If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I heard this morning on MSNBC that the cast of 300 is advising Barack Obama on foreign policy. I think this is very good news for the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. They certainly know a thing or two about fighting Persians. That could come in handy when it comes to dealing with Iran.
From the looks of this, Barack Obama has ditched the fake Obamaized Presidential seal and has gone to a new piece of tricked out podium art that shows THE WORLD. The only problem is that it shows a portion of THE WORLD that he technically wont be in charge of when he is sworn in next January.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain spoke yesterday on a litany of topics including Iraq and Afghanistan. He tried to point out where he and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama differed on on Iraq, mainly on the so-called “surge”. From Real Clear Politics:
Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.
The problem with McCain’s comment is that although what he said was “technically” correct, the Obama campaign had already retroactively removed all proof that he opposed the surge from his website.
That means it never happened.
It’s clear that McCain is grossly out of touch when it comes to politics of the 21st century. McCain should know that before critisizing Obama on an issue, he should first refer to the official Obama website or his MySpace page to see if the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee still holds that perticular stance on the issue. He very well may have flip-flopped refined his position, like he did on FISA and or Federal campaign finance.
John McCain is now left with egg on his face. I don’t really know what that saying means. I only know that it’s not very good.
The New Yorker magazine claims that the cover of it’s July 21 issue is meant to be satirical. They claim that artist Barry Blitt is satirizing the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.
Really? Did anyone ever claim that Michelle Obama walks around wearing camouflage clothing with a AK-47 strapped to her back? I must have missed that one. When did anyone ever claim that they use the American Flag for firewood? Did anyone ever say anything about a framed portrait of Usama bin Ladin?
This cover makes it seem that any criticism, even valid criticism, pertaining to Barack Obama is unwarranted. There’s a difference between satirizing misinformation and just making stuff up. I fully believe there is more then enough to criticize Barack Obama about without having to resort to making stuff up about him.
The story that resonates the most with me is the one about him attending a church for twenty years lead by a hateful whack job of a pastor that believed the United States government created the AIDS virus. A man who when speaking about President Bill Clinton, actually humped the pulpit.
This story, unlike all the made up ones, is actually true.
Posted on Jul 12th, 2008
Earlier I blogged about something Reverend Jesse Jackson said about Presidential candidate Barack Obama. The various mainstream news organizations would not actually quote the good Reverend, even the ones on cable TV where they are free of the constraints put down by the FCC.
I now know what he actually said. What Reverend Jackson said was that he wanted to violently mutilate Barack Obama’s genitalia. Specifically, he stated his desire to cut Barack Obama’s testicles off.
I’ll be honest. I’ve always been a big fan of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. I’ve always admired the way he lived his life. The man has dedicated his entire life to teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only with words, but with his actions. A man with his talents and abilities could have chosen a much different path in life. He could have been a captain of industry or an entrepreneur. Instead he chose to live a life dedicated to Jesus.
With that said, I cannot support Reverend Jackson regarding his desire to mutilate Barack Obama’s genitalia. If he has an issue with Barack Obama, he needs to find a way to work it out that doesn’t involve a knife and Barack Obama’s testicles. There must be another way.
In recent Newsweek poll, Barack Obama leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. Last month’s Newsweek poll, Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
What a month it has been.
What’s changed? Well, Obama flip-flopped on the following issues:
Can Obama’s slide be attributed to his flip-flops? It’s hard to say. I changed my mind about Obama when it became known that he had chosen a racist, hateful crackpot to be his spiritual adviser.
Not only did Barack Obama vote with the Republicans on giving retro immunity to the telecoms for their part in illegal warrantless eavesdropping, he first voted for closure so the actual bill could be voted on. This is the complete opposite of an earlier pledge to support a filibuster of the bill.
From an Obama spokesman last October:
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
The only thing that’s clear is that the word of Barack Obama is not to be trusted. Voting with the Republicans on closure is a complete betrayal.
Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.
The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon.
Barack Obama was one of the many Democratic Senators to bow to Bush’s demands. Hillary Clinton was not. She voted “Nay“.
Remember Ron Paul? Back when the House voted on the matter, Ron Paul was no where to be found. He didn’t vote.
Supposedly Reverend Jesse Jackson made an off-color comment about Barack Obama. Evidently his comment was picked up by a Fox News microphone. What he actually said is not known. I’ve looked all over the Internets — I even went over to the Drudge Report — and I can’t find an actual transcript of what the good Reverend actually said.
Whatever he said has got to be really, really bad if it cannot even be repeated ON THE INTERNET. This is the same place that things as Japanese tentacle porn or videos of midget transvestites dressed like Hitler having sex is only a mouse click away. There is no such thing as something being too crude for the Internet.
To be honest, I have a hard time believing that Reverend Jesse Jackson could ever say something crude about Barack Obama. First of all, Reverend Jesse Jackson is a man of God. He has dedicated his life to teaching people about the message of Jesus Christ. A man like that wouldn’t stoop to saying anything negative about anyone, especially something off-color, especially about Barack Obama.
Why would anyone ever say something bad about Barack Obama?
Posted on Jul 7th, 2008
I feel as though liberals are quickly running out of reasons to vote for Barack Obama. He seems to be flip-flopping on one issue after another in an attempt to appear more to the so called “middle America”. Not that I even really know what that exactly is.
First he backed away from the rock solid 16-month time table for pulling out of Iraq by saying that he was holding on to the right to “revise” (flip-flop) his Iraq plan if he received new information from commanders on the ground. He then “revised” his promise to oppose giving retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies by stating that he would vote for a bill that did just that.
When he caved on Iraq and then FISA, I figured the only thing that was left was the idea that liberals had to vote for Obama, or McCain would stack the Supreme Court with judges that would take away a woman’s right to an abortion.
Now I’m not even sure of that.
In an interview this week with “Relevant,” a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain “a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.”
Obama then added: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.”
Not only does is sound as though Obama doesn’t respect a woman’s right to choose, it sounds like he doesn’t respect the seriousness of mental illness. Both physical illness and mental illness are very serious issues. Nether should be taken any less serious then the other.
To put this into context, it seems that Obama would not allow Andrea Yates, the Texas woman that drowned her five children to recieve a late-term abortion. That’s a position I would expect John McCain to have.
