Obama for All The Wrong Reasons

There is little, if any, critical reporting on Obama Hussein, the half Muslim/half "African" Christian, candidate in the mainstream media. They have anointed Hussein the chosen one and nothing will stand in their way. Jennifer Rubin  points out in Commentary magazine "that reporters bring their children to[Obama's] rallies and dance to his tune's literally"  (!)

The thing is, Obama is wrong on every issue and the American people will not be told. His every policy position stands at polar opposites to every basic tenet this great country was founded on, self reliance, the individual, America's sovereignty .... Americans will have to discover deductively, something they are not terribly good at between their intellectual laziness and the 5% ghost vote, our Christian Ramadan goose may very well be cooked.

In typical American fashion, Americans like the feel good feeling they get from the thought of electing an "African American". Hey look at America, we walk the walk and talk the talk! And in true Obama Hussein tradition, "don't think, feel!"

But it seems to me to vote for someone because they are black is as racist as not voting for someone because they are black.

Who cares if he's black? Who cares if Hillary is a woman? It is irrelevant. America is beyond that. I want the resume. I want content of  character. I want a great American. I want capable. If Margaret Thatcher was running I'd vote for her, but Hillary is no Thatcher. And Obama is a card carrying member of the leftist/Islamic alliance.

I heard CNN call the next debate between Obama and Hillary "Broken Government, Scorched Earth". Huh?  What country are those asshats living in? This is what leftists do as well. Leftard warfare 101.  Obama Hussein (and Hillary) bang the same relentless drum, telling the folks how horrible things are. They accuse the Bush administration of fear mongering on terror which is ludicrous considering every other news story is jihad related ( just yesterday alone, homicide bombings in Afghanistan over 100 dead, a female jihadi bomber in Baghdad, scores of dead in Pakistan) I  say Bush and co. don't stress  the threat enough. The Democrats, OTOH, fearmonger at every turn -- global warming! the economy! healthcare! two Americas! -- every bogey man except WWIV,  Islam's War on the West.

Bottom line? They are making it very easy for Republicans to get behind McCain because the alternative is unthinkable.

Other thoughts round the blogosphere: Obama's magic carpet ride

And Commentary has good ................. commentary:

You Think Republicans Have Problems  Jennifer Rubin Commentary 

Howard Kurtz provides a candid assessment of the stunning media bias in the Clinton-Obama race. Conservatives often bemoan the lack of fair media treatment, but they have nothing over Hillary Clinton. How would you like to run in a race where reporters bring their children to your opponent’s rallies and dance to his tunes (literally)? The prospect of a post-partisan, minority candidate is too much for the media to resist. Does this mean the coverage of Clinton is unduly harsh? Perhaps a more accurate assessment is that she is receiving the proper amount of scrutiny for a frontrunning candidate who has botched her campaign while Obama receives virtually no critical coverage. If he gets the nomination we might hope to get more exacting coverage (or at least, for starters, a substantive interview on his foreign policy views), but it seems more likely that the media rooting will only intensify when the opponent is a Republican, even one widely respected by the media.

James Kirchick - 02.18.2008 - 07:26

Over the past few weeks, there has been a series of low-level flare-ups surrounding Barack Obama which he has, quite remarkably, been able to dismiss with a wave of the hand. Take, for instance, questions raised about his Farrakhan-loving preacher Jeremiah Wright. Those who made mere mention of Obama’s association with Wright were categorically condemned as smear artists little different from those who peddled stories earlier in the campaign that Obama was some sort of Manchurian Muslim candidate. The Obama campaign’s lame response to the Wright contretemps — that Obama doesn’t always agree with the preacher whose ministry he joined many years ago, whom he has praised as a mentor, whom he chose to deliver the invocation at the rally announcing his candidacy but whose invitation he withdrew at the last minute, who coined the vacuous term “Audacity of Hope” — did not nearly go far enough in explaining the Obama-Wright relationship.

Then there were the photographs that hit the blogs this week showing Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters festooned with flags of Che Guevara. As Jeff Jacoby wrote in his Sunday Boston Globe column, this was a strange thing to hang in the office of a candidate so often likened to the man who launched the Bay of Pigs invasion. Days after the story made headlines, the Obama campaign issued a press release stating that the display of Guevara’s visage “does not reflect Senator Obama’s views.” Good to know.

The latest incident was a story last week in the New York Sun, which revealed that Zbigniew Brzezinski,top foreign policy adviser to Obama, traveled to Damascus to meet with, according to his spokesperson, “high level people in the region.” Even though Obama himself has said he would meet unconditionally with America’s enemies, the campaign assured the Sun that, “Brzezinski is not a day-to-day adviser for the campaign, he is someone whose guidance Senator Obama seeks on Iraq.”

