Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Ant & the Grasshopper '08

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Hillary and Barack go on national television agreeing that the plight of the grasshopper is the fault of George Bush. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Obama gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grass hopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be very careful how you vote in 2008

Because They Hate

Because They Hate By Brigitte Gabriel

[Editor's Note: Below are selected excerpts from Brigitte Gabriel's speech delivered at the Intelligence Summit in Washington DC, Saturday February 18, 2006].

We gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces. The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy. The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremist perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.

I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under the rubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted “Allah Akbar!” My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. At 10 years old, I learned the meaning of the word "infidel."

I had a crash course in survival. Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. At the age of 13 I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends--killed by Muslims. We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London. We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon.

As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World. But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to ask the question. Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: "infidels."

Under the banner of Islam "la, ilaha illa allah, muhammad rasoulu allah," (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands. We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then. Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness.

Tolerating evil is a crime. Appeasing murderers doesn't buy protection. It earns one disrespect and loathing in the enemy's eyes. Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide. Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise.

America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates. Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper. From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of the enemy. News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared "Intifada" on the West.

America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweight ignorance. The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body, and if they don't take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon. If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world.

This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting. We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts. An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society is ever capable of giving them.

The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror. Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people. The radical Islamists’ deeds have been as vile as their words. Since the Iran hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide. Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims. This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must “engage” our terrorist enemies, that we must “address their grievances”. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.

Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.

If we don't wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don't believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for our delusion. For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America’s learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Hey Time! Kiss My Ass!



Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the  Social 
Security (FICA) Program.  He   promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would  be 
completely voluntary, 

2.) That the participants  would only have to pay 
1% of the first $1,400 of their  annual 
Incomes into the Program, 

3. ) That the money  the participants elected to put  
into  the Program would be deductible from 
their income for tax purposes  each year, 

4) That the money contributed by the participants would be put into the 
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into  the 
general operating fund, and therefore, would 
only be used to fund the Social Security 
Retirement Prog! ram, and no  other 
Government program, and, 
5.) That the annuity  payments to the retirees 
would never be taxed as  income.

Since  many of us have paid into FICA for years and are 
now receiving a  Social Security check every month -- 
and then finding that we are  getting taxed on 85% of 
the money we paid to the Federal government  to 'put 
away' -- you may be interested in the  following: 

Q:  Which Political Party took Social Security from the  
independent  'Trust Fund' and put it into the 
general fund so that Congress  could spend it? 

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the  democratically 
controlled House and  Senate . 

Q:  Which Political Party eliminated the income tax 
deduction for  Social Security (FICA) withholding? 

A: The Democratic  Party. 

Q: Which Political Party started  taxing Social
Security annuities? 

A: The Democratic Party,  with Al  Gore casting the 
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the 
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Q: Which  Political Party decided to start giving 
annuity payments to  immigrants? 


A: That's  right! Jimmy Carter  and  the Democratic Party.  Immigrants that moved into this country,  and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic  Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime  into it! 

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn  around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security  away! 

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens  believe it!


A  government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to  take everything you have. 
  -Thomas  Jefferson

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Random Thoughts 3

1000 hackings at the branches of evil is nothing like one strike at the root.

Conservatives have I.Q. Liberals have E.Q. (emotional intelligence quotient).

The wind coming out of the Democrat's pie holes blows like a mother-in-law convention.

There was a time when the poor had to work hard, but now they’re so dependent on the nanny state that they can be seen riding bicycles, walking dogs, strolling down the avenue, etc. in the middle of the day when the rest of us are at work. The government as a nanny state infantilizes people.

Democrats appeal to emotions so those who use emotions for decision making will be manipulated. They think with their feelings, not with their thoughts.

Dems believe in equality of outcomes and not opportunity.

Schoolyard rules- negotiate with bullies. Right... A girl falling off monkey bars is said to suffer from pain/torture. We’re not waterboarding those in the lunch line who stole the last cupcake. We reserve it for necessary circumstances...only three times to this date. This soft thinking will be the end of the west. The U.S. has to be tough and kick ass when necessary.

According to the Institute of Medicine, 1.5 million people are sickened, injured, or die annually due to med errors.

Broad generalizations about all whites, like Obama makes, is the same sort of racist speech and thought that the white racists of the 18th & 19th century used.

