lost" a certain country. In 1952, it was "Who lost China?" In 1980, it was "Who lost Iran?" In 2008, voters may rightfully begin to ask who lost an entire region. In this case, it will be "Who lost Latin America?" continue reading
After the recent market's overreaction to bellwether General Electric, I was seriously considering purchasing stock in the company. On Friday, April 11th, General Electric's earnings per share fell 8% from a year ago missing analysts estimates causing an immediate and precipitous drop in the stock price by 13%. The problems with GE are temporary, the fundamentals are sound, the price had fallen and the yield on GE is 3.69%,
But I then found out GE is doing business with the enemy, Iran.
February 2005, the Wall Street Journal stated:
General Electric Co. is the latest company to decide to stop seeking business in Iran, amid an increasingly tense political situation there.
The company, which has been criticized by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) for taking "blood money" from a country that sponsors terrorism, is the biggest U.S. company with operations in Iran. U.S. companies are barred from directly doing business in Iran, although foreign subsidiaries can work there. In addition, U.S. law calls for imposing tough sanctions on foreign companies that make significant investments in Iran's energy sector.
However, Fox News has uncovered General Electric continues to do business with Iran at a time when Iran is killing Americans:
But General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt does not seem to care about the damage Iran is doing to America and the world. As we've reported, Immelt has allowed GE to do business with Iran for years.
Apartheid in South Africa was brought down as a direct result of the divestment movement from companies in South Africa. Where is that same movement now? Why are we not doing that now? Iranians kill Americans and its business as usual.
There is a reason the investor class tends to be more conservative. We understand the markets. We understand how they work. We follow the ups and downs of the markets, and we learn from our mistakes. We understand financial statements and their interrelationships. We understand policies which grow the economy, and we understand policies that impede economic growth. We are concerned about increasing jobs, growing the economy and keeping taxes low. This enhances our net worth and in the process enhances the wealth of the nation.
Today is April 15th. Everyone is busy paying their taxes. Taxpayers are fuming while they are writing their tax checks to Uncle Sam. The post offices remain open until midnight while everyone makes their last ditch effort to file their taxes. If you are mad at the current amount you pay on your taxes, you should heed the warning what an Obama presidency will bring. Obama has promised to raise taxes, and the programs the democrats want to enact will cost a lot of money requiring an even higher tax burden imaginable. The government wants more power over you by taking more of your money. This will give them more control over you.
At the North Dakota State Democratic convention, Obama said the following to a crowd of 17,000 as he referred to the Republicans:
"You got a problem with health care: tax cuts. You got problem with education: tax cuts. You got a problem with the economy: tax cuts. Poverty: tax cuts. That's not a policy; it's a dogma, a tired and cynical philosophy,"
In one aspect he is right. It is a dogma. The problem is - it works! It worked under Kennedy. It worked under Reagan and it worked under Bush. It even worked for Mayor Guliani in the state of New York. Why the Democrats don't get this is anyone's guess?
Obama fails to understand the importance of low tax rates. He wants to increase corporate tax rates. That is the easiest way to incentivize corporations to move overseas. I thought Obama was the one who rails against jobs going overseas. Obama wants to increase the dividend and capital gains rate to above 25%. Obama wants to reinstate the estate tax because he erroneously concludes that the estate tax only affect ½ of 1% of the wealthiest individuals. I guess the wealthy are the only ones who die.
Obama says he wants to increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals. Capital gains and dividends affect everyone in every income class especially senior citizens.
The wealthiest 1% of taxpayers (about 1.3 million in all) already bears a disproportionate share of the tax burden. In 2005, the latest year for which IRS data is available, they earned 21% of all the adjusted gross income. But they paid a whopping 39.4% of all the income taxes. And the 13 million households who earned more than $104,000 (the wealthiest 10%, who would bear the brunt of higher Social Security payroll taxes) accounted for over 70% of Uncle Sam's take
When you hear democrats talk about taxing the wealthy, hold on to your wallets. Those on the lower economic ladder pay no taxes or low taxes.
Next is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. John F Cogan, and Glen Hubbard in their piece The Coming Tax Bomb explain it this way.
By historical standards, federal revenues relative to GDP, at 18.8% last year, are high. In the past 25 years, this level was only exceeded during the five years from 1996 to 2000. Still, we stand on the verge of a very large tax increase, one that will occur unless the next Congress and president agree to rescind it. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will drive the personal income tax burden up by 25% – to its highest point relative to GDP in history.
twice as large as President Lyndon Johnson's surcharge to finance the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty. It would be more than twice the combined personal income tax increases under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The increase would push total federal government revenues relative to GDP to 20%.
Why this large tax increase? The tax code changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. If they do, statutory marginal tax rates will rise across the board; ranging from a 13% increase for the highest income households to a 50% increase in tax rates faced by lower-income households. The marriage penalty will be reimposed and the child credit cut by $500 per child. The long-term capital gains tax rate will rise by one-third (to 20% from 15%) and the top tax rate on dividends will nearly triple (to 39.6% from 15%). The estate tax will roar back from extinction at the same time, with a top rate of 55% and an exempt amount of only $600,000. Finally, the Alternative Minimum Tax will reach far deeper into the middle class, ensnaring 25 million tax filers in its web
Today John McCain made an economic speech that was one of spending restraint and reducing taxes. This was an important speech in continuing to grow the economy. This is not the class warfare, protectionist, tax and spend policies that both Obama and Hillary have been proposing.
Heed the warning. Barack Obama is the emperor wearing no clothes. An Obama presidency will be a nightmare to all who pay taxes.
Obama explaining the litany of reasons for PA's job losses.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
I was surprised to hear American Idol singing a favorite Christian hit called "Shout to the Lord". What I didn't realize is the night before on America gives back, the words "My Jesus" were replaced with "My Shephard."
There was a backlash, and the following day on American Idol, the words were changed back to "My Jesus." At least the producers changed it back. This is not public school, they don't have to worry about separation of church and state.
American Idol Wednesday, April 9th America gives back - "My Shepherd"
American Idol Thursday, April 10th changed back to "My Jesus"
Do the Democrats care about jobs? No!!! They are beholden to the unions. Pelosis along with Obama, Hillary and the leading Democrats effectively killed the free trade agreement and in the process killing thousands of jobs. The Democrats don't care about the global economy, they do not care about creating jobs. They are protectionists, and their only concern is protecting their political asses beholden to Local 319.
These are the people who are always worried about our relations in the world. The Democrats have effectively strained our relations with Colombia, our ally in Latin America, and neighboor of Venezuela. Do you not think Hugo Chavez will not take advantage of this?
This was just one of a long list of political moves by Pelosi of sticking her middle finger at the middle class she and the other Democrats say they are trying to protect. The wall street journal aptly summarized the agreement this way:
The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America
The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way
Read other Nancy Pelosi political moves while she sticks her middle finger at the rest of us.
Pelosi visiting Damascus undermining the president article
Pelosi undermining our national security by not extending the wiretaps article
Clinton and Obama know that free trade is good for America yet they fight it every step of the way. Clinton even boasts she disagrees with her husband on it.
