Taylor Marsh Doesn’t Get It …

  It’s not about towing the party line, Taylor.  It’s about principles; democratic principles.  Yes, yes, we know the Obamamites were threatening to take away your credentials to the DNC convention because you were too cozy with HIllary supporters.  Yes, we know Hillary now ‘supports’ Obama, as she was told to do. 

Some of us, however, have principles.  Some of us vote not for the party label and not even for a single issue if there are bigger principles at stake –like democracy, justice, truth, and the American Way.

The American way is winning an election by getting the most votes when every voter counts as a voter.  Justice is NOT taking your name off a ballot then having a group of party insiders give you pledged delegates from that state and taking away votes cast to another candidate for rhetorical voters.  Truth is NOT going on and on and on about how unfit and unqualified one candidate is one minute, then switching to a completely different line seconds after a speech.

Democracy is NOT a decision made by party insiders.  Democracy is election not selection.

There are some principles worth standing up for and worth doing things that may not be in your individual interest if it is in the interest of the country you love.  For me, it’s not voting for Obama under ANY circumstances because of his character, his poor judgement, his continual storytelling, his lack of achievements, and the folks he chooses as counsel.  Clear enough?  I’m not selling my country out so I can attend the DNC convention or get an abortion in Louisiana instead of having to fly to New York City.  No amount of gold can get me to sell out my principles. But then Taylor, I have them.  I’m not sure you do.

PUMA!


Princess Obama Derangement Syndrome

 

 I LOVE THE BRITS!

 

From the Spectator (UK)

FRIDAY, 13TH JUNE 2008

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/771896/princess-obama-derangement-syndrome.thtml

 

My oh my, what a firestorm I appear to have started with my remarks two days ago on Obama’s background! It was wholly expected, of course, but nevertheless the posters’ comments are sorevealing. They graphically illustrate the way in which Obamania has quite obviously destroyed the capacity for reason.

First, it is quite clear that any questioning at all of Obama’s background is entirely off-limits. Next, the posters fail totally to grasp that the real point isn’t what faith he professed or was brought up in as a child – it is the fact that he has not told the truth about his early background. Then, some even compare such questioning with the ‘truthers’ who allege that 9/11 was perpetrated by a conspiracy between America and Israel. They thus demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between rationality and lunacy, evidence and fantasy, failing to grasp that the sole reason for the questions about Obama is the many discrepancies in the accounts of his early life — including his own accounts — plus his many questionable associations.

Ignoring all this substantive evidence and the legitimate questions to which it gives rise (can you imagine how they would be slavering about all this were Obama a Republican candidate??) they instead hurl insults at both me and my sources such as Daniel Pipes – a fine and authoritative scholar (and who has also exposed those who claim he has peddled falsehoods as themselves peddling falsehoods) whose own observations about Obama’s background are clearly and reliably sourced and are couched in Pipes’s characteristically cautious manner — and then annouce that they have won the argument hands-down!

Oh dear. America really does have a problem here. Looks like what I wrote months ago, that the Obama phenomenon might mean the Americans too are succumbing to Princess Diana Derangement Syndrome, was a serious understatement.

To address a few specific points which have come up and which are not merely hysterical abuse. First, it’s been pointed out that Robert Spencer has said Islam does not mandate the death sentence for children who become apostates, a point subsequently acknowledged by Daniel Pipes. I don’t see, however, that this alters anything. The death sentence is mandated for adults who renounce Islam. The fact that all that is known about Obama’s Muslim roots relates – as I wrote — to his early childhood is irrelevant. For as Spencer also notes, the real question is therefore when Obama converted to Christianity. By his own account, he did so when he was received by Pastor Wright into the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago some twenty years ago (although at other times he has also said he was ‘always a Christian’). In which case Pipes’s argument remains absolutely salient.