Ask yourself why you listen to Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth is such a bore,
U may as well try Michael Moore. He is one super sly propaganda whore,
The women’s lib movement lead by NOW, have gone too far, and how,
I’d rather go huntin’ w/ Dick Cheney, on a day that’s cold and rainy,
Then go drivin’ with Teddy Kennedy, cause drownin’ ain’t the remedy.

“The burden is on citizens to inform themselves from a number of different sources rather than rely on just a couple.” Jeffrey McCall, Ph.D.

Libs who refuse to listen to conservs are like Christians who refuse to read Darwin. They're afraid they may be convinced.

After referring to Bill O’Reilly’s buddies (i.e. conservative Republicans) in an interview, Barack has shown that he has strong opinions about things for which he knows very little, or nothing at all. He’s just another typical liberal; he’s told what to think, and obediently reguritates it.

Terry McCauliff said himself that Fox News was the fairest hard news media outlet covering this election cycle. In fact, he said it was the only fair one. Barack still won’t speak to Brit Hume or Chris Wallace- two very fair and well respected men, but still wants to chat with Aquadinejad.

Right is right, and left is wrong.

America's Fall 2/2 Perception:

Movies that build sympathy for scum
Video games that glorify violence and desensitize our youth to the value of human life
Music that promotes debauchery
Television shows that make being a slut cool
Education system that rewards ignorance
Tax system that punishes success
Judicial system that refuses to give a punishment that fits the crime
Commercials that make white men look like fat fools
Department stores that sell Bratz dolls and shirts with disrespectful logos on them
Mainstream media that refuse to report politically incorrect stories
documentaries that lie
scientists who go by consensus
lawyers that sue and rot our country from within
Businesses that cater to the Spanish invaders
politicians that sell out the American people for votes
In films, prostitutes, drug dealers, serial killers, are seen as charming, intelligent, funny, and sympathetic.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

JM's Definition of a Liberal

A liberal always accuses a conservative of doing the very things that they do. If you send them a conservative source, then they will pooh pooh it as biased. Of course, they do this as they send you their liberal source. If you dare point out the absurd double standard, then they will call you a hypocrite. If you agree to read their source as long as they agree to read yours, then they accuse you of being evasive. If you do read it, and logically and rationally refute it with facts, then they call you an ideologue. By the way, do not expect any sort of honest analysis from the thing that you have asked them to peruse. If, at this point, you protest too much, then they say you are being too sensitive. Once you point out the ridiculous nature of all of this, then they claim to be fed up and no longer wish to correspond with you. Now that is a liberal my friend.

So, if they accuse you of hypocrisy or a double standard, then chances are that you’ve just caught them talking out of both sides of their mouth. If they call you a liar, then you’ve really busted them in a major prevarication. If they call you a fool, then you’ve just embarrassed them. If they accuse you of evading, then that just means they have no answer for the point you’ve just made.

They’re emotionally attached to their views. Like a parent with unruly kids, they defend them no matter what. They refuse to listen to, or read anything conservative because they’re afraid that the devotion to their beliefs is so tenuous that it would crumble like a deck of cards. Like Muslim extremists, they’re told what to think at a very young age and never had the courage to re-exmine or re-evaluate, thus they never grow.

Who would vote for this man?



Two questions arise from the Washington Post/ABC poll. Since they find an unusually high gap — an outlier from all other polling — what kind of sample produced it? And does this really show a shift in likely voters to Barack Obama, when state-by-state polling shows the race tightening in the other direction? The answer is that a poor sample still could show some movement:

More voters trust Obama to deal with the economy, and he currently has a big edge as the candidate who is more in tune with the economic problems Americans now face. He also has a double-digit advantage on handling the current problems on Wall Street, and as a result, there has been a rise in his overall support. The poll found that, among likely voters, Obama now leads McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent. Two weeks ago, in the days immediately following the Republican National Convention, the race was essentially even, with McCain at 49 percent and Obama at 47 percent.

As a point of comparison, neither of the last two Democratic nominees — John F. Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 — recorded support above 50 percent in a pre-election poll by the Post and ABC News.

Last week’s near-meltdown in the financial markets and the subsequent debate in Washington over a proposed government bailout of troubled financial institutions have made the economy even more important in the minds of voters. Fully 50 percent called the economy and jobs the single most important issue that will determine their vote, up from 37 percent two weeks ago. In contrast, just 9 percent cited the Iraq war as their most important issue, its lowest of the campaign.