It is understandable that Obama has not taken these challenges to his campaign seriously, seeing that Democratic primary voters probably care little — if at all — about a candidate’s associations with anti-Semitic preachers, campaign workers who revere Che Guevara or a foreign policy adviser who sips tea with a regime that kills Lebanese politicians. But these things will matter once the general election campaign begins, and I hope that Barack Obama drops his passivity accordingly.

From a few days ago:

Obama’s Curious Foreign Policy Advisor Abe Greewald

Today on Fox News, Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisor Samantha Power stated that Obama is the only candidate who’s got Iraq right. Ms. Power’s own paper trail of mixed messages on Iraq, along with Obama’s stated Iraq stance, makes this claim quite a head-scratcher.

A Los Angeles Times opinion piece on March 5, 2007 finds Power hopeless on the prospect of a troop surge success. In her plea for the U.S. to withdraw, she writes:

It would be nice to think the surge of troops to Baghdad would help to staunch the flow. But with only one-third of the new troops on duty at any given time in a city of 6 million people, they will have no more success deterring the militias intent on carving out homogeneous Shiite or Sunni neighborhoods than U.S. forces have had to date.

She was wrong. Which she may have realized by July 29, when the New York Times ran her admiring review of the Petraeus-driven U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual. In her recognition of the fact that the U.S. must dig in, She writes:

Sewall [author of the book’s introduction] rightly calls for the “risks and costs of counterinsurgency” to be spread across the American government, but notes this is not an overnight job.

[…]

The manual shows that the demands of counterinsurgency are greater than those the American public has yet been asked to bear. Sewall is skeptical that the public — now feeling burned by Iraq — will muster the will. . .

Now, as advisor to a candidate who deems any counter-insurgency cost too high, and who’s vowed to ask the American public to bear nothing in the way of the burden, Power says her boss has it right.

This “change” thing is getting out of hand.

Comments

[Alan]

Goldie:

Two points:

1. Truth could have fought off all of those attacks - if there was truth.
2. Apply your post's thinking to your post.

duncan: What does any sacrifice Atlas might or might not have borne have to do with her argument? See Goldie's post above.

[Davod]

Atlas:

You must be doing something right. The liberals (If you can call them liberals) are watching your site.

Of course, you should realise that opponents of the enlightend are to exhibit only the most basic writing skills, and only then after they rush in from the front line.

[clyde]

I see from the commentary above that the natives are restless. Ahh, the choice: Lenin or Trotsky?

I also note that the library gave Duncan back his computer privileges.

[deadbambi]

Here's just more of the same - there is a link on Obama's Church's website to "Trumpet" magazine. "Trumpet" magazine has given out some awards for "socially conscious giants, who allow us to see more clearly what it means to be educated, nurtured and empowered." They have given "The Honorable Minister" Louis Farrakhan this year’s Lifetime Achievement “Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter” Award. This award was presented to Farrakhan at their annual gala held in late 2007. Sponsors of this event included US Cellular, Nielsen Advertising, TV One, Abbott, Ready Source, All Printing and Graphics, McDonald’s, FloWater, and WVON.

Not that I'm pro-Hillary, but you'd think they'd be making an issue of this in order to gain an edge at least with the Jewish Democrat vote. Where is her campaign manager, asleep?

Start here http://www.tucc.org/home.htm and click on the Trumpet magazine link - which brings you here...
http://www.trumpetmag.com/publisher.cfm (sorry I'm not fluent in html enough to create this as hyperlinks)

[DreadedFred]

Atlas is the best on the blog.

Goldie - are you high? No need to answer, actually. I did enjoy your laugh-out-loud commentary - no reasonable person will believe your post.

Yeah, we here, along with Atlas - who support Israel at every turn - are actually in league with Hitler and Nazi Germany.

You're a joke. I pity you. You're quite lucky to live in America, where there are still millions of right-thinking people who will rise up in the face of any foreign threat to protect you.

As for domestic threats...well.. you're it.

[joeblough]

The left, and that includes most of the press, is ALL about identity politics, symbols, group membership and above all FEELINGS.

The irrationality of crowds, the spirit of faction and general human lousiness is precisely the problem with democracy and precisely the reason we have the bill of rights -- to limit the power of the mob over the life of the individual.

There will always be B. Husseins to stir up the ignorant crowd and ignorant crowds to enthuse over bone-head, empty suit politicians.

The gradual erosion of the bill of rights is a toxic threat, however.

The press?

Well, I think we give them too much credit. It's just another mass market product like MacDonalds' burgers and sugar laden soda -- only worse for you.

Of course it's mostly crap.

I suspect it always has been.

It's just painful for the right at the moment, because the mass market fashions are all on the left. So we notice the idiocy more painfully. For the left it's like hearing your favorite advertising jingle.

"Change, change, change. We all want change...".

Puts me in mind of diapers and panhandlers.

[RISE_UP]

Joeblough,that was a great post and right on key. ty