As for the ‘Islamic experts’ who poured cold water on a similar argument byEdward Luttwak in the New York Times — who are hailed as Voices of Absolute Truth by my more excitable commenters despite the fact that they know zilch about them — these prove nothing other than the existence of commentators who sanitise Islam.

Those who still insist that Obama was never brought up as a Muslim ignore the numerous reports of his Islamic education as a young child — including his own statements, as in this deeply respectful article in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof:

He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them. Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’

Next, the assertion that Obama and Raila Odinga are not cousins – by a poster who says he is a Kenyan and therefore knows about such things. Well, one might think that Raila Odinga himself might have a rather better claim to know. This is what the Telegraph reported:

Kenya’s defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country’s post-election violence. Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator’s father, from western Kenya’s Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle… Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader’s claim to be a relative.

As I have already said — but let me repeat very slowly for those suffering from Princess Obama Derangement Syndrome – the concerns about Obama’s Muslim antecedents arise from the fact that a) he has tried to conceal them and b) that he has a puzzling number of indirect connections with radical Islamists or their supporters.

1) He has gone out of his way to support in Kenya Raila Odinga, head of the Luo tribe, who promised to introduce sharia law if elected. Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaign to speak by phone with Odinga. As the Investor’s Business Daily has reported, his half-brother Abongo ‘Roy’ Obama is a Luo activist in Kenya and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must ‘liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture’ and urges Barack to embrace his African Muslim heritage.

Barack Obama has said he disagrees with his brother. But as the IBD has also reported:

In 1991, when Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he pledged allegiance to something called the Black Value System, which is a code of non-Biblical ethics written by blacks, for blacks. It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media’s portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races. The code also warns blacks to avoid the white ‘entrapment of black middle-classness,’ suggesting that settling for that kind of ‘competitive’ success will rob blacks of their African identity and keep them ‘captive’ to white culture.

2) His mentor, the black power-supporting Christian pastor Jeremiah Wright, is a close associate of Louis Farrakhan, the demagogue leader of the black power, Jew-hating militant organisation Nation of Islam. A number of Obama’s own staffers have been members of the Nation of Islam.

3) Tony Rezko, who was recently convicted of fraud, money laundering and bribery conspiracy, has been a major supporter of Obama and contributor to his cause – the full extent of which Obama tried to conceal. The Chicago Sun-Times reported:

During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found. Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s.

He also did a land deal with Rezko in 2005, buying land from him to enlarge his own adjoining house at what has been reported to be a discount — a transaction Obama has subsequently called ‘bone-headed’. In a further twist, as the Timesreported earlier this year, a British-Iraqi billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who is said to have had connections with Saddam Hussein and who was convicted for corruption in France, lent millions of dollars to Rezko just weeks before that ‘bone-headed’ land deal.

But what has received far less attention is Rezko’s connections with the Nation of Islam. Reszko, born in Syria, was a business associate of Jabir Herbert Muhammad, the son of the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad, serving as a vice president and general manager of JHM’s firm Crucial Inc. And finally, Rezko was bailed from jail by Ali Baghdadi, the ‘Middle East adviser’ to the Nation of Islam.

Who know what all this adds up to? But isn’t it rather important that someone finds out before November?

To repeat once again for sufferers from PODS: the issue is NOT Obama’s religion, now or in the past. It is the many questions which need to be answered about a) why he has sought to conceal his early background; b) why he has so many indirect associations with radical Islamism; and c) whether these two questions are in some way related.

Anyone who doesn’t think all this cries out for proper investigation is either a fool or a knave.

 

 


The Unity Pony is missing a few legs

I’ve always been a fan of NPR.  It’s the best way to spend a morning or afternoon commute to work.  They have not quite joined in the Main Stream Media Lovefest for Obama so I can listen with out feeling like my intelligence is being insulted.  This post concerns something they discussed earlier.  It seems they’ve discovered a keen lack of enthusiasm over Obama by key democratic constituencies.

I know that Donna and Howard and Nancy and Harry don’t think the party needs working class whites or women. We’ve been told that over and over. But NPR and Leon Pannetta suggest something different.