As some have already noted, the sampling in this poll could explain why. In the raw numbers, the poll sample consists of 38% Democrats and 28% Republicans. This doubles the actual spread on party affiliation, last surveyed by the more-reliable Rasmussen at 38.7%-33.6% D-to-R. When the WaPo/ABC poll takes leaners into account, the spread gets even more pronounced: 54-38. That suggests a rather strong bias towards Obama, and an almost insurmountable hurdle for McCain.

In contrast, the spread was smaller on 9/7, when McCain had a two-point edge. The base number gave an eight-point advantage to the Dems, but only a nine-point advantage with leaners. That’s a seven-point shift in two weeks within the sample, which would certainly account for a large shift towards Obama.

But does it account for all of the shift? That’s a tougher question. The seven-point shift in leaners should only result in a seven-point shift, maximum, in the end result — but McCain lost eleven points. The difference could be attributable to the margins of error that are built into the polling, or it could just be that Obama did really gain a few points, although not eleven as the WaPo/ABC poll suggests.

We’ll have to watch other polling (and their samples) to determine whether this reflects reality or a pollster bias. Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll has Obama up two points for the first time in a while, so there may be movement — but it still looks like anyone’s race.


Posted at 1:57 AM on 9/24/2008 by Michael Goldfarb
A Partisan Paper of Record

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.
Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Biden's gaffes...so far

Joe Biden told Katie Couric, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.' "

The stock market crashed Oct. 29, 1929. FDR became president March 4, 1933. According to the Information Please Almanac, FDR made his first television appearance April 30, 1939.

Biden has also been contradicting Obama on key topics. Politico's Mike Allen reports on an Obama interview with erstwhile Couric colleague Matt Lauer of NBC's "Today":

The Democrat attacked Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for initially opposing the federal government's intervention to save insurance giant AIG. "I think what has been clear during this entire past 10 days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation," Obama [said]. But Lauer pointed out that Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), had initially said the same thing--on "Today," no less. "I think that in that situation, I think Joe should have waited, as well," Obama said.
Politico's Ben Smith finds video of Biden disagreeing with Obama on energy policy as well:

He was asked by an anti-pollution campaigner about clean coal--a controversial approach in Democratic circles for which Obama has voiced support, particularly during the Kentucky primary. Biden's apparent answer: He supports clean coal for China, but not for the United States. "No coal plants here in America," he said. "Build them, if they're going to build them, over there. Make them clean." "We're not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama. They do, on paper, support clean coal. The answer seems to play into John McCain's case that Obama has been saying "no" to new sources of energy. That ought to be helpful in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Washington Post reports that the Obama campaign has released a statement attributed to Biden "walking back" the criticism of the Obama ad making fun of McCain's disabilities: "Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize," Biden supposedly said.

From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli
CASTLEWOOD, VA – Joe Biden took on an even folksier tone than usual as he campaigned in rural southwest Virginia this afternoon. Though his focus was again on economic issues, he deviated from script to talk about an issue not often discussed by the Democrats: guns.

The Delaware senator predicted that Republicans would seek to sway voters by threatening that Obama would take away guns. Biden, claiming to be a gun-owner himself who likes “that little over and under,” called that notion bogus.

“Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey,” he said. “If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem.”

Friday, September 19, 2008

Barack's Top 10 Gaffes...So Far

Barack Obama's Top Ten Campaign Gaffes
John Hawkins Friday, September 19, 2008

Barack Obama's surrogates have been trying to convince the American people that his judgment is so impeccable that his lack of experience is irrelevant. However, it's hard to make that case when the candidate in question is the single biggest gaffe machine to hit American politics since Howard Dean. You think Joe Biden cranks out a lot of dumb quips? Well, Biden is a rank amateur compared to Obama. As you read these brainless comments, keep in mind that the biggest challenge I had in creating this list was limiting it to only 10 snafus.

In fact, there were so many of them that some of Obama's most famous slip-ups, like "I don't want them punished with a baby" and "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" didn't even make the list.

Well, let's get to it, shall we?

First up, here's the quotation that became the genesis of the "Obama is an elitist snob" meme.

10) "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they're charging a lot of money for this stuff."
When the internet is afire with false rumors that you're a Muslim, do you really want to bizarrely reference your "Muslim faith?"

9) "Let's not play games. I was suggesting - you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."
I wonder if abortion is above Sarah Palin's pay grade? I think not.

8) “Rick Warren: ...Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"
Barack Obama: "Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

This part of Obama's speech sounds like it was written for him by one of King Canute's courtiers.

7) "...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."
Whether this "joke" was about Sarah Palin or not, it was a rather foolish line given that even his own supporters in the audience took it as a sexist jab at her expense.

6) "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,' it's still going to stink. After eight years, we've had enough of the same old thing. It's time to bring about real change to Washington and that's the choice you've got in this election."
As he tried to explain why he tossed his grandmother under the bus in a previous speech, Obama actually managed to make it worse by showing that he thinks of white people as a generic group, not as individuals.

5) "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."
Dan Quayle, who was unfairly pilloried as a moron, never said anything half as dumb as this.

4) "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."
In his counterproductive race speech, which was mistakenly praised as genius by his supporters in the media, Obama managed to cement his association to the racist, anti-American rantings of Jeremiah Wright while simultaneously coming across as remarkably callous towards his own grandmother.

3) "I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
It's no secret to people who pay attention that Barack Obama is not a patriotic man and he managed to unwittingly hammer that point home when he rather foolishly made a big deal about refusing to wear a flag pin anymore.

2) "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a (flag) pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest..."
If you're from a small town and you're wondering what Barack Obama thinks of you, this quote tells you everything you need to know and then some.

1) "You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008


Let’s talk about change. This seems to be the left’s big selling point for Obama; he’s going to change things. Details are hard to come by, and his detractors always point out, “Can’t ‘change’ also mean for the worse?” However, I say let’s really go for it. Let’s dive right in and engage in some real change.

First, let’s change our economic system. Instead of capitalism let’s make a socialist one, you know, like Cuba has. You can judge the efficacy of that system by noticing how many Cubans paddle over with their kids on air tubes to escape from Michael Moore’s favorite paradise. We could also imitate Europe, who the left so idolizes, and perhaps change our unemployment rate and state of inflation in the process to match theirs.

Our medical health care system needs to be changed, so we’re told. How about we go all the way and implement the socialized system that Hilary failed to create, and that Obama wants another shot at, you know, like Canada or Great Britain has. They have ample time to tell you all about their system what with all of the strikes, and travel time coming to the U.S. for healthcare.

Let’s change our system of government too, while we’re at it. Instead of a representative government, let’s go with Communism, you know, like the U.S.S.R. had, or like China now has. Thomas Jefferson said an informed citizenry is vital to the preservation of a republic, and based on the acumen of the average voter these days, I’d say now is the time to throw in the towel anyway.

Let’s change our borders. In fact, let’s just do away with them all together. Just think of all of the third world people we can help with taxpayer funded entitlements like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Heck, let’s just all change our lot in life and hand over the keys to our house, car, bank account, etc. to foreigners who don’t care to speak our language, or learn about our history. Just because multilingualism and multiculturalism lead to conflict everywhere they have existed is no reason not to try it here. Look what happened to Lebanon in the 1980s.

Let’s continue changing our education system. We’ve already done some important work in this area such as removing George Washington’s name from public schools across the country, and putting up Martin Luther King in it’s place. We’ve begun teaching less about our forefathers, and more about Native Indians, and things like the Pueblo people and Mexican pottery, but why stop there? Let’s cover the forefathers on the first day by telling our youth that they were just a bunch of slave owning, wealthy, white, male hypocrites who left a legacy of shame, and then just skip to the 60’s and Woodstock where America found it’s soul for the first time. The 80’s were a step back, but the 90’s were a true enlightenment reminiscent of the Renaissance. Then Hitler the second took over, and with Darth Vader as Vice President, tried to rule the planet, but the savior Lord Barack Obama rescued the world from imminent doom. The End.

We all know the war on terror is a fraud. What we need is a war on conservatism. Anyone who says anything hurtful, despite its validity, ought to either be silenced or arrested. So, the next time some talking head on the radio asks why a disproportionate number of blacks commit crime in this country, complains about illegal immigration, or dares point out that women are different from men, then not only should he lose his job and his name be disgraced, but perhaps we should consider incarceration, or re-education. Once he gets a peace sign tattooed in the middle of his forehead, promises never to cut his hair again and begins wearing a scrunchy made of hemp, and promises to support the Fairness Doctrine, then he may be released.

While we’re on a roll, let’s change the Bill of Rights too. Freedom of the press- who needs that? Why are we the only country with a free press, who do we think we are? Freedom of speech is outdated, after all, noble nations like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea seem to be doing just fine with out it. Just look at their citizens and the frozen smiles plastered on their faces. Why is America such a maverick nation? We should be more like the rest of the world and fit in better, as the left keeps lecturing.