“Leon Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton, says Obama still faces problems with swing voters in swing states.

“By virtue of having lost some of those big states and some of those very important constituencies that are important — Latino, white, rural, a lot of the blue-collar women’s vote — he can’t afford to not get those votes back in the Democratic Party. … Those fault lines have cost the Democrats, I think, seven of the last 10 presidential races,” he says.

“If they open up and stay unhealed, then there’s no question that he ultimately loses,” Panetta adds.”

source:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91366795

I personally disagree with Panetta in that I think Obama’s got a lot more woman problems than the one’s he has with my blue collar sisters.  Most of the women that I know that can’t  stand Obama are highly educated and professional.  But, it got me thinking are there more folks out there not on the unity pony?  I decided to do some searching around the web for indications of some of the other groups since I’m more than aware of the so-called bitter women and racist hillbilly backlash.

First, I looked into where the Jewish money is going.  Jewish Americans are very politically astute and active. They also will donate to causes they believe in and care about.  When I ran for office in the mid 80s in Nebraska one of my best set of phone bankers were the Jewish women’s groups in Omaha.  They are tireless supporters of abortion rights and campaigns that strongly recognize the nonestablishment clause in the first amendment.   So here’s the first major indication that the Jewish money is going to McCain now that Hillary Clinton has been sidetracked.

Here’s a little bit from The Hill:

“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is attracting elite Jewish Democratic donors who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and are concerned about Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) stance toward Israel, say McCain backers who are organizing the effort to court Democrats.

McCain has already had several fundraising events with Jewish Democrats in Washington and Florida, say his supporters.

Oh, dear, that’s not going too well. I also imagine that all those nice jewish folks in Florida don’t like being considered 1/2 of a person either.  This does not bode well for Obama on many, many levels.

I guess even if you tell stories about Auschwitz and say you really didn’t mean it when you said Iran was not a threat, it just doesn’t cut it. It takes more than lip service and backpedalling to attract major Jewish donors.  I guess Obama’s former camp counsellor just isn’t on the unity pony.

source:  http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/jewish-dem-donor-joins-mccain-team-2008-06-10.html

Next, I went looking for some evidence that Hispanic Americans might being loving them some unity pony. Earlier, it was evident that pandering to Cuban-Americans wasn’t working very well for Obama.  I guess when you announce on every news channel during a debate that you intend to meet with leaders of rogue countries without preconditions that your average Cuban-American think this means the Castro brothers.  Obama again qualified and back pedaled.  It was quietly mentioned in the MSM over Memorial Day weekend that Cuban Americans were pretty safe Republican voters.  It appears they still will be.

However, Hispanic Americans are not some huge monolithic group  so, as the Google godess,  I went searching for the unity pony and any hispanic communities in the saddle.  I found this about the Hispanic votes in Obama’s backyard in Illinois.

“Dozens of Fox Valley Hispanics will get the chance to talk with Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s nominee for president, later this month. And they’ll get to do it for free.

McCain will be in Chicago on June 18 for a fundraiser at the Drake Hotel, but he’ll stick around that night to hold a town hall meeting with Illinois Hispanics …

“A lot of Hispanics are just hard-working small-business owners,” Brady said. “They don’t want their taxes going up, they don’t want the government in their business. They want the borders closed, but they want (immigrants here) treated humanely.”

Wyatt is a Mexican immigrant herself, and she said she respects McCain for being among the first to push for comprehensive immigration reform. McCain and Sen. Ted Kennedy jointly proposed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in 2007, which included a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. The bill never reached a vote.”

Guess the unity pony doesn’t understanding Spanish very well.

How about you?  Are you getting on that Unity Pony?

I thought Democratic unity ponies were representative of all kinds of people.  Maybe this year, the unity pony has lost a few its parts.


and NOW, for the latest sexist analogy: Electile Dysfunction

I just read that all the ‘older’ women aren’t voting Obama because we’re like first wives that have just been thrown over for a trophy wife.