The right to bear arms has to go, I mean look how well it works out in countries that ban guns like most European and Asian nations. Tiananmen Square ring a bell? You won’t see riots in this country like those that took place in France last year, that is, until we ban guns, of course.

We need to add some rights like that of abortion. Seem as it stands right now, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees this right. A handful of people in black robes are responsible for it vis-à-vis fiat, and, as Barack Obama supports, late term abortion. The same goes for affirmative action- no constitutional right, just a decree from the Supreme Court. While were at it, let’s make a lack of ‘diversity’, and any English speaking requirements, felonies. Gay marriage ought to have it’s own place on the ‘Rights’ chart as well.

We can’t forget animals and plants so we need to add a right guaranteeing bushes & trees, cats & dogs, etc. equal, if not superior rights, to human beings (this goes double for white males, of course).

Let’s also change our vehicles for mother earth, and simply drive those little bugs like they have in Europe. The added benefit is that we’ll all look alike, and all have the same chance of death in the event of an automobile accident. That’s fair!

Sunday, September 14, 2008

The least of my brothers

So isn't it interesting that we keep hearing about Sarah Palin's peccadilloes while the major media continues to ignore the George Obama scandal? Here is a guy living in Third World poverty and his half-brother is the leading candidate to become the next president of the United States. Are the networks and major newspapers so exhilarated at the prospect of an African American president that they have become cheerleaders for the Obama campaign? Fortunately the McCain campaign is making the media an issue, and I hope the American people are smart enough to see through the news charade.

Here are the facts about George Obama. He’s in his twenties. He lives in a slum in a hut. He wants to become a mechanic but doesn’t have the money. He reports that he gets by on a dollar a month. He met George Obama in 2006 for a few minutes and said it was like talking to a “total stranger.” He said when people notice he has the same name as Barack Obama, he denies they are related because he is “ashamed.” The Democratic presidential candidate, who made $4 million last year, hasn’t lifted a finger to help his half-brother.

My modest campaign to assist George Obama has been coming nicely. Sean Hannity mentioned it on his show on the Fox News Channel, and I appeared on a handful of radio shows to talk about the idea. Interestingly the George Obama Compassion Fund was reported on by Kenya's leading newspaper "The Nation." So far I have received more than $1,000 in small contributions. With my kickoff contribution of $1,000, that's upwards of $2,000 for George Obama.

This is not a huge sum, but I specifically asked people to send gifts of $5, $10 and $25. The reason is that even a relatively modest sum by American standards is a considerable sum by Kenyan standards. George Obama has said that he is living on a dollar a month. This seems an impossible sum to survive on, so I checked the poverty line in Kenya. According to United Nations estimates, it’s around $100 a year. By this measure, our little fund has provided for George for 20 years. Alternatively, George can move out of his 6 foot-by-10-foot hut and into a more comfortable dwelling. He can also get the training he needs to become a mechanic.

The reporter for "The Nation" thought he had me cornered when he asked, "Are you doing this to embarrass Barack Obama?" To which I answered, "Absolutely. He deserves to be embarrassed." The reporter went on to ask me: since when have you developed this great interest in African poverty? I responded that I had only very little interest in African poverty. I happen to come from a very poor country, India, so my philanthropic work is directed there. I only took up the George Obama cause when I heard what a jerk and a hypocrite Barack Obama is being about his sibling. One Obamoron emailed me to say, "Why don't you use your money to help your own impoverished relatives in India?" The answer is that my relatives don't live in huts!

Here are some donor comments which I'll be forwarding to George along with the funds. "This is for the poor brother long forgotten." “A brother is a terrible thing to waste.” "I wish I had a brother, or even a step-brother. George is not my relative and not my race or religion but I still want to contribute to his welfare." "When Obama said that not taking care of the least of our brothers is our greatest moral failure, who knew that he was talking literally about the least of his brothers?" "I never thought I'd be writing a check to anyone named Obama, but I do want to be a true Christian and help this man in his shameful situation." "I'd send more, but I make $9.10 per hour." "I'm unemployed, but I can spare $5 for the Obama Compassion Fund."

I hear a lot from atheists, but interestingly no self-identified atheist contributed a penny. This seems in keeping with sociologist Arthur Brooks’ data showing that secular people are much less generous, both with money and time, than religious people. As Brooks might have predicted, most of my donations came from self-identified Christians, some of them in difficult circumstances themselves. Thanks to this generosity, Barack Obama's half-brother can look forward to the prospect of a better life. George Obama, start packing!

Yeah, Let's Negotiate