Here’s the link:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-the-trophy-wife/

The article (written by a woman) opens:

“It seems as if Hillary Clinton is just the latest mature, dependable, experienced woman to be unceremoniously dumped for a younger, prettier doe-eyed companion.”

After a few unflattering things to say about Harriet Christian (the now famous angry woman captured by Jane Hamshear of Firedog Lake), we are regaled by yet another round of woman-baiting verbiage.

“The anger of Ms. Christian and her Democrat sisters has perhaps less to do with the fact that Barack Obama is an “inadequate black male” than that he is the trophy wife for whom Mrs. Clinton — and by extension, her graying, menopausal supporters — has been thrown over.”

So now Barrack Obama is a trophy wife.  Elizabeth Scalia just keeps on with this analogy and digs in deeper.

“As a trophy wife, Obama would be content to let the Democrats pull out of Iraq; Hillary might actually suggest they stay. Obama would be able to sell the socialized health care Hillary couldn’t pull off. Most importantly, Obama would schmooze and photo-op with the elites for whose approval the Democrats so desperately yearned; Hillary was untrustworthy, there. She might snub Ahmadinejad and, like Bill Clinton before her, pledge to jump into a trench with a rifle to defend Israel. Obama would smile and look good while doing neither.”

While Obama is a trophy wife,  women not supporting him are now called “Youtube women”.  Any one who knows me, also knows I could not let this just drop without a response. I also couldn’t let the analogy drop.  So, join me while I explain why Obama doesn’t cut it in the performance arena.  Maybe this is why Michelle Obama is so angry all the time.

Actually, I say that women of a certain age and level of experience are not willing to vote for a guy of a certain age and level of performance that needs a medicine cabinet full of little blue pills to perform.

Obama cannot speak intelligently and with facts off teleprompter. Let’s also make it clear that his speeches are about “change you can xerox”.  Besides leaning heavily on the speeches of others, he also has twenty paid speech writers on staff.

His list of accomplishments is thin.  He really lacks that carry through and finish the project well factor.  He appears to have gotten the few positions he has attained by something other than achievement and brains. Folks in high schools with mostly B’s do not get into the Columbia University as a general rule. It used to be that one could not be the President of the Harvard Review without having achieved the top grade in the class. It also used to be they clerked with supreme court associates and at the very least with an associate of one of the major appeals courts without exception. It is unique that one is the President of the Harvard Law Review and doesn’t clerk for any prestigious court AND never publishes a single article. That’s right UNIQUE.

Usually, one does not win elections by getting the other candidates thrown out on a technicality. He’s done that twice. Now, he’s received the democratic nomination (sic) under highly suspicious circumstances. One, there have been lots of overly-weighted caucuses in states that usually don’t have caucuses. Two, he voluntarily pulled his name off a ballot and still managed to get pledged delegates from that race while taking voters who voted from a different candidate..  Isn’t this just one more symptom premature electile dysfunction?  Pulling out before you lose it? Could it just be that women are keener judges of who can cut it and who can’t perform?

Again, is this the real reason Michelle is perpetually grumpy, angry and mean?

 


When the phone rings at 3 a.m.

  When the phone rings at 3 a.m., we better hope it is some one who knows which direction a phone should be held. The startling thing to me about this campaign is how insistent Obama supporters are about their candidate’s judgement and his qualities for president.  The clear majority in this country see something else.  They see a series of George Bush and Dan Quayle moments.

I’m not just referring to the “hello, Sunshine” when you’re in Sunrise, Florida moment.  Nor the “Hello Sioux City” when you’re in Sioux Falls.  Maybe I’ll even give him the “I’ve been in what 57-58 states now”  comment.  Some of these things can be written off to just plain fatigue.  I cannot give him wiggle room on the major foreign policy gaffes that appear in speeches and debates.

ABC’s Jack Tapper referred to Senator Obama as the gift that keeps on giving back at the end of May, 2008.  Obama heads the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee with responsibility for Nato Forces.  This is a job he’s had for nearly two years and has obviously not done.  He has not met the committe nor has he been to Iraq or Afghanistan recently.  Jack Trapper mentions this gaffe about the language spoken in Afghanistan and the need for translators.  It is also a viral video that can be found on youtube.com.

From Trapper:

“As ABC News’ David Wright and Sunlen Miller wrote, Obama seemed to either think Arabic is spoken in Afghanistan or he misunderstands the nature of military translators.”

This one is also from the Trapper article and shows a severe misunderstanding in our on backyard.  This time with the relationship between Hugo Chavez and FARC.

“More recently, Obama as he traveled through Florida seemed to give some contradictory statements about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the Colombian terrorist group FARC.

On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and “one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about.”

OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on.

But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated.

“We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments,” he said in a speech in Miami.  “This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and – if need be – strong sanctions. It must not stand.”

So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?

On Friday in an interview with the Miami Herald, Obama also used language suggesting that he’s not as positive that Venezuela is supporting FARC.

“When I asked him what he would do about the estimated 37,000 Interpol-certified Colombian FARC guerrilla computer files that indicate an active support from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa to the Colombian rebels, Obama went farther than the Bush administration,” wrote the Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer.

Said Obama: “I think the Organization of American States and the international community should launch an immediate investigation into this situation. We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that’s not acceptable behavior.”

“If” Venezuela “is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders”? Just one day before Obama had asserted that Chavez was supporting FARC in Colombia.

I’ve asked the Obama campaign for a clarification and will get back to you as to what they say.”

source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/what-the-farc-w.html

I also understand that Senator Obama thinks Spanish is spoken in Portuguese-speaking Brazil.

This is a man that has not done his homework and it shows to all of us who did do our homework when we went through High School and University.

These are mistakes.  There are also policy flip-flops.  They are most noticeably occurring in the areas of concern to democratic voting blocs not supporting Obama.  Most of you will remember Senator Obama’s disturbing lack of depth and detail during the early debates.  The one stand out comment which attracted criticism from Dodd, Biden, Clinton, and Edwards was the “negotiate without precondition” with our enemies doctrine.

During Memorial day weekend, Senator Obama made his famous speech in which he once again showed lack of knowledge concerning world history and geography. This was the one with the nonexistent Uncle who freed a Nazi death camp.  Of course, we know the myriad of problems with this one.  However, in all of his speeches focusing on pandering to the American Jew, he is now backpedalling on the no precondition doctrine.  This is the same tactic he took the very same week end when pandering to Cuban Americans who were obviously concerned with the Castro Regime.  Obama has sent his advisors out to backpeddle away on this one.  However, the speeches and the debate tapes remain and the RNC now has a myriad of Internet ads highlighting this big mistake.

What I do not get in all of this, is why Obama supporters will not recognize the obvious failings of their candidate.  It is easier for them to call folks that question his readiness for the job with callouts of racism, bitterness, stupidity, and you’re not a real “democrat, progressive, American”.  This is the kind of behavior I used to expect from Republicans.  Given that I live in the ninth ward of New Orleans and I am a University Professor at a college with a huge number of black students, I find it really difficult to think I fall into their ‘scared of the big black’ man insult which I’ve had hurled at me.  If I did not vote for black democrats, down here in the 9th ward, 9th precinct, I’d never get to vote.  Nearly ALL my elected officials are BLACK.  Second, I have never visited Appalachia, I have a PHD in Financial Economics and back in the 70s I fought for all of the civil rights movement.  So much in fact, when I ran for office the most frequent label I got was the women marching with lesbians in the street.  So, what is the deal when I think as an American, I don’t want to see another president in need of training wheels and unvetted advisors in the white house.

Again, Obama supporters and super delegates, take a look at the candidate.  Do not blame the messengers.